Tel Aviv, Israel (5:00 P.M. GMT) – Chief spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel, Mark Regev, questioned the existence of reality in a press conference with media outlets today.

A handy flowchart do help you figure out this whole Israel-Gaza situation.

A logical appraisal of some of Israeli spokespeople’s most used talking points in justifying their attack on Gaza and the Palestinian people.

As I have argued before, the singular, decisive proposition that draws the proverbial line in the sand distinguishing traditional Islamic theological conceptions of Adam from modern evolution is whether or not the first human being had biological origins. Traditional Islamic thought says the first human being, Adam, was a special, miraculous creation of God, having no parents. Modern science says that it is impossible — theoretically, empirically, historically, etc., — that the first human being was not born of (non-human) parents.

So, what is really at stake with the claim that 1400 years of scholarship — involving hundreds of millions of teachers and students — was fundamentally mistaken about a critical component of theology, while the true, correct understanding could only fully be known through the “illumination” of the past 40-50 years of modern science? What kind of impact would there be to the collective Muslim psyche if it were accepted that 40 years of science trumps 1400 years of Islamic intellectual effort? In fact, what would this mean for the very notion of tradition itself? An epistemological coup d’état of this magnitude would no less than eviscerate the tradition-centric, transmission-based Muslim ethos at large. Unfortunately, this coup is well underway.

The conflict of conscience: religious freedom vs. free speech in the Black Mass event at Harvard. Critiques of liberalism and the nation-state.

Comparing and contrasting Islamic intellectual discourse with the western empirical sciences. Does critiquing the latter undercut the former? Here is part of an edited conversation I had on this topic, where I make a first attempt at distinguishing Islamic and scientific/naturalistic intellectual discourse and their respective rational-normative projects.

What kind of scientific evidence could override the apparent meaning of the text, i.e., Quran and hadith. This is a foundational question that virtually no one has addressed because the scholars who are qualified enough to originate principles of tafsir of this nature are typically not authoritative in the sciences and vice versa.

In the past 15 years, the gay rights movement has made significant headway in transforming the public’s posture toward homosexuality in the West. This has put immense pressure on Western Muslim leadership due to the dual realities of 1) sharia’s stance on gay sex and 2) Muslim minority status in Europe and North America. How can Muslim leaders — as representatives of one beleaguered minority group striving for public acceptance — maintain an anti-gay stance which opposes the interests of another beleaguered minority group striving for public acceptance?

The majority of us are progressivists. We view ourselves and the present age as the latest and greatest. Are we justified in believing this progressivism?