[Ryan]

Should a Muslim call anyone a Kafir?

Calling someone a "Kafir" (i.e. one who denies the truth) or "Munafiq" (i.e. a hypocrite) or "Fasiq" (i.e. a wrongdoer) is itself a wrongdoing. Allah alone can see into people's hearts. It is in the light of this that the Prophet proclaimed in a Hadith that if you call someone a Kafir and he is not a Kafir, then Allah will consider you as a Kafir. (Bukhari) from Riyad-us-Saliheen No. 1565. Allah says that He knows best who strays from His path and who recieves guidance (6:117).

Source: Train the Trainers Tutors Handbook (Islamic Education Trust)

[*Slightly Deranged*]

wow, nice one Ryan, now we just gotta sit back and wait for the fireworks..

[Russol]

this relates to that thread, and italian model becomes muslim, i remember a few members were arguing about whether we have the right to call non muslims kafirs or not...

[*Slightly Deranged*]

Yeh, thats what I was referring to..
But I guess, there's differences of opinion, right?
Like, just because one person doesn't want to call someone a kafir doesn't mean they should, and vice versa, right? We might argue, we might bring out our relative daleel, but at the end of the day everyone's just going to keep on doing what they think is right.. and its up to Allah to judge.
(But I fully agree with not using any of those words in addressing anyone!)

[The Rooz]

Yep, I totally agree, but...

What's stopping someone from saying "Uzbeks are kafirs" just as would say about "Australian kafirs"?

What happens when someone uses that word on a fellow YE member? What happens if that member happens to be a non-muslim? (Ummm... are non-muslims even allowed to register here?)

My point:
Where do we draw the line? and do we have a responsibilty or even a right to regulate how that word is used here on YE?

wasalam

[Ryan]

This post wasn't intended to regulate anything, it is only showing one accepted opinion.

If you wish to use the word or if others wish to use it, it is up to them.

Please note: These are my own words and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the youthemerged.com Staff.

[The Rooz]

Lol... I realise that, but I was just wondering where we should stand on this issue... cause I'm not entirely sure myself... and not that this thread would establish any concrete guidelines for YE, but just some possibilities... you know what I mean???

wasalam

[*Slightly Deranged*]

'we' as in, youthemerged, or 'we' as in Muslims?
Who would be setting these ground rules? Then, who would follow them?
I think its important to just be aware of the differences of opinion, and choose a path for yourself, so the guidelines you choose to follow are answerable to you, not anyone else. So just because I wouldn't necessarily agree with something someone does, doesn't mean I should attack them with all my self righteous views on the matter.
And yet, if a statement made is 'politically incorrect' by many standards, and ultimately reflects on a group as a whole, perhaps all we can do is 'educate' (so to speak) both sides. Just let everyone know where we, as individuals, stand.

[The Rooz]

Yeah fair enough I see what your saying, and I think your saying what I'm having difficulty articulating...
but I'm not sure I'm saying we attack people or assume a higher moral ground here, if that is the right way of putting it, and I guess I mean here on YE, because "out there" in the public, you obviously can't regulate people's behaviour like that. I think I am saying that since we can offer guidelines for appropriate conduct here on YE, can that be extended to this issue. People aren't allowed to name-call or use racial slurs etc... as an example, (and there are heaps more others) if a muslim man brings his non-muslim wife to YE to join the discussions, what sort of perception do you think she will gain by coming to a site that places controls on name calling, but not when it is coming from a muslim towards a "Kafir". Maybe my understanding of the word Kafir is the problem here, but from what I know, it is a bad thing, I mean, we're talking about going to hell here.

I think I'm looking for consistency.

Ummm... do I sound self righteous ? ... wowsers, I hope not, coz I didn't mean to. I'm fine with differences of opinion, but calling people a kafir is really not nice... I dunno, I just, hmmm... yeah, I don't know what to think. I can understand their opinion and where they are coming from... man, i really don't know what to say, I 'll have to sit on this one. But do you know what I'm trying to say?

