Talk:Kafir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Noble Quran and transgressors

I would like to clarify something and like to quote the Noble Quran about war and stuff.

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"

"Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)"

I see a lot of anti-islamic sites and it says that islam is a religion to disrespect the disbeleivers. look at this site by the way http://www.themodernreligion.com/ugly/kafr.html, article on be careful of who you call a kafir.

al-salam alaikom (peace upon you),this is what islam is all about "peace". i want to explain a few things about the expression "kafir", at first kafir doesn't have any relation with afrikans and it was not used by arabs to describe other people on ethnic bases. in islam the word - kafir - refers to those who believe in gods other than one creative GOD and didn't believe in GOD (ALLAH, in arabic) as the only creator of every creatures.

well, that's just what we say in the article (the afrikaans is just a link to another word, for people who are looking for the kaffir article.) dab (ᛏ) 11:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added section Kafir hatred

As per user Heraclius request, I included a source but that is not all I would like to point out to him that the neologism kaafirphobia gets 21 hits in a search using Google. Colin chee 18:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This is just a note that SOMEONE has been asking people from mychristiannetwork.com to keep the kafirphobia information. This is complete B.S., and whomever decided to lobby thir biased friends to do this needs to reflect on their behavior.--Dr.Worm 20:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Spurious details with spurious source. Source written by you on a geocities site doesn't count as a credible source. __earth 09:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Earth. The section was a separate article before and it was deleted, but then it was reproduced here. I tried to delete it but a team of wikistalkers made sure I didn't get my "way". If you could please keep an eye on this article, it would be much appreciated.Heraclius 15:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks the idea is specious. And I will keep an eye on this page if and only if you keep an eye too =p. __earth 18:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

How can you call it spurious when there are numerous results on Kaafirphobia when using Google search facility? This can be considered vandalism, so I have reverted back your changes to the last version by Heraclius. Please do not remove the information on Kaafirphobia as it is not spurious and in fact accurately describes hatred towards Kaafirs (or non-Muslims) by Muslims. Thank you. Garywbush 05:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

4 or 5 results from Google are hardly numerous. As of posting, there are 31 results from Google but most of them quote wikipedia and the others come from blogs' comment section of which, posted by Colin Chee like at http://rajanr.com/2005/08/11/invade-sumatra/#comment-1783.

Moreover, you claim to be a political analyst. Surely you can see that the source is not credible. Just take a look at the source and take a look at its root directory. Anyway real academician would publish their thesis properly instead of some obscure site on the internet.

Moreover, the two "sociologists" doesn't seem to be real because USM doesn't offer a doctorate in "Anthropology and Sociology" as claimed by user User:Colin_chee, which incidently is being quoted as reference. And, it has been voted upon for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kaafirphobia. Please adhere to the process. __earth 08:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You are generalising again, __earth as Colin and Danian are two distinct persons. I cannot speak for Colin or Danian but AFAIK, Danian obtained his doctorate in sociology from a Russian university, while Colin from a Canadian university. At his User Page, Colin himself says he was an ex-lecturer at USM who resigned months ago. BTW, what has the Vfd got to do with this? In fact the Vfd was for the seperate article called Kaafirphobia and not this article, Kaafir. Also, Dbachmann himself pointed out that including something in Wikipedia is about notability and not OR. Since, it does generate hits in Google why can't we list it but I suggest we remove the reference to the two sociologists? Alibadawi 02:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Alibadawi, before Colin Chee changed his user page (checked the history), he said he received his PhD from USM. After somebody actually took the initiative to verify his claim, he switches it to Canada. Why would he changed it? __earth 12:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

ok, I agree that this is a borderline case of notability. Note, however, that we are talking of notability, not OR. Wikipedia covers a lot of obscure internet phenomena, and while I would be opposed to an entire "Kaafirophobia" article, on grounds on notability, a brief mention here, imho, does not hurt, as long as the term is put in proper perspectice. I am an "inclusionist qua redirection" I suppose. Not that I'd edit-war over something like this, but I really don't see why the term needs to be suppressed, seeing that this article is still very short and badly in need of more material. That's just my opinion, of course, and I'll gracefully yield to community consensus :) dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is borderline case of notability no doubt but as you say, Dbachmann, Wikipedia also covers a lot of obscure internet phenomena, for instance Mark Rosenfelder's Language Construction Kit. In this case, we should include "Kaafirphobia" section in the Kaafir article but remove the reference to the two sociologists. Alibadawi 02:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright then, but could we just remove the reference to the two sociologists? I'm convinced they are fake since the university's dean itself, according to a blog, doesn't recognize them. __earth 09:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I support including the Kaafirphobia section as it has some notability. However, we should remove the reference to the two sociologists like you say due to lack of information about them. On whether those two sociologists are fake, I cannot tell, as the web site you quote is not operated by the Dean or USM but by some third party. Alibadawi 02:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I see, sorry, I didn't realize we have Colin chee (talk • contribs) adding his own neologism, and playing games on geocities and blogs; I suppose he'll have to provide better references then, like mention of the term on the "Social Centre on Racism and Xenophobia" website, which have adopted the term according to his claim. dab (ᛏ) 09:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole term doesn't make sense to me. If the term is used to describe the feelings of Islamists toward non-Muslims, then "phobia" is not the correct suffix. I really don't think killing people and blowing yourself up means you're "afraid" of them. If the term is used to describe general Muslim feelings toward non-Muslims, then it's false, as Kafir only means one who is not of the "people of the book". Either way, the term is covered by anti-semitism and Christophobia.Heraclius 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

the term as such is okay; after all, Islamophobes dream of nuking Mecca; why shouldn't Kafirophobes dream of nuking Kafirs. The point is that the term is spurious, and WP is not to help in its coining. Also, Salibophobe may be the better term, since "Kafirophobes" mostly concentrate on Christians (who are, per definition, not actual Kafirs). dab (ᛏ) 20:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That could be said even of the term Islamophobia for eventhough it has the suffix "phobia". However, Islamophobia does not only mean fear of Muslims but includes hatred of Muslims so the term Kaafirphobia is appropriate. The only problem is the references to the two sociologists as __earth says, which I too feel should be removed. Otherwise, the article is alright. I shall begin editing it. Alibadawi 02:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Alibadawi, you are quoting nationmaster (which is a mirror of Wikipedia) and Colin Chee's company page as sources. And to mention it again, even Google search doesn't give anything credible academic source. __earth 04:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

But even, Mark Rosenfelder's Language Construction Kit is not a credible academic source and it is in Wikipedia. See, Dbachmann's post to you and you yourself agreed the term could be included if the two "sociologists" are removed. I am willing to comply with your demands, Earth for the sake of consensus to retain this article. Alibadawi

note that User:Colin chee was the one that added this. And note the source reference is related to User:Colin chee. And observe Wikipedia:NOR. And the sources, you are essentially committing circular reasoning because you are quoting a mirror of Wikipedia to justify that source. See why it's not credible? __earth 05:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand :) Yes, I do observe Wikipedia:NOR that forbids original research. However, Colin Chee did not use Wikipedia for his original research and used Geocities, and moreover, Google gives various results for a search on kaafirphobia. This includes nationmaster, which continues to retain the article kaafirphobia. Also, I am surprised you are desperate on insisting it be removed? Why? Alibadawi 05:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the term violates Wikipedia's policy. And nationmaster is a MIRROR of Wikipedia. Quoting nationmaster to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia is a logical fallacy (circular reasoning). And yes, he used geocities but do the two sociologists are really sociologist despite the fact the one of the sociologist claim to earn a Phd from a school that doesn't offer such PhD? And don't you find it spurious that geocities page has just put up just to justify this wikipedia's subsection? Plus, previously there was danian cheong here. It was Dr Colin Chee AND Danian Cheong. Now, its just Dr Colin Chee. Don't you find that odd? And is there is a such thing as part-time sociologist? Any college graduate can recognize this is a prank at best, lies at its worst.__earth 05:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Earth is correct. Wikipedia mirrors are not valid sources, nor are Geocities sites generally reliable sources. Shem^(talk) 05:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Shem Daimwood, if you look at Nationmaster entry on Kaafirphobia it is totally different from wikipedia entry, Kaafir so I would say it is not a mirror. Therefore, it can be considered a valid source. I respect your POV but it is still POV. What we need is NPOV and nationmaster and geocities and minishort.net illustrate this term. Alibadawi 05:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That version was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kaafirphobia. Nationmaster will delete their version when they update their database. After all, nationmasters is a mirror. And please, why are you using minishort.net, which is a casual blog, to support your POV? Even at minishort, the term came out AT THE COMMENT SECTION. __earth 06:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

it's very simple: a geocities page is not a reference. their definition is simpl parroting the Runnymede Trust definition of Islamophobia. If the term gains some currency in the media, we can point to the geocities page as an early source. As long as Colin Chee is the only one touting the term, it has no place on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 10:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What you say is true since the Geocities web site is written specifically by Colin. Now, if it is written by another person then it can be used as a reference. But I do not see what is wrong in parrotting the Runnymede Trust definition of Islamophobia however, according to you what remains now is that we need more usage of this term for it to have a place on Wikipedia. Garywbush 09:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

btw, I found this quite funny :) dab (ᛏ) 10:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that is what I call an independent article! Thanks, Dbachmann for pointing this out :) as the reference of kafirphobia that you found is by a totally different author, Hamzah Moin. This article can lend credibility to the term coined by Colin Chee since it is not by Colin Chee. I found another web site in the Malay language, [1] hosted at muhandis.net that used the word kaafirphobia independently of Colin Chee. So, I will right away restore back the kaafirphobia (or kafirphobia) to the article Kafir or Kaafir. I will include all these three authors. Garywbush 09:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Quoting your edit: According to one of the reasons given by Mr. Hamzah Moin, Kafirphobia is caused by massive stomach irritation when eating at a restaurant owned by kafirs. That Hamzah Moin was writing a satire. And are you sure about your translation? In your translation, you missed "enggak", which means "no". The meaning is quite different if you include enggak in your translation. __earth 11:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what Hamzah meant is that Muslims are forbidden by Syariah to eat in Kafir restaurants as the food prepared by a Kafir is not Halal. So, it is quite true and hardly satire but the way he worded it is to make reading his article pleasurable. If you think my translation is wrong, why don't you give your own translation of that phrase? Garywbush 04:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

one geocities site by unconfirmed Malaysian social scientists plus one online parody piece by someone self-identifying as "Maniac Muslim" does not make for sufficient notability even for Wikipedia. Come back once you spot the term on BBC or the NYT. dab (ᛏ) 13:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

But it would be very unfair to say kafirphobia must exist on BBC or NYT when there are so many other terms whose notablity come from web sites, for instance Mark Rosenfelder's Language Construction Kit. So, I think kafirphobia deserves mention in the Kafir article as Robdurbar has said below. Garywbush 04:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Kafirphobia is deserved of perhaps one or two sentences within this article, but no more and certainly not a long section. e.g. 'The word'kafir' has also been developed into the neologism 'kafirphobia' to describe an irrational fear or hatered of non-Muslims. This is yet to prove a common use, however.' Robdurbar 16:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is deserved as there are three sources, which can be used as reference. So, do you agree then that we describe it within one or two sentences, i.e. kafirphobia describes an irrational fear or hatred of non-Muslims? Do you have anything else to add to this sentence? Garywbush 04:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So, we currently have three Wikipedians (Robdurbar, Alibadawi, and myself) who want the term to be included in the Kafir entry. Dbachmann originally agreed but he is now trying to find excuses but most of his excuses are not valid because as I pointed out Wikipedia has many other articles than have been entered some on borderline notability and some on notability based on Google. There is no rule that it must appear on two leftist media, NYT and BBC. In that case, compare three of us to Dbachmann, and Earth and so we logically win. Garywbush 04:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If the majority says 1 + 1 = 3, that does not make the answer 3. For that reason, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Moreover, if we were to take a vote, Shem, Heraclius, Dbachmann and me would be on one side and Robdurbar, Alibadawi and you be on the other. That would be 4 against 3. Discounting user less than 100 edits, it wouold be 4 vs 1. I'm not sure where Dab stands but if he's pro-inclusion, then that would make it 3 against 4. Discouting users less than 100 edits, that would be 3 vs 2. So, taking a vote is not your best interest if you want to include kafirphobia. __earth 04:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

kafirophobia is an ad hoc coinage. The geocities site is a single page; I can put up a similar page in ten minutes about any phobia you care to mention. At first glance I agreed to list the term because I took the geocities page seriously, but then I realized that it is nothing more than an attempt to coin a term (for whatever reason), and was probably even created with the express purpose as a reference so the term can make it on Wikipedia. Sorry, that's not good enough. Kaafirophobia was deleted per Vfd. You can Vfd Language Construction Kit, if you like, but that has no relation to our topic here. If the term becomes really popular on blogs, we can insert it as part of 'internet culture'. Our purpose here must be to improve this article, on the term 'Kafir'. At the moment, there is hardly more than a definition. So, really, you should focus on bringing up information relevant to the term itself, and not some spurious neologism. dab (ᛏ) 06:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I should make a modification to my earlier edit; I really ought to have said that I meant kafirphobia required one or two sentences AT MOST, but agree with earth and dab in that the article does not miss much without it and that its status is questionable. However, for the sake of ending this dispute, I think that a small mention of it would be a good compromise Robdurbar 15:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

fine. How about laconic "Kafir(o)phobia has been [humorously] coined as a term mirroring Islamophobia"? dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

As already argued, "Kaafirophobia" and "Kafirophobia" are definitely neologisms. I went ahead and looked through fourteen English dictionaries, two Deutsch, one Arabic, and a few etymological texts just for fun . The words do not exist outside of a few people using them as part of their personal idiolects.

The OED is considered *the* authority for words in the English language. The closest match is Kaffir. Thus:

From the Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (1989) - online version (and therefore the one most frequently updated with new words that have something resembling common usage) P.MacUidhir 18:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Length OED quote moved to Talk:kaffir (disambiguation). Jorge Stolfi 22:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppets

I suspect alibadawi and Garywbush are indeed the same person. Please check user:alibadawi's talk history

This is a slander against me by Earth who is a Muslim. The Islamic religion teaches to circumvent the non-Muslims and slander is one real life examples we can see between the clash between Islam and non-Muslims used by Muslims to win a debate. I am not Alibadawi nor will I ever be nor do I know who is he nor have I ever met him. Earth must have hacked my account as I suspect he my password was my username and added that so as to discredit me. He does not like the term Kafirphobia added to Kafir and is trying to find fault with me. Earth, my recommendation is for you to apologise. Garywbush 01:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would Garywbush say sorry for the thing that he didn't do? It was alibadawi that violated 3R rule and he should say sorry instead. But no, it was Gary. And Garywbush's action to undo his edit there makes the case against him stronger. __earth 10:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I did not say sorry as I have no reason to apologise for a thing I did not do. You, Earth knew my password was my username and hacked into my account and did it. I have since changed my password, so you cannot repeat this lame act. I think you dislike the term Kafirphobia included in this article, so you have to find some fault with me, which is why you did what you did. It is strange you bring up this issue and you being a Muslim too. Garywbush 01:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've brought this alleged sockpuppetry to RfC and wikiquette. __earth 04:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

So, what if a person like you brings it up? Wikipedia is not a democracy so, it does not matter what you and your fellow Muslims like or do not like. If it is truth, you must show evidence. No matter if majority say I am a sockpuppet it will not make it true. I have existed on Wikipedia for a very long time. You need to prove I am a socketpuppet or you are committed slander, which is a violation of the Wikipedia policy. Garywbush 01:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Proof? I've given it. It's here. In fact, when presented the proof, you accused me of hacking into your account. __earth 04:57, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slander by __earth against User:Garywbush

Slander as we know it as against Wikipedia policy and Earth did not even email me when my email address is clearly on my User Page. He just began slandering me that I was related to User:Alibadawi, who he claimed was my socketpuppet. I am sure slander is against Wikipedia policy and I want to know the process to bring this up to the appropriate Wikipedia authorities. Garywbush 01:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I did inform you on your userpage. I even informed alibadawi but he deleted that msg for some reason. About slander allegation, this is a possible proof that makes me suspicious of you. Not to mention, the existence of possible socketpuppets in the VfD page. All we need now is an sysop to do a checkup. __earth 04:52, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

_earth has been cautious and shown a wish to follow wikipedia policy on this issue; see Wikipedia talk:Sock puppet#Suspected sockpuppets Robdurbar 10:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

why is this talkpage used as a forum for sockpuppet allegations and related accusations? go to WP:RFC, WIkipedia:Dispute resolution. dab (ᛏ) 10:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

as far as i'm aware, it is on RFC somewhere but that's such an unorganised mess that its impossible to find the relevant comments Robdurbar 10:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kafir != People of the Book?

Kafirs include the People of the Book. The word "kafir" literally means "one who conceals the Truth." Muslims believe that the Jews and Christians concealed the Truth by "corrupting" (altering) their holy books. The incorrectly article claims that the People of the Book are not kafirs and fails to give a citation. --Zeno of Elea 10:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There are definitely different views on this. The USC MSA site gives the definition of "Kafir: a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah (God), a disbeliever in God", to which the people of the book would not fit. Now take your more extreme groups and they surely would not agree. The key is not what does it mean, but what does it mean to whom. gren グレン 15:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It really depends on the Muslims you ask. Personally, I was taught that all non-Muslims are among the Kafiroon. And, I was also taught that it's a sin to call believers non-believers and non-believers believers. There's a surah in the Quran about this....

"Chapter 109. al-Kafirun: The Unbelievers:

In the name of the merciful and compassionate God. Say, 'O ye misbelievers! I do not serve what ye serve; nor will ye serve what I serve; nor will I serve what ye serve; nor will ye serve what I serve;-ye have your religion, and I have my religion!'" --JuanMuslim 05:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yusif Ali's commentary in his translation; "The Holy Qur'an", (p. 18, 1989) has a oppinion of this matter. As his english translation is more widespread that the Pikthal version, I would anticipate that many people share this view, athough divergent opinions also exist. --Dr.Worm 20:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"Kafara, kufr, kafir, and derivative forms of the word, imply a deliberate rejection of Faith as opposed to a mistaken idea of Allah or faith, which is not inconsistent with an earnest desire to see the truth. Where there is such desire, the Grace and Mercy of Allah gives guidance. But that guidance is not efficacious when it is deliberately rejected, and the possibility of rejection follows from the grant of free will. The consequence of the rejection is that the spiritual faculties become dead or impervious to better influences. . . We now come to a third class of people, the hypocrites. They are untrue to themselves, and therefore their hearts are diseased (2:10.) The disease tends to spread, like all evil. They are curable but if they harden their hearts, they soon pass into the category of those who deliberately reject light."

[edit] "One who rejects the true faith"

WP:NOT a place for advocacy, and we are not a location which should be calling any religion the "true faith." Therefore, this wording is POV. The word is a derogatory term for non-muslims, and that is how it should be described. Queeran

[edit] derogatory term

The term kafir is not necessarily a derogatory term. It's usage is similar to the term Jew used by very conservative Muslims. Its equivalent English term, the non-believer, is similar is nature. It depends on how it's used. In other word, it depends on its context. __earth 02:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Every usage of the term I have seen indicates it is derogatory, just as the term "goyim" is derogatory when used by Jews to refer to non-Jews or "heathen" from christians to non-christians. Please cite a source saying otherwise. Queeran

Every usage of the term I have seen indicates it is derogatory. Well, I've seen some but not all. How about you cite your source first? It's you that are contending its Wikipedia status quo meaning. The onus is on you actually. However, the citation is already in place before you've asked it. It's that [1] thing. Trying clicking on it. __earth 02:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A Christian (or, obviously, ex-Christian) friend of mine used it of herself, anyway... Palmiro | Talk 16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

The definition in the article currently strikes me as a bit, em, weird. The word kafir is almost always used in Arabic to refer to a non-believer, not to "someone who hides the truth". That may be its original meaning, or its etymological origin, but neither of those are what we should give as its actual current meaning. Also, the next paragraph reads very like a cut-and-paste from some website (islamonline.net) which I can't access (presumably because they're nasty loonies).

I propose changing the definition to reflect the real meaning, and I woudl suggest that a good, NPOV and sourced way of doing this would be to use the translations given by Arabic-English dictionaries. We could try Hans Wehr and al-Mawrid. Palmiro | Talk 23:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The current definition is misleading as an introduction, because kafir is a label, classification, and idea apart from a simple word. Literal meaning is strongly related to the etymology and that has its own section. Citing a dictionary sounds good. Both Mawrid and Wehr dictionaries should be very acceptable. --Vector4F 23:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that then, checked Wehr last night in fact but forgot to note it down (meanings given included infidel, unbeliever and atheist, much as I expected). Palmiro | Talk 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translations

Elias' pocket dictionary translates kafr as to cover, hide. The al-majani pocket dictionary translates the root 'kfr' as to deny God To be or become an unbeliever, and none of the derived words listed have the meaning of cover or hide. It looks like there is a good deal of ambiguity. The Infidel 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jorge said below that

"Infidel is only used when translating Muslims text and speeches, presumably always for the word "kafir", and it is understood by English readers to mean basically "non-Muslim". The word "infidel" is not used by Christians to refer to anyone, precisely because in English it means "non-Muslim", not "non-Christian". Christians use "pagan", "heathen", "non-Christian', "non-believer", "apostate", depending on the case."

