Wikileaked poll resultss: 1 in 3 Muslim students in UK support 'killing in the name of Islam'

[Ought Six]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz19QjxJ2pI

This was also reported at the time in The London Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-students.html

[Auburn Boy]

That figures..,

The prevalence of that attitude will be hard to deal with.

[dyrt]

From the DailyMail:

Muslims were also found to have the highest disability rates - with 24 per cent of men and 21 per cent of women claiming a disability - while the cable also cited statistics claiming Muslims were also the most likely group to be unavailable for work or not actively seeking employment due to illness, their studies or family commitments.

Looks like a lot know how to work the system.

[Brihard]

The Guardian's take is quite interesting. It places the number into context and explains what actual questions were asked. The "1 in 3 support killing in the name of Islam" figure is quoted without actually presenting what question was asked.

Anyway, worth a read through the Guardian's take on this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/th.../2010/dec/22/1

[Ought Six]

Bri:

A link to the original poll is in the article you linked to.

http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1231525079_1.pdf (PDF format)

The original question was: "Is it ever justifable to kill in the name of religion?"

Results are below, with percentages and actual numbers:
---

'Yes, in order to preserve and promote that religion.'

Muslim students -- 4%; non-Muslim students -- 1%
---

'Yes, but only if the religion is under attack.'

Muslim students -- 28%; non-Muslim students -- 1%
---

'No, it is never justifiable.'

Muslim students -- 53%; non-Muslim students -- 94%
---

Not sure.

Muslim students -- 15%; non-Muslim students -- 4%
---


For those unfamiliar with polling methodology, the '1%' figure can be quite misleading. When a poll is using integer percentages, if even one person picks an option, that response percentage is bumped up to one percent, even if there are millions of people being polled. In this case, the poll queried over 600 Muslim and over 800 non-Muslim students.

That being said, I think the editorial you posted has, in its own words, very "dodgy" 'logic'. For instance, the author makes the point that Muslim students said that the question asked if killing was justified in the name of religion, instead of in the name of Islam specifically. That is, IMO, a total BS non-distinction that intended to falsely create doubt about the answers given. The author is using the very disinformation techniques he claims the Daily Mail used. Then he goes on to say "only in self-defense", which is *not* what the poll question says at all. It says "when the religion is under attack". What Islamist or Jihadi does not think that Isalm is 'under attack'? Another BS non-distinction meant to confuse and mislead.

But he really goes into total dishonesty with this:

In fact Kenneth Ballen at the Christian Science Monitor tackled this point quite neatly in 2007, in his article on "the myth of Muslim support for terror," pointing to opinion polls that showed, for example, that:

"...only 46 percent of Americans think that 'bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians' are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are 'often or sometimes justified.'"

You could report that as "54% of Americans think it's fine to kill civilians in the name of capitalism!" but then you would be as stupid as the ubiquitous anonymousity who lurks under the name "Daily Mail Reporter."

Seriously? Asking if bombing civilians is okay can just be *assumed* to be "in the name of capitalism" when that subject is not even present in the question? And that is the 'the same' as specifically asking if killing in relation to religion is okay?

He then goes on to say the poll result are "fairly meaningless of course unless you're going to compare them to the general population as a control". But of course the poll is only about student attitudes, and non-Muslim students *are* the control, making this another ridiculous false argument posed to try and discount the results. The rest of the editorial is the same sort of drivel. My only question is, is Mr. Robbins an idiot, or merely a liar?