Well, fine- that’s why I asked. But it is true that Alderbaron made a big deal about being offended by that username- and that he- “Alderbaron-the arbiter…” was ruling that “no true Moslem…” etc.
If AA was a troll, I missed his trollish posts. Not that I was looking, mind you- nor I am arguing that AA wasn’t a troll. In the linked to thread, there did not seem to be any trolling by him- IMHO.
If I may… Welcome to our newest member…
Thank you for coming in an clarifying this. That was what I’d learnt from my friends too.
By the way, are people now going to attack Bibliovore and demand a cite of him? He hasn’t provided any here either.
Mr.B, I know about the stories and the general ideas propounded by the Gita. I certainly couldn’t start quoting passages though! Good luck with your decision.
First off, please read the title of this thread. It’s not about the banning. It’s about the mere fact of the username being considered as some kind of proof.
Next, nobody who has a good understanding of either the English language or debate is going to ask Bibliovore for a cite. He clearly indicated that what he was posting was his opinion. Aldebaran touted his opinion, as he usually does (his posts are my cites for this), as though they are the unalterable proof of his assertions.
Lastly, DrDeth was obviously making a salient point that a number of people seem to have missed. To wit:
Thanks folks (aasna, bibiovore, gobear), interesting. You fought my ignorance there.
I bet our troll also had no clue about this. i expect the name was picked to pretend to be muslim. If I were pretending to be a fundie Xtian I would call myself “Jesus is Lord” or the like. May I take it there’s no concept of “witnessing” in Islam, then?
I’m not interested in if the name was picked to pretend to be Muslim. I’m interested in if it is, in fact, a valid statement to say “no Muslim would ever pick such a username.” So far, it seems that it is not a valid assertion. So, that’s assertion #1 shot to death.
Now, how about assertion #2 of Aldie’s. This should be a lot easier by proving the opposite of it: Would one Muslim ever address another as “friend?”
Monty we’re (MHO) back to my point which was that generalized statement as you quoted here, “no x would do y” where “x” is a large, multi layered group (as in muslims, christians, americans, koreans, male, gay, etc etc etc) and “y” is a general principal/generalization consistent with what “MOST” of that group would agree with, the statement ‘no x would do y’ is not generally made as an assertion that absolutely zero of that group would do it, but that rather, MOST would not.
as in all of my prior examples.
IOW, barring some specific wording of his that said “absolutely zero Muslims internationally would ever consider doing that”, I’d say the person was making a generalization, the sort that many of us do (although because of this type of behavior, I try to- as in most of the time I remember to but not guarenteeing that I’ve never not given qualifiers- give qualifiers as in “generally” or “most” vs. the very specific “No” “all”).
there is no set of data wherein all of any large group are polled to provide this sort of ‘cite’. (probably - at least I’m not aware of anything wherein any significantly large groups beliefs etc would be categorized into a databank)
So, when one sees folks make that sort of statement, “all CHristians would find this objectionable”, there’s several options available:
Accept that they’re making a generalization, rather than claiming that absolutely every single Christian in the entire world, past and present would find it objectionable, and deal with the substance of their claim (as in do you really think that most would find it objectionable or not)
Suggest to them that perhaps they were not intending to claim absolutely every blah blah blah, and allow them to either agree or disagree w/that
Assume that they did indeed mean absolutely every single blah blah blah, demand for a cite, where you know it’s impossible, and then hammer them on for pages and pages saying ‘see, you failed to prove your assertion’
again. the casual statement “no x would do y” or “x’s believe y” IMHO, unless specifically claiming the absolute should be taken as a ‘generally’ type of thing, and deal with the underlying issue rather than derailing the discussion to get sidetracked on minutia that doesn’t further any real discussion.
You are, IMHO, wring, ignoring Aldebaran’s flat assertion that the mere fact that someone would call a Muslim person “friend” proved that person was not Muslim. That isn’t an assertion that most Muslims wouldn’t do it; it’s a positive assertion that not a single Muslim on the planet would use such a word to address another Muslim.
IOW, Aldebaran clearly specifically claimed the absolute on both assertions.
I never read the original thread, but if Aldebaran did indeed specifically claim the absolute on both assertions, then I think it was a mistake to do so, as I believe absolutes should be avoided whenever possible.
While it is highly unlikely that a devout Muslim would use the username “Alah Akbar”, there are of course Mulims out there who are less than devout, and Muslims who couldn’t care less about respect, tradition, or any of the other niceties of the religion, so it isn’t completely outside the realms of possibility.
As for calling another Muslim “friend”, I don’t see why this would be prohibited on even frowned upon in the religion. I have not heard of any Surahs in the Quran or any Hadeeth that prohibit the use of this term, so I don’t see how it’s use would somehow give the lie to someone claiming to be a Muslim.
Having said that, I have never been addressed as “friend” by another Muslim in my entire life, either by close aquaintances or complete strangers. The usual term is “brother” or “sister” if the person is a stranger, and the first name if you are on familiar terms. Sometimes these are combined if you’re on “Semi-familiar” terms, so the person is addressed as “Brother Firstname”, or “Sister Firstname”.
Hope that helps.
Bib
I’m sorry, Monty, but I’d like to clarify if this thread is more about Aldebaran being proven wrong, or about wanting to know the facts regarding naming conventions in Islam. If the latter, I would think your question has been answered. If the former, then you should have clarified right from the start that this was an Aldebaran pitting, and you wouldn’t rest until it was made absolutely clear to everyone that “Aldebaran Is Wrong!”.
I apologise if that sounds patronising, because I honestly don’t mean to, but this is really beginning to sound more like a vendetta than anything else.
There’s a difference between whether a Muslim would do so-and-so and whether the Qur’an prohibits so-and-so.
Exactly. Just because the Quran prohibits a thing, doesn’t mean that every Muslim on the planet will abide by that prohibition. We’re as weak and as fallible as anyone else.
aasna: Well, it does sound a bit patronising. But, I’m not worried about it. At any rate, please read the last paragraph of the OP.
Monty - I don’t seem to be able to explain my point to you. So, I’ll stop.
What about Hezbollah? Is it okay for groups to name themselves after allah?
DrDeth
“biblio”, as anyone who has studied Latin knows, means “book”. “The Bible” means “The Book”, as in “The book that is so well known that it does not have to named”. The term “bibliovore” is a loose translation of the word “bookworm”. The consumption of books is not meant literally.
wring: Good, because you’re roundly ignoring the issue at hand and the posts in response.
oh, absolutely, Monty, it couldn’t possibly be you.
enjoy.
Monty, you have your own agenda in this thread, which is not the same as mine. i don’t care one tiny bit what Aldebaran says.
Feel free to go on, but gosh it’s pretty boring now that it’s got down to arguing about whether a generalisation phrased strictly as “No x would do Y” can ever be true. No it can’t, and you know it. You are right. Aldebaran is wrong. Indeed, Aldebaran is an idiot (even if he & I share quite a few political views, he’s only damaging the argument.) Can we all go home now?
The only interesting thing to me was whether the generalisation was true when phrased more normally, as in “In general, members of group X would not do Y”, and I thank those who enlightened me.
Aldeberan always speaks in absolutes. Every single time. If he was were to speak in non-absolutes for even a microsecond, the universe as we know it would cease to exist.
Take this as a life rule as unshakable as gravity: Aldeberan == absolutes.