Conspiracies: Denialism or Scepticism?

[Hugo]

This is a thread about avoiding the truth by a process of denial justified by wandering off into conspiracy theories. I hope we can discuss this because it has religious implications and implications for how we see the world, especially those parts of it we might not like or conversely that we love and how that disposes us to the truth. Here is something from New Scientist 15 May 2010.

HEARD the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money. Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.

This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines-and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial.

The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases -diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work. Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.

This is not necessarily malicious, or even explicitly anti-science. Indeed, the alternative explanations are usually portrayed as scientific. Nor is it willfully dishonest. It only requires people to think the way most people do: in terms of anecdote, emotion and cognitive short cuts. Denialist explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control.

I will post some further comments but its easy to see we can all become denialist, if Islam or Christianity is TRUE why do so many ignore it? Why does a Muslim or a Christian believe everything in Islam or Christianity is true?

So do you treat your own religion with absolute faith but deep scepticism about everyone else's, if so is this a reasonable position to take and where will it lead?

What do you think?

[Hugo]

Marcelo Gleiser wrote a book called "A Tear at the Edge of creation: a radical new vision for life in an imperfect universe" and it is pertinent to this thread. Gleiser says that for centuries scientists have been searching for a single theory of the universe that reveals an elegantly simple order behind the apparent complexity of the natural world. This is a misguided mission, argues physicist and former "Unifier" Marcelo Gleiser of Dartmouth College. It is the messiness of the universe—not the beautiful symmetries—that holds the key to its origins. For example, Kepler's unified model of the cosmos proposed that the arrangement of the six planets then known could be understood as a tidy series of nested spheres and polyhedra.

How could someone so wrong be so utterly convinced of being right? We have much to learn from Kepler's mistake. In hindsight, it's easy for us to ridicule his creation. After all, there aren't six planets, but eight. If he could have seen them with the naked eye, he would never have proposed his model, and his career would have taken a different turn. Kepler's blindness was his blessing. He constructed a model of the world with the data he had available. At any given time, including ours, this is the best that anyone can do.

What we can measure will always limit our view of reality. Kepler's mistake was to give his vision of reality a finality it didn't deserve. Glimpsing at the hidden code of Nature proved so cathartic that he was bewitched and took his belief for the truth. Kepler's mistake was to forget that a final theory is impossible because we will never know all of reality. Then and now, any science that is tainted with blind belief will lead us astray.

So extending this can we be sure that the Bible or the Qu'ran or any other scripture be in any sense final, that God, if we believe at all in him has nothing more to to say or do we delude ourself as Kepler did because we let blind belief get in the way of facts as they emerge so we end up creating a conspiracy theory that amounts to saying 'only I have the truth' and any data that contradicts that must be false?

[جوري]

This is a thread about avoiding the truth by a process of denial justified by wandering off into conspiracy theories. I hope we can discuss this because it has religious implications and implications for how we see the world, especially those parts of it we might not like or conversely that we love and how that disposes us to the truth. Here is something from New Scientist 15 May 2010.

HEARD the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money. Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.

Heard that Health workers including doctors were protesting against the swine flu vaccine?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...andatory_N.htm

and the 'conspiracy theory' wasn't merely of money but far more sinister and I won't share it for our purposes here.
thousands didn't die of the swine flu' in fact, if you have received that regular yearly flu vaccine it would have been sufficient to cover you for some component of the 'swine flu' since thousands indeed died from the 'regular flu'

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/28/regular.flu/

There had been no confirmed deaths in the United States related to swine flu as of Tuesday afternoon. But another virus had killed thousands of people since January and is expected to keep killing hundreds of people every week for the rest of the year.

This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines-and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial.

That is just the thing, can a lay-man such as your person distinguish between a solid body of evidence and make believe?
I have demonstrated above that you fallaciously claimed 'the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering' so if you can't distinguish between what truly has the making of a pandemic and what is science fiction by what right do you have to rally people against or for 'evolution' or 'global warming' etc.?
There is a reason people dedicate a life-time in pursuit of science, and if the things were as clear cut as you make them out to be, there wouldn't be so many differing views coming out of the scientific community itself!

The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases -diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work. Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.

The problem is when you lump sum everything and paint it as an absolute and give yourself the liberty to discuss it in a very superficial level as if an expert are you not only likely to reach the wrong conclusion and disseminate it, but in fact see scientists, doctors and 'technical experts' as alien and arrogant. Nobody perhaps outside of a forum and even then will keep arguing repeatedly for or against something where another doesn't have all the facts and is adamant about a particular outcome to support personal views. In fact at least on behalf of doctors, they are much more humbled than all that.. Truly little knowledge is more dangerous than total ignorance!

all the best

[Hugo]

That is just the thing, can a lay-man such as your person distinguish between a solid body of evidence and make believe? I have demonstrated above that you fallaciously claimed 'the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering' so if you can't distinguish between what truly has the making of a pandemic and what is science fiction by what right do you have to rally people against or for 'evolution' or 'global warming' etc.? There is a reason people dedicate a life-time in pursuit of science, and if the things were as clear cut as you make them out to be, there wouldn't be so many differing views coming out of the scientific community itself!

I am not quite sure what this post does but citing USA today and CNN is hardly choosing sites which one can rely on for unbiased scientific data and analysis so all you seem to have done is demonstrate your own propensity to go along with conspiracy theories. If you can demonstrate that the NS report is false do so and it is unwise to suppose that an internationally respect science magazine such as this would print lies. Why not visit the New Scientist web site and there you will find a large number of flu studies.

I am not 'rallying' any one against anything other than asking them to consider the issues, to show a little scepticism and get data from respectable scientific sources not CNN or some odd web site they may have found. Then they can draw their own conclusions.

The problem is when you lump sum everything and paint it as an absolute and give yourself the liberty to discuss it in a very superficial level as if an expert are you not only likely to reach the wrong conclusion and disseminate it, but in fact see scientists, doctors and 'technical experts' as alien and arrogant. Nobody perhaps outside of a forum and even then will keep arguing repeatedly for or against something where another doesn't have all the facts and is adamant about a particular outcome to support personal views. In fact at least on behalf of doctors, they are much more humbled than all that.. Truly little knowledge is more dangerous than total ignorance!

This is a little incoherent and I am note sure if this is a statement of support for the basic premise of this thread that we must honestly examine the evidence and that evidence must come from accredited sources. The issues in many way is that here you seem to be advocating leaving it all to the experts but that would simply create a wedge and in any case no one is expert at everything. The whole point of this thread is to discuss denialism and how easy it is to be draw into a conspiracy web where truth become what our cabal believes.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hugo]

You may find this interesting on the theme of this thread and it has been copied from New Scientist 15th May 2010. Interested to hear what you think or perhaps you have examples? The point about this list is that we all need to be aware of these essentially dishonest tactics and not get taken in by them and instead vigorously oppose them, indeed if you look though this board or others you may spot some of these tactics being used, it will not be easy to see them unless you are on your guard and are prepared to find out the truth. Be aware to that we all have a tendency to lean towards things we want to be true and might sweep under the carpet out doubts but that is a destructive and disreputable route so don't take it.

May Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use. "I'm not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings," he says (The European journal of Public Health, vol 19, p2).

1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion ratherthan the accumulation of evidence.

2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a façade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.

3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.

4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.

5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.

6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.

[جوري]

You may find this interesting on the theme of this thread and it has been copied from New Scientist 15th May 2010. Interested to hear what you think or perhaps you have examples? The point about this list is that we all need to be aware of these essentially dishonest tactics and not get taken in by them and instead vigorously oppose them, indeed if you look though this board or others you may spot some of these tactics being used, it will not be easy to see them unless you are on your guard and are prepared to find out the truth. Be aware to that we all have a tendency to lean towards things we want to be true and might sweep under the carpet out doubts but that is a destructive and disreputable route so don't take it.

It is indeed difficult to be objective, and I can appreciate that it is more difficult for some more than others, you yourself admitted in a not so distant thread that you can be emotive while being rational.
Problem with objectivity is it has to have some solid base in the subject matter and not a mere secondary or tertiary opinion based on some article.
Thousands of scientific articles are pushed forward each year, how do you sort through them and know which is a current 'fad' and which has solid results with data based evidence if all you have to rely on is your 'wit' 'someone's article' or 'popular opinion'?

May Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use. "I'm not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings," he says (The European journal of Public Health, vol 19, p2).

How does this relate to the topic?

1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion ratherthan the accumulation of evidence.

2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a façade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.

3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.

5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.

6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.

Indeed this happens often.. in fact more often than people think..
you can have ten clinical trials on a particular (for the purposes of this thread) a drug, with nine failures and one quasi impressive data, that research will be the one that is highlighted, celebrated, pushed on to the masses with absolute no mention of similar trials that have failed..
we have many types of biases in research and need to be properly identified, lead time bias, length time bias, selection bias etc. etc.
One thing I do appreciate at least is that even with all of this, it is still an art very much regulated to curb on the amount of errors and if you really wanted to, you can have a look at all the research on the matter, not the case with non FDA approved trials, private companies, and the general opinion of the masses.
Now it is also important to distinguish between data based evidence and theoretical science. Theoretically for instance a 'beta blocker' is probably the worse thing you can give someone in congestive heart failure because they exhibit negative inotropic effects and such a theory floated around and the use of beta blockers was contraindicated in the treatment of CHF, largely because heart failure was viewed primarily as a hemodynamic disorder. positive inotropic drugs produced only symptomatic relief but had no mortality benefits.. well it when experimentation with beta blockers that proved long-term use of these agents can improve left ventricular function, decreased left ventricular filling pressures and a reduced need for heart transplantation and demonstrated reductions in overall mortality.

we could have simply pushed out popular belief which is theoretically very scientifically sound, but that is because we were only looking at one side of the picture.

Science is ever changing and ever correcting, nothing is etched in stone, what we do today may probably seem like quackery to folks 600 years from now but at least with data based evidence we can justify our beliefs.. not so with 'theories' conspiracy form or otherwise and it is important to be have some basic knowledge of epidemiology/ statistics and types of research trials before adhering to one belief or another.. science really shouldn't be about beliefs regardless!

all the best

[aamirsaab]

It is the nature of human beings to inquire and question. We are never satisfied save for a brief moment.

Paradoxical but beautifuly remarkable all the same; the thirst for knowledge and understanding that always leaves us wanting more.

[Hugo]

It is indeed difficult to be objective, and I can appreciate that it is more difficult for some more than others, you yourself admitted in a not so distant thread that you can be emotive while being rational.

I think if you read my post you will find that emotions are tied up with making judgements and not rationality as such.

Problem with objectivity is it has to have some solid base in the subject matter and not a mere secondary or tertiary opinion based on some article. Thousands of scientific articles are pushed forward each year, how do you sort through them and know which is a current 'fad' and which has solid results with data based evidence if all you have to rely on is your 'wit' 'someone's article' or 'popular opinion'?

Firstly, one does this by keeping up to date in ones own field , secondly relying on respected Journals and lastly we look for sound theory so that experiments can be repeated to confirm earlier results. In practice this means NOT just looking at data/results as they can be faked but also looking at methods and protocols used because if these are bad or unsuitable the results may well be worthless.

There are sadly many (far too many) well documented cases of scientific fraud where results have been 'improved' or negative results discarded and this is a scandal but these cases have almost always been uncovered by the scientific community itself. There are perhaps two books that are worth reading if you want to gain some insight on this.

"On Fact and Fraud" by David Goodstein, Princeton ISBN 978-0-691-139661 and "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre, Hraper-Collins, ISBN 978-0-00-728487-0

Now it is also important to distinguish between data based evidence and theoretical science. We could have simply pushed out popular belief which is theoretically very scientifically sound, but that is because we were only looking at one side of the picture. Science is ever changing and ever correcting, nothing is etched in stone, what we do today may probably seem like quackery to folks 600 years from now but at least with data based evidence we can justify our beliefs.. not so with 'theories' conspiracy form or otherwise and it is important to be have some basic knowledge of epidemiology/ statistics and types of research trials before adhering to one belief or another.. science really shouldn't be about beliefs regardless!

This is not quite sound although I see your point. The way science progresses is by theory, theory that can be shown to be correct. The point is that a theory tells us what data to collect and this allows us to validate or otherwise the theory. If the theory can be validated by solid data evidence then we can make predictions and be certain of the outcome. So always in science there is a phase when one so to speak stumbles around seeking for a theory and that theory tells you what data to collect if its to be verified.

Einstein had a theory of relativity and although the kind of data to validate the theory was known, no one knew how to collect it and indeed it was to be another 11 years before that happened. In contrast with the illness of depression there is no consensus of what causes it, no theory. There have been several goes at it but none so far have been shown to be correct but that does not stop the drug companies pushing out all sorts of drugs to treat an illness with no known cause. This is where it gets hard and it is easy to see how drug companies might want to massage the data.

[جوري]

I think if you read my post you will find that emotions are tied up with making judgements and not rationality as such.
find your post again for me then!

Firstly, one does this by keeping up to date in ones own field , secondly relying on respected Journals and lastly we look for sound theory so that experiments can be repeated to confirm earlier results. In practice this means NOT just looking at data/results as they can be faked but also looking at methods and protocols used because if these are bad or unsuitable the results may well be worthless.

That sounds reasonable .. very few people in real life actually do so by nature of profession, scientists makeup only 1% of the population!

There are sadly many (far too many) well documented cases of scientific fraud where results have been 'improved' or negative results discarded and this is a scandal but these cases have almost always been uncovered by the scientific community itself. There are perhaps two books that are worth reading if you want to gain some insight on this.

"On Fact and Fraud" by David Goodstein, Princeton ISBN 978-0-691-139661 and "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre, Hraper-Collins, ISBN 978-0-00-728487-0

agreed!

This is not quite sound although I see your point. The way science progresses is by theory, theory that can be shown to be correct. The point is that a theory tells us what data to collect and this allows us to validate or otherwise the theory. If the theory can be validated by solid data evidence then we can make predictions and be certain of the outcome. So always in science there is a phase when one so to speak stumbles around seeking for a theory and that theory tells you what data to collect if its to be verified.

Indeed having a theory is getting half way there!

Einstein had a theory of relativity and although the kind of data to validate the theory was known, no one knew how to collect it and indeed it was to be another 11 years before that happened. In contrast with the illness of depression there is no consensus of what causes it, no theory. There have been several goes at it but none so far have been shown to be correct but that does not stop the drug companies pushing out all sorts of drugs to treat an illness with no known cause. This is where it gets hard and it is easy to see how drug companies might want to massage the data.

True!

all the best!

[Pygoscelis]

I dont see what swine flu has anything to do with religion? Unless you're talking about those obscure sects that are against modern medicine?

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

This is a thread about avoiding the truth by a process of denial justified by wandering off into conspiracy theories. I hope we can discuss this because it has religious implications and implications for how we see the world, especially those parts of it we might not like or conversely that we love and how that disposes us to the truth. Here is something from New Scientist 15 May 2010.

HEARD the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money. Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.

This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines-and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial.

The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases -diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work. Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.

This is not necessarily malicious, or even explicitly anti-science. Indeed, the alternative explanations are usually portrayed as scientific. Nor is it willfully dishonest. It only requires people to think the way most people do: in terms of anecdote, emotion and cognitive short cuts. Denialist explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control.

I will post some further comments but its easy to see we can all become denialist, if Islam or Christianity is TRUE why do so many ignore it? Why does a Muslim or a Christian believe everything in Islam or Christianity is true?

So do you treat your own religion with absolute faith but deep scepticism about everyone else's, if so is this a reasonable position to take and where will it lead?

What do you think?

Conspiracy theory is silly. The people who come up with them are secular - they understand that there is something in the world that they are not taking into account - but instead of going to the simple straightforward understanding that any rational human being would accept - and that is that it is Allah doing everything and that we do not really have the ability to understand how things are working - we just need guidance.

[Hugo]

I dont see what swine flu has anything to do with religion? Unless you're talking about those obscure sects that are against modern medicine?

Most of us think that everything is to do with religion? But in this thread swine flu is just used as an example of where a conspiracy theory arose about big Pharma making money even when the scientific evidence was clear. This is not just about science but almost any aspect of life including religion. The point being that none of us are immune and unless we carefully look at what is presented to us we can be taken in - the moment you start to think YOU cannot be duped is the moment you are.

As an example, consider, if you are a Muslim and you find a Muslim sponsored web site then you are disposed to believe what it says. Similarly, if I say find a Christian web site I also am likely to trust it. Indeed, unless we are thoughtful we are likely to be taken in by anything that sounds like it supports our own views so for example, if you lean towards believing 9/11 was a government conspiracy it is more than likely you will put unfounded trust in anything that props up that view. But can you not see how unsafe that is, that you or I can be taken in, hence we must always be a little sceptical.

[Hugo]

Conspiracy theory is silly. The people who come up with them are secular - they understand that there is something in the world that they are not taking into account - but instead of going to the simple straightforward understanding that any rational human being would accept - and that is that it is Allah doing everything and that we do not really have the ability to understand how things are working - we just need guidance.

Interesting, since here you have invented a conspiracy theory all by yourself - "Conspiracy theory is silly. The people who come up with them are secular".

[جوري]

Most of us think that everything is to do with religion? But in this thread swine flu is just used as an example of where a conspiracy theory arose about big Pharma making money even when the scientific evidence was clear. This is not just about science but almost any aspect of life including religion. The point being that none of us are immune and unless we carefully look at what is presented to us we can be taken in - the moment you start to think YOU cannot be duped is the moment you are.

As an example, consider, if you are a Muslim and you find a Muslim sponsored web site then you are disposed to believe what it says. Similarly, if I say find a Christian web site I also am likely to trust it. Indeed, unless we are thoughtful we are likely to be taken in by anything that sounds like it supports our own views so for example, if you lean towards believing 9/11 was a government conspiracy it is more than likely you will put unfounded trust in anything that props up that view. But can you not see how unsafe that is, that you or I can be taken in, hence we must always be a little sceptical.

You constantly contradict yourself, and I am not sure you are aware of that? A conspiracy is ''A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act'' by its very nature it is an occult/cabal affair of which is hidden from most.. you are purposefully putting your head in the sand for an argumentum ad populum and even a child knows that a proposition isn't true simply because the majority of people believe it! or you simply use the terms to deflect away from some very painful questions which will require some thought from your end and it appears to me that you are not the sort of fellow who enjoys pioneering even if it be at a particular price!

all the best

[Hugo]

You constantly contradict yourself, and I am not sure you are aware of that? A conspiracy is ''A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act'' by its very nature it is an occult/cabal affair of which is hidden from most.. you are purposefully putting your head in the sand for an argumentum ad populum and even a child knows that a proposition isn't true simply because the majority of people believe it! or you simply use the terms to deflect away from some very painful questions which will require some thought from your end and it appears to me that you are not the sort of fellow who enjoys pioneering even if it be at a particular price!

I think you are completely missing the point. A conspiracy theory arises when people want to believe something, or when someone want a group to believe what they say. Ad populum is just one way that such a theory gets spread and so in effect they stick their heads in the sand and refuse to countenance and contrary evidence and instead starts to believe "everybody knows...".

Here it is sufficient to use Wikipeadia which has I think a very good summary or look at Jon Lewis's book "Cover-ups" (ISBN 9781845 296087) where he describes 100 conspiracies some true and some manufactured. But here we are speaking of 'conspiracy theories'; which are usually understood to mean according to Mintz "belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history which serves the needs of diverse political and social groups. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology".

The list of conspiracy theories covers clandestine government plans, elaborate murder plots, suppression of secret technology and knowledge, and other supposed schemes behind certain political, cultural, and historical events. While a conspiracy is defined by law as an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act, a conspiracy theory attempts to attribute the ultimate cause of an event (usually major political, social, historical, or cultural events), chain of events, or the concealment of causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plan by a group of people or organizations.

In the UK only this week an example occurred where Andrew Wakefield was struck of the medical practitioner register because he linked autism and the MMR vaccine causing widespread panic as almost every one believed him yet his methods and data were both later shown to be seriously flawed and although it is 10 years since the publication he has been totally unable to validate his results and his findings have never been replicated. One has to remember here that his original paper was nevertheless published in the Lancet although subsequently it was withdrawn.

I have no idea at all what you are talking about when you say I am deflecting away questions in this thread and I cannot think what it is you are trying to say here that is relevant to what is being discussed?

[جوري]

I think you are completely missing the point. A conspiracy theory arises when people want to believe something, or when someone want a group to believe what they say. Ad populum is just one way that such a theory gets spread and so in effect they stick their heads in the sand and refuse to countenance and contrary evidence and instead starts to believe "everybody knows...".

I am not missing the point at all, rather you pick things that are in fact quite controversial with no clear elucidation and that is precisely why there is an entire air of suspicion surrounding them and label them under 'conspiracy theory'. If that is your take, you should in fact apply that around the entire of christianity for it's filled to the brim on hearsay, 'dreams' and events that taking place only because a group of believe want to believe it!

Here it is sufficient to use Wikipeadia which has I think a very good summary or look at Jon Lewis's book "Cover-ups" (ISBN 9781845 296087) where he describes 100 conspiracies some true and some manufactured. But here we are speaking of 'conspiracy theories'; which are usually understood to mean according to Mintz "belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history which serves the needs of diverse political and social groups. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology".

I can't imagine what needs are served when requesting a bit more openness and information about things that affect ones life, livelihood and well-being in lieu of creating a frenzy and mass hysteria in fact I'll use your swine flu as an example here, not only did it not wreak the havoc predicted (and which you have erroneously assumed as causing thousands of death) but in fact and as usual thousands of people died of the regular flu than of the swine flu. requesting a bit more investigation and disseminating the correct information is a must when you are asking folks to put something in their body which was created almost overnight to meet with a need that never existed!

In the UK only this week an example occurred where Andrew Wakefield was struck of the medical practitioner register because he linked autism and the MMR vaccine causing widespread panic as almost every one believed him yet his methods and data were both later shown to be seriously flawed and although it is 10 years since the publication he has been totally unable to validate his results and his findings have never been replicated. One has to remember here that his original paper was nevertheless published in the Lancet although subsequently it was withdrawn.

Yes I have read about that, he isn't alone in is pursuits, many brilliant doctors like Dr. John Martin with his work on stealth viruses came back and bit him in the behind in a major way, because he couldn't replicate the results he alleged in his labs. He is in fact a brilliant doctor, we don't know why he is unable to replicate his results on stealth viruses and unfortunately once someone is stereotyped as a menace it is very difficult for them to regain their old status.. be that as it may, two isolated incidents although not as black and white as all that shouldn't be a sort of one size fits all for anyone who does any sort of investigative work on the side and have be labeled as conspiracy.. in fact if you take a look at history you'd find that many so called 'conspiracy theories' proved true with time.. Dr. Addison who ended up committing suicide had describe the changes in skin pigmentation typical of what is now called Addison's disease with his colleagues at the time mocking him for no one can draw the relation between adrenal insufficiency and hyperpigmentation, and similarly dr. Ignaz Semmelweis research on the link between washing hands before surgery and its effects on mortality which to us seems so rudimentary was rejected as and I quote: '' improbable, shabbily researched and poorly argued''

bottom line is your subscription to something as sound and scientific or else a 'conspiracy theory' with your brand of absolution doesn't in fact speak for science, scientists or researchers, it speaks for what is popular and that is the is the very definition of stultification of progress and improper investigation!

I have no idea at all what you are talking about when you say I am deflecting away questions in this thread and I cannot think what it is you are trying to say here that is relevant to what is being discussed?

see my very last reply!

all the best

[Woodrow]

Very interesting thread. I anticipate there will be differences of opinion expressed. Before we go too far let us all remember to agree to disagree without malice, give sources for what we quote and state what is our own opinion.

Just my opinion. Astagfirullah

[Pygoscelis]

Most of us think that everything is to do with religion? But in this thread swine flu is just used as an example of where a conspiracy theory arose about big Pharma making money even when the scientific evidence was clear. This is not just about science but almost any aspect of life including religion. The point being that none of us are immune and unless we carefully look at what is presented to us we can be taken in - the moment you start to think YOU cannot be duped is the moment you are.

As an example, consider, if you are a Muslim and you find a Muslim sponsored web site then you are disposed to believe what it says. Similarly, if I say find a Christian web site I also am likely to trust it. Indeed, unless we are thoughtful we are likely to be taken in by anything that sounds like it supports our own views so for example, if you lean towards believing 9/11 was a government conspiracy it is more than likely you will put unfounded trust in anything that props up that view. But can you not see how unsafe that is, that you or I can be taken in, hence we must always be a little sceptical.

Seems like a round-about shot at the concept of faith, which is the cornerstone of most religions. That is the only connection I see. Take something on authority, believe it because you want it to be true or its what your culture has always believed, etc.

[Pygoscelis]

I think the word "conspiracy" may lead folks away from your inteded meaning. Conspiracies are not necesarily delusions. Real conspiracies DO exist and happen with alarming frequency.

People do have an alarming tendency to believe things against all the evidence tho (or in extreme lack thereof), which I think is what you are getting at. Like that Barack Obama is a secret muslim plotting to destory the USA (I kid you not, I hear that one a lot and have given up trying to defend it) or that "there are no atheists in foxholes" (despite the rather lengthy list of atheist soldiers, even from the wars in which there were actual fox holes), etc. Sometimes people need to beleive something so bad that they will not look for contradictory evidence and suffer confirmation bias. Other times people just need to beleive something so bad that they shut their eyes tight and conjure up delusion. And of course there are the various reasoning traps people may fall into (ad populum, confusing causation with correlation, argument from authority, etc)

But then again, some really crazy sounding theories MAY be true. We shouldn't dismiss them out of hand, but instead apply proper scientific thought to them where possible. Don't believe for no good rational reason, but don't believe it can't be so either. Aliens could be out there, for example, and not just reached us yet.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Interesting, since here you have invented a conspiracy theory all by yourself - "Conspiracy theory is silly. The people who come up with them are secular".

Please explain.

[Hugo]

I am not missing the point at all, rather you pick things that are in fact quite controversial with no clear elucidation and that is precisely why there is an entire air of suspicion surrounding them and label them under 'conspiracy theory'. If that is your take, you should in fact apply that around the entire of christianity for it's filled to the brim on hearsay, 'dreams' and events that taking place only because a group of believe want to believe it!

I have not as such 'picked' anything, just made some points about how conspiracy theories evolve. Here in fact you created one - "Christianity is filled to the brim with hearsay, 'dreams' and events that taking place...". You want to believe that so you exaggerate and misrepresent. The Biblical record has largely been verified historically and it is made up of eye witness accounts so no one who is rational would take the view you state. Yet at the same time you accept that Mohammed had a revelation that was entirely private, no one else heard it, so can never be more than hearsay.

I'll use your swine flu as an example here, not only did it not wreak the havoc predicted (and which you have erroneously assumed as causing thousands of death) but in fact and as usual thousands of people died of the regular flu than of the swine flu. requesting a bit more investigation and disseminating the correct information .......

Let us take the swine flue example for it shows how uniformed you are and what you base your own shabby research on are news items from sources such as CNN and you clearly see it as a conspiracy theory.

1. If you go to the WHO site you will see many reports, one for example cites 18,036 Swine Flu deaths - the point here is that these are laboratory confirmed H1N1 cases so the actual number of deaths is much higher.
2. Seasonal flu figures in contrast are calculated using a statistical model using what is called 'excess mortality' and are not laboratory confirmed.
2. Flu like any virus can mutate and H1N1 could well have become much more virulent as the disease progressed. No health organisation or Government could ignore a new virus and its potential to change so a pandemic was declared, vaccines and drugs stockpiled etc. The fact that it did not become as bad as it might have is something we should all be thankful for but it could easily have been otherwise. Even so H1N1 was bad enough and one indication of that was the number of people who ended up on ECMO machines and that really is indicative of a violent and virulent strain.

bottom line is your subscription to something as sound and scientific or else a 'conspiracy theory' with your brand of absolution doesn't in fact speak for science, scientists or researchers, it speaks for what is popular and that is the is the very definition of stultification of progress and improper investigation!

I am unsure what it is you are trying to say or what 'absolution' I am using. All any one is saying is that we all need to be vigilant and not accept as fact and truth every theory that comes along. Even when there is data we still need to look at it with care and the methods used to get it. We have already seen that even the most brilliant of scientist have falsified data, government agency have hidden the truth, big companies have paid scientists to cast doubts on such things as climate change or cancer and smoking. The trouble with all this is that on the one hand there are plenty ready to believe anything and at the other end we all become sceptical and believe nothing, especially if it from official channels. So this is a serious modern phenomena.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I have not as such 'picked' anything, just made some points about how conspiracy theories evolve. Here in fact you created one - "Christianity is filled to the brim with hearsay, 'dreams' and events that taking place...". You want to believe that so you exaggerate and misrepresent. The Biblical record has largely been verified historically and it is made up of eye witness accounts so no one who is rational would take the view you state. Yet at the same time you accept that Mohammed had a revelation that was entirely private, no one else heard it, so can never be more than hearsay.

I'll use your swine flu as an example here, not only did it not wreak the havoc predicted (and which you have erroneously assumed as causing thousands of death) but in fact and as usual thousands of people died of the regular flu than of the swine flu. requesting a bit more investigation and disseminating the correct information .......

Let us take the swine flue example for it shows how uniformed you are and what you base your own shabby research on are news items from sources such as CNN and you clearly see it as a conspiracy theory.

1. If you go to the WHO site you will see many reports, one for example cites 18,036 Swine Flu deaths - the point here is that these are laboratory confirmed H1N1 cases so the actual number of deaths is much higher.
2. Seasonal flu figures in contrast are calculated using a statistical model using what is called 'excess mortality' and are not laboratory confirmed.
2. Flu like any virus can mutate and H1N1 could well have become much more virulent as the disease progressed. No health organisation or Government could ignore a new virus and its potential to change so a pandemic was declared, vaccines and drugs stockpiled etc. The fact that it did not become as bad as it might have is something we should all be thankful for but it could easily have been otherwise. Even so H1N1 was bad enough and one indication of that was the number of people who ended up on ECMO machines and that really is indicative of a violent and virulent strain.



I am unsure what it is you are trying to say or what 'absolution' I am using. All any one is saying is that we all need to be vigilant and not accept as fact and truth every theory that comes along. Even when there is data we still need to look at it with care and the methods used to get it. We have already seen that even the most brilliant of scientist have falsified data, government agency have hidden the truth, big companies have paid scientists to cast doubts on such things as climate change or cancer and smoking. The trouble with all this is that on the one hand there are plenty ready to believe anything and at the other end we all become sceptical and believe nothing, especially if it from official channels. So this is a serious modern phenomena.

Conclusion - media is full of lies and we should avoid it.

[Hugo]

Originally Posted by Hugo - Interesting, since here you have invented a conspiracy theory all by yourself - "Conspiracy theory is silly. The people who come up with them are secular".

Please explain.

You are the one who has to explain, to provide data and the method you used to make the above statement about who creates conspiracy theories

[Hugo]

Conclusion - media is full of lies and we should avoid it.

No this cannot be a sensible way to think and in any case we cannot avoid it. This kind of statement lumps everything into one so this site for example could be full of lies, the press in Saudi Arabia is tarred with the same brush and so on. Also it is obviously NOT true that the media is 'full of lies'. What is needed is awareness and an ability to look a little deeper and ask thoughtful questions. listen to various opinions etc

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

No this cannot be a sensible way to think and in any case we cannot avoid it. This kind of statement lumps everything into one so this site for example could be full of lies, the press in Saudi Arabia is tarred with the same brush and so on. Also it is obviously NOT true that the media is 'full of lies'. What is needed is awareness and an ability to look a little deeper and ask thoughtful questions. listen to various opinions etc

Well. I do not agree.

People seem to see the media is entertainment . Most people enjoy it directly - you enjoy it by going a step
further and disproving things that you think are wrong - still it is entertainment.

In my view - using the world as a source of entertainment is problematic and should be avoided.

Of course - the world can be entertaining but as long as we derive it be being maturely involved with it to improve the state of our community.

[Hugo]

Seems like a round-about shot at the concept of faith, which is the cornerstone of most religions. That is the only connection I see. Take something on authority, believe it because you want it to be true or its what your culture has always believed, etc.

In a way you are right because matters of faith don't usually come with let call it material evidence and scientific research but often demand as you say obedience top certain dogmas. Again. my view would be to think everything through and reach your own conclusion always remembering its about faith. Sadly, there are plenty of examples in all faiths where things have gone completely off the rails when thing or people assume they are oracles of absolute truth.

[Hugo]

I think the word "conspiracy" may lead folks away from your inteded meaning. Conspiracies are not necesarily delusions. Real conspiracies DO exist and happen with alarming frequency. People do have an alarming tendency to believe things against all the evidence tho (or in extreme lack thereof), which I think is what you are getting at. Like that Barack Obama is a secret muslim plotting to destory the USA (I kid you not, I hear that one a lot and have given up trying to defend it) or that "there are no atheists in foxholes" (despite the rather lengthy list of atheist soldiers, even from the wars in which there were actual fox holes), etc. Sometimes people need to beleive something so bad that they will not look for contradictory evidence and suffer confirmation bias. Other times people just need to beleive something so bad that they shut their eyes tight and conjure up delusion. And of course there are the various reasoning traps people may fall into (ad populum, confusing causation with correlation, argument from authority, etc). But then again, some really crazy sounding theories MAY be true. We shouldn't dismiss them out of hand, but instead apply proper scientific thought to them where possible. Don't believe for no good rational reason, but don't believe it can't be so either. Aliens could be out there, for example, and not just reached us yet.

Yes I think you are right here and what you say is pertinent to the thread. Perhaps two examples will illustrate what you say. If anyone wants to follow this up look at Jon Lewis' book "Cover-Up", Lewis is a historian and lists 100 disturbing conspiracies giving each one a score as to the likelihood that they are true or not (its his own scale so it not absolute).

1. Dead Sea Scrolls - discovered in 1947 and most of the scrolls were published promptly, with the notable exception of scrolls and fragments found in Cave 4 which amounted to about 40% of the total Qumran material. The team dealing with this material was headed by Father Roland de Vaux and it was not long before stories about the Vatican suppressing important evidence were circulating, the teams had found something they wanted to hide etc etc. A stream of best sellers emerged and lots of people made lots of money out of this supposed conspiracy. The scrolls have now been published in full and there is nothing there that anyone wants to hide and only the die hards (usually with a publishing interest) continue to seriously suggest a cover-up. Lewis rates the conspiracy theory as a 1 = totally without foundation.

2. The Iran-contra scandal - in short the theory said that Regan had approved illegal arms deals to Iran which enabled illegal funding of Contras in Nicaragua. Lewis regards this as a 10 = absolutely true

Thus the dilemma we all face when searching for truth so we must as much as we are able not lean towards the ones we want to believe because it perhaps suits out purpose but as much as we are able seek for the facts and the truth

[جوري]

I have not as such 'picked' anything, just made some points about how conspiracy theories evolve. Here in fact you created one - "Christianity is filled to the brim with hearsay, 'dreams' and events that taking place...". You want to believe that so you exaggerate and misrepresent. The Biblical record has largely been verified historically and it is made up of eye witness accounts so no one who is rational would take the view you state. Yet at the same time you accept that Mohammed had a revelation that was entirely private, no one else heard it, so can never be more than hearsay.

Sure you have! in fact you are guilty of what you write about here, it is as if you want to invent a new way to take the spotlight off yourself. I have in fact had posts upon posts particularly by christian scholars who sum up your religion to exactly that misquotes, hearsay and hordes of improbable events and textual errors .. once you are able to distinguish 'facts' from ' dreams' like those of a doubting thomas or a joan of arc or a repentant saul can you actually go ahead and write posts of this nature.. It is almost absurd, that you accuse others of exactly what ails you-- is this a new form of catharsis?

Let us take the swine flue example for it shows how uniformed you are and what you base your own shabby research on are news items from sources such as CNN and you clearly see it as a conspiracy theory.

lol a source as CNN is a conspiracy theory because it doesn't fit all of a sudden fit in your status quo-- I'll keep that in mind the next time you quote me an article about something vile 'Muslims did'

1. If you go to the WHO site you will see many reports, one for example cites 18,036 Swine Flu deaths - the point here is that these are laboratory confirmed H1N1 cases so the actual number of deaths is much higher.

well then pls bring the WHO report for the number of death from the regular flu compared to H1N1--I'll be waiting!

2. Seasonal flu figures in contrast are calculated using a statistical model using what is called 'excess mortality' and are not laboratory confirmed.

well that in fact blows up your theories in your face:

One basis for the extrapolation is surveys asking people who claim to have flu-like symptoms whether they sought medical care, and if so, if their case was tested. It’s possible that many of those who didn’t get tested were suffering from a different ailment. For surveys where people reported having the flu, “we made the assumption that all of those had H1N1 flu, which we know isn’t true,” said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. He added, “Each one of these approaches has its strengths and limitations. The only way is to try them all, and see how they compare.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217724145913411.html

you find yourself in another tizzy when you don't actually understand the basics of hospital admissions the basics of diagnosis and management and those of reportable diseases vs. statistical guesstimates!

2. Flu like any virus can mutate and H1N1 could well have become much more virulent as the disease progressed. No health organisation or Government could ignore a new virus and its potential to change so a pandemic was declared, vaccines and drugs stockpiled etc. The fact that it did not become as bad as it might have is something we should all be thankful for but it could easily have been otherwise. Even so H1N1 was bad enough and one indication of that was the number of people who ended up on ECMO machines and that really is indicative of a violent and virulent strain.

Except people weren't ignoring the fact that it might be a pandemic, people were apprehensive of putting something in their body that was manufactured over-night of shady ingredients and those at the forefront of refusing to put this vaccine in their body were in fact health care professionals as I have linked on one of my previous posts .. The theory that it will claim more lives than the regular seasonal flu was as sound as the fact that the vaccine was safe.. we are actually yet to see whether it is or not safe.. it is premature to conclude either way!..

Now again given your all too frequent hysteria you probably don't know that many medications/radiation therapy/ vaccines exhibit potentially deadly sequella a good 17-20 years down the line.. so hyper-vigilant folks such as yourself who jumped on the hysterical band-wagon might actually suffer some serious consequences years from now!

I am unsure what it is you are trying to say or what 'absolution' I am using. All any one is saying is that we all need to be vigilant and not accept as fact and truth every theory that comes along. Even when there is data we still need to look at it with care and the methods used to get it. We have already seen that even the most brilliant of scientist have falsified data, government agency have hidden the truth, big companies have paid scientists to cast doubts on such things as climate change or cancer and smoking. The trouble with all this is that on the one hand there are plenty ready to believe anything and at the other end we all become sceptical and believe nothing, especially if it from official channels. So this is a serious modern phenomena.

And such a matter at least as far as health-care is concerned should be between the individual and their health-care provider not some random joe.. as for other alleged 'conspiracy theories' well, there are plenty of internet and govt. bullies who are just as hyper-vigilant as you to keep the masses in a herd mentality .. popular opinion is no substitute for proper investigation and that should be the moral of the story .. it doesn't matter if you label it a 'conspiracy theory' this is just an invention to coerce others into believing that if they do some investigation that challenges the norm that they will have some label waiting for them, unintelligent, conspiracy theorist etc. etc.

I have demonstrated in my previous posts that some of the most brilliant minds which have changed the shape of modern medicine at least were mocked and taunted by their peers and others less involved with science all together. Unless you are willing to go out and do some investigative research on your own that is free of all bias and present it to your peers at a somewhat of a personal risk, you are certainly not free to come out with two choices for a title neither which is correct to coerce others into your all too frequent argumentum ad populum thinking yourself clever in the process!

all the best

[Hugo]

well then pls bring the WHO report for the number of death from the regular flu compared to H1N1--I'll be waiting!

I am happy to supply the references from reliable sources but first can you tell us what your position on the H1N1 flu is - do your regard it as a conspiracy cooked up by 140 world governments, the WHO, CDC, Vaccines suppliers, little green men or who - we are all waiting?

[جوري]

I am happy to supply the references from reliable sources but first can you tell us what your position on the H1N1 flu is - do your regard it as a conspiracy cooked up by 140 world governments, the WHO, CDC, Vaccines suppliers, little green men or who - we are all waiting?

Go ahead and show me the figures for H1N1 compared to the flu!
I have answered all questions in full in my previous post.. I suggest you read before you pose the same query more than once and probe for sophomoric responses as can only cater to your level of expertise and intellect!

all the best

[Hugo]

Go ahead and show me the figures for H1N1 compared to the flu!I have answered all questions in full in my previous post.. I suggest you read before you pose the same query more than once and probe for sophomoric responses as can only cater to your level of expertise and intellect!

To answer your question though I do not regard myself as an expert and what I say here any concerned person could search out easily for themselves. This post is my final one on the matter and clearly shows that your statement in post 16 “.. which you have erroneously assumed as causing thousands of death, but in fact and as usual thousands of people died of the regular flu ...” is unfounded if not an outright lie.

Firstly, with regard to H1N1 (swine flu), a new virus also called ‘novel H1N1’ to perhaps draw attention to the uncertainties surrounding it. This virus caused the first influenza pandemic (global outbreak of disease) in more than 40 years. If one views the WHO web site http://www.who.int/csr/don/2010_05_21/en/index.html and reads update 101 you will see at that at that point in time laboratory confirmed deaths for H1N1 were 18,097.

If we contrast this with a CDC mid range and end of season estimate (as opposed to laboratory confirmed) from April 2009 – April 10, 2010 then 61 million people were infected with 2009 H1N1, there were about 274,000 2009 H1N1-related hospitalizations and finally 12,470 2009 H1N1-related deaths. http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm so you claim in post 16 is totally untrue.

Secondly, if we consider seasonal flu then worldwide, these annual epidemics result in three to five million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500,000 deaths. On a simplistic viewing of these figures one might conclude that H1N1 was totally insignificant, panic over nothing but that would be a serious error in judgement. Seasonal flu figures are not derived from laboratory testing but are constructed from a statistical model developed many years ago based on a detailed study and monitoring programme of actual cases for several flu seasons.

Finally, H1N1 was eventually classified as category 1 pandemic meaning it is similar in its effects to season flu although this was not clear until well into the epidemic. The Pandemic Severity Index set by the U.S. government has five categories; category 1 being comparable to seasonal flu epidemic. Seasonal flu has a death rate of less than 0.1 percent. What has to be understood here is that if H1N1 had been more severe or mutated in severity during the season and ended up say as a category 5 pandemic we would not be speaking of 18,097 deaths but instead somewhere in the reason of 300,000 to 400,000 plus of course a correspondingly huge number of cases and this would be in addition to seasonal flu.

The reason these estimates where made is not to help as such you and me but to allow governments and health organisation to prepare. It does not take much imagination to see that if indeed H1N1 had become category 5 (and no one could have known for sure) and knowing no vaccines was available then health services everywhere would have been totally overwhelmed. It follows that those who called it a fraud do not understand the dilemma faced by those who have to plan and the deniers simply make it more difficulty next time a new virus appears to make effective decisions.

One final point and although I don’t want to insult anyone in this board the fact is that most of us are innumerate, we simply do not know how to handle percentages, probabilities and statistics which is not all that surprising since even competent mathematicians have difficulty with probability as often the questions are very hard and the results can seem counter-intuitive. Just as an example, consider going to the doctor and he tells you that if you take tablet X for the rest of your life it will reduce your risk of getting a stroke by 15% but your risk of side effects from tablet X is 1%. What additional information on risk do you need and how would you arrive at a decision? To make it even simpler, if the tablets reduces your risk by 15% and your own personal risk of stroke is 15% what would be you new risk after taking the tablet – I almost guarantee that the vast majority of any population cannot work it out and more than likely could be scared into taking the tablet or in other circumstances such as vaccines, scarred out of taking them. This is why deniers play on the numbers because they know they can be made to sound scary at one extreme or innocuous at the other as best suits their purpose relying on the fact that most people do not really understand them

[جوري]

I asked you to give me accurate figures of death from H1N1 compared to the regular seasonal flu from CDC or WHO.. Do you think you can do that please? I am asking you to show the disparity in two lines as you had suggested in the previous page.. so far your above post is not helping you.. surely you've come across these lines from what you had posted?

Secondly, if we consider seasonal flu then worldwide, these annual epidemics result in three to five million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500,000 deaths. On a simplistic viewing of these figures one might conclude that H1N1 was totally insignificant, panic over nothing but that would be a serious error in judgement. Seasonal flu figures are not derived from laboratory testing but are constructed from a statistical model developed many years ago based on a detailed study and monitoring programme of actual cases for several flu seasons.

since H1N1 also follows a similar diagnostic module as I have pointed out through a direct quote from the Harvard epidemiologist on the previous page, if simple common sense is elusive!

I'll be waiting!

all the best

[Hugo]

Except people weren't ignoring the fact that it might be a pandemic, people were apprehensive of putting something in their body that was manufactured over-night of shady ingredients and those at the forefront of refusing to put this vaccine in their body were in fact health care professionals as I have linked on one of my previous posts .. The theory that it will claim more lives than the regular seasonal flu was as sound as the fact that the vaccine was safe.. we are actually yet to see whether it is or not safe.. it is premature to conclude either way!..

Now again given your all too frequent hysteria you probably don't know that many medications/radiation therapy/ vaccines exhibit potentially deadly sequella a good 17-20 years down the line.. so hyper-vigilant folks such as yourself who jumped on the hysterical band-wagon might actually suffer some serious consequences years from now!

Does this mean you are a vaccine denier?

1. There is not even a shadow of doubt that vaccines have save billions of lives from its beginning with Edward Jenner's 1796 use of the cow pox vaccine when administered to humans provided them protection against smallpox.

2. As is usual you cannot state the case properly or scientifically. Every medical intervention has a risk which may be immediate or somewhere down the line so if one accepts an intervention one accepts the risk. The risk of a side effect must be balanced against other risks and that is what government agencies do when they licence a drug or vaccine. Usually we trust the agencies but of course things can go wrong but that does not mean that everything goes wrong every time.

Greg Poland, head of vaccines at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, often speaks out against vaccine denial such as yours. He calls his opponents "the innumerate" because they are unable to grasp concepts like probability. Instead, they reason based on anecdote and emotion such as 'My kid got autism after he got his shots, so the vaccine must have caused it,'" he says. One emotive story about a vaccine's alleged harm trumps endless safety statistics. Every one fits the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity.

Of course we must be vigilant but endless scare stories about this or that drug causes more harm than good.

[Hugo]

I thought I might just shift the focus to what happens in the real world and how conspiracies are constructed and used by anyone. One way is MANUFACTURING DOUBT - If flat-out denial isn't an option, spread doubt instead. It works wonders for big business or anyone with a 'message'. Here is an excerpt from Richard Littlemore

YOU can't beat doubt as a corporate strategy - especially if your product is life-threatening when used as directed. These days we don't have to speculate as to whether industries have manufactured doubt. They have admitted it too many times. In 1973, Tobacco Institute vice-president Fred Panzer outlined his industry's "brilliantly executed" defence strategy. A key tactic was "creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it" while "encouraging objective scientific research." "Objective scientific research": those words would almost make you believe that Panzer was talking about objective science. But when doubt is your goal, the misuse of language is just another way to confuse the public. Where tobacco led the way, coal and chemicals followed. And, of course, the fossil fuel industry has been working overtime - and with shockingsuccess - creating doubt about climate change.

Techniques appear to be limited only by the imagination and integrity of the campaigners - which is to say, there don't appear to be any limits. One of the best is to just flat-out lie. A coalition of US coal and electricity companies set the tone in the 1990s with the creation of the Information Council on the Environment (ICE). It's purpose: to "reposition climate change as a theory not a fact".
ICE hired a PR firm to create advertising messages. These ranged from the ridiculous - "Who told you the Earth was getting warmer... Chicken Little?" - to the blatantly false - "If the Earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis getting colder?" But the focus groups found them effective, and that is all that mattered. ICE also hired scientists to sign querulous opinion-page articles and PR agencies to
harass journalists. Today, journalists - embattled, overwhelmed and committed to "balance", no matter how spurious - are useful conduits for spreading doubt.

Other corporate tactics include the creation of phoney grass-roots organisations. The pioneer was The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), setup in 1993 by group of tobacco, nuclear energy, agribusiness, chemicals and oil companies. TASSC's stated goal was to "encourage the public to question - from the grass roots up - the validity of scientific studies." ICE and TASSC are no more, but their tactics live on. The doubt industry has ballooned in the past two decades. There are now scores of think tanks pushing dubious and confusing policy positions, and dozens of phoney grass-roots organisations created to make those positions appear to have legitimate following.

[جوري]

Does this mean you are a vaccine denier?

Go back and read what I have written in full!

1. There is not even a shadow of doubt that vaccines have save billions of lives from its beginning with Edward Jenner's 1796 use of the cow pox vaccine when administered to humans provided them protection against smallpox.

Indeed, what does this have to do with the swine vaccine? or the topic at hand? or the misinformation you have peddled to make a non-point? Is this yet again the best you can do, when all out of ammo and out of something intelligent or scientifically relevant, you go on looking for some pithy quote on an unrelated topic?

2. As is usual you cannot state the case properly or scientifically..

Yet again you describe yourself so adequately!
1- start a topic you can't finish
2- when stuck for scientifically relevant facts and data based evidence you can't produce it o you shift the topic to where there has been some progress and then turn it against the other party as if asking for more transparency automatically denotes complete aversion to the entire subject of immunology!
3- at the end go on to a completely unrelated topic or generalize so that every topic has to fall under that one umbrella
4- put out a massive bulky post to exonerate yourself from earlier stupidities!

I truly pity you and anyone who thinks you have half a mind to discuss anything in the scientific field. As the saying goes little knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance, as certainly you are a poster boy for that!

[Hugo]

Indeed, what does this have to do with the swine vaccine? or the topic at hand? or the misinformation you have peddled to make a non-point? Is this yet again the best you can do, when all out of ammo and out of something intelligent or scientifically relevant, you go on looking for some pithy quote on an unrelated topic? Yet again you describe yourself so adequately!

Just to recall that this thread is about conspiracies and myths and how easy it is for anyone to be taken in by them so one final series of posts on the Swine flu. You have provided no information only anecdote and your sad and lonely tactic, used everywhere in this board, of insult and the insane belief that you are always right and your answer perfectly explain everything. So let us see what you can say about the following and if you wish to read the full article to go with it see New Scientist No 2732 Page 40. The figures given are for October 2009.

Myth 1 - It was just Swine flu, the death rates are even lower than normal flu.
Nearly 5,000 people world wide are KNOWN to have died of Swine flu. On average 36,000 deaths are attributed to flu in the US alone but these numbers cannot be compared directly because they come from epidemiological studies not confirmed lab tests. Many are clearly due to flu but more than half are not obviously connected. By contrast Swine flu deaths are those directly caused by respiratory infection with the pandemic virus. One can also compare deaths with age where 90% of normal flu deaths are in the +65 age range whereas 2009 H1N1 flu where 80% of deaths were in people aged 5-64 with 40% of these in the 25-49 range.

[Hugo]

Just to recall that this thread is about conspiracies and myths and how easy it is for anyone to be taken in by them so one final series of posts on the Swine flu. If you wish to read the full article to go with it see New Scientist No 2732 Page 40. The figures given are for October 2009.

Myth 2 - The vaccine isn't safe, it has been rushed through tests and the last time there was a swine flu scare the vaccine hurt people.
Swine flu is NOT always mild. The nervousness about the swine flue vaccine is understandable because in 1976 the death of a US army recruit triggered fears of a pandemic. Americans were given a Swine flu vaccine and of those 532 developed Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralytic condition caused by rogue antibodies attacking nerve cells. Of the 532 most recovered but there were 25 deaths and others suffered lasting damage. The 1976 vaccine is thought to have caused 10 cases per million vaccinated and ordinary flu causes about 1 per million. One must not forget that there are 10-20 per million who get Guillian-Barre some other way.

Does this mean it is safer not to be vaccinated - Absolutely not. First, there is the risk of swine flu killing you. Second, and what few people realise is that flu itself is far more likely to cause Guillian-Barre than any flu vaccine, indeed between 40 and 70 develop Guillian-Barre after flu. To put it another way the risk of getting Guillian-Barre from a vaccine is less than 1 in a million; the risk of getting it from flu itself is 40 in a million. The point is that very rare side effects can ONLY be detected when millions take them.

So there are risks but as always one has to weigh them up in your own mind. If you are interested or want to become more informed then research how vaccines are formed, proteins added and lately something called adjuvents have been added.

[جوري]

Just to recall that this thread is about conspiracies and myths and how easy it is for anyone to be taken in by them so one final series of posts on the Swine flu. You have provided no information only anecdote and your sad and lonely tactic, used everywhere in this board, of insult and the insane belief that you are always right and your answer perfectly explain everything. So let us see what you can say about the following and if you wish to read the full article to go with it see New Scientist No 2732 Page 40. The figures given are for October 2009.

Myth 1 - It was just Swine flu, the death rates are even lower than normal flu.
Nearly 5,000 people world wide are KNOWN to have died of Swine flu. On average 36,000 deaths are attributed to flu in the US alone but these numbers cannot be compared directly because they come from epidemiological studies not confirmed lab tests. Many are clearly due to flu but more than half are not obviously connected. By contrast Swine flu deaths are those directly caused by respiratory infection with the pandemic virus. One can also compare deaths with age where 90% of normal flu deaths are in the +65 age range whereas 2009 H1N1 flu where 80% of deaths were in people aged 5-64 with 40% of these in the 25-49 range.

And I have explained to you that your title isn't a one size fits all, and concentrated on a particular area where there is no transparency and long term results aren't recorded so that you know that generalizing under one heading is sure to make a fool out of you and those you rally up to your cause, since frankly you are very under-educated on the matter!
did you miss that? along with all the previous comments from the CDC, health care workers and epidemiologists?
Again with nonsensical logorrhea, as if the more you hammer in bulky posts the better your point of view will be elucidated?

[globalmessage]

this is excellent

[Hugo]

And I have explained to you that your title isn't a one size fits all, and concentrated on a particular area where there is no transparency and long term results aren't recorded so that you know that generalizing under one heading is sure to make a fool out of you and those you rally up to your cause, since frankly you are very under-educated on the matter! did you miss that? along with all the previous comments from the CDC, health care workers and epidemiologists? Again with nonsensical logorrhea, as if the more you hammer in bulky posts the better your point of view will be elucidated?

But you have added nothing, in post 16 you claimed there were "not thousands of deaths" because of swine flu but I have shown from sound sources that there were that there were. You then bang on about vaccine dangers but all you can offer is anecdote with no supporting evidence. It seems you can add nothing of value about epidemiology and do not understand risk and how risk factors are combined and you have added nothing of value to the theme of this thread which is about how easy all of us can be duped by conspiracy theorists be they tobacco companies, governments, hoaxers or holocaust deniers. This thread is about teasing out the truth not getting caught by rhetoric or alarmists.

Let me challenge you if your are so competent in this area - tell us how to assess the risk when your doctor suggests a drug. Make it easy for you suppose the claimed benefit of the drug is to reduce your chance of heart attack by 20% - explain what other risk factors are involved and how I can personally calculate my new risk level if I take the drug?

[Hugo]

Just to get back on track can I ask some questions here - there is no doubt that conspiracy theories exist and some times they turn out to be true and sometimes not. If I take say holocaust denial or suggesting 9/11 was a CIA planned event and so on what would you say to the following questions

1. Do you think that truth will always win out in the end?
2. Are there any sort of rules for routing out the truth or testing a theory that we might use?

[جوري]

But you have added nothing, in post 16 you claimed there were "not thousands of deaths" because of swine flu but I have shown from sound sources that there were that there were. You then bang on about vaccine dangers but all you can offer is anecdote with no supporting evidence. It seems you can add nothing of value about epidemiology and do not understand risk and how risk factors are combined and you have added nothing of value to the theme of this thread which is about how easy all of us can be duped by conspiracy theorists be they tobacco companies, governments, hoaxers or holocaust deniers. This thread is about teasing out the truth not getting caught by rhetoric or alarmists.

I have added what is of relevance and if you'd scroll back to the second page and read (I know it is difficult for you to accept factoids that don't cater to your linear tracts) you'd embarked upon:



One basis for the extrapolation is surveys asking people who claim to have flu-like symptoms whether they sought medical care, and if so, if their case was tested. It’s possible that many of those who didn’t get tested were suffering from a different ailment. For surveys where people reported having the flu, “we made the assumption that all of those had H1N1 flu, which we know isn’t true,” said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. He added, “Each one of these approaches has its strengths and limitations. The only way is to try them all, and see how they compare.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217724145913411.html

furthermore, we don't what it is you are fighting for or against? does the swine flu exist? sure it does, was it assumed to be of pandemic proportions absolutely.. did that justify creating an over night vaccine and forcing the masses to take it with absolutely no transparency or a risk assessment.. absolutely not.
There is an art to immunology that seems to be completely lost to you, because in fact you suffer what it is you are so ready to accuse others of, those in fact who have dedicated their lives to this field.
Whatever the case whether regular flu or swine flu, there are groups more at risk than others, and even with we have some excellent anti-virals to be given within the first 72 hrs. that will cut down on the symptomology completely.
What you want is to create havoc with worthless information simply because it serves your own telescopic view of the picture or else brand others either adding nothing of value, completely against immunizations, un-scientific.. all in fact which seem to echo you to a T. It is apparent that it is very difficult for you to concede that not only do you not know everything, but that your adamant insistence that you do, isn't only dangerous to yourself but to others who might be fooled by your sense of bravado if nothing else. I ask you to desist gauging in topics at least as far as the fields of medicine and immunology are concerned if you don't know what the hell you are talking about! Which you don't
live vaccines are excellent, there is a sub-group of the population where they would convert and spell disaster, regular vaccines are excellent but some are manufactured in eggs and aren't suitable for those with egg allergies, Rubella sure is excellent, but shouldn't be given to a pregnant woman in the fist trimester.. try to imagine that there is an entire field and a science to things you deem, conspiracies in order that you should perpetuate a certain type of hysteria only from the other end of the spectrum-- further try to put things in categories so not for the sake of a topic do you lump everything under the same umbrella, you end up with no credibility whatsoever, just another man with tertiary third party information who fancies himself well studied!

Let me challenge you if your are so competent in this area -

that tickled me!

all the best

[جوري]

As an aside here, let me layout the ground rules for you (anyone who is interested in their rights) as a patient whether it has to do with vaccines or an orange flavored children chewable aspirin, blood transfusions or anything in between.
The golden rule of 'informed consent' denotes that you as a patient have a right to 5 things!
1- Nature of the procedure (pills/surgery/injection)
2-purpose
3-Benefits
4-Risks
5- and perhaps the most important 'alternate procedures/remedies' so that you as an individual and not through bullying, coercion, mass hysteria or intellectual dishonesty can make an informed decision about anything that will go in your body or have taken out of it.

gag clauses are a federal crime (at least here in the united states) just because something isn't clearly understood or seem viable as an option doesn't mean that your physician has the right to withhold a conversation about it as that would be in direct violation of your rights.
understanding your five pieces of information doesn't mean you are giving in to conspiracy theories, or denying solid research, or have no understanding of the basics of statistics.. It means that your basic rights to autonomy and decision making is solely yours without a label hanging over your head.

[Pygoscelis]

Myth 2 - The vaccine isn't safe, it has been rushed through tests and the last time there was a swine flu scare the vaccine hurt people.

I remember this one. There were a lot of people who believed this, on zero evidence, including some friends of mine. I asked them a number of times "Its not safe? That's important to know. Where did you hear this and what study showed it?". They never had an answer beyond a friend told them or a friend read the study and told them about it, or a friend of a friend. In a health scare people are too often prone to not look at the actual evidence and instead react to a false positive out of a fear for safety.

I think this is instinctive and born from a long evolutionary history of false positives being at worst embarassing and missed threats being deadly, going back to our cave man times. This carries over to us today, now in an age where false positives are far more dangerous.

Anyway, just my two cents. Now back to the squabling over semantics and derails. :p

[جوري]

that is just Horatio.. no studies to show long term safety and efficacy no studies to show lack of safety and efficacy, you are basically putting something in your body that has been literally manufactured over night.. and if you had taken the regular vaccine you'll have already have half of the component swine flu vaccine!..

there is nothing to squabble over.. there is no point arguing with a couple of fools!

[CosmicPathos]

Now Hugo will teach us vaccinology? I am well versed in microbiology. But I didnt get the swine flu shot. I do not want to because it wont be of benefit to me. THe virus mutates at sky rocketing rates and having immunity to it is probably equal to having no immunity. Of course if pigs are not around, mutation rates might go down as they are the breeding grounds but genetic drift will still be occuring if not genetic shift.

[Hugo]

Now Hugo will teach us vaccinology? I am well versed in microbiology. But I didnt get the swine flu shot. I do not want to because it wont be of benefit to me. THe virus mutates at sky rocketing rates and having immunity to it is probably equal to having no immunity. Of course if pigs are not around, mutation rates might go down as they are the breeding grounds but genetic drift will still be occuring if not genetic shift.

How do you know it will not benefit you - that of course is the dilemma we all face and it hardly matters whether you are expert of not. The trouble with what you say is that if indeed it is mutating at sky-rocketing speeds (give us some references to check this out) we are all in for big big trouble if it turns nasty - so tell us what you as an expert would plan to do to avert a disaster - give up on vaccines, walk around with a mask, slaughter every possible breeding ground - what??

Do you know how pigs got the flu virus in the first place?

What we need is a faster vaccine or a universal flu vaccine. When our immune system attacks a flu virus, it mainly targets haemagglutin and to a lesser extent, neuramindase. Unfortunately, these proteins mutate rapidly, so out immune 'memory' doesn't protect us from new flu strains. However, the protruding part of the M2 ion channel changes very little, you being an expert can now explain why this might lead to a universal vaccine?

[Hugo]

Except people weren't ignoring the fact that it might be a pandemic, people were apprehensive of putting something in their body that was manufactured over-night of shady ingredients ......

Can you tell us what these shady ingredient were?

[tango92]

whats the big deal with swine flu vaccinations anyway? its a normal flu just a bit worse.

[Pygoscelis]

Speaking of germs, I'm currently reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Any of you guys read this book? Its a really interesting perspective at how geography played a major role in who developed farming, domesticated animals, got the deadliest germs, and then spread them around the world conquering the rest of the globe. It explains why the people who conquered the world did so, rather than being the conquered. Total aside, but thought I'd mention the book since I'm really enjoying the read so far.

[جوري]

Can you tell us what these shady ingredient were?

if we knew what the latter components of the vaccine were, perhaps we wouldn't be asking for transparency? I assume you've read my posts and came across that term several times?!

P.S. I'll be covering a bit of stats/epidemiology and ethics on my 'medical student review' thread you can follow there if you have a pure desire to learn which studies get approved which get binned and why.. there is no 'conspiracy' to it, just data/evidence based science-- when you have the fundamentals you'll find yourself in hysterics less often!

all the best

[Hugo]

whats the big deal with swine flu vaccinations anyway? its a normal flu just a bit worse.

That is how it turned out but what you are perhaps forgetting or did not realise was that H1N1 was a novel virus, it was unlike others we have seen so the way it might develop over the course of a flu season was unknown and unpredictable. For example, the 1918 flu virus was novel and it killed about 50 million world wide becoming much more virulent as the pandemic progressed - so that was the big deal, no one knew for sure what might happen so the kind of, if I may say so, frivolous throw away remarks like yours could only be made with the benefit of hindsight and a total lack of awareness to the danger posed when a new strain appears.

If you take a little time to look through WHO reports you will also see that indeed for most people it was much like seasonal flu but for a significant number, mainly young people, it was a killer. You may be aware of high technology life support machines called ECMO and again if you look through the reports the lives of very many people infected with H1N1 were only saved by this technology and it is a last resort technology at that.

[Pygoscelis]

How about the conspiracy theories surrounding Obama? The birther movement for example. I guess there wouldn't be anybody here who thinks Obama is a secret muslim plotting the downfall of the USA (this being a muslim board - but seriously on another board I go to some crazy people actually believe that). But is there anybody here who questions Obama's place of birth and says he's not qualified to be president? Such people keep demanding his birth certificate be made public (not knowing that this already has been addressed by Hawaii). They got so many requests for this that Hawaii had to shut down such requests (it was taking up way too much resource) and that fuelled the fires of the birthers further.

[Hugo]

How about the conspiracy theories surrounding Obama? The birther movement for example. I guess there wouldn't be anybody here who thinks Obama is a secret muslim plotting the downfall of the USA (this being a muslim board - but seriously on another board I go to some crazy people actually believe that). But is there anybody here who questions Obama's place of birth and says he's not qualified to be president? Such people keep demanding his birth certificate be made public (not knowing that this already has been addressed by Hawaii). They got so many requests for this that Hawaii had to shut down such requests (it was taking up way too much resource) and that fuelled the fires of the birthers further.

This is an interesting one because in the end no matter what he is or is not he got elected. But I guess this is one of those where you really have to want to believe and once you get that far then nothing, no amount of evidence will turn such deniers from their chosen path. In the end though truth will out and this will be another conspiracy theory for someone to write a book about and make a lot of money.

[Hugo]

Just been looking through various threads and there is a theme one often find. It is not very prominent in this board but it is in others. That theme is that all Jews, Christians and Westerners hate Islam and want to destroy it. Wafa Sultan in her book "A God who Hates" tells powerfully how she was bombarded with this kind of thing when she was a child in school in Syria. Indeed she suggests that you cannot find a Muslim school that does not engage in that kind of victim rhetoric and of course the Qu'ran is not silent on the issue either. She now lives in America and she again tells how Muslims living there and enjoying its freedoms cannot escape from the idea that they are being watched and hunted down by those who hate Islam. Quoting Sultan:

Islam considered anything that happened to a Muslim outside the boundaries of the responsibility to fight to be fate, over which he could have no control, and accordingly, no responsibility. Islamic teachings gave Muslims the illusion that their fate was foreordained. It convinced them that every detail of their lives was predestined and that they had no power to influence events. The Qu'ran says: "Say: 'Nothing will befall us except what Allah has ordained'" (9:51). And Muhammad said in a hadith: "If something happens to you, do not say: 'If I had done that, such and such a thing would have happened.' Say, rather: Allah has ordained it so, and whatever He pleases He does.'" This call to submit to whatever fate ordains has helped to foster a dependent attitude and has convinced people that whatever happened in their lives occurred only as part of God's plan and at his command.

This attitude enables Muslims to avoid facing reality and also, to a great extent, helps to deprive them of their ability to feel guilt at the wretchedness of that reality. Muslims have never learned to engage in soul searching or to acknowledge where they might have gone wrong. As far as they are concerned, whatever happens is God's will and their faith does not either require them to regret their actions or consider them responsible for any consequences that might ensue.

You might like to comment on any aspect of what has been said here and if you indeed hold to the theory that all Jews and Christians and Westerners are bent on destroying Islam? Is it all just a conspiracy theory or is it true?

[Pygoscelis]

Um, maybe not so much Jews, but Christianity definitely IS bent on destroying competing religions. It wants to turn everybody into a Christian. Islam is the same. Perhaps this is muslims projecting their will to destroy the west's "values" and replace them with islamic ones, so that they see the opposite.

[Zafran]

Um, maybe not so much Jews, but Christianity definitely IS bent on destroying competing religions. It wants to turn everybody into a Christian. Islam is the same. Perhaps this is muslims projecting their will to destroy the west's "values" and replace them with islamic ones, so that they see the opposite.

I think the more serious problem here is the west and its obsession in creating clones of its self all over the world - and they are using violence to achieve it.

[Hugo]

I think the more serious problem here is the west and its obsession in creating clones of its self all over the world - and they are using violence to achieve it.

I cannot make much sense of this, where is this monolithic West 'making' clones? That is more or less the conspiracy theory held in Muslim minds that I spoke of and it cannot have escaped your notice that Muslims themselves do exactly the same - they become refugees (the top 10 refugee generating nations are Muslim) and are accepted as full citizens of the West and then try to recreate the society and culture that drove them out in the first place and part of that is the evolving conspiracy theory in Muslim minds that its all the fault of the West

[Hugo]

Um, maybe not so much Jews, but Christianity definitely IS bent on destroying competing religions. It wants to turn everybody into a Christian. Islam is the same. Perhaps this is muslims projecting their will to destroy the west's "values" and replace them with islamic ones, so that they see the opposite.

This is just rubbish - I have never every heard a Christian preacher or Minister anywhere speak about destroying competing religions - another conspiracy theory? Of course Christians want to share what they consider to be good news, the gospels but there is no force and it is a matter of personal conviction. One is NOT born a Christian one becomes one by choice.

[aadil77]

This is just rubbish - I have never every heard a Christian preacher or Minister anywhere speak about destroying competing religions - another conspiracy theory? Of course Christians want to share what they consider to be good news, the gospels but there is no force and it is a matter of personal conviction. One is NOT born a Christian one becomes one by choice.

don't know about over here but in america you'd certainly get that impression

[Hugo]

don't know about over here but in america you'd certainly get that impression

Give an example? Also does it not strike you as odd that America allows Muslims to build mosques and the religious freedom that implies whereas in say Saudi Arabia there is not a single church and in other places where local Christian want to build a church there are howls of protest from Muslims? Consider:

News Example 1 June
Afghan Christians in exile are urging their fellow-Christians around the world to help stop the Afghan government from arresting and executing Afghan Christians. While international media and politicians are silent, within Afghanistan a dramatic anti-Christian furore has erupted, in which Afghan media and politicians alike are calling for the death of converts from Islam, in line with Islamic sharia law.

News Example 2
President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan take a different view expressed as religious freedom is here and is real on the sense that preachers can preach whatever they like, provided they say nothing that is intolerant of other faiths. Kazakhstan is the only Muslim nation where over the past 15 years 15 new synagogues have been opened to serve the Jewish community

So who is right:
1. The intolerant president of Afghanistan who advocates execution for Christians or President Nazarbayev who advocate and practices total tolerance?
2. Is execution for a Muslim who become a Christian a good thing, something to be desired and indeed a practice to be preserved?

[titus]

don't know about over here but in america you'd certainly get that impression

There is the rare exception, but in the US the vast majority of churches would welcome any Muslims visitors and treat them very kindly.

Yes, as a basic tenet of their religion Christians want people to convert in order to help them get to Heaven, but then Islam is no different that way.

[Zafran]

I cannot make much sense of this, where is this monolithic West 'making' clones? That is more or less the conspiracy theory held in Muslim minds that I spoke of and it cannot have escaped your notice that Muslims themselves do exactly the same - they become refugees (the top 10 refugee generating nations are Muslim) and are accepted as full citizens of the West and then try to recreate the society and culture that drove them out in the first place and part of that is the evolving conspiracy theory in Muslim minds that its all the fault of the West

first of all I wasnt replying to you but to a specific comment made by a user who used the term "west" -

secodanly are there even 10 nations that are muslim??? last time I checked there were failed states, dictatorships, Monarchy and wannnabe democracies - all supported by the "west". So the "west" isnt so good.

Yes the "west" does have an obbsession in cloning itslef - they did that with Iraq or trying to and they also want regime change in Afgahnistan - they want to replace the old system with there own "democractic system" and not through peaceful means but violent means with there tanks and fighters and bombers - I say they have zero, null moral ethical or any other right to do that - they should stay out of other countries businesses - they wouldnt like saudi arabia or Iran forcing a particular ideal on them so why do it another culture.

Its not a conspiracy theory that the "west" is to blame - its common knowledge and well proven - look at the"wests" tanks and bombers in afgahnistan, Iraq and lets not forget about americas many military bases!

[Hugo]

first of all I wasnt replying to you but to a specific comment made by a user who used the term "west" - secodanly are there even 10 nations that are muslim??? last time I checked there were failed states, dictatorships, Monarchy and wannnabe democracies - all supported by the "west". So the "west" isnt so good. Yes the "west" does have an obbsession in cloning itslef - they did that with Iraq or trying to and they also want regime change in Afgahnistan - they want to replace the old system with there own "democractic system" and not through peaceful means but violent means with there tanks and fighters and bombers - I say they have zero, null moral ethical or any other right to do that - they should stay out of other countries businesses - they wouldnt like saudi arabia or Iran forcing a particular ideal on them so why do it another culture.

Its not a conspiracy theory that the "west" is to blame - its common knowledge and well proven - look at the"wests" tanks and bombers in afgahnistan, Iraq and lets not forget about americas many military bases!

There are at least 10 Muslim states - Saudi Arabia. Iraq, Yemen, UAE. Iran, Sudan, Northern Nigeria, Oman, Kuwait, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan - do I really have to go on? You are just in denial, using the flawed logic that if there is any hint of it being criticised it suddenly becomes not Islamic, not Muslim and supported by the West. Why don't you try looking for example just at Arab history and find a time, any time where there were not failed states with absolute rulers - in fact you will be very hard pressed to find one good ruler amongst the lot of them or a period of peace for more than a handful of years. But then its so much easier to blame the evil West. Find me a Sunni scholar who stood up an criticised Saddam Hussain when he was in power, no the lot of them simply said 'god wills it'

Where is the cabal of people bent on setting up these clones? If the West is so bad why do so many Muslims go there and why is the West's technology so valued and sort after? How many Indian Muslims for example have gained full citizenship in say the UAE - there are several thousand Indian Muslims there and have been there for a large part of their lives - what is stopping the UAE opening its arms to its Muslim brothers?

Have you never read how Muslim armies with zero, null moral ethical or other rights invaded neighbour countries and destroyed their cultures and either forced conversion or killed those who opposed and did it ruthlessly. Find out how the ranks of the Janissaries were filled. Can you face up to the truth - probably not I don't think you can; it would upset your certainties.

If Muslim countries don't want American bases they can say so and have done so and closed them down. If its so well-proven then list some reliable references or studies that show this to be true. The fact is that countries like Saudi Arabia or the UAE for example would collapse without the many many thousands of Westerners who keep the whole infrastructure going.

By the way where are you living?

[Zafran]

There are at least 10 Muslim states - Saudi Arabia. Iraq, Yemen, UAE. Iran, Sudan, Northern Nigeria, Oman, Kuwait, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan - do I really have to go on? You are just in denial, using the flawed logic that if there is any hint of it being criticised it suddenly becomes not Islamic, not Muslim and supported by the West. Why don't you try looking for example just at Arab history and find a time, any time where there were not failed states with absolute rulers - in fact you will be very hard pressed to find one good ruler amongst the lot of them or a period of peace for more than a handful of years. But then its so much easier to blame the evil West. Find me a Sunni scholar who stood up an criticised Saddam Hussain when he was in power, no the lot of them simply said 'god wills it'

Where is the cabal of people bent on setting up these clones? If the West is so bad why do so many Muslims go there and why is the West's technology so valued and sort after? How many Indian Muslims for example have gained full citizenship in say the UAE - there are several thousand Indian Muslims there and have been there for a large part of their lives - what is stopping the UAE opening its arms to its Muslim brothers?

Have you never read how Muslim armies with zero, null moral ethical or other rights invaded neighbour countries and destroyed their cultures and either forced conversion or killed those who opposed and did it ruthlessly. Find out how the ranks of the Janissaries were filled. Can you face up to the truth - probably not I don't think you can; it would upset your certainties.

If Muslim countries don't want American bases they can say so and have done so and closed them down. If its so well-proven then list some reliable references or studies that show this to be true. The fact is that countries like Saudi Arabia or the UAE for example would collapse without the many many thousands of Westerners who keep the whole infrastructure going.

By the way where are you living?

your examaple about saddam hussien is the worst I've heard in years - why did the west arm saddam Hussien during the Iran Iraq war? - why did Donald rumsfeld meet Him! You just fell right in this one - you should seriously know that saddam Hussien was a "Friend" of the wests in the 80s not our enemy - he became an enemy later on when we wanted to invade Iraq. whats a scholar going to do in criticising saddam Hussien - would that have any impact on the wests friendly relationship with saddam in the 80s? I'm sure your smart enough to figure this one out yourself.

back to the main point which is today - the "wests" armies are the ones invading other countries - they are the ones that are forcing there values on other cultures, not the other way round. do you see the armies in Yemen in Germany, or the armies of arabia in the UK? I dont and if that did happen what do you think the west would do TODAY - not some historical time period.

why dont you think the military bases are not gone - quite simple and well known - its because the western backed governments in these countries including Egypt (mubarak the dictator) and saudia arabia (the family) keep status quo in the region - lets not forget there own economic interests - if the royal family or mubarak would be overthrown in the region I can guarentee that the "west"would go to war against the people.

Good one about the UAE (It proves my point) - so why is the west supporting the government of UAE if its unjust? Oh I get it econmic and political interest - its best the west helpes UAE in crushing the people that it is oppressing so the west could benefit - thanks for that example.

the wests "help" is only for the elites (the governments) and there infrastructure not for the rest of the people - they are poor and nobody cares for there opinion its against the "wests" interests. The wont them out But the west is stamping there voices down - you dont want the common people to choose who they want there resources to go - the "west" needs them and they are willing to do anything including the use of violence.

More clones there better for the west.

You also say my logic is flawed - I'm not the one living in history - I'm not the one going off a tangent about some historical event - I'm talking right now - you need to step out of history and enter the Now.

Lastly I'm a "westerner" so when I see the "west" doing wrong I have every right to tell my fellow "westerners" that they need to get there acts togater - I'm not a citizen of the UAE, China, arabia or any other country so my word against them means zero - we cant change others (especially if you send bombers, fighters and soldiers at them) but we certainly can change ourselves.

[Pygoscelis]

Hugo, are you a Christian yourself? Because I think you may have to be a non-christian to see Christianity's imposing itslef on non-christians (and it most certainly does), just as you may have to be a non-muslim to see the muslims doing it. Lately you even have atheists who have bought into the whole "christian tolerance" thing. Its a whole new concept, and not a very honest one if you read the bible. What you may see as "sharing the good word" isn't seen that way by most non-christians. Christianity has a long history of intolerance of other religions and has an explicit goal to turn everybody into a Christian. Its only in recent, secular times that this has begun to change, and still today you have Christians especially in the US demanding this "be a christian nation" etc. Islam is the same in its goal, its just that Islamic countries have not (yet) been subjected to secularism the way western ones have (probably something muslims are happy for). In time, as technology progresses and society advances, I think t his will change in muslim lands as it did in christian lands. The world is simply getting to small to keep tribal isolation going long term.

As for "Christianity being a choice", it is, sort of. Many young children are brainwashed into it from the cradle and really don't have much of chance to see through it. It is amazing the hate that many of these people face if they do question and go apostate. That isn't exclusive to Islam either.

[titus]

As for "Christianity being a choice", it is, sort of. Many young children are brainwashed into it from the cradle and really don't have much of chance to see through it.

True, but that goes for any religion.

By far the most important factor in what religion a person follows is what religion their parents followed. No other factor even comes close.

[Hugo]

your examaple about saddam hussien is the worst I've heard in years - why did the west arm saddam Hussien during the Iran Iraq war? - why did Donald rumsfeld meet Him! You just fell right in this one - you should seriously know that saddam Hussien was a "Friend" of the wests in the 80s not our enemy - he became an enemy later on when we wanted to invade Iraq. whats a scholar going to do in criticising saddam Hussien - would that have any impact on the wests friendly relationship with saddam in the 80s? I'm sure your smart enough to figure this one out yourself.

I think you are missing the point. I referred to Muslim history to show that from the time of the prophet and his slaughter by beheading of 600 Jews in Median that absolutism and violence have been the hallmarks of Islamic states and any reading of just say Arab history will confirm that, indeed the vast majority of Muslim deaths in 1400 years of its history was caused by other Muslims - unless you want to blame the West for all 1400 years of Muslim history as well? Let me ask you, was the Medina Massacre justified and indeed Muslims should rejoice over it and look to it as an example of how to deal with the infidel - frankly if you go to Muslim schools that is how it is treated though to me it is absolutely shocking that one sees children listening to such stories with glee. Herev I agree with you that we must enter the 'now'

Secondly, there is no doubt that the West amongst others have meddled in all sorts of ways from offering humanitarian aid to invasion and I deplore in general the notion of force of any kind. But it is not peculiar to the West and Muslims nations did exactly the same when they had the necessary power and would do again if they could. Let me ask you - are you arguing that ALL Western involvement has been bad?

Thirdly, I am at a loss to know what kind of government institution you would put in place of what you regard as discredited ones though as I have said absolutism has been the norm in Islamic countries for 1400 years - would it be a democracy where equal right is the norm, would it be some sort of Caliphate, would it be a council of guardians as in Iran, would it be a Wahhabi style orthodoxy - what?

I am glad to hear you are a Westerner and you have the right to speak out even against your own government without any fear of persecution - can you name an Islamic state anywhere or any time where you would get such freedom? One final word that I found striking in what you say about entering the 'now' - does that mean your are in favour of discarding outdated notions in Islam or are you of the opinion that there are no such things - let us see how far your modernity will stretch? Incidentally, you might like to consider what someone once said "if we forget the past we are condemned to repeat it"

[Hugo]

Hugo, are you a Christian yourself? Because I think you may have to be a non-christian to see Christianity's imposing itslef on non-christians (and it most certainly does), just as you may have to be a non-muslim to see the muslims doing it. Lately you even have atheists who have bought into the whole "christian tolerance" thing. Its a whole new concept, and not a very honest one if you read the bible. What you may see as "sharing the good word" isn't seen that way by most non-christians. Christianity has a long history of intolerance of other religions and has an explicit goal to turn everybody into a Christian. Its only in recent, secular times that this has begun to change, and still today you have Christians especially in the US demanding this "be a christian nation" etc. Islam is the same in its goal, its just that Islamic countries have not (yet) been subjected to secularism the way western ones have (probably something muslims are happy for). In time, as technology progresses and society advances, I think t his will change in muslim lands as it did in christian lands. The world is simply getting to small to keep tribal isolation going long term.

As for "Christianity being a choice", it is, sort of. Many young children are brainwashed into it from the cradle and really don't have much of chance to see through it. It is amazing the hate that many of these people face if they do question and go apostate. That isn't exclusive to Islam either.

You have a point but I have never been in a place where Christianity has been forced on me and neither have I seen this brainwashing you speak of, indeed in my culture there is always a clear teaching and insistence to Children that THEY have to decide for themselves. I am not arguing that what you say is never true but to me it is very far from the norm or what I have seen and I have seen churches and congregation right across the world.

[Hugo]

True, but that goes for any religion. By far the most important factor in what religion a person follows is what religion their parents followed. No other factor even comes close.

This is an interesting idea and one might ask here is there a difference between a choice being available and making a decision. Let us take apostasy from Islam, clearly a choice is available but the consequences of making a choice may come with a high price. More simply, we often hear of Muslim women arguing they have made a choice to wear the hijab but one would think if it was a choice it hardly seems possible that there is almost 100% choice one way. So is free choice a good thing?

[syed_z]

Give an example? Also does it not strike you as odd that America allows Muslims to build mosques and the religious freedom that implies whereas in say Saudi Arabia there is not a single church and in other places where local Christian want to build a church there are howls of protest from Muslims? Consider:

News Example 1 June
Afghan Christians in exile are urging their fellow-Christians around the world to help stop the Afghan government from arresting and executing Afghan Christians. While international media and politicians are silent, within Afghanistan a dramatic anti-Christian furore has erupted, in which Afghan media and politicians alike are calling for the death of converts from Islam, in line with Islamic sharia law.

News Example 2
President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan take a different view expressed as religious freedom is here and is real on the sense that preachers can preach whatever they like, provided they say nothing that is intolerant of other faiths. Kazakhstan is the only Muslim nation where over the past 15 years 15 new synagogues have been opened to serve the Jewish community

So who is right:
1. The intolerant president of Afghanistan who advocates execution for Christians or President Nazarbayev who advocate and practices total tolerance?
2. Is execution for a Muslim who become a Christian a good thing, something to be desired and indeed a practice to be preserved?

Welll bro Hugo i do agree to all those Examples you gave of Muslim Intolerance... and that is true because ALL those states you mentioned... are based on Secular Systems and not Pure Islamic System or Pure Islamic Ideology... since they rule With Democracy, that is Majority Vote, the democracy has become a Cover for those Corrupt Muslim Regimes to hide their Faults and still Maintain their Rule over the Majority of Ummah...

BUT still i would like to tell you some points which are worth knowing that, EVEN though the West calls itself the Champions of Religious Tolerance, it still has MUCH way to go regarding how to tolerate and still has MUCH to learn about Tolerance SPECIALLY those established by Islam...


1.Muslim Personal Law is NOT recognized in the Western Judicial System, while Non Muslim Personal Law is ACCEPTED in Muslim Countries

2.Muslims in the West , throughout the West, are NOT allowed to Call their Prayer Call (Adhaan) while CHurch bells ring Freely in most and almost ALL of Muslim Countires including mine... Pakistan.

3.The Wide spread Anti Islamic Point of view prevalent in the Modern Day Media, is because of Intolerance and no other reason.

4.Hate Crimes against Muslims are spreading at an Alarming Rate, while many and most of them are Unreported in the Biased Media.

5. The Champions of Tolerance are busy snatching Head Scarves from young Muslim girls, in the name of tolerance and Free dom.


and i could mention more, but i guess this is enough to understand the Western Approach to "tolerance".

[syed_z]

If i was you Hugo... i would compare the Tolerance to the Most and the Best Muslim Leader in the History of Islam and Muslims and NOT the Western backed Puppet Government so called "leaders" of muslims today!


Example...

While on His Deathbed, Sayyidna Umar ibn Khattab (r.a) (the 2nd Rightly Guided Caliph) dictated a long Will consisting of Instructions for the next Khalifa....

"I instruct you on behalf of the people who have been given Protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet. i.e (The Dhimmis or the Non-Muslims minorities within the Islamic State). Our covenant to them Must be fulfiled, we must fight to protect them, and they must not be burdened beyond their capabilities."


At that time Umar (r.a) was laying on his death bed, wounded from a stab, by a Non Muslim, who stabbed him with a dagger soaked in poison while he was about to lead the Fajr Prayer! At that time he was the leader of a Vast Empire (Based on Islamic Ideology NOT Secularism) from Egypt to Persia. Any Modern Day ruler, we could expect a swift reaction to take revenge Instantly. Even if We take the example of a VERY forgiving head of state, we can expect in this modern world to forget and forgive. .... BUT Who would give orders like not only forget, BUT also PROTECT and TAKE CARE ?

Could you please Provide me with ONE example out of all Roman Eastern Or Western Empire Rulership... Just ONE who acted in a Similar way....

You can try.. but you wont find any...

Obviously Omar (r.a) was following the Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (Saw)... that the Minorities in an Islamic State ruled by Islam, need to be protected, their Right be given in full, their Property, Children, Wives, all to be protected and CANNOT be forced in to Islam...

So i suggest, look at those leaders in Muslim History.... who were following Islam, and NOT those leaders, who follow their desires...

[Zafran]

I think you are missing the point. I referred to Muslim history to show that from the time of the prophet and his slaughter by beheading of 600 Jews in Median that absolutism and violence have been the hallmarks of Islamic states and any reading of just say Arab history will confirm that, indeed the vast majority of Muslim deaths in 1400 years of its history was caused by other Muslims - unless you want to blame the West for all 1400 years of Muslim history as well? Let me ask you, was the Medina Massacre justified and indeed Muslims should rejoice over it and look to it as an example of how to deal with the infidel - frankly if you go to Muslim schools that is how it is treated though to me it is absolutely shocking that one sees children listening to such stories with glee. Herev I agree with you that we must enter the 'now'

This is not what your original post was about - so from modern nation states to the mid east (which is now) we go to the Ottomans and now the prophet (pbuh) and some random incident that you know very little about. Then you give something about Bani Querza and children being taught about it??? every muslim on earth can tell you what muslim children are taught (basic of 5 pillars and 6 tenets, how to pray and reciting the Quran) thats about it. Thats like me saying it shocking how how Jewsih children are taught about the Torah and how to deal with non Jews or the gentiles oh wait I dont know what Jewish children are taught silly me (saracasm). You should stick to what you know and not on what you think you know.

Secondly, there is no doubt that the West amongst others have meddled in all sorts of ways from offering humanitarian aid to invasion and I deplore in general the notion of force of any kind. But it is not peculiar to the West and Muslims nations did exactly the same when they had the necessary power and would do again if they could. Let me ask you - are you arguing that ALL Western involvement has been bad?

the question what "if" is nonsense - both of us dont know the future so that is little benefit in making theories on it especially when you say that if they had the power they would misuse it which is stupid the west has the power IS miss using it and HAS done in the past - so the wests history isnt that good either - lets keep on the now shall we. Your right not all western internvention has been bad but I gave specific examples of the NOW like Afghan and Iraq war. I could have also gone an historical tangent like yourself - so try to stick with what I say and not some random points.

Thirdly, I am at a loss to know what kind of government institution you would put in place of what you regard as discredited ones though as I have said absolutism has been the norm in Islamic countries for 1400 years - would it be a democracy where equal right is the norm, would it be some sort of Caliphate, would it be a council of guardians as in Iran, would it be a Wahhabi style orthodoxy - what?

Again bringing up some random point about Absolutism that has been in the muslim world 1400 years - Britian has been ran by an absolutism as well for many years - you see your random historcal point realy doesnt show the realistic view of the world NOW. The government system of the mid east should be what the majority of the people want in the mid east - you and I as westerners have zero, null right to decide for them.

I am glad to hear you are a Westerner and you have the right to speak out even against your own government without any fear of persecution - can you name an Islamic state anywhere or any time where you would get such freedom? One final word that I found striking in what you say about entering the 'now' - does that mean your are in favour of discarding outdated notions in Islam or are you of the opinion that there are no such things - let us see how far your modernity will stretch? Incidentally, you might like to consider what someone once said "if we forget the past we are condemned to repeat it"

why would I care about that question anyway - i was born here so I'm here - just like you - the mid east has the right to figure its own problems out without me or you as westerners deciding for them. Your clearly havent taken in a single word I've said - I've Just shown you how the west helps the governments that oppress there own people and then you talk about rights - its a bit hypocritical that we support rights here in the west but like to oppress them in the mid east by supporting the governments that oppress them in the first place!! Think about that next time.

[syed_z]

and Hugo i know you have to answer to many people on this Thread... but i do want to say that Muhammad (Saw) beheading was not of Jews, it was only those Men among Jews who were part of The Treason, and the women and children and innocent ones were set free.... they had betrayed their own, and i say own, because the Muslims and them had a Pact, which they Broke and were bent on making sure the Muslim are destroyed....and also it was NOT A Massacre... a Massacre is not such... they were punished to maintain Justice, which did prevail...

[Zafran]

and Hugo i know you have to answer to many people on this Thread... but i do want to say that Muhammad (Saw) beheading was not of Jews, it was only those Men among Jews who were part of The Treason, and the women and children and innocent ones were set free.... they had betrayed their own, and i say own, because the Muslims and them had a Pact, which they Broke and were bent on making sure the Muslim are destroyed....and also it was NOT A Massacre... a Massacre is not such... they were punished to maintain Justice, which did prevail...

salaam

The irony about this is that he got it from muslim sources unless its recorded anywhere else in history?

[Hugo]

and Hugo i know you have to answer to many people on this Thread... but i do want to say that Muhammad (Saw) beheading was not of Jews, it was only those Men among Jews who were part of The Treason, and the women and children and innocent ones were set free.... they had betrayed their own, and i say own, because the Muslims and them had a Pact, which they Broke and were bent on making sure the Muslim are destroyed....and also it was NOT A Massacre... a Massacre is not such... they were punished to maintain Justice, which did prevail...

Well this perhaps is not the place to argue about this history as such and I raised it as a point of morality and of course it is possible to justify it as you have done but your view is not the only one possible.

[Hugo]

The irony about this is that he got it from muslim sources unless its recorded anywhere else in history?

Does this imply that Muslim sources are not to be trusted when they as in this case record plain history?

[جوري]

Does this imply that Muslim sources are not to be trusted when they as in this case record plain history?

What it means is that you shouldn't use a Muslim source to create a secondary opinion based that has no basis in reality. Previously I had asked you to prove that Jews existed at all in that part of the world were it not for Islamic sources, you failed to do so, and we all know what implications that would also have as it completely negates the lies in your bible about Issac being the subject of sacrifice.. you are constantly putting yourself in a terrible dilemma.. I almost pity you trying so hard and always coming up so empty!

all the best

[Zafran]

Does this imply that Muslim sources are not to be trusted when they as in this case record plain history?

so is it the only source and if it is why dont you take it FULLY or do you have other sources contradiciting the event? whats your criteria of recording plain history - theres many other things in the same source is that also history?

[Zafran]

What it means is that you shouldn't use a Muslim source to create a secondary opinion based that has no basis in reality. Previously I had asked you to prove that Jews existed at all in that part of the world were it not for Islamic sources, you failed to do so, and we all know what implications that would also have as it completely negates the lies in your bible about Issac being the subject of sacrifice.. you are constantly putting yourself in a terrible dilemma.. I almost pity you trying so hard and always coming up so empty!

all the best

salaam

thats exactly what I was implying

peace

[Hugo]

so is it the only source and if it is why dont you take it FULLY or do you have other sources contradiciting the event? whats your criteria of recording plain history - theres many other things in the same source is that also history?

When you say 'take it fully' I am unclear what you mean. There are two elements: the first is shall we say the facts and I fully understand that these may vary between different accounts and secondly there is the interpretation of those facts. So are you expecting me or anyone to never accept one without the other? So if you agree that 600 Jews were executed at Medina then I might well agree with you based on the various sources but it does not follow at all that I have to agree that it was an entirely justified and noble thing to do as you or Muslim commentators might interpret that event? Do you agree?

[جوري]

salaam

thats exactly what I was implying

peace

It is always so obvious to everyone else than him, I didn't even read your post to figure out exactly what he was doing.. this is the sort of crap that flies in their circles but honestly, expecting rational human beings to subscribe to that brand of 'logic' or lack thereof simply won't fly in the real world...

again, you must pity them, the only way their religion seems appealing is for them to have century long lies which are so readily believed by them.. They should be grateful for secularism they'd still be stuck in the dark ages!

[Amadeus85]

Recently Paul McCartney compared global warming denialism with Holocaust denialsm. What a brainless prick.

[syed_z]

Well thanks Hugo and Zafran...

I didn't join the Conversation from the Beginning, so i have missed on quite alot, didn't take much time to read from the beginning, so i apologize for bringing up something else, if i did... :)

[Zafran]

When you say 'take it fully' I am unclear what you mean. There are two elements: the first is shall we say the facts and I fully understand that these may vary between different accounts and secondly there is the interpretation of those facts. So are you expecting me or anyone to never accept one without the other? So if you agree that 600 Jews were executed at Medina then I might well agree with you based on the various sources but it does not follow at all that I have to agree that it was an entirely justified and noble thing to do as you or Muslim commentators might interpret that event? Do you agree?

what accounts - what sources, what facts - how do you determine them - just because you want to? - as i said there are other things in the same source are they also plain history? whats the criteria?

Lets see how you get to the frst element?

[sabr*]

As-Salāmu `Alaykum (السلام عليكم):

Muslims:

do we follow the guidance and instruction of Allah? Allah directs Muslims how to communicate with Al-Kitab (People of the Scripture).

Be mindful of our Adab (Conduct)

Surah Ankabut

وَلَا تُجَادِلُوا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا مِنْهُمْ وَقُولُوا آمَنَّا بِالَّذِي أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَأُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَإِلَهُنَا وَإِلَهُكُمْ وَاحِدٌ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ (29:46)

29:46 (Y. Ali) And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."

[syed_z]

Well this perhaps is not the place to argue about this history as such and I raised it as a point of morality and of course it is possible to justify it as you have done but your view is not the only one possible.

well Hugo... i do understand and i respect, whatever your Point of View is... we cannot force our point of view on each other... But Remember a Society which is Strong on a Moral level, has to HAVE justice 1st! If there is no Justice and people do whatever and there are no limits, then there can be no True Morality... :)

[aadil77]

Give an example? Also does it not strike you as odd that America allows Muslims to build mosques and the religious freedom that implies whereas in say Saudi Arabia there is not a single church and in other places where local Christian want to build a church there are howls of protest from Muslims? Consider:

I'm not talking about building churches or masjids

What I meant is that just from watching a bit on tv you get the impression that in some parts of US people share that same patriotism towards christianity as they do for america as a country. So with such blind following and ignorance you're bound to get churches that preach against other religions, I remember watching a video with a american minister calling islam a religion of 'satan' and that prophet Muhammad is the 'false prophet' who calls to satans way - now can you imagine something like that being preached in a church over here?

[Zafran]

Well thanks Hugo and Zafran...

I didn't join the Conversation from the Beginning, so i have missed on quite alot, didn't take much time to read from the beginning, so i apologize for bringing up something else, if i did... :)

Salaam

dont worry about bro

May Allah bless you

peace

[syed_z]

Btw Zafran... could you please tell me in short, what are we discussing or what are we supposed to discuss... thanks !

[Zafran]

Btw Zafran... could you please tell me in short, what are we discussing or what are we supposed to discuss... thanks !

salaam

I was here defending by previous statment about the west making clones in the muslim world - thats when I joined the thread

peace

[Hugo]

Welll bro Hugo i do agree to all those Examples you gave of Muslim Intolerance...

Just to be clear I gave ONE example of Muslim intolerance and ONE of Muslim tolerance.

and that is true because ALL those states you mentioned... are based on Secular Systems and not Pure Islamic System or Pure Islamic Ideology... since they rule With Democracy, that is Majority Vote, the democracy has become a Cover for those Corrupt Muslim Regimes to hide their Faults and still Maintain their Rule over the Majority of Ummah..

Well I mentioned Afghanistan and Kazakhstan and the first is clearly not secular and the second perhaps is or might be regarded that way. Frankly, I have no idea what this pure Islam is though one sees the idea every where and sadly usually as a way of avoiding facing up to Islamic failures. So what do you mean by it, Wahhabism for instanced?

1.Muslim Personal Law is NOT recognized in the Western Judicial System, while Non Muslim Personal Law is ACCEPTED in Muslim Countries

This may be true but the difference is that in a Western society the law is the same for everyone no matter who or what they are whilst Sharai is discriminatory.

Muslims in the West , throughout the West, are NOT allowed to Call their Prayer Call (Adhaan) while CHurch bells ring Freely in most and almost ALL of Muslim Countires including mine... Pakistan.

Well I cannot speak with authority on this as it is not a matter of law as such and usually it will be judged on its nuisance value. Lots of Church bell ringing has been stopped because of the noise and the same would apply to calls to prayer. One wonders why in a modern age one has to use a loudspeaker to call people to prayer so maybe you just need to get up to date.

The Wide spread Anti Islamic Point of view prevalent in the Modern Day Media, is because of Intolerance and no other reason.

I study my paper every day and I don't see this, I go to church meetings almost every day and I have NEVER heard anti-Islam preachers so I think you are muddling up the freedoms to express a view with assumptions as to its prevalence. I visit the UAE a lot and I get the papers there every days and they look just the same, report the same sort of news in much the same way.

In my local church with attached school where a large proportion of the kids are Muslim and every DAY I see Muslim women going in an out of the school as well as in and out of the church for various activities. So whilst I am not denying that hate exists it may not be as common as you imply. Conversely, every day almost I get a report of a Church being damaged or destroyed, Christians being harassed or hurt or out in jail in a Muslim majority country - do YOU ever read such reports?

You like me have to be able to see both sides of the coin - don't you agree?

[Zafran]

so hugo did you read my last post?? waiting for the reply

[جوري]

You like me have to be able to see both sides of the coin - don't you agree?

I don't think anyone here at all can agree that you see 'both sides of the coin' just given the amount of venomous rhetoric you spew.. you in fact demonstrate and repeatedly a myopic one sided view and growing ever restive when challenged in the most trivial issues which you have no lucid or consistent reply to..

[Hugo]

so hugo did you read my last post?? waiting for the reply

Sorry about this but your last post seems to be:

salaam
I was here defending by previous statment about the west making clones in the muslim world - thats when I joined the thread
peace

So can you say the post numbers please?

[Zafran]

You like me have to be able to see both sides of the coin - don't you agree?

Hugo you dont see things from both sides - your as bias as everyone else - you read a paper every day - what paper do you read? Because all the examples you Gave are christain examples - is that becasue your a christian (bias) - because as muslims we clearly can see muslim being targeted - we're in the news far more then the christains. By the way I'm sure muslims can give many examples of anti Islamic hatred they suffered on the streets of the west - I know I have - men called terroists, women getting there hijabs stripped off - lets not forget about the terrorims laws and amount iof times muslims have been stopped and searched then the christains.

[Zafran]

number 85 I believe

[Zafran]

I don't think anyone here at all can agree that you see 'both sides of the coin' just given the amount of venomous rhetoric you spew.. you in fact demonstrate and repeatedly a myopic one sided view and growing ever restive when challenged in the most trivial issues which you have no lucid or consistent reply to..

salaam

Hes doing a great job in escaping the question - It realy makes me think why he actually comes here?

peace

[Rhubarb Tart]

@Hugo

I study my paper every day

*spits out her drink out*

In the uk? Are you sure? Do you honestly want me to list popular newspapers in the UK that are anti Islamic and always give false information about Muslims in the UK and the rest of the world? And the disproportion focus on Muslims, Islam and Muslim countries compared to what else is happening across the UK and the world?

I would not only categories these newspapers as anti Islamic but also racist and irrational.

[جوري]

salaam

Hes doing a great job in escaping the question - It realy makes me think why he actually comes here?

peace

in fact more than one person has confronted him with that already, even in matters unrelated to religion.
pls. see here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1340656

it is an a,b,c,d,e or none of the above response.. it only requires application of knowledge which one claims one possesses not a great dance around it.. large compendiums of irrelevant text don't cut it I am afraid in any sector!

:w:

[syed_z]

Well I mentioned Afghanistan and Kazakhstan and the first is clearly not secular and the second perhaps is or might be regarded that way. Frankly, I have no idea what this pure Islam is though one sees the idea every where and sadly usually as a way of avoiding facing up to Islamic failures. So what do you mean by it, Wahhabism for instanced?

Nope not even , the 2nd one is NOT even closely regarded as what you say Islamic. Muslim Majority living under a Muslim Ruler, is NOT Islamic. Islam is a System which needs to be implemented on a State level, with Quran and Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet) to be made as basis of ALL Laws in the country... when Muslims are ruling like Western way of Democracy, they make Laws whatever the Majority says.... something the Majority agrees to could be passed as Law even though it might have been against the Words of Quran and Sunnah...


In Islam, Sovereignity Belong to God, and Man is His represenatative... and Man is supposed to rule over the Majority who are believers in Him, according to the Words of Quran and Sunnah... that means you make all Laws but they need to be within the Limits of God...


The Countries you mentioned, One of them is being controlled by NATO and American Forces, and is a Puppet government, which does not represent People at ALL! In Afghanistan the President Hamid Karzai, is NOT the President of Afghanistan, yes his designation might be BUT he is more like a mayor of Kabul.... he does not have any authority in Afghanistan .... the Taliban are ruling most parts, and other tribes... so you don't accept this Government as Government of Afghanistan JUST because BBC and CNN say so... ...


The Country of Kazakhastan you mentioned, does NOT rule by Shariah as well, as Shariah is an Islamic Law for to be ruled over the Muslims... most of the Muslim Countries, are ruled by Democracy as the West, which is failing, as Democracy and Capitalism, have not been able to issue and solve the Problems of Humanity.... rather they have created more problems, and in the Muslim Countries have become a Shield for the corrupt Rulers to hide their corruption and continue it behind covers...


You said they are NOT secular, .... secular means God being separated from All affairs of the people of the country... means God is only confined to a Private Sphere of each persons Life, which is the thought of the Western World, but its not what Islam says.... Muslim rulers are following it, just to be praised by the West and continue their crimes.... but its a False way of Believing in One God...West needed Secularism because Christianity could NOT solve the Problems of Humanity, as it was NOT meant for Entire Mankind... therefore they needed Reforms etc.

Since you were quick to jump and say this state is secular that is Islamic... i can see you don't know what Islamic Ideology is, niether do you know what Secularism is....

This may be true but the difference is that in a Western society the law is the same for everyone no matter who or what they are whilst Sharai is discriminatory.

How is Shariah discriminatory ?... every one has the right to live according to the way they want... if you have a personal belief and Your Property needs to be distributed according to the belief and your family and you accept it, WHO has the right to force on you their own way of life.... None should! The Muslims have their own personal laws, regarding divorce, marriage, property distribution and West should consider, if its a Tolerant Society as it claims to be... Please Provide Evidence as to how a Shariah is Discriminatory...

If Non Muslims are dealt according to their Personal Law in Muslim Countries, then i guess West is obviously behind in Tolerance...

Even in an Islamic State ruled by Islam, the Jew, Christian or Hindu have the right to have their Personal Law for their personal lives....

Now theres a difference between Law of the Land and Personal Law.... Law of the Land should be respected by Muslims who live in that Western country... but Personal Law should NOT be forced on any One!

So whilst I am not denying that hate exists it may not be as common as you imply. Conversely, every day almost I get a report of a Church being damaged or destroyed, Christians being harassed or hurt or out in jail in a Muslim majority country - do YOU ever read such reports?

You are right and i agree.. with you.. yes there have been many instances where Non Muslim Minorities, have been treated that way... BUT in a Secular Muslim Majority state... NOT a Muslim Country being Run on Islam.... see you need to 1st see the example of those Islamic States, in the past in which Non Muslims were living and had access to full rights, because during those times Muslims were Ruled by Islamic law and Shariah, and NOT by Secular Ideas.... the concept of Idividual Nation states occurred after we were colonized by the Same Western Britishers, at the Point of Sword COnquered lands Shamelessly!

That is why i gave example of Hazrat Umar (r.a) dealing with the Non Muslim Minority and You were comparing Islam with president of Kazakhastan ! Compare the religious tolerance with those leaders who represent Islam and not their own thoughts....


and so i asked you to provide me ONE example as to how Umar (r.a) dealt with Non Muslims, even after being Stabbed by them to death.... with a ANY Roman Leader or Modern day Western leader who dealt with the minority like that ? Please give me one example !


I would like you to 1st Understand what Shariah is..... Shariah is Rule of God on earth over the Land where Muslims live... it was the Same Shariah which gave Non Muslim minority rights uptill the Time of Ottoman Caliphate was abolished by the Conquerors of Europe....


Give you another example...


Jewish historians like Abba Eban and Solomon Grayzel have acknowledged and recognized their “Golden Age of Diaspora” (Diaspora is the time of 2000 yr period of Jews without a Homeland of their own) the period of Jewish affluence and growth in Muslim Spain. When Muslims were ruling Over Spain, the Jews were very satisfied, as their rights were given in full, because the Institution of the State was run in that Empire with Quran and Sunnah.... it was NOT Secular, where the attitude is just like the Western Countries, to deal with Minorities the Way we Feel like! No!

Rather When the Arab rule came to end in 1492, and the Jews were immediately expelled from Spain by the Christian rulers Ferdinand and Isabella, they were given refuge and asylum in the Ottoman Empire.


The Golden Period of Jewish Diaspora was under the Muslims, when Muslims ruled according to Shariah...they were tolerated so much, that they even held posts of Ministers with the Muslim Sultans of the time.... The Jews were at the same time, persecuted and massacred by the Roman Christian Crusaders who came from the West to "liberate" the Holy Land... also there always were pogroms taking place in Europe since the time of Crusades...


and so i am sure you need to know more about Shariah, rather than finding faults 1st...

[Hugo]

In the uk? Are you sure? Do you honestly want me to list popular newspapers in the UK that are anti Islamic and always give false information about Muslims in the UK and the rest of the world? And the disproportion focus on Muslims, Islam and Muslim countries compared to what else is happening across the UK and the world? I would not only categories these newspapers as anti Islamic but also racist and irrational.

Yes say what they are, let us all hear and then we can make up our own mind. Perhaps you will conduct a small study for say one week and then list all the anti-Islamic stories your find in the papers you read and I will do them same for the ones I read - deal?

[Hugo]

How is Shariah discriminatory ?... every one has the right to live according to the way they want... if you have a personal belief and Your Property needs to be distributed according to the belief and your family and you accept it, WHO has the right to force on you their own way of life.... None should! The Muslims have their own personal laws, regarding divorce, marriage, property distribution and West should consider, if its a Tolerant Society as it claims to be... Please Provide Evidence as to how a Shariah is Discriminatory...

This is NOT true and one only has to consider apostasy to see it - if someone wants to leave Islam, since according to you "everyone has the right to live according to the way they want.." Perhaps I am unfair here and you are of the opinion that the apostasy laws in Islam are wrong. May I ask you does the Jew, the Christian under Islamic law have equal rights with a Muslim?You are either a reformed Muslim or uninformed as to what Islamic law degrees.

Now theres a difference between Law of the Land and Personal Law.... Law of the Land should be respected by Muslims who live in that Western country... but Personal Law should NOT be forced on any One!

But in a democracy there is the SAME law for everyone

i asked you to provide me ONE example as to how Umar (r.a) dealt with Non Muslims, even after being Stabbed by them to death.... with a ANY Roman Leader or Modern day Western leader who dealt with the minority like that ? Please give me one example !

I am not quite sure now which post this was but firstly Muslim rulers have more often than not been assassinated by other Muslims (I can give examples). The point perhaps is that when such incidents happened sometimes revenge was taken and sometimes not. But some Muslim rulers decreed that non-Muslim should be protected and often welcomed them as you have pointed out and that is good but it did not grant them equal rights so they in effect were protected as inferior beings and not citizens - as you say they were "tolerated"

I regard the crusades as a disgrace but one must not forget that Islamic history is littered with massacres small and large with Muslims fighting amongst themselves - pick up any Arab history book and you will be regaled with stories of heads and ears being sent to the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul. This is not about Islam or Christianity in a way it is about the depravity that exists in human nature itself and no amount of law will get rid of that.

