Raymond Ibrahim, 4/21/25
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s tattoos are back in the news. A few months ago I discussed his Crusader tattoos, but now it’s his tattoo of an Arabic word — kafir — that is creating much outrage amongst Muslims.
Before proceeding, let’s first define the word kafir, for it is indeed important though much misunderstood.
The word kafir (singular form; kuffar or kafara, plural) is almost entirely known by its connotations (all of which are negative) rather than its denotation.
The trilateral root word kafara (k-f-r) and its derivatives in old, pre-Islamic Arabic literally meant to cover, or hide, something. In Islamic usage, a kafir came to mean someone who, after being invited or exposed to the truths of Islam, still rejects them — still “covers them” up, or “hides” them.
Hence, today a kafir is someone who rejects Islam — or, in modern parlance, a non-Muslim.
And yet, translating the word to “non-Muslim” or “unbeliever” — as almost every modern, English-language Koran does — completely misses the all-important and decidedly negative connotations associated with the word and its definition. (This, incidentally, is why older English translations rendered the word kafir as infidel, as I often do; although still an imperfect translation, it sought to capture the pejorative sense of the Arabic in one English word.)
Dumber Than Cattle
To Muslim ears, kafir (singular) and kuffar (plural) are virtually synonymous with “evildoers” and “enemies.” In fact, virtually every vile human characteristic — and several connected to animals — is associated with the word kafir.
As usual, let us turn to the Koran; it refers to kuffar as the “worst of beasts” (8:55, 98:6), similar to cattle and just as dumb (47:12, 8:65); they are inherently “guilty,” “unjust,” and “criminal” (10:17, 45:31, 68:35; 39:32); they are the “sworn enemies” of Muslims (4:101); and are “disliked” and “accursed” by Allah (2:89, 3:32, 33:64). The Islamic deity is himself their declared enemy (2:98) who requires that “terror be cast into their hearts” (3:151).
Again, this is how the Koran describes all non-Muslims, even if they have never once spoken against or harmed Islam.
Unsurprisingly, then, Islamic law mandates hostility for the kuffar — unremitting jihad, with all the attendant death and destruction that has always accompanied it, at least when Muhammad’s followers are strong. When they are weak, however, and in need of biding time for a more opportune moment, deception of and friendly gestures to the kafir (taqiyya) are permitted.
Thus, according to Koran 9:5, Muslims must “slay” those who reject Islam, “wherever you find them — seize them, besiege them, and make ready to ambush them!”
Without Exception
If that sounds familiar, perhaps it’s because the Muslim ambassador of Barbary (North Africa) paraphrased this verse when explaining to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams why his Muslim countrymen were raiding American vessels and killing and enslaving their kafir sailors. As Jefferson wrote in a letter to Congress in 1786,
The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, … that it was their right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims, kuffar] wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.
But what about ahl al-kitab, the so-called “people of the book” — a phrase the Koran sometimes applies to Jews and Christians? Are they kuffar or not?
Although Islam’s apologists regularly argue for the latter, ahl al-kitab, while marginally better, is ultimately a subcategory of kafir. The Koran itself makes this abundantly clear. For example, it says that those who believe in the Trinity or who believe that Christ is the Son of God (two things all Christians believe) have committed kufr (meaning they are kuffar, Koran 5: 72-73).
Two-Tiered Justice
Incidentally, because the kuffar are essentially animal-like subhumans in comparison to Muslims, sharia bans the execution of Muslims for any and all crimes — including murder — that Muslims may commit against non-Muslims in keeping with Muhammad’s words, “Let no Muslim be killed on account of kafir” (recorded in Sahih Bukhari and other canonical collections).
This teaching is constantly invoked in the Muslim world, though people in the West seldom hear of it (meaning Western media seldom report on it). For example, several Muslim scholars and institutes argued in 2008 that a convicted Muslim murderer should not be executed because his victim, John Granville, an American diplomat, was a kafir, and therefore their lives could not be treated as equal to his.
In an Arabic-language statement titled, “Let no Muslim be killed on account of a kafir,” the Legitimate League of Scholars and Preachers in Sudan (an influential body of Muslim clerics) began by asserting that
Allah has honored human beings over creation and multiplied the Muslim’s honor over the kafir’s, because Islam elevates and nothing is elevated above it. The value of the blood of Muslims is equal, or should be, but not so the value of the blood of others [e.g., kuffar].
Similarly, during a videotaped sermon, Egyptian cleric Samir Hashish once explained:
The prophet said, “Let no Muslim be killed on account of a kafir.” Why? Because their blood is not equal. The blood of the Muslim is superior. Call it racism or whatever you want, but of course the blood of the Muslim is superior. This is not open to debate.
Let’s now return to Pete Hegseth and see what all the hubbub is about. Muslims, according to numerous media reports, are simply outraged that he dared tattoo the word kafir on his arm.
But why? That is precisely what he is — according to Islam’s own definitions and usage. As we saw, all non-Muslims are, by default, kuffar. That is to say, all non-Muslims are the “worst of beasts …cattle … dumb… guilty, unjust, criminal … sworn enemies of Muslims … accursed of Allah” (to quote the Koran).
The problem is ultimately one of province. A highly offensive word, kafir is only meant to be used by Muslims to describe non-Muslims. When a non-Muslim willingly appropriates it, however, and wears it as a tattoo no less—that is, as a badge of honor—then it becomes the ultimate act of defiance against Islam. It becomes a statement: “Yes, not only am I a non-Muslims, but I’m all the ugly things you Muslims say about non-Muslims and more! What of it?”
In short, Muslim anger has nothing to do with Pete Hegseth being a kafir—which Islam makes him to be—and everything to do with him being proud of it.