The Mohammedan Question.

[Ixtab]

There is, I think, a growing realisation within racialist circles that the Mohammedan question has far more significance than the Jewish question. The subforum I am proposing can be called 'The Mohammedan Question'. I think this is a good idea.

[Der Sozialist]

Mohammedan .
This is an archaic label and is tantamount to a slur nowadays—may I ask why you continually use it?

[Ixtab]

This is an archaic labelNo it isn't. An archaism is any word which has not appeared in any well-known work of English literature for one century (an obsolete word is defined as any word which has not appeared in a well-known work of English literature since the time of Shakespeare). The word 'Mohammedan' was common parlance until the 1970s; some writers still use the word. No dictionary lists it as archaic.

and is tantamount to a slur nowadaysNot really. *Some* Mohammedans do consider it offensive, though for an erroneous reason - they think the label implies that Mohammedans worship Mohammed. Obviously it does not. No one would suggest that the word 'Confucian' implies that followers of Confucianism worship Confucius. Mohammedans will find offence in just about anything.

—may I ask why you continually use it?Because it is the correct term.

[ogenoct]

There is, I think, a growing realisation within racialist circles that the Mohammedan question has far more significance than the Jewish question. The subforum I am proposing can be called 'The Mohammedan Question'. I think this is a good idea.

I agree. Considering that there is no "Jewish Question," the Mohammedan Question is quite a real one, and it demands an answer. And quick! Before it is too late. After all, it is not roving bands of hoodlum Jews that spread terror and fear throughout the cities of Europe. No, sir! Not at all. It is gangs of Mohammedans that run around the capitals of Europe, burning, looting and raping (not their own veiled sisters but European gals whose ancestors have long ago shaken off the shackles of wilful ignorance). It is subhuman Mohammedans that know nothing but their own primitive conceptions of metaphysics which they mistake as "divine truth." On the whole, Jews are quite well integrated in European society. They do not cause any of the risks that one might be wary of while walking alone at night through Berlin, London or Paris. Mohammedans, on the other hand, are quite intent on colonizing and subjugating Europe. Their dream is the introduction of the Sharia Law on a continental scale. This law violates pretty much everything that Holy Europe holds sacred. The Mohammedans in Europe comprise a fifth column, a parasitical tumor that feeds off the altruism of the unfortunate host nations that tolerate its insidious presence. The Mohammedans in Europe are quite happy to live off the labor and sweat of White workers while preaching the values of the desert. Why they themselves did not stay in their dunes is quite clear. With full financial support (in the form of welfare benefits) of the gullible nations of Europe that harbor them, they can conduct a merciless war upon their eternal enemy, the Occident. This war might seem like a clandestine one but it is waged rather openly. One merely has to watch the regular news coverage of European cities in flames - flames ignited by the Mohammedans to show strength in the face of European weakness (AKA tolerance).

Constantin

[delete]

Not really. *Some* Mohammedans do consider it offensive, though for an erroneous reason - they think the label implies that Mohammedans worship Mohammed. Obviously it does not. No one would suggest that the word 'Confucian' implies that followers of Confucianism worship Confucius. Mohammedans will find offence in just about anything.


According to their religion, it it wrong to call them followers of a man, as they see themselves as subject of allah. I use muhammedans as well, but it is only to cause offence to muslims I am speaking with.

The muslims needs to feel that it is a war aginst Islam that is going on, and unless they defend their religion violently, the west will eradicate it from the planet of the earth. :)

[Felix the Cat]

It's easy to offend people who wish to be offended

Never mind "Mohammedan", they even consider "Moslem" offensive

[Ahknaton]

I find Neo-Galtonian's use of the term "Mohammedan" hilarious. Mohammedopedophiles perhaps?

[Empress Cheesatine]

There is, I think, a growing realisation within racialist circles that the Mohammedan question has far more significance than the Jewish question. The subforum I am proposing can be called 'The Mohammedan Question'. I think this is a good idea.