*The rooz is lost and confused*

wasalam

[*Slightly Deranged*]

No, no, sorry, didn't mean to be saying that you're attacking others, or 'assuming higher moral ground'
But I'm just saying that perhaps on this issue we should just leave things the way they are; because we've already hashed it out and determined that everyone will keep on doing what they always have.
Your mention about racist comments does hold a certain similarity in its connotations etc by non-Muslims in particular (because Muslims actually hear all the reasoning behind it, although we may not agree at least we have a better understanding). But to me, racial slurs are in a different category to the use of the word kafir, simply because there is sooo many conflicting differences of opinion, and indeed, their bases for doing so.
But then again.. there's the whole thing about changing opinions and attitudes for the better, over time, and if we don't say anything it'll never happen.. but that'd be saying we're in the right and they're in the wrong, right? And thats what I'm trying so desperately to avoid.
aargh, this is too difficult
fix the world's problems one at a time? I think not. (sorry, just in my head, it seems to be like one of those things where you want to do good, but there's too many factors involved, its all too complicated, whats the right thing to do... oh, well, thats what education does, doesn't it? Expand your mind and make you go crazy at least that's what its done for me )

[The Rooz]

I agree with what you said about the racial slur analogy, and actually, as I wrote it, I was saying to myself... "you better elaborate, coz it's not the same thing...", though I don't think I meant that they were the same thing (which is my fault in the way I wrote it , not a problem in your understanding ), I was just trying to see if, though on a different category, if they were on the same level so to speak, or whether such a slur could have the same meaning to a person labelled "kafir" as it would to a person labelled "..."... anyway, just replace that with an obvious racial remark. How different is a sexist slur in regard to a racial slur? I meant it in that sense, but on further contemplation, I think your right, and I think I am concerning myself too much with how it may hurt non-muslims, and the "symbolism", while forgetting about all the definitions and different opinions regarding the term "kafir". I think it boils down to how I have understood "kafir" in it's modern use.
And yes, it is one of things that you want to good, and I think I want people to be able to come here on YE and be judged on an individual basis, and not assigned a name or a label, which muslims often blame non-muslims of doing to muslims.
But I think you pretty much said what I was trying to say, but I just couldn't get it around my head hehe.

...and "Pheeee yew".... I'm glad you don't think I was attacking or being self righteous... I was a bit worried and stressed there that I might have sounded like that...

wasalam

[*Slightly Deranged*]

No, definitely not. I think it was more my fear of me sounding that way, it came out wrong.
Its good to be concerned with how non-Muslims may receive certain things, because, well, oh, I can't think right now. But, its good.
What I meant about the 'educating' both sides, and individual thing, was more along the lines of appraising everyone on your individual stance. (am I making sense?) What I mean is, I get really annoyed when Muslims throw around the word 'kafir' in labelling others, but although I would really like to tell them that its wrong, etc, I tell them why I don't do it. If they listen, and see my point, then I'm satisfied, and should they choose to continue what they've always done, then its none of my concern anymore. And to a non-Muslim, I would also do the same (explain to them why I don't call people kafir), and perhaps explain to them why other Muslims should feel that they can (ok, maybe not.. but you know what I mean; explaining that as on most issues, individuals make their respective decisions, and is not representative of a whole populace).
Thats just my take on it though, and totally subject to change (when I hear something more logical than the way I'm thinking, which is most of the time)

This post has been edited by *Slightly Deranged*: Aug 11 2005, 02:52 AM

[The Rooz]

Hehe, yep yep, I'm with you all the way... that's exactly what I was trying to say except I was just wondering how far one could go with the use of that word before we as muslims and also to YE mods had to say or do something about it. Like if I wrote something, and someone said that I was Kafir for having that idea, what then... ? Could the YE staff do anything about that?... But the discussions so far seem to imply that ultimately, we cannot. I'm definately willing to re-evaluate my stance though if some new info comes my way.

But I think it would be really interesting to look at the word Kafir, in the modern context and compare it with the Quranic usage, and take into the (possible) specifity of it's Quranic use towards a particular group within a specific context. I mean, even when the Prophet SAW knew who the hypocrites were, but never pointed them out... if that is the example of the prophet SAW, well, you get my drift.

Actually, hehe (I was building towards this), the reason I say this, about "specifity" is because I glossed over a book once, which IA I will pick up again soon by G.R. Hawting, called "The idea of idolatry and the emergence of Islam : from polemic to history"... which, as is obvious in the title, Hawting argues that the "Idol worshippers" (Mushrikeen) referred to in the Quran appear to be historically fixed in time, that is essentially to say that when the Quran refers to the mushrikeen, it is referring to a specific group, not unlike to the way we may refer to a specific political or ideological movement, for example (and this is my e.g.), the "Nazis".

It challenges this notion of a universal "mushrikeen", and by way of contrast (and again, this is my summation), it shows the difficulty in applying this label to, for example, modern day Christianity, where the Quran speaks of the ahlal Kitaab, but yet some argue that the concept of the trinity and its seemingly obvious parallel with idol worship places them outside of alhal kitaab. And where do modern cults and religions, such as Bahai's fit within this framework... the Bahai's believe in God also, and infact claim to be a succession of Islam. In light of the "trinity" example, who then, is a Mushrik?

So was the "mushrikeen" a specific ideological movement present during the time of our Rasool SAW?. If this is true, and Hawting's methodolgy appears sound, then who are the "kafir's"? If they are also a historically specific group, then what can be said of its usage today? I hope your following what I am saying, I can be really really confusing ALL the time.

But I need to re-read it, and when I do I'll let you know all about it , but can you sort of see what I am alluding to, though It is a point I am a little cautious to openly admit... Lol

wasalam

This post has been edited by The Rooz: Aug 11 2005, 04:43 PM

[The Rooz]

Whoopsies... among other typo errors... here is one that may confuse;

"I mean, even when the Prophet SAW knew who the hypocrites were, but never pointed them out... if that is the example of the prophet SAW, well, you get my drift."
what I meant was;

"I mean, in the case of hyprocrites, even when the Prophet SAW knew who they were, he never pointed them out... if that is the example of the prophet SAW, well, you get my drift."

Hehe, Im sure there are others... (give me a break, it was early in the morn.)

But just to further Hawting's argument, (though at this point I haven't read his book "in depth" enough to say whether I agree or disagree, or whether I can point out what problems he has in his methodology, but his argument is worth reflecting upon), he maintains that Islam emerged within a monotheistic milieu, as opposed to a highly polytheistic society, and that traditional/historical accounts may be at odds with the Quranic meaning of Mushrikeen(kuun). Further, It was more that the Quranic polemic was critical of the "lower and problematic" form of monotheism followed by the arabs, and not so much their strict idolatry.

This doesn't mean that Kafir's and polytheist's no longer exist, on the contrary, but it questions our ability to use those words in contemporary times, and atleast in regard to polytheism, it questions the legitimacy of opinions that hold to literal meanings of "idolatry", which generally tend to see "mushrikeen(kun)" to be purely that; "associater's" (to God), and so anyone paralleling literal interpretations of Idolatry in action, theology, or thought are all polytheists.

But I better find his book.

wasalam

This post has been edited by The Rooz: Aug 11 2005, 06:40 PM

[The Rooz]

hmmm... it didn't let me edit...

well, I wanted to add;

And I think essentially it relates to that Hadith Dev posted, and that is to say, not only is it that we shouldn't, but we simply cannot label people as falling under such categories, both kafir and polytheist, because we simply do not know, and in light of the consequences, such ambiguity on this matter is a good thing. But like you said, (and it would have been so much simpler if I had ended it there) people are still gonna say what they want. What all this complexity brings about, is that it doesn't necessarily entail determing whether they are right or we are wrong or vice versa, but it does undermine their credibility in using that word in this day and age. And that (is it?) may be your point on education, or may be I have just complicated an otherwise simple and straight forward statement of yours .

wasalam

This post has been edited by The Rooz: Aug 11 2005, 07:03 PM

[Maisarah]

alhamdulillah, good discussion. i really want to add to it but yeah, time does not seem to allow it. plus i'll probably get into trouble again for being 'angry', 'upset', and 'argumentative'

as for the issue Rooz brought up abt whether youthemerged can do anything about it, i think that's really important. because with the usage of words like kaafir etc, it could so easily go overboard.

but then, to what extent can u control people? i dunno. i personally find it extremely upsetting to see these kind of things on the forum, but then maybe we really can't do anything as yet. i dunno.

subhanAllah, i want to write more, but my lecture awaits. keep discussing guys

[The Rooz]

Well, here is something interesting, relating to the issue of apostacy...
And also have a read of THIS


Muslim Clerics Endorse Religious Edicts, Condemn Violence in Amman Conference


AMMAN, Jordan, July 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Leading Muslim clerics on Wednesday endorsed religious edicts (fatwas) forbidding the declaration of any Muslim an apostate (takfir) and limiting the issuance of religious edicts to qualified Muslim clerics in the eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

The endorsement of the edicts was part of a general statement emanating from the International Islamic Conference convened by His Majesty King Abdullah in the Jordanian capital, Amman. The joint statement, collecting signatures from scholars and clergy of the eight schools, is the first of its kind.

