UK: Study on Islamic extremism in college campuses

The study "Islam on Campus" can be downloaded (PDF) from the Centre for Social Cohesion site.  The study found that members of Islamic organizations held much more extremist views.  For example, 94% of non-Muslim students questioned said it was never justifiable to kill in the name of religion, compared with 63% of Muslim students who are not members of Islamic societies, and 30% of members of Islamic societies.


A study on the attitudes of students has found that 28 per cent said killing could be justified if the religion was under attack and another four per cent supported killing in order to "promote and preserve" the religion.

Over half, 53 per cent, said killing in the name of religion was never justifiable but among non-Muslim students that figure was 94 per cent.

While most students showed a typical generation gap where their parents were more religious than they were – 72 per cent – a significant 18 per cent said they were more strict in their religious observance than their parents.

The importance of sharia law to most Muslim was underlined by the 40 per cent who said they supported its introduction into law for Muslims in Britain, although 37 per cent opposed it.

A third of those surveyed supported the creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate but 25 per cent opposed it and 42 per cent said they were not sure.

Half of the students said they would not be supportive of a friend who wanted to leave Islam.

Hannah Stuart, from the Centre for Social Cohesion, co-author of the report, said: "These findings are deeply alarming. Students in higher education are the future leaders of their communities yet significant numbers of them appear to hold beliefs which contravene liberal, democratic values.


Source: Telegraph (English)


Anonymous said...

This sounds like a lot of taqiyya to me. For one thing, kids today are far more extreme than their parents. Discover the Networks has a great guide to Capus Support for Terrorism:

Of course, the Horowitz Freedom Center sent the Petition Against Genocide to the Muslim Students Association (who are offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother orgainzation of Hamas, Al Qaeda, and CAIR, CAAR, etc.).as well as the Muslim STudent Union. Not surprisingly, they refused to sign it.

Here's a link to DTN's resources on academia, including anti-Semitism and anti-Christian bias:

Esther said...

Hi jdamn13,

I'm sorry.. what is taqiyya here?

That 37% of college Muslims think it's ok to kill in the name of religion, or that 70% of the members of Islamic societies think so?

Anonymous said...

I think that more Muslims believe that killing in the name of Islam is justified. There may be a few who are unfamiliar with Islam's texts, don't associate with other Muslims, and have never attended a mosque, but that can't be more than 5%. I would put that number around 90%. Or, it could also be taqiyya in that they interpreted it as meaning that they personally wouldn't kill in the name of their faith, but that they still support terrorism, but not if you call it terrorism, only if you call it jihad. Or they disagree with it only when it's counterproductive, like when destroying the World Trade Center ultimately led to the decimation of Al Qaeda. What percentage of the Muslim population would you say rejoiced on 9/11? All the Muslims who are real Muslims and not "Muslims" who are afraid of being killed as apostates. Killing in the name of Islam is the single most pious action in that line of belief, so one actually can't be a Muslim and not support killing in the name of Islam.

Esther said...

Hi jdamn13,

You're using the no true scotsman argument. Whoever doesn't fit your claim on Muslims is not a true Muslim and therefore can't be used as a counter example.

Daphne said...

Hi Esther,
I think the 'no true scotsman' argument does not apply. Scots as with most nation states are a diverse culture that includes diverse opinions, philosophies & religions.
Islam is a mono philosophy. A Scot could be a monotheist, atheist or pagan and still be a Scot.
A muslim must believe in one god. He must also believe in Muhammad being his messenger. He must also believe in the Koran being the direct word of god.
So it is possible to say a muslim is not a true muslim if for example he eats pork, drinks alcohol and does not beat his wife. Last one was a joke. (I think)

Anonymous said...

Scots don't kill each other for deviating from or reforming a particular line of thinking. Scotland is not a cult. Being a Scot doesn't necessitate having a particular ideology to which one has to subscribe in order to not be accused of apostacy and get killed. I also think that there are a lot of "untrue" Muslims who disagree with their proscribed line of thinking but won't admit it because they live their lives under physical duress. There are also lots who, like Ali Sina before he read the Koran in college and Abul Kasem in his 20's, mistakenly ascribe lots of humanistic, moral, ethical values to Islam when in reality there are none. They just want to think there are because they can't bear to come to terms with the fact that (a) that which comprises most of their identity is inherently evil while they themselves are not necessarily so, and (b) they have thrown away so much time and energy and made so many sacrifices on something so worthless. That's how cults work. Islam is the most effective cult ever. It becomes the identity of its adherents and it forces them to sacrifice everything for it so they can't bear to divorce themselves from it. I had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that I was becoming a Republican. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to come to the conclusion that one is not a Muslim. Islam is a lifestyle, an ideology, and an ethnicity, and it's one that's incredibly dangerous to divorce oneself from.

