Talk:Takfir

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments in January 2005 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Absolutely not, I completely oppose that idea.  Takfir is extremely important.  Kufr is just a broad term, Takfir is the act of declaring an alleged 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)
thread_title: merge with [[Kafir]]?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Striver's version 

message: 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)
replies: text: Those statements of the first Caliph don`t qualify for takfir, because they don`t fit in the definition of takfir. He didn`t pointed any specifical person or people as kafirs, he just stated that he will fight with those who differentiates between the prayer and the zakat. General statements, such as "those who don`t beleive in God are not Muslims", cannot be takfir, they are declaration of a fact. In fact, he even didn`t use the word kafir. It is very ridiculous claim that Abu Bakr (r.a.) practiced takfir, and if it doesn`t originates from ignorance, the only other explanation that comes to the mind is malign (bad) intent. 88.234.186.147 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Bakr doing Takfir? 

message: Do we really need articles on both Takfiri and Takfir? Maybe the articles should explain the difference, for people like me who are new to both words.  MPS 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Takfiri versus Takfir

message: The example of a "murderer" used here to model a knowing abandonment of Islam seems slanted in associating the religious sin of apostasy with the severe and widely recognized crime of murder. Since the sins themselves are not proof, it seems to me the sin need not be so egregious. Wouldn't someone who having practiced Islam then states that Muhammud was not the prophet, or some similar heresy, also be a kafir? 
If so, could a more neutral, less confusing example be used to explain the Sunni justification for takfir?
Also, since kafir is the non-english term (and apostate the english translation), shouldn't kafir be consistently italicized in articles in this series? Takfir switches italics on & off in this article; I'd fix this now, but I'm not sure what the conventions are. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Takfir#Conditions|Conditions]] example 

message: "In Shia terminology, "takfir" is the practice of crossing the arms when standing upright during salat (or takattuf, called qabd by Sunnis)."
Actually, the meaning of "takfir" in Shia Islam is the same as that in Sunni Islam, with the additional dictionary entry of crossing the arms in salat. Just because we add a dictionary entry doesn't mean that the added entry cancels out the others. 174.124.234.21 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia Islam and Takfir 

message: In the original article there is a paragraph that reads 
"For this reason, orthodox Islamic law normally requires extremely stringent evidence for such accusations, in many cases, requiring an Islamic court or a religious leader, an alim, to pronounce a fatwa (legal judgement) of takfir on an individual or group." Alim is a link to the uses/meaning of this word......I think the term used around this site is the "diambiguous" references.....either way the usage of the word "alim" is not one of the uses discussed.......
A new entry on that forward page discussing the word alim in context of sharia probably needs to be undertaken
12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Alim 

message: It should be mentioned in the text that Islam prohibits Muslims from taking arms against other Muslims and that historically the main purpose of officially declaring other Muslims to be apostates is to allow war to be fought against them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.29.44 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  prohibition against taking arms against other muslims 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Takfir's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "jstor-1570336":
From Sharia: 
From Apostasy in Islam: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Takfir]] 

message: I have tried to make the two articles more distinct. including groups and people called takfiri in the takfiri article. the details of what is involved in a takfir accusation in the other. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing', given the absence of support. Klbrain (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: merger with [[Takfiri]] not necessary

message: * the accidental takfirism
 Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful refs