TED Conversations

faiz mukthar

Doctor, kvg medical college

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

why is islam grossly misunderstood??

why is islam grossly misunderstood??
why is people who doesnt know much about islam so keen in attacking islam?
why an event in islamic countries more focused than others by our media??
why is not prophet muhammed considered great??

+4
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 14 2011: http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/muslim-western-tensions-persist/3/

    The PEW polls are a great source of information for determining the perceptions of both sides.

    I find quite a few things interesting as I read through the data provided.:
    -Muslims want to be identified first by their religion. (for good or bad)
    -Westerners separate religion from who they are, to a much larger degree
    -Muslims have a more negative view of Westerners than Westerners do of Muslims (stereotyping is more prevalent in Muslim societies)
    -MANY millions of Muslims feel that killing innocent civilians through suicide bombing is justified.
    -Many Muslims feel that leaving the religion should be met with death
    -The way Muslims view Jews is extremely frightening
    - Muslim countries don't like each other to a large degree
    -Western nations are much more inclined to place blame on both sides, rather than just the opposite point of view

    I will not get into my personal views of religion and Islam in particular other than to say that i don't like any of it. It is rather obvious to me that the ignorance, intolerance, propaganda, etc. is a two way street and that the evidence points toward Muslims being the more extreme in their hatred of non-Muslims than non-Muslims feel toward Muslims.
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2011: Jason --

      The data tracks regards numerous things. Particularly that Muslims want to be identified first by their religion. But this is equally true of fundamentalist Christians.

      And, for each data point, one can construe equal and opposite points, ie:

      There is equally shocking data that shows millions of Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics feel killing innocent civilians is an unavoidable consequences of acts of war. I know many who fit this model.
      There are equally frightening ways Christians, Jews and others view Muslims.
      Western nations don't always feel the love for each other, either.

      And I have to disagree with you regards your perspective of Muslims as being more extreme. It is not what I perceive in my observations of people of various faiths, ethnicities and beliefs.

      For example: I know many Muslims who are exceedingly grateful to Western countries, like mine, that have accepted them. They speak with deep despair about the violences of their fringe members. Not least, because they are losing family to Muslim violence, too.

      Many I know fear leaving their children out of view for three reasons. The first is the odds that they children could get in with the wrong crowd of Muslim fundamentalists. The second is the odd that their children will be racially profiled and judged more harshly for innocuous infractions, due to their faith beliefs. The third is their desire to insure their children are safe and learn behave as good citizens.

      Andrea
      • Sep 14 2011: Andrea,

        I will be the first to place blame on fundamentalist Christians as well as any other extreme point of view that is intolerant of others due to prejudice based on ignorance.

        I know great people of all religions, ethnicities, genders, nationalities. For me to feel that someone is worthy of my friendship, none of the aforementioned "categories" enter the equation. I only judge a person based on how he or she treats me and others. The "evidence" of the PEW Global polls shows that a higher percentage of Muslims stereotype Westerners than the other way around. This needs to be acknowledged in order to have a constructive conversation on how to change perceptions.

        Placing blame is different from bring facts to the table. You seem to feel that I am pointing a finger? I am only attempting to level the playing field in order to move forward in a more successful manner.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2011: Jason --

          Appreciate your clarification. I don't question your intent.

          But want to engage a larger picture and address your comment that the data provides evidence that "Muslims are more extreme in their hatred." This is a selective and subjective analysis of more nuanced data, which does not paint Muslims as "more extreme in their hatred." I could not find evidence supporting "MANY millions of Muslims believe that killing innocents through suicide bombing is justified."

          Your characterizations, whether you intend or not, echo rhetoric style of misinformed or misplaced information that lacks balance. And can begin to sound like propaganda without it.

          Muslims reported feelings that Westerners are: violent, greedy, fanatical, selfish, immoral, intolerant and arrogant. Beyond the fact that Islam has more than it's fair share of fanatics, few Westerners could argue with their views. It should also be noted, given Muslims are quite literately in the global cross-hairs, it tracks that they might express more defensiveness.

          Most important of all may be trends and methods used in how the survey was conducted. All Westerners were interviewed by phone. All but one section of Muslims was interviewed face-to-face. This calls into Q the objectivity of the data.

          Face-to-face encounters can allow for subtle communications queues that phone calls cannot. Face-to-face is generally preferable for eliciting greater insights. There are elements of mutual trust that can be conveyed that can't be conveyed via phone.

          If my logic is correct here, it follows that Muslims would have been more forthcoming and candid in their interviews than Westerners.

          So, again, this calls into Q environmental realities that could correlate, such as lack of phones. If Muslims were interviewed face-to-face because they don't have sufficient communications technology, one could imagine their biases towards Western models and consumer ideals would be unfavorable.

          Andrea
      • Sep 14 2011: Andrea,

        I apologize... The link I provided did not give the info on the suicide bombing that i mentioned (I have spent a lot of time on the site and assumed that information was in the link I gave without reading through it first).

        This is one that gives a partial list. There are others, but this is first that I found at the moment.
        http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1338/declining-muslim-support-for-bin-laden-suicide-bombing

        I get my feathers ruffled quickly when I sense hatred propaganda in use... Please research PEW Global. I assure it is a reputable organization. No propaganda intended on my part. I have a habit of calling it like I see it though...I think you can relate.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2011: Jason --

          Your claims are way off base and feed the very propaganda you claim to reject. From the very first paragraph of the research you cite supports your claims:

          "Majorities or pluralities among eight of the nine Muslim publics surveyed this year say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians can never be justified to defend Islam; only in the Palestinian territories does a majority endorse such attacks."

          More than 90% of Muslims reject suicide bombing.

          Your selective use of Pew's data undermines the integrity you defend them having. They contrast with yours, it seems.

          I'd have to agree with you. Pew's ideals seem good. Though, I'm beginning to Q your sincerity.

          Andrea
      • Sep 14 2011: Andrea,

        Claim information bias if you want. That is certainly your prerogative. Your "Real People" trump "Distant Data" assertion does have some logic to it, but to use that argument to deny these surveys is, in my opinion, a weak one. Skepticism is a good thing, but in the face of reliable information, one does have to at least consider the other point of view and be willing to go out of his or her comfort zone.

        The way I see it, these surveys are not perfect, but do relay a much more accurate portrayal of global attitudes than any human can conceptualize through personal relationships. I am fairly willing to take these particular surveys at their stated percentage error. From Andrew Kohut down, the entire organization is basically a shining example of journalistic integrity. Do you challenge that assertion?

        The surveys show BOTH Muslims and non-Muslims as guilty of stereotyping the other. The survey shows that people who follow Islam want to be identified as Muslims first, therefore it holds that they be grouped together in their own minds when anyone says anything about a Muslim...whether it applies to them or not. Derogatory claims and assumptions against "Westerners" by Muslims are equally, if not more, common. There is a word "Islamophobia", but there is not a "Westernophobia" to counteract it. Why is that? Why do you argue against any of this? I admit that some of the information is frightening, but reality is frightening at times.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2011: Jason --

          No claim of bias. Just of notable trends in data collection that can't be ignored when assertions stand on data-driven information. And, I can't square how Pew's data can be utterly reliable given the dissonances in how it was collected.

          I don't think any person or institution can claim the crown of immutable objectivity. But, I feel it is best to be up-front about potential weaknesses in research. I know this is not the "norm" in institutions and culture, but we simply have too many examples that show that facts and research can lead to quite unintended consequences. Which I'm sure Pew is well aware and seeks to avoid.

          No doubt, stereotyping and bias is not the single domain of any person, people or organization. It is inherently human. And, I'll cop to the fact that I Q the biases of my own culture and those I put faith and trust in more than others. Perhaps it is my way of preserving this hope and belief in humanity I have. And desire to keep close the realities that I am aware can undermine those I who truly seek to obtain and hold their integrity and values at the highest, most humane levels they can.

          But Q-ing interpretations is what scientists and researchers can do best. So we put greater faith in the information they deliver, and thus expect greater stewardship of it by respected organizations like Pew. They likely seek to retain their standards of integrity, and if so, welcome constructive feedback, even if it calls for more efforts on their part to be transparent.

          I'm interested in your views. What do you make of Pew different methods for data-collection for the Islam and non-Muslims?

          Andrea
      • Sep 15 2011: Andrea,

        Are your true colors beginning to show?

        Quote: "Your claims are way off base and feed the very propaganda you claim to reject. From the very first paragraph of the research you cite supports your claims:
        "Majorities or pluralities among eight of the nine Muslim publics surveyed this year say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians can never be justified to defend Islam; only in the Palestinian territories does a majority endorse such attacks."
        More than 90% of Muslims reject suicide bombing.
        Your selective use of Pew's data undermines the integrity you defend them having. They contrast with yours, it seems.
        I'd have to agree with you. Pew's ideals seem good. Though, I'm beginning to Q your sincerity. "

        Just with the eight Muslim countries listed in 2009, Pew reports that well over 50,000,000 followers of Islam feel that suicide bombing is justified against innocent civilians in order to protect their religion. I call that many millions...The most extreme countries, along with many others, are not included in these numbers. Why is an innocent civilian a threat to their religion?--answer: An innocent civilian is not a threat, but hey, if they kill enough babies and elderly, they just might put the fear of God into the rest of us, right? The majority of Muslims should not be judged by the actions of the extremists, but those who remain silent against such actions speak volumes with that silence.

        Point to where I have been selective in my information reporting or have mislead with false information. Also, please tell me what I have to gain by spreading harmful propaganda.

        You can surely come up with a better manufactured accusation against me than this. Your Pew Research inquisition didn't go so well, so you are trying to go after the messenger now? For someone who claims to be for human rights, you sure have a strange way of showing it.
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2011: Jason,

          Cite and directly quote your source. The figures you claim are nowhere in the research you linked. Though, it may be true. I suppose somewhere in their research Pew has data that shows 50,000,000 non-Muslims feel that collateral damages to innocent muslim citizens.

          However the most recent research on Muslims by Pew, affirms Muslims shared rejection of terrorism: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2087/muslim-americans-islamic-extremism-911-attacks-mosuqes

          Here's a snippet from Pew, dated August 30, 2011:

          "Muslims in the United States continue to reject extremism by much larger margins than most other Muslim publics, and a higher percentage views U.S. efforts to combat terrorism as sincere than did so in 2007. At the same time, majorities of Muslim Americans express concerns about Islamic extremism here and abroad - worries that coexist with the view that life in post-9/11 America is more difficult for U.S Muslims."

          Andrea
      • Sep 15 2011: Andrea,

        The numbers you are using do not include Nigeria, but they are more recent. I will use them instead of the 2009 numbers i was using...

        % of Muslims who feel that suicide bombing against civilians is often or sometimes justifiable:
        -Pakistan-- 5% of 169,000,000 population = 8,500,000
        -Turkey-----7% of 75,000,000 population = 5,250,000
        -Indonesia-10% of 230,000,000 population= 23,000,000
        -Jordan-----13% of 6,000,000 population =767,000
        -Egypt-------28% of 83,000,000 population=23,000,000
        -Palestine--68% of 4,000,000 population =2,700,000
        -Lebanon---36% of 4,250,000 population =1,500,000

        Total = 64,700,000, but not all of these are Muslims. I did the calculations to take out non-Muslims for the other data set, but I will not again. I can safely say this final number is over 50,000,000 as well. This is based on only 7 countries. 28% of Egypt supports suicide bombers often or sometimes. I did not include any of the "Rarely" percentages for any country. Do you refute any of this data?

        These %'s are taken directly from the "Overwhelming Majority Say Suicide Bombing Never Justified" graphic in the "Support for Extremism Remains Negligible" section once the page is expanded for additional info.

        Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge these numbers?
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2011: Jason--

          To take a study with data that clearly supports the assertion that the "Overwhelming Majority Say Suicide Bombing is Never Justified" and seeking to deny the primary findings of the data by parsing out details is corrupting its findings and propagandizing them for causes contrary to the weight of the full evidence they show.

          The perduring fact is many, many, many more Muslims reject suicide bombing against civilians than support it. Balanced by the fact that many, many, many Christians support collateral damages against civilians as the cost of war,

          I'd say your argument is not only flawed, but impotent.

          Andrea
      • Sep 15 2011: Andrea,

        "Though, it may be true. I suppose somewhere in their research Pew has data that shows 50,000,000 non-Muslims feel that collateral damages to innocent muslim citizens."

        Are you saying that intentionally targeting innocent women and children in a non-war zone is the same as collateral damage in a war zone? I am Not saying that collateral damage is acceptable in war, but to link the two as equally evil strikes me as inhumane.
      • Sep 15 2011: Andrea,

        Your quote: ""Though, it may be true. I suppose somewhere in their research Pew has data that shows 50,000,000 non-Muslims feel that collateral damages to innocent muslim citizens."

        My Question: "Are you saying that intentionally targeting innocent women and children in a non-war zone is the same as collateral damage in a war zone? I am Not saying that collateral damage is acceptable in war, but to link the two as equally evil strikes me as inhumane. "

        Your answer: " I think killing for any reason, anywhere is inhumane."

        That couldn't be a bigger cop out and does not come close to answering the question. Does this mean that the premeditated murder of a child is the same to you as a police officer's bullet ricocheting while defending the public from a mass murderer and accidentally killing a civilian?

        Are both "Killers" equally evil in your opinion? Are you brave enough to answer the question with a yes or no answer?
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2011: Jason--

          No.

          I do not believe a police officers bullet ricocheting accidentally killing a civilian while defending the public from the in-flesh presence of a mass murderer attack is inhumane.

          I'd like to be clear about this "in the flesh" point and in "attack" mode. Even good people sometimes see imminent threat where there is none. And this is where I think it is best for all the check their guns--and their perceptions of reality--before drawing them on one-another.

          Here is my comment amended to reflect your call-out:

          "I think intentionally or recklessly killing anyone for any reason, anywhere is inhumane."

          Andrea
      • Sep 15 2011: Andrea,

        Quote: "To take a study with data that clearly supports the assertion that the "Overwhelming Majority Say Suicide Bombing is Never Justified" and seeking to deny the primary findings of the data by parsing out details is corrupting its findings and propagandizing them for causes contrary to the weight of the full evidence they show.
        The perduring fact is many, many, many more Muslims reject suicide bombing against civilians than support it. Balanced by the fact that many, many, many Christians support collateral damages against civilians as the cost of war,
        I'd say your argument is not only flawed, but impotent."

        I never did anything other than provide facts. You are the one who has fought them the entire conversation to this point. Just to be clear...Are you still fighting against the information provided with Pew surveys? It appears that you went from accusing Pew of propaganda, to accusing me of propaganda, to acknowledging the validity of the information, but saying it doesn't matter?

        How many millions world wide feel it is okay to blow up innocent civilians for the perceived threat to their religion? In my opinion, it is MANY millions...Do you deny this? If so, what would constitute many millions for you? ...Many does not mean majority. I never claimed a majority.

        All of the propaganda has been coming from you so far... Show me specifics of how my arguments are flawed and impotent?
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2011: What do you mean by MANY?
      Is it a thousand, maybe more? Is my neighbour one of them?
      I think you make a big, BIG mistake as most do by talking after the news-headlines.
      The whole thing has nothing to do with being Christian or Muslim, it has to do with extremists and the rest of the world. These people are fascists by nature because they were brought up that way.
      • Sep 14 2011: Read the results of this poll and others on the site. You will see what I mean by MANY. Do the math... multiply the percentage points by the millions of residents of each country. I will not do the math for you, looking it up yourself is much more effective. Saudi Arabia, and Iran are not even included in the survey...What do you think the results would show for those countries?

        News-headlines and facts from a respected survey can be very different things. Show me how these results are not legitimate or sensationalized and I will change my tune. The site shows unbiased information from both sides. Make your own conclusions.

        I agree, the extreme problem is in how these people are brought up. I said recently in another TED debate that much of the problems with fundamentalist thinking are the fundamentals in which that thinking is based. Who is right in the Christian faith...The one who says to love everyone as yourself or the one who says that homosexuality is an abomination and Gays and lesbians should be stoned to death? Who is right in Islam, the one who says that a man can beat his wife if she disagrees with him or the one who says to love everyone and violence is not the answer? Much of the problem with both religions is the books they are based on. There is no denying that either. ...at least there is no denying that to my way of thinking. People can be blinded by faith.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2011: I think the whole problem wear out with a few generations. Here in Amsterdam we live with people of more than 170 nationalities. Being different has become normal and accepted. People are the same the world over but cultures that stand with one leg in the stone-age have some difficulty to adapt. Family bonds and tradition hold up the process.
          The more everyone mends his own business the faster it will go.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2011: Jason,

          My interpretation of the data is it is skewed by methods the pollsters used. This doesn't deny your personal views -- which I largely agree with.

          But it does deny the validity of the data. For a global influencer like PEW to be painted as the be-all of facts, it must provide fully balanced methods of data collection. Which it didn't with this study.

          Had the research been qualified upfront as using different methods of data collection for Muslims respondents than non-Muslims, the disclosure itself would demonstrate a certain level of objective integrity.

          Because it didn't PEW's objectivity must also be scrutinized, in this case, as subject to both their different treatment of data between populations as well as perceptions of who would purchase and use their findings.

          Given their economic involvement and global influence this must be taken into consideration as of significant relevance. They are paid for providing data that is construed to be factual. But data collected with "apples and oranges" techniques doesn't meet the scratch-test of unbiased and, thus, factual research standards.

