Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You, You and You are a Kaafir!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    You, You and You are a Kaafir!!!!

    People use this term quite regularly without understanding the meaning of it. I came across this explaination so thought why not I share it with you.

    What is the Difference Between the Ahl e Kitaab (People of the Book) and the Kaafirs (Rejecters)?

    .
    .
    .
    Let us first take the term “Kaafir”. “Kaafir” in the Arabic language means “rejecter”. The term “Kaafir”, normally taken to be synonymous with “non-Muslim” or “non-believer” is quite different from the two terms. A “non-Muslim”, obviously, is a person who does not adhere to the Muslim faith. Thus, all those who do not ascribe to the Muslim faith are “non-Muslims”. A “non-believer”, generally used for a person who does not believe in God and the Day of Judgment. “Kaafir”, on the other hand, is a person who knowingly rejects the truth. A person may not believe in some ‘truth’ for a number of reasons. For instance, he may not be fully convinced of some aspect of that ‘truth’ or he may have some doubts in his mind regarding that truth. However, if all doubts are removed from his mind and he becomes fully convinced of that truth, yet he persists in not accepting it or persists in ascribing to a wrong belief after becoming certain of its incorrectness, he then becomes a “Kaafir” and is no longer just a “non-Muslim” or a “non-believer”.

    In other words, all those people who persist in not accepting Islam after being fully convinced that Islam is the true religion of the Almighty or persist in ascribing to a false belief after being convinced of its incorrectness are “Kaafirs” or rejecters of the truth. All others for our purposes are “non-Muslims” or “non-believers”.

    This explanation, if considered closely, should clarify the fact that we cannot call anyone a “Kaafir” unless we have absolute knowledge of the reasons for his rejection of faith (or Islam), which we do not possess. Thus, for the purpose of this world, we should not call anyone a “Kaafir”. It is only God, Who with His absolute knowledge can declare someone a “Kaafir”. No one besides God possesses the knowledge that is essential to declare someone a “Kaafir”.

    Thus, we know on the basis of God’s declaration in the Qur’an that the Jews and the Christians (and those ascribing to other faiths) during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) refused to believe in the Prophet (pbuh) even after being fully convinced of his prophethood and were therefore termed “Kaafir” by the Almighty. As far as the Jews and the Christians of later times are concerned, we do not have adequate knowledge of the reasons for their rejection to term them “Kaafir”. God, on the Day of Judgment, shall give the decision regarding these Jews and Christians. Those, among them, who refused to accept Islam and the prophethood of Mohammed (pbuh), although they were fully convinced of it being the truth, shall stand in the category of “Kaafirs” on the Day of Judgment.

    The term “Mushrik”, like the term “Kaafir” has also been slightly misused. It is not just ascribing to a polytheistic belief that makes a person a “Mushrik”. According to the Qur’an, “Mushrik” is one who ascribes partners to God. Christians, though ascribe to a polytheistic belief, do not ascribe partners to God. They believe that there is only one god and He does not have any partners. Yet they ascribe to a belief, which in the eyes of the Muslims and according to the Qur’an is a polytheistic belief. Christians, according to the Qur’an, would have been called “Mushrik” had they believed that ascribing a son to God is a polytheistic belief and would still have held that belief.

    The above should also explain why the Qur’an, even though it has pointed out that the Jews and the Christians of the times of the Prophet (pbuh) ascribe to some polytheistic beliefs has not addressed them as “Mushrik”. The Qur’an has only addressed the Banu-Ishmael and other Arab polytheists who clearly ascribed to polytheism by the term “Mushrik” (as should be clear from Al-Baqarah 2: 105, Aal Imraan 3: 67, Surah Al-Taubah 9: 1 – 33, Al-Bayyinah 98: 1).

    In the light of the above explanation, in my opinion, the Christian should not be called “Mushrik” or “Kaafir”. We may say that Christians ascribe to polytheistic beliefs but should not call them polytheists, as the Qur’an has not called them polytheists. Likewise, we can call them “non-Muslims”, but should not call them “Kaafir”, as we do not know who among them has knowingly rejected Islam and who has not accepted Islam because he was not convinced of it being the final truth from God.
    .
    .
    .


    ------------------
    I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

    Khalil Gibran

    #2
    khan_sahib

    Thanks for putting up a post like this. It is refreshing to see this kind of material on this forum for a change - as opposed to the "more important" stuff like whether nail polish is haram, whether letting nails grow too much and - you know what I'm trying to get at.

    I agree with everything in the post you have put up. Maybe I would only take issue with one statement: "The term “Mushrik”, like the term “Kaafir” has also been slightly misused." I am of the opinion that these terms has been grossly misused. Needless to say, I don't think our kind will get very far if they don't start appreciating and respecting the usage of these kind of terms at the very least. Possibly the word "Kafir", like the word "Jihad", may be one of the most misunderstood words in existence.

    I'm sure that understanding these words in their proper and correct context will tend to eliminate much of the "holier than thou" attitude that, unfortunately, has pervaded much of the sentiments that our, especially rather keen and young, Muslims view other faiths and practices. What do you think?

    ------------------
    They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Mr Partypooper:
      Thanks for putting up a post like this. It is refreshing to see this kind of material on this forum for a change - as opposed to the "more important" stuff like whether nail polish is haram, whether letting nails grow too much and - you know what I'm trying to get at.
      This post is a mere hair splitting and probably only as useless as the ones on nail polish and long nails.

      [This message has been edited by Ahmed (edited May 06, 2001).]

      Comment


        #4
        Ahmed

        Hair splitting it may be... but the point is that the usage of this word carries an implication which should not be overlooked.

        That implication is: Nobody has the authority, except God and His beloved Prophet, to declare anybody a Kafir.

        I think that is an important point which should be made. Even if it may be a case of hair splitting.

        ------------------
        They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

        Comment


          #5
          if every group or race catgorizes for some reasons call entire group of people
          some name where it will end. there will
          be no interaction between groups and nations
          no common ground on which we can work toghether.

          Comment


            #6
            rvikz

            I totally agree. When people try to propogate their own politically twisted ideals by using religion as a cloak for their actions - the problems that you have mentioned occur.

            ------------------
            They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

            Comment


              #7
              Not only is that implication wrong but also the premise upon which the above theory is based is wrong.

              However, having said above that the topic is hair splitting and not realy usefull(especailly because it is incorrect), I am not about to get into a long discusion about what is a kaafir and who is one and who is not.

              Suffice it to say that the view of the scholar quoted above is in no way authoritative or conclusive.
              That's all.

              [This message has been edited by Ahmed (edited May 07, 2001).]

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Ahmed:

                I am not about to get into a long discusion about what is a kaafir and who is one and who is not.
                C'mon Ahmed. Spill it.



                ------------------
                They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

                Comment

                Working...
                X