There is no such thing as a "Mohammedan," they are Muslims, they do not worship Mohammed. Calling them Mohammedans makes you look ignorant and gives ammunition to Muslims and Muslim apologists.

At this point in history, the Jewish Question is of more import in the US due to our being infected with them like crabs on a hooker's pubic mound, and for obvious reasons the issue in Europe right now is Muslims.

Once again, looking at history, Jews pursue their own interests regardless of the damage it does to European peoples, their alliance and aid to the Caliphate in taking Spain and the Balkans shows as much.

I think there's a valid reason to have a "Mohammedan" Question forum alongside the Jew ones.

[harjit]

I find Neo-Galtonian's use of the term "Mohammedan" hilarious. Mohammedopedophiles perhaps?
It is almost quaint, and fits with my image of Ix having been transported from the 1800s in a time machine.

I wonder if he refers to Indians as Hindustanis, and Thais as Siamese? :rofl:

[Ahknaton]

I wonder if he refers to Indians as Hindustanis, and Thais as Siamese? :rolf:
Whenever I see Hindus mentioned in old textbooks it's always spelt "Hindoos".

[Ixtab]

[...] they do not worship Mohammed. The word 'Mohammedan' does not imply that. No one would suggest that the word 'Confucian' implies that followers of Confucianism worship Confucius, or Darwinians worship Darwin.

At this point in history, the Jewish Question is of more import in the US due to our being infected with them like crabs on a hooker's pubic mound, and for obvious reasons the issue in Europe right now is Muslims.Hogwash.

Once again, looking at history, Jews pursue their own interests regardless of the damage it does to European peoples, their alliance and aid to the Caliphate in taking Spain and the Balkans shows as much.Tommyrot.

I think there's a valid reason to have a "Mohammedan" Question forum alongside the Jew ones.Balderdash.

[Greenberg]

Tommyrot? Where do you find your slang Ix? I actually like using slang like that in public.

[Ixtab]

Tommyrot? Where do you find your slang Ix?I probably discoved the word tommyrot in my readings of 18th century English literature, though I believe it is still in use in some areas.

[Der Sozialist]

No dictionary lists it as archaic.


The Cambridge learner's dictionary lists it as "old-fashioned" which I believe to be interchangeable with "archaic". I searched that dictionary and could not find a single word labeled as "archaic" but rather, only "old-fashioned". Either the dictionary culls "archaic" words or I am probably correct. I could not find any other dictionary, on-line, that labels words "archaic" and the such. If you can provide one, that is, link me to a dictionary where at least one entry is labeled as "archaic", then that would be much appreciated.

[Ixtab]

The Cambridge learner's dictionary lists it as "old-fashioned" which I believe to be interchangeable with "archaic".No it isn't. In lexicographic terminology, the words 'old-fashioned', 'archaic', and 'obsolete' all have distinct technical meanings. 'Negro' is also listed as old-fashioned but it is not archaic.

I searched that dictionary and could not find a single word labeled as "archaic" but rather, only "old-fashioned". Either the dictionary culls "archaic" words or I am probably correct. I could not find any other dictionary, on-line, that labels words "archaic" and the such. If you can provide one, that is, link me to a dictionary where at least one entry is labeled as "archaic", then that would be much appreciated.I have no use for on-line dictionaries.

[| I, CWAS]

I second the suggestion and support everything Neo-Galtonian has said.

[Der Sozialist]

I have no use for on-line dictionaries.
That is nice to know but how are you going to substantiate your point?

[Ixtab]

I edited my preceding post.

Substantiate what point?

[Der Sozialist]

I edited my post.

Substantiate what point?

That 'Mohammedan' is not "archaic". That is, can you provide a dictionary that categorizes words on the lines of 'obsolete', 'archaic', and 'old-fashioned'? The only dictionary that I found was the Cambridge learner's and it listed such words as 'hither' and 'bilbo' as "old-fashioned".

[Ixtab]

That 'Mohammedan' is not "archaic".You are shifting the burden proof and asking me to prove a negative, whilst you haven't provided a shred of evidence that the term is archaic. You obviously don't know the lexical definition of 'archaic', much less of 'obsolete'. A word that has been used in any major work of English literature within the last century is not archaic, as a matter of definition.

[Der Sozialist]

You are shifting the burden proof and asking me to prove a negative, whilst you haven't provided a shred of evidence that the term is archaic. You obviously don't know the lexical definition of 'archaic', much less 'obsolete'.
No, I am asking for you to provide a dictionary that categorizes words on the basis of the labels above. Not to prove or disprove that 'Mohammedan' is indeed "archaic".

[Ixtab]

No, I am asking for you to provide a dictionary that categorizes words on the basis of the labels above. Not to prove or disprove that 'Mohammedan' is indeed "archaic".You seem to be contradicting me just for the sake of it. The term is obviously not archaic, as anyone familiar with the lexical definition of 'archaism' would know. A word that has been used in any major work of English literature within the last century is not archaic. The word 'Mohammedan' has been used in major works of English literature within the last century, therefore it is not archaic.

[jcs]

Islam was known throughout Europe as 'Mohammedanism' or 'the Mohammedan Heresy' until fairly recently. 'Mohammedan' is the correct term, even if it becomes archaic, even if it is old-fashioned. When someone discusses Mohammedans, I do not think of 'submissives' and followers of 'peace.' 'Muslim' and 'Islam' are misnomers.

[Ixtab]

There is a growing realisation within racialist circles that the Mohammedan Question is far more pressing than any (real or hallucinatory) 'Jewish question' Why is there a subforum for the "Jewish Question", and not the Muslim question?

[Der Sozialist]

You seem to be contradicting me just for the sake of it.

This is non-responsive.

The term

evidence?

The word 'Mohammedan' has been used in major works of English literature within the last century,

Poppycock!
therefore it is not archaic.

I will assume that you are refusing to verify your claim.

[Ixtab]

I am disappointed. I thought you of all people on the Phora were above such childishness.

[Der Sozialist]

I am disappointed. I thought you of all people on the Phora were above such childishness.
I am in a rather good mood so I decided to humor myself. No offense intended.

[Rakhmetov]

It is a mistake to unconditionally support Muslims. There will be instances in which they are reactionary savages acting as proxies of western imperialism. It is for this reason why I opposed Muslims in conflicts in Malaya, East Timor, Bosnia, Chechnya and Kosovo. Just because Muslims resist Zionism and western imperialism doesn't mean that they are concerned with the interests of the proletariat. The Saudis have been firmly anti-Zionist yet they have persistently tried to undermine national liberation movements in the Middle East.

[Ixtab]

Why do we have a Jewish Question subforum, and not a Mohammedan Question subforum?

[///M power]

There is, I think, a growing realisation within racialist circles that the Mohammedan question has far more significance than the Jewish question. The subforum I am proposing can be called 'The Mohammedan Question'. I think this is a good idea.


:viking: :viking: :viking:
:crusader: :crusader: :crusader: :hitler: :hitler: :hitler: :hitler: :Bluvens: :Bluvens: :yay: :yay: :yay: :yay: :beerchug: :beerchug: :beerchug: :beerchug: :beerchug: :beerchug: :beerchug: :beerchug: :beerchug: :beerchug:

very good idea!

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

There is, I think, a growing realisation within racialist circles that the Mohammedan question has far more significance than the Jewish question. The subforum I am proposing can be called 'The Mohammedan Question'. I think this is a good idea.
You’ve got hopes. I’m very cynical when it comes to this. If they (as in people who would make such a chance on this forum) haven’t figured out by now, I question whether they ever will. Most people simply do not have the ability to think deeply like you and I do. They go with the crowd. They stick to their failed traditions and they defend each other out of blind loyalty.

Also, they face high pressure from certain segments of this forum and this has proven to matter in the past.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

very good idea!

They're already invading jewology and breeding like rabbits. :borg: :duh: :eek: :internut: I support the two-subforum solution.