How do you react to fundamentalists?

Sangre

I'm just wondering how often the 'average' Muslim (especially in Ireland) encounters what one could call a fundamentalist and how do you react to it? Now obviously every religion has their fundamentalists e.g. Christians have their Creationists etc., but I'm specifically wondering about the Islamic reaction because of all the recent press coverage, not to mention the violent, terrorist actions of some these fundamentalists.

Have you ever encountered those who are so fundamental to the point they wish violence on infidels or 'the west'. Or how about those who base other forms of violence on the Qur'an e.g. corporal punishment/death sentences in Saudi?

Would you ever argue them on theological points or would you be slightly afraid? Would you just let it go or do you feel obligated to set them right?

Of course I realise there is the point that a true fundamentalist Muslim wouldn't be a terrorist but that isn't what I'm looking for in this thread.

philologos

Creationists wouldn't really be considered fundementalist Christians.

Sangre

I'm talking a genesis is literally true, not a 'god made earth' creationist. Although if you think the former isn't, then what would be a fundamentalist?

edited to add this isnt the place for this.

InFront

All that “fundamentalist” actually means is an adherence to, or a promotion of, the fundamental principles of a religion.
This gives the impression that violence is a 'fundamental' of Islam, which is not really true, except where absolutely necessary. That is why it is frustrating to hear guys like Anjem Choudry or Bin Laden being referred to as Islamic fundamentalists, when there is nothing fundamentally Islamic in the sort of violence they support.
If I did know somebody who was pushing or plotting violence, like you, and I'm sure like the other users, I'd go to the police instead of posting it here!:) But no, personally I haven't.
To answer the second part of your question, yes I think it is imperative upon every Muslim to point out mistakes in understanding.
If I say something here that is factually incorrect, it's much better to be corrected than to go on believing the mistake. So I think it would be a big mistake not to argue and question someone who subscribes to support of terrorism in the name of Islam.

InFront

Forgot to add...
Much more importantly than any of that: what does Islam say about terrorism?

Islam is quite clear on murder of innocent civilians: it is haraam (unlawful, not permissable). This is the case no matter who does it. This fatwa makes it quite clear (extracted):

1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam.

2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.

3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

wes

Well, I have never met a fundy in the Bin Laden sense, but these guys have no real issue with killing other Muslims. If I remember correctly, most terrorist attacks by Muslims have actually killed other Muslims for the most part.

Back to the Bin Laden types, well there equal part politics, as much as misinterpreted religion. Much of there motivation is the Palestinian issue and as they see it "occupation of Muslim holy lands" referring to American army bases in Saudi Arabia. The political component is what separates Bin Laden and his ilk from the Saudis for the most part. I think there views on how to run a country are basically the same. The difference is that the terrorists have even lower value for human life.

As for the Saudis (I mean the government and not the people when I refer to Saudis btw), personally there hypocrites and I won't say anymore, as they aren't the kind of things you say in polite company.

Sangre

Well I know they're not true fundamentalists, I was using the moderen or media term for it e.g. 'nutjobs'. I though my last sentence pointed that out. I don't think Muslim terrorists are real Muslims anymore than I think those whole blow up abortion clinics are real Christians.

I suppose Ireland isn't exactly a fundie breeding ground.

philologos

Sangre wrote:

I'm talking a genesis is literally true, not a 'god made earth' creationist. Although if you think the former isn't, then what would be a fundamentalist?

edited to add this isnt the place for this.

Infact, actually considering the definition of fundementalist given above I suppose we are fundementalists since we are promoting the core principles of our religion. In the context of fundementalists that you are using you mean extremists, which Creationists aren't.

the_new_mr

I agree that the word fundamentalist is misleading since the true meaning of this word would be someone who sticks to their religion's fundamentals so I would propose that people stop using this term in this way even when they mean the kind of terrorist fellows we see on the news.

I've never met someone like this either thank God. And for sure, if I ever met one, I would be a religious and moral obligation to set them right. Their crazy ideas are usually down to ignorance and brainwashing.

I'd have to say though that I don't think it's extreme to support corporal punishments or death penalties as long as they are carried out in a correct and just manner.

Sangre

Jakkass wrote:

Infact, actually considering the definition of fundementalist given above I suppose we are fundementalists since we are promoting the core principles of our religion. In the context of fundementalists that you are using you mean extremists, which Creationists aren't.

Stop being pedantic, you knew exactly what I meant. I was using the media buzzword for it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well you shouldn't have! if you don't know what you mean how do you expect people to be able to respond properly to your question.

i'd imagine muslims feel the same way about terrorists who label themselves muslim as christians feel about terrorists who label themselves christians..as far as individual terrorism goes anyway. as for state terrorism.. christians are far and away the most murderous and extreme, not out of any particular christian reason.. but they do claim to be christian.. much as 'laden and the boyz claim to be muslim.

have you posted a similar question on the christianity forum? and if not, why not? .. 's just a little bigoted of you, don't you think?

InFront

Mordeth you are right about these terrorists defacing Islam, but please don't call Sangre a bigot!:)

It is a useful question there's no harm in it.

Sangre

I used 'fundamentalist' because I thought everyone would know what I was talking about, especially given the context of my post and my last line disclaimer. I specifically added that at the end so I wouldn't have to go through this, oh well!

So we'll be using extremists from now on then.

The reason I haven't asked the question on Christianity mordeth because violent Christian extremists aren't in the media much lately. Stop trying to wind me up

InFront

Sangre wrote:

So we'll be using extremists from now on then.

Sorry to hijack the thread like this; but even the word extremist, I'm not sure how correct it is. It sort of suggests if you are religious enough, or Muslim enough, you'll eventually be dangerous. As though Islam were a dial you can turn up or turn down. It's almost as bad as "moderate Muslim" (do they get moderately pregnant?)

Anyway, pedantry over. Everyone knows what you meant of course, I'm sure we've all used these words at some stage and I doubt that anyone is offended. But lets just call a spade a spade. A terrorist is a terrorist and a Muslim is a Muslim.

Sangre

I think extremists refers more to their actions than beliefs...

Anyway, enough of that!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I didn't call him a bigot, I just pointed out a certain bigotry in the way he phrased the question and who he asked the question of.. and damn you sangre for not rising to the bait.

next time.... next time


and violent christian extremists are very much in the media these days, they're just referred to as coalition forces.

philologos

Mordeth wrote:

i'd imagine muslims feel the same way about terrorists who label themselves muslim as christians feel about terrorists who label themselves christians..as far as individual terrorism goes anyway. as for state terrorism.. christians are far and away the most murderous and extreme, not out of any particular christian reason.. but they do claim to be christian.. much as 'laden and the boyz claim to be muslim.

Disgusting manipulation of religion. But all we can do, whether we are Muslim or Christian is show our utter disgust at how people could claim that religion brought them to incite violence.

fly_agaric

Mordeth wrote:

and violent christian extremists are very much in the media these days, they're just referred to as coalition forces.

I bet you didn't know that all members of the armed forces in the US or any Euro country involved in Iraq or Afghanistan must swear an oath that they will die or kill in battle for the Glory of Jesus Christ the Saviour?
So there!

philologos

fly_agaric wrote:

I bet you didn't know that all members of the armed forces in the US or any Euro country involved in Iraq or Afghanistan must swear an oath that they will die or kill in battle for the Glory of Jesus Christ the Saviour?
So there!

They gave out Bibles to the people in Iraq when they dropped down food after the Baghdad bombings. But that doesn't mean they act in the interest of Christianity on the battlefield.

Hobbes

fly_agaric wrote:

I bet you didn't know that all members of the armed forces in the US or any Euro country involved in Iraq or Afghanistan must swear an oath that they will die or kill in battle for the Glory of Jesus Christ the Saviour?
So there!

Bull****.

Also bring it back on topic. We aren't discussing Christianity here.

stevejazzx

the_new_mr wrote:

I'd have to say though that I don't think it's extreme to support corporal punishments or death penalties as long as they are carried out in a correct and just manner.

?
How did you get on to the death penalty. Hasn't your suggestion already been tried in many countries, the Uk and US to name just 2 and hasn't it systematically failed in both lands becasue of human error and the irreconcilible notions of how some crimes fulfill the criteria for the death penalty and others don't.

the_new_mr

It succeeds in other countries. Saudi Arabia, with all it's problems, is one country where it is carried out well. I think people are put through 7 separate court trials or something like that before anyone can be sentenced with the death penalty there. At least they got something right. As Wes pointed out earlier. The Saudi government are hypocrites.

Anyway, I was just making my point that I don't think that believing in the use of the death penalty makes you out to be an "extremist" (for want of a better term) as a response to a comment earlier that mentioned corporal punishments and death penalties (but it seems that that text has now been removed).

Sangre

I referenced it in my first post new_mr.

Actually, are the Saudi punishments/death penalties based on their notion of Islamic teaching? Do they think the Quran supports it (I would imagine so). Do they think it demands them to kill people for certain crimes?

stevejazzx

the_new_mr wrote:

It succeeds in other countries. Saudi Arabia, with all it's problems, is one country where it is carried out well. I think people are put through 7 separate court trials or something like that before anyone can be sentenced with the death penalty there. At least they got something right. As Wes pointed out earlier. The Saudi government are hypocrites.

Has anyone after six of the seven trials ever been found to be innocent? Has anyone killed ever found to be at a later time innocent? The death penalty is accpeted as one of the most flawed ideas in the history of the world.

the_new_mr

I'm afraid I can't answer your questions stevejazzx as I honestly don't know. My Uncle was telling me about it and he used to live there. I guess since they have 7 separate court cases then it's likely that someone has gotten out with one of them falling in their favour. As far as I know, if there is any doubt at all as to crime then the death penalty cannot be carried out. It is possible (and unfortunately, likely keeping in mind some of their other flaws) that Saudi Arabia are not carrying out this part of Islamic law correctly so I thought I'd mention that before someone comes along with some example

stevejazzx wrote:

The death penalty is accpeted as one of the most flawed ideas in the history of the world.

You say this as if it's some kind of fact. It isn't.

And to answer your questions Sangre. Yes, yes and yes.

stevejazzx

the_new_mr wrote:

You say this as if it's some kind of fact. It isn't.

.

Sorry for going off topic.
It is actually a fact. See below, 80% of the entire world governments consider the penalty wrong. Where it does exist it is being slowly discontinued. The US remains one of the biggest barriers in removing it completely. Every independant report ever comissioned on the subject has illustrated the flaws and inconsistancies that are automatically inherent within any death sentencing system. Amnesty international supported by all the worlds major governments is actively pursuing the abolition of all death penalties across the world.

>>>If this isn't evidence that the death is accepted as one of historys greatets flaws then I don't know what is. <<<

On 30 November, 537 cities in 31 countries from Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan to Atananarivo in Madagascar, participated in the Cities for Life events, lighting up public buildings and holding candle lit vigils to demonstrate their opposition to the death penalty

. Progress towards worldwide abolition
Over 40 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes since 1990. They include countries in Africa (recent examples include Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire), the Americas (Canada, Paraguay, Mexico), Asia and the Pacific (Philippines, Bhutan. Samoa) and Europe and Central Asia ( Albania, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey

<LI type=disc>

89 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes; <LI type=disc>10 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes;
[*]29 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions,
also

[FONT=Arial Black, B Helvetica Bold]Signatories of the Strasbourg Declaration[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
MICHEL TAUBE Chairman of Together Against the Death Penalty Organization (ECPM)
DENYS ROBILIARD Chairman of the French section of Amnesty International
SIDIKI KABA Chairman of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues
AHMED OTHMANI Chairman of Penal Reform International
STEVEN HAWKINS Chairman of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty United States
KOICHI KIKUTA Professor of Law, University of Japan
MARIO MARAZZITI Spokesperson of the Sant Egidio Community Italy
SERGIO D’ELIA Executive Director of Hands off Caïn Italy
FRANCIS TEITGEN Chairman of the Paris Bar Association France
MICHEL TUBIANA Chairman of the French Human Rights League France
SYLVIE BUCKARI DE PONTUAL Vice-Chairman of the French section and the International Federation of the Association Against Torture and capital punishment
RENEE LE MIGNOT Member of the M.R.A.P. organization France
MIREILLE MENDES-FRANCE Member of the International Democratic Lawyers AssociationFrance
DENNIS DAVIS Judge, High Court of Cape Town South Africa
BELINDA VAN HEERDEN Judge, High Court of Cape Town South Africa
JEREMY SARKIN Professor of Law, University of the Western Cape South Africa
HAFEZ ABU SE’ADA Secretary General of the Egyptian Human Right Organization Egypt
WILIAM KERFOOT Attorney, Legal Ressources Centre in Cape Town South Africa
ALIOUNE TINE Executive Director of the R.A.D.D.H. organization Senegal
ALICE MOGWE Director, of DITSHWANELO- the Centre for Human Rights Botswana
JUAN PABLO DE LEON Professor of University, president of " Ciudadanos contra la pena de muerte " Puerto Rico
RON PASCHKE Advocate, Cape Bar South Africa
JODY KOLLAPEN Lawyer, Member of the South African Human Right Commission South Africa
SAM JORDAN Spokeperson, International concerned family for friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal United States
LIVINGSTONE SEWANYANA Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights Uganda
NICOLAS TIANGAYE President of the Central African Republic Human Right League Central African Republic[/FONT]

the_new_mr

Sorry Steve. Just because a majority have a certain opinion doesn't make it right.

This is a pretty extreme analogy but say I was to put you in a room with a whole load of lads from the KKK and you held a vote on whether or not you should kill the black guy next door, do you think your opinion would be any less right just because you're in the minority?

Anyway, this thread certainly isn't for debating whether or not the death penalty is right or wrong. I recall seeing another thread about that somewhere else on boards.

fly_agaric

Hobbes wrote:

bull****

You don't say!

the_new_mr wrote:

It succeeds in other countries. Saudi Arabia, with all it's problems, is one country where it is carried out well.

Well, the Liberal Bleeding Hearts (like Amnesty, Human Rights Watch etc) would disagree with you but whatdotheyknow since a)they are not muslims and b) are gay perverts who generally don't like killing evil-doers. And we all know exactly who those evil-doers deserving of execution by the state are!

I'm sure that Saudi Arabia's Death Penalty system is much better than that of the United States of America (boo, hiss!). Public beheadings are way way cooler than lethal injections in a little room!
If only we could get some compare and contrasts from the late patrons of both systems!

the_new_mr

fly_agaric gets a 1 week ban for trolling.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

wtf for?

disagreeing with you?

well... that's some fantastic grasp of the meaning of the word 'trolling' you've got there.

or is it bull****... it's so hard to tell

InFront

Mordeth feel free to say something about the topic at hand, but please do not discuss moderating in this thread.

the_new_mr

For bringing the level of conversation down a few levels. The whole post was bad... but this line was enough:

fky_agaric wrote:

If only we could get some compare and contrasts from the late patrons of both systems!

Troll definition

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it's fundamentalist forum modding, it's entirely relevant to the topic being discussed.

the_new_mr

I'm issuing you a warning mordeth as I take it you mean fundamentalist in the negative and inaccurate sense as previously discussed in this thread.

philologos

the_new_mr wrote:

It succeeds in other countries. Saudi Arabia, with all it's problems, is one country where it is carried out well. I think people are put through 7 separate court trials or something like that before anyone can be sentenced with the death penalty there. At least they got something right. As Wes pointed out earlier. The Saudi government are hypocrites.

Infact it's Saudi imams who are suspected of inciting extremism. There was a report on Channel 4 in relation to the Green Hill Mosque in Birmingham, regarding an American imam, who claimed that the kufaar can't be trusted etc, Jews and Christians are scum. This mosque had video conferences with extreme imams in Saudi Arabia (or so they say). I know this isn't the belief of moderate Muslims, but I'm just wondering do you share the same views on Unbelievers (kufaar) or could you define what the relationship between Muslims and us as kufaar is? Just out of interest.

the_new_mr

I'll gladly do it although I don't think I can be the considered the official spokesperson for the world Muslim population I'll do my best though.

First of all, I'd like to comment on the term "moderate Muslim". It implies a Muslim who isn't taking their religion seriously or who wants to pick and choose and is somewhat of a misnomer (like the term fundamentalist). I know what you're trying to say and I'm not trying to be pedantic.

Anyway...

No Imam should be inciting hatred. It's absolutely unacceptable.

Some people when attacking Islam tend to highlight verses of the Quran such as the following:

Al-Ma'ida:51
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk."

What people fail to realise is that understanding the reason for revelation is ex extremely important to knowing how to apply these verses. The verse above was at a time when Muslims were at war with Christians and Jews.

But God is very clear in the Quran of who should be fought against and who should not and very clearly highlights that having a good relationship with people of the book is absolutely fine.

Al-Mumtahina:8-9
"Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.; Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them--(All) such are wrong doers."

It should be noted here that the word used for kindness in Al-Mumtahina:8 is the Arabic word birr which isn't just any sort of kindness. It's an extremely high level of kindness. The word birr is used when describing how to deal with your parents (birr al waladayn) which I think best highlights the kind of kindness we're taking about here.

With reference to the specific idea that non-believers (kufar) cannot be trusted, I think the following verse is very applicable.

Al-Imran:75
"And among the followers of earlier revelation there is many a one who, if thou entrust him with a treasure, will [faithfully] restore it to thee; and there is among them many a one who, if thou entrust him with a tiny gold coin, will not restore it to thee unless thou keep standing over him - which is an outcome of their assertion, "No blame can attach to us [for anything that we may do] with regard to these unlettered folk": and [so] they tell a lie about God, being well aware [that it is a lie]." "

So, it's very clear that there are those that can be trusted and those that are not. It's down to the individual.

So the relationship between Muslims and Jews and Christians is supposed to be that of kindness and good will without question.

I think the following article from islamonline.net is very beneficial.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1140333520303

Hope that answers your question Jakkass.

InFront

:eek: I thought you were being harsh then I realized that's just his username

I've nothing to add really except one small thing. In case someone was wondering, kufr/ kaffir isn't a bad, word. Many people apparently think it is or think that it is designed to insult (they presume it means infidel and everything that infers to them).
Maybe this is because of how it has been used badly by certain media (and Muslims in some cases). Yes in many countries, it had racist overtones. But this is the racist's interpretation just the same as some other racists use the word "Jew" as an insult. It is not racist in itself or meant to incite hatred. In the Qur'an it just means non-Muslim.

philologos

the_new_mr wrote:

I'll gladly do it although I don't think I can be the considered the official spokesperson for the world Muslim population I'll do my best though.

First of all, I'd like to comment on the term "moderate Muslim". It implies a Muslim who isn't taking their religion seriously or who wants to pick and choose and is somewhat of a misnomer (like the term fundamentalist). I know what you're trying to say and I'm not trying to be pedantic.

Sorry, I put it the best I could have . Thanks for clarifying it all. I just got shocked really when I saw that documentary. I know from reading parts of the Qu'ran in English that the relationship between Christians, Jews and Muslims was supposed to be a good one. But I was wondering where the argument of anti-kuffar came from. I hope to read more of the Qu'ran.

Scofflaw

InFront wrote:

:eek: I thought you were being harsh then I realized that's just his username

I've nothing to add really except one small thing. In case someone was wondering, kufr/ kaffir isn't a bad, word. Many people apparently think it is or think that it is designed to insult (they presume it means infidel and everything that infers to them).
Maybe this is because of how it has been used badly by certain media (and Muslims in some cases). Yes in many countries, it had racist overtones. But this is the racist's interpretation just the same as some other racists use the word "Jew" as an insult. It is not racist in itself or meant to incite hatred. In the Qur'an it just means non-Muslim.

"Gentile" would be an equivalent term.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

In the Qur'an it just means non-Muslim.

Not quite. It means unbeliever, but more than that it means denier of the truth. It's more a proactive unbelief. Someone living in a jungle in the middle of nowhere who has never heard of Allah is technically not a Kuffar. A kufr is a person who has heard the message of Islam and chooses to not believe/covers up the truth. It's quite a pejorative term and is used as such in many places in the texts.

DinoBot

InFront wrote:

:

In case someone was wondering, kufr/ kaffir isn't a bad, word. Many people apparently think it is or think that it is designed to insult (they presume it means infidel and everything that infers to them).
.

I STRONGLY disagree with you. The word Kafir IS an insult and IS used as an insult by muslims. You might tell me the proper use of the term for "people-of-the-book" is not Kafir but in REALITY kafir is used to label ALL non muslims.

Please see link:

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


Kufr is an Arabic word meaning an unbeliever, a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth. In cultural terms, it is a derogatory term[1] used to describe an unbeliever, non-Muslims, a Muslim of a differing sect.


The word is used way too much and too freely, but it is used.

Hobbes

tbh it sounds like gook or gaijin. Both are used as derogatory terms but aren't actually.

DinoBot

Hobbes wrote:

tbh it sounds like gook or gaijin. Both are used as derogatory terms but aren't actually.

I dont understand, you said both are used as derogatory terms but aren't ??


Answer me this, would you like to be called a gook ? It sounds extreamly derogatory to me ! I dont know any other use for the words gook or gaijin, in what non-derogatory context can these words be used ?

InFront

Presumably the same way Pakistanis use the P word?

Wibbs wrote:

Not quite. It means unbeliever, but more than that it means denier of the truth. It's more a proactive unbelief

Proactive unbelief, yes but unbeliever is still not exactly correct, because Jews and Christians are not unbelievers exactly, yet they are kaffir. An unbeliever might be something like a Hindu. 'Non Muslim who denies the clear truth' would be a bit more accurate I think.

I STRONGLY disagree with you. The word Kafir IS an insult and IS used as an insult by muslims. You might tell me the proper use of the term for "people-of-the-book" is not Kafir but in REALITY kafir is used to label ALL non muslims.

I did say it was used as an insult, but this is not the religious use it is the racist use. Again I would give the example of "Jew" being used as an insult, or even "Irish", actually when you think about it. There are lots of examples, as we've seen. Lets face it, there has to be a religious term for non-Muslim.

DinoBot

InFront wrote:

I did say it was used as an insult, but this is not the religious use it is the racist use. Again I would give the example of "Jew" being used as an insult, or even "Irish", actually when you think about it. There are lots of examples, as we've seen.

So when you call someone a Kafur in a "religious" context its not an insult but in all other cases its a racist insult.

Great ! so either I know alot of very religious people or very racist people :rolleyes:

InFront

Well yes because the term is being brought from the Qur'an, and as has been pointed out in this thread, the relationship with the Jews and Christians (who are among the kufaar) is undoubtedly intended to be one of kindness.
Maybe you should point this out to anybody you hear using the term in a derogatory or racist fashion.

The term has been used by Allah and is featured in the Qur'an. So it is very important that it is used correctly and that people should point out what it actually means instead of the popular misunderstanding that surrounds it. That is a cultural phenomenon, and it is better that it is not confused with the Islamic use of the word.

Sangre

Kafur is an insult when its intended to be an insult. As InFront has pointed out numerous times, I could call you a 'dirty Jew' or I could tell you not to 'act so Jewish' clearly intending to be offensive. I'm obviously trying to offensive and no doubt a Jewish person would find it as such (even though Jew isn't an insult).

However the same Jew could read a census form asking if he is 'Jewish' and he wouldn't be insulted. Why? Because the term isn't designed to be an insult, it can just be used that way sometimes.

This is obviously different to words that are only offsenive e.g nígger, gook, uncle tom or whatever.

Hobbes

DinoBot wrote:

I dont understand, you said both are used as derogatory terms but aren't ??

Gook in Korean means country. So for example koreans would say "mee gook" to Americans troops. The Americans thinking it meant "I am a gook". Mee gook is actually a very polite way to say American (Beautiful Country), but Americans take gook to be an offensive term to Korean/Vietnamese (who also have a similar word).

Gaijin has many meanings from outsider, to tourist to foreign devil depending on the context.

Answer me this, would you like to be called a gook ?

Because I know what the word means no I wouldn't unless it was used in an offensive way.