Talk:Muslims Against Crusades

Fringe

Muslims Against Crusades is another group consisting of fringe British berks, more specifically Islamists. The organisation was founded in 2010 by Abu Assadullah. - this line needs to be changed. I'm not a brit so I don't know what a berk is, and there is no such thing as an "islamisit" ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

I think you would like even less what "berk" means in Cockney rhyming slang. Follow the blue link to see what an "Islamist" is. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Berkshires abut the Taconic Mountains. Taconic rhymes with "platonic." That is my final answer. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And "islamist" is not a muslim, any more than a Christist is a Christian." Again, I see no reason to put down Islam, for the sake of making some points about idiots.^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

As the people of MAC are Islamists, I fail to see how this page is "putting down Islam." I also fail to see why we should refrain from "putting down Islam" in the first place. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The article makes some points about a group of idiots who are Muslims. Being Muslim is fundamental part of what they feel drives their idiocy. I do not understand the objection to the article. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Same reason we should not put down christianity. or Hinduism, or Lakota Spirtuality. When we put down things, we need to be specific and precise. if you want to make a global bash agaisnt religion in general, that's fine, cause you are not saying "this one religion". but when you are talking fundimentalist christians, that is different than "christianity". same with islam. as for putting them down, when you make a new name for people, and do not use the name they give themselves, you are saying "I know better than you, what you are". En attendant Godot 18:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Bob, the article is not at all clear about this. if you do not know who they are, you won't get it from this article. I had to go to wikipedia to read about them, to understand the points you are trying to make. There is way too much of a sense of "everyone knows these people, so i can just bash them", than any attempt to FIRST tell us who they are, and then bash them.En attendant Godot 18:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

...when you make a new name for people, and do not use the name they give themselves... Right; just like one must use Randall Terry's self-descriptor of "pro-life leader" instead of male-supremacist. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Proving my point you are attempting to make a political stance/denagrate when using such language.En attendant Godot 19:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I fail to follow. If it is unacceptable to describe people using any terms except those they use to describe themselves, how was it acceptable to call Randall Terry anything other than his own self-descriptor, "pro-life leader"? Or (to take a British example) how is it acceptable to class Nick Griffin by his right label of white supremacist instead of the one he prefers, "patriot"? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Godot: I know nothing about these people apart from this article - which seems to work well within RW's mission statements. If you have established that it is inaccurate then no doubt you will start editing it to remove these errors.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's inaccurate, i think it's unclear. And I don't know anything about them other than wiki, and editing from wiki and not from some external knowledge seems - i don't know - not such a good idea to me. En attendant Godot 19:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems perfectly clear to me; Islamists who think they are above the law, trying to install themselves as the government in Muslim enclaves against the will of their residents. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here, but I agree that the introduction wasn't particularly well-worded (saying "another group of fringe British berks" assumes that the reader is familiar with prior such groups, which isn't necessarily the case). I've changed it now. Baljit (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)