CDZ I challenge your views about Islam

[TheGreatGatsby]

Your Islamic contemporaries disagree:

Is Smoking Allowed in Islam?
What Does Islam Say About Smoking?
The reason why smoking is haraam - islamqa.info

Mormons are forbidden to drink coffee. Plenty of Christian sects forbid alcohol and dancing and playing cards. Interpretation.

I don't think you've interpreted more than rationalized. The Q'ran clearly forbitd activities that harm the body. Smoking would certainly qualify.

If you were Muslim, I'd accept your rationalization as something that was suitable to your life view. But because you aren't, I suspect this is smokescreen for your real objection, which is that the people in those videos don't fit your assumption that all Muslims fit a very narrow stereotype. And if you had to abandon that stereotype, you'd have to rethink your view of Muslims.

That's fallacious thinking. My viewpoint is not correct or incorrect based upon a personal decision. And your stereotype argument is further fallacious on all fronts.

So you say. Make your case.

There's no case to make. I stated the fact outright as your fallacious logic was evident.

Now, I challenge your views on Islam. You know that it is an oppressive force and yet you cling to it. Why? There's no possible good rationale.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you were Muslim, I'd accept your rationalization as something that was suitable to your life view. But because you aren't, I suspect this is smokescreen for your real objection, which is that the people in those videos don't fit your assumption that all Muslims fit a very narrow stereotype. And if you had to abandon that stereotype, you'd have to rethink your view of Muslims.

That's fallacious thinking. My viewpoint is not correct or incorrect based upon a personal decision. And your stereotype argument is further fallacious on all fronts.

I don't care to support or refute either of your positions re: Muslims and Islam, but I did read the discussion. Just to be clear, Arianrhod didn't make an argument re: stereotypes. He stated what he believes to be the reason for the remarks you made. He didn't present an argument of any sort. Unless you are going to assert that he misrepresented what believes, that is, that he doesn't actually believe what he wrote, there's no way what he wrote can be fallacious, or more precisely, false. I can't imagine that you'll be able to demonstrate that he doesn't believe what he said he does.

Arianrhod also made a prediction about how your viewpoint would change were you to dispense with the stereotype that he asserts underpins your statements. HIs prediction can turn out to be false or true. It may be possible to show his prediction to be false or true, but to do either, you or someone would need to develop a very solid argument to show the outcome he predicted must necessarily, or not, come to pass. Frankly, it'd be a very hard one to develop because, for it to be highly acceptable, it'd require showing that you do or don't base your views on any stereotypical understanding and/or representations (generalizations) of Islam/Muslims. Better and easier would be to make the case that your expressed views do not depend on stereotypes.

Doing that effectively unavoidably would call for Arianrhod to alter his belief of why you've made the statements you have. It would also direct the discussion toward themes that lead to a more objectively attainable conclusion.

He was saying that I said all Muslims fit a very narrow stereotype when I never said such things. I don't indulge people putting words in my mouth.

 

[Gracie]

So....the OP is basing on looks then? If so..does this guy look like a cannibal or just a young man smiling at the camera while sitting in a cafe?

 

[PredFan]

what's the nature of the "challenge"?

Many posters use stereotypical phrases such as "Muzzie pigs" or "Islamonazis", deliberately forwarding an impression of Muslims being evil.

Are the Muslims I'm showing posters evil?

Yes. If they follow their religion, they most certainly are.

 

[Indofred]

Yes. If they follow their religion, they most certainly are.

Even seeing all the stereotypes broken, you still can't see Muslims as individuals?

 

[irosie91]

Yes. If they follow their religion, they most certainly are.

Even seeing all the stereotypes broken, you still can't see Muslims as individuals?

what does "all stereotypes broken" mean? I see nothing in the comment
of Pred that suggest that he does not see muslims as individuals

 

[Mac1958]

All of the "challenges" in the world won't change what is happening.

 

[Fishlore]

Islam is a millennium-old religion with over a billion devotees around the globe. Christianity is twice as old with roughly the same numbers and global distribution. Both are offshoots of Judaism, which is a thousand years older but has fewer than 20 million current members, largely concentrated in Israel, the USA and Western Europe.

