Talk:Kafir

message: I came across a statement in a book that a kavass, who had to be a Muslim (not sure this was upheld after a certain time, see here, "Russian kawass"; look 100% Russian, and I doubt that the Russian Ecclesiastical [Christian Orthodox] Mission in Jerusalem searched the empire for Muslims to hire), was allowed to "hit Muslim troublemakers with impunity" while in the service of a Jewish Hakham Bashi or Christian Patriarch of Jerusalem. I looked up the kafir article hoping to find something about the laws set up for situations such as kafir-hits-Muslim and Muslim-hits-kafir; there is none mentioned. I am aware that the laws might differ a great deal over time and space, but at least something on the topic of jurisprudence regarding kafir vs. Muslim (rights and punishments) would be very helpful. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws regulating kafir's life in Islamic realm, conflicts w Muslims? 

message: This doesn't sound very encyclopediac, and is not really how we write in Wikipedia. Could you please explain your reason behind this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone a bit further and removed the sentence. I think the Britannica article is a bit too simplistic to use here. Jizya was already covered in the passage before, and the note about pagans being forced to choose conversion or death is palpably false, neglecting the frequent enslavement of such groups. A better source is needed on the treatment of pagans. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained change 

message: The recent edits have been reverted due to a decrease of quality. There have been some inaccuracies, such as the claim that "Sharia" is a form of "Traditional Islamic law". Next, the claim that "it is traditionally death" sourced by "Chapter 21 Theology of Violence-oriented Takfirism as a Political Theory: The Case of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)" is not well-grounded. When the source itself is about a terrorist organization (which has been considered unIslamic by almost if not all notable Muslim scholars), when it can be expected that we find harsher depictions of a certain matter and maybe even deviant views, since the topic itself does only superficially touch upon Islamic theology. Next, the source itself relativizes the claim by stating:
 "In the classical period of Islam, the issue of excommunication has often been a complex legal discussion among Islamic scholars and philosophers.". 
The source itself focuses on the "Khārijites" who are well-known for their apostasy-killing, and severaly critizized throughout Islamic history. ISIS (although rather errorneously since they are still two separate groups) have been copared to them sometimes. Thus, the article is specifically designed to discuss apostasy-killing, which is not a good start to talk about the concept of "Kafir" (which is much broader than apostasy anyways). Next, it is over-simplified to say that "kafir" equals "non-Muslim", since the identity of "Muslim" is subject to debate (see Maturidism for example). There is also a debate if non-Muslims who have not rejected Islam but do not believe in it, could be considered "kafir" as within Asharite theology. Due to the over-simplifications to a degree being misleading, the edit was reverted. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superficial definition 

message: mazhab e islam mea sabse phele kafir kon hua tha 106.213.80.207 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbic