• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Most non-Muslims support terrorism

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Or your scriptures are obsolete... but you've chosen not to revise them.

If that stuff no longer applies, redact it. At the very least, put an asterisk on it with a footnote that says "superseded."
^ the arrogant ignorance is stunning.

My_brothers_hobby.jpg


And this just scratches the surface.​
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
^ the arrogant ignorance is stunning.

My_brothers_hobby.jpg


And this just scratches the surface.​
Ah - so you were being misleading.

If your scriptures clearly say that those rules you mentioned have been superseded, why would you have even brought up the possibility that Jews who don't follow those superseded rules aren't "true Jews"?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Have seen quite a few posts recently about passive/tacit support for terrorism among 'otherwise peaceful' Muslim populations.

What is rarely given along with such statistics is a comparable figure for non-Muslims. This basically makes the numbers irrelevant for any analytical purposes.

The line of questioning on such polls also has a massive impact, you would get very different responses to:

a) Can terrorism in defence of your religion ever be justified?
b) Do you support the killing of innocents to further your religion in any circumstances?
c) If your religion is being attacked, is terrorism against the oppressors acceptable in any circumstances?

b) will get a significantly lower response than a), and c) will get the highest response of all. The differences will not be trivial either.

Even if you look at the specific question being responded to, the answer to this question will be influenced, perhaps significantly, by the questions that have been asked before this.

For example, if you wanted to increase the number of Muslims who 'support' terrorism in your poll, you could 'prime' them by asking questions about a situations where they believe other Muslims are currently being oppressed.

Even if the questions are immaculate and order randomised across participants, as recent elections have shown, polls also have a far higher margin of error than most people believe. A poll saying '15% of Zorks support terrorism' probably means, at best, 'Somewhere between 5 and 25% of Zorks support terrorism.



figure1_non-muslims_support_terror.png


"Over 3 billion sick non-Muslims believe terrorism is a justifiable practice. These savages believe terrorism can be justified for many reasons from environmentalism, protecting religious or cultural values, nationalism and even ISIS-style jihadism.

Although many non-Muslims are peaceful, law abiding people, how many of the 46% of non-Muslims who are genuinely anti-terror have publicly disavowed the advocacy of extremism of their non-Muslim brethren?"

figure3_non-muslims_suicide_understanding.png


"A massive 30% of non-Muslims sympathise with evil suicide bombers, such as those who are part of the barbaric death cult ISIS.

This means that, worldwide, there are over 2.5 billion who sympathise with this evil practice that frequently kills innocent women and children..

Despite the majority of non-Muslims opposing these atrocities, to date their have been relatively few public statements from the 5 billion non-Muslims publicly declaring their stance on this issue."

Tl:dr, polls generally suck and have a high noise to signal ratio. Commentary based on polls often sucks even more than the polls themselves as the previous 2 examples show.
[Seeing as someone always gets the wrong end of the stick, in case this isn't obvious, they are satirical]

What do these polls tell us about non-Muslim support for terrorism?
Good polls rarely make the definition of terrorism so utterly useless. Why would attacking government or military buildings be terrorism? Duh. Here is what Pew got for actual questions,

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/04/gsi2-overview-13.png

gsi2-overview-13.png


The question was suicide bombing in defense of Islam is permitted or not. A significant minority in imp countries (Afghanistan 39%, Pakistan 13%, Bangladesh 26%, Malaysia 18%, Egypt 29%) said Yes. I bet that the numbers are nowhere near that high for other world religions.


Then there is the hyper conservative world views that are the majority in Islamic community.

Consider freedom of religion
gsi2-overview-7.png


Number of Muslims who support execution of people who leave Islam

South Asia 76% (excludes India)
Middle East-North Africa 56% (excludes Saudi Arabia)
South-east Asia 27%

These are alarmingly high numbers for such barbaric retrograde views. While most Muslims accept the principle of letting non-Muslims have freedom to practice their religion, freedom of criticism and freedom of choice are rejected. Same kind of attitudes also plague views about women's rights. Thus while many of the ideas may get on paper approval, the substance is lacking.

gsi2-overview-9.png

gsi2-overview-11.png


None of these are necessarily a problem. Most of the world was very conservative and illiberal less than a century ago. But true modernization, democratization requires reform that changes these perceptions, and drive to reform is weak to nonexistent in the Islamic society today. It's the other way round. The most powerful movements are reactionary and seek to create even more illiberal forms of Islam.

Every society that has modernized have gone through a period of deep skepticism about their established religio-social order. You need people like Mark Twain, Voltaire, or deists like Ben Franklin, Spinoza, Jefferson, Hume etc. to criticize the established practices of the religion, to show its problems and blindness so that both secular and religious reform can occur. In India people like Tagore, Ambedkar and other skeptics and reformers did the same. Same in China and South East Asia where Confucius order was put under question. But if a society cannot accept criticism and thinks it's moral to execute or punish them, then it can't reform. That is the problem.
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Polls and related narratives on such issues are so unreliable they pretty much count as fake news and are better for confirmation bias than anything else.

Wow, there goes a whole huge slice of working science right out the window. Please contact the National Academy of Sciences post haste!

More seriously, let's look at a collection of "coincidences" (??) between the scripture and the Muslim world:

The Quran is the best book ever --> Muslim cultures translate very few books into Arabic
Women are 2nd class citizens ---> Widespread misogyny occurs throughout the Muslim world
Gays are not to be tolerated --> Gays are routinely executed for their gayness
Non-Muslims are 2nd class --> Non-Muslims tend to wither in MM countries
Islam must be submitted to --> Sectarian violence due to "misinterpretations" is never ending
Islam is a total ideology --> MILLIONS of Muslims around the world want Sharia

But of course, the real problem is those pesky polls?
 
Why would attacking government or military buildings be terrorism?

Because they generally are?

For example, are you suggesting the following do not constitute terrorism?

Red Army Fraction barrack bombings:

Baader-Meinhof Gang attacked U.S. troops, bases in 1970s-1980s

Oklahoma City bombings:

Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia


Anyway, such disagreements are again part of the problem with polls. Very similar questions can get wildly different responses which are not easily identifiable to someone looking at the headline figure.

The question was suicide bombing in defense of Islam is permitted or not. A significant minority in imp countries (Afghanistan 39%, Pakistan 13%, Bangladesh 26%, Malaysia 18%, Egypt 29%) said Yes. I bet that the numbers are nowhere near that high for other world religions.

The phrase 'in defence of Islam' is pretty problematic though.

The % of non-Muslims who think terrorism is justified in different circumstances is outlined in the OP. It is pretty high.
 
Wow, there goes a whole huge slice of working science right out the window. Please contact the National Academy of Sciences post haste!

They aren't science that is the thing. That is the point of the OP.

Even on very simple 2 horse political races they are nowhere near as accurate as is claimed.

The OP outlines why these kind of polls are even worse and how easy they are to influence. Any of that you disagree with?

But of course, the real problem is those pesky polls?

Given that my OP is about polls, then yes, the real problem is those pesky polls.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
The fact that one can get a poll to reflect whatever view is desired by massaging the questions just so is fairly well documented. I was under the working assumption that everyone already knew this. Besides, if you asked the question, "Do you support the actions is the Islamic State?" I'm thinking that not too many would be dumb enough to say, "Oh, yes, absolutely."
 

Grumpuss

Active Member
Actually, no, the point of the OP was:

At face value, I'm sure it would seem like it's forgiving or excusing terrorism. Yet the point seemed more to be that one can fluff the numbers of these kind of polls to say pretty much whatever they want them to say, especially through dodgy wording of the questions asked.
...and the effect is to soften the stance on the definition of terrorism, as 9-10ths_Penguin's post later proves.

"The occasional loyalist"? We have the actual names of more than 77,000 Loyalists who fled to Canada from various records. 77,000 is about 3% of the US population during the Revolutionary War, and it doesn't include Loyalists who fled but never applied for compensation, or who were killed before they could escape.
Thank you for making my point for me. It was not a majority rebellion- if you want to split hairs over what the English loyalists did or didn't do, great.

And a fair chunk of my own family tree is made up of Quakers who were forced to flee the US. Not because they were loyal to the British crown, but because they were pacifists and refused to fight for the Revolution because they refused to fight for anyone. Many of these conscientious objectors were killed or driven off their land.
And yet, here you are, feeding off the fruits of men who fought and died for the very freedoms you enjoy.

I don't think it's inappropriate at all to say that terrorism was a significant part of the American Revolution.
I'd say it was outweighed by the tyranny of an English monarch and parliament that didn't care about its own struggling subject. Despite your stories, most people chose to stay and ride out the conflict, not giving much materiel support to either side (though both rebels and English openly often seized what they wanted). Innocent people were not murdered by the Americans to score cheap political points. Guerrilla conflicts are not necessarily terrorist ones, and you would do well to look up the definitions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grumpuss

Active Member
As @The Ragin Pagan noted, you missed the point.

There was a controversial story headline about '1 in 5 British Muslims sympathise with jihadis' that was presented as something shocking and awful:

The Sun's UK Muslim 'jihadi sympathy' article 'misleading', Ipso rules - BBC News

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/i-conducted-the-muslim-poll-the-sun-jihadi-sympathy

I just posted a poll, from a respected polling organisation, that shows 30% of non-Muslims sympathise with suicide bombers and 7% of them also go beyond this and say they believe Jihadism is sometimes 'justifiable' (never mind the 54% who 'support' terrorism).

You can construct whatever narratives you like out of polls, and you can make polls say pretty much what you want them to say in order to do this.

People tend to be very sceptical of polls that tell them what they don't want to hear, but very credulous towards those which support their pre-conceived opinions.

Polls are generally fake news as they are so unreliable yet a large amount of 'rational' discourse is carried out on the back of them. We should treat them as such across the board, or at least only use them with very clear caveats.
You make an interesting point, but I respectively reject its validity.

Without polls, you are left with an argument from authority or an argument from ignorance. Both rely almost exclusively upon anecdotal evidence only. Indeed before the advent of polls, the only way to gauge public opinion was for op-ed writers and authors to go out into the populace and unscientifically assess what they thought the mood was on particular issues. They would then publish their findings, and hope that their readership trusted their assessments as well as facts.

Polls are of limited use, particularly when flawed methods are used, or indirect / poorly-worded questions are used. But with a little forethought, they can be powerful tools.

Keep in mind also that even as polls gain more widespread use and polling methods are made more accurate and reliable, there are those that would resist and hope to continue to substitute opinion for the public perception. To that end, I would say that a person who challenges a pollster's methodology should be welcomed, but a person who says all polls are too untrustworthy and stupid should be looked upon warily.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
But of course, the real problem is those pesky polls?
When a lot of people shape their opinions around polls commonly put out by news networks (see any FOX News viewer), and those polls are based on a small target audience and then applied nationally? Yeah, I'd say that polls are a significant problem in conveying information and representing an issue. I've never been polled, not once, yet there are dozens of polls out there that (incorrectly) claim to speak for me.

So I guess that means I support terrorism, huh?
 

Lorgar-Aurelian

Active Member
Have seen quite a few posts recently about passive/tacit support for terrorism among 'otherwise peaceful' Muslim populations.

What is rarely given along with such statistics is a comparable figure for non-Muslims. This basically makes the numbers irrelevant for any analytical purposes.

The line of questioning on such polls also has a massive impact, you would get very different responses to:

a) Can terrorism in defence of your religion ever be justified?
b) Do you support the killing of innocents to further your religion in any circumstances?
c) If your religion is being attacked, is terrorism against the oppressors acceptable in any circumstances?

b) will get a significantly lower response than a), and c) will get the highest response of all. The differences will not be trivial either.

Even if you look at the specific question being responded to, the answer to this question will be influenced, perhaps significantly, by the questions that have been asked before this.

For example, if you wanted to increase the number of Muslims who 'support' terrorism in your poll, you could 'prime' them by asking questions about a situations where they believe other Muslims are currently being oppressed.

Even if the questions are immaculate and order randomised across participants, as recent elections have shown, polls also have a far higher margin of error than most people believe. A poll saying '15% of Zorks support terrorism' probably means, at best, 'Somewhere between 5 and 25% of Zorks support terrorism.



figure1_non-muslims_support_terror.png


"Over 3 billion sick non-Muslims believe terrorism is a justifiable practice. These savages believe terrorism can be justified for many reasons from environmentalism, protecting religious or cultural values, nationalism and even ISIS-style jihadism.

Although many non-Muslims are peaceful, law abiding people, how many of the 46% of non-Muslims who are genuinely anti-terror have publicly disavowed the advocacy of extremism of their non-Muslim brethren?"

figure3_non-muslims_suicide_understanding.png


"A massive 30% of non-Muslims sympathise with evil suicide bombers, such as those who are part of the barbaric death cult ISIS.

This means that, worldwide, there are over 2.5 billion who sympathise with this evil practice that frequently kills innocent women and children..

Despite the majority of non-Muslims opposing these atrocities, to date their have been relatively few public statements from the 5 billion non-Muslims publicly declaring their stance on this issue."

