Through sloppy usage, the word has become an offensive term for all non-Muslims, and it is better that it be voluntarily replaced
For last week's instalment of Channel 4's Dispatches, Lessons in Hate and Violence, teachers and preachers at certain Muslim faith schools in the UK were filmed using the word "kaffir" frequently in reference to non-Muslims. In one interview, a young woman who had previously attended such a school expressed dejection at the fact that her teacher rebuked her for consorting with a "kaffira" ? a young, white schoolfriend ? when he spotted them outside the school.
Kaffir, an Arabic word meaning "disbeliever" or "rejecter", is an active participle entailing action as opposed to a descriptive noun. In a religious sense it suggests volition, more so than the passive "atheist" or "non-believer". The root of the word means "to cover" or conceal which adds another dimension of intent to the term; a rejecter of faith who has hidden or concealed the truth. In the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are referred to as "the faithful" ? the term "kuffar" (an alternative spelling of "kaffir") is reserved for those who deny God's existence but it has sloppily become common vernacular for all non-Muslims.
It is one of those words that can be used in jest, hyperbolically mimicking zealous clerics eager to brand as many Muslims and non-Muslims as "kuffir" (as in, "I can see a strand of hair under your hijab, you kaffir"). Due to its frequent use in the Qur'an as a term referring to those who do not believe in God, it can also be taken to mean, in its most non-pejorative sense, purely, "one without faith".
One of the Muslim religious leaders interviewed by Dispatches asserted that the word was offensive, and "othered" non-Muslims, thus standing in the way of integration. The problem with the term is that it originates in a religious and cultural discourse and thus it does not sound too dramatic to audiences in such contexts. In a secular framework it jars, possibly the same way using the word "heretic" or "infidel" in reference to non-Christians or those who have rejected Christian belief would do. In addition, the word has been appropriated and misused by a host of extremists where it has taken on more derogatory and sinister connotations. In fact, "takfiri" groups make it their business to indulge in exclusive interpretations of Islam that render the mainstream so narrow, that the majority of the practising Muslim world is branded errant. The word was then further hijacked by Islamophobes and neocons who pounced on it as Islamic parlance for a despised west.
As with most controversial terms, intent and audience are also paramount. Muslim extremists use the expression to describe even Jews and Christians, with an intent to demonise, marginalise and foster a mentality in which community spirit is deemed to be under siege. I have heard the word used in mosques in Saudi Arabia where the "kuffar" were virtually all non-Sunni Muslims and in informal gatherings where it denoted little more than "non-believer".
Where does the right to free speech end and the need to ban offensive and inciting language begin? For example, it is ever more popular and acceptable to insult believers or mock their intellectual and moral fibre. AC Grayling describes believers as "those who smugly embrace ignorance". This echoes the voluntary rejection of truth suggested by the word "kaffir". He states that "people of faith have rejected the benefits of an open mind".
To most staunch believers, the obvious righteousness of their conviction means no other is tenable. Therefore, not adopting their stance becomes a deliberate rejection either through some deficiency of mind, malady of spirit or weakness of character. The crucial difference is, however, that non-believers are not then acting on this conviction, and isolating themselves in communities to the exclusion of those who have faith.
Is it time to reclaim the term from such extremists and rid it of the stigma with which it has been imbued? Use it in religious argot carefully in exclusively Muslim company where there is former consensus regarding its connotation? My feeling is that if the word is offensive to non-Muslims, and even Muslims to whom it is attributed, rather than fight for the same right of others to be offensive and wade through the different explanations, contexts and Qur'anic permutations in order to justify the use of the term, perhaps it is better to replace it voluntarily and sensitively with one less charged.
This is not succumbing to politically correct bullying that applies only to Muslims, it is simply defaulting to good manners. It may not eradicate antagonism to non-Muslims, but it's a start. Language informs our attitudes as much as it reflects them.
Manchester United Asia The FA Insects Television industry Dimitar Berbatov
No comments:
Post a Comment