Many non-muslims seem to object to the muslim beliefs and reference to non-muslims as kafirs. Kafir merely means disbeliever (in the Quran) so no need to feel offended.
Murtids are muslims who have rejected Islam openly and publicly and are therefore under sentence of death. Murtids currently in hiding include, Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen. Anwar Sheikh is not a murtid because he is the figment of some hindu zealot’s imagination. Disbelieving in the Quran as word of Allah in private is not punishable by death.
Good point Xtreme. I personally think that no one takes offense for being referred to as an Unbeliever, but those using this term attach some kind of connotation to the term, and in the context in which it is said, kinda sounds a pretty narrow minded view of those who may fall in that category. E.g., he is a Kafir so you shouldn’t expect anything good from him, etc.
Rarely do you come across a sentence reading: “even though he is a Kafir, but his actions match those of Prophet Mohamad.” “While he may be a Kafir, his spirituality surpasses that of Jesus, the son of God”.
I think the better alternative should be to refer to everyone, as they are, e.g., Hindu, Ahmadi, Sikh, Jew, etc. By lumpsumming everyone is one category and using that terms as a curse in abusive manner is where people raise objections, and not to the term itself.
With the same token, I think Muslims shouldn’t object when they are referred to as Terrorists in the Western Media. It is only a reference. So what’s the big deal?
With the same token, I think Muslims shouldn’t object when they are referred to as Terrorists in the Western Media. It is only a reference. So what’s the big deal?
NYA, you are not comparing like with like. To call a disbeliever a kafir is is a statement of fact which a kafir will readily agree to. To refer to muslims as terrorist is speculation at best, and obviously untrue in the majority of cases. Except maybe in the case of Naiklarki.
To call a disbeliever a kafir is is a statement of fact which a kafir will readily agree to.<<
I disagree, kafir is bad word used to dehumanize people..nobody will agree that calling people names is good thing. As NYA pointed out Kafir is never shown as better than the believers. It is easy to kill or hate people once you dehumanize them. It is not statement of fact, it is name calling and seeing people as enemies of your religion and lower then yourself.
People can be refered to by their nationality or religion no need to call them disbelievers because everybody believes in something, it may not be same things what you believe in therefore calling somebody disbeliever is saying your believe is the only believe, which is not true.
What's the point here? No one is going to convince any one else that his/her religion is better than others'.
What we need is to find a common ground where each of us can practice his/her own faith and still be civil and polite to others. The bond of humanity encompasses all faiths and doctrines.
Finding faults in other people's beliefs and practices won't server any practical purpose!
[quote]
I disagree, kafir is bad word used to dehumanize people..nobody will agree that calling people names is good thing.
[/quote]
Kafir is not a bad word. There are plenty of bad words which you can compare it with, I'm sure you don't need me to provide you with a list.
Kafir is a word used in the Quran to signify rejecters of the message. In his reply to another thread, ZZ described the author as a 'pinko'. This is name-calling.
Can you tell me how the word Kafir de-humanizes anybody? And why does it lead to killing or hating anyone?
dear it is easy for u "hinduus" to creaticize us. but when i raise a point. u dont answer.
so i repeat it again.
in india what u call muslim, christians, "melich" nasty. and these days u guys killing both of us. and even more u wash ur house after we left.
we muslim dont do any thing like that.
just use an adjtive "kafer" that means non believer. so isnt it true that u hinduus are non believers. and in quran allah mention that we didnt.
so whats the deal with u.
Can you tell me how the word Kafir de-humanizes anybody?<<
Everybody has beliefs to say that one is without believes is putting down what they belive in.
Koran uses Kafir in a bad way to put down non-muslims it also says that non-believer will go to hell and burn in fire- because they are bad. This dehumanizes people in the mind of followers, Kafirs are considered less of human beings and killing them is not an offence.
Nobody asked you. You don't have to get involved in the discussion if you don't want to.
BTW, I can go to Gurdwara in jeans, sari, pants, skirt etc....you are welcome come to our gurudwara (for a visit..now don't get me wrong) if you happen to be in my part of world. We also sit on table and chairs eat delicious langer every weakend ('Sag and makki roti and missi roti on saturdays). Nobody has issued Fatawa and nobody is going to kill us for wearing jeans.... many white people visit gurdwara attired in hippie to elegant outfits for food, I have never seen anybody to have any objections. I understand people in Delhi has already dealt with the dress code problem which managing commitee has no right to impose in the first place. Our gurdwaras are run democractically elected body.
There are lot of Gurudwara's in London you can check them out for the dress code, if you like.
Chan and I are Sikhs on the forum although I personally very stongly identify with all the Indians on the forum and respect Hindus and Hinduism. If Chan has already answered the post regarding Sikhism and I agree with him, have nothing more to add, I don't think I should waste everybody's time by repeating what Chan has already said.
Your tactics of forcing a person to respond is almost same as stalking someone. I have never forced you or anybody to reply to any of my or other people's post, this is about respecting others person's rights and allowing them freedom to get involve in discussion or not.
[This message has been edited by Rani (edited July 18, 2000).]