What's new

How secular, really, is India?

Status
Not open for further replies.
'Kafir' - meaning and implications of a Qur’anic term
By Zafarul-Islam Khan
The issue of Kafir in the light of Islam, and whether or why Hindus are called ‘kafir,’has been raised again and again in the Indian press, particularly in the media controlled or influenced by the Hindutva movement. I have responded to it earlier.

Some time back this issue was raised by Mr Deena Nath Mishra, a BJP MP and a former editor of the RSS Hindi mouthpiece, Panchjanya, during a ‘round-table’ discussion convened by Mr OP Shah of the Calcutta-based Centre for Peace & Progress at the India International Centre, New Delhi on 26 July 1998. The question was taken up by Maulana Shafi Munis, vice president of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, who explained that it simply means a ‘rejecter’ of Islam and that it is not an abusive term.

I have lived for 13 years in Arab countries and have never come across anyone using the word ‘kafir’ as an abuse. As far as I know, only the Pathans in the Frontier area use a corruption of this term, kafar or kafar ka bachcha, as an abusive term for both Muslims and non-Muslims.
I told Mr Deena Nath Mishra, who had raised the issue of Hindus being termed as ‘kafir,’ that if he gave me time I am willing to visit him and explain the term to him in detail in the light of the Qur’an. He ignored my request and went on to speak about other matters and I have never heard from him again.

Here I will try to address this oft-repeated issue for the benefit of a wider public so that a serious misgiving is placed to rest if there is trust and willingness to listen to reason and facts. You can convince only those who are ready to listen and think about an issue without preloaded bias.

I must add here that this is not a rejoinder to the concocted thesis presented by Mr Arun Shourie (aptly rewarded later with a Rajya Sabha seat and membership of the central cabinet) during the last few years in newspaper articles which later evolved into books published by publishers of a certain colour and leaning. I have compared some of Mr Shourie’s writings with the original references he quotes so abundantly and directly (although he does not know the language of these references, i.e., Arabic) and found him grossly off the mark because he more often than not misquotes or quotes only selective portions out of context. Both these practices, i.e., direct quotes from sources one cannot read, and misquoting, are serious methodological errors).

KAFIR IN THE QUR’AN
Although various derivatives of the Arabic root k - f - r have been used in the Qur’an, we will confine ourselves to the word ‘kafir’ and will try to understand its meaning in this context. The Qur’an is the supreme scripture of Islam and supersedes everything else. In the Muslim belief it contains the direct and exact words of God as revealed to Prophet Muhammad.

The exact word kafir has been used five times in the Qur’an as follows [the translation1 of the exact word kafir in the verse is underlined]::
1. ‘And believe in what I reveal, Confirming the revelation which is with you, And be not the first to reject faith therein, Nor sell My signs for a small price, and fear me and me alone’ [2 : 41].
2. ‘And if any of you turns back from his faith and die in disbelief, Their works will bear no fruit in this life and the Hereafter’ [2 : 217].
3. ‘The Misbeliever is a helper (of evil) against his own Lord’ [25 : 55].
4. ‘It is He who has created you; and of you are some that are unbelievers, and some that are believers; and Allah sees well all that ye do’ [64 : 2].
5. ‘Verily, We have warned you of a Chastisement near-The Day when man will see (the deeds) which his hands have sent forth;and the Unbeliever will say, ‘Woe unto me! Would that I were (mere) dust!’ [78 : 40].

In the light of the above verses the word kafir has been used in the Qur’an for two meanings:
1. Rejecter of the faith [verses 1-3-4-5]. The fourth verse [2:64] is very meaningful - in that it tells us that it is part of Allah’s pattern and tradition, sunnah, that some people are ‘believers’ and some are ‘rejecters.’ It is the some Godly-sunnah everywhere else - there are plains against mountains, rivers against dry land, flowers against thorns, good against bad, sick against healthy, black against white, and so on. This is Allah’s scheme of things so that people and things are distinguished from one another but the best are the most pious and fearful of their Creator Who alone knows and judges their piety from false pretence.
2. Apostate - a Muslim who renounces his faith and dies in that state [verse 2].
Kafir is a descriptive term used for someone who rejects something. Hence even a Muslim who rejects some other religion may be termed kafir as a rejecter of that faith.

Kafir in Urdu is one of the attributes of the beloved, e.g., Ghalib’s verse: main hua kafir to woh kafir musalman hogaya..

It is clearly held by the scholars of Islam that a non-Muslim may be termed ‘kafir’ only if he rejects Islam after properly knowing it. Since most non-Muslims simply do not have any clear idea about the teachings of Islam, they cannot be termed ‘kafir.’. Indeed, Muslims are sinners for failing to convey the teachings of Islam to others. No Muslim court or authority has any power whatsoever to penalize a non-Muslim for not accepting Islam. Indeed history has recorded that Muslim rulers used to discourage non-Muslims from entering the fold of Islam as happened in Egypt during the time of the Umayyad caliph, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-’Aziz, who is recorded to have sternly admonished his governor for doing so fearing loss in tax-collection. The caliph declared that ‘Allah sent His prophet as a guide, not as a tax-collector.’ In India, too, the so-called Muslim nobility used to discourage local people from embracing Islam lest they demand a share of the political and economic pie. Islam spread in these lands inspite of the rulers and as a result of the selfless endeavours of preachers and sufis whose aim was to free human beings from the clutches of an oppressive social order.

There never was any coercion in the issue of religion throughout the history of Islam, with the sole exception of war criminals and prisoners of war captured during actual fighting against the Muslim state. The Qur’an is very clear about this, e.g., 2:109, 2:256 109:6. As a measure of magnanimity, prisoners of war were forgiven if they embraced Islam. Indeed, Muslims are forbidden to have good relations only with those who fight them in matters of religion (60:8).
Polytheists, Jews and Christians continued to live in Muslim state during the times of the Prophet and the first caliph Abu Bakr. It was only during the time of the second caliph, ‘Umar, that non-Muslims were forbidden from residing in the Haramain (the two sacred precincts of Makkah and Madinah) as a precaution to keep these two areas forever under Muslim control and occupancy. Even in these two areas, non-Muslims are allowed to enter for short visits without taking up permanent residence as a consequence. Elsewhere in Muslim states non-Muslims continued to live and even today there are non-Muslim communities in various Arab and Muslim countries which trace their roots to pre-Islam like the Zorastrians in Iran, Jews in Yemen, Sabeans and Christians in Iraq, Christians in Syria and Egypt and the like. This is in sharp contrast with the European practice of coercing minorities into accepting Christianity and killing or expelling those who refused to do so. There is no trace today of the large Muslim communities in Spain, Portugal, France, Sicily, Malta, Rhodes, Pantelleria, Canary Islands, Majorca, Manorca, Greece etc. Except very small minorities in some areas previously ruled by Turkey, all present European minorities are the result of recent migrations during and after the colonial era.

Source: 'Kafir ’ - meaning and implications of a Qur’anic term, The Milli Gazette, Vol. 2 No. 9
 
.
'Kafir' - meaning and implications of a Qur’anic term

good ababeel,

now can you provide the punishments/what you call "extra obligations" of a kafir in a muslim state?

also say what should be done to a person who becomes a kafir from a believer?

what are the differences of treatment between a kafir and a believer in different scenarios?

Now then state whether being a kafir is a punishment or not and then let us decide whether being a kafir in a muslim country is abusive or not? deal:cheers:
 
.
A country cannot pick out a small group from its population and base its policies to suit that group! Pakistan cannot pick out 1.2% Hindus and give them all the powers of the world while ignoring the 96.3% muslims in the country! I know that is what Indians actually think secularism is as they treat the muslims like dogs but unfortunately it cannot be done as we see it as unfair! ;) Rana Bhagwandas is a Hindu and there are numerous other Hindu's in the government! We have some extremely loyal Sikhs and Chrisians here... both groups very proud to be Pakistanis! Please don't spread rubbish!
No, Pakistan need not pick out a small group, it need not pick out a large group to suit that group.
The same Rana Bhagwan das had objections of being the CJP because he cant head the Shariah court, do you think we did not follow the controversy?

The first sikh officer of Pakistan came something like 2 years ago after 60 years and you want to show me that as your show piece of secularism? The Pakistani president/PM has to be a muslim, he cannot be from other religions if he is worth it/he has the support of majority. Nobody is saying the christians/sikhs are not proud of being Pakistanis, at the same time you would be kidding yourselves if you say that they are given equal treatment even constitutionally, forget in practice.

