|
Post by wadad on Dec 20, 2005 18:23:20 GMT -5
I just love the term Mohammadian...so archaic, orientalist, so obviously biased. To call oneself "Mohammedan" is tantamount to sacrilegous in Islam. Why not, say call us..Allahists or something which may be equally stupid but more accurate?
|
|
|
Post by Dagaalyahan on Dec 20, 2005 18:25:59 GMT -5
"Mohammedan" suggests that we worship the prophet (pbuh) which we dont.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Dec 20, 2005 18:32:49 GMT -5
I just love the term Mohammadian...so archaic, orientalist, so obviously biased. To call oneself "Mohammedan" is tantamount to sacrilegous in Islam. Why not, say call us..Allahists or something which may be equally stupid but more accurate? You are right, Wadaad: Truth be told, there is no personal cult in Islam, there is no Jesus in Islam; Muslims are to be called muslims, or Allahists as you said ( )... Mohammed has the status of a messenger in Islam, so its total nosense to label them after him. Mohammadian is a term which was first forged by Anglphone orientalists; I never came across it in the french literature so either I'm a liar or Delacroix isnt french!.
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 20, 2005 18:40:12 GMT -5
I just love the term Mohammadian...so archaic, orientalist, so obviously biased. To call oneself "Mohammedan" is tantamount to sacrilegous in Islam. Why not, say call us..Allahists or something which may be equally stupid but more accurate? It's has nothing to do with bias. The true muslims, according to most islamic scholars, , are those who follow the example of muhammad. Then, "a mohammadian" is an accurate term.
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 20, 2005 18:44:51 GMT -5
I just love the term Mohammadian...so archaic, orientalist, so obviously biased. To call oneself "Mohammedan" is tantamount to sacrilegous in Islam. Why not, say call us..Allahists or something which may be equally stupid but more accurate? You are right, Wadaad: Truth be told, there is no personal cult in Islam, there is no Jesus in Islam; Muslims are to be called muslims, or Allahists as you said ( )... Mohammed has the status of a messenger in Islam, so its total nosense to label them after him. Mohammadian is a term which was first forged by Anglphone orientalists; I never came across it in the french literature so either I'm a liar or Delacroix isnt french!. From a self-proclamed atheist, it's rather an astonishing answer. You're even defending the islamic ideology, more than the so-called moderate muslims. surprise, surprise!
|
|
|
Post by wadad on Dec 20, 2005 18:53:31 GMT -5
You are right, Wadaad: Truth be told, there is no personal cult in Islam, there is no Jesus in Islam; Muslims are to be called muslims, or Allahists as you said ( )... Mohammed has the status of a messenger in Islam, so its total nosense to label them after him. Mohammadian is a term which was first forged by Anglphone orientalists; I never came across it in the french literature so either I'm a liar or Delacroix isnt french!. From a self-proclamed atheist, it's rather an astonishing answer. You're even defending the islamic ideology, more than the so-called moderate muslims. surprise, surprise! well just because someone left a religion, he should not also misrepresent it
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Dec 20, 2005 22:23:08 GMT -5
I guess including context isn't high on your list of priorities. Israel has pre-emptively attacked very few targets, and not without good reason.
Vanunu would have been excuted if he were, say, Iranian or American. He was arrested and given ten years in prison.
Israel has never threatened to "wipe Iran off the map".
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 20, 2005 23:47:46 GMT -5
That you're loath to believe anything negative about a Muslim country does not discredit reports from generally reliable intelligence sources. If this is about their track record, well, they're usually right. yes "generally reliable intelligence" just like the ones about WMD in Iraq. notice how relibale these information is, even CNN didn't bother to put these information in their news... plus it's about one month old, why no reaction from Russia? no I don't reject anything negative towards Islamic countries. we have alot of bad things, but this seems too fishy. I mean this comes only 2 days after the deal with Russia.. plus the way the sercret service man analysis the situation (about Iran attacking brit solders and Russia) so they can put pressure on them, doesn't really make sense at all... lets be honest here, we both know this style doesn't go well with world powers..
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Dec 21, 2005 0:27:55 GMT -5
In other words, allusions to the Iraq war don't make or break intelligence reports.
CNN (left-wing) doesn't bother to report a lot of things. The situation with Iran isn't exactly a hot topic, even among right-wing sources.
The story is actually from the Russian media. Try googling it and see what you come up with.
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 21, 2005 4:20:54 GMT -5
In other words, allusions to the Iraq war don't make or break intelligence reports. CNN (left-wing) doesn't bother to report a lot of things. The situation with Iran isn't exactly a hot topic, even among right-wing sources. The story is actually from the Russian media. Try googling it and see what you come up with. i didn't get your first point 2-CNN is left wing? does fox news have this? 3-no I think it's by a British source. even if it's Russian it doesn't really make a difference. what I said is the relation between Russia and Iran is still the same now (one month later) I wonder how the russian media got interview with Western intelligence reports in the first place... look i don't really care what you choose to belive, but I have the right to reject this no? esp that it doesn't make much sense, and there is no show prof
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 21, 2005 13:04:48 GMT -5
In other words, allusions to the Iraq war don't make or break intelligence reports. CNN (left-wing) doesn't bother to report a lot of things. The situation with Iran isn't exactly a hot topic, even among right-wing sources. The story is actually from the Russian media. Try googling it and see what you come up with. i didn't get your first point 2-CNN is left wing? does fox news have this? 3-no I think it's by a British source. even if it's Russian it doesn't really make a difference. what I said is the relation between Russia and Iran is still the same now (one month later) I wonder how the russian media got interview with Western intelligence reports in the first place... look i don't really care what you choose to belive, but I have the right to reject this no? esp that it doesn't make much sense, and there is no show prof Yet you believed that there was a Jenin Massacre without show of proof. So perhaps it's not about proof, it's about whether you want to believe or not.
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 21, 2005 13:44:11 GMT -5
i didn't get your first point 2-CNN is left wing? does fox news have this? 3-no I think it's by a British source. even if it's Russian it doesn't really make a difference. what I said is the relation between Russia and Iran is still the same now (one month later) I wonder how the russian media got interview with Western intelligence reports in the first place... look i don't really care what you choose to belive, but I have the right to reject this no? esp that it doesn't make much sense, and there is no show prof Yet you believed that there was a Jenin Massacre without show of proof. So perhaps it's not about proof, it's about whether you want to believe or not. smart of you nymos but I believed Jenin because of the live reports from there. this can't be said about this case lets looks at the last part again "Just as they have orchestrated attacks against British troops in Basra to pressure Britain to drop its opposition to Iran's nuclear programme, so they are trying to put pressure on Moscow by backing Chechen fighters," said a senior intelligence official." first he makes two serious aquasitions both are stated as facts : 1- that Iran supported attacks on British troops in Basra 2- that Iran used this technique to prusser the British to leave Iran alone (I mean common) now lets see what the Brits had to say then "The prime minister said evidence linked the attacks either to Iran or its militant, Lebanese allies Hezbollah, but added that officials could not be sure." "Speaking at a joint news conference in London with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani last week, Mr Blair said it was clear "that there have been new explosive devices used - not just against British troops but elsewhere in Iraq. "The particular nature of those devices lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah... however, we can't be sure of this," he added. Despite the qualification, Mr Blair said there could be "no justification" for interfering in Iraq. The Ministry of Defence said these new claims supported the prime minister's comments. " "A spokesman said the evidence pointed towards Iranian involvement, but it did not have decisive proof. Reiterating the prime minister's statement he said: "What is clear is that there are new types of explosives being used by insurgents in Basra and elsewhere in Iraq. "The particular nature of them leads us to think of Iranian elements or Hezbollah". But he said there was no clear proof Iran's Revolutionary Guard was involved. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the UK hoped to discuss the evidence with Iran. But the Iranian government has dismissed the claims as "baseless" and demanded the UK government produce evidence to back up the claims. "
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 21, 2005 13:59:41 GMT -5
Syriano, notice that I didn't say anything about this particular article. To tell you the truth I don't have much confidence in it either.
I was just making a point on incredulity stemming from bias, rather than reason.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Dec 21, 2005 17:36:08 GMT -5
From a self-proclamed atheist, it's rather an astonishing answer. From a french, thats rather an astonishing answer: How my above post does it contradict my repeatedly announced atheism!?. I was simply reporting facts I'm supposed to know and which most people on here arent supposed to know ... Read Wadaad's post!. Defending isnt the appropriate word here; Think of another one!. Btw, my english is basic and I was given english lessons by many people on here, especially some spaniards. Tu me rapelles de mauvais souvenirs!. ;D
|
|
|
Post by wadad on Dec 21, 2005 17:55:38 GMT -5
apparently, Delacroix doubts the sincerity of the atheism displayed by people of Muslim descent like Annunaki or Berter. Perhaps he thinks that Islamic theology is so air-tight that even the atheist denier eventually succumbs back to the one true faith
|
|