James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.

[quinnsong]

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/kafir/

 

[quadraphonics]

Black is not non-white anymore than kafir is non-Muslim

Since kafir seems to be used to mean exactly "non-Muslim" by essentially everyone who actually uses it (in English) - a fact which you have repeatedly noted in this thread - that does not seem to hold. Nobody seems to use "black" to mean "any non-white person," in English. We see avowed monotheists being called "kafir" all the time - but I've never seen anyone call a Chinese person "black."

 

[S.A.M.]

You said Suicide Bombers have no faith in God.
I get it.
So SAM, How are you going to explain to the Suicide Bomber they have no faith in God?
It's not possible. Because they have their faith in God. As long as they remain a Suicide Bomber, killing women and children is good, it's part of Gods plan and will always and forever make sense to them.

Just like the Suicide Bombers, Muslims have no Faith in God. As long as they remain a Muslim, labeling people Kaffir is good, it's part of Gods plan and will always and forever make sense to them.

:shrug:

So now being a non-Muslim is equivalent to being a victim of a suicide bombing? Bizarre logic. Kufr is a theological position not collateral damages. As long as there are people who reject monotheism/Islamic beliefs, there will be some term that identifies them. I mean, you readily call Muslims as Muslims, because this is an identification of their belief system. or what YOU consider their belief system [which may not necessarily be the same thing]

If the word Islam or Muslim is banned, how would you discuss any aspect of Muslim belief?

Since kafir seems to be used to mean exactly "non-Muslim" by essentially everyone who actually uses it (in English) - a fact which you have repeatedly noted in this thread - that does not seem to hold. Nobody seems to use "black" to mean "any non-white person," in English. We see avowed monotheists being called "kafir" all the time - but I've never seen anyone call a Chinese person "black."

Thats because they are called yellow. Then there are brown people although they were also called niggers and red people. Now its coloured people. Which is not a pejorative. Rainbow hues are more inclusive as compared to individual wavelengths, even if they continue to be "not white"

 

[quadraphonics]

I mean, you readily call Muslims as Muslims, because this is an identification of their belief system. or what YOU consider their belief system [which may not necessarily be the same thing]

The term "Muslim" respects its objects' own self-identification, irrespective of what the user may or may not think of such. That's what they call themselves, no?

The term "kafir" does not - it's a way of labelling how others fit into one's own belief system. The people so-labelled tend to have their own belief systems, with their own labels for themselves. These should be used instead, if one cares about respecting the rights of others to self-identify. Call Christians Christians, Jews Jews, Hindus Hindus, Buddhists Buddhists, etc. - properties such as "is that a Muslim" are covered by the basic definitions to begin with. You only need a special word for "non-Muslims" if you're interested in emphasizing that property over any other property of the person in question - which begs exactly the question of supremacism and perjorativity.

The correct parallel would not be an atheist calling a Muslim a Muslim, but an atheist calling a Muslim a "non-atheist" or somesuch.

 

[S.A.M.]

The term "kafir" does not - it's a way of labelling how others fit into one's own belief system

Well of course it does. What do you think atheist means?

 

[quinnsong]

Hated- 40:35 They who dispute the signs of Allah [kafirs] without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart. and despised by Allah.

Mocked- 83:34 On that day the faithful will mock the kafirs, while they sit on bridal couches and watch them. Should not the kafirs be paid back for what they did?

Punished- 25:77 Say to the kafirs: My Lord does not care for you or your prayers. You have rejected the truth, so sooner or later, a punishment will come.

Beheaded- 47:4 When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thor-oughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

Confused- 6:25 Some among them listen to you [Mohammed], but We have cast veils over their [kafirs] hearts and a heaviness to their ears so that they cannot understand our signs [the Koran].

Plotted against- 86:15 They plot and scheme against you [Mohammed], and I plot and scheme against them. Therefore, deal calmly with the kafirs and leave them alone for a while.

Terrorized- 8:12 Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the kafirs' hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fin-gers!"

Annihilated- 6:45 So the kafirs were annihilated. All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

Killed- 4:91 If they do not keep away from you or offer you peace or withdraw their hostilities, then seize them and kill them wherever they are. We give you complete authority over them.

Crucified- 5:33 The only reward for those who war against Allah and His messengers and strive to com-mit mischief on the earth is that they will be slain or crucified, have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished from the land. This will be their disgrace in this world, and a great torment shall be theirs in the next except those who repent before you overpower them. Know that Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Made war on- 9:29 Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll tax [jizya], and they are humiliated.

A Muslim is not the friend of a kafir- 3:28 Believers should not take kafirs as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah's protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.

