Defining a few words in Islam

Discussing and defining a few words in Islam

A conversation with a few Muslims on the net – it is about 12 pages long followed by some 40 comments as continuance of the debate.

Thanks for sharing your frustrations, as a moderate Muslim I seek divergent opinions on any given subject at hand. One of the reasons we muslims are divisive is our inability to accept another point of view, while the majority of Muslims like all other majorities go on enjoying the God given life getting along with every one - a tiny minority of about 1% want to stick their understanding and their version of the religion onto others, it is the same story with all religions, cultures and systems. The Neocons (i.e. the stick in the muds among Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews .....), in every faith are passionate in what they do, and are loud enough to fool others to beleive that the whole Muslim world (or Christian) thinks like them.

We at WMC discussion forum practice the god given freedom in publishing all opinions from extreme conservative to ultra liberal. Every idea of yours has been published and you will not find this on most discussion forums. No single opinion is above the other, we are equal in God's presence. We are Moderate Muslims and are learning to stand up against the radical views and hope most of us will start speaking up.

If we don't agree, we must present the reasons for such disagreement and not attack the person.
Mike Ghouse

To be a Muslim is to be a peacemaker, one who seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; that is indeed the purpose of religion, any religion. Mission statement

#####

From Iftekhar Hai

Dear All:

After studying closely arguments from all sides - I would like to add my observations:

In San Francisco and around its 50 miles radius - we have people from all over the world peacefully engaged in making a living.

The silicon valley of the world consist of people from every religion. They are exposed to each other intellectual and cultural differences. They range from religion to secularism.

Males and females of every religion are marrying each other in a civil union. Religious blessing is not coming to them from their respective families - BUT live goes on. Each person respecting the other's faith.

Muslim families are highly educated and do not view religion in a private setting - not to be enforced on the environment. American society is where you leave your religion at home. You have complete freedom to practise privately.

I am reminded of the ayat in the Quran that says: 109:6 "To you be your ways and to me mine."
Islam is din of Allah - Allah will resurrect it. Allah does not need anyone's help. Our family lives in the vicinity of San Francisco. We follow our religion to the utmost as we think fit and pray to the same God who has created people of other faiths and other cultures in millions. ALL SPIRITUAL PATHS ARE ENDING IN THE SAME DESTINATION.

ALLAH ALONE WITH TELL YOU THE TRUTH IN MATTERS IN WHICH WE DISPUTE. 5:48

ISLAM RECOGNISES DIVERSITY & PLURALISM

To you we have given the scriptures, just as we have given the scriptures to people before you (Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc). We have protected your scriptures (Quran) in its entirety. So judge among people from what knowledge has come to you (from Quran) and do not be carried over by your vain desires (that Muslims are the only righteous and chosen people to lead). To each among you (referring to diverse groups – not excluding anybody) We have prescribed the Law (teachings of the indigenous, native people and Buddhist scholars, Gitas, Vedas, Torah, Gospels and The Quran) and an Open Way (given a conscience with reference to the spiritualists people). If God had willed, all humanity would have been of one single community (this means diversity is part of God’s creation). God’s plan is to test you in what each one has received (in form of Holy Scriptures or Conscience). So strive, as in a race in all virtues. The goal of all the people is to God. God (alone) will tell you the truth in matters of which you dispute.” 5:48

(This means do not fight over religious matters, establish peace and conduct dialogues with wisdom and beautiful conduct to understand each other so all can live in peace)

Iftekhar Hai
UMA Interfaith Alliance
~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

From: Iftekhar Hai
Subject: Reply to Zahid Jamil: What is Islam & Basic Fundamentals of Quran
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 3:40 PM

Salams to All:

I would love to hear from any one of you on two points that Zahid Saheb has raised below:

1) What is the definition of the world Islam. Can Javid/Zahid Saheb or any one define Islam. This is what comes up in global interfaith discussions over and over again. Our answers are in attachment.

2) What are the fundamentals of Islamic ideology? This is what Br. Zahid Jamil has implied. Is pluralism and diversity not the fundamentals of Quranic teachings? Our answers are in attachment too.

Both the below attachments are shared all over USA, Europe and UK.

1) Islamic definitions and
2) Basic & Fundamentals of Quran

Iftekhar Hai
UMA Interfaith Alliance
~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

Dear Iftekhar,

ASAK

Your definition of Islam is nothing but an attempt to deislamise islam, to deprive it the supremacy it has, owing to its being the Destination of God’s Guidance, over all other ideologies, and to make it compatible with the Western ideologies of economic fundamentalism, supremacy of Western ideology over others, the dominance of West in the world and the commercialization of human susceptibilities, which is one of the major sources of its economic power.

A few years back I had given a detailed reply to all your questions. Interfaith has unfortunately been reduced to an attempt to deprive all religions of their established principles and to develop a conglomeration of ideas befitting the demands of Westernism from religion, which wants religion to be chained into the boundaries of places of worship and human brains. Interfaith has made it look to the world that the root cause of all evils is in religion, or at least in the ways they are interpreted.

The truth on the contrary is that the threat to religion in general and Islam in particular comes not from the other religions but from the modern ideology of Economic fundamentalism, Westernism being its most visible face. Interfaith must realize this and not play into the hands of the forces of globalization, and must instead concentrate on fighting the economic fundamentalism and its most dangerous component, the commercialization of human weaknesses that hassled to the death of hundreds of millions of people, disintegration of family system, huge increase in crime rates and social chaos. Islam of course has the capability t0o lead this fight, and Muslims must seek the support of all other faiths in this task.

