“Confusion” over Islam?
Yesterday, I was alerted by a reader to this post written by an obscure local blogger using the moniker “tilia”. Entitled “Confused”, this blogger had questioned some teachings of Islam with regard to the position of women in Islam, as well as some of its dietry laws.
After reading the contents of this post, I have decided to take it upon myself to respond to the allegations. As I understand it, “tilia” is an avowed atheist currently taking the subject of world religions. Ironic, actually, since this blogger is himself involved in the study of comparative religions and there are not many in Malaysia who would do that. Perhaps it was by the will of God Almighty that this blogger had chanced upon this post, which otherwise would have been impossible.
We shall dissect the claims made and answer them accordingly, insha’allah.
The poster “tilia” begins with the following claim:
Why doesnt religion keep up with the times?
Dont you feel that a lot of the practices that are carried out nowadays are somewhat, irrelevant?
On what criteria does “tilia” judge that a religion “does not keep up with the times”? Imposing her own standards upon a culture or religion and claiming that her values are superior is simply moral chauvinism, for what its worth. “Tilia” is free to make her choice and simply choose not to follow any religion. But to simply assert that all religions are “worthless” to her simply because she “thinks” that they are “outdated” is bigotry, pure and simple. This is further compounded when we read further on and realise that she is specifically targeting Islam as the main topic of her emotional outburst. I dare not give it credit by even calling it “criticism”.
On women’s rights, “tilia” says:
Syariah law for instance, is extremely outdated. They are also terrible at protecting women’s rights. Now, from what I understand, Islam actually did help women to gain more rights when compared to the rights they had when the people were practising polytheistic religions.
First she says that the Shari’ah (”tilia” should be forcibly reminded that Shari’ah is not just simply limited to “women’s rights”) is “extremely outdated” and “terrible at protecting women’s rights”. In the next sentence, she contradicts herself by the admission that Islam “did help women gain more rights” compared to the times of the pagan mushrikoon of Makkah.
Very well and good. Perhaps this link will help her further.
But then she says, to my utter confoundation:
“But why has the law not been changed. Not been updated. I mean, if the good prophet, was in his own right, a women’s activist, then why are they not modifying the law to FURTHER protect women?”
Has “tilia” ever heard of the saying “why reinvent the wheel”? She stated that Islam came to protect women’s rights and even admitted clearly that the rights of women are better protected under Islam than the times of the pagans of Makkah. What kind of “further rights” does she demand of Islam to “further protect” the women in Islam? Discard the hijab and allow them to wear skimpy dresses a la the belly-button dancers? Or does she want them to lead men in prayers, as the liberal Islam movement had attempted to do? Had she even made any suggestion on what kind of “laws” she wants enacted for the women in Islam?
Certainly she has not. All she can do is whine and criticise about how “unfair” Islam is to women when she has not experienced any of it herself. She is an outsider, propounding an outsider’s view, and that, when compounded with an atheist tendency, can become an explosive mix of myopia and Islamophobia. Believe me, I have seen it.
But of course, there is not all to it. She starts down on the path of ridicule with regard to the divorce proceedings in Islam.
Why keep the ridiculous law of, “Ok, I, the man of the house, feel like divorcing you now. So, I shall say I divorce you 3 times and BYE BYE!…Actually, kinda lazy to say itla..so…..I SHALL SMS IT INSTEAD!!!!”
Because, my dear “tilia”, the allowance for divorce is contained within the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) himself. The Qur’anic verse which speaks of divorce is as follows:
“Divorce is two times, then retain with kindness or gracious release” (Qur’an, 2:229)
Divorce must always be a last resort, as the Prophet (P) himself said:
“No permissible thing is more detested by God than divorce”
And divorce is not as easy as “I divorce you 3 times and BYE BYE!”. There are conditional expessions that effect divorce (see entry n.40, “The Reliance of the Traveller”, p. 561 for a whole list of these conditions). The husband can either pronounce the talaaq (divorce ritual) once (which means that if the couple reconciles, taking back of the wife or raj’a (”rujuk”) can be initiated) or if he pronounced the talaaq “3 times”, the marriage is deemed null and void without any chance of reconciliation. It is certainly much complicated than that, but this is is the simplest way of explaining it. After the talaaq, the ex-husband must remain keeping her maintenance and the welfare of his ex-wife and their children (if any) in order until she remarries. It is mind-boggling to see someone accusing this arrangement as being “ridiculous”. Only the most ignorant and insane of humans would dare suggest such a preposterous thing!
