"Islamist" neologism
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.scoobynet.com/888939-hea...he-dark-2.html
Read the posts before #57 for context and the subsequent posts for clarity. My position is and always has been deeply critical of fundamentalism and my record attests to this. In lieu of sound argument you become a libeller.
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defining a state on purely religious grounds is ridiculous.
Not to mention the completely arbitrary use of the word Islamism given that the word has no consensus on its definiton but we both know what you are trying to do there eh.
http://www.meforum.org/541/coming-to...s-or-islamists
#33
Scooby Regular
In error.
https://www.scoobynet.com/888939-hea...he-dark-2.html
Read the posts before #57 for context and the subsequent posts for clarity. My position is and always has been deeply critical of fundamentalism and my record attests to this. In lieu of sound argument you become a libeller.
https://www.scoobynet.com/888939-hea...he-dark-2.html
Read the posts before #57 for context and the subsequent posts for clarity. My position is and always has been deeply critical of fundamentalism and my record attests to this. In lieu of sound argument you become a libeller.
post 300 or so
https://www.scoobynet.com/888171-isr...l#post10044908
youi openly admit to admiring the iranian quest for WMD
and
"I actually get Islamism. If I were a sincere Muslim I'd want my homeland to be an Islamic emirate, not some sloppy secular state or sham democracy or an absolute monarchy where men, not Allah, are sovereign. Additionally, I'd have to consider violence as a means to achieve that goal. It worked for the French and Russian and American and Chinese revolutionaries over the last few centuries and they (alongside the British who had their own civil war) now make up the UNSC. I share some of the Islamists' criticism of gross materialism, too; their position is tenable."
I repeat
two sides - same coin (as I said over two years ago)
sorry but it is true - and deep down you know it
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 25 January 2013 at 10:56 AM.
#34
Carry on a lets see you try and pull it apart.
Mohammad and his followers disagree.
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your posts speak for themselves
post 300 or so
https://www.scoobynet.com/888171-isr...l#post10044908
youi openly admit to admiring the iranian quest for WMD
and
"I actually get Islamism. If I were a sincere Muslim I'd want my homeland to be an Islamic emirate, not some sloppy secular state or sham democracy or an absolute monarchy where men, not Allah, are sovereign. Additionally, I'd have to consider violence as a means to achieve that goal. It worked for the French and Russian and American and Chinese revolutionaries over the last few centuries and they (alongside the British who had their own civil war) now make up the UNSC. I share some of the Islamists' criticism of gross materialism, too; their position is tenable."
I repeat
two sides - same coin (as I did over two years ago)
sorry but it is true - and deep down you know it
post 300 or so
https://www.scoobynet.com/888171-isr...l#post10044908
youi openly admit to admiring the iranian quest for WMD
and
"I actually get Islamism. If I were a sincere Muslim I'd want my homeland to be an Islamic emirate, not some sloppy secular state or sham democracy or an absolute monarchy where men, not Allah, are sovereign. Additionally, I'd have to consider violence as a means to achieve that goal. It worked for the French and Russian and American and Chinese revolutionaries over the last few centuries and they (alongside the British who had their own civil war) now make up the UNSC. I share some of the Islamists' criticism of gross materialism, too; their position is tenable."
I repeat
two sides - same coin (as I did over two years ago)
sorry but it is true - and deep down you know it
Last edited by JTaylor; 25 January 2013 at 11:10 AM. Reason: Spelling.
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok. Before I do that, can you let me know which word or words you would like me to use instead of Islamism?
All I have are the translated source texts and I must admit my Arabic is limited. Is it the case that one is excluded from discussing Islam unless one's fluent in Arabic?
That's quite alright. I posted it to demonstrate that I, alongside the pro-Israel, Jewish author, get your position.
Really you can speak for Mohammad and his followers ? All of them ? That is amazing considering I bet you cannot even understand Arabic.
Despite being written by a pro Israel, jew that article proves my point nicely thank you.
Last edited by JTaylor; 25 January 2013 at 11:32 AM. Reason: Modify second sentence.