The world must know the dangers posed by alcohol, smoking, gambling, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, promiscuity, lame legal system that fails to control crimes and the exploitative economic system that has created huge disparities.

Dr Javed Jamil
Chief Editor
Islam, Muslims & the World

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

In a message dated 8/2/2009 12:42:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time, iftekhar writes:

Dear Javed Saheb:

Let me ask you a few specific questions: We would appreciate if you could answer them objectively and not go off our focus of defining key words that are repeated over and over in the Quran. This can help all of us. If we agree to key definitions of these words then the interpretation of the Quran becomes more important in the light of these definitions. AGAIN - PLEASE DO NOT ATTACK OR MAKE "PERSONAL ATTACKS." This is only to explain our two sides in the best possible way so that global message of the Quran and its wisdom from the Hadith can be available for all to see.

1) Define Islam
2) Believer
3) Dhimmi
4) Kafir
5) Non-Believer

OUR DEFINITIONS HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM NUMEROUS SCHOLARS FROM INDIA AS WELL AS FROM USA.

Key Definitions: How do we define and explain key words is absolutely important to better understanding of The Quran in the light of Global Inter-religious peace movement that is going on. It creates a mind-set that can become very narrow and selective in creating antagonistic divisions or it can create a more accommodating and tolerant mind-set. Some of the key words which are essential to better understanding are the following:

Islam The Quran is very clear in explaining the definition of the word Islam. What does it mean and what does it stand for. The uniqueness of this word is - that it is not named after any person (in this case our Prophet). It means total surrender or submission to Allah (God). Islam was the religion even before our Prophet Mohammed was born (pbuh) as is evidenced in The Quran in reference to 42:13,

"The same religion (Islam or submission) has He established for you that which He enjoined on Noah. That which We have sends as inspiration to you (Mohammed pbuh) and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses and Jesus: That you should stay steadfast in religion (submission to our Lord -Islam) and make no divisions therein. (this means work for the unity of humankind) As for those who worship other than God they are on (hard) wrong way to call from. God chooses and guides those whom He wills towards Him.

Commentary: According to this if a Christian, a Jew or any believer in One Supreme Being says “we surrender or submit to God.” They are falling within the definition of the word Islam. The art of surrender or submission is called Islam. This art of submission/surrende r was shown to all the Prophets and their people as evidenced in The Quran 10:47, 14:4 & 16:36. Islam is very inclusive and broad in its definition. Muslims believe in Allah (God) and take Mohammed (pbuh) as their messenger, just as Christians and Jews believe in the same God and take Jesus and Moses as their respective messengers. However Muslims believe in all the prophets from Jewish and Christian scriptures. One must refrain from judging other believers the depth of surrendering or submission of other believers. God is THE ONLY JUDGE. Here Jesus advice is more relevant, “Do not Judge others lest you be judged.”

Surah 3:85, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him.” Here the definition of Islam must be taken in its global context of surrendering and submission to One and Only One God.

Believer: Anyone who says, “We believe in One God” is a Believer. Let God be the ultimate judge. Humans will never have perfect knowledge to judge others.

Muslim: A Muslim is a person who says, “There is no God but One God (Allah) and Mohammed (pbuh) is a messenger of God.

Dhimmi: People of the Book, Christians and Jews who lived in an Islamic state were called dhimmis. This term is very often mis-interpreted. The expressed mission of Islamic state was to establish Islamic rules and regulations and form Islamic society. To convert People of Book to Islam was not the policy.

Dhimmis were exempted from military service and Islamic teachings. The Quran honored Christians and Jews as People with Revelations, the Bible and the Torah. Their property, life and places of worship were protected. For this service and protection a prorated tax “Jaziya” was collected by the Islamic state. Jaziya was not meant to be economically oppressive, on the contrary it was a compensation paid to the state for maintenance of law, order and due process in the Islamic state that guaranteed their constitutional rights. Dhimmis were exempted from paying the Zakat that was obligatory on every Muslim citizen. The rate of Jaziya was smaller than the Zakat rate. Presently, no Muslim country imposes “Jaziya” on People of other faiths. Jaziya is now history.

Kafir or Infidels:

The word Kafir is derived from the Arabic root word KFR, (Kaf, Fay and Ray) which means to cover, conceal or hide. Hiding with the intention of misleading, deceiving or suppressing the truth. Meddling with the Holy Scriptures where intentionally truth is either, concealed, changed, omitted, misinterpreted so that people either begin to doubt or lose complete faith in God, His Signs and His Revelations – this can come in the area of infidelity (being unfaithful to your Creator) or Kufr.

Character assassinations of Biblical and Quranic Prophets, done intentionally to undermine the faith or trust/believe in God, His Signs and Revelations can also be classified, as Kufr and people committing such acts are called Kafirs or infidels.

One cannot call a believer in God from Christianity or Judaism as Kafir if they do not believe in Mohammed (pbuh) as Messenger of God.

In modern language, you can say, it has to be intentional dishonesty, deception and misinformation. Just like a more sophisticated, premeditated perjury is deep rooted in misleading or deceiving people which can lead to criminal actions so also we have to consider the extent of intentional deception or perjury in explaining Kafir or Kufr.