That is absolutely not true. Infidel has used both in Christianity and Islam. Even if it's synonymous with heathen, pagan, or gentile in Christianity which would refer to a non-believer, infidel has often been used with christianity both in its Latin īnfidēlis which means not-faithful and even in United States english uptil today. One example is where Lincoln said "It will be generally found that those who sneer habitually at human nature and affect to despise it are among its worst and least pleasant examples. It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity." It is commonly used by extremist christians too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

<chuckle> ...I gather you were unable, after hitting up Google, to find an instance of anyone prominent using "infidelity" in that specific, archaic sense more recently than Lincoln a century and a half ago.--Mike18xx 08:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Kafir, though I'm not happy with this. —Nightst a llion (?) 11:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Talk:Kafir (Islam) — Kafir (Islam) → Kafir – This article was recently moved from the Kafir article page without any group discussion. As mentioned by two people on Talk:Kafir (Islam), the move was not necessary. It was originally done to differentiate between 'kafir' and other articles which use the word 'kaffir', not 'kafir'. However, it would probably be best to leave the Kafir (Islam) article at Kafir and reference the Kaffir page in the unlikely event the reader was looking for Kaffir instead. joturner 23:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It ocurred to me: since this move would change the meaning of the link kafir, not of kafir (Islam), shouldn't the vote be done on the current Talk:kafir page (i.e. Talk:Kaffir (disambiguation))? Doing the vote here will limit the vote to readers/editors of kafir (Islam), who naturally would prefer the shorter name. Jorge Stolfi 09:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Put a notice there. There's no need to move the whole discussion from here to there. __earth ^(Talk) 11:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on WP:RM. In approval voting only votes cast in support of a name are valid. One can vote for multiple options and people are encouraged to add alternative proposals in chronological order if it helps to reach a consensus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Name should remain at Kafir (Islam)

Support better than Kafir. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but isn't this redundant? I mean, "remain at here" vote vs "move there" vote. Isn't a support vote here equal to an oppose vote in the other? __earth ^(Talk) 16:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, under approval voting one can vote for as many proposals as one wishes too, but it is an approval vote so there no opposing votes. Opposing is done by not voting for a proposal. The idea is that tactical voting can be used by participants to encourage a consensus to emerge. As more than one possible move has been suggested, and no one has yet written up other rules to deal with such a straw poll, it is the least contentious solution and the one prescribed by WP:RM. One has to have the original page name as an option because it is no longer a binary choice. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move to Kafir

Support Although kafir and kaffir may be confused with at times, kaffir is an uncommon transliteration of kafir; they are two distinct words. It didn't make sense to make this move in the first place, especially because the original article does not redirect directly to this one. joturner 23:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Support The article is about the word kafir in arabic language in general as well as its special meaning in the context of islam and its use in the qur'an. The article should be renamed back to kafir, or at least kafir should redirect here and not to the disambiguity page. The Infidel 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Support The original move was unilateral and without proper discussion. For disambiguity page, it would be easy to say this is kafir related to Islam. For other usage, see here kind of stuff. __earth ^(Talk) 05:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Support, or move to Kufr (which currently redirects here). Palmiro | Talk 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Support , IMO it would be better to move to kafir(Arabic term), since the word is used in Quran in many different meanings , other then a non-muslim , as evident from the article . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 19:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Support move back to Kafir or Kafir (Arabic term). This whole article is about the Qur'anic Arabic term; infidel is a separate English word with its own special connotations. Quartier Latin1968 19:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed move to Infidel

Kafir (Islam) → infidel – As discussed above, the article's title "kafir", with this sense, is an Arabic word that has not been assimilated into English, and which has a standard translation, "infidel". Namely, when translating an Arabic text that uses the word "kafir" into English, that word is noramlly translated as "infidel", not left as "kafir". The word "infidel" is not used for any other purpose (except for some archaic uses that are too old to be relevant to article naming issues). Per Wikipedia rules, the article should be renamed to the English word.
On the other hand, the word "kafir" is used in English but with other senses: (1) as an alternate spelling (not misspelling) of "Kaffir", used e.g. in "Kafir Wars", "kafir corn", etc; (2) as "Kafir", the name of the "Nuri" peoples of Nuristan before their forced Islamization at the end of the 19th century (see Hindukush Kafir people and Kafiristan). These other senses of "kafir" in English are additional reasons to use another name for "kafir (Islam)". Jorge Stolfi 09:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. See below. Jorge Stolfi 09:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Support. Given the South African use of Kaffir (ethnic slur) and that this is an international encyclopaedia and the other alternatives are confusing. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the two opposing votes? __earth ^(Talk) 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See above there can only be positive votes under approval voting. I did not remove them but placed them under the discussion section as comments.--Philip Baird Shearer 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed move to kafir (Arabic term)

Support , IMO it would be better to move to kafir(Arabic term), since the word is used in Quran in many different meanings , other then a non-muslim , as evident from the article . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 19:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
support --Philip Baird Shearer
Support move back to Kafir or Kafir (Arabic term). This whole article is about the Qur'anic Arabic term; infidel is a separate English word with its own special connotations. Quartier Latin1968 19:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This is bullshit. We need to vote to return the page to its original address but we didn't have to when it was moved here. __earth ^(Talk) 03:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Earth, note Wikipedia:Civility. But yes, I do agree that it doesn't make sense that we need a vote to move the page back to its original location. joturner 03:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original explanation of the move to "kafir (Islam)"

I have renamed this page to "Kafir (Islam)" as part of a cleanup of the many articles relating to "Kafir"/"Kaffir", which were a big mess. The idea is that this page will be limited to the Arabic word commonly (mis?)translated as "infidel", and to its religious sense only. Other senses (including the S.African "Kaffir" epithet for Blacks and the Kafir of Nuristan) belong to other pages. I am not sure whether this is the best name for this page, though.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 05:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced, since both "Kaffir" and "Kafirstan" are not unrelated random homonyms, but rather derived from this meaning, and could validly be regarded sub-articles of this one. In general, in situations as involved as this one, it would be a good idea to ask for input before exacting the move and changing all redirects. dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the old Kafirstan article (now in Hindukush Kafir people, which should probably be merged with Nuristani or Nuri people), the Arabic etymology of "Kafir" is disputed. Some people claim that the correct self-name of those people sounded somewhat like Arabic "kafir"=infidel, so Arabs called them by that word due to a transcription error, wordplay, folk-etymology, or something of the sort. (After all, they were infidels, right?). Now, while I am not qualified to take sides, it seems quite strange to me that a non-Muslim, non-Arabic-speaking people in a remote corner of Afghanistan would choose to call themselves by an Arabic word that meant "the non-believers"...
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 18:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Anyway, shared etymology is not a sufficient excuse for merging articles. Otherwise we should merge, say, Flores, Florence, and Florinda Bolkan. Jorge Stolfi 18:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this move was necessary. Kafir now redirects to the Kaffir disambiguation page, which enumerates articles that use the word "kaffir" and not "kafir". That would be like moving the Desert article to Desert (landscape form) and redirecting Desert to a disambiguation page entitled Dessert. Yes, they are commonly confused but they have two distinct spellings. Instead I think we should have this as the kafir page and then put a note on the top directing those that may be looking for "kaffir" instead to that disambiguation page. In fact, I am going to do that in accordance with Dbachmann's opposition to your move earlier and because you made this large move w/o saying something on the talk page. joturner 22:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The split was absolutely essential. For one thing, the articles now are much cleaner than the old merged article, and each interest group can edit their own article without having to fight with the other groups.

The various senses of the word are indeed very different senses; "Kaffir" as "African Blacks" has *nothing* to do with the Islamic "kafir" term except the (distant, and now irrelevant) etymology. Ditto for *all* the other 20 or so senses listed in the disamb page, some of which have not even the same etymology; and some of those senses are fairly important. (It is quite likely that the "kaffir lime" page, for example, has many more readers than "kafir (Islam)").

For that reason, "Kaffir" must defintely point to the disamb page.

So it boils down to the question of whether "Kafir" (with one "f") should point directly to "kafir (Islam)". That is more debatable, but there are good reasons to leave it pointing to the disamb page, too. Note that the "Kafir people" (Nuri) sense, almost always written with one "f", appear to be unrelated even etymologically (the popular etimology seems to have been induced by a coincidence of sounds). More importantly, "kaffir" in many of the other senses is often spelled "kafir". This is not a spelling error (as in the dessert/desert example), but variant spellings that people are likely to use, since the word has been transliterated from several foreign languages, several times independently. For example, "kafir corn" has ~500 hits in Google, and "kaffir corn" has ~800; "kafir language" has ~250 hits, "kaffir language" has ~370. I think that it makes sense to keep "kafir" pointing to the disamb page.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 13:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have to go for redirecting the Kafir article to Kafir (Islam). But then that does not make any sense. There are no other articles entitled "kafir" with one f. Why would we redirect the Kafir article here when we can just keep the article at Kafir and avoid the unnecessary redirect? And on top of that, the article was at Kafir in the first place. We should not be discussing whether we should move the article back to its original state. Instead, we should move the article back to its original state and then be dicussing whether the large move you made without discussion should be made. joturner 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There are articles on the Kafir people of the Hindukush. They had to get a longer title precisely because Kafir was already arbitrarily taken by the Islamic sense. Jorge Stolfi 05:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the name of the article you are referring to? joturner 05:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hindukush Kafir people Jorge Stolfi 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. The move from kafir to kafir (Islam) was necessary precisely to allow kafir to point to the disamb page. Jorge Stolfi 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

One more reason not to redirect: The word "kafir" with the non-Islamic meanings is an English word (E.g. "Kafir Wars", 157 hits in Google, "Kaffir Wars", 861; ditto for "kafir corn", "kafir language", etc.). Whereas the "kafir" or kafir (Islam) is an Arabic word, not assimilated into English.

So, if anything, the article should be retitled "infidel" or "infidel (Islam)", which seems to be the common English equivalent of the term. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 05:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the number of Google hits is not relevant in this case because you are Googling "kafir wars" which can mean many things. I don't even see how that relates to the Islamic use of the word. joturner 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't; that is exactly the point. Jorge Stolfi 05:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on move to "infidel"

Do you also advocate deleting the Allah article? Or the Cinco de Mayo article? Allah, Cinco de Mayo, and kafir and all common words/phrases by at least one group in the English-speaking population and thus do not need to be reworked because of language. joturner 05:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Allah" is the standard English spelling of the *name*, just as "Cinco de Mayo" is a *name*. The article about Brazil, for instance, is appropriately called "Brazil" not "Brasil". The word "kafir" in the Islamic sense is not a name. Jorge Stolfi 05:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On the name Infidel: Should kamikaze be moved to suicide attack? No. __earth ^(Talk) 11:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the same thing. The word "kamikaze" is often left untranslated when translating Japanese text to English, because English readers are used to it. "Suicide bomber" is not the English equivalent of "kamikaze", it is much more general. Neither holds for "kafir (Islam)"/"infidel". Jorge Stolfi 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On the name Infidel: Kafir is used by a reasonable number of English-speakers to have its own article. We don't redirect Allah to God or Cinco de Mayo to May 5. joturner 11:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the same thing. "Allah" is an English word, and "God" is not equivalent to it. "Cinco de Mayo" is well-known in English and means the Mexican holiday; "May 5" is not equivalent, it is just a date. Jorge Stolfi 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In Arab, Allah means god. Even non-Muslims uses Allah to describe the same thing but refer Allah to their god instead. The only thing is that its has been traditionally understood Muslim's god. The same with Kafir. It has a specific Islamic meaning. __earth ^(Talk) 03:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

On the name Infidel: WHO IS TRYING TO COVER THE TRUTH? or: where has my Oppose gone? Is this a kind of Florida election or what? The Infidel 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RTRM. What is a Florida election? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to the 2000 US presidential election. joturner 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, user Joturner is right. But what's an RTRM?

By the way, I discovered where my opinion had gone: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kafir_%28Islam%29&diff=prev&oldid=37738408

The Infidel 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left dangling in the reshuffling

The word "kafir" seems to be a common variant (not misspelling!) of "kaffir", which has many important senses not related to kafir (Islam). It is not clear that the latter sense is so much more important that it deserves to be made the default sense.Jorge Stolfi 05:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) PS. Besides, it is an unassimilated Arabic word that has an English translation, so the title is inappropriate anyway. Jorge Stolfi 08:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different idea

Not only is this "vote" horribly mangled and difficult to follow (although, thankfully, it isn't full of ----s... but the proposal itself is a really bad idea... While everyone has one conception of what "infidel" means when used to translate kafir, the word "infidel" has a very different meaning in English in contexts free from the taint of Islamoengineered discussion. If the article is moved it should be moved to Infidel (Islam), not to Infidel. Tom e r ^talk 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that infidel is a totally different concept than Kafir . Infidel includes more or less all non-christians , while in the case of Kafir , Ahl-e-kitab ( that includes zorasterans & sometimes hindus ) & ahl al fatrah arnt included in this term . So calling it Infidel (Islam) would be a serious mistake . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 19:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not correct. "Infidel" is only used when translating Muslims text and speeches, presumably always for the word "kafir", and it is understood by English readers to mean basically "non-Muslim". If "kafir" is not exactly the same thing as "non-Muslim", the detailed meaning should be explained in the "infidel" article. The word "infidel" is not used by Christians to refer to anyone, precisely because in English it means "non-Muslim", not "non-Christian". Christians use "pagan", "heathen", "non-Christian', "non-believer", "apostate", depending on the case. Jorge Stolfi 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Which muslim text does the King James version of the bible translate when using the word "infidel"? (Hoping you will not deltete my postings again) The Infidel 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The King James Bible was published in 1611. According to this search service there are 3 (three) occurrences of "infidel(s)" in the whole Bible, Old and New testament: 1 Timothy, 2 Corinthians, and 2 Esdras (Apocrypha, also known as 4 Ezra). The last one is actually "infidelity", which is derived from "infidel" etymologically but has an altogether unrelated meaning. There is also a New Revised Edition of the Bible, which you can search here; I don't know the date, but it is obviously in more modern English. The word "infidel" occurs 0 (zero) times in it. Jorge Stolfi 00:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. Which posting did I delete???? Jorge Stolfi 00:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jorge, I just want to weigh in with my 2¢ as a lifelong native speaker of English. With respect, you're simply flat-out wrong when you say '"Infidel" is only used when translating Muslims text and speeches' (emphasis mine). Infidel means unbeliever. Any unbeliever. As for pagan and apostate and so on, these words all have special shades of meaning uniquely their own. Now, I believe you'd be right to say that news reports rarely use the word "infidel" except with respect to Islam – on the other hand, news reports rarely use the word "jihad" except with respect to indiscriminate violence, and jihad of course is a word with much wider and richer meanings. So much for them. Suffice it to say, English speakers with any amount of literary knowledge will understand that infidel can be applied as a pejorative against the members of any religion (actually, I've heard non-Muslim friends of mine use this term jokingly against myself and others). Furthermore, the article is wholly and specifically about the Qur'anic term! We could have an article about the wider concept of infidels, but it would have to be a totally different article. Quartier Latin1968

05:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Farhansher, you seem to have some knowledge of arabic language. Which word or words are used in arabic language to denote an infidel, and is the qur'anic use different from modern arabic? The Infidel 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia and Geocities

It seems that the problem here is the "Geocities syndrome", something that I have seen happening in many other places through Wikipedia. Namely, one or more people who are interested in something start writing an article on it, directed only to those readers who are concerned with the subject. That is, an article that reads like a typical thematic site on the internet — as if Wikipedia was the latest reincarnation of Geocities. Please, folks, let's not forget that every Wikipedia article should be written for the random wikipedia reader who, has a rule, knows very little of the subject and has no long-term interest on it.

Not just the old name, but also the contents of the "kafir (Islam)" article seem to suffer from that problem. The article reads as if it was directed to a relatively small subset of the readers (even among Muslim readers) who are already familiar with the term. It focuses on fine "insider" disputes, with plenty of "proof by citation of authority" arguments (which are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article), while omitting even the most basic facts that a non-Muslim reader from Greenland or Tahiti would want to know. (By the way, this was the most common problem of the many articles I cleaned up over the past month, including a dozen articles about various senses of kafir/kaffir, articles on a dozen creole/kriol/kreyol/kriolu languages, on Portuguese-related topics, and a handful more.)

As I see it, this controversy about the move "kafir" -> "kafir (Islam)" is just another facet of that same problem. In the comments above, there does not seen to be much concern about the convenience of benefit for the general readers, especially those who are not interested in "kafir (Islam)" but in other senses of kafir. Rather, it seems that those editors who have this page on their watchlist (perhaps less than a dozen?) oppose the move because it would be (slightly) inconvenient to them.

Although English is not my native language, for the last 30 years (including the 13 years I lived in the US) I have been reading more English than all other languages combined. And I have read a lot of stuff, including a fair amount of material about Islam, with many translated quotes from Muslims of all epochs and stations. I have seen many foreign words like kamikaze and Cinco de Mayo used in ordinary Enlish texts, thousands of times. I have seen uncountably many times Allah, Caliph, Imam, Ramadan, sharia, fatwa, jihad, sura, bismillah, and somehow I even got to memorize alf laila wa-laila. Now, I may have been extraordinarily unlucky, but I do not recall ever seeing the word "kafir" used in English for the sense of "infidel" — which, on the other hand, must be almost as frequent as "Allah".

If I recall correctly, I got to the "kafir"/"kaffir" pages, a couple of weeks ago, through an article which originally said something like "baila is popular among the Kaffir, descendant of the Kaffir slaves who were brought ro Sri Lanka by the Portuguese. These kaffrinha ...". Namely, a typical "Geocities-style" article. It took me several hours of searching and reading to make some sense out of the several articles on the various senses of kafir. The few pointers between those pages were often misleading, e.g. by assuming that the Kafir of Kafiristan was a sub-sense of kafir=infidel. In fact, it took me some time to realize that the "kafir" article was actually about "infidel", since the head paragraph said that "infidel" was an incorrect translation of the term (which it is not).

The move kafir -> kafir (Islam) was only a small part of the cleanup that I did of all those kafir/kaffir articles. It was several days of collecting the information, moving it to the proper pages, removing duplication, sorting, fixing layout, prose, markup, links, disambiguation, and of course writing the "kaffir (disambiguation)" page. Of course I got no "thanks" for all that work, only complaints about an innocuous (actually, quite helpful and appropriate, I would say) name change, by a small set of editors who apparently believe their "kafir" to be so much more important than other people's "kafir"s that it should be the default sense. But I am used to wikipedia, and that doesn't hurt any more. Not too much, I mean.

Well, I think that I have already wasted far too much time, mine and especially other people's, on this nit. As the Elders say, there are a million other articles out there where I could waste time in more positive and agreeable ways.
So long, and all the best. Jorge Stolfi 14:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In the now locked discussion section Jorge Stolfi asks me:
Quote: "PS. Which posting did I delete???? Jorge Stolfi 00:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kafir&diff=prev&oldid=37738408 The Infidel 21:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop those edit wars

I understand that there can be dissent weather the slaves sold by muslim arabs to christan portugues have been captured ("taken prisoner") during war or just in raids for the purpose of gaining "merchandise". But I cannot figure out any decent reason why in the see also section Nastik - Mleccha - Goyim - Gentile are frequently deleted.

Given lack of citation, I follow Occam's Razor: They've been "sold" -- stipulated to -- so obviously they've been "enslaved", and further qualifiers are not only not necessary, by wholly redundant in the case of "taken prisoner during war" (or similar such wording) due to the fact that you must ipso facto declare war on a man when attempting to enslave him. Regards the other thing, I believe Pecher's merely employing consensus carried over from "infidel" regarding the inclusion of all these other increasingly esoteric diversions employed by those who, in my interpretation, are attempting to cloud Islam-related Wiki entries with a lot of "but other religions do this too" non-sequitur rambling.--Mike18xx 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should Nastik - Mleccha - Goyim - Gentile be considered "irrelevant" but heathen or pagan not? Let the reader decide what's irrelevant. The Infidel 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion on Talk:Infidel. We should direct readers only to relevant articles, not to all of the nearly 1 million articles that we have in Wikipedia. In addition, the reader cannot possibly decide on the relevance of Nastik because there is no such article. Pecher^Talk 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on Gentile, it is synonymous with pagan or heathen. Is that really irrelavent. Pepsidrinka 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is silly to have a redlink under "see also". dab (ᛏ) 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To Pepsidrinka: that's anachronistic usage of the word "gentile", and the article is explicit about that. The modern usage in translations of the Bible is to denote "goyim", i.e. non-Jews. Pecher ^Talk 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Although not common, it can be used in its anachronistic sense if an author were to use it today. Since the article is explicit about that it is no longer commonly used, the reader will not get confused. Pepsidrinka 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On the discussion page of the articel Infidel (Talk:Infidel) I cannot find anything about links in the "see also" section, and nothing whatsoever that looks even faintly like a consensus. So what exactely are you, Mike18xx, talking about?
Further, the interest of knowing about a word representing an idea does not depend on the fact if it is still used in everyday language or if it has faded out of mind and usage. The "see also" section may refer to anything that is related, whether by analogy, by historical precedence, by gradual difference or by anything that is considered related by the readers.
What does more harm: to leave a link that is considered "irrelevant" by some, but not by all, or to have a link that is considered "irrelevant" by some, but not by all.
Still, I cannot figure out any decent reason why those links (except, perhaps and out of insufficiency, red links) should be hidden from the readers. The Infidel 22:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you're referring to, Infidel; I haven't been here since the 4th, and my brief interest in the entry was mainly regarding grammar consolidation and the link to slavery/enslavement. Seeing as it's still there, I'm generally satisfied (although I do agree with Pecher that all of the extraneous terms never translated in English (as "infidel", esp. in a pejorative connotation) ought to be chucked).--Mike18xx 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to this statement from which could be deduced that there was consensus on the discussion page of the article Infidel about what to link to and what kind of links should be removed. As you can easily see, there is no such consensus, but an edit war instead.

I apologize that I didn't make it clear enough that the second part of my statement (the one beginning "Further ...) is not addressed at you but to all. The Infidel 20:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Kafir

Due to recent edits of the introductory sentence, I wanted to make a few points:

It appears that the introductory sentence is based on editors' own personal opinions of what Kafir means (or ought to mean). Stating that this article is not about an Arabic word makes no sense to me. In any case, it would be very useful to bring in scholarly sources of what the definition is.
The concept of Kufr has traditionally been applied to Muslims following their faith (or not) much more than non-Muslims. It is incorrect to push the POV that it is a concept meant to define non-Muslims unless of course one is relying on Qaeda tapes and assuming it's real Islamic theology.
Even among Islamic scholars, the definition is controversial, as there are quite a few sources (in Arabic, although this article may not be about an Arabic word) that argue over how to define it rather than providing an actual definition.
"Not submissive to God" is NOT necessarily the same as 'non-Muslim' in the context of kufr. Traditionally, Islam regards the People of the Book as being 'believers in God' and thus not 'kufaar'. However, it also points out gaps/shortcomings of non-Islamic religions (just like most religions do).

It is imperative that this article, as a Wikipedia source, does not become a playground for promoting ideological POVs in lieu of scholarly and sources materials. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In Western scholarly literature, the term "kafir" is usually not defined, but rather translated as "infidel" or "unbeliever" the definition of which is self-evident. As a rule, the term encompasses all non-Muslims, for example: "According to Malik and all his associates, the infidels are the same - whether they are Zoroastrians or People of the Book... (wa inda Malik wa jami ashabihi anna ahl al-kufr kullahum sawa - majusan kanu aw kitabiyyin)". Hanbali school seems to have the same opinion: "infidelity consists of three communities: Judaism, Christianity, and the religion of the others (al-kufru alathu milalin: al-yahudiyya, al-nasraniyya wa dinu man)". These quotes are from Yohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, p.57, and they show that the terms kuffar or ahl al-kufr apply to all non-Muslims. The only historical exception I can recall is the Ottoman Empire where Jews were not called kuffar, but I cannot quickly come up with a reference for it. Christians, however, were still kuffar; for example, the Ottomans called European Jews yahudisi kafir. Pecher ^Talk 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that it is silly to have a section "According to scholars". What is the rest of the article? According to random Wikipedians? Clearly, the main question is about delineating kafir and "people of the book" (do the terms overlap?). Since the term has essentially become a slur, its application will depend on the speaker's mindset, i.e. does he want to display hostility or to imply that really everyone should be a Muslim, or does he want to emphasize commonalities. The important thing about the word is that it is derogatory. dab (ᛏ) 20:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many weird things about this article; the section "According to scholars" is just one of them. For example, the article boldly states that the word "kafir" is derogatory (without supplying sources, of course), but does not say what is the polite equivalent. Usually, a slur has some commonly acceptable equivalent; otherwise, it's not a slur, but the only word available in the language to describe a certain concept without resorting to euphemisms. Pecher ^Talk 20:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, the concept of "enemy of the faith", which is, as a rule, derogatory. "people of the book" is not a synonym, but it is an alternative, as far as I understand, to be used in contexts where no hostility is intended. Besides, "non-Muslim" is given in the article as a neutral contemporary non-hostile functional synonym. dab (ᛏ) 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"People of the Book" is a term reserved for Jews and Christians (and, in some views, Zoroastrians). "Kafir" is a more general concept, which encompases all non-Muslims. Pecher ^Talk 21:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"encompasses all non-Muslims" according to a certain, but not universally accepted, point of view in Islam. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have noted above the exceptions that I know. If you know others, provide them, and cite your sources. Pecher ^Talk 21:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

