Hubbry Logo
InfidelInfidelMain
Open search
Infidel
Community hub
Infidel
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Infidel
Infidel
Infidel
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Gustave Doré, The Baptism of Infidels

An infidel (literally "unfaithful") is a person who is accused of disbelief in the central tenets of one's own religion, such as members of another religion, or irreligious people.[1][2]

Infidel is an ecclesiastical term in Christianity around which the Church developed a body of theology that deals with the concept of infidelity, which makes a clear differentiation between those who were baptized and followed the teachings of the Church versus those who are outside the faith.[3] Christians used the term infidel 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 of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (cf. pagan).[3]

In modern literature, the term infidel includes in its scope atheists,[4][5][6] polytheists,[7] animists,[8] heathens, and pagans.[9]

A willingness to identify other religious people as infidels corresponds to a preference for orthodoxy over pluralism.[10]

Etymology

[edit]

The origins of the word infidel date to the late 15th century, deriving from the French infidèle or Latin īnfidēlis, from in- "not" + fidēlis "faithful" (from fidēs "faith", related to fīdere '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 a gentile to a Jew.[2] Later meanings in the 15th century include "unbelieving", "a non-Christian" and "one who does not believe in religion" (1527).

Usage

[edit]

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. In Catholic dogma, an infidel is one who does not believe in the doctrine at all and is thus distinct from a heretic, who has fallen away from true doctrine, i.e. by denying the divinity of Jesus. Similarly, the ecclesiastical term was also used by the Methodist 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 terms non-Christians and non-believers (persons without religious affiliations or beliefs), reflecting the commitment of mainstream Christian 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 term orthodox for devout believers.[16]

Moreover, some translations of the Bible, including the King James Version, which is still in vogue today, employ the word infidel, while others have supplanted the term with nonbeliever. The term is found in two places:

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? 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 the faith, and is worse than an infidel. —1 Timothy 5:8 KJV

Infidels under Catholic Canon Law

[edit]

Right to rule

[edit]

In Quod 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 to dominium (right to rule themselves and choose their own governments), the pope, as the Vicar of Christ, de jure possessed the care of their souls 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 of Natural law, such as sexual perversion or idolatry.[17] He also held that he had an obligation to send missionaries 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 asserted Rome'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, legitimized German colonial expansion and practice of forceful Christianisation in the Slavic territories as a holy war against the Wends, arguing that infidels should be killed wherever they posed a menace to Christians. When Frederick 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 of English Reformation, also held that valid dominium rested on a state of grace.[20]

The Teutonic Knights were one of the by-products of this papal hierocratic and German discourse. After the Crusades in the Levant, they moved to crusading activities in the infidel Baltics. Their crusades against the Lithuanians and Poles, however, precipitated the Lithuanian Controversy, and the Council 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 of natural law led to various treatises such as those by Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes.

Colonization of the Americas

[edit]

During the Age of Discovery, papal bulls such as Romanus Pontifex and, more importantly, inter caetera (1493), implicitly removed dominium from infidels and granted them to the Spanish Empire and Portugal with the charter of guaranteeing the safety of missionaries. Subsequent rejections of the bull by Protestant powers rejected the Pope's authority to exclude other Christian princes. As independent authorities, they drew up charters for their own colonial missions based on the temporal right for care of infidel souls in language echoing the inter caetera. The charters and papal bulls would form the legal basis of future negotiations and consideration of claims as title deeds in the emerging law of nations during the period of European colonization.[22]

The rights bestowed by Romanus Pontifex and inter caetera have never fallen from use, serving as the basis for legal arguments over the centuries. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1823 case Johnson v. McIntosh that 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 case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, famously described Native American tribes as "domestic dependent nations." In Worcester v. Georgia, the court ruled that the Native Tribes were sovereign entities to the extent that the U.S. federal government, and not individual states, had authority over their affairs.

Native American groups including the Taíno and Onondaga have called on the Vatican to revoke the bulls of 1452, 1453, and 1493.[citation needed]

Marriage

[edit]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church views marriage as forbidden and null when conducted between the faithful (Christians) and infidels, unless a dispensation has been granted. This is because marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, which infidels are deemed incapable of receiving.[23]

As a philosophical tradition

[edit]

Some philosophers, such as Thomas Paine, David Hume, George Holyoake, Charles Bradlaugh, Voltaire and Rousseau earned the label of infidel or freethinkers, 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 as secularism in 1851, as well as developing close philosophical ties to some contemporary political movements such as socialism and the French 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's Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, reflected the Enlightenment periods' philosophical development, one which differentiated between the moral and rational and substituted rational/irrational for the original true believer/infidel distinction.[3]

Implications for medieval civil law

[edit]

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 as circumcisions or wearing images of non-Christian religious significance.[23]

In the Early Middle Ages, based on the idea of the superiority of Christians to infidels, regulations came into place such as those forbidding Jews from possessing Christian slaves; the laws of the decretals 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 a court of law because it was felt that they had no moral imperative to not lie under oath because they did not believe in God, or Heaven and Hell.[24]

These rules have now given way to modern legislation and Catholics, in civil life, are no longer governed by ecclesiastical law.[23]

Analogous terms in other religions

[edit]

Islam

[edit]
Main article: Kafir

One Arabic language analogue to infidel, referring to non-Muslims, is kafir (sometimes "kaafir", "kufr" or "kuffar") from the root K-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, is mushrik, "polytheist" or "conspirer", which more immediately connotes the worship of gods other than Allah.[28][29]

In the Quran, the term kafir 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 the Quran the term "people of the book" (Ahl al-Kitāb) refers to Jews, Christians, and Sabians.[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 of Zoroastrianism and Hinduism by Islamic rulers in Persia and India.[35]

In some verses of the Quran, particularly those recited after the Hijra in AD 622, the concept of kafir 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]

Some hadiths 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 the Sunni sect of Islam include other sects of Islam such as Shia as infidel.[40] Certain sects of Islam, such as Wahhabism, include as kafir those Muslims who undertake Sufi shrine pilgrimage and follow Shia teachings about Imams.[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 of kafir also includes the category of murtadd, variously translated as apostate or renegades, for whom classical 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 the Crusades, particularly with respect to the People of the Book. However, animosity was nourished by repeated wars with unbelievers, and warfare between the Safavid Empire and Ottoman Empire brought about application of the term kafir even to all Shias in Ottoman fatwas.[31]

In Sufism the term underwent a special development, as in a well-known verse of Abu 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

[edit]

Judaism has a notion of pagan gentiles who are called עכו״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".

The Hebrew term, kofer, cognate with the Arabic kafir, is reserved only for apostate Jews.[3]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Infidel

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Infidel denotes a person who lacks in a dominant , particularly an unbeliever or adherent of a rival creed, originating from the Latin infidelis, signifying "unfaithful" or "disloyal". Entering English usage by the mid-15th century, the term primarily targeted non-Christians, evolving from biblical translations of Greek apistos meaning "" or "unbelieving", as in 2 Corinthians 6:15 where it contrasts believers with infidels. Historically, applied "infidel" to during the , viewing them as faithless enemies refusing Christ's divinity, a designation that justified conquests and forced conversions. In parallel, Islamic employs the kafir—often rendered as "infidel" in English—for those who reject Allah's oneness and Muhammad's prophethood, encompassing polytheists, atheists, and sometimes or deemed to conceal truth, though distinctions exist for "". The term's deployment in both traditions underscores causal drivers of religious conflict, where doctrinal exclusivity fosters perceptions of existential threat from outsiders, rather than mere semantic variance. In contemporary contexts, "infidel" retains force, applied by fundamentalists across faiths to denounce apostates or ideological opponents, while secular critiques highlight its role in perpetuating over empirical inquiry into beliefs. Its persistence reflects enduring human tendencies toward in-group loyalty, empirically observable in interreligious violence patterns uncorrelated with socioeconomic factors alone.