Infidel does not really represent the true meaning of the word Kafir. The dictionary merely says an infidel is one who does not belief in any religion, especially Christianity and Islam.

Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs who comprise 2.5 billion of the world’s population cannot all be classified as non-believers or as KAFIRS. There are billions of them who belief in God, the Last Day and Life after Death and in doing righteous deeds. They have also been shown the art of surrender, submission or devotion (which in Arabic is called Islam). The Quran says, “To every people we send an Apostle in their own language and in their own country to clarify God’s message in Quran 14:4, 10:47 &16:36. Muslims are commanded to believe in the revelations that have come to them (The Quran) and the revelations that came before their times (Torah, Psalms and Gospels) in Quran 2:4.

Hence believers in One God from other faiths cannot be lumped or stereotyped as non-believers. No one has the authority to judge others. Hence they cannot be called KAFIRS because they also have been shown the art of surrender, submission or devotion which is the true meaning of the word Islam.

The Quran uses Kafirs in reference to the pagan Arabs who had unleashed war on Prophet Mohammed and early Muslims. All the verses on war must be taken in reference to pagan, idolatrous Arabs. Muslims look towards war in the Quran to stop tyranny, oppression of the pagan Quresh tribe. The other side of war was to establish freedom, liberty, women rights and a better law abiding society.

Christians and Jews who lived during the times of Prophet Mohammed were never defined as Kafirs or infidels. They are called as, “People of the Book” throughout the Quran. Prophet Mohammed included them as part of Medina Constitution This is a very important observation that we all should know.

Hence believers in One God from other faiths cannot be lumped or stereotyped as non-believers. No one has the authority to judge others. Hence they cannot be called KAFIRS because they also have been shown the art of surrender, submission or devotion which is the true meaning of the word Islam.

Non-Believer: Non-believers are those who do not believe in God. There could be numerous reasons, conditions, situations or factors for their lack of faith in God. There are Americans who are not taught religion at home or public schools hence they become secular in their outlook. They also grow with no negative baggage. Their conscience is clear. They have a sense of equality and justice which is God-given quality of being just and fair.

Sometimes a believer passes from being in a believing state to a non-believing state and there could be many reasons for that too.

A non-believer is not a hypocrite or infidel (kafir). It is important to know the difference.
#####

From: Mike Ghouse
Subject: MuslimAgenda :: Defining Islam, people of the book, Kafir etc.
To: worldmuslimcongress@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 5:59 PM

AA,
Iftekhar,

I appreciate your comments on the words Islam, Kafir, People of the book etc, indeed a majority of Muslims subscribe to that thought process. The word Kafir and People of the book are misused to claim superiority over the others, to create a class, that which Islam stands againts. Arrogance is the root cause of all conflict and that is not what God's wishes, he wishes his creation to get along and live in harmony without any distinction of religion, race or culture. (idea of Quraan 49:13)

I know a few will jump at me without even thinking, as if they are parrots and have shut out all thinking faculties. The fact is an overwhelming majority of Muslims are open to learning, as Quran started with that word, and most Muslims subscribe to the idea that God is not owned by Muslims or any exclusive group, Praise the lord, lord of the universe, (rabbul aalameen) as Muslims we recite that at least 50 times a day.

I am writing a piece on Muslim women seeking to marry men outside their faith, in the article, I have touched up on the idea of " Kafir and the people of the book". For nearly a thousand years men who wanted to "control" women wrote most of the ideas... at times what it seems like going against the equality God has blessed to men and women. On the day of judgment no woman will have her husband stand by her, nor a man has a woman standing by him, each one is an equal individual responsible for his or her actions. Nothing but your responsibility is accounted for... of course, God is merciful and beneficent and he would always has his last word.

2:221 “AND DO NOT marry women who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to [true] belief: for any believing bondwoman [of God]* is certainly better than a woman who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though she pleases you greatly. And do not give your women in marriage to men who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to [true] belief: for- any believing bondman [of God] is certainly better than a man who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though he pleases you greatly. [Such as] these invite unto the fire, whereas God invites unto paradise, and unto [the achievement of] forgiveness by His leave; and He makes clear His messages unto mankind, so that they might bear them in mind."

God is for all times and so is his wisdom. Thank God we have the freedom to learn and understand concepts that were limited in scope but are actually universal.

In the above verse, a distinction was made between those who believe in a creator and those who reject the creator (or associate the creator with others). Do Jews, Christians, Hindus or people of other faith not believe in God? Don't the Atheist, Buddhists, Jains, Wicca and others believe in accountability? They all do, they also believe that some thing caused the world to come into being, whom we call God.

Perhaps the wisdom behind the distinction was to understand those who rejected God in medieval times, and it meant that they did not care for the moral values of the humanity and became a source of immorality. That stereo typing does not apply today as it did some ten centuries ago. Atheist and those who do not believe in a formal God are as moral as the ones who show off their belief every which possible. In all sincerity the word “Polytheist” exists without a corpus. Typically Hindus are ascribed as Polytheists without verifying that Hindus believe in one supreme God as well, and accept God in different manifestations, as Muslims also see God in 99 different attributes.

The other aspect that a few Muslims are hung up with is the phrase “People of the book” as though we belong to an “exclusive men’s club” and others don’t. That is sheer arrogance and a major source of conflict in community relations. Islam’s message was to find means to dissolve the arrogance and not manufacture it.

