To Moslems, the Miracle of Prophet Muhammad is the Holy Book, Quran as it came from God. As such, if the Qur’an came from God or Allah, as Muslims believe, then it is Allah that is calling non-Muslims 'kafir'.
Hence this is a Judeo-Christianity-Islamic concept. It is written in the holy books. In fact, kafir or kafirun appears a number of times in the Qur’an. There is even an entire chapter named Surah Al Kafirun (the Chapter of the Infidels). So, if the Qur’an came from God or Allah, as Muslims believe, then it is Allah that is calling non-Muslims kafir. So why get angry with the Muslims when God was the one who calls non-Muslims kafir?
According to Islam, a kafir is someone who disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, and in His final Messenger, Muhammad — or a Muslim who disbelieves in or rejects the tenets of Islam. Hence, unless you accept Allah as the one and only God and Muhammad as God’s messenger, then you are a kafir. There are no two ways about it. And, to the Christians, if you reject Jesus you are an infidel. And any Christian who denies this is a liar.
So, do you still think religion is not wrong and only those who misinterpret religion are wrong? If you do then you are suffering from a very bad case of ADS, Acquired Denial Syndrome. There is no misinterpretation here. It is as clear as daylight. If you do not accept Jesus as the Son of God or Muhammad as the last Prophet, you are a kafir.
Let not believers take disbelievers (Kafir) as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination. 3:28
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. 9:29
The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah”, and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? 9:30
Indeed, Allah has cursed the disbelievers and prepared for them a blaze. 33:64
Our Lord, give them double the punishment and curse them with a great curse. 33:68
So today those who believed are laughing at the disbelievers (kafir). 83:34
So when you meet those who disbelieve (Kafir) [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favour afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds. 47.4
Indeed, they are planning a plan. But I am planning a plan. So allow time for the disbelievers (Kafir). Leave them awhile. 86:15-17
When your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved (Kafir), so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.” That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger – indeed, Allah is severe in penalty. 8:13-14
O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve (Kafir) advancing [for battle], do not turn to them your backs [in flight]. And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving [as a strategy] for war or joining [another] company, has certainly returned with anger [upon him] from Allah, and his refuge is Hell – and wretched is the destination. 8:16-17
And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you threw not, [O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw that He might test the believers with a good test. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing. That [is so], and [also] that Allah will weaken the plot of the disbelievers (Kafir). 8:17-18
Those are just some of the many verses in the Qur’an that refer to the Kafir and that tell believers (Muslims) how to deal with Kafir (the rejecters of the truth). Those who tell you that Islam is a religion of peace either does not know Islam or is lying to you. There is nothing peaceful about Islam or even about the other religions of the Book if you were to read the Bible properly and not go into denial mode.
The Abrahamic God is a violent and jealous God who does not tolerate you believing in any other God. You break His commandments and he not only punishes you but will punish the entire community and your whole family as well. And He tells you to fight those rejecters of the truth and to show no mercy until they submit and have been humbled and pay tax or ransom (or are all killed).
Allah also tells you not to side with the Kafir to fight Muslims. And if the Kafir rejects Allah and Allah’s commands and you support them to fight Muslims then you are condemned.
Muslims who are truthful will confirm what I say. Muslims who are lying to you would disagree with what I say. But they will disagree with what I say merely so that they would be perceived as moderate or progressive and so that they can get the non-Muslims support. So in that sense they are dishonest Muslims.
– Should a Muslim allow a Kafir teacher to teach his children?
– Should a Muslim consult a Kafir doctor and take medicines from him/her?
– Should a Muslim engage a Kafir lawyer to defend him over some charges?
– Should a Muslim engage Kafir contractors to build mosques?
– Should a Muslim buy shares in Kafir businesses?
– Should a Muslim accept the blood of a Kafir when an emergency transfusion is needed to save a life?
– Should a Muslim allow a Kafir to live next to him, opposite him, or close to him?
– Should a Muslim use the same toilet used by a Kafir?
– Should a Muslim sit on a chair that a Kafir had sat on?
The list can go on. Why are a few bigots so hell bent on preventing Muslims and non-Muslims from living in harmony?
Who has gone to heaven or hell and come back to describe these to the living?
If heaven is meant only for the Muslims, why did God create peoples of so many faiths?
These bigots are painting the picture that God is the greatest sadist of all beings, hence he created non Muslims to burn them in Hell and enjoy their screams, while Muslims could commit all kinds of sins, and yet by virtue of being Muslims, their place is in heaven.
Or, are the bigots saying that different Gods created the peoples of the different faiths! Well then, can they tell us how many Gods are there?
Submit to God Or Die!!!
The Jews have had their civil war to ‘define’ Judaism. But this was 2,000 years ago. The Christians, too, had their civil war to ‘define’ Christianity. And that war was a most brutal war indeed (you can read what happened in the write-up below). Now it is the turn of the Muslims to slug it out to decide which brand of Islam is going to emerge supreme.
