Talk:Takfir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

For a January 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Takfir

For the record: "fatwa" does not mean an execution order or something, as one might imagine if one had heard of them only from the Rushdie case. It simply means a legal judgement. One can issue a fatwa on the permissibility of shaving, or the circumstances under which wudu is invalidated, or on whether someone is an apostate or not, and how they should be punished. You can easily verify this by looking at any Islamic site; IslamOnline.net, for instance, has a whole fatwa bank. - Mustafaa 09:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe your "some sources" refers to Ibn Uthaimeen; if so, he is not saying what you think he's saying. His words are:

Thus, if he is ignorant, he does not become a disbeliever, due to His saying, “And whoever contends with the Messenger after the guidance has been made clear to him, and he follows a path other than the path of the believers, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen and land him in Jahannam, an evil refuge” (4:115)

The point he's making is that ignorance excuses acts (like "contending with the Messenger") that would normally constitute reasons for takfir, not that this verse refers to takfir. "We" in the Qur'an almost always (and certainly here) refers to God, not to the community. - Mustafaa 09:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My sources disagree with you, but you are so closed minded and uncongenial a person to work with that I have decided to concede the field to you. However, in future, I will probably vote to delete such articles, simply because it is very clear that you, as with far too many people here, simply will not work to achieve consensus, and have a nasty attitude. You've won your point, but you have made an enemy. I hope you are pleased with the exchange. Stirling Newberry 22:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And for the record the context of the article was in relation to a fatwa as the result of a takafir. You are arguing "a legal judgement doesn't mean an executtion" - when the question at hand is what a fatwah after takafir. In this, as in many other things in this article, your arrogance is highly visible, and the possibilty of working with you seems to be zero. Stirling Newberry 22:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I take both these issues to talk, to discuss and debate until the facts are agreed on, and your response, instead of to discuss them or explain your position, is to declare your disgust with the whole concept? Please stop to consider the possibility that you may simply be wrong - all the more so if you're relying on a single source, as your edits suggest. - Mustafaa 21:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merge?

Could we still consider merging this with kafir? The concept is exactly the same, takfir means just "to declare a kafir". No need to have to separate articles. dab (ᛏ) 14:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I would argue otherwise; in theory, the two concepts ought to be rather similar, but historically speaking, takfir plays a very different ideological role than kufr in general. Similarly, excommunication is a different article to apostate or infidel. - Mustafaa 21:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not, I completely oppose that idea. Takfir is extremely important. Kuffr is just a broad term, Takfir is the act of declaring an alledged Muslim a disbeliever. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I see, but the kafir article is very short. As far as I can see, takfir really means nothing but "to say 'you are a kafir'". Any use of kafir incompatible with this should be considered incorrect. It seems rather like having an article on apostasy, and then another one on apostate. So at least at the moment, the kafir article does not contain information that couldn't be discussed in a short section in this article, with the advantage that the relation of the terms may be discussed (which is more difficult with things scattered over several articles). But I may be ignorant of the real issues. If it is conceivable that kafir evolves into a detailed article clearly separable from this one, of course it should be kept separate, or be separated again once we have enough material. dab (ᛏ) 08:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kufr and Takfir are indeed versions of the same word, but on the other hand they both derive from the same k-f-r word root. Linguistically it's like uncover, discover and cover. On the other hand, there are differences in meaning. The word kafir makes no comment on whether the person _has been_ a Muslim. Takfir is not only a declaration of kufr, but also of apostasy (so far as I understand the term). Kufr is disbelief, whereas Takfir is ceasing to be one of the believers after having been one.

A comment on the article: The Salafipublications.com source says "A Salafi Perspective". But the other two sources are also by Salafis. In fact, Uthaimeen is one of the eight or so scholars listed at Salafipublications.com. And while the pro-Saudi Salafis may debate the issue, Maududi is most definitely a Salafi.

[edit] Striver's version

Striver keeps reverting to his version, which is misspelled and not at all an improvement on the previous version. So far as I can tell, the only information added are the links to Sharia and List of Islamic terms in Arabic. Which Striver insists on referencing with English circumlocations and redirection rather than use the Arabic word. Striver, do you have something against the use of Arabic in Islam-related articles?

If those links are desired, they can be put in the See also section, not shoehorned into the opening sentence. Zora 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)?

[edit] Abu Bakr doing Takfir?

Is saying "By God, I will fight anyone who differentiates between prayer and zakat" really takfir? This sounds more like a warning rather than actually declaring those tribes as disbelievers. Can someone please explain to me how that above equals takfir? As "one of the earliest examples" this is made to sound like a precedent, in which case the clarity of the content must be established with diligence or gotten rid of altogether. And I dont know the answer so whoever wrote it, fix it. Thank you 67.169.206.46 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC) I should probably explain my confusion some more...during the course of fitna, Ali and Muawiyah probably both said they were going to "fight eachother". If Abu Bakrs statements are a clear sign of takfir, then dont all Shia and Sunni muslims have ample reason to call eachother kafirs, based on the conflicts in early Islam? My point is that unless Abu Bakr actually called them kafirs, a conflict among muslims should not count as inherent disbelief of one or more parties. If the Caliph said they were kafirs put it in the article!!! 67.169.206.46 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/k/Talk%7ETakfir_90e8.html"