Etymology and Definition

Linguistic Origins

The English word infidel originates from the Latin adjective infidelis, formed by the negative prefix in- ("not") and fidelis ("faithful"), the latter deriving from fides, denoting "," "trust," or "." This construction literally conveys "unfaithful" or "untrustworthy," initially applicable to personal or contractual disloyalty before acquiring religious connotations of unbelief. The term passed into as infidèle by the medieval period, preserving the core sense of faithlessness. From French, it was borrowed into around the mid-15th century, with the earliest recorded attestation in 1480 within chronicles describing non-Christians. Cognates appear in other , such as Italian infedele and Spanish infiel, reflecting shared Latin roots and parallel semantic shifts toward denoting religious outsiders. Linguistically, infidel shares its Indo-European heritage with words like "" and "," tracing back to Proto-Indo-European bheidh- ("to trust" or "persuade"), which also underlies terms for in Germanic and other branches. This etymological lineage underscores a conceptual pivot from secular reliability to doctrinal adherence, influenced by monotheistic contexts where fidelity equates to submission to revealed truth.

Core Meaning and Pejorative Connotations

The term infidel denotes a person who lacks in the dominant , particularly an unbeliever in or, by extension, , deriving from the Latin infidelis, signifying "unfaithful" or "unbelieving." This core meaning emphasizes to divine , positioning the infidel as one who rejects or opposes the true , rather than merely holding differing beliefs. In historical Christian usage, it applied to non-Christians such as Muslims during the or pagans in colonial encounters, framing disbelief as a fundamental betrayal of God's covenant. Similarly, in Islamic contexts, infidel serves as an English rendering of , referring to those who deny Allah's oneness or prophets, though the Arabic term implies active concealment of truth. The pejorative connotations of infidel extend beyond neutral unbelief to imply moral unreliability, hostility, and existential threat, evoking untrustworthiness rooted in the etymological sense of faithlessness. In medieval Christian theology, it justified discriminatory measures like forced conversions or warfare, as seen in papal bulls authorizing crusades against "infidel" Saracens by the late 11th century. Islamic texts, such as certain Quranic verses interpreted as calling for struggle against infidels (e.g., Surah 9:5), reinforce this by associating disbelief with enmity toward the community of believers, historically enabling practices like the dhimmi subjugation. These connotations persist in derogatory applications, where the label dehumanizes opponents, as evidenced in Inquisition-era persecutions of Jews and heretics labeled infidels for doctrinal deviation. Modern dictionaries note its offensive tone, often equating it with skepticism or outright antagonism toward religion, underscoring a legacy of religious intolerance.

Usage in Christianity

Scriptural and Early References

In the New Testament, the Greek term apistos (ἄπιστος), meaning "unbeliever" or "faithless," is translated as "infidel" in the King James Version (KJV) in two key passages, reflecting early Christian distinctions between believers and those outside the faith. In 2 Corinthians 6:15, the Apostle Paul rhetorically asks, "And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" to underscore the incompatibility between Christian fellowship and association with unbelievers or forces of opposition to God. This verse forms part of a broader exhortation in 2 Corinthians 6:14–18 against unequal yoking with non-believers, emphasizing spiritual separation to maintain purity of faith. Similarly, 1 Timothy 5:8 states, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the , and is worse than an infidel," where the term critiques a professing Christian who fails basic familial duties, contrasting such neglect with the observed reliability of even non-believers in natural obligations. Here, apistos highlights a pragmatic acknowledgment that unbelievers often exceed lapsed believers in moral consistency, serving as a rebuke within pastoral instructions on and widows' care. Modern translations like the render apistos as "unbeliever" to convey the original sense without the archaic tone of "infidel." In early patristic Latin writings, infidelis—the direct etymological root of "infidel"—emerged to denote non-Christians, heretics, or those lacking faith in Christ, building on scriptural precedents. (c. 155–220 AD), an early North African theologian, employed infidelis to distinguish unbelieving pagans from faithful ones, as in his contrast between a "paganus fidelis" (faithful pagan ) and a "paganus infidelis" (unbelieving pagan ) under Christ, illustrating the term's application to outsiders irrespective of . (354–430 AD) similarly used infidelis in discussions of mixed , referencing 1 Corinthians 7:14 to describe an "infidelis" (unbelieving husband or wife) whose presence sanctified children through the believing partner, reflecting practical early church guidance on interactions with non-believers. These usages in second- and fourth-century texts underscore infidelis as a marker of exclusion from the Christian covenant, often in contexts of conversion, , or , without the later Crusades-era connotations of active enmity.

Medieval Canon Law and Applications

In Gratian's Decretum (c. 1140), the foundational compilation of , infidels—defined as unbaptized non-Christians including pagans, , and —were recognized as possessing natural rights derived from divine and , such as of (dominium) and legitimate rule over their territories, provided they did not actively impede the Christian . This framework prohibited the forcible conversion of infidels through , emphasizing persuasion over coercion, as martial means contradicted ecclesiastical prohibitions against unjust aggression. Subsequent glossators and decretalists, such as those commenting on Pope Innocent IV's Quod super nonnullis (1252), affirmed that infidels held temporal authority lawfully unless their governance violated principles, like or tyranny that barred Christian evangelization; even then, intervention required papal authorization to avoid anarchy. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) reinforced distinctions between Christians and infidels in canon 68, mandating that Jews and Saracens wear identifying badges or clothing to prevent inadvertent social mingling and illicit unions, reflecting concerns over moral contamination and public order rather than outright segregation. This evolution balanced tolerance of infidel autonomy with Christian supremacy, influencing papal and crusading bulls, though applications varied by context, with peaceful infidel polities generally immune from dispossession absent provocation.

Governance, Rule, and Colonization

Medieval canonists, building on , debated infidel sovereignty under the dominium doctrine: explicitly stated in 1243–1254 decretals that infidels could possess valid lordship (dominium iuris et proprietatis) over lands and subjects, as granted such rights to all rational beings irrespective of baptism, barring only sinful obstructions to propagation. Hostiensis (d. 1271), a leading commentator, extended this by permitting Christian overlordship in cases where infidels denied access to preach , justifying limited or tutelage but not wholesale expropriation of functioning infidel realms. In practice, this underpinned selective , such as against Muslim-held , deemed a violation of Christian res sancta (sacred things), yet prohibited conquests of remote pagan territories without evangelistic justification, as seen in 13th-century papal refusals to endorse blanket subjugation. These principles later informed early colonial bulls like (1493), adapting medieval norms to encounters by positing papal trusteeship over infidel lands for conversion, though core recognition of infidel dominium persisted absent papal .

Marriage and Social Interactions

Canon law strictly forbade valid marriages between baptized Christians and infidels, deeming such unions illicit and often invalid under theology, to safeguard faith integrity and prevent offspring raised outside the Church; drew on 1 Corinthians 7 to allow separations if the infidel partner obstructed Christian practice, without mandating dissolution of pre-conversion unions. Dispensations were rare and papal, typically denied for or pagans due to risks of , though faced slightly more lenient glosses in some 12th-century commentaries treating them as semi-tolerated under old covenant terms. Socially, interactions were curtailed to essentials: permitted if not aiding , but usury from infidels to Christians prohibited, and public office-holding by infidels under Christian rule barred to avoid subjection to non-believers, as articulated in 13th-century summae like that of Raymond of Peñafort. The Fourth Lateran Council's dress mandates explicitly aimed to curb "carnal intercourse" between Christians and infidels, prioritizing communal purity over egalitarian mingling.