Tl:dr, polls generally suck and have a high noise to signal ratio. Commentary based on polls often sucks even more than the polls themselves as the previous 2 examples show.
[Seeing as someone always gets the wrong end of the stick, in case this isn't obvious, they are satirical]

What do these polls tell us about non-Muslim support for terrorism?
Yeah I don't really care. Fighting against oppression and fighting against someone because they are Kaffir isn't exactly the same thing now is it?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
When a lot of people shape their opinions around polls commonly put out by news networks (see any FOX News viewer), and those polls are based on a small target audience and then applied nationally? Yeah, I'd say that polls are a significant problem in conveying information and representing an issue. I've never been polled, not once, yet there are dozens of polls out there that (incorrectly) claim to speak for me.

So I guess that means I support terrorism, huh?

Quite a few logical leaps in that post:

- of course not all polls are equally valid
- of course even good polls are not a perfect representation of reality
- of course your personal experience proves nothing
- of course your comment on terrorism is several degrees away from any logic I can imagine
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
of course not all polls are equally valid
Which is the issue of the opening post, not "softening terrorism" as has been suggested. The poll conflates social sentiments and understanding of terrorism to come up with the perceived support of terrorism, when no such support is necessarily there; the OP identifies this issue as not accurately representative of a nation as a whole, or even the people who game their answers.

of course your personal experience proves nothing
Nothing is a strong word. If I - and others, make no doubt - have never been polled for big issues, how does the opinions of Harvard students who are polled reflect my views, sentiments, and understandings of global economic and social issues?

of course your comment on terrorism is several degrees away from any logic I can imagine
My "comment on terrorism" was not actually so, but clearly a comment on my perceived likely sentiment as presented by the shown polls. A presentation in which I had no say in, but presumes to speak my mind for me (and others.) It's a comment on the errant representation of such polls that more often than not send a message that is not explicitly there; I actually didn't say a thing about terrorism itself, but you took that meaning from it. Which, in a way, illustrates the issue entirely.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
a) Can terrorism in defence of your religion ever be justified?
b) Do you support the killing of innocents to further your religion in any circumstances?
c) If your religion is being attacked, is terrorism against the oppressors acceptable in any circumstances?
If anyone answers "yes" to any of these questions, they have serious mental instability and are a real threat to society. It is disturbing that anyone would be that insane. But, I'm sure there are members of every religion that would.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
@Sakeenah makes a very good point in the American environment. I'm much more personally concerned about white nationalist terrorism in the USA given the much higher number of terrorist attacks and the support given for such terrorists by the current regime in the White House. I'm much more at risk of being attacked by White supremacist terrorists if I express fellowship with Muslims than I am of being attacked by a random Muslim terrorist.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
If anyone answers "yes" to any of these questions, they have serious mental instability and are a real threat to society. It is disturbing that anyone would be that insane. But, I'm sure there are members of every religion that would.
It's important to understand national differences in attitudes. From a Pew report section on Islam in America comes demonstrable evidence that what culture one lives in has a profound influence on attitudes and points out one of the strengths of American pluralism.

Living in a religiously pluralistic society, Muslim Americans are more likely than Muslims in many other nations to have many non-Muslim friends. Only about half (48%) of U.S. Muslims say all or most of their close friends are also Muslims, compared with a global median of 95% in the 39 countries we surveyed.

...By all of these traditional measures, Muslims in the U.S. are roughly as religious as U.S. Christians, although they are less religious than Muslims in many other nations.

...As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Because they generally are?

For example, are you suggesting the following do not constitute terrorism?

Red Army Fraction barrack bombings:

Baader-Meinhof Gang attacked U.S. troops, bases in 1970s-1980s

Oklahoma City bombings:

Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia


Anyway, such disagreements are again part of the problem with polls. Very similar questions can get wildly different responses which are not easily identifiable to someone looking at the headline figure.



The phrase 'in defence of Islam' is pretty problematic though.

The % of non-Muslims who think terrorism is justified in different circumstances is outlined in the OP. It is pretty high.
No attacks against police or millitary are simply acts of violence not terrorism. If and only if civilians are being directly targeted do we get terrorism. That's pretty well understood . in any kind of war or insurgency attacks on millitary or government targets is fair game. That is well understood. As is espionage and assassination of leaders.

The OP makes almost any act of organized attack into terrorism which is just a complete and deliberate distortion. Neither does the OP ask the specific question:- Is it justified to use suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against civilian non-millitary targets in defense of religion, nation or group in the course of oppression, war or resistance?

That and only that is terrorism. Nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Top