To all Islamic members of the forum...
-
I have absolutely no intention to insult or insinuate anything negative about Islam whatsoever
Thus having made my stand clear, I was really just wondering if someone might be so kind as to explain why is criticism of the...Mullahs (i hope i used that term correctly) or Islamic preachers such a big taboo in Islam. It seems to me, and im sure my view has been coloured by what i've read, that whenever someone disagrees with what a radical preacher has said, its like signing their own death warrant. The radical preacher then issues a Fatwah (again, i hope this is correct) and his life is over. What about all the other preachers who didnt issue the Fatwah? Dont their views count?
P.S. I cannot stress strongly enough my wish that the posts here (if any
) please be free from religious or racial insults. I sincerely hope the moderators will help me out on this one... Please keep negative thoughts inside you. -
Did you read my post on Page 6 in the Topic: “Malaysia is a RACIST Country” – dated 15 January 2003 12:26a.m. ?
If you did, then you will understand that Religion is created by Humans to help Mankind to cope with its inadequacies and to understand its own existence.
It is a classic case of the Intelligent Class leading the Less Intelligent, and the self-preservation of the Intelligent Class by making it heresy all impertinent behaviors and attitude toward their authority.
It is all Human Behavior sanctified by their self-assumed Holy Position that is held in awe by the Uneducated and Ignorant Class
This behaviour is not characteristic to Islam alone, but also with all other religions that has "a Single Persona" created as its "center of gravity" for the Religion. -
Originally posted by awestruck:
NO INSULT TO ANY RELIGION
[b]I have absolutely no intention to insult or insinuate anything negative about Islam whatsoever
Thus having made my stand clear, I was really just wondering if someone might be so kind as to explain why is criticism of the...Mullahs (i hope i used that term correctly) or Islamic preachers such a big taboo in Islam. It seems to me, and im sure my view has been coloured by what i've read, that whenever someone disagrees with what a radical preacher has said, its like signing their own death warrant. The radical preacher then issues a Fatwah (again, i hope this is correct) and his life is over. What about all the other preachers who didnt issue the Fatwah? Dont their views count?
P.S. I cannot stress strongly enough my wish that the posts here (if any) please be free from religious or racial insults. I sincerely hope the moderators will help me out on this one... Please keep negative thoughts inside you.[/b]
having made MY stand clear, I will give my view. . .
I think this is not just applicable to the Muslims, for example, you don't see the Roman Catholics criticise their Pope or the Buddhists disagreeing much with the monks or Dalai Lama
this is probably due to the fact that religious leaders are generally those who have given up their time, money, energy, for the spiritual benefit and welfare of others and thus are usually the ones who deserve that amount of respect from followers of a religion. . .also, the fact that these are people who have to give up at least part of themselves for the sake of others shows that only those who are compassionate and reasonable enough can become a religious leader and there is generally not much about them per se that merits our criticism. . .
however, perhaps we see more of radical Mullahs than pastors or monks because Islam is more a 'way of life' while christianity and buddhism, among others, are religions per se. . .
my two cents. . .
P. S., I'm not sure exactly how to express this, I read thorugh after i wrote it and it sounds strange, hope you people get the general idea. . . -
Its great to see that some ppl have givin this some thought. The part that I fail to understand is why when ONE mullah issues a fatwah automatically it is considered valid and right. Its not that im against criticism of any religion, i just dont understand how a Mullah can have such a powerful position in the first place. If I remember correctly they even have the power to declare jihads and if you dont agree then for some reason automatically you're a heretic. Shouldnt there be some sort of concensus before such a big decision is made?
Why are they so powerful? -
“Laser51088”, got the drift of your post.
Nice attempt in defining the reverence held by religious faithful towards the leaders of their faith.
In the following paragraphs, I hope to crystallize your understanding, and assist “awestruck” effort to understand the power of the “Mullahs”.
It is not only Islam that require the Muslims to accept Islam in totality, but almost every religion expect their faithful believers to live the religion as it is taught.
The difference between Islam and most other religions is that the law is used to enforce Islamic practices in most Islamic countries and there is little tolerance shown against any Muslim who does not abide any Islamic teachings.
One does not see the use of the Police Force to ensure the citizens visit the Hindu or Buddhist Temples, or the Christian or Catholic Churches; or the enforcement of religious practices being observed on certain days of the religious calendar.
It is the use of the Islamic Code of Law (the Shariah Law) that allows the Islamic Religious Leaders to make themselves unquestionable.
To question these Human Religious Leaders of the Islamic Faith, is tantamount to heresy; and the person, who dare question is labeled a “Disbeliever of the Faith”, deserve to be punished severely.
Such is the primitiveness of the Islamic faith as practiced in the Twenty First Century.
To make matters worse, in almost all religions, the Council of Leaders are chosen not by the masses of common people who follow the various religions.
It is like a “closed membership of the Inner Circle”.
Those who enter the religion on their own free will, get the privilege of selecting from amongst themselves, representatives to the Inner Circle.
It is from this Inner Circle that chooses a single person to be the Leader of the Faith.
The mass followers do not get to make their choice as to who should lead them in the temple or church located in their community, or even their faith.
The common people - (who support the religion with their life, their finance, their commitment) - do not get to voice their choice of the Catholic Pope, the Archbishop of the Anglican Faith, the Bishop of the Methodist Faith, the Chief Monk of the Buddhist faith, the Chief Mullah of the Islamic Faith, the Hindu High Priest, and all of the others Heads of the numerous religions in this world.
This is the paradox of the religious process in the Twenty First Century.
This is the danger of some religion being exposed to the easy effort to hijack the entire religion by an unknown and uneducated person; who can use the pressure of the religion to usurp power from an elected Government.
This is the fear of most secular Governments, especially in Singapore, where someone without education but with a smooth tongue in religious teachings, can move the fervor of the faithful believers to usurp political power – as had happened in Iran.
After more then twenty years in power, the Mullahs in Iran are facing revolts from a generation of young Iranians who have only experienced the harsh and dictatorial life of strict religious observance.
The Conservative Mullahs are no longer popular, and a cry for loosening of the religious grip, and the separation of religion from politics is being clamored by the Younger Iranians.
A full cycle in Life’s experimentation can be seen in Iran – from the benevolent feudalistic rule of the Shah of Iran, to the strict religious rule of the Mullahs, and now a cry for democracy to return with the separation of Religion from Politics in the life of Iranians.
There is great significance in this new direction, and will have repercussion in the entire Muslim world.
This change has already started to affect even Saudi Arabia, where the unquestioned feudal system of the Royal Saudi Family is under going review towards a democratic system of Government.
There may yet be a good future in the Muslim World, which will lead to less radicalism and fundamentalism that can also benefit the entire world community. -
Ahh so its the integration of both religion and law that makes the Mullah so powerful. That explains why one of em can declare people heretical AND declare open war. I too hope one day religious discussion of Islam will be a little more open...
-
..... I'm a PUBLIC ENEMY...Originally posted by Atobe:“Laser51088”, got the drift of your post.
Nice attempt in defining the reverence held by religious faithful towards the leaders of their faith.
In the following paragraphs, I hope to crystallize your understanding, and assist “awestruck” effort to understand the power of the “Mullahs”.
It is not only Islam that require the Muslims to accept Islam in totality, but almost every religion expect their faithful believers to live the religion as it is taught.
The difference between Islam and most other religions is that the law is used to enforce Islamic practices in most Islamic countries and there is little tolerance shown against any Muslim who does not abide any Islamic teachings.
One does not see the use of the Police Force to ensure the citizens visit the Hindu or Buddhist Temples, or the Christian or Catholic Churches; or the enforcement of religious practices being observed on certain days of the religious calendar.
It is the use of the Islamic Code of Law (the Shariah Law) that allows the Islamic Religious Leaders to make themselves unquestionable.
To question these Human Religious Leaders of the Islamic Faith, is tantamount to heresy; and the person, who dare question is labeled a “Disbeliever of the Faith”, deserve to be punished severely.
Such is the primitiveness of the Islamic faith as practiced in the Twenty First Century.
To make matters worse, in almost all religions, the Council of Leaders are chosen not by the masses of common people who follow the various religions.
It is like a “closed membership of the Inner Circle”.
Those who enter the religion on their own free will, get the privilege of selecting from amongst themselves, representatives to the Inner Circle.
It is from this Inner Circle that chooses a single person to be the Leader of the Faith.
The mass followers do not get to make their choice as to who should lead them in the temple or church located in their community, or even their faith.
The common people - (who support the religion with their life, their finance, their commitment) - do not get to voice their choice of the Catholic Pope, the Archbishop of the Anglican Faith, the Bishop of the Methodist Faith, the Chief Monk of the Buddhist faith, the Chief Mullah of the Islamic Faith, the Hindu High Priest, and all of the others Heads of the numerous religions in this world.
