News2 mins ago
Over A Quarter Of British Muslims Have Sympathy For The Charlie Hebdo Terrorists
According to the author of the article //That is sickening, reprehensible and unacceptable. And we have to say so. Rather than patting the other three quarters who don’t have sympathy on the head, and saying “Well done. You’re the good Muslims”.//
Do you agree with him? A quarter of all British Muslims is an awful lot of people.
http://
Do you agree with him? A quarter of all British Muslims is an awful lot of people.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Misleading analysis intended to inflame anti-muslim passions. The poll question said "some sympathy" which is a whole different ballgame from "total sympathy" which your question implies.
To use another example, I have some sympathy for paedophiles because I believe they find it very difficult to control their behaviour, but I still find paedophilia totally offensive and reprehensible, and the Paedophile Rings are an outrage which should be pursued with unlimited zeal.
I hope this brings some perspective to your issue.
To use another example, I have some sympathy for paedophiles because I believe they find it very difficult to control their behaviour, but I still find paedophilia totally offensive and reprehensible, and the Paedophile Rings are an outrage which should be pursued with unlimited zeal.
I hope this brings some perspective to your issue.
the question was whether they had sympathy with the motives behind the attacks, rather than with the attackers themselves. It seems perfectly possible to say "Yes, I too am unhappy with [say] the way Muslims are treated in the west" without saying "I agree with terrorists killing innocent people." But the Telegraph has elided these two positions.
agree canary
it depends on the original wording of the poll
as an East german economist said ( Heine ? ) I never believe statistics unless I have had a chance to manipulate them myself
and people can say that the pot is half full or the pot is half empty
I can understand when Muslims say - "we dont want freedom of speech" but I cant get the bit where they say - "and you cant have it either"
it depends on the original wording of the poll
as an East german economist said ( Heine ? ) I never believe statistics unless I have had a chance to manipulate them myself
and people can say that the pot is half full or the pot is half empty
I can understand when Muslims say - "we dont want freedom of speech" but I cant get the bit where they say - "and you cant have it either"
I suppose jno's point is that the precise wording of the statement was
"I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks"
This is a rather weaker statement than "hav[ing] sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo terrorists". If one believes that the motive (or part of it) was revenge against a 'deeply offensive' depiction of Muhammed, then having some sympathy isn't too surprising, and doesn't mean that the attacks are implicitly being condoned by 27% of British Muslims -- merely that, perhaps, they can understand some of the motivation.
Actually they don't understand it, I don't think, because almost certainly the offensive cartoons were merely an excuse for a terrorist attack. The figure in that lot that ought to be focused on is the 11% who argued that Charlie Hebdo "deserved" to be attacked. That is an attitude that genuinely is disturbing, although again one shouldn't deduce that 11% of Muslims would then be happy to carry out such attacks. Loads of the time people, rightly or wrongly, argue that such and such deserves only the most horrible fates, but a massive proportion of those people would never do anything about it personally.
There is much to be done to try to combat these attitudes, but we need to be careful to oversensationalise the figures, or read too much into them either way.
"I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks"
This is a rather weaker statement than "hav[ing] sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo terrorists". If one believes that the motive (or part of it) was revenge against a 'deeply offensive' depiction of Muhammed, then having some sympathy isn't too surprising, and doesn't mean that the attacks are implicitly being condoned by 27% of British Muslims -- merely that, perhaps, they can understand some of the motivation.
Actually they don't understand it, I don't think, because almost certainly the offensive cartoons were merely an excuse for a terrorist attack. The figure in that lot that ought to be focused on is the 11% who argued that Charlie Hebdo "deserved" to be attacked. That is an attitude that genuinely is disturbing, although again one shouldn't deduce that 11% of Muslims would then be happy to carry out such attacks. Loads of the time people, rightly or wrongly, argue that such and such deserves only the most horrible fates, but a massive proportion of those people would never do anything about it personally.
There is much to be done to try to combat these attitudes, but we need to be careful to oversensationalise the figures, or read too much into them either way.
How ever you want to spin this anti/pro Muslim, to me they are worrying statistics. I knew there were Muslims out there that hated the UK (I've met some) I didn't however expect there to be so many.
7% for instance think they should not obey British laws (and that figure is just the ones who admit to it)
7% for instance think they should not obey British laws (and that figure is just the ones who admit to it)
I think this addresses the problem, I posted this yesterday but to date only New Judge has replied.
http://
http://
I agree, naomi, but statistics have to be treated with great care; they can't just produce the answers to a queston but pretend it was a different question. It might have been better if, say, respondents had been invited to rate their sympathy on a scale of one to 10 - we'd have a much better guide to how Muslims feel. As things stand the Telegraph's conclusions are wrong because they're based on a false premise.
One of my great bugbears is surveys which put ideas In people's heads. For example present school children with the statement: 'Winston Churchill was Britain's first black footballer' and you would probably get a fair number saying 'yes'. From which you may deduce that those schoolchildren do not know who he was but NOT that they really think he was a footballer
While this is not quite the same thing it's nonetheless not quite as alarming as a significant proportion of people coming out and stating that they sympathise with murder full stop
I am actually rather surprised the figure isn't higher given the actual wording
While this is not quite the same thing it's nonetheless not quite as alarming as a significant proportion of people coming out and stating that they sympathise with murder full stop
I am actually rather surprised the figure isn't higher given the actual wording
As I said in response to AOG’s question yesterday, however you dress it up (whether the replies represent the thoughts or the likely deeds of the respondents) some of the figures are extremely worrying. So as there can be no dispute over the wording of the questions I have used the BBC’s own report:
“I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris” (27%)
The motives, so we are led to believe, are that the magazine published some images of which the attackers disapproved and which they may have felt offensive or insulting. Right, so a quarter of Muslims believe these motives justify the slaying of 11 people. Whether or not that 27% would consider undertaking such an attack themselves was not the question. Apparently publishing images of which one does not approve justifies killing. There is no other way to interpret it. The question was quite straightforward. It had nothing to do with the way Muslims are treated in the West. It referred to this one single appalling event.
The answers provided by this 27% demonstrates the gulf between the culture and philosophy of a sizeable chunk of Muslims in the UK and that followed by the majority of people here. In this country one’s religion, habits and culture are fair game. Muslims seem to believe that theirs must be ring fenced and must not be insulted on pain (literally) of death. Many people in the UK see and hear things which of which they do not approve and which might offend them. None that I know would advocate a mass slaying of those who seemingly offend them.
As I said yesterday, if they cannot take a joke they shouldn’t have joined.
“I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris” (27%)
The motives, so we are led to believe, are that the magazine published some images of which the attackers disapproved and which they may have felt offensive or insulting. Right, so a quarter of Muslims believe these motives justify the slaying of 11 people. Whether or not that 27% would consider undertaking such an attack themselves was not the question. Apparently publishing images of which one does not approve justifies killing. There is no other way to interpret it. The question was quite straightforward. It had nothing to do with the way Muslims are treated in the West. It referred to this one single appalling event.
The answers provided by this 27% demonstrates the gulf between the culture and philosophy of a sizeable chunk of Muslims in the UK and that followed by the majority of people here. In this country one’s religion, habits and culture are fair game. Muslims seem to believe that theirs must be ring fenced and must not be insulted on pain (literally) of death. Many people in the UK see and hear things which of which they do not approve and which might offend them. None that I know would advocate a mass slaying of those who seemingly offend them.
As I said yesterday, if they cannot take a joke they shouldn’t have joined.
// The motives, so we are led to believe, are that the magazine published some images of which the attackers disapproved and which they may have felt offensive or insulting. Right, so a quarter of Muslims believe these motives justify the slaying of 11 people //
To be fair NJ, the second sentence there doesn't follow from the first.
To be fair NJ, the second sentence there doesn't follow from the first.
Why not?
The question was about the motives which led to the slaying. "I have some sympathy with the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attcks...". The motives were the disapproval of the published images. The reaction was to slay 11 (or was it 12?) people. They didn't take a full page advert in the Guardian explaining their offence. They killed a dozen people. Respondents were specifically asked about the attacks. Their answers were specifically related to the attacks. They said that they understood the motives that compelled some people to commit mass murder. They did so because somebody published images they did not like. There can be no other way to interpret the answers.
Anybody that "understands" why somebody should murder a dozen people because they published pictures they did not like holds a different set of values to me. A set of values that, if the survey is representative, are held by upwards of three quarters of a million people in the UK disturbs me somewhat.
The question was about the motives which led to the slaying. "I have some sympathy with the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attcks...". The motives were the disapproval of the published images. The reaction was to slay 11 (or was it 12?) people. They didn't take a full page advert in the Guardian explaining their offence. They killed a dozen people. Respondents were specifically asked about the attacks. Their answers were specifically related to the attacks. They said that they understood the motives that compelled some people to commit mass murder. They did so because somebody published images they did not like. There can be no other way to interpret the answers.
Anybody that "understands" why somebody should murder a dozen people because they published pictures they did not like holds a different set of values to me. A set of values that, if the survey is representative, are held by upwards of three quarters of a million people in the UK disturbs me somewhat.
Latest Posts
Hyperlinks And Copied Documents
Technology8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
Should We Be Taking Nuclear Threats More...
News22 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.