Accused Morocco Islamist speaks out

[voltaires_priest]

That's one way of looking at it, T. Of course, in reality many religious fundamentalist movements (sadly) do not have such glowing track records.



V

[Malik]

Originally Posted by voltaires_priest

On the first two points, nobody I've ever encountered has ever used the definition of "Islamist" that you offer, whether in politics, in general conversation or in more theoretical discussions. It just isn't (and to my knowledge never has been) generally understood in that way.

As to the definition of "fundamentalist", a "strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" (ie, in religious terms, doctrine) is, as I said, a conservative outlook. You may think it's right or wrong, but it is conservative. Therefore your definition does not differ from mine.

As for the difference between Islamic state and Khilafa, I'm well aware of both concepts, and I'm also well aware (as I'm sure are you) of people who argue for both. Both are Islamist views (at least, on my understanding) - although in geo-political terms one state is a lot larger than the others. Again, you may think they're right or wrong, there's no value judgement in the word alone.

As I said before, I personally think theocracy (of whatever flavour, Christian, Muslim or any other) is a barmy way to run state systems. That, of course, is a value judgement

As for the media, the problem I have with your definition is that it suggests the media is a homogenous entity that changes words. "It" is actually hundreds and thousands of generators and outlets across scores of ideologies, delivered by several different means. It interacts with people's changing views - for instance, even in your example the media didn't invent the phrase "by the end of the day", nor did it embue it with a particular meaning. Media outlets merely transmitted a pre-existing phrase and meaning which they had picked up, to a new audience.



V

The definitions are from the Meriam-Webster Dictionary, they are not my definitions.

"As for the difference between Islamic state and Khilafa, I'm well aware of both concepts" Apparently not. What do you mean the "differences"? A khaleyfah is the head of the Islamic state. One cannot "argue" for one or the other for they are together in the same concept; they go hand and hand (save for the Sheyah where the mujtahid is the head of the Sheyah Islamic state). Even 'goverments' such as the Taliban in Afghanistan believed that Afghanistan was a temporary state until other Muslim countries overthrow their goverments and join together in a singular Islamic state.
And it is not fair to compare an Islamic state to a Christian theocracy model, we are talking apples and oranges just as we cannot compare a Buddhist state to an Islamic or Christian govermental system.
If we were to take the 'Umar ben Khatab Islamic state model (which is one of the the most important and esteemed 'orthodox' models for Muslims) then not only did non-Muslims have freedom as they had not before they also prospered under their rule.


I never said such a thing about the media and now you are associating words or concepts that I have never typed. Now you are attempting to make me sound as if I believe their is a conspiracy of media outlets worldwide, which would be the furthest thing from the truth. The media (not medias) has a culture, just as any career or hobby, where certain things are 'flavor of the day' (i.e. boy-bands of the late 90's) . Man, this easily seen in an array of different publications! The nature of media is to convery information and art to a large public. The public recieves it then reproduces its thoughts and interpitations of this within a society. Society and mass media have a symbiont relationship and depend on each other for their development.
I am not going to delve too much into this. Media is more or less my field so I am not going to try to justify what or what I do not know about it.

[voltaires_priest]

Originally Posted by Malik

The definitions are from the Meriam-Webster Dictionary, they are not my definitions.

"As for the difference between Islamic state and Khilafa, I'm well aware of both concepts" Apparently not. What do you mean the "differences"? A khaleyfah is the head of the Islamic state. One cannot "argue" for one or the other for they are together in the same concept; they go hand and hand (save for the Sheyah where the mujtahid is the head of the Sheyah Islamic state). Even 'goverments' such as the Taliban in Afghanistan believed that Afghanistan was a temporary state until other Muslim countries overthrow their goverments and join together in a singular Islamic state.
And it is not fair to compare an Islamic state to a Christian theocracy model, we are talking apples and oranges just as we cannot compare a Buddhist state to an Islamic or Christian govermental system.
If we were to take the 'Umar ben Khatab Islamic state model (which is one of the the most important and esteemed 'orthodox' models for Muslims) then not only did non-Muslims have freedom as they had not before they also prospered under their rule.


