Immigration Bill Amendment Would Strip British Terror Suspects Of Passport And Citizenship (POLL)

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


What stupidity

Where would you remove anjem choudary to??
Your house

Choudary is not the problem, ISLAM is the problem
He is a problem
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/hate-groups/am/

And Unless Islam is muzzled and defanged through state monitoring,legislation and regulation then removing the likes of choudary will only result in ten more springing up in his place
Oh dear, here we go again back to absurd notions on the religion itself, not that there are many cases of neologism as there are with all faiths.
He has no wish to follow democracy and wants to install extremist beliefs, so to me he can have the first available plane ticket to go to a theocracy and any who spout the same, can do the same  

This is nothing more than the Tory wing of the party, making noises to boost their popularity amongst the plebs and placate their rowdy backbenchers

Hilarious, and you place stock in the British Numpty Party, says it all really

smelly_bandit wrote:Choudary wants to install sharia law which is based on Islamic doctrine

You can try all you want to whitewash him as a non Muslim

But choudary is Muslim through and through, and in typical didge fashion you have just agreed with me

Though I do disagree with you when you say hope not hate is THE problem

Yes they are A problem but not THE problem

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:Choudary wants to install sharia law which is based on Islamic doctrine

You can try all you want to whitewash him as a non Muslim

But choudary is Muslim through and through, and in typical didge fashion you have just agreed with me

Though I do disagree with you when you say hope not hate is THE problem

Yes they are A problem but not THE problem

Sharia law is different based upon interpretation, his interpretation is based upon wahabbism, something you always get confused over.

He is an extremist, I would say his views are at odds with Islam, being that many scholars and Imans disagree with him, for starts of the killing of Lee Rigby, but then that always also escapes your attention

The last part on hope not hate, was some of your best gobbledygook to date

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Sharia law is different based upon interpretation, his interpretation is based upon wahabbism, something you always get confused over.

He is an extremist, I would say his views are at odds with Islam, being that many scholars and Imans disagree with him, for starts of the killing of Lee Rigby, but then that always also escapes your attention

The last part on hope not hate, was some of your best gobbledygook to date

you can say whatever you want about his view, but it wont change the fact that his views are based entirely upon Islamic scripture

there isn't any man made stuff in there, there isn't any Judaism or Christianity, one way or another it is ALL Islam, ALL of it

you can call him an "extremist" instead of a MUSLIM all you want, but it wont change the fact the he IS a MUSLIM and his religion views are based ISLAM

when are you going to grow a pair and actually admit he is a muslim

insert didges response here : "never denied he wasn't" (but you wont actively admit he is, will you??)

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:
I remember that Thatcher did that when she stripped the Falkland Islanders of their citizenship. Argentina invaded after she did that.

Then she won them back again after pulling off a great victory, which people applauded her for and which won her the next election, people see it way different to you Irn.

Beekeeper wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Then she won them back again after pulling off a great victory, which people applauded her for and which won her the next election, people see it way different to you Irn.

 

I think IF you take a second look, 'Didge ~ it was the British Navy, Marines and Army units that actually "pulled off a great victory..".

ALL that Thatcher did was send them into battle, and then let them heave to and have their own way !

UNLIKE Churchill and his military leaders inWWII, Thatcher wasn't a military strategist nor an ex-military person ~ but rather a trained scientist who had been involved in Tory Party politics since her high schooldays..

ANYBODY foolish enough to even think that it was Thatcher who won the Falklands War ~ rather than her military chiefs ~ have rocks in their heads in that place her normal people have brains !     

PhilDidge wrote:

Beekeeper wrote:
 

I think IF you take a second look, 'Didge ~ it was the British Navy, Marines and Army units that actually "pulled off a great victory..".

ALL that Thatcher did was send them into battle, and then let them heave to and have their own way !

UNLIKE Churchill and his military leaders inWWII, Thatcher wasn't a military strategist nor an ex-military person ~ but rather a trained scientist who had been involved in Tory Party politics since her high schooldays..

