Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

In UK the “Centre for Social Cohesion](http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/)” interviewed 632 muslim students and 831 non-muslim students.
Is it fair having 632 muslim people interview and the newspapers writing “Killing for religion is justified, say third of muslim students” ? The same article says “The YouGov poll was conducted for the Right-wing think tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion” but you need to reach the end of the article (how many times do we stop earlier?) to read “YouGov polled 600 Muslim students and 800 non-Muslim students at universities with a high number of Muslims.”

You can read the full report:
Islam on campus - a survey of UK students opinion (126 pages, pdf file)
or read an executive summary here (3 pages, pdf file)

The Times:
A third of muslim students back killings; Abul Taher

Telegraph:
Killing for religion is justified, say third of muslim students; Patrick Sawer

Guardian:
Radical Islam gains ground in campuses; Jamie Doward

–

FOSIS](http://www.fosis.org.uk/) is the umbrella organization of student groups in colleges and universities throughout the UK and Ireland, representing over 90,000 Muslim students

FOSIS condemns the report:

The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) in the UK and Eire today condemned the publication of a report published by the Centre for Social Cohesion entitled “Islam on Campus”.
Faisal Hanjra, President for FOSIS, said today, “This is yet another damning attack on the Muslim community by elements within the academic arena whose only purpose seems to be the undermining of sincere efforts by mainstream Muslim organisations to tackle the threat of terror which wider society faces. The report is methodologically weak, it is unrepresentative and above all serves only to undermine the positive work carried out by Islamic Societies across the country. Unfortunately, the views espoused by the CSC in tackling extremism involves the creation of an “Islam” outside the Muslims, which, to begin with is a sure way to failure, and far from empowering the Muslims, perpetuates a patronising tone of “we know better than you do”.”
He further added, "FOSIS has been a recognised cog in delivering consistent, mainstream opinions and by maligning it, CSC has shown itself to be an unreliable and marred think tank. Muslim students have had a tough time since the dreadful attacks on 7/7, they have faced numerous challenges with courage and perseverance, it is evident that those challenges have yet to go away and what is equally evident is the resilience of Muslim students to face those challenges. The message though to those who seek to cause this mischief is clear, we will not be deterred, our work will continue and the results of our efforts are clear for all to see.

2

It sounds like the typical attack-the-messenger fare.

3

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

Muslims are distinctly averse to attacking the Messenger actually

4

Messengers don't typically try to use or present the message to back their own opinions.

In this case, the so-called messengers need a vigourous rebuke. The distinction between killing for the sake of country and religion needs to be laid out. Why is one okay? Most americans or Brits would readily admit to be ready to "defend" their nation...which will necessarily imply a willingness to kill.

And this is exactly how most Muslims construe the question. To kill for the sake of religion is taken as to kill for the sake of the defense of the faith. There's nothing shameful, or embarrassing about this stance. It's laudable, and natural...in fact, why is the number so damn low? Perhaps because the original question is loaded...and vague.

So, any surveys about the willingness of the average Brit/American to kill for the sake of their country and way of life? Well, I argue we don't need one. That's percicely how the Gulf War (v2.0) was pitched, and that had an 80% approval rating...and we're not talking about an abstract question here, we're talking about the vast majority of the public preparing to invade a foreign country and no doubt kiling scores of people.

5

Simple. For society to function, the government should be the only medium authorized to kill. Otherwise societies break down. The religion based state was extinct when the modern nation state evolved.

Every country has people of different faiths. If killing for sake of one faith is allowed, then society will devolve into gangs killing each other.

As Muslims (those of us who live in non-Muslim lands), we need to be careful. If we say, we support killing on behalf of Islam, whatever the cause may be, then we are essentially saying that we don't give a **** about the country and we will kill when anyone of our faith feels that it requires us to kill.

If we keep supporting that, one fine day Muslims will either be kicked out or eliminated from non-Muslim lands because we threaten that nation state.

Do we really want this? I think those people who feel that they support killing on behalf of Islam are better off moving to a country like Saudi Arabia where almost everyone is a Muslim and the interests of the state and religion are aligned.

6

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

I'd like to seek a clarification about the objections here - is the objection to the sample size (600+ muslim students) or that they (or the non-muslim set) were drawn from univs with a large number of muslims? (I just want to know what the contention is) - after a survey is a survey)

As to comparing a country to a religion - I think it wrong to kill except in defence. The charge / allegation against muslims is not that they kill in defence but in advancement of their religion - so the right comparison should be when a religios community is persecuted (like when a country is invaded) by another.

7

What kind of non-explanation is that?

