|
If ‘religionists’ can understand this then the world would be a much better place. Malaysia would be a much better place. And those hundreds of millions who were slaughtered over the last 3,500 years in the name of the ‘true religion’ need not have died needlessly. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
If I were to say that a certain very senior military officer told me that………..many -- in particular those from the legal fraternity -- would say that this is hearsay. If I relate something that someone else told me then that is not admissible as ‘evidence’. In court, if I relate what I have been told, this is not strong enough. The person who told me that story has to be subpoenaed to appear in court. He or she would have to personally relate whatever it is he or she told me. My ‘second-hand’ version is not acceptable. And he or she has to be a witness to the event. It has to be what he or she saw, and not what he or she was told by yet another party. If not, this would, again, be hearsay. The same goes for documents. If I adduce a document in court and say this is what was given to me, this too can’t be accepted as evidence. The maker of the document must be subpoenaed to court to testify that he or she is indeed the maker of the document and that it is his or her signature on the document. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had to go to court to testify in a Bank Negara forgery case back in the early 1980s when he first became Prime Minister. Without Dr Mahathir’s testimony that he did not sign that letter and that the letter is, in fact, a forgery, the prosecution would not be able to prove its case and obtain a conviction. Such is the law of evidence. What someone told you does not count. Even if you can support your statement with a document, that too does not count. The source of the information must personally appear in court and take the witness stand and testify that he or she did in fact say that, or prepared that document, or signed that letter, or whatever. That is why in my various criminal cases the government chose to charge me under sections of the law where the burden of proof or evidence is not required. Or they chose to detain me without trial where the issue of evidence need not be argued in court. For example, the government says I lied. Yet they won’t charge me for lying -- like for signing a false declaration. Instead, they charge me for sedition and criminal defamation where the truth of the matter is not material to the charge. Even if I told the truth I am still guilty and can be sent to jail. The government realises that I may have witnesses who are prepared to come to court to testify that they did indeed say what I wrote and that means I did not lie. So, when my lawyers argue about the falsity or truth of what I wrote, the prosecution jumps to its feet and reminds the judge that the court must ignore this argument and just focus on whether I did or did not write what I am alleged to have written (which means I am guilty of a crime) and not whether what I wrote is true or false (because even if it is true I am still guilty). In court, we dabble at great length on the laws or evidence and about what constitutes hearsay and what is admissible and what is not. And you can get sent to jail just because you related what you were told but fail to bring the teller of the story to court to testify that he or she did indeed relate this story to you. If you say something that is a repeat of what someone else told you, and you can’t drag that person to court to back up your story, then you are in deep shit. You will get sent to jail. Now, superimpose that onto religion. You tell me that someone told you what someone else told him or her that yet someone else told him or her about what happened 3,500 years ago -- and this story has been transmitted through 140 generations over 3,500 years before they even had pen and paper to record all this -- and I am expected to believe it. That is 140 generations over 3,500 years. All of them are of course now long dead and gone. So we have no way of confirming this story from eyewitness accounts. And we call it the gospel. Yet when I relate what someone witnessed three years ago and who is still alive and one week ago he told me what he witnesses, that is a lie and I get arrested and charged for this ‘lie’. Religion, for all intents and purposes, is based on hearsay. And it is hearsay because none of those people who lived 3,500 years ago is still alive today. And they never wrote down what they are alleged to have witnessed. It has all been related by word of mouth and passed down through word of mouth over 140 generations. Have the events and stories the witnesses related 140 generations ago been kept intact these 3,500 years or has over time the stories been corrupted? They did an experiment once. They asked ten people to sit in a row and the lecturer whispered a story to the first person. The first person then whispered to the second person, who then whispered to the third person, and so on till the last person. It took only minutes for the story to get transmitted down the line from the first to the tenth person. The tenth person was then asked to relate the story back to the first person and the story the tenth person related was a far departure from what the first person had related. So there you have it. In a mere few minutes, a story told by one person has changed so much by the time it reaches the tenth person sitting in the same room a few feet away. Imagine a story related by 140 generations over 3,500 years halfway around the world. How much of the story remains uncorrupted? So religion can never be about