Muslims comment on Olypmic timing

cleanbluesky · 16 Oct 2006 at 18:34

WushuMaster said:
Like I said earlier, its not explicit. I agree with you that anyone who cares enough to look at the whole article and extract the exact meaning from it will not be mislead by the article. Like I said before though, not everyone is like you and I. Many people will just take from it that muslims are bad news and that the scale of the problem is larger than it actually is. This is irresponsible journalism

Actually it isn't. It's people not paying enough attention, I'm sorry if you feel something you care about is being 'misportrayed', perhaps you should find the person who has been making these comments and also explain it to him - I am sure that you will be angry at him for also misportraying the issue. Not fogetting the pro-Muslim stories that the Mirror print (or used to!) I think they were a bit simplistic as well, but I'm sure they stoke your anger becasue they're over simplified. I'm sure you get angry with the 'regligion of peace' crap becasue its an over oversimplified.

Unless, you're just angry that Islam has gained bad publicity once more, and are blaming the media for doing exactly what it does on every subject...

WushuMaster · 16 Oct 2006 at 18:40

cleanbluesky said:
Actually it isn't. It's people not paying enough attention, I'm sorry if you feel something you care about is being 'misportrayed', perhaps you should find the person who has been making these comments and also explain it to him - I am sure that you will be angry at him for also misportraying the issue. Not fogetting the pro-Muslim stories that the Mirror print (or used to!) I think they were a bit simplistic as well, but I'm sure they stoke your anger becasue they're over simplified.

Nobody is misportraying the issue but the mail. The objector is entitled to his view is he not? BUT, the crucial point is, most muslims do not agree with him. So therefore, when the media present a story in such an ambiguous manner and give it such prominence, I fully understand why an ordinary member of the public associates Muslims (most muslims for purposes of clarity) with terrorism, or violence or moaning etc, when this is not true of the overwhelming majority.

cleanbluesky · 16 Oct 2006 at 18:49

WushuMaster said:
Nobody is misportraying the issue but the mail.

Nobody has covered the issue but the Mail, and to claim that the Mail is unique in the habit of mispotrayal would suggest that the claimant is blissfully naieve of almost every tabloid.

The objector is entitled to his view is he not? BUT, the crucial point is, most muslims do not agree with him.

Source or assumption?

So therefore, when the media present a story in such an ambiguous manner and give it such prominence, I fully understand why an ordinary member of the public associates Muslims (most muslims for purposes of clarity) with terrorism, or violence or moaning etc, when this is not true of the overwhelming majority.

To define 'Muslims' as a group is complex. As I have said before, media is often simple. You'll find almost every other group treated in this way. But you also need to acknoweldge that Muslims DO share a certain collective set of attitudes, if only becasue they all associate themselves as a cohesive group (until it suits not to)

VIRII · 16 Oct 2006 at 19:20

rabanthor said:
The pair of you have some common ground now, with new kids and all...congrats to you and visage if you are reading this.

Thankyou

VIRII · 16 Oct 2006 at 19:25

WushuMaster said:
Nobody is misportraying the issue but the mail. The objector is entitled to his view is he not? BUT, the crucial point is, most muslims do not agree with him. So therefore, when the media present a story in such an ambiguous manner and give it such prominence, I fully understand why an ordinary member of the public associates Muslims (most muslims for purposes of clarity) with terrorism, or violence or moaning etc, when this is not true of the overwhelming majority.

Skiers feared lost in avalanche.
Children killed in school bus accident.
Soldiers feared dead in Iraq.

The above are typical headlines and do NOT INFER ALL of the above in any way, but if you wished to argue that they do infer that all kids, soldier and skiers etc are involved then you could claim it is ambiguous.

The muslim headline is no different, or do we need to give special consideration to muslims yet again?

DarkShadow · 16 Oct 2006 at 19:35

I am Muslim, and I think this is stupid.

An athlete won't be forced to fast if they are in the Olympics. They will be fine. They can do whatever and it will be forgiven because of this obligation.

- Sarah, Washington DC, USA

She can't honestly be serious? :eek:

:\

VIRII · 16 Oct 2006 at 19:43

dark_shadow said:
She can't honestly be serious? :\

Why?

cleanbluesky · 16 Oct 2006 at 19:43

dark_shadow said:
She can't honestly be serious? :\

I don't think Allah will strike her down TBH

sunama · 18 Oct 2006 at 09:07

But in the afterlife, she will be damned to hell for centuries.

Edinho · 18 Oct 2006 at 09:25

cleanbluesky said:
Personally, if I were in that position and I still wanted to keep both I would do "night shifts" that way I could eat at regular intervals and sleep during the day. hence, I wouldn't have to break fast

Seperate issue but... I worked with someone whilst on shifts who would go on nights for 1 month to avoid having to fast :confused:

Think that was one loop hole that mohammed over looked :rolleyes:

VIRII · 18 Oct 2006 at 09:50

sunama said:
But in the afterlife, she will be damned to hell for centuries.

Do you actually believe that?

VIRII · 18 Oct 2006 at 09:51

Edinho said:
Seperate issue but... I worked with someone whilst on shifts who would go on nights for 1 month to avoid having to fast Think that was one loop hole that mohammed over looked

There are no loopholes, Islam is *perfect* ...... or so we are told.