Children of Muslims are by Default Muslims? (Abraham, verses, punishment)

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

Was enslaving women and children and looting their belongings in battle in the Koran too? Because that's exactly what Muhammad promised his followers they could do.

Yes, the above can be "inferred" from passages on such policies in the Quran.

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by Continuum

Yes, the above can be "inferred" from passages on such policies in the Quran.

It seems to involve a bit of reverse engineering.

It starts with a desired premise and then seeking a way to infer something promotes that premise.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

It seems to involve a bit of reverse engineering.

It starts with a desired premise and then seeking a way to infer something promotes that premise.

It is not exactly reverse engineering.

It is a typical hypothezing and diagnostic process where humanity has gained knowledge for useful purpose.
It all starts from real experiences and from real experiences of problems we trace to the root causes.
It is what a doctor will do for its patients.
It is the most common approach in the attempts to problem solving.

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by Continuum

It is not exactly reverse engineering.

It is a typical hypothezing and diagnostic process where humanity has gained knowledge for useful purpose.
It all starts from real experiences and from real experiences of problems we trace to the root causes.
It is what a doctor will do for its patients.
It is the most common approach in the attempts to problem solving.

While it is a means of establishing a hypothesis. Care must betaken that the bias of the researcher does not tend to favor a desired result.

A problem in research is that personal perspectives will favor desired results. Which is why "peer Review" is essential. The methodology has to be tested by those with opposite preconceptions and if they have the same results the hypothesis gains credibility. But it is still far from being accepted as fact until the results are consistently the same.

If I speak to my doctor on the phone and explain I am experiencing extreme pain any time I touch any part of my body. Makes no difference if I touch my foot, elbow, wrist, back or head I experience the same pain. Using that information he will probably come to the conclusion I have a severe neurological problem. He most likely will not even think of the possibility I have a fractured finger.

Your methodology will not gain acceptance until those who disagree with you come to the same conclusion by using your methodology.

At the moment I doubt you have said anything to convince Muslims that the Qur'an contains violent verses.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

While it is a means of establishing a hypothesis. Care must betaken that the bias of the researcher does not tend to favor a desired result.

A problem in research is that personal perspectives will favor desired results. Which is why "peer Review" is essential. The methodology has to be tested by those with opposite preconceptions and if they have the same results the hypothesis gains credibility. But it is still far from being accepted as fact until the results are consistently the same.

If I speak to my doctor on the phone and explain I am experiencing extreme pain any time I touch any part of my body. Makes no difference if I touch my foot, elbow, wrist, back or head I experience the same pain. Using that information he will probably come to the conclusion I have a severe neurological problem. He most likely will not even think of the possibility I have a fractured finger.

Your methodology will not gain acceptance until those who disagree with you come to the same conclusion by using your methodology.

At the moment I doubt you have said anything to convince Muslims that the Qur'an contains violent verses.

Well said!

Anything can be "inferred" in ignorance. Any hypothesis with conclusion drawn before research is a preconceived idea doomed to fail.

"Jihad" has been "inferred" by many in ignorance as "killing the infidels" or "Holy War by Muslims against peaceful non-Muslims" but when this blind inference is tested with the teachings of the Qur'aan it is found to be lacking credibility.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

While it is a means of establishing a hypothesis. Care must betaken that the bias of the researcher does not tend to favor a desired result.

A problem in research is that personal perspectives will favor desired results. Which is why "peer Review" is essential. The methodology has to be tested by those with opposite preconceptions and if they have the same results the hypothesis gains credibility. But it is still far from being accepted as fact until the results are consistently the same.

If I speak to my doctor on the phone and explain I am experiencing extreme pain any time I touch any part of my body. Makes no difference if I touch my foot, elbow, wrist, back or head I experience the same pain. Using that information he will probably come to the conclusion I have a severe neurological problem. He most likely will not even think of the possibility I have a fractured finger.

Your methodology will not gain acceptance until those who disagree with you come to the same conclusion by using your methodology.

At the moment I doubt you have said anything to convince Muslims that the Qur'an contains violent verses.

I agree with you on the above.
It is a default standard that there must be sufficient consensus, but not only that, the conclusions must be supported by sound verifiable and repeated justifications.
I agree I have the onus to meet the above standards and I will do so in time.

According to my analysis there are 3,400++ verses that contain evil laden elements of various degrees, note "various degrees" not the same throughout.

Here is one example of an evil laden element of a reasonable high degree within various contexts;

2:191. And slay [wa qtulouhum: kill] them [infidels] wherever ye [you] find them [infidels],
and drive them [infidels] out of the places whence they [infidels] drove you out,
for persecution [Fitna: oppression] is worse than slaughter [killing].
And fight not with them [infidels] at the Inviolable Place of Worship [Ka'aba] until they [infidels] first attack you there, but if they [infidels] attack you (there) then slay them [infidels].
Such is the reward [penalty, jazao جَزَاء] of disbelievers [infidels].

Now you cannot deny 2:191 itself contain evil laden elements, such as "slay them" "fight" "attack" persecution [Fitna: oppression]. etc.

Even when the above has conditions such as '2:190 ...begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors'
and '2:192 ..let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers", the fact is 2:191 is like a loaded gun.

The problem here is the vagueness of such terms as "fitna" [persecution, oppression] and "wrongdoers."

The appx 80% majority of Muslims may not be sensitive to the above vagueness as they do not have an active evil tendencies, but the 20% of evil prone Muslims are likely to be sensitive to any thing they felt provoked as 'fitna' and 'wrong doing' against them as Muslims and Islam, i.e. wabiṣaddihim the sabil of Allah.
There are so many aspects of humanity [80% non-Muslim] that will provoked the very sensitive and evil prone Muslims [a potential of 300 million] to be influenced by the 3,400++ evil laden verses and verses that are taken as permission to fight non-Musims re fitna, wrongdoings, corruption, mischiefs, etc.

The fact is no one on earth can judge the evil prone Muslims' interpretations and deeds as wrong. Only Allah can do that. Another point is Judgment Day is likely to be billions of earth years away. Even if they are judged then no one will come back to tell others on earth so they can learn from the judgments made.

The fact is the following exists naturally and are unavoidable at the present;

1. 20% of all humans [therefore also Muslims] has an active evil tendencies who cannot be cured.

2. The Quran contain tons of evil laden verses [loaded guns] for defensive and offensive purposes and they are immutable and eternal.

Therefore the unavoidable existence of the above elements will always enable evils and violence on earth as a result of the combination of the above unavoidable elements.

Do you have any counter to the above?

My point is all these 'evil laden' elements [loaded guns] phrased as offensive or preventive mode should never be included in a holy book, especially when the holy book is to be taken as immutable and eternal.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Khalif

Well said!

Anything can be "inferred" in ignorance. Any hypothesis with conclusion drawn before research is a preconceived idea doomed to fail.

You are talking about yourself when you conclude "well said" based on ignorance. Note my counter points to Woodrow's post.

"Jihad" has been "inferred" by many in ignorance as "killing the infidels" or "Holy War by Muslims against peaceful non-Muslims" but when this blind inference is tested with the teachings of the Qur'aan it is found to be lacking credibility.

You are wrong again here.

'Jihad = holy war' in the English Language is correct as that can be traced to real experiences and events.

The only reservation is 'Jihad is not directly = holy war' in Quranic Language.

The holy war is not directly attributed to the term 'jihad' in the Quran.
The term 'jihad' in the Quran meant 'strive' in various contexts and Allah has exhorted Muslims to strive [jihad and other grammatical forms] for a lot of things. So it is not proper to link 'jihad [strive] to 'holy war' in the Quranic Language only.

However the Quran [in part not whole] is nevertheless responsible in triggering some Muslims who are evil prone to strive for wars, evil and violence against non-Muslims from a tsunami of evil laden verses within the Quran.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Continuum

You are talking about yourself when you conclude "well said" based on ignorance. Note my counter points to Woodrow's post.

This was your counter:

Originally Posted by Continuum

I agree with you on the above.

Well said!

Originally Posted by Continuum

You are wrong again here.

'Jihad = holy war' in the English Language is correct as that can be traced to real experiences and events.

English language has no experience of "jihad" mentioned 4 times in the Qur'aan. Therefore, "jihad" is parroted in English language in ignorance of its real meanings.

Originally Posted by Continuum

The only reservation is 'Jihad is not directly = holy war' in Quranic Language.

The ignorant ones on both sides have misused the word "jihad" that is in the Qur'aanfor a different purpose.

Originally Posted by Continuum

The holy war is not directly attributed to the term 'jihad' in the Quran.
The term 'jihad' in the Quran meant 'strive' in various contexts and Allah has exhorted Muslims to strive [jihad and other grammatical forms] for a lot of things. So it is not proper to link 'jihad [strive] to 'holy war' in the Quranic Language only.

Correct! You are now learning about words in the Qur'aan.