facts. Facts would be when the witness himself told you what he saw. After 140 layers of ‘mouths’ over 3,500 years, facts no longer exist. And by saying ‘facts’ I am using the standards of the law of evidence applicable in a court of law. Anything other than eyewitness accounts is no longer fact but hearsay. So religion, having happened 3,500 years ago, is therefore hearsay and not facts. So we need faith when it comes to religion. We can’t apply facts because facts do not exist. How can facts exist when the storyteller has long since died and his story has been passed down by word of mouth over 140 generations? If you lack faith you will reject all these stories. If you insist on applying the proper laws of evidence you will never believe what they tell you about events that happened 3,500 years ago where no witnesses to the events remain alive today. But we live in a democratic society and if you wish to believe that the moon is made of cheese and that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around earth then that is your choice. You are free to believe what you want to believe. And if you wish to believe that something that is said to have happened 3,500 years ago is true in spite of there not being any witnesses alive today who can confirm these stories then that is also your choice. That is what democracy is all about. However, we have certain people who believe in what happened 3,500 years ago, in spite of the fact they can’t prove it, and then they expect us to also believe this. If we refuse to believe this they will get very upset. They will arrest us. They will kill us. They force us to believe what they believe and will punish us if we do not. And this is why the world is facing a lot of problems today. The 6 billion or so inhabitants of the world hold dear stories about what happened 5,000 years or 3,500 years or 2,000 years or 1,500 years ago. And they label themselves with whatever religion they subscribe to. Many have since been killed off. The majority exterminates the minority so those who follow minority religions have long since become extinct. The majority rules; the minorities got sent to their graves many generations ago. So the religions we follow today are the religions of the victors in the game of wipe out all those who do not believe what we also believe. And we now believe the religion of the victors, not the religions of the vanquished. And this is accepted as the correct and true religions because only these religions still exist while all others have been wiped off the face of this earth. What is truth and what is farce? We don’t know and we don’t really care because we base our beliefs on faith and not on evidence. And our faith is mostly based on what our parents and their parents before them believed in. I have met a Muslim ulama who took me for lunch in McDonalds in Washington. He ordered a beef burger and I had fish. He laughed and said he understands that I am from Malaysia so I am just doing the ‘Malay thing’ by eating fish and not any non-halal meat. But beef, even though not slaughtered by a Muslim, is halal, said this ulama of Arab descent who is very senior in the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). I have met a Muslim ulama who drinks wine. Wine is okay, said the ulama, but not beer, whisky or brandy. And he quoted a verse of the Quran to convince me. I have met Muslims from Morocco who smoke during the fasting month of Ramadhan but will not eat or drink till the sun goes down. I have met Muslims who only accept the Quran but not the Hadith. And I have met Muslims who only accept 500 of the Hadith but not the 7,000 that other Muslims accept. And I have met Muslims who take the Quran from its allegorical meaning and not from its literal meaning. And I have met Muslims who translate the Quran from Aramaic and not Arabic, which they say is the correct language of the Quran. So, even amongst Muslims there are many opinions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Some even say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not exist because all three are actually the same religion and that Abraham’s teachings and not the teachings of Moses, Jesus or Muhammad is the correct religion to follow. Who is right and who is wrong? That is for you to decide. And since it is all based on faith with no evidence -- in the context of the law of evidence acceptable in the justice system that we follow -- then you decide the right and the wrong. But don’t force others to also believe what you believe. Most religions impose their beliefs on others. Since, due to lack of evidence, you can’t prove what is right and what is wrong, you have no business forcing others to also believe what you believe which is all based on faith. If ‘religionists’ can understand this then the world would be a much better place. Malaysia would be a much better place. And those hundreds of millions who were slaughtered over the last 3,500 years in the name of the ‘true religion’ need not have died needlessly. This, the religionists, can’t seem to understand. And this is because they have this high and mighty and righteous attitude where only they are right and all others are wrong. It never occurred to them that maybe they are wrong and the other chap could in fact be right. Or that maybe everyone is wrong because at the end of the day religion is all about unproven stories told 140 generations ago and passed down by word of mouth over 3,500 years with no evidence to support the stories or evidence to prove that the stories had not changed or become corrupted over time. Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2009/10/blog-post_3081.html
 |
The Blogs 