[Hugo]

in fact more than one person has confronted him with that already, even in matters unrelated to religion.
pls. see here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1340656

it is an a,b,c,d,e or none of the above response.. it only requires application of knowledge which one claims one possesses not a great dance around it.. large compendiums of irrelevant text don't cut it I am afraid in any sector!

I guess most of you do not have the faintest idea what this is about other than an attempt to discredit me. Well I leave it to you, go to that thread and read what I have written and what lily has written and make your own mind up.

[جوري]

I guess most of you do not have the faintest idea what this is about other than an attempt to discredit me. Well I leave it to you, go to that thread and read what I have written and what lily has written and make your own mind up.

and I'd indeed urge everyone to do that..
I don't discredit you, you discredit yourself.. and such is the case with most threads you begin but can't carry to fruition unfortunately, it isn't my point of view alone!

all the best

[Hugo]

what accounts - what sources, what facts - how do you determine them - just because you want to? - as i said there are other things in the same source are they also plain history? whats the criteria? Lets see how you get to the frst element?

I am not entirely sure what you are asking but with regard to sources we might say
1. Ideally we look for primary sources and put simply that means we look for scholarly accounts as might be found in journals and of course such accounts usually find their way into books.
2. One considers authors, their qualifications, where they have published and the currency of their work.
3. When looking at work one also looks at the references within it because it is important to know how the work was constructed and of course to make checks.
4. One considers the publisher and their pedigree and how and who reviews work before it is published.
5. Finally, one hope that the work is objective and consider what we might call the pros and cons.

As a concerned poster to this thread or any other or writing an essay then you must read a range of sources and they in general should be current ones, the fruit of that latest research. We must weight the evidence and arguments and always be aware of our own pre-disposition otherwise we simple see what we want no matter what the evidence says. There is a good example in another thread where discrepancies have been noted in Biblical Resurrection accounts between a chapter in Matthews gospel and a chapter in that of John's. So one can note the lack of harmonisation and immediately draw a conclusion as is done there that the accounts are unreliable, the text is a fabrication, and so on. That however, is not a scholarly way and in this case there is an over-abundance of sources that deal with it both for and against and you will be dishonest not to check them out.

One might add here that with books on religion are peculiarly difficulties because in many circumstances one must stand outside of your faith, put it to one side otherwise it might bias your work. As an example, suppose I were considering authenticity of say biblical or Qu'ranic documents then you MUST put aside what you believe about God and be as much as possible independent, honest. In contrast if you were writing a commentary then of course you faith can play its full part.

[Zafran]

I'm sure your well aware of what we were talking about but if you want to drop the subject - just say so Hugo.

[Pygoscelis]

Both the christian and the muslim come to the table with books they believe are truth and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. If you want a scholarly approach it will have to be secular. If you want an honest and fair comparison between Christian text and Muslim text you will have to look to those who practice neither, be t hat a hindu, taoist, or atheist.

[جوري]

sure no bias there to heathenism or idolatry..

[Pygoscelis]

Sure, the hindu, taoist and atheists all come with their own biases, but they are independent for the christian/muslim divide. They are outsiders and their biases are far less relevant. They've got no horse in this race (until you turn the question to how their own world view compares).

[جوري]

Sure, the hindu, taoist and atheists all come with their own biases, but they are independent for the christian/muslim divide. They are outsiders and their biases are far less relevant. They've got no horse in this race (until you turn the question to how their own world view compares).

since engaging in any topic would require that you have to have some baseline level of knowledge on the subject I don't see how different forms of kaffirs could have anything at all to contribute bias, positively or negatively skewed that would be of relevance .. further we are not comparing and contrasting here since there is nothing to compare, the fellow has taken some historical events and added his own rendition (well because he felt like it) the rest of us are merely humoring a him through a crisis so he is saved similar blunders in the real world!

that is all geppetto.. go on now and play with a real boy!

all the best

[Hugo]

Both the christian and the muslim come to the table with books they believe are truth and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. If you want a scholarly approach it will have to be secular. If you want an honest and fair comparison between Christian text and Muslim text you will have to look to those who practice neither, be t hat a hindu, taoist, or atheist.

Yes I agree with you in general here, if one is to be absolutely scholarly we have to step outside our faith to do it otherwise we begin with pre-suppositions that can have no material evidence to support them and I indicated this principles in my earlier post. I am not however disposed to say 'secular' but perhaps a better word would be scientific though even then not everything will be absolutely certain - that is the nature of existence. If we are inside our faith then its fine to discuss it with our accepted dogmas but when speaking to others this is not necessarily appropriate or fair.

[Hugo]

I'm sure your well aware of what we were talking about but if you want to drop the subject - just say so Hugo.

If you cannot be clear then don't join in. Incidentally I have read nearly all the letters of Eckermann and very instructive they are but not be able to find any where your quote - have you read them?

[Hugo]

so is it the only source and if it is why dont you take it FULLY or do you have other sources contradiciting the event? whats your criteria of recording plain history - theres many other things in the same source is that also history?

If there is only one source text then we have difficulty and must be sceptical and it would be foolish to accept it fully or otherwise. Ideally, one would like several sources so that corroboration is possible. Usually when there are several sources they will naturally differ and that in its own way is a mark of authenticity. If the sources are contradictory then one seeks a resolution or harmonisation if that is possible though often such a harmonisation can only be speculative but that does not mean it is impossible to harmonise the accounts or that the accounts are false.

Consider the Qu'ran, according to Muslims the revelation came from God via an angel and then via Mohammed. It is therefore a second/third hand account with no possibility of corroboration and is therefore for unreliable - do you agree?

[syed_z]

This is NOT true and one only has to consider apostasy to see it - if someone wants to leave Islam, since according to you "everyone has the right to live according to the way they want.." Perhaps I am unfair here and you are of the opinion that the apostasy laws in Islam are wrong. May I ask you does the Jew, the Christian under Islamic law have equal rights with a Muslim?You are either a reformed Muslim or uninformed as to what Islamic law degrees.

Hugo you are again making the mistake of challenging something about Islam of which you don't know about....

Just like how you challenged the killing of those Traitor Jews who tried destroying the Muslim Community, you are once again challenging Islam's Law regarding Apostasy...

You have already said that You don't know about Pure Islam, still you try pointing errors... and so as a Muslim its my duty to reply you regarding your misconception...


The Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, is killing ONLY when the person who declares himself a disbeliever and FURTHER goes ahead and tries to destroy the image of Islam, not only that but conspires against the Muslims in collaboration with the Enemies of Islam... Such person is supposed to be killed as Punishment of Apostasy!


Just like how you said "Muhammad ordered Killing of Jews" ...without making it clear that it was ONLY those Men among Jews who conspired and NOT women and children and elders! You did not distinguish between those killed and those spared... You just said "he killed 600 jews"... so be specific and not just point errors!


2nd Point...

Well I cannot speak with authority on this as it is not a matter of law as such and usually it will be judged on its nuisance value. Lots of Church bell ringing has been stopped because of the noise and the same would apply to calls to prayer. One wonders why in a modern age one has to use a loudspeaker to call people to prayer so maybe you just need to get up to date.

You Said Call to Prayer (Adhaan) or Church Bells might be Nuisance, while completely forgetting as to HOW much nuisance it is when a Plane flies over our heads every 15 minutes, or when Police and Ambulance Sirens keep making noise every 10 minutes ... don't you consider that a Nuisance ? If its because of Nuisance then the Western World should take those sirens off and planes should stop flying over our heads.... if a Christian Community in Pakistan or Iraq, is allowed to wring bells in their Areas and neighborhoods, there should be NO REASON for Muslim Communities living in Neighborhoods in London and Toronto, NOT to be allowed the Call to Prayer (Adhaan)....

...So as i said the Democratic West STILL needs to learn more about Tolerance... perhaps they should open the Quran and read the Seerah of Muhammad (saw)... BUT wait they are too busy drawing Cartoons of Muhammad (Saw) in the Name of Freedom of Speech... Do you agree ?

But in a democracy there is the SAME law for everyone

Unfortunately Brother... the Democracy you speak of, is going down the Garbage bin of History! Lets see how Dangerous the Democracy is... and 1st of all i am surprised that you as a Church going Boy, worshiping God, say that Democracy which Separates God from the State, is JUST FINE ?


The Philosophy of Democracy is that Sovereignity Belongs to People... its invested in people... powers of Legislation are in the hands of people. Law making depends on their own thoughts and minds and moods. So if the Majority of the people, legislate a law regardless of however ill concieved, it may be religiously or morally, it is added as a Law. And if the people want abrogation of a law or change a law, however just and rightful it might be, it would be changed JUST because Majority of people vote for it!

A good example is the Same Sex marriages, no matter how hateful it might be to many Christians around Europe , it is being accepted as a part of life...

This is the Evil of Democracy... and btw do you support Same Sex Marriage ? Just a Question ? And if you don't , then you should not Stand up for Democracy...

The point perhaps is that when such incidents happened sometimes revenge was taken and sometimes not. But some Muslim rulers decreed that non-Muslim should be protected and often welcomed them as you have pointed out and that is good but it did not grant them equal rights so they in effect were protected as inferior beings and not citizens - as you say they were "tolerated"

Since you pointed out earlier that Shariah is Discriminatory! Let us find out What Islam gives as rights to the Non Muslims Living Under an Islamic State... as you said Islam and Muslims did not Grant them Equal Rights, for which again you DID NOT provide any proof...Inferior Beings you said!

Ok so lets see... Zakah is the Tax levied on Muslims as they are Muslim Citizens living in an Islamic State. Jizyah is a tax levied on Non Muslims for their participation as citizens in an Islamic State. Now Jizyah is not a fixed rate in Quran but the traditions mention it and Guess what the Jizyah is supposed to be LESSER than Zakah according to all the available traditions of the Prophet. So a Non Muslim pays less for being a Citizen, while a Muslim Pays more ?

In addition to the Protection provided to their property, family, and their religious rights be given, they are NOT supposed to serve in the Military, as in an Islamic State every Muslim needs to be in the Military, if they are called for to serve. .... Just to give an example of USA one of the Democracy Champions, forces High School Children to sign for Military and if they don't go when called they are PUT INSIDE JAIL! This is something i've witnessed, that is signing with the Military when i went to High School when i lived in USA.... so not to forget this!!

Exempted from Jizyah

All are exempted from this Tax .... 1. all women, 2. males who have not yet reached full maturity c. old men d. all sick and crippled men e. Priests and Monks

IN Addition IF they would like to volunteer for military, those on whom the tax is supposed to be levied, even they are EXEMPTED from the payment of it!


Please Provide me ONE example of A Democratic Western Secular States which give such Rights! Priests and Monks being exempted ? And you called the Non Muslim Citizens under Islamic States Run on Islamic Ideology, as Inferior ?


An Islamic State is run on an Islamic Ideology guided by Quran and Sunnah, this is the Basis of Law of the Land. The Non Muslims CAN even get administrative posts and posts in many services of the State.... BUT not Key Posts, as the Islamic State needs to be run on an Islamic Ideology and the figures sitting on those key posts, are the only ones allowed to influence any change and for that they HAVE to be Muslims...


So you called Non Muslim living Under an Islamic State as Inferior... i guess i would say you should look the Example of Islamic Iran... which has Jews as Members of Parliament.....


I see you arguing with Brothers and Sisters about Islam, without even knowing anything about it....


So please whenever you try pointing an error, please provide PROOF! Do you agree ?

[Zafran]

If there is only one source text then we have difficulty and must be sceptical and it would be foolish to accept it fully or otherwise. Ideally, one would like several sources so that corroboration is possible. Usually when there are several sources they will naturally differ and that in its own way is a mark of authenticity. If the sources are contradictory then one seeks a resolution or harmonisation if that is possible though often such a harmonisation can only be speculative but that does not mean it is impossible to harmonise the accounts or that the accounts are false.

Consider the Qu'ran, according to Muslims the revelation came from God via an angel and then via Mohammed. It is therefore a second/third hand account with no possibility of corroboration and is therefore for unreliable - do you agree?

Lets forcus on something we talked about earlier and not some random tangent that you like to go off on - re read my post 85 it was specific to something you said - I would like you to answer it specifically what we we're talking about and not go off irrelevent tangents.

If you cannot be clear then don't join in. Incidentally I have read nearly all the letters of Eckermann and very instructive they are but not be able to find any where your quote - have you read them?

another tangent - I'll give you a clue you were about to prove how the Bani querza incident was a fact? as you called it "plain history" if thats the case what criteria are you using and what sources are you using? The source also talks about other things are they also "plain facts"? how do you even know in your secular mind that the Jews even were in arabia? how do you know these "facts"?

[Hugo]

Lets forcus on something we talked about earlier and not some random tangent that you like to go off on - re read my post 85 it was specific to something you said - I would like you to answer it specifically what we we're talking about and not go off irrelevant tangents.

It is hard to know where to being with you, I stated various criteria and you made no comment either because you agree or have your own set or simply have no idea what scholarly research means. But if I focus on the Medina case then maybe we can find some common ground if its only to establish what YOU regard as a reliable source. Firstly, the Medina executions are reported all over the place and although when one looks at the sources there are as one would expect variations but the event most agree is as follows.

"A consensus Muslim account of the massacre of the Qurayzah has emerged as converyed by classical Muslim scholars of hadith (putative utterances and acts of Muhammad, recorded by pious Muslim transmitters), biographers of Muhammad’s life (especially Ibn Ishaq), jurists, and historians. This narrative is summarized as follows: Alleged to have aided the forces of Muhammad’s enemies in violation of a prior pact, the Qurayzah were subsequently isolated and besieged. Twice the Qurayzah made offers to surrender and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they asked to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayzah asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayzah surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayzah were led to Medina. The men, with their hands pinioned behind their backs, were put in a court, while the women and children were said to have been put into a separate court. A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayzah was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aus. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’adh from the Aus, who soon rendered his concise verdict: The men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims". (Andrew G. Bostom’s "The Legacy of Jihad", ISBN 9781591 026020)

One might note it is mentioned in the Qu'ran at least 4 times: 59:2, 59:9, 59:13 and 59:15 according to most commentators. Why a book that is supposed to be eternal contains this temporal information I cannot say or if these writings occurred before or after the event.

Perhaps we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza as a staring point because it is accessible and to me seems a clear and unbiased account well supported by references - perhaps you would care to comment on them and their acceptability to you, if not then let us see you list? On the issues of Jews being there then it is VERY hard to find any sources or sites that says otherwise. However, Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Greek conquests or more likely Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a position of cultural, economic and political dominance. Extant sources provide no conclusive evidence whether the Banu Qurayza were ethnically Jewish or Arab converts to Judaism. Just like the other Jews of Yathrib, the Qurayza claimed to be of Israelite descent and observed the commandments of Judaism, but adopted many Arab customs and intermarried with Arabs. Ibn Ishaq, the author of the traditional Muslim biography of Muhammad, traces their genealogy to Aaron and further to Abraham but gives only eight intermediaries between Aaron and the purported founder of the Qurayza tribe.

I am not sure if its now worth saying any more until I hear your response to either generally agree with what has been written or alternatively let us hear your version and accompanying bibliography or references.

[جوري]

Perhaps we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza as a staring point because it is accessible and to me seems a clear and unbiased account

That is so funny.. and certainly very credible!
do you know the difference between a chain of Isnad and narrations to convey an accurate historical picture vs. a website where anyone can write anything and the information no matter how properly sourced can only be traced to one credible source which will be written by Muslims, since there is no other account of Jews having been in that part of the world were it not for Islamic recordings.. and thus leaves us with the question, if you accept their presence there, and accept the original historical account of the events, then again why the secondary opinion that paints them as victims instead of traitors and that the punishment they chose for themselves was directly from their Torah?..

Are you really that ignorant and desperate or just playing stupid and expect voluminous loggorrhea and 'wikipedia' to drown out common sense?

I again challenge you to prove that Banu Quryzah existed at all were it not for Islamic sources!
go ahead bring me an independent Jewish scholar of the time who wrote about the event to influence your very differing point of view!

Not sure who Andrew Bosom is, but we are certainly not interested in opinion when discussing history!

[Zafran]

It is hard to know where to being with you, I stated various criteria and you made no comment either because you agree or have your own set or simply have no idea what scholarly research means. But if I focus on the Medina case then maybe we can find some common ground if its only to establish what YOU regard as a reliable source. Firstly, the Medina executions are reported all over the place and although when one looks at the sources there are as one would expect variations but the event most agree is as follows.

"A consensus Muslim account of the massacre of the Qurayzah has emerged as converyed by classical Muslim scholars of hadith (putative utterances and acts of Muhammad, recorded by pious Muslim transmitters), biographers of Muhammad’s life (especially Ibn Ishaq), jurists, and historians. This narrative is summarized as follows: Alleged to have aided the forces of Muhammad’s enemies in violation of a prior pact, the Qurayzah were subsequently isolated and besieged. Twice the Qurayzah made offers to surrender and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they asked to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayzah asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayzah surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayzah were led to Medina. The men, with their hands pinioned behind their backs, were put in a court, while the women and children were said to have been put into a separate court. A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayzah was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aus. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’adh from the Aus, who soon rendered his concise verdict: The men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims". (Andrew G. Bostom’s "The Legacy of Jihad", ISBN 9781591 026020)

One might note it is mentioned in the Qu'ran at least 4 times: 59:2, 59:9, 59:13 and 59:15 according to most commentators. Why a book that is supposed to be eternal contains this temporal information I cannot say or if these writings occurred before or after the event.

Perhaps we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza as a staring point because it is accessible and to me seems a clear and unbiased account well supported by references - perhaps you would care to comment on them and their acceptability to you, if not then let us see you list? On the issues of Jews being there then it is VERY hard to find any sources or sites that says otherwise. However, Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Greek conquests or more likely Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a position of cultural, economic and political dominance. Extant sources provide no conclusive evidence whether the Banu Qurayza were ethnically Jewish or Arab converts to Judaism. Just like the other Jews of Yathrib, the Qurayza claimed to be of Israelite descent and observed the commandments of Judaism, but adopted many Arab customs and intermarried with Arabs. Ibn Ishaq, the author of the traditional Muslim biography of Muhammad, traces their genealogy to Aaron and further to Abraham but gives only eight intermediaries between Aaron and the purported founder of the Qurayza tribe.

I am not sure if its now worth saying any more until I hear your response to either generally agree with what has been written or alternatively let us hear your version and accompanying bibliography or references.

So do you base this all on what muslims say - and therefore it is a fact or plain history? can you prove this without using muslim sources - do you only need muslims sources (yes incluidng if the Jews were in arabia) - if so muslim sources talk about other things as well are they also facts? You need to prove this outside muslim sources thats the only way it can fit in your own "critieria" of being "plain history".

wikipedia article? come on I thought you were about to give something more scholarly.

Ultimatley your contradicting your own criteria.

[Zafran]

That is so funny.. and certainly very credible!
do you know the difference between a chain of Isnad and narrations to convey an accurate historical picture vs. a website where anyone can write anything and the information no matter how properly sourced can only be traced to one credible source which will be written by Muslims, since there is no other account of Jews having been in that part of the world were it not for Islamic recordings.. and thus leaves us with the question, if you accept their presence there, and accept the original historical account of the events, then again why the secondary opinion that paints them as victims instead of traitors and that the punishment they chose for themselves was directly from their Torah?..

Are you really that ignorant and desperate or just playing stupid and expect voluminous loggorrhea and 'wikipedia' to drown out common sense?

I again challenge you to prove that Banu Quryzah existed at all were it not for Islamic sources!
go ahead bring me an independent Jewish scholar of the time who wrote about the event to influence your very differing point of view!

Not sure who Andrew Bosom is, but we are certainly not interested in opinion when discussing history!

salaam

If you google the quote he used you will find that Ibn Warraq has wrote the forward - I think that should explain it all.

peace

[Hugo]

That is so funny.. and certainly very credible! do you know the difference between a chain of Isnad and narrations to convey an accurate historical picture vs. a website where anyone can write anything and the information no matter how properly sourced can only be traced to one credible source which will be written by Muslims, since there is no other account of Jews having been in that part of the world were it not for Islamic recordings.. and thus leaves us with the question, if you accept their presence there, and accept the original historical account of the events, then again why the secondary opinion that paints them as victims instead of traitors and that the punishment they chose for themselves was directly from their Torah?.. Are you really that ignorant and desperate or just playing stupid and expect voluminous loggorrhea and 'wikipedia' to drown out common sense? I again challenge you to prove that Banu Quryzah existed at all were it not for Islamic sources! go ahead bring me an independent Jewish scholar of the time who wrote about the event to influence your very differing point of view!
Not sure who Andrew Bosom is, but we are certainly not interested in opinion when discussing history!

I made this post as it is because I am trying to establish what Zafran might regard as a reliable source so I have given him several. We all know that and isad is and all it does is trace a saying or description of an action back to its source - no one but an idiot would think that would make what was said or done true or worth remembering. Indeed there are many instances where what is said cannot be shown it to be true and one must ask how could they possibly know it. The point here though is that yet again you have not suggested a single source, you have rubbished the ones I have suggested without even the taking the trouble to look at them - you have it seem nothing but invective to offer.

[Hugo]

If you google the quote he used you will find that Ibn Warraq has wrote the forward - I think that should explain it all.

Would that make it untrue? As it happens I have the book and the question is was that summary extracted from the book I stated accurately or not. If not then let us see something from you supported from the literature not the usual recycled stuff typical to your usual approach. Yet again here we see nothing of value from you.

[جوري]

salaam

If you google the quote he used you will find that Ibn Warraq has wrote the forward - I think that should explain it all.

peace

well 'ibn waraq' to him is a scholar, he has already let us know that he is after scholarship and isn't biased (as we are) and well you should believe him because he has been so credible so far-- other western turds with agendas are also scholars according to him and anything written by Muslim theologians from the oldest university in the world should be dismissed.. also dismissed right along are works of the likes of Bruce metzger (a staunch christian scholar) but only in the case he writes something contradictory to Hugo's personal beliefs of a mangod impregnating a 12 year old, choosing ineffectual apostles to shoulder the responsibility after this god's death or appearing to charlatans to abrogate OT laws .. in other words if a biblical scholar and not some turdy apostate writes that these chapters in the bible have questionable authorship then that too can be dismissed...but his endless tirade and voluminous nonsensical loggorrhea or unrelated drivel is the stuff of Pulitzers...