The Prophet, peace be upon him, indeed had wished that his people also had a book like the Jews and Christians. At that time having a book meant civility, discipline and a system and not necessarily divinity. No doubt the Christians and Jews were included in the exclusive club, but we have missed out the Hindus, Buddhist, Jains and others who all have a book of guidance. The Qur’aan uses 124,000 Prophets to mean that the cherisher of the universe (Rabbul Aalameen) has reached out to every nation and tribe although only 25 names were listed; similarly only two inclusions were listed as people of the book where as there were many others who followed the books.

God is wise, all embracing and cannot be narrow in his appeal. We the humans tend to want to own God and box up his wisdom. Let's give God all the freedom he has. After all we have created God in our own image.

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, an Islamic family law expert at Emory University , argues that gender dynamics have changed in a way that makes interfaith marriage more reasonable under Islamic tradition. "In social reality today, men are not dominant in the marriage relationship. The rationale of historic rule is no longer valid," he said. "But people are not willing to accept this. This is a major source of tensions."

There is a value we all have to realize today or tomorrow and that is peaceful co-existence is God’s will. We should be open to people who value the morals of the society to work for peaceful co-existence with or without the books.

Mike Ghouse
To be a Muslim is to be a peacemaker, one who seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; that is indeed the purpose of religion, any religion. Mission statement

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

From: javed jamil
Subject: Re: MuslimAgenda :: Defining Islam, people of the book, Kafir etc.
To: worldmuslimcongress@yahoogroups.com, WorldMuslimCongress@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 2:55 AM

Brother Mike

AA

I am writing this letter to you in dismay and disappointment. I have been part of the forum you moderate for several years, and have been a part of most of the debates that occurred there. I have respected you as a moderator because I felt that despite your own specific inclinations, you are giving everybody an opportunity to speak. But lately I have started feeling that you are continuously pushing your own agenda, which is something not acceptable to majority of Muslims, and least to Islamic scholars. I felt it bad that slowly but steadily most of the members who had been actively participating in the debate have now stopped taking any interest in the forum debates. Many of them have left the forum; some4 forums have even put your views on “Ban”. I wrote a harsh letter to you in the hope that you will realize this, and will not allow the forum to become dead. But I feel you are now only interested in the views of people like Tarek Fateh, Farzana Hasan, both notoriously known for their campaigns against whatever the common Muslims and Islamic scholars stand for, Zeba, Aziz, Iftakhar and few others. I have no complaints if you can continue with them and run the forum as you like, as you are the owner of this forum.

I have never written or spoken anything against any other religion or community – Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or anyone else. I have always advocated a unity of all religions against the evils of the world. I have also never spoken against the people of any country. I have only spoken against the systems and the government policies of different countries. Yes I have been fighting against Westernism, because I feel this is the most dominant ideology of the current world, and it has caused much greater harm than it has benefited. I have never disrespected any religion, but I know I am a Muslim because I feel Islam is the best and final version of God’s Guidance to mankind. If I didn’t believe it, I won’t be a Muslim. (I give this right to the followers of all other ideologies as well.) I believe that Allah sent Islam for the whole mankind; and it is the duty of Muslims to demonstrate to the mankind that it is indeed for them. Every human being has the right to benefit from Islam’s System in this world if he does not believe it as a religion, and in the Hereafter as well if he believes in God, Hereafter, and the finality and supremacy of Muhammad and Qur’an after they were sent to the world.

I have held you in great respect, as an elder brother. I will continue to have that respect. I can sometimes be very hard-hitting in debates but I never allow the debate to make me feel bad about the person with whom I am debating. You must have noticed that I have had debates even with my real brother, Mr Zahid Jamil.

With these words, I thank you for giving me the space in your forums for all these years and request you to kindly unsubscribe me for the future. I will no longer “jump” at you or Iftakhar and you can continue with your giving new meanings to Islam. All the best! May this world become healthier, cleaner and more peaceful in accordance with the desire of God expressed in His Final Book!

Dr Javed Jamil
~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:16 AM, TSidd wrote:

Mohtram Jamil Bhai. ASA

I do appreciate your frustration as a Muslim. You have been hitting your benevolent friendly head, unfortunately, against a stubborn stony wall. But you should not stop your words of Nasiha. Please go on trying your efforts that will put some kind of restrain on his free-reigns. Some day you may be able to change his "misguided" path of self-deception which is fast tilting towards "arrogance".

Our thoughtful words of Nasiha can change his behavior and approach through our peaceful non-violent friendly "rebukes". At least we can say to Allah on the Day of Judgement to his and our Lord: "O Allah! We did our best but your salve [ABD} was full of arrogance, intoxicated with the lust of Modernism, enjoying your bounties on earth but obeying to the dictates of his whims and caprices while living under the false notion that he can deliver a new Deen. a "Cosmopolitan" life pattern to American society after your perfect Deen Al-Islam. What a self deception arrogance it is!

Mohtram Ghouse Bhai is living in the USA, a society free-for-all. He is down to earth liberal and pursuing a secular political agenda that suits all the deformed and decomposed religions of time. He is surrounded by them. He is their "Guru." Let him carry out his agenda. One day I am sure he will repent and that day is not far off. We all can encounter it any moment. The most uncertain thing that we all posses is a span of life but when it terminates we don't know at all.

