Aibu to be schooled at the stats about muslims

[Inabitoftyhme]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

I think this study is worrying and also fantastic at the same time.

Worrying over the Charlie Hebdo 27%. But fantastic that 93% feel british.

Schooled i meant shocked damn autocorrect

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

"some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks"

ie "I also find mockery of islam annoying" up to "...and think people shouldn't be allowed to print that kind of thing because it's only done to offend"

not "I think they deserved to get shot"

It does not say a quarter of british muslims sympathise with murderers.

It depends on how the questions where asked and interpreted as well. I am not Muslim but I really dislike this sort of humour and find it cheap and hurtful. But I do not in anyway agree with what the murderers did they are two total separate issues.

the precise questions are there.

11 percent said they deserved to be attacked, which is astonishing.

27 percent say they sympathize with motives.

24 percent say they disagree that violence against the cartoonists is never justified.

"...and think people shouldn't be allowed to print that kind of thing because it's only done to offend"

should they be jailed or punished? that would be a good question.

I have a policy never to believe anything in the telegraph. It's right wing biggotry hidden in a broadsheet.

It was also on bbc news and the survey was conducted by bbc 4. You can't just print lies

I'm afraid that is far from true and I suspect strongly that this has been twisted.

I think most people can see the problem with mocking people's faith but I doubt that most Muslims think they deserved what happened.

Interesting that I would say the vast majority of people on the thread about the girls going to Syria thought they deserved everything they might get (rape, forced marriage, slavery, murder) because they intended to go. I'm am always shocked by how inhumane humans are when hypothetically punishing others.

Maybe everyone needs a lesson in compassion, restraint and empathy...

but sympathising - or understanding the motives is not the same as saying it a good thing

It's not even mocking the faith - it's doing something (producing an image of Mohammed) which is very strongly forbidden by Islam

Often it is done purely to cause offence - so people are entitled to be angry about it.

Pfft! I take the BBC with a pinch of salt too.

They tell us what they want us to hear.

I boycotted the BBC after their coverage of the Scottish referendum. In fact the Telegraph and the BBC were the worst of the lot with their biased reporting.

How representative was the sample of British Muslims? I suspect not very.

I'd be prepared to hear lots more of this shite in the lead up to the election. Fear is a great way of getting votes.

I sympathise with the motives and I'm neither Muslim nor religious.

I am completely behind freedom of speech, but freedom to print insults with no other purpose than to offend?

I wouldn't go so far as to say they "deserved" the attacks but they were being deliberately provocative against a group they believed were violent extremists. I might go so far as to say they got what they wanted - to "prove" that Muslims deserved attacking?

Personally, I think we should respect people, not their ideologies.

So it's not ok to bar someone from a job, or beat them up because because they are christian/Muslim/ atheist etc. but it's perfectly ok to say, 'I disagree with religion x because I find its treatment of women, homosexuals and atheists very disturbing. Let's debate this openly.'

Free speech is a very precious thing indeed. And free speech includes the freedom to mock with cartoons. Once you're banning that because people are offended, you're on thin ice. So no cartoons that lampoon powerful but corrupt politicians? No eay. Humour is a powerful weapon and those who would ban it are dangerous.

And really, if you believe in a God that is simultaneously all powerful and yet has a tantrum when someone insults it, you've got a problem. If you have a faith, be secure in it. Why would other people's doubts, cartoons or mockery shake you, if you're truly faithful? That's what faith is! Belief without evidence.

What a lot of people don't know is that a few years back, Blair was calling for what was in effect a law against blasphemy. Not only is this the original victimless crime, but very eloquent folks like rowan Atkinson pointed out that if the law was passed, he could have been arrested for blackadder two.

I don't want to live in a country where everyone takes perpetual offence and even mild 'vicar of dibley' comedy is a crime. I want to live in a secular country that allows all religions to be practised, without any of them being promoted. I want there to be no persecution based on belief, or crucially, lack of belief. I want to be able to say, ' well, Christianity is a bit odd, eh? ' or ' not sure about the literalism inherent in Islam' without being branded xo phobic.

Rant over.

Does anyone know why Lars did a drawing of Mohammed as a dog? Because that would be repulsive to a lot of Muslims. The equivalent to me would be something like a cartoon of Jesus or the Pope abusing children. Possibly relevant, funny to some, deeply insulting to a lot of people. I can see American Christians getting very violent about something like that, or at least sympathising with violence done to the artist.

My dsis friend was upset when 2001 happened at local school children cheered why they heard about it. These children were 5 years old (muslim mostly) and in the uk!!!!! These were people dying and the thought of 5 year olds been pleased by this.....its upsetting for the children..... My dsis friend gave up being a teacher in that school that day.

Remind, think about what that means. It means you see how people who are provoked (not by actual bodily harm, but by a cartoon) are justified in reacting with violence.

Freedom of speech comes with the need to tolerate opinions we find distasteful. I'm thinking of those horrible Westboro baptist people for example. Horrible, reprehensible ideology, but if you ban them, you're curtailing free speech. So we don't ban them. We counter protest opposite with messages that mock them and affirm our humanity

Allowing one religious grouping to change our laws because of offense, and offense against a being an awful lot of us don't believe exist, is deeply worrying. Where does that end? Anyone can be offended about anything!

Secularism is the only way forward. All religions tolerated, none allowed special treatment, and if I had my way, no faith schools. Kids aren't born christian, Catholic, Protestant or Muslim, they're taught it. And if they're taught in single faith schools they grow up thinking others are inferior.

How representative was the sample of British Muslims? I suspect not very.

it was a poll, so was supposed to be a random sampling. 1000 people were questioned.

No, that's not what I said Skiptonlass. I said I think they were being deliberately provocative, as if they wanted to bring out the violence and they got what they wanted. I didn't say that was justified.

I can see American Christians getting very violent about something like that, or at least sympathising with violence done to the artist.

christian nuttery is strong in america, but so is the support for the first amendment. American christians have to tolerate south park, the book of mormon, etc.

He did it to provoke debate. And he had a right to do it, however distasteful or offensive anyone found it I see things every day that I think are grim and offensive. As an adult, I deal with it. I don't grab my ak47 and remove the offender.

Having our ideologies insulted is NOT THE SAME as an attack on the person.

No one should be physically harmed or discriminated against on behalf of their beliefs. But they don't have a right to have those beliefs exempt from scrutiny. If we'd all accepted the literal truth of the bible and never questioned it, we'd never have had an enlightenment. And we'd still have the death penalty for wearing mixed fibre clothing (as it so charmingly says in Leviticus.)

No one has a right not to be offended. The cartoonists, however, had their right to life cruelly violated. Not ok.

Ok remind, I misunderstood your stance there, apologies.

I think they were being deliberately provocative. I also think they should be allowed to be, to be honest. We have a long tradition in this country of using cartoons and humour to skewer the rich, powerful and corrupt. Imagine if they then said they were offended and shot the artist.... We'd have a totalitarian state. No dissent, no protest, no difference of opinion. That's not the Britain I know and love.

Stick and stones, as they say.

everyone has the right to be offended. you just can't respond with violence.

Yes, of course... That's kind of what i meant :) be offended but don't shoot people! Have a sternly worded letter to the times or something, like a civilised oerson...

All surveys you gov etc use sample sizes of approx 1000 though they balance for sage sex class etc

So survey would appear to be a legitimate reflection of opinions within the Muslim community

rather than read the manipulated Torygraph version, have a look at the source.

For example:

If someone I knew from the Muslim community was planning an act of violence I would report them to the police - 94% agree

I know Muslims who feel strongly sympathetic towards people fighting for IS and al-Qaeda - 8% agree

Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified are out of touch with mainstream opinion - 49% agree

I would like my children to go a Muslim state school if I had the choice - 31% agree

I would rather socialise with Muslims than non-Muslims - 13% agree

If I could I would leave Britain and go and live in another country - 14% agree