Few UK Muslims Have Sympathy for Paris Attack Motives, Most Oppose Violence

Reuters, February 25, 2015

One in four British Muslims say they have some sympathy with the motives behind the attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo but the vast majority think attacks on those who publish images of the Prophet Mohammad are wrong, a poll has found.

Islamist gunmen killed 12 people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris on Jan. 7, including the magazine’s editor and several of its prominent cartoonists, in revenge for its publication of satirical images of the Prophet Mohammad.

In a poll of 1,000 Muslims commissioned by the BBC and published on Wednesday, 27 percent of respondents said they agreed with the statement: “I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”. Sixty-two percent said they had no sympathy.

Seventy-eight percent felt it was “deeply offensive” personally when images of Mohammad were published and 11 percent felt sympathetic towards people who want to fight against Western interests.

However, 68 percent said acts of violence against those who printed images of Mohammad were never justified, and 85 percent said organisations which published such images did not deserve to be attacked.


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • B.A_2014

    Basically three out of four Muslims aren’t stupid enough to give away the game.

    • SentryattheGate

      Taqikka at work again! The right to lie to the infidels; this is a prime occasion to use it! The wolves wearing the sheep skins.

  • David Ashton

    This poll looks informative, but it asks the “wrong” questions. Why expect any Muslims to say they don’t mind the publication of insults against Muhammad? Why expect any Muslims to tell the pollsters that they support violence? The real problems are (1) the fundamental incompatibility of traditional Islam with the western way of life, notwithstanding Muslims who say they are e.g “fully British” (whatever they imagine that to mean), and (2) the Muslim community as a source of terrorist recruitment. The Hebdo business is tangential, although the political response revealed facts about the way the world is run. We are saddled with internal problems that need never have arisen.

    • LHathaway

      No, the real problem is their DNA. Second, if it is anything like the USA, the overwhelming number of the millions of immigrants entering the country are male, with foreign DNA.

      I should admit. I’m a race-mixer. I believe Whites as a whole would very likely benefit from non-White DNA. If you believe in the science of eugenics, this would be the fastest route to improvement. I don’t believe White men benefit, the way diversity is planned and managed. I don’t think whites will benefit as their numbers decline amidst a hostile and growing non-white population. It’s debatable if at some future time White women, as a whole, will suffer because of increased diversity. Probably not, but who knows? I sure don’t think Whites benefit from being erased entirely (the direction they are headed now). In the words of Enoch Powell, ‘it may be already to late to prevent that as it stands’.

      I’m not a racist . . . but.

      I’m in favor of eugenics. Maybe this is a great evil and marries me to it. But let’s not pretend women as a whole have their own eugenics program. It’s being carried out even now and has been for some time . . .

      • David Ashton

        “It depends on who is crossed with whom” (Professor Ruggles Gates, eugenicist and the most comprehensive authority on race crossing among humans).

      • superlloyd

        ‘I believe Whites as a whole would very likely benefit from non-White DNA.’

        Sure, look at all those dumb, violent mestizos and mulattoes. Not very encouraging is it?

        • Gunter Mabuse

          Come on. When peaceful European bees were crossed with aggressive, violent African bees, we got…peaceful bees, not killer bees, right?

  • LHathaway

    Well, if it was published by the BBC, how can we not have faith in it? *sarcasm*


    I’m detecting some serious BS here. You know, I say the same thing to supposedly rational blacks. Who say the race pimping, hate spreading Sharpton’s and Jackson’s of the world, don’t speak for us. When I see a group of blacks holding a counter demonstration right across from the Sharpton and Jackson race baiting crowds. Screaming out, right in front of the media “You Do Not Speak For Us!” Then I’ll say well, maybe there really are some blacks who are against the racial pimping of their identity. When I see the so called “Moderate Muslims” hold a counter demonstration right across from the people who were demonstrating in support of the murderers after Charlie Hebdo printed the last Mohammed image. Then, I’ll be more inclined to consider the so called “Moderate Muslims” a genuine and meaningful reality. Otherwise, they’re just kicking up dust to make the “extremist” harder to see, and therefore harder to stop.

  • Epiminondas

    That many Muslims think the Paris attack was justified??? Britain is doomed.

    • H. Leonskoi

      A more comprehensive poll of Muslims in a large number of countries, which I believe was carried here but I do not have the link, showed overwhelming support among Muslims for what is supposedly just extremist activity. Not all of a society is filled with active fighters but that does not mean that they do not support them or their activity. Then there is the matter of Taqiyya.

  • libertarian1234

    “However, 68 percent said acts of violence against those who printed images of Mohammad were never justified, and 85 percent said organisations which published such images did not deserve to be attacked.”

    That means, of course, that they don’t have enough Muslims in France yet to openly declare themselves supporters of jihad in all its forms and actions.

    Now they are a religion of love and peace.

    If you go to every home, most of them will have guns, ammo and a bomb here and there in the closet, along with signs that say, “Sharia now;” “Europe will be an Islamic state;” French soldiers are terrorists and killers.” And don’t forget the gem of them all, “I hate this country of infidels.”

  • NoMosqueHere

    Palestinianism = Islamic Terrorism

  • H. Leonskoi

    Should these people even be living in our western and Christian countries and even have easy access to our media? Why is it up to Muslims to decide what Christians and other westerners write, draw, or say? When they didn’t live among us and have access to our works they did not bother us much at all, and they would not have dared. Wasn’t there a punitive expedition sent against the Barbary Pirates and isn’t that part of a Marine Corps song? From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoly…

  • OhWow

    This is why it’s so aggravating when liberals say “well most don’t fly planes into buildings”. True, but guess what? Most also applaud that planes were flown into our towers killing 3,000 innocents. So tell me how that is not a major problem.

  • MathMan

    Here in UK the BBC is a major broadcaster in TV and radio. It is funded by the British taxpayer and is supposed to be impartial. In fact it is a Left-Wing organisation that promotes diversity and other PC BS. The latest poll it has commissioned (at taxpayer’s expense) sets out to pretend most of the Muslims in UK are on our side. This in fact not the case. They are anti -British, socially disruptive and most are living on welfare.

  • jps73

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Sunday that France’s parliament would be making a “grave mistake” if it recognises a Palestinian state in a vote on December 2.

    • David Ashton

      “Mitt Romney…was heavily backed by Sheldon Adelson, the Bibi-worshiping casino billionaire-bankroller of his campaign” – Matthew Norman, The Independent, February 25.

      Alinksy or Adelson, take your pick.

  • Light from the East

    The meaning of the word “Muslim” is “one who submits (to God)”. When they give their personal powers to uncertainty, here come stupidity and hypocrisy.

    The basis of the modern Western civilization is different. Search “The Renaissance”, “Age of Enlightenment”, you will know people in that era did completely the opposite to what today’s Muslims do. Emphasize the power of each individual, break the blinding belief to uncertainty (God), and use knowledge to seek the truth.

    Today, we have a chance to recreate that era, in the name of “American Renaissance”.

  • dd121

    And they told us they were perfectly acculturated diversitoids. You mean liberals lied to us again?