Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Takfir

A kafir is someone who rejects Islam. This we should all know by now. The labelling of someone as a kafir, is called takfir. It's actually not wholly clear what it is that makes one a kafir, even though Muslims seem pretty settled on what it is. I'll tender this as a definition: "Someone who doesn't believe in Islam after some number of Muslims has grown frustrated with trying to convert her. " This is not an exactly serious definition but rather it points to the root of the problem with delineating the concept. Muslims don't say every non-Muslim is a kafir, only those who are "clearly aware of [Islam] and what it entails" and yet still remain non-Muslim. On this they're settled. But then what is the method to determine who is "clearly aware"? On this they offer nothing. Essentially what happens is that Muslims will just assume the group of kafirs are clearly aware based on what these kafirs have been told already, and from that I get my definition. What underlines all this is the Muslim assumption of indubitable knowledge on the subject. Here's some quotes:
"...don't give up on a non-muslim because most people are good people who simply need a break from the anti-Islamic propaganda around them."

"Guiding a Non-Muslim to Islam only possible by the Grace of God. Our job is to help others understand Islam - that is our basic duty. And only then inshallah, will non-muslims move in the direction of becoming one of us." (From here.)

"In my view, most people in today’s world did not reject the message because simply they are not aware of what Islam is. This is largely due to the biased international media" (From here.)
And that seems to be the fundamental position of the Muslims. That they do not enter into dialogue when they discuss religion -- they only lecture their position, because they already assume that they are right (before they have even heard your position!) -- you, the kafir, is the one who is wrong and merely needs to see the truth. I've never once seen anything like a Socratic discussion between a kafir and a Muslim on the issue of religion. Have you?

We always hear about how there should be more dialogue and less outright criticism which is just really "speaking past" one another. But what would this dialogue look like? One must be willing to change his beliefs in a dialogue, not just be professorial. But are Muslims willing to change their beliefs? I have yet to see any evidence of this. So I'll stick with doing that evil of "speaking past" and just continue to criticise them, and I suggest this approach to everyone else who is still willing to defend a non-Islamic position. What's the point of dialogue if it can't get anywhere? Might as well take up defensive positions and hunker down in "Fortress West" behind our walls of syllogisms and scientific method. But hey, prove me wrong.

3 comments:

Athos said...

Would you, a human, argue with a dog? A pot-bellied pig? A sloth?

That is the attitude of one thoroughly indoctrinated in Islam: kaffiri are subhuman. If they resist, beat, throttle or kill them. Any more questions?

Thus, the only way to respond is the only way they understand: force. "Making 'um see reason," as was said in another generation, is the only respect they will understand. Until they understand.

Dag said...

The photo you lead with looks to me like Theo van Gogh, murdered on Nov. 2, 2004, by a Moroccan immigrant to the Netherlands who was upset at van Gogh's collaborative film on the treatment of Muslim women as per the Koran. Van Gogh was murdered, and his collaborator, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is still under threat. That latter will never change till she dies. Forever, somewhere, there will always be one Muslim who will try to kill her. She is an apostate, and the penalty for that is death, an unchallengeable certainty in Islamic law, shari'a or fiqh.

Hassan al-Banna and Said Qtab are the Arab leaders of the ideology of takfir in our time, following the lead of Osama bin Laden's favorite Muslim thinker,as it were, ibn Tamiyya; and in today's powerhouse of Islamic self-destruction, the glowing light of takfir is the Mualana Maududi. These three and Afgani and a handful of others have developed an understanding of apostasy from Islam as those who are not salaf, or pure in their submission to Allah. Hence, those pronounced takfir, a sentence generally only available for judgment to the ulema, the recognized scholars of Islamic jurisprudence, now available to self-proclaimed salafis, are claimed to be living in a state of jahaliyya, or in the state of ignorance, the time prior to the revelations of Mohammed from Gabrial mediating from Allah himself. This is significant and difficult to combat, if anyone in the umma cares to, because outside Shi'a there is no great authority to which any Muslim must accede to, even the head of al-Azhar, high as his rulings might be seen to be. The point is that any Muslim can proclaim another takfir, a lapsed Muslim, ergo an apostate, ergo sentenced to death.

Regarding the kuffar, we are all kafirs in the eyes of the Muslims, all of us najis, ie. akin to pigs, dogs, urine, feces, or simply "dirty." Essentially this is due to us not following wuhu, or ritual ablution; but were we to do so, still we would be najis for being kuffar. Also, we "mingle" with women, making us najis again. The result is, if you notice it in daily contact with Mulsims, they will not shake your hand, and some will recoil if you stand near them in the rain, fearing a drop of water will splash from you to them.

There are different kinds of kuffar: the average defeated one, the surrendered one, being a dhimmi, a "monotheist," a Jew, Christian, a Chaldean, some occasional Zoroastrians.

Muslims have a nifty idea of who is and who isn't Muslim: they use the idiot idea shamelessly that we are all born Muslim and that our parents deceive us from birth to be otherwise, and thus we encounter the cutesy "reversion" as opposed to conversion some non-Muslims go through.

Regarding those who are aware of Islam, those who have been "embraced" by the "truth" of Mohammedism, there is th erepugnant imperialist irredentism of waqf, the understanding in the mind of the Muslim that all land once under the control of Islam is forever so Islamic and has only been temporarily taken back into jahaliyya. This is a problem for those from Sicily to Tours, from the Gates of Vienna to Madrid to the Vatican to Beslan and beyond.

Muslims will do to you what they did to Theo van Gogh. At best, if Muslims prevail, we face dhimmitude, a slavery and an endless oppression by Muslims.

To paraphrase a line from George Orwell's novel 1984, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a sandal stomping on a human face-- forever."

This is the future our multi-culti elitists are drawing us into.

Kafir Canada said...

Yes, it is Theo van Gogh of course. He was called out("takfired") as a particular "egregious" kafir by the Islamic extremists. That's why I include his picture.

Theo van Gogh said days before he was assassinated, something like: "Why would anyone want to kill me? I'm just the village idiot."

He had one daughter.

A very sad story of a both fool-hardy and silly man who was killed because Islam can't make room for the irreverent.

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious." -- Ayatollah Khomeini

This attitude killed Theo van Gogh. That and a European multicultural elite who considers him and his fatherless daughter nothing but cracked eggs for their omelet.