After the civil war to decide which brand of Christianity was the ‘correct’ version, Christendom went through another war 200 years ago that was fought between theology and secularism. And secularism won. That is why religionists from all three Abrahamic faiths consider secularism and liberalism as the enemies of religion.
Today, the Muslim religionists are rising against secularism and liberalism to establish what they call an Islamic state or a global Muslim ummah (community). And this is why shrines and mosques are being demolished to end what they say is heresy.
To understand why they are always fighting you need to understand the history of the Abrahamic faiths. The religions of Abraham are about domination. You must submit yourself to God and if you do not you must be punished. And the punishment is normally death.
Democracy, human rights, civil liberties, secularism, and so on, do not exist. Only God’s will exists. And those who resist the will of God do not deserve to live.
Ah, yes, but this is only for Islam, you may say. You argue that Judaism and Christianity are not like that. That is not true. It is just that the secularists have managed to defeat the church while in Islam that has not happened yet. Hence Judaism and Christianity are given a more tolerant image compared to Islam.
The truth is all three of the Semitic religions are the same. The only thing is Judaism and Christianity have been castrated and have been turned into Eunuchs while Islam is still virile. That is the only difference.
What damage have Osama and his extremist followers done this century to the world’s perception of the great man and the religion he established?
What is being done by Osama and, as you said, his extremist followers is the result of the US attacks on Muslim countries. Of course, the retaliation has done much damage to the image of Islam which is now viewed as militant and extreme. But then we choose to blame this on the West, the enemy of Islam, who, we say, is out to destroy Islam. This, we argue, has been written in the Quran. The kafir (infidel) will not rest until we abandon the true path and follow their misguided path, argue the religious experts.
But don’t we, always say that all the good comes from God while all the bad is our own doing? Countless times have I heard speeches where the speaker sums up by minta maaf (apologising) in the event he said something wrong or his words slighted anyone. The good, say the speakers, comes from God and the bad from our own weaknesses.
If this is what we believe, how come when anything bad befalls Islam we blame others for it and not accept it as our own weakness? For example, we are angry with the US and Bush for invading Iraq. Would anyone have been able to invade Iraq if the Muslim nations had remained united? Would they have been able to invade Iraq if Iraq had not given them an excuse to (like the more than one million Muslims killed by Muslims)? Can the US invade Iraq if none of the Muslim countries allow the US to use their countries as military bases — plus fly over their air space and use their territorial waters? What I am arguing here is, the US managed to invade Iraq because the other Muslim countries allowed them to. In fact, it was not only allowed, the other Muslim countries wanted the US to invade Iraq. Then we argue that all Muslims are brothers and Muslims must not side with non-Muslims against Muslims. Which one is it now? It cannot be both. It can only be one or the other. The truth is; many Muslims see the US as their ally instead of regarding their fellow Muslims as brothers. So why are we upset with the US?
I always say that it is intrinsic (sifat semula jadi) in the fox to eat chickens. Why get angry with the fox when it does? We should be angry with those who brought the fox into the chicken run (reban ayam). In this case, the US is the fox and Iraq the chicken. So, who brought the fox into Iraq if not the other Muslim countries — or at least allowed the fox to trot past their territory on the way to the reban ayam?
One important point to note is that Muslims always do things in the name of Islam. So, when they do something wrong, then Islam gets the bad name. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho, Mao, and many, many more are probably as bad as or worse than Saddam. But did they kill millions of their own people in the name of Christianity or whatever religion they subscribe to? Cruelty (kezaliman) recognises no religion. Bad people come from all religions and races. But only Muslims commit cruelty in the name of God or Prophet Muhammad. Sure, one thousand years ago, Christians too killed in the name of Jesus. But that was so long ago and has not happened since the last couple of centuries. But Muslims till today are still doing this and they label it as jihad. Then Muslims point out that jihad is an obligation in Islam and all Muslims must perform jihad. When jihad is interpreted as killing, especially by non-Muslims and those who do not understand Islam, what do you expect? Islam equals jihad equals killings. This is what people are led to believe. So how do we counter this perception when it is still going on? Should there be a stop towards such idealogy? Or should One leave it to God to punish the sinners classified as Infidels, Kafir, the Disbeliever, Murtads, Shirik, Mushrik or the Kuffaar?
To most Muslims, ‘deviant’ means any view that you have which differs from theirs. As long as you do not also believe in what they believe then you are a deviant.
In the old days, those who thought that the world was round rather than flat were deviants because the majority believed that the world was flat. And the church was extremely uncompromising towards those perceived as deviants.
In the Old days, or in the past, only those who spoke Latin could interpret religion. It became a sort of exclusive club. The fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Latin failed to grab their attention.
Christianity has since progressed beyond that. But Islam is still suffering from what Christianity suffered more than 1,000 years ago. Islamic critical thinking is not tolerated because the interpretation of Islam is the monopoly of this exclusive club where membership is denied to those without the right credentials.
Religion since time immemorial has been used by those at the top of the religious hierarchy to imprison the minds of the populace. And those who question them suffer persecution.
This has not changed over thousands of years. It is comforting to know though that what I have been saying for years and which resulted in me being branded a deviant is now being said by those with the proper credentials to speak.
Some may call me an Atheist. Some call me an Agnostic. Some may even call me anti-religion. Rest assured it is not for man to decide what I am and am not. That is the exclusive domain of God to decide what His creations are or are not.
For only God shall judge his Creations as 'He' is the creator of Heaven & Hell, the Creator of Man, Angel and Devils too!!! If God is Good, does Bad comes from 'He' too?
If God creates Life should Man be the destruction of Life? Or in other words is the human law of death sentence justified, acceptable and humane?
Lawyer: Mr Jimenez, you say that the church was negligent and that this negligence caused the statue of Jesus on the cross to fall over and crush your leg. Could it not be that you were negligent instead and that it was your negligence that caused the statue to fall over rather than the negligence of the church?
Plaintiff: No. I was very careful. I was not negligent.
Lawyer: So, in spite of your carefulness, the statue still fell over. Hence it was not your own negligence. Is that correct?
Plaintiff: That is correct.
Lawyer: You volunteered or offered to clean the statue as an act of faith and a goodwill gesture. Is that correct?
Plaintiff: Yes, that is correct.
Lawyer: So the church did not ask you or request you to clean the statue.
Plaintiff: No, but the church gave me permission to do so knowing that it was dangerous.
Lawyer: How do you know that the church was aware that it was dangerous to clean the statue? Did the priest or anyone else from the church tell you it was dangerous?
Plaintiff: No. No one told me it was dangerous. But they would have known it was dangerous and they should have told me.
Lawyer: How do you know they would have known it was dangerous?
Plaintiff: Well…I sort of just know. It’s a sort of feeling I have.
Lawyer: So, you have no evidence of this. It is just a feeling you have that the church knew it was dangerous and you also have a feeling that they did not tell you that it was dangerous in spite of knowing that it was dangerous?
Plaintiff: Well…err…well yes.
Lawyer: So, in spite of you being able to have all these feelings, you did not have any feeling that the statue might fall over if you start cleaning it.
Plaintiff: Err…no.
Lawyer: And you volunteered or offered to clean the statue because you have faith that your prayers in front of the statue helped cure your wife’s cancer.
Plaintiff: That’s right.
Lawyer: Are you saying that the statue cured your wife’s cancer?
Plaintiff: No, not the statue. God cured my wife’s cancer because I constantly prayed in front of the statue. It was God’s will.
Lawyer: So it was God’s will that your wife was cured, not the statue’s will. Is that correct?
Plaintiff: That’s right.
Lawyer: But the statue fell over when you cleaned it.
Plaintiff: That’s right.
Lawyer: So it was not the statue’s will that it fell over but God’s will.
Plaintiff: Err…I think so…you are confusing me.
Lawyer: Mr Jimenez, it’s a simple question. Is it God’s will or the statue’s will that it fell over?
Plaintiff: It’s God’s will.
Lawyer: So, it was God and not the statue that cured your wife’s cancer and it is God’s will and not the statue’s will that it fell over and crushed your leg. So why sue the church then? Since God is the cause of both your wife’s cancer being cured as well as for the statue falling over would it not be God’s doing and therefore you should be suing God instead of the church?
Plaintiff: I can’t sue God!
Lawyer: Why not?
Plaintiff: Well, because you just can’t, that’s why.
Lawyer: But the church had no hand in this. In fact, even the statue had no hand in this, as you admit. It was the hand of God that both cured your wife and made the statue fall over. So why sue the church for something that God did?
Plaintiff: It just does not work like that.
Lawyer: Even if the church had not been negligent but God had willed the statue to fall over could the church have prevented God’s will?
Plaintiff: I don’t understand.
Lawyer: Let me put it another way then. Can the church defy God?
Plaintiff: Of course not. No one can defy God.
Lawyer: So, if God had wanted the statue to fall over then there is nothing the church could have done, is that correct?
Plaintiff: What are you driving at?
Lawyer: What I am driving at is God’s hand is at work here and the church is powerless to prevent God from doing His work. God and not the church or the statue cured your wife just like God and not the church or the statue caused the statue to fall over. Both acts, according to your faith, are what we could call ACTS OF GOD. Can someone else be sued for an act of God?
Plaintiff: Err…err…you are confusing me.
Lawyer: Your Honour, I ask the court to set aside this suit and award costs to my client as the Plaintiff has admitted that what happened to him was an act of God and not negligence on the part of the church. I have also received instructions that if the Plaintiff would like to sue God I am authorised to represent Him.
