James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.

[quinnsong]

Sam your definition "A kafir is someone with the inability to understand or accept the Islamic God." Just curious, what is the definition is of one that does have the ability to understand but outright rejects the Islamic God?Also, what is the definiton of those that believe in the Islamic God but do not have the ability to understand the Islamic God?

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam your definition "A kafir is someone with the inability to understand or accept the Islamic God." Just curious, what is the definition is of one that does have the ability to understand but outright rejects the Islamic God?

I would say that anyone who rejects an Islamic tenet is collectively called a kafir. The term generally denotes someone who knows what Islam is and rejects it. There is a chapter in the Quran which clarifies the definition and meaning of the word

Surah 109:
Al-Kafiroon (The Disbelievers, Atheists)

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

1. Say : O ye that reject Faith!

2. I worship not that which ye worship,

3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

4. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,

5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

6. To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Also, what is the definiton of those that believe in the Islamic God but do not have the ability to understand the Islamic God?

That question was partly answered in my response to Geoff on the question of faith or Iman. Being a Muslim is a process, going from islam [belief in one God]-->iman [faith in and commitment to God]-->ihsan which is related to the Arabic word hassana or ahsana and denotes all that is good and fulfilling and can be compared to a state of nirvana or oneness with God.

There are many opinions on what constitutes the process [here is a generic one which is pretty mainstream] but I prefer the explanation that Mawdudi gave in his Fitna-e-Takfir:

For the man not capable of deep thought, it is sufficient to accept that God is one, Muhammad is His Messenger, the Quran is His Book, and that we have to appear before Him on the day of Judgment. For the man who can think, this brevity contains such breadth that he can follow numerous paths in the search of truth, in accordance with his capability and aptitude. He can go as far as he likes. He can spend his entire life in this search, without ever reaching a stage where he could say that he had understood all that he could. Whatever path a thinking man may take for his enquiry and search, and however far he may go, as long as he walks within the limits which the word of Allah has drawn between Islam and kufr, he cannot be declared as excluded from the fold of the faith, no matter how much we may differ with the wanderings of his mind.

For instance, the essence of belief in Allah is only that there is God Who is the Creator and Maintainer of the universe, and only He is worthy of worship. The way in which a simple peasant can accept this, it is not possible that a thinking man could also accept it in the same simple way. Then, the detailed concepts of God, His attributes, and the nature of His relation with the creation, which a man of a particular type of aptitude will develop in his mind through thinking, will not be exactly the same as the concepts of a man of a different aptitude about these matters. But as long as all of them believe in the real basic belief, they are all Muslims, no matter how widely their thoughts differ about the details, and no matter how much they may have stumbled in various places.

Similarly, as regards the Islamic beliefs in revelation, prophethood, angels and the Last Day, there are only a few points of principle which should be called the essentials of faith. The rest are details, for some of which man can find explicit or implicit indications in the word of God, and some are created by man himself in his mind in accordance with his thinking. It is very possible that in determining most of these details a man’s reason may be at fault, and his ideas may stray very far from the truth. But so long as he does not let go of the essence of these beliefs, no error of reason or thought can possibly expel him from the fold of the faith, however far he may go from the centre of the faith, and however much we may have to rebuke and reproach him for these deviations of belief.

At this point, we can understand with a little thought how sects in Islam came into being. The Quran and Hadith contain simple and brief statements about the essentials of the religion. The subtle references that are given about the details of these matters have been understood by different people in different ways, in accordance with their mental capabilities and natural inclinations. In understanding these details by the use of inference and reasoning, people deduced separate types of secondary matters and side-issues. So far, there was no problem, nor was there anything wrong in one group considering its own stand-point to be true and arguing with other groups to draw them towards the same. But the calamity was that, by going to an extreme, people added their own derived and reasoned beliefs to the principles and essentials of the religion, and then every group started to call all those groups as kafir who denied their derived beliefs. Here began the war of beliefs, and this was the starting point of that injustice. It is true that many of the ways followed in the matter of beliefs, by the use of inference and interpretation, are wrong. But every error is not necessarily kufr. It is undoubtedly permissible to call an error an error, and to believe its perpetrator to be misguided and at fault, and to try to bring him to the right path. But as long as a person does not deny the basic fact which Allah has commanded one to believe, it is not at all permissible to call him a kafir, no matter how extensive his error becomes.

 

[GeoffP]

Ah. "Good and fulfilling". And those nasty kafirs are outside this boundary.

Well, that certainly doesn't sound judgmental. I also see your reading of Mawdudi leaves something to be desired:

It is undoubtedly permissible to call an error an error, and to believe its perpetrator to be misguided and at fault, and to try to bring him to the right path. But as long as a person does not deny the basic fact which Allah has commanded one to believe, it is not at all permissible to call him a kafir, no matter how extensive his error becomes.

