"To sum up the above discussion, India is not a ‘Dar-ul-Harb' and most Hindus may in a literal sense be called Kafirs but the term is a statement of fact and not abuse or derisory or vilificatory or anticipatory of the Divine Judgment." - thus concluded Syed Shahbuddin in his article Is India a ‘Dar-ul-Harb'? Are Hindus ‘Kafirs'? http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1331.html

After explaining the associated terms Kafir, Munkir and Mushrik, Shahbuddin goes on to say these lexicographic terms make factual statements about the beliefs of those who do not profess Islam and thus are not Muslims "but nowhere does the Quran or the Hadith prescribe that ‘Kafirs' or ‘Munkirs' or ‘Mushriks' be killed or even penalized for their beliefs in any manner by a human agency."

So obsessed is Mr. Shahbuddin with the Hindus that he cannot even start an article of a purely Islamic issue of kafirs, munkirs and mushriks without taking cheap shots at what he calls "Hindu chauvinists". These terms do not even exist in Hindu lexicography or their vocabulary. In the very first paragraph, he accuses "Hindu chauvinists" of raising these "issues to malign the Muslim community." Hindus don't raise these issues. It is only the Islamic holy Book and Muslims who are obsessed with these terms. Let us forget the cheap shots and concentrate on the main issue: Is what Syed Shahbuddin claims true.

Syed Shahbuddin is right that Hindus by not being Muslims are Kafirs and since Hindus worship other gods than Allah they are Mushriks too. Hindus don't necessarily subscribe the akharat of Prophet Muhammad, they are Munkirs also. In addition since Hindus worship idols and believe in many gods, they are idolaters and polytheists as well. In our discussion we shall use these terms individually and /or alternatively as all these terms are equally applicable to Hindus and land them in the general category of Kafirs -- unbelievers. The Koran seems to be unaware of the existence of the word Hindu but it makes rather very frequent reference to these terms mostly lumping them together under the term "unbelievers" or Kafirs which literally means the same.

Opinions of Islamic Scholars

Kafir is thus a statement of fact but it is also a term of abuse in Islam contrary to what Mr. Shahbuddin contends. Ayatollah Khomeini lists a Kafir - both men and women -- as impure and lumps the Kafirs in impurity with urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, wine, beer and the sweat of excrement eating camel. In his opinion every part of the body of a non-Moslem is impure, even the hair on his hand and his body hair, his nails and all the secretions of his body."[i]

Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan of the Barelvis in his twelve volume Fatawa-I-Rizvia, while agreeing with the general definition of Kafir says "the word Kafir is also used as a term of abuse.[ii]  Echoing the opinion of Ayatollah Khomeini, though he does not go as far, he declares the polytheists are unclean. A Kafir, howsoever noble the qaum to which he may belong, however noble his family, cannot be better than even a slave Muslim. .... Without a doubt, all Kafirs - kitabis as well as polytheists -- are in the Fire of Hell, and there they shall remain eternally. They are worse than all creation. .... Without a doubt he who believes in the Faith - that is, Islam - and does good deeds is better than the whole world."[iii]