A kafir is ignorant- 6:111 Even if We had sent down the angels to them [kafirs], the dead had spoken to them, and We had gathered all things before their eyes, they would not believe unless Allah had willed it, but most of them are ignorant.

Evil- 23:97 And say: Oh my Lord! I seek refuge with You from the suggestions of the evil ones [kafirs]. And I seek refuge with you, my Lord, from their presence.

Disgraced- 37:18 Tell them, "Yes! And you [kafirs] will be disgraced." a partner of Satan 25:55 And still they worship others besides Allah who can neither help nor hurt them. The kafir is Satan's ally against Allah. Unclean- 9:28 Oh, believers, only the kafirs are unclean.

Cursed- 33:60 They [kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and mur-dered. It was Allah's same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah's ways.

Stolen from- Bukhari 5,59,537 On the day of Khaybar, Allah's Apostle divided the spoils of war of Khaybar with the ratio of two shares for the horse and one share for the foot soldier.

Raped- Ishaq 759 [Mohammed's official biography] On the occasion of Khaybar, Mohammed put forth new orders about forcing sex with captive women. If the woman was pregnant she was not to be used for sex until after the birth of the child. Nor were any women to be used for sex who were unclean with regard to Muslim laws about menstruation.

 

[S.A.M.]

quinnsong:

sorry already been there done that ad nauseum. Not interested in thrashing Quranic verses from suspect sites anymore.

 

[quadraphonics]

Thats because they are called yellow.

Exactly - and that messes up your attempted parallel with "kafir."

Now its coloured people. Which is not a pejorative.

LOL what decade do you think this is?

The PC term now is "people of color," which is indeed a catch-all for every non-white person. And which would be perjorative, if used by the same people with the same intent as "colored people" came to be.

Rainbow hues are more inclusive as compared to individual wavelengths, even if they continue to be "not white"

? The issue isn't "inclusiveness" (in the vulgar sense of lumping people into broad categories, no less), but "respect for self-identification."

 

[Michael]

The hujumiyyin consider it an obligation for the Muslim nation to attack the land of the non-believers at least once a year in order to call to Islam and expand its territories. They hold disbelief per se as a sufficient reason to initiate war and legitimate killing, even if non-believers do not attack or harm Muslims, to the extent that Muslims would be sinful if they do not do so. The proponents of this view, a large number of jurists, most prominent of which among classical scholars is Imam al-Shafi`i, and among contemporary thinkers are Sayyid Qutb and al-Mawdudi, support their view with evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah, and from historical practice.

Well, it worked against the Zoroastrian Persians and Indian Hindu and look at the outcome - Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

[S.A.M.]

Exactly - and that messes up your attempted parallel with "kafir."

actually it makes my point.

I am not for the generic non-Muslim alternative to kufr

LOL what decade do you think this is?

The PC term now is "people of color," which is indeed a catch-all for every non-white person. And which would be perjorative, if used by the same people with the same intent as "colored people" came to be.

Well personally I've always considerd white people as people of color myself given their rainbow hues. So its a matter of indifference to me. I have no PC problems with self identifying as a nigger, a brownie, coolie, dalit, backward class etc.

? The issue isn't "inclusiveness" (in the vulgar sense of lumping people into broad categories, no less), but "respect for self-identification."

I perfectly comprehend the desire to be distinguished as "not white" I wonder how many white people recognise why.

 

[quadraphonics]

Well of course it does. What do you think atheist means?

Someone who does not go in for theism, obviously. "Atheist" is a term that atheists use to describe themselves - that that others respect that usage does not make it into a parallel with "kafir." None of the people who get called "kafir," would self-identify as such. Do you understand that there's a difference between using labels that are merely accurate, and using ones that actually respect other peoples' right to self-identify?

 

[quinnsong]

quinnsong:

sorry already been there done that ad nauseum. Not interested in thrashing Quranic verses from suspect sites anymore.

So these are not Quranic verses? Whoo that is a relief!

 

[S.A.M.]

Someone who does not go in for theism, obviously. "Atheist" is a term that atheists use to describe themselves - that that others respect that usage does not make it into a parallel with "kafir." None of the people who get called "kafir," would self-identify as such. Do you understand that there's a difference between using labels that are merely accurate, and using ones that actually respect other peoples' right to self-identify?

Ah no, an atheist is a person without gods or one who rejects theism. It is the generic equivalent of kafir for Muslims. Atheism can only exist in the presence of a theist. Without one, it has no meaning or identity in itself.

 

[quadraphonics]

actually it makes my point.

I am not for the generic non-Muslim alternative to kufr

It doesn't matter what you're personally "for." The issue is what the word, as it is commonly used, actually means. You don't get to deflect criticism of that by insisting that a word means something other than what everyone uses it to mean. That you consider EmptyBrainofChi's usage to be "incorrect" has no bearing on anything. The meanings of words are not subject to your veto.

