Islamist? Islamic?

RaMDOM

RaMDOM

RaMDOM

Associate
Joined
20 Nov 2005
Posts
1,664
Location
Birmingham
Can someone tell me why the media are suddenly calling the troublesome people of a Muslim persuasion 'Islamist'? I am sure we used to call them 'Islamic'.

Islamist coupled with the words after just doesn't sound right and is awkward to says tbh: Islamist terrorist / Islamist rebel / Islamist uprising. Preceding these words with Islamic just sounds more correct? Is this another case of the Americans dictating our English again?

Sorry for strange thread but I just wanted to get some idea as to why this has started. Or maybe it was always the way and I just did not notice/care?
 
Islamist tends to refer to the political ideology rather than the religious one. So Islamist terrorist would be more accurate.
 
Any examples?

Is this another case of the Americans dictating our English again?
Click to expand...

Why does English belong to us? English belongs to no one. It is an evolving language spoken all over the world.
 
Hamish said:
Any examples?
Click to expand...

this page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21240676

Hamish said:
Why does English belong to us? English belongs to no one. It is an evolving language spoken all over the world.
Click to expand...

Not saying that it belongs to us at all but I do have a sneaking suspicion that we are the country from which the language originates.

So are you saying when an 'Americanism' sneaks into our daily life it doesn't annoy you even the tiniest bit? Fair enough.
 
RaMDOM said:
[..]
Not saying that it belongs to us at all but I do have a sneaking suspicion that we are the country from which the language originates.
[..]
Click to expand...

Well, that depends on what you call English. Old English was being spoken long before it came here. Modern English has multiple origins (mostly Old English, but well flavoured with Latin, French, Norse, etc), although you could reasonably argue that they came together as a single language here.
 
RDM said:
Islamist tends to refer to the political ideology rather than the religious one. So Islamist terrorist would be more accurate.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I am fairly confident in saying that their religious beliefs do not command, or even condone, this kind of behaviour.
 
RaMDOM said:
But I think that they think they do.
Click to expand...

Well I think you're wrong.

I think that they belief may support the end goal - of an Islamic state governed by a particular set of rules with the expected behaviour being listed. I'm fairly confident there are no texts supporting terrorism on any level in order to achieve this.

I think they are just a bunch of **** who find this to be as good an excuse as any.

(apologies for the edit, i seem to have deleted my last line before hitting send)
 
Wikipedia is your friend OP...

Islamic is just another word for Muslim whereas Islamist means....

Islamism (Islam+-ism; Arabic: إسلام سياسي‎ Islām siyāsī, "Political Islam", or الإسلامية al-Islāmīyah) is a set of ideologies holding that "Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life".[1] Islamism is a controversial neologism, and definitions of it sometimes vary (see below). Leading Islamist thinkers emphasize the implementation of Sharia (Islamic law); of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the elimination of non-Muslim, particularly Western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world, which they believe to be incompatible with Islam.[2] Some observers suggest Islamism's tenets are less strict, and can be defined as a form of identity politics or "support for [Muslim] identity, authenticity, broader regionalism, revivalism, [and] revitalization of the community".[3]

Many of those described as "Islamists" oppose the use of the term, and claim that their political beliefs and goals are simply an expression of Islamic religious belief. Similarly, some experts favor the term activist Islam,[4][5] or political Islam,[6] instead. Also sometimes the term militant Islam is equated with the term Islamism.[7] Following the Arab Spring professor Olivier Roy of the European University Institute in an article in Foreign Policy has described political Islam as "increasingly interdependent" with democracy, such that "neither can now survive without the other".
Click to expand...
 
shoes said:
Well I think you're wrong.

I think that they belief may support the end goal - of an Islamic state governed by a particular set of rules with the expected behaviour being listed. I'm fairly confident there are no texts supporting terrorism on any level in order to achieve this.
Click to expand...

Have you read the Qu'ran? Muhammed is described as the "Warrior Muslim" and spent his last 10 years as the leader of an army in a war against the pagans from Mecca.

The Qu'ran certainly DOES support armed struggle, fighting and killing infidels an massively encourages the persecuted victim complex that justifies 'defending the faith'.

What we would call an Islamist Terrorist, he would call himself a Muslim Warrior.

Further more....

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
Yet 99.999% of Muslims don't go and blow themselves up :eek:.

You know, in the same way not all Christians think they should go around crusading/blowing up abortion clinics/etc.
Click to expand...

True, but the post you're replying to was a counter to the argument that not only does Islam not condone acts of violence but that the Muslims who do commit acts of violence in the name of Islam believe that Islam doesn't condone those acts.

That statement is completely wrong, as the post you replied to shows. Islam, like Christianity, is fundamentally a power-orientated religion, can be interpreted to condone and require extreme violence and brutality and does have followers who do interpret it that way. Islam even more so than Christianity, since Christianity was supposedly founded on peace whereas Islam was founded on conquest by force. But either can be, has been and sometimes still is interpreted as requiring conquest by force and rule by oppression, with brutality and violence all the way to any extreme, including but not limited to torturing people to death as a message to compel obedience through fear, mass murder...absolutely anything that obtains or maintains power and control.
 
Moses said:
Yet 99.999% of Muslims don't go and blow themselves up :eek:.

You know, in the same way not all Christians think they should go around crusading/blowing up abortion clinics/etc.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that was never my point though.

If you look at my contributions in the "Innocent Until Proven Muslim" thread (Speakers' Corner) you'll see me making this exact point.

That doesn't however mean the sentence "The Qu'ran does not approve of violence" is true though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom