Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomohawk | Hacker News Reader

I think you have to be careful when attributing violent action to a religion. Religions are often used to provide a sheen of respectability to otherwise disreputable organizations, such as the KKK.

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. Would the founder perform the action? Did the founder use violence and coercion to achieve goals? Did the founder encourage their followers to do such things? If not, then it is likely that the claim is not valid.

If we look at the founder of Christianity, there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends. So, the claim of that KKK and other violent groups are Christian doesn't hold much water. This is not to say that an individual who espouses a certain belief will not be violent, just that the religion is not the source of it.

If we look at the founder of Islam, we see something else. We see violence and coercion used and advocated by the founder.

View on HN

> there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends

Please explain the harrowing of hell. My local cathedral has stained glass (14th century) of Christ in full armour, with big sword, going to hell to release the righteous (but not the damned), conquering hell in the proces.

http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-04/feature/

(Possibly not quite hell, but the bit before that.)

There is a long tradition of Christians using their bible to justify violence. There's plenty of violence in the bible. But, when pointed out, Christians start saying that those bits don't count, or those bits have been misinterpreted, or that you need to read that other bit as well.

I have you saying that the quran is violent, and I have hundreds of millions of muslims telling me that it's a book of peace.

There is a long history of charletans, politicians, criminals, and other unsavory characters using one religion or another as a pretext for their actions. That doesnt' mean that their actions had anything to do with those religions. You have to exercise a little more discernment to dig into what they're saying and what the religion actually advocates to come to a conclusion.

In the case of Christianity, I think it is telling that at the time the founder was teaching, there was a dictator in Rome who claimed to be god and who was heavily suppressing the ethnic group (Jews) that the founder belonged to.

Did this man advocate any sort of political or violent acts to remedy the situation? No.

I don't think it really matters what the opinion is of a lot of people when we can merely look at recorded history and see what the founder of Islam did.

As I pointed out above, this is silliness and nonsense. How does the "founder" affect what a particular individual does today? Should an indivdual be judged as a person, or be guilty or innocent, or have their rights taken away, based on what a book says a religious leader did 1300 years ago?

If Jesus was so peaceful and the founder is so influential, how do you explain all the evil acts of Christians?

The founder of all three religions, Abraham, impressed God by being willing to perform human sacrifice of his own son! I hope I'm not judged by that. Or if you only count Abraham as the founder of Judaism, should all Jews be expected to perform human sacrifice?

It seems you don't know what which religion claims. The "founder" of Christianity is considered by Christians to actually be "God." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity ) The "book" in which Muslims believe is by Muslims considered to be the actual words of God, and they negate the claims of both Jews and Christians, these just prepared the ground for Muhammad who is the last one who will ever receive the messages from God. And the messages are accurately recorded by miracle.

My favorite "actual last words" of God from those are where he says (roughly) that the uncle of Mohammad will go to hell and that the wife of the uncle will carry the wood for that fire. (111:1 etc)

Such a natural thing for God to worry to pass to the humanity for ever and ever.

The uncle of Mohammad dared to consider the claims of Mohammad (that he receives the messages of god) as stupidity and dangerous, Sunnah explains.

I'm not making this up.

> I have you saying that the quran is violent, and I have hundreds of millions of muslims telling me that it's a book of peace.

Why not try reading it and making up your mind for yourself? I happen to share the opinion of the parent poster about the founder of Islam, but at the same time, the Qu'ran is a very interesting and in parts beautiful work of literature. Furthermore, Islam has given rise to some peaceful and open-minded groups, the Sufi tradition comes to mind (although yes, even the Sufis have suffered violent splinter groups over the centuries).

Qu'ran is available online and searchable, search for the word "slay" for example:

http://quran.com/search?q=slay

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

Also search "disbelievers."

And on sunnah.com search "stoned."

I'm very aware of those passages and others that reflect the religion's violent origins, having actually read the book, or most of it (have you?).

If you were disagreeing with me, did you miss the part of my comment where I said I shared the parent's opinion of Muhammed (and yours as well, I presume)?

I simply was encouraging someone wondering about the Quran to read it himself so he could make up his own mind, regardless of our opinions.

Obviously, in the interest of fairness, similar passages about stoning/slaying can be found in the Tanakh/Old Testament. Luckily, few Christians or Jews take those passages literally today.

Yes, reading the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Quran and comparing them is really instructive. However Quran is just one of the two primary sources (the messages received by Muhammad), you'd have to read Sunnah for the deeds of Muhammad during which he received the messages (the second primary source). It's only there that you'd find the beheadings and stonings by Muhammad. Just like "the New testament" isn't just one of the gospels, but the four gospels and all the other books, including the Apocalypse of John and all the epistles.

Sunnah are also searchable online.

> Quran is just one of the two primary sources (the messages received by Muhammad), you'd have to read Sunnah for the deeds of Muhammad during which he received the messages (the second primary source)

Are you addressing this to me, in response to my comment, or to HN in general?

You said "I was encouraging someone wondering about the Quran to read it himself so he could make up his own mind," well, just reading just the Quran is not enough, as a such a reader would miss all the behadings and stonings of unbelievers by Muhammad and his soldiers that are the part of the primary sources of the religion.

The only laypeople who use the Koran and Hadiths as sources for direct personal understanding of Islam are literalist Salafist/Wahhabist types including ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Islamic exegesis, which has led to the day to day fiqh that governs religious life for the vast majority of Moslems is a very complex field that has evolved over more than a 1000 years and takes years of study to master and is not as straightforward as you are portraying it. The "CTRL-F...gotcha!" approach that you seem to be advocating would be regarded as absurd not only by Moslems, but by anyone who has to deal with the interpretation of complex texts.

A layperson with no knowledge of Arabic and lacking the toolkit for understanding is not going to get very far in understanding Islam using Hadiths and the Koran, and you'd be doubly disadvantaged using an English translation.

An analogy would be the average American citizen, unschooled in law, being asked to derive the Miranda Warning from the Bill of Rights, or providing a reasoned opinion about the scope of the Interstate Commerce clause. Sure, it's great from a Civics perspective to read the Constitution, but if interpreting it was straightforward we'd be able to shutter the Supreme Court.

> The only laypeople who use the Koran and Hadiths as sources for direct personal understanding of Islam are literalist Salafist/Wahhabist types including ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

And Saudi Arabia which finances with billions (?) of dollars the religious education of Muslims around the world? Even in the Muslim religious education in the countries which don't use Sharia the first thing the kids learn is to differentiate themselves from unbelievers.

Then even as the layperson you can easily count how many statements there are in the holy book in which the Unbelievers are "liers" and will be "painfully punished" for which is "fire" etc. It's not written in parables or anything it's completely and plainly explicit.

Ditto for the practices of stoning, beheading in Sunnah etc.

The layperson doesn't have to practice Islam, or know their religious discussions to get the rough idea of the content.

Billions may be overstating it, but you do have a point, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of that movement and does promote the literalist approach, along with its Gulf neigbours. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Moslem countries carefully watch their madrasah syllabi to make sure that Saudi influence does not infiltrate.

In the case of France, as the article points out, Islamically ignorant, disaffected Moslem youths are easy pickings for Salafists.

Edit: as for the rest you are again ignoring the context in which then verses were revealed, and their practical interpretation.

> it wouldn't surprise me if Moslem countries carefully watch their madrasah syllabi to make sure that Saudi influence does not infiltrate.

But you don't know. As I speak a few languages, I was able to check the instructions on one local language and I was able to see that among all the content that is supposed to be less fundamentally oriented there is this nice "kids, now we will learn who is unbeliever, think about those who you know who aren't Muslim" etc. Then you can actually check what the religious text tell about the unbelievers.

> ignoring the context in which then verses were revealed, and their practical interpretation

Sunnah is the context and they are even searchable online. So please don't scare people from reading Quran. They will surely understand more than when they don't even attempt to see what's inside. They can also search for the context and interpretations elsewhere, even Wikipedia has some:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Campaigns_led_by_Muha...

Interpretations abound:

http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/1640

"Those who ridicule Prophet Muhammad and defame his life and message drive people away from virtue and deprive the world from stability and tranquility. These people are condemned and threatened by the Qur’an. Allah says in His Glrious Book, : {The ones who prefer the worldly life over the Hereafter and avert [people] from the way of Allah, seeking to make it (seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.} [chapter of Abraham, 14:3]"

I actually want to be free to "ridicule" that self-claimed "prophet": I don't believe in him. He was only a mortal, and he was not more connected to God than Joseph Smith. And Joseph Smith was a fraud too, even if the guy who believes in him almost became president of US. And gods are just a human invention anyway. Imaginary beings who as the messages stumble to give "Guide us to the straight path The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)" but never even a single scientific hint for anything, like, why wouldn't any "God" leave the message in his holy texts "you don't understand now, but once later you'll see that the light has always the same speed." The humanity discovered it around a century ago. Imagine that this simple words were in some holy text. Wouldn't it simply prove that the imaginary beings called by us gods even exist? The major problem with Islam is that I'd be dead after saying former sentences in front of most of the "submitted" (which is the meaning of the word "Muslim"). It's true that I'd be dead for the same words in Europe of Middle Ages, but that only proves that we know what we know today because we dared to stop being the "believers" or the "submitted."

Feel free to that, just be aware that your approach lacks any kind of validity and would be regarded as quixotic at best.

Most hadiths (I think that's what you are referring to) have weak veracity and weighted accordingly.

As I stated elsewhere your approach shares a great deal with the Salafist/Wahabist doctrine but, sadly, not a great deal with 1400 years of Islamic thought. Once again, to use the analogy of the US Constitution, your approach is akin to finding a copy of the Constitution in 2015 and trying to produce a functioning government from scratch with no prior knowledge. Sure you'd be able to produce something, but th chances that it would remotely resemble the real thing are slim.

I can read the constitution to get the ideas of those who wrote it just like I can read the Islamic text to get their ideas. To know the exact implementation of the ideas we'd have to study the US law or the law of some other country (and we are sure to see that not all ideas are even implemented in practice). But to learn about the general ideas, reading the original material is actually enough.

And it's actually a good exercise to read both the US constitution and then read Quran and compare the ideas in them.

Let's start with the constitution. I can search through that too.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

God is never mentioned, religion is mentioned twice:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Seriously, you are picking and choosing. Did you check the Sure before this one?. I will help you out:

[2-190]:Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

[2-191]:And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

[2-192] And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

[2-193] Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

So what's better when all the four verses are quoted? Muslims are to fight and kill until "worship is for Allah" (your [2-193]). (The words "acknowledged to be" aren't actually in the original Arabic verses). Peace once everybody is a Muslim? That's why it's the "religion of peace?" How do you understand the verses?

At least when "al-Masjid al-Haram" remains untranslated it can be considered to be only valid around the Great Mosque of Mecca. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Haram But it's just where "do not fight them" is.

Fortunately, there are better ways of trying to figure out Islamic exegis is on this issue than randomly searching for words in the Koran: http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com (via http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-... )

The list of all signatories is telling. The only one from Saudi Arabia is:

Al-Sayyid Abdallah Fadaaq

"Differences arising with the current Wahabi regime forced him to leave teaching at the Grand Mosque in Makkah like his ancestors, to teach privately from his home in Jeddah"

The Saudis released their own letter:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/saudi-clerics-f...

And they definitely avoid to sign many of the claims from the other letter.

And the other letter is bad enough:

"21- Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray."

Imagine that I'm a president of, for example, Turkey, and I just say that I'm an atheist. And that the Muslims should pray in their homes and not in the university (the women weren't actually allowed to cover their head in universities in Turkey since the 1920s, as introduced by Kemal Pasha, I don't know if the current government reverted that recently). From the letter it can be concluded that the Muslims are supposed to organize armed insurrection in Turkey.

"9- It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief."

So imagine I say I'm an atheist openly. And that god doesn't exist and that Muhammad just invented what he claimed that came from god. What does the letter imply? That then I'm to face the Islamic treatment of unbelievers?

Quran: 5:33 "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,"

In reality, Allah really doesn't exist. Otherwise he would leave us a message or two about the speed of light or the atoms. Instead he supposedly said (hey, Muhammad said so it must be true) that Muhammad's uncle will burn in hell. Now that's really important for humanity. No joke. (the sound of some ears closing singing I can't hear you)

I have news for you possible martyrs: if you go around and get killed, you'll just die. No 72 virgins, no heaven. Try to be nice to the people around you instead, this is the only life you and others have. And you believers, that simple fact is the basic source of the existence of morality, not your religion.

Now imagine I've said all this publicly. There's chance I'd end up like Theo van Gogh. That's why a lot of people are scared to say it. But it's so simple and it's true.

I understand that people find their religion part of their identity. We all have to learn how to respect and recognize everybody's identity but to leave the 3000, 2000 and 1300 years old superstitions behind.

Humans have a natural propensity for violence. Would you suggest that other base instincts (such as lust) are just because of some outside influence? Because that is exactly what religion believes and it is ridiculous. We need to deal with people as they are, the rationalisation (religion) comes after.

In Orthodox Christian theology, the harrowing of Hades occurs immediately after the Resurrection. In order to understand this event, we first have to understand what Hades is.

For Jews that believed in an afterlife, many did not expect something that we would consider to be like Heaven or Hell. Rather, Hades was the destination of all those who died. Hades was, for lack of better words, a place of gloom, essentially a jail of all the dead. For those who lived good lives according to the Law, the best they could hope for was that they would find themselves in "the bosom of Abraham": close to the religious they loved, but certainly not something like Heaven.

St. John the Baptist is also known as the Forerunner, the person who helped prepare the people for Jesus' message. He was the forerunner not only in life but also in death: he preached in Hades of the Messiah who, far from being a worldly conqueror, would truly liberate all humanity: He would liberate them from death and Hades.

To cut a long story short, the Resurrection is the death knell of Hades. The jail which kept the dead prisoner was destroyed in taking upon the Sinless One, God Himself. And those who were liberated were those who received the message of St. John.

It is of course not possible to know what form St. John's message took. It must have been something that even the dead could perform, though. And the dead, lacking life, do not really have anything to give. So I will -- perhaps unwisely -- hazard a guess that it might have taken this form: love and forgive your enemies.

I'm not sure what your intent is, but it reads like essentially what the grandparent described:

> Christians start saying that those bits don't count, or those bits have been misinterpreted, or that you need to read that other bit as well.

That person asked for someone to "Please explain the harrowing of hell". I tried to explain a view that is held by a large number of Christians and which has precedence in the early church; this is important in this instance because there is only a single verse in the New Testament about the harrowing of Hades, and it gives very few details. Thus, most of what we have is the tradition taught by the Church.

When it comes to the diverse views among Christians, here are two things to consider:

1) St. Paul in the NT says "hold fast to the traditions you have been taught, whether by word or by letter." This indicates, along with historical evidence, that a substantial body of Christian teaching lies _outside_ of the written documents of the New Testament. In as much as some people try to use "the Bible alone," we can see that this results in a tremendous amount of conflicting teachings. It's of note that the New Testament did not even exist in a definitive compiled form until a few hundred years into the history of the Christian Church.

2) Ultimately, for Christians the Word of God is a person, not a book. The God-man Christ did not issue a new set of laws, but took on flesh and taught by example how to live. The Christian is concerned with understanding this Person, and people are much more difficult to describe than laws.

So for the Christian, while the Bible is of course an important guide, it does not represent the totality of Christian teaching. And since this teaching is about a Person, and especially a Person who does not simply say "do X in Y situation," we can come across some conflicting views.

It is the goal of the Church in every generation to help the people of God to know Christ given the unique circumstances of each generation, without veering off into craziness that jeopardizes their love of God and neighbor. Ultimately it is up to the individual priest or bishop to exercise the right balance between akriveia (precision) and economia (house building) in each particular situation. For the priest it is more about the daily lives of parishioners, and for bishops about the actual teaching of the Church.

Anyways, this is starting to turn into an essay, and for that I apologize. But it is necessary to understand the details of the things we are talking about if we are to really talk about them. I do not say this to offend you, but out of recognition that many here are probably unacquainted with or have sadly had bad experiences with religion. To the degree that I can use my background in religious studies and my experience across various religions to help explain things, I am trying to do so.

Your input is great; thanks. I much prefer one person with expertise over lots of idle speculators.

My comment wasn't meant as criticism; I think we are talking about different issues. You seem to be addressing the acutal theology of this issue; I'm talking about how people can and do interpret the same scripture in many ways.

The Koran is ambiguous, as is the Bible, and the US Constitution. Indeed any meaningful statute passed by a legislature has some measure of ambiguity. Reconciling these ambiguities by means of textual interpretation is a large part of the reason why there are theologians, rabbis, muftis and Supreme Court justices.

Based on what I've read, in the case of Islam there has been a huge amount of exegeses and there are complex rules of interpretation that govern the meaning of texts. Trying to CTRL-F a translation of the Koran for "slay" as someone suggested elsewhere is a bizarre way to try to figure out the meaning of a text which has been pored over by great minds for centuries. I think it is a result of the fact that those of us with technical backgrounds tend to be dismissive of the humanities, uncomfortable with ambiguity and prone to literalism.[1]

The interesting thing is that discarding exegesis is exactly the approach taken by the Salafist/Wahabist tradition of the Saudis, and of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. 1400 years of scholarship is replaced with a literal textualist reading of the Koran and Hadiths, and thus justification is found for the most henious of crimes. There is a Latin phrase that describes this approach of discarding precedent entirety in favor of novel readings of a text, but it escapes me for now.

The Koran, or the Bible are not "violent" books not are they "peaceful", they are merely collections of words that need to be interpreted by their readers. It is unfortunate that the intellectually bankrupt literalist interpretation of the Koran is on the ascendant in the Middle East because of Saudi oil money, and that it presently lends itself to the justification of terrorism (even if the Saudi regime itself opposes terrorism).

[1] This could be a reason why terrorist jihadism, buttressed by literalist readings attracts a disproportionate number of engineering types.

And especially when referring to the Jewish and Christian Bibles, neither is a "book" in hr unified sense; both are collections of writings, originally created by different people with different agendas and beliefs hundreds of years apart from each other. Asking "what the Bible says" is a literally meaningless question

> The Koran, or the Bible are not "violent" books not are they "peaceful"

The Koran is directly violent and intolerant. It contains direct instructions that are such. The Sunnah describes the violent actions of the violent person claiming to be prophet of the god (which was invented earlier) and his followers. The Old Testament describes the actions of the violent god (an invented being by his believers) and his believers trying to win and control the Canaan territories. The New Testament describes the violent action of authorities who try to keep the order by crucifying the person claiming to be the prophet that brings the end of the world, then contains a lot of briefs of his followers and then one apocalyptic vision.

And not a single one of these texts holds any scientific truth. All are based on myths and superstition.

At the time of the "last revelations" already 800 years passed since Greeks measured the circumference of Earth, the size and distance of Moon and the size and distance of Sun. But the supposed god of the supposed prophet instead spends the energy to leave the message that the uncle of the supposed prophet will burn in hell. He cares about the priorities, you see. In the Old Testament the god actually comes through the house door to his favorite believer and shares a meal with him. Or strolls through the garden. You know, gods have to eat too. Oh, and god also has rest for one day after making the whole world in six.

Read them all and compare.

> 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.)

> Based on what I've read about

Read the Quran directly, don't just read "about" it:

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), do read at least that one.

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.

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?

Out of curiosity, which translation is that? Pickthall?

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.

> 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).

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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"

Some reading. Wikipedia:

"Along with the Quran (the holy book of Islam), the Sunna makes up the two primary sources of Islamic theology and law.[1][3] The Sunna is also defined as "a path, a way, a manner of life"; "all the traditions and practices" of the Islamic prophet that "have become models to be followed" by Muslims."

An example, on sunnahonline.com:

"The Story of the 600-700 Jews Beheaded by the Prophet sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam at Banu Qurayzah in 5H"

http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/287-story-o...

Please be very careful making implications about anyone's religion, or implying anything about a large group of individuals based on religion.

First, it's not significant. Every scripture has brutal violence, including the Old and New Testaments.

Second, assuming all these individuals (or any of them) follow some ancient scripture to the letter is absurd. Do you do that? Do you know anyone who does? Even the most religious pick and choose.

I'm not implying anything, I'm just providing the link to what actually is in the Sunna (the deeds of Mohammad) and the religious significance of Sunna. If there's anything I stated that is not true or that is an invalid conclusion please specify.

> I'm not implying anything

Nobody is fooled by this denial. If you mean nothing at all, then why post at all? To mention random facts? Why post that? How about something from the other hundreds of pages of the Quran? 1001 Arabian Nights? The price of eggs in Cairo?

They aren't random facts. They are the facts that nobody should pretend that they don't exist. Somebody who doesn't know them would believe that the practices of beheadings in the countries which practice Sharia law and by the ISIS fighters are something done "randomly" whereas they in fact practice according to their beliefs and the religious texts they consider "unchangeable" and the words of God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_executions_in_Saudi_Ara...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_in_Islam

> If we look at the founder of Christianity, there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends. So, the claim of that KKK and other violent groups are Christian doesn't hold much water. This is not to say that an individual who espouses a certain belief will not be violent, just that the religion is not the source of it.

> If we look at the founder of Islam, we see something else. We see violence and coercion used and advocated by the founder.

Who gives a damn? Most religions are full of contradictions, you pick the bits you like the most. "Non-violent" Christianity was behind major milestones of human progress such as the Crusades, the repression of the Cathars and Albigeois "heresies" (who do you think came up with "let God sort them out"?), the Spanish Inquisition...

If you miss-attribute the source a problem, how do you solve it?

I've stated that the historical record of the founder of Christianity does not provide cover for those who seek to commit violence or use coercion. Do you have evidence that it does?

If not, then the cited atrocities are best attributable to other causes.

Well, the founder of Christianity didn't disown the God-sanctioned/God-committed mass killings and ethnic cleansings of the First Testament. In addition, the Catholic Church built a solid theological work on the notion of "just war". A religion is largely a matter of interpretation. What matters is not so much the original material as what people make of it.

Well, the Catholic Church for centuries was a serious part of European political machinery and our politics weren't always peaceful.

One could argue that nowadays some religions play similar role, btw.

> the Catholic Church for centuries was a serious part of European political machinery and our politics weren't always peaceful.

In many places it still is. As is the Orthodox church.

I think a large part of the issue is that the Church's original pacifism is not a viable strategy for a state religion. Pacifism worked for Gandi, but against Visigoths or Mongols? Not a chance. So the Church had to shift doctrines (again showing that you can find what you're looking for in the Scriptures if you look hard enough) to "win the race", so to say.

Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

That quote seems to be taken out of context: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html

It's surely not out of context, Jesus believed that "the (apocalyptic) end is near" (Matthew 16:28) and he's the "Son of man" who brings it.

Matthew 16:28: (Jesus speaking:) "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

At medieval times, people couldn't believe that Jesus could have told something that didn't happen, so they invented the legend that one of those present there still lives.

What you offer is the worldly perspective of Christ as a failed messiah. But Christ said that His Kingdom is not of this world. The disciples saw Christ come in His Kingdom when they witnessed the Resurrection. They saw the end -- that of the end of death and hades' dominion over humanity. They saw the ushering in of a new age: but not in the guise of a worldly conqueror, of a Rome-overthrowing messiah, but that of the conquering of death by humble love. Christ Himself demonstrates dying not only for those who love him but indeed for those who hate him.

Now you may of course feel free to disagree with this interpretation. But I think I have presented an understanding amenable to Orthodox Christian theology, which represents not an insignificant amount of people (200-300 million). I'm not trying to appeal to numbers, but rather my point is that when we are seeking to understand religious interpretations, we should be careful to not speak in absolutes such as "it's surely not out of context."

Wow. Way to take a poorly translated sentence out of context. Grab a concordance and cross reference that passage.

The quote goes on:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

The books after the Gospels have more violence, but I don't think that reflects on Christians. The Old Testament is filled with violence but I don't think that reflects on Jews.

Go read the Gospel of Thomas. Seriously.

I believe that these words have a deep and nonobvious meaning, provided all the gospels weren't totally made up.

I'm not making any claims about the meaning. My point is that someone could use this quote to 'prove' that Christian people are inherently violent in the same way they use quotes from the Quran to 'prove' that Muslim people are inherently violent - and both are nonsense.

There is a difference between prediction of future violence and explicit call for violence.

Which of these you think can be easier used to "justify" violence?

What semantics of "inherently violent religion" do you propose such that "our founders told us to kill infidels" still doesn't cut it?

I see things like all the children physically, sexually, emotionally abused by priests and nuns in Catholic children's homes; or the Lord's Resistance Army using child soldiers and rape as a weapon of war; or the threats of violence to and the harassment (and bombings and shootings) of workers in abortion clinics, and so I'm going to say "the Bible?"

You seem like a Christian (sorry if I'm wrong) so I'll ask: What are you doing to stop the radical extremists of your religion from perpetrating these terrorist actions? What are you doing to stop the extremist elements of your religion from denying women their human rights? What are you doing to stop Christian soldiers using rape as a weapon of war?

Why am I wrong to ask you these questions but it's okay to ask everyday Muslims these questions?

I believe the discussion was about founders' beliefs and their influence.

As for the second part, I'm hardly a theist, so what I'm doing is not walking around and telling gullible people that they have been created by some god who now wants them to hunt infidels. Sometimes encouraging others to do the same.

> The Old Testament is filled with violence but I don't think that reflects on Jews.

Of course it does, and I say this as a jew. Let's put it like this, being raised on a tradition whose first patriarch was ready to butcher his own son in order to prove his faithfulness to his imaginary friend, kinda paints father-son relations a certain way. Not to mention the whole circumcision thing, which is common to both jews and muslims.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com