Last year I wrote two articles refuting claims of the rabid, Islamophobic criminal and liar Joel Richardson here is that article again http://muslimbeliefsandnews.blogspot.com/2011/02/refutation-of-lies-against-islam.html and the summary of this first article: http://muslimbeliefsandnews.blogspot.com/2011/02/summarized-version-of-my-refutation-of.html
Well I just came across some more of the ridiculous claims and assertions of some of Richardson's brainwashed followers. In the comment section at this link (the blog itself is a great Islamic blog refuting the liar Joel Richardson!) I saw the claims of someone calling themselves "Jose". http://joelsdeceit.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/debunking-the-comparison-of-the-second-beast-with-the-islamic-jesus/#comment-19
"Jose" wrote a bunch of nonsense, you can feel free to check out at the link I gave I will simply post my response and refutation to him here.
Responding to the poster "Jose" and your assertions and claims.
The "book of Daniel" in the corrupted, contradiction filled Bible is set in the historical context of Jews in the BCE's resisting Greek Hellenization specifically at the hands of the Selecuid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes who tried to make the Jews worship Zeus and the Seleucid Antiochus a follower of Greco-Roman paganism defiled the Temple in Jerusalem with a statue of Zeus and pig "sacrifices" to this Zeus statue to offend the Jews even more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes. A good article for you on academics giving the historical setting of "Daniel" http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/comment/daniel.shtml
And as for "Revelation" in the New Testament it was as Thomas Jefferson said "merely the ravings of a maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams". Did you know Jose this book was almost not even included in the "New Testament" canon by the later church councils themselves?! Also the Greek isle of Patmos (i.e. John of Patmos the supposed writer of the "book of Revelation" in the NT) is famous for its naturally growing Psilocybin mushrooms (aka psychedelic or "magic" mushrooms the hallucinatory drug) might explain Revelation 12:7 and talks of DRAGONS fighting wars in heaven, etc (i.e. someone, the so-called John of Patmos, tripping on magic mushrooms)!
Then "Jose" you make a whole bunch of what can only be termed ridiculous claims by which I guess your claiming that the liar Joel Richardson himself is supposedly a "prophet"!! You claim Richardson has allegedly said these supposed "predictions" (as you term them) or you even term these alleged statements you say Richardson made "insinuations" (probably vague nonsense your making up) Allow me to respond to your general ludicrous assertions.
Where exactly did Joel Richardson ever supposedly "predict" that Iran would allegedly "plot" to kill the Saudi Ambassador (I assume your trying to imply the Saudi ambassador to the USA, you just say "Saudi ambassador" I'm assuming you realize Saudi has more then one ambassador and has ambassadors around the world in different foreign countries!). You and I both know Richardson NEVER made such a claim, and also if you bothered to even look at the news sources this claim of a supposed rogue network in Iran's special forces trying to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the US fell apart with even Iranian experts in the US itself (like renowned ex-CIA official Robert Baer) said this supposed bumbling assassination plot/tale (supposedly involving failing drunk used car salesmen, supposed Mexican drug cartels, and all sorts of nonsense reading like a bad Hollywood or even Bollywood script) was a made up story with no evidence and simply wasn't and couldn't have been the work of Iran or any of their competent intelligence agencies. http://www.juancole.com/2011/10/wagging-the-dog-with-irans-maxwell-smart.html
And before that you made some asinine remark about Iran supposedly believing they need to allegedly "nuke" Saudi Arabia to "unleash the Mahdi"! This is a false claim on your part and is in NO Shi'a Muslim understanding of the Mahdi (and Iran is of course a majority Twelver Shi'a Muslim nation), you completely made up your false "nuking" claim likely with help from your demented "friend" Joel Richardson. For even a little basic info about Shi'a Muslim beliefs on what they believe about Imam al-Mahdi (which is different then specific Sunni Muslim beliefs) even try just Wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi also including both Sunni and Shia views on the Mahdi in Islamic thought again even from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi
Then you say "Hacked UN wires, Saudi Arabia allow Israel to use their airfields against Iran." Again any evidence as to were Joel Richardson allegedly "predicted" this according to your claims, are you basically worshipping Joel Richardson as your supposed modern day Dispensationalist "Prophet" himself?!!! Joel did NOT "predict" this or anything else. Regarding the stories about the American backed Saudi monarchy allegedly being willing to allow the Zionists (aka the "Israeli" Khazars) to use their Saudi airspace to attack Iran: it doesn't take a "prophet" to realize this possibility (only good geopolitical analysis) also it was not in any "UN wire" you tool it was simply reported on and gossiped about in the Western mainstream media. Also most geopolitical strategists around the world again have long stated that it is a possibility if a future conflict between Iran and "Israel" were to occur Saudi would side with "Israel" at least behind the scenes. Finally note the Saudi monarchy itself denies they have given such an authorization and they still publicly say they will not allow "Israel" to use their airspace for any future "Israeli" plans to attack Iran. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/06/14/Riyadh-denies-Israeli-airspace-claims/UPI-59391276531427/
"Riyadh denies Israeli airspace claims" June 14, 2010
Then you say that "Iran attempting to invade Iraq", care to provide ANY evidence of this?!!! I mean not only that Joel Richardson is "predicting" or I guess your saying allegedly "predicted" this; but when did an alleged Iranian attempted invasion of Iraq ever happen in our current time? You do realize that back in the 1980s (I assuming your not trying to say Richardson was around making claims back in the 1980s as well lol) it was Saddam's Iraq (backed by the US Reagan administration) that invaded Revolutionary Iran that had just overthrown the Shah's US backed dictatorship and was under the revolutionary leadership of Ayatullah Khomeini. If your talking about currently, Iran is not trying to "invade Iraq", Iran is not doing this and has absolutely ZERO reason to ever do so or even think about! The current Iraqi government (led by Shi'ite PM Nouri al-Maliki) is heavily made up of Iraqi Shi'ite political parties (Shi'ites are 60% of Iraq's total population) and many of these parties be they Maliki, the Badr Brigades, the Sadrists, etc. are heavily tied to Iran: so Iran has what they want in political control via Iraqi proxies and allies (who they give monetary support to) so they are not going to "invade" anything!
