The brief appearance of Islamic members.

Muslims are required to preach to the infidel. It's easy enough to meet that requirement by doing a copy and paste here without actually engaging in conversation.

What is an islamicist?

A moslem/moslim/muslim is an adherent of a religious sect called islam.

An islamist is a radical adherent of a religious sect called islam.

The most radical islamists in history (mujahedin) were trained by the CIA to help end the cold war with the USSR. It worked.

According to an MI5 whistleblower, these radical islamists are still in the employ of both the British, and the US secret services.

You can read the transcript, or listen to the video on this link.

The principle value of this thread is the "Sexy Arab Girls" ad which appears at the top of my screen. I am sorely tempted to click on the flashing "Join Now!" link.

Well, the "sexy arab girls" ad must have been the briefest of appearances.

I get different ads for what one might call "Arab singles." The ads are tailored, you wouldn't necessarily get the same ads as i do.

By the way, Islam is not a sect. Islam is a religion, in which there are many, many sects. The two major divisions are Sunni and Shi'ite, and there are many, many sects within those rubrics. There are also the Druze, an offshoot of the Ismailis (yet another sect), whom most Muslims don't consider to be Muslims. Another sect derived from the Ismailis were the Fatamids, who set up a competing caliphate in Persia. Saying Islam is a sect is like saying Christianity is a sect, without regard to the distinctions within the religions, which the followers themselves make.

I don't get any ads, Setanta.

Maybe I'm missing out?

I consider all variations on the god-theme to be sects. Religion is a noun used to describe a faith-based belief system. Calling it judaism or christianity or islam is simply identifying different sects. Same deity, different book.

Faith is the common denominator. Hence the terms secular and non-secular.

I see, so in addition to having your own opinions, you think you get to have your own definitions of words. Have fun with that.

By the way, sect and secular have very different derivations--although for someone who gets to have his own, unique definitions, i suppose that doesn't matter.

I'm still trying to figure out who has the whip and sword on this matter, Set.

One would assume that Citizens United might have something to do with people getting together for political purposes. Apparently nothing could be further from the truth.

As such, I'll assume it's a free-for-all, and I'll take my English language, and make of it what I will. Thanks for the critique, BTW. I'll take it on board.

A weak attempt at an analogy. Political bullshit artists have no relevance to the meaning of secularism and the distinction between a religion and a sect. If you want to free associate the ideas with which you are currently obsessed, that's no skin off my nose. Don't be surprised if your are not taken seriously.

Back when "God" told Muslims to preach to infidels, it must have known about the future Internet. So is that proclamation a form of "Original Spam"?

Good one, Boss.

I don't obsess about such issues, Setanta.

Merely pointing out the flexibility of the English language, and how easily it is manipulated and abused for purposes benign and belligerent.

You are welcome to adhere to a peer-reviewed belief about the intricacies of religious terminology.

I choose to group all adherents of the yahwey belief under the one heading. Sects and subsects can choose their own variation on the theme.

Thanks for that possible correction of my usage of the term "Islamicist. I was using it denote one who seeks to promote Islam as distinct from one who merely practises it. I think Setanta's "hit and run"scenario, tends to apply to the latter but some of the more active promoters suggest that they are open to debate, but fail to follow through. It this failure which I find significant.

Thanks for that possible correction of my usage of the term "Islamicist. I was using it denote one who seeks to promote Islam as distinct from one who merely practises it. I think Setanta's "hit and run"scenario, tends to apply to the latter but some of the more active promoters suggest that they are open to debate, but fail to follow through. It this failure which I findsignificant.

I do not know why muslim members would do so on this particular forum. However, from my own experience, debates about islam for muslims is not about winning or losing but getting the true message of islam across to those who are open minded and wish to listen. For that reason, a simple short story is all that is necessary. I as a muslim on the otherhand have no problem debating islam on any detail concerning it. So I don't mind the head to head debates with non-muslims.

Nice to hear from a potential debater ! I think however you need to understand that even the phrase "true message of Islam" is problematic since assumes the meaning of "truth" to be axiomatic. For a philosophical pragmatist for example, "truth" merely equates to "what works" from a physical, psychological or sociological point of view, with no precedence assumed in either domain. This viewpoint immediately removes "the divinity" angle from religion and thereby also removes its authoritative aspects.

Now I have given only one debating position which Muslims find almost impossible to handle. No doubt there are others. So the question seems to be whether Muslims can hold their religion at arm's length in order to critically examine it, or whether such an examination is by definition a betrayal of the very term "Islam".

I gather from your Koran/Bible thread that you you don't seem to be equipped to critically examine concepts like "truth" and "proof". Hopefully I may be mistaken.

That is your definition of truth. Not the dictionary. Thus your argument has no relevance. Islam is true, meaning the Qur'an is not the word of any person, but the true word of Allah, and Muhammad(saw) is the last prophet.

from your assertions, you seem to imply that such is not the case and can prove so. Well, since you seem to seek a debate, the floor is yours.