Governance, Rule, and Colonization

Medieval canon law, as developed in the 13th century, recognized that infidels possessed dominium—encompassing both private property rights and public jurisdiction—lawfully and without inherent sin, provided they adhered to natural law. Pope Innocent IV (r. 1243–1254), in his commentary on Gratian's Decretum, argued that this dominion could not be seized arbitrarily but could be forfeited through just war if infidels impeded the preaching of the Christian faith or violated natural law principles, such as by denying access to missionaries or engaging in idolatry that contravened universal moral order. This framework established a conditional legitimacy for Christian governance over infidel territories, subordinating infidel rule to the higher authority of divine law as interpreted by the Church, while theoretically preserving infidel rights absent provocation. In practice, this doctrine facilitated Christian expansion during the and , where conquests transferred sovereignty from infidel rulers to Christian monarchs under papal approval. For instance, canonists like Hostiensis (Henry of Segusia, d. 1271) extended Innocent IV's views by asserting that the advent of Christ implicitly diminished infidel dominion, justifying Christian intervention to restore "natural" order, though they stopped short of denying all pre-conquest rights. Once under Christian rule, infidels were often governed as subjects with obligations to obey secular authorities, pay tribute, and tolerate Christian institutions, but without full political participation unless converted; prohibited infidels from holding public office in Christian realms to prevent idolatry's influence on governance. Colonization efforts received explicit papal endorsement in the 15th century through bulls targeting African and Asian infidel lands. The bull Dum Diversas (18 June 1452), issued by Pope Nicholas V to King Afonso V of Portugal, granted perpetual authority to invade, conquer, and subdue Saracens, pagans, and other non-Christians, authorizing the perpetual enslavement of captives and seizure of their goods to propagate the faith and combat Islam. This was reinforced by Romanus Pontifex (8 January 1455), which affirmed Portugal's exclusive rights to navigate and claim infidel territories south of Cape Bojador, explicitly permitting the reduction of infidels to servitude and the exploitation of their resources as spoils of holy war, framing such rule as a divine mandate against "enemies of the Cross." These documents shifted canon law application from defensive reconquest to proactive colonization, enabling Portuguese and later Spanish dominion over vast non-Christian regions by positing Christian sovereignty as superior and evangelically imperative.

Marriage and Social Interactions

Medieval deemed marriages between and infidels invalid, establishing disparitas cultus (disparity of worship) as a diriment impediment that nullified such unions absent papal dispensation. Gratian's Decretum (ca. 1140), in Causa 28, Questio 1, compiled earlier papal and conciliar decrees to affirm this, drawing on rulings like those from the Council of Elvira (306 AD, canon 16), which explicitly forbade from marrying , heretics, or pagans to preserve the sacramental integrity of and prevent the spiritual peril to the Christian party. The impediment extended to all non-Christians, including and pagans, with the rationale centered on ensuring offspring's Catholic upbringing and avoiding the risk of through unequal yoking, as articulated in commentaries emphasizing natural law's subordination to divine order. Dispensations were exceptional and conditional, typically requiring promises of non-cohabitation until conversion or guarantees against infidel influence, though enforcement varied by region and era. If an infidel converted to , the marriage could persist if both parties consented, but the convert faced obligations to separate if the infidel refused , reflecting canon law's prioritization of over contractual bonds. Social interactions with infidels were regulated to minimize opportunities for doctrinal contamination or scandal, with canonists prohibiting or severely restricting commensality—sharing meals—as a primary vector of undue influence. Twelfth-century commentators like Rufinus permitted eating with pagans for evangelistic purposes, citing apostolic precedent, but prohibited it with Jews due to their dietary laws, interpreted as contempt for Christian sacraments and potential subversion via scriptural disputes (Gratian, Decretum C. 28 q. 1 cc. 13-14). By the late twelfth century, Huguccio extended bans to Muslims as "judaizing pagans" sharing similar food taboos, a view solidified in thirteenth-century glosses by Johannes Teutonicus and others, which generalized restrictions across non-Christians to uphold communal boundaries and faith purity, allowing exceptions only for necessity (e.g., famine) or missionary necessity under papal license. These rules complemented broader efforts to segregate communities, as seen in conciliar mandates for distinctive attire to avert unwitting associations.

Reformation and Later Developments

During the Protestant Reformation, reformers such as retained the medieval Christian application of "infidel" primarily to non-Christians, particularly Muslims and pagans, while emphasizing scriptural authority over sacramental conversion rituals that had dominated Catholic approaches to infidelity. In his commentary on Galatians, published between 1523 and 1525, Luther described infidels as those lacking justifying faith despite potential excellence in civil righteousness, arguing that "otherwise the infidels would be nearer heaven than the Christians." This reflected a theological shift toward , distinguishing Protestant views from Catholic practices that had linked conversion of infidels to priestly mediation and coercion. Luther's Table Talk, recorded in the 1530s, further illustrated this continuity, where he lamented Christian divisions that weakened potential military efforts against "infidels" like the , stating, "We are far less strong in our bodies, and are divided out among different masters... yet we might conquer these infidels." Catholic critics, in turn, accused Luther of endangering by his reforms, likening his stance to surrendering to infidels. Polemical rhetoric during the era occasionally extended "infidel" intra-Christianly, with Protestants and Catholics invoking Muslim imagery to demonize each other as faithless betrayers akin to historical infidels. Post-Reformation, the term persisted in Protestant contexts like Puritan England and colonial America, applied to Native Americans viewed as heathens requiring evangelization or subjugation, echoing earlier but framed through and millennial expectations. In early modern English , the motif of infidel conversion—prevalent in Catholic romances—waned under Protestant deemphasis on clerical power, prioritizing personal faith and scripture over coerced baptisms. By the Enlightenment and early American republic, "infidel" increasingly targeted deists and freethinkers within , as seen in reactions to Thomas Paine's (1794), which prompted widespread clerical condemnation of its author as an arch-infidel promoting scriptural infidelity. In the , amid missionary expansions and antebellum revivals, ' legacy influenced rhetoric portraying non-Christians or skeptics as infidels, linking to moral contagion and justifying , as in Frederick Douglass's critiques of rooted in such views. The term's pejorative force declined in the with rising , , and , shifting Christian discourse toward terms like "unbeliever" or "non-Christian" to avoid connotations of medieval othering, though it lingered in fundamentalist critiques of or . This evolution aligned with broader Protestant adaptations to democratic societies, where theological categories of yielded to evangelistic appeals emphasizing individual choice over categorical exclusion.

Usage in Islam

Scriptural Foundations

The Arabic term kāfir (plural kuffār), commonly rendered in English as "infidel" or "disbeliever," originates from the triliteral root k-f-r, denoting "to cover" or "to conceal," as in covering seeds in soil or metaphorically hiding the truth of revelation from oneself. In Quranic usage, it primarily refers to those who actively reject or deny Allah's oneness (tawhīd), the prophethood of Muhammad, and the divine origin of the Quran after receiving clear proof (bayyinah), distinguishing them from mere ignorance or jahiliyyah. This rejection is portrayed not as passive unbelief but as willful ingratitude (kufr as antonym to shukr, gratitude), rendering the kāfir an adversary to truth and divine order. The word kāfir and its forms occur over 150 times across the , often in contrast to mu'minūn (believers), emphasizing a binary where disbelief invites divine displeasure and eschatological . For instance, Surah Al-Baqarah (2:6) states: "Indeed, those who disbelieve (kafarū)—it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe," highlighting the futility of guidance for hardened rejectors whose hearts has sealed. Similarly, Surah (109:1-6), a revealed amid early opposition, instructs to declare separation from disbelievers: "Say, 'O disbelievers (yā ayyuhā l-kāfirūn), I do not worship what you worship... To you be your (dīn), and to me mine (dīnī)," underscoring mutual non-interference but firm theological demarcation without immediate . Medinan surahs, revealed post-Hijrah amid conflict, expand on kāfir to include active enmity, categorizing polytheists (mushrikūn, a subset of kuffār) and even some People of the Book for doctrinal deviations. Surah At-Tawbah (9:5), known as the "Sword Verse," commands after the sacred months: "Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush," targeted at treaty-breakers from Mecca's pagans who waged war, though verse 9:6 offers asylum to those seeking it. Surah At-Tawbah (9:29) further directs fighting "those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day... from those who were given the Scripture [Jews and Christians], until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled," linking disbelief to combat unless subdued via poll tax, reflecting a framework where non-submission equates to belligerence. These verses, per traditional exegesis like Ibn Kathir, abrogate earlier tolerant Meccan rulings under the principle of naskh (abrogation), prioritizing later revelations for governance. Quranic typology of kāfir includes kāfir harbi ( disbelievers at with ) versus protected non-combatants, but the foundational stigma frames all kuffār as destined for Hellfire absent repentance, as in Al-Bayyinah (98:6): "Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures." This scriptural underpins Islamic views of non-believers as existentially opposed, with implications for social, legal, and martial relations derived directly from these texts rather than later alone.

