Poll question #1 about Islam

[j2k4]

Do you think Islam, defined as the fundamentalist version whose activities dominate the headlines, and as exemplified by Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, desires a religious, or holy war?

A yes or no answer, please, supported by whatever reasonings you feel are appropriate...

[vidcc]

Does it have to be a holy war? why not political?

I'm sure "fundamentalists" will use religion to poke the flames. And to balance it out I feel that fundamentalist christians, jews etc.etc. desire war. They may try to justify a difference but basically it's the same.
But that is perhaps a like for like generalisation...... better say certain people desire war and use religion as a tool to inflame passion.

[Skweeky]

Well probably they do..

All the rest of us have had one, can't have them missing out on it

Seriously though... it relates to my reply in the other thread. I think if it advances the same as any other religion, then there's bound to be one. In fact, in a way, it's already happening, innit?

[j2k4]

I think whatever is bred from or by the current situation(s), including Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Aqsa, as well as Iran and Syria, et.al., will be termed a Holy War by those who foment it.

Your average Muslim (however you might qualify that) seems inclined to go along (or, at least, not object), according to extant polls as well as learned opinion, and, in the case of open and wide-spread conflict, cannot be firmly counted in opposition to the extremist arms of that religion.

I don't think it is adequate to say merely that "I don't know any Muslims who feel that way"; that literally points up the anecdotal weakness of the statement, and because none of us know all Muslims, do we?

In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I believe this is a legitimate concern, vid, and I make no apology for your perception that this poll is leading.

I am honestly interested in thoughts on the question I have presented.

[vidcc]

A lot depends on who conducts polls, how questions are worded and who interprets the results.
Also who give you your "learned opinion"

I don't think it is adequate to say merely that "I don't know any Muslims who feel that way"; that literally points up the anecdotal weakness of the statement, and because none of us know all Muslims, do we?

then what makes you think your view of the muslims we don't know is correct? How does talking of people you don't know, have never met make the evidence stronger?

You say "Your average Muslim" is inclined to go along..... prove that they are going along with "religious war".. Why not just for patriotic reasons? to them we may be the enemy...I know it's hard to accept but we are a threat to others in the same way that others are a threat to us.
going with my first post about poking the flames, how much of your opinion of islam has been inflamed by "those with learned opinions" suggesting that islam wants to destroy us....is it possible that there is a counterpart in other lands doing the same?

could it work both ways?

[j2k4]

A lot depends on who conducts polls, how questions are worded and who interprets the results.
Also who give you your "learned opinion"

I don't think it is adequate to say merely that "I don't know any Muslims who feel that way"; that literally points up the anecdotal weakness of the statement, and because none of us know all Muslims, do we?

then what makes you think your view of the muslims we don't know is correct? How does talking of people you don't know, have never met make the evidence stronger?

You say "Your average Muslim" is inclined to go along..... prove that they are going along with "religious war".. Why not just for patriotic reasons? to them we may be the enemy...I know it's hard to accept but we are a threat to others in the same way that others are a threat to us.
going with my first post about poking the flames, how much of your opinion of islam has been inflamed by "those with learned opinions" suggesting that islam wants to destroy us....is it possible that there is a counterpart in other lands doing the same?

could it work both ways?

I meant "learned opinion" in only the most cynical way, vid-that you believe I am so informed indicates you haven't read me correctly.

My point is we have not the least indication that (forgive the term) the "average Muslim" is sufficiently inclined to the peaceful side as considered against the fanatical side to even be termed ambivalent, ambivalence apparently not being a part of the Islamic mindset.

The latest relevant poll I have seen was one reported today, taken amongst "unbiased" Lebanese civilians (those described as "not predisposed" to favor Hezbollah) which stated that something on the order of 79% favored the tactic of kidnapping Israelis for ransom of prisoners.

One can only wonder what ambivalent formulation of polling question rendered that result, huh?

It is precisely this type of data which is available in abundance, and leads me to conclude firmly that I have yet to see that extremist Muslim from the other side of the spectrum who bangs on about letting Israel live in peace, or decries the use of airliners as missiles.

Do you know any Muslims like that, vid?

[vidcc]

If you use "extremist" then you can make any case you desire. You fell off that tightrope by lumping in "Your average Muslim".

On the support amongst "unbiased" Lebanese civilians, would you tend to support any country bombing our homes, killing our wives and children, or would you support the ones firing back?..... tendancy is to overlook "who did what first". If another country attacked america because of something someone in America did, would you support the country bombing us?

