Aninfidel (literally "unfaithful") is a person who is accused of disbelief in the central tenets of one's ownreligion, such as members of another religion, orirreligious people.[1][2]
Infidel is anecclesiastical term inChristianity around which the Church developed a body of theology that deals with the concept of infidelity, which makes a clear differentiation between those who werebaptized and followed the teachings of the Church versus those who are outside thefaith.[3] Christians used the terminfidel to describe those perceived as the enemies of Christianity.
After the ancient world, the concept of otherness, an exclusionary notion of the outside by societies with more or less coherent cultural boundaries, became associated with the development of the monotheistic and prophetic religions ofJudaism, Christianity, andIslam (cf.pagan).[3]
In modern literature, the term infidel includes in its scopeatheists,[4][5][6]polytheists,[7]animists,[8]heathens, andpagans.[9]
A willingness to identify other religious people as infidels corresponds to a preference fororthodoxy overpluralism.[10]
The origins of the word infidel date to the late 15th century, deriving from theFrenchinfidèle orLatinīnfidēlis, fromin- "not" +fidēlis "faithful" (fromfidēs "faith", related tofīdere 'to trust'). The word originally denoted a person of a religion other than one's own, especially a Christian to a Muslim, a Muslim to a Christian, or agentile to a Jew.[2] Later meanings in the 15th century include "unbelieving", "a non-Christian" and "one who does not believe in religion" (1527).
Christians historically used the term infidel to refer to people who actively opposed Christianity. This term became well-established in English by sometime in the early sixteenth century, when Jews or Muslims were described contemptuously as active opponents to Christianity. InCatholic dogma, an infidel is one who does not believe in the doctrine at all and is thus distinct from aheretic, who hasfallen away from true doctrine, i.e. by denying thedivinity of Jesus. Similarly, the ecclesiastical term was also used by theMethodist Church,[11][12] in reference to those "without faith".[13]
Today, the usage of the term infidel has declined;[14] the current preference is for the termsnon-Christians andnon-believers (persons without religious affiliations or beliefs), reflecting the commitment of mainstreamChristian denominations to engage in dialog with persons of other faiths.[15] Nevertheless, some apologists have argued in favor of the term, stating that it does not come from a disrespectful perspective, but is similar to using the termorthodox for devout believers.[16]
Moreover, some translations of theBible, including theKing James Version, which is still in vogue today, employ the wordinfidel, while others have supplanted the term withnonbeliever. The term is found in two places:
And what concord hathChrist withBelial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? —2 Corinthians 6:15 KJV
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied thefaith, and is worse than an infidel. —1 Timothy 5:8 KJV
InQuod super his,Innocent IV asked the question, "[I]s it licit to invade a land that infidels possess or which belongs to them?" and held that while infidels had a right todominium (right to rule themselves and choose their own governments), thepope, as theVicar ofChrist,de jure possessed the care of theirsouls and had the right to politically intervene in their affairs if their ruler violated or allowed his subjects to violate a Christian and Euro-centric normative conception ofNatural law, such as sexual perversion or idolatry.[17] He also held that he had an obligation to sendmissionaries to infidel lands, and that if they were prevented from entering or preaching, then the pope was justified in dispatching Christian forces accompanied with missionaries to invade those lands, as Innocent stated simply: "If the infidels do not obey, they ought to be compelled by the secular arm and war may be declared upon them by the pope, and nobody else."[18] This was however not a reciprocal right and non-Christian missionaries such as those of Muslims could not be allowed to preach in Europe "because they are in error and we are on a righteous path."[17]
A long line of Papal hierocratic canonists, most notably those who adhered to Alanus Anglicus's influential arguments of the Crusading-era, denied Infidel dominium, and assertedRome's universal jurisdictional authority over the earth, as well as the right to authorize pagan conquests solely on the basis of non-belief because of their rejection of the Christian God.[19] In the extreme, the hierocractic canonical discourse of the mid-twelfth century, such as that espoused by Bernard of Clairvaux, the mystic leader of the Cisertcians, legitimizedGerman colonial expansion and practice of forcefulChristianisation in theSlavic territories as aholy war against theWends, arguing that infidels should be killed wherever they posed a menace to Christians. WhenFrederick the II unilaterally arrogated papal authority, he took on the mantle to "destroy convert, and subjugate all barbarian nations," a power in papal doctrine reserved for the pope. Hostiensis, a student of Innocent, in accord with Alanus, also asserted "... by law infidels should be subject to the faithful."John Wyclif, regarded as the forefather ofEnglish Reformation, also held that validdominium rested on a state ofgrace.[20]
TheTeutonic Knights were one of the by-products of this papal hierocratic and German discourse. After theCrusades in theLevant, they moved to crusading activities in the infidelBaltics. Their crusades against theLithuanians andPoles, however, precipitated the Lithuanian Controversy, and theCouncil of Constance, following the condemnation of Wyclif, found Hostiensis's views no longer acceptable and ruled against the knights. Future Church doctrine was then firmly aligned with Innocents IV's position.[21]
The later development of counterarguments on the validity of Papal authority, the rights of infidels, and the primacy ofnatural law led to various treatises such as those byHugo Grotius,John Locke,Immanuel Kant andThomas Hobbes.
