Large majorities in the Muslim world want the Islamic legal and moral code of sharia as the official law in their countries


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Large majorities in the Muslim world want the Islamic legal and moral code of sharia as the official law in their countries.

While the poll included many encouraging things, I found this to be its most disturbing statistic:

Suicide bombing was mostly rejected in the study by the Washington-based Pew Forum, but it won 40 percent support in the Palestinian territories, 39 percent in Afghanistan, 29 percent in Egypt and 26 percent in Bangladesh.

Name for me any other culture or religion in the world today where more than a quarter of the population thinks suicide bombings are a good thing.

Share

53 comments

  • jwing

    While there may be “moderate” believers of Islam….there most definitely is no “moderate Islam.”

  • Patrick Ritchie

    Not current, but WW2 Japan comes to mind. I’m sure I could find many others…

  • jwing

    Bushisdo came out of the warrior ethos of Samuri Japan but what we see today is not done to protect the Emperor Sun King, as per the Kamikazi. No,..what we have with Islamic suicide bombers is very different from what occurred to the U.S. Navy at Okinawa. Rather than fall into enemy hands, and in order to protect the Japanese mainland, pilots made those very effective kamikazi attacks against a surrounding US Navy.

    Islamic suicide bombers don’t measure up to Kamikazi as they are not in the least honorable as their work is done randomly and with complete surprise intended. First, they are non-uniformed combatants, whereas Kamikazi special attack forces were clearly identified by the bright red meatballs painted on the fuselages and wings of their planes. Secondly, Islamic suicide bombers are terrorists attacking innocent civilians. Thirdly, their motivation is purely religiously inspired as mentioned countless times in the koran and haddith. Finally, Islamic suicide bambers are pure EVIL whereas I can at least pay tribute to the courage and honor by which the Kamikazi attacked in open battle.

    Allah hu FUBAR

  • I very specifically asked about today’s world, not the past. But then, your comparison is valid, as Japan at the time of World War II was a dangerous violent culture that thought it could get what it wanted through the use of force.

  • wodun

    This poll is questionable. It claims 4/5 of the respondants said non muslims can practice their religions freely in their countries but this is not the case in Pakistan, Egypt, and many other Muslim countries. The article alludes to the truth but shies away from discussing what actually happens to religious minorities in those countries.

    Here is an example where the majority of Muslims are brutally persecuting minorities and it isn’t with suicide bombs but the full force and power of the state combined with religious institutions and the mob. Should we be content that their actions are local and not in support of a global jihad?

  • Pzatchok

    Muslims have a different definition to the term ‘freely practicing their religion’, or ‘practicing their religion freely’.

    Practicing your religion freely to them is simply that while you worship you will not be interfered with.

    It does NOT mean that you can express your religion out in the open or attempt to find new converts or promote your religion in ANY way.
    It also does not mean your religion will be treated equally to Islam. You may BE another religion if you pay a fee fine or tax, whichever the leader of the nation decides. You may practice your religion only in prescribed areas and after paying another fee for that privileged.

    They do speak truth when they say you are allowed to be another religion.
    But that does not mean you will be treated equally in any other way. You might not be allowed to run all businesses, or own homes and land or in some cases you might even be restricted to limited areas of the nation or forced to keep to your own small communities. You will normally never be allowed to show any outward difference to the Muslim majority. Like different clothing that is allowed in your religion. You may never show any religious icons.

    When dealing with any statement from a Muslim always assume the second meaning of the words could be the one they are using.

  • JGL

    “In Mid-February, TheBlaze published a story about Anjem Choudary, a famous British Muslim who preaches that England (and all of the world) should convert to Islam and install Shari’a Law as the law of the land. That story also featured a key bit of advice from the cleric telling Muslims that they should use welfare as a “jihad seeker’s allowance.”

    Enough said, we are financing our own destruction.

  • Thomas

    ‘Name for me any other culture or religion in the world today where more than a quarter of the population thinks suicide bombings are a good thing.’

    Well lets see. According to a recent poll, 44% of Republicans think ‘armed rebellion’ may be nessessary in the next few years to protect our liberty (thats what, only 50 million people at least) Only two groups were more likely to agree with the need for rebellion than to disagree: Republicans and people who never went to college.

    So apparently many Republicans have concluded that in the next few years, it may become perfectly ok to start shooting people. Which, to my mind does not look all that different from Islamic Extremism.

