Islamic organizations condemning violence

[rpp]

It is a myth that a majority of muslims espouse violence.

This reminds me of a Mori poll carried out by the Times newspaper after the 9/11 attacks. This poll observed that 1/4 of muslims approved of the attacks.

While making a big meal of evil muslims living in our midst, the newspaper forgot to mention that samples are only about 1000 people, probably from one area of the world, clearly unrepresentative of the 2.5 million muslims in the UK who come from many different parts of the world, speaking numerous different languages.

2ndly, if 1/4 of the muslims sampled agreed with the attacks, this means 3/4 of muslims polled DID NOT agree with the attacks. The newspaper kept very quiet about this bit, as did many folks I know who read the article. I had to point it out to them that the newspaper emphasised the bits that appealed to people’s prejudices and downplayed any data that disagreed.

For the 2 above reasons, no serious stastician would take seriously the results of the poll.

Western newspapers are generally biased against muslims - knowing this bias, why would anyone assume these newspapers are telling the truth when they go scaremongering against muslims?

The pewresearch poll would appear of the same type of flawed data gathering as the Times/Mori poll which is then deliberately misinterpreted to provoke hate against muslims in general.

Nice try, but did you actually read it? They reviewed their data gathering techniques.

Also, Pew Research is one of the most respected organizations doing this type of research. And they employ lots of serious statisticians.

I see two other problems with your post.

You assert that Western newspapers are biased against Muslims. That is an assertion that is, at best disputed, but undoubtedly impossible to prove. It is also, I will add, one that I personally do not agree with.

Second, you dimiss this problem of Muslim inspired violence by claiming that the majority of Muslims are opposed to it. If you notice in my post, I also pointed out that the majority of Musims, according to the poll, were opposed to violence. The flaw with this logic is that a terrorist attack is not the result of a majority vote.

The Muslim world has a very different view of how the world should be than the any other part of the world and that his view is not compatible.

 

[porkscratchings]

Nice try, but did you actually read it? They reviewed their data gathering techniques.

Nice try - but did u really study it?

In ur opinion - how many people of a particular religion do u need to poll in order to get a sample representative of true size of the population having that religion? How many ethnic groups would u need to include in the sample before this would be representative of all muslims within a geographical area? What sort of questions are asked in the poll? Did the sample poll understand the questions in the same context as the pollster? Were interpreters used and how did these affect the answers? What order were the questions asked? Where the questions asked in such a way to obtain a yes answer?

The statement that something is reviewed is not good enough - reviewed by who? How as the reviewing done? How was the raw data analysed and presented?

Also, Pew Research is one of the most respected organizations doing this type of research. And they employ lots of serious statisticians.

So is the Mori Poll. And they also used lots of serious statisticians. But reputation and using a lot of number crunchers do not mean lack of bias.

You assert that Western newspapers are biased against Muslims. That is an assertion that is, at best disputed, but undoubtedly impossible to prove. It is also, I will add, one that I personally do not agree with.

Actually, it’s not hard to prove bias in the media. U do it by analysing the relationship of words used, whether they are positive, neutral, or negative, and the frequency of certain words or group of words used. U can do the analysis by hand or better to avoid bias, do it using a computer. If it is impossible to prove as u claim, then it would be near impossible for anyone to go to court claiming libelled or misrepresented by the media. Yet plenty of politicians and celebrities take newspapers to court all the time. Recently the parents of the girl who went missing in Portugal (Madeleine McCann) are preparing to take the prominent UK newspapers to court claiming they were waging a hate campaign against them.

On the McCann case - i have read some of the main newspapers covering the story, and can note the following:- the frequency of the parents being described as ‘devote Catholics’, have a decent income, are bad parents, went to see the Pope which should not have any bearing on the case of the missing girl; there are numerous reference to them being ‘liars’, ‘inconsistent’ and in a group of witnesses/suspects labelled ‘tapas 7’ or 9 depending on which newspaper u read, and allegations of financial/personal misconduct. Based on the information I have given so far, would u describe the media covering as being positive or negative or fair to the parents of the missing girl?

Second, you dimiss this problem of Muslim inspired violence by claiming that the majority of Muslims are opposed to it. If you notice in my post, I also pointed out that the majority of Musims, according to the poll, were opposed to violence. The flaw with this logic is that a terrorist attack is not the result of a majority vote.

Majority of muslims opposed to violence by muslims do not dismiss the problem of terrorism. The problem exists - demonising an entire religion and and entire community does not solve the problem - except by increasing the number of angry muslims wanting to join Al Qaeda. This is unrelated to ur argument that my logic is flawed on the grounds that a terrorist attack is not the result of a majority vote, because I am discussing the deliberate use of flawed data to support unreasonable prejudice. Not whether bombs can be stopped by the ballot box.

The Muslim world has a very different view of how the world should be than the any other part of the world and that his view is not compatible.

That statement is biased. ‘The Muslim world’ - as if u know what the majority of said world thinks. ‘Very different view’ - connotations - ‘not like us’, ‘foreign’. ‘Any other part of the world’ - same words have been stated against China and Russia, having the same adversarial connotations of ‘them vs. us’. ‘Compatible’ - with whom? Or with us (reasonable/non biased/good people) which is the invited response.

I don’t think u have really looked at the type of information u receive. I don’t suppose u can tell me 3 positive articles about muslims that don’t mention 9/11, suicide bombers, or islamic (threat/terrorist/terrorism)?

 

[rpp]

Nice try - but did u really study it?

In ur opinion - how many people of a particular religion do u need to poll in order to get a sample representative of true size of the population having that religion? How many ethnic groups would u need to include in the sample before this would be representative of all muslims within a geographical area? What sort of questions are asked in the poll? Did the sample poll understand the questions in the same context as the pollster? Were interpreters used and how did these affect the answers? What order were the questions asked? Where the questions asked in such a way to obtain a yes answer?

The statement that something is reviewed is not good enough - reviewed by who? How as the reviewing done? How was the raw data analysed and presented?

So is the Mori Poll. And they also used lots of serious statisticians. But reputation and using a lot of number crunchers do not mean lack of bias.

Actually, it’s not hard to prove bias in the media. U do it by analysing the relationship of words used, whether they are positive, neutral, or negative, and the frequency of certain words or group of words used. U can do the analysis by hand or better to avoid bias, do it using a computer. If it is impossible to prove as u claim, then it would be near impossible for anyone to go to court claiming libelled or misrepresented by the media. Yet plenty of politicians and celebrities take newspapers to court all the time. Recently the parents of the girl who went missing in Portugal (Madeleine McCann) are preparing to take the prominent UK newspapers to court claiming they were waging a hate campaign against them.

On the McCann case - i have read some of the main newspapers covering the story, and can note the following:- the frequency of the parents being described as ‘devote Catholics’, have a decent income, are bad parents, went to see the Pope which should not have any bearing on the case of the missing girl; there are numerous reference to them being ‘liars’, ‘inconsistent’ and in a group of witnesses/suspects labelled ‘tapas 7’ or 9 depending on which newspaper u read, and allegations of financial/personal misconduct. Based on the information I have given so far, would u describe the media covering as being positive or negative or fair to the parents of the missing girl?

Majority of muslims opposed to violence by muslims do not dismiss the problem of terrorism. The problem exists - demonising an entire religion and and entire community does not solve the problem - except by increasing the number of angry muslims wanting to join Al Qaeda. This is unrelated to ur argument that my logic is flawed on the grounds that a terrorist attack is not the result of a majority vote, because I am discussing the deliberate use of flawed data to support unreasonable prejudice. Not whether bombs can be stopped by the ballot box.

That statement is biased. ‘The Muslim world’ - as if u know what the majority of said world thinks. ‘Very different view’ - connotations - ‘not like us’, ‘foreign’. ‘Any other part of the world’ - same words have been stated against China and Russia, having the same adversarial connotations of ‘them vs. us’. ‘Compatible’ - with whom? Or with us (reasonable/non biased/good people) which is the invited response.

I don’t think u have really looked at the type of information u receive. I don’t suppose u can tell me 3 positive articles about muslims that don’t mention 9/11, suicide bombers, or islamic (threat/terrorist/terrorism)?

Denial of truth, and refusing to recognize facts can be dangerous.

I see nothing but blind criticism of those who express a fact based concern for Islam.

You accuse others of precisely what you do.

On the other hand, how seriously can I take someone who cannot even attempt to use proper spelling? If you want to respond in English, then respond in English. That is, use sentences, capitalize proper nouns and do not use non-words. The slang-shorthand (“u” instead of “you”, “ur” instead of either “your” or “you are”) you use does nothing except detract from your credibility even more than the content of your post. Typos are one thing, your writing style reflects poorly on your education and ability to discuss topics sensibly. This is not an insult. But I just take anything seriously from someone who writes like this.

 

[awalt]

Rpp, that’s funny. If you read it closely, these people surveyed have been largely assimilated into American life. If you look at surveys of AMERICANS, there are LOTS of surveys with similar levels (50%) of concern. A recent Time/CNN poll shows Americans concerned about terrorism only a little more than they are about anthrax!

