Q: Why does Islam call Jews & Christians non-believers [Infidels]?

Adam (pbuh) and Abraham (pbuh) weren't Muslims, that's true however they also weren't Jews, they were by Islamic reasoning monotheists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By wider definition even Satan is muslim, only he chose to be an unbeliever. Everything created has submitted to the will of the almighty. The believer carries the title Muslim with pride. For comparison and American is a citizen be he in prison or free. A patriotic citizen will wear his badge with pride. Adam and Abraham are definately not Muhammadans but they sure are people who submitted to Eternal Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the Bible says something about pride?



I wonder if Indonesian Muslims are proud of their treatment of Ahmadiyya Muslims? Greater than 80% of Indonesian Muslims delineate Ahmadiyya Muslims as infidels and want Ahmadiyya form of Islamic faith made illegal and thereby punishable by the State. Indonesian Muslims must be so very proud - knowing their faith is the only true one. It seems to me that when it comes to Islam, pride in knowing there's only One Perfect Revelation and only One True Last Prophet and knowing there's only One "True" God is what "makes sense" - everything else being corrupt and infidel.



I'd say, from everything I've read here, Infidel or pride are at the heart of Islam. The center around which everything "makes sense"... Islamically.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, I'm so scared of them that I now live amongst them

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And no one really calls anyone an infidel. The word is usually used internally, or externally towards enemies like in wars. You won't find people calling you a infidel when a Muslim sees an American going by...... So the whole notion that Muslims are actually 'saying' it to these people is stupendously out of context. White people literally said to black's faces 'niger'..... Muslims don't use 'infidel' in normal speech. I for one have never talked to a person and called them a infidel as a name to call them by.

Anyways, this discussion is being formed by bigots like you and Michael- how ironic?

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The causation runs the other way. The implication being that the constant confrontation with foreign beliefs (and, particularly, from a minority power position) sharpens the anxiety. Note that dangerous Muslim extemists are almost always from well-to-do classes that have afforded them a lifetime's worth of exposure and access to foreign cultures. The chauvinism of the isolated classes tend to be both more casual and more abstract.

That's just as bad. Worse, maybe.

 

Learned Scholars

Dear Respected and Learned Scholars, and just regular folks, too....

Why does anyone call anyone anything?

Because they are focused on the differences and not the similarities.

And those, focused on the dis-similarities, are doing direct dis-service to the
human beings.

If we're talking religion, they aren't following any very well at all.
If we're talking just plain folks, then they simply haven't learned much about living with their neighbors.
If we're talking common sense, well.... what are we dealing with, after all?

That's all there is to it.

 

Yes, just like nationalism.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

''If you're ashamed to testify my name in public. . . '' I don't remember the bible quote well. I used the word pride because of my limited vocabulary. I'll say a Muslim will carry the title without shame. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheist can all carry their title without shame. With pride, so to speak. The Indonesians who persecute the . Ahmadiyyas are bigoted, narrow minded and should be ashamed of themselves if they were really good people. Just carrying a badge written tolerance does not magically turn someone to be tolerant. The world need to be a global village. The rest of the world will lift there unfortunate chaps from stone age reasoning. Just remember, muslim is not synonymous with born again. One will be a muslim if he steals. Only he'll be a sinning muslim and should be ashamed of him/herself.

 

Moran,

I'm still not clear on your point. Why is being a Muslim (or Christian) something to be proud of? What attributes are different than just being a good person?

I can be a good person without shame, how is that different than being Muslim (or Christian)?

 

One may live amongst lions and yet fear them, 786. But rather, it is their ideas that seem to scare you: other faiths or none at all, no deference to your memes - how can it be borne?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't follow your "personal" angle here, but it doesn't matter: when used as an article of group hatred and bigotry, it still works out the same.

Sorry: I had to report that comment, as it's false and biased. I might add that the real irony is you, making pretense at "peace" with every post, while cheering on ancient articles of religious hatred.

Peace be unto you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So what is your point here? That nationalism is now ok? Or have you performed a volte-face and decided that the word infidel is not nearly so innocuous as you just pretended? Or do you know what it is you're arguing?

