| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
More Muslims reject extremism, survey finds: Support for bombings fell in seven of eight Muslim countries surveyed -- the headline to this story
This survey means nothing, except insofar as it has the ability to mislead and console the unwary. Why? Suicide bombings are now taking place not against the Americans -- who mostly suffer casualties from I.E.D.'s, but against other Muslims, in both Iraq and Pakistan, where they are directed against the government. And there have been other cases in Lebanon and in Saudi Arabia. And it may have spread to the Maghreb. Muslims are well aware of this. They are well aware that suicide bombings may be a threat to them, to their own wellbeing, as they walk down the streets of Cairo or Damascus or Beirut or Algiers or Riyadh.
And they are also well aware of what damage, not all terrorism, but a particular kind of terrorism -- suicide bombing -- does to the all-important "image" of Islam. It is too easy to put into a political cartoon a suicide-belted fanatic. That can be easily grasped by the viewer. A growing number of Muslims obviously feel keenly the public-relations problem, which for them is quite different from moral abhorrence.
Imagine, if you will, that there were no suicide bombs going off in Iraq, or now in Pakistan, or in Algiers, or, here and there, even in Lebanon, or Morocco. Imagine that you are a Muslim living in Doha or Dearborn. If in Doha, you probably don't like the idea that suicide-bombers could suddenly decide that the Al-Thani family has been too friendly to Infidels (it's nonsense), or that the wife of the reigning ruler is a bit too fashionably got up and too "feminist" in her leanings. And these suicide-bombings, you might feel at this point, are something to be discouraged, for they might come to you.
And if you are a Muslim in Dearborn, and are keenly aware of the need to lie low for now, and to proceed softly-softly so as to ensure that you have the time to solidly insinuate yourself into the American landscape. You do this not least through constant repetition of phrases about "three abrahamic faiths" and a deliberate emphasis, with which the media plays eager ball, on how family-oriented (you bet!) Muslims are, and what good incomes Muslims make in this country (a sign which we are apparently to interpret as making them more American, Just Like Us, Nearer My God to Thee) and all kinds of other things. None of them, of course, have anything to do with the texts or tenets or inculcated beliefs of Islam, such as sole loyalty being owed only to Islam and fellow members of the Umma. None mention the disbelief in pluralism (save where, in countries still controlled by Infidels, such "pluralism" can be exploited to Muslim advantage), or in individual rights and autonomy (Islam is a collectivist faith; the individual does not matter, and he certainly is not to be permitted the Western ideas of freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech).
That's it. Some of those answering the survey of Muslim "opinion" surely have learned by now that they can answer any damn way that suits the interests of Islam, and would naturally wish to put the best face on Islam for the Infidels that they can. So the lying, which we shall primly describe as the "margin for error," only goes one way -- and the size of that "margin" in a culture of lying for Islam must be very large. Certainly it cannot possibly be estimated in any plausible way.
All such polls of Muslims, when they have at hand a worked-out doctrine of religiously-sanctioned dissiumulation (taqiyya and kitman, both of which are ultimately derived from Muhammad's declaration that "war is deception" -- a statement taken to heart over the past 1350 years of Islamic history) are silly. Or rather, they are useful only in establishing the absolutely minimum number of Muslims who might support something hideous. If 29% of Muslims living in Great Britain, for example, reply to a poll that they support acts of terrorism within Britain itself, then one has a base line -- 29% -- and can conclude, with confidence, that at least 29% of Muslims in Great Britain would support domestic terrorism. But that is all one can say. One cannot say, with equal confidence, that 71% of Muslims living in Great Britain are unalterably opposed, or even opposed, to acts of terrorism within Great Britain. One cannot say that those who are opposed to such acts of terrorism within Great Britain are also opposed to such acts in, say, New York or Washington, D.C., or for that matter Jerusalem or Delhi or Bombay.
And the main point is this: is any declared opposition to a particular kind of terrorism -- as suicide bombing -- based on fear that this weapon could easily be used, as in Iraq and Pakistan, against Muslim regimes, and so be a threat, given the nature of the weapon, to the security of Muslim streets in Muslim cities, combined with a worry over Islam's "image"? Or is it a principled opposition to the random killing of non-combatants? And does it extend to Infidels, and if so, to all Infidels, or only those who live in cities where there are also Muslims who might suffer?
Without knowing the answers to these questions, these polls are, and will remain, guides to nothing and nowhere. Polling is an exceedingly clumsy way to find out the truth about what Muslims think. What they think surely must come from what they are taught to think, in environments in which Islam informs every area of life, in a way that no other faith does or ever has, but that can only be compared, in its overwhelmingness, to living in a totalitarian state, with the ruling ideology that is in the very air one breathes. Nevertheless, this poll will be taken seriously, and misused, in order to prolong naivete, unwariness, willful ignorance, and a willful refusal to study and to think about the unprecedented problem of millions of Muslims allowed to live, without anyone having thought much about it, in the countries of Western Europe and North America, and the consequences of that heedlessness, that nearly criminal negligence, that civilizational frivolity.
Posted by Hugh at July 28, 2007 2:48 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Oh Hugh, you're such an islamaphobe! lol Muslims would never lie (yeah right).
Posted by: mrockroll1969![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 28, 2007 3:22 PM
"A growing number of Muslims obviously feel keenly the public-relations problem, which for them is quite different from moral abhorrence".-Himself
I am always struck by Muslim silence on this vs. the very visible Muslim "moral outrage" re cartoons. Thousands of people protest cartoons but only a few Muslim voices (often at peril to themselves) protest suicide bombing of Muslims and non-Muslims. But as someone once said "morals are not made by majorities". They are made by those who speak the truth, who refuse to deceive. That's why the ancients said courage is the foundation of virtue.
at July 28, 2007 3:33 PM
Excuse my candid observation but troublemakers only change their attitude after their ass is handed to them.
