James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.

[GeoffP]

So you don't have any evidence?

Nooo, you don't have any evidence. I'm not the one trying to prove the point.

Never mind, anyway, if you read the Quran rather than google kufr, you will discover that most of the stories are not about Mohammed but about Moses.

As I've read the Quran (calm down Sam), I know that to be true. There's a sizeable collection about Moses on there. But the hadiths are about Mohammed, and the three points I just made still stand. Even if you took the stories literally - and I think you do - the 'history' can be ignored in favour of a non-discriminating term. The trick is having a reformed society. Probably.

Muhammed is mentioned a total number of 4 times, while Moses is mentioned 124 times. So as you are still presumably Christian, I'll leave you to tell us about all those made up stories.

Hehe - so I should believe in Moses? Even if he's being a shit? Are you saying, by contrast, that you take all those tales at face value? :bugeye:

EDIT: I might also add that I didn't specify the Quran, actually.

 

[S.A.M.]

As I've read the Quran (calm down Sam), I know that to be true. There's a sizeable collection about Moses on there. But the hadiths are about Mohammed, and the three points I just made still stand. Even if you took the stories literally - and I think you do - the 'history' can be ignored in favour of a non-discriminating term. The trick is having a reformed society. Probably.

Oh you know my position on the hadiths, the only one I follow is the one where the Prophet said

"Do not write down anything from me except the Quran." [Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 171, and Sahih Muslim]

And its my opinion that since they were written between 200 to 800 years after the death of the Prophet, they should be treated as anecdotes.

But going back to the word kufr, like the word American, for instance, the negative connotations are all related to the actions of the kafir against the Muslims and the only two instances where it is permitted to fight them is in self defence and under oppression. Which is generally how the law everywhere in the world shows a consensus where human rights are concerned. But of course, standards are always higher for Muslims as compared to others who volunteer to kill out of boredom or for money, but still I think the fact that in the last 1400 years, Muslims have demonstrated that they can overcome any oppression or religious discrimination without engaging in global wars and occupations shows that this faith in Muslim ethics by others is not unjustified.

 

[GeoffP]

Oh you know my position on the hadiths, the only one I follow is the one where the Prophet said

And its my opinion that since they were written between 200 to 800 years after the death of the Prophet, they should be treated as anecdotes.

Yes, but much of the accusation against non-believers is to be found there, and corroborates with that of the hadiths; and it is these that do not always paint Mohammed in a good way, though certainly accidentally.

But going back to the word kufr, like the word American, for instance, the negative connotations are all related to the actions of the kafir against the Muslims and the only two instances where it is permitted to fight them is in self defence and under oppression.

Well, again, the hadiths don't completely support this entirely defensive angle, which relates to that point I made. The issue then is also why these negative connotations should persist into the modern era: surely it's obvious at this point that the 'kafir' (since it seems we must persist with that term) aren't a thread to Islamic society? Religious minorities seem well under the heel throughout dar-al-Islam. Can the word not now be abandoned in favour of something more ecumenical? I sense that Muslim religious authorities trying to discourage the use of this word have this point in mind.

And all the above forgets my points about the unsupported nature of such commentaries, and that the victor writes the history. Do you really feel that such characterizations are accurate? In what way?

the last 1400 years, Muslims have demonstrated that they can overcome any oppression or religious discrimination without engaging in global wars and occupations shows that this faith in Muslim ethics by others is not unjustified.

Sam, I appreciate your very strong faith. But let's not engage in unfounded preaching. Okay?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, but much of the accusation against non-believers is to be found there, and corroborates with that of the hadiths; and it is these that do not always paint Mohammed in a good way, though certainly accidentally.

Can you give me an example of what is "there" which "corroborates" with the hadiths?

Well, again, the hadiths don't completely support this entirely defensive angle, which relates to that point I made. The issue then is also why these negative connotations should persist into the modern era: surely it's obvious at this point that the 'kafir' (since it seems we must persist with that term) aren't a thread to Islamic society? Religious minorities seem well under the heel throughout dar-al-Islam. Can the word not now be abandoned in favour of something more ecumenical? I sense that Muslim religious authorities trying to discourage the use of this word have this point in mind.

Well its irrelevant what the hadiths support, since they have no force of law and since all the world wars to date have been engaged in by kafirs.

And all the above forgets my points about the unsupported nature of such commentaries, and that the victor writes the history. Do you really feel that such characterizations are accurate? In what way?

Simple observation. You have the presence of indigenous peoples in their own lands, a syncretic culture based on shared language and history across a fifth of the globe with varied religious opinions or madhabs all coexistent and you have the history of every place where Islam went making the locals the richer and more prosperous rather than bombed back to the stone age or a reservation or a Bagram or a Gaza.

Sam, I appreciate your very strong faith. But let's not engage in unfounded preaching. Okay?

Not at all, I am simply observing the positive aspects of an ideology based on tolerance and forgiveness, graciousness and inclusion, rather than one based on violence and suspicion, murder and torture with an entire people devoted to volunteering to kill for no reason at all.

 

[wynn]

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?

Calling oneself an "atheist" is like calling oneself a "whore" (and heaven knows some people self-identify as "whores").
It may be accurate, sure, and it may be in line with respecting peoples' right to self-identify, but it still contains the original negative meaning or connotation.

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

Yes.

It's up to other people to respect their standing to self-identify, or disrespect it and suffer the resulting scorn.

How can you respect someone who identifies themselves as a "whore".

That a group defines itself in opposition to another, does not mean that they had their identity "given to them" by said others.

No.
But definining oneself in terms of opposition to another inherently makes one dependent on that other.
In that sense, it's not really two groups, but one that is split in two camps.


It's the "Democrats" and the "Republicans", not the "Democrats" and the "Non-Democrats" or "Anti-Democrats"; nor is it the "Republicans" and the "Non-Republicans" or "Anti-Republicans".

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?

It is beneath my dignitiy to treat others as badly as they suggest they desire to be treated, by the way they identify themselves.

 

[S.A.M.]

But definining oneself in terms of opposition to another inherently makes one dependent on that other.

Bingo. Thats my point as well. The entire basis of kufr is that it is against Islam. The only reason there are kafirs is that they oppose Islamic doctrine or the Islamic God. You can no more "self identify" as a kafir in isolation than you can self identify as an atheist in the absence of theists. Without theists there are no atheists, without Islam there is no kufr. However, it is entirely upto the atheists or kafirs to choose a position in opposition to theism or Islam. If they do not engage, they do not exist. And yes, its quite ironic that they demand recognition of an identity set up in opposition to your own. But only in English!

 

[wynn]

That there are forces that reject secularism and liberalism, and work against such - including by attempting to appropriate and sacrilize common language - does not require that we all accept the propriety of them doing so and play along. They're working to destroy the actual definitions of words, for their own partisan ends - if we want a secular, liberal universe, we have to fight them.

I don't think that the way you have been doing it so far is the way to succeed at it.
Like the victim of these forces that reject secularism and liberalism, you are appealing to their compassion and reason - but which you already don't think they have enough of to begin with.
You are presenting arguments that your fellows would accept, but which cannot convince the ones you fight.

Of course. But nothing in there requires one to disrespect the basic standing of others to come to their own conclusions on the matter.

You can have all that stuff, without also rejecting the basic equality between your own spiritual convictions and anyone else's.

This is where liberalism and secularism ultimately corner the liberal/secularist themselves.

There is constant competition in this Universe. And while an egalitarian stance like yours might seem noble, it just isn't realistic.

I'm not in favor of giving in to the dark forces, but I'm trying to figure out a stronger weapon than liberalism.

 

[GeoffP]

Round and round

Can you give me an example of what is "there" which "corroborates" with the hadiths?

Their opinion of "kuffar", for one.

Well its irrelevant what the hadiths support, since they have no force of law and since all the world wars to date have been engaged in by kafirs.

Again, this is offensive, and untrue. I might add that several genocides have been engaged in by Muslims; would this relate to the argument at hand? You're getting off on a tangent here.

Simple observation. You have the presence of indigenous peoples in their own lands, a syncretic culture based on shared language and history across a fifth of the globe

Which is totally irrelevant to the argument that the victors write the history. In fact, it supports my point if anything, since religious minorities are relegated to the sidelines, with concomitant repression and oppression; I note this is the core synthesis of Maududi, BTW.

Not at all, I am simply observing the positive aspects of an ideology based on tolerance and forgiveness, graciousness and inclusion, rather than one based on violence and suspicion, murder and torture with an entire people devoted to volunteering to kill for no reason at all.

Are we still talking about the hadiths and Mohammed?

Please, Sam: refrain. Your proclivities are well known. I have not characterized Islam as the latter - now or ever, actually - so there is no reason for you to make the corresponding counter-charge. Okay?

***************************

Back on target:

So, as we've seen that my points are essentially correct, does it make any sense to cling to this word? - which I point out, based on your own arguments above, has historical connotations with rebellion and violence. You're making my case for me, here.

 

[GeoffP]

Calling oneself an "atheist" is like calling oneself a "whore" (and heaven knows some people self-identify as "whores").
It may be accurate, sure, and it may be in line with respecting peoples' right to self-identify, but it still contains the original negative meaning or connotation.

Excuse me: it does not. Speaking as a theist, you and I have little evidence for our god or gods, while history provides much evidence that an abundance of theism is associated with inhumanitarianism on an impressive scale.

I'm sure you recall the little parable about specks and planks.

 

[wynn]

It's a question of having one's identity labeled, and position disrespected accordingly.

Sure, this happens all the time.

But why shouldn't it?

What are your convictions about the nature of this Universe according to which having one's identity labeled and position disrespected accordingly is something bad or undesirable?


I mean, for example, I absolutely abhore it when a Christian claims that my values come from Christ.
But why shouldn't they say that?

 

[wynn]

Excuse me: it does not. Speaking as a theist, you and I have little evidence for our god or gods, while history provides much evidence that an abundance of theism is associated with inhumanitarianism on an impressive scale.

I'm sure you recall the little parable about specks and planks.

What are you talking about? I don't consider myself a theist.

 

[GeoffP]

So you consider yourself a whore? :shrug:

 

[wynn]

No, I do not consider myself an atheist either.

I think others have much more problems with labeling me than I do myself.

 

[GeoffP]

Well, others don't want a pejorative label.

 

[S.A.M.]

Their opinion of "kuffar", for one.

Whose opinion? Where? Which corroborates what hadith?

Again, this is offensive, and untrue. I might add that several genocides have been engaged in by Muslims; would this relate to the argument at hand? You're getting off on a tangent here.

Of course you can, but you'd be hard put to show any place where the advent of Islam led to population replacement due to religious discrimination.

Which is totally irrelevant to the argument that the victors write the history. In fact, it supports my point if anything, since religious minorities are relegated to the sidelines, with concomitant repression and oppression; I note this is the core synthesis of Maududi, BTW.

Then its a good thing we are not depending on the victor's version of history, but on scientific data to reach our conclusions. Like Persians are still Persians but Americans are of a replaced population.

So, as we've seen that my points are essentially correct,

I'm still waiting for you to address a single coherent point which stands up to examination.

 

[GeoffP]

Whose opinion? Where? Which corroborates what hadith?

Mohammed's opinion! In the hadiths! One of which was in the text by Mawdudi that you linked to! These short questions do speed things up.

Of course you can, but you'd be hard put to show any place where the advent of Islam led to population replacement due to religious discrimination.

Like the genocide against the Bani Quraysh? Or the millions in Bangladesh? The Armenians? And so on. But is this really our topic? Come on, Sam. Enough with the sideline trolling.

Then its a good thing we are not depending on the victor's version of history, but on scientific data to reach our conclusions.

Fascinating - which scientific data? Where?

I'm still waiting for you to address a single coherent point which stands up to examination.

You haven't made any sensible counter to my points. It's sort of the other way around. Sorry.Do you at least see that it's unfair to persist in a discriminatory word based on a collection of unsubstantiated stories?

Yet, I have a better idea than any of that. Rather than trying ineffectually to refute my points above, you've claimed that the "history" of the treachery or immorality of "kuffaar" is behind this nasty word.

All right. I'd like you to present this history, replete with references. (It isn't sufficient to counter this question with the claim that I must believe it because I'm a Christian, either, as you do above.) We'll concentrate on that for the next post. What say you? If this history is so strong, there must be evidence in abundance.

 

[Bells]

This is twice in the same thread that you've gone along on the whole demeaning momma bear crap. Do I do this to you? Nope. But, I suppose if you're feeling angry and scared and powerless, sometimes it helps to pick a scapegoat. Does it? Does it make you feel better?

Calling you by your name is now demeaning?

Let me get this straight...

1) You are offended if a devout Muslim refers to you as a non-Muslim.
2) You are offended because you thought an atheist was calling you a Muslim woman.
3) You are offended if you are called by a term of endearment and see it as being demeaning..
4) You are offended if I call you by your name and see it as being demeaning.
5) You are offended if you are reminded that you are not a Muslim woman..


Do I sense a pattern here?


Is there a pattern here GeoffP?


You acted as if you needed protection from the "devout Muslims" on this forum because they said you were not a Muslim. I am providing you with that protection. Does it offend you that you are now under the protective wings of the administration and the moderators? If so, why do you report because you were called a non-Muslim by the term of "kaffir" - which could also denote you being seen as being somewhat of a lime or black. I need to ask, which part do you deem offensive?


The part that you are deemed to not be a Muslim? Are you offended that they called you by a term that whites used to demean blacks with in South Africa? Are you offended that you may be seen to be a citrus fruit?


This whole debate is ridiculous Geoff.


I don't get it. I really don't.


Someone earlier pointed out how another here would feel if someone hissed something at them.. Is that the issue? You saw an offensive hiss in how he typed it? You claimed that it was offensive because it came from a devout Muslim and you weren't offended when Gustav said it because Gustav is a not a devout Muslim. Are you aware that Gustav has been banned for saying the word Kaffir and for calling Fraggle that, because it is now viewed as being an offensive term?


This is the standard that you have set. That a perfectly legitimate term that should not be offensive has now been deemed offensive.


Do you even recognise how ridiculous that is?


At the end of the day, you are offended that you are deemed to not be a Muslim. That is the crux of this whole thing. You are offended that a devout Muslim somehow managed to convey an offensive tone on an internet forum when he said you were a Kaffir...


The mind boggles..


What struck me more, however, was this from the OP of this thread:

Wordsof Geoff quoted by james R in my warning-----v


"Do not use that word again on the forums, or I will file a report. "Kaffir", "filthy unbelievers" and the like are insults. You cannot expect me to believe you are actually stupid enough not to know this. So: enough. You're using English now, so whatever the assertions I'm expected to believe about the inflexibility of Arabic, you have no excuse for using it. ​

Did you actually say that Geoff?

It is easy enough for me to verify, and since you have not said boo about that paragraph, I need to fully confirm with you. Is this what you said to him?


"You are using English now".. My, what a standard..


Has it escaped you that the term kaffir/kafir/kufr is a common term in Arabic? Yes? That their manner of using it is obviously vastly different to yours? So you are unable to understand the cultural differences and you are somehow demanding that because he is using English now, he should not say words that are not English? Does this mean each time you give a spattering of French on this forum, which you are well known for, we can deem it offensive and issue sanctions? Or is it different for you because you are not a devout Muslim?


You know, I have been virtually reading through the posts in this thread and I have felt dismayed. This is how low you would stoop. And now, this has blown out of proportion. The one you joked with about its usage is now banned because he said it too many times and joked about a moderator demanding it be banned entirely from this forum...


What absolutely kills me though is that when you first used the 'oh so offensive' term back in 2006 on this forum, it wasn't offensive to you then, was it, nor was it offensive when DH used it in his argument..? So why now? DH is way wayy more of a supremacist than Chi ever was, yet you let the term pass then and even used it yourself?


How about when BHS jokingly used the term to actually insult Muslims who were the victims of horrid torture, you didn't find it offensive then? In fact, one could say that you have repeatedly seen this term used on this forum, all of which has been innocent and half the time, explaining what the true meaning of the term was and not once did you find it offensive. In fact, you even argued against a Muslim who speaks Arabic about what the term really means, because it seems that a French speaking English born Canadian such as yourself would know the meaning better than someone who has been speaking Arabic for pretty much the majority of their lives.


But lets get back to the concept of Kaffir, shall we? Should we ignore that you referred to yourself as a "filthy kaffir" back in 2006? This is of course after others had attempted to educate you about the true meaning of the word. And now you are offended that someone called you a "Kaffir" (no insult in it, he didn't call you a dirty kaffir or a filthy kaffir), after you had gone further and called yourself a "filthy kaffir" on this site?


When I did a search on the word, compared to all others who had used the term on this forum, you beat most Muslims in having used it on this forum. And yet... This is why this complaint of yours floored me Geoff.


If we are to take stock, you are offended if you are called a non-Muslim, a Muslim, a term of endearment, your name and God knows what else..


So here we are. You apparently needing protection from devout Muslims on this forum who see you as being a non-Muslim... And you will get that protection Geoff, even if you called yourself a "filthy kaffir" in the past and set that standard to apply to yourself on this forum. You wished for protection from 'devout Muslims', you've got it. So don't bitch and whine about what you have asked for Geoff.

