Query regarding the term "Infidel" and other questions.

Terry

I was wondering who exactly falls into this category and why.

As someone with no religious beliefs, would I be regarded as an infidel?

What exactly, as defined by the qu'ran, are infidels?

Finally, and probably quite topical and likely to attract trolls (not my intention), would I be correct in my understanding that the qu'ran asks Muslims to kill all infidels, or is that belief restricted to extremists ala Christians who believe all non-Christians should be killed (eg. Westboro baptist church and their ilk)?

ScumLord

I had an ol' chat on a Muslim forum about that before and what the mod of the board (nice chap) said was your not supposed to kill but spread the word. They look down your nose at you and are supposed to pray for your sole.

InFront

Terry wrote: »

I was wondering who exactly falls into this category and why...

As someone with no religious beliefs, would I be regarded as an infidel?

Infidel (in English) simply means an unbeliever. Unfaithful. So at the most basic definition of the term, someone who was without religious belief would, it seems, be an infidel.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infidel

I have to say though, the term infidel as a derogatory term or a threat generally belongs to the realms of fiction or TV.

What exactly, as defined by the qu'ran, are infidels?

Possibly the closest word to 'infidel' from the Qur'an is kafir, from the Arabic root K-F-R which is used in religious discourse to mean:

1. One who does not understand Islam or believe in Allah
2. One who understands Islam but does not embrace Islam and submit to Allah
3. A Muslim who rejects his faith.

As you say you have no religious beliefs, there may be no need to complicate the question with the issue of Jews and Christians, and whether or not they are kaffir.
I think it would be wrong of one of us on the Islam forum to say someone is kafir, so you can make up your own mind about yourself. One's relationship with Allah is only between himself and Allah and does not require the narration of others.

Finally, it should be pointed out that in some places, such as in South Africa, the word kaffir is a racial slur, and this is absolutely unrelated to the religious use of the word which, if someone is not a Muslim, by default ought not to offend.

Finally, and probably quite topical and likely to attract trolls (not my intention), would I be correct in my understanding that the qu'ran asks Muslims to kill all infidels

No that is incorrect. There is no such order in the Qur'an.

Terry

Thanks for your replies.
Much appreciated.

Also LOL at this:

Finally, it should be pointed out that in some places, such as in South Africa, the word kaffir is a racial slur, and this is absolutely unrelated to the religious use of the word which, if someone is not a Muslim, by default ought not to offend.

When I saw "Kafir" I immediately thought of the scene from Lethal Weapon 2 where the South African dude calls Mel Gibson a "Kaffir Lover".

I had a feeling they were not related though.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Westboro baptist church don't want to kill anyone. They actually follow the bible fundamentally. Fred was talking once about how the murderers of a homosexual were going to hell themselves. Nasty folk all the same.

donaghs

I'm afraid the racial use of the word 'kaffir' is not unconnected from its religious origins. From my reading I understand that it was used as a term of abuse by African Muslims, for non-Muslim Africans. Originally in the sense of infidel.

I'd imagine that as Europeans joined Arabs in enslaving black Africans, they adopted the word also, but solely as a racial slur.

InFront

Either way, when used in the religious sense which pre-dates that abuse of the term, when meaning to refer those who do not believe in or reject the Qur'an, the teachings of Allah, it is (I hope) not offensive.

Schuhart

InFront wrote: »

No that is incorrect. There is no such order in the Qur'an.

Is it fair to say that its not quite as pat as that. Is it Sura 9:5 that has the bit about killing unrepentant idolators? This was a vision given in the context of Mohammed's return to Mecca where basically the instruction was that idolators (who would have been his enemies) were to be given the opportunity to convert and, if they did, they would be accepted into the community. Otherwise, they were open to be slaughtered.

Is this Sura explained as applying only to those special circumstances? Indeed it is. But equally people would maintain that God doesn't litter his holy books with words for no reason. Can people take it as justification for acts today? No doubt.

InFront

Schuhart wrote: »

Is it fair to say that its not quite as pat as that. Is it Sura 9:5 that has the bit about killing unrepentant idolators?

No. It's about fighting those who did not honour a specific treaty and were unrepentant and were also idolators. You should read the ayah in its entirity and that verse becomes clearer.

First of all, what you are referring to applies only, as always in Islam, to combtants and not civilians.
It exempts the non-Muslims who:

1. keep their treaties/ agreements with Muslims
AND
2. do not fight Muslims.

