• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Brunei’s Sultan to impose Sharia this week, complete with stonings and amputations

Mar 30, 2014 8:38 am By Robert Spencer

BolkiahGround Zero Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf once said this about Sharia’s compatibility with the U.S. Constitution: “The only truly clashing area is the penal code, and no Muslim has the intention of introducing that to America. The penal code is the area that people in the Western world are worried about — but these are things that aren’t even observed today in most of the Muslim world. Apart from the Taliban and a few places like that, where do you see this happening?” Brunei.

Meanwhile, the renowned scholar of Sharia Reza Aslan has said: “There’s really no such thing as just Sharia, it’s not one monolithic Continuum – Sharia is understood in thousands of different ways over the 1,500 years in which multiple and competing schools of law have tried to construct some kind of civic penal and family law code that would abide by Islamic values and principles, it’s understood in many different ways…” 1,500 years! That would take us back to the year 514 — so apparently Aslan thinks that Sharia predates Islam, which according to the canonical view came into being nearly 100 years after that, in 610, when Muhammad supposedly received his first revelation from the angel Gabriel. Anyway, Aslan is also wrong about Sharia being so amorphous as to defy characterization. Everywhere it is implemented today, and everywhere that it has been implemented historically, it has looked pretty much the same — as we see again in the form of Sharia that Brunei is about to implement.

“Concern as Brunei brings in system of Islamic law with punishments that include the dismemberment of limbs and stoning to death,” by Andrew Buncombe in the Independent, March 29:

The Sultan of Brunei, one of the world’s wealthiest rulers and a close ally of Britain, will this week oversee his country’s transition to a system of Islamic law with punishments that include flogging, the dismemberment of limbs and stoning to death.

The 67-year-old absolute monarch declared last year that he wanted to introduce a full sharia system in his oil-rich nation and warned critics who took to social media sites to complain that they could be prosecuted using the new laws.

The decision to introduce sharia and reintroduce the death penalty has been condemned by NGOs and legal rights campaigners, who say the new rules will breach international laws. It has also triggered alarm among some of Brunei’s non-Muslim communities, who will also be subject to some of the rulings.

The development could put pressure on Britain to rethink its close relationship with Brunei, a former colony. A British regiment based in the country – the last surviving UK regiment stationed in East Asia – is paid for entirely by the Sultan.

In a letter to Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said it deplored the new rules, adding that, if implemented, they would lead to serious human rights violations. “Brunei has not implemented the death penalty for years, so it came as quite a surprise that the new law has reintroduced it,” said the ICJ’s Emerlynne Gil.

The Sultan of Brunei says he wants to set up a ‘firewall’ against globalisation The Sultan of Brunei says he wants to set up a ‘firewall’ against globalisation Brunei is two-thirds Muslim and has long implemented some sharia, mainly for civil matters such as marriage. But last year the Sultan, who is said to be worth £24bn and lives in a 1,788-room palace, announced a plan to introduce full Islamic law.

Offences include insulting the Prophet Mohamed, drinking alcohol, getting pregnant outside of marriage and “sodomy”. The latter will be punishable by stoning.

“It is because of our need that Allah the Almighty, in all his generosity, has created laws for us, so that we can utilise them to obtain justice,” the Sultan said at the time.

It is unclear precisely what is motivating the Sultan, who also serves as the country’s prime minister and assumed the throne in 1967. But in a speech in February to mark the country’s National Day holiday, he claimed the system of an absolute Islamic monarch acted as a “strong and effective firewall” against the challenges of globalisation. He referred specifically to the internet.

He claimed that there were those, both in and outside Brunei, which last year chaired the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean), who had been challenging his plans and who wanted to see “internal turmoil”. He added: “These parties, it seems, have attempted to mock the king, the Islamic scholars and sharia. They are using the new media, such as blogs, WhatsApp and so on, which are not just accessed by locals but also by those overseas.”

Jame’ Asr Hassanil Bolkiah mosque Jame’ Asr Hassanil Bolkiah mosque The speech by the Sultan – who for many years was involved in a high-profile legal battle with his brother, a playboy accused of misappropriating £9bn of government assets and who reportedly owned a yacht called Tits – has had the impact of silencing many who might publicly speak out against the move.

Yet there are concerns, especially among the minority communities. There are around 30,000 Filipino citizens in Brunei, many of them Catholic, and the Philippine ambassador to Brunei, Nestor Ochoa, recently held a meeting at which he warned his countrymen about the implications of the new laws.

Father Robert Leong, a Catholic priest in Brunei, said there were concerns that baptisms of newborn babies could breach the new rules, which prohibit the “propagation of religion other than Islam to a Muslim or a person having no religion”. He said that the law was being introduced in three phases, with the harshest punishments, including the death penalty, being phased in over two years from Tuesday. “There will be no baptisms. There is not a lot we can do about it. We will have to wait and see what happens,” he said.

Britain granted independence to Brunei in 1984, but has maintained a close relationship with the country. A 1,000-strong regiment of the British Army, the Royal Gurkha Rifles, has been located there since the late 1950s and in 1962 stepped in to quell a rebellion against the Sultan’s father. The regiment is paid for by the Sultan. The British Army also runs a jungle warfare training school in the small nation. A government spokesperson said: “Ministry of Defence discussions are ongoing with the Bruneian authorities to clarify any impact on UK forces.”

Royal Dutch Shell, an Anglo-Dutch multinational, also runs a major operation there as a joint venture with the Brunei government.

A briefing document published last year about defence and security opportunities in Brunei by the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said Brunei invested “a significant proportion of the country’s wealth through the City of London”. It said the British Armed Forces garrison was a linchpin of UK-Brunei relations.

“The Government’s goal is to retain a dominant position in these key areas, and to maximise our share of influence as Brunei diversifies its economy and puts increasing emphasis on regional partners like Asean and China,” it said. “As it does so, Brunei will also provide a UK-friendly window into the key growth area of South-east Asia.”

The Sultan has been married three times. He remains married to his first wife, but he divorced his second, a one-time airline stewardess, in 2003 after 21 years. He divorced his third wife, a former TV reporter, in 2010 after five years. Both ex-wives were stripped of their royal titles.

Stories of his wealth abound. It was reported that, while playing polo with Prince Charles on one occasion, he had his boots delivered by helicopter to the polo field.

The Brunei government did not respond to queries and the Brunei High Commission in London failed to answer questions from The IoS. However, earlier this year, Brunei’s most senior Muslim cleric claimed that those criticising the new rules did not understand them, according to a report in The Brunei Times.

Dr Ustaz Hj Awg Abdul Aziz Juned said in a lecture in London: “Not even a day after the law was announced, human rights groups on social media commented that the steps taken by the Brunei government to implement the law was out of date and not modern.”

Sharia explained

What is sharia?

Sharia is the Islamic legal system that derives from the Koran, the example of the life of the Prophet Mohamed and “fatwas”, which are the rulings of Islamic scholars. Different schools of thought exist, resulting in different interpretations.

Yes, but the various interpretations agree on about 75% of all rulings. The differences between the various schools of jurisprudence are not very large.

What does it cover?

While Western law confines itself predominantly to crime and civil matters, sharia is a guide to help Muslims understand how they should lead every aspect of their lives. This ranges from deciding whether to enter a bar with someone wanting to drink alcohol to the punishments for theft or for criticising the Koran. Its treatment of women is particularly controversial. Judgements have banned the holding of property once married, enabled beatings for insubordination, and required a husband’s consent to divorce.

Where is it used?

Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Nigeria all apply sharia. Some states, including UAE, Jordan and Egypt, use some form of sharia in their judicial system.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Brunei, Sharia Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Jay Boo says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 8:53 am

    How can anyone still call Islam a religion with a straight face?

    HONOR KILLING, Two words that don’t belong together.
    This religion, if practiced as written is a hate crime just waiting to happen.
    Wherever it has taken root Muslims and non-Muslims have endured its violence and bigotry.
    Islam is like the barren moon; it stalks earth with one face always hidden from our view.
    Its waning crescent LURKS in the dead of night but quickly veils itself in the light of day.

    The “Taqiyya” rose blossoms to hide its cage of thorns.
    The Qur’an’s insidious verses are to foster perfidy not peace.

    • mortimer says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 9:36 am

      Honor killing is the core of Islamic warfare against disbelievers. The ‘honor’ of Islam is the golden calf of Muslims. Ethics and human rights… and logic…are all subjugated to this primitive urge of ‘honor’.

  2. Jay Boo says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 8:55 am

    ADULTERY OF ‘prophet’ MUHAMAD

    “THE BAD NEWS”
    History still clearly proves that Islam’s “prophet” ADULTERATED both
    the “BOOK”
    and the WIVES
    that were stolen from Medina’s murdered Jews
    and (Safiya & Juwayriya) too.

  3. Zizi says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 9:23 am

    Obama is directly complicit in genocide.

    • mortimer says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 9:38 am

      He is funding it.

  4. mortimer says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 9:40 am

    “The check’s in the mail.”
    “I gave at the office.”
    “We won’t impose Sharia on disbelievers.”

  5. ibn Muslim says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 9:49 am

    > System of Islamic law with punishments that include the dismemberment of limbs and stoning to death

    Mark 9:
    42 It will be terrible for people who cause even one of my little followers to sin. Those people would be better off thrown into the ocean with a heavy stone tied around their necks. 43-44 So if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! You would be better off to go into life crippled than to have two hands and be thrown into the fires of hell that never go out.
    45-46 If your foot causes you to sin, chop it off. You would be better off to go into life lame than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
     47 If your eye causes you to sin, get rid of it. You would be better off to go into God’s kingdom with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.
    48 The worms there never die, and the fire never stops burning.

    Jesus taught Islam! Sharia punishments, including amputations are in the Bible. We are souls, not our bodies. Sometimes hurting the body is needed to heal the soul, ie to get malice out of the soul. Allahu akbar!!!

    • Angemon says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 11:02 am

      The hilarious ibn Muslim posted:

      “Jesus taught Islam! Sharia punishments, including amputations are in the Bible. We are souls, not our bodies. Sometimes hurting the body is needed to heal the soul, ie to get malice out of the soul.”

      Actually, saying that true believers should prefer to chop one’s own hand or feet rather than sinning isn’t the same as mandating to chop someone else’s hand or feet because they have sinned. So, what’s the sharia penalty for those who try to “distort words from their proper usage” (quran 5:13) like you just did? It falls under “spreading corruption in the land”. According 5:33 you incur in 1 of 4 punishments: death, crucification, have your hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or to be expelled out of the land.

    • duh_swami says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 11:07 am

      Mahoundians love the tu quoque card. You don’t excuse Islams evil by pointing out some other evil.

    • twostellas says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 11:43 am

      It doesn’t say for the state to chop off your hand, dummkopf! If you want to chop your own hand off go for it.

      • Twostellas says

        Mar 30, 2014 at 11:51 am

        Furthermore, Jesus said “he who is without sin cast the first stone” against an adulterous woman, which means NO ONE COULD cast a stone at another for another’s sin. Are you without sin? Do you suppose you have that title to judge another spiritually, that you have authority to murder or maim them? Is that your place ? You put yourself as God, if you think you do.

        • ibn Muslim says

          Mar 30, 2014 at 5:30 pm

          No, this is the corruption in the books. All human beings at least walk the line between good and evil – even Jesus.

          The whore should have been stoned.

        • Angemon says

          Mar 31, 2014 at 7:42 am

          The hilarious ibn Muslim posted:

          “No, this is the corruption in the books.”

          Which books? The islamic books or the christian books? Remember, you quoted from the Bible to claim that Jesus promoted sharia so you don’t get to say the Bible is corrupted.

          “All human beings at least walk the line between good and evil – even Jesus.”

          Try going into Saudi Arabia and say that in public. Let us know how that turned out for you.

        • MrIpe says

          Mar 31, 2014 at 8:05 am

          ibn Muslim said:
          “The whore should have been stoned.”

          You will have no mercy before God in that way.

        • gravenimage says

          Apr 2, 2014 at 10:03 pm

          Most people—Christians and non-Christians—read the story of the woman taken in adultery and are moved by Jesus’ compassion, wisdom, and bravery.

          ibn Muslim reads this story and writes:

          “The whore should have been stoned”

          God, I hate Islam.

    • miriam rove says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 12:19 pm

      ometimes hurting the body is needed to heal the soul, ie to get malice out of …

      AKA Blood shedding the number one pillar of Islam.m

    • Guest says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 4:16 pm

      ibnM, why are you arguing on this site? You should be in Brunei, telling the Sultan your great insights. Oh wait, you wouldn’t live long enough to end the sentence…

    • Stephen Poole says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 6:00 pm

      … This blog is Never gonna be free from Biblical writings/teachings … … Jesus Christ was commanding his followers to mutilate THEMSELVES !! in those verses, you dope !! … That’s a pretty-far cry from being mutilated by someone/anyone else … Just sayin’ … SP OX …

    • Stephen Poole says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 6:04 pm

      … My comment to you asinine/ridicioulous comment is a bit farther down, ibn Muslim … … And, where can I get somma whatcher on ?? … Just askin’ … SP OX …

    • sarah greene says

      Mar 31, 2014 at 11:19 am

      jesus did not use shariah how could he there was no islam for well over 600 years after and he was a peaceful man remember he stopped the stoning of mary magdelane

    • Defcon 4 says

      Mar 31, 2014 at 2:22 pm

      How many Christians have EVER amputated limbs or blinded eyes in the name of G-d again lying muslime?

    • Evanescent21 says

      Apr 1, 2014 at 2:43 am

      If you knew anything about Jesus, you would know that he spoke using parables or metaphors most of the time; notice I did not say all of the time. In Mark 9 he is not commanding the people to dismember themselves, he is trying to emphasis the importance of not sinning and getting rid of things in our life that cause us to sin.

    • gravenimage says

      Apr 2, 2014 at 7:00 pm

      The morally retarded ibn Muslim wrote:

      Mark 9:
      42 It will be terrible for people who cause even one of my little followers to sin.
      ……………………………

      ibn Muslim is misquoting the Bible. What a surprise.

      Then he seems not to notice the big difference between Christianity and Islam here:

      Christ is urging people to do good and to exercise *self control*, whereas Islam’s focus is on the Muslim mob brutalizing or slaughtering people. These approaches could not be more different.

      More:

      Jesus taught Islam! Sharia punishments, including amputations are in the Bible.
      ……………………………

      What utter crap. At no point does Jesus tell his followers to attack victims and cut off their limbs. That would be Islam; not Christianity.

  6. Jay Boo says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 10:23 am

    Nice try at extrapolation
    When Muhammad plagiarized and corrupted and convoluted the teachings of Judaism and then Christianity he took them as an excuse to literally do unto OTHERS as he saw fit to suit his sociopathic selfishness.
    Muslims have no true connection to Bible.
    If Abraham had been a Muslim his vanity would have ruled and he would have butchered his beloved son Isaac in spite of being told not to.

    • Jay Boo says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 10:24 am

      Above as reply
      @ ibn Muslim

    • thomas_h says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 4:34 pm

      ”If Abraham had been a Muslim his vanity would have ruled and he would have butchered his beloved son Isaac in spite of being told not to.”

      Great observation JB!

      Rarely does one see the illustration of the evil Islam wakes up in man’s heart expressed in such bold and simple, yet immensely compelling, image.

      As my atheist friends like to say: “thank God I wasn’t born a Moslem.”

  7. Hammer of the Heretics says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 10:56 am

    “We are souls, not our bodies.”

    Herein, lies the error. The stated error actually exposes the supposed need for any type of Sharia. Including the falsely perceived dynamic equivalence of Sharia in regards to legitimate corporeal punishment. By way of metaphor, we might understand, in the algebra that arises from the use of geometry: Likes combine, incongruities do not.

    The fact is, Islam is a classic example of old-world dualism. Whereas, the religion of the Christ is non-dualist but is instead: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. These two are not likes but utterly in-congruent with one-another.; that is, completely at odds with one-another. The wood of the Cross bears the Christ incarnate of the Ever-virgin Mother of God, who’s Son is all that is new. Everything else is old. “There is nothing new under the Sun…” By way of another metaphor we can see that Islam comes from the land where there is a harsh heat of the Sun. Islam is old. It does not originate but instead perpetuates the old; the tired old philosophies of materialistic dualism, which Christ came to conquer.

  8. Paleologos says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 11:18 am

    Very simple rule of thumb …

    You confront all clueless people who voted for our pos muslim, moron, clown POTUS …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGx94VPb8V8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23387008/#.Uzg1Z1rn9dh

    You confront all muslims and internal internet bug-morons, like ibn Muslim.

    Essentially, you confront islam, and all the brain bereft idiots that follow or support islam, or think allah is the real god, and mohammad was a really neat guy.

    R/

    Paleologos

  9. Paleologos says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 11:27 am

    hahaha … I did it again.

    Please substitute the following moron for the Andy Kaufman video …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKqFBpk_1Eo

    R/

    Paleologos

  10. Twostellas says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 11:36 am

    Evidently, Allah demands body parts and blood.

  11. Wellington says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    Ibn Muslim’s attempt at tu quoque reasoning above fails on many levels, not the least being that any statement by Jesus (as in the Gospel of Mark 9:42-47) to do bodily harm to yourself lest you lose the oppotunity for eternal life is NOT an instruction for any state authority to do so, as Twostellas has already indicated. Such verses do not endow a third person under some legal authorization to carry out these dire physical actions, contra Sharia. Besides, I believe metaphor is operating here as it does quite often in the Bible, contra the Koran which is rooted in a literalness that is as unsophisticated as it is disturbing.

  12. Christian A. Beltram says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    I hope the governments of the United Kingdom and the Philippines urge their citizens to leave Brunei before it is too late. If they don’t, then groups like al-Qaeda will target them for assassination.

  13. duh_swami says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    Sharia laws are Allah’s laws, all of them, not some of them. Islam and sharia are inseparable. Islam without sharia is lawless. The pious are lost without it.
    The entire structure without it would collapse. Mahoundians will accept no, or limited sharia on a temporary basis but they will always push and demand more of it, til they get it.

  14. Christian A. Beltram says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    To me, verses like Mark 9 contradict 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 which says that people’s bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. Instead of saying that people should cut off their eyes or hands because they sinned with them, shouldn’t these verses require people to pray to God for help to avoid committing sins.? Unless people have life-threatening diseases like cancer and gang green, they should not have body parts removed. In other words, two sins (wrongs) don’t make a right.

    • Islamisdeath says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 7:23 pm

      Im not entirely sure God wants us to hack ourselves apart. I think the deeper meaning here is to separate yourself from anything or anyone who causes you to sin. He uses this analogy to emphasize that there are no exceptions to separating yourself from that which causes you to sin. I realize it is very literally put and yes maybe he literally means if you just cant stop looking at sinful things out with the eye but the thought of that as the solution would stop many!

      Ibn muslim, God wants us to be responsible for ourselves unlike sharia where others usurp your ability to be responsible for yourself and you are drug out in front of a howling blood thirsty crowd who enjoy watching you die a slow incredibly painful death. There is absolutely no connection between Jesus Christ and the demonic islam.

    • gravenimage says

      Apr 2, 2014 at 9:55 pm

      Christian A. Beltram wrote:

      To me, verses like Mark 9 contradict 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 which says that people’s bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit
      ……………………

      As others have noted, Christian, this has always been understood as metaphor.

      The very fact that there was no epidemic of followers of Christ lopping off their own body parts should tell us that.

      Islam, on the other hand, *really does* have a legacy of those mutilated and butchered in the name of brutal Shari’ah—and Brunei is about to add to that savage legacy.

  15. gerard says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    The “cutting off” of hands etc in the Gospel has always been understood as avoiding situations that lead you into sin. It is hyperbole. eg If visiting the local discoteque leads you into sin then don’t go there! You have “cut” discoteques and topless bars out of your life. It is what has been called “avoiding the occasions of sin”. Even where Jesus says “some have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven”, Jesus is referring to the vow of chastity/celibacy. There is no approval of self-mutilation in the Gospel or in church teaching.

  16. duh_swami says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    I realize this is Sunday and some folks are fired up with the spirit, but can we please dispense with all the preaching and reams of scripture?

    • Wellington says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 4:10 pm

      Amen to that, duh_swami.

      • thomas_h says

        Mar 30, 2014 at 4:39 pm

        I had to LOL a few times

        Amen to your Amen, Wellington!

        take care god care, my (atheist) friend!

        • thomas_h says

          Mar 30, 2014 at 5:11 pm

          the last line should be: “take good care, my (atheist) friend!

        • Wellington says

          Mar 30, 2014 at 5:17 pm

          This is my second attempt to post to you, thomas-h. Don’t know what happened to the first one, though it may show up later. In any case, and just for the record, I am an agnostic, not an atheist. Agnosticism, which “merely” involves a lack of faith and an uncertainty about ultimate reality, is logical and defensible, while atheism, if taken in its usual way as denying the existence of a higher power (though there are, to be accurate, several variances here), is not logical or defensible. People of faith will ordinarily, exceptions applying of course, find agnostics to be allies on more issues than with atheists.

          Hope you are doing well. Take care, my friend.

        • thomas_h says

          Mar 30, 2014 at 6:57 pm

          Wellington, first late me assure you I never use the term “atheist” in a disparaging way as long as I sense the atheism of a person is a position attained through honest and deep reflection unaffected by an ideological agenda.
          If I did I would have been dismissed by atheist friends whose friendship I quite cherish. I am saying it because I would be very sorry if I had in any way made you believe that I consider myself somehow superior, intellectually or morally, to you. NOT AT ALL. I am not a good Catholic, (who is?) but I take seriously Church’s warning against spiritual pride. I have seen too much terrible misery resulting from that sin. Besides I have met many atheists whose integrity, intelligence and goodness are much greater than mine. Really, why do you think I like you?
          What I really want to say is that whether I refer to you as atheist while you are “merely” agnostic, or vice versa, doesn’t reflect on my attitude toward you. You had wittily responded with “Amen” to duh_swami’s call and I thought that my “Amen” to your “Amen” while I hint at your “atheism” would augment the intended pun. Well, not the clearest explanation but I am sure you know what I mean.

          Wellington, I am quite sleepy and need to go to bed, but look up the same place tomorrow because I think I may have a question to you regardsing your belief that while atheism is logically indefensible, agnosticism is not.
          I’ll sleep on it.
          Good night.

        • thomas_h says

          Mar 31, 2014 at 9:05 am

          ”Agnosticism, which “merely” involves a lack of faith and an uncertainty about ultimate reality, is logical and defensible, while atheism, if taken in its usual way as denying the existence of a higher power (though there are, to be accurate, several variances here), is not logical or defensible.”

          I thought a bit about it and it seems to me that if one believes atheism to be logically indefensible then one cannot at the same time accept agnosticism.

          Here is why:

          If being agnostic means being uncertain about existence of God then it implies two mutually exclusive possibilities: 1.reality and 2. fiction of God’s existence.
          But if our agnostic thinks that atheism, which per definition rejects the reality of God, is logically flawed then he removes it from his stock of possibilities and is left with only one: that God does exist.

          To believe that atheism is logically flawed AND there is no certainty of God’s existence is to my mind incoherent. I wonder if you would agree with me, Wellington

          Take care
          T. H.

        • voegelinian says

          Apr 1, 2014 at 1:10 pm

          “But if our agnostic thinks that atheism, which per definition rejects the reality of God, is logically flawed then he removes it from his stock of possibilities and is left with only one: that God does exist.”

          That’s why I conclude that all agnosticism is theist (and from the converse angle, all theism is agnostic).

          The only difference between the theist agnostics (i.e., those who consider themselves agnostics but who haven’t thought things through) and the agnostic theists (i.e., those who consider themselves theists but who haven’t thought things through) is the difference of Denial in a Mirror.

          Outside of these two, we are left with another pair of mirror-image strange bedfellows: Gnostic Atheists, and Gnostic Theists. (Islam, to get back on topic, is the only culture where Gnostic Theism is the norm among hundreds of millions of souls deformed by a diseased pedagogy. Out in the non-Muslim world (where freer humans breathe and try to make the best of a difficult life in a variety of ways more or less flawed but worthy of respect),

          Gnosticism has always been reflected demographically in a very small, and usually briefly lasting, minority — with horribly convulsive yet mercifully brief and geographically delimited exceptions in certain mass movements (Nazism, Fascism, Communism) amid a broader context of sociocultural health where the Platonic-Aristotelian nous perdures in the phenomenon otherwise ill-understood as “common sense”, diversely conceived (when it is not more commonly a kind of axiomatic second nature) and practiced.

        • voegelinian says

          Apr 1, 2014 at 1:12 pm

          Slight corrective: that comma that strangely hangs in space before a paragraph break immediately preceding my final paragraph should be joined to that final paragraph.

    • Jay Boo says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 6:16 pm

      “I realize this is Sunday and some folks are fired up with the spirit, but can we please dispense with all the preaching and reams of scripture?”

      duh_swami
      I am no expert and I hate to say this but. I suspect that those who post really long sections of scripture with chapter and verse headings have DVD Bible concordances to cut and paste from.
      If they had the in-depth knowledge of the Bible that they imply, they would be able to summarize and paraphrase with much fewer direct and relevant quotes to the topic. Instead, what is posted tends all to often to be a proselytizing show-off festival.

  17. jewdog says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    If the British contingent ever leaves, it would probably be a good idea for some counter-jihadis to get an invasion force together and liberate Brunei. The non-Muslim minorities need protection from Sharia and Brunei’s reigning kleptocrat.

  18. Sam says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    And just today in a friendly luncheon in a Spanish restaurant with 8 other friends I wanted to talk about the dangers of Islam to the USA and the world. I was very quickly silenced as my friends said in so many words “come on Sam not again” rolling their eyes. This what we are dealing with: Average American today does not even want to talk about and find out what Islam really is.

    I admire and respect what Robert and Pam do day in day out against ignorance of our own people and brutal Jihadist attacks all over the world.

    How could this be? We are not even wake against Islam.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Apr 7, 2014 at 5:46 pm

      Don’t give up, mate.

      Remember: repetition. Mohammedan Big Lies have been accepted because of endless solemn repetition.

      So why should not cool, calm, *brief* (when I say this, I’m saying it to myself as well – in face to face I am *not* good at ‘cool, calm, brief’!) REPETITION of the *truth* work just as well?

      Water on stone.

      At the ‘Citizen Warrior’ website you can get hold of a book called “Getting Through”.

      I got a copy of the Australian edition at a Q Society meeting. I’ve read it once and need to re-read it. I think there’s good stuff in there.

  19. Guestg says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    Note this, from the NY Daily News:

    “They cannot be allowed to continue committing these insults [criticism of sharia], but if there are elements which allow them to be brought to court, then the first phase of implementing the Syariah Penal Code Order in April will be very relevant to them,”

    So the FIRST STEP of sharia is to halt criticism of sharia. In the West, our governments are supporting this first step by using ‘hate speech’ and ‘racism’ claims against critics of this theocratic fascism.

    • Defcon 4 says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 5:41 pm

      @Guestg

      Excellent catch, I didn’t even notice that.

      Like any fascist ideology, islam can’t afford any type of criticism —
      whether it be reasoned, polite or otherwise, which is why all pisslamic
      states outlaw all criticism of their xenophobic, psychopathic, Jew hating
      death cult.

  20. Alan S says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    Why should Britain break away from Brunei, have not Britain’s Law Society just accepted Sharia?

  21. Defcon 4 says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    You can conceal the jihad w/an expensive tailored suit, but it’s always there.

    I wonder if Mr. Aslan will go to Brunei and lecture the Sultan about his misunderstanding of islam?

  22. Jay Boo says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    POEM to honor MUHAMMAD

    Pit of Honor
    Your ghost emerges where honor was lost from what crystalizes inside pure white cloth.
    Like the scent of a red tulip, faint yet true, that rises above your pit and stones too.
    Guilt has no escape; it can only submit, as sleep is slave to sin’s unburied pit.
    Even as pride clings by a pious thread, your ghost yet lives or at least is undead.
    It mocks vain lies of sin’s disguise. You cannot hide behind a mask of pride.
    Hear it creep at the dark edge of a dream waiting to convict with your victim’s pleas.
    Where the scent of a tulip lingers in mist at dark; on your bloodstained altar lives its mark.
    From one prolonged accusation, first to last; it lives above each pile your shadow cast.
    You are neither awake nor asleep; again you drift helpless somewhere between.
    Vengeance stalks in the dark, beware; you feel it now, so very near.
    You cannot wake, nor can you sleep. Up from dirt, dead fingers reach.
    You dread their grip and struggle to rise, but your truth resists.
    Frozen in fear, you dare not breathe. A voice like a beast says “Speak to me.”
    This shadow has substance but you silently pray, “It’s a dream. It’s a dream.”
    If only, you could lurch to awake with a scream.
    Unable to move or even talk, your guilt condemns; you must wait and watch.
    Is that scent your blood, or does fear deceive?Feel ribs crack, with each painful squeeze.
    The voice repeats, “Speak to me.” It warns, “This isn’t a dream.”
    In silence you shriek. You know it’s all true. This beast crawls from within; its evil is you.
    Lies “In God’s name,” your truth rescinds by reaching deep beneath your skin.
    Bony fingers crush until the beating stops. What beats is no longer your mortal heart.
    Listen to that hideous beat unburied from hell,
    the thump of the killing- pit; you know it well.
    A godless ritual sealed your fate with its mark.
    Eternally listen, trapped in linen, forever dark.
    The red tulip returns pious pride to dust. Here lies motionless another useless fundamentalist.

  23. Mirren10 says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    @ ibn muslim.

    It’s questionable whether or not this pos is what he purports to be.

    Whether or not, he encapusalates perfectly the mohammedan, and /or leftist mindset. This is what they want for all of us.

    I will die first. And take a hell of a lot of them with me.

    In our safe, cosy, post WWII world, we have been indoctrinated and fooled to the point where some ( the majority) of us believe that it is somehow immoral, wrong, to defend ourselves. That people who violently defend what they hold dear, are scum, vicious and violent hooliigans.

    I am sick of this bs. I will defend what is mine.

    • Stephen Poole says

      Mar 30, 2014 at 6:34 pm

      … Being the intellectual moron that I am, I find your last post to be kinda a conundrum Mirren10 … Just sayin’ … SP OX …

      • Mirren10 says

        Mar 31, 2014 at 4:09 am

        ” I find your last post to be kinda a conundrum Mirren10 ”

        I wasn’t riddling, nor making a pun.

        What I said is quite straightforward.

  24. Tom W Harris says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 8:00 pm

    OMIGOD, it’s Dennis Kucinich!

  25. Mr. Squat says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    I applaud the Sultan. May more Muslim countries follow his example.
    The more true to Islamic traditions Muslims are, the better. Eventually even the most brain-dead leftists in the West will recognize the true nature of the beast.

  26. enwhitenment says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    Those within the sultans circle & in fact many in Brunei have lived a life of excess for many years.
    Oil wealth has allowed greed on an unprecedented scale for the tiny nation.
    The cheap imported labour & keeping of domestic slaves has created a situation where the locals know of nothing but good times & easy wealth.
    With the oil reserves set to run dry & the wealth already spent the sultan is faced with the reality that the blame will rest with him.
    Sharia will be used to crush opposition & dissent & gives the sultan the power to silence any voices against him.
    Sharia in Brunei is not to protect the people .
    It is to protect the Sultan & the elite from the people.

  27. Jill says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    -one of the most popular stories about Jesus is the one where he comes upon a woman who is about to be ‘stoned’ for ‘adultery’-he picks up a stone and says something like ‘let you without sin be the first to cast a stone’-and we all know the rest of the story.
    The point is, this clearly demonstrates that some kind of ‘sharia’ like laws existed back then that he did not agree with-Jesus was 600 years before Muhamud-Islam was not introduced to the world as a religion until 623 a.d.-and then was denounced and labelled ‘barbaric’ by all religions at the time..thats the truth.-so, if one thinks correctly and looks at the bible as ‘history’, then sharia existed long before Christ in some form be it ‘judaism’ or pagen etc..and I believe it is this which the bible refers to, in some form, as the ‘anti-Christ’s people’-‘beware the anti-Christ etc…

    • Defcon 4 says

      Mar 31, 2014 at 2:30 pm

      @Jill

      I’ve read that the Jewish people had already abandoned stoning people to death for the crime of adultery by Yeshua’s time and a theory that the event was staged to test Yeshua’s reaction and his commitment to upholding the law.

  28. Marvin L Robinson says

    Mar 30, 2014 at 11:41 pm

    Mohammed was a CHILD MOLESTER, a Thief and a MURDERER. The CULT of MOHAMMED MUST BE ERADICATED from the FACE of the EARTH or there will be NO PEACE. EVER.

    • Defcon 4 says

      Apr 1, 2014 at 12:28 am

      @ Marvin L Robinson

      You write the ugly truth that most people don’t want to acknowledge.

  29. Wellington says

    Mar 31, 2014 at 11:24 am

    thomas_h: Here’s my take on this issue. Although some definitions of atheism say it is the BELIEF that God does not exist, ordinarily it is the DENIAL that God exists. If the latter (btw, if the former, then this is logical) then atheism is illogical because denial requires a much greater knowledge than does assertion. For instance, if I said to you that there is a pineapple tree growing in Denmark, all I would have to do to 100% prove my contention is take you to that tree within the confines of Denmark where it is growing. I would have to know really nothing more about Denmark. But if I averred that there is no pineapple tree growing in Denmark, then I would have to know every square mile (kilometer) , every acre, of Denmark to be correct in my denial. Since God implies an entity that pervades the entire universe (except for certain parts of New Jersey as Woody Allen once quipped), when someone denies the existence of God, they are saying they know the entire universe, which is palpably absurd, illogical and arrogant.

    By contrast, an agnostic simply says he doesn’t know, that there may be a higher power but there might not be. Of course, you can have hunches and my hunch is that God is a legend but hunches are often wrong. As for your proof, thomas_h, I would opine that it seems you are identifying reality with a universe where God exists and that is an assumption up front which I would argue is just that—-an assumption and not a fact. Your turn, my friend.

    • Defcon 4 says

      Mar 31, 2014 at 2:32 pm

      Bravo Mr. Wellington.

    • thomas_h says

      Mar 31, 2014 at 4:06 pm

      Wellington:

      It seems you, or we, are talking of the kind of atheism that denies God’s existence. You reject its validity “because denial (of existence) requires a much greater knowledge than does assertion” and you back up the claim with an illustration related to a specific case. But this is not a logical proof – and it wouldn’t be even if you have supplied three dozens, or more, of such cases.
      Besides, even if it were a proof it wouldn’t be of the sort appropriate for determining the existence of God. The existence, or non-existence, of God can’t be determined through analysis of data from our senses employed in observation of the empirical facts any more than the truth, or error, of Pythagorean theorem could be established by studying any number of right-angle triangles. Its truth is proven solely through strictly logical reasoning. It is necessarily true.
      Those who, like Aquinas, or Aristotle, Anselm, John Scotus, undertake proof of God do it through logical reasoning, and God is the necessary conclusion of their reasoning. One can argue with correctness of their logic, but that, again, needs use of logic, not observation of natural facts.

      Since God implies an entity that pervades the entire universe (except for certain parts of New Jersey as Woody Allen once quipped), when someone denies the existence of God, they are saying they know the entire universe, which is palpably absurd, illogical and arrogant.

      (I had to laugh at Woody Allen’s quip – the guy can be quite witty…)
      But, Wellington, we are not concerned with those who claim knowledge of every corner of the universe and on that basis reject Goid’s reality. The serious atheist, like a serious theist, resort to philosophical and logical analysis only. That they arrive at the opposite conclusion is a different matter.

      If you are a theist and your theism is a result of a strict philosophical analysis then the same analysis leads you to the conclusion that the atheist’s logics is flawed. And vice versa: if you are an atheist and your atheism…etc, etc, etc…

      But if you are an agnostic you are not in the position to say an atheist is wrong inasmuch he cannot know entire universe. But, again, he doesn’t arrive at his conclusion after searching through the entire universe, so your dismissal of his atheism is a mistake. You can only say he is wrong (or right) if you followed his reasoning to its conclusion. But of course, then you would either become an atheist yourself if you agreed with him, or theist if you didn’t.

      So what do you think, my friend?

      • Wellington says

        Mar 31, 2014 at 5:02 pm

        I think, thomas_h, that you want something, if not exactly, along the lines of Aristotelian logic or else you will think it illegitimate or irrelevant reasoning where any proof of God is the issue. Yours is not a bad approach by any means, and I don’t mean to imply that it is a narrow one, but it is only one approach of many that a person can take. I took a different approach as I outlined in my 11:24 A.M. post above.

        As for an atheist who denies the existence of God, of course such a person doesn’t arrive at their conclusion that there is no God “after searching through the entire universe” but, to deny God’s existence and be 100% accurate about such a denial, they would have to do so, and in my experience the atheist doesn’t realize this. In fact, the more militant the atheist, the less they realize this, so narrow are they in their thinking (e.g., Karl Marx).

        I leave you, my-across-the-pond friend, with this thought and challenge. It comes from Kant. Here it is: Existence is not necessarily a category of an idea. No matter how brilliant an argument for the existence of God is, replete with sterling Aristotelian logic (and may I say as an aside that I think philosophers like Erigena, Anselm and Aquinas were absolutely brilliant in their argumentations), it ultimately proves nothing precisely, again here, because existence is not NECESSARILY a category of an idea. For this reason (among others) I would argue that agnosticism is the most logical (ironic, no?) approach concerning the existence of God that anyone can take. After all, and as Socrates noted so persuasively, the beginning of wisdom is to realize you know nothing (or very little). Nevertheless, at least this this much I know (or is it, in effect and ironically, that I believe I know?) and that is that no one can prove or disprove the existence of God.

        Of course, there is something else out there to be considered and that is faith, and no philosopher put forward the importance of faith more so than Kierkegaard, but faith is something some people have and others don’t (I have a theory that this, at least in part, is rooted in one’s biochemical and genetic make-up). The agnostic doesn’t have faith; it is not part of the make-up of their mind and personality. It doesn’t mean that the agnostic scorns the faith of others (I certainly don’t), only that it is not how they are constituted.

        I close by noting how satisfying it is to throw ideas back and forth about God’s existence without having to worry about bodily harm or death for doing so. Such an intellectual exercise without threats represents one of the best features about Western Civilization and the Judeo-Christian tradition. No such possibility exists in the Islamic world because Islam is a totalitarian ideology and totalitarian ideologies ALWAYS disallow free inquiry beyond a certain point, with the disallowance ALWAYS backed up by threats of bodily harm or death. In any case, your turn my friend and thank you for this exchange we’re having.

        • thomas_h says

          Mar 31, 2014 at 7:04 pm

          “I think, thomas_h, that you want something, if not exactly, along the lines of Aristotelian logic or else you will think it illegitimate or irrelevant reasoning where any proof of God is the issue.”

          There is something about it. But I didn’t choose Aristotelian logic arbitrarily, at whim. I searched the ideas market many times over many years. Aristotelian approach, picked up and developed, even transformed by Aquinas gave me peace for the first time. The power of the idea that the essence of God is the same as his existence was for me a most liberating experience. It was the unifying field of truth in which all other intellectual problems suddenly ceased being problems. The attraction it had for me was its universal coherence. Everything suddenly fit. Suddenly I had no motivation to keep on looking further. I was home.

          ”As for an atheist who denies the existence of God, of course such a person doesn’t arrive at their conclusion that there is no God “after searching through the entire universe” but, to deny God’s existence and be 100% accurate about such a denial, they would have to do so,”

          No. They would only have to find one error in theist’s argument for God existence. That is what Hume does – in fact he finds, at least he thinks he finds, more than one such “error”

          “I leave you… with this thought and challenge. It comes from Kant: Existence is not necessarily a category of an idea.”

          I am quite unfamiliar with Kant, not least because he never excited me the way other thinkers had. I’m embarrassed to say he rather bored me. Well, not all German philosophers are Leibnitz…But let me think about it, after I understand your drift. As for now I should think that existence is ontologically prior to idea, so I don’t exactly understand what is the consequence of accepting or rejecting the truth of existence not necessariy being a category of idea. Wish me luck…

          ”For this reason (among others) I would argue that agnosticism is the most logical (ironic, no?) approach concerning the existence of God that anyone can take. After all, and as Socrates noted so persuasively, the beginning of wisdom is to realize you know nothing (or very little). Nevertheless, at least this this much I know (or is it, in effect and ironically, that I believe I know?) and that is that no one can prove or disprove the existence of God. ”

          Well, I am not sure it is “most logical approach concerning the existence of God”. It may be most cautious, but being so, it also prevents one from committing oneself any further than “I don’t know”. It is true that Socrates noted that “the beginning of wisdom is to realize you know nothing”, but please mark he stresses the beginning, which implies an end, or at least a progress, a drive, toward knowing.

          ”…no one can prove or disprove the existence of God. ”
          Can anyone prove that?
          And what would the worth of such a proof be if I, and so many like me, who ditched their agnosticism in favour of theism, testify that the existence of God has been proven to us?

          Wellington, you say “how satisfying it is to throw ideas back and forth about God’s existence without having to worry about bodily harm or death for doing so. Such an intellectual exercise without threats represents one of the best features about Western Civilization and the Judeo-Christian tradition”.

          I smiled reading it, because the truth of it occurred to me while writing the previous letter, but somehow I didn’t include that reflection.

          OK, my friend across the pond. Time to bed for me. Yesterday they introduced summertime here and robbed me of one hour sleep! How inconsidering!

          PS. You also mention faith as something irrational. But faith is imminently rational (from where I am standing). Perhaps later I will pick it up
          Thank you Welington. As always it is very good talking to you.

  30. Wellington says

    Mar 31, 2014 at 7:36 pm

    thomas_h: Sleep well my freind. Actually, I’ve long thought of sound sleep as one of the great joys of life. In fact without it, no matter what else is going right with your life, if absent life still becomes a chore rather than a pleasure, but I digress.

    Ah, there’s so much to comment about respecting your last post but I will, for now, comment on only one matter, to wit, your statement that I think faith irrational. Really, I don’t. Rather I think it something other than rational, meta-rational if you will. The word “irrational” has an entirely negative connotation about it and it was not my intention to assess religious faith as such. True, I don’t have faith, and often in the presence of those who possess it have felt like a stranger in a strange land, but, my friend, I don’t think of it as irrational, just something different and “other” and something I simply don’t possess.

    Good-night, my friend. Sleep well.

  31. Jacksonl03 says

    Mar 31, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    Atheist, agnostic. Okay. What do you call someone who doesn’t think or speak of a God in theistic terms and doesn’t think any religion is truth but still thinks, maybe, there is something that caused the “big bang” science pretty much agrees started the universe we occupy? And suspects that that something may be an intelligence with a purpose, one that doesn’t necessarily have us humans as its objective and doesn’t wish to set up a system or rules called religion.

    After all the solar system has existed for some four billion years and is expected to last another four. Unless one denies the science of evolution one has to wonder what today’s human will be like in say another million years.

    • Wellington says

      Apr 1, 2014 at 12:24 pm

      Well, one can approach the possibility of some higher power, call it what you will, philosophically as well as religiously. Personally speaking this has always been my route since philosoply relies upon reason alone while religion invokes reason plus faith (and science reason plus tested observational methods and so the one element all three have in common is reason) and I do not possess faith. Intriguing stuff to be sure.

      As for evolution, I don’t see how anyone can deny it once they look at the evidence and it doesn’t at all have to conflict with religious belief if one treats religious literature, as Thomas Aquinas advised over seven centuries ago, as metaphor and not as a scientific treatise. Respecting further evolution of man, there is a debate about that because evolution occurs in natural environments and man, having developed civilization, has taken himself, in effect, out of nature and so it is possible because of this there will be no further evolution as the term has been understood from Darwin onwards. The debate about this continues to this day.

      • thomas_h says

        Apr 1, 2014 at 2:45 pm

        Wellington, my friend,

        There is no way you, or a scientist can not not have faith of some kind. The scientist must have faith in the coherence of reality expressed in the laws of nature. He must have faith there is an order and relation between his mind and the world. He must bekieve in reality of mind. He can not do a thing without a priori metaphysical assumption that whatever is has reason to be. He must believe in causality without which there could be no science. Above all he, and you too Wellington, must assume the existence of objective truth, goodness and beauty. We all do such assumption automatically, but the theists among us go one step further. They, using purely logical reasoning, conclude the necessary existence of the author of these three things. Rationality could not exist without faith.

        Ah evolution. You’re right, it doesn’t at all have to conflict with religious belief. As for the “evidence of it”, there is none that supports the natural selection dogma. On the contrary, the deeper the science of microbiology digs into life, cells, genome, molecules, the more facts we unearth, the shaker the theory of evolution. I don’t recall the biologist’s name but he said something like: the more we know the less it seems like a vast machine, and more like a vast thought. I have to dig it out from the entrails of my computer or internet. My Saint Google help me… And no, I am not intelligent design supporter. To be so I would have to forget what became clear to me through Aquinas.

        Wellington, I didn’t look up Kant’s thought “existence is not necessarily a category of idea”, for the lack of time. I’l need another few days. If I read and understand it, I would like to acquaint myself with its criticism – both positive and negative before I will be able to ask myself what to think of it.
        Talk to you later, Wellington, amigo.

        • Wellington says

          Apr 1, 2014 at 7:00 pm

          Ah, faith of some kind, eh thomas_h? Perhaps you’re right. I’m reminded here of two philosophers—-Descartes and Sartre. As you know, Descartes said “I think therefore I am” (cogito ergo sum). Sartre’s rejoinder to this was that what Descartes really should have said was “I think therefore I think I am.” I’m sure you see what I’m getting at, my friend.

          In any case, don’t overlook Kant. He’s a giant in that torturous, labyrhithine world which goes by the name of “philosophy.” Essentially, he demonstrated that all intellectual arguments for the existence of God, however clever, still don’t prove God’s existence. He was mortified by this by the way, but he thought he had no choice but to conclude this, which conclucion, of course, he described in great detail (Nietzche is almost alone among philosophers in eschewing detail and keeping things “pithy”). That’s why he resorted to his moral argument for the existence of God, which is indeed clever, but I think ultimately rebuttable (perhaps another time, eh?). Oh yes, in any discussion about ascertaining anything for certain, one can’t forget arguably the greatest and most profound skeptic of all philosophers, David Hume. Much of Kan’t work was an effort to refute Hume. Frankly, I don’t think Kant succeeded.

          As for evolution, yes it’s just silly to dismiss it. We have over 80,000 Neanderthal skeletons alone, as well as at least six species of Australopithecus dating between 1 and 5 million years ago. Then there are the many remains of Homo erectus and even samplings of that earliest of the Homo genera, Home habilis. Also, there are other and sometimes earlier hominids than even Australopithecus, like Ardipitecus ramidus and Orrorin tugenensis. I started out in anthropology instead of history (and then I went to law—-talk about descent) and so I have some knowledge of man’s evolution and try to keep current with the most recent discoveries. I agree with you that religion and evolution don’t have to be at odds with one another, not at all in fact. Of course, positing the kind of design in all this rather takes us back to where we started about God or the absence of such an entity.

          One last comment, other that to say that Philip Jihadski is someone I admire and whenever he would like to chime in with us, he would be most welcome. My last comment is that it was never my intention to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God via Aristotelian logical analysis. My only goal was to demonstrate that the denial of God’s existence, denial mind you, is illogical. Proving or disproving the existence of a higher power via Aristotelian-like logic is quite a different matter.

          As always, I hope you are doing well, thomas-h. I will look forward to more posts from you here at JW on sundry topics. So long for now, my friend.

  32. thomas_h says

    Apr 3, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    hello Graven—I just “passed by” the thread looking for a certain formulation Wellington had used and found your very kind words. It made me very glad to read them. I think I blushed… ):
    I’m not sure Wellington and Philip will return to the thread, but I am sure they would be as flattered by and appreciative of your note as I am if they could read it.
    Looking forward to the pleasure of reading your smart comments
    Thank you, my friend
    Thomas H.

    • thomas_h says

      Apr 3, 2014 at 5:24 pm

      I don’t know why the comments are suddenly not in the chronological order.

    • Wellington says

      Apr 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm

      I second your thanks to gravenimage, thomas_h. Glad I looked back here.

    • gravenimage says

      Apr 5, 2014 at 12:19 am

      Thanks again, Thomas and Wellington. I always look forward to reading your erudite comments.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • revereridesagain on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • James Lincoln on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Carol on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • James Lincoln on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Jayme on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.