Polling indicates unfavorable view of Al Qaeda amongst Muslims

[emainvol]

Poll: Many Muslims in Mideast, Pakistan have poor view of al Qaeda - CNN.com

 

[milohimself]

No bs?

 

[emainvol]

No bs?

Hell, I thought they were all terrorists.

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Duuuh.

 

[therealUT]

Taqiyya...they are all lying.

 

[lawgator1]

This is good news. Got to both kill off the actual terrorists and also convince the rest that they are better off working with the West to resolve problems rather than join the terrorists.

 

[n_huffhines]

This is good news. Got to both kill off the actual terrorists and also convince the rest that they are better off working with the West to resolve problems rather than join the terrorists.

I didn't get that from the poll. I'm assuming they view the west as unfavorable, too.

 

[rjd970]

This is good news. Got to both kill off the actual terrorists and also convince the rest that they are better off working with the West to resolve problems rather than join the terrorists.

Goal should be to get the moderate muslim population to be more vocal about denouncing any form of terrorism and extremism.

 

[lawgator1]

I didn't get that from the poll. I'm assuming they view the west as unfavorable, too.

Me, either. But look at Al-Qaeda favorable ratings from country to country. Highest was 21 percent. But most of them were in single digits.

 

[lawgator1]

Goal should be to get the moderate muslim population to be more vocal about denouncing any form of terrorism and extremism.

Once they feel like they can do that without fear of reprisal, that will pretty much be the end of it, one would think.

 

[Chris4Vols22]

I didn't get that from the poll. I'm assuming they view the west as unfavorable, too.

I doubt that regular Joes from the Middle East have much of an opinion of us. It's the terrorists that claim to be Muslims that definitely have this view.

 

[rjd970]

Once they feel like they can do that without fear of reprisal, that will pretty much be the end of it, one would think.

There are plenty of muslims in western countries with freedom of speech that can be vocal but aren't.

 

[emainvol]

Once they feel like they can do that without fear of reprisal, that will pretty much be the end of it, one would think.

Yeah, I can't imagine it's easy to cave into the right wing nut jobs that want you to scream "bin Laden ****ing sucks" while you have a gun to your head.

 

[rjd970]

I doubt that regular Joes from the Middle East have much of an opinion of us. It's the terrorists that claim to be Muslims that definitely have this view.

Claim to be muslim? They are muslim, last I checked.

 

[n_huffhines]

Claim to be muslim? They are muslim, last I checked.

His point is many believe guys like OBL just use religion to their advantage. They don't really believe it.

 

[rjd970]

His point is many believe guys like OBL just use religion to their advantage. They don't really believe it.

My point is there isn't any reason to believe OBL and Al Queda didn't believe every piece of rhetoric they said.

I have no issues with moderate muslims, or moderates of any religion. But pretending that Islam is or has been a religion of peace is like saying Christianity is and always has been a bastion of sexual tolerance. It just isn't true.

 

[n_huffhines]

My point is there isn't any reason to believe OBL and Al Queda didn't believe every piece of rhetoric they said.

I have no issues with moderate muslims, or moderates of any religion. But pretending that Islam is or has been a religion of peace is like saying Christianity is and always has been a bastion of sexual tolerance. It just isn't true.

You might've read too deeply into his "real muslims" comment.

 

[therealUT]

Goal should be to get the moderate muslim population to be more vocal about denouncing any form of terrorism and extremism.

Once they feel like they can do that without fear of reprisal, that will pretty much be the end of it, one would think.

There are plenty of muslims in western countries with freedom of speech that can be vocal but aren't.

What I find problematic with regard to the "moderate Muslims should be more vocal" stance are the following:

1. Individuals who make this claim assume that since they do not hear or read about vocal, moderate Muslims they do not exist. In fact, there are many moderate voices and moderate institutions in the Arab world; their moderate views are just not widely publicized in the mainstream media in the West. This leads me to my second point:

2. To be vocal usually requires a platform. News media is, whether or not they embrace the claim, in the entertainment business. Sensationalism is entertaining; moderation (of any sort) is not. Hence, it is rare to find moderate Muslims given any time in Western media. Further,

3. The Muslim diaspora is much like the Jewish diaspora. There are many interconnected relations of Muslims in the West. Most Moderate Muslims will have some sort of second or third order connection with an organization that has been branded as inciting or sympathetic toward Islamic terrorism. This acts to further restrict access to these Moderate Muslims because no news media outlet wants to have to deal with those second and third order connections; or be suspected of inciting or being sympathetic toward Islamic terrorism by what would then be their own third and fourth order connections.

What this means is that most Moderate Islamic literature, in the West, is restricted to books that will never make a bestseller list and will only be found in Islamic Studies sections in bookstores; i.e., only those who make a conscious effort to search for Moderate Muslim viewpoints will find Moderate Muslim viewpoints.

