4 ms·

> How to know if a religion is the source of an action or not? One way is to look at the founder of the religion. This is absurd and ignorant reasoning. I don'

> How to know if a religion is the source of an action or not? One way is to look at the founder of the religion. This is absurd and ignorant reasoning. I don't think I've ever, in my life, wondered what the 'founder' of my religion would do. I highly doubt most people do, and I'd like to see some evidence - some research - showing that it influences more than a tiny fraction. Every religious scripture has extreme (by today's standards) violence in it, including the New Testament. And Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have the same founder: Abraham, and the founding act was his extremist obedience to God, when he attempted to perform the human sacrifice of his own son. I encourage you to read those three scriptures (the Old Testament is long, so at least the first 5 books there, which make up the Torah); it dispells a lot of ignorant rumors that go around. (Based on what I've read about, and the little I've read of the Quran, the Old and New Testaments are regularly cited, and Moses and Jesus are considered prophets.)

acqq 11y ago
> Based on what I've read about Read the Quran directly, don't just read "about" it: http://quran.com/9 http://quran.com/9 9:30 "The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" The 9th Surah is considered one of the latest, therefore, by some, the one of precedence over the others (according to the practice of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29), do read at least that one.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Please see my comment above, which addresses what you say. Cherry picking something bad from the history of Islam as evidence of the whole religion is just an attempt to rationalize hate. It's silly. On that basis, we can condemn everyone and everything. To people reading this and who haven't read the Quran, I strongly encourage you buy a copy and dispell a lot of ignorant nonsense you hear. If you haven't, be sure to read some other scrpture too (e.g., the Torah, the New Testament) for context - otherwise the brutality of ancient societies can be taken out of context. (Remember we were still executing witches; hanging, drawing and quartering; etc. just a few centuries ago (not to mention things like Abu Ghraib and CIA torture recently.)) EDIT: For those looking for a good translation, I did some research into that and recommend Arthur Arberry's. It's probably the most respected among non-sectarian scholars, and Arberry was the head of the Department of Classics at Cairo University and a professor of Arabic at Cambridge. Many other translations push one sectarian view or another. In the U.S. you might need to order a used copy of Arberry or from Oxford University Press directly, but it's widely available.
  - acqq 11y ago
    I have the paper books of Quran in two languages and I've also given the links to the online searchable versions. I've actually marked the pages where "disbelievers" are to be "painfully punished" and only a few pages remained unmarked. It takes hours just to physically mark the all such pages! The unmarked remain only the parts where some Old Testament story is badly retold. Reading Quran is very repetitive, almost hypnotic experience. "For unbelievers" "doom" or "fire" page after page. It's not "out of the context" or "cherry picked" it's everywhere. Have you actually read the Quran?
    - jnbiche 11y ago
      Out of curiosity, which translation is that? Pickthall?
      - acqq 11y ago
        Not in English, other languages, for the English translation I've used the online sites, there are more translations available at once, I've linked that already, Pickthall is included in the results, maybe he uses the "doom" word more than others? Anyway, thanks to the online sources, the Arabic words seem to be "عذاب" and "الْحَرِيق" Yay, Unicode! For more statistics (e.g. how often exactly the "fire" is used, how often "hell") I suggest using the local copies of the texts.
muraiki 11y ago
> I don't think I've ever, in my life, wondered what the 'founder' of my religion would do. I highly doubt most people do, and I'd like to see some evidence - some research - showing that it influences more than a tiny fraction. When I was a Buddhist, many of my fellow Buddhists took great pains to emulate the Buddha. It was also important to study the teachings of a particular sect, if one belonged to once, such as Dogen in Soto Zen. In fact, the master-disciple relationship is incredibly important in some forms of Buddhism, with the master ultimately deriving his authority from his lineage, which is rooted in a founder. I think it would be difficult for Christians, whose name essentially means "Christ-like", to not consider what the founder of their religion would do. Perhaps it's not as big of a movement anymore, but there was a "What Would Jesus Do?" movement in Protestantism that wore bracelets bearing WWJD, to remind themselves to act in a Christ-like manner. As an Orthodox Christian, the goal of theosis is inextricably entwined with behaving like Christ. I am sorry for downvoting you, but as someone who has seriously practiced multiple religions, and as someone with a degree in religious studies, I think that saying that founders' actions don't influence their followers is quite difficult to swallow (note: I'm making no specific statement about Islam, but rather only trying to clarify this particular point).
- hackuser 11y ago
  I'm sure a few do; I would bet that the vast majority do not or do so only rarely. How many on HN do it? And in fairness, "someone who has seriously practiced multiple religions, and ... with a degree in religious studies" is an exceptional case in terms of both experience and expertise, and not representative of others. You should write a book comparing your experiences. I'd be fascinated.
  - muraiki 11y ago