You then say "Iran working and getting the nuclear bomb", you do realize that the Iranian nuclear program has been headline news for almost a decade right?! (the Iranian nuclear program has been known about since the 1979 Islamic Revolution itself as the US helped the Shah start it before this when the Shah was a US ally still in power, I believe the US helped Iran start their nuclear energy program in the early 1970s to be exact). So what exactly was your idol Joel, the crackpot, Richardson supposedly "predicting"?! Also Iran of course says there nuclear program is a purely, peaceful nuclear energy program (unlike the US that has used nuclear weapons it possesses against the Japanese women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Zionist "Israelis" that were given around 200+ nuclear weapons by the Americans, British and French in the 1960s and onwards). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37959,00.html "Documentary Says Israel Got Nuclear Weapons From France".
Next you say "Turkey mediating between Muslim brotherhood, Egypt, Lybia, North Sudan, and Israel." Again where is the evidence of Richardson "predicting" anything?! And on this case you (and possibly Richardson if he said such nonsense as what you posted) FAIL. Turkey has BAD relations with "Israel" at the moment (since the June 2010 Flotilla to Gaza), and Turkey has cut off diplomatic relations with "Israel" and his demanding an "Israeli" apology (which the Zionist entity refuses to give) and compensation for the dead Turks that were killed by the Zionist military on-board the Flotilla to Gaza, Palestine. So Turkey is not supposedly mediating anything as they have again have BAD ties and hostility with "Israel" right now and also the Muslim Brotherhood does not have any real discussions or negotiations of any kind with the Zionist entity. In fact isn't that what people like Glenn Beck, etc. have been crying about that the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in Egypt is a disaster for "Israel" and put what had been a pliable puppet in Hosni Mubarak in Egypt into the category of an enemy and foe of the Zionist entity (with the new Salafi and Muslim Brotherhood dominated government in Egypt)?! The Muslim Brotherhood has only limited power in Libya (the NTC is the main group there and is not related, and the main Islamist rebel group in Libya is the LIFG the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group that has more links to al-Qaeda then to the Muslim Brotherhood: if you did any basic reading you'd know that contrary to what people like Glenn Beck or your idol Joel Richardson promote the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate and has a hostile relationship with al-Qaeda that sees al-Qaeda reguarly condemning the Brotherhood as sellouts). Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is not in the Muslim Brotherhood either. In fact Omar al-Bashir (the leader of Sudan's) main rival and enemy is his former Islamist ally Sheikh Hassan al-Turabi (who was once friends with bin Laden http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a307_bin_laden_turabi_2050081722-17016.jpg) al-Turabi is now the leader of the National Islamic Front (a new breakaway party her formed in the early 2000s when he broke with and became the top rival of Omar al-Bashir) which is actually a Brotherhood (Ikhwan) affiliated group in Sudan that again is actually opposed to the current Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir and his National Congress political party in Sudan. In fact al-Turabi is now allied with rebels in the western region of Darfur, Sudan and Al-Turabi is in on good terms with South Sudan and its leaders today (in an alliance against Omar al-Bashir in Khartoum).