Just wish him the best of luck and keep ourselves fully updated with his "achievements"

Shamim

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

In a message dated 8/4/2009 10:46:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MikeGhouse writes:

AA,

Brothers Jameel and Shamim;

Thanks for sharing your frustrations, as a moderate Muslim I seek divergent opinions on any given subject at hand. One of the reasons we muslims are divisive is our inability to accept another point of view. We at WMC forum practice the god given freedom in publishing all opinions from extreme conservative to ultra liberal. Every idea of yours has been published and you will not find this on most discussion forums. No single opinion is above the other, we are equal in God's presence.

Brother shamim please don't lose your integrity by labeling me with liberal and other labels. Furthermore pl do not spread the word that I am creating another religion, it does not suit your caliber and buzurgi. Islam is my faith and it is universal enough to accomodate the essence of all goodness out there.

Javed, you can choose to remain within your circle or be open to different points of view. That is what perhaps IQRA also means. Insha Allah we will continue to bring all points of view on the subject including yours.

Jazak Allah Khair
Mike Ghouse

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

From: TSidd
To: MikeGhouse
Sent: 8/4/2009 4:36:30 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: MuslimAgenda :: Defining Islam, people of the book, Kafir etc.

Mohtram Ghouse Bhai, ASA

I don't want to argue with you and create bitterness for nothing. Just tell me if you are not "liberal"as you say what for then "liberalism" stands?

If you prefer, love the dogmas of other faiths and promote them, is it not the creation of an ultra faith equal to Akbar's Deen-e Ilahi?

I told you that if all these "Summalons" [gatherings of faiths} are for inviting them ultimately to Allah's Deen, then go ahead with my "Asherbad". If not, please don't feel ill of my comments. All are for the sake of Allah and for His pleasure.

I an not losing my "integrity" rather helping my big brother to maintain his integrity that is very much at stake and he is unmindful of what he is fast losing in the Muslim community.

Mine and Br Javed's concern about you are the same.

Shamim

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

From Mike Ghouse
Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Brothers Shamim and Javed:

I cannot call you an extremist, because you are not.

Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji, Farzana Hasan and Asra Nomani are liberals and they are fine with that title. They reject a lot of conservative ideas. On the other hand Javed Jamil, Shamim Siddiqi and a few others are conservatives and reject every thing that is liberal.

Hasni Essa, Iftekhar Hai, Zahid Jamil, Irfan Faiz, a few others and myself are moderates because we dialogue with the conservatives, we are not 100% in tune with them, but can find sense with them.

Conservatives stick with what they are familiar with and that is the end of discussion for them.

Liberals on the other hand feel full freedom and any rejection of that ends their discussion.

Moderates on the other hand can reach out to both ends of the spectrum and are open to discussions.

Let me summarize this;

1) Liberals - reject Sharia out rightly, Hadith is not their basis and see Qur'aan as the book of guidance. Islam does not negate other faiths for them.

2) Conservatives - Stick to the Sharia dearly, Hadith is divine and Qur'aan negates all other books for them. Islam negates other faiths for them.

3) Moderates - see value in Sharia and adopt personal Sharia and adopt the civil laws of the country for justice instead of the Public version of Sharia, If Hadith is in tune with Qur’an’s universality, they will quote it; Islam does not negate other faiths for them.

I will share the difference in a more formal format in a few weeks.

Jazak Allah Khair
Mike Ghouse

#

Kafir and Kufr

On the Terms Kafir and Kufr
By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
(Translated by Yoginder Sikand)

Mike Ghouse' commentary is followed by the Article

I hope a few more Maulana's can join and take this further. The given meaning of the word is Kafir is divisive and should have no place in civil societies. I really like Maualana Wahidudin Khan's analysis.

Kaffir is not "one who denies" , rather it one who does not believe in what you believe. Putting both on par, a symbol of humility and a guarantee to decimate arrogance.

I have written quite extensively on this, and we have debated the meaning of the word Kaffir. Most words become larger in meaning or more pluralistic in meaning as the world shrinks. After all, religion is about mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill, hence, the sensitivity enhancements are to be made to accommodate more people in to the fold of friendship.

Indeed, as the Maulana has expressed, it is used in a derogatory way, and it should not be used in civil societies.

The word of God remains the same, our understanding of it improves. One of the model surah's in term of civil dialogues is Kafirun. I have worked on it to reflect those who live in pluralistic societies, indeed, Prophet Muhammad lived in a pluralistic society and that was his model. All the sharia laws and Hadith's were created and compiled in a mono-religious society, not the kind Qur'aan and Islam was born in.

Here is Kafirun; http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/07/sura-kafirun-un-believers.htmlPlease read the beautiful Chapter (Sura) from Qur’aan that addresses the believers (in other systems) in the most dignified way, putting every one on par and without putting anyone down. It is an exceptional example of civil conduct for Muslims to follow. No where in this chapter it claims the faith of Muslim to be superior and other's to be inferior. It is the recognition of the otherness of other.

Mike Ghouse
www.worldMuslimCongress.com
www.WorldMuslimCongress.org

According to Marxism, as it is generally interpreted, human society is divided into basically two classes—the working class and the bourgeoisie. The word 'bourgeoisie' is of French origin. In the beginning it denoted the middle classes, but later, when it was employed as a key term in Marxist discourse, it came to be seen in a derogatory sense. Consequently, in Marxist analysis the bourgeoisie came to be regarded as the source of all social ills, while the working class was considered to be the epitome of virtue.

