New Jihad Watch: Watching the Polls
posted at 8:00 am on July 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Robert Spencer sifts through the results of recent polls on Americans and our attitudes toward Muslims and Islam.
Download this episode for your iPod.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Muslims, mosques, terrorism are a hat trick.
Wake up, America. Islamic theology and culture are the enemy of everything this nation stands for.
Hening on July 26, 2007 at 8:19 AM
Its going to be a LOOOOOONG 21st century
…If its not going to be a really short one :(
Thank you Robert for you insight as usual, thanks for sounding the Warning.
Seems like since everyone has a convenience store on every corner, and a TV in every room of their house. (Even those under whats called the poverty line of America. ((bread and circus’)))
Everyone is lulled into a sense of security.
No one is going to Listen or act in some form of defense, until after America looks like Tel Aviv. :-(
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on July 26, 2007 at 8:27 AM
I’m astonished that the percentages of Americans who are suspicious of Muslims remains so low. Quite a tribute to American tolerance.
morganfrost on July 26, 2007 at 8:28 AM
The Koran does not condone violence. It commands violence.
Bigfoot on July 26, 2007 at 8:32 AM
After the collective “black eye” that Islam got from the recent Pew polls of American Muslims, is it any surprise that Muslims are starting to “amend” their answers?
Hugh’s post in the thread on JW is worth a read as well.
awake on July 26, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Just want to let you know Mr. Spencer that I proudly have the Fight Jihad and Outlaw Sharia bumper stickers on my vehicle.
Once again, Mr. Spencer outstanding work.
TheFamousOne on July 26, 2007 at 9:09 AM
One place Muslim imams in America to start showing that they really want Muslims to live as equals with others and permit the free expression of religion by those Muslims who might decide to change their religion would be to distance themselves during their Friday sermons from hadith like the following.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “
Annar on July 26, 2007 at 9:16 AM
morganfrost on July 26, 2007 at 8:28 AM
I’d hardly call those numbers low. And keep in mind, those percentages are only people who will openly admit their concerns about Muslims for fear of not being politically correct.
Canadian polls have shown Canadians with a greater mistrust of Muslims than any other group. If it weren’t for stories about Muslim violence abroad, there are days when our newscasts would be pretty sparse up here.
They can keep saying Islam is a religion of peace, but considering all of the violence the average person sees committed by Muslims, that’s increasingly like putting lipstick on a pig.
And is it me, but have the spokespeople for Muslim groups that are showing up on FoxNews and other stations, not appearing to be so stereotypically Muslim lately? I’ve seen a few over the last while that could pass for Caucasian.
Canadian Infidel on July 26, 2007 at 9:25 AM
I think the constant reminders that there are 1.2 billion Muslims helps to feed radical rage. Need they be reminded that al-qaeda is expending fighters at a rate exceeding 10 to 1, that there’s already a huge backlog for virgins in paradise? The Islamist’s propaganda war is wearing very thin indeed.
Bacchus on July 26, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Seems a good point to raise an issue I’ve been thinking about for a while.
I would like to know if it would be useful at some point in time to draw something of a “line in the sand” – to attempt to enact a federal law to the effect of: “In no instance shall Islamic Sharia law be permitted within any state or territory under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.”
My purpose is twofold: 1) a statement of intent, saying to Muslims that those within Islam who wish to substitute Sharia for the rule of the U.S. Constitution are simply not welcome and 2) Just its proposal would generate a huge national debate, which would highlight to the many millions of American proponents of the Religion Of Peace™ view of Islam that there are far more Muslims in this country who support Islamic domination as opposed to assimilation than they ever thought.
Bad idea, or just fatally impractical?
eeyore on July 26, 2007 at 9:36 AM
I don’t normally like to pimp stuff on a blog, so forgive me Bryan if I’m out of line.
A few years ago I read a book The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years by Bernard Lewis that dispassionately put Islam in perspective for me. It was written some time in the mid-90s. I recommend it for anyone that wants to know more about Islam and doesn’t have the time for a full-blown study.
It agrees completely with the quote on the video that Western Foriegn Policy has nothing to do with the current Muslim terrorist activity. The conflict seems to be ineveitable because it’s based on Islam. Notice that Muslims are in conflict with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. all around the world. And it’s not just Muslim countries against non-Muslim countries, it’s Muslim people in conflict with non-Muslim people inside, and outside, of the countries where they happen to be living.
I read a couple other books by Lewis, but this one seemed the best.
jaime on July 26, 2007 at 9:45 AM
2) Just its proposal would generate a huge national debate
ThackerAgency on July 26, 2007 at 9:53 AM
in the name of Homer Simpson – DOH!
ThackerAgency on July 26, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Robert Spencer is drafting an application for U.S. citizenship that would incorporate your idea. Not sure of the exact link, but you could begin by reading German Muslim groups angry over ‘racist’ citizenship test
If Robert swings by here, he may be able to direct you to a better link.
Connie on July 26, 2007 at 9:56 AM
Thank you Robert Spencer for another eye opening piece.
4shoes on July 26, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Mr. Spencer:
Another well done job. More of U.S. should listen to your comments more closely, because you highlight the true situation we face when dealing with radical islamists (intentionally not capitalization).
I always look forward to your thoughtful insights. They reinforce my personal beliefs that many of U.S. are afraid of their own shadow. Those of U.S. that fall into that category, will wake up only when they are targeted by those of a small group of radical islamists who will not stop until they win or their ideas are exterminated.
As a product of the 60’s I have personally observed how those who wished to overthrow the establishment adopted Islam as their religion of choice because it provided them the necessary cover to commit atrocities in the name of “peace”.
MSGTAS on July 26, 2007 at 9:59 AM
I’ve always believed that it is a bad idea to draft more laws than are absolutely necessary. Of course, this is exactly what Congress loves to do.
Sharia law is incompatible with our Constitution. Period. No further legislation is required. In fact, any legislation to that effect would only serve to create legal loopholes that could potentially have the opposite effect.
Your point about a national dialog is well taken and is a vital key to our success. America needs a leader with outstanding communications skills who not only understands the threat, but can communicate that threat to all Americans effectively.
The blogs, talk radio, etc. are getting the word out (thank you Robert Spencer, HotAir, et al), but only to engaged audiences. To win this war we have to communicate this message to those who are not engaged and motivate them to get involved and stand up for the American way. That is the monumental challenge.
kjspeedial on July 26, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Sounds like there are 300,000 Muslims in this country that need an attitude adjustment.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 10:39 AM
That’s sort of what my second point (9:36 AM) was about. I’m afraid so many who are “not engaged” also see the world through “America’s too mean”, John Lennon-colored glasses. So when I say “generate…debate”, I also sorta mean give ‘em a wake-up dope slap. I’m trying to figure out what the most effective form for that is.
eeyore on July 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM
I don’t think swearing on a Qur’an really constitues Sharia in the same way that, for instance, a more likely scenario of a allowing something like a “Sharia family court” to decide “family” issues (as tends to be the first move in many places). For example, a Sharia family court might decide that women inherit a half share to men, as opposed the local US jurisdiction which, barring a will, would usually presume share-and-share-alike.
As to the “block-quote” thingy, I find the easiest way is to click-drag the text you want to quote and click “quote”. That gives you both the leading and trailing tags.
eeyore on July 26, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Stop the Madrassa
Connie on July 26, 2007 at 11:08 AM
I’m not saying it’s an instance of ’sharia law’. I’m just saying that it wasn’t an issue until the debate was introduced. It was poorly argued/not argued by NC lawyers (likely because there was no money involved) and so we now have Koran swear in, but no other religious texts other than the Bible. Most states only use ‘nothing’ to swear in so it isn’t an issue.
But if you introduce legislation forcing the courts to argue these issues, you’ll likely lose due to apathy/ignorance. Let sleeping dogs lie under the law is the only ’safe’ option. Be aware, educate, don’t legislate.
Thanks for the ‘block quote’ advice, we’ll see if it works better this time.
ThackerAgency on July 26, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I
1. Not a bad idea for if we really believe in our Constitution, and the culture from which it derives its legitimacy, we should not hesitate to declare exactly what you propose.
Those Founders arguing against the inclusion of a Bill of Rights said that by spelling out certain rights, we may be weakening the protection of rights not in the Bill. Those in favor of the Bill of Rights argued these rights were so important they had to be spelled out.
One could say they were really arguing about whether America had a shared cultural value that assumed certain rights were inalienable or whether they feared Americans had muliple cultural values, some disagreeing with the absolute legitimacy of those rights.
If we have multiple cultures now, we have to spell out our rights or we lose them. I still believe we must assimilate immigrants or eventually even a Bill of Rights becomes a rag
2. Fatally impractical? Not impractical, but fatally politically incorrect. It shows the strength of the islamic intimidation upon this country that we all know this is currently VERBOTEN.
Who in the media or Washington has the political guts to request limiting islamic immigration, at least from terrorist countries. Who in that echelon would agree to adding a RENUNCIATION of Sharia to the oath of allegiance?
This is absolutely reasonable to me, that we want immigrants who will not only swear allegiance to our Constitution, but that we require a dunciation of Sharia as a way of validating the truthfulness of their oath of allegiance to America, since Sharia allows precisely lying about their allegiance to an infidel nation
If we the citizens still own this nation, we should still be able to decide who immigrates here or even if we want immigrants; the world and our elites believe we the citizens do not own America. They have designated America to be owned by the world, and are slowly prying our dirty fingers off of Ellis Island
entagor on July 26, 2007 at 12:29 PM
eeyore on July 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Unfortunately, the most effective “dope slap” is another attack on our soil.
Since that is not our preferred method of getting their attention, we need someone who is Reaganesque in his/her ability to articulate and communicate what it means to be an American and inspire a majority of Americans to act on those beliefs.
Do you remember the rallying cry after 9/11? It was everywhere and the overwhelming majority of Americans bought into it. I still have that saying under the American flag on the home page of my website. Only now, instead of stirring my patriotism it brings a dull sadness because nothing could be further from the truth today.
Do you remember what it was?
kjspeedial on July 26, 2007 at 12:52 PM
ThackerAgency sez:
No, that IS discriminatory. Most U.S. citizens believe in some form of Christianity, but not all. When a non-Christian has no choice but to swear on NOTHING, the implication is that their faith is viewed as NOTHING by the majority. If by mandate the choice for swearing ceremonies is the Bible or Nothing, this puts the Bible as the Holy Book of the United States. This is all but religious endorsement. So much for our secular government.
If it is nothing for non-Christians, it should be nothing for everybody. This is not an Islamic issue either, rather a religious one.
HeIsSailing on July 26, 2007 at 1:18 PM
jaime sez:
Sounds like a good one to check out. I am halfway through David Harris’ The Crisis: The President, The Prophet, and the Shah-1979 and the Coming of Militant Islam. From what I gather, much of the terror of that period was linked to the Shah and his father attempting to westernize their own governments. Terrorism resulted as a reaction from the more conservative Muslims who feared a secular, westernized government. Jimmy Carter and his administration fueled the fire simply by not paying enough attention to situation at the time. The terror was not a reaction to any US policy – but was internal to the mid-east.
It is a fascinating read so far. I am curious how those events from 1979 link to our events of today.
HeIsSailing on July 26, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Unfortunately, much of this poll could be said to be based on ignorance, particularly when 40% believe that the Quran does not condone/command violence.
Memo to that 40%: you might want to check this out
infidelpride on July 26, 2007 at 2:35 PM
It IS nothing for everybody. Even Christians can swear in on nothing. I guess now we’ll have to have animal sacrifices for some religious oath of some African immigrant since we allow the Bible. Now it is just the Bible and the Koran or nothing. . . how would that be ‘less’ discriminatory? It is only less discriminatory for Muslims.
Here again, the argument was not put forth, they just rolled over.
BUT our city councils and local legislations are being sued one by one in NC to take any reference to a specific god (read ‘Jesus’) out of the opening prayer for the sessions. I actually believe this is valid because I don’t want someone praying to Allah before deciding what laws I have to live under. However, once again AMERICAN culture takes a back seat out of offending someone. There was a lot of public outcry, but if you can pray to Jesus, you must allow prayer to any other entity. . . therefore I approve of this measure as unpopular as it is.
