WORLD opinion emphatically rejects the idea that Islam and the West are heading for an inevitable clash of civilisations, according to an ambitious poll of public attitudes across 27 countries, commissioned by The Age and the BBC World Service.—from this article
This "opinion poll" was commissioned by the BBC World Service. The American who conducted the poll and possibly even some of those who were behind it were just delighted with the skewed results, resulting from an absurd list of questions. The most absurd at all was the distinction that the questions offered simply took as a given: that there is a difference between disputes with a "religious" basis and those with a "political" basis. But this, in Islam, makes no sense. Religious promptings explain what for others, for Infidels, might be mistaken for merely "political" disputes.
The Muslims of Pakistan want control of Kashmir themselves, or at the very least want to end control by Hindu India of that part of Kashmir that is in Indian control (the rest is under Pakistani control). But is that a "political" desire or a "religious" one? It is, of course, a desire prompted by the tenets of Islam. It is wrong for lands once part of Dar al-Islam ever to be regained and ruled by non-Muslims. It is wrong for non-Muslims ever to dominate, in any way, Muslims. And if Kashmir were to be put in the hands of Muslims, that "dispute" would simply be ended and a new one pressed even more violently and firmly, with all the swelling triumphalism that the win in Kashmir would fill Muslim hearts: a claim to India itself, once under Muslim rule.
And is the Lesser Jihad to remove the Infidel nation-state of Israel political or religious? It is considered solely political at this point only by the incredibly ignorant (such as Condoleeza Rice), or the viciously antisemitic (such as Jimmy Carter), or the simply incredibly misinformed. Among the third group are so many in Western Europe, who over several decades have been subject to the drip-drip-drip of media propaganda, beginning with such phrases, dinned into everyone, about a "Palestinian people," and a "West Bank," and of course "occupied" Arab land, "occupied" "Palestinian" land, "occupied" Palestine, "occupied" this and "occupied" that. None of this talk shows any understanding of the legal status, and legal, moral, and historic claim, of the Jews to the territory they now possess, or indeed to the territory they surrendered so foolishly to Egypt, and to which their title is at least as good as that of most countries in Europe to the lands they won after World War II, or even after World War I -- such as, for example, the Sudtirol that, with a population that was 97% ethnic German, was given to Italy and has become (quite rightly, by the way) the Alto Adige.
Take a look at this absurd poll and who did the polling, and the way the questions were phrased. The whole thing stinks from top to bottom. But what did you expect? It's the BBC World Service. It's John Simpson. It's Judy Swallow of the hideous voice. It's Ian Lustig. It's Barbara Pleet, of the ready tear for Chairman Arafat. It's so many of them. It's the Foreign Office, which still has special authority for the BBC World Service. It's Greg Dyke muttering about the truth-teller Mr. Aitken. It's the Lord Haw-Haws and Tokyo Roses of Bush House, who become more incredible and more intolerable every single day. And not only in their absurd coverage of the deplorable -- it's wonderful, isn't it, to hear the solemn "experts" interviewed by the BBC World Service, including Aziz Tamimi, the Hamas ranter, and the smooth Tariq Ramadan on "European Islam" and so much more that may seem at first to affect only the fate of Israel.
All this, of course, would be reason enough to deplore and be sick at what the unchecked and unhinged current BBC is doing. The nature of Islam, the teachings of Islam, the history of Islamic conquest and of subjugation of non-Muslims, is all being hidden from view. This effects the well-being and understanding of threats of Buddhists in Thailand, of Christians in black Africa, of Hindus in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and of course of all those in the nation-states of the Bilad al-kufr of Europe, including Great Britain itself. They are being led astray by those Lord Haw-haws and Tokyo Roses of Bush House and points east, west, north, and south, in glib guardian-reading, robert-fisk worshipping little England. Little England that is ever littler, because ever more unpleasant, confused, physically insecure, and untrue-to-itself and its own civilizational legacy -- which is a considerable one and not to be tossed out quite so carelessly as is the case now.
"The nature of Islam, the teachings of Islam, the history of Islamic conquest and of subjugation of non-Muslims, is all being hidden from view."
...The BBc is not alone in doing this, There are major news networks and reporters in America who follow suit....listening to them report on the injustices suffered by the Muslims (at airports, in cabs, in universities,and elsewhere) makes you want to gag.....
Skewed Results indeed. India was one of the countries where this survey was taken and 54 % said Yes. I wonder if results from individual countries were made public, and if not, why ?
The question that got most of the attention was very skewed - the one about violent conflict between the west and Islam.
One answer said common ground CAN be found.
The other said violence is INEVITABLE.
It was designed to nudge people toward the first answer.
The source of all this conflict is those ever-coniving imperialistic joooze, doncha know? I mean, it's almost magical the way each and every Jewish man, woman, and child in the world can single-handedly subvert 140 mahometans.
"WORLD opinion emphatically rejects the idea that Islam and the West are heading for an inevitable clash of civilisations..."
Right. And world opinion thought that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy guy either. And Mao was a promoter of the arts during the Cultural Revolution. And Ho Chi Minh is just the name of a city in Viet Nam.
