UKC

Muslim or Mohammedan, if any? Certainly the press seems to use the first two labels, the latter appears to have fallen more into disuse, although I don't know why.

In reply to Trangia:

One of its legs is both the same.

Or is that a different one?

In reply to Trangia:

Is Islamist a reference to a political position perhaps?

In reply to Trangia:

Muslims do not like the term "Mohammedan " as it suggests that they worship Muhammad in the same way that Christians worship Jesus Christ ie as God. The absolute oneness and indivisbilty of God (in Arabic Allah) is the very core of Muslim belief. The name of the religion is Islam, a word which means peace/submission (to God).The word Muslim relates to Islam although this may not be obvious to a person unfamiliar with the Arabic alphabet where vowel sounds are perhaps more fluid than we think they are in English.
Islamism is a political ideology which purports to have the promotion of Islam at its core. Most Muslims are against Islamism.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
In the UK or globally?

In reply to Trangia:

It may well be likely that certain newspapers have revived the old fashioned and ignorant term "Mohammedan" for the precise purpose of giving offence to Muslims and also in order to please those of their readers who approve of giving such offence.

In reply to Tyler:

I believe globally but certainly within the UK.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


And possibly because Mohammedan was the term used when the map of the world had lots of pink and we still had an empire, and readers of those particular papers like to hark back to those days.

In reply to Trangia:

I've never heard the term mohammedan!?!

In reply to ScottTalbot:

Why does this amaze you?

In reply to tony:

Of course when we get back to having an Empire (post Brexit) we can get back to abusing the rest of the world. And we've made a dashed good start at it by making Boris our foreign secretary. Huzzah!

In reply to Pete Pozman:

It may well be likely that certain newspapers have revived the old fashioned and ignorant term "Mohammedan" for the precise purpose of giving offence to Muslims and also in order to please those of their readers who approve of giving such offence.

What newspapers?
I've never seen it before reading this thread.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Thanks, well explained.

In reply to Trangia:

A useable set of definitions could be as follows:

Muslim: someone who believes in and follows a version of Islam.

Islamist: someone who wants to impose a version of Islam on society.

Jihadist: someone actively involved in the imposition of a version of Islam on society by force.

A person could be one, two or all of the above.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
I don't know of any newspapers that now use the term "Mohammedan" but it's a term I frequently encounter when reading contemporary British Military history accounts from about the time of the Great War and earlier, particularly in reports and letters from British India. I hadn't realised, until I read your response, that it is not liked by Muslims, and that is why it has fallen into disuse. I suspect that it was used in the past through ignorance rather than for the purpose of giving offence. In the same vein I often encounter the spelling "Hindoo" rather than "Hindu" in this reading.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


I suppose it's fitting on this thread that your figures are faith based rather than anything more empirical

In reply to digby:


Who said anything about being amazed? But while we're on the subject, YOU amaze me!

In reply to Tyler:

Well I have known a lot of Muslims in my time. That's a sort of empiricism...

In reply to Trangia:


Fair play. I think I misunderstood that part of your message because of the way your post appears and its title. I assumed you'd read it in a newspaper ("the press").
So I apologise to the Sun,the Daily Mail and the Express. But then again no.

In reply to ScottTalbot:

!?! counts as amazement. 'Mohammedan' is not that unusual a term!

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Another bloody idiot insisting on apoligiseng for the British Empir

In reply to Geronimus:

You're quite wrong my friend. The British Empire was a marvellous thing and as my antecedents are not British I wouldn't dream of apologising for it.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
I thought you were beinsarkastic

In reply to Trangia:

I thought this was going to be a joke thread, I'm disappointed and already bored with it.

In reply to Geronimus:


Oh... I was. I'm too busy apologising for the Austro-Hungarian Empire anyway.

In reply to digby:

I was going for confusion, but my lack of a degree in English may be showing.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Not for the Indians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_Bri...

Notice how the famines end in 1947 - independence. If you are interested you could check out the the deliberate destruction of the Indian textile industry to further British exports.

In reply to digby:


!?! counts as amazement. 'Mohammedan' is not that unusual a term!

Amaze us by providing a meaningful modern link...

In reply to FactorXXX:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan_S.C._(Kolkata)

I rest my case!

In reply to digby:



Or not.

In reply to Tyler:

I would say both, but in the sense that for most Muslims their religion is that, a guide to life and moral behaviour and a spiritual answer, but not really their politics. Of course the former has implications for the latter, but not fully the same as they are for Islamists. Just like lots of Christians don't vote on what the Bible/vicar says even if we live under a legal system and culture shaped by Christianity.

In reply to Pekkie:




This isn't intended as a general defence of imperialism or of British culpability in the 1943 famine - though they were a bit busy at the time and maybe didn't pay enough attention to this, but:

You seem to be saying that a list of occurrences of a particular class of event in the period of British rule finished just before the end of British rule. Just a wild guess but did this list start some time after the start of British rule?

Something even more surprising: I have discovered that a list of leap years during the period of British rule of India also starts just after the start and finishes just before the end of British rule, thus proving beyond all doubt that the evil British cause leap years in India.

In reply to ScottTalbot:


Or nor what? Oh you know, actually I don't much care. I was just trying to be light hearted.