But I also think that if you asked those same students "do you think that killing ZIONISTS in the name of religion is justified?" the number who said yes would have been much, much higher.

Esther said...

Hi Daphne, jdamn13,

The 'no true Scotsman' theory does not mean we're talking about Scotsmen. It means that when faced with evidence to the contrary, you deny it exists.

There are many Muslims who believe in Allah, believe in Muhammed, believe that the Koran is the direct word of Allah and still don't think they are allowed to kill. Your argument of "well.. they're not true Muslims" does not apply. If they see themselves as Muslims and their Muslim community sees them as Muslims, then they're Muslims. *you* or *I* are not the ones who decide who is a 'true Muslim'.

Jdamn13, you talk about 'falsely ascribing ethical/moral qualities to Islam'. Ok.. let's say this is not what Mohammad meant. SO WHAT?!?!? Are you going to throw yourselves down in the path of Muslim reformation and prevent Muslims from updating their religion?

Is that really better than the people who excuse honor murder saying that children of immigrant must follow their parent's culture to the letter?

Daphne said...

Hi Esther,
Then the 'no true scotsman' theory is badly thought out. It is not possible to use an analogy for a theory and then say the analogy does not apply to the theory. Why make the analogy in the first place? An analogy should give insight. Not lead to confusion.
Yes there are many misguided muslims who actually believe islam is a peaceful religion. There are also many muslims who have not studied islam or the life of Muhammad. They just accept what the Imam tells them. Or are told you must read the Koran in arabic to understand. This was the ploy used by the Christian church in the middle ages. By keeping the bible in Latin and not translating it meant the populace had to rely on the interpretations presented by the church.
Tyndale translated the bible and was martyred for it. Wycliffe translated the bible and died before he could be killed. So the church dug him up and cast his bones to the wind.
Islam is in a similar position. Except that the teachings the church tried to hide was the peaceful teachings of Jesus. Islam is trying to hide the violence and hate in the Koran & Muhammad's life.
Was a nazi who did not believe in the persecution of jews a true nazi?
Is a muslim who does not believe in violence a true muslim?

Esther said...

Hi Daphne,

I'm sorry.. I just don't understand what you're trying to say. If there are many Muslims who don't realize that Islam is a violent religion, and many imams who 'mislead' them into thinking they should be peaceful people, what is the problem? You don't like the idea that they're misreading the Koran? Why do you feel you must force Muslims to read the Koran literally?

A Muslim who reads the Koran with an interpretation that is accepted by his Muslim community is a true Muslim.

If Muslims would accept tomorrow, for example, that the alcohol that Muhammed spoke about was of a different type than today's alcohol and therefore they are allowed to drink it. Or if it would be accepted, as is accepted by many, that they're not allowed to drink it, but they can use it in medicine etc - then who are you to tell them differently? Are you a scholar of Muslim law?

Throughout the centuries Jews have been accused by both Christians and Muslims of misinterpreting their own Torah and Bible. For some reason, today it is considered good and progressive.

I can understand it when Westerners demand from Muslims to interpret the Koran in an ethical manner. As long as Muslims threaten the West and see themselves as being part of a global Jihad against the West, it is the duty and obligation of the West to defend itself.

I don't understand it when people demand from Muslims to understand the Koran as literally and as violently as possible.

Daphne said...

I was trying to explain how Islam is in the hands of the Imams and ayatollahs just as christianity was in the hands of the established church.
The violence over the danish cartoons was not a spontaneous outburst by outraged muslims. It was created by imams who faked the worst of the cartoons and then deliberately stirred up the demonstrations.

As long as there are people in power who determine how a 'good muslim' should behave then they will control Islam and muslims.
They would not be able to stir muslims into violent rages if the tenets of the Koran were not intrinsically violent and called on all muslims to defend their religion against any form of attack, whether imaginary or real.

I would feel the same about a member of a nazi party who claims Hitler was misunderstood and that he was a peaceful person who only went to war because Germany was ill-treated by the treay of Versailles. That too has some grounding in truth as do all lies but it is a gross distortion of the truth.
The only sect of Islam that have reinterpreted the Koran peacefully could be the Sufis. Sufis are regarded as heretics by Sunnis and Shias. Sunnis & Shias constitute 99.5% of muslims so the vast majority of muslims see Islam as a violent religion. i.e. killing people over cartoons, Salman Rushdies, flogging adulterers, chopping off the hands of thieves, keeping slaves and punishing apostates.
I have asked muslims whether they agree with flogging adulterers or having slaves and most of them will say something like, 'It was right for the time.'
Well if it was right for one time. Why should they not agree that it can be right for another time. Because the Koran is timeless. God does not make one law for today and another for tomorrow if he is an omniscienbt god.
How do you put a different interpretation on flogging, slavery & chopping off hands?

The reason I look upon the Koran as the literal word of god is because that is the way muslims see it. They even boast that all Korans are identical. Not even one punctuation mark having changed.
Utterly absurd of course. But Islam is an absurd religion.

Esther said...

Hi Daphne,

I agree that the violence is not spontaneous and that there are quite a few Muslims (in power and not in power) who are pushing the rest of the population towards a more violent attitude. I also agree that in Islam it's much easier to be violent. Mohammed called upon his followers to fight for their religion. Historically, Islam was a conquering religion and today still holds on to much of their empire.

I'm not sure about your Nazi example, though. After all, this is exactly one of the complaints about the right-wing parties in Europe today. You bring Brussels Journal in a link, but they're quite closely connected to Vlaams Belang. Is Vlaams Belang a racist group? If they have members who are racist, or supported Hitler in the 1940s, would that affect how you see them today?

If the racist parties of yesteryear transform themselves into anti-Sharia parties, should they still be hounded? People still wonder about their hidden motives, but it's not that easy to judge.

The comparison you bring is not the same since Germans today don't think Hitler was a peaceful man. But let's say that the Germans of today would have still been intent on conquering all of Europe and that for the next 1000 years there would be ongoing wars based on Hitler's will. After 1000 years, if somebody would appear and say that Hitler was actually a peaceful man and use that to convince all Germans to lay down arms.. would that be bad? Of course, the flip side is what's happening now - I'm not talking about those who say that Mohammed was a peaceful man while killing innocents in the name of their religion.

What you say about Muslims is exactly my point. "it was right for the time" is exactly how you reform a religion! How do you think religious Jews explain not bringing sacrifices today? Or stoning people to death? Or not doing many other things that are God proscribed?

Don't expect believers to reject everything they believe is God given. Let them reinterpret it in a way that fits the liberal, modern way of thinking.

As for flogging and chopping off hands.. of course in England barely a few hundred years ago they used to throw people into vats of boiling oil. In today's England public figures are calling for corporal punishment in order to deal with rising crime rates. In Europe, btw, capital punishment is considered inhumane, while in the US it's acceptable. Attitudes change. What is right yesterday is not right today. It might be right tomorrow but that's true for everybody.

If Muslims reinterpret the Koran in a way that fits with today's moral standards that is a *good* thing. That is something that should be supported and helped out.

Daphne said...

I realise that the Brussels Journal may have Vlaams belang connections but that does not refute the fact that muslim imams orchestrated the protests against the danish cartoons and faked some of the cartoons. There are various other sites to confirm that muslim imams stirred up the riots and violence by faking some of the cartoons. I even saw them confessing to this on youtube.

I am also aware that my views are similar to some right wing groups. I cannot help that. Churchill was seen as a right wing warmonger by the left when he criticised the rearmament and danger of nazi Germany.
Your analogy of Hitler winning the war and nazism ruling for a 1000 years is similar to what has happened in islam. Muhammad was every bit as racist and brutal as Hitler. But Muhammad won his wars and history is written by the victors. So muslims present Muhammad as a peaceful humane man. As Hitler would have been presented if he had won his wars.
The reason Islam is dangerous is because nazism & Islam can never be reformed or peaceful because there foundation is evil.
To quote from the NT:
"For an evil tree bringeth forth not good fruit; neither does a good tree bring forth evil fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. Luke 6:43,44a
Islam is am evil tree. It cannot bring forth good fruit.

My mention of 'right for the time' was meant as a criticism. God does not lay down laws that are 'right for the time'. As I said before. If you believe in an almighty omniscient god he cannot be so fickle as to make different laws for different days. It is a nonsense. The Geneva convention makes laws that are more humane than this fickle god. Does that mean the almighty god is less moral than human beings. Who can worship a god whose morals are less than human?

Esther said...

Hi Daphne,

I wrote a response and it got erased, sadly. So here goes again..

Danish imams definitely encouraged and fanned the flames of the Cartoon riots. I don't think there's any question about that. These Danish imams, which represent the most radical theology of Islam, are today accepted by the media and politicians as representatives of the Danish Muslims. This, despite Danish Muslim statements to the contrary.