As for the petty polemic of the talaaq by SMS, this is a ruling which the contemporary scholars have said it is permissible, but it is highly discouraged. In Malaysia, the current regulations in place are sufficient to curb an abuse of SMS divorce proceedings. We cannot help it if “tilia” is envious that her Muslim women counterparts are easily divorced without going through the messy, long-winding proceedings in a court of law that non-Muslims sometimes must face.
Moving along to the issue of polygamy, a hot topic amongst non-Muslims who have an axe to grind against Islam:
Another example. The whole reason why Muslim people can marry 4 wives, is because the original intent was to give widows who lost their husbands in war, financial security. Also, it was taboo for a woman not to be married, and you know they cant work etc, etc. But why keep the same law in place now?
It is funny how “tilia” thinks she can outsmart God by second-guessing the reasons for why Islam allows polygamous marriages, i.e. comments such as “because the original intent was to give widows who lost their husbands in war, financial security”. Now how would she know that this was the “original” intent? We are not saying that her stated reasons are incorrect. But why limit oneself to these “reasons”? Don’t we already know (and this is attested to by latest demographic studies) that the women population in the world are increasingly growing and outnumbering men? How will these unfortunate women who cannot marry because there are not enough men around be able to fulfil their desires and get married if men are only allowed a 1:1 ratio of marriage?
And there ARE still wars in the world today and there ARE still menfolk who die because of these wars and leave their women and children homeless. So I guess the current world events are not totally outdated yet, eh?
With so many women’s support groups, education being available to both sexes, women being able to work. Doesnt the logic behind a man marrying several wives sort of..dissapear?
In response to this allegation, we shall quote a verse from the Qur’an:
“Men are the maintainers of women because Allâh has made some of them to excel others and because they spend of their wealth (for the support of women).” (Qur’ân, 4:34)
This guardianship and greater financial responsibility is given to men, requires that they provide women with not only monetary support but also physical protection and kind and respectful treatment.Hence, no matter whether there are so-called “support groups” or even if the women are able to work and earn their living, it does not detract the man from fulfilling this obligation. We hope that with this answer, we have duly responded to “the reasoning behind keeping all these laws in place”.
And now, the shift goes to the dietry laws in Islam:
…the whole purpose of coming up with the slit across the throat method of slaughter was to reduce the amount of pain that the animal would have to go through.
Again, I find it funny that “tilia” thinks she has the reason for every law in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Again, I must stress that what she said could only be A reason, it is not possible for it to be THE reason. And for “tilia’s” information, the reason we slaughter animals to make it halaal for it to be consumed is because of the following Qur’anic verse:
“And for every nation We have appointed religious ceremonies, that they may mention the Name of Allaah over the beast of cattle that He has given them for food. And your God is One God, so you must submit to Him Alone (in Islam)…†(Qur’an, 22:34)
However, “tilia” still see it fit to complain as follows:
But that doesnt make sense again. With today’s technology, there’s more than one way to kill a cow. And the newer ways are faster, more efficient and more merciful to the animal. Not even stunning the animal before killing it and thus rendering it unconscious is allowed.
Again, this kind of kiddy-logic is quite baffling to me. Anyway, “tilia” needs to be informed that the proper way of slaughtering a cow is not by electrocuting it or ramming it with an oil tanker or suffocating the poor animal to death, but to take a sharp object and ensure that the large blood vessels in the animal’s neck is cut ((the windpipe and gullet) in one stroke and that blood flows from it. And it must be done quickly and as painlessly as possible [see entry (j17.5), “Reliance of the Traveller”, p. 365]. If the animal dies before both the windpipe and gullet could be cut at once, or if only one is cut, the sacrifice is invalid and Muslims cannot consume the meat of that animal. Hence this is in accordance to what has been ordained in the Noble Qur’an, and that this is the proper method of slaughter and no other.
We move on to the issue of pork:
Another question I always ask a lot of Muslims is why they cannot eat pork. And they always tell me, “Oh, because its dirty.” But why is it dirty? I dont know. And they also dont know. So I never get my answer. So, being the major nerd that I am, I go to research it on Wikipedia.