    Robert, even one of your favorite sources reported it, the Washington Times:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/may/2/republicans-say-us-headed-toward-armed-revolution-/

    Heres another:
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/armed-rebellion-poll.php?ref=fpb

  • Your analogy is disgusting, false, and absurd, and demonstrates unequivocally that you aren’t really interested in a sane discussion, but simply like to be contrary for the sake of attention. Quite tiresome and a waste of time.

    Let me add that by your way of thinking, there is no difference between a Jew trying to defend himself from a Nazi and a Nazi trying to kill a Jew. In both cases. they want to commit murder.

    Truly absurd and thoughtless.

  • Thomas

    The statistics speak for themselves. I did not make them up.

  • Thomas

    Oh, but I keep forgetting, Islam is ‘pure EVIL’, while the nutters in this country are ‘patriots’.

  • Thomas

    So now you are comparing out our Government to Nazi’s. I guess it really is ok to start shooting at them then…. Wow, speaking of inappropriate analogies.

  • JGL

    How would you define the founders: terrorists or freedome fighters?

    The answer is based on perspective, a Constitutionally based American perspective or a One World Government type “progressive” model perspective. Choose one and know what you are.

    Thomas, your perspective is the latter, I see that as a more naive perspective not based in truely understanding the nature of man and the administration of power. Hence the head butting.

    PS: The founders were considered as freedom fighter or terrorists from the perspective of the British. The founders knew well what they were talking about. You could look at our whole system as being based in that kind of founders mind set, the concept of freedom can certainly be terrifying.

  • Thomas

    I would put myself firmly in the Constitutionally based American perspective. ‘One World Government’ is conspiracy talk. Its exactly the type of talk that is leading to the increasing radicalization and militancy of the far right, the tea baggers, and fringe groups like Christian dominionists, which is why there is more open discussion of ‘armed rebellion’ and other violent solutions to political problems.

  • JGL

    Lets really set this off Thomas, what is your understanding / interpretation of the second amendment?

    And how does it correspond to the Constitution?

  • Thomas

    JGL- its getting a bit off topic, but just fyi:

    i believe in the right to bear arms, but I also think the govt has a right to put restrictions and regulations on it, for which there is ample precedence. Personally I would like to see assault weapons banned, and large caches of ammunition severely restricted. I do tend to put more emphasis on the part where the second amendment says people have a right to bear arms as PART OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. I think this part of the amendment has been effectively ignored lately, thru efforts of the gun lobby. I also think in-depth background checks on gun purchasers should be implemented.

    Thats my view in a nutshell.

  • JGL

    You have not idicated how you catagorize the founders.

    “armed rebellion” : have you ever heard the Morgathoau comment: “a diplomacy that ends in war has failed its primary objective, which is the promotion of national interest by peaceful means.”

    You could see our political system as an on going domestic diplomacy and our elections as controlled, bloodless coups.

  • JGL

    And who would populate the militia?

    And how does this all relate to the constitution?

  • Thomas

    JGL-
    1. Those who wish to join.

    2. Its the second amendment, its IN the constitution.

    I get the feeling you have a point to make, if so spit it out.

    BTW, I may be a bit slow to respond to posts for awhile…sorry

  • Thomas

    I think most of us would see our founders as Freedom Fighters, even though the army used tactics of guerilla warfare. But I realize there is a good bit of historical bias to that, since we know and are the beneficiaries of their actions. I would not view them as terrorists, since to my knowledge they did not target civilians. They certainly were Revolutionaries.

    “a diplomacy that ends in war has failed its primary objective, which is the promotion of national interest by peaceful means.”… I agree with Morgenthau- good quote, thanks.

  • JGL

    I want to know to what level you understand the subject, what you have presented so far is only a very surface, everyday, proforma, vanilla interpretation.

    You are not alone, the majority of Americans can not speak on the subject with any degree of certainty. The Constitution and its accompanying amendments are unique, Americans must be able to intuitvely answer these kinds of questions. If an American can not answer at that level then they can be manipulated.

  • JGL

    PS: Politicians LOVE people like you, intelligent, educated, well read and tend to be more to the emotional end of the spectrum but not so steeped in objective, critical thought as it relates to this subject.

    I say these things with respect, no insult intended.