This is the paradox of the religious process in the Twenty First Century.
This is the danger of some religion being exposed to the easy effort to hijack the entire religion by an unknown and uneducated person; who can use the pressure of the religion to usurp power from an elected Government.
This is the fear of most secular Governments, especially in Singapore, where someone without education but with a smooth tongue in religious teachings, can move the fervor of the faithful believers to usurp political power – as had happened in Iran.
After more then twenty years in power, the Mullahs in Iran are facing revolts from a generation of young Iranians who have only experienced the harsh and dictatorial life of strict religious observance.
The Conservative Mullahs are no longer popular, and a cry for loosening of the religious grip, and the separation of religion from politics is being clamored by the Younger Iranians.
A full cycle in Life’s experimentation can be seen in Iran – from the benevolent feudalistic rule of the Shah of Iran, to the strict religious rule of the Mullahs, and now a cry for democracy to return with the separation of Religion from Politics in the life of Iranians.
There is great significance in this new direction, and will have repercussion in the entire Muslim world.
This change has already started to affect even Saudi Arabia, where the unquestioned feudal system of the Royal Saudi Family is under going review towards a democratic system of Government.
There may yet be a good future in the Muslim World, which will lead to less radicalism and fundamentalism that can also benefit the entire world community.
-
The following are the source of Islamic ruling:
1. Quran – message from god the highest law in the religion. Nothing can supersede the Quran.
2. Hadith - saying by the Prophet detailing the guidelines provided by Quran.
3. Ijma - a resolution passed by all ulama based on Quran and Hadith.
4. Ijtihad - a decision that may not necessarily be agreed by all ulama after the process of various brainstorming based on Quran and Hadith including a hadith by the Prophet " I leave all of you with two things, as long as you commit to both of them you will not be in any lost, they are Quran and Sunnah (Hadith)". This means if any of the discussion has resulted to various contradicting opinions they are required to go back to the two basic guidelines.
So, nothing from the above shows a ruling or fatwa passed by only one authorized person. Matters must be discussed by appointed qualified people before making any announcement. Unfortunately in some places the people are just too obedient to the leader to the extent that whatever the leader says must be followed (blindly) without considering the above 4 steps. -
whu are muslims here?
-
____________________________________________________Originally posted by kyas:The following are the source of Islamic ruling:
1. Quran – message from god the highest law in the religion. Nothing can supersede the Quran.
2. Hadith - saying by the Prophet detailing the guidelines provided by Quran.
3. Ijma - a resolution passed by all ulama based on Quran and Hadith.
4. Ijtihad - a decision that may not necessarily be agreed by all ulama after the process of various brainstorming based on Quran and Hadith including a hadith by the Prophet " I leave all of you with two things, as long as you commit to both of them you will not be in any lost, they are Quran and Sunnah (Hadith)". This means if any of the discussion has resulted to various contradicting opinions they are required to go back to the two basic guidelines.
So, nothing from the above shows a ruling or fatwa passed by only one authorized person. Matters must be discussed by appointed qualified people before making any announcement. Unfortunately in some places the people are just too obedient to the leader to the extent that whatever the leader says must be followed (blindly) without considering the above 4 steps.
Here again, kyas, it confirms my position that following the Ancient Text and living those text written during its own Ancient Moments, has little relevance in living LIFE in the Twenty First Century.
If one is to use Ancient Morals to guide living one's LIFE in the Twenty First Century, it is laudable.
However, to use the Ancient Rule of Law in punishing a thief by chopping his hand, or prescribing a death sentence on a "dissident to the faith", has no relevance in LIVING Life in this Twenty First Century.
No matter how you want to champion the writing from your venerable and honorable Holy Book, I can only say that one has to be very circumspect in how one INTERPRETE the Ancient Text, and to bring it to relevance for this Day and Age, and beyond the Twenty First Century. -
What do you mean by not relevant? In the twenty first century, there are still people who becomes a thief - relevant isn't it?. Why must we worry if we are not a thief?Originally posted by Atobe:____________________________________________________
Here again, kyas, it confirms my position that following the Ancient Text and living those text written during its own Ancient Moments, has little relevance in living LIFE in the Twenty First Century.
If one is to use Ancient Morals to guide living one's LIFE in the Twenty First Century, it is laudable.
