Can someone be a Muslim Jew?

[rosends]

Well it's one of the meanings to me since I've seen this usage many times by many people.

Except that it isn't actually a meaning of the term "anti-semitism." If people are using it that way, then they are using it incorrectly.

 

[rosends]

It's what made this particular word popular. What is the drive behind that?

What made it is a "who" and what made it "popular" is the intent of the "who."

 

[Link]

Except that it isn't actually a meaning of the term "anti-semitism." If people are using it that way, then they are using it incorrectly.

Nope, we are using it in a better way, a way to resist oppressors and their propaganda. And it's part of the usage now, whether you like it or not.

 

[Link]

What made it is a "who" and what made it "popular" is the intent of the "who."

One person doesn't yield that much power.

 

[rosends]

Nope, we are using it in a better way, a way to resist oppressors and their propaganda.

OK, so you know "better" because you want to coopt a term. That's sort of like coopting a place because you are frustrated that it belongs to someone else. So par for the course.

 

[Link]

OK, so you know "better" because you want to coopt a term. That's sort of like coopting a place because you are frustrated that it belongs to someone else. So par for the course.

Nah, you are trying to dictate the term and not allowing our usage of it in the way we've been using it. Typical oppressors, trying to be the official dictators of all discourse.

 

[rosends]

One person doesn't yield that much power.

And respecting the intent of a creator doesn't seem to be anything that matters to you either. I try to respect language and not twist it. You go on. I intent to start using the word "recognition" to mean "reject" so I will tell you that your signature line indicates that you reject Allah.

 

[rosends]

Nah, you are trying to dictate the term and not allowing our usage of it in the way we've been using it. Typical oppressors, trying to be the official dictators of all discourse.

I'm not dictating it as much as I am recognizing that the term was created to mean something and I'm respecting that intent. You are rejecting it because it ignores you. Typical and disrespectful of language. Orwell was right...

 

[Link]

And respecting the intent of a creator doesn't seem to be anything that matters to you either. I try to respect language and not twist it. You go on. I intent to start using the word "recognition" to mean "reject" so I will tell you that your signature line indicates that you reject Allah.

You took a linguistic class. Some terms are static, probably will never change. Some terms are disputed and there is a whole battle on what they mean. Some terms change meaning over time.

Then there is multiple meanings to words. The context and usage suggests what is meant.

 

[rosends]

You took a linguistic class. Some terms are static, probably will never change.

Why is that? What if you decide you don't like them?

Some terms are disputed and there is a whole battle on what they mean. Some terms change meaning over time.

Then there is multiple meanings to words. The context and usage suggests what is meant.

Some terms have intended meanings. Some are taken from other languages at their root and then are applied in a dynamic way to a variety of cases. Some develop because their original intent is no longer applicable.

This term is one that was created and intended to point to one specific thing. It hasn't changed.

 

[Link]

Why is that? What if you decide you don't like them?

Some terms have intended meanings. Some are taken from other languages at their root and then are applied in a dynamic way to a variety of cases. Some develop because their original intent is no longer applicable.

This term is one that was created and intended to point to one specific thing. It hasn't changed.

It has changed per usage of many people. Most Muslims probably have heard or said the expression @firedragon has said.

 

[rosends]

It has changed per usage of many people. Most Muslims probably have heard or said the expression @firedragon has said.

even IF they had used the word "semite" to refer to a broad group, that doesn't change the phrase "anti-semite."

"Clock" refers to an analog or a digital clock. But "clockwise" is about a direction even though digital clocks don't have that direction. Saying that, because "clock" also refers to digital" that "clockwise" means something different is a ridiculous argument.

 

[Link]

even IF they had used the word "semite" to refer to a broad group, that doesn't change the phrase "anti-semite."

"Clock" refers to an analog or a digital clock. But "clockwise" is about a direction even though digital clocks don't have that direction. Saying that, because "clock" also refers to digital" that "clockwise" means something different is a ridiculous argument.

'
You are repeating and my refutation to your conjecture has been already stated.

 

[rosends]

'
You are repeating and my refutation to your conjecture has been already stated.

No, I'm providing another example of why your position is untenable. You have yet to refute anything. You have simply made baseless counter claims. I already pointed out that "anti-american" doesn't mean anti-Brazilian even though Brazils is in the Americas. You haven't addressed that.

 

[Link]

No, I'm providing another example of why your position is untenable. You have yet to refute anything. You have simply made baseless counter claims. I already pointed out that "anti-american" doesn't mean anti-Brazilian even though Brazils is in the Americas. You haven't addressed that.

Whatever dude. You won't understand because you are stubborn. No point of repeating same points to you.

 

[firedragon]

It has changed per usage of many people. Most Muslims probably have heard or said the expression @firedragon has said.

Ill tell you the Arab's position.

If tomorrow, one or two Jews decide to coin a phrase "Jewhater" and decide to apply that word to everyone who speaks against them, the other Jews who are the majority will ask them "we are Jews too mate". So the Arab's position is that just because you highjacked an identity we are all part of and coined a term for your propaganda, it is not universal, it is wrong, and its just propaganda.

By the way, I am referring to Arabs, not just Muslims.

 

[dybmh]

That's wrong fundamentally. The Qur'an does not say the Torah has been corrupted. It just says that people write stuff and attribute it to God. I know that even Muslim apologists use this verse to say that this and that was corrupted. But this is not specific, but a general statement. It does not mention the Torah in that verse.

What about the treatment of Lot in the Torah? It's a major difference in the Quran isn't it?

 

[Link]

What about the treatment of Lot in the Torah? It's a major difference in the Quran isn't it?

Yes, and Talut (Saul) And Sulaiman (upon them be peace).

 

[dybmh]

The Torah was corrupted in this sense

@firedragon ^^

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I was wrong. Obviously actual Jews would know this better than me. That's all I need to say.