read properly

Submitted by Abdul Rahman Reijerink (Australia), Jul 18, 2006 at 22:12

I will not be drawn back into useless talk with you. You appear rude and disrespectful, this is not the way someone who has truth on their side acts.

You have yet to properly address the issues I brought up in relation to 5:69 (from a primary source). No, the word kaffir is not mentioned in it, but so what. If your accepted definition of Kaffir is correct, how can Christians and Jews need have no reason to grieve. Abrogation does not address this issue properly. your defintion of abrogation is very controversial and not accepted by anything like even a significant minority. Most scholars believe that at most there are about twenty abrogated verses and this is not one of them.

You have not addressed issues relating to connotation and denotation, what a word has come to mean and what it actually means. yes Kaffir according to your transmitted (not a primary source) definition has widespread currency and usage, but that is not proof that it is actually what the etymology of the word relates to. I say it is a conflation between usage and meaning where usage now over-rides actual meaning

What is a word for covering up of sins? Could it be a word that sounds like Kaffir and has the same roots?

please use your (better than my) knowledge of arabic to good effect. learn or show some more adab.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".