All three of these faiths have saints and sinners, murderers and martyrs. Do we want to have a theological discussion about Islam or a political discussion about the behavior of a minuscule number of Muslims with whose behavior some of us disagree? I ask because conflating those two topics is a waste of time.

Islam is not an off shoot of Judaism. Islamists tried to co-opt elements of Judaism after the fact in an effort to subvert the enemies' religion.

The rest of your post is very watered down moral relativism that completely ignores the stark contrast between Islam and Christianity.

You have some pretty sweeping theological pronouncements there. Do you have any citations from the Koran that support your contention that the Judeo-Christian features of Islam occurred after the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him?

The characterization of "very watered down moral relativism" really doesn't cut it. Perhaps you could describe that "stark contrast" you assert. Pejorative characterization without supporting evidence is a mere fart in the typhoon of discussion.

I'd hate to think you were another fact-free evangelical ranter as I'm confident you are far too well educated and intelligent for such silliness. How about a few bits of relevant evidence?

 

[PredFan]

Yes. If they follow their religion, they most certainly are.

Even seeing all the stereotypes broken, you still can't see Muslims as individuals?

Remember, Islam is a religion, not a race, Muslim is not a race. They choose to be or stay in that religion. They may be individuals, but they are followers of a dangerous and barbaric cult.

 

[320 Years of History]

If you were Muslim, I'd accept your rationalization as something that was suitable to your life view. But because you aren't, I suspect this is smokescreen for your real objection, which is that the people in those videos don't fit your assumption that all Muslims fit a very narrow stereotype. And if you had to abandon that stereotype, you'd have to rethink your view of Muslims.

That's fallacious thinking. My viewpoint is not correct or incorrect based upon a personal decision. And your stereotype argument is further fallacious on all fronts.

I don't care to support or refute either of your positions re: Muslims and Islam, but I did read the discussion. Just to be clear, Arianrhod didn't make an argument re: stereotypes. He stated what he believes to be the reason for the remarks you made. He didn't present an argument of any sort. Unless you are going to assert that he misrepresented what believes, that is, that he doesn't actually believe what he wrote, there's no way what he wrote can be fallacious, or more precisely, false. I can't imagine that you'll be able to demonstrate that he doesn't believe what he said he does.

Arianrhod also made a prediction about how your viewpoint would change were you to dispense with the stereotype that he asserts underpins your statements. HIs prediction can turn out to be false or true. It may be possible to show his prediction to be false or true, but to do either, you or someone would need to develop a very solid argument to show the outcome he predicted must necessarily, or not, come to pass. Frankly, it'd be a very hard one to develop because, for it to be highly acceptable, it'd require showing that you do or don't base your views on any stereotypical understanding and/or representations (generalizations) of Islam/Muslims. Better and easier would be to make the case that your expressed views do not depend on stereotypes.

Doing that effectively unavoidably would call for Arianrhod to alter his belief of why you've made the statements you have. It would also direct the discussion toward themes that lead to a more objectively attainable conclusion.

He was saying that I said all Muslims fit a very narrow stereotype when I never said such things. I don't indulge people putting words in my mouth.

So like you, "my panties get in a bunch" when people put words in my mouth. On occasion, I don't precisely express the thought(s) in my head, but most of the time, I very specifically and comprehensively explain the substance and nuance of my ideas. So, yes, I share and understand your furor over that.

The thing I was pointing out is that Arianrhod didn't exactly do that, although it takes a close and careful read of his remarks to see that to be so. What he wrote says that he speculates/thinks/believes/posits that (1) your comments are a "smokescreen" hiding something else and (2) that "something else" is an "assumption that all Muslims fit a very narrow stereotype."

I grant, however, that the line, between what he wrote and actually putting words in your mouth is faint or "dashed," but it's there nonetheless. How so and why? Well, he opens the governing independent clause of his sentence using "I suspect." That small phrase tells us that, in the words that follow, he's stating what he believes to be so rather than asserting that it is so. The distinction is subtle, but it's there and unmistakably so.

