Open Mosque to Host Christmas Unity Dinner

What fury is saying is that it's an Arabic word and there's no English equivalent that conveys its meaning. I guess similar to there being no English word equivalent to Schadenfreude.

I don't know why Arthur is being a dick about it.
 
What fury is saying is that it's an Arabic word and there's no English equivalent that conveys its meaning. I guess similar to there being no English word equivalent to Schadenfreude.

I don't know why Arthur is being a dick about it.

It's precisely what I'm saying. And by implication it means that the term Mohammedan is used for no other reason than to deride or for its depreciatory characteristic.
 
What fury is saying is that it's an Arabic word and there's no English equivalent that conveys its meaning. I guess similar to there being no English word equivalent to Schadenfreude.

I don't know why Arthur is being a dick about it.
If you pay proper attention to Arthur's posts you'll note he's very (understatement) pedantic about his spelling, grammar and correct use of words and their meanings.
 
If you pay proper attention to Arthur's posts you'll note he's very (understatement) pedantic about his spelling, grammar and correct use of words and their meanings.

But not so particular with the term Muslim it would seem.
 
But not so particular with the term Muslim it would seem.
Why don't you provide Arthur with evidence that the term is generally considered derogatory as he provided you with evidence of the contrary?
 
Why don't you provide Arthur with evidence that the term is generally considered derogatory as he provided you with evidence of the contrary?

As per the Oxford English Dictionary:

As was noted in Eng. Today (1992) Apr. 39: ‘The term Mohammedan‥is considered offensive or pejorative to most Muslims since it makes human beings central in their religion, a position which only Allah may occupy’.

Also:

Gibb, Sir Hamilton (1969). Mohammedanism: an historical survey. Oxford University Press. p. 1. Modern Muslims dislike the terms Mohammedan and Mohammedanism, which seem to them to carry the implication of worship of Mohammed, as Christian and Christianity imply the worship of Christ.
 
As per the Oxford English Dictionary:



Also:

Thanks was just about to post the very same Oxford dictionary reference. It's also not so much of what the original intention of the word itself was meant to convey, but rather what the implication of the word is in today's society.
 
As an aside, the OED since 1976 has not been definitive but rather reflective and descriptive. This was a conscious decision as part of the multiculti movement. You can no longer quote the OED to show definitions. Only usages.
 
This was much discussed in academic and media circles at the time. You'll find some references to it in Simon Winchester's books The Surgeon of Crowthorne and The Meaning of Everything, both stories about the OED. The first work to follow the new descriptive-not-prescriptive line was the M volume in the mid-80s. In away from home now and can't check the exact year.

(As an aside, before computers I was an editor for a large international publisher. This year my requested birthday prezzie from my wife was a new edition of a Proto-Indo-European dictionary. What used to be called Philology is an abiding passion.)
 
Last edited:
for its depreciatory characteristic.
Don't you mean deprecatory?

Since you ask, my answer is No. Whatever some moslems might aver, the term Mohammedan is not deprecatory or demeaning in my culture. Some might of course take offence, but that is their choice. Ponder has already posted a link showing perfectly benign contemporary usage by Mohammedans in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X