Historical Treatment of Non-Believers

In the formative period of Islamic expansion following Muhammad's death in 632 CE, non-believers encountered varied treatments contingent on submission or resistance during the and subsequent conquests. Abu Bakr's campaigns against apostate tribes enforced re-conversion or execution, consolidating Arab Peninsula adherence to , while surrendered non-Arab populations in , , and Persia were granted status—protected but subordinate—under treaties stipulating payment and military exemption, as evidenced in the 639 CE capitulation of to Caliph , where Christians retained property rights absent conversion. Under the (661–750 CE), the codified restrictions, prohibiting non-Muslims from constructing new places of worship, proselytizing, holding public office, or displaying symbols of equality such as saddled horses or weapons, with the explicit aim of preserving Muslim dominance through visible subordination and occasional ritual humiliations during tax assessments. Enforcement varied, but ninth-century jurists like those in the advised governors to impose distinctive clothing (ghiyar) and invalidate testimony against Muslims in court, institutionalizing legal inferiority that incentivized conversions amid economic pressures. Polytheists, lacking Quranic "" designation, faced narrower options: conversion, enslavement, or death, as during the 712 CE conquest of by , where Hindu temples were repurposed and resisters executed en masse, though pragmatic rulers later extended tentative protections to Zoroastrians and Hindus under elevated rates. Abbasid-era (750–1258 CE) chronicles record periodic forced conversions and pogroms, such as the 1321 Baghdad riots against , underscoring that while nominal protections existed, systemic discrimination— including bans on church bells and higher taxation—fostered long-term demographic shifts, with non-Muslim proportions in core Islamic territories declining from majorities to minorities by the tenth century. In regions like post-642 CE, Berber populations experienced initial tolerance via tribute but subsequent through intermarriage incentives and cultural suppression.

Dhimmi System and Taxation

The dhimmi system established a contractual status for non-Muslim "People of the Book" (primarily Jews and Christians) in Islamic polities, granting them protection from forced conversion and external aggression in exchange for political subordination, adherence to specific restrictions, and payment of the jizya tax. This framework originated in the early Islamic conquests, with foundational elements traced to Qur'an 9:29, which mandates fighting against those who do not believe in Allah until they pay the jizya "with willing hand, while they are humbled." The dhimma pact formalized communal autonomy under Muslim sovereignty, but imposed inferiority, including bans on proselytizing, building new places of worship, and public displays of religion, as codified in documents like the attributed Pact of 'Umar, whose authenticity is debated by scholars but whose conditions reflected widespread historical practices of regulating non-Muslim visibility and authority. Central to the system was the , a levied annually on free adult non-Muslim males capable of working, exempting women, children, the elderly, the indigent, monks, and the disabled, in lieu of (obligatory alms paid by Muslims) and exemption from military . The tax symbolized submission and funded state protection, with collection methods varying from negotiated lump sums by community leaders in early periods to direct assessments under later empires like the Ottomans, where it was often graded by wealth—typically 12 to 48 silver dirhams in Abbasid times, adjusted for economic conditions. While proponents framed jizya as reciprocal for security, historical records indicate enforcement sometimes involved humiliation, such as payments while seated and Muslims standing, reinforcing subordination, though rates and rigor fluctuated with rulers' policies and fiscal needs. Implementation differed across eras and regions: under the Umayyads and Abbasids (7th–13th centuries), integrated into broader land taxes () for conquered territories, pressuring conversions through economic disparity, as non-Muslims bore the brunt without military reciprocity. In the (14th–20th centuries), the system occasionally levied additional head taxes, but jizya exemptions expanded for some Christian and Jewish communities via the millet system, though systemic restrictions persisted, contributing to demographic shifts via or conversion amid periodic tax hikes during fiscal crises. Scholarly analyses note that while the system enabled minority survival compared to total subjugation alternatives, it institutionalized fiscal extraction that incentivized Islamization, with jizya revenues comprising up to 10–20% of state income in some medieval caliphates, per fiscal records.

Warfare, Jihad, and Conquest

In classical Islamic jurisprudence, encompassed both defensive and offensive dimensions, with the latter—known as jihad al-talab—permitting military campaigns to expand the domain of (dar al-Islam) and subjugate non-believers until they submitted, converted, or paid tribute. This offensive was justified by Quranic injunctions such as 9:29, which commands fighting against those who do not believe in among the until they pay the tax "with willing submission and feel themselves subdued," establishing a framework for conquest and humiliation of infidels. Similarly, 9:5, the "," directed the killing of polytheists after the unless they repented and adopted Islamic worship, interpreted by early scholars like as authorizing broad warfare against unbelievers. These verses, revealed in the Medinan period amid conflicts with Meccan pagans and Jewish tribes, were codified in schools (e.g., Hanafi, Maliki) as obligating rulers to wage annually against non-Muslim lands capable of being invaded, prioritizing the extension of Islamic rule over mere defense. Historically, this doctrine manifested in the rapid conquests following Muhammad's death in 632 CE, under the Caliphs (632–661 CE), who transformed a fragmented Arabian tribal society into an empire spanning over 2.2 million square miles by 651 CE. initiated campaigns against apostate tribes (, 632–633 CE), enforcing Islamic unity through force, while ibn al-Khattab oversaw invasions of the weakened (conquering by 636–640 CE and Persia by 651 CE) and Byzantine territories ( by 636 CE, by 642 CE). These offensives, led by commanders like with armies numbering 18,000–40,000, exploited imperial exhaustion from prior wars and plagues but were explicitly framed as to propagate , with victories attributed to divine favor in collections. Conquered populations faced stark choices: conversion to avoid subjugation, acceptance of dhimmi status entailing jizya payments (often 1–4 dinars annually per adult male, scaled by wealth) and discriminatory restrictions like distinctive clothing and bans on proselytizing, or continued resistance met with enslavement, execution, or expulsion. The (661–750 CE) extended this pattern, conquering (by 709 CE), Iberia (711 CE), and reaching the Indus Valley (by 713 CE), incorporating diverse infidels—Zoroastrians, , —into the system while funding further through tribute revenues estimated at millions of dirhams yearly. Empirical records from chronicles like al-Baladhuri's Futuh al-Buldan document massacres, such as the 30,000 reportedly killed in Persia for refusing submission, underscoring that while conversion incentives reduced bloodshed over time, initial conquests prioritized military dominance to enforce Islamic supremacy, with non-compliance treated as belligerence warranting . This expansionist ethos, rooted in the caliphs' role as successors to Muhammad's campaigns, contrasted with later defensive interpretations, reflecting the causal reality of jihad as a tool for territorial and ideological hegemony rather than solely reactive violence.