Societies that have a heavy religious component are obviously governed, and religion is part of the state...if anything that only further justifies the attitude, at least among those living in Muslim countries. For those that are living outside of Muslim countries, my original query stands...as there is in every way an analog between Muslims within Muslim countries willing to lay down their lives to defend faith/country/way of life (all conflated) and non-Muslims within their own states who have similar sentiments for secular reasons.

The alleged extinction (obsolescence?) of a non-secular state isn't even a factor here.

And I reject the idea that this is somehow related to whom has authorization to kill...it's about the act of killing in and of itself.

[quote]

Every country has people of different faiths. If killing for sake of one faith is allowed, then society will devolve into gangs killing each other.

[/quote]
This applies at a global scale, between nation states, as well. And no, they won't...the presumption being that within such a state one won't be attacked by another group (and hence have one compelled to defend themselves) for the "fault" of belonging to a particular faith. If any group attempts to do this, the state must intervene. Unless, of course, the state itself is the source of the attack...which is an interesting scenario.

Would anyone have faulted the Jews for resisting the SS, during WWII? Well, aside from those who hate Jews, and those who want to doggedly stick to your point of governments being the only "authorized" medium to kill. When the government itself decides to attack a group based on faith, then I'm sorry...your suggested explanation falls flat on it's face, as it's difficult to imagine a European who would fault such a resistance as being potentially dangerous, or somehow scandalous.

[quote]

As Muslims (those of us who live in non-Muslim lands), we need to be careful. If we say, we support killing on behalf of Islam, whatever the cause may be, then we are essentially saying that we don't give a **** about the country and we will kill when anyone of our faith feels that it requires us to kill.

[/quote]
That is one way to construe it. By the same token, expecting Muslims to say anything but a willingness to fight for their faith when attacked is pretty much telling Muslims that a) they're fair game and b) when the time comes, we best play nice and drop dead of our own accord. Yeah...that's going to happen.

[quote]

If we keep supporting that, one fine day Muslims will either be kicked out or eliminated from non-Muslim lands because we threaten that nation state.

[/quote]
LOL...wow, that's a rather impressive leap.

Given European history, Muslims don't need to say or do squat to invite such a thing. Their hosts will invent their own reasons.

My original query is sound: when one is attacked, be they Muslims of Bosnia, or a Muslim minority in Europe, why don't they have a right to attack back? Had any society that currently hosts Muslims declare open war on Islam itself, then a) the point of your rebuke is moot and b) the people who would continue to live in such a state are Muslim in name only.

If indeed the question was to gauge the loyalty of Muslims within Western nations, then perhaps a good starting point wouldn't be to assume (against all legal writ of the state hosting Muslims anyway) that the state holds a carte blanche to eliminate Muslims at their whim. Maybe. Possibly. Just a thought. Now I don't know if that was the intent of the various editorialists or those who took the survey...but it's certainly the angle your taking.

No, the typical critique is that somehow Muslims are oriented towards violence...the rather low numbers seem to, for some reason, create concern...but the hypocrisy is apparent. How odd that those who have no qualms with violence when done on their own initiative fault others when they perpetrate violence. Such surveys have also been done within Muslim countries, with similar "concerns" about Muslim radicalization...

8

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

picocio,

You can put on your cyberjihadi hat and rant all you want. But as a student of history and how Western societies evolved, I'll tell you that the State will be tolerant of anything until you challenge its monopoly on violence.

Now as to Bosnia etc., sure Bosnians have the right to protect themselves and defend their lives. But no one in another country has the right to say "I'm a Muslim and don't like what Bosnians are suffering. Since you are supporting whoever is killing the Bosnians, I will kill you." When religious loyalties cross national borders, **** hits the fan.

This is what happened on 7/7 because some idiot Muslim youths figured they'll kill ordinary Brits because in their view those Brits had a role to play in threats to Muslims in some other country (Afghanistan/Iraq).

The modern nation state has a simple rule - only the government has the monopoly on violence. If you don't like what's happening in Iraq, go there and fight. But don't mess with your own country. And don't bring in Jews and Holocaust here. No one is doing to Muslims in Britain what Hitler did to Jews. In fact, Britain has been most friendly to Muslims.

These guys should have the decency to not get their non-radical brethren in trouble. As I said, if they cannot be British and Muslim, they are free to leave. They would be home in Taliban controlled FATA or Saudi Arabia and do what they please.

9

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

JaanBazz,

Spare me the ad-homenim, and you can also spare me an appeal to authority. I get your point. I don't think it's relevant to the survey, nor my initial query.

