Yeah, I am somewhat appaled by that too, why could we not have APIs of religious texts (edit: unless it is against the particular religion in question, thus offending believers)?
Disclaimer: I am one of the contributors of the site.
I'm not religious, but I've always assumed belief in one religion means you believe other religions are false maybe even fake. To say you are a practicing _____ (insert religion), you're in essence saying my religion is right and others are wrong maybe even infidels or heathens. I can see how people who believe in these things could take offence if they're of a different belief.
It's childish to have issues with someone making their religious texts available via API just because they take that religion to be false, yes. But you're sort of erecting a strawman. I don't see anyone claiming "I hate this API because I disagree with Islam.".
a law API makes sense to me because laws are updated all the time, especially when you take into consideration all the various jurisdictions. A Quran or biblical text API makes less sense to me because it is essentially unchanging static text until the religious doctrine is amended.
Three things:
1. It may not be as unchanging as you think. The different translations of the Bible (NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc.) are a pretty important facet to many, with newer translations coming to prominence in English speaking communities every ten years or so (for better or for worse, but that's another topic). I can't speak to other religious texts, but keeping new translation available could be enough of a reason alone to make an API.
2. Having an API can facilitate internationalization if you wanted to ship a project in other languages.
3. Having an easy way for a computer to look up a particular passage is a non-trivial problem to solve, and something like this could give a huge jump start for hobby/personal projects.
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.
Well, to take the example here of Islam, that's not entirely correct. In Islam, those who are following Judaeo-Christian belief systems are considered 'brothers of the book' (or something to that effect). The worst that some sects believe is that they are 'well meaning, but not aware of the truth of Mohamed'. I'm specifically not talking about radical Jihadist sects, but the more 'middle of the road' Muslims who are closer to the average church going American than an Al-Qaeda member.
> 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.
> 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.)
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
>To say you are a practicing _____ (insert religion), you're in essence saying my religion is right and others are wrong maybe even infidels or heathens.
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.
The premise doesn't make much sense to me in the first place.
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.)
Most religious texts don’t admit a consistent reading, so the degree to which live-and-let-live applies depends almost entirely on interpretation and culture, and very little on what the text actually says.
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.
> Most religions have a live-and-let-live attitude when it comes to other people's religious beliefs.
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]
>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.
No, your "second problem" does not apply to all monotheistic faiths.
(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)
Classifying communism as a monotheistic religion is... an interesting take.
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.)
> Classifying communism as a monotheistic religion is... an interesting take
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.
> 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.
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.
> You've completely misconstrued the nature of tolerance.
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.
> The Catholic and Christian tradition recognizes the need to evangelize, but not the legitimacy of coercion.
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.
>unless it is against the particular religion in question, thus offending believers
Based on how many religions and sects of these religions out there, it is entirely unfeasible to have that as a criteria for anything. Human knowledge/text no matter what it contains could have APIs just fine.
I think it has less to do with the content of the API and more to do with the fact that it's essentially a way to query a small number of megabytes of structured data. You could encode the whole thing as JSON or SQLite and eliminate the network round trip (latency, security footprint, privacy implications) entirely.
In fact, the memory usage required to establish a few TLS sessions might even be greater than the size of the full dataset.