We humans continue to ignore history and the evidence that is right in front of our faces at our own peril. It's as if waving our hands and pretending like the threat doesn't affect us, will make it miraculously disappear. It never has worked before, so why would it work now? The definition of indsanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. What is it about us humans that makes dillusion such a comfort?
"WORLD opinion emphatically rejects the idea that Islam and the West are heading for an inevitable clash of civilisations, according to an ambitious poll of public attitudes across 27 countries, commissioned by The Age and the BBC World Service."
Whether or not the west and Islam are heading for a clash (we aren't already in one?) is a question best answered through direct empirical investigation, not by asking peoples' opinions on it.
What sorts of opinions would be informative? Ask Muslims their opinions with regard to specific jihad and sharia policies (e.g., 'Should people be punished for insulting Islam and if so what sort of punishment should be given (choose from options a-g)?', and ask non-Muslims their opinions on those same questions. Compare. Contrast. Also ask about specific events and controversies. 78% of British Muslims think the Muhammad cartoonists should be criminally prosecuted and punished; over 75% of Danish non-Muslims do not even think that there should have been any apology for the cartoons. That spells clash of cultures
The Melbourne Age is a ridiculous left wing rag. I am unsurprised such an article would be published in it. From what I gather here, the BBC is a similarly minded entity. I would probably enjoy the sport of watching the BBC and Fox News Channel try to bring out a survey result they could both stomach.
Kenneth Ballen is brightly flogging his wares -- pseudological, psephological, call them what you will -- as certified trustworthy collector of data and, what's more, of analyzing that data, in an article that just appeared in the Christian Science Monitor. Apparently he thinks that the fact that a certain percentage of Muslims in, say, Indonesia, that it is wrong for "terrorists to kill the innocent" (words to that effedt) must mean that those Muslims are answering the same question, giving the same kind of opinion to, that question as it is asked and understood in, say, France or England or Italy or America. But that is nonsense. Such words as "the innocent" or "innocent civilians" are not given, by Muslims, the same meaning that we give them. For many Muslims, any civilian who in any way "contributes to the effort" to block Islam, or to help the "enemies of Islam," are not "innocent civilians" and are fair game. Very few Muslims think that the Infidels (they are sorry about the handful of Muslims who were killed) killed on 9/11/2001 were "innocent" -- there was not horror but merrymaking everywhere in the Arab and larger Muslim world, with honking of horns and spontaneous parties especially evident in Saudi Arabia, but the merriment and good cheer in Cairo was reported on by Frank "Help-me-I'm-a-Muslim" Gardner of the BBC, and in Beirut by a female correspoondent who reported for the Wall Street Journal, with horror, on all the pleasure that was taken, and elsewhere -- everywhere but in the thoroughly secularized Kazakhstan (which is full of non-Muslims and Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims), in a few other of the stans, and among the disaffected in Tehran, some thousands of whom came out to honor the dead.
The poll and its results were worth nothing. All those who take the poll seriously should start with its language: Muslims and Infidels do not endow the words "innocent" and "civilian" and "innocent civilians" with the same meaning.
End of story.
Worthless.
The BBC is a criminally irresposible organisation hell bent on forceing its world view of fake multi-culturalism down the throats of its uninformed listeners, but the cracks are begining to appear. As Islam tries to force the world agenda it can only do so by more violence and every violent act creates questions in the minds of ordinary people. They, the muslims , will inevitably push it too far - too quickly and will be expossed. Ignore this blatant piece of propoganda , the people of GB are begining to wise up - and if they dont ? well they will reap the whirl wind but I have every confidence that they will and sort out once and for all the Islamic Question!
In this day of caller ID who actually participates in polls?
I don't answer the phone for anyone who doesn't identify themselves.
You poll a couple of thousand people and they represent everyone else?
Personally I don't pay any attention to polls, but as I said before the very idea that this is a question to be asked can be a wake-up call to the blindfolded.
"What clash of Civilizations are they talking about, it there a problem here?"
We can only hope.
Yes things are changing in the UK.
Robert Spencer and Hugh have been mentioned by name in a letter from a JW'er in the Spectator.
BBC bias is being written about and complained about.
I was going to post a link but the Sunday Times web site is doing a taliban at the moment.
However their is an article by a Tory journalist about his experiences at the Bedoiun Broadcasting Corporation.
the above link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1433753.ece
Well frankly speaking in my opinion and becasue of my experience when I have interacted with Muslims
I fell this.
Lets say for the peace of world ,even if in Middle East ,Israel were to give the Palestine to them and in South Asia ,the indians did give Kashmir for sake of peace.
Then the only result would be:
The Muslims would go over the roof, proclaiming victory,ignoring the fact that both Israel and India ,agreed just for sake of peace. Infact emboldened by this false sense of victory, they would ask for more and more.
In all probablity they would ask for Denmark and France or UK next or maybe even Canada.
As it is these countries are so heavily populated by Muslims reproducing at a pigs rate,they just think it is matter of time before these four countries will the Islamic.