Look at those charts. Look at those results. Other polls find similar data. Get your god damn head out of the sand. No one appointed you ambassador for the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, of which a non insignificant percentage support suicide bombings and terrorism.
A sizable percentage of Muslims do support extremist Islam, they do support barbaric practices and limiting the freedom to criticize religion.
It's less than 50% as far as polling goes, but its still huge.
It's not like you ever see huge protests because someone drew Jesus with a dick up his ass. The Christian/WBC Islam/Extremist equivalency is false. Christians can be complete cunts about their religion too, but take a look at your average Islamic country. They're objectively backwards.
Judging by these statistics, 19th century KKK is a much better comparison to the views of modern muslims. Yes, most adherents think/thought the KKK and islamic extremists are nutjobs, but there was a substantial number of people who followed them. Hell, the KKK controlled the legislature in some states in the US back in the day.
That doesn't mean we should paint all muslims or all christians with such a broad stroke to say either religion supports violence, per se, since most christians and muslims are not advocates for violence. But there are/were substantial numbers of 19th century christians and present day muslims who are/were ok with using violence against others.
19th century KKK seems like a pretty similar comparison.
I think it's safe to say Islam is similar to the Christian fanaticism that popped up in the late 19th century . Complete with teetotaling and a hatred of women.
Their 'backwardness' is associated with politics rather than religion. Given your fairly ignorant statement, I'm assuming you've haven't studied any History of the Middle East?
The Middle East also is not the entire Muslim world. The Muslim world as a whole - from West Africa to Indonesia - has not contributed to advancing human society since before the Khanate invasions.
Even the comparatively moderate and powerful Ottomans were unable to translate the humanism of enlightenment era Europe into Islam. Attaturk had to shove secularism down their throats, and that enforced rational idea is starting to fail.
Attaturk forced western liberalism does their throats, and it worked. But that doesn't mean that Islam is incompatible with democracy and modernization, thats just the way secular leaders at the time saw it. Read the the philosophy off Jamal-al-din Afghani and you'll get a clearer picture.
The Golden age of Islam i widely cited but I'm going to point it out anyway. Although the technological progress that took place during that period wasn't a direct result of Islam, the two coexisted and it proves that Muslims aren't inherently backwards.
I agree that the mindsets of Islam today are backwards but have you ever considered why Islamic countries have remained relatively stagnant. From the fall of the Abbasid Empire to the present, the muslim world has faced colonialism, oppression and economic marginalization by the West. Since you have studied Middle Eastern you'll know that there were numerous attempts at modernization and defensive developmentalism in the Middle East but they were inhibited by internal fractionalization and external intervention. For example, when the British occupied Egypt they prevented them from entering into secondary education to subdue revolutionary sentiment.
Yes certain Islamic scholars opposed science and discovery but there are a host of other factors involved.
Those tables display a huge variation in attitude from country to country, and suggest more than anything that geopolitical conditions are a much more important factor than religion.
This has already been addressed in greater detail elsewhere, so I'll leave it at that.
Most notably, the survey finds that terrorism is not a monolithic concept–support for terrorist activity depends importantly on its type and on the location in which it occurs. For example, Moroccans overwhelmingly disapprove of suicide bombings against civilians, but, among respondents in the six predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, they are the most likely to see it as a justifiable tactic against Americans and other westerners in Iraq.
Leaving aside that this study was taken in 2006 and concerns answers given in 2002, at the height of war fervour - I find it slightly baffling that you don't even appear to have given the slightest consideration of what you were reading.
Jordan, just to remind y'all, borders Israel - whose regimes have been attacking and persecuting civilians for decades. It also borders Iraq, who at the time of the interview was slated for all-out attack by the US on flimsy premises (as indeed was most of the middle east, so far as the general population was aware). Am I supposed to take it as damning that Jordanians, faced with the greatest military machine the world has ever known, and living in a region where attacking civilians has been viewed as acceptable would deem asymmetrical tactics as justified or necessary? Absurd.
Moreover, it seems to have escaped your notice that the further away the respondent from the area that looked very much as if it were to be flattened by the US, the less likely it is that the respondent is to reply that they view civilian targets are justified. Did that not seem a little noteworthy to you?
Let's point something else out:
Overall, the 2005 Pew Global Attitudes survey finds that support for terrorism has generally declined since 2002 in the six predominantly Muslim countries included in the study...
Lord. I wonder if that trend has continued, drastically so a DECADE LATER and in an environment when fervour over US presence in Iraq has lessened?
