TexasCHLforum.com

x007x wrote:I see this word on pictures, car stickers, AR ejection port covers and so on.. I thought it was a military thing for being over seas. Can anyone help decribe the meaning to me?
Thanks.

It means they're not a Marine.

Infidel meaning something very different from Semper Fidelis.

Beiruty wrote:TAM,
As a Muslim and Sunni Muslim born and raised as Muslim, I can lay down my 2 cents.
In Islam, you either Believe in the Message of Prophet and Messenger of God, Muhammad (PBUH) or you do not.
1) The Believers (Mu'menoun) and who attested by uttering in Arabic or other languages what means" I do believe and solemnly attest that there is no god, but God (Allah in Arabic) and Muhammad is his Prophet and Messenger". Thus, they are now called Muslims.
2) The Non-Believers, (or Kafiroun, plural of Kafir) are who do not fall under 1)

3) If a believer committed a Kufor i.e. Blasphemy, he/she would be a Murtad, i.e Became Kafir after being Muslims. That is Apostasy.

Non-believer are still human beings and should be treated according to the Tenant of Islam, Compassionately and with Mercy.
The subject is very diverse and long and I have to go back to work. I will be glad to elaborate more later when I done working.

Beiruty, thanks for the response. So, how does the term "infidel" fit into this? Is it non-accusatory, the same way I use the term "non-believer," or is there an element of judgement of the other in it?

TAM,

Beruity can correct me if I am in error but as I understand it after having been in sandland for a bit. A non believer is a person that does not believe in Allah in any shape or believes differently, an Infidel is someone that has REJECTED the one true belief, if I remember my classes correctly non believers can be taught the true path and infidels cannot. this may be an over simplification but gets the gist across. This is why soldiers wear the Infidel t shirts and other items with pride, we refuse to submit to those who would make us in their image to be secular muslims under sharia law, we like smoking drinking being promiscuous to nth degree and generally doing what we want to when we want to. and yes I am sure I am not quite conveying what I feel and know properly so that it can be understood by everyone

The Annoyed Man wrote: The problem is one of perception on the part of the person so-labeled. The term I used—"non-believer"—is not accusatory. It is merely a statement of fact. It does not imply that the non-believer has any less value or any fewer rights as a human being than the believing person's value or rights. There is no implied superiority on my part because I am a Christian. In fact, my Christian faith means that I confess my complete inadequacy to achieve righteousness, and so I must therefore rely on the righteousness of my God, because I have no righteousness of my own (Romans 3:21-31). Therefore, I am able to live peacefully with my non-believing neighbors, and peace between us does not depend on their acceptance of my religious standards because I am no better than they are.

You write well and speak clearly. Thank you sir!

TAM,

In Islam, there are laws and customs that governs non-Muslims in the land of Islam.

For example, Christians and Jew are called "people of the book", i.e. those whom God send them prophets and messengers, can live in peace in an Islamic state and have their rights protected. Most of time and throughout the history you find prominent Christians and Jew who served honorably as scientists, doctors specialists, or traders, etc, in an Islamic State.

On the other hand, a Murtad, or once a Muslim who committed blasphemy, after being warned, advised and finally tried and convicted can face capital punishment.

Beiruty wrote:TAM,

In Islam, there are laws and customs that governs non-Muslims in the land of Islam.

For example, Christians and Jew are called "people of the book", i.e. those whom God send them prophets and messengers, can live in peace in an Islamic state and have their rights protected. Most of time and throughout the history you find prominent Christians and Jew who served honorably as scientists, doctors specialists, or traders, etc, in an Islamic State.

On the other hand, a Murtad, or once a Muslim who committed blasphemy, after being warned, advised and finally tried and convicted can face capital punishment.

Don't they pay a tax for simply not being Muslim?

Purplehood wrote:

Beiruty wrote:TAM,

In Islam, there are laws and customs that governs non-Muslims in the land of Islam.

For example, Christians and Jew are called "people of the book", i.e. those whom God send them prophets and messengers, can live in peace in an Islamic state and have their rights protected. Most of time and throughout the history you find prominent Christians and Jew who served honorably as scientists, doctors specialists, or traders, etc, in an Islamic State.

On the other hand, a Murtad, or once a Muslim who committed blasphemy, after being warned, advised and finally tried and convicted can face capital punishment.

Don't they pay a tax for simply not being Muslim?

some countries do charge a tax, some countries disallow them to worship in public and some disallow any kind of worship that is not Muslim. I have been to all types and can't stand that guy that wails all day long in Dubai nor anyplace else that I have been over there

The Annoyed Man wrote: So, how does the term "infidel" fit into this? Is it non-accusatory, the same way I use the term "non-believer," or is there an element of judgement of the other in it?

"Infidel" is English for the Arabic "kafir."

According to what I have gleaned from Muslim clients, there are three types of people, Muslims, People of the Book, and infidels. "People of the book" include those who are Christians and Jews, believe in one God, whether denominated Allah, Jehovah or God, as their custom and habit may be, all of which religious roots descended from Abraham. Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet, kind of a Latter Day Saint perhaps, but Mohamed is the last and final word.

JALLEN wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: So, how does the term "infidel" fit into this? Is it non-accusatory, the same way I use the term "non-believer," or is there an element of judgement of the other in it?

"Infidel" is English for the Arabic "kafir."

According to what I have gleaned from Muslim clients, there are three types of people, Muslims, People of the Book, and infidels. "People of the book" include those who are Christians and Jews, believe in one God, whether denominated Allah, Jehovah or God, as their custom and habit may be, all of which religious roots descended from Abraham. Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet, kind of a Latter Day Saint perhaps, but Mohamed is the last and final word.

I get that, but the part I am having a hard time understanding is why, as Purplehood asked, under an Islamic theocracy, all non-Muslims, including presumably any "people of the book," would be required to A) pay a dhimmi tax; or B) comply with any of the other restrictions of Dhimmitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi.

I ask this question because it highlights the importance of the 1st Amendment—that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, nor prevent the free exercise thereof—and to the secular value of equal protections under the law. It would seem to me that any Muslim living in our country would have greater liberty than any "person of the book" would have in an Islamic theocracy. I'm not trying to criticize the religion, but rather the concept of a theocratic state. It does me no good if, in exchange for being left alone to practice the religion of my choice, I have to pay as special tax because I'm not a member of the state's officially sanctioned religion; that I cannot enter into a legally binding contract with a Muslim unless I convert; that I cannot marry a Muslim unless I convert. (Actually the Bible says we should not be "unequally yoked" also, but there is no legal stricture sanctioned by the state which forbids it. Under Sharia, it would be forbidden.)

So I guess one of my questions to Beiruty and any other Muslim members of the forum would be, "even though this is a secular state which does not adopt Islam (or any other religion) as the official state religion, are you not better off living here, than you would be in a nation which does not recognize that all citizens have exactly the same rights, regardless of their religious affiliations? I think that this is one of the main reasons we are able to coexist peacefully.

Purplehood wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: The problem is one of perception on the part of the person so-labeled. The term I used—"non-believer"—is not accusatory. It is merely a statement of fact. It does not imply that the non-believer has any less value or any fewer rights as a human being than the believing person's value or rights. There is no implied superiority on my part because I am a Christian. In fact, my Christian faith means that I confess my complete inadequacy to achieve righteousness, and so I must therefore rely on the righteousness of my God, because I have no righteousness of my own (Romans 3:21-31). Therefore, I am able to live peacefully with my non-believing neighbors, and peace between us does not depend on their acceptance of my religious standards because I am no better than they are.

TAM,

If more Christians lived by this simple precept I would have less of a problem than I do with organized religion.

This infidel commends you.

There is all the difference in the world between a Christian, which is what TAM described so well, and organized religion, which is often a form of suppression. There are many Christians involved in organized religions, but organized religion is not Christianity.

Purplehood wrote:

Beiruty wrote:TAM,

In Islam, there are laws and customs that governs non-Muslims in the land of Islam.

For example, Christians and Jew are called "people of the book", i.e. those whom God send them prophets and messengers, can live in peace in an Islamic state and have their rights protected. Most of time and throughout the history you find prominent Christians and Jew who served honorably as scientists, doctors specialists, or traders, etc, in an Islamic State.

On the other hand, a Murtad, or once a Muslim who committed blasphemy, after being warned, advised and finally tried and convicted can face capital punishment.

Don't they pay a tax for simply not being Muslim?

One of the 5 pillars of Islam is helping the poor. Each year during Ramadan, a Muslim is expected to give 2% of his income for charitable use. I suppose, but do not know, that giving during other times counts. I am told that this is the only "tax" in Saudi Arabia. Non-Muslims would be "taxed" as they are not otherwise obligated to pay.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: So, how does the term "infidel" fit into this? Is it non-accusatory, the same way I use the term "non-believer," or is there an element of judgement of the other in it?

"Infidel" is English for the Arabic "kafir."

According to what I have gleaned from Muslim clients, there are three types of people, Muslims, People of the Book, and infidels. "People of the book" include those who are Christians and Jews, believe in one God, whether denominated Allah, Jehovah or God, as their custom and habit may be, all of which religious roots descended from Abraham. Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet, kind of a Latter Day Saint perhaps, but Mohamed is the last and final word.

I get that, but the part I am having a hard time understanding is why, as Purplehood asked, under an Islamic theocracy, all non-Muslims, including presumably any "people of the book," would be required to A) pay a dhimmi tax; or B) comply with any of the other restrictions of Dhimmitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi.

I ask this question because it highlights the importance of the 1st Amendment—that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, nor prevent the free exercise thereof—and to the secular value of equal protections under the law. It would seem to me that any Muslim living in our country would have greater liberty than any "person of the book" would have in an Islamic theocracy. I'm not trying to criticize the religion, but rather the concept of a theocratic state. It does me no good if, in exchange for being left alone to practice the religion of my choice, I have to pay as special tax because I'm not a member of the state's officially sanctioned religion; that I cannot enter into a legally binding contract with a Muslim unless I convert; that I cannot marry a Muslim unless I convert. (Actually the Bible says we should not be "unequally yoked" also, but there is no legal stricture sanctioned by the state which forbids it. Under Sharia, it would be forbidden.)

So I guess one of my questions to Beiruty and any other Muslim members of the forum would be, "even though this is a secular state which does not adopt Islam (or any other religion) as the official state religion, are you not better off living here, than you would be in a nation which does not recognize that all citizens have exactly the same rights, regardless of their religious affiliations? I think that this is one of the main reasons we are able to coexist peacefully.

TAM,
Your statement:" that I cannot enter into a legally binding contract with a Muslim unless I convert" is not true.

As Muslim living in Muslim State or here in a secular I may not feel a difference under the 1stA. Non-Muslims may feel otherwise.

One more thing, The Jizya is an equalization factor, as Muslims are obliged to pay 2.5% of the net worth of their liquid funds for Zakat (Charity) where as non-Muslims are not obliged to pay a cent for that public fund.

So Non-Muslims pays a tax specified by the Islamic state.

JALLEN wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Beiruty wrote:TAM,

In Islam, there are laws and customs that governs non-Muslims in the land of Islam.

For example, Christians and Jew are called "people of the book", i.e. those whom God send them prophets and messengers, can live in peace in an Islamic state and have their rights protected. Most of time and throughout the history you find prominent Christians and Jew who served honorably as scientists, doctors specialists, or traders, etc, in an Islamic State.

On the other hand, a Murtad, or once a Muslim who committed blasphemy, after being warned, advised and finally tried and convicted can face capital punishment.

Don't they pay a tax for simply not being Muslim?

One of the 5 pillars of Islam is helping the poor. Each year during Ramadan, a Muslim is expected to give 2% of his income for charitable use. I suppose, but do not know, that giving during other times counts. I am told that this is the only "tax" in Saudi Arabia. Non-Muslims would be "taxed" as they are not otherwise obligated to pay.

Zakat is 2.5% of net worth of liquid funds per year, once a year and not necessary in Ramadan. You can pay more and you encouraged to pay more but not obliged to. And, as I said, there is no other tax, State is run by natural resources funds and fees for those countries where they have few mineral or natural resources.
Jizay for non-Muslims is an equality factor, not a discrimination.

Some of us think the Ten Commandments make great sense, aspire to follow the positive teachings of Christianity, but find the supernatural aspects intellectually impossible.

Are those of this bent considered infidels?