While I have not read as extensively on the subject, I can say that from my own (limited) reading that such opinions are not shared by all Muslims. According to WP's Hanbali article, 'the Hanbali school is followed by less than 5%of the world's Muslim population. It is presently the school of jurisprudence used in modern day Saudi Arabia.' (my emphasis). Like any debate, there are multiple opinions. There are regularly-held Christian-Muslim lectures or panels in Palestine by clergy from both religions who discuss the many similarities in the two faiths, including obeying of God, and bring up verses to support their arguments. There are articles on the internet in Arabic by some Saudi or Egyptian Islamic scholars (as well as people like Friedmann and others) who bring up a separate set of quotations to support the argument that the People of the Book are anything from merely misled to actual kufaar. These all constitute multiple POVs, and depending on where one stands on the religious spectrum, one will always choose those verses that suit the argument or ideology that one is trying to make. To take another example, if you follow the Old Testament, American football players would be put to death for touching the skin of an unclean animal (pig skin which the football is partially made out of), according to some interpretations. Leviticus, for another example, prohibits removal of hair from certain areas of a man's temple (if I understand correctly), so certain haircuts would also be punishable according to certain interpretations. In Islam, there is a low-key debate among few (not many) about whether the Koran itself actually commands all women to cover their faces or if that only actually applied to the wives of the prophet Mohammad. So again, these are all multiple POVs inherent to any attempt to interpret religious text to suit one's own bent. This all ought to be taken into account (but not necessarily mentioned) in the introduction of an article as deep and multifaceted as this one. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you have quotes saying otherwise, bring them on the table. Parallels with the Bible may be useful rhetorically, but do not add much to our understanding of this specific subject. Pecher ^Talk 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually these are not 'parallels' at all, and as such cannot serve any rhetorical purpose. These are simply examples to (hopefully) illustrate that, when it comes to such topics, there is a wide range of POVs out there by scholars on the subject. Claiming encyclopedic neutrality or accuracy by subscribing to (and defending) only one school of thought (for whatever reason) is actually very un-encyclopedic. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have sources saying that Hanafi or Shafi'i, or Shi'as think otherwise, cite them. Pecher ^Talk 21:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who is claiming that kufaar 'encompasses all non-muslims', not me. So it would be incumbent upon you to provide a source, and not state something controversial then ask me to provide sources to the contrary. Your only source so far as a book that reflects information pertaining to the supposed leanings of 5% of all Muslims (assuming all Hanbalis are practicing their labeled faith, which is probably not the case). Of course, you can cite the book, but make sure you cite it properly and in context (i.e. that it pertains to the beliefs of 5% of Muslims). I am not the one wanting to add this to the article. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, if you have any view regarding the application of the term "kafir", then the burden of proof is on you to prove it. You have cited no source at all, btw. Contrary to what you appear to think, the article is not about what individual Muslims believe, but rather about the provisions of the Islamic law. Pecher ^Talk 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I do not have any view regarding the application of the term 'kafir', so I have nothing to prove. Not only do I not have any view, but I also try to ensure that other views that are not my own are encyclopedic, and not POV. As long as they are encyclopedic and NPOV, I don't care what they are. I have cited no sources because I did not try to insert the 'non-Muslim = kafir' definition into the article so I cannot cite sources for a non-entry. If you are really claiming that this article is about the provisions of Islamic Law, which is very reasonable, then it becomes incumbent upon you to source the definitions you are claiming by referring to Islamic scholarly sources, keeping in mind that "Islamic Law" is subject to as many different interpretations as the next monotheistic religion. Your interpretation of what I 'appear to think' is wrong. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Then, it is the first case when an editor having no views about the subject of the article attempts to insert their views into the article. It's quite weird that you have inserted "a person perceived to be willfully rejecting the Islamic faith, a Muslim perceived to be purposefully breaking Islamic law, or one who is 'not submissive to God'" and still attempt to claim that you have no views at all. I have quoted my sources; where are yours? Most interestingly, for all practical purposes, "a person perceived to be willfully rejecting the Islamic faith" is the same as non-Muslim, with very few exceptions, like people who never heard about Islam. In this vein, I'm struggling to understand what the fuss is all about. Pecher ^Talk 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew this was coming and I can see how somebody with strong opinions but little background of the subject can confuse 'common knowledge' with 'views'. My edits you refer to were an attempt (albeit not a good one) to reduce OR/POV, hence I added 'perceived' and 'willfully' to the already existing "rejecting Islamic law" which I admit was probably not the best cleanup since it was amending OR/POV sentences instead of replacing them. The reason I say 'common knowledge' is because I removed what I deemed POV statements (e.g. all non-Muslims are kufaar) and chose concepts that are common knowledge in Palestine since I come from a place where Arabic words are not 'views' but just words with definitions. My edits were based on my knowledge of the Arabic language and the common use of the word in our country. Were I to inject my own 'views' into the definition, I would probably have written something much more controversial, trust me. So do not confuse trying to introduce common use definitions with my own views. As for what all the fuss is about, it is incredibly simple: the notion that 'In Islamic law, all non-Muslims are kufaar' is POV. Even among Muslim scholars, let alone WP editors, it is POV. And I already pointed out the problem with your source, even though there is no reason not to use it in the article as I already said. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is part of Islam series, so it should be about the Islamic legal concept of kafir. The usage of the word in Arabic, whether derogatory or not, can be covered in a separate section, but its usage should not form the basis of this page. The validity of an opinion of an Islamic scholar does not depend on the school to which he belongs, and the schools agree on most issues. Thus, there is a need to provide opinions from different schools only when there is disagreement. In other words, we assume there is no controversy until its existance is demonstrated. Otherwise, we would have to cite opinions of all Islamic scholars to illustrate a certain point, which obviously, not practical. Pecher ^Talk 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Dictionary of Islam the term was "First applied to Meccans who refused submission to Islam, the term implies an active rejection of divine revelation. All unbelievers are thought to face eternal damnation in the afterlife. Although there is disagreement about whether Jews and Christians are unbelievers..". BTW shouldn't we have separate articles on "kafir" and "kufr"? --Ian Pitchford 21:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

:2:62. Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allâh and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve .

If they are all Kafir , why will they have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . Obviously they all arnt Kafir.

:2:105 . Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) nor Al-Mushrikûn (the disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh, idolaters, polytheists, pagans, etc.) like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord. But Allâh chooses for His Mercy whom He wills. And Allâh is the Owner of Great Bounty.

98:6 . Verily, those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell.

“Those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture” means all of them are not Kafir .

:3:113-115. Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of Allâh during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in Allâh and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'rûf and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allâh knows well those who are Al-Muttaqûn

3:199. And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in Allâh and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allâh. They do not sell the Verses of Allâh for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, Allâh is Swift in account.

It is very clear that Kafir doesnt mean all non-muslims . According to a verse in Quran . And it doesnt include People of the Book & Ahl al Fatrah . Links to fatwas can be seen for source . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 12:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

the term has a history of semantic shifts. the article must reflect this. In the 7th century, the term may have meant "those Meccans who think Muhammad is a madman", while in the 19th century it seems to have pretty much equalled "Nigger".
the term implies a subjective position of the speaker, much like slurs either ethnic/racial like "Nigger", or generic, like "jerk". You may think there is an emotionally less charged equivalent to "jerk", like "morally challenged" or something. You may think that there is an objective definition of "jerk", but others may disagree. We are not here to agree. We are here to enumerate opinions.

dab (ᛏ) 13:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No wonder this article is such a mess

all the sources linked on the bottom are islamonline.net, a ridiculous islamic apologist website.

[edit] Dispute?

Which part of this article is disputed? Aucam an^Talk 00:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I searched the talk for "dispute". No reason was given, which would be needed to justify the tag. I deleted it. However, the article needs a cleanup - less Qur'anic reference via original research and more scholarly evaluation. --tickle me 00:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I just want to figure out what I am...

I've been trying to figure out what I am with regards to Islam, and this page doesn't seem to help. I'm afraid to ask a Muslim because they seem to get offended when you say you are an atheist. Like I read the passages in the Qu'ran. They'll say something like "If you die deny the truth, you are kaffur" or whatever, but I don't deny the truth, I don't even if know what the truth is! So what is an atheist with regards to Islam? Is an atheist Kafir? What defines Kafir? One who disagrees with Muslims? One who doesn't say he is a Muslim? Or one who denies the truth? --72.38.232.184 23:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In my humble oppinion, an atheist is not by default a "disbeliever". There are also atheists, who just don't know about God, or need it in their view on the world. IMHO is a "disbeliever" only somebody, who offensive denies God, after he already believed in Him. You know it very well: Are you doing the good things, or are you willingly EVIL?

16.119. Then lo! thy Lord for those who do evil in ignorance and afterward repent and amend lot (for them) thy Lord is afterward indeed Forgiving, Merciful. (Pickthall)

-- Arne List 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/f/Talk%7EKafir_df75.html"