Q: Why does Islam call Jews & Christians non-believers [Infidels]?

[786]

Essentially you're saying 'bigotry' is categorization of things. You're an American and if someone is not then he is by definition a non-American. He may be an Australian but it doesn't change the fact he's a non-American.

Its simply an antonym. And if you want don't call them 'unbelievers'- the Quran also says they are "Jews". I don't have a problem calling them Jews if it offends them so much to be called a unbeliever by a Muslim.

Since you brought up the word 'sand nigger'- I find it hilarious that blacks can go around calling their black friends 'wazzup nigga' but when a white person says it then the crowd goes 'ooooooooooo'

So it seems it not the 'word' that is bad- but it depends on the person saying it. Unbeliever means unbeliever- it is not specific to anything. Its no different then your so called secular laws... You say they are better because they don't target any particular group- but at the same time when you disagree with others you want to get rid of "their" system (like the Halal/Kosher) topic.

Or only secular people have the right to draw these distinctions-?

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

One could as easily call someone a "non-whatever". "Unbeliever" carries specific connotations, for specific reasons.

 

[786]

One could as easily call someone a "non-whatever". "Unbeliever" carries specific connotations, for specific reasons.

Unbeliever just is a more truthful word- it tells you that you're going to get screwed in the end

And the words 'humane slaughter' doesn't carry any connotations? Almost says that all of the rest of the ways are hideously barbaric.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

more humane slaughter - it's still slaughter.

Unbeliever would be fine if it wasn't in a negative connotation. But it is. Which is what makes it bigotry.

When a white person refers to an Arab as a sand-nigger that's a lot different than a black person referring to another black person as a nigger (which as I understand initially was way to brake fellow blacks from thinking of themselves as "niggers"). Understand?

Let's pick something closer to the OP. Christian Crusaders yelled Heretic and chopped Muslim women and children's heads off until they (the Christians) were walking knee deep in their blood and body parts. Afterwards, when Christian would see a Muslims they'd spit at the Muslim calling them a "heathen/heretic".
Do you think maybe "heathen" was an expression of Christians religious bigotry against Muslims?

Well?

The exact same is true when Muslims refer to Infidels. It's that simple. It's bigotry and people are actually murdered, to this day, in so-called "Islamic" Nations for being an infidel.




Try imagining what it would be like being called an infidel in a small village in Pakistan and everyone thinking your are indeed an infidel. It's a disparaging word used to further religious bigotry.

 

[786]

People are not being killed because they are 'called' infidels.. The Christians killed Jews even though they called them Jews..

The word has nothing to do with it. People didn't have slavery because they called people nigger.

So its only bigotry because it comes with negative connotations? So are you saying that it is not okay to express your views if something is negative about a society? Are you saying one shouldn't call a dictator a dictator because doing so is bigotry?

Secondly adding the word 'more' before 'humane slaughter' doesn't change the fact that the term used is 'humane slaughter'-

anyways I think this whole discussion of the correctness of the word 'infidel'/'unbeliever' is off-topic. Question was why they are called such and I think an answer has been provided. I don't feel like continuing with you or GeoffP on this off-topic discussion.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

The word Infidel, like Heretic or Heathen, is a bigoted term derived by small minded Bigots. It's really no different than saying sand-nigger. It's literary use is meant to be demeaning.

More Bronze Age small mindedness.

A person of Arabic culture could be a extremely moral, honest and intelligent. More so than the bigot. That's not the impression the bigot want's to impart. When the bigot refers to an Arab as a "sand-nigger" he does so to demeaning the Arab person. He wants to suggest to the listener that the Arab is in some way inferior, immoral, and ignorant. Sand-nigger is not a compliment. The term sand-nigger was created by a small minded bigot wanting to influence other small minded people to think about Arabs with bigotry.

A person of different faith or no faith could be a extremely moral, honest and intelligent. More so than the bigot. That's not the impression the bigot want's to impart. When the bigot refers to a person with a different set of beliefs as an "Infidel" he does so to demeaning that person. He wants to suggest to the listener that this person is in some way inferior, immoral, and ignorant. Infidel, like Dictator, is not a compliment. The term Infidel was created by a small minded bigot wanting to influence other small minded people to think about people with different cultures and belief systems with bigotry.


A legacy of Bronze Age small mindedness.

 

[786]

You can continue with your crap.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

And you can continue to be a religious bigot.

 

[quadraphonics]

Essentially you're saying 'bigotry' is categorization of things. You're an American and if someone is not then he is by definition a non-American. He may be an Australian but it doesn't change the fact he's a non-American.

The appropriate analogy would be if someone referred to Americans as "people" and to non-Americans as "non-people." The offense is not in the use of an antonym, but in the normalization of a certain category implied by the application of a universal term to a specific subset to begin with.

There is no offense in calling people who are not Muslims "non-Muslims." That's simple fact. To call them "non-believers" suggests that they do not have a valid set of beliefs themselves, and likewise implies that only Islamic belief is "true" belief. This is offensive, especially as applied to groups that are defined by belief (Jews, Christians, etc.). To call a Christian an "unbeliever" is to literally say that his religion is invalid and false.

It would be just as accurate to call Muslims (or anyone else) "non-believers," on the basis that there are belief systems that they do not subscribe to. Presumably you'd find that offensive? Point is that verbiage that tries to reduce universal terms (like "believer") to only apply to a certain in-group is inherently bigoted. The application of the term "non-believer," as opposed to a neutral term like "non-Muslim," implies a value judgement against whatever set of beliefs its object holds. It does this by equating "belief" with "Islamic belief."

Since you brought up the word 'sand nigger'- I find it hilarious that blacks can go around calling their black friends 'wazzup nigga' but when a white person says it then the crowd goes 'ooooooooooo'

I guess you must have found slavery and segregation to be pretty hilarious as well.

So it seems it not the 'word' that is bad- but it depends on the person saying it.

Right. When a black person says it, that's a member of an oppressed class resisting dehumanization by subverting a term of abuse. When a white person says it, that's a member of an oppressive class reinforcing the dehumanization of other people. Only one of those things is offensive.

Unbeliever means unbeliever- it is not specific to anything.

It is when it is used to mean "person who doesn't believe in Islam." Then it is specific to Islam, and implies that such a belief is normative and superior, and that other beliefs are invalid - people who hold them are "unbelievers."

 

[GeoffP]

Unbeliever just is a more truthful word- it tells you that you're going to get screwed in the end

It's offensive, not truthful. It's more about people wanting to label people they want to get screwed in the end.

And the words 'humane slaughter' doesn't carry any connotations? Almost says that all of the rest of the ways are hideously barbaric.

Yep.

 

[Big Chiller]

The appropriate analogy would be if someone referred to Americans as "people" and to non-Americans as "non-people." The offense is not in the use of an antonym, but in the normalization of a certain category implied by the application of a universal term to a specific subset to begin with.

There is no offense in calling people who are not Muslims "non-Muslims." That's simple fact. To call them "non-believers" suggests that they do not have a valid set of beliefs themselves, and likewise implies that only Islamic belief is "true" belief. This is offensive, especially as applied to groups that are defined by belief (Jews, Christians, etc.). To call a Christian an "unbeliever" is to literally say that his religion is invalid and false.

It would be just as accurate to call Muslims (or anyone else) "non-believers," on the basis that there are belief systems that they do not subscribe to. Presumably you'd find that offensive? Point is that verbiage that tries to reduce universal terms (like "believer") to only apply to a certain in-group is inherently bigoted. The application of the term "non-believer," as opposed to a neutral term like "non-Muslim," implies a value judgement against whatever set of beliefs its object holds. It does this by equating "belief" with "Islamic belief."

You've got it wrong it's shouldn't be interpreted as condescending but the correct way to interpret it is one who refuses to believe or rejects the belief. A disbeliever to be clearer. I think you've jumped over the horse to get to the water.

 

[GeoffP]

You've got it wrong it's shouldn't be interpreted as condescending but the correct way to interpret it is one who refuses to believe or rejects the belief. A disbeliever to be clearer. I think you've jumped over the horse to get to the water.

So, what's the basis of your unbelief?

 

[Moran]

Just because one group of people call themselves by names that is generaly deemed bigoted shouldn't be perplexing to anyone, unless you are naive. Even names that are good, a compliment, should not be used loosely by people outside a certain circle. I call my wife 'honey' but you better not call her that, at least within earshot.

 

[GeoffP]

Beyond that: it's actually one group of people calling another group of people by an offensive name, rather than them calling themselves that.

 

[pjdude1219]

Beyond that: it's actually one group of people calling another group of people by an offensive name, rather than them calling themselves that.

except there is nothing offensive about the word. its all about connotations and preceptions

 

[Moran]

This issue has always seemed ridiculous. The Jews have been monotheist the longest time and encountered existential battles to defend it, while Muslims have only recently assumed monotheism. I wonder what criteria applies for this false charge - it surely cannot be based on revelation derived by a person or name. Any clues?

Let's compare apples with apples son. By Jew, I believe you mean the Hebrews. It is true the Hebrews have been monotheists for far longer than Arabs or any other community in recorded history. You'll be right to say the Tribes of Levi, Judah and the other ten tribes have been monotheists for longer than the modern Arabs. I don't know if the twelve descendants of Ishmael were monotheists (I think they qualify to be Hebrews too, correct me if am wrong).
Muslims consider prophets revered by the Jews to be pious Muslims i.e. those who submitted to the will of the Almighty. By this reasoning Adam wsa the first Muslim. Though neither an Arab or Hebrew he was a Monotheist non the less and one who submitted to the will of the Almighty. So the argument that Muslim recently adopted monotheism doesn't fly, unless you are talking of Muslims in Muhammads (s.a.w) era and after.
Arabs who reverted to Islam during Prophet Muhammads time can claim to be monotheist longer that the Khazaris who converted to Judaism. Does that make any difference. If which religion has the longest history of its member or founder being monotheist is the issue here then you have to give it to the Christians. Jesus was with God in the creation of the universe. No angel nor genee was yet created, so Satan wouldn't have been the first monotheist.
Lastly the Quran mention Jews, Christians, Sabeans, Polythieist, Unbiliever(disbilievers(?)), hypocrite e.t.c. Unbeliever is not synonymous with the people of the book. Sorry for the rant but I felt I had to get this out of my chest. Be blessed.

 

[Zephyr]

Muslims consider prophets revered by the Jews to be pious Muslims i.e. those who submitted to the will of the Almighty. By this reasoning Adam wsa the first Muslim.

By this reasoning the Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians and Bahai are all Muslims too.

In practice however, Muslims are the subset of monotheists who revere Muhammad as the last prophet. By this reasoning neither Adam nor Abraham was Muslim.

Arabs who reverted to Islam during Prophet Muhammads time can claim to be monotheist longer that the Khazaris who converted to Judaism. Does that make any difference.

No Arab who converted to Islam in Muhammad's time is alive today, neither is any Khazar who converted to Judaism in the time of the Khazar empire.

Show me a three thousand year old Zoroastrian and I'll show you the oldest monotheist. In reality nobody has has been monotheist for longer than the maximum human lifespan (<123 years according to current records).

 

[GeoffP]

except there is nothing offensive about the word.

If your sensibilities are not tickled by being called an unbeliever, then so be it. But the term is offensive and meant as such.

 

[Michael]

Saying Communism is thus and practicing Communism are two very different things.

Q: Why does Islam call Jews & Christians non-believers [Infidels]?

Recent behavior studies with children show that even at at very young age, less than 18 months, children favor "us". People with "our" culture. They pick friends based on similarity - in that study it was food preference. Us versus Them can be measured. It's a default survival strategy we've evolved to have a propensity for. It's one of the reasons why a particular superstition "makes sense" to an individual. It's probably why Christians tried to convert the entire world to Christianity and why Muslims think that sounded like a good idea (Muslims are basically Christians).

Trying to create peaceful multicultural societies cuts directly against our very nature. Sure a religion that takes advantage of our base nature, will "make sense" to more people, but the religion that see past it is IMO the better of the two.

I think we in the USA have been able to create a multicultural society, though the majority may be Christian, because democracy - something people of all faiths can share, was the center of our culture (now it seems to be money). That said, the GreecoRoman empire in the year 200BCE was multicultural and prosperous. People were open to other people's Gods and Goddesses. People from Rome could visit India and build Roman Temples there. Hell, now a days you can barely travel from India to KSA and there's no way in hell you're building a Hindu Temple in Mecca.


IMO, the problem begins with the idea monotheism. This idea starts an individual (who may otherwise be an open and tolerant, maybe even accepting of different cultures and faiths) instead down the path of intolerance and bigotry - one where there are IS only One God, a world of Believers and Unbelievers, Brothers and Infidels, Friends and Enemies - Us and Them.

It's a base idea that "makes sense" because we evolved to think in terms of us verse them.

Well, we didn't and don't live in a monotheistic world where everyone worships in one way and believes a single set of beliefs and a single God - and we never will. As a matter of fact, such a system will always lead to stagnation and with free flow of information will always be conquered by a new evolving set of beliefs and Gods (or even Aliens/Scientology). A reason why "Perfect" revelation has led many societies (Christians and Muslims mainly) towards stagnation and ignorance.

Us verses Them allowed the Europeans to conquer and subjugate and crush much of the world. They eradicated countless cultures and religions. If you're not interested in peaceful cooperation and trust - then monotheism is your game. I think, hope, we're culturally progressing past that mental baseness and inherent violence.

We will create a new system of belief that satiates the superstitious religiosity (that some people appear to need to get by in life) that is also able to accept the many faiths and Gods (aka cultures) of the world. It's in the pipe Actually, it'll be a spontaneous response to the modern world. Soon Infidel will be no different than saying Nigger - only to be used by the ignorant and slope-headed.

 

[GeoffP]

Q: Why does Islam call Jews & Christians non-believers [Infidels]?

Recent behavior studies with children show that even at at very young age, less than 18 months, children favor "us". People with "our" culture. They pick friends based on similarity - in that study it was food preference. Us versus Them can be measured. It's a default survival strategy we've evolved to have a propensity for. It's one of the reasons why a particular superstition "makes sense" to an individual. It's probably why Christians tried to convert the entire world to Christianity and why Muslims think that sounded like a good idea (Muslims are basically Christians).

...

We will create a new system of belief that satiates the superstitious religiosity (that some people appear to need to get by in life) that is also able to accept the many faiths and Gods (aka cultures) of the world. It's in the pipe Actually, it'll be a spontaneous response to the modern world. Soon Infidel will be no different than saying Nigger - only to be used by the ignorant and slope-headed.

Funny you wrote that. I was just going to say that one of the main reasons that Islam calls Jews and Christians infidels - in fact, why members of any religion calls anyone an infidel - is fear. Using the definition of the OP, scifes and 786 and Chill and Sam are deathly afraid of the people they call infidels. Something about alternate belief scares them to death; maybe it threatens what they see as the stable order to one society or other? Hell, people have killed for the same thing, even. And fear is the most basic of human responses, probably. It's no surprise from the perspective of simple, naturalistic human biology and selfishness.