The point was, the quesiton was vauge and abstract. Is it always the case that declaring oneself ready to kill for the faith a bad thing, or necessarily anti-state? ONLY IF one thinks that the state indeed has the right to engage in violence against the group being asked the question. There's no excusing this point, which is why I can't swallow your explanation. The question is vague, and I don't think that was a mistake.

And the question is:

Is it EVER justifiable to kill in the name of religion.

I really don't know what that means...and if pressed to interpret I'd hasten to say, yeah...in defense of the faith is a perfect time to kill in the name of religion...and country, and way of life.

10

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

picocio,

Not true. The only reason why British Muslims were surveyed like this, as opposed British Sikhs, British Qadianis, British Hindus, British Athiests etc. is that no group from the latter religious groupings blew themselves up in buses and trains killing several people and posthumous videos showing that they did it for their faith.

We can all get into this "Woe is me" and "Everyone is against Muslims" attitude but no one will buy it. Is there Islamophobia, sure. Is there discrimination against Muslims, of course.

But Britian was a safe place for Muslims, even those like that hook handed bigoted Mullah, all until a group of idiot Muslims killed a lot of innocents and claimed to do it on the name of Islam and "protecting" Muslims in far corners of the world.

I liKe liZaRds :)
11

MMkay, something is being lost in translation. Never said peep about Muslims being singled out.

And to your point, even though not relevant, I also saw brit troops going ape all over Iraq for their country. Go figure. My response to the patriots is that If you can critique others, be prepared to have the same critique leveled at your self...and no half-arse excuses.

Cutting through the crap, in the end...people will naturally be biased towards the perception of how bad a perpetrated act is by two groups, even though fundamentally the same, depending on if it is done by those who are perceived to be of a like "kind" and those who are "outsiders". This I accept...just can the pretense of it being reasonable. There's no shame in saying that those that can see through this crap are of a superior mindset.

12

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

British soldiers going ape in Iraq is a national issue. If I recall correctly, most of the harshest critics of such activities, even British involvement in Iraq in the first place, are all non-Muslims.

That said, I never disputed your assertion that the question was vague. What I ask you to understand is that such vague questions are solely being asked of British Muslims because some of their brethren crossed a line not too long ago.

Modern nation states need some rules to be inviolate in order to survive. One of them is that your loyalty to religion, community, club or whatever cannot ever threaten to usurp the sole prerogative of the state.

I can see why you are upset at this poll and this whole concept of asking such questions. But think about this. If tomorrow some British Qadianis start blowing up Pakistani-led masjids in response to what they claim to be persecution of Qadianis in Pakistan, would you not oppose it? If such violence crosses certain thresholds, wouldn't you be asking - "Man, what's wrong with these Qadianis, why can't they understand that they cannot avenge for what happens in Pakistan by killing innocents in Britain?"

After 7/7 British awam is going through a similar process. These type of polls are more means to probe and understand why some British Muslims acted the way they did. To claim that the act of asking such questions betrays some secret British government plan to kill all Muslims is not credible.

13

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

^ i dont see on what you base your ideas of what a modern state "must" do. just because a certain model has worked in making some states technologically progressive... does not mean that is the only way, or that way is necessary in order to survive.

there are many countries in the world with areligious/secular thought more widely spread than religious fundamentalism but technologically more backward than say.. Malaysia or even Pakistan. Mongolia, Central Asian countries, certain latin american countries come to mind.

14

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

west has been killing people for a lot less, for oil, for money atleast religion is something moral

15

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

ravage,

Look up "Westphalian State." That is the basis of today's modern nation states. Even the most liberal of states will not allow sub-groups to challenge the state's monopoly on violence. Why do you think reports say Pakistan is a "failing" state eventhough we see few things changing in cities ohter than a few bomb blasts? It is because armed groups have taken away the state's monopoly on violence and keeping peace.

In other words, no one will say anything if you keep protests peaceful. But the moment you say - "My religion requires me to kill x,y,z because of such and such reason," you become the enemy of the state.

This is not theory, it is just the basis of statehood.

16

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

If I read the article correctly, 600 of 90000 makes it 0.66 percent of people selected by a group of biased people. A third of that is 0.22 percent.

I actually glanced over it since the methods described and background it talks about to perform such 'survey' was so much biased.

And we still have to discuss what was asked and what was answered.

This kind of 'survey' or research tool would not pass a careful scruitiny test of a scientific journal.

A bad journalism worth no long discussion. It merely shows how people's mind is being played by biased media and wicked propaganda.

17

Pakistan has been referred to as a failing state in a variety of contexts, and before the most significant problem in Pakistan was terrorist violence.Failure to provide law and order for example is a nagging problem in Pakistan for a while.