Well personally I've always considerd white people as people of color myself given their rainbow hues. So its a matter of indifference to me. I have no PC problems with self identifying as a nigger, a brownie, coolie, dalit, backward class etc.

So what?

I perfectly comprehend the desire to be distinguished as "not white" I wonder how many white people recognise why.

Relevance to anything? Point?

 

[quadraphonics]

Ah no, an atheist is a person without gods or one who rejects theism. It is the generic equivalent of kafir for Muslims. Atheism can only exist in the presence of a theist. Without one, it has no meaning or identity in itself.

That it is a relational term, does not mean that it isn't one freely chosen by self-identified atheists. You will not find any self-identified kafirs - it's a term used by Muslims to refer to Others, and nothing else. You will find self-identified atheists - that they may define themselves in opposition to theism, does not mean that they aren't self-identified.

 

[S.A.M.]

That it is a relational term, does not mean that it isn't one freely chosen by self-identified atheists. You will not find any self-identified kafirs - it's a term used by Muslims to refer to Others, and nothing else. You will find self-identified atheists - that they may define themselves in opposition to theism, does not mean that they aren't self-identified.

There is nothing to stop any person who rejects Islam from identifying himself as such. Atheists did not invent atheism, they were given it by theists.

 

[quinnsong]

quinnsong:

sorry already been there done that ad nauseum. Not interested in thrashing Quranic verses from suspect sites anymore.

But if these are indeed Quranic verses then "kafir" is indeed an insult as we are considered inferior and worthy only of death. How you are even trying to defend your position is laughable!

 

[Michael]

Someone who does not go in for theism, obviously. "Atheist" is a term that atheists use to describe themselves - that that others respect that usage does not make it into a parallel with "kafir." None of the people who get called "kafir," would self-identify as such. Do you understand that there's a difference between using labels that are merely accurate, and using ones that actually respect other peoples' right to self-identify?

The term "Muslim" respects its objects' own self-identification, irrespective of what the user may or may not think of such. That's what they call themselves, no?

The term "kafir" does not - it's a way of labelling how others fit into one's own belief system. The people so-labelled tend to have their own belief systems, with their own labels for themselves. These should be used instead, if one cares about respecting the rights of others to self-identify. Call Christians Christians, Jews Jews, Hindus Hindus, Buddhists Buddhists, etc. - properties such as "is that a Muslim" are covered by the basic definitions to begin with. You only need a special word for "non-Muslims" if you're interested in emphasizing that property over any other property of the person in question - which begs exactly the question of supremacism and perjorativity.

This is as clear as I think it can be put. There's no ignorance on SAM's part. She simply can not accept this point of view.

Just as the suicide bomber (which SAM was your point of reference and is the only reason I used that as an example) has their faith - so long as they are a suicide bomber.

When the white supremest finally accepts there is no difference between "Her Kind" and someone who she categorized as Nigger - well, then she's no longer a White supremest.


Fundamentally, Muslims have no faith in God.

 

[quadraphonics]

There is nothing to stop any person who rejects Islam from identifying himself as such.

Indeed - but essentially nobody identifies themselves that way. Instead, they identify positively, as whichever religion they do go in for. It's up to other people to respect their standing to self-identify, or disrespect it and suffer the resulting scorn.

If and when you encounter some group of people who freely self-identify as "kafirs," then by all means refer to them as such, without expecting to convey any disrespect. Until then, you face a choice of respecting the labels that people choose for themselves, or instead applying your own labels in a disrespectful manner. Pretty straight-forward, right?

Atheists did not invent atheism, they were given it by theists.

Again, no - and the level of disrespectful supremacism is again apparent. That a group defines itself in opposition to another, does not mean that they had their identity "given to them" by said others.

It's a question of political self-determination. If somebody freely chooses a label, then you can use that without violating their self-determination. If you are applying a label of your own, without regard to whether the object thinks of that, then you are violating their self-determination. Is this so complicated?

 

[S.A.M.]

When the white supremest finally accepts there is no difference between "Her Kind" and someone who she categorized as Nigger - well, then she's no longer a White supremest.

Yes, that is a valid argument. Let me use the bathroom analogy since that is always easy to describe. If women decide they want their own bathroom, then it doesn't matter if there are men or gays or transexuals or sex change subjects who are using it, as long as they look like women. But conversely, the very fact that women want their own bathroom creates an identity that is "not women" a criteria which excludes all "not women" from the bathroom based on superficial assessment [after all, no one actually checks your equipment to see if you qualify]

So yes, unless everyone becomes a woman or women don't care about a separate bathroom, there will be "not women" who will be left on the outside.