I never said such a thing about the media and now you are associating words or concepts that I have never typed. Now you are attempting to make me sound as if I believe their is a conspiracy of media outlets worldwide, which would be the furthest thing from the truth. The media (not medias) has a culture, just as any career or hobby, where certain things are 'flavor of the day' (i.e. boy-bands of the late 90's) . Man, this easily seen in an array of different publications! The nature of media is to convery information and art to a large public. The public recieves it then reproduces its thoughts and interpitations of this within a society. Society and mass media have a symbiont relationship and depend on each other for their development.
I am not going to delve too much into this. Media is more or less my field so I am not going to try to justify what or what I do not know about it.

People don't read Webster's dictionary when they're learning how to speak.

You're reading more into what I said about Islamic state and Khilafa than I meant. I was simply referring to the differences between people who thought this could be done in one country as a transitional point and those who believe it all should be one state now. In any case, that wasn't the substance of my point, which you appear to have elected not to address. After all, everybody ultimately wants unity (across many ideologies) so it seems to me that you're being a little pedantic by labouring this point.

On the other point, I simply don't buy into the notion of freedoms in return for tax etc, and besides the freedom to choose one's ruler is not present in any kind of theocratic model, Muslim or otherwise. So sorry but my line that it's archaic and nonsensical still stays. But hey, we're free to disagree, non?

On the latter point, whether or not you work in the media (or are studying Media "studies" or whatever) really isn't the point. After all, I don't defer to a bus driver when talking about public transport (jk)

It seems to me that your point now is rather different to what it was before. If your point is merely that media follow fashions then your point is true, but banal. If your point (as it seemed initially) is deeper than that, then that's a different matter.



V

[Malik]

Originally Posted by voltaires_priest

People don't read Webster's dictionary when they're learning how to speak.

You're reading more into what I said about Islamic state and Khilafa than I meant. I was simply referring to the differences between people who thought this could be done in one country as a transitional point and those who believe it all should be one state now. In any case, that wasn't the substance of my point, which you appear to have elected not to address. After all, everybody ultimately wants unity (across many ideologies) so it seems to me that you're being a little pedantic by labouring this point.

On the other point, I simply don't buy into the notion of freedoms in return for tax etc, and besides the freedom to choose one's ruler is not present in any kind of theocratic model, Muslim or otherwise. So sorry but my line that it's archaic and nonsensical still stays. But hey, we're free to disagree, non?

On the latter point, whether or not you work in the media (or are studying Media "studies" or whatever) really isn't the point. After all, I don't defer to a bus driver when talking about public transport (jk)

It seems to me that your point now is rather different to what it was before. If your point is merely that media follow fashions then your point is true, but banal. If your point (as it seemed initially) is deeper than that, then that's a different matter.



V

No? I beg to differ. Many people use the MWD to learn English words. Many ESL teachers use the MWD for their students.

You mean to tell me that you would not consult people about a field that they work in and/or know about? If I were researching public transportation I would not only consult the management of the transportation authority but as well as city planners and bus/metro drivers and mechanics. Everyone can provide a unique prospective and enrich the research. But that is just me

As far as the definition that I provided for 'fundalmentalist' is a litteral one. Additional meanings are reflections of time and society for the need of the usage of the word. There is nothing about religion what-so-ever has to do with the word. But the meaning, awe, the meaning has evolved. How? By the media representation of the word.


Of course we can disagree! It is a great thing to have a sound debate for that is when some of the soundest information and opinions are brought out. I just do not have the time or motivation to do research and type large amounts of things over a given subject, just a couple of things from the top of the head. Hence the mispellings and what not.

My statement is really not different. I am just stating that the media shapes and creates meanings to words and influances perceptions of the public audience and sometimes with milicious intent. This is a fact and much is written about it. I am sure that this subject can be covered through a surface account in a 201 university course.

[voltaires_priest]

LOL we could probably design that course together. We'd make our fortunes



V

[Malik]

Originally Posted by voltaires_priest

LOL we could probably design that course together. We'd make our fortunes



V

I am always up to make some moeny!!! tell me how, when,what, why, etc.