Quote:

Karl Adler Hungus said:
I won't judge one person or a group as a whole for the actions of a violent minority.



Last week the respected University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) released its most recent survey of Muslim attitudes on America, terrorism and related topics. It surveyed attitudes in four representative Muslim countries: Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and Morocco. A columnist for the Washington Times asks:


    What percentage of the polled Muslims are in favor of terrorist attacks on civilians -- and note the question doesn't say American civilians, which presumably would be more popular than attacks on even Muslim civilians, as the general form of the question suggests?

    To varying degrees, 27 percent of Moroccans, 21 percent of Egyptians, 13 percent of Pakistanis and 11 percent of Indonesians approve of terrorist attacks on civilians -- and not just American civilians.

    Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorist attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims.

    Of course, as the study points out, "Large majorities [57 percent to 84 percent] in all countries oppose attacks against civilians for political purposes and see them as contrary to Islam." We must be grateful for such mercies.

    But when, to fairly extrapolate these numbers, about a quarter of a billion Muslims are in favor of civilian terrorist attacks, I think prudent people are entitled to be alarmed at the magnitude of the threat.



Also, based upon the above, it appears that anywhere from one-quarter to one-third of all Muslims may be in favor of terrorism against civilians. Even though this is a minority, it is hardly a "tiny" one. I would certainly be comfortable guessing that its a much higher percentage then, say, the percentage of Christians who favor bombing abortion clinics (to use one oft-overused counter example).

So, when up to one third of a religion, including many of its leaders supports terrorism against civilians, is it completely unfair to challenge its status as a "Religion of Peace"TM?