Propagating religion other than Islam a crime under Syariah law

51

PRIVATE education institutions have been cautioned against propagating religions other than Islam as it is a crime under the Syariah Penal Code Order.

During a briefing in Tutong on the law yesterday, legal experts from the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office told 300 representatives of private education institutions it was an offence to propagate religions other than Islam to a Muslim or atheist.

The offence is punishable by a fine of up to $20,000, imprisonment for up to five years or both under Section 209.

Exposing beliefs and practices other than Islam to a Muslim child, or a child whose parents are atheist, carries the same punishment.

Written By: Rabiatul Kamit
continue to source article at bt.com.bn

51 COMMENTS

  1. @OP link – Brunei is set to enforce the first phase of the new law in April, ushering in Ta’zir or general offences that are punishable by fines, imprisonment or both.

    Harsher punishments for serious crimes, such as amputation of limbs for stealing, will be introduced in the second phase, while the death penalty will only come into force in the third phase, pending the finalisation of the Syariah Courts Criminal Procedure Code Order.

    Assistant Director of Private Institutions Section at the Ministry of Education Pg Othman Pg Mohd Daud said the new law would “ensure the prosperity, well-being, peace and solidarity” of the people in the Sultanate.

    Ah! The benefits of learning the cognitive dissonance of “faith-thinking” and mixing it with politics!

    Just think of the improved “prosperity” and “well-being” of those amputees and those imprisoned for thought-crime!

    During a briefing in Tutong on the law yesterday, legal experts from the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office told 300 representatives of private education institutions it was an offence to propagate religions other than Islam to a Muslim or atheist.

    The offence is punishable by a fine of up to $20,000, imprisonment for up to five years or both under Section 209.

    Exposing beliefs and practices other than Islam to a Muslim child, or a child whose parents are atheist, carries the same punishment.

    I don’t suppose that a more moderate regime might move an amendment to include Islam in the prohibited religions list, – so as to protect all children from indoctrination and befuddlement????
    Nah!! Much too un-bronze-age!

  2. Who said religion was despised by the knowledgeable, a comfort to the poor and useful to the rich ?

    This is Brunei right ? The same place where the ruler sues his brother about how much money he has been spending on his “decadent” life style ? The millions these ‘noble men‘ spend on their speed boats, mansions, fine wine, race horses etc. pales into insignificance if some poor bastard has the balls to say “I don’t believe in God”. For that person imprisonment looms. Hah even the bloody Christians are going to be locked up !

    Of course it costs a lot of money keeping people locked up. Maybe they should spend the money on speed boats instead ? A tricky moral dilemma for them ?

  3. WHY is Islam considered and treated as ‘like any other religion’, when patently it is NOT?

    Supremacist; exclusive; tyrannical; cruel; warmongering. Is it not time this evil was designated as such
    and we in democratic societies stop PANDERING to muslims?

    Or must we go on deluding ourselves, in terror of the results of offending them?

    • In reply to #3 by Fritz:

      WHY is Islam considered and treated as ‘like any other religion’, when patently it is NOT?

      Supremacist; exclusive; tyrannical; cruel; warmongering. Is it not time this evil was designated as such
      and we in democratic societies stop PANDERING to muslims?

      Or must we go on deluding ourselves, in terror of the results of offending them?

      Those five adjectives could for most of its history be used to describe Christianity, too. Still can as a matter of fact as the worst bits of the Bible are to this day used to discriminate against non-Christians and even practicing ones.

      • In reply to #4 by Katy Cordeth:

        In reply to #3 by Fritz:

        WHY is Islam considered and treated as ‘like any other religion’, when patently it is NOT?

        Supremacist; exclusive; tyrannical; cruel; warmongering. Is it not time this evil was designated as such
        and we in democratic societies stop PANDERING to muslims?

        I note that immediately I [also others, haven't noticed] criticise the Religion of Peace, you are very quick to attempt a contradiction or, like this one, the ‘moral equivalence’ fallacy. You have stated your left- leaning tendency but, does your apparent support for Islam add anything useful to the discussion or are you merely an agent provocateur?

        Just want to know if it’s worthwhile responding, or should I not waste my time?

      • In reply to #4 by Katy Cordeth:

        Those five adjectives could for most of its history be used to describe Christianity, too. Still can as a matter of fact as the worst bits of the Bible are to this day used to discriminate against non-Christians and even practicing ones.

        True enough. Relevance?

    • In reply to #3 by Fritz:

      WHY is Islam considered and treated as ‘like any other religion’, when patently it is NOT?

      Supremacist; exclusive; tyrannical; cruel; warmongering. Is it not time this evil was designated as such
      and we in democratic societies stop PANDERING to muslims?

      Or must we go on deluding ourselves, in terr…

      I totally agree with you……….Our Government(Britain) is Pandering to Muslims. If they want to believe in fairy stories then let them do it in private. I am sick of shari law being taught in society.

  4. Stamping our feet and decrying the ridiculousness of religion in general and Islam in particular may make people here feel better, and I for one am heartily fed up up with Islam, their precious bloody prophet, and everything else associated with their primitive and murderous world view, but that won’t make it go away.

    What will? Brunei is an oil rich sultantate, and as close to a full blown theocracy as you can imagine. The envy I suspect of the American Taliban in many ways, a filthy rich version of the worst of Pakistan, if you will. There must be some concrete suggestions as to how this kind of anti-human behaviour can be reined in and finally relegated to a primitive past.

    • In reply to #5 by Sheepdog:
      >

      What will? Brunei is an oil rich sultantate, and as close to a full blown theocracy as you can imagine. The envy I suspect of the American Taliban in many ways, a filthy rich version of the worst of Pakistan, if you will. There must be some concrete suggestions as to how this kind of anti-human behaviour can be reined in and finally relegated to a primitive past.

      This might help!

      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/19/fossil-fuels-sub-prime-mervyn-king

      At the most recent UN climate change summit in December, 194 of the world’s nations agreed to enact legally binding curbs on greenhouse gas emissions within three years to limit global warming to 2C. But meeting this limit would mean just 20% of existing fossil fuel reserves could be burned, according to recent research.

      “We need to prevent the deep and profound harm that could be wrought by an overexposure to high-carbon assets and a rapid shift in their values,” said Ben Caldecott, head of policy at investment company Climate Change Capital, who signed the letter along with Aviva Investors. “Unlike sub-prime mortgages before the financial crisis, this time regulators must act to prevent the build-up of systemic risk in our financial system.”

      • In reply to #7 by Alan4discussion:

        In reply to #5 by Sheepdog:

        What will? Brunei is an oil rich sultantate, and as close to a full blown theocracy as you can imagine. The envy I suspect of the American Taliban in many ways, a filthy rich version of the worst of Pakistan, if you will. There must be some concrete suggestions as to how…

        If I take your argument correctly, your point is that a reduction in world dependence on fossil fuels will weaken the authority that oil rich states presently enjoy, and will trickle down to weaken their religious authority. I wish it were that simple.

        Other theocracies, or nearly so, Pakistan and Afghanistan for example, demonstrate a static or increasing theocratic influence despite lacking oil deposits. Other Muslim states with comparatively moderate adherence, Indonesia and Azerbaijan, come to mind, have extensive oil reserves, and some, Malaysia, do not. While still others with extensive oil reserves, Saudi Arabia and Iran, demonstrate varying degrees of extreme observance of the Quran.

        One could run through the rest of the “‘stans” to demonstrate greater or lesser oil reserves, and greater or lesser adherence to the Quran. I do not see a diminution in oil dependency necessarily reducing the authority of Islamic theocracies.

        As oil supplies world wide diminish, as they are, production has already peaked in 33 out of 48 oil producing countries, and the day of global production peaking is in the near, rather than the distant, future, if a link does exist, it could as well reinforce the authority of theocracies as diminish them. Further information here: http://www.oildecline.com/.

        The reduction in dependence on fossil fuels is not a choice being made just for globally environmental and moralistic choices, important though they may be. While coal reserves are still measured in terms of hundreds of years, oil reserves are measured in terms of tens of years, and the move from fossil fuels is not so much a choice as it is a diktat.

        I do not want to appear as being knee jerk negative to ideas offered as constructive suggestions, but I am not convinced the answer lies in oil, although the cause may. In fueling the spread of Western technology and rational thought, it has facilitated medieval theocracies in adopting a veneer of technology, facilitating the spread of their superstition, and furthering their perceived cause by acts of jihad.

        • In reply to #18 by Sheepdog:

          In reply to #7 by Alan4discussion:

          Other theocracies, or nearly so, Pakistan and Afghanistan for example, demonstrate a static or increasing theocratic influence despite lacking oil deposits.

          Follow the money. It was oil money funded the the Pakistani fighters that aided the Taliban in their fight to overthrow the legitimate, democratic and progressive Ahmad Shah Massoud in northern Afghanistan. Pakistani fighters outnumbered their fellow Talib fighters three to one. Money walks.

          Incidentally, when we talk about theocracies I see it as quite inappropriate to retain a vocabulary pertaining to religion. This is naked politics.

          • In reply to #25 by phil rimmer:

            In reply to #18 by Sheepdog:

            In reply to #7 by Alan4discussion:

            Other theocracies, or nearly so, Pakistan and Afghanistan for example, demonstrate a static or increasing theocratic influence despite lacking oil deposits.

            Follow the money. It was oil money funded the the Pakistani fighters that ai…

            When you are talking about a country that has “Ministry of Religious Affairs,” it is difficult to untangle the political and religious vocabularies.

            As to your other points, there are typos in your post that, if they really are typos, change your probable intended meaning. Did you mean “Money walks,” the original, or “Money talks,” they imply different inferences. Could you make your point again?

          • In reply to #34 by Sheepdog:
            >

            Your thesis that there is no correlation between oil money and theocracies on the grounds that some theocracies are poor is being countered by me on the evidence that Saudi oil money funds the theocratic in poorer countries. I presented an example of one such major use of oil funds used specifically to crush enlightened Muslim efforts. There are many more. Alan4′s contention stands.

            I don’t believe there are typos there. I intended to type “walks”. I started with a quote from the Watergate movie that the path that money takes reveals the guilty parties. My rephrasing of the “money talks” cliche as “money walks” (it finds its way to all sorts of places) was a jest and seemingly a bit of a clunker. Sorry for it….

            “Ministry of Religious Affairs”….pure politics. They will entirely cloak themselves in the sacrosanct garb of piety and godliness for protection. This is the deliberate entanglement you talk of. My point is that this mode of projection into the public space for all that contrived appearance is entirely political in its intentions.

    • In reply to #5 by Sheepdog:

      There must be some concrete suggestions…

      The court ordered that the Quran be classified as extremist material under Russian Law, its further circulation in Russian language be banned, and its existing copies in Russian be destroyed. According to a Moscow Times report on 22 Sept 2013, Muslim clerics in Russia condemned the court ruling and threatened unrest and violence if the verdict was not overturned.

      • In reply to #20 by Fritz:

        In reply to #5 by Sheepdog:

        The court ordered that the Quran be classified as extremist material under Russian Law, its further circulation in Russian language be banned, and its existing copies in Russian be destroyed. According to a Moscow Times report…

        Was it in fact overturned?

  5. Any honest witness to current events will realize that there is no moral eqiuvalence between the kind of force civilized democracies project in the world, warts and all, and the violence that is perpetrated by Islamic militants, or indeed by Islamic governments.

    • In reply to #6 by Bob Springsteen:

      Any honest witness to current events will realize that there is no moral eqiuvalence between the kind of force civilized democracies project in the world, warts and all, and the violence that is perpetrated by Islamic militants, or indeed by Islamic governments.

      Any honest witness who hasn’t read the honest history of the real world !

      Forcible Conversion to Christianity = Die or convert to sweet lovin ‘jesus’ – affected large numbers of people in the world
      African Americans stolen from their homeland, American Natives who’s homeland was stolen, Australian Aboriginals same scenario, Viking Europeans including pagan Britons….shall I go on or do you get the picture….

      • In reply to #12 by Light Wave:

        In reply to #6 by Bob Springsteen:

        Any honest witness to current events will realize that there is no moral eqiuvalence between the kind of force civilized democracies project in the world, warts and all, and the violence that is perpetrated by Islamic militants, or indeed by Islamic governments….

        I believe Bob refers to the here and now, not the distant past. That’s the point, Islam is doing NOW.

        Got the picture?

        • In reply to #16 by Fritz:

          In reply to #12 by Light Wave:

          In reply to #6 by Bob Springsteen:

          Any honest witness to current events will realize that there is no moral eqiuvalence between the kind of force civilized democracies project in the world, warts and all, and the violence that is perpetrated by Islamic militants, or…

          I used to think Democracy was civilised….But then I woke up and smelt the Corporate Elite coffee…
          The mindset of the Christian past has a funny way of dictating the hypocrisy of the future …..don’t you think….
          I just can’t seem to get Your picture Fritz – by proxy for Bob

    • In reply to #8 by Net:

      wow, you really have to look very closely to learn what country this article is about.

      Yes indeed.

      From the headline I anticipated a New York borough, Paris district or Sydney suburb was under imminent threat.

  6. Fritz, fuck off until you get a clue. Every major religion that gains political power has done the same, or worse. And all would again, given enough time in power.

    Atheist bigots like YOU are just as bad as every other bigot, just as atheist male chauvinists are as uselessly stupid as those that use the Koran or Bible to justify themselves.

    Again, fuck off. We may be fighting for what is nominally the same position, but I’d take time out to tear you a new one if we ever met.

  7. In reply to #6 by Bob Springsteen:

    Any witness to current events with zero knowledge of history may think that there is no moral eqiuvalence between the kind of force civilized democracies project in the world, warts and all, and the violence that is perpetrated by Islamic militants, or indeed by Islamic governments.

    Fixed.

      • In reply to #15 by Skeptic:

        In reply to #10 by Katy Cordeth:

        Fixed.

        Is deliberately misquoting allowed on this site? A rather pathetic display.

        You new to online discussion sites, hon?

        Urban Dictionary definition of “fixed”

        On a forum, it is changing what another poster said in their own quote brackets and then writing ‘fixed’ below it. It started out as simply correcting another poster’s errors, but now it’s all about tweaking their quote to mock them.

        Chris: “I like watching the Tour de France.”

        Chris wrote: “I like perving at the cyclers in their spandex pants.”
        Bob: Fixed.

        • In reply to #24 by Katy Cordeth:

          In reply to #15 by Skeptic:

          You new to online discussion sites, hon?

          No, hon. However, when I ‘fix’ someone else’s quote I make it obvious it wasn’t the real quote. A bit of manners would be appropriate on your part.

  8. Minister’s Office told 300 representatives of private education institutions it was an offence to propagate religions other than Islam to a Muslim or atheist.

    Oh? Atheists are protected from religious propaganda?

    And by the way, if this is what they told, how can they call themselves “legal experts”?

  9. Minister’s Office told 300 representatives of private education institutions it was an offence to propagate religions other than Islam to a Muslim or atheist.

    Oh? Atheists are protected from religious propaganda?

    And by the way, if this is what they told, how can they call themselves “legal experts”?

  10. The article is carried in the Brunei Times and most the reader comments try to reflect a more open and tolerant Brunei. But the Brunei Times publishes a religious lift out section on Friday that reeks with the superiority complex of Islam over all other faiths, beliefs, and non muslims. Not to mention the Orwellian double speak as they have a twisted sense of reasoning to justify their beliefs (not unique to Islam of course but played out with government approval).

    • In reply to #22 by Eyerish:

      The article is carried in the Brunei Times and most the reader comments try to reflect a more open and tolerant Brunei. But the Brunei Times publishes a religious lift out section on Friday that reeks with the superiority complex of Islam over all other faiths, beliefs, and non muslims. Not to menti…

      Every week in Australia the views of Cardinal George Pell and Bishop Jensen are widely publicised in syndicated articles, nationally by Murdoch press. They support Judeo-Xian morals and standards, insisting their bigotries be universally adopted. Worse than that, they insist such values are authentically Australian.

      Meanwhile, somewhere in a derelict, mosque-strewn province of Forkistansylvania those other Abrahamists are threatening to prevail, and the domino effect is scary to contemplate, every day since 2001.

  11. 20,000 and/or five years? Positively civilised compared to the rack, spanish boot, breaking on the wheel and burning at the stake. Typical of the misery of abrahamism in its fits of pique. How to keep the whole fek’n human race in a dark cellar, don’t contradict us or dare to think or you’ll suffer.

  12. In reply to #17 by Fritz:

    In reply to #4 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #3 by Fritz:

    WHY is Islam considered and treated as ‘like any other religion’, when patently it is NOT?

    Supremacist; exclusive; tyrannical; cruel; warmongering. Is it not time this evil was designated as such and we in democratic societies stop PANDERING to muslims?

    I note that immediately I [also others, haven't noticed] criticise the Religion of Peace, you are very quick to attempt a contradiction or, like this one, the ‘moral equivalence’ fallacy. You have stated your left- leaning tendency but, does your apparent support for Islam add anything useful to the discussion or are you merely an agent provocateur?

    Just want to know if it’s worthwhile responding, or should I not waste my time?

    The religion of peace is eminently worthy of criticism. Such criticism should be logical though. The notion that Islam is separate and distinct from the world’s other religions and deserves to be treated as a special case doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    #19 by Fritz:

    In reply to #4 by Katy Cordeth:

    Those five adjectives could for most of its history be used to describe Christianity, too. Still can as a matter of fact as the worst bits of the Bible are to this day used to discriminate against non-Christians and even practicing ones.

    True enough. Relevance?

    Case in point: you agree with me that Christianity has been and continues to be just as wicked as Islam – it is after all, like Christianity, a rip-off of Judaism, with many of the same tenets: the 10 Commandments etc – yet the relevance escapes you. How on earth is drawing an equivalence between these two faiths fallacious when you just conceded what you did?

    If I may hazard a guess, you and others on this largely atheist website who are critical of Christianity only until a thread about Islam appears, when you then set about defending the former, even becoming an apologist for it as you did when you replied to Light Wave’s post, are more sanguine about Christianity because being part of its culture you recognize the religion itself is open to interpretation and its members are a pretty diverse bunch, ranging from the fruitcakes like Terry Jones and Pastor Fred all the way to the Ned Flanderses and Rowan Williamses.

    With Islam on the other hand, because you’re unfamiliar with the culture having not grown up immersed in it, all you can see is one big homogeneous monolith of Borg-like evil hellbent on planetary domination. That your experience is confined to news reports and vox pops from di#kheads such as Anjem Choudary and his loathsome ilk compounds this view. I’m sure you’re now going to tell me you’ve lived in an Islamic country; but that doesn’t count for much if you chose not to mingle with the denizens, preferring to keep the company of fellow ex-pats.

    You have stated your left- leaning tendency but, does your apparent support for Islam add anything useful to the discussion or are you merely an agent provocateur?

    Point the first: I have never supported Islam; I’m an atheist, why the devil would I?

    Point the second re my alleged status as an agent provocateur: I’m sorry that my old pal Nodhimmi no longer posts here because I think you and he would really have gotten along; he used to say that sort of thing about me, too.

    Just want to know if it’s worthwhile responding, or should I not waste my time?

    Entirely up to you.

    • In reply to #28 by Katy Cordeth:

      The religion of peace is eminently worthy of criticism. Such criticism should be logical though

      Yes, of course. But what in Fritz’s post are you objecting to as illogical? This is an article about Islam, is it not? Are we supposed to chat about Christianity to keep things balanced to your liking?

      Point the first: I have never supported Islam

      This much is true. I have seen numerous posts from you in threads about Christian insanity saying “but what about Islam!?!”, so clearly you spread the criticisms evenly…oh wait, sorry, I think I confused you with someone else, my bad, I’ve never such posts.

    • Case in point: you agree with me that Christianity has been and continues to be just as wicked as Islam – it is after all, like Christianity, a rip-off of Judaism, with many of the same tenets: the 10 Commandments etc.

      Wicked Christianity and Islam? What about “religion is just a tool

      With Islam on the other hand, because you’re unfamiliar with the culture having not grown up immersed in it, all you can see is one big homogeneous monolith of Borg-like evil hellbent on planetary domination.

      So Islam is wicked but not evil?

      In reply to #28 by Katy Cordeth:

      In reply to #17 by Fritz:

      In reply to #4 by Katy Cordeth:

      In reply to #3 by Fritz:

      WHY is Islam considered and treated as ‘like any other religion’, when patently it is NOT?

      Supremacist; exclusive; tyrannical; cruel; warmongering. Is it not time this evil was designated as such and we in democra…

      • In reply to #39 by Marktony:

        Case in point: you agree with me that Christianity has been and continues to be just as wicked as Islam – it is after all, like Christianity, a rip-off of Judaism, with many of the same tenets: the 10 Commandments etc.

        Wicked Christianity and Islam? What about “religion is just a tool

        An iron maiden is just a tool, too. Go to the Museum of Medieval Torture Instruments in Amsterdam and see for yourself. There’s very little chance the one they have on display will be used to maim you.

        If while there you happen to fall into a wormhole and find yourself a few hundred years in the past, and because of this means of arrival you’re declared a witch, the machine could well be used to inflict all sorts of insults upon your person.

        The iron maiden won’t have changed; it might have fewer woodworms and be a bit less creaky, but it will be fundamentally the same tool.

        You gettin’ it yet, Mark?

        • No.

          In reply to #41 by Katy Cordeth:

          In reply to #39 by Marktony:

          Case in point: you agree with me that Christianity has been and continues to be just as wicked as Islam – it is after all, like Christianity, a rip-off of Judaism, with many of the same tenets: the 10 Commandments etc.

          Wicked Christianity and Islam? What about “religio…

          • In reply to #42 by Marktony:

            No.

            In reply to #41 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #39 by Marktony:

            Case in point: you agree with me that Christianity has been and continues to be just as wicked as Islam – it is after all, like Christianity, a rip-off of Judaism, with many of the same tenets: the 10 Commandments etc.

            Wicked Chri…

            Oh well, I’m sure the fault was mine and not yours. There are no bad students; only bad teachers.

  13. Corporate Capitalism (Civilised Democracy) spreads as much misery to the majority of poor people in the over populated countries of the world these days and civil liberties are being eroded even in advanced countries …Islamic extremism seems a perfect scapegoat for the worlds top politicians to divert attention from the harm they are doing……..As someone who has an equal disgust of all religions…I regard Islam as just as bad as any other religion or force for controlling and oppressing people, but I totally recognise some peoples blinkered need to focus on one apparent cause to blame and blow it out of proportion…. That’s a Nazi way of blaming …
    While I recognise that terrorism is carried out in the name of Islam……..I’m old enough to remember recent Irish sectarian terrorism of the Christian kind…for at least a few decades and spilling over into MY country…. those terrorists were white ‘Christian’ people innocent people were caught up in their hypocritical bullshit…That’s probably the primary reason why I’m an atheist/freethinker since childhood….Some commenters on this site are not scared to criticize Islam but Rather they recognise the hypocrisy of those who hone in on only Islam as the one to blame…look deeper

  14. In reply to #35 by phil rimmer:

    In reply to #34 by Sheepdog:>

    Your thesis that there is no correlation between oil money and theocracies on the grounds that some theocracies are poor is being countered by me on the evidence that Saudi oil money funds the theocratic in poorer countries. I presented an example of one such major us…

    First of all, thanks for the clarification. It does make a difference. This from one who never, ever, makes a typo. Oh, sure!

    My thesis, if there is one, is that the individual circumstances of oil deposits and their geographic placement with respect to the extent and degree of Islamic extremism is too varied to derive a single conclusion. Sweeping generalizations are way too common, and rarely accurate when applied to a specific case. Also, I have real concern that as oil supplies dwindle, conditions will descend towards chaos in many oil producing counties as the last of the cash is grabbed by those in power. This being a circumstance that has historically encouraged the rise of extremism, be it religious or political.

    And, this quote from peteriggs illustrates nicely my point about the “veneer of technology” applied over and used to support and spread medieval superstition.

    Always makes me smile when I see people who seem to want to be stuck in the 7th century with laptops, mobile phones etc.

    Finally, while beating up on Ken Ham is vastly amusing, it is a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel. He does not in the grand scheme of things really worry me. I believe that time, common sense, and cash flow will be his ultimate undoing. But the spread, most recently in Indonesia, of the extreme elements of Islam, especially as one living in the highly secular country to the immediate South, definitely does worry me.

  15. In reply to #37 by joseywales:

    In reply to #28 by Katy Cordeth:

    The religion of peace is eminently worthy of criticism. Such criticism should be logical though

    Yes, of course. But what in Fritz’s post are you objecting to as illogical?

    The words?

    This is an article about Islam, is it not? Are we supposed to chat about Christianity to keep things balanced to your liking?

    If a user insists that of all the world’s religions Islam is sui generis, I think any argument which takes issue with such a point of view might by necessity be required to mention some of the other ones.

    Point the first: I have never supported Islam

    This much is true. I have seen numerous posts from you in threads about Christian insanity saying “but what about Islam!?!”, so clearly you spread the criticisms evenly…oh wait, sorry, I think I confused you with someone else, my bad, I’ve never such posts.

    Your beef with me is that I’m not consistent? Fair enough, I hold my hands up. I have actually heard some people on this site say that because certain Muslim nations discriminate against Christians and prohibit the building of churches, Christian countries such as America, Great Britain, Australia and so on shouldn’t allow mosques to be erected.

    The people who said this were atheists. As my pal Alanfordiscussion would say, “Gazzoiiiinggg!!!!!” Cultural or not, it seems for some atheists their Christianity runs pretty deep.

    • In reply to #40 by Katy Cordeth:

      Yes, of course. But what in Fritz’s post are you objecting to as illogical?

      The words?

      No shit, Sherlock. I’ll be sure to use that delay tactic whenever I’m caught trolling again.

      Your beef with me is that I’m not consistent? Fair enough, I hold my hands up. I have actually heard some people on this site…

      I don’t care about what you heard from someone in some article somewhere. Glad to hear you own up to your own inconsistency. The End must be near.

      • In reply to #45 by joseywales:

        In reply to #40 by Katy Cordeth:

        Yes, of course. But what in Fritz’s post are you objecting to as illogical?

        The words?

        No shit, Sherlock. I’ll be sure to use that delay tactic whenever I’m caught trolling again.

        Your beef with me is that I’m not consistent? Fair enough, I hold my hands up. I ha…

        It was more of a dismissal than a delay tactic, josey. I already explained what it was about Fritz’s post that I found illogical. It was right after the bit of my own comment that you quoted from. Here it is again for the benefit of you or anyone with a short attention span:

        The religion of peace is eminently worthy of criticism. Such criticism should be logical though. The notion that Islam is separate and distinct from the world’s other religions and deserves to be treated as a special case doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

        I then go on to say why I think it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

  16. In reply to #38 by Sheepdog:

    In reply to #35 by phil rimmer:

    I have real concern that as oil supplies dwindle, conditions will descend towards chaos in many oil producing counties as the last of the cash is grabbed by those in power.

    I understand the concern, and that would be the standard model, BUT it is the richest nation Saudi Arabia that can afford to export its religious conservatism, supplying money for troops and propaganda.

    Saudi will continue to be rich through the tail of declining oil supplies. It is now investing hugely in solar power to free up its increasingly valuable oil supplies. The flow of cash in will not subside.

    They have the cash to make these investments happen and they have the real estate. European investment in a super grid around the Mediterranean will allow their sale of solar power in future through Egypt and possibly via a link at Al Qurrayat

    he Minister of Petroleum, Ali Al-Naimi, said: “Saudi Arabia aspires to export as much solar energy in the future as it exports oil now.”

    The dependency of regional neighbours on them allows access to more investment potential here and don’t forget the crucial mineral wealth of places like Afghanistan. Saudi appear to be investing their extraordinary wealth wisely. They have every chance of remaining rich beyond oil.

  17. In reply to #44 by phil rimmer:

    In reply to #38 by Sheepdog:
    In reply to #35 by phil rimmer:

    I understand the concern, and that would be the standard model,…

    It seems that we are really arguing the same point. Mine was that generalizations are dangerous, and yours is a case study of one oil producer, Saudi Arabia. I think we are in general agreement. Were we to dissect the situation in Nigeria, or Brunei, or Alberta, the conclusion would differ.

    I am presently very close to the emerging “elephant” field under the Caspian Sea, by virtue of supervising the construction of ships that will work the rigs there. I have also had similar experience in the Western Arctic. In each case, differing economics, differing technologies and in the end, differing conclusions.

    I would also suggest, that in an economic environment that is to come in my lifetime (just) when the end of oil is a looming shadow, instead of a blip on the horizon, the standard model becomes less and less valid. The large zinc deposits in Afghanistan (your example) become less valuable in an economy that has less oil, and therefore less use for many minerals.

    In evaluating the oil reserves, it must be realized that much of the reserve is difficult or impossible to get out of the ground. This particularly includes the Albertan tar sands, and the Beaufort Sea, where no oil has been produced, (production may commence in 2019) despite huge finds. The Albertan tar sand oil is being extracted only by the consumption of the even more enormous gas field that underlies the rocky shale.

    In the late ’70′s, the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil could produce 111 barrels. The numbers now are something like one barrel of oil producing 20 barrels, and for the Alberta tar sands, 5 barrels. As supplies dwindle, and more oil field production peaks, these ratios will get worse, not better.

    The world economy has no experience of a life without oil, and I doubt the validity of anything presently existing as a standard model.

  18. So: no promotion of non-islamic religion. Well yes, that is the sharia mainstream view.

    Just the latest bit of sharia-enforcement in one of the modern, westernised moderate muslim countries.

    Just a straw in the wind.

    Note, though the coming phases 2 and 3 that will bring the full sharia, with the stonings and beheadings.

    Not a very tolerant set of laws, this sharia, whatever minor variations creep into it. In fact, if fully applied it must be the most militantly aggressively intolerant system of law since the ‘Thuggee Cult’, or the ‘Oggg Statutes’ of the Grunt Tribe of 27,041 BC.

    So, seriously, why not at this point take pause and consider the situation in all its reality; not as we would wish it to be. A major religion, which, with 1400 years history of conquest is primarily a noxious political system dressed as a religion, though paradoxically, with many millions of good people under its banner, is busily instituting itself as far around the world as it can, under the false flags of peace and harmony, while simultaneously spawning increasing numbers of militant thugs who wish to kill or be killed for allah.

    Why not neutralise this ridiculous threat to civilisation before it gets any stronger? One clear and obvious measure would be to treat islam as an illegal organization in the west, unless it reforms and renounces all the many obscenities of koran and hadith. Only reform Muslims would be allowed equal treatment as other religions. Those old fundie muslims would be subject to loss of privileges and respect. The lesson being: we will not tolerate the intolerant.

    As our old pal Karl Raimund put it so neatly:-

    “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society… then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
    ― Karl Popper

    “As long as western nations are to continue to accept muslim migrants we shall need a new law. To the effect that ‘religious freedom’ shall be a privilege extended only to those whose faiths are fully signed up in word and deed to the mutual and equal recognition of other religious groups.”
    _ Me

    Christians would need to work on that saying of Jesus about the only way to heaven being through him; that could be rewritten or rejected in line with the new mutual freedom ideal.

    Muslims with good intentions would struggle against the old ‘no central authority in Islam’ problem. I think that could be worked around, given some support.

  19. At the genuine risk of being accused of cherry picking, I read pages and pages of comments following the source article. They almost universally express genuine and clearly expressed dissent with respect to the implementation of Syariah law. Points raised included the anticipated “brain drain” and the contravention of the UN charter of rights and freedoms to which Brunei is a signatory.

    Then came this, and from the text of following comments, the writer was not joking, or being sarcastic, or ironic, but was expecting to be taken seriously.

    Face it you people. One race and one religion has to be superior in a country in order for it to advance forward. In Brunei it is to be Malay and Islam. I am happy the government has finally realize that if we are adopt the policies of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, we will become a very powerful nation. But it seems there are more and more traitors emerging in Brunei. Just like Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives, the purge against the Jews, communists and socialists, if the government ever needs us to get rid of the “moderates”, we will be ready, all for a stronger and better Brunei.
    They want to set a specific time to gather at mosques, churches, temples for protest? We will break them up and teach each of them a lesson.

    It is worth reading the comments, it will be interesting to see how it pans out, but by considering the intellect of the supporters of this legislation, and the lack of support of those more rational, I am encouraged to hope it will not get far, although the people of the country may have a fight on their hands.

Leave a Reply