And then for your next vacuous claim regarding the Sudan (today Sudan and "South" Sudan, after the imperialist finally divided the country as they had longed planned for, in what was once the largest nation in Africa http://english.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php/africa/political-comments/268-the-splitting-of-sudan) you do realize the plan to partition Sudan was public knowledge and in place for a LONG time right?! So again where is your supposed source for what the nutjob Joel Richardson even claimed; and also stating Sudan would be partitioned into a northern state and southern state is nothing. Again all analysts were saying the partition would leave a nation called Sudan (with the capital of Khartoum still) and a southern state officially called South Sudan (with a capital of the city of Juba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudan) so even if someone spoke of a partition of the Sudan (which your not providing any link for from the fraud Richardson) this is again no alleged "prediction" it was being widely stated by all political analysts and media that covered the African continent itself (and the partition plans themselves had been in place for at least going on a decade and that was publicly after the Second Sudanese Civil War was stopped). Oh yeah and if you bothered to do any in-depth research about the Sudan you'd realize that while the Arabized north is predominantly Muslim, the south that is today's new nation of South Sudan (capital of Juba) CANNOT be correctly called a "Christian South"; only a minority of Southern Sudanese people are religiously Christians the majority of Southern Sudanese are religiously what is termed Animists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism which often is translated as "spirit worship", etc. and in this case it refers to indigenous African, pagan spirit religions (think Shamans, etc). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudan#Religion Again most studies say the Southern Sudanese are religiously majority Animist, followed up a sizable minority of Christians, and then even a somewhat sizable Muslim minority itself in South Sudan of about 18% of South Sudan's total population.
Northern Sudan today is Arabized, when you say "Cush", your thinking of the ancient Kushite Kingdom that no longer exists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kush. Again Islamophobes often bring up that the Northern Sudanese have been Arabized, yet now your blathering about "Cush" even though this shows your corrupted Bible is set in an old historical setting and context.
Obviously in ancient times the Israelites were enemies of all the nations around them so it is only natural for enemy lists of theirs mentioned in the corrupted, contradiction filled Bibles to mention states and peoples from the general region that they had beef with back in that day (i.e. the Israelites didn't know of the ancient Olmec civilization of ancient Mesoamerica so they wouldn't write about fighting them); again this is all very crucially clearly SET in ancient times the Bible only mentions ancient names like "Cush", Tubal, Gomer, etc. I will get to this etc. showing that this was again set in an OLD historical setting and not a supposed "prophecy" at all. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog
Quote- The etymology of both the names Gog and Magog remains uncertain. The ma- at the beginning of Magog may indicate a land, or it may mean "from", so that Magog means "of the land of Gog" or "from Gog". Gog may originate as the Hebrew version of the name of Gyges of Lydia, who made his kingdom a great power in the early 7th century BC, but this explanation, although common, is not universally accepted.[1] A different theory is that "Magog" might be a reference to Babylon, by turning BBL ("Babylon" in Hebrew script, which originally had no vowel-signs) into MGG (Magog), but this account, like the others, has problems.[2]
end quote.
For the different groups included in the "Biblical" account of "Gog and Magog" I will quote from the following academic work of the skeptic academic Professor Tim Callahan and his scholarly work "Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?" http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Prophecy-Fulfillment-Tim-Callahan/dp/0965504700
Regarding what is mentioned in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39
Tim Callahan writes:
On Meshech- "Meshech is the biblical term for the Mushki, a tribe allied with the Phrygians, who devastated the Hittite empire. Even into late Assyrian times they were a warlike people in western Asian Minor." (Tim Callahan "Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?" page 141)
Next on Tubal- "Tubal is Tabal, a frontier state on the edge of the Assyrian empire, whose people, the Tibarani, were part of the flotsam cast up from the destruction of the Hittite empire, just as the Peoples of the Sea were mixed with the remnant of the Mycenaean civilization. Tabal was the site of much struggle between the Assyrians and the invading peoples of Asian Minor who raided their western provinces. Beth-togarmah means 'house of Togarmah.' It is the biblical version of the city of Tilgarimmu, a strategic fortress in the northern corner of Tabal. Thus, all of these nations are from Asia Minor and all of them are from Ezekiel's time. Cush and Put are most likely Ethiopia and Libya, both of which had exercised power in Egypt. What all of this means is that, like Isaiah, Ezekiel saw the 'latter days' when all the nations would attack Jerusalem as quite near his time." (Tim Callahan, "Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?" Page 141)
Also I almost forgot on "Gomer", Tim Callahan writes "Gomer is the biblical version of the Gimmirai of Assyrian records, whom the Greeks called the Kimmerai, who got latinized into the Cimmerians. As noted in earlier chapters, they were a barbaric tribe which invaded Asia Minor from the Caucusus mountains and raided both the Lydians and Assyrians." (Again from Tim Callahan, "Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?" Page 141)
So Meshech is Muskhi a tribe from Asia Minor in the past, Tabal was also a tribe from Asia Minor. Same for Gomer, etc.
