How Xinjiang officers carry their daily duty to safeguard peace and stability in Xinjiang

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

Of course it is Islamic. It is related to Islam which is used by those extremists to spread their own ignorance and self conceit. That is why they are also called Islamists. Islam is their tool for their agendas. Those who really follow the principles of Islam and focus on its spiritual practice are called Muslims.

= 'extremists'

Islamist = Muslim.

What's the difference?

 

[yantong1980]

May I ask in which elementary school logic book did you get it?

How rude, did your parent teach that?

 

[nang2]

= 'extremists'

Islamist = Muslim.

What's the difference?

It is about naming convention. The word "Islamist" has never been used to call Muslim. "Islamist" is particularly used to refer to those people whose political agenda is imbued with Islam. Their ideology is often called "Islamism", or political Islam.

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

Extremists and islamists

What's the difference?

 

[HannibalBarca]

It is about naming convention. The word "Islamist" has never been used to call Muslim. "Islamist" is particularly used to refer to those people whose political agenda is imbued with Islam. Their ideology is often called "Islamism", or political Islam.

Islamist/ism mean nothing... it doesn't mean extremist neither Radical...
It's a word that was used for a political reason back in the days... in a attempt to link the word ''Islam'' and ''Terrorism'' nothing more nothing else... that way.. anyone can, with time.. automatically associate in their subconscient the word ''Islam'' and ''Terro''

Other religion do not have that denomination... while they do have ''Religious driven Terro''

And tbh... it worked... otherwise ppl wouldn't have those types of discussion and bias...

 

[yantong1980]

I think like this: The one group that hold hard line teaching is called radicals.
The other that planning and committed atrocities/terror called terrorist.
And the last was majority that just want simply peaceful live and doing his/her Islamic practice called moslems.

 

[Armchair]

It is about naming convention. The word "Islamist" has never been used to call Muslim. "Islamist" is particularly used to refer to those people whose political agenda is imbued with Islam. Their ideology is often called "Islamism", or political Islam.

Ideology, politics, every aspect of life of a Muslim is "imbued with Islam".

 

[nang2]

Islamist mean nothing... it doesn't mean extremist neither Radical...
It's a word that was used for a political reason back in the days... in a attempt to link the word ''Islam'' and ''Terrorism'' nothing more nothing else... that way.. anyone can, with time.. automatically associate in their subconscient the word ''Islam'' and ''Terro''

Other religion do not have that denomination... while they do have ''Religious driven Terro''

I don't think I mentioned the word "terrorism". As of Islamist, the word "Islamism" may shed some light for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Any political ideology could breed extremists or terrorists, not just Islamism. So do Christian fundamentalism or Communism. One reason for Islam being so often associated with terrorism in these days is probably because there is not a powerful and prosperous Muslim country. Many frustrated Muslims could turn into terrorism to vent their frustration.

Ideology, politics, every aspect of life of a Muslim is "imbued with Islam".

However, politicizing Islam is particularly problematic. Many other countries have gone through the similar thing, such as medieval Christian Europe. Politics is what people focus on what is in this world but Islam or any other form of religions is what people focus on what is beyond this world. Mixing them up really messes things up since people would use the wrong tool for the wrong purpose.

 

[HannibalBarca]

I don't think I mentioned the word "terrorism". As of Islamist, the word "Islamism" may shed some light for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Any political ideology could breed extremists or terrorists, not just Islamism. So do Christian fundamentalism or Communism. One reason for Islam being so often associated with terrorism in these days is probably because there is not a powerful and prosperous Muslim country. Many frustrated Muslims could turn into terrorism to vent their frustration.

The word was originally equivalent to ''Christianism and Judaism''... But with the rise of Theocracies in the ME after WW2, Western academics started to use it as a definition for ''Islamic Fundamentalism'' in a way to counter the rhetoric of Theocracies like Iran or Taliban Afghanistan...
Later on... that word who was purely for an academic POV... was used by Political figures in the late 20th century... and used and reused for political gains...

However, politicizing Islam is particularly problematic. Many other countries have gone through the similar thing, such as medieval Christian Europe. Politics is what people focus on what is in this world but Islam or any other form of religions is what people focus on what is beyond this world. Mixing them up really messes things up since people would use the wrong tool for the wrong purpose.

I understand that you have that view... So I will assume that you don't know... But if you don't just ask...
There is NO POLITICAL ISLAM... it doesn't exist...Even renown academics don't use it... it's only used by journalist and lambda politician...

 

[Feng Leng]

Islamist/ism mean nothing... it doesn't mean extremist neither Radical...
It's a word that was used for a political reason back in the days... in a attempt to link the word ''Islam'' and ''Terrorism'' nothing more nothing else... that way.. anyone can, with time.. automatically associate in their subconscient the word ''Islam'' and ''Terro''

Other religion do not have that denomination... while they do have ''Religious driven Terro''

And tbh... it worked... otherwise ppl wouldn't have those types of discussion and bias...

That is exactly what an Islamist would say. To Islamists like you, the Central Asian countries aren't even Muslims.

 

[nang2]

I think like this: The one group that hold hard line teaching is called radicals.
The other that planning and committed atrocities/terror called terrorist.
And the last was majority that just want simply peaceful live and doing his/her Islamic practice called moslems.

Actually in this way, you only think in term of appearance, not substance. Muslims, if they are sincere in their spiritual practice, should be as radical as they possibly can in their own practice. "radical" as in comparison with what mundane people would do. Many Muslim saints could pray all day and all night without sleeping. But being radical in this way, at most affects who is very close to them and has almost no effect in society at large. They focus on their own spiritual practice which is largely a personal matter.

But in their daily life interacting with other people, they should be even more humble, moderate and considerate than mundane people to show their spiritual attainment. They are true Muslims.

The substance is "spiritual practice", which is both radical and moderate.

What is worse are the hubris who are actually sincere in their own spiritual practice. They at least preach what they practice.

What is the worst are the hypocritical hubris who don't even practice what they preach.

 

[HannibalBarca]

That is exactly what an Islamist would say. To Islamists like you, the Central Asian countries aren't even Muslims.

Please stay out of this intelligent and interesting conversation with this Chinese member @nang2 ...
wait in line... You can keep your insults for later.

 

[nang2]

The word was originally equivalent to ''Christianism and Judaism''... But with the rise of Theocracies in the ME after WW2, Western academics started to use it as a definition for ''Islamic Fundamentalism'' in a way to counter the rhetoric of Theocracies like Iran or Taliban Afghanistan...
Later on... that word who was purely for an academic POV... was used by Political figures in the late 20th century... and used and reused for political gains...



I understand that you have that view... So I will assume that you don't know... But if you don't just ask...
There is NO POLITICAL ISLAM... it doesn't exist...Even renown academics don't use it... it's only used by journalist and lambda politician...

As I said, it is more of a naming convention. You can also say there is NO POLITICAL GOD. Of course there isn't. But that is what Theocracy is about, a political structure in the name of God.

 

[HannibalBarca]

As I said, it is more of a naming convention. You can also say there is NO POLITICAL GOD. Of course there isn't. But that is what Theocracy is about, a political structure in the name of God.

But that naming isn't used for ANY other religion on earth... neither Now or Before...Added to that the misuse of that same naming for political gain.

I understand that it's just naming.. but names have impacts on the people... even more on those who don't quite make the difference or wish to understand the phenomenon... and we, just like the previous post... will fall into this biased mindset and hatred on something they can't grasp... and will put in the same bag an entire community...

It's like when I say, Islam is the most peaceful religion... and yet ppl wouldn't accept it... Even though you give them direct quote from the book... and Direct truth from History they, by this misuse of words and misrepresentation in this world, would find it untrue...

 

[nang2]

But that naming isn't used for ANY other religion on earth... Added to that the misuse of that same naming for political gain.
I understand that it's just naming.. but names have impacts on the people... even more on those who don't quite make the difference or wish to understand the phenomenon... and we, just like the previous post... will fall into this biased mindset and hatred on something they can't grasp...

I think Christian Fundamentalism is used for some form of politicized Christianity. In fact, that is where the word "fundamentalism" first came about and only later it was attached to Islam. Buddhism is largely immune to this because it is on the record that Buddha said what he had taught is just the finger that points to the moon, but not the moon itself. Later in China, another famous Buddhist Saint also had a very famous word about all the Buddhism scriptures. He said the Dharma (the teaching of Buddha) has nothing to do with what is written. That shatters the hope of Buddhist Fundamentalists, though they never stopped trying.

Religions have always been a powerful force, which entices political ambitious to try to harvest.