Christians see Cecil as their own national hero and an example for them to fight in the army! ;)

:woot: The donations from temples are used by the government... woah! I'd like you to tell this to some pandit guy and see how happy he will be with this information... I'm glad that I am here to blow your bubble... where did this one come from? Would the Hindu extremists leave the government alone if they were taking donations from sacred places as temples and using them for personal satisfaction rather than for the benefit of the religion?

And I think the statement below will sum up my post:
Do you want me flood this forum with copy-pastes about how temple funds are used by the govt of India? I can do it, if you so wish.. but would be pointless.

The Threat Against Hindu Temples and Vedic Temples in India
Excerpts from the link
Through the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, Hindu temples and Maths are taken over by state Governments in the name of better administration, while mosques and churches are completely autonomous. This Act allowed the state governments and politicians complete control over the temples and their property. Many abuses are committed by multiple state governments using the power accorded through this Act.

Under the Temple Empowerment Act, about 34,000 temples are under government control. Only 18% of the revenue of these temples is said to be given back for temple purposes, while the remaining 82% is used for other things by the government at their discretion. Such looting, massive sale of temple lands, demolition of temples, encroachments of temple properties, and the utilization of aggressive religious conversion tactics by Christians in the vicinity of temples is occurring all over Andhra Pradesh. The government, which is supposed to be a protector has become a destroyer of the culture, which threatens the very existence of Hindu institutions.

The Andhra Pradesh government Order 21 gave crores (tens of millions) of rupees for the renovation and construction of churches, thus, helping to pave the way for major Christianization of the state using illegal techniques for mass conversions. Almost all these activities are a violation of the Indian constitution that is supposed to separate the state and religion.

In Karnataka, for example, in 2003, as reported by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and in “India Today”, 79 crores ($790,000,000) was collected from about two lakh (200,000) temples. From that, temples received 7 crores ($70,000,000) for their maintenance, Muslim Madrassas and Haj subsidy (for trip to Mecca) was given 59 crores, and churches about 13 crores. Twenty-five percent of the two lakh temples i.e., about 50,000 in Karnataka, will be closed down for lack of resources.

In Maharashtra, the government recently declared to take over all the temples. This is a precursor to repeat the process already happening in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution guarantees public establishment and maintenance of religious institutions and to administer such property in accordance with law has been completely ignored toward Hindu foundations.

I was personally involved in agitating against a temple take over by the govt, please give me a break
Muslims make up 13.5% of the Indian population so he says that there should be atleast 1 muslim out of every 10 people in the Indian parliament!

and if most of the muslims are simply concentrated in some constituencies with 90% majority and in other constituencies they barely make up 10%, then?
 
.
Guys Pakistan isn't a secular state and never wanted to be one. I don't understand why we need to even debate this.

The minorities there are too few and powerless to protest and thus simply kneel over and accept the dominance of the majority muslims.
 
.
India is secular largely and it does have it's fair share of extremism also.But there are a lot of stuff that makes me think twice about secularism in India,though.like the recent canal project for example.

and one thing that irritates me somewhat is that in an Indian film it's always the Muslim girl marrying a Hindu boy(army officers with the rank of major or captain lol). :P why?
why doesn't the Indian directors show something like a Christian dude marrying a Hindu girl or a Muslim man marrying a Hindu girl?In reality are Indian Muslim males are really a bunch of losers?
 
.
and one thing that irritates me somewhat is that in an Indian film it's always the Muslim girl marrying a Hindu boy(army officers with the rank of major or captain lol). :P why?
why doesn't the Indian directors show something like a Christian dude marrying a Hindu girl or a Muslim man marrying a Hindu girl?In reality are Indian Muslim males are really a bunch of losers?
:lol: You remind me the reaction of Indian society and govt. over Shilpa's kiss with an Amercican fellow.
Poor Shilpa, she got caught on wrong footing in un-secular India.

Shilpa Shetty arrested over Gere clinch again :woot:

Pakistan News Service - PakTribune
 
.
India isn't un-secular it's just not secular as a whole.Meaning it isn't fully secular as the India's envoy claimed in BD.which is another irritating thing,Indians telling us to be secular sometimes BJP people(when commenting about situations in BD that is).
I however have great admiration of the West Bengal people.India at least have one secular state,but secularism or liberalism aren't things that will save civilization always.
 