 

Actually there are no different attributes. We have a good person and a bad person (of course with a potential to be good). Religion gave people a sense of belonging before we invented geographical borders. Adopting a religion does not make anyone good. It just convince a person to allow someone else (read a priest) to reason for them. Too bad if the priest in question is an unschooled (or quasi schooled) idiot e.g. M. Al S. He does more harm to his religion than the 'enemy' does. Same goes fo Westboro baptists.

 

But what you were arguing as people being called something is thus totally out of context even if the result is the same....

Secondly, you think its bigotry- any word is bigotry... Why do you call people 'black's' (don't have to call negro)- there is an inherent racism here.

You're simply saying that calling people what they are is bigoted.n

Just like your assertion that the word is bigoted by your own biased opinions and understanding? You're a bigot when it comes to Islam-

False again, I'm not cheering for any hatred- you are. For it is you who want to make it seem that Muslims hate and fear the 'non-believers'.... Perhaps you also fear Muslims, as many people do in the US- that's bigotry? I don't want to be like people who drink alcohol all night- does that mean I'm being bigoted.... calling someone an alcoholic is bigotry?

Well whatever, its not like I expect your understanding.

Peace out :wave:

 

That is senseless, sir. The word is intentionally derisive: "nonbelievers". How about "non-Muslims"? "Non-Christians" is quite popular, as is "atheists"; but if I were to call spidergoat a "heretic" or "pagan" or "unbeliever" he might well take offence. If I were to describe him as such to others of my religion behind closed doors, it would still be meant the same, except that I would be trying to stir up hatred within our group for eventual application outside our group. That's the way the meme crumbles.

I think one would say "black people" and "white people". I adhere to common usage here, and those terms are generally interpreted to be uninsulting in their own right. (Usage of those terms is, of course, dictated by context and supplementation.) "Blacks" and "whites" might be slightly offensive; not for their grouping, but for the stance of the word itself. If I say "African-Americans", is that in itself an insult? No.

This is intellectual disingenuity. You know, I would think, perfectly well the issue of "context".

Rather, of my appreciation of general usage.

Oh noes! I is evil!

Except I is not evil.

Only of the idiocy attached to it; or that is attached to it, as the action. Islamic theology is - as I've said many, many times - of no concern to me where it addresses internal matters: the facets of Allah, the veneration or not veneration of the bloodline of Mohammed, and so forth. These are entirely moral and innocuous aspects of themselves, without respect to their interpretation.

But when Islamic theology intrudes on the rights and lives of others, then we have a problem: the rights of apostates to breathe, of women, of homosexuals, of religious minorities and so forth. The rights of non-Muslims to religious freedom or to freedom from religion. As such, I actually represent the stance of the non-projectionist: I really actually represent the opinion "to me my way, to you yours", rather than "to me my way, to you yours...but let's degrade yours a bit more so you really know where I stand on it" that is so common on this forum, seemingly. The defenses enacted to protect the legal reflections of this social impulse for basic bigotry from from criticism are almost as disgusting as those laws themselves.

Well, what do you expect me to say, 786? That your use of the term "kuffar" is not offensive? That it does not bother me? That it is not unnecessary and designed to reaffirm old prejudices? Shall I call you a "Mohammedan"? Would that be a fair description of your religious beliefs?

1. It is not I cursing them, nor using derisive terms about them, nor defending the same.

2. I need no effort to illustrate that many conservative Muslims - like yourself - hate and fear that outside Islam. Some Christians hate Islam, in turn, and some Jews, Christianity. But you are defending a term that is offensive. What more do I really need to do?

Thanks for confirming my point. "Alcoholic" is a negative thing: as is "alcoholism". It is, uniformly, a negative social condition. To wit: you "dont want to be like people who [negative value]".

This generates an interesting parallel with your use of "non-believer": you, presumably "don't want to be like [non-believers]"; non-believers being Christians and Jews, etc. What your comparison translates to is "I don't want to be like [Christians and Jews]". Not that you "disagree with them", but that you "don't want to be like them". Because, presumably, they are bad.

You could have said "don't believe the same as them", or "disagree with their theology", as I do and often have done. But I would never conceive of making such a comparison as you just have.

Looks like you have a problem with us, Freud-boy. It's particularly funny in that in the first part of that paragraph you allude to negative views against Islam in the United States; all the better to paint you with a wide brush, eh 786?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But it backfired on you.

Anyway, in summary: your disgust is creeping around the edges. Better shore it up quick before anyone notices.

 

No, that's not the objection. This has been explained to you rather carefully by multiple people now. If you aren't going to address the points, then the proper response is just to drop the issue. Putting words in peoples' mouths over their direct objections is not productive or respectful.

Although it is a pretty apt demonstration of the mechanics of exactly the sort of normative supremacism that is being objected to. So, again, you should stop unless you like the taste of your foot.

 

Yes, I agree, and, we're talking about individuals and their actions.

I wonder, is it possible that Infidels have, on the whole, a higher standard of morality than Muslims? Take Buddhist for example. Could it be that Buddhist Infidels are, on average, more honest than Muslims? More fair with non-Buddhists.



I wonder, if it were possible to conduct the study, what we'd find if we observed Buddhist "gentiles" conducting trade with other Buddhists and non-Buddhists? Would we find they were more fair (we'll say in a sales transaction) with Buddhists than non-Buddhists (are non-Buddhist called something akin to Heathen or Infidel?). Then suppose we ran the same experiment on Jews. Would we find Jews give the better deal to Jews than with gentile, heathen, infidel, pagan-gentile, goy?
Yes?
No?

Do people mistreat people as soon as they find out they are "Them" and not "Us"? I know in the USA many Americans were pissed off they accidentally elected a Muslim Senator. In Australia many Australians were pissed off they elected an "Abo", and thought he cheated because he used a "Whiteman" name.

 

You raise interesting questions Michael. Personaly I think Buddhism is currently (seems always has been) the most tolerant religion. I usually treat people on their own right, not necessarily by their perceived beliefs. I know of denominations that has really strange teaching but it comes as no suprise that even the adherents see them as strange and just ignore them. It is only the extremist that i have issue with. Now i'll surely be pissed off if i discover that i have just elected a misogynist or a homophobe.

 

And did I say that it was not negative? But the question I asked was, is calling an alcoholic an alcoholic bigotry?

Irrespective of being a 'negative' term.. If it is applicable then it can be applied. Unbelievers are unbelievers in Islam- and that is what a kuffar is- if a Muslim has the meaning of 'kuffar' to be anything other than this then they have a problem understanding the word.

You posted a long winded post- but this is really the crux of what I was trying to say- which you still don't understand.

Actually it is in belief and practices, this doesn't have to be stated. That is what is meant about I don't want to be like them.. the context of the word 'kuffar' is purely religion- and keeping that in context thus means not wanting to be like them in that religious sense....

Except I did say the same thing, but you don't understand the context of the word kuffar. Which is why you have a problem.. Kuffar doesn't mean you're a bad person in all respects. It just means you're religiously on the wrong foot- and I don't to be like you in this regards...... Muslims realize there are many 'good people' even though they are 'kuffar'... For example Mother Teresa and Lady Diana are both highly respected 'kuffars' in the Muslim world.

If you're taking offense of the word because of your lack of understanding of the context of the word- then its not my problem. You're a kafir- deal with it.. I'm also a kafir (if a Christian says it) and I have no problem in someone saying that i am an 'unbeliever' because I know in what context I am an 'unbeliever'... I'm not an idiot to ignore the context and get all emotional over a stupid word.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wow. So it is a negative thing. I commend you on your honesty, but not on being a bigot.

Like "Mohammedan"? That's applicable also.

I just deleted the rest of your post: wasn't worth my while, since you've agreed to my interpretation of your viewpoint.

 

You've just side stepped the question the second time... so I'll repeat it again... Is calling an alcoholic an alcoholic bigotry?

Sure.... if Mohammedan just means 'followers of Muhammad'.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!