Soren wrote on Nov 13
th, 2008 at 9:50pm:
Mohammedan points to the founder and the man followed. The term also paarallels 'Christian'.
It is a declension also used in other religious and non-religious group identifiers such as Methodist, Marxist, Anarchist and so forth.
It is no more insulting than any of these. Is there any insult in being identified as a partisan, a follower of Mohammed?
It is certainly not as insulting as the terms used by Mohammedans to denote the 'out' groups (me among them) - infidel, kuffr and so on.
Language can reveal as well as conceal. I am concious of its unveiling power. Your squirming uncomfortably only confirms it.
whilst I understand why you use the term, and that you don't think it's insulting...isn't what's insulting also defined by how the other person receives it?
I am sure some people will say that this is just PC crap and not to restrict freedom of speech etc etc- these aren't invalid points
but for me it comes down to two things 1) does it really affect me to change one word in my vocabulary 2) if I'm saying out of ignorance and then am educated, why keep saying it? 3) do I want to insult people? and 4) can I get my point across just as well using another word
I don't think that the word islam or muslims is any less associated with mohammed than mohammedans
I do agree about infidel and kuffar- I find these terms offensive and have argued with some people about it on MV before. I can link you the discussion if you like.
again it came down to the point where- the person said it didn't see it as offensive because it merely described someone as being an 'unbeliever' (in Islam)- but I found it offensive because of the context in which it had been used. when you hear those terms used by people who are talking about death and murder and justifying terrorism etc- the word itself takes on a nastier aspect.
I believe at the end of the discussion quite a few people saw where I was coming from