But the point is, polls are polls. However many you find going one way, the same number exists the other way. I wish you would take the time to research some of these organizations instead of looking for data to substantiate a pre-formed opinion. I would really like to know if these organizations are what they say, and all I get back is prejudice and hate.

That’s it, I am out. I suspect anyone who reads this thread will see equal amounts of hatred on the non-Islamic side as is reported to be on the Islamic side. That’s very sad. If you can’t see that, if you can’t see that the only defense for this hatred is “an eye for an eye” or “they started it” or “we have to kill them before they kill us”, especially when it stands in the way of genuine exploration or search for truth or commonality to work together to solve this problem, then we have clearly met the enemy and he is us.

I can’t believe you are writing off over a billion Muslims who might just work together to solve the extremist problem if you gave them the chance.

Some other quotes I have found on these sites:

Islamic Center of America: Recent polls by the Washington Post indicate that 46% of Americans have negative views about Islam. This percentage has almost quadrupled from 13% right after the attacks of September 11, 2001. This shows clearly that we Muslims must double our efforts to provide a more accurate perception about our great religion; the religion that respects the human being so much that it considers the human being the “most sanctified” of His whole creation. According to some ahadith, it is lighter in the eyes of God to vanquish the entire Earth than to shed one drop of human blood unfairly.

Council on American-Islamic Relations:The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today condemned the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto, who was killed this morning in an attack in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

And
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has consistently and persistently condemned terrorism and the killing of innocent civilians. CAIR has also organized fatwas, petition drives, placed advertisements in national and local newspapers, ran public service announcements on television and radio stations, helped local Mosques across the United States in holding open houses, published Op-Eds in local and national newspapers, conducted inter-faith meetings and worked with scholars to disseminate the peaceful teachings of Islam.
In addition to specific campaigns, we have compiled a 68 page document showing all of the condemnations of terrorism after September 11th, 2001 and a similar document after the July 7th, 2006 bombings in London, UK.

Actions and words…but we choose to believe our polls and our hate-sites because they fit our preconceived notions.

 

[awalt]

This seems to sum it all up:

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

This popular philosophical adage is representative of how the American Muslim community feels about their consistent, persistentand unequivocal condemnation of terrorism. Our voices of reason are drowned out by the rampant Islamophobia that exists today among certain groups.

 

[awalt]

From the 138 Muslim religious leaders that will be meeting with our Holy Father:

“Mainstream Islam has regained its voice once again,” said Aref Ali Nayed, one of the signatories and co-ordinators. “Some minority voices, because of their extreme and violent nature, managed to capture media attention. This has resulted in a very skewed and distorted picture of Islam.”

 

[rpp]

Rpp, that’s funny. If you read it closely, these people surveyed have been largely assimilated into American life. If you look at surveys of AMERICANS, there are LOTS of surveys with similar levels (50%) of concern. A recent Time/CNN poll shows Americans concerned about terrorism only a little more than they are about anthrax!

But the point is, polls are polls. However many you find going one way, the same number exists the other way. I wish you would take the time to research some of these organizations instead of looking for data to substantiate a pre-formed opinion. I would really like to know if these organizations are what they say, and all I get back is prejudice and hate.

That’s it, I am out. I suspect anyone who reads this thread will see equal amounts of hatred on the non-Islamic side as is reported to be on the Islamic side. That’s very sad. If you can’t see that, if you can’t see that the only defense for this hatred is “an eye for an eye” or “they started it” or “we have to kill them before they kill us”, especially when it stands in the way of genuine exploration or search for truth or commonality to work together to solve this problem, then we have clearly met the enemy and he is us.

I can’t believe you are writing off over a billion Muslims who might just work together to solve the extremist problem if you gave them the chance.

Some other quotes I have found on these sites:
[snip]

Speaking of preconceived notions…

Let me point out a couple of yours.

If I disagree with, then, ipso facto, I hate all Muslims.

More than that, you state that I want to “write off” (do you mean perhaps kill?) “over a billion” Muslims.

How about that for jumping to conclusions?

You are not being intellectually honest. You put words inso my mouth. Your accusations of hate against everyone who disagree with you does nothing but utterly discredit your position.

There are few things that will create an enemy here on these forums. Baseless and mean-spirited accusations of “hate” that you have spewed at me and others is the shortcut. the only thing that could speed that process is to derive such comments by putting false words into people’s mouths. Congratulations. You have absolutely lost any and all respect.

But that is not the same as hate. The only thing I hate is sin.

It is clear from your posts, you cannot make the same claim.

I will not be able to see any further responses from you.

 

[porkscratchings]

Denial of truth, and refusing to recognize facts can be dangerous.

I see nothing but blind criticism of those who express a fact based concern for Islam.

You accuse others of precisely what you do.

On the other hand, how seriously can I take someone who cannot even attempt to use proper spelling? If you want to respond in English, then respond in English. That is, use sentences, capitalize proper nouns and do not use non-words. The slang-shorthand (“u” instead of “you”, “ur” instead of either “your” or “you are”) you use does nothing except detract from your credibility even more than the content of your post. Typos are one thing, your writing style reflects poorly on your education and ability to discuss topics sensibly. This is not an insult. But I just take anything seriously from someone who writes like this.

OK - if u can’t win by logical argument, what do u do?

1. Make sweeping statements (w/o proof) that the OP is wrong, while making quite clear that it is u who have the truth on his side.
2. Accuse the OP to deflect blame from oneself.
3. Make personal attacks on the OP - by implying they lack intelligence or can’t spell, therefore undermining their credibility when u can’t undermine their argument.

It’s what politicians do all the time. The next time the US have an election - check out the media and see for urself whehter points 1-3 above is NOT regularly used by the candidates to discredit one another when debate fails.

U repeat the word fact with emphasis but u have not supplied any fact, just opinion which u dress up as fact. U r not merely ‘concerned’ as u state but wish to present a very negative view of muslims based information which u know to be biased.

Everything I have said in my previous post is logical - the techniques I described are based on real mathematical analysis of information - which is even used by politicians to check out what % of media coverage is favourable/not favourable to them.

I’m in total agreement with await’s comment
await:

Actions and words…but we choose to believe our polls and our hate-sites because they fit our preconceived notions.

The terrorists who attacked the twin towers killed many muslims as well.

 

[porkscratchings]

This seems to sum it all up:

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

This popular philosophical adage is representative of how the American Muslim community feels about their consistent, persistentand unequivocal condemnation of terrorism. Our voices of reason are drowned out by the rampant Islamophobia that exists today among certain groups.

When 7/7 bombing happened in central London, many Muslim groups stood outside Downing Street to add their voice to the condemnation of the attacks. The TV cameras panned on Tony Blair and his cabinet while ignoring the muslims who were standing in a group next to Blair. I clocked a very brief shot of an Imam on the far left of my TV - if I blinked at the time, i would have missed him. The next day none of the major newspapers carried any pictures of the muslims who attended the Downing Street speech. No mainstream newspaper interviewed the muslims attendees. But most of the newspapers had pictures of the PM in articles of ‘muslim fanatics’ and ‘Islamic terrorists in our midst’.

 

[ritewordz]

Pew funded the first ever nationwide American Muslim Poll, through Zogby International in 2001 called MAPS (Muslims in American Public Square). The Chairman of MAPS has analyzed this last Pew survey here.

Finally to awalt, here is what the Quran says about Christians who seek true knowledge:

" … nearest among them (non Muslims) in love to the Believers (Muslims) wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians”: Because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant." (5:85)

 

[paarsurrey]

*I am starting to believe that like any religion, extremists capture the headlines and paint a bad picture of the people and their faith.

Hi

I agree with you.

Thanks

 

[Booklover]

Gosh, I am just trying to help. Instead of being so confrontational and arrogant, why don’t you reply with some facts so we can all learn? If this information is incorrect, please enlighten. A childish response doesn’t really help anyone learn does it?

Are you saying these organizations have not condemned terrorism?

So what if they say they condemn terrorism? It means nothing. Actions speak louder than words. Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers to protect Islam and its goals. You don’t expect them to come and say outright if they support it, do you?? The fact that they are allowed to lie to protect it, should be enough to make anyone wary of anything they say.

Vickie

 

[Booklover]

Booklover no one is disputing that Muslim terrorists exist.

My original point was that many Muslims are not in agreement with that. Continued bitterness and refocus on the terrorists, while an important issue, is not the point of the thread, and has in fact made me believe that the many organizations who condemn terrorism are likely genuine, because you nor anyone else so far has address that issue.

What proof do you have for this statement??

You just keep throwing up pictures of terrorists and quoting racially charged attacks against Muslims in general that really cannot be verified or disputed. How are we to learn about that? And how is your behavior different from that which you condemn?

Your quotes from the hate sites could be Hitler speaking about the Jews in the 30s. Have you ever seen this approach be productive to peace? How about how the Pope is dealing with the Muslims, why not take a cue from that? Do you see him, Christ’s Vicar on earth, taking this hateful approach?

It seems that according to you any website that criticises Islam is a “hate” site. One more victory for Islam! Did you even bother to read the intolerant teachings in the Quran on which Muslims are weaned? Why do you ignore those and accuse others of hate?

Didn’t the Pope quote the words of a Byzantine emperor who stated that Islam had brought nothing good and had been spread by violence?? How did Muslims respond to that statement? With violence proving that the statement was correct in the first place.

To continue a focus on hate-sites and assumptions that all are like the worst terrorists is the same prejudice practiced many times in the world by many non-Islamics. Prejudice is certainly not Christian.

They are not hate sites as you call them! Those people are risking their lives by warning us of the danger of Islam by showing us its true face, the one that Muslims don’t want us to see.

Ex-Muslim Hirsi Ali, who endured sexual mutilation and a forced marriage recalls that “I was a Muslim once, and it was when I was most devout that I was most full of hate”.

Vickie

 

[Kadaveri]

Pew funded the first ever nationwide American Muslim Poll, through Zogby International in 2001 called MAPS (Muslims in American Public Square). The Chairman of MAPS has analyzed this last Pew survey here.

Just posting to say thanks for this, a very interesting article.

 

[porkscratchings]

So what if they say they condemn terrorism? It means nothing. Actions speak louder than words. Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers to protect Islam and its goals. You don’t expect them to come and say outright if they support it, do you?? The fact that they are allowed to lie to protect it, should be enough to make anyone wary of anything they say.

Vickie

Catholics are also allowed to lie - its called sopasadere (not sure spelling) - the art of leaving things to ripen. It means a person can avoid telling the truth, plant false rumours and misdirection intended to undermine an opponent. This should be done in secret with no evidence leading back to the Church.

If u go on a few radical protestant website u would the same accusation (that u have made against the muslims) along with a juicy number of conspiracy theories - levelled at ur community and ur religion.

Would u be happy if I (and the rest of the world) believe every anti-catholic accusations stated in those websites??

 

[porkscratchings]

Ex-Muslim Hirsi Ali, who endured sexual mutilation and a forced marriage recalls that “I was a Muslim once, and it was when I was most devout that I was most full of hate”.

Vickie

Ex muslim Hirsi Ali is an atheist - she hates her former religion so much that she wishes that liberal governments would ban islam all together. So it would make sense for her to make islam look as bad as possible to influence public opinion and make people more favourable to criminalising Islam. Compare her speeches and writings to Richard Dawkins who make it obvious that he wants religion to be removed from all aspects of society.

Sexual multilation and forced marriage occurs in societies that do not practise Islam - so why blame only muslims?

 

[Scottgun]

Catholics are also allowed to lie - its called sopasadere (not sure spelling) - the art of leaving things to ripen. It means a person can avoid telling the truth, plant false rumours and misdirection intended to undermine an opponent. This should be done in secret with no evidence leading back to the Church.

Completely incorrect. Uttering falsehoods is objectively wrong (meaning always wrong) according to Church teaching:

2482 "A *lie *consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

 

[porkscratchings]

Completely Incorrect. Uttering falsehoods is always objectively wrong according to Church teaching:

I rest my case.

If it is not acceptable for misrepresent Catholics or make them out to be agents of evil bound for world domination who would do anything including lying - why shouldn’t believers of a different faith or no faith be entitled to the same respect?

If as u say that uttering falsehoods is always objectively wrong according to Church teaching, then why do Catholics think it is OK to spread falsehoods about muslims?

 

[Scottgun]

I rest my case.

If it is not acceptable for misrepresent Catholics or make them out to be agents of evil bound for world domination who would do anything including lying - why shouldn’t believers of a different faith or no faith be entitled to the same respect?

If as u say that uttering falsehoods is always objectively wrong according to Church teaching, then why do Catholics think it is OK to spread falsehoods about muslims?

Maybe I missed a previous post, but who claimed it was ok to spread falsehoods about Muslims? Someone may have posted something that in fact turned out to be a falsehood, but did they know it was a falsehood and present it as truth anyway? There is a huge difference between being in error and lying.

 

[porkscratchings]

Maybe I missed a previous post, but who claimed it was ok to spread falsehoods about Muslims? Someone may have posted something that in fact turned out to be a falsehood, but did they know it was a falsehood and present it as truth anyway? There is a huge difference between being in error and lying.

Read the posts by Booklover and rrp. Both have been trying to justify their anti-muslim arguments by quoting from people that have an axe to grind against muslims and anti-muslim websites. It isn’t a mistake on their part as more of a deliberate act to convince others to think the same i.e. negatively about all muslims.

I don’t think Islam or the muslim community is beyond criticism, but I don’t it is fair to blame an entire community for the actions of a minority of muslims. I posted the anti-catholic bit to make a point that reading off websites that spread hate against a whole group of people is wrong.