#37
Scooby Regular
The only logical goal given the ideological underpinnings of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the acquisition of nuclear arms. Their position is cogent and teneble from a starting point of Shia theocracy. You seem to be confusing my capacity to understand that with something else. When asked to elucidate in that thread you just disappear. I understand why planes were flown in to the twin towers and why Hitler murdered Freemasons and why Robespierre did his thing and attempted to understand Breivik's reasoning. As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War "If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles... if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." You'd do well to heed that advice.
sorry
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#8 and #10
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...-do-exist.html
#76
https://www.scoobynet.com/855681-isl...of-life-3.html
Ready when you are, Luan.
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...-do-exist.html
#76
https://www.scoobynet.com/855681-isl...of-life-3.html
Ready when you are, Luan.
#40
All I have are the translated source texts and I must admit my Arabic is limited. Is it the case that one is excluded from discussing Islam unless one's fluent in Arabic?
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Claiming to have such a dominant unquestionable opinion on the meaning of the the Quran, and the opinions of every single Muslim in existence without even having read it in its native language seems a bit optimistic.
#42
I am confident in the existence of a giant invisible tea pot that floats around the earth but I guess I would need some quotes, or references for your to believe in my giant invisible tea pot. I am sure there are people that want to restore a caliphate but there are people who want to kill all the Muslims in England not sure what the relevance is, I have never claimed that militant Islam does not exist.
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure there are people that want to restore a caliphate but there are people who want to kill all the Muslims in England not sure what the relevance is
I have never claimed that militant Islam does not exist.
Last edited by JTaylor; 25 January 2013 at 07:06 PM.
#44
Because we're discussing Islamism/Militant Islam/Political Islam/Fundamental Islam/Jihadi-Muslim-Activists that are at the epicentre of events across South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Have you missed it?
You explicitly claimed in #29 that the restoration of the caliphate (Islamic emirate) was the goal of "only a few isolated nut jobs in the UK and a handful of rogue states". That blatantly understates the case. Interesting days in Egypt and Mali and Syria and Iraq and...
You explicitly claimed in #29 that the restoration of the caliphate (Islamic emirate) was the goal of "only a few isolated nut jobs in the UK and a handful of rogue states". That blatantly understates the case. Interesting days in Egypt and Mali and Syria and Iraq and...
Last edited by Luan Pra bang; 26 January 2013 at 11:56 AM.
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So to cut this short what percentage of the worlds Muslims do you think want to take over the world...
...and what evidence do you have to support your claim ?
Your general consensus has been that Islam leads inevitably to Militant Islam and you have yet to provide justification for that view.
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
So to cut this short what percentage of the worlds Muslims do you think want to take over the world.
in simple terms what happens if you put a few bad apples into a barrel of good ones. the answer is obvious, after time even the good ones become infected to a certain point
in simple terms what happens if you put a few bad apples into a barrel of good ones. the answer is obvious, after time even the good ones become infected to a certain point
#47
[QUOTE=JTaylor;10960733]This doesn't make any sense, you need to recast the sentence.[quote]
yep it did not make sense, it does now.
So what are you basing your assumptions on then
The claim that you can speak for what Mohammad and his followers believe in and think, all 1.7 billion of them.
Irrelevant, and in part wrong, all Muslim fundamentalists CLAIM to be Muslim not all Muslims are fundamentalist. It is also a set of cultural and social factors that lead to Militant Islam not religion.
yep it did not make sense, it does now.
I don't know.
What claim?
There's absolutely nothing else that could possibly lead to militant Islam other than Islam. This is self-evident and as such formal logic justifies that view.
Irrelevant, and in part wrong, all Muslim fundamentalists CLAIM to be Muslim not all Muslims are fundamentalist. It is also a set of cultural and social factors that lead to Militant Islam not religion.
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's remains barely comprehensible, but let's not get bogged down in that.
I've not made any assumptions.
I've not made that claim.
You state that what I've written is "irrelevant", yet if you read back through you'll discover that I responded, succinctly, to a point of order that you raised.
I agree with your second statement that "not all Muslims are fundamentalist"; I'd speculate that vast swathes of people who are Muslim by birth do not understand the fundamentals of Islam. As I say, this is only speculation.