 

[GeoffP]

Oh, my

Is there a pattern here GeoffP?

Nope. But if you pretend there's one hard enough, I bet you could convince yourself there was.

This whole debate is ridiculous Geoff.

I agree utterly: kaffir is a pejorative, in modern and ancient usage. That there's any kind of debate about it is pretty ridiculous, if you must use that word.

I don't get it. I really don't.

I know. It's okay.

This is the standard that you have set. That a perfectly legitimate term that should not be offensive has now been deemed offensive.

Well, it is not I that made it so, or used it so. I think you're confused about that. Let me direct you to a webpage. Let me know if you (ever) read it. To make it easier, I've bolded a salient part.

Kafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفار kuffār) is a term used primary by classical Islamic doctrine to refer to those who "disbelieve" in one God - atheists and polytheists (but not Christian and Jews).[1] Outside of Islam, Kaffir is used as a racial term.

In recent times it is more of a "discriminatory" term against "unbelievers", "disbelievers" or "non-believers" in the Islamic faith. Muslim scholars have discouraged its use due to the Quran's command to use kind words.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

Did you actually say that Geoff?

It is easy enough for me to verify, and since you have not said boo about that paragraph, I need to fully confirm with you. Is this what you said to him?

Yep. I totally confirm it. Crazy, huh? Hell, do a search on it. Search for it twice. Print it off and tape it to your wall. Was I supposed to deny it or something? Maybe tweak my waxed moustachioes while doing so?

"You are using English now".. My, what a standard..

Double crazy, eh? A language that permits a non-pejorative, obviating the need to use "kaffir" or the like. The language of the forum. And I ask him to use it! I must have lost my mind.

Does this mean each time you give a spattering of French on this forum, which you are well known for, we can deem it offensive and issue sanctions?

Bonne chance.

You know, I have been virtually reading through the posts in this thread and I have felt dismayed. This is how low you would stoop. And now, this has blown out of proportion. The one you joked with about its usage is now banned because he said it too many times and joked about a moderator demanding it be banned entirely from this forum...

A dark day indeed.

What absolutely kills me though is that when you first used the 'oh so offensive' term back in 2006 on this forum, it wasn't offensive to you then, was it, nor was it offensive when DH used it in his argument..? So why now? DH is way wayy more of a supremacist than Chi ever was, yet you let the term pass then and even used it yourself?

Ah - because I was describing the term, and not using it as a serious insult? It's a possibility. Check it out.

I note you managed to get a search hit before 2010, though. Signal was wondering how anyone could search posts for before then. Signal, if you're watching, apparently it works all right. Maybe it's your browser.

In fact, you even argued against a Muslim who speaks Arabic about what the term really means, because it seems that a French speaking English born Canadian such as yourself would know the meaning better than someone who has been speaking Arabic for pretty much the majority of their lives.

Or even a bunch of Islamic scholars, if we're to accept that Wiki article. Possibly they're also French speaking English born Canadians.

When I did a search on the word, compared to all others who had used the term on this forum, you beat most Muslims in having used it on this forum. And yet... This is why this complaint of yours floored me Geoff.

Well, I bet there's a lot of other reasons the complaint floored you, actually. Kudos on your extensive research, however.

So here we are. You apparently needing protection from devout Muslims on this forum who see you as being a non-Muslim...

You got it. Your interpretive razor cuts as fine as ever.

I salute you.

 

[Sock puppet path]

My 2 cents
Chi always refers to everyone by their username unless they don't agree with his theology, then he resorts to calling them kafir. He knows most people here aren't muslim (ie. kafir) but doesn't refer to them as kafir until they actively disagree with his theology.
So it appears to be a slur he reserves for folks who don't agree with him.

 

[quinnsong]

My 2 cents
Chi always refers to everyone by their username unless they don't agree with his theology, then he resorts to calling them kafir. He knows most people here aren't muslim (ie. kafir) but doesn't refer to them as kafir until they actively disagree with his theology.
So it appears to be a slur he reserves for folks who don't agree with him.

I agree Sock ,as with other religious fundamentalists ,Chi was fine w/ criticizing and pointing out fallacies in others beliefs but when his own belief system was criticized he became defensive and lashed out. Maybe S.A.M. could teach him how to use persiflage and smokescreens to obfucate discussions regarding Islam.