It saids that Muslim people cannot eat omnivores or carnivores and seeing as how pigs are omnivores, they are a no no.
So what if its a vegetarian pig? Many pigs on pig farms are actually given wheat etc and only protein powder as supplements so technically they dont eat meat. So is that ok? What if they just eat tofu? Then how?
Some scientist did some toxicology test and said that its possible that pork is considered unclean because there WAS a significant relationship between cirrohosis and pork consumption
Pigs are considered unclean and a carrier of a host of pork-related viruses such as J.E., the Nipah varient of J.E. and even SARS is pig-related, which are harmful to humans and is sometimes even fatal. This is a scientifically-proven fact, and one must not just rely on Wikipedia to substantiate this evidence. No matter how sanitary the conditions of a pig farm is, pigs are still a carrier of a variety of diseases. Would one agree that Islam is indeed far ahead of its time to ban the consumption of pork, considering what we know today about pig-related diseases?
But only with olden day slaughter techniques etc. Which means pork is ok to eat today.
“Tilia” has only made an assertion, she has not provided us with evidence. We challenge her to prove that modern pig-related diseases such as SARS and J.E. are because of these so-called “olden day slaughter techniques”, and why has “modern day techniques” fail to curb or stop newer and deadlier pig-related diseases from rising? See this for example. Please check out this link too, for example.
So why pork still not halal?
The following Qur’anic verse is why pork is not considered halaal:
“He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an, 16:115)
In the Old Testament, swine are also considered unclean and are forbidden to the Children of Israel to consume:
“And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.” (Deuteronomy 14:8)
Hence the forbiddence of pork is nothing new. The Semitic religions are unanimous in considering pigs to be filthy and the consumption of pork forbidden.
Also, a few religions do not allow the use of condoms and other forms of contraception.
We will not comment on this matter as Islam has no provision disallowing the use of condoms and other forms of contraception. Only the Catholic church have issued a catechism disallowing the use of contraceptions.
In conclusion, we say that “tilia” has not, with special reference to Islam, proven her case at all. All she has done is to complain and curse and rant about how “ridiculous” she thinks they are without showing any concrete evidence why they are ridiculous, how she thinks the laws need to be “updated” when she had not suggested any form of “updating”, and second-guessing the reason behind the ruling for the dietry laws of Islam, when its source is simply this.
All this just makes no sense to me. Humans are supposed to evolve and change with time. Beliefs, practices, ways of doing things, are supposed to change as science progresses. Why do we ignore reason simply to stick to a text written more than a thousand years ago?
She can believe her own dictum if she wants, but she must be reminded that SHE HAS NO RIGHT to enforce her perceptions on us Muslims, who believe in the Oneness (tawheed) of God Almighty, and His Revelation which is the Noble Qur’an, sent down upon our liegelord Muhammad (PBUH), expounded by his Companions and the tabi’un after them. Hence, I end this by quoting from a hadith of the Prophet (PBUH), during his last speech on his “farewell pilgrimage” in `Arafah, where he said the following:
“I leave you two things behind, whereby if you hold steadfast by it you will never be lost forever, [These two things are] the Qur’an and my Sunnah.”
And only God knows best!
I think that both of you are biased.
Comment by H4RRY — September 17, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
Firstly, I’m not a guy. Secondly, you spelt my name wrong and tilia is my real name. Thirdly, you are very funny and I must say that you made me laugh a lot today. Fourthly, why cant I ask questions on my own private online journal? Unlike your website, my website is very obviously for my own personal thoughts and feelings and I’m not trying to push any propoganda on to anyone.
Do you honestly think that your calling me ridiculous etc will make me more receptive to your preaching? Had you put it in a nicer way, I would genuinely have been interested to find out more about your religion and your standpoint.
Also, your “mission statement” is very offensive.
You amuse me greatly.
Comment by tilia — September 17, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
Yeah, I know that you are a “she”. So? I have stated your gender correctly throughout the rebuttal. What is your point?
Typo error, sorry.
Gee, I didn’t realise that I was cracking a joke. You think attacking a world religion is a “joke”?
I promised someone that I will respond to your allegations and I have done so. I am simply defending my religion from your biased and distorted attacks on Islam, so if you think you have a right to “criticise” any religion (including Islam), then I too have a right to defend any attacks against my religion (i.e. Islam).
