"Muslims Most Civilized" book exposes Islamophobia

[Catya Sher]

From Veterans Today, intro by

Dr Kevin Barrett
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Western media has been on an islamophobic rampage.


Will Abe Foxman read this book – and call on his Zionist media-mogul friends to stop defaming Islam?

That rampage reached genocidal proportions in the wake of 9/11 – which was in Lynn Margulis’s immortal phrase “the most perverse publicity stunt ever.” The 9/11 PR stunt was designed to smear Islam and launch a 100-years-war against Muslims on behalf of Zionism, which intends to steal the entire Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates and establish a New World Order global dictatorship with its headquarters in Occupied Jerusalem.
The Zionist-dominated Western media spins, cherry-picks, and distorts its reporting on Islam. Everything it presents is designed to defame.
Quick, somebody call the Anti-Defamation League!
Okay, I just called them – why did Abe Foxman hang up on me? I thought he was supposed to be AGAINST defamation?!
Speaking of defamation…The main source for US mainstream media stories on the Islamic world is a Mossad spin-off called MEMRI. This organization employs a small army of media experts, who scan the media of Islamic countries for any stories that could be used to make Islam and Muslims look bad. Over 90% of the stories in the US media from the Islamic world’s media are transmitted via MEMRI.
No wonder the entire US media’s reporting on Islam and Muslims is “all Islamophobia, all of the time.” (Yes, I know they give favorable coverage to Zionist-approved “house Muslims” – but that’s just another way of attacking Islam in general and the Islamic Awakening in particular.)
The Zionist media’s smear campaign against Islam uses a non-stop barrage of impressionistic anecdotes (often invented out of whole cloth) to create unfavorable images of Islam in the emotionally-driven subconscious minds of its audience. Ask a non-Muslim American what he or she thinks about Islam, and they’ll respond with words and phrases like: “Terrorism…radical Islam…extremism…female genital mutilation…oppression of women…suicide bombing…fanaticism…Bin Laden…fundamentalism…honor killings…burqa…” Even positively-connoted Islamic words like jihad (striving to be a better person and, when necessary, defend the community) and shariah (the “broad, straight path to God”) have been ripped out of context, twisted beyond recognition, and turned into negative words by the Zionist mind-control machine.
If we want to compare Muslim populations to non-Muslim populations, obviously this kind of anecdotal approach will not be helpful. For example, if we want to find out who is more violent, Muslims or non-Muslims, we cannot simply list some random cases of Muslims behaving violently, and other cases of non-Muslims behaving violently. We need to count the number of war killings, murders, assaults, rapes, and other episodes of violence, and compare them to the size of the populations in which they occur.
The same is true of other negative social indicators: Suicide, alcoholism and drug addiction, divorce and family breakdown, crime, domestic violence, STDs, and so on. Any fair comparison of Muslim and non-Muslim populations must rely on statistics, not cherry-picked anecdotes.
Dr. Javed Jamil has undertaken a comprehensive study comparing Muslim and non-Muslim populations on a wide range of social indicators. His new book Muslims Most Civilized – But Not Enough summarizes his findings. The bottom line: Muslim populations compare favorably to non-Muslim populations on most social indicators…especially if we take into consideration the relative levels of economic development of the societies under consideration.
Will the facts assembled by Dr. Jamil stop the Zionist media’s defamation of Islam?
I doubt it. But I’ll try calling Abe Foxman one more time to see if he can help publicize Dr. Jamil’s book.
Abe? Hello? Is that you? Hello?
Jeez. He hung up on me again.
Anyway…below is Syed Adil’s review of Dr. Jamil’s Muslims Most Civilized…But Not Enough.
-KB

Book Review: Muslims Most Civilised, Yet Not Enough


by Dr. Javed Jamil


Reviewed by Syed Adil, published August 16, 2013 in Indian Muslim
It is now becoming increasingly clear that the so-called New World Order is an ugly product of the ugly designs of the forces of economics located in the West. These forces have no other aim except attaining global economic supremacy and political hegemony. To achieve these aims they will do anything – from killing people to destroying family and social values to redefining morality to suit their own ends. One man who has been on the forefront in unveiling these designs is Dr Javed Jamil, whose relentless campaign against the New World Order, Westernism and Economic Fundamentalism has continued for well over a decade now. His latest work Muslims Most Civilised, Yet Not Enough should be rated as the most remarkable work of recent times, especially in terms of challenging Westernism and its allies.
In this book, Dr Jamil has produced massive statistics showing that in terms of the criteria of civilized existence, Western countries are far behind Muslim countries. He has used the following as the criteria of civilization:
Security: incidence of murders (all types, not any particular category), sexual assaults, killings in other parts of the world (wars), abortions (all categories)
Social peace: alcohol, gambling, prostitution, promiscuity, pornography
Personal: suicides, religiosity
Family: divorces and separations, promiscuity, children born out of wedlock, issues related to single parenthood; abuse of women and children; domestic violence
Human Development: life expectancy (both at birth and at conception), education, economic conditions
Taking one criterion in each chapter as the yardstick, he has produced international statistics to prove how bad the West is in terms of Security, Social Peace, Personal Happiness, Family Peace and Human Development. Muslims in comparison are far better-off on the basis of almost all criteria related to security, social peace and family peace and are catching up fast in the human development criteria including life expectancy, education and economic development.
Dr Jamil enumerates the aims of the study as follows:
“1. To contest the claim of the Western propaganda of its being civilized and Muslims being uncivilised;
2. To highlight the issues that are largely buried under the carpet by the motivated interests despite their playing havoc with the peace and security of human beings as individuals, families and society;
3. To bring Muslims out of inferiority complex in which they are being perpetually pushed by both friends and foes;
4. To make them realise that they need not blindly follow the Western models; and that qualities like education, good health and comfortable life are not the monopoly of any ideology;
5. To make them realise that despite their many qualities and admirable achievements at various levels, there are still many shortcomings, some of them very big, which they have to understand and address, and that they have to find their solutions within the parameters of Islam;
6. To make them realise that though they must try to achieve power in all rightful ways, they must never use that power to threaten, subjugate and control mankind or monopolise human resources; and last but not least
7. To convince them that their duties, assigned by their religion, are not limited to the improvement of their own lot; they must work for the benefit of the whole of mankind; and it is their foremost duty to fight against the evils, injustices, exploitations and disparities at every possible level, and to develop programmes and policies that lead to prosperity without evil effects.”
Some of the interesting findings of Dr Javed Jamil’s work include:
1. The rate of murderous assaults in the USA is more than 10 times that of major Muslim countries. The top fifty countries in terms of murder rates are mostly Western countries. It can also be seen from the list that the rate of murders in Muslim countries is lower than that of the other important civilizational systems like Russia, China, India and African countries.
2. Out of top 50 nations in terms of the incidence of rape, the US, South Africa, France, Germany and Australia rank among the top 10. Out of about three hundred thousand incidences of rapes committed in top 50 countries, which is more than 95% of all the rapes committed all over the world, more than 210 thousand are committed in the “most advanced”, “peace loving” and “women-loving” nations of the world.
3. Out of the total number of around 160 million killed, more than 135 million have been killed in or by countries that are now the five big powers of the world, namely China, the US, the UK, France and Russia. The killings by or in Muslim countries form a very small percentage of the total killings, despite the fact that Muslims form about one fifth of the world population. Community-wise, 90% of violence has involved Christians, Buddhists and Atheists. While China and Russia hold the distinction for murdering their own people in maximum numbers for political ends, the credit of killing most people abroad goes to the US, especially during last 60 years. Contrary to the lie propagated by Western media, Muslims have been subjected to violence by others rather than the vice versa. Russia killed millions of Muslims in Afghanistan, America killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Israel killed thousands in its conflict with Arabs. In all of these resistance movements or liberation struggles, Muslims were killed in very large numbers, while they killed much less.
4. A total of 5529 Westerners including 2883 on 9/11 have been killed in all the attacks allegedly performed by al-Qaeda. Whereas at least 919,967 people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on the lowest credible estimates.
5. In US about 40.6 percent of children were born to an unmarried mother in 2008, an increase from 39.7 percent the previous year. While teenage mothers accounted for 52 percent of extramarital births in 1975, they made up only 22 percent in 2008. More than 6 in 7 births to teenagers were non-marital. In Europe, the average has risen from one out of four in 1997 to one out of three children born outside wedlock. Nowadays, national figures in Europe range from 5% in Greece and 9% in Cyprus to 58% in Estonia and 64% in Iceland. In Britain the rate increased to 44% (2006) and further to 46 % (2009). In Muslim countries, there are few if any unwed mothers.
6. 50-70 million babies are aborted annually, mostly due to the vagrant sexual behaviours of their parents — and yet the baby-killing countries claim to be civilised. The total abortion rate in most of the Muslim countries is less than 20 percent, and an overwhelming percentage of abortions in Muslims are within families with the consent of both parents. Not a single Muslim country features in the list of countries with highest rates of teenage pregnancies, which proves the success of the family system in Muslim societies. The success of the family system can be regarded as the biggest indicator of civilization because its failure leads to such a large number of health and social problems.
7. According to surveys, in the US about one in three children live in one-parent families and nearly 40 per cent live away from at least one biological parent. Out of 23 countries listed in terms of single parent families, all but South Korea are proud members of the Western World. The level of family civilisation in their societies is extremely low compared to most of the Muslim world.
8. An estimated 325,000 US children of age 17 or younger are prostitutes, performers in pornographic videos or have crumbled to commercial sexual exploitation (University of Pennsylvania). Muslim societies are much more civilised in their treatment of children: They do not abort them as often as Westerners; and most of the times when they do it, it is for medical reasons; hardly if ever are their children the products of lust rather than legitimate love; they do not leave them to live in single parent families; if at all they do it on account of the divorce or the death of a parent, while the extended families provide them love and security; they do not sexually abuse children to the extent and degree of the West; they breastfeed them more often for the medically advisable period of two years, which is also what is prescribed in the Qur’an; there are only rare occasions of children in Muslim countries being pushed in sex trade.
9. This latter study put the average life expectancy of male homosexuals nearly 30 years less than the general male population. Another study showed that, on average, ever-married men outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered by 23 years in Denmark (74 yr. v. 51 yr.), and 25 years in Norway (77 yr. v. 52 yr.). Obviously, homosexuality is a threat to the whole of mankind, and it is the biggest threat to the lives of homosexuals themselves. Pure permanent homosexuality is extremely rare among Muslims. There is no possibility of Same Sex Marriages. Owing to severe legal punishments, gay movements cannot prosper in Muslim societies;
10. While modern ideologies accept and promote prostitution and pornography despite their being the greatest threats to human survival, particularly women and children and family peace and social order, Islam has no place for them. Despite prostitution existing in several Muslim countries, it is nowhere, in terms of the number of brothels, revenues involved, number of prostitutes and number of customers, near the level that exists in most of the non-Muslim countries including Western countries.
11. According to another study, more than 95% of Americans are promiscuous. The teenage birth rate list shows that all the 18 countries listed belong to the so-called “Civilized World.” Not a single Muslim country appears on the list. It is clear that Islam as a system does not accept promiscuity, while the so-called Free World not only accepts it and legally protects it but also commercializes it despite huge health and social hazards associated with it. The promiscuity rate in Muslim countries is negligible compared to Western countries; the rate of polygamy in Muslim countries can be described only as extremely low compared to the rate of promiscuity in the Western Countries.
12. About 140 million people throughout the world suffer from alcohol-related disorders. 100,000 die in the US alone. In most of the Islamic countries, the problems related to alcohol are exceedingly low. Out of the 30 countries that have maximum consumption of alcohol, only Turkey appears at the end of the table..
13. Gambling-related problems are much lower in Muslim countries. All of the top ten gambling nations are Western countries.
14. The overall life expectancy of Muslims is high. It can be seen that the True Life Expectancy of the top 25 Muslim countries is more than those of all the big powers. Even from the commonly followed definition of life expectancy at birth it is on the higher side, but with the changed definition (at conception), they beat almost all the “highly-developed” nations of the world including the big powers and countries like Japan, Australia, Canada and Singapore. This is despite the fact that the health infrastructure in Muslim countries is not as excellent as in Western countries. High life expectancy at birth as well as at conception along with a higher growth rate indicates that the system in Islamic countries, with Islamic prohibitions and permissions, which are naturally health-protective, is much more health friendly than in Western countries. In as many as 19 Muslim countries, the life expectancy at birth is more than 70 and it is more than 75 in 5 countries.
15. The literacy rates in Muslim countries is generally very good with Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan having about 99 pc literacy rate and ranked ahead of the US and UK. Uzbekistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates have all a literacy rate of more than 90. Lebanon, Bahrain, Turkey, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Oman have the percentage of more than 80. The per population number of secondary school students in Indonesia is better than the United States and almost as good as India. The same is true with Iran, which has a better percentage than almost every country in the list. A 2010 report by the Canadian research firm Science-Metrix has put Iran in the top rank globally in terms of growth in scientific productivity with a 14.4 growth index followed by South Korea with a 9.8 growth index.[126] Iran’s growth rate in science and technology is 11 times more than the average growth of the world’s output in 2009 and in terms of total output per year.
16. In top five ranking countries in terms of per capita income, there are two Muslim countries, both Arab countries, Qatar and UAE, whose per capita income is more than the big economies like the US, Australia, UK, France and Germany. There are eight Muslim countries in the top 50 list. These include Saudi Arabia and Libya. The list shows Qatar at the top of the table with a growth rate of more than 16 and ahead of highly growing economies like China and India. Turkmenistan is at 7th place, Uzbekistan at 14th, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Turkey and Yemen 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th. Other Muslim countries are also showing good rates. Western countries are not doing well. By 2025, Indonesia will be among six major emerging economies to account for more than half of all global growth, says a new World Bank report
17. All 17 countries in terms of highest suicide rates are Western countries. Suicide is almost negligible among Muslims, which speaks highly of their mental calm as well as family peace and social equanimity. Most of the factors leading to suicides like extramarital sex, family disintegration, alcohol, gambling and sex related diseases are minimal if not totally absent in typical Islamic societies. Added to this, an unshakeable faith in God and Hereafter armour them with incredible patience, which helps them in facing even the most depressing situations. Mental peace has direct relation with the level of religiosity and the kind of religion.
The study has shown that Qatar, UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are among the top contenders for being the most civilised nation of the world. Qatar has in fact emerged as the most civilised country, with the third highest per capita income and the highest growth rate in the world, very high life expectancy and literacy rates, very low crime rate, with no involvement in any war, very low level of social vices and a strong family system. [Editor's note: The nation of Qatar may be doing well, but its royal family's promotion of the war on Syria removes it from the "no involvement in any war" category.] The performance of Turkey, Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia is also admirable. The Muslim countries that need attention are Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Sudan.
What is still more remarkable is that the author has taken care not to show disrespect to any religion, community or country and instead focuses on the system that governs the world today. While he has criticised Western forces, he has been candid enough to pay tributes to Western scientists who have provided numerous means of comfort to mankind. His complaint is that the great services of the scientists to humanity have been undone by the economic fundamentalists to use these researches for economic and political hegemony.
Furthermore, he has been realistic enough to also focus on the shortcomings of Muslims, individually as well as collectively, and pays considerable attention to trying to find out solutions to the problems that afflict the Muslim world. He rightly argues that if Muslims have to emerge as a formidable force, they will have to think beyond sectarian and parochial issues. While he has contributed a full chapter on the age-old question of the Shia-Sunni divide, he has argued that the real answer to the problem lies in Muslims realising the true and larger aim of Islam, which is to bring peace to the whole of mankind. He has exhorted them to unite against the forces of chaos and has shown considerable sensitivity in discussing the need of all religions coming together in this struggle.
All said and done, this work has the potential of unveiling an intellectual and social revolution, led by an Islamic philosophy of the Natural World Order. The author deserves not one but repeated rounds of applause for accomplishing a task that will be remembered for a long time to come. The book is a must-read not only for Islamic intellectuals but also thinkers and commentators belonging to other religions and ideologies, as it introduces several new concepts, indices, phrases and terms. It is this holistic, ideologically aggressive, unapologetic approach that makes it an unparalleled work the like of which is hard to find in recent history

[Soprano]

Im not one of the muslims who says that the west is always better and stuff and certainly there are many good muslim countries, nonetheless a couple of points this biased "book" was missing:

-Cousin Marriage(pakistan) scientifically speakin this causes lots of health issues.
-Suicide bombers: Yes it happens
-Female Rights(Im male)
-Religious Tolerance: Muslim Apostates get killed
-Pakistanis are pseudo Muslims: According to sharia law an non Islamic country isnt allowed to Form a muslim state.
-Mass Muslim immigration to the West
Look at the human development index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

P.S: Why is this World News ?

[Badlun]

I appreciate that the book as appear from the review given above has highlighted the spiritual and moral achievements of Muslim families but has ignored the pathetic situation at societal and state level of Muslim countries.

I do recognize the role of Islam at personal and family level for which a religion is meant but at political, economic, human, scientific, cultural and technological level Muslims are losers.

The history of Islam is replete with monarchies, dictatorships, tyranny, sectarianism, barbarism and ugly struggle for power. In today's Muslim world there is not a single full democracy except may be in few non Arab countries like Turkey, Pakistan or Malaysia.

Human rights, women rights, education, technology, material development all at lowest level and that is why almost each and every Muslim would love to leave his/her so called Muslim world for the non Muslim world for a better future, prosperity and well being of their families.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Self hating apostate Materialists have something to talk about.

[Manzareh]

Im not one of the muslims who says that the west is always better and stuff and certainly there are many good muslim countries, nonetheless a couple of points this biased "book" was missing:

-Cousin Marriage(pakistan) scientifically speakin this causes lots of health issues.
-Suicide bombers: Yes it happens
-Female Rights(Im male)
-Religious Tolerance: Muslim Apostates get killed
-Pakistanis are pseudo Muslims: According to sharia law an non Islamic country isnt allowed to Form a muslim state.
-Mass Muslim immigration to the West
Look at the human development index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

P.S: Why is this World News ?

Interesting how there is much critism on the Human Deveopment Index

The Human Development Index has been criticised on a number of grounds, including failure to include any ecological considerations, focusing exclusively on national performance and ranking, not paying much attention to development from a global perspective and based on grounds of measurement error of the underlying statistics and formula changes by the UNDP which can lead to severe misclassifications of countries in the categories of being a 'low', 'medium', 'high' or 'very high' human development country.[22] The index has also been criticized as "redundant" and a "reinvention of the wheel", measuring aspects of development that have already been exhaustively studied.[23][24] The index has further been criticised for having an inappropriate treatment of income, lacking year-to-year comparability, and assessing development differently in different groups of countries.[25]

Economists Hendrik Wolff, Howard Chong and Maximilian Auffhammer discuss the HDI from the perspective of data error in the underlying health, education and income statistics used to construct the HDI.[22] They identify three sources of data error which are due to (i) data updating, (ii) formula revisions and (iii) thresholds to classify a country’s development status and find that 11%, 21% and 34% of all countries can be interpreted as currently misclassified in the development bins due to the three sources of data error, respectively. The authors suggest that the United Nations should discontinue the practice of classifying countries into development bins because the cut-off values seem arbitrary, can provide incentives for strategic behavior in reporting official statistics, and have the potential to misguide politicians, investors, charity donators and the public at large which use the HDI. In 2010 the UNDP reacted to the criticism and updated the thresholds to classify nations as low, medium, and high human development countries. In a comment to The Economist in early January 2011, the Human Development Report Office responded[26] to a January 6, 2011 article in the magazine[27] which discusses the Wolff et al. paper. The Human Development Report Office states that they undertook a systematic revision of the methods used for the calculation of the HDI and that the new methodology directly addresses the critique by Wolff et al. in that it generates a system for continuous updating of the human development categories whenever formula or data revisions take place.

Each year, UN member states are listed and ranked according to the computed HDI. If high, the rank in the list can be easily used as a means of national aggrandizement; alternatively, if low, it can be used to highlight national insufficiencies. Using the HDI as an absolute index of social welfare, some authors have used panel HDI data to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.[28]

Ratan Lal Basu criticises the HDI concept from a completely different angle. According to him the Amartya Sen-Mahbub ul Haq concept of HDI considers that provision of material amenities alone would bring about Human Development, but Basu opines that Human Development in the true sense should embrace both material and moral development. According to him human development based on HDI alone, is similar to dairy farm economics to improve dairy farm output. To quote: "So human development effort should not end up in amelioration of material deprivations alone: it must undertake to bring about spiritual and moral development to assist the biped to become truly human."[29] For example, a high suicide rate would bring the index down.

A few authors have proposed alternative indices to address some of the index's shortcomings.[30] However, of those proposed alternatives to the HDI, few have produced alternatives covering so many countries, and that no development index (other than, perhaps, Gross Domestic Product per capita) has been used so extensively—or effectively, in discussions and developmental planning as the HDI.

However, there has been one lament about the HDI that has resulted in an extending of its geographical coverage: David Hastings, of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific published a report geographically extending the HDI to 230+ economies, whereas the UNDP HDI for 2009 enumerates 182 economies and coverage for the 2010 HDI dropped to 169 countries.[31][32]

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Im not one of the muslims who says that the west is always better and stuff and certainly there are many good muslim countries, nonetheless a couple of points this biased "book" was missing:

-Cousin Marriage(pakistan) scientifically speakin this causes lots of health issues.

Point 1:
That is an incorrect assumption:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/03/health/03CND-COUS.html

The largest meta analysis to date, incorporating retrospective data across nearly seven decades amounts to:

"The researchers, convened by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, based their conclusions on a review of six major studies conducted from 1965 to August 2000, involving many thousands of births.

"For first cousins, "there is a slightly increased risk, but in terms of general risks in life it's not very high," said Dr. Arno Motulsky, a professor emeritus of medicine and genome sciences at the University of Washington, and the senior author of the report, being published today in The Journal of Genetic Counseling. Dr. Motulsky said that medical geneticists had known for a long time that there was little or no harm in cousins' marrying and having children."

This is why I tell militant secularists (not that you are one) to have strong references and confirm their sources and ensure their sources are above reproach with high impact factors.

-Suicide bombers: Yes it happens

Point 2: Please inform yourself about the details. Militant secularists are, once again emulating the "sunnah" of their dark prophet "Dr" Najib and inviting kharijaan to do their dirty work for them. This invited interference has consequences as it did in so many other global regions.

According to Robert Pape, the academic doyen of suicide attacks notes that it happens, but it happens in Pashtun areas predominantly in the context of outsider interference:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/op...anted=all&_r=0

"As Western occupation grew, the use of the two most worrisome forms of terrorism in Afghanistan — suicide attacks and homemade bombs — escalated in parallel. There were no recorded suicide attacks in Afghanistan before 2001. According to data I have collected, in the immediate aftermath of America’s conquest, the nation experienced only a small number: none in 2002, two in 2003, five in 2004 and nine in 2005. But in 2006, suicide attacks began to increase by an order of magnitude — with 97 in 2006, 142 in 2007, 148 in 2008 and more than 60 in the first half of 2009. Moreover, the overwhelming percentage of the suicide attacks (80 percent) has been against United States and allied troops or their bases rather than Afghan civilians, and nearly all (95 percent) carried out by Afghans. The pattern for other terrorist attacks is almost the same. The most deadly involve roadside bombs that detonate on contact or are set off by remote control. Although these weapons were a relatively minor nuisance in the early years of the occupation, with 782 attacks in 2005, their use has shot up since — to 1,739 in 2006, nearly 2,000 in 2007 and more than 3,200 last year. Again, these attacks have for the most part been carried out against Western combat forces, not Afghan targets."

-Female Rights(Im male)

Point 3: Examine the history of other nations where female rights is considered superb. The most advanced and equitable took 400 years to get there. In the US it went from a theocracy of Puritans burning women at the stake to about another 300 or so years just to get the right to vote and then another 76 years into the modern era to get equal work rights. And that is in an autonomous nation.

On the other hand, Countries that are perpetually stunted in their growth due to colonialism that never ended can never have an internal dialogue about this issue. Rather, reactionaryism to the activities of terrorist militant secularists will only result in more set backs. In the cases of minority rights (see the evidence based discussions we have had here regarding how Sikhs fared pre and post invasion) and feminine suffrage movements perpetual war and instability ensures that the weakest in society are constantly suffering


-Religious Tolerance: Muslim Apostates get killed

Point 4:

More often than not these Irshad Manjiites or Ayaan Hirsi types are trojan horses and end up being proven liars and charlatans who are either self serving or benefiting colonial or kharij intereference. This in turn produces a reactionary response to local rural masses

-Pakistanis are pseudo Muslims: According to sharia law an non Islamic country isnt allowed to Form a muslim state.

Point 5: Hard to argue with some of this since Pakistani Nationalistic Pride is a 60 year old mental illness that I have yet to understand. How a bunch of limeys got a whole mass of people to belief an an imposed artificial construct is beyond my ken

-Mass Muslim immigration to the West

Point 6:

Bees go to flowers, Ants go to food etc. Immigration patterns for most human beings have nothing to do with ideology but a lot to do with financial well being. In fact, there are many discontented natives and other folks in the west that disagree with Western policy but still live there to a point (Assange, Snowden, many libertarians, some democrats like Kucinich etc). There are many white people who make their way to Dubai or the UAE. A ton of European and White doctors have gone to major centers in the UAE in recent years - not because they want to be Arabs or worship but - but for the $$$.

That being said, most surveys show Muslims have no qualms with Western culture or actual Western prowess. Rather most Muslims commend it. The overwhelming majority may not agree with a host of Western social values (accepting homosexuality, certain gender roles, etc) but they generally are not concerned enough, according to the most cutting edge data, to have a motivating hatred against the West for this. The overwhelming majority have POLITICAL ISSUES with WESTERN FOREIGN POLICY.


Look at the human development index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

P.S: Why is this World News ?

Dont know

x

[Badlun]

This is very strange that Barakzai tries by any means to prove any stupidity if it is sanctioned by religion. This is a well known fact that cousin marriages have loads of risks. Just type cousin marriage and health risks in google and you will get scores of references to prove the risk.

“If you have a child with your cousin, the likelihood is there'll be a genetic problem,”
Indeed, in the United States, similar assumptions about the high level of genetic risk associated with cousin marriage are reflected in the 31 state laws that either bar the practice outright or permit it only where the couple obtains genetic counseling, is beyond reproductive age, or if one partner is sterile.

First, even assuming that the deleterious phenotype arises solely from homozygosity at a single locus, the increased risk depends on the frequency of the allele involved; it is not an immediate consequence of the degree of relatedness between cousins. (Interestingly, despite the British biometricians' harsh criticism of Mendelism, they were the first to describe this dependency in 1911 [17,18].) If a deleterious recessive allele has a frequency q, the ratio of the recessive phenotype in the offspring of first cousins relative to a panmictic population is (1 + 15q)/16q, which means the increase in risk is greater for rarer conditions [19]. For example, if q is 0.01, the ratio is 7.2; if q is 0.001, it is 63.4. Consequently, statistics on the risks associated with cousin marriage are necessarily averages across many traits, and they are likely to be different for different populations, which will often vary in the frequency of particular deleterious alleles. In the Pakistani immigrant population, for example, the quoted high average rate of birth defects may mask a single trait (or small number of traits) at very high frequency, a situation with different medical consequences from one characterized by a larger number of less-frequent disorders.


Second, children of cousin marriages are likely to manifest an increased frequency of birth defects showing polygenic inheritance and interacting with environmental variation. But as the NSGC report notes, calculating the increased frequency of such quantitative traits is not straightforward, and properly controlled studies are lacking. Moreover, socio-economic and other environmental influences will vary among populations, which can easily confound the effects of consanguinity. Inbred populations, including British Pakistanis, are often poor. The mother may be malnourished to begin with, and families may not seek or have access to good prenatal care, which may be unavailable in their native language [20]. Hence it is difficult to separate out genetic from socio-economic and other environmental factors.


Third, as the report also notes, the degree of increased risk depends on the mean coefficient of inbreeding for the population. That is, whether first-cousin marriage is an occasional or regular occurrence in the study population matters, and it is thus inappropriate to extrapolate findings from largely outbred populations with occasional first-cousin marriages to populations with high coefficients of inbreeding and vice-versa. Standard calculations, such as the commonly cited 3% additional risk, examine a pedigree in which the ancestors (usually grandparents) are assumed to be unrelated. In North America, marriages between consanguineal kin are strongly discouraged. But such an assumption is unwarranted in the case of UK Pakistanis, who have emigrated from a country where such marriage is traditional and for whom it is estimated that roughly 55%–59% of marriages continue to be between first cousins [21–23]. Thus, the usual risk estimates are misleading: data from the English West Midlands suggest that British Pakistanis account for only ~4.1% of births, but about 33% of the autosomal recessive metabolic errors recorded at birth [24]. However, for a variety of reasons (including fear that a cousin marriage would result in their being blamed for any birth defects), UK Pakistanis are less likely to use prenatal testing and to terminate pregnancies [20,25]. Thus the population attributable risk of genetic diseases at birth due to inbreeding may be skewed by prenatal elimination of affected fetuses in non-inbred populations. Moreover, the consequences of prolonged inbreeding are not always obvious. The uniting of deleterious recessives by inbreeding may also lead to these alleles being purged from the population. The frequency of such deleterious alleles, then, may be decreased, which (as shown above) means the relative risk is greater, even as the absolute risk decreases.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320

That marriages between blood relations might lead to health issues for the child has been suspected for several years. Now, a detailed analysis of the issue involving over 11,000 children, born out of consanguineous marriages, revealed congenital anomalies in 386 of them. This figure of 3 per cent contrasts with the 1.6 per cent in children born of out of non-blood-relations unions. Dr Eamonn Sheridan and associates from leads, U.K. analysed these babies termed “Born in Bradford” to obtain these results. Bradford is a small area in the UK where Pakistani Muslims constitute 16.8 per cent of the population. A close knit group, they practice consanguinity; 75 per cent of them marry first cousins.
Babies born out of such wedlock could have a multiplicity of congenital problems. Heart problems top the list, followed by nervous disorders, limb anomalies and so forth. Sheridan and colleagues also studied the lifestyle, smoking and drinking habits, income and poverty and other factors that might contribute, and found that consanguinity is the leading culprit. They have published their analysis in the July 4 issue of The Lancet.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/the-biology-of-first-cousin-marriages/article4902050.ece

[Badlun]

The year when started suicide bombings or against whom these are perpetrated does not matter , what matters is that it is a reality that Pashtun Muslims commit it and suffer heavily owing to it.

In Pakistan or Iraq or Syria there are no american forces but still these are done. In all such atatcks innocent people are killed. Instead of justifying it Muslims must condemn it.

I am always wonder stuck to see Barakzai try to justify such heinous crimes like suicide Bombings and anomalies like cousin marriages!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is very strange that Barakzai tries by any means to prove any stupidity if it is sanctioned by religion.

You are out of your league here Badlun. Trust me. You are going to look foolish again and get angry again because its not me making this up.

Barakzai did not sanction this and rather I was dead set against Cousin cousin marriages. I knew of this study because it came up in a medical school course in relationship to Ob/Gyn. One of the exam questions was about screening studies with respect to cousin-cousin marriages. The evidence based answer referred to this study. It is the recommended standard of practice in the US. Blame them, not me:

Based on the data, the following workup recommendations were made regarding cousin-cousin couples:

"The consensus of the CWG and NSGC reviewers is that beyond a thorough medical family history with follow-up of significant findings, no additional preconception screening is recommended for consanguineous couples."

This is a well known fact that cousin marriages have loads of risks. Just type cousin marriage and health risks in google and you will get scores of references to prove the risk.

You are not understanding. Scores of "references" do not trump the most comprehensive study date. For instance, you can google Osho and a ton of links pop up calling him a terrorist or a pedophile or worse - that doesnt mean its evidence derived or based.

“If you have a child with your cousin, the likelihood is there'll be a genetic problem,”

Once again, you are not understanding. The risk according to the population data is NOT supporting the aforementioned statement and that's why the Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, and the National Genetic Counseling Society in the US recommended AGAINST additional testing in consangineous (cousin-cousin) couples.

http://depts.washington.edu/mednews/vol6/no15/cousins.html

Indeed, in the United States, similar assumptions about the high level of genetic risk associated with cousin marriage are reflected in the 31 state laws that either bar the practice outright or permit it only where the couple obtains genetic counseling, is beyond reproductive age, or if one partner is sterile.

Once again, you need to not embarrass yourself here and keep your ihteraum because I am telling you that you are not adept with this. Ask an independent person like Admin Khan and even appoint Toramana to look into this issue. The whole point of the study was to ADDRESS the VALIDITY of this a priori assumption, i.e. they note that even Physicians had misconceptions of this issue and were unfamiliar with evidence.

The original article even dealt the blow to this statement:

""Somehow, this hasn't become general knowledge," Dr. Motulsky said. "Among the public and physicians there's a feeling it's real bad and brings a lot of disease, and there's a lot of social and legal disapproval."

Thirty states have laws forbidding first cousins to marry, but no countries in Europe have such prohibitions, and in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia, marriages between cousins are considered preferable. "In some parts of the world," the report says, "20 to 60 percent of all marriages are between close biological relatives."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/03/health/03CND-COUS.html

First, even assuming that the deleterious phenotype arises solely from homozygosity at a single locus, the increased risk depends on the frequency of the allele involved; it is not an immediate consequence of the degree of relatedness between cousins. (Interestingly, despite the British biometricians' harsh criticism of Mendelism, they were the first to describe this dependency in 1911

You missed the key statement in your own reference here: "it is not an immediate consequence of the degree of relatedness between cousins"

[17,18].) If a deleterious recessive allele has a frequency q, the ratio of the recessive phenotype in the offspring of first cousins relative to a panmictic population is (1 + 15q)/16q, which means the increase in risk is greater for rarer conditions

^ Badlun wrorre, you gotta learn to read for detail. Seriously, just cut and pasting a a smattering of things never helps your cause. You missed that key statement. In fact, the cited doctor above addressed this

[19]. For example, if q is 0.01, the ratio is 7.2; if q is 0.001, it is 63.4. Consequently, statistics on the risks associated with cousin marriage are necessarily averages across many traits, and they are likely to be different for different populations, which will often vary in the frequency of particular deleterious alleles. In the Pakistani immigrant population, for example, the quoted high average rate of birth defects may mask a single trait (or small number of traits) at very high frequency, a situation with different medical consequences from one characterized by a larger number of less-frequent disorders.

Wrorre you are not even reading the stuff you are cut and pasting again. Pay special attention to the authors commentary that the statistics are averages across MANY Traits and are frequency dependent. Thats the whole point - he is alluding to the same thing above in his statement on the RELATEDNESS off cousins


Second, children of cousin marriages are likely to manifest an increased frequency of birth defects showing polygenic inheritance and interacting with environmental variation. But as the NSGC report notes, calculating the increased frequency of such quantitative traits is not straightforward, and properly controlled studies are lacking.

I highlighted the section you glossed over again! Look, once again, the American geneticists have already answered you:
First cousins are somewhat more likely than unrelated parents to have a child with a serious birth defect, but scientists say the risk is not large. In the general population, the risk that a child will be born with a major birth defect, like spina fida, is 3 to 4 percent; to that background risk, first cousins must add another 1.7 to 2.8 percentage points, the researchers said. Although the increase represents almost a doubling of the risk, since the background risk is small to begin with, the result is still not considered large enough to discourage people from having children, geneticists say. And they point out that no one questions the right of other people with far higher levels of risk to have children. For example, people with Huntington's disease, a severe neurological disorder, have a 50 percent chance of passing the disease to their children.



Moreover, socio-economic and other environmental influences will vary among populations, which can easily confound the effects of consanguinity. Inbred populations, including British Pakistanis, are often poor. The mother may be malnourished to begin with, and families may not seek or have access to good prenatal care, which may be unavailable in their native language [20]. Hence it is difficult to separate out genetic from socio-economic and other environmental factors.

Wrorre, Oh my God you really kicked yourself in the mouth with this. Your usual colleagues are going to remain quiet here because they will read this and hesitate to support you. Read the part I bolded above. He is talking about how the data out there is EVEN LESS ROBUST and he alludes to CONFOUNDERS. RTR as the mathmetician can explain all this to you.

Third, as the report also notes, the degree of increased risk depends on the mean coefficient of inbreeding for the population. That is, whether first-cousin marriage is an occasional or regular occurrence in the study population matters, and it is thus inappropriate to extrapolate findings from largely outbred populations with occasional first-cousin marriages to populations with high coefficients of inbreeding and vice-versa.

Wa Khodayaa Pakaa Badlrun Wrorra!... zaan ghark kaay. I am so embarrassed for you. You did not even read the stuff you posted so I highlighted the section for you

Standard calculations, such as the commonly cited 3% additional risk, examine a pedigree in which the ancestors (usually grandparents) are assumed to be unrelated. In North America, marriages between consanguineal kin are strongly discouraged. But such an assumption is unwarranted in the case of UK Pakistanis, who have emigrated from a country where such marriage is traditional and for whom it is estimated that roughly 55%–59% of marriages continue to be between first cousins [21–23]. Thus, the usual risk estimates are misleading: data from the English West Midlands suggest that British Pakistanis account for only ~4.1% of births, but about 33% of the autosomal recessive metabolic errors recorded at birth [24]. However, for a variety of reasons (including fear that a cousin marriage would result in their being blamed for any birth defects), UK Pakistanis are less likely to use prenatal testing and to terminate pregnancies [20,25]. Thus the population attributable risk of genetic diseases at birth due to inbreeding may be skewed by prenatal elimination of affected fetuses in non-inbred populations. Moreover, the consequences of prolonged inbreeding are not always obvious. The uniting of deleterious recessives by inbreeding may also lead to these alleles being purged from the population. The frequency of such deleterious alleles, then, may be decreased, which (as shown above) means the relative risk is greater, even as the absolute risk decreases.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320

That marriages between blood relations might lead to health issues for the child has been suspected for several years. Now, a detailed analysis of the issue involving over 11,000 children, born out of consanguineous marriages, revealed congenital anomalies in 386 of them. This figure of 3 per cent contrasts with the 1.6 per cent in children born of out of non-blood-relations unions.

Once again, refer to the American study which already STATED:
"In the general population, the risk that a child will be born with a major birth defect, like spina fida, is 3 to 4 percent; to that background risk, first cousins must add another 1.7 to 2.8 percentage points, the researchers said. Although the increase represents almost a doubling of the risk, since the background risk is small to begin with, the result is still not considered large enough to discourage people from having children"


Dr Eamonn Sheridan and associates from leads, U.K. analysed these babies termed “Born in Bradford” to obtain these results. Bradford is a small area in the UK where Pakistani Muslims constitute 16.8 per cent of the population. A close knit group, they practice consanguinity; 75 per cent of them marry first cousins.
Babies born out of such wedlock could have a multiplicity of congenital problems. Heart problems top the list, followed by nervous disorders, limb anomalies and so forth. Sheridan and colleagues also studied the lifestyle, smoking and drinking habits, income and poverty and other factors that might contribute, and found that consanguinity is the leading culprit. They have published their analysis in the July 4 issue of The Lancet.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/hea...cle4902050.ece

Badlun wrorre, the above proof for you is your own writing. This is evidence for all that militant secularists are actually not true devotees of evidences and sciences. Rather, their militant beliefs guide their thought processes as opposed to facts.

You did not even read what you cut and paste!

How can we take your words seriously when your whole motivation is to try and embarass Islam, AlLah, and the dictums of this Prophet?

Aren't you willing to admit that in this attempt, God embarrassed you here?

If you do not trust my interpretation, send the links to Luffy, Admin Khan, Toramana, RTR, Baygham, and all the other people who you think would be impartial. I am telling you I swear they will blush Wrorraka and just try and tell you to not stand on this argument.

Once again Badlun wrorre: the bottom line is that the American Physicians standard of practice as it relates to genetics and consanguinity is based on those recommendations and robust data from that group of experts. It is expert opinion. This means that if tomorrow Badlun marries his cousin and goes to an American Ob/Gyn with his wife - the Ob/Gyn will do the SAME screening she does for the general population and is not to screen for various recessive diseases willy nilly as they did previous to these findings. Her medical taking history would guide any other testing.

So please take your issue up with the American Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology and also the American Geneticists.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The year when started suicide bombings or against whom these are perpetrated does not matter , what matters is that it is a reality that Pashtun Muslims commit it and suffer heavily owing to it.

In Pakistan or Iraq or Syria there are no american forces but still these are done. In all such atatcks innocent people are killed. Instead of justifying it Muslims must condemn it.

I am always wonder stuck to see Barakzai try to justify such heinous crimes like suicide Bombings and anomalies like cousin marriages!

Wrorra LOL, you did the same thing here. Pape notes in his substudy of the former NWFP that American forces are not there as well, but that proxy forces (Pakistani forces ordered to act by Hillary Clinton etc) ignite the same response due to their exact same goals.

Cutting the Fuse - Robert Pape and Gov. Thomas Kean - YouTube

go to 26 minutes and 50 seconds where he presents the data on Pashtun regions of Pakistan.

We are always struck with wonder when we see how "Faux Dr." Najib's acolytes struggle to justify their rhetoric and propaganda and then deny that there is such a thing as militant secularism!

Wonders never cease!

[Manzareh]

Lol [MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION] he just copied and pasted a whole load of stuff that he didn't even bother to read..he must have panicked and was in a rush or something. This proves he is not unbiased in his selective arguments and only concerned with fighting Islam, I new it all along. Badlun is not here to learn. I also had a conversation about his constant copy & pasting.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Lol [MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION] he just copied and pasted a whole load of stuff that he didn't even bother to read..he must have panicked and was in a rush or something. This proves he is not unbiased in his selective arguments and only concerned with fighting Islam, I new it all along. Badlun is not here to learn. I also had a conversation about his constant copy & pasting.

This was an epic fail. I expected more from him but got less. Perhaps Admin Khan can delete the posts so we can go back to previously and pretend we never saw them and save his izaat.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Lol [MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION] he just copied and pasted a whole load of stuff that he didn't even bother to read..he must have panicked and was in a rush or something. This proves he is not unbiased in his selective arguments and only concerned with fighting Islam, I new it all along. Badlun is not here to learn. I also had a conversation about his constant copy & pasting.

I want to make it clear that I am not a proponent of consanguinity (marrying cousins) but that is based on where I was raised. My whole point is that as a physician and a scientist one cannot accede to the statement the original poster made nor Badlun's propagandistic support of the arguments that ended up being evidence against his own view.

This has nothing to do with Islam, America, Freedom fries, Stephen Colbert, attractive or unattractive cousins, etc... its just the facts as they are.

[Badlun]

Do not Jump to the conclusion that hurriedly. I did not copy the whole article but parts of it. The first link was about the controversy under the title
“It's Ok, We're Not Cousins by Blood”: The Cousin Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective

Thus to give the historical perpspective of the controversy and then in the second link it is absolutely proved that cousen marriages are risky. Why you did not touch this part?

Babies born out of such wedlock could have a multiplicity of congenital problems. Heart problems top the list, followed by nervous disorders, limb anomalies and so forth. Sheridan and colleagues also studied the lifestyle, smoking and drinking habits, income and poverty and other factors that might contribute, and found that consanguinity is the leading culprit. They have published their analysis in the July 4 issue of The Lancet.

My intention was to submit a balanced approach towards the issue.firest the history, the controversy and then in the second link its total rebuttal. I will always give many other references which will show that cousin marriages are not recommendable. Even in the first link you have the following parts which are against the cousin marriages which shows that cousin marriages have risks, and banned in many places. The only exception is Middle east or Muslim countries. No where in Europe, USA, South America, China, Korea, India(Hindus) etc cousin marriages are practiced. It means it is some thing bad but as allowed in Islam you people are adamant to prove the otherwise.

That is why always my point on such issues like cousin marriages, polygamy, evidence and inheritance of women we have to reinterpret Qur'an not trying foolishly to justify such anomalies in this modern era.

In February, 2008, British environment minister Phil Woolas sparked a major row in the United Kingdom when he attributed the high rate of birth defects in the Pakistani community to the practice of marriages between first cousins. “If you have a child with your cousin, the likelihood is there'll be a genetic problem,” he told the Sunday Times [1]. Although a Muslim activist group demanded that Woolas be fired, he was instead promoted in October to the racially sensitive post of immigration minister.

Indeed, in the United States, similar assumptions about the high level of genetic risk associated with cousin marriage are reflected in the 31 state laws that either bar the practice outright or permit it only where the couple obtains genetic counseling, is beyond reproductive age, or if one partner is sterile.

Nonetheless, in both the US and Europe, the frequency of first-cousin marriage—a practice that had often been favored, especially by elites—sharply declined during the second half of the 19th century [3]. (The reasons are both complex and contested

In any case, by the late nineteenth century, in Europe as well as the US, marrying one's cousin had come to be viewed as reckless, and today, despite its continued popularity in many societies and among European elites historically, the practice is highly stigmatized in the West (and parts of Asia—the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and both North and South Korea also prohibit cousin marriage)

Until recently, good data on which to base an answer were lacking. As a result, great variation existed in the medical advice and screening services offered to consanguineous couples [12]. In an effort at clarification, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) convened a group of experts to review existing studies on risks to offspring and issue recommendations for clinical practice. Their report concluded that the risks of a first-cousin union were generally much smaller than assumed—about 1.7%–2% above the background risk for congenital defects and 4.4% for pre-reproductive mortality—and did not warrant any special preconception testing.(Less or more but the risk does exist)
some other related links
Risk of birth defect doubles for cousin couples -study

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_138417.html

Cousin marriage: Is it a health risk?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7404730.stm

[Badlun]

I want to make it clear that I am not a proponent of consanguinity (marrying cousins) but that is based on where I was raised.
This has nothing to do with Islam, its just the facts as they are.

How you are not proponent of consanguinity and how it is not related to Islam when cousin marriages are allowed in Islam, mentioned in Qur'an and widely practiced by Muslims?

Why instead you do not fight and argue against it if you are not its proponent and if you are not its proponent then how you will recommend to amend Islam for not allowing consanguinity?

If these are just facts then defend these facts and not trying arrogantly to win an argument in a forum on a subject you are not proponent