Comment by trutannus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by trutannus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

We're not talking about the Quran, we're discussing Islam. You're making pretty common error I see made in the Atheism world, where you're conflating the content of a holy text with the practice of a religion. I'm neither Muslim, nor any religion myself, but there's no sense in taking such a reductive approach.

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.

I'm a former devout Muslim writing this from Islamabad. I have personally witnessed the sheer hatred and violence perpetrated against Christians led by the verses I quoted. So don't teach me about Islam thank you.

You've also linked to a Christian proselytizing blog above. Please don't claim your background represents all Muslims or even Muslims in Islamabad. Signed another Muslim.

It is common among the digital Christian proselytizing community to pretend to be ex-Muslims.

A large portion of my family is Muslim. Many people very close to me are. Your experience does not represent every experience there is. Again, I specifically called attention to how I'm discussing the common majority of Islamic followers. You're discussing a subset which deviates from the average by a large margin. You're also discussing this in a nation known for being a hotbed of extremism. The Taliban were formed in Pakistan, so it's no surprise that there's extremists there.

Is the large portion of your family larger than a country of 200 million? "Common majority of muslims" is the western diaspora of a couple million? The nation is known for following the said book so it's no surprise they are extremists. You are not making any sense. What's next, Pakistanis are not Muslims?

I don't recall ever saying that my Muslim family were diaspora, or that the diaspora were the common majority. That's an assumption you made just to discredit me dishonestly. One person is now, as of 6 years ago 'diaspora', the rest are not and still live in their Muslim majority home country of over 40 million people. The problems you're talking about don't exist there.

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

Fair enough. My issue was you saying Islam doesn't consider other religions infidels. In a thread about a book which has 90% content ranting endlessly against infidels and cursing them (I'd know, I've read the entire 600 pages at least 10 times). But as you rightly say majority doesn't take that literally.

Your flamewar accusation is nonsense.

> My issue was you saying Islam doesn't consider other religions infidels

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'.

If you hold such high standards of truth (despite all of the unverifiable claims you made to bolster your case), then prove it. Take this Quran API and use the language analysis tools available today to prove to us that 90% of the content is rants 'endlessly against infidels and cursing them'.

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.

Sure but there are so many vastly different versions of Quran (because the author was illiterate and had to pass it on orally, over a period of 23 years) and paper was scarce back then. So no idea which one to start from. Open to suggestions.

> Sure but there are so many vastly different versions of Quran

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

> So no idea which one to start from.

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.

Relax, it's a 3 day old post. You're making hate comments against Christians while asserting they're your brothers. The irony is amusing.

I never said they’re my brothers. And sure, weasel your way out.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com