One In Four British Muslims Thinks That Attacks on Mohammed Cartoonists and Their Publishers Can Be Justified February 26, 2015

One In Four British Muslims Thinks That Attacks on Mohammed Cartoonists and Their Publishers Can Be Justified

From the U.K. Telegraph:

One in four British Muslims sympathize with terrorists behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks, a new poll shows.

A poll reveals how a significant minority of Muslims endorse terrorist atrocities against those who mock the Prophet Mohammed.

Some 27 percent of British Muslims said they have “some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks” on the Paris magazine, according to polling by ComRes for the BBC.

A further 32 percent said they were not surprised by the attacks. Some 11 percent said that magazines which publish images of the Prophet Mohammed “deserve to be attacked.”

11 percent of the British Muslim population… that works out to roughly 330,000 Allah fans who endorse spreading their religion of peace with blades, bombs, and bullets.

And only 68 percent of British Muslims said that attacks on the publishers of images of the Prophet are “never” justified, while 24 [percent] disagreed.

Twenty-four percent — about 720,000 Muslims.

A strong majority — 78 percent — said they find depictions of the Prophet “deeply offensive to me personally.”

I’ve written a few times (including in this post) that Muslim anger at the West has some of its roots in the often deplorable foreign policies of the U.S. and many of its traditional allies.

But let’s be honest: without that trigger, without that history of meddling, Islamism — in fact, much of Islam — is still an awful, retributive ideology. Its cruelties have nothing to do with Western policies whenever Muslims practice common, endemic misogyny; or whenever they wish to see apostates executed; or whenever they persecute (or cheer the persecution of) gay people, non-believers, and followers of other faiths.

Another clear example is the unbelievably deep-seated insistence that drawing even the blandest representation of Islam’s prophet is a critical, intolerable insult.

These beliefs are not imposed from the outside, but from within. They’re not on us, they’re on devout Muslims who consider them part and parcel of the so-called beauty of their religion.

It is one thing to respond to a U.S. drone attack or other acts of war with commensurate violence — even if it’s the detonation of a suicide vest, or an IED.

It’s quite another to say that any drawing of your religion’s founder merits the killing of the artist. That so many British Muslims support the slaughter of cartoonists is not just a disgrace to their faith, but an indictment of it.



P.S.: This just in. Seems à propos.

The man in the black balaclava who seems to have beheaded several foreign hostages in Islamic State videos has been identified by British security services as Mohammed Emwazi, a British citizen from London.

Known in the news media as “Jihadi John,” he is said to have been born in Kuwait and traveled to Syria in 2012. His name was first published on Thursday on the website of the Washington Post. …

Mr. Emwazi, 27, grew up in West London and graduated from the University of Westminster with a degree in computer programming.

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!