Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

كافر

It's in another posters signature, just wondering what it says.

[Dagger]

Kafir it means infidel

[Muslima]

someone has me that before
i will tell you what i told him

it means a non-believer, someone who thinks islam is a lie......many think it is an insult but i don't see it that way
it is an adjective....

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Hmm? OK thanks !

BTW, is there a word for a non-muslim who believes in One God ?

Is it considered that everyone who does not believe in Islam is a non-believer ?

[mendosan]

I was under the impression that Kafir was meant to be deeply offensive,

Muslima do you consider N****r to be an adjective?

[Muslima]

richard......i think so but we do call some people "muwahid"(singluar) or "muwahideen" (plural)....which means believing in one god but i don't know if we use for non-muslims too.....yes non-believers are who do not believe in islam because in islam you have to believe in the prophet too not only god, which is the case with many who only believe in god....


mendosan....many people think that, and many muslims use this word to show their rage, but when you deeply think about it ..its jsut an adjective that refers to non-believers...it is mentioned in the quran and quran doesn't offend anybody....
sorry i didn't get the word, you could PM the word if you want or ask paroah, he knows arabic too

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Muslima wrote: richard......i think so but we do call some people "muwahid"(singluar) or "muwahideen" (plural)....which means believing in one god but i don't know if we use for non-muslims too.....yes non-believers are who do not believe in islam because in islam you have to believe in the prophet too not only god, which is the case with many who only believe in god....


mendosan....many people think that, and many muslims use this word to show their rage, but when you deeply think about it ..its jsut an adjective that refers to non-believers...it is mentioned in the quran and quran doesn't offend anybody....
sorry i didn't get the word, you could PM the word if you want or ask paroah, he knows arabic too

Quote: yes non-believers are who do not believe in islam
because in islam you have to believe in the prophet too not only god,

Does that criteria not place Mohammad as a partner?
I thought GOD has No Partners? Isn't that what's preached in Islam?

[Dagger]

mendosan wrote: I was under the impression that Kafir was meant to be deeply offensive,

Muslima do you consider N****r to be an adjective?

Its not even close to the N bomb. It literally means non believer, as in someone who does not believe in Allah.

So it dosnt matter if i say it with rage. If i go around screaming non-beliver or saying it softly, theres a huge differnce, so it depends on the contxt.

And ya sometimes its used as a insult, but you cant get mad at someone saying the truth, well ucan get mad, but theres no point.

[Muslima]

richard of course god has no partners

you have to believe that there only one god and the prophet called mohammad is his messenger to be a muslim

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Muslima wrote: richard of course god has no partners

you have to believe that there only one god and the prophet called Mohammad is his messenger to be a Muslim
I'm uncertain how one who believes in ONE GOD yet, does not believe that one particular human-being is as claimed by Islam can be ruled as an infidel.
True, they might not be considered a Muslim but, in their belief and dedication to the premise of ONE GOD,
are they not to be found acceptable in the eyes of this ONE GOD?
Linking one's religious beliefs to the premise that a particular human-being is somehow "the Last Prophet" seems to have divided mankind.
I'm quite certain that GOD did not intend this to be the case.
Did Mohammad state that everyone who does not believe HE is the last prophet would not find their path toward GOD's grace?
In reality, Mohammad merely replaced Jesus as the last and final arbitrator on behalf of GOD.
Linking one's religiosity to a twin belief in GOD and Mohammad is in fact granting special status to Mohammad as a partner since one cannot become a Muslim without this duel linkage.

That is why I advocate the special message of the Koran to be promulgated throughout the world minus reference to Mohammad.
The message of GOD and his relationship to mankind gets muddled by the inclusion of the lifestyle of Mohammad.

In the linking of the lifestyle lived by Mohammad, advancement is negated and this is the primary problem that separates Muslims in today's world.

[Robin Hood]

Kaffir is of course a derogatory term best translated as 'infidel', but the correct term for Jews and Christians is not Kaffir but 'people of the book'.

[Ostia Di Ellysium]

From what I understand in some interpretations only the believer or Allah can judge the believer as "Kafir"...and for some the label of "Kafir" or someone who turns away from the true beliefs, means death. That a human labeling someone else a Kafir, is forbidden because it would contradict the "thou shalt not kill" principle, and allows someone to determine another Muslim as a non-Muslim, and kill them.

The re-interpretation of this by Abdul-Wahhab in that another Muslim can be labeled as Kafir "unbeliever" by a Muslim (himself), allowed him and his Saud ally to raze and massacre Mecca.

How do you see this?

Also, if Abdul-Wahhab took on the belief that he was able to re-interpret the Quran, The word of God" as he saw fit, and took upon himself the power of God to label someone "non-believer" and killed other Muslims (but since he labeled them as "Kafir," he didn't consider them Muslims, justifying the slaughter) shouldn't he be deemed an Apostate?

Got to love the thirst for power...it is not just materialism which corrupts...

[Saracen]

Ostia Di Ellysium wrote: From what I understand in some interpretations only the believer or Allah can judge the believer as "Kafir"...and for some the label of "Kafir" or someone who turns away from the true beliefs, means death. That a human labeling someone else a Kafir, is forbidden because it would contradict the "thou shalt not kill" principle, and allows someone to determine another Muslim as a non-Muslim, and kill them.

That is true to an extent, madam. There are so many interpretations of the Quran, as well as over 70 sects and sub-sects of Islam that it is impossible to figure out which ones are "kafir" sects. True followers, as you said, are known only to God.

Quote: The re-interpretation of this by Abdul-Wahhab in that another Muslim can be labeled as Kafir "unbeliever" by a Muslim (himself), allowed him and his Saud ally to raze and massacre Mecca.

I don't think this is the case. Abdul-Wahhab wasn't an extremist, though some of the Muslims that followed his reformist creed perverted it later on.

Quote: How do you see this?

Also, if Abdul-Wahhab took on the belief that he was able to re-interpret the Quran, The word of God" as he saw fit, and took upon himself the power of God to label someone "non-believer" and killed other Muslims (but since he labeled them as "Kafir," he didn't consider them Muslims, justifying the slaughter) shouldn't he be deemed an Apostate?

Got to love the thirst for power...it is not just materialism which corrupts...

That's correct, though a "kafir"'s life in Islam is preserved until he or she aggresses or commits a crime like murder. Therefore, the notion that it is a religious duty for Muslims to "slay unbelievers" is a false one.

[Ostia Di Ellysium]

Thanks for your post...

It brings up another question, though, even though my understanding of Wahab may not have been placed in the correct historical context..

Those who justify the killing of other Muslims by saying: Those we kill are martyrs and should be willing to die in the name of our cause and if they are not, then they are "not true Muslims" but Kafir, and therefore their deaths are still justified...

actually are using a false interpretation, the one I mentioned before, and should be considered "apostate?"

[Muslima]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Muslima wrote: richard of course god has no partners

you have to believe that there only one god and the prophet called Mohammad is his messenger to be a Muslim
I'm uncertain how one who believes in ONE GOD yet, does not believe that one particular human-being is as claimed by Islam can be ruled as an infidel.
True, they might not be considered a Muslim but, in their belief and dedication to the premise of ONE GOD,
are they not to be found acceptable in the eyes of this ONE GOD?
Linking one's religious beliefs to the premise that a particular human-being is somehow "the Last Prophet" seems to have divided mankind.
I'm quite certain that GOD did not intend this to be the case.
Did Mohammad state that everyone who does not believe HE is the last prophet would not find their path toward GOD's grace?
In reality, Mohammad merely replaced Jesus as the last and final arbitrator on behalf of GOD.
Linking one's religiosity to a twin belief in GOD and Mohammad is in fact granting special status to Mohammad as a partner since one cannot become a Muslim without this duel linkage.

That is why I advocate the special message of the Koran to be promulgated throughout the world minus reference to Mohammad.
The message of GOD and his relationship to mankind gets muddled by the inclusion of the lifestyle of Mohammad.

In the linking of the lifestyle lived by Mohammad, advancement is negated and this is the primary problem that separates Muslims in today's world.

hey relax dude.....
a compete essay about something i wasn't speaking about.....i was only saying that for us as muslims, in order to be considered a muslim you have to believe in 1 god and muhammad......
i am not god or his messenger to tell you whether non-muslims are accpetable to god or not.....

without muhammad people weren't, aren't and won't be muslims......i consider it a fact

[Muslima]

Robin Hood wrote: Kaffir is of course a derogatory term best translated as 'infidel', but the correct term for Jews and Christians is not Kaffir but 'people of the book'.

"people of the book" exactly, at last something positive....

again it is not dergatory.......and next time talk to people directly....

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Muslima wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Muslima wrote: richard of course god has no partners

you have to believe that there only one god and the prophet called Mohammad is his messenger to be a Muslim
I'm uncertain how one who believes in ONE GOD yet, does not believe that one particular human-being is as claimed by Islam can be ruled as an infidel.
True, they might not be considered a Muslim but, in their belief and dedication to the premise of ONE GOD,
are they not to be found acceptable in the eyes of this ONE GOD?
Linking one's religious beliefs to the premise that a particular human-being is somehow "the Last Prophet" seems to have divided mankind.
I'm quite certain that GOD did not intend this to be the case.
Did Mohammad state that everyone who does not believe HE is the last prophet would not find their path toward GOD's grace?
In reality, Mohammad merely replaced Jesus as the last and final arbitrator on behalf of GOD.
Linking one's religiosity to a twin belief in GOD and Mohammad is in fact granting special status to Mohammad as a partner since one cannot become a Muslim without this duel linkage.

That is why I advocate the special message of the Koran to be promulgated throughout the world minus reference to Mohammad.
The message of GOD and his relationship to mankind gets muddled by the inclusion of the lifestyle of Mohammad.

In the linking of the lifestyle lived by Mohammad, advancement is negated and this is the primary problem that separates Muslims in today's world.

hey relax dude.....
a compete essay about something i wasn't speaking about.....i was only saying that for us as Muslims, in order to be considered a Muslim you have to believe in 1 god and Muhammad......
i am not god or his messenger to tell you whether non-muslims are acceptable to god or not.....

without Muhammad people weren't, aren't and won't be mu-slims......i consider it a fact

Muslima, I am quite relaxed
Muslims claim that the only people who are best in the eyes of God are Muslims.
That no others even come close and that unless one believes in both GOD & Mohammad they are not truly followers of God's command.
They even claim that 'People of the Book' which predates Islam are to be considered second-class citizens.
I merely propose that the removal of the requirement of believing in Mohammad would facilitate a common ground for ALL PEOPLE who have faith in One God.

[Tepic]

Muslima wrote: again it is not dergatory.......and next time talk to people directly....

Again, it's very derogatory in some contexts - be careful.
link

[Muslima]

richard....all religions have that view
and i am sorry it can't happen.....

tepic, i know that it is very derogatory in some texts but literally it is wrong because this word is used alot in the quran and the quran is very very well written that no one could write the same way and has very royal style in using words....

[mendosan]

I know its an insult if a muslim called me it id be pretty pissed off