Modern Islamist Rhetoric and Practices

In Salafi-jihadist ideologies, which influence groups like and , non-Muslims are routinely labeled kuffar (infidels), invoking doctrines such as al-wala wa al-bara (loyalty to believers and disavowal of disbelievers) to justify social separation, hostility, and violence as defensive or offensive measures to preserve Islamic purity. This rhetoric frames interaction with infidels as inherently corrupting, prohibiting alliances or residence in dar al-kufr (lands of unbelief) without necessity, and elevating against them as a religious imperative. Al-Qaeda's foundational statements exemplify this, with Osama bin Laden's 1996 declaration urging attacks on American "infidels" for occupying holy lands, extended in his 1998 fatwa to mandate killing civilians among "Crusaders and Jews" as aggressors against Islam. ISIS propagated similar views through media, issuing fatwas that branded opponents—including Shia Muslims and Westerners—as kuffar deserving death, slavery, or subjugation, as seen in their 2014 enslavement of over 6,000 Yazidi women justified as spoils from infidel combatants. Takfir (declaring Muslims as infidels) amplified this, enabling intra-Muslim violence while targeting external non-believers, with ISIS publications in 2015-2017 routinely depicting kuffar as existential threats warranting global lone-actor attacks to incite chaos (fitna). In practice, Islamist-governed entities enforce these views through sharia-based penalties. From 2014 to 2019, in and imposed taxes on (up to 500 grams of gold per adult male) or demanded conversion or exodus, executing non-compliant infidels, including 1,700 Shia recruits in in June 2014 labeled as apostates. In state contexts, —leaving for —carries the death penalty under laws in countries like (where executions occurred in 2015 for a man recanting after blasphemy charges) and under rule reinstated in 2021, with public floggings and killings reported for perceived unbelief. statutes, conflated with infidelity, facilitate mob executions; in , over 1,500 cases since 1987 have targeted non-Muslims like , with 62 killed extrajudicially by 2023 per official data. The , while eschewing overt , embeds supremacist viewing non-Muslims as subordinate under Islamic governance, as articulated in foundational texts prioritizing da'wa (proselytization) over equality and critiquing secular alliances with infidels as betrayal. This informs practices like Egypt's 2012-2013 Brotherhood era, where Coptic Christians faced heightened attacks (over 40 churches burned in 2013 riots) amid calls for implementation subordinating dhimmis. Such patterns persist in hybrid Islamist states, where fatwas against "infidel" influences—like Iran's 1989 Rushdie edict for —underscore causal links between and suppression, often unmitigated by reformist interpretations despite international pressure.

Usage in Judaism and Other Abrahamic Contexts

Biblical and Rabbinic Terms

In the Hebrew Bible, non-Israelites are primarily designated as goyim (גּוֹיִם), a term meaning "nations" that encompasses peoples outside the covenant, often in contexts emphasizing separation or conflict, such as Deuteronomy 7:1 listing seven nations to be driven out. Another key term, nokhri (נָכְרִי), refers to foreigners or aliens, typically implying those engaged in idolatrous practices prohibited for , as in Exodus 12:48 restricting Passover participation to circumcised non-natives. These designations underscore a theological distinction between covenant adherents and others, without a direct equivalent to the later Latin-derived "infidel," but rooted in monotheistic exclusivity against . Rabbinic literature, including the Talmud and Midrash, refines these Biblical categories, retaining goy as the standard Hebrew or Yiddish term for any non-Jew, neutral in origin but sometimes carrying pejorative connotations in polemical texts due to associations with idolatry or opposition to Jewish law. For idolaters specifically—viewed as violators of the Noahide prohibition against avodah zarah—terms like akum (acronym for ovdei kokhavim u-mazalot, "worshippers of stars and constellations") appear in post-Talmudic codes such as the Shulchan Aruch, denoting pagans or those practicing shituf (associating partners with God), which disqualifies them from certain protections or interactions under Jewish civil law. Rabbinic attitudes toward non-Jews evolved with historical contexts, balancing universalist elements (e.g., righteous gentiles earning eschatological reward via Noahide observance) against particularist restrictions to preserve Jewish purity, as articulated in tractates like Avodah Zarah. In the , part of the Christian , the Greek apistos (ἄπιστος)—translated as "infidel" in the King James Version—explicitly denotes unbelievers, as in 2 Corinthians 6:15 questioning fellowship between believers and unbelievers, and 1 Timothy 5:8 deeming neglectful kin "worse than an infidel." This usage parallels Rabbinic concerns with to divine but shifts focus to in Christ, influencing later applications of "infidel" to non-Christians.

Historical Applications

In ancient Israelite kingdoms, the concept of non-believers or idolaters (akin to infidels in Abrahamic usage) manifested in prescriptive biblical commands for conquest and eradication to preserve . Deuteronomy 20:16-18 mandated the complete destruction (herem) of Canaanite populations in the to prevent adoption of their practices, a policy reflected in accounts of Joshua's campaigns, such as the fall of around 1400 BCE (per traditional chronology) and the subjugation of other city-states. Archaeological evidence suggests partial implementation, with cultural continuity in some areas, but the intent underscored causal links between idolatry and national , as seen in prophetic rebukes of Israelite lapses. During the (140–37 BCE), following the against Seleucid idolatry, Jewish rulers applied coercive measures against neighboring non-adherents. I (r. 134–104 BCE) conquered Idumea () circa 125 BCE, compelling its inhabitants—descendants of Edomites with polytheistic roots—to undergo and adopt Jewish law or face expulsion, integrating them into the polity while eliminating overt "." This policy, reported by in (13.9.1), marked a rare instance of proselytizing expansionism, though rabbinic sources later critiqued forced conversions as invalidating sincerity. Subsequent expansions under (r. 103–76 BCE) imposed similar requirements on Transjordanian and peoples, prioritizing territorial security and religious purity over tolerance. In Christian contexts, "infidel" (from Latin infidelis, "unfaithful") historically denoted unbaptized non-believers, justifying evangelization and conflict beyond Islamic encounters. Early Church fathers like (c. 200 CE) used it for pagans rejecting Christ, framing refusal as willful infidelity meriting exclusion. Medieval applications included the (1147–1410), where Popes like Eugene III authorized wars against Baltic and Slavic pagans, such as the against Polabian tribes, portraying their as infernal opposition to divine order and permitting enslavement or forced . Against , the term appeared in (e.g., Gratian's Decretum, 1140 CE), classifying them as infidels for denying Christ's , which rationalized restrictions like the Fourth Lateran Council's (1215) segregation mandates, though outright violence often invoked separate "" charges. These usages prioritized empirical threats from persistent unbelief, with source biases in ecclesiastical records favoring triumphant narratives over pagan or Jewish perspectives.

Analogous Concepts in Non-Abrahamic Religions

In Polytheistic and Eastern Traditions

In ancient Greek polytheism, the nearest analog to an infidel was the charge of asebeia (impiety), a civic offense against the gods and public cult that threatened communal harmony and could warrant death by hemlock or exile. Prosecutions under the graphe asebeias—a public indictment—targeted perceived disruptions like introducing novel deities or neglecting state rituals, as seen in the 399 BCE trial of Socrates for denying Athenian gods and corrupting youth through skeptical inquiry. Roman polytheism similarly emphasized sacrilegium, the violation of sacred objects, rites, or temples, punishable by execution, confiscation, or exile under laws like the Lex Julia Majestatis, though outright atheism was rarer and often subsumed under treasonous neglect of ancestral worship; tolerance prevailed for foreign cults via syncretism, provided they did not undermine imperial piety. Hindu traditions, blending polytheistic devotion with philosophical pluralism, distinguished mlecchas—foreigners or barbarians deemed ritually impure and outside the varna system—for their linguistic and cultural deviance from Vedic norms, as codified in texts like the (ca. 200 BCE–200 CE), which barred intermarriage or dining but allowed purification (shuddhi) for integration. Nastikas, or Veda-rejectors like the materialist Charvakas or early Buddhists and Jains, faced philosophical rebuttals in orthodox works such as the Nyaya Sutras (ca. 2nd century BCE), branding their denial of Vedic authority and afterlife as erroneous, yet without institutionalized , enabling coexistence and debate amid Hinduism's orthopraxic focus on over rigid creed. Eastern non-theistic systems lack a direct "infidel" equivalent, prioritizing praxis and insight over exclusive faith. In , miccha ditthi (wrong view) denotes delusions like eternalism or obstructing enlightenment, with non-Buddhist ascetics (titthiyas) critiqued as heretics in suttas like the Brahmajala Sutta (ca. 4th–3rd century BCE), but responses favored dialectical refutation over violence, as schisms (sanghabheda) merited expulsion at most. , as articulated in the Daodejing (ca. 6th–4th century BCE), eschews theistic for alignment with , rendering "unbelief" irrelevant amid its amoral flux and rejection of institutional orthodoxy. , rooted in veneration, stresses purity rites over doctrinal adherence, historically absorbing and tolerating atheists through syncretic practice without condemnation of non-participants.

