In fact, an API that allows access to a religious text should be useful for everyone - even those detractors of said religion.
Next up, we need a legal code API and versioning.
agree 100% on legal code versioning - legislation should be a version control diff with 'git blame' like things for contributors ..
Yeah you could just download the Quran and reference it locally or someone could (relatively) easily roll their own version of this, but I think something like this is nice and I can appreciate it's value, even if Islam isn't my cup of tea.
[edited for clarity]
Also maybe this is it? Haven't checked. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/webservice.html
https://quranx.com/5.82?Context=3
> Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters.
https://quranx.com/2.65?Context=3
> And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!
https://quranx.com/98.6?Context=3
> Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
https://quranx.com/5.51?Context=3
> O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
(I do support all efforts to make this publicly available.)
Yes, you can mine around pretty much any holy book and produce quotes that say anything. If I recall, the bible has some passage about rabbits 'chewing the cud', as well as other absurdities. You'll find no recognized denominational Christian who practices rules derived from this though. In fact, you will notice practice even dictated by the Vatican deviates from the content of the Bible frequently as well.
In Islam, the practice I'm talking about is accepted to the point of being codified in their marriage law: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...
Section specifically allows marriage to unbelievers. Islamic scholars have expanded this into practice which allows marriage between People of the Book.
You're also misconstruing my point in the least charitable way, and in the process implying that all Pakistani Muslims are extremists. I'm sure you see the problem with that. The only reason I brought up my family is that you stated very clearly that by being from Islamabad, and being an ex-Muslim you could not learn anything from me about Islam, with the implication being that I'm therefore ignorant since I lack the same experience.
All I have been trying to suggest is that the violence you are seeing is from a violent minority, who do not reflect the values of all. On top of that, I'm suggesting that the majority follow a different view of the issue that the extremists you're talking about. Which is a fact. Your argument is equivalent to saying that the Irish Christian terrorists mean that Christians hate Protestants. This is false, a small and violent minority do. To say it does would be cherry picking. No matter how many Northern Irish folks tell me until they are blue in the face that it is representative of all Christians, it will not make it true.
On top of that, you're veering into flame-war/abusive territory here. I'd suggest you review the HN guidelines, since your comments are getting less constructive each time: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Your flamewar accusation is nonsense.
I see the disconnect. I agree that they say everyone else are infidels, however there's some infidels who are more acceptable than others. My understanding has always been that the sentiment is a lot closer to "these infidels are so close to the truth!". Or, at least, close enough to allow marriage and coexistence. This point was intended to counter the comment that religions say others unilaterally wrong. In this case, there's some acceptance that the others are 'on the right track'.
The outcome of that will also be telling of whether or not you're being truthful of your quantitative experience of the Quran.
There's at least 6,236 verses of the Quran. Get tagging, make it an open source project, I'll contribute.
Since you seem to be acquainted, can you list them and tell us what makes them vastly different from each other?
> (was illiterate and had to pass it on orally)
What are your sources for the claim that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate? He's described as al-Nabi al-Ummi [1], an "unlettered" Prophet, meaning unacquainted with the scriptures. Sahih al-Bukhari 114 describes the Prophet[2] as literate.
[1]https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20... [2]https://sunnah.com/bukhari:114
As a follow up suggestion, why do you not start with the Quran you already read as per your statement:
> (I'd know, I've read the entire 600 pages at least 10 times).
Here you mentioned a singular Quran, ie. you were not impeded by "multiple versions" to come to your conclusion that 90% of the Quran is what you say it is... so you already know where to start.
The real irony is the one accusing hate after himself spreading hate and falsehood, while not justifying or proving any of his claims.
And as if pointing out polemical characteristics is the same as writing hate…
Don’t bother with another response if you aren’t going to focus on backing up all that you’ve said.
Of course, you and I both know you have no choice but to flee from this because there’s nothing for you to justify.
I don't really want to shit on any particular religion, so I'll just say that what you've written does not apply to most religious people. Most religions have a live-and-let-live attitude when it comes to other people's religious beliefs.
I think all religions are probably wrong, as far as their metaphysical hypotheses go. By the same logic, that should actually be more offensive than thinking that N - 1 are religions are wrong, not less. (I don't personally see how either is offensive, to be clear.)
This does not apply to monotheistic faiths. The first problem is that they claim that their god is the only god. The second problem is that they prescribe punishments (death, eternal hellfire etc) for those who do not accept their god. True believers then go out and implement these policies making liberal use of both the carrot and the sword. This has been observed everywhere from ancient Egypt under the rule of Amenhotep IV to modern religions like communism where persecution of other religions is almost a given.[1]
I'm not sure that I disagree. But I'm not sure that I agree, either. I'm going to have to think about it. (This is about the highest compliment that you can pay to an HN comment.)
Somewhat related. According to Primo Levi (a famous holocaust survivor), there were two classes of people who stood up well in the hell of Auschwitz. One was religious people such as Yahweh's Witnesses, and another was ... Marxists.
Levi totally got lost for words when, shortly after being liberated by Russian army, he chatted with a fellow French prisoner about how lucky they were to survive the Nazi camp, and they did so by only a slight twist of fate, and got a surprising reply: "... but Joseph was there!"
Of course, the French man was talking about Joseph Stalin. He never lost his faith in the camp.
No, your "second problem" does not apply to all monotheistic faiths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatry
(although there are probably religious traditions that don't have an explicit view or doctrine about some of these questions, so they might be hard to classify in this framework)
You've completely misconstrued the nature of tolerance.
First, the only valid reason to hold to any religious faith is that you are convinced that it is true. Period. This isn't a narrative among many that you can pretend to believe because it adds structure to your life or some other benefit. You believe it primarily because you think it's true. (The benefits are secondary, though you would expect them if you've got truth. Truth allows you to live in conformity with reality and your own nature and thus your own good.)
Second, you have completely misconstrued what Abrahamic religions believe w.r.t. God. God is not comparable to pagan gods. Pagan gods are just more powerful beings. Each pagan god is just one being among many. That is not the case for the Abrahamic religions, certainly not Christianity and definitive not Catholic understanding. God is the Ipsum Esse Subsistens or subsisting Being Itself. Jesus is the Logos, not some guy competing for marketshare with other gods. This sort of monotheism isn't the reduction of the pantheon to one god. It is the definitive abolishment of the superstition of pagan religion. You actually don't need to appeal to any of these religious faiths to arrive at God thus understood. All you need is metaphysics.
Third, the claim that a lack of faith in God is sure to lead you to hell has nothing to do with intolerance. That's like saying that anyone who claims that driving off a cliff will kill you or taking drugs will destroy your life is an intolerant person engaging in fearmongering to control people and keep them from having fun. If you were headed toward a cliff, or about to shoot up some heroin, wouldn't you want someone to tell you that you'd about to ruin your life or kill yourself? If someone believes that a lack of faith will lead to your eternal damnation, then it is rather a sign of charity and love that they should let you know you're in danger, even if they're wrong. You can appreciate the concern at the least. You seem to be suggesting the absurd idea that it is intolerant to be certain of your beliefs and thus certain that someone else is in error. That's preposterous. What's intolerant is this definition that requires people to artificially deny their certainties and "tone it down" because their beliefs make some people feel uncomfortable for some weird reason. Mind you, believing a lack of faith is a path to hell does not imply forcing people to accept that faith. The Catholic and Christian tradition recognizes the need to evangelize, but not the legitimacy of coercion. Coercion doesn't even make sense since free assent is necessary for faith to be authentic anyway. All you'd get are people pretending to believe to avoid unwelcome consequences, and that's pointless and would constitute fraud at best (for which they might not be culpable if the coercion were severe enough). And FWIW Catholic tradition as far as I know is more or less consistent in at least suspecting that most CATHOLICS probably end up in hell.
I look at tolerance in practical terms. What the religious texts say, or how scholars interpret those texts is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is real world actions.
If the true believers of a religion have consistently punished people for apostasy, or indulged in forced conversions of conquered peoples, or placed restrictions on the practice of other religions, then I don't consider that religion (or its practitioners) to be tolerant.
> you have completely misconstrued what Abrahamic religions believe w.r.t. God.
I would rather say that my statement is redundant. But "the first problem is that monotheists are monotheistic" sounds absurd. Still, at least the Quran makes a distinction between the God of the Quran (Allah) and any other god (ilaah) when it claims that "there is no god but Allah."
> a lack of faith in God is sure to lead you to hell has nothing to do with intolerance. [...] You seem to be suggesting the absurd idea that it is intolerant to be certain of your beliefs and thus certain that someone else is in error.
If this principle limited itself to words and not deeds, I would probably agree. My issue is with the "carrot and the sword" part. That is intolerance manifesting in physical form. And there are hundreds of millions of people who have borne the brunt of this intolerance over the last few thousands years.
Nice ideas, but they are not reflected in actual actions taken by Christians over the course of history (same goes for most religions and related ideas). Theorycrafting about >1000 year old stories didn't help the Cathars or the Sephardim much, and it isn't going to help anyone in any real religious conflict nowadays either.
For example, most real-world Christians and Muslims are highly tolerant of unbelievers in their everyday lives, but that is not what their books say.