Allowing the oath on nothing or the Bible is not discriminatory. Everyone can take the oath on nothing, therefore you are equal under the law. The Bible was used HISTORICALLY (read ‘culture’) primarily because Bibles were readily available in every courthouse – it wasn’t because of discrimination until some lawyer decided he could make some money off of it. Now the Koran becomes available not out of historical context, but political correctness and a lack of understanding of what ‘freedom’ means.
ThackerAgency on July 26, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Here again, if our courts FORCED someone to take an oath on the Bible or render their testimony false, THAT would be the state endorsement of religion. That’s the reason that the option of swearing in on nothing is available. The use of the Bible as a choice for swearing in was not a ‘religious’ issue, rather a ‘historical’ one.
ThackerAgency on July 26, 2007 at 3:00 PM
ThackerAgency sez:
That is my point. Christians can swear on nothing if they so choose. NonChristians who happen to not revere the Bible have will have no choice in the matter. Under your plan, they HAVE to swear on nothing.
I have never understood swearing on *anything* be it ceremonially, as in assigning somebody to a government post, or legally, as in swearing someone in before testfiying before a court. Does the swearing in on a Bible actually convict a court defendant who would otherwise consider lying? Of course not. I prefer to follow the advice of Jesus in this case. Do not swear or take an oath on anything, be honest and let your yes be yes, and no be no (Matt 5:33-37). Or have Bible believers forgotten the Bible that they swear on?
The only point of continuing this ceremony is, as you say…
…tradition.
If you consider this tradition so meaningful, then I propose a compromise. Instead of swearing on the Bible, the Quran, or any other holy book, why not swear on a copy of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights? That sounds like a good idea to me. Being an American is something that every American should be able to identify with, unlike the diverse opinions, religions and holy books on who God may or may not be.
HeIsSailing on July 26, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Lies, damned lies, statistics, and polls.
They say what will lull the infidels suckers back to a state where they can be over-run and killed more easily.
The only poll I want to here is:
How soon will Muslims all return to Mecca and stay?
profitsbeard on July 26, 2007 at 3:39 PM
I’ve read several of the Newsweek articles on Muslims in this weeks issues and I must say it’s quite a bit of politically correct crap. They toe the Muslim line on claiming Muslims are the victims, as if non-Muslim Americans are flying jumbo jets into mosques, kidnapping Muslims, and making snuff videos of them being beheaded. The most obnoxious spin was when Newsweek claimed CAIR was merely a civil rights group and that the flying imams lawsuit against their fellow passengers shows how well Muslims are fitting in with America by pursuing their grievances through the courts.
Tantor on July 26, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Here’s the thing, most courts now in NC just say ‘raise your right hand’. There is no Bible even for Christians. The only purpose for this lawsuit was to essentially take the Bible out of the courtroom completely. People in NC like their Bible so the thought of taking the Bible out of the courtroom probably WOULD HAVE caused riots. You should have heard the town meetings when they decided not to pray to ‘Jesus’.
The only thing the courts were considering was taking the Bible out of the courtroom. Allowing the Koran was the only way for them to be able to keep the Bible in the courtroom under this particular lawsuit. WHY is it necessary? My point is that it isn’t less discriminatory now that they allow someone to use a Koran. It is only less discriminatory for Muslims.
MOST people use nothing. Raise your right hand ‘do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God’. That’s how it goes. No Bible. The Bible hasn’t actually been used regularly for about 20 years when the Jewish community (good prominent people in this community) sued about using the Christian Bible – which is why they put in the ‘nothing’ clause.
The Jews were OK with nothing, the Hindus are OK with nothing, the Christians are OK with nothing, the Buddhists are OK with nothing. The only ones who FORCED their religion on the courts were the Muslims. Please understand that in context.
ThackerAgency on July 26, 2007 at 9:36 PM
I appreciate your posts, Robert. I seems to me that Islam has more in common with Moses than Christ; but then so do some “Christian” sects.
Randy
williars on July 26, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Williars, what in the hell are you talking about? Explain, please…
MalkinFan on July 26, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Or are you going down the path that the evil “joooos” and Christians are far worse than the pooor oppressed jihadists that want to kill or convert us all to radical islam?
MalkinFan on July 26, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Never mind, do not bother answering. The evil of Christianity is so ingrained in the worlds mind, and the atrocities of the horrid jooos, like in defending themselves, oppressive bastards that they are is so mainstream hip. Discusting. The Americans are more interested in American Idol than their own future. The Brits have turned over their lives to insane government control. Who is next? Who will stand for freedom? Anyone? Maybe America…but it will take a huge awakening of the American people. Granted, the American people did get some bad legislation killed. But why did it take us to do it? We were supposed to elect representatives to do it for us. I am somewhat optimistic, in that we did something, but on to other note, I am a bit pessimistic on whether we in the US realize what our enemies wish upon us.
MalkinFan on July 27, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Great Vent Robert Spencer! He consistently is right on in his reporting and commentary, and I really appreciate his work.
In my opinion the bottom line is this: No one cares if Muslims practice their religion as long as they renounce those aspects of Islam that are not compatable with the nations they live in. Tolerance of others, equal treatment for all under the law of the country they immigrate to, renounce conquest of the infidel and domination of others by Islam, support efforts to confront militant Islam, and they are welcome.
In my opinion this will not happen however. Islam is flawed from it’s core by doctrine that mandates conquest of the infidel, domination of Islam above all others, use of deceipt and deceiption in dealings with the infidel, subservience of women and others, to name but a few objectionable practices. Their core doctrine is not going to change, and they are going to perpetually be the enemy because of it.
When, When, When will those in the United States and western countries wake up to this fact and see Muslims for what they really are?
omegaram on July 27, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Islam, the Religion of Piece(s)!
TruthToBeTold on July 27, 2007 at 1:32 AM
“Wake up, America. Islamic theology and culture are the enemy of everything this nation stands for”
Well stated Hening
Ernest on July 27, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I think Michelle would do America a great service if she would hire a muslim (I can’t remember that woman’s name that’s been in the news lately….she’d be great) to do a weekly feature on Hot Air teaching Sharia Law. I don’t think very many Americans understand what we’re dealing with here. The average American thinks all religions are fundamentally good.
(legislators won’t touch this issue with a ten foot pole)
Wake up America. Islam is not “fundamentally good’ for America or Americans. Learn about it.
Ernest on July 27, 2007 at 10:46 AM
“(I can’t remember that woman’s name that’s been in the news lately….she’d be great)”
Not in the news…..on the talk shows)
Ernest on July 27, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Brigitte Gabriel? ex-Muslim
Connie on July 27, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Brigitte is great, but she is not an ex-Muslim. She is a Lebanese Christian.
You may be thinking of Nonie Darwish, who is an ex-Muslim.
Robert Spencer on July 27, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Those names aren’t ringing bells. This woman was in a clip here on Hot Air recently being interviewed by a Canadian talk show host. (he was anti-American) The woman stood up for America in a way that made me want to stand and applaud her. What a woman. Bless her heart.
Ernest on July 27, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Hey, MalkinFan! Sorry if I was unclear.
I’m a Christian man of the Catholic tradition. Reading Mr. Spencer has helped me to understand (maybe wrongly) the relationship between Islam and the Judeo-Christian Tradition: They are OT heretics of some kind.
Mohammed has no parity with Christ, and Islam has mainly a genetic relationship with The Good News.
My reference to some Christian sects was sparked by the same insight: the demand for submission without charity. Has it really been that hard to use the Bible to justify atrocity?
Just my thoughts.
Randy
williars on July 27, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Oh well, the “back to Africa” movements are out of style. We will just have to deal with them and do the best we can to show them a better, smarter, and more productive way of life.
As for the Jihad, this too will pass; Hopefully sooner rather than later. If you think about it, it really is a sad testiment to their culture. Surely they will wize up before too long.
saiga on July 27, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Ernest:
That would be Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Robert Spencer on July 27, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Instapundit linked to a pretty encouraging article (except Allah will be sad)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/egypt/story/0,,2135869,00.html
pedestrian on July 27, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Pedestrian,
Re that Guardian article, see:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017542.php
Robert Spencer on July 27, 2007 at 7:29 PM
That’s the Lady. Welcome to America Ayaan.
Ernest on July 28, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Comment pages: