One in four Muslims in Britain is a terrorist sympathiser

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 23 July 2005 08:30.

YouGov has conducted a very revealing poll of British Moslems for the Telegraph.

The vast majority of British Muslims condemn the London bombings but a substantial minority are clearly alienated from modern British society and some are prepared to justify terrorist acts.

The divisions within the Muslim community go deep. Muslims are divided over the morality of the London bombings, over the extent of their loyalty to this country and over how Muslims should respond to recent events.

... six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.

Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.

Moreover, the proportion of YouGov’s respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.

A substantial majority, 56 per cent, say that, whether or not they sympathise with the bombers, they can at least understand why some people might want to behave in this way.

YouGov also asked whether or not its Muslim respondents agreed or disagreed with Tony Blair’s description of the ideas and ideology of the London bombers as “perverted and poisonous”.

Again, while a large majority, 58 per cent, agree with him, a substantial minority, 26 per cent, are reluctant to be so dismissive.

The responses indicate that Muslim men are more likely than Muslim women to be alienated from the mainstream and that the young are more likely to be similarly alienated than the old.

However, there are few signs in YouGov’s findings that Muslims of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin are any more disaffected than their co-religionists from elsewhere.

The sheer scale of Muslim alienation from British society that the survey reveals is remarkable. Although a large majority of British Muslims are more than content to make their home in this country, a significant minority are not.

In seeking an explanation for “alienation” of this nature and on this scale it is scarcely adequate to blame Multiculturalism ... or the racist English. Moslems, so far as I know, don’t approve of the tango. But it does take two. The obvious conclusion is that Islam is incompatible with Western society. It intentionally stamps on Western feet, rather than steps on them occasionally, by accident. All in all, response-wise it’s more “Tango Delta Charlie” than tango.

For the bombed West, AQ’s battle to radicalise The Ummah, if successful, will make it impossible to maintain an Islamic population in our midst. It is ironic, if perhaps not surprising given the endless love of our elites for universalism, that we are fighting to pacify our Moslems and keep them grasped to our breast.

Tags: War on Terror

Comments:

Posted by Andrew L on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:12 | #

There is only one Islam GW, and it is there duty to kill the infidel. Allah commands it, what part of the Quran do they not understand, and it is not out of context. Read “In Surch of Zarathustra”, “Zoroastra” if German, By Paul Kriwackez,“Google it, that is the best publication that explains the supposid Moderate Moslem theory. The rest is Leftist Propaganda and Pure Cultural Marxism.People need to Read and understand Islamic history. If you do not understand the nature of your enemy, you will die, that simple,don’t take my word for it find out your self.

Posted by Andrew L on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:24 | #

By the way GW, there is a URL attached to the name title, read the content. Not mine, but you will get the picture.

Posted by tam o'shanter on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:05 | #

From the survey:
Q: Which of these views comes closest to your own?

Western society is decadent and immoral, and Muslims should seek to bring it to an end, if necessary by violence
1%

Western society is decadent and immoral, and Muslims should seek to bring it to an end, but only by non-violent means
31%

Western society may not be perfect, but Muslims should live with and not seek to bring it to an end
56%

Don’t know
11%

Well that’s reassuring. The poll results confirm that Islam is a religion of peace (31% of our Muslim guests favor non-violent means of overthrowing Western society). Even more encouraging is that a clear majority (56%) respect the West’s right to exist, proving that Islam is a religion of tolerance as well. I guess the fears of cultural pluralism were unfounded. Sure, native Brits have to make some concessions, but at least they benefit from the added…. uh….. what is it… vibrance?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:22 | #

Tam.

Isn’t it our wonderful Caribbean and African friends who are so very, very vibrant? Our dear Pakistanis, sorry, British Moslems are ... are .... (suggestions, please, to the Labour Party and the Commission for Racial Equality).

The survey does not deal with the vital question of generation. I don’t think that many of the older generation of Pakistanis living in our country are as forthright in their religion as they would be if they were at home. Their sons, however, are different. The old boys don’t matter because theirs is not the future. Islam has settled into a probably more genuine and much less “moderate” form among younger Moslems. How many of them want to overthrow Western society. It must be at least a half, and could easily be two-thirds.

Diversity is strength, don’tcha know?

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:58 | #

It doesn’t take a genius to read between these lines, lol.

Posted by Kubilai on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:03 | #

I wouldn’t trust this extremely flawed and bias filled “study” as far as I could throw it. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that people answer these stupid surveys in the way they perceive the questioner to be appeased with their answers, especially in this context where they know the results will be made public at some point in the future.

We can assume that the true answers are nearly 1/2 (if not more) want to violently destroy the West and nearly all want it destroyed, violently or non-violently. Those figures are much closer to reality and when there is hard evidence to show otherwise, that is what we are dealing with.

Religion of peace. LOL Uh-huh…

Posted by john rackell on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:31 | #

Q: Which of these views comes closest to your own?

Don’t know
11%

Aren’t the Telegraph\YouGov people laying it on a bit thick about the decadent and immoral West?

“Hello, Mr. Hassan I’m a self-loathing Brit calling from YouGov, we’re conducting a poll, may I ask you a few questions about bringing the decadent West to an end.”

Normally a poll question gives you a full complement of possible answers, like: “hate it, dislike it, indifferent, like it, love it” but here the question maxes out at indifferent: “the West may not be perfect, but will you suffer it to live on (in a state of dhimmitude)?”.

Did the question really stop at ‘indifferent’ or just the replies. So there isn’t one Pakistani the length and breadth of England who’d deign to say he likes it even? And you poor British sods buy your fish and chips off these buggers giving them all your dole money so they can tool around in Mercedes and blow you up. Has British industry really sunk so low you can’t even dunk a battered fish in a deep fat fryer for yourselves anymore. Dang, I think I’m turning into Roseanne Roseannadanna.

It could be the poll results aren’t trustworthy because the Patriarch answers the poll for everyone in his extended family, just like he does for the postal electoral ballots.

hmmm, on second thoughts, maybe YouGov is messing with my mind and subliminally messaging me these guys actually do want to do in the West. Heck, all they have to do right now is breed like crazy. Oops, they’re doing that already. Well thanks YouGov Got it!

Posted by Laban on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:33 | #

The trouble is, the Muslims are right - Western society IS decadent and immoral. Overthrow it democratically, by all means.

Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips, Yasmin Alibhai Brown and I can all agree on that.

That Saeed Qutb talks a great deal of sense if you ask me. Seriously.

Off topic but highly relevant, GW - via the Pub Philosopher’s comments, a link to an absolutely fascinating document on Bradford - written for the council just before the 2001 riots. I expect your take on it - especially the ‘immigrants are now colonists’ bit - will be different to mine, but I like intellectual diversity. I’ve also blogged about it.

http://bradford2020.com/pride/docs/Section7.doc

Posted by john rackell on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:43 | #

The trouble is, the Muslims are right - Western society IS decadent and immoral. Overthrow it democratically, by all means

Your worthies won’t agree on what is decadent and immoral about us.

Even the 8th bastard son of a crack whore will defend his mother’s honor even though she doesn’t deserve it. That’s noble whatever his other flaws.

Trashing one’s country to curry favor with colonists is ignoble, immoral,decadent and cowardly whatever your virtues.

Treason is immoral and decadent.

Immigration is the end result of treason by British elites:(Shirley(?)Williams, education minister under Callahan(?)):“Baroness Williams of Crosby said [in a radio interview] that when, in the early 70s, President Idi Amin expelled Asians from Uganda, she thought it “an excellent opportunity to create a multiracial society in Britain”.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/docdiary2.php?docId=46

Treating people like LEGO BLOCKS is decadent and immoral. “Ooh look Jim, they’re having a sale on colored pieces. No, not 60, 600,000!! “

It’s immoral and decadent for our worthies to hold up Moslems as our moral betters. The tribal habits of a semitic have nothing to do with “morality”. These are the moral preoccupations of Ayatollah Sistani:

“If (God forbid!) a person has sexual intercourse with an animal and ejaculates, ghusl alone will be sufficient for him, and if he does not ejaculate and he was with wudhu [ritual ablution] at the time of committing the unnatural act, even then ghusl will be sufficient for him. However, if he was not with wudhu at that time, the obligatory precaution is that he should do ghusl and also perform wudhu. And the same orders apply if one commits sodomy.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD16Aa02.html

These people come from a tradition completely alien to us. Bludgeoning me with their morality is immoral.

Mr. Tall, I read your blog piece. You make it seem as if it weren’t for the Brits not being on their absolute best behavior all the Pakistani youth would have become 5 A-level students instead of baseball wielding thugs. That’s absurd. Maybe you should look up what “stability” means to an engineer. Balancing a pen on its nib is unstable. Even if you can get to that miraculous state it won’t last because the smallest gust will knock it over.

Multiculturalism by its nature is unstable.

Anything and everything was a cause to create instability to radicalize colored: racist cops (or demonize cops to ineffective); curriculums that don’t reflect their culture; public swimming pools that allow mixed-sex bathing; cops arresting Afro Carribeans (nicely documented by GW re Brixton riots); cops upholding the law arresting Afro-Carribeans for dope (cause of Bristol riots in 1981);massive job cuts in textile mills.

The multiculturalists didn’t just have to prevent one of those occurrences to prevent the ethnic groups solidifying into their own homogenous enclaves, they had to anticipate and prevent a hundred others too.

Anything could be the spark that sets the fire or sets the boulder loose. Yet the decadent and demented leftists threw us all into the stew together and only by degrading whites do they hope to think they can get multiculturalism to work.

When your ilk imported thousands of Pakistanis you were relying on a similarly exceptional circumstance to maintain the state of social cohesion. Yet you attribute the failing to the British as if they are some ministrel show for Pakis and Afro Carribeans.

most young British-born Asians and West Indians would take no interest in the English culture being destroyed in front of them. You don’t understand. To make these people fit in we had to destroy our culture. It wouldn’t do to teach “our ancestors were viking” to a sea of brown faces. So let’s not teach white kids about their history for fear of excluding the other.

Posted by john rackell on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:43 | #

[cont]

From colonist to immigrant is the dominant pattern historically,
Where is the evidence?

Not all Muslims in Bradford want Muslim only areas. Traders, retailers, restaurant owners want and need a broad-based custom profile.

This EUReferendum piece gives a different perspective of living in a tiny white enclave in Leeds which apparently contradicts the above:“A little way out of the town centre, the Asians not only live together in their own areas, to a greater extent than before, they trade only with each other and exclude the indigenous populations. In the Asian areas, the shops are exclusively and aggressively Asian. The signs are in Urdu script – the labels and advertisements are likewise. And the goods are geared mainly to the Asian community.”

Very interesting article.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/07/alien-culture-in-our-midst.html

No offense, I’ve visited your blog and it is very impressive but you sound (from the above) like a self-loathing Brit. I agree our culture is passing through a rough patch (exacerbated a million times over by immigration) but that doesn’t give the leftists the right to destroy it by more mass immigration or you the right to look the other way because of your exquisitely honed sense of its moral failings.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 03:39 | #

We didnt have to destroy our culture. If the number of immigrants was very small and the host country was self-confident enough I think we could cope. Of course what we have is a large number coming in and a country that has lost its self-confidence - oh dear.

Posted by Laban on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:27 | #

I’m not as self-hating as all that, John. It’s no coincidence that mass immigration coincided with the British cultural collapse - it’s just another symptom.

Lurker is spot-on.

Ironically, a strong and self-confident culture would have been able to assimilate a large number of migrants - but then a strong and self-confident culture would probably not have allowed a large number in.

Instead we’ve had the worst of all worlds - mass immigration with no attempt at assimilation - partly because the collapse of British identity means there’s no generally accepted culture to assimilate to.

Labour have encouraged this a) because they had captive votes b) because it hacked ‘the right’ off

They’re just discovering that some immigrants have their own cultures and their own agendas.

What will be interesting is watching the SWP left riding the Islamist tiger in the Respect coalition. Each side currently thinks it can use the other. When needs be, the SWP will be chewed up and spat out - because the Islamists, like it or not, have a strong culture, whereas the SWP are a bunch of elderly teenagers giving Daddy Bush the finger, people who still think the map of the world is pink. In the end it’s still a game to them. But the times have become more serious.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:50 | #

” ‘Baroness Williams of Crosby said [in a radio interview] that when, in the early 70s, President Idi Amin expelled Asians from Uganda, she thought it “an excellent opportunity to create a multiracial society in Britain.” ’ ” (—John Rackell)

Too bad the bimbo couldn’t be deported to Uganda the instant those words left her lips, Baroness or not ... If Uganda wouldn’t let her in, then to the Subcontinent, to China—anywhere, so long as she was gotten the hell out of Britain ... and kept out ...

“Anything could be the spark that sets the fire or sets the boulder loose. Yet the decadent and demented leftists threw us all into the stew together and only by degrading whites do they hope to think they can get multiculturalism to work.”

And how could this leftist insanity have conceivably gained the upper hand over sanity to the point of getting its way entirely on the immigration issue? Look no further than the fact that half the electorate whom politicians must kowtow to are women, the Bimbo Baroness’ sex. You can be sure that not a woman in Britain sees a thing wrong with what the Baroness said there, while, what—80% of men hear it and it makes their skin crawl? Something like that—maybe 90%. Don’t think politicians don’t know this. They eat, sleep, dream, breathe it every day of their lives: “How to curry favor with women voters.” Yes, there are influential anti-white-Christian Jews who’d love to see the last of white-Christians, and yes there’s Wall Street wanting bigger profits from slave-labor, and yes there are dyed-in-the-wool communists all over the place like this Scots imbecile who came over here the other month and told the U.S. Congress to its face to go to hell on the subject of the Iraq invasion (that’s not why he’s an imbecile—he’s an imbecile because he’s an unrepentant communist a quarter of a century after communisim was proven to be a disaster before the whole world), and yes there are all the other usual suspects. But if men were the only voters none of the wacko and destructive programs of these interest groups would’ve gotten anywhere but would’ve been soundly defeated at the ballot box every single time and we’d still have white countries today which looked like we were back in the year 1955.

John Rackell that was a first-rate comment. Thanks for posting it.

Posted by Adam pierson on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:52 | #

One in four Muslims in Britain is a terrorist sympathiser

“People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born” Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.