 

[rjd970]

What I find problematic with regard to the "moderate Muslims should be more vocal" stance are the following:

1. Individuals who make this claim assume that since they do not hear or read about vocal, moderate Muslims they do not exist. In fact, there are many moderate voices and moderate institutions in the Arab world; their moderate views are just not widely publicized in the mainstream media in the West. This leads me to my second point:

2. To be vocal usually requires a platform. News media is, whether or not they embrace the claim, in the entertainment business. Sensationalism is entertaining; moderation (of any sort) is not. Hence, it is rare to find moderate Muslims given any time in Western media. Further,

3. The Muslim diaspora is much like the Jewish diaspora. There are many interconnected relations of Muslims in the West. Most Moderate Muslims will have some sort of second or third order connection with an organization that has been branded as inciting or sympathetic toward Islamic terrorism. This acts to further restrict access to these Moderate Muslims because no news media outlet wants to have to deal with those second and third order connections; or be suspected of inciting or being sympathetic toward Islamic terrorism by what would then be their own third and fourth order connections.

What this means is that most Moderate Islamic literature, in the West, is restricted to books that will never make a bestseller list and will only be found in Islamic Studies sections in bookstores; i.e., only those who make a conscious effort to search for Moderate Muslim viewpoints will find Moderate Muslim viewpoints.

Some of this may be true, but if the moderate muslim truly out number the extremist by such a great amount, and if what the extremist are doing does not follow even a slightly correct interpretation of holy scripture, then this would be a non-issue. Every religion has extrmisist and murderers all over the world, yet it is the the muslim extrmists that are carrying these atrocities out the most, and they are quoting chapter and verse with no argument against it.

Platform and expression may be some of the problem, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that is the only reason we are not hearing from all these moderates. The primary problem here is theological, and I am willing to be that even in the moderate community there is at least passing empathy for what the extremists are fighting for.

 

[therealUT]

Some of this may be true, but if the moderate muslim truly out number the extremist by such a great amount, and if what the extremist are doing does not follow even a slightly correct interpretation of holy scripture, then this would be a non-issue. Every religion has extrmisist and murderers all over the world, yet it is the the muslim extrmists that are carrying these atrocities out the most, and they are quoting chapter and verse with no argument against it.

Platform and expression may be some of the problem, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that is the only reason we are not hearing from all these moderates. The primary problem here is theological, and I am willing to be that even in the moderate community there is at least passing empathy for what the extremists are fighting for.

Do you think extremist Christians outnumbered moderate Christians during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation?

There are also plenty of arguments from Muslims against terrorists who are acting in the name of Islam. These individuals lack a platform in the West, though. The oldest and most revered Sunni Muslim university, Al-Azhar has been issuing proclamations against terrorism for generations. Many of the students from that university come from all over the Arab world; many return from whence they came.

I would be willing to bet that the sympathy for Islamic terrorists amongst moderates is on par with the sympathy for abortion clinic bombers amongst moderate Christians in America; hell, John Finnis who published statements in which he not only supported but incited individuals to bomb abortion clinics, so long as no one is in them, is a tenured professor at Notre Dame.

 

[rjd970]

Do you think extremist Christians outnumbered moderate Christians during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation?

There are also plenty of arguments from Muslims against terrorists who are acting in the name of Islam. These individuals lack a platform in the West, though. The oldest and most revered Sunni Muslim university, Al-Azhar has been issuing proclamations against terrorism for generations. Many of the students from that university come from all over the Arab world; many return from whence they came.

I would be willing to bet that the sympathy for Islamic terrorists amongst moderates is on par with the sympathy for abortion clinic bombers amongst moderate Christians in America; hell, John Finnis who published statements in which he not only supported but incited individuals to bomb abortion clinics, so long as no one is in them, is a tenured professor at Notre Dame.

Seriously doubt support amongst moderate Christians is on par with this:

Where Terrorism Finds Support in the Muslim World - Pew Research Center

...and these are polls done in somewhate progressive muslim states. Some of these results are pretty disturbing. I see numbers like this and then read defense of the faith like your above and wonder if alot of the apologists just have their head in the sand.

 

[therealUT]

Seriously doubt support amongst moderate Christians is on par with this:

Where Terrorism Finds Support in the Muslim World - Pew Research Center

...and these are polls done in somewhate progressive muslim states. Some of these results are pretty disturbing. I see numbers like this and then read defense of the faith like your above and wonder if alot of the apologists just have their head in the sand.

I guess I do not see these results as disturbing.

In this poll, there are high responses for Jordan to the question of whether attacks against Civilians are "Often/Sometimes" justified. Besides my problem with the link between "often" and "sometimes" (which was cleared up by the Osama bin Laden questions), I do not see how that is more repulsive than the individuals in America who still want to justify dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; who justify firebombing Tokyo; and who justify terror-bombing Dresden, Frankfurt, and Munich. These are the same people who have argued in this very forum that we should take the gloves off in Iraq and Afghanistan and if that means killing civilians to kill combatants, then that is what we must do. So, for Jordanians who see the very hawkish regime in Israel as responsible for humiliating them thirty years ago and still see such a regime as a threat, I do not see how it is so shocking (and anti-Western) to say support killing civilians if it means they can get rid of that regime.

Again, the confidence in Bin Laden responses seem to reflect that attitude in Jordan; as for Pakistan, I would argue that Pakistan has been filled with radicals since its inception. Pakistan was populated by a surge of Islamic fighters who traveled there to fight off the Chinese invasion shortly after India gained independence. They have been a warring populus since and they do not, in my opinion, reflect any moderate sentiment nor ever have.

 

[rjd970]

I guess I do not see these results as disturbing.

In this poll, there are high responses for Jordan to the question of whether attacks against Civilians are "Often/Sometimes" justified. Besides my problem with the link between "often" and "sometimes" (which was cleared up by the Osama bin Laden questions), I do not see how that is more repulsive than the individuals in America who still want to justify dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; who justify firebombing Tokyo; and who justify terror-bombing Dresden, Frankfurt, and Munich. These are the same people who have argued in this very forum that we should take the gloves off in Iraq and Afghanistan and if that means killing civilians to kill combatants, then that is what we must do. So, for Jordanians who see the very hawkish regime in Israel as responsible for humiliating them thirty years ago and still see such a regime as a threat, I do not see how it is so shocking (and anti-Western) to say support killing civilians if it means they can get rid of that regime.

Again, the confidence in Bin Laden responses seem to reflect that attitude in Jordan; as for Pakistan, I would argue that Pakistan has been filled with radicals since its inception. Pakistan was populated by a surge of Islamic fighters who traveled there to fight off the Chinese invasion shortly after India gained independence. They have been a warring populus since and they do not, in my opinion, reflect any moderate sentiment nor ever have.

Outside of Morocco, still a full 1/3 of respondants could still not find it in their hearts to say suicide bombing against civilians is NEVER justified. One would think suicide bombing against civilians would be a given no no outside of the few crazies. 1/3. Suicide bombing. Civilians. Think about that.

..and we are not including the oppresive and extremist regimes of Iran, Saudi, etc. These are the moderates you speak of.

The firebombing, Dresden, Hiroshima, etc...is a completely invalid comparison. We were in a state of declared war with these countries, there were legitimate military targets at play, and we weren't specifically targeting civilians. If the targets were outside public population centers, or we had precise targeting capabilities at the time there is no reason to believe support for bombing civilian centers would have been condone in any matter by the general public. At least not at the nubmers we are talking about here.

I'm an equal opportunity guy when it comes to pointing out the problems with any religion. But here, it is very simple, the numbers simply don't lie. They just don't fit with your notion of what you want to believe, your experiences, or what you hear on the news about this being an inherent religion of peace. It simply isn't true.

 

[therealUT]

Outside of Morocco, still a full 1/3 of respondants could still not find it in their hearts to say suicide bombing against civilians is NEVER justified. One would think suicide bombing against civilians would be a given no no outside of the few crazies. 1/3. Suicide bombing. Civilians. Think about that.

..and we are not including the oppresive and extremist regimes of Iran, Saudi, etc. These are the moderates you speak of.

The firebombing, Dresden, Hiroshima, etc...is a completely invalid comparison. We were in a state of declared war with these countries, there were legitimate military targets at play, and we weren't specifically targeting civilians. If the targets were outside public population centers, or we had precise targeting capabilities at the time there is no reason to believe support for bombing civilian centers would have been condone in any matter by the general public. At least not at the nubmers we are talking about here.

I'm an equal opportunity guy when it comes to pointing out the problems with any religion. But here, it is very simple, the numbers simply don't lie. They just don't fit with your notion of what you want to believe, your experiences, or what you hear on the news about this being an inherent religion of peace. It simply isn't true.

I do not put much weight on the "suicide" aspect; more weight is given to the targeting of civilians. I would assume that close to a third of Americans believe that the attacks on Dresden (and, yes, the stated and official intent was the slaughter of civilians), Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were justified. It matters not if there was a "declared state of war"; civilians (i.e., non-combatants, women, children, the elderly) were targeted and slaughtered. Further, I would argue that close to a third of Americans believe that we should have "removed the gloves" in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan and that we would have won those wars (which they see as a good end) had we targeted cities and turned these places into "glass parking lots" (I guess Vietnam would have just been a regular parking lot due to the lack of sand).

 

[rjd970]

I do not put much weight on the "suicide" aspect; more weight is given to the targeting of civilians. I would assume that close to a third of Americans believe that the attacks on Dresden (and, yes, the stated and official intent was the slaughter of civilians), Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were justified. It matters not if there was a "declared state of war"; civilians (i.e., non-combatants, women, children, the elderly) were targeted and slaughtered. Further, I would argue that close to a third of Americans believe that we should have "removed the gloves" in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan and that we would have won those wars (which they see as a good end) had we targeted cities and turned these places into "glass parking lots" (I guess Vietnam would have just been a regular parking lot due to the lack of sand).

It absolutely matters. Discounting that with a wave of the hand completely diminishes the rest of your argument. Take a poll right now, or even in WWII about deliberately targeting civilians in a country we were not at war with, only that we had a political beef with, and no way in hell do we get the support we are seeing in these muslim polls. No way.