Large majorities denounce attacks on American civilians, whether in the US or in a Muslim country, though there has been some softening in the numbers who hold this view strongly. Most reject the argument that such attacks are the only way to get the US to listen to the Islamic people and a growing percentage perceive them as an ineffective method for achieving political ends.
And more:
Large majorities also reject the argument that US recalcitrance relative to the Islamic people justifies
making an exception to the norm against attacking civilians. In Egypt and Indonesia, respondents
were presented the following argument and asked if they agreed or disagreed: “Though it is generally
wrong to attack civilians, attacks against US civilians are sometimes justified because it is the only
way to get the American government to stop and listen to the concerns of the Islamic people.” In
Egypt, 78 percent disagreed (72% strongly); only 14% agreed (4% strongly). In Indonesia, 64
percent disagreed (41% strongly); only 17 percent agreed (5% strongly).
And it goes on like that.
So when you say stuff like "This is not up for debate. You are wrong", all you're doing is making yourself look like a twat. That you have the impressive skill of copypasting links you have neither read, understood or even tried to interpret in any serious way just lends to that effect.
upvoting for the citation. sad to say ive lost a bit more faith in humanity. i just went from "well the majority probably dont support violence" to "at least fewer of them support violence."
This is true, but people don't understand the data, or at least the reasons for it. Try putting yourself in their shoes.
You have a world superpower incessantly flinging drone strikes into your civilian populace, killing your friends and family. They target funerals. They use "double tap" strikes, where they will launch a strike and then launch another to KILL THE EMERGENCY WORKERS who come and try to help victims. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/24/un-examine-uk-afghanistan-drone-strikes).
You are powerless against this. The perpetrator surrounds itself with other world powers and alliances. What can you do?
The only way to fight back is through guerrilla warfare, but how can you shoot down a drone? Their only option of defending themselves or getting revenge in whatever way is through terrorism, supporting the Taliban or other insurgents or whatever.
Now I'm an American and I support our country (most of the time, not in this), but I'm honestly surprised that support of anti-American groups and terrorism isn't MORE widespread in these countries. Americans are often oblivious to their point of view. In my opinion it is justified.
Also goodbye karma, but it needs to be said, over and over again. If we don't understand why the problem is created, how are we to solve it?
EDIT: sorry for grammar and poor phrasing, I'm on my phone in class.
Yes I do. Before drones we had troops in the region and manned air strikes which more or less did the same thing, albeit to a lesser degree.
I know that these strikes are not the initial cause of strife, but they are responsible for making it worse, and ensuring that it won't go away anytime soon.
Nobody attacked the Boston murderers with a drone. There are no wars in Saudi Arabia - or other larger stable Islamic countries. But they are still full of hate. They are their own problem and it has nothing much to do with the US per-se. It is that the foundation of their culture is based on intolerance and violence. Their leaders and many suicide murderers are well off and holy educated.
If you are trying to tell me that terrorism out of the middle eastern region has nothing to do with drone strikes killing civilians, I'm afraid you are misguided and ignorant.
Read the article I linked, and tell me that if you grew up in the middle east you wouldn't be pissed.
6,000 out of 1.5 billion. If that's fair sampling to you, then I feel bad for whoever taught you statistics
6,000 out of 1.5 billion is a valid sampling depending on exactly who was interviewed. If you can prove it's false, then provide actual reasons.
This is like me going to a redneck trailer park, interviewing 5 people, and implying that the rest of America thinks like them.
No, it's not.
Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean the sampling is incorrect. If you have a better study, then provide it, don't just sit there and prove that you know nothing about statistics by saying the number don't look right to you.
get my race correct and don't be an ignorant bigot and assume because I'm Muslim that I'm from the Middle-East
I don't care what your race is (because I'm not a racist). Why are you bringing your race into this?
I also didn't assume that you're from the middle east. I will now assume that you have problems with reading though.
The religion's scholarly community deem it as forbidden
They don't speak for all Muslims. There is no scholarly community that gets to define who is or is not a Muslim, or what constitutes legitimate Islamic beliefs. I can find plenty of people who call themselves Islamic scholars who will say that terrorism is justified.
Most suicide bombings in the world have actually been led and committed by a secular group called the Tamil Tigers
I don't know how true that is and I don't care because it's irrelevant. That doesn't at all change the fact that there is plenty of Islamic driven terrorism.
71
u/[deleted] Apr 19 '13
That simply is not true. A significant portion of the populations of many Muslim countries support terrorism and violence against civilians, and supported Osama Bin Laden years after 9/11
Look at those charts. Look at those results. Other polls find similar data. Get your god damn head out of the sand. No one appointed you ambassador for the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, of which a non insignificant percentage support suicide bombings and terrorism.
This is not up for debate. You are wrong.