I wish I can get the time I wasted writing here back, but then, it is always good for a hearty guffaw if you've missed the sunday funnies!

:w:

[Zafran]

I made this post as it is because I am trying to establish what Zafran might regard as a reliable source so I have given him several. We all know that and isad is and all it does is trace a saying or description of an action back to its source - no one but an idiot would think that would make what was said or done true or worth remembering. Indeed there are many instances where what is said cannot be shown it to be true and one must ask how could they possibly know it. The point here though is that yet again you have not suggested a single source, you have rubbished the ones I have suggested without even the taking the trouble to look at them - you have it seem nothing but invective to offer.

Hugo you dont know what muslims find reliable and you dont know how the transmission works (muttawaitir and ahad is a good palce to start) - But as your last post showed you also base your entire idea on muslims sources anyway (ofcourse contradicting your criteria) - I want to see some non muslims sources of the Jews in arabia and even in the bani querza incident - you havent given one yet? If you like giving muslim sources and find them reliable or "plain history" so everything muslim sources say is plain history?

[جوري]

Hugo you dont know what muslims find reliable and you dont know how the transmission works (muttawaitir and ahad is a good palce to start) - But as your last post showed you also base your entire idea on muslims sources anyway (ofcourse contradicting your criteria) - I want to see some non muslims sources of the Jews in arabia and even in the bani querza incident - you havent given one yet? If you like giving muslim sources and find them reliable or "plain history" so everything muslim sources say is plain history?

I suggest you merely report him at this stage, one of the many forum criteria which he is in overt breach of, is introducing anti-islamic rhetoric from questionable sources (all which has been refuted time and again) if anyone cared to dignify it with a reply. Anything beyond this is wasting your breath on a guy who thinks wikipedia and a moron are scholarly!

:w:

[Zafran]

Would that make it untrue? As it happens I have the book and the question is was that summary extracted from the book I stated accurately or not. If not then let us see something from you supported from the literature not the usual recycled stuff typical to your usual approach. Yet again here we see nothing of value from you.

so you still cant prove the incident without using muslims sources? I'm still waiting for it? stick to your criteria and show me some non muslim sources about the Jews in arabia and the bani querza incident - If you see muslim sources as being "plain history" does that also mean that other things muslims write is also plain history - I'm being patient with you by asking this the fourth time? if you cant just say so. Simple.

[Zafran]

I suggest you merely report him at this stage, one of the many forum criteria which he is in overt breach of, is introducing anti-islamic rhetoric from questionable sources (all which has been refuted time and again) if anyone cared to dignify it with a reply. Anything beyond this is wasting your breath on a guy who thinks wikipedia and a moron are scholarly!

:w:

salaam

I know he likes to bring the old stuff out - it seems that its only thing hes read about Islam.

I am getting tired of him escaping the discussion.

peace

[جوري]

salaam

I know he likes to bring the old stuff out - it seems that its only thing hes read about Islam.

I am getting tired of him escaping the discussion.

peace

not that I follow his every post, but he doesn't read replies and answers (to his queries at all) and posts unrelated material to purge his soul of the hatred that must be seething in his soul (and how contrary to the principles he so likes to hold as a paragon) that I am starting to question his mental status.. he does that on every thread he starts or derails those of others including one about the Quran being the word of God, if he doesn't like the replies he receives then he'll recompile his crap and start anew hoping for a different response from a member that either caters to his way of life or from one who hasn't matured enough in replies to give him a portal from which to pounce and create a smoldering environment that is in concert with his personal beliefs until people tire of him..

and I have certainly tired of him, and hope he received enough infractions to be rid us of him for a long time to come-- can't believe Muslim members have been banned for lesser things while he is still here!

:w:

[Zafran]

not that I follow his every post, but he doesn't read replies and answers (to his queries at all) and posts unrelated material to purge his soul of the hatred that must be seething in his soul (and how contrary to the principles he so likes to hold as a paragon) that I am starting to question his mental status.. he does that on every thread he starts or derails those of others including one about the Quran being the word of God, if he doesn't like the replies he receives then he'll recompile his crap and start anew hoping for a different response from a member that either caters to his wife of life or hasn't matured enough in replies to give him a portal from which to pounce and create a smoldering environment that is in concert with his personal beliefs until people tire of him..

and I have certainly tired of him, and hope he received enough infractions to be rid us of him for a long time to come-- can't believe Muslim members have been banned for lesser things while he is still here!

:w:

salaam

I agree with - he does that alot. I think muslims do the mistake of taking him seriously.

peace

[syed_z]

Hugo... i personally believe that Such incident did take place... and i don't like why you use the Term "massacre" again, because it was NOT a massacre.... massacre as in which the WHOLE Banu Qurayza should have been wiped off No... was NOT some Hitler Style execution... it was done to Stop injustice and ONLY those were were spreading corruption...


Hugo how much do you REALLY know, what evil planning that Banu Quraiza did ? I am pretty sure that you don't know any thing, about what they did..... read before pointing errors about Islam, Prophet Muhammad (saw) etc...

As i had already told you, you were pointing at Apostasy 1st, then blindly following Democracy, then bringing up the issue of Non Muslim being treated Inferior in Muslim lands in the Past... all of the issues i addressed you and you keep following whatever the Orientalist write about Islam and Muslims....

You should take time and do research and not try looking for errors... for the Treacherous acts in Detail about Banu Quraiza, Insh Allah i would be posting them...

[syed_z]

In the midst of these difficult circumstances (i.e Muslims were surrounded by thousands of men who had besieged them at the Battle of Trench) , plottery and intrigues were in fervent action against the Muslims.

The chief criminal of Bani Nadir (Jewish Tribe) , Huyai, headed for the habitations of Banu Quraiza to incite their chief Ka‘b bin Asad Al-Qurazi, who had drawn a pact with the Messenger of Allâh (Peace be upon him) to run to his aid in times of war.

Ka‘b, in the beginning resisted all Huyai’s temptation, but Huyai was clever enough to manipulate him, speaking of Quraish and their notables in Al-Asyal, as well as Ghatfan and their chieftains entrenched in Uhud, all in one mind, determined to exterminate Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his followers. He, moreover, promised to stay in Ka‘b’s fort exposing himself to any potential danger in case Quraish and Ghatfan recanted. The wicked man went on in this manner until he later managed to win Ka‘b to his side and persuade him to break his covenant with the Muslims.

Banu Quraiza then started to launch war operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims.

On the authority of Ibn Ishaq, Safiyah (May Allah be pleased with her) daughter of ‘Abdul Muttalib happened to be in a garrison with Hassan bin Thabit as well as some women and children. Safiyah said:

“A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man’s presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh (Peace be upon him) and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don’t you get down and kill him? Hassan answered that he would not do it, so I took a bar of wood, went down and struck the Jew to death. I returned and asked Hassan to loot him but again Hassan refused to do that.

This event had a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters.

They, however, went on providing the idolaters with supplies in token of their support against the Muslims. On hearing this bad news, the Messenger (Peace be upon him) despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, Sa‘d bin ‘Ubada, ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumours are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men
discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that no pact of alliance existed any longer with Muhammad (Peace be upon him).

The Messenger of Allâh (Peace be upon him) was briefed on this situation, and the Muslims understood their critical position with the horrible danger implied therein. Their back was vulnerable to the attacks of Banu Quraiza, and a huge army with no way to connive at in front, while their women and children unprotected standing in between. In this regard,

Allâh says in the Quran

“And when the eyes grew wild and the hearts reached to the throats, and you were harbouring doubts about Allâh. There, the believers were tried and shaken with a mighty shaking.” [33:10, 11]

( taken from Al Raheeq Al Maktum (The Sealed Nectar) BY: Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri)


... rest of the story is not what i intend to Post, but my intention is to tell those, who are quick to jump and point errors about Islam and History of Muslims, without ANY authentic Proof... This Biography is one of the Best ones out there in the Muslim, World, rather it got the best Prize in Makkah in the 1970s......

It was the WOMEN and CHILDREN the Jews were trying to kill... this is called MASSACRE!



That was Justice, so that this type of Evil planning does not take place against the Muslims in Madinah, by any other Non Muslim Tribes....

[Hugo]

Hugo you dont know what muslims find reliable and you dont know how the transmission works (muttawaitir and ahad is a good palce to start) - But as your last post showed you also base your entire idea on muslims sources anyway (ofcourse contradicting your criteria) - I want to see some non muslims sources of the Jews in arabia and even in the bani querza incident - you havent given one yet? If you like giving muslim sources and find them reliable or "plain history" so everything muslim sources say is plain history?

It is a typical bluff to tell someone they don't know. I have tried to give YOU a starting point that was accessible from 3 different sources all readily available even if you regard Wikipedia as weak. In a way you are right, I have not given you one source I have given you over 150 separate reference's all referring directly or indirectly to the Medina incident and in return all you can do, and any one can do it, is mention that there is a science to hadith and its terminology is huge and often complicated and of course I am asking questions about God.

I have stated the usual criteria for using sources and if the Muslim ones are different then tell us what they are and cite some sources so that I and others can look them up? I cannot see how my criteria contradict anything and all I have stated is the usual scholarly practice that you can find in any University anywhere. Look though the list I have given you and you tell me if there are any non Muslim sources - its time you did some work instead of pontificating.

Finally, suppose there are NO non Muslim sources, that all we know about the Medina incident was written by Muslim historians - what would that prove? As it happens I have read quite a few books written by Muslims on history and more often that not they are obviously eye witness accounts or accounts given by eye witnesses. So what is your point? I guess the issue is that you expect the facts to be accepted as well as the interpretation - in simple terms if the Muslim viewpoint is a just execution was carried out I must accept it. But any incident, any fact is open to interpretation.

To make the point simple, if I look at a Jewish account and that says it was a massacre by YOU logic they must also be right because the facts are the same. That is why we have to make judgements and why we come to different answers.

[Zafran]

It is a typical bluff to tell someone they don't know. I have tried to give YOU a starting point that was accessible from 3 different sources all readily available even if you regard Wikipedia as weak. In a way you are right, I have not given you one source I have given you over 150 separate reference's all referring directly or indirectly to the Medina incident and in return all you can do, and any one can do it, is mention that there is a science to hadith and its terminology is huge and often complicated and of course I am asking questions about God

Hugo its a wikipedia article for goodness sake - if you used that has your source in university you wouldnt get a very good mark its that simple.

I have stated the usual criteria for using sources and if the Muslim ones are different then tell us what they are and cite some sources so that I and others can look them up? I cannot see how my criteria contradict anything and all I have stated is the usual scholarly practice that you can find in any University anywhere. Look though the list I have given you and you tell me if there are any non Muslim sources - its time you did some work instead of pontificating.

Finally, suppose there are NO non Muslim sources, that all we know about the Medina incident was written by Muslim historians - what would that prove? As it happens I have read quite a few books written by Muslims on history and more often that not they are obviously eye witness accounts or accounts given by eye witnesses. So what is your point? I guess the issue is that you expect the facts to be accepted as well as the interpretation - in simple terms if the Muslim viewpoint is a just execution was carried out I must accept it. But any incident, any fact is open to interpretation

Hugo in your "scholarly practice" this wouldnt work as a fact - you would have to prove the incident by using non muslims sources as well (which I'm still waiting for so that we can actually take your "scholarly practice" seriously). Its heavily important to your secular criteria . So far you have only used muslim sources and your calling it a fact, If that is the case then what about other things Muslim sources say are they also facts? You should see now how your clearly contradicting yourself and the criteria you set out.

This is the fifth time I'm repeating it - everyone else knows what I want from you yet you still seem to either 1 not get it or 2 Just dont want to answer it because you know that it contradicts your criteria.

[Hugo]

Hugo its a wikipedia article for goodness sake - if you used that has your source in university you wouldnt get a very good mark its that simple.

Let me be clear here, I have suggested you look at Wikipedia and although you are right that in general one should not quote from it because its content may not be reliable. However, your mistake is therefore to assume that anything we find there must be wrong or suspect. Every academic in the world uses Wikipedia, every day because its coverage is so vast. What I and other academics say is that if one is beginning a scholarly review it is invariably a very good place to start and more often than not it has a very full bibliography and subject outline. Secondly, there are a huge number of things where no universal definition applies or something is regarded as obvious or common knowledge. In such cases it is permissible to use Wikepedia if for no other reason that it is available. For example, no less a luminary that J. Craig Venter, who famously has created artificial life earlier this year, gave a lecture in London where he used a quote from Wikipedia. Similarly, suppose you wanted to write about the notion of “best practice” then it is acceptable to define it as you want or use Wikepedia to do it. Where it becomes wrong is when you are quoting say a theory or reporting what someone said or did and in such a cases you should go to the primary source or at least as close as you can get to it.

Hugo in your "scholarly practice" this wouldnt work as a fact - you would have to prove the incident by using non Muslims sources as well (which I'm still waiting for so that we can actually take your "scholarly practice" seriously). Its heavily important to your secular criteria . So far you have only used muslim sources and your calling it a fact, If that is the case then what about other things Muslim sources say are they also facts? You should see now how your clearly contradicting yourself and the criteria you set out.

It is difficult to know where to start as so far you have offered nothing to the discussion and your only contribution is to harp on about ‘Muslim sources’ and were there any Jews there. I will try therefore to summarise the arguments from sources that you can trace on the web but to keep postings small I will have to do it over 2 or 3 posts. Firstly, I cannot quite see the logic that says I must use non Muslim sources to prove a fact, or the Medina facts in particular - unless of course we are to assume that all Muslim sources are untrustworthy? I think you are muddled over what a fact might be and an interpretation put upon those facts.

One example, before I offer a more extensive answer. In the source I quote in the next post we are told the Aisha reported "..the Angel Gabriel appeared to him and was removing dost...". According to you is this a reliable fact that any historian might use, did she see the angel, did any one see the angel?

[Hugo]

This is the fifth time I'm repeating it - everyone else knows what I want from you yet you still seem to either 1 not get it or 2 Just dont want to answer it because you know that it contradicts your criteria.

In my first post I will begin by saying there are literally 1000s of articles on the Banu Quraiza incident. I have located several that you can access and will review them over a number of posts. But to begin, let’s look at one by Hamza Hashem and you can find it in full at http://foreverislam.blogspot.com/201...e-or-myth.html. I cite this one because I think it states the orthodox Muslim position though it is not fully referenced but let us see if you can say a simple yes or no to its conclusions. I just summarise here its finding but expect you to check it out in the full article otherwise we are just wasting our time. Hashem only uses Muslim sources because he rightly regards those are the principle, perhaps only ones though he does hint at possible Jewish sources.

1. Hashem assumes there were Jews in Medina. Indeed I have been unable to find an account anywhere that does not take this point for granted though occasionally it is supported by a reference to the Qu’ran or one of the accepted hadith collections.

Comment – therefore there seems no reasonable grounds for even suggesting that Jews were not resident in Medina or its environs.

2. Hashem accepts that the Medina incident regarding the Banu Qurayza is a fact of history. Where he differs is largely related to the scale of the executions that followed their defeat.

3. Hashem states that the majority of information on the incident has been extracted from the work of Ibn Ishaq and since we know that this work only survives as recensions and is largely now known through the recension attributed to Ibn Hisham. The argument presented therefore rests on showing that this Muslim historian cannot be trusted and that presumption is itself based on the view that the standards for Sirah do not meet the high standards demanded of hadith. In short Ibn Ishaq is often regarded as a liar and imposter and we are told in this case that he might have relied primarily on the descendants of Banu Qurayza for details, a non Muslim source.

Comment - This theses is not without problems because, as Hashem points out, it only suggest the possibility of error, it cannot unequivocally demonstrate them. The thesis is also uncomfortable because I do not know of a single biography of the prophet that does not rely in large part on the work of Ibn Ishaq. If the thesis is correct, then much that is known about the prophet; is now no more than speculation.

4. Hashem suggests that Ibn Ishaq’s works is based on Jewish sources.

Comment - this must mean such sources existed if only in oral forms. If one rejects this idea then we more or less have to conclude that Ibn Ishaq invented or embroidered whatever stories he found, from Muslim sources – why he would do that and in so doing bring shame on Islam is hard to explain.

5. Finally Hashem asks if Ibn Ishaq is correct why are there so few other records. From an Islamic perspective Hashem suggests there are just 3 examples and if you read the article in full you will find them quoted there.

Comment - However, none of the three can be accepted as historical evidence since all rely on the miraculous so cannot possibly be corroborated – there is talk of the Angel Gabriel and like any revelation what is written in the Qu’ran amounts technically to hearsay. Nevertheless, it is a point but for all we know there were other accounts which may have been lost or destroyed or hidden because of the ordure consequent on the actions taken. It is not unknown is it for books and records to be destroyed and such destruction was even carried out on the Qu’ran itself.

6. The final section more or less says that if indeed the executions did take place then it was a former Jew (Sa’d b. Mu’adh) who was responsible.

Comment - But Jews never used Deuteronomy 20:12-14 as a precedent as this severe command, given to Moses, was for a specific purpose and for a specific time (c. 1,400 BC) and for a specific place. However, we must not forget that whatever happened Mohammed’s approval would have been necessary.

One might lastly point out his concluding remark which to me practically invalidates all he has said, to quote Hashem - “I will simply leave off with the fact that nowhere before, or after has such an event happened”. Well this is simply untrue since Islamic history is replete with massacres. 4,000 Jews at Granada in 1066, 100,000 Hindus on a single day in 1399, a million or so Christian Armenians in the early 1900's.

[Zafran]

Hugo before you go further you still dont get the point - its quite simple - the Bani querza incident and Jews actually being in medina is all based on muslim sources - you have clearly shown this on all your posts.

If yes then why do you accept it as a fact? if you do accept it as a fact then does that not mean that other things Islamic sources as well should also be taken as facts as well if not why not? We are not talking about Interpreataion we are talking about how you made this event factual in the first place with your secular outlook? Is that clear.

[Hugo]

Hugo before you go further you still dont get the point - its quite simple - the Bani querza incident and Jews actually being in medina is all based on muslim sources - you have clearly shown this on all your posts. If yes then why do you accept it as a fact? if you do accept it as a fact then does that not mean that other things Islamic sources as well should also be taken as facts as well if not why not? We are not talking about Interpretation we are talking about how you made this event factual in the first place with your secular outlook? Is that clear.

I don't think you appreciate the import of what you are saying here so I will explain.

1. In all the Banu Quereza accounts I have read everyone agrees that the sources are Muslim ones though more often that not they suggest things like Jewish oral records. I accept that verdict, I cannot do much else.

2. You now seem to be arguing that because I or anyone accepts, using Muslim (though the logic must apply to any source) sources that if one event is true then I must accept that all Muslim reported events are also true? Of course we can reverse this and say if a Muslim sources is shown to be untrue then all Muslim sources are untrue. I do not think this can possibly be logical and each event must be treated the same way and with the necessary scepticism and investigation/corroboration.

3. Now the fact is that Ibn Ishaq is unquestionably a Muslim source so either we accept what he says or not. You seem to be suggesting that because it is Muslim we accept it in which case 600 Jews were massacred or Executed depending on your point of view. Alternatively, we regard this Muslim source as unreliable and since there are almost no other records about the event in question we are left in a kind of historical vacuum and be content with saying it might or might not be true.

[Zafran]

I don't think you appreciate the import of what you are saying here so I will explain.

1. In all the Banu Quereza accounts I have read everyone agrees that the sources are Muslim ones though more often that not they suggest things like Jewish oral records. I accept that verdict, I cannot do much else

This is one of the problems you talk about Jewish oral records but lets be honest nobody actaully knows what they actually said or even if they did talk about the incident - so its not the best proof - all we have as you have stated are muslim sources.

2. You now seem to be arguing that because I or anyone accepts, using Muslim (though the logic must apply to any source) sources that if one event is true then I must accept that all Muslim reported events are also true? Of course we can reverse this and say if a Muslim sources is shown to be untrue then all Muslim sources are untrue. I do not think this can possibly be logical and each event must be treated the same way and with the necessary scepticism and investigation/corroboration.

This is the main point - Lets be very specific - you accept that the bani Querza happend or that the Jews were in medina entirely based on muslim sources - But then you pick and choose what you want to believe within muslim sources. You talk about Corroboration but you dont even know if the incident is corrobarated - you also say you have to be sceptical - what of - its ok to be sceptical about the number, its ok about the Jews being there but the rest of the account you reject? - why and how do you come to that conclusion? You still have not shown how you discriminate from one muslim source to another and why one part of the same source is reliable whilst the other one isnt?

3. Now the fact is that Ibn Ishaq is unquestionably a Muslim source so either we accept what he says or not. You seem to be suggesting that because it is Muslim we accept it in which case 600 Jews were massacred or Executed depending on your point of view. Alternatively, we regard this Muslim source as unreliable and since there are almost no other records about the event in question we are left in a kind of historical vacuum and be content with saying it might or might not be true.

This is the problem Ibn Ishaq gives a specifc account and certianly doesnt present it the way you do - So ultimately you like to pick and choose from the same source - how do you do that and how do you discriminate within the same account? Its ok to accept the number but not the rest? whats the criteria? Is he just a lying when you want him to lie and telling the truth when you want him to tell the truth?

[جوري]

^^ Jews had an 800~1000 year oral tradition that wasn't written down (which has actually been discussed before) but it is getting tedious to reply back to this guy as he insists on bringing up points that have been addressed amply as if to hammer in a point will erase it from history and doesn't seem to register anything else but his personal convictions as ludicrous as they are!

I'd recommend you quit replying maybe he'll get the hint?

:w:

[Hugo]

This is one of the problems you talk about Jewish oral records but lets be honest nobody actaully knows what they actually said or even if they did talk about the incident - so its not the best proof - all we have as you have stated are muslim sources.

I don't talk about Jewish oral records its Muslim commentators who do that because they want to discredit Ibn Ishaq and you would see this if you have bothered to read the references I gave you.