Philosophical and Secular Interpretations

Infidelity as Intellectual Dissent

In philosophical contexts, the term has historically denoted intellectual dissent from established religious doctrines, framing or rational as a form of unfaithfulness to . This extension of the religious concept equates adherence to or first principles with betrayal of revealed truth, often labeling dissenting philosophies as "infidel philosophy." In late 18th-century , president Timothy Dwight warned in his 1797 baccalaureate addresses that such philosophy—encompassing , , and critiques of miracles—posed a grave threat by eroding belief in Scripture's divine origin, urging students to resist its seductive . Dwight argued that infidel thinkers failed to produce lasting intellectual achievements comparable to orthodox scholars like , attributing their influence to moral corruption rather than evidentiary merit. Enlightenment figures exemplified this application, with (1711–1776) dubbed "the Great Infidel" by contemporaries for his philosophical works challenging religious foundations. Hume's (1779) and essays on employed probabilistic reasoning to question claims, asserting that for extraordinary events must outweigh uniform human experience—a standard unmet by religious narratives. His prioritized from observed regularities over dogmatic assertions, influencing subsequent secular thought but provoking backlash as to Christian epistemology. Similarly, 19th-century freethinkers in America, amid rising and , faced accusations of for denying Trinitarian orthodoxy, virgin birth, and , with the term capturing their rational rejection of . This framing persisted in critiques of emerging scientific paradigms, where dissent from was cast as intellectual . Early 19th-century American religious leaders decried evolutionary precursors and geological as "infidel philosophy," fearing they fostered by privileging natural causes over divine intervention. Figures like Robert Green Ingersoll (1833–1899), a prominent agnostic orator, countered by embracing "infidelity" as emblematic of intellectual liberty, arguing in lectures such as "Infidelity Versus Orthodoxy" (1884) that orthodoxy stifled inquiry while aligned with advancing knowledge. Such usages highlight how intellectual dissent, grounded in verifiable observation, has been pathologized as disloyalty, mirroring religious but rooted in evidential challenges to untestable claims.

Historical Freethinkers and Enlightenment Figures

David (1711–1776), a philosopher, earned the epithet "the Great Infidel" from contemporaries due to his skeptical inquiries into religion, particularly in works like (published posthumously in 1779), where he critiqued arguments for God's existence and miracles based on empirical improbability. 's philosophy emphasized that religious beliefs often arise from human passions rather than rational evidence, challenging orthodox without advocating outright ; he maintained a mitigated toward metaphysical claims. His composed death in 1776, facing mortality without religious remorse or recantation, defied expectations that infidels would succumb to fear, as documented by biographer and others who anticipated a dramatic conversion. Thomas Paine (1737–1809), in The Age of Reason (1794–1795), explicitly defended while denouncing revealed religion as superstitious, arguing that lies not in disbelief but in professing unheld doctrines, which provoked widespread accusations of from American and British clergy. Paine asserted that the Bible's inconsistencies and moral flaws rendered it unworthy of divine origin, prioritizing reason and over scriptural authority; this led to his , with critics like those in labeling him a dangerous infidel whose ideas undermined societal order. Despite his role in the , Paine's later works positioned him as a freethinker who viewed as a tool of priestly tyranny, influencing secular dissent but alienating orthodox audiences. François-Marie Arouet, known as (1694–1778), critiqued religious fanaticism in essays like Philosophical Dictionary (1764), advocating tolerance and reason while mocking dogmatic excesses, though he professed and belief in a supreme being; critics posthumously styled him an incomparable for undermining ecclesiastical authority. 's campaigns against intolerance, such as his defense of (executed in 1762 on false religious charges), highlighted how religious orthodoxy branded rational inquiry as infidelity, yet he avoided outright rejection of providence, using wit to expose causal absurdities in miracles and prophecies. Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), excommunicated by Amsterdam's Jewish community in 1656 for "abominable heresies," prefigured Enlightenment by equating God with nature in (1677), rejecting anthropomorphic deity and scriptural literalism, which rendered him an infidel in both Jewish and Christian eyes. Spinoza's posited a deterministic governed by necessity, not divine whim, influencing later skeptics by demonstrating that intellectual dissent from could yield coherent metaphysics without supernaturalism; his banishment underscored religious institutions' intolerance for causal realism over faith-based interpretations. These figures collectively advanced empirical scrutiny of religious claims, often at personal cost, establishing infidelity as a marker of principled opposition to unverified dogma.

Medieval European Contexts

In medieval European , the term infidelis, derived from Latin meaning "unfaithful," denoted individuals lacking Christian faith, encompassing pagans, , , and occasionally heretics who rejected core doctrines. This usage permeated theological, legal, and military discourses, reflecting a where to Christ defined membership in the respublica christiana. , as codified in Gratian's Decretum around 1140, addressed infidels' status, distinguishing them from the fideles while regulating interactions such as trade and governance. Theologians like , in his Summa Theologiae (c. 1265–1274), examined unbelief (infidelitas) as a grave sin meriting punishment, arguing that while infidels retained natural rights to dominion if their rule did not directly threaten Christian salvation, subjection to infidel authority inherently endangered the faithful's spiritual welfare. Militarily, the term gained prominence during the , where , in his sermon at the on November 27, 1095, exhorted knights to redirect their violence from intra-Christian feuds toward "infidels" occupying the , promising plenary indulgences for participants. This rhetoric framed Muslims—initially termed Saracens—as existential threats to , culminating in the First Crusade's capture of in 1099, after which "infidel" became a standard epithet for Islamic forces in chroniclers' accounts. Similarly, in the Iberian , Christian rulers invoked the term against Muslim taifas, with papal bulls like Gregory VII's support for Alfonso VI of León-Castile in 1073–1074 justifying campaigns to reclaim territories from "infidel" dominion, extending through victories like the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212. Legally, medieval canonists debated infidels' capacities, prohibiting Christians from selling arms or aiding non-Christians in warfare per decrees like the Fourth Lateran Council's canon 71 (1215), which restricted commerce to prevent empowering "infidels" against the faithful. Yet, pragmatic exceptions emerged; for instance, 13th-century jurists permitted with Muslim merchants in zones, provided it did not fund , as seen in Venetian pacts with Levantine ports post-1204. Theologians maintained that infidels possessed valid titles to property absent Christian conquest, influencing papal policies like Innocent IV's bull Ad extirpanda (1252), which permitted coercion only for evangelization, not . These views balanced doctrinal exclusivity with ius gentium principles, acknowledging infidels' humanity while subordinating them to Christian supremacy.