Posted by: pismopal at July 28, 2007 3:34 PM
As if anybody took this seriously...
Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at July 28, 2007 4:26 PM
"A growing number of Muslims obviously feel keenly the public-relations problem, which for them is quite different from moral abhorrence."
I think the above statement says it all. Ask a Muslim if he approves of suicidse bombings, and he'll envision his own ass being blown to bits, and his answer will be "no."
Ask him if suicide bombers are Martyrs and go to Paradise to be rewarded for their Martyrdom, and that'll be somewhat problematic. Most likely, he'll leave that survey question blank for public-relations purposes.
at July 28, 2007 5:11 PM
If the homicide bombings were being carried out against non-Moslems only, I suspect that these survey numbers would be much different indeed.
at July 28, 2007 5:47 PM
Exactly, Prickzilla.
The Muslim Golden Rule: Treat other Muslims as you would yourself, but screw everyone else.
Except, takfir means screwing a lot of nominal Muslims as well, so chaos results.
at July 28, 2007 6:33 PM
"A growing number of Muslims obviously feel keenly the public relations problem, which for them is quite different from moral abhorrence."
Just so. In spite of all the DIMBULB politicians prattling on in a whining tone of voice about "the religion of peace," being treated every day to news reports of yet another hydrophobic, foaming at the mouth Mahometan cultist DETONATING himself at the local shopping mall or pizza parlor while yelling "ALLAHU AKHBAR!" does tend to focus the mind wonderfully, especially if you've got a craving for "extra mushrooms and pepperoni."
at July 28, 2007 6:34 PM
Hugh-
Au contraire!
It means they're learning how to lie more effectively to pollsters.
A useful skill for infil-traitor colonizers.
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 28, 2007 8:22 PM
Bingo...classic taqqiyah at its best...or in this case, its WORST.
pismopal has it pegged dead-to-rights, as per the age-old 100% effective philosophy of the US Marines:
"When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."
at July 28, 2007 8:31 PM
It seems it is OK for Muslims to kill anybody else except Muslims. My parents and preachers taught me and every person I have ever known that killing and murder are NOT OK. But I'm not Muslim. I have no Idea how these people can think what they have been doing is OK . I also hear NO protests from any Muslims about killing innocents.
To hell with all of them, until they start acting human!
at July 28, 2007 8:54 PM
A survey cannot capture the real complexity of opinion and feelings. The proof, though, as they say, is in the pudding. I don't think most Muslims in the West think about it much. And, this, is the problem. They neither approve nor disapprove. They sympathize on one level and may disapprove on another level. In other words, your average "moderate" Muslim is noncommittal. Why would it be so hard for Newsweek's moderate and benign Muslim majority to be more proactive in condemning terrorism?
It's very easy for liberal Christian churches to mobilize and condemn Bush, putting up Iraqi civilian body count numbers on their front lawn or otherwise voicing their condemnation of the West in self-righteous dhimmitude.
Why would it be so hard for moderate Muslims and their mosques to really condemn all terrorism and pro-Sharia Muslim supremacism?
Unless, of course, such a sentiment does not exist.
It seems to me that moderate Muslims do exist. They are called apostates. They are driven out of their mosques, ostracized from their families and communities. We need to provide them safe haven.
But as a general movement of opposition to all forms of Jihad, against American troops in Iraq, Israelis, and against legal Jihadis like CAIR, I think we will be waiting until Hell freezes over.
Islam is an ideology that does not tolerate any form of moderation, like Naziism. Those who are moderate are driven out as apostates.
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at July 28, 2007 9:04 PM
Hebrew Handyman,
"I also hear NO protests from any Muslims about killing innocents."
Muslims don't kill innocents, they kill non-believers (a non-believer, which, according to them, is the worse sin anybody could ever do).
Posted by: mrockroll1969 at July 28, 2007 9:11 PM
you say:
"A growing number of Muslims obviously feel keenly the public-relations problem, which for them is quite different from moral abhorrence."
Islam is about haram and halal, that which is permitted is deemed 'moral'
islam does not recognize a morality above the behavior and mutterings of mohammed
it is amazing to see how muslims play a sort of 'catch up' when they realize the absolute absence of any sort of teaching to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'
but only, do unto others for others must be humbled and made to recognize the superiority of islam and muslims
Posted by: ploome at July 28, 2007 9:50 PM
Sigh...
Have liberals/Leftists never heard of the Islamic practice of taqiyya?
There is a well-organized counterattack against those of us who have become educated about Islam on the the part of our elites and jihad front groups like CAIR. The desperation and ferocity of this campaign to discredit the truth speaks to how we are gaining ground against the appeasers, traitors, and infiltrators.
at July 28, 2007 10:54 PM
The silence is a roar. It's not expected. Its the reality.
Posted by: breezy55 at July 29, 2007 12:31 AM
Have liberals/Leftists never heard of the Islamic practice of taqiyya?
Fred...Liberals invented taqiyya, kitman too.
Taqiyya was first used by the liberal Adam in the Garden of Eden. When God asked them, who told you you were naked, Adam, the first male liberal, said, 'the woman made me do it', and he hid behind her fig leaf. The woman tried her own taqiyya with God, when
she tried to blame the serpent. 'The Devil ,made me do it'. God sided with Adam and punished him by kicking him out of the garden and forcing him to do an honest days work. The woman, he punished more heavily. The moral of that story is that liberal taqiyya worked then, and it works now. Unless of course you are 'enlightened', then it is only good for a laugh.
at July 29, 2007 11:25 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)