Finally, the notion that "it is also a set of cultural and social factors that lead to Militant Islam not religion" needs examining. Non-political Islam is a religion, if one excludes religion as a cause, as you have done, one also excludes Islam. Therefore we're left with the proposition that militant Islam can exist without Islam as a precursor. I trust you're able to recognise why this is absurd.
So what are you basing your assumptions on then
The claim that you can speak for what Mohammad and his followers believe in and think, all 1.7 billion of them.
Irrelevant, and in part wrong, all Muslim fundamentalists CLAIM to be Muslim not all Muslims are fundamentalist. It is also a set of cultural and social factors that lead to Militant Islam not religion.
I agree with your second statement that "not all Muslims are fundamentalist"; I'd speculate that vast swathes of people who are Muslim by birth do not understand the fundamentals of Islam. As I say, this is only speculation.
Finally, the notion that "it is also a set of cultural and social factors that lead to Militant Islam not religion" needs examining. Non-political Islam is a religion, if one excludes religion as a cause, as you have done, one also excludes Islam. Therefore we're left with the proposition that militant Islam can exist without Islam as a precursor. I trust you're able to recognise why this is absurd.
Last edited by JTaylor; 26 January 2013 at 09:02 PM.
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#52
I've not made any assumptions.[/quote]
You sure about that,
see post above for an example for your claims and assumptions
You are beginning to create stupid strawman arguments now and it is becoming a waste of time trying to establish key points if you keep making ridiculous statements.
You sure about that,
see post above for an example for your claims and assumptions
You state that what I've written is "irrelevant", yet if you read back through you'll discover that I responded, succinctly, to a point of order that you raised.
Finally, the notion that "it is also a set of cultural and social factors that lead to Militant Islam not religion" needs examining. Non-political Islam is a religion, if one excludes religion as a cause, as you have done, one also excludes Islam. Therefore we're left with the proposition that militant Islam can exist without Islam as a precursor. I trust you're able to recognise why this is absurd.
Finally, the notion that "it is also a set of cultural and social factors that lead to Militant Islam not religion" needs examining. Non-political Islam is a religion, if one excludes religion as a cause, as you have done, one also excludes Islam. Therefore we're left with the proposition that militant Islam can exist without Islam as a precursor. I trust you're able to recognise why this is absurd.
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luan, you said:
and I said:
The Islamic State of the Caliphate was a constitutional ecclesiocracy. The constitution was the Constitution of Medina (written by Mohammad) and the Caliphate was ecclesiocratic (arguably theocratic) in that it was led by religious leaders (the first being Mohammad) according to religious (Sharia) law. That you believe this (the defining of a state on purely religious grounds) to be ridiculous is perfectly ok, but Mohammad and his followers disagree.
Defining a state on purely religious grounds is ridiculous.
Mohammad and his followers disagree.
Last edited by JTaylor; 28 January 2013 at 09:32 AM.
#54
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (34)
The Islamic State of the Caliphate was a constitutional ecclesiocracy. The constitution was the Constitution of Medina (written by Mohammad) and the Caliphate was ecclesiocratic (arguably theocratic) in that it was led by religious leaders (the first being Mohammad) according to religious (Sharia) law. That you believe this (the defining of a state on purely religious grounds) to be ridiculous is perfectly ok, but Mohammad and his followers disagree.
#55
The Islamic State of the Caliphate was a constitutional ecclesiocracy. The constitution was the Constitution of Medina (written by Mohammad) and the Caliphate was ecclesiocratic (arguably theocratic) in that it was led by religious leaders (the first being Mohammad) according to religious (Sharia) law. That you believe this (the defining of a state on purely religious grounds) to be ridiculous is perfectly ok, but Mohammad and his followers disagree.
The Medina Constitution instituted peaceful methods of dispute resolution among diverse groups living as one people but without assimilating into one religion, language, or culture.[16] Welch in Encyclopedia of Islam states: "The constitution reveals his Muhammad's great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal that he cherished of an ummah (community) based clearly on a religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by practical considerations."
