Options
27% of muslims had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.
crystallad
Posts: 3,744 Forum Member
✭✭✭
A recent poll from the BBC shows a quarter of Muslims had sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.
Yes the majority of Muslims don't have this view but 1 in 4 Muslims is a very large amount.
Could this problem escalate as the Muslim population grows?
Yes the majority of Muslims don't have this view but 1 in 4 Muslims is a very large amount.
Could this problem escalate as the Muslim population grows?
0
Comments
Having sympathy doesn't mean you support someone's actions and there are also varying degrees of sympathy too.
Could you explain the sympathy you have?
So by your strange reasoning you could also be sympathetic towards Jimmy Saville
If you want to talk about strange reasoning that's strange bit of comparative logic you're applying yourself
Not addressed to me, but here's how I see it.
Many years ago during the Irish troubles, I had some sympathy for the goals of the IRA. However, I loathed the way they behaved, (as I did the UVF). You can see, and even think, that their goals may be right or at least understandable, without supporting them at all. Some of those cartoons were pretty offensive, and I'm not a muslim. Of course they feel offended, and would like to see them stop. It doesn't mean they are all gong to start supporting terrorists.
They're both heinous crimes, or is one subject to the "yes but...." argument?
Being offended doesn't make it "understandable" to commit indiscriminate murder.
They are both heinous crimes but totally unrelated, so why suggest that a degree of sympathy towards the supposed motivating factor that drove people to commit one implies sympathy for the other?
That's almost as ridiculous as saying that anyone buying a VW Beetle is sympathetic towards Nazism by default.
Which is why it was probably a poorly worded question to ask in a survey to begin with because it allows for too much ambiguity and nuance to creep in and muddy the waters.
At the end of the day it's as stupid a question as some of those I just had to respond to whilst applying for a visa to travel to the USA online.
If I was ever a member of a terrorist organisation or was planning to commit some heinous act whilst in the US I'd hardly admit to it up front now would I.
On the other hand, my own take on it as a lapsed protestant is that I can see why organised Islam eventually introduced a ban on depicting Mohammed due to the dangers of idolatry. Even then I'd say it's simply impossible to do so and Charlie Hebedo's offence was having a crude caricature of a generic Arab quote the Koran. Not only that but it's not the place of followers of God to usurp the vengeance reserved to him.
What is the point of them?
They don't have to be related.
Someone could say that because Jimmy Saville was abused as child they would feel sympathy towards him.
It feels like this country has gone back 4 hundred years with this 'don't offend my religion' nonsense.
That would be having sympathy for the actions, rather than the motives, surely?
It's not a great question, tbh.
Very little point to them IMO, but on the point about verification I think it's safe to say we can judge the accuracy of certain things with our own eyes.
For instance if there are circa 3 million Muslims living in Britain and 27% of them condoned murdering anyone who offended Islam I think we'd have witnessed a lot more atrocities and violent hate crimes on our streets than there have been.
Some obviously do as evident by recent events and stories of those leaving for Syria to join IS.... but 27%?
I don't buy it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31293196
24% believe acts of violence were justified against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad. That's over 750,000 people in the UK!
I am sorry people struggle to understand the concept of representative sample opinion polls - how on earth did the exit pollsters get the election result right in 2010 when they only asked 14,000 people when 20 million voted! It has a margin of error - but it is clearly representative. The BBC is hardly going to have a biased poll on this issue.
Just because people have sympathy with the motives behind the attacks, doesn't mean they support the attacks. The cartoons were deliberately offensive and there was no need for them to be published, but killing people over them is totally wrong.
"Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable.
But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31293196
So that is 24% who believe violence would be justifiable with a further 8% who would not say. So that's nearly one third who when asked believe violence could be justified if you publish such cartoons would not rule it out immediately. Now violence isn't defined - but presumably that means hurting those responsible.
Now it concerns me as a resident of east London - because we really need to understand why people living in our society should think like that and want to tackle the reasons for it.
I have quoted from the BBC's article - if that is false take it up with them
"Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable.
But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer."
So 24% of those polled did believe violence could be justified.
I don't think you understand the difference between a 'how are you going to vote' poll and a 'what do you think about 'x' poll'.
The 'what do you think about 'x' poll' can be about trivia or can be something significant about how you or your group are seen by the world in general (as in this case).
You may not want to confess to the world your innermost feelings on something important to you, even in an anonymous poll. You might even wish to suggest the opposite to confuse the issue or to render it unreliable. Or you might just say what you think the pollsters expect or want you to say. There is no incentive to answer correctly.
Voting intention polls are not the same. There is no reason to say anything other than what your intentions are.
On the day they've identified "Jihadi John" as Mohammed Emwazi from West London you question why that figure isn't 100%?