However, to use the Ancient Rule of Law in punishing a thief by chopping his hand, or prescribing a death sentence on a "dissident to the faith", has no relevance in LIVING Life in this Twenty First Century.
No matter how you want to champion the writing from your venerable and honorable Holy Book, I can only say that one has to be very circumspect in how one INTERPRETE the Ancient Text, and to bring it to relevance for this Day and Age, and beyond the Twenty First Century.
Which case are you referring to when you say "prescribing a death sentence on a dissident to the faith". -
__________________________________________________Originally posted by kyas:What do you mean by not relevant? In the twenty first century, there are still people who becomes a thief - relevant isn't it?. Why must we worry if we are not a thief?
Which case are you referring to when you say "prescribing a death sentence on a dissident to the faith".
There are better and more humane ways to reform a thief than to chop his hand or hands off as a forewarning to anyone else thinking of committing the same.
In a poor backward society, where life is a misery to eke out a living to survive, thieves will thrive, do we go about chopping all the hands of everyone.
We will end up having a 'No Hands" society, and will bring some of the infamous "No Hands" Restaurants into a more respectable way of life.
If we were to follow the Ancient Text in guiding our moral values, then we will have to submit all adulterers to death by stoning.
What other barbaric punishments does your Ancient Text prescribe for all the major and minor crimes, or immoral acts ?
Are these barbaric punishments relevant to this world of the Twentieth Century that we have lived through, and now entering into the Twenty First Century ?
We should be more intelligent and circumspect when reading, interpreting and applying from the Ancient Text of the Holy Book, that was written by Ancient Authors to record their Way of Life in THEIR moment in Ancient Time in HISTORY. -
I cannot agree with your stand tat if u decide not to be a thief, then giving a sentence, however tough is okie... I just give a simple scenario... wat if u r innocent, u never commit any wrong but some freak of nature make u seems tat u r guilty ? Shouldn't there be given a second chance ?
-
Sorry to sidetrack a bit
please carry on clearing about your doubts in Muslim while I post something trivial, something about Bible and Quran, for u all to read...
1. Adam and Eve is the first 2, and only 2 human during tat time right ?
2. We all r their decendents right ?
3. Why is there so many different races in the world now ? There r chinese, indians caucasians etc... and they themselves have unique chracteristics physically. An Indian couple can nevr give birth to a chinese
So come to this conclucion, either
Adam story and Darwin evolution r both right, we really r decendents of them. but due to time, we all evolve differently into the races we see today
Or
Both story r wrong. Human does not start with 2 human, but a group of people each belonging to different races
I am sad tat no one appreciate his work
I guess most likely because of religion thingy as if Darwin is correct, then human is not created by God but evolved from apes, which prove one of the biggest condtradiction from the sources
PS: I have read about the alternativescience website and my views r below... -
About the website I was told to go www,alternativescience.com I read it and wanted to give my views about it
First, he attacked mostly on models of Darwin Evo Theorem, not the theorem itself. All the things he said, which I don't really take the toruble to study, is all about models derived from the Theorem. It is like tis. I use Newton first law to explain some behavior and use it to predict its behavior. HOWever I turned out to be wrong as experiment proves otherwise. This only mean tat I am wrong, and not Newton tat invent the law. My answer to evidence is MOdel to theorem while Newton law is the theorem. The writer only selectively choose weak models to attack and not on solid evidence. There r so many things showing he is wrong. WHy there r ao many different species of animals ? Does they suddenly pop out, all species unaltered by God or they r due to slow evo from a single cell. There r many species of dog, terrier, husky, bulldog etc... I believe they r from the same root before broadening to the many species today. Or is the writer trying to suggest tat something just creates the 100++ species and they r all not from the same root, ex from wolf etc.
Second about his reproduction theorem about left handed or red heads, I think he does not understand the term "fitness" and play cheat by using model on human, which r already affected by society and belief rather than nature. When u reproduce, u already prove u r "fit" in a certain way. I use an illustration to explain better. Female stags, during mating season will choose male stag only after they had fought a duel with the rival. She will choose the winner, which will turn out to be the stronger and fitter. The loser, or weaker ones thus will have lesser chances to reproduce. SO does peacocks, who choose mates with brighter feathers or crickets who make the sound the longest and loudest and flowers where brighter flowers get higher chances of attracting bees thus higher chances of reproducing. There r tons of example in nature where the fittest get more chances to reproduce. Using all human example is WRONG as people are affected things like cost of raising a child and painful childbirth etc. Anyway we too, use Darwin to explain why girls like to choose guys tat r more handsome, more richer and more witty and why guys choose girls tat r more beautiful. Tis is due to fittest survive too. Sad to say, those really ugly and really incapable to earn a living people will get a lower chance to reproduce. Wat determine fitness one might ask. Aspect tat will give u a higher chance to survive in an environment is fitness.
lastly, the method used in the writing is misleading. He seems to be more like writing a pursuasive essay tat plays with ones mind the belief tat if u do not belive him, u r stupid. This tends to make one think for rather than against to his claims.
Anyway, biologist use darwin like a muslim use quran. It is establish fact. The writer is some scientist tat try to attract attention and got condemned by fellow scientist. However I am not saying tat Darwin is 100% correct. There is a need to change a bit here and there and manage to use it to let us seek the ultimate truth. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:About the website I was told to go www,alternativescience.com I read it and wanted to give my views about it
First, he attacked mostly on models of Darwin Evo Theorem, not the theorem itself. All the things he said, which I don't really take the toruble to study, is all about models derived from the Theorem. It is like tis. I use Newton first law to explain some behavior and use it to predict its behavior. HOWever I turned out to be wrong as experiment proves otherwise. This only mean tat I am wrong, and not Newton tat invent the law. My answer to evidence is MOdel to theorem while Newton law is the theorem. The writer only selectively choose weak models to attack and not on solid evidence. There r so many things showing he is wrong. WHy there r ao many different species of animals ? Does they suddenly pop out, all species unaltered by God or they r due to slow evo from a single cell. There r many species of dog, terrier, husky, bulldog etc... I believe they r from the same root before broadening to the many species today. Or is the writer trying to suggest tat something just creates the 100++ species and they r all not from the same root, ex from wolf etc.
Second about his reproduction theorem about left handed or red heads, I think he does not understand the term "fitness" and play cheat by using model on human, which r already affected by society and belief rather than nature. When u reproduce, u already prove u r "fit" in a certain way. I use an illustration to explain better. Female stags, during mating season will choose male stag only after they had fought a duel with the rival. She will choose the winner, which will turn out to be the stronger and fitter. The loser, or weaker ones thus will have lesser chances to reproduce. SO does peacocks, who choose mates with brighter feathers or crickets who make the sound the longest and loudest and flowers where brighter flowers get higher chances of attracting bees thus higher chances of reproducing. There r tons of example in nature where the fittest get more chances to reproduce. Using all human example is WRONG as people are affected things like cost of raising a child and painful childbirth etc. Anyway we too, use Darwin to explain why girls like to choose guys tat r more handsome, more richer and more witty and why guys choose girls tat r more beautiful. Tis is due to fittest survive too. Sad to say, those really ugly and really incapable to earn a living people will get a lower chance to reproduce. Wat determine fitness one might ask. Aspect tat will give u a higher chance to survive in an environment is fitness.
lastly, the method used in the writing is misleading. He seems to be more like writing a pursuasive essay tat plays with ones mind the belief tat if u do not belive him, u r stupid. This tends to make one think for rather than against to his claims.
Anyway, biologist use darwin like a muslim use quran. It is establish fact. The writer is some scientist tat try to attract attention and got condemned by fellow scientist. However I am not saying tat Darwin is 100% correct. There is a need to change a bit here and there and manage to use it to let us seek the ultimate truth.
Relax lah brother.... Brother... What TIME issit... 
" -
Brudders, what nonsense are you talking about races, go ask antropologists how many races there are, there is only one, the Human races. All other races do not exist on a biological basis, they are simply traits that have become prominent because a group of people have been isolated.
-
Biological differences among races do not exist, WU research shows
By Tony Fitzpatrick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race doesn't matter.
In fact, it doesn't even exist in humans.
While that may sound like the idealistic decree of a minister or rabbi, it's actually the conclusion of an evolutionary and population biologist at Washington University.
Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right type of qualitative variation -- it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.
Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, there is no such thing as race.
"Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," Templeton said. "Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity."
Templeton used the same strategy to try to identify race in human populations that evolutionary and population biologists use for non-human species, from salamanders to chimpanzees. He treated human populations as if they were non-human populations.
"I'm not saying these results don't recognize genetic differences among human populations," he cautioned. "There are differences, but they don't define historical lineages that have persisted for a long time."
Templeton's paper, "Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective," is published in the fall 1998 issue of the American Anthropologist, an issue almost exclusively devoted to race. The new editor-in-chief of the American Anthropologist is Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology in Arts and Sciences.
"The folk concept of race in America is so ingrained as being biologically based and scientific that it is difficult to make people see otherwise," said Sussman, a biological anthropologist. "We live on the one-drop racial division --if you have one drop of black or Native American blood, you are considered black or Native American, but that doesn't cover one's physical characteristics.
"Templeton's paper," Sussman continued, "shows that if we were forced to divide people into groups using biological traits, we'd be in real trouble. Simple divisions are next to impossible to make scientifically, yet we have developed simplistic ways of dividing people socially."
Single lineage
Templeton analyzed genetic data from mitochondrial DNA, a form inherited only from the maternal side; Y chromosome DNA, paternally inherited DNA; and nuclear DNA, inherited from both sexes. His results showed that 85 percent of genetic variation in the human DNA was due to individual variation. A mere 15 percent could be traced to what could be interpreted as "racial" differences.
"The 15 percent is well below the threshold that is used to recognize race in other species," Templeton said. "In many other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even recognized as races. Humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of. There's lots of genetic variation in humanity, but it's basically at the individual level. The between-population variation is very, very minor."
Among Templeton's conclusions: There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. Yet, sub-Saharan Africans and Melanesians share dark skin, hair texture and cranial-facial features, traits commonly used to classify people into races. According to Templeton, this example shows that "racial traits" are grossly incompatible with overall genetic differences between human populations.
"The pattern of overall genetic differences instead tells us that genetic lineages rapidly spread out to all of humanity, indicating that human populations have always had a degree of genetic contact with one another, and thus historically don't show any distinct evolutionary lineages within humanity," Templeton said. "Rather, all of humanity is a single long-term evolutionary lineage." -
I love your reply !!! It just show another example tat evolution is so true
Cheers to Evolution !!! -
Remember one thing through, science can tell you how it happens, but now why it happens. Lest you get too arrogant and filled up with headly knowledge that you fail to realize that science does not give you meaning, it only gives you reason.
As of such, despite considering myself a person of science, I find basing a worldview entirely on science a way of folly and would eventually end in a desolate, bleak picture of things once the arguments fade away and we've realized how needless a pursit we have wasted our time on. Science is good, but it's far from all. If you tried to base your entire life's meaning on evolution... That's a really sad case...
On the matter of race. It has no biological implications whatsover. And discrimiating against groups of people via "race" is as ridiculus as treating people of different heights and weights differently. Of course, this destroys any illusion that any certain "race" should have special rights (sons of the soil up north). I believe in equal opportunity, but not in skewing the status guo to disinfranchise any group, be it majority or minority. -
I think u really get me wrong..I never say anything about superior race or problems with race etc... I only trying to say because there is different race, tat increase the believability of evo and discredit source... I never say tat some r superior race or some r inferior race yah...
Anyway I just find tat in life, there is nothing more spectacular as wat religion describe
Especially death... one die one just rot away... no such thing as heaven or hell...
Science only say how it happened etc...it never explain why this have to happened... I guess I believe why does one think tat there must have a reason why things happened tat way... Can't think happened because of nature of things and not some heaven intervention... -
In that case might as well commit sucide now... why not? Or go around killing people for fun... Why should we bother to live as the civillized people we are if we are nothing more then bipedial primates with opposable thumbs.
The foolishness of man is that he assumes all that he knows is all that there is. -
This law actually acts more as a deterent for such crime. Currently there are countries implementing such rules e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan. Do you see many people there walking around without hands?
This rule is actually enforced provided that the victim do not forgive the accused. So if the amount is not material or the act was done due to poverty without reasonable doubts there are still possibility that the defendant will be forgiven.
It is not so easy to chop people's hands. It is actually the last option. The case must of course without reasonable doubts. There are process of justice that has to be undergone so as to avoid the innocent from be wrongly punished. Do you think that It is easy to find 4 credible witnesses? -
I don't understand... why does one have to deteriote into uncivilised or crazy people just because we do not believe in any religion ? If tat is the case.then China should be finished as most people r still without a religion. Why will I wanna commit sucide because I believe in science ? WHy will I wanna kill people ?? I don't get your argument
Why does people with no religion have to go berserk ? -
Putting everything aside, lets wish our muslim friends a happi holiday too.
