Reclaiming “Kafir”: From Political Slur to Quranic Context

Uzma Khatoon

In today's world, the word Kafir has been stripped of its theological depth and weaponised as a tool for political mobilisation, social media vitriol, and communal hostility. It's frequently cited as definitive proof that Islam bifurcates the world into "believers" and "enemies." This reductive perception is fueled by a toxic mix of primetime television debates, viral misinformation, and hate-driven narratives that cast Muslims as inherently intolerant.

Conversely, extremist factions in regions like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Middle East also use it to legitimise violence and social exclusion. Consequently, the burden of this linguistic misuse falls upon ordinary Muslims everywhere, even though the Quranic application of the term is profoundly nuanced, specific, and ethically restrained.

To understand the gravity of this distortion, one must return to the linguistic and theological roots of the word. In Arabic, the root k-f-r literally means “to cover” or “to conceal.” It was used to describe a farmer burying seeds in the soil. Within a Quranic context, it refers to an act of deliberate rejection, specifically, the conscious concealment of a known truth. It is an action-based description rather than a fixed communal identity.

Crucially, the Quran utilises the same root in a positive light when referring to God “covering” or “forgiving” sins (yakfir). This suggests that the term is concerned with a psychological and spiritual response to truth, not with one’s birth, ethnicity, or social community.

Theology and the Limits of Takfir

A pervasive misconception is the assumption that every non-Muslim is automatically a Kafir. However, serious Islamic scholarship clarifies that Kufr is not a blanket label for all who stand outside the faith. Many scholars, most notably Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, explain that Kufr occurs only when an individual knowingly and stubbornly rejects the truth after it has been made undeniably manifest to them. This is known as Itmam al-Hujjah (the completion of proof).

Historically, this level of absolute certainty was associated with the presence of divine messengers. In the absence of a prophet who can provide such certainty, no human being possesses the authority to peer into another’s heart to judge the sincerity of their belief. Therefore, the act of Takfir, declaring someone an infidel, crosses the limits set by God, as it presumes a divine knowledge of the unseen.

In pluralistic societies like India, this distinction is vital. While administrative or legal categories may distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims, transforming these theological categories into instruments of humiliation violates Islamic ethics. The Quran consistently discourages believers from "policing" the faith of others, emphasising instead that ultimate accountability lies with the Creator alone. The Quranic methodology for engaging with disagreement is perhaps best illustrated through the story of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) and Pharaoh. Despite Pharaoh’s status as a quintessential tyrant and clear rejector of truth, Allah’s command to Musa was striking: “Speak to him gently, so that perhaps he may take heed or fear Allah” (Quran 20:44). If even Pharaoh deserved respectful speech, then no ordinary believer has the right to abuse others in the name of religion.

Prophet Muhammad further solidified this principle through his conduct. When urged to curse polytheists, he responded, “I was not sent as one who curses, but as a mercy.” (Sahih Muslim, hadith no. 1192) He defined a true believer as one who does not insult, abuse, or use indecent language. This makes it clear that using the word Kafir as a slur is not an act of faith; it is a betrayal of the Prophetic character (Akhlaq). The Quran itself often refers to Jews and Christians as Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book), recognising their connection to divine revelation rather than reducing them to hostile labels.

Legal Ethics and Social Impact

Islamic law (Fiqh) also imposes rigorous limits on speech that harms others. Classical jurists from the Hanafi and Hanbali schools explicitly stated that insulting a non-Muslim is a sinful act. Ibn Nujaim, a highly respected Hanafi scholar, argued in his works that even saying “you are a Kafir” to a non-Muslim is forbidden because it causes emotional harm and distress. Other jurists historically ruled that Muslims who insult protected non-Muslim citizens should be held accountable, as harming their dignity violates Islamic obligations. This legal tradition is rooted in the direct Quranic command: “Do not insult one another with offensive nicknames” (Quran 49:11).

The Quran goes even further by warning Muslims not to insult what others worship, as it may lead them to insult God in return (Quran 6:108). Words do not exist in a vacuum; they operate within structures of power. In the modern world, where Muslims are a vulnerable minority, religious labels can quickly become signals for exclusion or even violence.

Using Kafir irresponsibly in such a context is not only unethical, but it's dangerous, too. This is where extremist misuse must be addressed honestly. Groups like ISIS, Taliban factions, and sectarian militias in South Asia have turned Takfir into a political weapon. By declaring others “outside Islam,” they justified killings and social chaos. Their actions have damaged Muslim societies from within and strengthened global Islamophobia. It is important to state clearly: this misuse is a moral crime against the Quran itself.

Some argue that since the Quran uses the word Kafir, Muslims should freely use it as well. This argument ignores an essential difference: divine description is not the same as human abuse. The Quran describes realities; it does not encourage believers to weaponise language. Islamic law exists precisely to prevent vigilante morality and uncontrolled speech.

Ethical restraint is not a sign of weakness; it is a mark of spiritual discipline. The Prophet warned that harmful speech often returns to harm the speaker. He gave the example of someone insulting another person’s parents, only to have their own parents insulted in return. Similarly, when religious language is used to humiliate others, it invites hostility toward the faith itself. The Prophet defined a Muslim as one “from whose tongue and hand all people are safe.” (Ahmad bin Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad, hadith no.7086) This definition leaves no room for verbal violence disguised as theology.

Reclaiming the Quranic meaning of Kafir is therefore not about defending a word, but about defending Islamic ethics. The problem is not the Quranic vocabulary; the problem is its abuse by extremists, political actors, and irresponsible preachers. For writers, teachers, and social thinkers, the task is clear. We must explain that faith cannot be reduced to slogans, and theology cannot be practised through insults. The Quran calls believers to “wisdom and beautiful exhortation” (Quran 16:125), not shouting matches and hatred.

ALSO READ: At Sabrimala divine lullaby embraces all faiths to put Lord to sleep

In a deeply divided society, Muslims must be the first to reject the misuse of their own religious language. Protecting human dignity is not a modern invention; it is a Quranic obligation. When Muslims uphold this principle, they do not weaken their faith; they honour it. Only through restraint, clarity, and moral courage can religious concepts be saved from becoming tools of destruction and returned to their original purpose: guidance, justice, and mercy for all.

Dr.Uzma Khatoon, former faculty at Aligarh Muslim University.