Not denying its more benign usage, but it is now and it was use in the very beginning of islam as a "battle cry." It is not a new development either but a radical step backwards.

you didn't specifically write that islamism is harmless, you wrote this:

which sounded to me like you were grouping islamism with the harmless things that relate to the religion. maybe i misinterpreted your point, but that's just how it reads to me.

I would take that with a grain of salt. I'm speaking purely through assumption here but if it's anything like every other religion it should be looked at as a generalized term with few or no absolute characteristics when put into practice. If this isn't the case please feel free to school me I'm naive to the subject.

The point I'm trying to make is: being a christian doesn't mean you don't support abortion or the death penalty, so why do islamists(?) have to support political ruling through islam? Harmfulness should be approached on a case by case basis and not be a stigma that you attach to an entire group of people.

Islamism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that's the actual definition of the term from what i understand. so i'm not sure how i am attaching a stigma to anyone.

Ok but is it that way in reality? That's the point I was making. Definitions don't mean much if they don't represent reality. It's also why I used the christianity example. Here's another: the real definition of the swastika versus how it's viewed in western/european culture.

And "you" was a generalization not JWB specific.

i don't understand what you're saying. islamism is a term for a political ideology holding that islam should be the guiding set of principles by which a state should be ruled. it's not the same as islam, which is a religion. to me, saying that islamists don't necessarily support ruling through islam is like saying that communists don't necessarily support the redistribution of wealth.

Ok. That's why I was confused and asking. I didn't know there is a difference.

well, there are some people (muslim and non-muslim alike) who will say there is no difference. but there are plenty of muslims that don't identify as islamists.

I would probably used "Wahhabism/islam" where tore used "islamism/the religion" just to clarify things. I really don't to comment on how tore says things, but rather point out that you do worse than what you accuse him of doing.

What "extremists" are you talking about? In that sentence you make it seem that you respect islamic "extremists."

Still agreeing with JWB, since, no matter how racist and incendiary the cartoons, when they get published, the idea of killing over them is absurd, and anyone who would do it, not only needs to be brought to justice, but their ideology needs to be scrutinized in a public forum. Doing so would naturally inflame extreme Islamists even further, leading to greater violence, but I see that as a necessary evil when faced with a threat on Western ideals of freedom of speech. And considering the level of Arab immigration to Europe, I imagine that same influence that allows extremists in the Middle-East to exert control over moderate Muslims might start to come into effect if the populations reach a certain point. So there might actually be a threat to freedom of speech somewhere down the line. I say this as an American who isn't as up on European politics and news as his Old World brothers, but that's just how it seems to me.

But I also saw a Facebook thing posted by a friend on a forum that pointed out something I was previously unaware of.

Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African Republic - The Washington Post

I don't know how much news coverage it gets, but considering how much publicity the Paris thing is getting, versus the outcry over this, then I think that there's definitely a double standard, either A.) of media coverage concentrating on Muslim-on-Christian violence over Christian-on-Muslim violence, or B.) of media coverage concentrating on first world violence versus third-world violence (or at least what is perceived as third-world).

There certainly isn't such an issue with world-wide Christian terror groups, or "home grown" Christian terrorists at the level as home grown Islamist terrorists, but there are certainly extreme Christians in parts of the world with enough numbers to cause things like this who need to be called out on their religious bull**** in a more public way.