.
India isn't un-secular it's just not secular as a whole.Meaning it isn't fully secular as the India's envoy claimed in BD.which is another irritating thing,Indians telling us to be secular sometimes BJP people(when commenting about situations in BD that is).
I however have great admiration of the West Bengal people.India at least have one secular state,but secularism or liberalism aren't things that will save civilization always.
and do you know whats even more irritating thing for us Indians? That Pakistan and Bangladesh who threw out the secularism to the dustbin and call themselves muslim states, preaching us about secularism.
Eg: 24 pages of this thread.
Anyone heard of the phrase "pot calling kettle black" or whatever the correct phrase.

We atleast preach what we want to be, but "you guyz".........?
 
.
HK,

There are many Christians and Hindus who marry Moslem girls or boys.

It is no big deal these days!

India's civilisation is Indian and not religious.

I will clarify that.

Hinduism was born in India as was Buddhism.

Other religions were from ME.

That is why it is easy to identify Hinduism as Indian. Since I am not a Hindu, I take exception to anyone who ascribes that India is Hindu only. I am an Indian always and every time.

Isn't it interesting that a country has a religion that it created and others are but mere followers? ;)
 
.
We atleast preach what we want to be, but "you guyz".........?

where was I preaching about secularism and liberalism?I am somewhat a conservative and don't have a problem if other states have their own conservative laws in force.so I don't care whether India is secular or not fully or partially.
It's just some of your people have a habit of lecturing us and tell us to "be secular,look upto India,etc." like some BJP politician or some envoy of yours saying,"India is a real secular country' on and on.

Kind of pisses me off mainly owing to the fact how BD changed withing the last 5 years.I haven't read or heard of a BD envoy lecturing India specifically to be secular this and that.maybe voiced concerns about minorities and hardliners obviously bash India as usual(they put up mentioned argument for India 'exporting secularism' frequently ).
 
.
HK,

Nothing in the world is perfect. Even religions are not perfect. I say so without offence because if it were then there would not be so much of discussion on it as we see in forums as also in private life!

Therefore, to feel that India is perfectly secular is a pipedream. Likewise to feel Saudi Arabia is totally Islamic is another dream.

Actually, it makes no difference who is what. What is important is that one is true to being a good man and if that can be achieved, I think it would be the best thing that could happen.

Jesus had said, "let the person without sin to cast the first stone". Could anyone?
 
. .
Nothing in the world is perfect. Even religions are not perfect. I say so without offence because if it were then there would not be so much of discussion on it as we see in forums as also in private life!
it's alright bro you are correct but I think the main reason behind it is humans are not perfect themselves.no offence taken or meant(from prev posts).yes we are kind of diverting from the topic,sorry about it.

Can different Indian states have their own sets of laws?do they always have to be consistent with the Indian constitution?
and what happened to that sex education case?you know introduction of sex education to students at an early age or something like that.
 
.
it's alright bro you are correct but I think the main reason behind it is humans are not perfect themselves.no offence taken or meant(from prev posts).yes we are kind of diverting from the topic,sorry about it.

Can different Indian states have their own sets of laws?do they always have to be consistent with the Indian constitution?
and what happened to that sex education case?you know introduction of sex education to students at an early age or something like that.

You have hit the nail on the head!

I don't follow everything and sex is not a subject that enamours me in a lustful way.

I don't care what the govt has to say, since sadly, most of these sudden 'awareness' is all inspired by what is the latest fad in the West!

You young people must forgive me. While the Western values excite you, I don't find it necessarily suitable to the oriental mindset. And everything Oriental need not be bad. If we have survived being good humans well before the Western barbarians were civilised, I am sure we could not be that bad!

I only say, be proud that we brought in what one calls civilised ways. Somewhere down the line, they went ahead. But it does not mean we are anyway less than them. Remove the aberrations and we are still way ahead of them!

I, for one, am ready to learn from them. But, I would not slavishly follow them!
 
.
Can different Indian states have their own sets of laws?do they always have to be consistent with the Indian constitution?
and what happened to that sex education case?you know introduction of sex education to students at an early age or something like that.

Indian states need to have their laws according to the constitution. The constitution decides which of the areas, are to be given to the states and which to the centre. There is also mid-way areas where both the centre and state can make rules, but in these if a central law exists, it overrides the state law.

The above is true for all states except kashmir. Kashmir has a special status, where it has its own constitution. Note this power is given to them by the indian constitution itself. Most of the laws of Indian constitution cannot be implemented in Kashmir, again note most, not all. That is why, kashmir has its state elections every six years, where as rest of India has their state elections every 5 years.

I think sex education comes under the state law and varies with state to state. But for the most part it is not yet implemented.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom