mrlecturer |
19-04-2012 01:43 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ
(Post 5088388)
I would guess it's because they weren't fully versed in his opinions. There was nothing for them to search the phrase "was Gandhi a racist" on.
I appreciate your historic perspective on the origin of "Kaffir." However, I don't think you are being totally forthright in the foundation of the word within a blossoming new religion, called Islam. The Koran says some pretty dark things about us Kaffirs, and the crime for becoming a Kaffir after leaving Islam (apostasy) is death. If Kaffir doesn't have negative connotations within Arabic, then why the need for death?
I've never heard anyone describe the use of the word Kaffir (pronounced Kaffa to S. Africans) as unoffensive in those times. It was a well known racial slur.
Just to touch, once again, upon your point about why would civil rights leaders using Gandhi as a good role model, when he wasn't quite as he was made out to be(I'm not saying he didn't achieve some remarkable things), then one might ask exactly the same thing about the prophet Mohammed, Moses, Abraham etc.
When people promote individuals as important, they tend to get a rather fond whitewashing (excuse the racist pun) from history.
|
Too bad MLK didn't have google :(
I disagree that it had always been a racial slur. In fact, Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1911, in pages 627–629, continuously uses kafir :)
Again, generalization at its best. "The Koran says pretty dark things about Kaffirs." Lovely. I thought a little Islamic history in my earlier post would help you understand who kaffirs really were. But I guess I didn't make it clear enough.
Pagans. They were the first, and according to the Quran, only kaffirs that were a direct threat to the rise of Islam. Why? Cause they were occupying Mecca (Islamic holy city), simple as. Now go back to the verse where you posited the notion that the 'Quran has some nasty things to say about us,' and read that in the light of 7th century pagans. Doesn't really make much sense, right? Exactly. Which leads to my next point.
I'll give you my honest opinion. Again, studied it for years, but to say that the Quran promotes peace is wrong (or whatever Muhammad Ali claimed). The Quran is merely a book of signs, it was never compiled chronologically, a lot of it is vague, a lot is contradictory. For example, there are 4 verses on non-Muslims, two encourage tolerance and unity, the other two call for a more aggressive-stance. Each chapter, each verse was compiled at different stages in the life of Muhammad - and each revelation was related to the events Muhammad and his people were experiencing. Then again, to be involved in this entire debate would be never-ending.
But you get my point. One can never deduce that Gandhi was a racist, or the Quran had nasty things to say about Kafirs, especially if we are not acquainted with its context.
|