ANYBODY foolish enough to even think that it was Thatcher who won the Falklands War ~ rather than her military chiefs ~ have rocks in their heads in that place her normal people have brains !     

Who called the move to take them back?

I am not denying it was the service people who actually carried out the conflict, but are you now saying Churchill had nothing to do with helping to defeat Hitler?

Beekeeper wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Who called the move to take them back?

I am not denying it was the service people who actually carried out the conflict, but are you now saying Churchill had nothing to do with helping to defeat Hitler?

  

READ my sentence again there Didge' ~ and I was crediting Churchill with his military background and experience there ~ thereby ipso facto I was ALSO crediting him with a part in the victory in WWII !!!

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

you can say whatever you want about his view, but it wont change the fact that his views are based entirely upon Islamic scripture

there isn't any man made stuff in there, there isn't any Judaism or Christianity, one way or another it is ALL Islam, ALL of it

you can call him an "extremist" instead of a MUSLIM all you want, but it wont change the fact the he IS a MUSLIM and his religion views are based ISLAM

when are you going to grow a pair and actually admit he is a muslim

insert didges response here : "never denied he wasn't" (but you wont actively admit he is, will you??)

Again incorrect, his views are neologism and his views believe itis okay to kill innocent people which goes against Islamic teachings, which again goes against even what the main stream of Islamic and Imans teach. The reality is your argument is an absurd view point, because within all faiths we see many different interpretations and considering Islam has been around for 1400 years we would see his view consistent with the majority of Muslims, accept history shows contrary to this view. In fact with such view points, there would be constant war for every year of Islamic existence with constant Muslims unafraid to wage war, being as you believe they are unafraid to give their lives willing and yet again we see this only carried out by a minority. I do not see millions daily willingly sacrifice themselves up in the name of their diety. This throughout history there has always been extremist views and you sadly argue over what is the correct Islam as if to make people all fear this religion off the back of those who are Islamists.  

Your view is one of fear used plenty of times throughout history to seek a view to engage in conflict with a faith, this is nothing more than illogical, it shows how easily you are led, when the problem should be working with Muslims to help end the extremist view

Hitler was raised a Christian and Brevik was a Christian, so are you now basing the views of extremists as the true calling of a faith

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Again incorrect, his views are neologism and his views believe itis okay to kill innocent people which goes against Islamic teachings, which again goes against even what the main stream of Islamic and Imans teach. The reality is your argument is an absurd view point, because within all faiths we see many different interpretations and considering Islam has been around for 1400 years we would see his view consistent with the majority of Muslims, accept history shows contrary to this view. In fact with such view points, there would be constant war for every year of Islamic existence with constant Muslims unafraid to wage war, being as you believe they are unafraid to give their lives willing and yet again we see this only carried out by a minority. I do not see millions daily willingly sacrifice themselves up in the name of their diety. This throughout history there has always been extremist views and you sadly argue over what is the correct Islam as if to make people all fear this religion off the back of those who are Islamists.  

Your view is one of fear used plenty of times throughout history to seek a view to engage in conflict with a faith, this is nothing more than illogical, it shows how easily you are led, when the problem should be working with Muslims to help end the extremist view

Hitler was raised a Christian and Brevik was a Christian, so are you now basing the views of extremists as the true calling of a faith

And the Murdering Scum Adebolajo was raised a Christian , but it was not until he Reverted to Islam that his Evil started.

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:



And the Murdering Scum Adebolajo was raised a Christian , but it was not until he Reverted to Islam that his Evil started.

And?
Does that make their views then what the faith is really about based upon their actions?

No, people use religion as a means to excuse their actions, which is wrong.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


And?
Does that make their views then what the faith is really about based upon their actions?

No, people use religion as a means to excuse their actions, which is wrong.

Then why should we be WORKING WITH MUSLIMS against Extremists if it is nothing to do with religion.

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

you can say whatever you want about his view, but it wont change the fact that his views are based entirely upon Islamic scripture

there isn't any man made stuff in there, there isn't any Judaism or Christianity, one way or another it is ALL Islam, ALL of it

you can call him an "extremist" instead of a MUSLIM all you want, but it wont change the fact the he IS a MUSLIM and his religion views are based ISLAM

when are you going to grow a pair and actually admit he is a muslim

insert didges response here : "never denied he wasn't" (but you wont actively admit he is, will you??)

Again incorrect, his views are neologism and his views believe itis okay to kill innocent people which goes against Islamic teachings, which again goes against even what the main stream of Islamic and Imans teach. The reality is your argument is an absurd view point, because within all faiths we see many different interpretations and considering Islam has been around for 1400 years we would see his view consistent with the majority of Muslims, accept history shows contrary to this view. In fact with such view points, there would be constant war for every year of Islamic existence with constant Muslims unafraid to wage war, being as you believe they are unafraid to give their lives willing and yet again we see this only carried out by a minority. I do not see millions daily willingly sacrifice themselves up in the name of their diety. This throughout history there has always been extremist views and you sadly argue over what is the correct Islam as if to make people all fear this religion off the back of those who are Islamists.  

Your view is one of fear used plenty of times throughout history to seek a view to engage in conflict with a faith, this is nothing more than illogical, it shows how easily you are led, when the problem should be working with Muslims to help end the extremist view

Hitler was raised a Christian and Brevik was a Christian, so are you now basing the views of extremists as the true calling of a faith

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Again incorrect, his views are neologism and his views believe itis okay to kill innocent people which goes against Islamic teachings, which again goes against even what the main stream of Islamic and Imans teach. The reality is your argument is an absurd view point, because within all faiths we see many different interpretations and considering Islam has been around for 1400 years we would see his view consistent with the majority of Muslims, accept history shows contrary to this view. In fact with such view points, there would be constant war for every year of Islamic existence with constant Muslims unafraid to wage war, being as you believe they are unafraid to give their lives willing and yet again we see this only carried out by a minority. I do not see millions daily willingly sacrifice themselves up in the name of their diety. This throughout history there has always been extremist views and you sadly argue over what is the correct Islam as if to make people all fear this religion off the back of those who are Islamists.  

Your view is one of fear used plenty of times throughout history to seek a view to engage in conflict with a faith, this is nothing more than illogical, it shows how easily you are led, when the problem should be working with Muslims to help end the extremist view

Hitler was raised a Christian and Brevik was a Christian, so are you now basing the views of extremists as the true calling of a faith

choudary is a Muslim who wants to impose Islamic sharia law on the UK

end of story

if you are attempting to say this is not the case then go right ahead and tell us all that choudary is NOT a Muslim and doesn't want to impose ISLAMIC sharia law on the UK

im certainly not going to argue with you

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:



Then why should we be WORKING WITH MUSLIMS against Extremists if it is nothing to do with religion.

Because people use religion as an excuse to commit violence, what did you not understand the first time?
In other words they have to show such views are wrong and not acceptable within that faith

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:



And the Murdering Scum Adebolajo was raised a Christian , but it was not until he Reverted to Islam that his Evil started.

And?
Does that make their views then what the faith is really about based upon their actions?

No, people use religion as a means to excuse their actions, which is wrong.

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


And?
Does that make their views then what the faith is really about based upon their actions?

