James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.

[quadraphonics]

I don't get offended as easily. Even when I am told I am worse than a whore.

I personally wouldn't take much offense to that one either - on the grounds that there's nothing particularly bad about whores in the first place. To be "worse than a whore" is something like being "worse than a dentist."

Do you?

I do. And I'd kind of assumed that mods were informed about that sort of thing - I guess I imagined there was some running "sanctions" thread in the whispered-of secret mod forum, through which you all keep one another current on such issues. If there isn't, maybe there should be?

 

[GeoffP]

I see Sam's cognitive dissonance has confused even the spinning Tasmanian devil.

 

[quadraphonics]

Its not rocket science. Did you think when any Muslim refers to your faith, they are referring to your stance on Jesus? Your South African nationality? Your black race? Your Sri Lankan origin? A citrus fruit?

Or do you think they are referring to your belief in Islam?

The normal presumption, when dealing with adults of average-or-better mental competency, is that when one refers to "your faith," they are referring to your actual faith. Which, for a Christian, would indeed have to do with their views on Jesus. And not to the question of whether you share their faith. Your normal adult doesn't use the term "your faith" to mean "my particular faith."

And I don't think that Muslims are any different about that, generally. Most mentally-competent Muslim adults exhibit no difficulty in understanding that "your faith" can be in whatever religion you happen to have faith in. If they want to refer to somebody's (dis)belief in Islam, they tend to just refer to that directly, and not conflate "faith" with "Islamic faith." The only people who use "faith" to mean "my particular faith, which is the correct one" are religious supremacists going out of their way to shoehorn expressions of contempt into generic terms, for the exact purpose of demeaning anyone of a different faith. That is offensive - not just in effect, but in intent, through and through.

Only real question is why some people are willing to perform such ludicrous contortions of reasoning - like your suggestion that Muslims are only capable of referencing Islam with the word "faith" - to avoid admitting such. If you're going to go around demeaning the faith of anyone who doesn't share yours, at least have the (ball-filled) sack to own up to it.

 

[Bells]

I personally wouldn't take much offense to that one either - on the grounds that there's nothing particularly bad about whores in the first place. To be "worse than a whore" is something like being "worse than a dentist."

At least it wasn't worse than a lawyer.

I do. And I'd kind of assumed that mods were informed about that sort of thing - I guess I imagined there was some running "sanctions" thread in the whispered-of secret mod forum, through which you all keep one another current on such issues. If there isn't, maybe there should be?

We mostly share sexual stories and recipes.

I see Sam's cognitive dissonance has confused even the spinning Tasmanian devil.

Don't you worry your pretty head my lil Geoff Geoff. Mummy will smack down the big bad Muslim devil woman who called you a lemon.

 

[Big Chiller]

The normal presumption, when dealing with adults of average-or-better mental competency, is that when one refers to "your faith," they are referring to your actual faith. Which, for a Christian, would indeed have to do with their views on Jesus. And not to the question of whether you share their faith. Your normal adult doesn't use the term "your faith" to mean "my particular faith."

Sure they refer to "your faith" but they accuse one of being a disbeliever on the basis of one explicitly expressing a lack of faith not on the basis of what you really believe which is unknown to everyone.

The only people who use "faith" to mean "my particular faith, which is the correct one" are religious supremacists going out of their way to shoehorn expressions of contempt into generic terms, for the exact purpose of demeaning anyone of a different faith. That is offensive - not just in effect, but in intent, through and through.

Any kind of supremacist does this and this is relevant how?

 

[quadraphonics]

We mostly share sexual stories and recipes.

...sexual recipes?

 

[Bells]

...sexual recipes?

When 6 is better than 2.

Err.. cooking recipes.. of course..

 

[S.A.M.]

The normal presumption, when dealing with adults of average-or-better mental competency, is that when one refers to "your faith," they are referring to your actual faith. Which, for a Christian, would indeed have to do with their views on Jesus.

On which planet? Are you telling me that when Christians refer to infidels it is NOT with reference to their "lack of faith" in Jesus but their lack of faith in their own God or gods? I assure you, for Muslims, a Christians faith in Jesus is completely irrelevant since Jesus is a prophet. When they talk of a person being a kafir, it is specifically wit reference to their belief in the Islamic version of God. This is what GeoffP terms as "modern usage". In classical Islamic doctrine a kafir is one who "covers the truth" or someone who is not a monotheist and refers to atheists, pagans and polytheists. But it is still referencing the concept of one God minus trinities and tribal allegiances. And of course, it is considered as a narrow view of God. Why would God abandon the world and only restrict himself to those who can be saved through Jesus? What about all the people who never heard of Jesus? Why would God only be for the Jews if there is only one God? Then who are all the other people to look up to? etc etc. A kafir is someone with the inability to understand or accept the Islamic God.

The only people who use "faith" to mean "my particular faith, which is the correct one" are religious supremacists going out of their way to shoehorn expressions of contempt into generic terms, for the exact purpose of demeaning anyone of a different faith. That is offensive - not just in effect, but in intent, through and through.

But that is unavoidable. In any philosophical stream of thought, there will be "sides" and people who will favour one or the other. Otherwise they could not possibly subscribe to one over the other. It is not always possible to consider all possible alternatives as equally valid and some alternatives automatically invalidate others. Perhaps there is an element of provincialism even in those who embrace the cosmopolitan outlook for surely they are as contemptuous of the narrow minded as the small towner who looks askance at the global citizen. Maybe even more so.

Well, why do you engage in it then?

It is a fact of life that you cannot control the behaviour of others, only your own. If your hosts invite you for a meal and then choose to eat by themselves what can you do?

Especially if they get offended when you point out that they are being offensive?

OMG! I had a similar experience. I was attending a mosque in Philadelphia and they made me remove my shoes, as if I were a carrier of filth. I wasn't allowed to touch the Quran, and the women had to go into a separate place where they couldn't be seen. I also had to kneel and bow and everything. Very inhospitable. (I suppose it was more inhospitable for the women, mind.)

Very strange. What was everyone else doing while you were being so singled out?

 

[wynn]

Yes, I am familiar with this tactic. For example, I have attended mass in several churches but never been offered wine or wafer. Everybody eats and drinks except non-Christians. Very inhospitable.

I have also seen the same behaviour from athiests on this board who seem to think that abusing theists is some kind of right which they should be accorded because they don't have the freedom to do this where they live. Apparently discrimination is an inalienable right.

So you agree that if a Muslim calls a non-Muslim a "kafir", this is abusive?

 

[S.A.M.]

So you agree that if a Muslim calls a non-Muslim a "kafir", this is abusive?

No, I don't think so. If someone "accused' me of not being a Christian or atheist I would readily confess to it. I'm not sure why a non-Muslim would be offended at being told that he rejects the Islamic faith when he clearly indicates that he does so. I'm freely willing to admit that being a Muslim I am not a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu or an atheist, etc. I don't consider it an offense that people who subscribe to those beliefs do not consider me a member of their group. Its like being banned from the men's restroom, I have no desire to go there anyway.

Besides, I am pretty sure the atheists here feel much more abused by me than I ever would by them.

 

[wynn]

The normal presumption, when dealing with adults of average-or-better mental competency, is that when one refers to "your faith," they are referring to your actual faith. Which, for a Christian, would indeed have to do with their views on Jesus. And not to the question of whether you share their faith. Your normal adult doesn't use the term "your faith" to mean "my particular faith."

I don't think so. I think that even in secular settings, when someone accuses another of "being of little faith", this is to mean that the accused does not have the same faith as the accuser.

Perhaps in a thoroughly democratic, relativistic and liberal universe, things would be as you say.

The only people who use "faith" to mean "my particular faith, which is the correct one" are religious supremacists going out of their way to shoehorn expressions of contempt into generic terms, for the exact purpose of demeaning anyone of a different faith. That is offensive - not just in effect, but in intent, through and through.

Only real question is why some people are willing to perform such ludicrous contortions of reasoning - like your suggestion that Muslims are only capable of referencing Islam with the word "faith" - to avoid admitting such. If you're going to go around demeaning the faith of anyone who doesn't share yours, at least have the (ball-filled) sack to own up to it.

It is simply inherent in having a particular faith to believe it is the only right one, the supreme one and that everyone else should have it too.

If it is not the only right one, the supreme one, then why have it to begin with?? And if one is sure of something, one naturally wants to see others would be like that too.

 

[wynn]

No, I don't think so. If someone "accused' me of not being a Christian or atheist I would readily confess to it. I'm not sure why a non-Muslim would be offended at being told that he rejects the Islamic faith when he clearly indicates that he does so. I'm freely willing to admit that being a Muslim I am not a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu or an atheist, etc. I don't consider it an offense that people who subscribe to those beliefs do not consider me a member of their group. Its like being banned from the men's restroom, I have no desire to go there anyway.

Besides, I am pretty sure the atheists here feel much more abused by me than I ever would by them.

If someone angrily hisses at you "You pagan! Burn in hell for all eternity!"
- how do you feel?

 

[wynn]

Sure they refer to "your faith" but they accuse one of being a disbeliever on the basis of one explicitly expressing a lack of faith not on the basis of what you really believe which is unknown to everyone.

One of the things that hurts is that the accuser takes so little interest in what is so important to oneself, and also shows little or no understanding and compassion.
We tend to be hurt by rudeness, which suggests that we expect a better treatment, believe we deserve a better treatment (even from strangers).

Any kind of supremacist does this and this is relevant how?

I think every faithful person is necessarily a supremacist. But how they express this, is another matter.
I know people who believe that I don't deserve that the sun would shine on me, but they are still polite to me.

 

[S.A.M.]

If someone angrily hisses at you "You pagan! Burn in hell for all eternity!"
- how do you feel?

I'm usually astonished that anyone thinks their opinion of my faith is more relevant to me than my own opinion of it. I'm a terribly self absorbed person and I tend to take my own opinions much too seriously. Other peoples opinions are usually food for thought, something I analyse for content and motivations. Its why I am so rarely offended.

 

[wynn]

I'm usually astonished that anyone thinks their opinion of my faith is more relevant to me than my own opinion of it. I'm a terribly self absorbed person and I tend to take my own opinions much too seriously. Other peoples opinions are usually food for thought, something I analyse for content and motivations. Its why I am so rarely offended.

Oh, that must be great! I wish I were like that.

 

[wynn]

OMG! I had a similar experience. I was attending a mosque in Philadelphia and they made me remove my shoes, as if I were a carrier of filth.

Unless in your own home, you are always fully dressed and shoed (so that in the winter, you wear a coat and boots also indoors and have your briefcase/bag on you at all times), there is probably a psychological issue here.
Namely, a lack of trust for your hosts.

In my home, we don't wear shoes indoors, and we expect that our guests take off their shoes too. But if I go visit somewhere, I feel very unease about taking off my shoes (and my outer garments and bag).
I was curious about this, and I discovered that I am usually afraid that a fight would break out (and that I couldn't handle it), and that I would have to flee, possibly having no time to pick up my things and put on my shoes (which can be a real problem in the winter).

 

[Bells]

If someone angrily hisses at you "You pagan! Burn in hell for all eternity!"
- how do you feel?

I'd feel amused if someone managed to angrily hiss anything at me on an internet forum. I mean, how does one angrily hiss on an internet forum?

Smaller font?

Smaller font in italics?


I mean I can see how that would, err convey angry hissing.. If I'm high and drunk.. maybe.. :shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh, that must be great! I wish I were like that.

It can be a disadvantage though, because some people take it as a challenge to dissect your opinions if they think you don't care much for theirs. We've had this conversation before, I think, about organised religion and its distinction from theism.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, aaand....

It is a fact of life that you cannot control the behaviour of others, only your own.

Yes - and so I reiterate: why are you being deliberately offensive?

 

[GeoffP]

Unless in your own home, you are always fully dressed and shoed (so that in the winter, you wear a coat and boots also indoors and have your briefcase/bag on you at all times), there is probably a psychological issue here.
Namely, a lack of trust for your hosts.

Actually, more a lack of trust in Sam's reasoning powers on this issue.