  • Thomas

    JGL- Im not going to pretend to a scholarly or lawyerly level of sophistication on Constitutional Law. I know President Obama taught Constitutional law, and most conservative don’t have much regard for his interpretations, either. And I doubt most tea baggers have much sophistication about it either, and I would hazard the guess that your own knowledge is that of the passionate amateur, rather then one who has taken professional level courses in it. No disrespect intended, of course.

    If you have a real point to make, Im all ears.

  • Thomas

    ‘…Americans must be able to intuitvely answer these kinds of questions.’
    ‘Politicians LOVE people like you, intelligent, educated, well read and tend to be more to the emotional end of the spectrum but not so steeped in objective, critical thought as it relates to this subject.’

    Im also a bit annoyed that you say that people must be able to ‘intuitively’ answer the question, then go on to criticize people for not being ‘objective’.
    You don’t seem to realize that intuition and objective are completely contradictory terms:

    intuition- a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning
    objective- not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

    A person with such a poor grasp of English is not in much of a position to criticize anyones ‘level of understanding’.

    …Again, no disrespect intended.

  • Rene Borbon

    The article Robert posted is about Islam, not the 2nd Amendment. I agree, Thomas’s analysis is educated but only on the surface. His favorite ploy is to distract and make false analogies. Stick to the issue in question.

  • Thomas

    The second amendment issue was raised by JGL, not by me, so accusing me of trying to ‘distract’ from the issue is ridiculous. Robert, in his post, asked a question, and I answered it , directly. Try paying attention.

  • JGL

    So what you are establishing without question is that you really don’t know much about where the Constitution comes from and what its designed purpose is (by the way, that really disqualifies you from discussing the subject of Islam, Sharia law and how it relates to America and the Constitution, you should be doing more listening instead of making statements). Its a common condition, most of your coments on the subject are based in emotion and what you feel the answer should be. Unfortunately for you the Constitution and law is based in objectivity and not subjective emotion.

    And you are misrepresenting what I have written, when I said that Americans should be able to answer these question intuitively, that comes after there has been objective thought, I have not equated the two. You see what you need to see in order to validate your opinion. Very weak, speak to the subject, test what it is that you think you know.

    Another dishonest representation of fact, trying to label and define instead of testing what it is that you “know” in a specific conversation on a specific subject. When you are tested your reality model fails because it is based on emotion and name calling. This is the progressive mind.

    And somehow I am still optimistic, the country will continue, the Constitution will be attacked and will continue into the future, made stronger each time it is tested (hopefully). This is a testament to the founders genius, it really is a miracle of the human mind. You might do yourself and the people who surround you some good and attempt to adjust your perspective.

  • JGL

    Its all related, let it flow. Thomas is about to have a bad day.

  • Thomas

    ‘Americans should be able to answer these question intuitively, that comes after there has been objective thought, thats not equating the thought.’
    Actually, that is equating the thought. Not only do you have no grasp of English, but you have no grasp of logical thinking, or even common sense.
    The real ‘miracle’ will happen, when you begin to comprehend what gibberish it is you write.

  • Thomas

    *equating the two

  • Rene Borbon

    Thomas, stay on subject.

  • Thomas

    To recap: JGL has an in-depth knowledge of the Constitution, as opposed to my ‘vanilla, surface’ knowledge. We know this because JGL has explained that
    1. The Constitution and its accompanying amendments are ‘ unique’.
    2. The Constitution and law is based in objectivity and not subjective emotion. (which we must come to understand ‘intuitively’, that is after we have given it ‘objective’ thought)

    After these two giant insights, JGL offers up this prophecy:
    3.The Constitution will be attacked and will continue into the future, made stronger each time it is tested (hopefully).

    What a giant of an intellect.

  • JGL

    First you think about a particular subject (like where the Constitution comes from and what is its purpose, or what is the reason for the second amendmment) in as an objective way as you possibly can and after you have come to a reasonable conclusion about that particular subject and feel that you really grasp it at that point you can incorporate that conclusion intuitively into your thought process and conversation on that particular subject. You have taken the time and objectively investigated the subject, tested your conclusions, retested your conclusions and now you understand it intuitively. One follows the other.

    I wrote this very slowly so you will be able to better understand and, you should read it that way.

    And, I do not write gibberish, it may be difficult to understand but that only means that you need to reread what I have written an think objectively about it.

  • JGL

    He is on subject, his subject is obfiscation, name calling and attempting to define the conversation to serve his purpose which is obfiscation.

    Your president does it every day.

  • Thomas

    Obfuscation. JGL, learn English, stop embarrassing yourself.

  • Thomas

    Ok, JGL, whatever. Maybe if I get drunk, and read your post slowly,underwater, upside down , and in a mirror, your gibberish will begin to make sense. But I doubt it.

  • Obviously Thomas is stunted a bit in the area of critical thinking and courtesy. His last post doesn’t advance his points / argument at all. I’m smelling a progressive troll.

  • JGL

    Like I said, Thomas is having a bad day.

    All I am interested in Thomas is what is your understanding of the purpose of the Constitution and the second amendment and how they relate. Your lack of substantive answers to the questions tells the tail and in my opinion it indicates that you should be doing more asking of questions rather than the making of statements on those subjects and the related subjects of how Islam and sharia law relate to those subjects.

    (you will have to reread that)

  • JGL

    I apologize for any misspelled words and if those mistakes have caused you to be unable to compensate for them and understand what I have written.

  • JGL

    Thomas a heads up, I have omitted the D after the AN between the words WRITTEN and THINK in the last sentence of my previous post. I hope it does not cause problems for you, it should read AND.

    I again apologize.

  • Thomas

    Debating a fool is a fools errand. Im done here.

  • Thomas

    No problem.

  • You’re welcome to stay. But please stay on topic.

  • Thomas

    Thanks, but no. Nothing more to add. Have a nice night.

  • Bonne chance et bonne nuit pour toi aussi.

  • “No disrespect intended.”

    That is a false statement, as in this very same paragraph you use the sexual term “tea baggers” to refer to the tea party movement. Nor has this been the first time you have done this. By doing so, you reveal yourself to either be intentionally rude and disrespectful to those you disagree with, or incredibly ignorant.

    If you want to continue to post here, I insist that you stop with this kind of name calling. You might not like the tea party movement, but calling it dirty names is hardly a decent way for a civilized person to debate the issues.

  • JGL

    My intent was not to chase Thomas away, just to test what he thought he was sure of. When pushed a liberal minded “free” thinking progressive must remove him or herself from the conversation because they have not got a solid foundation upon which they have built their argument, their argument is mostly built upon subjective emotion. And that is their weapon that they utilize in the media and politics. That is not what our country is built upon. Its a good tool of manipulation, but not what you want your country built upon. When a majority of the people can not tell the difference between emotional manipulation and allow their Constitution and laws to be defined in such ways then we are all in deep trouble.

    I will miss Thomas and hope that he will reconsider his decision. He made some good points and observations, the strongest of which was that I really am not the best speller.

    Best regards Thomas.

  • Publius 2

    You really are disgusting and demented. Do you know a thing about the Tea Party? Have you even seen one of their rallies? They are entirely devoted to defeating creeping socialism via the ballot box, and they have been remarkably successful. Not a single Tea Party organizer or member has been arrested for any crime associated with the movement or its rallies. When the Tea Party meets in public, afterward there is no litter, no destroyed property, and no violence committed against anyone.

    Interesting that among so-called nutters (more evidence of your pathetic nature) you failed to mention the Occupy movement, whose members have indeed committed violence against police and against the women in their midst. They’ve also destroyed property and defaced public memorials, and everywhere they’ve gone they’ve left huge messes in their wake that must be cleaned up by taxpayers.

    The ironic thing about you, Thomas, is that if Islamists actually took control of this country — and there’s plenty of evidence they’re infiltrating the government — people of your ilk would be at the top of their list for elimination. You should hope with all your heart that the nutters can fend off these acts of war against us. They’re your protection.

  • Publius 2

    “Assault weapons” are already banned, Thomas, and they have been for a long time, in every jurisdiction in this country.

  • Publius 2

    As Saul Alinsky once said, you can always tell a liberal — he’s the first one to leave when a fight breaks out. You won’t be missed, Thomas. Your pathetic name-calling and disparaging people who disagree with you severely diminishes the value of anything you have to say.

  • Publius 2

    Thomas is unworthy of your courtesy.

  • Thomas

    Im quite proud to be at the top of muslim extremists list for elimination. I suspect you won’t be, since you, like them, hate ‘socialism’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *