What is a kafir?

Tay

Peace enquirer,

You stated

I think verses 2224-225 should make people think twice about this 'ritual' of branding people as kafirs

Excellent point.
2224-225
And do not make God the subject of your casual oaths. Be pious and righteous and reconcile among the people; and God is Listener, Knower. God will not call you to account for your casual oaths, but He will call you to account for what has entered your hearts. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.

Is it fair to say, then, that someone who has not come to understand, in his or her heart, that the guidance is authentic, would not share the same fate as someone who does understand, yet still rejects it?

Peace,
Tay

Tay

Peace Phoenix1,

You stated

Truth is always from God, so a person who rejects the truth is rejecting God.

I agree.

It does matter whether a person understands or not because a person who doesn't make the effort to understand anything, will never discover the truth.

Did you mean to say, "it does matter", or "it does not matter"? In either case, effort is NOT what's in question here, because effort is not outwardly visible. Allah promises to judge based on what's in our hearts, not what's casually mentioned. You do bring up a good point, though, because folks who label others as kafirs must then be sure that they understand whether or not the person they are labelling has trully understood what it is they are rejecting.

He/she will only believe (and believe anything).

Not sure what you meant there.

So we have to understand everything, then pick which one is true, then follow it.

Exactly. So, then, a kafir is one who does understand, knows it's true, but doesn't follow it. Right?

Peace,
Tay

wildguest1956

Here is kufr from the glossary of Parwez

Kufr / K'afir / K'afireen - (Kaf-Fa-Ra).

Kufr means to conceal, to hide, to cover.

Arimani has mentioned Akhfa, Satara, and Ajanna as synonyms of Kafara. Ibn-e-Faris also agrees that its basic meanings are to cover or conceal. Therefore,

A person whose body is fully covered with weapons is called K'afir.
Night is also called K'afir, as its darkness covers everything.
Dark clouds are called K'afir.
A river or sea is called K'afir as it covers everything lying in its bed.
A farmer is called K'afir as he hides the seed under the soil (Taj).
A grave is called Al-Kafro as it hides the dead-body.

In the same way, K'afir is a person who conceals the fundamental and absolute values of life, given to man by Allah. A person who hides his own or other peoples' potentialities and does not permit them to develop is also known as K'afir. Keeping in view this meaning of hiding or covering, it was also used in the meaning of denial, refusal or rejection. Therefore, it was also used in contrast to the concept of Ei'man, i.e., one who denies the absolute truth as given in the Quran (2/4-2/6). K'afir is used as an opposite of Momin

Kufr is also used as antonym of Shukr, as Shukr means something which gets prominent (14/7). From here the word "Kufran-e-N'aimat" is derived which means to hide bounties of nature, or to refuse to offer them for the good of mankind.

"Kaffara" is, therefore, an act which covers the misdeeds or the ill-effects of some wrong-doing.

Kafara has three origins

Kufr'anun
Kufrun
Kofurun.

Kufr'anun is normally used as rejection of bounties of nature, Kufr is used as a denial, refusal, or rejection in respect of affairs of Deen, and Kofur is used for both the concepts. In the Quran the plural of K'afir is given as Kuff'ar, K'afiroon or Kaf'aratun. K'afoor is the scented medicine which reduces the intensity of heat.

Kafoorun is used in stronger terms of Kufr (Raghib).

It, therefore, transpires that Ei'man and Kufr are not merely matters of faith, but cover the practical aspects of life. To accept the Quranic Laws as truthful and then live accordingly is Ei'man and to reject them is Kufr. According to the Quran, the term K'afir is not an abuse, but is a statement of fact. For example, if a party is formed, everyone who joins it is called a "member," and those who do not join are called "non-members." Accordingly those who accept Islam are called Muslims and those who do not, non-Muslims. Every non-Muslim is not a K'afir in the real sense of the term. K'afir is a person to whom teachings of the Quran are conveyed and explained and after listening to them he rejects (47/32). There might be those who have not been guided to the truth. Then there are various categories of K'afireen, e.g., those who not only refuse to accept but also hinder others from accepting it, sometimes by force. There are a number of reasons as to why a person, even after listening to this message, refuses to accept

Some do it on account of stubbornness, obstinacy, jealousy or grudge (2/90).
Generally people do it because they feel haughty, rebellious, or have inflated egos. (35/42, 27/14).
Some people do not accept because of false prestige; and once they say no, they would stick to it come what may (7/101) .... and when one goes on repeating the denial he gets hardened in this attitude.
Once they get into this category, then their false prestige forces them to stop others, because they do not want to be left alone (47/32). For this they devise the strategy of advising other people not to listen to the Quran, and distracting them when Quran was being recited by making noise (41/26).

The people listed above are the people who will not have faith and be convinced even if one makes them aware of the dire consequences. This is because they have lost the capability of understanding (7/179).

There are two concepts of life. One is that the life is only physical; one is born, brought up procreates and after sometime dies, and there remains nothing of him. The other concept is that life is not the physical existence alone but enjoins the soul too, whose development is the real object of human life. This development of the personality enables a person to continue living even after his physical death.

The definition of Kufr, however, is not confined to the concealment of truth alone; it also includes withholding of subsistence, which Allah has created for the good of all mankind and which He wants to be freely available to all.

phoenix1

peace Tay,

Did you mean to say, "it does matter", or "it does not matter"? In either case, effort is NOT what's in question here, because effort is not outwardly visible. Allah promises to judge based on what's in our hearts, not what's casually mentioned. You do bring up a good point, though, because folks who label others as kafirs must then be sure that they understand whether or not the person they are labelling has trully understood what it is they are rejecting.

I said it DOES matter.
Effort isn't always outwardly visible, that's why we shouldn't label others as rejectors, because maybe they are making an effort to discover the truth but just havn't found it yet. Even if we never understand, we should at least make the effort. the effort is what makes people believers or rejectors.

Not sure what you meant there.

I meant that people who don't make the effort to understand, will never understand ANYTHING, let alone the truth. They will only follow blindly (without understanding first).
Even if they do believe the truth, they aren't believing it because they understand it to be the truth, but just because that's what was taught to them. Tell me if I was clear enough this time.

Exactly. So, then, a kafir is one who does understand, knows it's true, but doesn't follow it. Right?

Or a person who doesn't open their mind and makes the effort to undersand everything, because if they don't make the effort to understand, they can never go to the next step which is seperating the truth from fiction.
There is no excuse for not understanding the truth, because we have all the tools we need to do that.

Tay

Peace Phoenix,

Very well stated. Thanks for clarifying, and I agree all around.

Peace,
Tay

phoenix1

peace Tay

glad you do.

Tay

Peace mquran,

Sorry I missed your post

The word 'kafir' has gained a racist interpretation in terms of popular usage. People not from the 'islamic civilisation' are deemed as the 'kuffar' but people who are from the 'islamic civilisation' including murderers, rapists and their ilk cannot be called 'kuffar'. This is all thanks to the Hambalite defense of the 'grave sinner'. Ahmad ibn Hambal declared that it's possible to be 'muslim' while knowingly and continually acting in a kuffar manner. This is of course, contrary to the teachings of al-quraan.

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize it was this sort of indoctrination that had people saying things like "a kuffar country" and such.

The root KFR appears in nearly 700 occurences, so you can imagine how immense the study is.

Yeah, PRL cited so many occurrences that I randomly picked through numbers for the sake of brevity.

One verse however which always stands out to me is this

O ye who believe! Spend out of (the bounties) We have provided for you, before the Day comes when no bargaining (Will avail), nor friendship nor intercession. Al-kafireen, they are az-zalimeen. (2/254)

The context here is very telling indeed. If you do not spend in the way of Allah (i.e by establishing justice and ad-deen), you are in fact an al-kaafir and an explanation of this is that you're an az-zaalim, or an oppressior.

QT has "az-zaalim" as "wicked". Surely, oppressors are wicked, but is the term more general than "oppressor"?

Kafir should always be seen in universal behavioural terms, never in racial, cultural or sectarian terms.

I agree, and would only add that as humans with limited insight, we should not even use the word unless a person has openly confessed to this behavior, either in words, or in undeniable action.

Peace,
Tay

mquran

TayThanks for the info. I didn't realize it was this sort of indoctrination that had people saying things like "a kuffar country" and such.

Oh yes, its a whole pan-racist industry. That's why you'll find sunnis up in arms when Britain invaded Iraq but not a peep when the US invaded Panama. Who cares about a bunch of 'non-muslims'?!

QT has "az-zaalim" as "wicked". Surely, oppressors are wicked, but is the term more general than "oppressor"?

Well Tay, to me, in order to fully grasp the meaning, I'd stick with the actual word and acquire a mental set of signifieds when I read. For example, when I think of a zaalim guy, he's a guy who (among other things) refuses to spend in God's way.

I agree, and would only add that as humans with limited insight, we should not even use the word unless a person has openly confessed to this behavior, either in words, or in undeniable action.

And the undeniable action is causing mischief on earth. 2/6-20 is a good example of that explaination.

unknownuser

Peace Tay/all. Some very interesting posts on this topic...
Tay; To me a persons recognising a specific guidance is not important at all...What i feel is important is the persons intentions,mind-set,behaviour,morality and willingness to discover more/correct himself...This last factor being one of THE most important factors...
We also have to take into account the intellectual level, personal circumstances,and education of the person in question...I once saw a documentary on the HORROR and INJUSTICE that occured in beslan,and the destruction of totally innocent life....One of the children stated that he no longer believed in god,because he expected god to rescue him from the horror,pain,and suffering of losing loved ones,and seeing such carnage at such a young age.....I dont blame him one bit....Do you think a 'true' god would hold that against him?

CavemanDoctor

Just a general comment.

I think we'd do well to abstain from labelling people "kafir" for, as Baqara shows, we don't know exactly what is in their hearts/what level of guidance they have received.

Conversely, I think it is best to label actions as kufr for the Qur'an does seem to stress actions more than anything.

The all-encompassing label "kafir" seems, at times, to cast too broad a net. It is best to label certain actions as truth-denying (kufr), thus separating the action from the actor.

unknownuser

Peace cavemandoctor...I think that is a very decent,sound and sensible proposal... bravo

Tay

Peace mquran, enquirer, all,

That's why you'll find sunnis up in arms when Britain invaded Iraq but not a peep when the US invaded Panama. Who cares about a bunch of 'non-muslims'?!

So true.

Well Tay, to me, in order to fully grasp the meaning, I'd stick with the actual word and acquire a mental set of signifieds when I read. For example, when I think of a zaalim guy, he's a guy who (among other things) refuses to spend in God's way.

I gotcha. So, "wicked" is a fitting umbrella term to be exhibited by specific behaviors, such as not spending in God's way?

And the undeniable action is causing mischief on earth. 2/6-20 is a good example of that explaination.

I agree, but again, find this to be a gray territory if only for the sake of intention. Is mischief the cause of a behavior or the effect of a more sincere cause? How do we judge this with accuracy?

Peace,
Tay

Tay

Peace all,

Sorry, enquirer, for hitting the "post" button a moment too soon.

To me a persons recognising a specific guidance is not important at all...What i feel is important is the persons intentions,mind-set,behaviour,morality and willingness to discover more/correct himself...This last factor being one of THE most important factors...

Agreed.

We also have to take into account the intellectual level, personal circumstances,and education of the person in question...I once saw a documentary on the HORROR and INJUSTICE that occured in beslan,and the destruction of totally innocent life....One of the children stated that he no longer believed in god,because he expected god to rescue him from the horror,pain,and suffering of losing loved ones,and seeing such carnage at such a young age.....I dont blame him one bit....Do you think a 'true' god would hold that against him?

I've yet to see this documentary as it hits close to home, but have heard a lot about it. To answer your question, I believe everyone is judged according to what they've had to deal with in life, exclusively. I know a few people who have lost faith in God due to personal tragedies early in their lives. It's easy for me to say that the way they view God is wrong, since I didn't experience what they've experienced. That being said, I still do think that it is wrong. The world does not revolve around any one person, and thus, no one person should feel victimized by life's occurrences. So, I would ask, where did this person get the idea that God would come and rescue him or her from their pain and suffering? The premise is wrong. But, in ending, I would not go so far to assume what God would or would not hold a against a person, mostly because I don't view evolution of spirit in such black and white terms.

To me, this life is designed for priming the self for the next life. How we handle our adversities and blessings dictates what we will evolve into. It is that simple.

Peace,
Tay

unknownuser

Peace tay. That documentary was heart-rending and disgusting at the same time...My wife cried at this injustice commited in the name of islam...
I personally think that we have got some of our concepts about god wrong....Phoenix has just stated in another thread that god is truth,the quran calls allah al-haq or the truth...
The 'truth' was the russian army and circumstances rescued this poor young child...That may have been his 'truth' at the time...
I agree with a lot of your post...But how can we hold a young child accountable for saying what was his 'truth' and opinion,given the circumstances...
Peace all. ps;very good points raised by mquran.

phoenix1

peace enquirer,

I don't think, as a young child, he/she would be held responsible. But once they become older, is there a good reason why their view shouldn't change? wouldn't that child have experiences later in his/her life that would change that view of God? but again, he/she might have a different way of believing in God. One we can't necessarily see.

Tay

Peace enquirer,

But how can we hold a young child accountable for saying what was his 'truth' and opinion,given the circumstances...

My question was, "where did this person get the idea that God would come and rescue him or her from their pain and suffering?" So, in essence, there is no blame on the child, but on those who gave him/her this idea. But even in this, "blame" may not be the right word, for it is not people that get to judge. And in that case, we are told, time and again (as well, logic dictates), that God can only be perfectly just. Therefore, a child saying "I disown God" before being able to think clearly for him/her self, can hardly be held accountable for these words.

peace,
Tay

unknownuser

Peace phoenix. I think our ideas of god are constantly evolving,or at least modifying from a few basic premises. (because of our different experiences.)...Its like idol-free says; 'are we looking for that old man in the sky to rescue us'? That child may have been dismissing a 'concept' of god,but not necessarily the real 'truth'...(or the real,verifiable god.)
And finally once again,its the behaviour,intentions,mind-set and willingness to learn/correct oneself,which is much more important than recognising,or paying lip-service to 'abstract' concepts,and subjective opinions about god...

unknownuser

Peace Tay. Some children/people get this idea from traditional concepts and prayers like; 'God will save us',or 'god helps the believers' etc... I agree with the rest of your post...

agentxxx

peace all,

Kafir (Arabic, kafara, conceal, be ungrateful)
Kafir (Arabic kfir; plural kuffr) is an Arabic word meaning a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth. In cultural terms, it is a derogatory term used to describe a non-Muslim, a Muslim of a differing sect, or an apostate from Islam. It is usually translated into English as "infidel" or "unbeliever" and can carry the equivalent weight as a racial epithet.

The word kaafir is one of the most misunderstood terms in the Arabic language. In fact, it need not have the stigma that is often associated with it. It can be used simply in the sense of ?non-submissive? to God.

The word kaafir comes from the root verb, kafara, which means ?COVER?. It was originally used before Islam, in the Arabic language, to describe farmers, when they bury a seed in the ground and cover it with soil in their planting process. Therefore, we may say that the word kaafir implies from its root meaning ?A PERSON WHO HIDES OR COVERS THE TRUTH?. This is in opposition to a Muslim, who openly testifies to the truth and submits willfully and peacefully to it. In Islamic parlance, it is used to mean someone who DELIBERATELY REJECTS THE TRUE FAITH.

We should avoid calling anybody a kaafir, because ONLY ALLAH KNOWS WHO IS TRULY A REJECTER OF TRUTH AND WHO IS MERELY A MISGUIDED PERSON. It is not up to us to "sentence" a person to the wrath of God! WE MUST ALWAYS MAINTAIN A SPIRIT OF TOLERANCE AND GOODWILL, along with our zeal to convey THE MESSAGE OF TRUTH to others, whatever be the odds!!

http//www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015760&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

Title
Are Christians Mushrik (Polytheists) or Kaafir (Rejecters)?

Question
Should Christians be considered as Mushrik because they worship the person of Jesus Christ, and there is no forgiveness for that as Allah has told us . Or Kaafir because Allah tells us that everyone who attributes a son to God is a Kaafir.

Answer
Before I answer your specific question, it would be appropriate to first take a close look at the two terms "Mushrik" and "Kaafir", as only after that can we say whether the Christians, Jews or adherents of any other religion fall in these categories or not.
Let us first take the term "Kaafir". "Kaafir" in the Arabic language means "rejecter". The term "Kaafir", normally taken to be synonymous with "non-Muslim" or "non-believer", is quite different from the two terms. A "non-Muslim", obviously, is a person who does not adhere to the Muslim faith. Thus, all those who do not ascribe to the Muslim faith are "non-Muslims". A "non-believer" is generally used for a person who does not believe in God and the Day of Judgment. "Kaafir", on the other hand, IS A PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REJECTS THE TRUTH. A person may not believe in some 'truth' for a number of reasons. FOR INSTANCE, HE MAY NOT BE FULLY CONVINCED OF SOME ASPECT OF THAT 'TRUTH' or HE MAY HAVE SOME DOUBTS IN HIS MIND REGARDING THAT TRUTH. However, if all doubts are removed from his mind and he becomes fully convinced of that truth, yet he persists in not accepting it or persists in ascribing to a wrong belief after becoming certain of its incorrectness, he then becomes a "Kaafir" and is no longer just a "non-Muslim" or a "non-believer".
In other words, all those people who persist in not accepting Islam after being fully convinced that Islam is the truth of the Almighty or persist in ascribing to a false belief after being convinced of its incorrectness are "Kaafirs" or rejecters of the truth. All others for our purposes are "non-Muslims" or "non-believers ".
This explanation, if considered closely, should clarify the fact that WE CANNOT CALL ANYONE A "KAAFIR" UNLESS WE HAVE ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REASONS FOR HIS REJECTION OF FAITH (or Islam), WHICH WE DO NOT POSSESS. Thus, for the purpose of this world, we should not call anyone a "Kaafir". It is only God, Who with His absolute knowledge can declare someone a "Kaafir". No one besides God possesses the knowledge that is essential to declare someone a "Kaafir".
Thus, we know on the basis of God's declaration in the Qur'an that the Jews and the Christians (and those ascribing to other faiths) during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) refused to believe in the Prophet (pbuh) even after being fully convinced of his prophethood and were, therefore, termed "Kaafir" by the Almighty. As far as the Jews and the Christians of later times are concerned, we do not have adequate knowledge of the reasons for their rejection to term them "Kaafir". God, on the Day of Judgment, shall give the decision regarding these Jews and Christians. Those, among them, who refused to accept Islam and the prophethood of Mohammed (pbuh), although they were fully convinced of it being the truth, shall stand in the category of "Kaafirs" on the Day of Judgment.
The term "Mushrik", like the term "Kaafir" has also been slightly misused. It is not just ascribing to a polytheistic belief that makes a person a "Mushrik". According to the Qur'an , "Mushrik" is one who ascribes partners to God. Christians, though ascribe to a polytheistic belief, according to the Muslim understanding of polytheism, yet they do not ascribe partners to God. They believe that there is only one God and He does not have any partners. Yet they ascribe to a belief, which in the eyes of the Muslims and according to the Qur'an is a polytheistic belief. Christians, according to the Qur'an , would have been called "Mushrik" had they believed that ascribing a son to God is a polytheistic belief and would still have ascribed to that belief.
The above should also explain why the Qur'an , even though it has pointed out that the Jews and the Christians of the times of the Prophet (pbuh) ascribe to some polytheistic beliefs has not addressed them as "Mushrik". The Qur'an has only addressed the Banu-Ishmael and other Arab polytheists who clearly ascribed to polytheism by the term "Mushrik" (as should be clear from Al-Baqarah 2 105, Aal Imraan 3 67, Surah Al-Taubah 9 1 - 33, Al-Bayyinah 98 1).
In the light of the above explanation, in my opinion, the Christians should not be called "Mushrik" or "Kaafir". We may say that Christians ascribe to polytheistic beliefs but should not call them polytheists, as the Qur'an has not called them polytheists. Likewise, we can call them "non-Muslims", but should not call them "Kaafir", as we do not know who among them has knowingly rejected Islam and who has not accepted Islam because he was not convinced of it being the final truth from God.
www.understanding-islam.com
http//www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=140

