Bells
Staff member
James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
- Status
No more than calling someone a Christian is in France, I would say. The term kafir is primarily [all self confessed linguistic "experts" aside] used for those who reject the tenets of Islam. Its used even by Muslims against those Muslims when they feel that they do not follow some tenet of Islam as determined by doctrine. So it means literally someone who rejects the tenets of Islam.
Its quite quite silly to say its used by some Bantu tribe for nomenclature or by white racists against black South Africans and so it is a pejorative. There is also kaffir lime and kitchen kaffirs and context, really, is very important when considering the English language.
GeoffP qualifies as a kafir unless he has been lying in all his posts to date. Although, if he is offended by being called a kafir one can only assume that he has decided that he no longer opposes the tenets of Islam unless he is a species of citrus or a black South African of Sri Lankan origin.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Cease and desist ye who be devout and of Islamic faith!
Geoff has me onto your evil and henious plans!
I know you are trying to poach him, make him one of your own. But I will not have it! You cannot corrupt his soul with your non-bacon eating ways!
Begone devil woman!
The first time I ever heard the word Kaffir, was in the film "Ghandi", where it was an offensive word used for blacks, or Asians, regardless of faith.
Used by White South African Christians, not Muslims.
eg
"Cam here Ghindi, you, Kiffir. Am gonna hit you with this stick, you bisterd."
Maybe this is the reason why Westerners see it as offensive.
Used by White South African Christians, not Muslims.
eg
"Cam here Ghindi, you, Kiffir. Am gonna hit you with this stick, you bisterd."
Maybe this is the reason why Westerners see it as offensive.
Maybe westerners would be putting themselves to better use not to make pejoratives out of other peoples languages by using them derisively in their own.
note: when using the term citrus hysterix for kaffirs please note that it does not refer to the citrus "lemon" which is also a pejortaive in the English langauge:
as in: One that is unsatisfactory or defective: Their new car turned out to be a lemon.
nor is it pornographic as in:
citrus hysterix is merely kafirs who are soured by Islam and hysterical when called up on it.
note: when using the term citrus hysterix for kaffirs please note that it does not refer to the citrus "lemon" which is also a pejortaive in the English langauge:
as in: One that is unsatisfactory or defective: Their new car turned out to be a lemon.
nor is it pornographic as in:
citrus hysterix is merely kafirs who are soured by Islam and hysterical when called up on it.
And qualitatively is used as a pejorative. My choices aren't actually limited to accepting Islam or being called a "k-word", unless Jews suddenly have the choice between rejecting Judaism and being called another "k-word".
Sorry your choices in evaluating the use of the term are so limited.
I, ah, see the point of Bells' bacon comment earlier. Ah well.
I find it highly offensive that westerners make pejoratives out of foreign language terms. It smacks of racism. Yes yes we know the original meaning is something else, but in English its a bad word!
Seriously? Thats your justification? Its a bad word because white racists determined it is? After using it as a pejorative because they didn't know any better? Ignorance is a point of view?
Seriously? Thats your justification? Its a bad word because white racists determined it is? After using it as a pejorative because they didn't know any better? Ignorance is a point of view?
Physician, heal thyself.
Well, it was actually Muslim racists that gave it a nasty connotation WRT non-Muslims. I suppose they could have been Western Muslims, but I doubt this. Statistically and historically speaking, I think it's more likely in Islamic nations. You have evidence otherwise?
Speaking of ignorance as a point of view....
Well, it was actually Muslim racists that gave it a nasty connotation WRT non-Muslims. I suppose they could have been Western Muslims, but I doubt this. Statistically and historically speaking, I think it's more likely in Islamic nations. You have evidence otherwise?
Speaking of ignorance as a point of view....
You mean if a Muslim calls someone a non-Muslim who rejects the tenets of Islam, this is an insult to the non-Muslim? Hmm that an interesting POV. Do you feel insulted by the notion that you do not embrace Islam?
OTOH, what if a word is a slur in a foreign language but not in English? Then, is it a pejorative? Should non-English speakers be banned from using words which are slurs in other lanaguages? like dog. or monkey. Or conversely, can non-English speakers curse in foreign words which are not slurs in English? like humar. or mitnak.
OTOH, what if a word is a slur in a foreign language but not in English? Then, is it a pejorative? Should non-English speakers be banned from using words which are slurs in other lanaguages? like dog. or monkey. Or conversely, can non-English speakers curse in foreign words which are not slurs in English? like humar. or mitnak.
No, I feel insulted that it's delivered as an insult; that I, because I am not a Mohammedan, am somehow an "unbeliever" in God. I think you should probably talk to the Muslim religious authorities that gustav alludes to if you think it's really not offensive: according to him the term is being discouraged. Hard to imagine why.
Anyway, have a dekko around and see what the common usage is. Good hunting.
Here's another usage:
Yikes. Now we're enemies?
Short version of the response to your side-line: it could be a perfectly innocuous term, but the more extreme one tends to be, the more usual it is that it's a pejorative. Best to avoid it. Equivalent to heathen or pagan. Follow?
Yikes. Now we're enemies?
Short version of the response to your side-line: it could be a perfectly innocuous term, but the more extreme one tends to be, the more usual it is that it's a pejorative. Best to avoid it. Equivalent to heathen or pagan. Follow?
No, I feel insulted that it's delivered as an insult; that I, because I am not a Mohammedan, am somehow an "unbeliever" in God. I think you should probably talk to the Muslim religious authorities that gustav alludes to if you think it's really not offensive: according to him the term is being discouraged. Hard to imagine why.
Anyway, have a dekko around and see what the common usage is. Good hunting.
Don't be silly, since when I have ascribed to any "religious authorities" in Islam?
I'm interested more in why you are offended if recognised as someone who rejects the tenets of Islam. You are an unbeliever in the Islamic God are you not? Most Muslims will forthrightly and quite willingly assert that they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. They will not be offended by this truth.
So why are you offended that Muslims will refer to you as a person who rejects Islam?
Speaking authoritatively
Maybe you should check in with everyone else then, because lots of others do. Just a suggestion.
A little early in the day for trolling, isn't it? Sun's hardly over the yardarm yet.
Did you see those other posts of mine above? No comment?
Maybe you should check in with everyone else then, because lots of others do. Just a suggestion.
A little early in the day for trolling, isn't it? Sun's hardly over the yardarm yet.
Did you see those other posts of mine above? No comment?
Wow, check out the shitstorm about the word on this page:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080815000104AAkyeKW
But nah. Not insulting at all.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080815000104AAkyeKW
But nah. Not insulting at all.
Hehe. Hey, Sam, I think I found something connected to your new tack on Islam and the k-word and all that:
Aw, it's all us again. Damn. If only we would convert! Then we could avoid being abused.
The tiny problem with this is that ignorance is not a point of view, Sam. One doesn't equitably give a person a choice between abuse and integration - or, most right-thinking people don't.
Aw, it's all us again. Damn. If only we would convert! Then we could avoid being abused.
The tiny problem with this is that ignorance is not a point of view, Sam. One doesn't equitably give a person a choice between abuse and integration - or, most right-thinking people don't.
Heck, another web page about it. "Be careful who you call a [k-word]", it says. Well, why?
Huh. "Accusations"? "Narrow-minded"? What's that all about? Those almost sound like negative personality traits. Fortunately, I have your word that it's completely innocuous: presumably I can then ignore the Muslim racists in the linked pages, above.
Huh. "Accusations"? "Narrow-minded"? What's that all about? Those almost sound like negative personality traits. Fortunately, I have your word that it's completely innocuous: presumably I can then ignore the Muslim racists in the linked pages, above.
No I don't see any point in those posts because I really don't understand why you are offended at being called a non-Muslim. I'm not sure how other people being offended at being called non-Muslim makes any difference. Religious authorities are interested in evangelism and I am not.
Another interesting article here:
So K-word people have "little faith". Well, that sounds quite kind. Some rigid atheists might consider it an actual compliment, but I doubt a person considering himself or herself quite religious would share this view. Ergo: it's negative, and without any frame of empirical reference to call the rejection of Mohammedanism as inherently negative, you're left without a stool, madam.
As for the posts: well, I'm not surprised you prefer not to discuss them, although your citing of a disinterest in evangelism is a curious dodge. I do want to point out, however, that deliberate ignorance of an issue or its peripherals do not constitute a point of view.
You've more than enough information to draw on to make a conclusion as to why the word might offend. It is up to you to assimilate it.
So K-word people have "little faith". Well, that sounds quite kind. Some rigid atheists might consider it an actual compliment, but I doubt a person considering himself or herself quite religious would share this view. Ergo: it's negative, and without any frame of empirical reference to call the rejection of Mohammedanism as inherently negative, you're left without a stool, madam.
As for the posts: well, I'm not surprised you prefer not to discuss them, although your citing of a disinterest in evangelism is a curious dodge. I do want to point out, however, that deliberate ignorance of an issue or its peripherals do not constitute a point of view.
You've more than enough information to draw on to make a conclusion as to why the word might offend. It is up to you to assimilate it.
- Status