Muslim or Muhammadan?

[Hrolf Kraki]

I almost put this in religion, it can be moved there if needs be, but I suppose it is a linguistical question. Regardless if you spell it Muslim, Moslem, etc. or Muhammadan, Mohammedan, etc. the latter is now considered archaic. Christians follow Christ. Buddhists follow Buddha. Confuscists follow Confuscious. Et. al. So therefore, Muhammadans follow Muhammad. Yet the Muhammadans say they don't follow the prophet, but submit to Allah. That's what they believe, yet what's true is that they follow the teachings of Muhammad. Thus they are Muhammadans.

What say y'all?

[Groenewolf]

Muslim is what the call themselves. And they take offense to being called Muhammadan, alto it describes what they are. Namely followers of the teachings of Muhammad.

[Smaland]

Doesn't matter to me what they call themselves, as long as they go home and stay home. :)

[Bari]

From what i gather "muhammedan" its actually a westernized term used especially in literature back in the older days. Its considered offensive by some, because of the implication that they worship Mohammed like Christians worship Christ. They follow his teachings(or supposed to), still he is a prophet and not related to God and is supposed to serve as an example/ideal to inspire, but not to be worshipped.

[Groenewolf]

From what i gather "muhammedan" its actually a westernized term used especially in literature back in the older days.

And not just literature. I remember royal degrees from back in our colonial days where the term was mentioned in relation to Indonesian Muslims serving in the KNIL.

[Wyn]

Muslim or Moslem, both are Romanisations of مسلم

Muhammadan is a traditional English speaking name for them, however, and not one I would consider inaccurate. I call them Muslims purely out of convention. Were this the 18th c. I would probably be calling them Muhammadans.

[Hrolf Kraki]

From what i gather "muhammedan" its actually a westernized term used especially in literature back in the older days. Its considered offensive by some, because of the implication that they worship Mohammed like Christians worship Christ. They follow his teachings(or supposed to), still he is a prophet and not related to God and is supposed to serve as an example/ideal to inspire, but not to be worshipped.

Yes. So while they call us infidels and all this, while we change our terminology to please them.

[The Lawspeaker]

I would better call them Muhammadans. Because they follow their prophet Muhammad. And if that offends them- then so be it.

[Psychonaut]

Yes. So while they call us infidels and all this, while we change our terminology to please them.

Why lower ourselves to the level of barbarians? This has always been a pet peeve of mine. When people in our circles continually drop racial/ethnic/religious slurs it reflects negatively on the whole and drags down the tone of the general argument into the gutter. Does the use of pejorative terminology make some people feel better about themselves? Sure. Is it in any way beneficial towards furthering any kind of real world change? No.

Heathens are well known for doing this kind of crap too, calling Christians all kinds of silly names. Sometimes it's funny, but it just makes us look like adolescent bitches. This benefits our cause in no way.

[Bari]

Yes. So while they call us infidels and all this, while we change our terminology to please them.

- Ah yes, names like Kafir(Infidel), Mushrikun(disbeliever),...Before they start whining on such insignificant issues as the term Mohammedan, they should have a look into their own book to see how non-Muslims are depicted. But the problem is most of them are so wrapped into their own self-victimization mentality that it makes me think of this quote "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

A couple of examples:


Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Hadith Sahih Muslim, (41:6985)


"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Sura 5:51




"The Christians say: The Christ is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them." (Sura 9:30)



"Kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush..." Surah 9:5. Also see Surah 9:29.



"Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors." (3:110)


"When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."
Qur'an 47:4


Muhammad's last speech to his followers on Mt Arafat:

....."I descended by Allah with the sword in my hand, and my wealth will come from the shadow of my sword. And the one who will disagree with me will be humiliated and persecuted."

Reference: Ibn Hisham (828 A.D., "The Life of Muhammad", 3rd ed., pt. 6, vol. 3 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar-al-Jil, 1998), p. 8



Christians & Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe".
A Muslim martyr says; "you will die for what I believe"....

About 578 years before Islam came along, Christians were warned against Islam by both Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Jesus warned us about the many false prophets who would follow Him (Matthew 16:11-12) . Paul warned us when he wrote:

“But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a Gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell!” (Galatians 1:8).

[Svanhild]

In Germany there's the word Muselmannen. The word Musels is used in a derogatory way. Hence I use Musels most often. :wink

Muslims, Mohammedans, Musels...all different names for same plague in our countries.

[Sol Invictus]

Using religion to fight another religion is useless and counter productive. I could dig up several texts from the Bible that has similar passages that extremists within Christianity use to justify their own acts of terror both past and present. I know that's not really the topic of discussion, but I just thought I'd throw that in, in response to Tonsor's post.

[Bari]

Using religion to fight another religion is useless and counter productive. I could dig up several texts from the Bible that has similar passages that extremists within Christianity use to justify their own acts of terror both past and present. I know that's not really the topic of discussion, but I just thought I'd throw that in, in response to Tonsor's post.

- Well, the difference is that Christianity has been modernized and moderated to an extent which makes it incomparable, whereas this is not the case for Islam generally speaking. The few Christian extremists are not composing a threat neither in numbers nor action than in comparison to Islamist fundamentalists. Can you provide sources proving Christians organize riots because their religion has been ridiculed in modern times? Ridicule of Christianity happens all the time, and few bother about it. Whereas Muslims gather by thousands and take to the streets and riot when someone across the globe made a drawing of their Prophet.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Why lower ourselves to the level of barbarians? This has always been a pet peeve of mine. When people in our circles continually drop racial/ethnic/religious slurs it reflects negatively on the whole and drags down the tone of the general argument into the gutter. Does the use of pejorative terminology make some people feel better about themselves? Sure. Is it in any way beneficial towards furthering any kind of real world change? No.

Heathens are well known for doing this kind of crap too, calling Christians all kinds of silly names. Sometimes it's funny, but it just makes us look like adolescent bitches. This benefits our cause in no way.

You have a great point and I agree for the most part. I cringe when I hear the N-word because there's just no point in even using it. But I'm not talking race, I'm talking religion. I think it's different. It just seems to me that while the N-word or anything racially motivated is unnecessary, but I don't much hesitate to ridicule the religiousness of others, especially those so intense about their religion like the Muhammadans. You can change your religion; not your race.

Does this make sense? What do you think? See, I have liberal crybabies getting all pissy at me, but their opinions mean nought to me. I need some decent viewpoints.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Why lower ourselves to the level of barbarians? This has always been a pet peeve of mine. When people in our circles continually drop racial/ethnic/religious slurs it reflects negatively on the whole and drags down the tone of the general argument into the gutter. Does the use of pejorative terminology make some people feel better about themselves? Sure. Is it in any way beneficial towards furthering any kind of real world change? No.

Heathens are well known for doing this kind of crap too, calling Christians all kinds of silly names. Sometimes it's funny, but it just makes us look like adolescent bitches. This benefits our cause in no way.

You have a great point and I agree for the most part. I cringe when I hear the N-word because there's just no point in even using it. But I'm not talking race, I'm talking religion. I think it's different. It just seems to me that while the N-word or anything racially motivated is unnecessary, but I don't much hesitate to ridicule the religiousness of others, especially those so intense about their religion like the Muhammadans. You can change your religion; not your race.

I can see where it has no benefit, but I just feel like I'm giving Muhammadans more prestige by allowing them to be called the submitters to god, when in reality anyone can claim this. I'm a submitter to Odin. Am I now a Muslim?

Does this make sense? What do you think? See, I have liberal crybabies getting all pissy at me, but their opinions mean nought to me. I need some decent viewpoints.

[Hrolf Kraki]

The edit feature isn't working so I had to re-post my last post with the updated form. Please delete the first of the two.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Using religion to fight another religion is useless and counter productive. I could dig up several texts from the Bible that has similar passages that extremists within Christianity use to justify their own acts of terror both past and present. I know that's not really the topic of discussion, but I just thought I'd throw that in, in response to Tonsor's post.

Depends on what level. It was very useful for Charlemagne. Nowadays I'd prefer to use logic and reason to combat religion, but for those who can't grasp those concepts, I find nothing wrong with giving them a more moderate religion to hold on to.

[Cato]

The correct phrase is "diaperhead."