A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

edit: html's not working, so this looks like crap. sorry, i'm too tired to rearrange right now.


>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp
You repeated his speaking points and provided no evidence to support them and then insinuated that I know nothing of Islam's teachings to boot. You've clearly learned from your teachers (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) quite well.
Show me some evidence please that shows that Islamic followers are more likely to cause harm to fellow human beings than others. By evidence I mean an empirical study that controls for other factors that include but are not limited to: education, income, regional cultural factors (other than religion), and local political systems (or lack thereof as the case may be, for example in countries such as Somalia).
And no, you didn't correct that for me. It doesn't matter their stated reasons for committing the violence. People who resort to violence do so for a complex array of reasons. I dispute the notion that people commit violence soley "because of their religion" any more than school shootings occur "because kids play violent video games."

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bcglorf:
It's not even that you can't jump to no government overnight. It's as your quote observes:
I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
You can't jump until men are prepared for it. I don't believe there has or will ever be a point in time where men are prepared for it. Furthermore, if the day did come dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies and democracies would ALL flourish and be wonderful utopias as well.
The trick to asking for 'better' government is that it must be better in light of the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish and frequently evil creatures willing to destroy one another for gain. For some even personal amusement counts as enough gain to inflict massive suffering on others. Improvements to government MUST take into account the existential flaws and failings of our species.

I don't accept your premise. Humans are "greedy" and "selfish" because of survival mechanisms, but I don't believe in "evil" as a defining factor of humanity. If you do, then why have hope for humanity at all? We might as well give up now.
It's a myopic and fear-driven position to think humans cannot achieve better, and certainly to think they cannot achieve better through their own self-reliance, intelligence, and the empathy for their common man.
His quote is pretty clear. No government is the best government, but we cannot have no government all at once. It would be chaos. But we should building a better government along the way with the end goal being the best government (i.e., no government). One day humans will be ready for that - It's not today and not in our lifetimes.


I don't really think evil is a defining human attribute either. What I do believe is that evil behaviour is inescapable in a large enough group of humans. It is THE defining theme of the entirety of our written history, and NEVER have we been able to collectively escape it. The real trick is when the minority of evil humans culls the population of those that aren't where things are really ugly.

Am I fair in proposing that our frequent differences on the level of state control still required are degrees in a more similar philosophy, rather than a fundamental state or no state binary choice? Presumably you accept that a police force of some form on some level is still required by our society to stop the thieves, rapists and murders from simply taking what they want through force?

>> ^bcglorf:

It's not even that you can't jump to no government overnight. It's as your quote observes:
I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
You can't jump until men are prepared for it. I don't believe there has or will ever be a point in time where men are prepared for it. Furthermore, if the day did come dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies and democracies would ALL flourish and be wonderful utopias as well.
The trick to asking for 'better' government is that it must be better in light of the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish and frequently evil creatures willing to destroy one another for gain. For some even personal amusement counts as enough gain to inflict massive suffering on others. Improvements to government MUST take into account the existential flaws and failings of our species.


I don't accept your premise. Humans are "greedy" and "selfish" because of survival mechanisms, but I don't believe in "evil" as a defining factor of humanity. If you do, then why have hope for humanity at all? We might as well give up now.

It's a myopic and fear-driven position to think humans cannot achieve better, and certainly to think they cannot achieve better through their own self-reliance, intelligence, and the empathy for their common man.

His quote is pretty clear. No government is the best government, but we cannot have no government all at once. It would be chaos. But we should building a better government along the way with the end goal being the best government (i.e., no government). One day humans will be ready for that - It's not today and not in our lifetimes.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.

No, Somalia has other problems. Mainly that you cannot jump from government to no government overnight.
I do see a graduation from statism to anarchy, so there's certainly a middle area. Go read the Thoreau quote on my profile page. That pretty much sums it up for me as well.


It's not even that you can't jump to no government overnight. It's as your quote observes:
I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

You can't jump until men are prepared for it. I don't believe there has or will ever be a point in time where men are prepared for it. Furthermore, if the day did come dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies and democracies would ALL flourish and be wonderful utopias as well.

The trick to asking for 'better' government is that it must be better in light of the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish and frequently evil creatures willing to destroy one another for gain. For some even personal amusement counts as enough gain to inflict massive suffering on others. Improvements to government MUST take into account the existential flaws and failings of our species.

>> ^Fusionaut:

Sounds like America is headed to a weird sort of fascist, theocractic dystopia...


A bit like the Islamic theocracies they are warring against...

Hee hee, theocracy. *religion and *Canada I guess?

We'll include *downunder as well.

How can you say that Obama doesn't understand the significance of the situation? We all have been worried about the possibility of violence with Israel and no one wants Sharia law enacted.

I am highly dubious that he is unaware of the implications of a Muslim theocracy.

Secondly, it does not look like that is going to happen necessarily. The people want a democracy with elected leaders.

UM. THere is NO WAY SHARIA LAW CAN TAKE EFFECT IN A COUNTRY THAT ALREADY HAS RULE OF LAW! It can't, if you think it can, you need to submit yourself for psychiatric assistance. THe UK is NOT a muslim country and isn't a theocracy. If anything, we added to sharia law in the mid-east by kicking Saddam out! He was SECULAR and not Islamic fundamentalist. In fact, Al Qaida was a banned group in Iraq, until of course we allow Saddam to be killed (like Al Qaeda had planned to do anyway). Not that Saddam was a great guy, but lord knows, the US prefers dictatorships to democratic elections (even at home). If you people are actually thinking Muslims are gonna take over, please, PLEASE read a book without Glenn Beck on the cover!

>> ^dgandhi:
When was the last time a piece of paper did anything? Some system of human involvement is always required, even "strict constructionists" differ on the meaning of any document. Attempting to run a society on ground rules without any interpretive framework is not even wrong, it just doesn't make sense.
Democracy is, of course, not perfect, but it is a functioning manner in which to resolve the conflicts in society while only rarely resorting to violence in the streets. While pure democracy would be terrible, it does not follow, either theoretically, or in practice that constitutional democracies make worse decisions than beneficent tyrants.
I understand that you think that the government being "honest" about who is in charge would be preferable to a shadow oligarchy, but I submit, that "democracy" results in more transparent oligarchy than explicit oligarchy. Pragmatically we are better off having some oversight in a "dishonest" system, than no oversight in an "honest" one.


Where constitutional democracies make better decisions than would pure democracies they do so because they're bound by rules laid down by wise men. Wouldn't you say theocracies have a kind of constitution? It seems to me the only difference is their constitution was written by stupid people. Stupid constitution, bad results. Wise constitution, good results. Is it the constitution or the wisdom doing the good?

You say democracy is not perfect, I say it's immoral and disastrous. Do you think all the freedom we lose and all the damage that's done to our society is a fair price to pay for a conflict resolution mechanism? Shackles are a great peacemaker. The absence of violence is an illusion. So beaten down are we by enforcers of the artificial consensus that we daren't provoke the most obvious displays of their aggression, but the truth is they bring violence to the streets every day.

>> ^NetRunner:
I would agree that if I'm going to entrust someone with authority, I'd rather they be smart (and wise and kind) rather than stupid (or megalomaniacal or cruel).
But I think you have yet to state a coherent alternative you believe would be superior. If I thought it were possible to set up a reliable mechanism where only people of "golden souls" got to hold the reigns of power, I might actually prefer it to conventional forms of democracy. I just don't believe such a mechanism has been discovered, and I doubt that such a mechanism is possible.


That's all I want from you, actually. I don't have a fully formed, coherent alternative to offer. It's the principle I'm endorsing, and the necessity of aiming our thinking toward its realisation. If you remember this discussion started with the proposition of limiting voting to people who could demonstrate they knew what they were voting for. It's simple little baby steps like that we should be considering, and if the only objection is, 'but that's undemocratic,' pfff.

I wish I could quality or promote this.

It's funny that the other guy gets assaulted AS soon as the camera becomes known of. Great display of etatism-pie (or statism for @blankfist) with a crust of theocracy and a wonderful whipped topping of fear. Mmmmmm...

Even though the tax-payers get hit with the bill, I hope they sue the crap out of them. Drawing blood is a great way to start. (Unless the citizenry is like the prayer defense tacklers.)

@theali "So you are fine with Minority Report style's proactive crime prevention?"

The legal system routinely issues e.g. restraining orders even though someone hasn't actually killed their wife yet.

Nobody can claim Iran isn't likely to be a nuclear power soon. They've had plenty of opportunities for rational cooperation, but they're a militaristic theocracy with every incentive to develop nuclear weapons. Strangely, Iran is probably one of the only countries in the world whose official proclamations are accepted uncritically by Western liberals.

If we only listen to culture warrior sources, we're setting traps for our intelligence that we'll never discover --until our predictions fail (and we ignore it or blame someone else).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Sigh - typical MSN hack job. The Tea Party guys saying "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution are absolutely correct, especially in relationship to how left-wing douchebags like the YTs perceive the issue. Cenk is an idiot. The 1st Ammendment is there to prevent the Federal government from establishing a state religion. At the time of drafting, the individual states had official STATE religions, and the states were worried that the establishment of a federal government would create a national religion (which they were against). To the Founders, the 1st Ammendment was a simple limitation put on the FEDERAL government to stop it from making a law establishing a state religion, and also to stop it from passing ANY law that limits the people's right to exercise whatever religion they had in any way they see fit. The problem here is that the far left's interpretation of the 1st Amendment in regards to religion is very different than that, and they keep trying to convince other stupid far left fools that their idiot vision is the one the founders had.


as per your usual, you cherry pick the factoids that promote your philosophy while ignoring the other half in order to call people "fools" and/or "stupid".
your single-mindedness becomes tiresome WP which is a shame because i find you an intelligent person to discuss issues with.
jefferson's quote is pretty self explanatory and while you do point out the one half concerning religion you ignore "there shall be no law respecting an established religion"-now what do you think "respecting" could possibly mean in this context?
it means..quite simply...that there will be no deference or special consideration in regards to any established religion.
so while your comment does refer to the government staying out of peoples faith and religion it totally ignores the other side which is to keep the influence of religion out of the business of government and lawmaking.
cenk's point on the threat of theocracy was accurate.
unless that is what you are hoping for WP and if that is the case and it is a theocratic USA you seek then i recind any objection to you manipulating the argument in order to better become united states of jesus.

When he was in Utah, he seemed like a nice guy. 10 years later and he's a complete douche.

- That being said you do have to hide your douche side in Utah. Just look at Glenn Beck!
(Audience groans...)(BTW, yes Glenn is a outside of Utah Mormon--that, is also another story about Utah and it's middleman theocracy.)

Another Militarized Crazy Middle Eastern Theocracy, we need to stop supporting Isreal.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Vietnam was about Communism, and Afghanistan is about Terrorism. Wait, doesn't seem that different.

Actually, it's worse -- Communism at least was a coherent political and economic philosophy, Terrorism is just a tactic.

If it's a war to stamp out Islamic Fundamentalism, then what Al Qaeda tells people to recruit them is wholly true, and this is far worse than a new Vietnam, it's a new Crusade.

>> ^RedSky:

@NetRunner
I'm not sure.
@rougy
A civil war by different groups vying for control because of the power vacuum the US leaving will create.
They will say it is better for the US to leave because they would be comparing now to back when the Taliban was indisputably in power, and when despite enforcing an Islamic theocracy, at least the country was considerably more stable. Obviously if the US were to leave right now, that is not what the country would immediately return to.
If once they were to leave, a civil war did ensue that was far more bloody than it is now and there was an outcry for the US to return, or at least blame of the US for causing the worsening violence, would you support sending troops back in? I'm guessing not, and unfortunately you can't have it both ways.


The obvious response to that is that we had effectively driven the Taliban out of the country within the first year. We've spent the rest of that time -- eight years -- trying to build up a government that could defend itself against the remaining rag-tag groups of Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The end result of those eight years is that Afghanistan is still nowhere near ready to defend itself, and the Taliban has rebuilt, and is starting to make headway in convincing the Afghani people that life would be better under their rule than the corrupt government in Kabul.

There are no good answers. If we leave, the Taliban is quite likely to take control of the country. If we stay, it's probably not going ever end unless we pour ridiculous amounts of blood and treasure into the project, and even then it might take another decade or two.

I say we cut our losses and get out. I can be persuaded to give Obama the benefit of the doubt until his July 2011 deadline, but unless things look radically different from how they do now, he's going to be facing a full-on revolt from his own base going into the year of his re-election campaign if he tries to extend our presence there.