The statement, issued in the presence of King Abdullah, forbids declaring any adherent to any one of the eight schools of jurisprudence or to Sufism, an apostate; acknowledges the agreement among the eight schools on the fundamental principles of Islamic belief and practice; instructs the eight schools to establish a mechanism by which only qualified clergy could issue religious edicts and forbade the issuance of edicts by unqualified clergy; affirms the necessity and benefit of dialogue among the eight schools and urges Muslims to eschew discord and instead unite and fortify affinity among Muslim people and states.

The statement's terms of reference included religious edicts issued by ten of the most preeminent members of the global Islamic clergy ahead of the conference, which condemned the doctrine of takfir, among other things. The edicts were issued by Their Eminences Grand Imam Sheikh Al Azhar Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi; Grand Ayatollah Al Sayyid Ali Al Sistani; Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Jumaa; a compendium of Shi'i clerics (both Ja'fari and Zeidi); Grand Mufti of the Sultanate of Oman Ahmad Bin Hamad Al Khalili; the Islamic Fiqh Academy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the Grand Council for Religious Affairs, Turkey; Grand Mufti of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Sheikh Izzeddine Al Khateeb Al Tamimi, and the members of its National Fatwa Committee; and Sheikh Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi.

Other elements of the statement were drawn from King Abdullah's address to the conference, which urged more than 170 scholars and clerics from the different schools of Islamic thought to unify the global Muslim community against threats to its integrity from both Muslims and non-Muslims. The King said that divisions within the global Islamic community, acts of violence and terrorism and accusations of apostasy and the killing of Muslims in the name of Islam violate the spirit of Islam and generate global turmoil because they give justification to non-Muslims to judge Islam according to acts that Islam disavows, and subsequently interfere in Muslims' affairs.

The King said it was unacceptable to call an adherent to any one of the eight schools of jurisprudence an apostate. All schools recognize the fundamental principles of Islamic belief and uphold the five pillars of Islam, he said, and therefore practice true Islam. The mutual acknowledgment of all schools of Islamic jurisprudence would permit the emergence of a fundamental methodology in the issuance of religious edicts in order that those issuing edicts would be "qualified for this undertaking," the King said.

"This," he said, "would end the practice of defaming others as apostates and close the door on ignorant people who practice killing and terrorism - of which Islam is innocent - in the name of Islam."

http://www.usnewswire.com/
2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

This post has been edited by The Rooz: Aug 12 2005, 02:53 AM

[*Slightly Deranged*]

I'm soo tired.. can't think straight.. all this posting is confusing me now
I don't really get the relevance of the article to calling anyone a kafir; but I just skim read, like REALLY skim read, so I didn't even really get what the article was saying. Care to dejargonise into layman's terms?
Maisarah, its the weekend now! PLEASE join the discussion! Your input would be really great But I know you're busy; you work yourself all too hard!

This post has been edited by *Slightly Deranged*: Aug 12 2005, 08:56 AM

[The Rooz]

Hehe... ok...

What it's saying is that NO-ONE except the highly qualified jurist's are allowed to call ANYONE (muslim or non-muslim) an apostate... being labelled an apostate has some serious implications... right??? (although there is a bigger issue to discuss here but I have no time to go into it hehe). So, even though it seems apparent, according to "contemporary" understandings (and I won't say traditional because the traditioncal understanding of apostate has been much more suitable most of the time), that an "apostate" is someone who leaves Islam; what these guys are saying is that only a very tiny number of people have the qualifications to say who is or isn't an apostate, even though in it's literal sense it is simply someone who leaves Islam, so infact there would (by definition) be less ambiguity in labelling someone an apostate than it is with labelling someone a kafir, though some may consider apostacy and kafir's the being the same (reject Islam- deny the "truth"- kafir/apostate.). It's relevance to the article is that if this is the sort of guideline they can offer for labelling someone as an apostate, could the same be done with the word kafir? Could we get it into people's heads that your average Joe Muslim is restricted to saying who is or isn't a kafir (just as they have now done with apostates), and that such a "responsibility" (I have no other way of putting it) is only allowed to fall on those who are qualified to say so.

This qoute pretty much sums it up
"This," he said, "would end the practice of defaming others as apostates"...
My question is, what about the practice of defaming others as Kafir, which at times may be synonymous with apostacy.

I hope I explained it without confusing you more...

wasalam

[*Slightly Deranged*]

Yeh, I think I got the major gist of it.
Could we make the argument that since everyone is born a Muslim (ie. believing in one God, etc), then anyone who isn't is an apostate? And so this ruling would apply to this as well. Twisted, logic, I know...
But yeh, there does seem to be certain parallels between the two.
Thanks for the summary!