In the US for example, the state does not have the monopoly on violence and keeping peace. One can be violent in self defence, even keep loaded guns in the home for self defence. There is an example of a state co-existing with individuals with the capacity, and right, to use violence on others. Furthermore the US also has indian reservations, which have a parallel right to violence to the state's own agencies.

[quote]

In other words, no one will say anything if you keep protests peaceful. But the moment you say - "My religion requires me to kill x,y,z because of such and such reason," you become the enemy of the state.

This is not theory, it is just the basis of statehood.
[/QUOTE]

First off, you make the jump from a certain segment saying that it is justifiable to kill in the name of religion to them actually feeling required to kill x, y, z. That to the extent that I have read the survey, is an extrapolation. I as a Muslim think it is certainly justifiable to marry more than once, but I dont feel that I am required to do so. Certainly a third of Muslims in the world or in the UK dont go around killing people in the name of religion. So within that segment that does believe killing in the name of religion is ok at certain times, there is presumably a sizable number of people who might for example be working for Khilafat... where the state is a theocracy, and would be killing in the name of God. I presume your argument that the state be the only legitimate agent of violence is met in that case?

Jihad, armed Jihad is a fundamental belief of Muslims, so it is hardly surprising that killing for God is viewed as "justifiable", without mentioning the circumstances. Every single jihad under the Prophet though was a war fought by the Muslim state. There is a sizable segment of Muslims that believes that Jihad is only Jihad under a Muslim ruler or in the case of shias under an Imam, or in self defence. none of these are likely to go around killing x, y and z, but they will definitely say that killing for religion is justifiable.

Finally you say definitively say that it is the basis of statehood that the state be the only agent of violence, and cite the Westphalian state. From what I can read of it, it is merely a theory that this is the basis for modern western states (read not regarded as necessary and sufficient for any modern state to exist), and it doesnt seem to assert anything of the sort about who can and cant be violent. Here is what I read about it:

  1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
  2. The principle of (legal) equality between states
  3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

All well and good. Whither the state being the only agent of violence then? In point of fact, some may argue that you are being too generous on the state's right to be violent as a fundamental principle... small government types might take offence.

18

Peace JaanBaazz

The states monopoly on violence ... I've read that statement from you many times now. I as a dissident of the UK serve my country best by presenting to them how I disagree with their view of statehood.

No one in the ir right mind has the right to claim monopoly on violence ... because the moment they would enforce it they would create the very reaction of violence that they boldly claimed to have a monopoly over.

Country: Only we have the right to kill, anyone who disagrees we will kill them
Reactionary: No you don't
Country: Quick kill him
Reactionary: Not without a fight

Blaaaah down with that theory!

The problem is people are looking to secularise not only religion and state but complete their secularisation process by making humans follow like fanatics the whims of the nation rulership under the guise of patriotism and at the same time detatch from all ethical, natural and Divine obligation to defend truth and innocent peoples.

Muslims should be the benchmark of humanity and where no borders can divide us from our brotherhood then we should at the same time use all of our strength and effort WITHIN THE CONFINES OF ETHICS to protect them and our Western host countries from radical elements from them and us. The best way to do this is to voice middle ground and clear opposition to any form of monopoly on violence.

19

Re: Controversial Survey about Muslim Students in UK

If you read the implications of the Westphalian origins of the modern nation state, the state's need to own a monopoly on violence is a necessary condition for its survival.

The
[QUOTE]
1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
2. The principle of (legal) equality between states
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state
[/QUOTE]

These all require that no group within a state can decide that it will use violence on elements within or outside the state.

Think about it logically, how can you guarantee that you respect another country's sovereignty when you cannot control groups within your country from perpetrating violence in another land?

Also
[QUOTE]
First off, you make the jump from a certain segment saying that it is justifiable to kill in the name of religion to them actually feeling required to kill x, y, z. That to the extent that I have read the survey, is an extrapolation. I as a Muslim think it is certainly justifiable to marry more than once, but I dont feel that I am required to do so.
[/QUOTE]

That is why you need to understand the context. If this was the 1990s, no one would have paid heed to this survey. However what alarms Brits is that when you place views like this alongside what happened on 7/7, you raise fears in the general population.

As to marriage, there was another controversy recently where some immigrants from Muslim lands wanted the British government to pay welfare for multiple wives.

These are not theoretical issues. We cannot brush these aside as "attempts to malign Islam."

[QUOTE]
Jihad, armed Jihad is a fundamental belief of Muslims, so it is hardly surprising that killing for God is viewed as "justifiable", without mentioning the circumstances. Every single jihad under the Prophet though was a war fought by the Muslim state. There is a sizable segment of Muslims that believes that Jihad is only Jihad under a Muslim ruler or in the case of shias under an Imam, or in self defence. none of these are likely to go around killing x, y and z, but they will definitely say that killing for religion is justifiable.