Actually, what I find amusing is that you think you have a right to expound your views about my religion and at the same time, try to deny my right to defend MY religion from your views.
Amusing, indeed.
- MENJ
Comment by menj — September 17, 2005 @ 3:00 pm
No, I think that your viewpoint on women’s rights is a joke.
No, I didnt say that you cant defend your religion. But in your post you said many times I’m “enforcing” my perceptions on to other people.
I’m not.
Comment by tilia — September 17, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
You are invited to rebutt “my viewpoint” if you think I am in error on your blog. There is of course the “danger” that I will be responding to whatever “response” you can muster to the rebuttal.
- MENJ
Comment by menj — September 17, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
JOM MAKAN BAH KUT TEH!
Comment by Liem Peh MCA — September 17, 2005 @ 3:42 pm
My dear Tilia
U think? So which part?
Hmmm “I think” become ur weapon. So typical.
P/s I think Tillia have done no reasearch at all when blogging , all straight from heart.
Any great post menj , may Allah bless u.
Comment by anti_aktivis — September 17, 2005 @ 9:37 pm
[…] Too philosophical ? It’s just a prelude to a series of jokes by he whose mind stopped thousand years ago. So, don’t take it too serious when you are asked to live as if you are still in the era of !Kung Bushman, and be careful not to fall from your chair. […]
Pingback by Ada apa dengan ShinShin ? :: Keep Religions Up-to-date :: September :: 2005 — September 17, 2005 @ 9:52 pm
tilia, before making those statements, isn’t it better if you look up more info regarding this religion? how about asking a professional? You know religion, race, national or some sort is a serious issue to some and any misuse of words can be critical.
You’re saying about your ‘own private journal’ and yet the whole internet world are able to read your ‘private journal’. Your ‘private journal’ has offended many. Using the ‘private journal’ as an excuse is kinda lame since u’re using a free blog hosting service. If you really have any private post you want to put on the net, use a service which has a password protected post feature.
I agree with one of the commenter which says about you having no research at all before making a post. Seems like you’re really naive and immature although you’re only a year younger than me. Thing and laws that made you confused all have their explaination. It’s all a matter of research. They all have a reason why and not just to keep updated with this dirty world. There are many around that can answer your ‘confused’ questions, if only you’ve asked the right person.
Comment by hisyam — September 17, 2005 @ 10:46 pm
” . . . but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head - it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have hair cut off or be shaved, she should wear a veil. For man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.” (I Corinthians 11:5-9)
The above quotation is not from any Islamic source, but from (St.) Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians …
HELLO, Encik PAUL IS NOTHING BUT A SALESMAN, a human being just like you. So his word is just omong omong.
BTW, why are Muslim quoting Bible? Koran is incomplete?
Comment by Aboo — September 18, 2005 @ 12:32 am
I WANT TO GIVE MY TWO-CENTS’ WORTH ON MENJ’S DESCRIPTION; “WAGING JIHAD BY SPEAKING MY MIND”.
eh ppl… the word “ISLAM” itself actually means PEACE, rite? so try to promote peace and harmony by NOT “waging JIHAD” any further la… can ah?
i mean, try to uphold the image and give the right picture of ISLAM by saying things in an appropriate manner la… As you all know, we are now in the era of WAR ON TERROR. so obviously ppl will be shocked to see words like JIHAD which unfortunately, is somehow synonym to TERRORISM today. seriously, you cannot blame us for dat. you can only blame those selfish whores who took thousands of innocent lives with them in the 9/11 tragedy.
as if it is not bad enuff, the 2002 Bali bombing, the Australian embassy in Jakarta, and the latest in London subway. ALL IN THE NAME OF RELIGION, OR SIMPLY… JIHAD (no offense).
No doubt, actually there are more meaningful explainations to JIHAD than just WAGING WAR literally. But those retarded SELFISH suicide bombers or mujahideen (or is it muhajideen?) are the ones who gave ISLAM a bad name.
In other words, “JIHAD” is a very very sensitive word in today’s world. and it doesn’t help much by giving ppl the impression of another possible “terrorism” occuring via cyberspace, on the pretext of defending one’s beliefs.
So if you dont want ppl to misunderstand you for being another potential suicide bomber, try to go with the flow. it doesnt hurt NOT to become so defensive.