Title
Kufr and rejection ?

Question/Comments
Just wanted to add that this discussion proves that it is not possible for anyone to characterize others as Kafirs.
ismar duderija
Australia

Answer
You are correct in interpreting that if my referred opinion is correct, then it implies that it is not possible for anyone to call any other person a 'Kaafir' (rejecter), except where God or His Prophet (pbuh) has specifically singled out that particular person or group of persons as 'Kaafir'. Declaring someone to be a 'Kaafir' is beyond the jurisdiction of human beings, as it is not based only upon the apparent actions of an individual but also takes into consideration, besides many other factors, the actual knowledge, the information and the level of conviction of that individual.
http//www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=205#_ftn1

Title
What is the Difference between Ahl-e-Kitaab (People of the Book) & Kaafir (Rejecters)

QUESTION
I would like to know what is the difference between People of the Book (Ahle Kitab) and Kaafir? How does one define a Kaafir and how do these people, mainly Christians and Jews differ from other Kaafirs?
If there is no basic conceptual difference, what is the rationale for allowing Muslim men to marry Ahle Kitab women without them necessarily converting into Muslims?

ANSWER
For a brief explanation regarding what exactly is a Kaafir (rejecter of truth), according to the Qur'an, and the application of the term on the present day non-Muslims, please refer to one of my previous answers to a similar question titled, 'Are Christians Mushrik (polytheists) or Kaafirs (rejecters)?'
As far as the reasons for the allowance of marrying the chaste women of the People of the Book is concerned, there could indeed be a number of reasons for such allowance but the Qur'an has not mentioned any of these. It, however, seems that Islam does not want to completely break social ties with any religious group, apart from the polytheists. This seems to be quite apparent in two cases. Firstly, the Qur'an has allowed marriage with chaste women from amongst the People of the Book, but has disallowed such social ties with the polytheists. Secondly, the Qur'an has expressly allowed us to eat the food of the People of the Book, but such is not the case with that of the polytheists.
Such allowances in the case of the People of the Book are also an evidence of the severity in which God holds the crime of ascribing partners to Him. It seems that it is only the crime of ascribing partners to God, in retaliation of which God directs His people to break or extremely limit any social ties with such transgressors. Islam does not want to sever social ties with monotheistic nations, who do not ascribe partners to God. This allowance provides a chance to build a healthy social interaction between all monotheistic peoples and subsequently opens the doors for the propagation and understanding of Islam for all such peoples. It should be remembered that a healthy social interaction is a prerequisite for effective communication, propagation and understanding of each other's points of views. By keeping the doors of social ties open with other monotheistic peoples, God has, in effect, kept the doors of understanding Islam and thereby finding the path of assured success open for them.
http//www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=139

peace.

unknownuser

Compromising the truth for the sake of making friends in the world is a sad state to be in...

Perfectly said bro, thank you