          Thus, PEW itself is expressing bias. Which, frankly disqualifies them as fact-deliverers at the very least. Given the implications of their research, I'm troubled.

          All this said, I am grateful you've engaged this dialogue Jason. It is never easy defending personal intents with outside facts. And I don't question your attempt to do so.

          In doing so, you've (if unintentionally) invited all to question how we interpret institutionalized interpretations of what is taken as granted as fact. A good reminder, in my mind, that "real people" trump "distanced data," every time.

          Andrea
      • Sep 15 2011: Frans "The whole thing has nothing to do with being Christian or Muslim, it has to do with extremists and the rest of the world."

        you are making one big mistake here. no good religion in the world say murder for gain under whatever circumstances. i based my opinion on New Testament & Dhammapada.
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2011: Maybe some muslim can state that what you assume about Islam is true or not and maybe why it is so.
          Maybe you know the details yourself and will share this so we can discuss this. It should be very important for the image Islam holds in the world.
      • Sep 15 2011: Frans: quote Maybe you know the details yourself and will share this...

        Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

        Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

        Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

        Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

        Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

        Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

        Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

        Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

        Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world..
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2011: Kaka
          I'm relieved that it isn't as bad as you suggested.

          Our own Dutch Political Islam demonizer had made a clip "Fitna". In it he showed all bad things that he had read in the points that you've listed from the Quran.

          I've checked them one by one in a Dutch and English version and give you my translations within context. I must say that The Old Testament is more disturbing.

          My English version was a bit different than yours but in all I can summarize those lines as follows:

          Quran (2:191-193) - (If unbelievers persecute you because of your faith fight them as you can but if they quit then you stop also.) This isn’t for gain but self-defense.

          Quran (2:244) - (Fight for the good cause and life will become better.) Most people do.

          Quran (2:216) - (Fighting a bad habit?) Nothing much is specified.

          Quran (3:56) - (Christians also come in heaven, others don’t.) Correct for not believers say there’s nothing after dead.

          Quran (3:151) - (This is the same as with Christians, who is not baptized ends into hell.)

          Quran (4:74) - (This line says: help those that cannot help themselves.)

          Quran (4:76) - (Fight evil, very clear nothing new.)

          Quran (4:89) - (If they fight you fight back.) English translation not consistent.

          Quran (5:33) - (For those that kill their brothers, cut off a limb.)
      • Sep 16 2011: Frans "This isn’t for gain but self-defense"

        Yes i believe it is from a mouth of man and not from Allah/God's.
        • thumb
          Sep 16 2011: It is how you define God.
          It is not from the mouth of your God.
          In many traditions men is the representative of the creator and one that perfected himself could be seen as one that speaks as God. Maybe that vision was common in the time of Mohammed and forgotten now. Maybe it still exist.
          It has all to do with language and how it is used at one time or place.
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2011: what can we say about a survey that leaves out the largest muslim community on earth, the one in india?
      • Sep 15 2011: All one can say is that India is not represented in this survey...along with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc, etc. How does this detract from the countries that are represented? How does this take away from any of the information provided?

        If you are curious as to why India is not represented, I would advise sending them an e-mail with a request for an explanation. Either that or you could do some research on your own...If you want an answer from me, I am afraid you are going to be disappointed.

        Do you have anything else to add?
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2011: for one, indian muslims tend not to blow up things. (please note the word "tend") if you selectively leave out the most peaceful and at the same time the biggest muslim population, your research not anymore represents muslims. it represents a certain selection of muslims. so the title has to be changed accordingly.
      • Sep 15 2011: Krisztan,

        Are Indiam Muslims more peaceful than Chinese Muslims? What about Australian, Swedish, or Canadian Muslims?

        How does that take away from the information provided?
      • Sep 15 2011: As a logical person, it appears to me that the cross section of countries used for the "Muslim" point of view are all from the Middle East (Note India is NOT in the Middle East, it is Asia)... The bottom line is that it doesn't matter where they are from in the world, because each country is broken out separately with specific information.

        You want to argue semantics...I do not. There is valuable information to be gathered from these surveys. To dismiss them due to not including India or having a title that you find fault with is not constructive. To point out such information is constructive. Which are you doing? Pointing out or dismissing?
      • Sep 16 2011: Krisztian, "for one, indian muslims tend not to blow up things"

        yes they occasionally blow up things but they fear because of the repercussion the Muslim community face in Hindu dominated India. i guess the blow up happens most in Muslim dominated nations where other faith holders has less voice (please note the word "most").

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.