The thing about the constitution of Medina is that for starters an original copy has ever been found and the second is that it is commonly seen as a way to get the Muslims, Jews and Christians to live together with relative peace, I am not sure how you can classify that as a theocracy. This is especially true when it is made clear that the Medina constitution had elements of democracy when the world had very little of it and as far as I am aware Mohammad left very little information on how his succession should be handled.
The non-Muslims included in the ummah had the following rights:[22]
The security of God is equal for all groups,[23]
Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.[24]
Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.[25]
Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.[26]
The security of God is equal for all groups,[23]
Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.[24]
Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.[25]
Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.[26]
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can take any one of several religions and they'll all have followers, who would happily have the state run in accordance with their respective religious beliefs.
You will also have followers who don't want the link between the two. It's syllogistic to suggest that all muslims want this link.
If you want a state defined purely on religious grounds in my opinion Israel is as good as an example as any.
Last edited by JTaylor; 28 January 2013 at 12:37 PM. Reason: Spelling
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and the second is that it is commonly seen as a way to get the Muslims, Jews and Christians to live together with relative peace, I am not sure how you can classify that as a theocracy. This is especially true when it is made clear that the Medina constitution had elements of democracy when the world had very little of it and as far as I am aware Mohammad left very little information on how his succession should be handled.
So is it your claim that the Caliphate was not theocratic?
Last edited by JTaylor; 28 January 2013 at 01:18 PM. Reason: Modify the paragraph.
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 2,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Islamist" is derogatory word, designed to play on words that are already known such as "racist" and join the word Islam to it, creating association between the two words so people start assume one is the other...propaganda at it's finest.
#59
Ok, well perhaps you should take that up with your local mosque.
You've not addressed the issue of dhimma within the constitution, Luan, and you appear to have ignored the nature of Sharia that dominated and persists in the Sudan and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Yemen and Afghanistan and Iran and Nigeria and Mauritania and Oman and Somalia and...
So is it your claim that the Caliphate was not theocratic?
You've not addressed the issue of dhimma within the constitution, Luan, and you appear to have ignored the nature of Sharia that dominated and persists in the Sudan and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Yemen and Afghanistan and Iran and Nigeria and Mauritania and Oman and Somalia and...
So is it your claim that the Caliphate was not theocratic?
Well actually Dhimmi and the protected status they had was exactly what I was talking about, compare this with the persecution the Catholics were still suffering in England 400 years later kind of makes Islamic nations look very tolerant and progressive compared to other nations at that time. I am also intrigued by your obsession with the caliphate like it was homogenous, the actual problem with Khilafa's was that everyone took their own opinion and it split Islam into different groups.
Did you know that the Caliphate still exists ? The descendents of Mohammad are still there and Hazaar imam is still advising Muslims around the world on integrating modern culture and faith. He has told followers to adapt their religion to the culture of the countries they live in and to not expect things to happen the other way around, he also has no interest in terrorism. militancy or another of the other crap you associate with Islam but I guess you will only accept facts that fit your prejudice and not the other way around.
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well actually Dhimmi and the protected status they had was exactly what I was talking about, compare this with the persecution the Catholics were still suffering in England 400 years later kind of makes Islamic nations look very tolerant and progressive compared to other nations at that time. I am also intrigued by your obsession with the caliphate like it was homogenous, the actual problem with Khilafa's was that everyone took their own opinion and it split Islam into different groups.
Did you know that the Caliphate still exists ? The descendents of Mohammad are still there and Hazaar imam is still advising Muslims around the world on integrating modern culture and faith. He has told followers to adapt their religion to the culture of the countries they live in and to not expect things to happen the other way around, he also has no interest in terrorism. militancy or another of the other crap you associate with Islam but I guess you will only accept facts that fit your prejudice and not the other way around.
Did you know that the Caliphate still exists ? The descendents of Mohammad are still there and Hazaar imam is still advising Muslims around the world on integrating modern culture and faith. He has told followers to adapt their religion to the culture of the countries they live in and to not expect things to happen the other way around, he also has no interest in terrorism. militancy or another of the other crap you associate with Islam but I guess you will only accept facts that fit your prejudice and not the other way around.
Last edited by JTaylor; 29 January 2013 at 05:03 PM.