Originally Posted by Continuum

However the Quran [in part not whole] is nevertheless responsible in triggering some Muslims who are evil prone to strive for wars, evil and violence against non-Muslims from a tsunami of evil laden verses within the Quran.

In English language, they call them "Jihadists". Do you too regard them "Jihadists? If yes, aren't you now backsliding on your new understanding of the word "jihad"?

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Khalif

English language has no experience of "jihad" mentioned 4 times in the Qur'aan. Therefore, "jihad" is parroted in English language in ignorance of its real meanings.

That is not the case.

I had explained how jihad came about in the Arabic and English dictionary here.
//www.city-data.com/forum/46694548-post7.html

Here is the twist;
Those collective acts that turned out to be evils and violent is a complex set of elements, thus as a convenience the evil prone Muslims group the whole set of activities as 'jihad' for the convenience of communication.
Thus the infidels follow suit, i.e. any activities by the evil prone Muslims that has an evil and violent impact on them are term 'jihad'.
This is how the term 'jihad=holy war or religious attack' and jihadists enter into the Arabic speaking and English speaking dictionaries.

Therefore when any English or Arab speaking person says 'jihad=holy war' the person is correct because the dictionary said so in the respective dictionaries.

The ignorant ones on both sides have misused the word "jihad" that is in the Qur'aan for a different purpose.

That is not how you should see it.
When a person used the term 'jihad', one must ask which language and dictionary is that term 'jihad' is referred from.

When an English only speaker Muslim leader commanded his friend to 'jihad' on blogger X, because X acted against Islam, and X is killed with head sliced off, then the term jihad in this circumstance is used correctly. This is because 'jihad' in the English dictionary meant holy war and religious fighting and killing enemies of Islam.

The question is, is the above in accordance to the Quran?
The Quran do not have direct verses that state one must "jihad to kill."
But on Judgement Day, the Muslim jihadi [English language] will not be judged on the basis of language, but on the deeds alone.
Blogger X is an enemy of Islam and the Quran stated such enemy must be fought against and kill where necessary.
Thus what happened ultimately is whether the act comply with what is in the Quran, the terms and words used are not very critical. The relevant words are merely to facilitate communications.

For example if some Muslims coined word say, "InfidelZap" to mean justified fighting and killing infidels in accordance to the Quran and 80% of Muslims are using it and understand what "InfidelZap" meant, so be it. It will be taken up by the dictionary in time and be an accepted English word. Those who do it will be called "InfidelZappers."
So the term is not critical. What is critical is whether the belief and acts ultimately conform with the verses in the Quran.

In English language, they call them "Jihadists". Do you too regard them "Jihadists? If yes, aren't you now backsliding on your new understanding of the word "jihad"?

As I had proven above the term used is not critical.
Yes, in the English Language I will call them 'jihadists' only if the English dictionary or by conventional rule
the dictionary allows it.

Note I will not stop using the term jihad=holy war just because in the Quranic Language 'jihad' is not 'holy war'.
If I am speaking English, I will agree 'jihad=holy war' because the English dictionary said so.
If I am speaking Arabic I will agree 'jihad=holy fasad' because the Arabic dictionary said so.
If I am referring to the Quran specifically then I will not agree 'jihad=holy war' because Allah did not say that.

This rationale is very plain.

What is critical here is the final judgement on Judgement Day on the deeds done and whether the deeds done agree to the Quran from the perspective of Allah.
If a jihadist Muslim were to shout WTF instead of Allahu Akbar when killing an infidel [justified], I don't think Allah is going to penalize him on that "WTF" but on what is ultimately done.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Continuum

That is not the case.

I had explained how jihad came about in the Arabic and English dictionary here.
//www.city-data.com/forum/46694548-post7.html

We are not in English Forum or in Language Forum or even Dictionary Terms Forums. We are in Islam Forum. The word "jihad" in Islam can be applied only as applied in the Qur'aan.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Therefore when any English or Arab speaking person says 'jihad=holy war' the person is correct because the dictionary said so in the respective dictionaries.

Then link it to only Arabic language or English language and not to the Qur'aan or Islam in the term meaning other than that of the Qur'aan.

Originally Posted by Continuum

That is not how you should see it.

I am not going to see as you see. I see as I see.

Originally Posted by Continuum

When a person used the term 'jihad', one must ask which language and dictionary is that term 'jihad' is referred from.

No. You do not do that if you are linking it to the Qur'aan and Islam but you must refer it to the Qur'aan.