During theAge of Discovery,papal bulls such asRomanus Pontifex and, more importantly,inter caetera (1493), implicitly removeddominium from infidels and granted them to theSpanish Empire andPortugal with the charter of guaranteeing the safety of missionaries. Subsequent rejections of the bull byProtestant powers rejected the Pope's authority to exclude other Christian princes. As independent authorities, they drew upcharters for their owncolonialmissions based on the temporal right for care of infidel souls in language echoing theinter caetera. The charters and papal bulls would form the legal basis of future negotiations and consideration of claims astitle deeds in the emerginglaw of nations during the period ofEuropean colonization.[22]
The rights bestowed byRomanus Pontifex andinter caetera have never fallen from use, serving as the basis for legal arguments over the centuries. TheU.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1823 caseJohnson v. McIntoshthat as a result of European discovery and assumption of ultimate dominion,Native Americans had only a right to occupancy of native lands, not the right of title. In the 1831 caseCherokee Nation v. Georgia, famously described Native American tribes as "domestic dependent nations." InWorcester v. Georgia, the court ruled that the Native Tribes were sovereign entities to the extent that theU.S. federal government, and not individualstates, had authority over their affairs.
Native American groups including theTaíno andOnondaga have called on theVatican to revoke the bulls of 1452, 1453, and 1493.[citation needed]
According to theCatholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church viewsmarriage as forbidden and null when conducted between the faithful (Christians) and infidels, unless adispensation has been granted. This is because marriage is asacrament of the Catholic Church, which infidels are deemed incapable of receiving.[23]
Somephilosophers, such asThomas Paine,David Hume,George Holyoake,Charles Bradlaugh,Voltaire andRousseau earned the label of infidel orfreethinkers, both personally and for their respective traditions of thought because of their attacks on religion and opposition to the Church. They established and participated in a distinctly labeled, infidel movement or tradition of thought, that sought to reform their societies which were steeped in Christian thought, practice, laws and culture. The Infidel tradition was distinct from parallel anti-Christian, sceptic or deist movements, in that it was anti-theistic and also synonymous with atheism. These traditions also sought to set up various independent model communities, as well as societies, whose traditions then gave rise to various other socio-political movements such assecularism in 1851, as well as developing close philosophical ties to some contemporary political movements such associalism and theFrench Revolution.[24]
Towards the early twentieth century, these movements sought to move away from the term "infidel" because of its associated negative connotation in Christian thought, and there is attributed to George Holyoake the coining of the term 'secularism' in an attempt to bridge the gap with other theist and Christian liberal reform movements.[24]
In 1793, Immanuel Kant'sReligion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, reflected theEnlightenment periods' philosophical development, one which differentiated between the moral and rational and substituted rational/irrational for the original true believer/infidel distinction.[3]
Laws passed by the Catholic Church governed not just the laws between Christians and infidels in matters of religious affairs, but also civil affairs. They were prohibited from participating or aiding in infidel religious rites, such ascircumcisions or wearing images of non-Christian religious significance.[23]
In theEarly Middle Ages, based on the idea of the superiority of Christians to infidels, regulations came into place such as those forbidding Jews from possessing Christianslaves; the laws of thedecretals further forbade Christians from entering the service of Jews, for Christian women to act as their nurses or midwives; forbidding Christians from employing Jewish physicians when ill; restricting Jews to definite quarters of the towns into which they were admitted and to wear a dress by which they might be recognized.[23]
Later during the Victorian era, testimony of either self-declared, or those accused of being Infidels or Atheists, was not accepted in acourt of law because it was felt that they had no moral imperative to not lie underoath because they did not believe in God, orHeaven andHell.[24]
These rules have now given way to modernlegislation and Catholics, in civil life, are no longer governed by ecclesiastical law.[23]
 | This sectionpossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
