"Islamist" neologism
 

This has come to my attention in recent news bulletins and a google search of the word is interesting.

It surprises me how journalists are now using it as I would have thought it would be considered politically incorrect as it appears to be linking religion with terrorism/violence. Previously the approach seemed to be along the lines of, "Religious people and religion are good, and bad people masquerade under its banner for the purpose of violence." Now there seems to be a direct association and it appears surprisingly unchallenged.

There are just too many cases of Islamist violence and terrorism for it to be hidden under PC clothes

With all the terror attacks around the world, murders for insults like burnign a book, the feeling against muslims is growing, and im afraid to say most of it is by a minority of them which are now tarnishing the majority.

Islamism is political Islam, not all Muslims subscribe to it.

What distinction is made in the source texts between Islam and political Islam, Maz?

No idea James. I tend not to be too literal with Islam in my life. There are far too many 'beardie' know it alls who all offer differing interpretations that I choose not to listen to any.

Just the adhaan and the stigma of apostasy that precludes you from joining the ranks of the infidel then? ;)

Its funny how Islamism has been invented as a word to deliberately link fundamental, Militant or Political Islam to Islam in general. It has become a subtle attack on the religion itself. Personally I don't accept the use of the word as there is no strict definition and instead it is, like most things debatable whether the the word has any meaning at all.
The idea that any significant number of western raised Muslims give a **** about it is another misconception that is supported by these unsubtle attempts to muddy the water between Muslims and Islamists.
IF you do the maths the western and European nations have banded together and invaded Muslim countries, repeatedly in our lifetimes, Iraq twice, Afganistan twice, Palestine has almost been wiped of the map by the EU USA combo but how many European nations have been invaded by Islamic armies in our lifetime ? The Muslim world has a lot more reasons to fear the west than the other way around.

Your warning maybe a little too late.;)

It does make you (perhaps just me though) laugh as Muslims are simply a type of religious person ... there happens to be a few nutters who are also Muslim but so fookin what?! There are also nutters who happen to be another religion or indeed not religious at all, again so fookin what. We have 7bn people on the planet so even if just 0.1% of them are nutters you have 7m of them :eek: then you have the Press reporting every minor transgression ffs!

TX.

This is what I'm getting at. I wonder how many people like me that don't know any Muslims personally (or don't know that they are Muslims and don't assume) find that their views towards Muslims are shaped by the press and have to fight not to have preconceived ideas that most Muslims are violent, oppressive, farm drugs to poison our youth, subjugate women and are generally hot headed and a bit stupid with it. I think if I was an alien that landed and understood English and watched the news I would believe that all Muslims were evil. It sometimes seems like we're setting ourselves up for all out war with the Muslim world, although as your post points out we already have done that. I'm not one to usually land on the liberal side of an argument, but something seems to have changed in the press coverage, maybe it is just my perception of it. It seems to me more recent than the earlier post linked in 2010 by James. Are we changing into the parody of roughneck Americans that we love to mock with their xenophobia?

There are not massive differences between Muslims and anyone else, second generation Pakistanis laugh at the 'backwards' village people who arrive in the UK knowing nothing of English culture. The mentality and religion of mid east Muslims is totally different to those from Pakistan or an African nation. The idea that somehow Muslims are a separate species and homogenous is ridiculous there are the same differences in politics and ideology in the Islamic world as the non Islamic one. The only difference I see now is the deliberate attempts to create a them and us mentality which will never work because despite what people think, in the real world people are just people trying to enjoy their lives. Muslims go to school and make friends with non Muslims and the world moves on.

Radical Islam is the most serious threat to the world.

Do you have any evidence for that ?

The sh!t will hit the fan when the Communist contingent start to flex their muscles. Any perceived threat from Islam will pale in to insignificance.

Is that a serious question?

Yes,

i posted this a few years ago on an ealier "Islam" thread

deals with exactly your point John

well worth a listen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b00xw21x

https://www.scoobynet.com/showpost.p...9&postcount=94

I wonder if the author thought Sayyid Qtub's outfit would be running Egypt now?

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...392-egypt.html

Good links, thanks. Interesting and provides a good balance.

:lol1:

I would dispute that tbh :wonder:

I would say that Christian Fundamentalists pose the biggest threat. They're the ones with all the heavy weaponry, charging round, imposing 'democracy' at gunpoint, whether people want it or not :eek:

You mean like the people in Mali? Or the Sudan? Or Afghanistan?

All of whom will end up with governments no different than before, apart from them now being amenable to buying western hardware to suppress dissent with :(

Or Northern Ireland, Basques in Spain, East Timor, Drug cartels in Mexico or South America, loads of West African states, Somalia and many nations inbetween.
Or Rupert Murdoch.

Surely all Muslims are bad, that's the impression I got from that "homeland" documentary series ;)

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.

Lucky only a few isolated nut jobs in the UK and a handful rogue states share your view then isn't it. 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.

I am glad you have finally realised that you and "islamic" religious fundementalism are two sides of the same coin


I posted to that effect a couple of years ago