Are there ways to have made the speculative nature of his statement even clearer? Yes, there are. For example, he might have conjugated "to be" in the subjunctive mood, writing "I suspect this be a smokescreen..." Doing so would have reinforced the tone/element of uncertainty introduced by "suspect," and it would have eliminated the ambiguity that resulted caused by the indicative mood conjugation he did use ("...is a smokescreen...") following "suspect." Adding a noun, pronoun or nominal phrase after the demonstrative adjective "this" also would have helped a little bit. Ending his sentence with a question mark would also have helped reinforce the element of doubt that accompanies "I suspect."

The problem, of course, is that this is an Internet forum and the mode of communication is writing. Moreover, in venues like this forum where we are all strangers to one another, one has to grant a good deal of "benefit of the doubt." In person discourse provides a variety of cues that inform the audience in ways that words alone sometimes cannot, most especially when the words aren't presented in strict adherence to the grammatical rules we've all been taught to follow for written expression. The result is that readers like you and me must infer what constructions the writer may have intended, overlooked, etc. and guess what might be the governing character the writer intended. Guesses of that sort are hard to make when the words one sees have jumbled tone/mood.

Make no mistake, even though I try to "get it right," I don't always, and even when I do, some readers aren't as adroitly in command of English as I and, as a result, they may misconstrue what I've written. (I don't often post in "sound bites" because their brevity is often another cause of confusion.) When/if they do, some folks "rear back on their haunches" and commence to defend themselves by attacking me, not my ideas, me. (That's not what you did re: Arianrhod.) Others use the tried and true, and neutral, questioning approach to confirm whether their read of what I wrote is accurate.

So, I'm saying that Arianrhod didn't put words in your mouth, but there's enough ambiguity in the grammatical construction he used to make it hard to be sure whether that was his intent. Asking for clarification would have been a better tack, better because he wrote "I suspect," than outright calling his statement fallacious.

Smoking and Islam's values:
As a practical matter, I think that a fair case can be made that smoking violates at least one principle of Islam. That said, in comparison with the deeds of, say, Osama Bin Laden or those ISIS/ISIL groups who are daily in the news, it's hardly enough to use as a basis for asserting that a Muslim has strayed from the path of Islam. For example, I wouldn't say a Christian person who lives in a U.S. city and who doesn't go to church is not living their religion.

Now, I 'm not a Muslim, and I don't know what tenets of Islam are universal and which of them are ascribed to by various sects of Muslim belief. I do know there are multiple disciplines of Islam just as there are versions of Christianity. Perhaps the guy in the opening post's video is a member of an Islamic sect that doesn't take exception with smoking? I don't know if he is or is not, but I do know I have no basis for judging his actions based on that short clip.

Humans are much to complicated to be defined fairly (in most instances) by and judged by just a couple minutes' depiction of their acts. Even infamous characters like Osama Bin Laden were (are) more multidimensional than is suggested by focusing solely on his orchestration of the 9/11 attack on the WTC and Pentagon. (FWIW, even though Mr. Bin Laden was a Muslim, I hardly would characterize him and his followers as being representative of most Muslims. Nor do I find that his interpretation of Islam is in any what what The Prophet and Allah would have encouraged.)

 

[Arianrhod]

There's no case to make. I stated the fact outright as your fallacious logic was evident.

What's evident is that you despise Muslims for being, in your view, bad Muslims. Is it just the smoking you object to? What about music?

Now, I challenge your views on Islam. You know that it is an oppressive force and yet you cling to it. Why? There's no possible good rationale.

False assumption. I'm not clinging to anything, least of all a religion. I'm trying to understand your objections, that's all. So far your rationalizations are not very original, and I'm anticipating that your next post will be something along the line of "this conversation is over. Goodbye."

Surprise me.

 

[320 Years of History]

Remember, Islam is a religion, not a race, Muslim is not a race. They choose to be or stay in that religion. They may be individuals, but they are followers of a dangerous and barbaric cult.

Red:
My faith in you was right on the verge of being restored until I read the third sentence of that post. Have you read the Quran? The barbarism is found not in the belief system of Islam, but rather in its bastardization by certain individuals who manipulate the spirit and letter of Allah and The Prophet's words into a vehicle for expressing their own selfishness, hatred and anger.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There's no case to make. I stated the fact outright as your fallacious logic was evident.

What's evident is that you despise Muslims for being, in your view, bad Muslims. Is it just the smoking you object to? What about music?

I don't despise Muslims for being bad Muslims. I despise Muslims for being Muslims. The (big) exception to that rule is pragmatic Muslims who are face value Muslims as a means of survival. But people like you trying to put a happy face on the homicidal ideology; I'm not going to pretend like that that's what you're not doing.

As far as Islamic music goes; it's ugly and it's a perfect reflection of an ugly culture.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you were Muslim, I'd accept your rationalization as something that was suitable to your life view. But because you aren't, I suspect this is smokescreen for your real objection, which is that the people in those videos don't fit your assumption that all Muslims fit a very narrow stereotype. And if you had to abandon that stereotype, you'd have to rethink your view of Muslims.

That's fallacious thinking. My viewpoint is not correct or incorrect based upon a personal decision. And your stereotype argument is further fallacious on all fronts.

I don't care to support or refute either of your positions re: Muslims and Islam, but I did read the discussion. Just to be clear, Arianrhod didn't make an argument re: stereotypes. He stated what he believes to be the reason for the remarks you made. He didn't present an argument of any sort. Unless you are going to assert that he misrepresented what believes, that is, that he doesn't actually believe what he wrote, there's no way what he wrote can be fallacious, or more precisely, false. I can't imagine that you'll be able to demonstrate that he doesn't believe what he said he does.

Arianrhod also made a prediction about how your viewpoint would change were you to dispense with the stereotype that he asserts underpins your statements. HIs prediction can turn out to be false or true. It may be possible to show his prediction to be false or true, but to do either, you or someone would need to develop a very solid argument to show the outcome he predicted must necessarily, or not, come to pass. Frankly, it'd be a very hard one to develop because, for it to be highly acceptable, it'd require showing that you do or don't base your views on any stereotypical understanding and/or representations (generalizations) of Islam/Muslims. Better and easier would be to make the case that your expressed views do not depend on stereotypes.

Doing that effectively unavoidably would call for Arianrhod to alter his belief of why you've made the statements you have. It would also direct the discussion toward themes that lead to a more objectively attainable conclusion.

He was saying that I said all Muslims fit a very narrow stereotype when I never said such things. I don't indulge people putting words in my mouth.

So like you, "my panties get in a bunch" when people put words in my mouth. On occasion, I don't precisely express the thought(s) in my head, but most of the time, I very specifically and comprehensively explain the substance and nuance of my ideas. So, yes, I share and understand your furor over that.

The thing I was pointing out is that Arianrhod didn't exactly do that, although it takes a close and careful read of his remarks to see that to be so. What he wrote says that he speculates/thinks/believes/posits that (1) your comments are a "smokescreen" hiding something else and (2) that "something else" is an "assumption that all Muslims fit a very narrow stereotype."

I grant, however, that the line, between what he wrote and actually putting words in your mouth is faint or "dashed," but it's there nonetheless. How so and why? Well, he opens the governing independent clause of his sentence using "I suspect." That small phrase tells us that, in the words that follow, he's stating what he believes to be so rather than asserting that it is so. The distinction is subtle, but it's there and unmistakably so.

Are there ways to have made the speculative nature of his statement even clearer? Yes, there are. For example, he might have conjugated "to be" in the subjunctive mood, writing "I suspect this be a smokescreen..." Doing so would have reinforced the tone/element of uncertainty introduced by "suspect," and it would have eliminated the ambiguity that resulted caused by the indicative mood conjugation he did use ("...is a smokescreen...") following "suspect." Adding a noun, pronoun or nominal phrase after the demonstrative adjective "this" also would have helped a little bit. Ending his sentence with a question mark would also have helped reinforce the element of doubt that accompanies "I suspect."

The problem, of course, is that this is an Internet forum and the mode of communication is writing. Moreover, in venues like this forum where we are all strangers to one another, one has to grant a good deal of "benefit of the doubt." In person discourse provides a variety of cues that inform the audience in ways that words alone sometimes cannot, most especially when the words aren't presented in strict adherence to the grammatical rules we've all been taught to follow for written expression. The result is that readers like you and me must infer what constructions the writer may have intended, overlooked, etc. and guess what might be the governing character the writer intended. Guesses of that sort are hard to make when the words one sees have jumbled tone/mood.

Make no mistake, even though I try to "get it right," I don't always, and even when I do, some readers aren't as adroitly in command of English as I and, as a result, they may misconstrue what I've written. (I don't often post in "sound bites" because their brevity is often another cause of confusion.) When/if they do, some folks "rear back on their haunches" and commence to defend themselves by attacking me, not my ideas, me. (That's not what you did re: Arianrhod.) Others use the tried and true, and neutral, questioning approach to confirm whether their read of what I wrote is accurate.

So, I'm saying that Arianrhod didn't put words in your mouth, but there's enough ambiguity in the grammatical construction he used to make it hard to be sure whether that was his intent. Asking for clarification would have been a better tack, better because he wrote "I suspect," than outright calling his statement fallacious.

Smoking and Islam's values:
As a practical matter, I think that a fair case can be made that smoking violates at least one principle of Islam. That said, in comparison with the deeds of, say, Osama Bin Laden or those ISIS/ISIL groups who are daily in the news, it's hardly enough to use as a basis for asserting that a Muslim has strayed from the path of Islam. For example, I wouldn't say a Christian person who lives in a U.S. city and who doesn't go to church is not living their religion.

Now, I 'm not a Muslim, and I don't know what tenets of Islam are universal and which of them are ascribed to by various sects of Muslim belief. I do know there are multiple disciplines of Islam just as there are versions of Christianity. Perhaps the guy in the opening post's video is a member of an Islamic sect that doesn't take exception with smoking? I don't know if he is or is not, but I do know I have no basis for judging his actions based on that short clip.

Humans are much to complicated to be defined fairly (in most instances) by and judged by just a couple minutes' depiction of their acts. Even infamous characters like Osama Bin Laden were (are) more multidimensional than is suggested by focusing solely on his orchestration of the 9/11 attack on the WTC and Pentagon. (FWIW, even though Mr. Bin Laden was a Muslim, I hardly would characterize him and his followers as being representative of most Muslims. Nor do I find that his interpretation of Islam is in any what what The Prophet and Allah would have encouraged.)

I've been very forthright with him. There's no need to "suspect" anything or otherwise manufacture non-stated positions for me.

 

[Arianrhod]

I don't despise Muslims for being bad Muslims. I despise Muslims for being Muslims.

Well, there it is. No need to pretend you care whether they smoke or not. Your definition of "debate" on this topic is specious.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Watch out - suicide bomber in a burqa ..... or maybe a rock guitarist.
Attacking your stereotypes with an 'axe'.

I can't stand burgas, they anonymize people and are unequal . I will only accept the burka the day all muslim men accept to wear one.

 

[320 Years of History]

Watch out - suicide bomber in a burqa ..... or maybe a rock guitarist.
Attacking your stereotypes with an 'axe'.

I can't stand burgas, they anonymize people and are unequal . I will only accept the burka the day all muslim men accept to wear one.

I know what a burka is. What are the "burgas" to which you refer in your first sentence of your second paragraph?

Burgas on the Black Sea:

 

[CultureCitizen]

Watch out - suicide bomber in a burqa ..... or maybe a rock guitarist.
Attacking your stereotypes with an 'axe'.

I can't stand burgas, they anonymize people and are unequal . I will only accept the burka the day all muslim men accept to wear one.

I know what a burka is. What are the "burgas" to which you refer in your first sentence of your second paragraph?

Burgas on the Black Sea:

Does my spelling mistake make burqas or burkas any more humane ?

 

[320 Years of History]

Watch out - suicide bomber in a burqa ..... or maybe a rock guitarist.
Attacking your stereotypes with an 'axe'.

I can't stand burgas, they anonymize people and are unequal . I will only accept the burka the day all muslim men accept to wear one.

I know what a burka is. What are the "burgas" to which you refer in your first sentence of your second paragraph?

Burgas on the Black Sea:

Does my spelling mistake make burqas or burkas any more humane ?

I didn't realize it was a spelling error, mainly because you'd spelled burkas correctly in the second sentence of that paragraph and "g" isn't near "k" or typed with the same digits as "k." TY for clarifying that it is a typo.

And no, a spelling error has zero impact on the garment or how and why it's worn.