OneArabic language analogue toinfidel, referring to non-Muslims, iskafir (sometimes "kaafir", "kufr" or "kuffar") from the rootK-F-R, which connotes covering or concealing.[25][26] The term KFR may also refer to disbelieve in something, ungrateful for something provided or denunciation of a certain matter or life style.[27] Another term, sometimes used synonymously, ismushrik, "polytheist" or "conspirer", which more immediately connotes the worship of gods other than Allah.[28][29]
In the Quran, the termkafir is first applied to the unbelieving Meccans, and their attempts to refute and revile Muhammad. Later, Muslims are ordered to keep apart from them and defend themselves from their attacks.[30][31]
In theQuran the term "people of the book" (Ahl al-Kitāb) refers toJews,Christians, andSabians.[32] In this way, Islam considers Jews and Christians as followers of scriptures sent by God previously.[33][34] The term people of the book was later expanded to include adherents ofZoroastrianism andHinduism by Islamic rulers in Persia and India.[35]
In some verses of the Quran, particularly those recited after theHijra in AD 622, the concept ofkafir was expanded upon, with Jews for disbelief in God's sign and killing prophets and Christians for believing the trinity and that Jesus was the son of God, which the Quran considers it to be idolatry.[30][36][page needed][37][38][39][page needed]
Somehadiths prohibit declaring a Muslim to be a kafir, but the term was nonetheless fairly frequent in the internal religious polemics of the age.[31] For example, some texts of theSunni sect of Islam include other sects of Islam such asShia as infidel.[40] Certain sects of Islam, such asWahhabism, include as kafir those Muslims who undertake Sufi shrine pilgrimage and follow Shia teachings aboutImams.[41][42][43][page needed] Similarly, in Africa and South Asia, certain sects of Islam such as Hausas,Ahmadi, Akhbaris have been repeatedly declared as Kufir or infidels by other sects of Muslims.[44][45][46]
The class ofkafir also includes the category ofmurtadd, variously translated asapostate orrenegades, for whomclassical jurisprudence prescribes death if they refuse to return to Islam.[31] On the subject of ritual impurity of unbelievers, one finds a range of opinions, "from the strictest to the most tolerant", in classical jurisprudence.[31]
Historically, the attitude toward unbelievers in Islam was determined more by socio-political conditions than by religious doctrine. A tolerance toward unbelievers prevailed even to the time of theCrusades, particularly with respect to the People of the Book. However, animosity was nourished by repeated wars with unbelievers, and warfare between theSafavid Empire andOttoman Empire brought about application of the termkafir even to allShias in Ottomanfatwas.[31]
InSufism the term underwent a special development, as in a well-known verse ofAbu Sa'id: "So long as belief and unbelief are not perfectly equal, no man can be a true Muslim", which has prompted various explanations.[31]
Judaism has a notion ofpagan gentiles who are calledעכו״ם'acum, an acronym of Ovdei Cohavim u-Mazzaloth or, literally, "star-and-constellation worshippers".[3][47][48] It was also probably influenced by the similar-sounding Hebrew word "עקום" ('aqum), which means "crooked".
TheHebrew term,kofer, cognate with the Arabickafir, is reserved only forapostate Jews.[3]
a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.
Atheism and irreligion are diseases so much more dangerous than infidelity or idolatry, as infidelity than heresy. Every heretic is in part an infidel, but every infidel is not in whole or part an heretic; every atheist is an infidel, so is not every infidel an atheist.
Kafir means an infidel, but more properly an atheist.
2123 'Many... of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time.' 2125 Since it rejects or deniest the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.
Is it conceivable that a Spirit which is invisible, and imponderable, and impalpable, and yet which is the seat of physical and moral powers, really occupies the universe? The infidel scoffs at the idea. We observe, however, that this same infidel implicitly believes in the existence of an all-pervading luminiferous ether, which is invisible, and imponderable, and impalpable, and yet is said to be more compact and more elastic than any material substance we can see and handle.
It is sometimes translated infidels, because an infidel is without faith; but is also properly rendered unbelievers in the strict Gospel sense of the word.
Likewise, "infidel," which had still been in use in the early nineteenth century, fell out of favor with hymn writers.
When we use the wordinfidel, we intend nothing disrespectful, any more than we do when we use the wordorthodox.
People of the Book. Term used in the Quran and in Muslim sources for Jews and Christians, but also exteneded to include Sabians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and others.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Infidels".Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
| International | |
|---|---|
| Other | |