Somewhat the same thing has happened with the term kafir. In the beginning, the term simply meant what its dictionary meaning denotes—'one who denies'. However, later it came to be used and seen in a derogatory sense, and today this latter sense in which the term is generally understood is the source of much conflict between Muslims and others.

Let me cite an instance to illustrate the possible consequences of the wrong use of the term kafir. The noted poet Muhammad Iqbal penned a Persian couplet in which he mentioned his Hindu Pandit origins, referring to himself as a brahmanzada or 'descendant of a Brahmin'. Now, the term brahmanzada is not seen as offensive by anyone. But suppose it was replaced by the term kafirzada or 'descendant of a kafir', lovers of Iqbal's poetry would react in horror. This is because the term kafir has come to be widely perceived and used in a very derogatory sense.

The general usage of the terms kafir and momin ('believers') by Muslims causes a great deal of anguish for many non-Muslims. So much so that some extremists opposed to Muslims and Islam have even demanded that the word kafir should be expunged from the Islamic lexicon, claiming that till this is done Muslims and non-Muslims can never live in amity with each other.

In actual fact, the misuse of the word kafir is not something that only extremists in other communities are vehemently opposed to. To be honest, it has become a major problem for many Muslims themselves. In today's age, Muslims and non-Muslims live and work together, and in this context many educated Muslims feel that they cannot properly adjust to a pluralistic situation while continuing to uphold traditional understandings of the term kafir. Consciously or otherwise, many of them feel that many aspects of the sort of Islam that they have been reared on have lost their relevance in today's age. They have no idea how they can live respectably in society today if they continue to cling to this sort of Islam.

I know of a certain very well-educated Muslim man who lives in Delhi, and who often meets me. He says that although he was born in a Muslim family he has lost faith in Islam. Democracy, he tells me, is his religion, not Islam, because, according to him, Islam sharply divides humankind into momins and kafirs, while democracy regards all human beings as equal [….]
So, as I just mentioned, this issue has become a very real and serious one for many Muslims today. It is imperative, therefore, to seriously address it. This is essential in order to answer the questions people are asking about the contemporary relevance of Islam as well as to help create a climate wherein Muslims and others can live together amicably.
If the issue is studied carefully and deeply, it emerges that the entire question is based on gross misunderstanding. In the general Muslim understanding, the term kafir is seen as synonymous with non-Muslim. Consequently, most Muslims think that anyone who is not a Muslim is a kafir. However, this is a completely wrong notion. The word kafir is not synonymous with non-Muslim.
According to the shariah, the role of true Muslims is that of dais or those who invite others to the path of God. The status of non-Muslims, therefore, is that of madu, or those who are to be invited to God's path. This relationship between dai and madu, between true Muslims and others, necessarily demands that true Muslims, as dais, must constantly seek to maintain good and friendly relations with people of other faiths. It is said that a shopkeeper must always be customer-friendly. Likewise, a true Muslim must always be madu-friendly.
A true dai must be inspired by a genuine sense of concern, love and welfare for the madu. If that is really the case, the dai would never tolerate using any term that might stir hatred in the heart of the madu. In addition, a true dai can never have hatred in his own heart for the madu.

The ancient Aryan invaders of India referred to the indigenous people of the country as Mlecchas. Likewise, medieval Christian scholars referred to Muslims as 'infidels'. Both terms were used in a derogatory sense, and those whom these terms were used to refer to obviously did not approve of them. The proper way in such cases is to use terms that do not have this derogatory implication. Unfortunately, the Muslim scholars have not adopted a proper approach in this regard. In their writings and their translations of the Quran they have indiscriminately used the term kafir to mean 'infidels'. In the Indian context, this has led to much misunderstanding and conflict between Hindus and Muslims. And because the term kafir has been used by the ulema in this sense it has created a particular sort of mind-set among Muslims generally, as is reflected in the writings and speeches of many Muslim scholars. It has played a major role in fashioning an entirely negative approach in the Muslim community in general towards people of other faiths. It has built up a pronounced sense of 'Muslims versus Others', 'We versus Them', which is very unfortunate and lamentable.

My own reading of the Quran leads me to believe that when it says, 'Say, 'You who deny the Truth […]' (Quran, 109:1), using the term kafirun for this, it refers only to the Qureish of Mecca of the Prophet's time who, despite the Prophet having provided them all proof of his divine mission, rejected and opposed him. It was then that God declared that they had become kafirs or deniers of the truth in His eyes. Nowhere else in the Quran has any other group been declared in such clear and specific terms as kafir. This way of addressing people does not, I believe, apply to other non-Muslims, who should be addressed as human beings, rather than as kafirs.

More on the Term Kafir

As I indicated earlier, the Arabic word kufr means 'denial', and the related term kafir denotes 'one who denies', that is 'one who refuses to accept'. Thus, the word kafir denotes an individual character rather than being a label for a specific community or race. In many English translations of the Quran, the word has been translated as 'unbelievers', but this, I feel, is wrong. An unbeliever is someone who does not believe, but a kafir is a person who refuses to believe despite all the proofs of God having been presented to him in an appropriate way.

In the early part of the Prophet's mission, as evidenced in the initial verses of the Quran, the people he addressed were not referred to as kafirs, but, rather, as people. For instance, addressing the Prophet the Quran says, 'O Messenger, deliver whatever has been sent down to you by your Lord. If you do not do so, you will not have conveyed His message. God will defend you from mankind (al-nas). For God does not guide those who deny truth.' (Quran: 5:67). In this verse, God says that He would protect the Prophet from 'mankind' (al-nas), and does not use the word al-kuffar or kafirs. There are numerous such verses in the Quran that indicate the use of the general word insan ('people') or related words to refer to all human communities […]
It was only after thirteen years of the Prophet's struggling to present the Qureish of Mecca of his time all the required proofs of his mission while addressing them as 'people' that, after they deliberately denied him, the above-mentioned Quranic commandment 'Say, 'You who deny the Truth […]' (Quran, 109:1) was revealed. And that too was an announcement from God Himself, and it was not the Prophet's own statement.

The Difference Between Deeds and the Doer

Elsewhere in the Quran the words kufr and kafir have been employed in the sense of referring to certain deeds or acts that are tantamount to kufr, and the person who does this is a kafir in God's eyes. However, other than with regard to the Qureish of Mecca, and that too only after the Prophet's mission among them for thirteen long years which they rejected, there is no specific declaration in the Quran labeling any particular community as kafir. From this it appears that while a dai or an Islamic scholar can point out that a particular deed amounts to kufr he does not have the right to declare any particular community as kafirs. As I mentioned above, the word kafir relates to a certain set of actions, and is not the name of or label for any community.

This point can be further clarified with the help of a hadith report attributed to the Prophet which talks about the sin of a Muslim deliberately abandoning his regular prayers and linking it with kufr. In this context, it is acceptable for someone to appeal to Muslims in general to regularly pray and also tell them about the grave implications of abandoning regular worship. But it would be totally incorrect if he were to prepare a list of Muslims in his area who do not regularly worship and then specifically name them as having turned kafirs for this sin.

In exactly the same way, a true Muslim who calls people to the path of God can, on the basis of Quranic teachings, point out the actions which lead people to be seen as kafirs in the eyes of God. But he would be exceeding his boundaries if he were to address non-Muslim individuals and communities by name and declare that so-and-so non-Muslims are kafirs.

Hence, on the matter of kufr and kafir it is crucial to make a distinction between an act or deed of kufr and the person who commits that act or deed. It is only God's prerogative to make a specific declaration in this regard, and that He has done just once, with regard to the Qureish deniers and opponents of the Prophet in Mecca to whom the Prophet had provided complete proofs of God's revelation. With regard to the rest of humanity, God will decide Himself, and this would be made known in the Hereafter. Hence, the task of a true Muslim is simply to invite others to the path of God, and not to declare people to be kafirs.

Consequently, in my opinion, from the Islamic point of view the status of non-Muslim communities all over the world, including of the Hindus of India, is simply that of being human beings (insan). None of these communities can be branded as kafirs, because as of yet the essential conditions that characterized thirteen years of the Prophet's preaching in Mecca among the Qureish have not been fulfilled, only after which the Qureish were declared as kafirs. Likewise, it is incorrect to term them as 'deniers' (munkir).

I believe that the many of the conflicts and complaints that characterize relations between Muslims and non-Muslims are essentially communal and economic. These are, at root, conflicts about worldly or material interests. These cannot be considered to be religious as such. Muslims must take the initiative to desist from these conflicts over worldly or material interests and focus all their intention on their real mission, which is to invite people to the path of surrender to God.

Investigating Kufr

When can it be established with regard to a particular person that he has become a 'denier' (munkir)? The Quran supplies an answer to this. The revelation of the Quran started in 610 C.E. in Mecca, and through the Quran the Prophet invited the Meccans to the path of worship of the one God. In this period, he never referred to his fellow Meccans as kafirs. Instead, as I mentioned before, he referred to them as 'human beings' or by similar terms, such as 'Qureish' or 'my community'. He conveyed to them God's message while considering them part of his own community (qaum). This, therefore, shows that the words kafir and kufr relate to a particular attribute and not to an entire community as such.

In his mission to invite the people of Mecca to God's path, the Prophet was filled with a sense of deep concern for the welfare of those he was addressing, and even though they heaped all sorts of oppression on him he always beseeched God to guide them. And the Prophet continued to do this steadfastly throughout the thirteen long years after receiving his prophethood in Mecca. Even after that he did not refer to these people as kafirs on his own. It was only later that God revealed this commandment 'Say, 'You who deny the Truth […]' (Quran, 109:1). From this it appears that only after these thirteen years of the Prophet's dedicated mission in Mecca that God declared those whom he had addressed but who had rejected him as 'deniers', and it was then that God revealed this commandment. It is thus impermissible to declare anyone to be a 'denier' or kafir without having engaged in this sort of dedicated, sustained mission as the Prophet did in Mecca. To repeat what I have written earlier, it was only after thirteen years of the Prophet's mission in Mecca that God declared certain people or be kafirs or deniers, and for ordinary Muslims like us to do so even a hundred and thirteen years of preaching work will not be adequate.