Then as concerns the other people mentioned in Ezekiel Ch. 38-39, you have Persia (which was an ancient Zoroastrian kingdom at that period in history) and also in the time of Ezekiel it was not yet the Persian rulers of Cyrus the Great or Darius the Great who the helped the Jews out of the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities and let them go back to Jerusalem the book of Ezra praises the Persians in the time of Cyrus, etc. Then Nubia or as Tim Callahan says in particular Ethiopia: Ethiopia is today a major US ally in the Horn of Africa run by the Ethiopian Christian dictator Meles Zenawi http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20069889-503543.html, and then we have Put which is modern day Libya. As I'm sure you "Jose" and your idol Joel Richardson now get really excited seeing these names (putting aside that they are ancient terms and Iran is not called Persia, Ethiopia is not called Nubia, and Libya is not called Put anymore! Showing the old historical context in the Biblical text itself, not some alleged "prophetic" nonsense you guys claim) the actual political reality today actually shows that if we take these ancient national terms and apply them to modern nations we actually see that the nations in question can in no way be seen to possibly be in any supposed "alliance" in modern times! First Ethiopia under the Western and American backed Ethiopian Christian dictator Meles Zenawi is also a major Horn of Africa ally of "Israel" aka the Zionist entity most specifically against Somalia and militant groups like al-Shabab in Somalia. Link: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/11/16/177485.html
"Somalia’s al-Shabaab bashes Kenya-Israel security pact"
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Quote- ...
A statement from the Odinga (that is Kenyan leader Raila Odinga)'s office said Netanyahu promised to help build “a coalition against fundamentalism,” bringing together the countries Kenya, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Tanzania.
end quote.
So Ethiopia that Tim Callahan identifies as Nubia following Gog and Magog in Ezekiel Ch. 38-39, is actually allied with the "Israelis" against armed Islamic groups like Al-Shabab in Somalia; instead of being opposed to "Israel" at all and thus supposedly with Gog and Magog even in terms of the Bible!
Then regarding Persia, the official name is obviously today Iran and while they oppose the Zionist entity, it is very hard to imagine the Islamic Republic of Iran (again an officially Shi'ite state) somehow supposedly coming together with Libya (again the old terminology actually use in the historical context in Ezekiel Ch. 38-39 for Libya is the no longer existent term/name "Put"). The Libyan rebels of the NTC that overthrew and killed Muammar Gaddafi were backed by Islamist groups like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) that is alleged to have had ties to al-Qaeda and even the Taliban in Afghanistan (where many LIFG members lived in the late 1990s i.e. in Taliban run Afghanistan) also there is a sizable Muslim Brotherhood party in Libya itself. What this means is that the new rulers in Libya are actually opposed to Iran, because they are on opposite sides of the proxy battle in Syria. Iran supports Bashar al-Assad's rule in Syria, whereas the Libyan rebels and the new Libyan NTC gov are strongly anti-Assad and forcefully behind the Free Syrian Army rebels, it is even alleged that Libyan veterans that defeated Gaddafi went to Syria to assist the Syrian opposition, anti-Assad rebels (Syrian rebels themselves according to the US government now linked by many accounts to both al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, certainly the historic Syrian Muslim Brotherhood branch). See this article for one: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29853.htm 600 Libyan rebels in Syria contrast this to claims that Iran has sent some of its Iranian Revolutionary Guards allegedly into Syria to support Assad, meaning in theory if both claims were true these forces not only would not be allied but could be fighting against one another in proxy battles in Syria hardly an "alliance".
So the new NTC government in Libya (i.e. the rebel government that replaced Gaddafi) actually has an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and other staunchly anti-Assad forces in Syria that want to topple the rule of Bashar al-Assad; whereas again everyone knows that the Iranian government is one of the strongest backers of Assad as Syria is the only real Arab ally Iran has outside of Iraq and Syria provides a huge link for Iran to send weapons across Iraq, across Assad ruled Syria and into their allies Hezbollah in Lebanon (who are also now opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood and siding with Assad and Iran against the Syrian opposition/rebels). On top of this Hamas in control of Gaza, which the right wing Evangelical Americans often liked to whine about especially about Hamas being a "puppet of Iran", Hamas has actually broken in many ways with Tehran and Iran has in turn lowered its support of Hamas and instead moved to supporting what is still the smaller often Hamas-rival Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) movement in Gaza. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Islamic_Jihad
One last Bible verse for Jose and Richardson to consider, how exactly can this verse Ezekiel 38:11 fit the modern entity of Zionist "Israel" which by ALL accounts is one of the most paranoid, militarized, police states on the planet; with all sorts of security on buses, at malls, in the airports, etc. i.e. if you steal someone's land and oppress them (the Palestinians) you tend to get resistance directed against you.
Relating to Gog and Magog, this is in the Bible Gog and Magog's supposed thoughts as they attack an allegedly defenseless Israel
Ezekiel 38:11- You will say, “I will invade a land of unwalled villages; I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people—all of them living without walls and without gates and bars. (NIV)
To conclude this was a long writing, but Alhamdulillah now "Jose" and more importantly the crackpot, hatemonger Joel Richardson have been refuted, insha'Allah.
Regarding the truth about Gog and Magog which is told in Islam and the Qur'an al-Kareem there are many good links you should see below.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/iron_gates.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/14gog.htm
http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/171/Gog%20and%20Magog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog#Qur.27an
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEO72Kkta8c
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
A refutation of a pathetic lie made by anti-Muslim hatemongers against the Holy Quran
I just read a complete bold faced lie from a pathetic anti-Islam hatemonger. These anti-Muslim liars absurdly claim that Quran Surah 9:61 allegedly states: "Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, ‘If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey's." This is a complete and utter lie by these devious anti-Islam frauds; Quran Surah 9:61 does not say this at all! Quran Surah 9:61 actually says the following:
Quran Surah 9:61- Among them are men who molest the Prophet and say, "He is (all) ear." Say, "He listens to what is best for you: he believes in Allah, has faith in the Believers, and is a Mercy to those of you who believe." But those who molest the Messenger will have a grievous penalty.(Yusuf Ali translation)
A real Quran translator, Yusuf Ali- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Ali
and his translation of the Quran from Arabic into English: http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b3917.html
Here is the original Arabic of Qur'an Surah 9:61 directly:
وَمِنْهُمُ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ النَّبِيَّ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ أُذُنٌ ۚ قُلْ أُذُنُ خَيْرٍ لَكُمْ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَيُؤْمِنُ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَرَحْمَةٌ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ ۚ وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ {61}
Transliteration: Wa Minhumu Al-Ladhīna Yu'udhūna An-Nabīya Wa Yaqūlūna Huwa 'Udhunun Qul 'Udhunu Khayrin Lakum Yu'uminu Billāhi Wa Yu'uminu Lilmu'uminīna Wa Raĥmatun Lilladhīna 'Āmanū Minkum Wa Al-Ladhīna Yu'udhūna Rasūla Allāhi Lahum `Adhābun 'Alīmun
And here is another real English translation of the Arabic of the Quran (in addition to the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran) from the Marmaduke Pickthall translation of the Quran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmaduke_Pickthall)
What the Holy Quran actually says again: Quran Surah 9:61- And of them are those who vex the Prophet and say: He is only a hearer. Say: A hearer of good for you, who believeth in Allah and is true to the believers, and a mercy for such of you as believe. Those who vex the messenger of Allah, for them there is a painful doom. (Pickthall translation)
There is nothing racist in the entire Quran and the anti-Islam liars have been completely refuted regarding their false allegations and lies about Quran Surah 9:61. The lies of the anti-Islam haters and the devious Christian missionary clowns are truly pathetic and just so easy to refute. It seems these anti-Muslim liars are just going with the old Nazi style of repeating absurd lies over and over and hoping ignorant people will be deluded into thinking their silly lies against Islam are allegedly "true"! But Almighty Allah (God) will make sure these anti-Islam liars will be refuted and punished.
Islam is completely against racism and for complete racial unity; Islam says all human beings are from Adam and Eve and completely equal. Islam is the true answer to stopping racism, as the Mujahid and martyr El-Hajj Malik Shabazz (Malcolm X) wrote in a letter while on the Hajj (Pilgrimage) to Mecca.
http://www.malcolmxonline.com/speeches-letter-from-mecca.html
"America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have considered 'white' -- but the 'white' attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color."
Just some beautiful quotes from the Quran and other Islamic literature about complete racial equality and unity.
Quran Surah 49:13- O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). (Yusuf Ali translation)
Quran Surah 30:22- And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colours: verily in that are Signs for those who know. (Yusuf Ali translation)
From the final Farewell Sermon of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=ic0107-322
The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves."
The lies of the hateful kuffar (infidels) have been completely refuted. Allahu Akbar!
Quran Surah 9:61- Among them are men who molest the Prophet and say, "He is (all) ear." Say, "He listens to what is best for you: he believes in Allah, has faith in the Believers, and is a Mercy to those of you who believe." But those who molest the Messenger will have a grievous penalty.(Yusuf Ali translation)
A real Quran translator, Yusuf Ali- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Ali
and his translation of the Quran from Arabic into English: http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b3917.html
Here is the original Arabic of Qur'an Surah 9:61 directly:
وَمِنْهُمُ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ النَّبِيَّ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ أُذُنٌ ۚ قُلْ أُذُنُ خَيْرٍ لَكُمْ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَيُؤْمِنُ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَرَحْمَةٌ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ ۚ وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ {61}
Transliteration: Wa Minhumu Al-Ladhīna Yu'udhūna An-Nabīya Wa Yaqūlūna Huwa 'Udhunun Qul 'Udhunu Khayrin Lakum Yu'uminu Billāhi Wa Yu'uminu Lilmu'uminīna Wa Raĥmatun Lilladhīna 'Āmanū Minkum Wa Al-Ladhīna Yu'udhūna Rasūla Allāhi Lahum `Adhābun 'Alīmun
And here is another real English translation of the Arabic of the Quran (in addition to the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran) from the Marmaduke Pickthall translation of the Quran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmaduke_Pickthall)
What the Holy Quran actually says again: Quran Surah 9:61- And of them are those who vex the Prophet and say: He is only a hearer. Say: A hearer of good for you, who believeth in Allah and is true to the believers, and a mercy for such of you as believe. Those who vex the messenger of Allah, for them there is a painful doom. (Pickthall translation)
There is nothing racist in the entire Quran and the anti-Islam liars have been completely refuted regarding their false allegations and lies about Quran Surah 9:61. The lies of the anti-Islam haters and the devious Christian missionary clowns are truly pathetic and just so easy to refute. It seems these anti-Muslim liars are just going with the old Nazi style of repeating absurd lies over and over and hoping ignorant people will be deluded into thinking their silly lies against Islam are allegedly "true"! But Almighty Allah (God) will make sure these anti-Islam liars will be refuted and punished.
Islam is completely against racism and for complete racial unity; Islam says all human beings are from Adam and Eve and completely equal. Islam is the true answer to stopping racism, as the Mujahid and martyr El-Hajj Malik Shabazz (Malcolm X) wrote in a letter while on the Hajj (Pilgrimage) to Mecca.
http://www.malcolmxonline.com/speeches-letter-from-mecca.html
"America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have considered 'white' -- but the 'white' attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color."
Just some beautiful quotes from the Quran and other Islamic literature about complete racial equality and unity.
Quran Surah 49:13- O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). (Yusuf Ali translation)
Quran Surah 30:22- And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colours: verily in that are Signs for those who know. (Yusuf Ali translation)
From the final Farewell Sermon of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=ic0107-322
The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves."
The lies of the hateful kuffar (infidels) have been completely refuted. Allahu Akbar!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Alcohol is not healthy
Holy Qur’an Surah 2:219-
يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ ۖ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَا أَكْبَرُ مِنْ نَفْعِهِمَا ۗ وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنْفِقُونَ قُلِ الْعَفْوَ ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ {219}
Transliteration: Yas'alūnaka `Ani Al-Khamri Wa Al-Maysiri Qul Fīhimā 'Ithmun Kabīrun Wa Manāfi`u Lilnnāsi Wa 'Ithmuhumā 'Akbaru Min Naf`ihimā Wa Yas'alūnaka Mādhā Yunfiqūna Quli Al-`Afwa Kadhālika Yubayyinu Allāhu Lakumu Al-'Āyāti La`allakum Tatafakkarūna
Holy Qur’an Surah 2:219- They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, "In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit." And they ask you what they should spend. Say, "The excess [beyond needs]." Thus Allah makes clear to you the verses [of revelation] that you might give thought. (Saheeh International translation)
This article will be dealing with the issue of alcohol and all its harm. I decided to write this article because I have seen a few of the critics of Islam try to attack Islam’s banning of the demonic force of alcoholic beverages. In this article I will present just some of the evidence of the horrifying impact of alcohol on the world and also give a thorough refutation of the fraudulent claims advanced by some that alcohol if only used a little (which the epidemic of alcohol deaths, injuries, and debauchery shows is next to impossible) is allegedly somehow “healthy”. In refuting this myth of “healthy” alcohol I will quote Western non-Muslim medical professionals and academics who torpedo this myth of alleged “health benefits” from moderate alcohol use.
To start I want to say one quick thing on Holy Qur’an Surah 2:219. As I said this article will cite professional medical sources that torpedo the myth of moderate alcohol use having any alleged “health benefits”; so I just wanted to caution my Muslim brothers and sisters against interpreting this verse of the Qur’an (Surah 2:219) as allegedly agreeing that alcohol has any alleged “health benefits” in moderate use (I will again cite the relevant medical evidence that disproves this false propaganda of the alcohol lovers). It is much more likely that Qur’an 2:219 and any other Islamic literature that mentions any of the so-called “benefits” of alcohol is simply talking about people having “fun” by drinking alcohol and becoming intoxicated. From my very own limited experience, before I converted to Islam, of being at parties and events where people are imbibing alcohol (often extremely harmful large amounts of the neurotoxin of alcohol) people often seem to be and state they are having a great time. This is often followed by much vomiting and great sickness the next day! This simple fact that people quite often “cut lose” and have “fun” when abusing alcohol may be the simple understanding of a Qur’an verse like Qur’an 2:219. Again this verse states “In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit.” (Qur’an 2:219, Saheeh International translation). Obviously the sin, evil, and horrific health damage done by alcohol far outweighs a “benefit” of having a crazy, “fun” night on the town. A good article on the issue of “fun” and Islam: http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/113836/Muslim%20fun
Quote- …
If you want to understand the truth of these words, then read the stories of those among your own people, or others, who entered Islam. Look at the great changes that occurred in their lives, and look at the great happiness that they enjoy now. This is the enjoyment that you should seek. Just as you call on us to have fun and enjoyment, we call you sincerely to come and find enjoyment with us, and follow the path of happiness, and taste true happiness that will be with you as you go to sleep and as you wake up, and will never leave you, until you enter your grave, until your Lord admits you to the abode of happiness, which is Paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth.
end quote.
Another good link on alcohol from this good Sunni Muslim website: http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/40882/alcohol
Now let me briefly give just some of the masses of information on just how devastating and deadly alcohol is.
Quote- Alcohol Responsible for More Deaths Than AIDS, TB or Violence
By Deborah Huso Feb 11th 2011 1:41PM
It is no secret that alcohol abuse and deaths related to alcohol are a serious problem, but it may be worse than many realize. In fact, alcohol is responsible for 2.5 million deaths around the globe each year.
Figures released this week in the World Health Organization's "Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health" showed that alcohol-related incidents and diseases account for nearly 4 percent of deaths worldwide.
Figures released this week in the World Health Organization's "Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health" showed that alcohol-related incidents and diseases account for nearly 4 percent of deaths worldwide.
end quote.
And just to be succinct (leaving aside all the masses of information I could post here of all the massive dangers of alcohol from drink driving, to cancers, etc.) let me just cite one more link: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_alcohol_related_deaths_occur_each_year
How can alcohol be blamed for 100,000 deaths each year?
- 5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
- 15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
- 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
- 30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
- 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
- 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
- 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
- 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
(Sources: NIDA Report, the Scientific American and Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario.) Also see Alcohol Consumption and Mortality, Alcohol poisoning deaths, CDC report,
100,000 deaths. That's more than a statistic. That is 100,000 individuals with faces. 100,000 individuals with lives not fully lived. 100,000 individuals grieved by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children. Every year.
Go to the FAS Resource Center Main Page
end quote.
After this background information, let me now move to what I believe is the central point of this article demolishing the myths of certain kaafir disbelievers of the alleged “health benefits” of “moderate” alcohol intake. The first article I will cite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/20/research.medicalscience
Quote- Healthy wine myth debunked
The notion that a regular little tipple is good for your health, especially from middle age, is debunked by researchers today.
Taking up alcohol may help older men cut the risks of heart attack, but increases the threat of premature death from other diseases such as cancer, according to a study which monitored the progress of 7,735 men over 16 years. The work questions the popular wisdom that moderate drinking, particularly of red wine, can help people's overall health. It is a suggestion that campaigners fear interferes with the message about the risks of alcohol.
Gerry Shaper, one of the researchers, said: "There ought to be a debunking of the 'benefits' of alcohol.
"One should be very careful, particularly doctors, of advising people to start drinking because it is good for them. That often happens when men retire. I think it is pernicious."
Dr Shaper, of the Royal Free and University College Medical School, London, questioned whether even the reduced risk of heart disease was down to alcohol. Men who moved from not drinking, or taking the occasional drink, to more regular drinking in middle age tended to have had better lifestyles when younger.
The research is reported in the medical journal Heart. It involved men screened for heart disease by GPs in 24 towns from 1978 to 1980 when they were between 40 and 59. Most were questioned again on their drinking and lifestyles five years later, and their progress was monitored into the 90s.
Most of those who were deemed "new regular drinkers" consumed between one and 15 units a week, considered light drinking. They were less likely to have a heart attack than those who remained teetotal or still only drank occasionally.
However, they were no less likely to die of heart or cardiovascular disease - and 40% more likely to die of other diseases.
The charity Alcohol Concern said: "The health costs of alcohol far outweigh the benefits, with around 33,000 people dying of alcohol related diseases in the UK every year."
The British Heart Foundation said: "This research is of importance because it shows that the effects of alcohol on one organ may not apply to the rest of the body."
Meanwhile, scientists at Queen Mary College, London, believe they have worked out why red wine might help to stave off heart disease.
They found that in laboratory tests, alcohol-free extracts of red wine blocked production of a natural chemical called endetholin-1. This chemical is an important factor in cardiovascular disease because it causes blood vessels to constrict. Rosé and white wines had no effect on mammal blood vessel cells, but the blocking effect of an extract of cabernet sauvignon was seven times more powerful that of than grape juice.
However, Professor Roger Corder, who led the research, said: "The changes that alcohol causes are so modest that you would not in your right mind believe that they could protect you from heart disease.
"What one would want to encourage is a lifestyle that says a couple of glasses of red wine with your evening meal or your lunch is what is required, and alcohol consumption other than that should be avoided."
end quote.
As for the alleged “health benefits” of moderate alcohol intake, a famous British doctor mentioned in the article I cited above, named Dr. Gerry Shaper, completely destroys the very base of the claim that “moderate” alcohol intake has any benefit. What I’m about to state is HUGELY important, as Dr. Gerry Shaper noticed a massive error in the studies that claimed that moderate alcohol intake had any alleged “health benefit”. This error in the studies was what Dr. Gerry Shaper called the “abstainer myth”. See most of these old studies had just two categories in their “experiment” labeled drinkers and abstainers (i.e. non-drinkers). What these fraudulent “experiments” hid was the fact that many of the people they put in the “abstainer” (or non-drinker) category had actually been past alcohol drinkers! In many cases these alleged alcohol “abstainers” had only very recently given up alcohol use; in many cases because they were in ill health and doctors had advised them to stop drinking alcohol (indicating that many of them were likely heavy alcohol drinkers before)! Yet absurdly these people were put in the “abstainer” category; and no mention was made of the fact that they had been alcohol drinkers earlier on and were told to stop drinking alcohol by medical professionals: again most of these people were thus already in bad health (probably from heavy past alcohol use). This terribly skewed the fraudulent results of these studies and made the overall abstainer category appear less healthy then they really were.