No, people use religion as a means to excuse their actions, which is wrong.

the internet and new media are saturated with dozens of stories of converts or muslims who become fanatics, and each and every single one has the same things in common


they are all Muslims for starters

the second thing they have in common is an increased devotion to Islam

a pattern is established that the closer a Muslim gets to Islam and the more devour they become the more fanatic they become  

it is not the "moderate" who takes to the streets over the slightest perceived insult to their faith,or carries out the suicide bombings and beheading, as you keep telling us, its the fanatics

this proves beyond doubt that the action of the fanatics is dictated by their fanatical observance of Islamic dogma  

increased devotion to Islam leads to Islamic fanaticism and Islamic terrorism

Adebolajo is a prime example of how a person can be warped by the teachings of Islam

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Because people use religion as an excuse to commit violence, what did you not understand the first time?
In other words they have to show such views are wrong and not acceptable within that faith

Pure Bullshit Didge and utter Hypocrisy , You are one of the first label BNP on anyone who does not conform to your beliefs , yet you criticise Smelly when he  uses ISLAM as a label.

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

choudary is a Muslim who wants to impose Islamic sharia law on the UK

end of story

if you are attempting to say this is not the case then go right ahead and tell us all that choudary is NOT a Muslim and doesn't want to impose ISLAMIC sharia law on the UK

im certainly not going to argue with you

He is an Islamist, an extremist Muslims, just like extremist Christians who follow Dominionism, are you saying now that Dominionism is the true Christianity using your logic? Which both Islamism and Dominionism are neologism.
He wants to impose an extreme view from within Whabbism, a sect within Islam

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

the internet and new media are saturated with dozens of stories of converts or muslims who become fanatics, and each and every single one has the same things in common


they are all Muslims for starters

the second thing they have in common is an increased devotion to Islam

a pattern is established that the closer a Muslim gets to Islam and the more devour they become the more fanatic they become  

it is not the "moderate" who takes to the streets over the slightest perceived insult to their faith,or carries out the suicide bombings and beheading, as you keep telling us, its the fanatics

this proves beyond doubt that the action of the fanatics is dictated by their fanatical observance of Islamic dogma  

increased devotion to Islam leads to Islamic fanaticism and Islamic terrorism

Adebolajo is a prime example of how a person can be warped by the teachings of Islam

Through hate, as why are so many other converts being around the region of hundred thousand in the UK, which is odd why the vast majority have not fitted your illogical profile on Islam.
That means again any person who converts to Islam yet is taught an extreme view will believe in an extreme interpretation, just as those who convert to Dominionism

Your view again has no logic

ALLAKAKA wrote:
A simple question For Didge , are you saying that Extremist Muslims have nothing to do with Muslims and Islam.

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


He is an Islamist, an extremist Muslims, just like extremist Christians who follow Dominionism, are you saying now that Dominionism is the true Christianity using your logic? Which both Islamism and Dominionism are neologism.
He wants to impose an extreme view from within Whabbism, a sect within Islam

that's all i wanted

you have acknowledged that choudary is a Muslim and that he wants to impose the teachings of islam

you can try and pretend that he is from some sect that is unrelated to islam but that would be a lie

you can try and pretend that his religion is "neologism" (loving this new tactic by the way) but that would also be a lie

choudary is a MUSLIM who wants to impose ISLAMIC sharia law on the UK

deal with it

(when are you going to realize you're agreeing with me??)

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

you can say whatever you want about his view, but it wont change the fact that his views are based entirely upon Islamic scripture

there isn't any man made stuff in there, there isn't any Judaism or Christianity, one way or another it is ALL Islam, ALL of it

you can call him an "extremist" instead of a MUSLIM all you want, but it wont change the fact the he IS a MUSLIM and his religion views are based ISLAM

when are you going to grow a pair and actually admit he is a muslim

insert didges response here : "never denied he wasn't" (but you wont actively admit he is, will you??)

his views are neologism....

ALLAKAKA wrote:
A simple question For Didge , are you saying that Extremist Muslims have nothing to do with Muslims and Islam.

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:



Pure Bullshit Didge and utter Hypocrisy , You are one of the first label BNP on anyone who does not conform to your beliefs , yet you criticise Smelly when he  uses ISLAM as a label.

Incorrect, I view the party and its policies as a joke, I know full well from studying the party and supporters, around 1 third did not hold racist views for example but followed the party for a multitude of reason.
There is no denying the policies of the BNP, they write them all by themselves  

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

his views are neologism....

His views are a new made-up word???

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Incorrect, I view the party and its policies as a joke, I know full well from studying the party and supporters, around 1 third did not hold racist views for example but followed the party for a multitude of reason.
There is no denying the policies of the BNP, they write them all by themselves  

1/3 did not hold racist views , yet you condemn them as Racists by association.

PhilDidge wrote:

Tess. wrote:

His views are a new made-up word???

Islamism is a controversial neologism, and definitions of it sometimes vary Islamists can have varying interpretations on various Quranic suras and ayahs


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Islamism is a controversial neologism, and definitions of it sometimes vary Islamists can have varying interpretations on various Quranic suras and ayahs


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

That means the word Islamism is a neologism.  His views therefore can't be a neologism.  Grammar police logging out.   

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

that's all i wanted

you have acknowledged that choudary is a Muslim and that he wants to impose the teachings of islam

you can try and pretend that he is from some sect that is unrelated to islam but that would be a lie

you can try and pretend that his religion is "neologism" (loving this new tactic by the way) but that would also be a lie

choudary is a MUSLIM who wants to impose ISLAMIC sharia law on the UK

deal with it

(when are you going to realize you're agreeing with me??)

Hilarious, he is an extremist Muslim and follows a neologism of Islam, that is an extreme interpretation.

Seriously it really is so funny how little you understand.

Again now with your view a person who is a Christian, an extremist one that follows Dominionism, is tying to now impose the teachings of Christianity, is that what you are saying?

So your absurd view is that any extremist of a faith is trying to impose that faith, even though their view is not the main stream view of that faith and is known as neologism

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Hilarious, he is an extremist Muslim and follows a neologism of Islam, that is an extreme interpretation.

Seriously it really is so funny how little you understand.

Again now with your view a person who is a Christian, an extremist one that follows Dominionism, is tying to now impose the teachings of Christianity, is that what you are saying?

So your absurd view is that any extremist of a faith is trying to impose that faith, even though their view is not the main stream view of that faith and is known as neologism

loving your new tactic by the way

this neologism thing is providing me with hours of entertainment, especially the way you don't know what it actually means in relation to theology  

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:
A simple question For Didge , are you saying that Extremist Muslims have nothing to do with Muslims and Islam.

I would say most Muslim want nothing to do with them,

YOU WOULD SAY MOST ? Have you studied them and do you have a percentage ?



and their view the extremist ones are a neologism of Islam

PhilDidge wrote:

Tess. wrote:
That means the word Islamism is a neologism.  His views therefore can't be a neologism.  Grammar police logging out.   

Really, again incorrect

In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism). In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material such as religious texts.

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

loving your new tactic by the way

this neologism thing is providing me with hours of entertainment, especially the way you don't know what it actually means in relation to theology  

Great and thanks for the counter that did nothing to counter my views, bravo, give yourself a pat on the back for once again having nothing of worth to offer.
 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

Tess. wrote:
That means the word Islamism is a neologism.  His views therefore can't be a neologism.  Grammar police logging out.   

Really, again incorrect

In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism )

Including Tantric Wanking ?

. In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material such as religious texts.

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Really, again incorrect

In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism). In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material such as religious texts.

choudarys views are not new nor is he proposing a new doctrine nor is he proposing a new interpretation of source material

his views are as old as islam

PhilDidge wrote:

Tess. wrote:
That means the word Islamism is a neologism.  His views therefore can't be a neologism.  Grammar police logging out.   

Really, again incorrect

In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism). In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material such as religious texts.

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

choudarys views are not new nor is he proposing a new doctrine nor is he proposing a new interpretation of source material

his views are as old as islam

There are very new, as his views are a new interpretation of the Quran

Now cue smelly with choice cut verses where he always does and then I end up correcting him as he fails to read much of the chapter or other views and verses in the Quran he always seems to forget.
How many times you have been schooled on this I have lost count.