This is the main point - Lets be very specific - you accept that the bani Querza happend or that the Jews were in medina entirely based on muslim sources - But then you pick and choose what you want to believe within muslim sources. You talk about Corroboration but you dont even know if the incident is corrobarated - you also say you have to be sceptical - what of - its ok to be sceptical about the number, its ok about the Jews being there but the rest of the account you reject? - why and how do you come to that conclusion? You still have not shown how you discriminate from one muslim source to another and why one part of the same source is reliable whilst the other one isnt?

This is not an honest assessment. Certainly I accept from Muslim sources that the incident happened but it is YOU who are picking and choosing, you who are deciding which bits of Ibn Ishaq to accept. I keep telling you and the best articles on the subject by Muslim authors tell you that Ibn Ishaq's accounts are the only ones that give any details and the orthodox Muslim position is that his writings are suspect and the reason mostly given is that he did not use the same high standards of evidence typical in approved hadith collections. As I have pointed out there are a few other Muslim sources but they are inconclusive.

So one discriminates based on corroborations, internal evidence, lexicography etc and that is why one document can be accepted and another not and different scholars may well take different positions. However, one cannot do a blanket acceptance can you that would be an absurdity. Of course typically you and I (I assumes) don't have the technical apparatus to do this with ancient documents or access to them so we rely on scholarly reviews and by reading several we can reach our own informed conclusions. If you do that some will come down on Ibn Ishaq' side and some not, some will see it as a massacre, some as executions and some as a minor skirmish and some dismiss it altogether.

[Zafran]

^^ Jews had an 800~1000 year oral tradition that wasn't written down (which has actually been discussed before) but it is getting tedious to reply back to this guy as he insists on bringing up points that have been addressed amply as if to hammer in a point will erase it from history and doesn't seem to register anything else but his personal convictions as ludicrous as they are!

I'd recommend you quit replying maybe he'll get the hint?

:w:

salaam

After reading his last tangent I think he likes to going in circles - I believe he knows that he cant realy back his opinion up through "the secular outlook" so he takes the hypocritical position - he believes what he wants and ommits and what he likes from the sources. I'll take your advice.

peace

[Hugo]

After reading his last tangent I think he likes to going in circles - I believe he knows that he cant realy back his opinion up through "the secular outlook" so he takes the hypocritical position - he believes what he wants and ommits and what he likes from the sources. I'll take your advice.

Fine by me, I have tried to discuss the topic with you and given many many sources, you in contrast offered nothing, not a single reference or comment worthy of the name - is it because you cannot bring yourself to admit that Ibn Ishaq is a very well know and used but unreliable Muslim source? So I leave it to others to look through the posts and see which of us has seriously engaged in the discussion.

[Zafran]

Fine by me, I have tried to discuss the topic with you and given many many sources, you in contrast offered nothing, not a single reference or comment worthy of the name - is it because you cannot bring yourself to admit that Ibn Ishaq is a very well know and used but unreliable Muslim source? So I leave it to others to look through the posts and see which of us has seriously engaged in the discussion.

Yes I will remember the wikipedia part, Ibn Warraq and then the picking and choosing of Ibn Ishaq - I'm sure others will see how my questions have not realy been answerd or any serious proof been given to make this even a fact in the secular outlook. I'm sure they will be confused how you make it into one with your pseudo secular approach.

[Hugo]

Yes I will remember the wikipedia part, Ibn Warraq and then the picking and choosing of Ibn Ishaq - I'm sure others will see how my questions have not realy been answerd or any serious proof been given to make this even a fact in the secular outlook. I'm sure they will be confused how you make it into one with your pseudo secular approach.

As I have said you have offered nothing. I supplied over 150 reference sources, a suggested you look at an article written by a Muslim which itself contained references (I can give you many others). I also asked you questions but no answer of any kind was offered. I don't care if you don't like Ibn Warraq or Wikipedia or Hamza Hashem but if so suggest something or someone else. Your comment on Ibn Ishaq is the most telling because every article uses him and they pick and choose also or dismiss him altogether as I indicated. So you tell me how we pick and choose with Ibn Ishaq and if you do how you reconcile it with claims he was a liar and imposter. I doubt we can go any further as you seem to have nothing to say. What difference does it or can it make to truth what outlook you use - well only in your case an Islamic outlook would accept the supernatural as proof but no respectable historian would or could do that.

[Zafran]

As I have said you have offered nothing. I supplied over 150 reference sources, a suggested you look at an article written by a Muslim which itself contained references (I can give you many others). I also asked you questions but no answer of any kind was offered. I don't care if you don't like Ibn Warraq or Wikipedia or Hamza Hashem but if so suggest something or someone else. Your comment on Ibn Ishaq is the most telling because every article uses him and they pick and choose also or dismiss him altogether as I indicated. So you tell me how we pick and choose with Ibn Ishaq and if you do how you reconcile it with claims he was a liar and imposter. I doubt we can go any further as you seem to have nothing to say. What difference does it or can it make to truth what outlook you use - well only in your case an Islamic outlook would accept the supernatural as proof but no respectable historian would or could do that.

The problem is very simple. I never stated you had to reconcile it with Ibn Ishaq was a liar or an imposter. but why do you regard Ibn Ishaq as factual? or any muslim source for that matter (on the issue of bani querza and the Jews being in medina)? simple as that - you just cant realy answer it - so what you did do was give me wikipedia and then Ibn warraq and then you said its the most detailed account but all this goes against the secular view - it cant be regarded as a fact just because one source is the most detailed? it doesnt work like that in the secular criteria. You also talked about corroborations but the fact is you cant find any? so its still odd how you call this a fact and still believe your using the secular approach - more like pseduo secular approach.

[جوري]

I made this post as it is because I am trying to establish what Zafran might regard as a reliable source so I have given him several.

No, you didn't give him several, what you've done is take a pure source and pervert it..

We all know that and isad is and all it does is trace a saying or description of an action back to its source - no one but an idiot would think that would make what was said or done true or worth remembering.

The way we see it, is that you are the only idiot here. Not only have you perverted what was recorded with secondary opinions, but you haven't offered a viable alternative recorded from that same period that offers a hint of the gross perversion that you are hinting to. Intellectual dishonesty and bullying must be the christian way, I mean how else could the church have had its strong ignorant grip on the masses save for those exact two methods, Perversion of the truth, dispersion of lies and bullying of those who stand opposed.. You are indeed a poster boy of your ancestry!~

Indeed there are many instances where what is said cannot be shown it to be true and one must ask how could they possibly know it.

generalized statements of nonsense serve as filler I understand, but what is its purpose here? If you don't want to subscribe to the original account, then any account thereafter can as well be equally dismissed!

The point here though is that yet again you have not suggested a single source, you have rubbished the ones I have suggested without even the taking the trouble to look at them - you have it seem nothing but invective to offer.

I am familiar with the crap you post and where you get it from, the sad fact of the matter is that you are unwilling to subscribe to history as recorded in favor or opinions, you can keep your opinion and those of like minded twits, but don't come pose it here as if you are an authority figure or as if you have the slightest clue as to what it is you are talking about..

I'd reconcile all the biblical nonsense you subscribe to first before I extend myself to real time events as only recorded by Muslims!

all the best

[Hugo]

The problem is very simple. I never stated you had to reconcile it with Ibn Ishaq was a liar or an imposter. but why do you regard Ibn Ishaq as factual? or any muslim source for that matter (on the issue of bani querza and the Jews being in medina)? simple as that - you just cant realy answer it - so what you did do was give me wikipedia and then Ibn warraq and then you said its the most detailed account but all this goes against the secular view - it cant be regarded as a fact just because one source is the most detailed? it doesnt work like that in the secular criteria. You also talked about corroborations but the fact is you cant find any? so its still odd how you call this a fact and still believe your using the secular approach - more like pseduo secular approach.

Well I am not quite sure but we seem to be agreeing. Firstly, it was Muslim commentators who had trouble with Ibn Ishaq not me and his trustworthiness or otherwise was commonly used in their arguments. In terms of knowing if he is factual we cannot simply just consider the Banu Querza incident we have to, when judging him, consider his work in general. Is he known to be careful, is he known to make mistakes, is he biased, is what he says always corroborated and so on. There are lots of biographers of the prophets so are they all untrustworthy because they were not as strict as the "traditionalists"?

Secondly, I did not say it was true because it was detailed, I only said, and all the commentators agree was that it is the most detailed. So we are back to where we started, we have an event which I think everyone agrees happened and as I have said before we have to make a judgement about the accounts we have. I have read many Muslim and secular accounts and if we assume these authors are competent and honest then it is up to us to weight what they have said and come to our own conclusions.

One final word, if an account is the only one that records certain details then it is obviously problematic because we lack certainty and then we fall back on the integrity of the author and that is why most Muslim authors attack Ibn Ishaq - do you disregard with him in every case or just this one?

What I find difficult to understand in the Muslim position is that that there are so many other things that cannot be corroborated but you express no scepticism about them - no corroboration for the Qu'ran, no first hand accounts by the prophet, every account we know of is of the form "the prophet said or did..", Aisha reporting on angels and so on. Now because I am sceptical does not mean they are untrue but they are often impossible to corroborate - so why the difference in outlook?

[Zafran]

Well I am not quite sure but we seem to be agreeing. Firstly, it was Muslim commentators who had trouble with Ibn Ishaq not me and his trustworthiness or otherwise was commonly used in their arguments. In terms of knowing if he is factual we cannot simply just consider the Banu Querza incident we have to, when judging him, consider his work in general. Is he known to be careful, is he known to make mistakes, is he biased, is what he says always corroborated and so on. There are lots of biographers of the prophets so are they all untrustworthy because they were not as strict as the "traditionalists"?

Just tell me how you come up with the fact of Bani querza and the Jews being in medina - its not point of telling me what we have to do - I want to know how you actually came to the conclusion is it because wikipedia told you so? or Ibn Warraq and his expalnation of Ibn Ishaq? If so what methodalogy do they use for it to be a fact? I want to know how you intellectually in your secular mind can call this a fact? So far they are the only reasons you have stated - not very scholarly or secular. You also havent provided any non muslims sources or corrobarated evedince - non, zero, nul. For this reason it simply cannot be seen as a fact in your secular outlook.

Secondly, I did not say it was true because it was detailed, I only said, and all the commentators agree was that it is the most detailed. So we are back to where we started, we have an event which I think everyone agrees happend and as I have said before we have to make a judgement about the accounts we have. I have read many Muslim and secular accounts and if we assume these authors are competent and honest then it is up to us to weight what they have said and come to our own conclusions.

like who? wikipedia and and Ibn warraq - thats not ALL commentators? How do they agree it happend? Just because wikipedia and Ibn Warraq say so? or Ibn Ishaq and muslim sources say so? As you have shown this event only comes from muslim sources (which is the ultimate source) - the main point is that that this isnt a strong secular approach - its very fake approach as you provide no non muslim sources or corroborated accounts - wont work in the secular outlook.

Your main argument is weak and very unsecular - its right because muslims sources say so? whys that beause Ibn Warraq and wikipedia say so? very unscholarly approach. The circle goes on. No corrborated evedince no non muslim sources - not a a secular approach. How do you make this a fact in your secular mind?????

What I find difficult to understand in the Muslim position is that that there are so many other things that cannot be corroborated but you express no scepticism about them - no corroboration for the Qu'ran, no first hand accounts by the prophet, every account we know of is of the form "the prophet said or did..", Aisha reporting on angels and so on. Now because I am sceptical does not mean they are untrue but they are often impossible to corroborate - so why the difference in outlook?

This is just heavily incorrect - it also shows that although you rely on muslims sources for Bani querza - you realy dont understand how the sources are viewed or why they are strong or not? If you dont know that then your in trouble - in simple terms your comparing a muttawatir source with a weaker account!

[Hugo]

Just tell me how you come up with the fact of Bani querza and the Jews being in medina - its not point of telling me what we have to do - I want to know how you actually came to the conclusion is it because wikipedia told you so? or Ibn Warraq and his expalnation of Ibn Ishaq?

I am not sure quite what you are asking here and I have quoted Ebn Warraq, Ibn Ishaq, Hamza Hashem, W N Arafat, the Qu'ran, Sahih Muslim and so on - why don't you tell us who you have cited, it will not take long will it? Let us deal with this point, there seems no doubt from Muslim sources alone that there were Jews in Medina. Can I just check with you; do you agree:

1. There are numerous written accounts of Muhammad having contact with Jews from tribes living in and around Medina. His relationship with Jews includes his theological teaching of them as People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab); his description of them as earlier receivers of Abrahamic revelation; and the failed political alliances between the Muslim and Jewish communities.

2. After the hijra to Medina from his home-town of Mecca, he established an agreement known as the Constitution of Medina between the major Medinan factions, including the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza that secured equal rights for both Jews and Muslims as long as Jews remained politically supportive. Muhammad later fought battles with these tribes on the basis of violations of the constitution.

3. Muhammad married two Jewish women, Safiyya bint Huyayy, a captive from the Banu Nadir, and Rayhana bint Zayd.

So is it still you view that therefore there were no Jews there as that is what you seem to be implying? So if it pleases you I know there were Jews there because a large number of Muslim sources say so. Obviously, it is impossible to prove that they were not there and I assume you know why

[Hugo]

Your main argument is weak and very unsecular - its right because muslims sources say so? whys that beause Ibn Warraq and wikipedia say so? very unscholarly approach. The circle goes on. No corrborated evedince no non muslim sources - not a a secular approach. How do you make this a fact in your secular mind?????

I think you are just refusing to hear what is being said. Always it is nice to have non-Muslim sources as corroboration but if they don't exist we must look at what we do have. In general if we are diligent we get our information from original sources if we can get access to them, scholarly articles, books and so on and invariably we will come to different conclusions. That is a perfectly scholarly and reasonable way to proceed for anyone. For example I can go to the Royal Asiatic Society, I can get a copy of Ibn Ishaq's biography of the prophet, I can study Hadith, I can look at Islamic sciences and so on. We all bring baggage with us when we do that and there is almost nothing we can do about it other that be aware of it.

The difficulty with Islamic accounts from an historical perspective is that they are more often that not mixed up with the supernatural and therefore outside of any possible corroboration. So if Ibn Ishaq says Mohamed led a battle or went to this or that place then there may well be eye witness accounts and even an aesthetic person can subscribe to the notion that it occurred.

So to me the mistake you make is to say we have a solid chain of reliable narrators and they report that Mohammed told someone for example that he saw how many women were in hell. Now I might perfectly be willing to accept that Mohammed said that but not believe that the event he describes to be true. Notice I am not saying that his is untrue just that I don't have to believe it, its is just hearsay and cannot be corroborated. So you say I am 'heavily incorrect' because you in my view take the hopeless position of saying a messenger of God, being necessarily free from error, receives continuous and permanent guidance from God but how can this be proved when one cannot even prove God exists?

So I do understand how the sources are viewed but cannot subscribe to the notion on perfection or automatically accepting the supernatural and this I think is where we differ. A question, do you ever feel ANY scepticism about the authentic hadith sources in the sense I described above? For example I consider the idea in the following extract to be implausible and absurd. Sahih Bukhari, Book 60: Volume 6, Number 2: Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "When the Imam says: 'Ghair-il-Maghdubi 'Alaihim Walad-Dallin (i.e. not the path of those who earn Your Anger, nor the path of those who went astray (1.7)), then you must say, 'Ameen', for if one's utterance of 'Ameen' coincides with that of the angels, then his past sins will be forgiven."

[Hugo]

Kinda feels weird that why did not the Sahaaba write down the history of Prophet pbuh right after his passing.

Good point but you have to be aware that books were rare, very rare things and it is likely that most things had not been written down and only existed as oral accounts and given the Muslim empire was growing rapidly it is not all that surprising that some might have thought the equivalent of 'we can do that later'

[syed_z]

Kinda feels weird that why did not the Sahaaba write down the history of Prophet pbuh right after his passing.

The Words of Muhammad (saw) were being written at the time of prophet Muhammad (Saw), while he was alive... this has been proven many times during the History of Muslims... also prophet Muhammad (Saw) was a Teacher, and his teachings were more important for the Companions to preserve rather than his events of child hood.... but even his early life was recorded some years after he passed away, May Peace and Blessings of Allah Be Upon him...

[جوري]

The Words of Muhammad (saw) were being written at the time of prophet Muhammad (Saw), while he was alive... this has been proven many times during the History of Muslims... also prophet Muhammad (Saw) was a Teacher, and his teachings were more important for the Companions to preserve rather than his events of child hood.... but even his early life was recorded some years after he passed away, May Peace and Blessings of Allah Be Upon him...

It is a grand day when an ignorant kaffir (or one who chooses ignorance in spite of literature to the contrary) to bank on the ignorance of uneducated Muslims!

:w:

[Zafran]

I am not sure quite what you are asking here and I have quoted Ebn Warraq, Ibn Ishaq, Hamza Hashem, W N Arafat, the Qu'ran, Sahih Muslim and so on - why don't you tell us who you have cited, it will not take long will it? Let us deal with this point, there seems no doubt from Muslim sources alone that there were Jews in Medina. Can I just check with you; do you agree:

1. There are numerous written accounts of Muhammad having contact with Jews from tribes living in and around Medina. His relationship with Jews includes his theological teaching of them as People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab); his description of them as earlier receivers of Abrahamic revelation; and the failed political alliances between the Muslim and Jewish communities.

2. After the hijra to Medina from his home-town of Mecca, he established an agreement known as the Constitution of Medina between the major Medinan factions, including the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza that secured equal rights for both Jews and Muslims as long as Jews remained politically supportive. Muhammad later fought battles with these tribes on the basis of violations of the constitution.

3. Muhammad married two Jewish women, Safiyya bint Huyayy, a captive from the Banu Nadir, and Rayhana bint Zayd.

So is it still you view that therefore there were no Jews there as that is what you seem to be implying? So if it pleases you I know there were Jews there because a large number of Muslim sources say so. Obviously, it is impossible to prove that they were not there and I assume you know why

we need to know how you came to the conclusion by ultimatly relying on muslims sources (and ofcourse wikipedia and the ibn warraqs spin) and how this will be accpted as a secular approach - ofcourse with zero non muslim sources as well. The question is still open how can this actually work in your so called secular approach as a fact????

Why dont you just admit that your not taking a secular approach here and that you are very bias in your approach. eg you'll accept that the Jews were in medina, You'll also accpet that the bani Querza incident happend ultimatley because Islamic sources say it happend? Its just not a secular approach. Its the Hugo approach that only works for you - so dont call it a secular approach.

[Zafran]

I think you are just refusing to hear what is being said. Always it is nice to have non-Muslim sources as corroboration but if they don't exist we must look at what we do have. In general if we are diligent we get our information from original sources if we can get access to them, scholarly articles, books and so on and invariably we will come to different conclusions. That is a perfectly scholarly and reasonable way to proceed for anyone. For example I can go to the Royal Asiatic Society, I can get a copy of Ibn Ishaq's biography of the prophet, I can study Hadith, I can look at Islamic sciences and so on. We all bring baggage with us when we do that and there is almost nothing we can do about it other that be aware of it.

You can do alot of things But Hugo Your the one who said that the bani querza incident is a fact and the Jews were in medina is also a fact - why ultimatley because muslim sources say so - Your method is very simple. How is this a secular approach - its heavily one sided and it only seems that wikipedia, Hugo and few other guys will actaully call this a secular approach which it clearly isnt. So are you ready to take your words back and now admit that you were wrong, Its just a hugo appraoch and not a secular approach.

[Hugo]

we need to know how you came to the conclusion by ultimatly relying on muslims sources (and ofcourse wikipedia and the ibn warraqs spin) and how this will be accpted as a secular approach - ofcourse with zero non muslim sources as well. The question is still open how can this actually work in your so called secular approach as a fact???? Why dont you just admit that your not taking a secular approach here and that you are very bias in your approach. eg you'll accept that the Jews were in medina, You'll also accpet that the bani Querza incident happend ultimatley because Islamic sources say it happend? Its just not a secular approach. Its the Hugo approach that only works for you - so dont call it a secular approach.

Could you please explain what a secular approach is supposed to be according to you?

[Hugo]

You can do alot of things But Hugo Your the one who said that the bani querza incident is a fact and the Jews were in medina is also a fact - why ultimatley because muslim sources say so - Your method is very simple. How is this a secular approach - its heavily one sided and it only seems that wikipedia, Hugo and few other guys will actaully call this a secular approach which it clearly isnt. So are you ready to take your words back and now admit that you were wrong, Its just a hugo appraoch and not a secular approach.

It is true I think the incident is a fact based on Muslim historical sources and if its one sided its because there are only written Muslim sources and they can be judged just like any other historical document by anyone. Your method is very simple, you know nothing, you say nothing, you add nothing, you admit nothing.

[جوري]

It is true I think the incident is a fact based on Muslim historical sources and if its one sided its because there are only written Muslim sources and they can be judged just like any other historical document by anyone. Your method is very simple, you know nothing, you say nothing, you add nothing, you admit nothing.

we can't help it if the Muslim world was flourishing while your neck of the wood was in the thick of cultural, economic, artistic and religious meltdowns. History is meant to chronicle events as they unravel and be free of bias, your political or religious spin is neither merited nor accurate. I believe you only create it to help increase the hatred and doubt that is weaved in your very cells and an excellent reflection on a bankrupted society who rather than dealing with its own shortcomings prefers to create one for others!

all the best

[Hugo]

we can't help it if the Muslim world was flourishing while your neck of the wood was in the thick of cultural, economic, artistic and religious meltdowns. History is meant to chronicle events as they unravel and be free of bias, your political or religious spin is neither merited nor accurate. I believe you only create it to help increase the hatred and doubt that is weaved in your very cells and an excellent reflection on a bankrupted society who rather than dealing with its own shortcomings prefers to create one for others!

And it did all this by invasion and subjugation as history reveals all too clearly.

[جوري]

And it did all this by invasion and subjugation as history reveals all too clearly.

not at all, as evinced by the history that repeats itself in modern day trends of folks flocking to Islam by the thousands in spite of you and folks like you! Your massive effort fizzles into the smarmy smoke and mirrors of fraudulent deception that it is.

all the best

[Zafran]

And it did all this by invasion and subjugation as history reveals all too clearly.

You mean your history that you like forcing down other peoples throat.