    You know, we have to do a lot of educating about things like SOPA and other laws that we as programmers generally aren't fond of. And we get upset because we know these things affect everyone in an important way. People use computers and technology every day of their lives -- some are even programmers, and have been their entire careers -- and sometimes even after they have been educated about this issue, they still don't care. But there are still we who care about these issues, and the small number of people (in comparison to users of technology across the whole US) who respond to us. As you can guess, my point is that this situation occurs in many other areas too, including that of religion. And here I will speak from my experience as an Orthodox Christian: this is an extremely dangerous view. The temptation to label your brother as "not a true Christian," to see yourself as superior because you've read more books, attend more services, pray more often, etc. is very great. I'm not trying to veer into proselytization here, but rather am trying to explain at least the Orthodox response to the general argument of why all Christians aren't obviously great people. :) When it comes down to it, every person -- Christian or not, Orthodox or not -- is engaged in a very great struggle in their hearts. They have been wounded deeply by this world, even if they live in relative comfort and ease compared to another human in a worse situation. Some have chosen a particular hospital to recover in, but unfortunately struggle greatly with their illness. I know that my own case, of having experienced multiple religions and chosen an education in religious studies, is rare. But what I am trying to say is that people being sincere about their religion takes many forms, and is more complex than a one-dimensional scale. There are indeed beacons in the Church: the saints, such as Saints Porphryrios and Paisios, who are not far from us but reposed in the 90s. But as Saint Porphyrios said, there are untold numbers of "hidden saints," who lived lives of obscurity and humility and love, not writing tracts of theology, but who lived theology, who lived communion with God. I think that perhaps we expect a saint to be a certain kind of mythical person and we hold religious people to that kind of standard. I know that it must be disappointing when you meet a Christian and do not encounter faith, hope, and love. But the story of each Christian's life is not over until death -- and even at that point there is mercy.
jnbiche 11y ago
> This is absurd and ignorant reasoning. I don't think I've ever, in my life, wondered what the 'founder' of my religion would do. I highly doubt most people do, and I'd like to see some evidence - some research - showing that it influences more than a tiny fraction. Well, Islam has an entire tradition called the "Sunnah", which can be loosely described as the life and actions of Muhammed. According to any school of Islam with which I am familiar, with the possible exception of certain Sufi sects, all Muslims are categorically instructed to follow the example of Muhammed as the first and foremost example of a "correct" Muslim. In fact, according to Sunnis (one of the two main branches of Islam), the Sunnah are an "official" source of Islam, along with the Qu'ran. Also, Evangelical Christians have a thing called W.W.J.D., or What Would Jesus Do. If you're in the US, you've undoubtably heard of it. Many Christians wear pendants, bracelets, and put on bumper stickers with these initials. So in short, order, those are two pieces of evidence I'd put forward of a religion's adherents aspiring to do what their religion's founder would do. You may disagree with the parent's conclusions (I'm not even sure I do, but since it's been flagged I can't re-read it to say), it's decidedly not based in ignorance. I can't speak to your religion, but I can assure you that among very, very large numbers of Muslims and Christians, the life of their religion's founder has a huge impact on how they go about life. I have to wonder how many religious Muslims or Evangelical Christians you've known that this is even a question in your mind. Also, I find it odd that you called someone's reasoning "ignorant" who is clearly at least somewhat familiar with Islam and the Qu'ran, when you yourself admit to reading "little" of the Qu'ran. PS: Since you were looking for good translations of the Qu'ran in your other comment in this thread, I highly recommend Ahmed Ali's, Arberry is fairly painful and hard to read. Also Muhammed Asad's. Although both are accused of being impartial translators, that's mostly by the extremist or at least conservative wing of the religion and I doubt many people here care about that.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > all Muslims are categorically instructed Lots of people are categorically instructed to do many things in religion, but very few actually do them. We can't say 'the scripture of X says to do Y, so all (or most) people of that religion do Y'. It's just not realistic or even good reasoning. In this forum of scientific thinkers, where is the empirical data? Why are we suddenly accepting this silly speculation, especially about something so hurtful and dangerous? I stand by my claim that the statement is ignorant. To add to the discussion of translations for anyone reading (and based on many hours of amateur research - I have more if you are interested): * Ahmed Ali's: This is leading Shiite translation; note that Sunnis are the vast majority of Islam and the sects have many differences. In my notes: An "Indian scholar of Arabic and Persian" ... "Relies strongly on the commentary of translator's spiritual advisor, Ayatollah Mirza Mahdi Pooya Yazdi, Iranian focused on mysticism" ... "Disparages some Sunni figures". ... "has a rich introduction about the Qur an, its English translations, and the Shia doctrines. It provides useful information about the Shia-Sunni differences" * Arberry's: You say Arberry is fairly painful and hard to read. You are of course entitled to your opinion. I like it so far and most reviews I read seem to praise it: "The first English translation that attempted to capture the flavor of the Arabic text" ... "widely considered to be the most poetic of all translations" ... etc. Also: "Leading translation for western academics, widely admired" ... "He rendered the Qur'an into understandable English and separated text from tradition. The translation is without prejudice and is probably the best around" * Muhammed Asad's: Asad is an Austrian journalist, a Jewish convert to Islam. "more popular in the academic circles and among certain groups of people who are looking for a rational and more liberal approach towards the Qur'an" ... "Saudi Arabia banned it" ... "vitiated by deviation from the viewpoint of the Muslim orthodoxy on many counts." ... ""brings a modernist perspective to his translation of the Qur'an," ... "a notable addition to the body of English translations couched in chaste English ... highly readable translation contains useful, though sometimes unreliable background information"

acqq 11y ago

> Based on what I've read about Read the Quran directly, don't just read "about" it: http://quran.com/9 http://quran.com/9 9:30 "The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" The 9th Surah is considered one of the latest, therefore, by some, the one of precedence over the others (according to the practice of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29), do read at least that one.

hackuser 11y ago
Please see my comment above, which addresses what you say. Cherry picking something bad from the history of Islam as evidence of the whole religion is just an attempt to rationalize hate. It's silly. On that basis, we can condemn everyone and everything. To people reading this and who haven't read the Quran, I strongly encourage you buy a copy and dispell a lot of ignorant nonsense you hear. If you haven't, be sure to read some other scrpture too (e.g., the Torah, the New Testament) for context - otherwise the brutality of ancient societies can be taken out of context. (Remember we were still executing witches; hanging, drawing and quartering; etc. just a few centuries ago (not to mention things like Abu Ghraib and CIA torture recently.)) EDIT: For those looking for a good translation, I did some research into that and recommend Arthur Arberry's. It's probably the most respected among non-sectarian scholars, and Arberry was the head of the Department of Classics at Cairo University and a professor of Arabic at Cambridge. Many other translations push one sectarian view or another. In the U.S. you might need to order a used copy of Arberry or from Oxford University Press directly, but it's widely available.
- acqq 11y ago
  I have the paper books of Quran in two languages and I've also given the links to the online searchable versions. I've actually marked the pages where "disbelievers" are to be "painfully punished" and only a few pages remained unmarked. It takes hours just to physically mark the all such pages! The unmarked remain only the parts where some Old Testament story is badly retold. Reading Quran is very repetitive, almost hypnotic experience. "For unbelievers" "doom" or "fire" page after page. It's not "out of the context" or "cherry picked" it's everywhere. Have you actually read the Quran?
  - jnbiche 11y ago
    Out of curiosity, which translation is that? Pickthall?
    - acqq 11y ago
      Not in English, other languages, for the English translation I've used the online sites, there are more translations available at once, I've linked that already, Pickthall is included in the results, maybe he uses the "doom" word more than others? Anyway, thanks to the online sources, the Arabic words seem to be "عذاب" and "الْحَرِيق" Yay, Unicode! For more statistics (e.g. how often exactly the "fire" is used, how often "hell") I suggest using the local copies of the texts.

muraiki 11y ago

> I don't think I've ever, in my life, wondered what the 'founder' of my religion would do. I highly doubt most people do, and I'd like to see some evidence - some research - showing that it influences more than a tiny fraction. When I was a Buddhist, many of my fellow Buddhists took great pains to emulate the Buddha. It was also important to study the teachings of a particular sect, if one belonged to once, such as Dogen in Soto Zen. In fact, the master-disciple relationship is incredibly important in some forms of Buddhism, with the master ultimately deriving his authority from his lineage, which is rooted in a founder. I think it would be difficult for Christians, whose name essentially means "Christ-like", to not consider what the founder of their religion would do. Perhaps it's not as big of a movement anymore, but there was a "What Would Jesus Do?" movement in Protestantism that wore bracelets bearing WWJD, to remind themselves to act in a Christ-like manner. As an Orthodox Christian, the goal of theosis is inextricably entwined with behaving like Christ. I am sorry for downvoting you, but as someone who has seriously practiced multiple religions, and as someone with a degree in religious studies, I think that saying that founders' actions don't influence their followers is quite difficult to swallow (note: I'm making no specific statement about Islam, but rather only trying to clarify this particular point).

hackuser 11y ago
I'm sure a few do; I would bet that the vast majority do not or do so only rarely. How many on HN do it? And in fairness, "someone who has seriously practiced multiple religions, and ... with a degree in religious studies" is an exceptional case in terms of both experience and expertise, and not representative of others. You should write a book comparing your experiences. I'd be fascinated.
- muraiki 11y ago
  You know, we have to do a lot of educating about things like SOPA and other laws that we as programmers generally aren't fond of. And we get upset because we know these things affect everyone in an important way. People use computers and technology every day of their lives -- some are even programmers, and have been their entire careers -- and sometimes even after they have been educated about this issue, they still don't care. But there are still we who care about these issues, and the small number of people (in comparison to users of technology across the whole US) who respond to us. As you can guess, my point is that this situation occurs in many other areas too, including that of religion. And here I will speak from my experience as an Orthodox Christian: this is an extremely dangerous view. The temptation to label your brother as "not a true Christian," to see yourself as superior because you've read more books, attend more services, pray more often, etc. is very great. I'm not trying to veer into proselytization here, but rather am trying to explain at least the Orthodox response to the general argument of why all Christians aren't obviously great people. :) When it comes down to it, every person -- Christian or not, Orthodox or not -- is engaged in a very great struggle in their hearts. They have been wounded deeply by this world, even if they live in relative comfort and ease compared to another human in a worse situation. Some have chosen a particular hospital to recover in, but unfortunately struggle greatly with their illness. I know that my own case, of having experienced multiple religions and chosen an education in religious studies, is rare. But what I am trying to say is that people being sincere about their religion takes many forms, and is more complex than a one-dimensional scale. There are indeed beacons in the Church: the saints, such as Saints Porphryrios and Paisios, who are not far from us but reposed in the 90s. But as Saint Porphyrios said, there are untold numbers of "hidden saints," who lived lives of obscurity and humility and love, not writing tracts of theology, but who lived theology, who lived communion with God. I think that perhaps we expect a saint to be a certain kind of mythical person and we hold religious people to that kind of standard. I know that it must be disappointing when you meet a Christian and do not encounter faith, hope, and love. But the story of each Christian's life is not over until death -- and even at that point there is mercy.

jnbiche 11y ago

> This is absurd and ignorant reasoning. I don't think I've ever, in my life, wondered what the 'founder' of my religion would do. I highly doubt most people do, and I'd like to see some evidence - some research - showing that it influences more than a tiny fraction. Well, Islam has an entire tradition called the "Sunnah", which can be loosely described as the life and actions of Muhammed. According to any school of Islam with which I am familiar, with the possible exception of certain Sufi sects, all Muslims are categorically instructed to follow the example of Muhammed as the first and foremost example of a "correct" Muslim. In fact, according to Sunnis (one of the two main branches of Islam), the Sunnah are an "official" source of Islam, along with the Qu'ran. Also, Evangelical Christians have a thing called W.W.J.D., or What Would Jesus Do. If you're in the US, you've undoubtably heard of it. Many Christians wear pendants, bracelets, and put on bumper stickers with these initials. So in short, order, those are two pieces of evidence I'd put forward of a religion's adherents aspiring to do what their religion's founder would do. You may disagree with the parent's conclusions (I'm not even sure I do, but since it's been flagged I can't re-read it to say), it's decidedly not based in ignorance. I can't speak to your religion, but I can assure you that among very, very large numbers of Muslims and Christians, the life of their religion's founder has a huge impact on how they go about life. I have to wonder how many religious Muslims or Evangelical Christians you've known that this is even a question in your mind. Also, I find it odd that you called someone's reasoning "ignorant" who is clearly at least somewhat familiar with Islam and the Qu'ran, when you yourself admit to reading "little" of the Qu'ran. PS: Since you were looking for good translations of the Qu'ran in your other comment in this thread, I highly recommend Ahmed Ali's, Arberry is fairly painful and hard to read. Also Muhammed Asad's. Although both are accused of being impartial translators, that's mostly by the extremist or at least conservative wing of the religion and I doubt many people here care about that.

hackuser 11y ago
> all Muslims are categorically instructed Lots of people are categorically instructed to do many things in religion, but very few actually do them. We can't say 'the scripture of X says to do Y, so all (or most) people of that religion do Y'. It's just not realistic or even good reasoning. In this forum of scientific thinkers, where is the empirical data? Why are we suddenly accepting this silly speculation, especially about something so hurtful and dangerous? I stand by my claim that the statement is ignorant. To add to the discussion of translations for anyone reading (and based on many hours of amateur research - I have more if you are interested): * Ahmed Ali's: This is leading Shiite translation; note that Sunnis are the vast majority of Islam and the sects have many differences. In my notes: An "Indian scholar of Arabic and Persian" ... "Relies strongly on the commentary of translator's spiritual advisor, Ayatollah Mirza Mahdi Pooya Yazdi, Iranian focused on mysticism" ... "Disparages some Sunni figures". ... "has a rich introduction about the Qur an, its English translations, and the Shia doctrines. It provides useful information about the Shia-Sunni differences" * Arberry's: You say Arberry is fairly painful and hard to read. You are of course entitled to your opinion. I like it so far and most reviews I read seem to praise it: "The first English translation that attempted to capture the flavor of the Arabic text" ... "widely considered to be the most poetic of all translations" ... etc. Also: "Leading translation for western academics, widely admired" ... "He rendered the Qur'an into understandable English and separated text from tradition. The translation is without prejudice and is probably the best around" * Muhammed Asad's: Asad is an Austrian journalist, a Jewish convert to Islam. "more popular in the academic circles and among certain groups of people who are looking for a rational and more liberal approach towards the Qur'an" ... "Saudi Arabia banned it" ... "vitiated by deviation from the viewpoint of the Muslim orthodoxy on many counts." ... ""brings a modernist perspective to his translation of the Qur'an," ... "a notable addition to the body of English translations couched in chaste English ... highly readable translation contains useful, though sometimes unreliable background information"