It's an interesting quote you bring from the New Testament. First, I don't think Judaism accepts the basic moral premise here. Even the worst sinner can repent and become a good man. Second, I looked up the context, where it comes as advice to stay away from false prophets. Generally good advice, as Jews suffered quite a lot from such people. (needless to say, many religions suffer from such people). However, Jews count the person you quote as one of those false prophets.

Finally, one of the imams most active in the cartoon crisis is a convert from Christianity. You were saying about a good tree not being able to put forth evil fruit?

Esther said...

Hi Daphne,

I forgot to mention about 'it was right for its time'. I realize you brought it as criticism. However, I don't expect billions of people to leave their religion. I don't think it's going to happen and I also don't think that religion is the only problem with Muslim culture. In any case, I'm willing to settle for reinterpreting that religion in a liberal modern way.

According to Jewish tradition, Rebecca was 3 when she married Isaac, who was 37. I don't expect Jews to reject their religion because of that, I don't care what explanation they give for this story, I do expect them not to use this story for institutionalizing pedophilia and child marriages. Same goes for Islam. I don't care how old Aisha was when she married Muhammad. Juliet wasn't that much older in Shakespeare's play. I care about not using these stories for child rape.

So if a Muslim tells me that it was customary to marry children back then because of various reasons, because children did not have a childhood back then etc etc.. I don't care, as long as the sentence ends with 'but today it's different'. What I do care about is that Iran will not legalize marriage and sex at 9.

Daphne said...

Hi Esther,
I believe the quote still applies. A farmer may do look after his orchard and feed his crops and keep it clear of infection but there is always the chance of a bad apple appearing. When children or crops are nurtured well then they will usually grow up moral/good. The nurturing in Islam is according to Muhammad who by most people's criteria was inhumane. If children are taught to hate at school as they are in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Palestine they will hate as adults. Even in the UK a muslim school was found to have text books full of racism against christians & jews.
I realise Jesus was a false prophet according to jews. I look at the teaching of the man rather than any claims to be the last prophet or the son of god. Some of the things Jesus said I would disagree with but his teachings are mostly humane as opposed to the teachings of Muhammad.

I don't expect millions of muslims to leave their religion. What I would like to see is an end to the mealy-mouthed words we get from politicians like Bush & Blair calling islam a religion of peace. Let's get Islam into its proper perspective and stop making concessions to a right wing homophobic, misogynistic brutalistic doctrine that punishes people for thought crimes.

I had to look up the age of Rebecca. According to Wikipedia she was drawing water when first seen. It later says there are two ages for her. One of 3 the other of 14. If she was drawing water from a well she should be well over 3.

I like the Bible and its stories but do not take them literally. Mostly I regard them as folk tales and enjoy them as such. The drawback with the Koran is that it is boring, repetitive, without any chronology and full of hate. It is not possible to look at the Koran as a work of art as with the Bible (I know muslims disagree with this and I have debated with them over it)

I am not sure of the authenticity of the following quotes from Khomeini. But if true it is an example of how perverted islam can become.

Anonymous said...

Following one's parents' culture and following Islam are different things. Culture is certainly more mutable. Honor murder is also not proscribed by Islam. And no, I'm not for reforming Islam. I'm for abandoning it entirely. Reforming Islam is infinitely more ridiculous than reforming Nazism, because it's basically Nazism x1000. It calls for killing everyone but Muslims, not just Jews, and committing horrific acts of violence and inhumanity upon one another.

And Daphne, I really don't think that imams are hiding the violence in Islam from Muslims. They're hiding it from the rest of us. Not all Muslims are aware of it, but practicing ones are. They may hide the scientific inaccuracies, the incest, the pedophilia, and some of the misogyny, but not the violence. Islam is an ideology with a goal, and violence is the means to that goal. Dawa too, but mostly violence.

And actually, the Ahmadia are a peaceful sect. They're founded on the notion of actually throwing out all the violence in the Koran, ditching the Hadith altogether, and they have another prophet too. But they're also considered heretical and Muslims overwhelmingly choose to not recognize one of the 6 Muslims who have won Nobel Prizes, 1 of the 2 for science, because he was an Ahmadia. He actually couldn't return to Pakistan and got political asylum in the UK. The Sufis try to find peace and love in scripture filled with hatred and evil. That's just crazy. But Indonesia is mainly filled with Sufis, and, while there are the occasional incidents of Christian girls getting beheaded, Buddhists getting tied to train tracks, and genocide in East Timor, it's still the most peaceful, civilized Islamic land (due, of course to it Buddhized history and Dutch colonization, but Sufism as oppsed to Shiism or Sunnism doesn't hurt).

Also, Esther, per an Iranian fatwa from 1994, the legal age of marriage in Iran is 1 day old, and a husband can sodomize the baby.