In some Quranic verses revealed while the Prophet was in Mecca there are certain references to non-Muslims living outside Arabia. For instance, the Quran mentions the Romans, who were Christians, over whom the Persians had secured a temporary victory. But here it refers to them as Romans, not as kafirs. Likewise, the Quran refers to the non-Muslim ruler of Yemen, Abraha, but it does not label him as a kafir ruler. In contrast, the Quran uses the terms kafir and kufr with regard to the Qureish of Mecca who denied the Prophet. It did not refer to all non-Muslims as kafirs. For instance, when the Prophet migrated to Medina, he did not refer to the people of Medina as kafirs, but, rather, as 'people'. There were several non-Muslim tribes living around Medina at that time, but they, too, were not referred to as kafirs by the Prophet. Instead, he referred to them by their usual names, such as Ahl-e Saqif ('the people of Saqif'), Ahl-e Najran ('the people of Najran'), Ahl-e Bahrain ('the people of Bahrain'), and so on.

In the same way, in the early Islamic period, soon after the Prophet's demise when the Arab Muslims spread out of Arabia into other countries, they referred to the non-Muslim communities they encountered there by their own names, not as kafirs. For example, they called the Christians of Syria as 'Christians' (Masihi), the Jews of Palestine as 'Jews' (Yahud), the Magians of Iran as 'Magians' (Majus), the Buddhists of Afghanistan as 'Buddhists' (Bodh or Boza), and so on.

Likewise, when the first Muslims landed in India they did the same. They referred to the non-Muslims of India as 'Hindus', which is the Arab way of pronouncing the word 'Sindhu'. One of the earliest Arab Muslim chroniclers of India, Abu al-Rehan al-Biruni, author of the well-known Kitab ul-Hind ('Book of India'), referred to the non-Muslims of India as 'Hindus', not as kafirs.

Some Historical Instances

As I have repeatedly mentioned above, the form of address contained in the Quran 'Say, 'You who deny the Truth […]' (Quran, 109:1) applies only to those Meccans who denied the Prophet even after he preached among them for thirteen years and provided them with all the necessary proofs. The Quran does not address anyone else in this specific manner besides these people of Mecca of the Prophet's time. After the Prophet's conquest of Mecca, several Arab tribes sent delegations to meet him. For instance, some people came to meet him from Yemen. He addressed them as 'people of Yemen' (Ahl-e Yaman), not as 'kafirs from Yemen'. Similarly, the Prophet sent letters to the rulers of various lands near Arabia, inviting them to the path of God. He did not refer to them in these letters as kafirs [….]

To reiterate what I have said above, the investigation of kufr with regard to a particular person can happen only after all the necessary proofs of the faith have been presented before him, and the model of setting out the proofs (itmam-e hujjat) is just one—that is, the thirteen year preaching mission of the Prophet in Mecca. Further, even after one has properly and adequately set out the proofs of the faith it is only for God to specify, if He wishes, a particular person to be a kafir or 'denier' of the Truth. We cannot do this ourselves.

Heated Polemics

When the British ruled India, Muslim and Hindu preachers engaged in heated public polemical debates (munazara). This took the place of what rightly belonged to dawah or inviting, with love and concern, people to the path of God. These debates contributed in a major way to the rapid worsening of Hindu-Muslim relations across the country.

This is not the Islamic way of approaching others. The true Islamic way is through addressing others by being inspired by a spirit of love, compassion and concern for their welfare, even despite their opposition. On the other hand, polemical debates aim at defeating and demeaning others. Instead of love and understanding, they produce only more hate and conflict, thereby creating even more problems.

The Notion of Dar ud-Dawah ('The Abode of Inviting People to the Path of God')

The terms dar ul-kufr ('the abode of infidelity') and bilad al-kuffar ('the land of the infidels') are not found in the Quran. They are a later invention which emerged after the demise of the Prophet and date to the Abbasid period. They were not in use among Muslims before this. In my opinion these terms are not proper. Lands other than those that can, if at all, be called 'Islamic' countries, must be seen and termed as dar ud-dawah abodes of inviting others to the path of God, and these include even those countries that some Muslims might regard as opposed to them.

In the Quran, God addresses the Prophet and instructs him thus:
'This is a blessed Book which We have revealed, confirming what came before it, so that you may warn the 'Ummal-Quraa [Mother of Cities] and the people around it' (Quran, 6:92).

The term 'Ummal-Quraa in this verse refers to Mecca. When this verse was revealed, Mecca was in the control of non-Muslims, so much so that they had installed numerous idols inside the Kaaba. Yet, despite this, the Quran did not refer to the Mecca of this period as dar ul-kufr, but, rather, as 'Ummal-Quraa or 'Mother of Cities', and asked the Prophet to engage in the work of dawah there. From this one can infer that all places that are under the control of non-Muslims can be considered as dar ud-dawah, thus indicating to Muslims their duty of dawah or inviting to God's path the people of these lands. To refer to them with terms such as dar ul-kufr or bilad al-kuffar is not proper.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a translation of a chapter titled Kufr Aur Kafir Ka Masla ('The Issue of Kufr and Kafir'), in Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's Urdu book titled Hikmat-e Islam (Goodword Books, New Delhi, 2008) (pp.35-48).
For more information about Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and his writings, see www.alrisala.org, www.cpsglobal.org, www.islampeaceandjustice.blogspot.com and www.goodwordbooks.com
To order this book, write to info@goodwordbooks.com