And even towards these people who broke the Treaty, the Qur'an commands forgiveness as soon as they repent.

The next verse reads...

AL TAWBA - 006

And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not

It is true that some scholars cite what you are referring to Schuhart, as evidence to kill non Muslims, and it is true that Usama bin Laden himself has used this verse to excuse the actions of recent militants. But most things on Earth can be corrupted, even the Qur'an if people wish to corrupt it, Islamic or otherwise, it can be done.

Can people take it as justification for acts today? No doubt.

Look, people will take a videogame as justification for violence in some cases. Bad people will be bad people, that's life unfortunately.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

Is it fair to say that its not quite as pat as that. Is it Sura 9:5 that has the bit about killing unrepentant idolators? This was a vision given in the context of Mohammed's return to Mecca where basically the instruction was that idolators (who would have been his enemies) were to be given the opportunity to convert and, if they did, they would be accepted into the community. Otherwise, they were open to be slaughtered.

Is this Sura explained as applying only to those special circumstances? Indeed it is. But equally people would maintain that God doesn't litter his holy books with words for no reason. Can people take it as justification for acts today? No doubt.

I've been informed by the Moderator that if I post on this forum I have to back up my comments with related fatawa or stfu. My Arabic is not up to much so I haven't a clue what a stfu actually is. Therefore I will include a fatwa.

Allah the almighty has called upon us not to ally with the Jews or the Christians, not to like them, not to become their partners, not to support them, and not to sign agreements with them. And he who does that is one of them, as Allah said, 'O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies, for they are allies of one another. Who from among you takes them as allies will indeed be one of them' ... Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them.
Dr Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Palestinian Authority Fatwa Council, 2000

This would appear to be using the Qur'an (Sura 5:51 and 9:5) as justification for killing infidels in a modern context.

InFront

PDN wrote: »

I've been informed by the Moderator that if I post on this forum I have to back up my comments with related fatawa or stfu. My Arabic is not up to much so I haven't a clue what a stfu actually is. Therefore I will include a fatwa.

Can you link to the full text of the fatwa please? If people are to be shown the inaccuracy of something, they might as well see inaccuracy in its entirity as opposed to feeding it piecemeal.

Just to mention also, he's a cleric attached to Palestine. Palestine is pretty unique as one of the few places on the planet where Muslims are being fought on the basis of religion, and is a pretty extreme case. Obviously I'm not defending vioence against innocent non combatants.

This would appear to be using the Qur'an (Sura 5:51 and 9:5) as justification for killing infidels in a modern context.

All I would say here is to re-iterate what i said above about people (being people) bending anything they know will influence people to suit their own agendas. Islam just happens to be one of those things that many people are willing to invest faith in, and some wayward individuals manipulate and abuse that fact to thwart Islam and settle their own personal agendas and vendettas.

You know as well as I do PDN, that there are passages from the Christian Bible (which I won't quote here, because it would be in poor taste and achieve nothing) which - on the face of it - surpass the brutality of what you have quoted from a translation of a passage in the Qur'an.

It just so happens nobody is using such Biblical passages at this moment in time to excuse their own violence, but that is merely an accident of politics, geography and economics.

In short, if the peoples of the Middle East followed a religion called "Alice In Wonderland" (just for Schuhart) you can be pretty sure there would be nutjobs still quoting Alice in Wonderland to excuse their violence and bring people on board.

What societies need to start doing is to look closer at these individuals who manipulate and allow themselves to be manipulated, look at their motivation for bothering to listen to these wayward Sheikhs and Imams. Islam is just a tool for such leaders, not the primary cause. The primary cause is really a question more suited to a social scientist or a historian, and really hasn't got a lot to do with Islam at all.

wes

PDN wrote: »

This would appear to be using the Qur'an (Sura 5:51 and 9:5) as justification for killing infidels in a modern context.

People living under apartheid/occupation or who have been ethnically cleansed tend to say and do the darnedest things. Not to excuse what is being said. Its never right to kill unless in self defense and even then it should be avoided if at all possible. Of course you talk about "modern" context, lets talk about the context the Palestinians are living in? People in there situation almost always react violently, sure its never right, but its completely predictable, occupations and apartheid tend to cause a lot of violence from both the oppressor and oppressed. The religion of the Palestinians doesn't matter at all, also it should be noted very specifically that most Palestinians resistance or terrorism were led by secular Arab nationalist movements. The rise of militant Islamists like Hamas is more recent. It should also be noted that the far left Palestinian movement the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), have committed terrorist attacks and they have nothing to do with Islam whatsoever and yet they still resorted to terrorism.

