Talk:Infidel

Reference to Christianity An Error

Is not believing anymore in Santa Klaus an act of infidelity? Historically, the word "infidel" has been exclusively used to describe non-believers of the Islamic faith. For modern day purposes, Christians (believers of Jesus Christ as the Son of God), describe non-believers as either non-Christians or non-believers.

The term "unequally yoked" is used to describe the non-believing spouse in a Christian marriage.

Ariele 8 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

The word Infidel has not been exclusively Islamic. Further to that point, it has been used, especially in Catholilicism, to describe Muslims, in particular in the 16th and 17th centuries (Well, that is what I'm reading now, so maybe it was more used in other centuries). The word used by Muslims is "Kuffr", orKaffir, or something similar. Indead this word, like the word "Salam" transcends national language and is used by English, Urdu and Gujarati speaking Muslims at least (As well as Arabic speaking Musims, but that point it obvious). Here, for example at http://www.catholicism.org we see the word infeidel as a word to describe "the Mohammedans" - an early european word to describe Muslims. At another Catholic Site ( http://www.newadvent.org ) we see the word used to describe the Turks. Pope Urban II, I think, made a speach which included "The cursed infidels have led away a part of the captives into their own country, and a part have they killed by cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of their own religion.". Likewise here, we see it used to describe the Sultan of Damascus as an infidel by the Pope. Thus, I hope you can clearly see that the statement "the word "infidel" has been exclusively used to describe non-believers of the Islamic faith" is utterly wrong. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

==Yuber is trying to remove all references to Islam calling unbelievers infidels

Yuber is ignoring the consensus above and has decided he wants to remove all references to those who are not believers being called "infidels" in Islam and is inserting lies into this article saying "there is no such word" etc... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen Chaosfeary/Fones/whatever account you're using now, there isn't that much difference between the two versions. Your version for some reason has a link to the Dirty Kuffar video, and that is totally inappropriate in a disambig page. Your version also says that the word kafir can also mean a denier or concealer, but that's not true since that is it's original meaning.Yuber^(talk) 01:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Consensus version never mentioned the Soul Salah Crew and their non-Charting hit "Dirty Kuffar". Yubers version is thus straightforward, logical, NPOV and actually makes sense. --Irishpunktom\^talk 01:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Archaic Usages

The Christian reference in the first sentence is to archaic use; IMO, the only reason "Christian" is listed at all is because -- allow me to hazard a guess -- certain persons feel an overmastering need to indulge in "tu quo" logical-fallacies concerning anything with the least possibility of casting Islam in a negative light (i.e., "Well, others are doing it too', see?").

I've added an linked archaic tag to qualify Christian. Yuber has removed it once, and I have re-added it with comment suggesting he come here and discuss it.

If he removes it again, I'll remove Christian. -- Fair, no?--Mike18xx 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No need for the logical fallacy stuff... I do agree that I only have heard kafir used as infidel... and not the Hindu or Christian terms... I wonder if we can find any scholarly articles on that. It seems to me that typically conservative Muslims and conservative Americans use that translation. Would anyone have any idea how to find some legitimate source on that? Right now it's just our perception of the term's usage. gren グレン ^? 00:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is an infidel

The article now says:

"kafir" is used for atheists and the followers of other religions apart from the People of the Book (generally taken to be Jews, Christians and Samaritans), and is often translated as "infidel". It may also be used in some contexts for Peoples of the Book.

I would love to see a source for this quote, which strikes me as odd because the quote first says that the term "kafir" does not apply to "People of the Book", but then it says the term does apply, but does not specify when. The definition of "kafir" that I know is "a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah (God), a disbeliever in God".[1] No specific treatment for Jews and Christians, as you can see. Another elaboration on the term kafir says that it "was also used of Christians who believe in the divinity of Jesus" [2]

They surely disbelieve (la-gad kafar 'llazina) who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers (al-Ma'idah 5:72).

Another quote confirming that "kafir" encompasses Christians:

According to the Raddu 'l-Muhtar (vol. iii, p. 442), there are five classes of kafirs or infidels:

1. Those who do not believe in the Great First Cause,
2. Those who do not believe in the Unity of God, as the Sanawiyah who believe in the two eternal principles of light and darkness,
3. Those who believe in the unity of God, but do not believe in a revelation,
4. Those who are idolaters,
5. Those who believe in God and in a revelation, but do not believe in the general mission of Muhammad to the whole of mankind, as the Christians, a sect of the Jews (sic).

(Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p. 260)

Terms from Hinduism and Judaism, as the article says, are not usually rendered as "infidel", which alone is a sufficient reason not to include them in the article. Furthermore:

• goyim is applied to people of non-Jewish ethnicity; it cannot be applied to Jews, even those who do not adhere to Judaism;
• gentiles is not a term from Judaism;
• nastik means "atheist" [3];
• mleccha means "foreigner" [4].

Pecher 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Goy" is the Hebrew word for "nation". When used colloquially, it means a non-Jew in an ethnic sense. It is not the Hebrew word for "infidel". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If kaafir means "a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah (God), a disbeliever in God", then clearly Christians and Jews are not kaafiruun. Is this your point? To take a definition from one of the better-known (Western) Arabic-English dictionaries, kaafir means "irreligious, unbelieving; unbeliever, infidel, atheist; ungrateful" (Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Again, clearly not applying to Christians or Jews. The word can, indeed, be used by Christians to refer to an unbeliever or atheist. But you can hear it used by some bigots to refer to Christians and Jews, so I think this is worth mentioning. And as you can see from the article on kafir, they are able to cite a religious justification for this. Palmiro | Talk 00:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you elaborate why you think it's clear that the definitions above do not apply to Christians and Jews? That is not self-evident to me.--Pecher 17:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think elementary logic makes it clear that Christians are not irreligious or atheists. Christianity is a religion and involves belief in God - the same God as Muslims believe in. Palmiro | Talk 09:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A person who refuses to submit himself to Allah is clearly a non-Muslim because only Muslims, as their name implies, "submit" to Allah. Wehr's inclusion of "unbieliever" and "infidel" makes the definition sufficently elastic to include any non-Muslim; otherwise, it's unclear where polytheists fall in his definition, and they are undisputably kuffar, right? Also, the definition from Hughes quoted above unambiguously includes Christians in point 5. On top of that, Malik ibn Anas aplies the term ahl al-kufr to Zoroastrians and People of the Book, see Yohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, p.57.--Pecher 21:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your point relates to mine. "Goy" is not the Hebrew or "Jewish" word for "infidel". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my point was entirely in response to Pecher. I have no particular view on the inclusion of Jewish, Hindu etc. terminology as I have no knowledge of the subject. Also, I see I skipped reading the second half of Pecher's comments and thus misinterpreted his remarks (due to the late hour and my extreme time pressure and tiredness); however, the substance of my points stands. Palmiro | Talk 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi I have protected the page because of the edit war. Please try to solve this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WEll if we are going into etymology , kafir means one who hides . So if a person hides a horse , he is a kafir , he hides an elephant , he is still a kafir . You dont have to be a non-muslim for it. Secondly, the word astik is used in hinduism for religious/one who follows vedas . Opposite to that , is the word nastik , which means one who doesnt follow Vedas , he can be following any religion, or following nothing at all . Mleecha is anybody outsider .Though it mainly means foreigner , the word is & has been used for Muslims in India by Hindus . Like wise , Goyim means people , & its mostly used for non-jews . Watch al-jazeers , you will find "Die Goy" written on plestenian houses . You wont find it on CNN , obviously .

If we have to cite that Kafir means infidel , even when it means a dozen more things , then goy , nastik should be treated in the same way . If you guys see my version , it never said Goy/Nastik means infidel . It only said that the words are used in more or less the same way . And same is the case with the word Kafir . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 09:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But the word "Goy" is not used in the same way as "infidel", as it does not have the religious connotations of the word "infidel". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean all the talmud verses about Goyim spread all over the net are incorrect. May be the word doesnt have a religious connotation , but then jew can be both a race & religion . That might be a reason for usinf goy for both non-jew(by race) & non-jew(by religion) , & also ....cattle . I can understand this , because we have got the same problem with Kafir . A person hides a cow , he is a kafir , he refuses to give you back your money , he is still a kafir . If you cant include goy or nastik here, you shouldnt include kafir either . We can say that the word means non-jew , which means by race &/or religion . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Talmud verses about "Goyim" spread all over the net are incorrect; usually falsified translations, or completely invented verses. See [5], [6], [7] Also, "goy" is not used to mean "cattle", that's just something anti-Semites lie about; see Goy. In any event, if you want to assert that the word "goy" means "infidel", you'll have to produce some reliable sources which back you up on that, otherwise it's just original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera's anti-Semitic fabrications cited above belong to the same cesspool of bigoted hateful balderdash as fake Talmudic quotes do.--Pecher 17:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection: *Dude*....

...do you think you could lock it up after fixing/re-linking "kafir" to its Wiki entry? :-P --Mike18xx 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Only if the others agree. I could go link it if linking it isn't disputed. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation: You wish to conceal information -- information which justified its own Wiki page -- from Wikipedia readers browsing this entry, disingenuously justifying it with "others agree" duplicious obfuscating nonsense when your very reason for locking the page was disagreement. <sarcasm>Your steadfast commitmant to broadening the frontiers of human knowledge is duly observed; lemme see if I can dig up a star for yer user page, l'il buddy!</sarcasm>. Who do you think you're kidding?--Mike18xx 01:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, somebody has recently changed "kafir" to a redirect to a rather overdone disambiguation page on "kaffir". I doubt if anyone will object to you fixing the link. Palmiro | Talk 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's two for restoring the link.--Mike18xx 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Count me in, too.--Pecher 17:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation needs to be moved to the top of the page

For the Infocom text adventure, see Infidel (computer game).

{{dablink|For the [[Infocom]] [[text adventure]], see [[Infidel (computer game)|''Infidel'' (computer game)]].}} æle ✆ 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I say let's just chuck the reference to the game, since it's over twenty years old, wasn't noteworthy when introduced, and is only a minor footnote of trivial interest to anyone who doesn't already know what they're looking for regard it (i.e., very few in-operation computers today could even run the game except in some esoteric emulation mode).

--The whole world is full of such minor references (antique "B"-films and shows, games, novels, lesser historical personages, etc) that do not warrant "permanent encrustation" status on abridged archives of knowledge. I.e., I'd assert more people are aware of a certain character in a certain episode of "Batman: The Animated Series" who yells "Infidel!" several times, than have heard of the computer game. ...and lookee here: Amazon.com sells ] with "Infidel" in their titles!--Mike18xx 11:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Usually heirarchical?

"one who doubts or rejects a particular (usually heirarchical) doctrine, system, or principle." What's the basis for "usually heirarchial"? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

...the high correlation of instances of labeling people as "infidels" to their denial or abandonment of an orthodoxy with varying levels of authority? (E.g., nobody gets called an infidel for leaving the Hare Krishnas.)--Mike18xx 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Islam is not especially heirarchical, is it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. I also wonder what is the source for the "usually heirarchical" assertion.--Pecher 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I put it in there as a qualifier to "doctrine, system, or principle" (and qualified it in turn with "usually"). Regards Islam -- it's certainly heirarchical whereever there are religious police (among other "layers") enforcing a particular figurehead's edicts regarding social mores. ("Heirarchical" is not synonymous with "uniform".)

Since it's rather ancillary to the subject, I won't get bent out of shape if no one else thinks it belongs...although I do.--Mike18xx 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The dispute

Kafir cannot be equated with Infidel because Infidel in English means anybody who doesnt follow a particular religious tradation . In Christian term , it is somebody who doesnt follow Christianity . Kafir on the other Hand doesnt include People of the book ( That includes Jews, Christians, Sabains, Zorasterans , & sometimes hindus too ) , & Ahl al Fatrah . Kafir only includes people to whom the message of Islam has reached, & still they refuse to accept it , & deny the truth . Since I found a link to kafir here ( a concept that is very different from Infidel ) , I also added other similar concepts from other traditions . The word is usually translated into English as Infidel juat because English doesnt have a word similar in meaning to Kafir , it doesnt mean that Kafir means Infidel .

Anyways , I dont see any particular reason of keeping Kafir here & removing Goy or Nastik , both of which are different from Infidel , just like Kafir . If we keep Kafir here , we keep everything else , if we remove everything else , we remove Kafir too . I you see my last version , it was never stated that Goy or Nastik means Infidel , it only stated that Nastik means non-follower of Vedas , Mleecha means non-follower of Hindu way & Goy means non-jew , just like Infidel means non-christian . But then it was removed & later on I was enlightened , I was told that the word Infidel is actually English translation of Kafir , & means non-muslim , what can I say , I cant even laugh on that . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For better or worse, the English translation of the word "kaffir" is "infidel". No amount of original research will get around that. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Its all well documented facts (see Kafir), nothing orignal research . Translations.....whatever , Kafir is not Infidel . If English cant translate a word decently , its not my headache . You like it that way , remove everything other than Infidel . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You may put the argument forward before English translators and say that they do a poor job, but as long as they render "kafir" as "infidel", we will go along.--Pecher 21:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Farhansher, Yuber, A.n.o.n, et al, apparently have no conception of the notion that they're not really accomplishing anything except to make Wikipedia disreputable. I.e., their whitewashing and propaganda will have zero effect -- because anybody reading this damn thing already has everything else on the web at their fingertips, and knows how to "route around 'damage'".--Mike18xx 12:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Pandering to popular beliefs that aren't necessarily based in reality also works toward making Wikipedia disreputable. Infidel is a term used by Christians hundreds of years before Islam came about. When Pope Urban II decreeded Christians to wage holy war against Islam, he referred to Muslims as infidels. I find the lack of this fact another reason why there are certain users attempting to slant Wikipedia facts to paint Islam in their own way. We've seen it occuring by the same cast on multiple articles. It is sad and has quickly earned Wikipedia the reputation of being a disreputable source for Islamic information. User247 23:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a happy infidel!

I like to see women's pretty faces. And their legs. Oh yes, I do. And a little alcohol suits me just fine now and then. Nevermind... this is no fun... I am no good at trolling... I guess that is why I am not a troll. *sigh* --PistolPower 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah its true you are a troll. Yeah we all know hedonism is fun, big deal. Its only an 'ism'. Portillo 10:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Mike18xx requested unprotection of this article on WP:RFP. Are we ready to go with that yet? howcheng {chat} 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have stalled for days. Let's give it a whirl. Pecher ^Talk 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that "kafir" is used for all non-Muslims

• "Kafir is a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah (God), a disbeliever in God".[8]
• Kafir "was also used of Christians who believe in the divinity of Jesus" [9]

They surely disbelieve (la-gad kafar 'llazina) who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers (al-Ma'idah 5:72).

• Another quote confirming that "kafir" encompasses Christians:

According to the Raddu 'l-Muhtar (vol. iii, p. 442), there are five classes of kafirs or infidels:

1. Those who do not believe in the Great First Cause,
2. Those who do not believe in the Unity of God, as the Sanawiyah who believe in the two eternal principles of light and darkness,
3. Those who believe in the unity of God, but do not believe in a revelation,
4. Those who are idolaters,
5. Those who believe in God and in a revelation, but do not believe in the general mission of Muhammad to the whole of mankind, as the Christians, a sect of the Jews (sic).

(Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p. 260)

• Malik ibn Anas aplies the term ahl al-kufr to Zoroastrians and People of the Book. (Yohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, p.57)

Pecher ^Talk 08:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We have got two other terms for whole people of the book & people who dont get the message of Islam . And ofcource , the first one comes from Quran itself , that was used for jews , christians & zoroastrins . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Pecher <sup

You can't take "evidence" from an anti-Islamic site and present it as a neutral fact. Everyone will say that they lie, and there'll be another argument.

Kuffar DOES technically refer to all non-Muslim. However, the Shia and Sunni scholars warn against the excessive use of the word. A Hadith (saying of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF)) also warns against it. So you won't see a Muslim calling all non-Muslims "kafir", even though technically it is correct to use it that way. Armyrifle 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kafir

Several of these points in the Islam bullet point, the history and senses of "kafir" ought be taken up in the Kafir article. The only point that's on-topic here is that it's translated as "infidel".

Any feedback on these edits?Timothy Usher 05:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon, no one said it wasn't pertinent to the term "kafir". The question was only whether it belongs in this article, or in Kafir.Timothy Usher 05:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I've killed someone's favorite point. Feel free to restore it. My mission here is very limited. We need somewhere to mention that the term is pejorative; it's only a matter of how and where.Timothy Usher 06:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of term

Discussion of the etymology and history of the word "infidel" should be the central point of this entry, in my opinion. I'm not sure why some editors where so quick to apply Islamic and Judaic equivalents of the term to the page. A poorly written entry IMO.

Infidel is not a Christian or Jewish word

Infidel is a word strictly used by Islamic fascists who use it to describe the West and those who reject their ideology. I have never heard of a Christian call someone "without faith" an infidel. Nor have I ever heard a Jew say that, in Judaism they use the word Goyim, and in Christianity the worst word they use is Heathen. Clearly this is not an accurate description and I highly suggest that we rephrase this to the proper meaning. eternalsleeper

Some links:

[10]

[11]

[12]

Yes yes, politically correct, right? My point is that the only people who I have ever heard or read call someone an infidel is a Muslim calling a non-Muslim. I went to Bible school, no Christian or Jew calls anyone an infidel. I wonder if these people have lobbyists now in the Dictionary business.

eternalsleeper

"Infidel" is a Christian/ English term. There is no such term in the Islamic context or Arabic. It gained wide spread popularity during the crusades to refer to Muslims. Muslims call a non-Muslim Kaffir, which is unbeliever. Infidel is associated with it because that is what was the equivalent term in use by crusaders. Pagan, Heathen, Idolator have the same connotations but infidel is the term with Crusader history.--Tigeroo 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Muslim use Kaffir and not Infidel. Infidel is used by Western only. -- A. L. M. 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Order

Whether you look at Holy Land, Religious significance of Jerusalem or Abrahamic religion, the order is always: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Infact, I even had a dispute with Humus Sapiens on Holy Land. On 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC), Humus Sapiens said "I disagree with alphabetical sectioning. It is against chronological order...". Almost all scholarly works I've seen list religion in order of chronology and not alphabet.Bless sins 19:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "infidel" is used commonly in relation to Islam, rarely in relation to other faiths. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. Please respect the order that is widely accepted. Infidel was used by Christians to denote non-Christians since the 15th century. [13]Bless sins 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "widely accepted". Alphabetical is "widely accepted" too, it all depends on context. A google search for +infidel and +Islam gets 1,100,000 hits. +infidel and +Christianity gets 721,000 hits. +infidel and +Judaism gets 246,000. We go with the order that's most useful to the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, google hits don't mean too much. "Widely accepted", means accepted in scholarly souces. It is almost always the case that Judaism and Christianity are metnioned before Islam. If you really insist on alpha order, then shoudl do so to articles like Holy Land and Religious significance of Jerusalem as well?Bless sins 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about what is appropriate for this article, no other. What is appropriate here likely doesn't apply elsewhere. As for "scholarly sources", where did you get that idea? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The term is primarily an ecclesiastical term in Roman Catholic Christian Theology. As it stands there is little detailing of that here so I have marked that section as a stub. The fact is it is an english term with a Christian background that is merely used as an equivalent translation of the Arabic Kafir and was used to refer to the Muslims during the latter half of the Crusades. Kafir is translated to Infidel because during the Middle Ages that was the equivalent European term in use and is still used to imply and reinforce the religious connotation that make the press with Islam.--Tigeroo 11:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mlechha

Please join us here or comment here. I have rearranged the sections to improve the concept that Infidel is a similar term used in the same sense as laid out in the definition which while emphasizing usage within the Muslim/ Christian context doesn't not exclusively limit it's application to that sense.--Tigeroo 11:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to whom is it a "similar term"? Please review WP:NOR. Also, the etymological website you are using is a personal website, not a reliable source, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the Sanskrit term mlechha (म्लेच्छः), which is defined as "a disparaging name for non-arya peoples" in the index to John Keay's India: A History, (p. 569) where it is mentioned frequently. The term comes up often in various usages. The root from which the word is derived is म्लेच्छ् (mlecch) which Apte says means "To speak confusedly, indistinctly or barbarously" which points to the original sense of referring to people who did not speak the same language. Here are the various definitions given by Apte (A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, p. 776) showing several senses when used as a masculine noun: "1) A barbarian, a non-Aryan (one not speaking the Sanskrit language, or not conforming to Hindu or Aryan institutions), a foreigner in general; 2) An outcast, a very low man; 3) A sinner, wicked person. 4) Foreign or barbarous speech." When used as a neuter noun (म्लेच्छं) it means the metal Copper. Note that various compounds have special senses, however. For example, the compound मलेच्छभाषा (mlecchabhāṣā) means "foreign language".

You perhaps could make a case for mlechha as infidel, but I think that the semantics are different, as it is not based on matters of faith, but on racial difference or simply "foreign-ness" in its basic meanings. In Hindu philosophy, the technical term for those those persons who do not accept the authority of the Vedas is नास्तिक (nāstika; "heterodox"), with citations to be found at Nastika.

I looked up the word "infidel" in Apte's English-to-Sanskrit dictionary and found that the first term listed as a translation is nāstika. The word mlechha does not appear as one of the alternate translations for the term "infidel". Citation: p.227 of Apte, Vaman Shivram. The Student's English-Sanskrit Dictionary. Motilal Banarsidass, Third Revised and Enlarged Edition. Pune, 1920; Reprint, Delhi, 2002, ISBN 81-208-0299-3.

However the problem remains that the conceptual meaning of "infidel" in Hinduism is unclear to me. Culturally, Hinduism has dealt with many conflicts though a process of syncretism in which different views co-exist side by side, with mutual influence upon one another over the long term. So I am not sure if there is any really good translation that truly captures the semantics which the English word infidel suggests to me. Buddhipriya 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a dictionary objection

If we agree to this concept then the only content on this page should be about the ecclesiastical concept of Infidel within the Roman church. It's usage as a english word that is an equivalent translation of kafir or associated extension towards other words that are labels of non-beleivers then can be excluded by an established principle and may be left mentioned in see also in such a case. The strange deal was the version reverted to also merely treats the definition of the word referencing the same dictionaries. Lets agree upon a principle then set it in place.--Tigeroo 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern dictionaries are helpful in understanding what terms mean and how they are used in English; certainly moreso than hundred year old unofficial Catholic encyclopedias, which only give narrow and out-dated views. In addition, the "See alsos" you keep adding are unrelated to this topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, but thats what an encylopedia is for, for the discussion of historical concepts ideas and its impact. Infidel has no value beyond the fact that it is a word used as an english translation for "kafir". Kafir is the entry where the Islamic information really belongs. Your argument on what the word means and how they are used in English is actually a reason for it to be in the Wikitionary and not a reason for inclusion in the Wikipedia. As you pointed out yourself, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Can you demonstrate that the term Infidel has another value in respect to Islam beyond being a translation of an Arabic word into English? Why stop there then, any foreign word/ concept that can be translated the same should find space in that case because as the dictionary says, the translation while being "used currently" for Christianity and Islam especially is equally valid across all religions.--Tigeroo 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deleted as a dictionary definition, then WP:AFD is your best bet. While it exists, it should reflect what reliable sources say reflects the modern usage and meaning of the concept. As for it being "equally valid across all religions", actually, no, not all religions are alike or share identical concepts, and in any event, if you can find reliable sources tying the concept and word to other religions, please go ahead and do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Modern sources can easily be found for the ecclesiastical term. I don't think WP:AFD is the right course for this article because it has uses that are not dictionary terms. If that however is the required method to get a authoritative direction for the use of this article vis-a-vis a dictionary term, than OK. In the meanwhile I will go restore associated notions. All it has to do in that case is fit the bill for one who does not believe in the central precepts.--Tigeroo 15:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't restore the "associated notions", not until you have a reliable source indicating that they are, in fact, "associated notions". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

All they have to do is the fit the dictionary definition to be valid. I have tagged them where sources are lacking and will fill in the gaps. If I can't find RS I or you can remove them, it's work in progress. Actually I will self-revert pending a request for comment, since I don't really thing this article should be headed in that direction anyhow.--Tigeroo 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"All they have to do is the fit the dictionary definition to be valid." = original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are all words for Infidel as well. They are clearly linked to the term Infidel as cited. Could you let me know which part of under which section of WP:NOR do you claim it falls under OR?? They are all words for infidel and the sources clearly link them and demonstrate that they are of equivalence in usage. The only other option that strikes is to revert to the non-dictionary sense because we cannot limit this article to the dictionary sense of the term.--Tigeroo 20:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Those are all words for Infidel as well. They are clearly linked to the term Infidel as cited." = original research. Beit Or 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh?? Which part of WP:NOR substantiates your claim?? With that argument it could be claimed that the dictionary definition is itself WP:NOR. Nothing in this article limits that other translations cannot be included. Infact this article should AfD otherwise since Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Tigeroo 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR: "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." Every item here must cite a reliable source that refers to the term "infidel". Every single one, without exception. You can't insert other items based on your personal view that it's a related concept. Instead find a reliable source that explicitly states it's a related concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you check the citations?? They DO directly relate the terms SPECIFICALLY with the English language term infidel. Wether as a dictionary definitions of Infidel or common use translations, every single term mentioned is DIRECTLY linked to the term exact term Infidel, not just the vague concept that I am creating a linkage with because I think they are have a similarity. A simple case in point are dictionary translations of Nastik and dasa as Infidel and the Encyclopedia of Social Work by the Indian Government that translates the word Mlechha as Infidel. How are these not stating the explicit relation of the term Infidel with the referenced word in the article or are not reliable verifiable sources?--Tigeroo 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Buddhipriya has produced a better source than a government website showing that Mleccha is not a religious term. Arrow740 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is has been a misunderstanding. The reference was not a website but en Encyclopedia on Social Work relevant to India. It was not the only solitary reference either, I stopped at about 2 different references that translated it as infidel. Plus Buddhipriya also indicated that Keay used it similarly.--Tigeroo 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Judaism

I have tagged it as a stub, and inserted a sourced statement while leaving in the initial section. It is nice manners to discuss the removal, especially if you are going to do so for items marked up for others to improve as well as sourced statements.--Tigeroo 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, all material must explicitly refer to the term "infidel". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Infidel Dictionary Terms

This is a dispute of what is relevant for inclusion in this article. Guidance is sought on policy.--Tigeroo 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article should be focused on the ecclesiastical term which has grounds for an encyclopaediac article. A wikitionary link for definitions/ translations from other languages should suffice for redirection and does not merit a page on Wikipedia.--Tigeroo 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Modern sources are quite clear that the term "infidel" is used in more than just the very narrow Catholicism-centric sense proposed by the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia, and there's no particularly good reason to try to suppress that. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary only means that we shouldn't have articles that are nothing more than dictionary definitions, not that all verifiable definitions of a term can't be covered. Alternate uses for infidel should be covered in the article. Shell ^babelfish 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would a wikitionary link not suffice that discusses the word in the English lexicon to that end?--Tigeroo 12:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Shell. Though, as this article currently reads, it seems like a dictionary entry no matter the meaning(s) being discussed. Douglasmtaylor 11:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a more appropiate alternate direction to take in order to make it a worthwhile page or should we just AfD it for being just a dictionaresque entry?--Tigeroo 12:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That version was fine except for the original research at the end, where it tried to link in all sorts of other concepts from other religions. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that this article is compliant with WP:OR because it constructs a "novel narrative" about the term "infidel." That summary/content forks comprise much of the article only make it a strange novel narrative, at that. Unless there is mainstream (as in NOT "fringe") coverage of this topic in narrative form we can work from that, but from what I'm seeing this is best kept on Wiktionary. These novel narratives on Wikipedia tend to be awkward and troublesome, and this one is no exception. An AFD is best, or a "prod" if we all come to agree that this shouldn't be an encyclopedia article. The Behnam 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Linking to other religions renditions of Infidel i.e. Kafir, Mlechha etc. makes it a bit strange in relation to the topic, but then without that it tends to become a lexical monograph which really belongs on Wikitionary. The only rendition I see of having Encyclopedic value is the ecclesiastical term which historically had social and judicial ramifications for Christian laws.--Tigeroo 08:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)