In other words - and again - those who don't believe as you do are "kafir". EDIT: Which apparently is a very bad thing.

My question is why you use this word, Sam. Why so judgmental? Does the Quran not say "to you your belief and to me mine"? While that only implies the tolerance of difference of belief, and that it's still possible within that framework to attribute negative values to other believers (calling them "disbelievers" would certainly be a start), can you not see that genuine tolerance could also be read from that passage?

Out of interest, which Mawdudi is this one?

 

[S.A.M.]

You mean why have a word for those people who reject Islam? Thats called language. There are also words for the faithful [momin], idolators [mushrik] evildoers [munkar] good people [mohsin] etc. Its part of the structure of languages to have words which have meanings.

Ah. "Good and fulfilling". And those nasty kafirs are outside this boundary.

Not to make an issue of it, but Christians believe that all those Jews who do not accept Christ will be killed. Not really what I would call hasana myself. Even Jesus must be suffering panic attacks at the thought of all that genocide awaiting him.

 

[GeoffP]

You mean why have a word for those people who reject Islam? Thats called language. There are also words for the faithful [momin], idolators [mushrik] evildoers [munkar] good people [hasana] etc. Its part of the structure of languages to have words which have meanings.

Oh, I quite agree. And it's some of these words, with their meanings, that some racist small-intellect types like to dredge up for one genocide or another, eventually. This is why I object to their use. It gives them weapons I have no need for them to carry.

Not to make an issue of it, but Christians believe that all those Jews who do not accept Christ will be killed.

Whoa whoa whoa: who believes that all Jews will be killed? "Christians". So...all of them, I guess. Is that what you mean? It's funny, though: I don't believe that. And I know a lot of others that don't either.

It's just that a certain mod on here has a very hard time when someone uses a group label to jointly accuse all members of that group. I disapprove of it too. I wouldn't want you to get in trouble.

By the by: which Maududi was that again that you quoted from? I'm just looking to expand my understanding of your interpretation of your faith, you see.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh, I quite agree. And it's some of these words, with their meanings, that some racist small-intellect types like to dredge up for one genocide or another, eventually. This is why I object to their use. It gives them weapons I have no need for them to carry.

Well one cannot be held responsible for what semi-literate racists think about other languages - even if it offends them to the point of genocide.

 

[GeoffP]

Into the lion's maududi

Well one cannot be held responsible for what semi-literate racists think about other languages - even if it offends them.

Interesting. I dropped a small report about your indirect accusation of racism, above. Sorry: kind of zeroed out on that crap, and glib slander doesn't translate into a point of view, if you know what I mean.

Neither does ignorance, of course: so which Maududi was it you were quoting from again? Heck, maybe you're right and I'm the evil one. You could help me 'larn stuff'.

EDIT: sorry again. You edited your initial post, so I edited my quote of you back to what you had before, so that it was clear what I was responding to. Shall I drop the report, since you may have changed your mind about the oblique insult?

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not sure which Mawdudi it is. Are there many of them? I merely read Fitna-e-Takfir and thought that his position on kufr/takfir made sense. Is there something about his position on the topic you would like to debate? I'm not a fan of religious walis myself and I disagree with most of what they write, but that does not mean that I am incapable of recognising what makes sense when they come up with it. As an "academic" you probably recognise that one is required to cite those authorities whose ideas you circulate, when you discuss them.

EDIT: sorry again. You edited your initial post, so I edited my quote of you back to what you had before, so that it was clear what I was responding to. Shall I drop the report, since you may have changed your mind about the oblique insult?

You know I have vast experience of your limited abilities to recognise responses to your fallacious arguments, which is why I clarified [not edited] my post - if you note, I did it before I read that you had reported it. And not a moment too soon, it seems. Its funny how paraphrasing "some racist small-intellect types " into semi-literate racists makes it an insult to you. Not that it makes any difference to the argument. If foreign language terms are offensive to the provincial mind, they can always substitute them with terms in their own language which make them feel better about themselves. For every kafir there is a disbeliever in English.

 

[GeoffP]

I'm not sure which Mawdudi it is. Are there many of them?

One or two. But...you read Fitna-e-Takfir and you don't know which Maududi it is? :bugeye: Sam...I find that a little hard to believe. Tell me: what's his first name? That should be easy enough to track down, surely?

I merely read Fitna-e-Takfir and thought that his position on kufr/takfir made sense.

Did you read it online? If so, could you post the link here? I appreciate that one doesn't agree with everything a given 'academic' writes, but surely gross citation implies some level of agreement, especially on such sensitive and central issues as what makes a Muslim a Muslim. If it's a particularly sensible digression, I'd certainly enjoy reading it, and more about the man who wrote it.