Comment by Liem Peh MCA — September 18, 2005 @ 1:16 am
Hilarious 5 minutes of reading. Can’t stop laughing. Oh ya, are you a feminist?
Comment by Meditator — September 18, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
BTW, why are Muslim quoting Bible? Koran is incomplete?
Al-Quran is complete that is why it does not need to be updated. Unlike the Chirstian Bible which has alot of version. Old testament? New testament? Why ? Incomplete?
Comment by hisyam — September 18, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
Hisyam, you are also assuming things when it comes to the Christian bible. We Christians can easily refute you as not respecting our religion and we should ask you to carefully research first before saying such things.
You are contradicting yourself, asking Tilia to look things up when YOU made allegations that the Christian bible is imconplete and has different versions. For YOUR information, the Old Testament was written BEFORE the birth of Christ, and the New Testament AFTER the birth of Christ. Sure, there are also different versions like NIV and KJM, but that’s just to put the bible in words that can be more easily understood to the average person and it does not mean that the Christian bible is incomplete.
Get your facts right, and you better do what you preach and research before saying anything.
Comment by Cynthia — September 18, 2005 @ 10:41 pm
I’m not going to criticise any religion but just to point out:
Diseases are as likely to spread through pigs or boars as they are through avians or mammals we usually eat. The safest bet is still plant-based foodstuff. Note that once you feel something is bad, their weaknesses are more pronounced in our perception.
Comment by minority — September 19, 2005 @ 12:20 am
Menj, you said:
Actually the figure is about a 1% difference and so this hardly justifies this arguement. However your next point clarifies it:
I could never understand why Muslims keep killing each other but now you explained it. Most Muslim men in the world are killed in conflicts by fellow Muslims - for example Iraqi insurgents, Dafur etc.
All examples I’ve seen of Sharia law have appalling consequences for women. Why was it that by far the strongest opponents to Sharia law being introduced in Canada were Muslim women themselves. The same goes for France with the banning of the Hijab in public schools. Maybe for a moment put yourself in the place of women.
Comment by Barbie — September 19, 2005 @ 12:43 am
re: previous quote I meant to say - “Most Muslim men killed in conflicts, are killed by fellow Muslims”
And I’d also like to add that the Muslim’s inablility to take criticism and self-reflect but rather to defend the indefensible can explain why honour killings are so common. And isn’t apostacy a death sentence in Islam?
Comment by Barbie — September 19, 2005 @ 12:52 am
Hey, lets not fight la….lets all talk this over a meal of bak kut teh or a few beers.
Comment by Meditator — September 19, 2005 @ 10:44 am
I would like to see SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE that justifies your claim that “the figure is about a 1% difference”. Sweeping statements does not prove your case at all.
As for your thinly-veiled attack on Islam, most of the civillians killed which involve Muslims are not neccessarily Muslim to Muslim conflicts. How convienient of you to neglect mention of Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya….and the fact you had to resort to secular-based nations who impose restrictions on hijab does not even prove anything. What the fuck does Canada and France have to do with implementation of Shari’ah? They are not even Muslim-majority nations in the first place.
- MENJ
Comment by menj — September 19, 2005 @ 10:45 am
Oi, everyone calmmm down….don’t fight, don’t fight….I take you all to Klang to enjoy the Bak Kut Teh.
Comment by Meditator — September 19, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
[…] While some have been taking things too far by questioning Islam and its practices (refutation to such bizzare arguments), I stumbled accross this article which explains Human Rights according to the perspective of Islam. Unlike the interpretation of secularists, the concept of human rights does not mean that one should be accorded to do whatever he/she pleases at any time of his/her choosing. There are guidelines to be followed and where Islam is concerned, there are two: the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Hence questions, whinings and complaints that “Islam’s teachings are outdated” is simply bogus and betrays the intention of the speaker as one who is ignorant. […]
Pingback by MENJ’s Critical Thoughts » Human rights and Islam — September 19, 2005 @ 5:24 pm
KURANG ASAM… CAKAP JE ISLAM NI UGAMA YANG AMAN, KAT SINI PUN KECOH MACAM BABI KENA SEMBELIH DEKAT KANDANG.
Comment by Liem Peh MCA — September 19, 2005 @ 9:44 pm
Sure..even though you claimed it without stating facts.. Well looks like I was wrong, there are even more males then females. As for ‘Palestine’..Jordan killed more Palestinians in one week than have been killed in the entire Israel/Palestinian conflict. Palestinians killed by Israel since 1948 - less than 10,000 and most were militants. This is in stark contrast to the millions of Muslims killed by fellow Muslims in the same period. Yet the Muslim world turns a blind eye to this because of their self-destructive hatred of infidels. Now go and read a some real facts and start to ask yourself why your religious leaders lie to you. Could it be because it makes it easier then to convince people to fight a Jihad?
Comment by Barbie — September 19, 2005 @ 11:01 pm
I provided links but they aren’t working.
I’ll try again:
Comment by Barbie — September 19, 2005 @ 11:05 pm
Because they are democracies and it seems when Muslim women do get a voice, they don’t want Shariah. That’s what it has to do with it.
Comment by Barbie — September 19, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
You use the word “jihad” too loosely. Spreading Jihad through your views? Think that word is a joke? If you use it sooo loosely, I can too. I feel horny. Damn…my dick needs to fight a battle. Let me go to the bathroom to Jihad. Oooo…..assignments due tomorrow? Jihad tonight. See? Anyone can wage Jihad.
Comment by UhhhhUhhhh — September 21, 2005 @ 1:07 am
And you don’t have to explain to me what Jihad really means. I don’t care. All I know is that speaking your mind on some blog is far from Jihad.
Comment by UhhhhUhhhh — September 21, 2005 @ 1:10 am
Holy crap, I cant stand this bullshit. U guys just screwing each other up like everbody is blowing ppl up nowadays. I just got so pissed reading the blog. Every major war since the dawn of mankind has been bout religion namely christian and islam and its gonna be that damn way until u guys, pull ur head out of ur asses and take a look around. Stop being so sensitive nad learn to accept each other’s religion. just bcos tilia was pondering on religion, you guys must pounce on her like gonna rape her. Niamah, if u all so holier than thou than just ignore or explain properly. Now u just gone and incited other ppl’s hatred. U r suppose to be promoting islam peacefully not putting down other religions. Racial conflict can be pretty evident back home in malaysia, but we dun go make it public, with the exception of retard opposition parties. We non-muslims acknowledge and respect Islam as the national language (though Parameswara wasnt a muslim), so why dun u guys do the same for us non muslims. I do love my country, n it took my coming to australia to realise how much i miss it n love, I mean where else can u get bak kut teh at 7 in the morn. SO do realise that malaysia doesnt run on one race alone, it takes all races to keep it going strong. Until u bums realise these facts, u guys will never crawl out of your deep dark hole u buried ur self in. Btw bak kut teh on me when i get back
Comment by Robert Plant — September 21, 2005 @ 1:54 am
Oh ya this shit by minority about being vegetarian n disease spreading more likely thru meat. Wat a load of bullshit. U know how many thousand kinds of pesticides, herbicides exist these days. How many kids have died from eating veggies wit the wrong pesticide sprayed on it. Dun give me that crap, I studied bioethics n am a vet student, yet i still advocate meat, of course veggies are important, but it cant provide all the necessay proteins that meat can give. I know so many vegetarians suffering from border line anemia n that shit. If u wanna be vegetarian, then shut the fuck up n keep ur principles to ur damn self, we have a right to choose wat we wanna eat, dun cram just veggies down our throat, add some meat too. Btw did u also know that lack of proteins contribute to slow n poor brain development……
Comment by Robert Plant — September 21, 2005 @ 2:02 am
Okay, okay, thats enough. On behalf of my extremist diciples, I apologize.
Comment by PAS leader — September 21, 2005 @ 2:02 am
I thought that when i received my Lord’s orders to start a new belief, it would end up peaceful and full of harmony. Alas little did i realize how many retards we have. On behalf of the Great One, I apologize for the actions of these retards. I only wished for a better world, where we all acknowledge God in our own way. Tsk tsk tsk
Comment by Lostprophet — September 21, 2005 @ 2:07 am
Deleted. Why don’t you shove a TNT up your own @r$e?
- MENJ
Comment by KKK — September 21, 2005 @ 4:20 pm
BAH KUT TEH MERAPATKAN SILATURAHIM ANTARA KAUM CINA & INDIA. HIDUP CHINDIA!
Comment by Liem Peh MCA — September 21, 2005 @ 9:17 pm