happy Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 take a look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaafir the things mentioned within this document states clearly what a 'kafir' is ....the conclusion has been erected to say that the gurus ARE NOT kaafirs as they do not do any of the notions which are suggested within the koran which causes one to become a kaafir can people on this forum please post serious replies to discuss this matter further the admin boys should also post replies thanks peace out :D :D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy Posted September 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 oh the question arises to say why do then the muslims of today still claim everyone else that is not 'muslim' are kaafirs..wvwn if they do not do what the above document suggests that makes kaafir how can they be kaafir then thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy Posted September 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 :D :D peace out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 off course the Guru's were not kafirs..the word kafir means someone who reject the existence of God, and since they never did that, they are not kafirs..they wer simple Non-muslims.. the word kafir today is used among muslims to point out non-muslims....a kafir is a manmukh i think 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy Posted September 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 then why are there quotes saying that one who doesnt beilive in the prophets are too kaafirs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheena Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 then why are there quotes saying that one who doesnt beilive in the prophets are too kaafirs They go beyond the definition of the word and attach their own person interepetaiton/agendas and experiences to it. Perhaps this quote by Javanmard will help understand it better. It might not be describing the same word, but the idea is the same. Vâhigurûjîkâkhâlsâ Vâhigurûjîkîfateh Dear all, this multiplicity of interpretations is fine as long as one is aware of the following: There is a difference between objective definitions (i.e. objectively and universally true based on interpersonal criteria such as language, history etc...) and personal interpretations. My initial post was a definition i.e. what the word and concept means universaly and objectively. For the rest Rupz's and cybersingh's interpretations are how they perceive simran for themselves. We have different ways of looking at things but fact remains that words and concepts have an inherent objective and universaly valid meaning. It is totally fine to have a personal interpretation provided the objective definition remains the initial reference. The reason I am pointing this out is that there is an increasing trend in anglo-saxon religious circles (not just Sikh) to translate scripture and concepts with highly subjective and hence universaly non-valid interpretations. Let me give an example: Dr. Jodh Singh translates ik-omkâr by "one omkar". This is the most correct translation because it is as literal as possible and does not involve him putting his own personal interpretation of the concept forward? His translation can be accepted by all. On the other hand we have the translations from other people (mainly belonging to a neo-yogic new-age movement :wink: ) who translate ik-omkâr as "the one universal transcendental and immanent cosmic reality". This is the translator's own personal interpretation that he/she enforces on others by giving it the status of translation and thus giving it a universaly acceptable value that it doesn't actually have. I hope this helps http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...&highlight= 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy Posted September 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 interseting however what would be the objectively based definition of kaafir within this case im guessing a non muslim... :D:D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheena Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 Perhaps Javanmard can give us a better understanding of the word as he is well versed in Islam. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy Posted September 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 i dont think he will though as he repeatidly mistakes me for someone else :D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.