Eric Arthur Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 "The word is derived from the Arabic term kafir (meaning 'disbeliever'), which originally had the meaning 'one without religion'. Portuguese explorers adopted the term to refer to black non-Muslim peoples when they became involved in the Arab slave trade along the Swahili Coast. Later" There was us thinking that it was Cecil Rhodes who was the bad guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 There was us thinking that it was Cecil Rhodes who was the bad guy. I don't think any nation entered Africa with good intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmalik Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Agreed. Anyone who terrorises others can not be a Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemcewan Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 In what way are they not Islamic? They are in fact very Islamic according to this considered article - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ The film "Bitter Lake" (Adam Curtis) also gives some interesting insights to this whole affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 News outlets are just reporting on how these groups self identify. If a man wants to be called a woman they call him a woman, if a woman wants to be called a man they call her a man, if a religious extremist identifies as a Muslim then they are a Muslim. By definition. He believes and follows the Qur'an as HE interprets it. If someone else interprets it differently they can be called a Muslim also of they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpist Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Agreed. Anyone who terrorises others can not be a Muslim. Defining terrorism is the issue. By stopping someone doing something which does not impinge on anyone else this could be classed as terrorism. When I see cults trying to impress their views on society I class this as terrorism. By cults I mean all religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Defining terrorism is the issue. By stopping someone doing something which does not impinge on anyone else this could be classed as terrorism. When I see cults trying to impress their views on society I class this as terrorism. By cults I mean all religions. Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence by non-state actors for political purposes. If you call other things terrorism, you're just plain wrong. By all means criticise them heavily. I do. Calling them terrorists is simply incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Defining terrorism is the issue. By stopping someone doing something which does not impinge on anyone else this could be classed as terrorism. When I see cults trying to impress their views on society I class this as terrorism. By cults I mean all religions. As far as they are concerned they are good Muslims fighting a holy war approved by God and they have the paperwork to prove it. They don't see themselves as cult terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now