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

choudarys views are not new nor is he proposing a new doctrine nor is he proposing a new interpretation of source material

his views are as old as islam

There are very new, as his views are a new interpretation of the Quran

Now cue smelly with choice cut verses where he always does and then I end up correcting him as he fails to read much of the chapter or other views and verses in the Quran he always seems to forget.
How many times you have been schooled on this I have lost count.

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Really, again incorrect

In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism). In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material such as religious texts.

Even if referring to a doctine, someone's views can't be "a neologism"- just grammatically wrong!

Or, in your case:

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[8] This tendency is considered normal in children, but in adults can be a symptom of psychopathy[9] or a thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness)...

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Really, again incorrect

In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism). In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material such as religious texts.

Even if referring to a doctine, someone's views can't be "a neologism"- just grammatically wrong!

Or, in your case:

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[8] This tendency is considered normal in children, but in adults can be a symptom of psychopathy[9] or a thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness)...

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


There are very new, as his views are a new interpretation of the Quran

Now cue smelly with choice cut verses where he always does and then I end up correcting him as he fails to read much of the chapter or other views and verses in the Quran he always seems to forget.
How many times you have been schooled on this I have lost count.

so his view that alcohol should be prohibited is a new feature in Islam is it??

how about his view on the 100 lashes for adultery?? is that also new??

best let the Muslims know their qur'an has a new updated version

PhilDidge wrote:

Tess. wrote:

Even if referring to a doctine, someone's views can't be "a neologism"- just grammatically wrong!

Or, in your case:

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[8] This tendency is considered normal in children, but in adults can be a symptom of psychopathy[9] or a thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness)...

So Gramma makes the meaning wrong in your opinion, yet the meaning of the word is crystal clear

The point is Islamism is a view point, meaning only to the person who uses them, which is Islamists, what you do not understand is that Islamism is the neologism

DOH

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So Gramma makes the meaning wrong in your opinion, yet the meaning of the word is crystal clear

The point is Islamism is a view point, meaning only to the person who uses them, which is Islamists, what you do not understand is that Islamism is the neologism

DOH

Forget it - if you haven't mastered grammar by your age you never will.

PhilDidge wrote:

Tess. wrote:

Even if referring to a doctine, someone's views can't be "a neologism"- just grammatically wrong!

Or, in your case:

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[8] This tendency is considered normal in children, but in adults can be a symptom of psychopathy[9] or a thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness)...

So Gramma makes the meaning wrong in your opinion, yet the meaning of the word is crystal clear

The point is Islamism is a view point, meaning only to the person who uses them, which is Islamists, what you do not understand is that Islamism is the neologism

DOH

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Really, again incorrect

In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism). In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material such as religious texts.

Even if referring to a doctine, someone's views can't be "a neologism"- just grammatically wrong!

Or, in your case:

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[8] This tendency is considered normal in children, but in adults can be a symptom of psychopathy[9] or a thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness)...

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So Gramma makes the meaning wrong in your opinion, yet the meaning of the word is crystal clear

The point is Islamism is a view point, meaning only to the person who uses them, which is Islamists, what you do not understand is that Islamism is the neologism

DOH

i think the point you are missing is that "islamism"  and "islamists" are in themselves neologisms since they are newly coined terms which the liberal left have created to describe Muslim fanatics

they desperately attempt to disassociate the likes of choudary and OBL with anything relating to Islam or other Muslims in order to protect Islam and Muslims from criticism.

they do this by creating a fallacy that OBL and co. are not real Muslims following real Islam, but rather fake Muslims (islamists) following a different kind of Islam (islamism)

none of this is true

ALL of them are real Muslims following real Islam  

the truly stupid part of this is that the very words "islamism" and "islamist" have the root word of ISLAM, and yet we are supposed to believe that these individuals are not Muslims practicing Islam

sure pal






therefopre since it is newly coined