[/QUOTE]

True, that is why it is important for the community to explain. In other words, we need to have rallies where people say - "Jihad is an obligation, but we assure you that under no circumstance we will support violence here because we believe the obligation of jihad requires the following preconditions that are not met"

Yet, the primary spokespersons seem to be Hizbut Tahrir types whereas the moderates seem to be always issuing denials or claiming conspiracies. The fact that many of the people that espouse such views are also members of HT or similar groups who gained notoreity with their rallies calling for "Behead those that insult Islam" etc. arouses fears that cannot be wished away.

My main argument here is for us to not get defensive but to understand that it is not out of a vacuum or hatred of Islam that these polls get attention. We have a serious problem with our youth in many Western countries. We need to discredit the HT types and we need to raise our voices when we go for Juma prayers and hear maniacal khutbas against Jews or Western people delivered by khatibs who shamelessly enjoy the benefits of the lands they condemn.

PS: Your argument reg Khilafat is wrong. Those that are working for a Caliphate are essentially trying to overthrow the current rulers. There cannot be a simpler case of treason than that.

20

Obviously the assumption here is that groups within your country who have the right to violence will actually perpetrate that violence in another land.

I gave several examples of groups/individuals with a restricted right to violence in a western, modern country. just as the state has a restricted right to violence.

My point is that by no means are any such laws necessary for the emergence of a modern state. that said I am not advocating people going around and perpetrating violence in other countries, but I dont see why you insist on that specific point.

[quote]

That is why you need to understand the context. If this was the 1990s, no one would have paid heed to this survey. However what alarms Brits is that when you place views like this alongside what happened on 7/7, you raise fears in the general population.

[/quote]

One can argue that the phrasing of the survey itself will raise those fears. Justifiable is a very vague term. Infact I am guessing that those 2/3ds were merely being diplomatic... go and ask them if the Prophet's jihad was unjustifiable, and tell me if they reconsider the fact that under some circumstances, killing for religion can be justified.

[quote]

As to marriage, there was another controversy recently where some immigrants from Muslim lands wanted the British government to pay welfare for multiple wives.
[/quote]

I happen to think that the welfare part of that story is the unjustifiable thing. There is nothing Islamic on subsisting on welfare, infact a stickler such as me would argue that there is as much Islamic value in someone with four wives wanting welfare for all of them as someone with four wives wanting free lollypops for them all. Fine if thats the law of the land, but nothing Islamically relevant about it.

[quote]

True, that is why it is important for the community to explain.

[/quote]

A task made harder by surveys purporting to paint the community a certain way when it isnt. By your own acknowledgement you atleast see how the interpretation of the question by you and me vastly differs from the perception of the average joe, and that the answers may not be as radical as joe would think. Regardless of your rallies you would have no control over what the pollster asks.

[quote]

In other words, we need to have rallies where people say - "Jihad is an obligation, but we assure you that under no circumstance we will support violence here because we believe the obligation of jihad requires the following preconditions that are not met"

Yet, the primary spokespersons seem to be Hizbut Tahrir types whereas the moderates seem to be always issuing denials or claiming conspiracies. The fact that many of the people that espouse such views are also members of HT or similar groups who gained notoreity with their rallies calling for "Behead those that insult Islam" etc. arouses fears that cannot be wished away.

[/quote]

Feel free to conduct those rallies. Truth is nobody speaks for Islam, not you nor HT, nor I. But yes more vigorous disassociation from the killing of innocents is definitely the order of the day.

[quote]

My main argument here is for us to not get defensive but to understand that it is not out of a vacuum or hatred of Islam that these polls get attention.

[/quote]

One can always point out that it is not out of a vacuum that radicalism is created. It is however the choice of those we live with to assign IRA a territorial/political motivation, and AQ a broad-brush religious one.

[quote]

We have a serious problem with our youth in many Western countries. We need to discredit the HT types and we need to raise our voices when we go for Juma prayers and hear maniacal khutbas against Jews or Western people delivered by khatibs who shamelessly enjoy the benefits of the lands they condemn.

PS: Your argument reg Khilafat is wrong. Those that are working for a Caliphate are essentially trying to overthrow the current rulers. There cannot be a simpler case of treason than that.
[/QUOTE]

I didnt speak of HT specifically... I dont know enough about them, however to my knowledge they dont advocate violence. Short of which I dont see how its treason, merely to argue for a different sort of government, after all the Conservatives are also trying to overthrow the current rules.