As an example: A group of ex North Koreans kill a high up government official in North Korea by blowing up his car and get protection in the USA......Now we are not going to hand them over so North korea starts bombing the area where they reside hundreds of Americans are killed. Do you support the north koreans?

I appreciate there will be a "ah but we are good and they are bad" argument but that will always depend on which side of the fence you are looking from.
To the lebanese israel is attacking them, killing innocent women and children. If that happened to us we wouldn't care who or what started it, we would be on the side that is fighting back against the people attacking us.

The point is perception.
However you came to the conclusion you believe islam wants to kill us.
However they came to the conclusion they believe we want to kill Islam.

Mostly those opinions are based little on fact and mostly on propoganda.

If you stuck to "extremist" and "fundamentalists" you have a reasonable case. But I still say that you are loading the question and singling out just one side when it come to fundamentalist views.

[j2k4]

If you use "extremist" then you can make any case you desire. You fell off that tightrope by lumping in "Your average Muslim".

On the support amongst "unbiased" Lebanese civilians, would you tend to support any country bombing our homes, killing our wives and children, or would you support the ones firing back?..... tendancy is to overlook "who did what first". If another country attacked america because of something someone in America did, would you support the country bombing us?

As an example: A group of ex North Koreans kill a high up government official in North Korea by blowing up his car and get protection in the USA......Now we are not going to hand them over so North korea starts bombing the area where they reside hundreds of Americans are killed. Do you support the north koreans?

I appreciate there will be a "ah but we are good and they are bad" argument but that will always depend on which side of the fence you are looking from.
To the lebanese israel is attacking them, killing innocent women and children. If that happened to us we wouldn't care who or what started it, we would be on the side that is fighting back against the people attacking us.

The point is perception.
However you came to the conclusion you believe islam wants to kill us.
However they came to the conclusion they believe we want to kill Islam.

Mostly those opinions are based little on fact and mostly on propoganda.

If you stuck to "extremist" and "fundamentalists" you have a reasonable case. But I still say that you are loading the question and singling out just one side when it come to fundamentalist views.

Okay.

Let's call them Hezbollah.

Not Lebanese, not terrorists.

What are they now?

If we desire peace, how should we view Hezbollah?

If we can, for the sake of argument, stipulate that those who are religiously extreme and launching rockets occupy a segment at one end of the behavioral spectrum, and those who are religiously extreme but do not launch rockets are at the proximate midpoint of that spectrum, who, if anybody, resides at the other extreme?

Put it this way:

If some of a given group agitate for war, that is an extreme position.

Reason insists that the opposite extreme be peopled by those who agitate for peace.

And I don't buy that you don't buy the idea of a Muslim whose belief in peaceful co-existence is extreme, or fanatical.

I ask again; do you know any of them?

[vidcc]

Okay.

Let's call them Hezbollah.

Not Lebanese, not terrorists.

What are they now?

If we desire peace, how should we view Hezbollah?
It doesn't matter how it's put, what reasoning, what justification, however it's said, people tend to not support those that are killing them. They tend to blame the people killing them. Who started what is of little importance, all they know is someone is killing them.
If we can, for the sake of argument, stipulate that those who are religiously extreme and launching rockets occupy a segment at one end of the behavioral spectrum, and those who are religiously extreme but do not launch rockets are at the proximate midpoint of that spectrum, who, if anybody, resides at the other extreme?

Put it this way:

If some of a given group agitate for war, that is an extreme position.

Reason insists that the opposite extreme be peopled by those who agitate for peace.

And I don't buy that you don't buy the idea of a Muslim whose belief in peaceful co-existence is extreme, or fanatical.

I ask again; do you know any of them?

I sure don't buy that "spectrum" reasoning.



Mainstream islam does not "agitate for war", being silent (or at least not out on the streets protesting) does not equal supporting extremist. Granted they may support the idea but not the method.

Your opinion I suspect is based on what you are told about islam, and I have to say it is rare to see anything in the media that is not negative and concentrating on extremists. We are bombarded with images and commentary about Bin Laden. We are shown snippets of Mid eastern leaders criticising the US..... What do you think they are seeing of us? do they see commentators giving balanced views or do they see Bush calling them evil? do they see pat robinson or falwell calling islam the devils religion?

I suspect they only see our extremists spouting anti islamic views, and I suspect we are basically seeing their extremist.

There are terrorist that happen to be muslims. This doesn't mean that all muslims are terrorists. There are terrorists that happen to be christians. This doesn't mean that christians are terrorists.

Being an extremist is by definition "out of the norm".....you do know that...don't you

[GepperRankins]

it's unfortunate that most people want to live in peace, but somehow get represented by these nutters