You know I have vast experience of your limited abilities to recognise responses to your fallacious arguments, which is why I clarified [not edited] my post - if you note, I did it before I read that you had reported it.

What a touching response. I might add that I have at least a voluminous experience of your sidelong slanders and under-the-table allegations. I do appreciate your all-too-understandable edit; I will write posthaste to take the appropriate steps.

And not a moment too soon, it seems. Its funny how paraphrasing "some racist small-intellect types "

Rather the "offends them" part, retrospective to the "racists" bit.

Oh, Sam: why do you engage in this? What for? We both know what that comment was all about. At least have the courage of your convictions.

For every kafir there is a disbeliever in English.

I thought we'd agree that this was an offensive word? Or at least our authorities have.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh, Sam: why do you engage in this? What for? We both know what that comment was all about. At least have the courage of your convictions.

Lol, thats rich, coming from you. Anyway, I find it interesting that while the word kafir is at least as old as the Quran, it was only in South Africa that white racists used it as a pejorative. One assumes that in Arabic kufr has always been called kufr as it is till todate. So why did white racists start using it against people of colour?

And wtf does it have to do with white Americans who reject Islam but are offended when they are called the Muslim word for it?

 

[GeoffP]

Anyway, I find it interesting that while the word kafir is at least as old as the Quran, it was only in South Africa that white racists used it as a pejorative.

Well, certain Muslim 'modernists' have been happy to recycle the negative nature of the word, of course; but it's not at all clear that it was innocuous in the first place, and seems rather the other way. Did you read my posts on it? Seems pretty clear.

One assumes that in Arabic kufr has always been called kufr as it is till todate. So why did white racists start using it against people of colour?

I'm not sure. What does that have to do with the term being an offensive description of non-Muslims?

And wtf does it have to do with white Americans who reject Islam but are offended when they are called the Muslim word for it?

Er...sorry, not seeing the "white Americans" connection here...oh, you mean me, of course. Round and round we go, eh?

Now: back on recent topic. Which Maududi was it you read from?

 

[S.A.M.]

What does that have to do with the term being an offensive description of non-Muslims?

You just said "non-Muslims". Is that offensive to you?

 

[GeoffP]

You just said "non-Muslims". Is that offensive to you?

No, but the k-word is, because it's unnecessary. Certainly in English, anyway.

Now: which Maududi was it you cited from? Can you provide your cite, please? This is third or fifth time I've asked you.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, but the k-word is, because it's unnecessary. Certainly in English, anyway.

.

Why isn't it offensive?

Now: which Maududi was it you cited from? Can you provide your cite, please? This is third or fifth time I've asked you

Thats the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different response.

 

[GeoffP]

Why isn't it offensive?

Because it's not a pejorative.

Thats the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different response.

That's what I was thinking, as I answered your question for the nth time above.

But you have a point. Maybe it's better to ask: why won't you give your source for the above?

 

[S.A.M.]

So its a pejorative if you are called a kafir, but not if you are called a non-Muslim. So if a Muslim says,"GeoffP is not a Muslim" or "GeoffP rejects Islam" thats okay, but if he says "GeoffP is a kafir" that is an insult.

Is that correct? You object to the use of the term in its Arabic equivalent? But you have no problem with the same meaning being conveyed in English?

 

[GeoffP]

"The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different response."

Now, again: why will you not give your source? Hmm? Why won't you explain which Maududi you mean? Should I assume you have falsified this point?

 

[S.A.M.]

"The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different response."

Not a different response. I want to clarify exactly why you are offended by the term kafir, as you neither a South African black or a Sri Lankan or hopefully a hysterical citrus. You object to the appellation in Arabic but not its English equivalent. Is that correct? You consider the Arabic equivalent as a pejorative. Is that correct?

Now, again: why will you not give your source? Hmm? Why won't you explain which Maududi you mean? Should I assume you have falsified this point?

The source is Fitna-e-Takfir. In usual academic circles author and book is considered a source.

 

[GeoffP]

Not a different response.

It certainly isn't. I think I've made myself quite clear, both in the modern and ancient senses of the word. Que sera serais, if you'll excuse the pun.

The source is Fitna-e-Takfir. In usual academic circles author and book is considered a source.

But not if you consistently refuse to properly identify an author. Last name alone is insufficient for this purpose, regrettably. Surely he attached a first name to his draft, no? Or does he go by only one, like Prince?

Or...you'll forgive me if I speculate wildly...is there some...other reason you won't tell me who this individual is?

 

[wynn]

Not a different response. I want to clarify exactly why you are offended by the term kafir, as you neither a South African black or a Sri Lankan or hopefully a hysterical citrus. You object to the appellation in Arabic but not its English equivalent. Is that correct? You consider the Arabic equivalent as a pejorative. Is that correct?

I suspect Geoff is in denial.
(And denial is something its power we should not underestimate.)