Implications for Contracts and Society

In Islamic jurisprudence, non-Muslims classified as dhimmis—protected peoples under a covenant (dhimma)—were granted security of life, property, and the right to conduct contracts within limits defined by Sharia, in exchange for payment of the jizya poll tax and adherence to restrictions such as subordination to Muslim authority. This contractual framework ensured enforceability of agreements among dhimmis themselves or with Muslims for commercial purposes, as the Quran mandates fulfilling pacts with non-Muslims (Quran 5:1), but imposed asymmetries: dhimmis lacked judicial authority over Muslims, their testimony was often inadmissible against Muslims in mixed disputes, and certain contracts, like those involving military aid or proselytizing, were void. Societally, this system institutionalized a hierarchical order, confining dhimmis to secondary economic roles—such as trade or crafts—while barring them from public office or equal social integration, fostering long-term patterns of segregation and periodic vulnerability to revocation of protections during political instability. Medieval Christian canon law similarly scrutinized contracts involving infidels, debating their validity under natural law while often deeming infidel dominion provisional or revocable by papal authority, as articulated by Pope Innocent IV in the 13th century, who argued that unbelief did not inherently nullify property rights but justified intervention if infidels impeded Christian propagation. Trade contracts with infidels were progressively permitted after initial prohibitions, as in the 12th-16th century evolution traced in Gratian's Decretum and papal bulls, but subject to safeguards against arming enemies or exporting strategic goods, with enforceability hinging on good faith absent deceit. Infidel oaths held diminished weight in ecclesiastical courts due to presumed unreliability, complicating debt recovery or alliances, as seen in English common law precedents from the 17th century onward, where infidel status influenced slavery and commerce justifications. These doctrines permeated society by legitimizing differential treatment, such as Jewish moneylending in —enabled by usury bans on but rooted in infidel exclusion from guilds and landownership—or dhimmi sumptuary laws enforcing visible inferiority, which sustained economic interdependence amid mutual distrust and recurrent expulsions, as in the 1492 affecting Spanish and . Overall, infidel status eroded reciprocal trust in contractual relations, reinforcing communal boundaries and justifying coercive measures like or , with lasting effects on interfaith commerce until secular legal reforms diminished religious criteria for validity.

Modern Usage and Controversies

In Contemporary Conflicts and Extremism

In Islamist extremist groups, the term (Arabic for "infidel," denoting nonbelievers or those rejecting strict interpretations of ) has been invoked to rationalize against perceived enemies in ongoing conflicts. For instance, the (ISIS) employed kafir in its propaganda to label Western forces, Shia Muslims, and other opponents as legitimate targets for , framing attacks during its 2014–2019 in and as defensive warfare against an infidel world order. Similarly, in has targeted and government supporters as infidels, justifying abductions, bombings, and executions; a 2024 incident involved the beheading of four Christians explicitly labeled as infidels by the group. Post-2021 rule in has seen the term applied to religious minorities, including , , and , amid policies restricting their practices and enabling targeted violence, as documented in reports on escalating . This usage aligns with broader Salafi-jihadi ideology, where —declaring Muslims as infidels—extends the label to internal dissenters, fueling intra-Muslim conflicts in regions like and . Such rhetoric dehumanizes adversaries, portraying them as existential threats warranting , distinct from secular insurgencies by rooting justification in theological mandates for global Islamic dominance. While less prevalent, analogous infidel framing appears in non-jihadist ; for example, some Hindu nationalist groups in have echoed historical usages by decrying Muslim "infidels" amid communal clashes, though this draws more from indigenous revivalism than Abrahamic precedents. In Western contexts, the term occasionally surfaces in anti-Islamist counter-rhetoric, but extremist applications remain predominantly tied to jihadist motivations in , where empirical patterns show higher casualty rates in attacks motivated by religious over purely political grievances.

Debates on the Term's Relevance and Reform

In contemporary religious and secular , the term "infidel" faces scrutiny for its potential to exacerbate divisions, with advocates of arguing that it carries inherent connotations that hinder and modern pluralism. Critics of the term, often from academic and progressive circles, contend that its historical baggage—rooted in , jihads, and colonial encounters—renders it inflammatory, equating it to derogatory labels like the Arabic "" which can imply moral inferiority or warrant hostility. Such views prioritize linguistic neutrality to foster coexistence, proposing alternatives like "non-believer" or "outsider" to avoid evoking violence, as evidenced by discomfort among Christian minorities in Muslim-majority countries who associate "infidel" with narratives. Proponents of retaining the term emphasize its precise theological utility, arguing that diluting it obscures fundamental doctrinal distinctions between believers and non-adherents in Abrahamic faiths, where "infidel" denotes unfaithfulness to revealed truth rather than mere difference. In analyzing Islamist extremism, for instance, the term accurately reflects rhetoric employed by groups like ISIS, which explicitly target "infidels" in propaganda and attacks, as seen in their 2014 declarations justifying violence against non-Muslims; reforming it here would euphemize causal realities of ideological conflict. Figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali have reclaimed "infidel" in her 2007 memoir to signify intellectual defiance against oppressive orthodoxy, transforming a slur into a badge of rational autonomy without conceding to calls for sanitization. Notable reform efforts include the 2019 declaration by , Indonesia's influential Muslim organization representing over 90 million adherents, which abolished the legal category of "infidel" () within Islamic for modern nation-states, asserting that constitutional pluralism negates such classifications to prevent . This move, endorsed at a global Islamic conference, reflects pragmatic adaptation to secular governance, prioritizing civic equality over traditional binaries, though it has drawn criticism from salafists for undermining scriptural authority. Conversely, in Western philosophical debates, the term's relevance persists in discussions of , as in analyses distinguishing "infidel" from or , where it captures active rejection of faith-based epistemologies amid ongoing tensions between reason and . These positions highlight a broader tension: while reform appeals to empirical outcomes like reduced conflict, retention aligns with causal fidelity to doctrinal intents, unfiltered by egalitarian imperatives.

References

  1. https://www.etymonline.com/word/infidel
  2. https://www.gotquestions.org/infidel.html
  3. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infidel
  4. https://www.whyislam.org/whatiskafir/
  5. https://biblehub.com/q/what_defines_an_infidel_in_religion.htm
  6. https://pressbooks.ccconline.org/ppschum1015/chapter/pagans-heathens-infidels-and-heretics/
  7. https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/infidel
  8. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/infidel_adj
  9. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/infidel
  10. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/infidel
  11. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206%3A15&version=KJV
  12. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206%3A14-18&version=KJV
  13. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205%3A8&version=KJV
  14. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205%3A8&version=NIV
  15. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004431904/BP000003.pdf
  16. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08002b.htm
  17. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004431539/BP000019.xml
  18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20101056
  19. https://dokumen.pub/popes-lawyers-and-infidels-the-church-and-the-non-christian-world-125-155-9781512818192.html
  20. https://scispace.com/pdf/just-war-against-infidels-similar-answers-from-central-and-1levvlh2b1.pdf
  21. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.9783/9781512818192-007/pdf
  22. http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html
  23. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/nichol05/romanus-pontifex.htm
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/infidels-and-empires-in-a-new-world-order/theocratic-world-order-and-religious-wars/2A45EB23E6D92E09541FBD1225EF0718
  25. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09698a.htm
  26. https://uvadoc.uva.es/bitstream/handle/10324/74891/Are%2520you%2520still%2520my%2520wife%2520Conversion%2520to%2520Christianity%2520and%2520its%2520legal%2520effects%2520on%2520pre%2520existing%2520marriages%2520and%2520their%2520offspring%2520in%2520late%2520medieval%2520Castile%25201480%2520%25281%2529.pdf?sequence=1
  27. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=faculty_scholarship
  28. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/tutors-problems/US-History/56468009-1-On-the-basis-of-this-selection-of-canonshow-would-you/
  29. https://www.projectwittenberg.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal3-10.html
  30. https://academic.oup.com/fordham-scholarship-online/book/44800
  31. https://ccel.org/ccel/luther/tabletalk/tabletalk.v.xliii.html
  32. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/from-crusades-to-homeland-defense
  33. https://memorients.com/articles/mahomet-as-a-racist-rhetorical-device-in-europe-during-the-reformation
  34. https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-literature/article/90/4/723/136795/Infidel-America-Puritan-Legacy-and-Antebellum
  35. https://www.amazon.com/Age-Infidels-Politics-Religious-Controversy/dp/0812244931
  36. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/the-rights-of-infidels-in-a-new-world
  37. https://abdullahalandalusi.com/2016/05/05/the-quranic-use-of-the-word-kafir/
  38. https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/what-is-kufr-and-who-is-a-kafir-in-the-quran-full-and-revised-text-of-the-new-age-islam-series-on-the-subject/d/104163
  39. https://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/juancole.htm
  40. https://quran.com/9/5
  41. https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-134
  42. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1571/early-muslim-conquests-622-656-ce/
  43. https://home.uncg.edu/~jwjones/islamicworld/readings/jews-christians.html
  44. https://www.jewishrefugees.org.uk/2025/02/the-dhimmi-rules-were-about-humiliation-not-just-taxation.html
  45. https://muslimsinafrica.wordpress.com/2019/07/04/the-status-of-non-muslims-in-islamic-history-professor-hussein-solomon/
  46. https://hinduinfopedia.org/islamic-influence-and-jazia-tax-in-india/
  47. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA514376.pdf
  48. https://www.britannica.com/place/North-Africa/From-the-Arab-conquest-to-1830
  49. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-muslims-christians-and-jews-in-the-middle-east/islamic-foundations-of-intercommunal-relations/14846882339BA6D9FB63EB9E6ED2F37C
  50. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2017/08/16/isis-christianity-and-the-pact-of-umar/
  51. https://www.academia.edu/35652596/Dhimmitude_and_the_Ottoman_Empire_%25C7%2582
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335820260_A_Critique_of_Robert_Spencer%27s_Views_Regarding_Dhimmis_and_Jizya
  53. https://katz.sas.upenn.edu/resources/blog/what-do-you-know-dhimmi-jewish-legal-status-under-muslim-rule
  54. https://mairajsyed.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/103/2014/07/Mairaj-Syed-Chapter-7-Jihad-in-Classical-Islamic-Legal-and-Moral-Thought.pdf
  55. https://www.academia.edu/4217510/Fighting_the_Unbelievers_Various_Perspectives_on_Quran_9_29_by_Muslim_Theologians
  56. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1762&context=monographs
  57. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/medieval-times/spread-of-islam/a/the-rise-of-islamic-empires-and-states
  58. https://openstax.org/books/world-history-volume-1/pages/11-2-the-arab-islamic-conquests-and-the-first-islamic-states
  59. https://www.meforum.org/jizya-the-return-of-muslim-extortion
  60. https://africame.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-841.html
  61. https://www.unaoc.org/repository/Esposito_Jihad_Holy_Unholy.pdf
  62. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2991&context=ils
  63. https://nes.princeton.edu/publications/jihad-islamic-history-doctrines-and-practice
  64. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-01/ran_factbook_islamist_extremism_december_2019_en.pdf
  65. https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/7cec9165-1562-412b-8f75-5d2df0c88086/ScienceOpen/41858559.pdf
  66. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21520844.2023.2270882
  67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40593257
  68. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%2520Room/Other/15-F-0990_DOC_03_Radical_Islams_Confrontation_with_the_West_Final.pdf
  69. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2347798920921706
  70. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=monographs
  71. https://www.hstoday.us/featured/isis-khorasan-urges-lone-wolf-attacks-in-order-to-spark-u-s-civil-war/
  72. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/the-issue-of-apostasy-in-islam
  73. https://academic.oup.com/book/25933/chapter/193690159
  74. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/09/10-things-to-know-about-the-muslim-brotherhood/
  75. https://ikhwanweb.com/viewpoint%253A-muslim-brotherhood/
  76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2025.2538719?af=R
  77. https://mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm
  78. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-non-jew-in-jewish-law/
  79. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/biblical-and-rabbinic-attitudes-toward-non-jews/
  80. https://www.jewfaq.org/attitudes_toward_gentiles
  81. https://en.yhb.org.il/revivim1090/
  82. https://www.openbible.info/topics/non_believers
  83. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20&version=NIV
  84. https://www.knowingthebible.net/topical-studies/the-extermination-of-the-canaanites
  85. https://jeremyrosen.com/2021/12/forced-conversions.html
  86. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/11/10/487
  87. https://www.ieam.ulaval.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Marciak-Idumea-and-the-Idumeans-in-Josephus-2017.pdf
  88. https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/infidels
  89. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/classics/warwickclassicsnetwork/events/cc23/teacherresources/bowden_impiety.pdf
  90. https://www.britannica.com/topic/sacrilege
  91. https://www.britannica.com/topic/mlechchha
  92. https://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/nastika
  93. https://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=171
  94. https://www.greenshinto.com/2011/09/17/the-tao-of-shintao/
  95. https://iep.utm.edu/hume-rel/
  96. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/concern/publications/wm117s72k
  97. https://discourse.biologos.org/t/science-falsely-so-called-the-infidelity-of-natural-history-in-the-early-american-republic-the-biologos-forum/637
  98. https://dabhar.org/wt/zeng/r0673c.htm
  99. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691192284/the-infidel-and-the-professor
  100. https://aeon.co/ideas/he-died-as-he-lived-david-hume-philosopher-and-infidel
  101. https://infidels.org/library/historical/thomas-paine-age-of-reason-part1/
  102. https://christianheritagefellowship.com/how-thomas-paine-betrayed-america/
  103. https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/thomas-paine/
  104. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/voltaire--the-incomparable-infidel/12353256/
  105. https://infidels.org/library/historical/robert-ingersoll-on-voltaire/
  106. https://forward.com/culture/875/spinoza-hero-infidel-celebrity/
  107. https://infidels.org/library/historical/george-foote-infidel-deathbeds/
  108. https://www.lhlt.mpg.de/1923044/the-status-of-the-infidel
  109. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm
  110. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1508556.pdf
  111. https://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/against_the_infidels.htm
  112. https://homework.study.com/explanation/did-crusaders-refer-to-muslims-as-infidels.html
  113. https://www.papertrell.com/apps/preview/The-Handy-History-Answer-Book/Handy%2520Answer%2520book/What-is-an-infidel/001137010/content/SC/52caff3382fad14abfa5c2e0_default.html
  114. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/christianity-and-international-law/formation-and-refiguration-of-the-canon-law-on-trade-with-infidels-c1200c1600/4BE1DA7EA0CC0B7EAE5E06821BCA9BF0
  115. https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/7370
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10636343/
  117. https://www.academia.edu/53077293/The_Rights_of_Dhimmis_in_Islam
  118. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004431539/BP000019.xml?language=en
  119. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/infidels-in-english-legal-thought-conquest-commerce-and-slavery-in-the-common-law-from-coke-to-mansfield-16031793/535C65DFF1185FF079C7629891E3A32F
  120. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004349155/BP000003.xml
  121. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/contextualizing-jihad-and-takfir-sunni-conceptual-framework
  122. https://www.counterextremism.com/content/kafir
  123. https://www.opendoorsuk.org/blog/news/latest-news/nigeria-beheadings/
  124. https://euaa.europa.eu/country-guidance-nigeria/21-individuals-targeted-boko-haram
  125. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2025.2538719
  126. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2005/05/03/the-global-spread-of-wahhabi-islam-how-great-a-threat/
  127. https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/60/6/1585/5843316
  128. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/ACLURM001331.pdf
  129. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Muslim-extremists-call-us-infidels
  130. https://oxfordre.com/religion/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-420
  131. https://bosphorusreview.com/review-infidel
  132. https://www.baytarrahmah.org/media/political-communiques/2019/2019_10_16_World-First-Nahdlatul-Ulama-Abolishes-the-Legal-Category-of-Infidel-within-Islamic-Law/2019_10_16_World-First-Nahdlatul-Ulama-Abolishes-the-Legal-Category-of-Infidel-within-Islamic-Law.pdf
  133. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11841-021-00844-6
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.