I did, but it didn't take. The argument is apparently immune to logic, much as the infamous argument over the meaning of "is".
Islamists, being theological conservative monotheists, are clearly "creationists". There's no question on that point. Oh, I suppose you might find the occasional eccentric exception, but quite generally the attribution of the role of Creator to the One God, and attributing to Him the primeval (and possibly continuing) creation of all that is, goes hand in glove with monotheism as such.
Anway I simply did find betty boop's attempted distinction silly, and irrelevant, and gratuitous, and bigoted. I suppose I could pretend I didn't, but it would only be pretense.
bb argued that these creationists aren't creationists essentially because of theological or sociological attributes other than their acceptance of a monotheistic doctrine of creation. As I gave the example before, that's like arguing a tennis player who plays on a grass court qualifies as "a tennis player," but one that plays on a clay court shouldn't rightfully be called "a tennis player". Really it's almost like arguing that a tennis player who drives to the court in a Ford is "a tennis player," but one who drives to court in a Chevy isn't.
If you accept and hold a doctrine of creation, you're a creationist. That's it. What "logic" is there to belaboring the point? Especially when a central point of the argument concerns how some Muslims study the Koran. SO WHAT? BTW, orthodox Jews study Torah the exact same way, down to the rocking back and forth as they recite. Does that make Jews (or the most conservative Jews) inauthentic creationists? OTOH many Islamists, even a seemingly disproportionate number of them, have modern, Western educations in medicine (e.g. al Qaeda #2 Zawahiri) architecture (9-11 plot leader Atta) and the like.
Oh, and it's supposed to make a difference how, as to if a person IS a creationist, they reflected on the matter? That's like if I meet a guy who's a George Bush supporter -- he voted for George Bush twice for Governor and twice for President, he donated to all his campaigns, he energetically answers those he meets who criticize Bush, he wears a "W" button, etc, etc. It's like if I find out (or, more analogous to betty boop, just assume for some cultural reason) that he wasn't, in my opinion, sufficiently reflective or rational in deciding to be a Bush supporter, that I then deny that he's a Bush supporter, or claim he isn't really a real Bush supporter.
On the contrary it's a true and obvious fact that he's a genuine Bush supporter, regardless of how he came to be one.
As I previously posted, many (possibly even a majority) of those you call “Islamists” are in reality secular Communists and socialists masquerading and/or treated by the mainstream media as Muslim fundamentalists. That’s why many of them have no problem murdering innocent people in the name of World Revolution.
You might wrong.. As I can determine Islam is not a religion at all.. its a "GANG".. A tribal government administrated by Shamans(mullahs/Imams) democratically elected by default.. it is Mob Rule like all democracy's..
Sharia Law is very democratic.. and tribal in essence.. the way all democracies are.. Mob Rule by Mobster, a tribal family mimicking a religion(Mafia)..
Thats why the west cannot deal with it.. For most of the west are democracies mimicking a religion(Socialism).. Socialism IS a religion... a secular religion..
The exact reason America is not a democracy.. and the American Constitution does not have the democracy, democratic or democrat in it anywhere.. because of that.. The founders of America knew what MOB RULE was.. The fact remains Islam is very democratic.. and tribal..