It doesn't matter if the people are Atheist/Christian/Hindu/Muslim, they all tend to react the same way to people showing up in there country with guns and the intent to take over. Open up a history book and you will find numerous examples of people using God to justify them in killing there occupier, if you took away religion from the equation, chances are they would still want to kill them. Sure, its not right in anyway shape or form, but it just seems to be the way people react. Religion has nothing to do with it, the violence stems from the occupation, be it the British occupying India, the French occupying Algeria, European occupying the America's, and yes even the Israeli occupation of whats left of Palestine. I find it odd that people seem to think that the Palestinians are somehow evil savages, when people from all over the world have reacted the same way in so many different situations, what there doing isn't unique at all.

Once again I stress, I do not condone such sentiment or terrorism in any shape or form. However, lets not pretend terrorism during an occupation is somehow unique to the Palestinians. Using an occupied people as an example of religiously motivated violence is a poor choice, as there reason tend to have everything to do with defeating the occupier and they will use anything to justify there actions, no matter abhorrent they are.

Btw, I know I went into politics territory, but there was really no other way to explain the situation as I see it, because as I see it has very little to do with religion and is no different than any other occupation.

PDN

InFront wrote: »

Can you link to the full text of the fatwa please? If people are to be shown the inaccuracy of something, they might as well see inaccuracy in its entirity as opposed to feeding it piecemeal.

Sorry, I tend to read books rather than get information via Google etc.

The fatwa is referred to on page 23 of Michael Cappi's A Never Ending War
(not a very good book, BTW).

Hobbes

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I tend to read books rather than get information via Google etc.

The fatwa is referred to on page 23 of Michael Cappi's A Never Ending War
(not a very good book, BTW).

You mean you didn't go and read it from the source to verify the context? Or prehaps ask for the context from an imman?

How about filling us in with Mr Cappis credentials? Seeing as you have the book you should be able to detail who he is. I've had a look around and can't find any information except for one review spammed by the same person on different sites.

But you should have no problem supplying us with that information? right?

PDN

Hobbes wrote: »

You mean you didn't go and read it from the source to verify the context?

Surprisingly enough my local library doesn't have a very good selection of fatwas. If they did I probably wouldn't be able to read them since I can't read Arabic.

Have I wandered into a twilight zone where nobody quotes from books without going and reading directly from the sources for every quote contained in a book? For example, in the Christianity forum, someone might mention that a particular commentator quotes from Tacitus or Eusebius. No-one responds with, "Ah, but have you gone and read Tacitus and Eusebius in the original?"

I am genuinely trying to have some dialogue here - but the rules are pretty bewildering. If you'd prefer no-one to ask uncomfortable questions then just say so and I'll clear off.

wes

PDN wrote: »

The fatwa is referred to on page 23 of Michael Cappi's A Never Ending War
(not a very good book, BTW).

Why are you quoting from a book you think isn't any good? Also, do you think maybe the situations the Palestinians are in, may, I don't know, color there world view, just a little bit?

As I pointed out earlier, Palestinian far left groups can be just as violent as there Muslims counterparts. The violence and justifications is all about land and resources.

PDN

wes wrote: »

Why are you quoting from a book you think isn't any good? Also, do you think maybe the situations the Palestinians are in, may, I don't know, color there world view, just a little bit?

As I pointed out earlier, Palestinian far left groups can be just as violent as there Muslims counterparts. The violence and justifications is all about land and resources.

I'm quoting from a book I don't think is any good because the quotation seemed genuine. If it wasn't then I thought someone here would tell me. Apparently, however, I need to ask an Imam before I ask any questions on the board. I'm sorry - I didn't realise that was necessary.

The reason I didn't think the book was any good was because it was pretty well an anti-Muslim hatchet job, and I wanted to get a different perspective. I wanted to know if the violent kind of imams are disowned by most Muslims (like most Christians would with nutcases like Fred Phelps) or if they are still considered real Muslims with real authority to issue fatwas etc. However, it's not worth the antagonism and hostility to ask questions here. I'll search for the answers elsewhere.

wes

PDN wrote: »

The reason I didn't think the book was any good was because it was pretty well an anti-Muslim hatchet job, and I wanted to get a different perspective. I wanted to know if the violent kind of imams are disowned by most Muslims (like most Christians would with nutcases like Fred Phelps) or if they are still considered real Muslims with real authority to issue fatwas etc. However, it's not worth the antagonism and hostility to ask questions here. I'll search for the answers elsewhere.

Well, I posted a lengthy post saying that I disagree with the Fatwa and any attacks on civilians. However, you picked a very extreme example. During an occupation there is always violence. Extremists thrive in such an environment.

My point is that the example you provide is of an extreme situation. Its hardly normal.

Apologies if I came off as hostile, it was never my intent btw.

As for fatwa's, they don't mean anything unless you follow them. Its that simple, they mean nothing anymore. Too many nuts issue a fatwa for any stupid thing. There pointless. People need to make up there own minds whether they want to follow them or not.

Hobbes

PDN wrote:

I haven't a clue

See how that works?

PDN wrote: »

Apparently, however, I need to ask an Imam before I ask any questions on the board. I'm sorry - I didn't realise that was necessary.

I was pointing out that you wouldn't google for the answers, but you would quite happily take some unknown authors who has no credentials (that I can find) to say he is an authority on the subject matter.

You didn't give the impression at all that maybe you should look up the material to see if it was quoted in context or the interpretation of it.

I didn't think the book was any good was because it was pretty well an anti-Muslim hatchet job, and I wanted to get a different perspective.

You didn't imply that by your first comments. Maybe word your phrases a bit better to be a question then claiming statement of fact.

Incidentally local libraries do carry Korans, English translation. At least they did the last time I was in one. There is also some ancient ones on show in Chester Beatty Library.

Rev Hellfire

wes wrote: »

As for fatwa's, they don't mean anything unless you follow them. Its that simple, they mean nothing anymore. Too many nuts issue a fatwa for any stupid thing. There pointless. People need to make up there own minds whether they want to follow them or not.

So what exactly is a fatwa and are muslims obligied to follow them ? Or are they merely suggestions and interpetations from informed parties you answer is somewhat unclear.

PDN

Hobbes wrote: »

Incidentally local libraries do carry Korans, English translation. At least they did the last time I was in one. There is also some ancient ones on show in Chester Beatty Library.

So you want me to look for a Palestinian fatwa in a Koran? This is just too surreal. I think you're just taking the mickey.

wes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So what exactly is a fatwa and are muslims obligied to follow them ? Or are they merely suggestions and interpetations from informed parties you answer is somewhat unclear.

It depends some people see it as something they have to follow, others don't. Some people only listen to fatwa's from certain sources.

There is no clear leadership in the matter. So a fatwa from some random person in the Middle East means very little most of the time.

InFront

PDN wrote: »

The reason I didn't think the book was any good was because it was pretty well an anti-Muslim hatchet job

Yet you're using it as some sort of evidence for genuine religious authorisation for violence?
Now I don't know a lot about the cleric who issued that fatwa, or what his intentions were, he could genuinely be a nutjob, but it isn't hard to figure out that if it's an anti-Muslim book you're taking this from, obviously the content is going to be twisted toward an anti-Muslim bias...

Also, I'd be pretty confident that's a fatwa relating to Zionist militancy in Palestine and fighting fire with fire as it were, and isn't actually a general fatwa about non-believers at all.

Originally posted by Rev Hellfire
So what exactly is a fatwa

It's a ruling on a matter of fiqh - which essentially means religious legal advice. Basically an edict I guess.

are muslims obligied to follow them ?

Well different fatawa sometimes say different things depending on the scholar in question so no, it depends on the Muslim and the school he belongs to.

Ideally I guess one should always consider what is written in a fatwa very carefully, provided the person issuing it is an authentic and learned scholar of Islam.

Hobbes

PDN wrote: »

So you want me to look for a Palestinian fatwa in a Koran? This is just too surreal. I think you're just taking the mickey.

Or it could be I just misinterpreted your previous post. Seems to be a lot of that going on.

Schuhart

InFront wrote: »

Look, people will take a videogame as justification for violence in some cases. Bad people will be bad people, that's life unfortunately.

In fairness, I'm not confident that catches the situation as it equates holy books to Manhunt 3 and supposedly learned scholars to teenage boys. I feel this article on islamonline.net makes some fist of addressing the reality. Its chief merit in my opinion is that it tries to address the reality that those scriptures have been interpreted aggressively.

Ironically, I'm actually pursuing the question in the atheism forum of whether reason actually leads to any better outcome than just rolling with inherited traditions like religion on the grounds that the most harmful ideas will probably be moderated anyway. But in either context I think we have to try to grasp the full picture, in so far as we can.