A wonderful article explaining this is the following: http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-03-30/news/17287339_1_drinkers-moderate-alcohol-consumption-abstainers
Quote- UCSF points out flaw in studies tying alcohol to heart health
March 30, 2006|By Sabin Russell, Chronicle Medical Writer
Well, maybe not.
Researchers at UCSF pored through more than 30 years of studies that seem to show health benefits from moderate alcohol consumption, and concluded in a report released today that nearly all contained a fundamental error that skewed the results.
That error may have led to an erroneous conclusion that moderate drinkers were healthier than lifelong abstainers. Typically, studies suggest that abstainers run a 25 percent higher risk of coronary heart disease.
Without the error, the analyses shows, the health outcomes for moderate drinkers and non-drinkers were about the same.
"This reopens the debate about the validity of the findings of a protective effect for moderate drinkers, and it suggests that studies in the future be better designed to take this potential error into account," said Kaye Fillmore, a sociologist at the UCSF School of Nursing and lead author of the study.The common error was to lump into the group of "abstainers" people who were once drinkers but had quit.
Many former drinkers are people who stopped consuming alcohol because of advancing age or poor health. Including them in the "abstainer" group made the entire category of non-drinkers seem less healthy in comparison.
This type of error in alcohol studies was first spotted by British researcher Dr. Gerry Shaper in 1988, but the new analysis appears to show that the problem has persisted.
Fillmore and colleagues from the University of Victoria, British Columbia; and Curtin University, in Perth, Australia, analyzed 54 different studies examining the relationship between light to moderate drinking and health. Of these, only seven did not inappropriately mingle former drinkers and abstainers.
All seven of those studies found no significant differences in the health of those who drank -- or previously drank -- and those who never touched the stuff. The remaining 47 studies represent the body of research that has led to a general scientific consensus that moderate drinking has a health benefit.
Fillmore's team of researchers took their initial finding one step further, and introduced the error into the data compiled in the seven studies and, voila, the results changed to show drinkers had better health than abstainers.
end quote.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-03-30/news/17287339_1_drinkers-moderate-alcohol-consumption-abstainers/2
Quote- (Page 2 of 2)
"We are not proving anything," Fillmore insisted. "But the results are certainly suggestive."The UCSF study appears today in an online edition of the journal Addiction Research and Theory.
Kaiser Permanente cardiologist Dr. Arthur Klatsky, who led some of the largest studies showing a protective effect for moderate alcohol consumption, said his first study in 1981 contained the flaw, but subsequent studies took it into consideration.
"Without question, it is a serious flaw, which we have readily admitted," he said. He contends, however, that Fillmore's analysis mistakenly attributes the same mistake to later research.
"The evidence is still pretty compelling that there are likely to be benefits" from moderate drinking, he said. In addition, he said, studies show that alcohol raises the level of HDL -- the so-called good cholesterol -- and also has anti-clotting effects, which can reduce the risk of heart attack.
Klatsky said that there are inherent weaknesses in all the epidemiological studies of alcohol and heart health. What is needed, he said, is a randomized trial in which a group is assigned to consume one or two drinks a day and another abstains, and their comparative health is assessed over a period of years.
Dr. Tim Naimi, a physician who works for the National Center for Chronic Disease at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said "the whole field of 'moderate drinking' studies is deeply flawed," because of the lack of randomized trials.
In a study published in May 2005 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Naimi and other CDC colleagues found that the comparatively higher risk of heart disease in abstainers could be explained by socioeconomic factors rather than lack of protection from alcohol consumption.
Non-drinkers, for example, tended to be poorer than drinkers, had less access to health care, and had less healthy diets.
"Anyone who suggests that people should begin drinking, or drink more frequently, to reduce the risk of heart disease is misguided," he said.
end quote.
This information absolutely obliterates the whole claim of the silly infidel alcohol lovers (again most of my refutation of them is coming from Western non-Muslim medical professionals and researchers). Again almost all of these deceptive studies (mostly from the 1980s) that claimed “moderate” alcohol drinking allegedly made one’s heart “healthier” are all worthless as they all contained the “abstainer error” (first pointed out by the respected British medical professional Dr. Gerry Shaper). This “abstainer error” again frivolously and wrongly included people who had recently given up drinking alcohol on doctor’s orders because they were already in terrible health (likely from having been heavy alcohol drinkers in the past). Including these heavy alcohol drinkers, who had been made to stop by medical professionals, in the “abstainer” category (because they had recently given up their past alcohol use) was the trick these pathetic alcohol lovers used to produce the deceptive and false claim that moderate alcohol drinking allegedly is “good” for one’s health. Again Dr. Gerry Shaper torpedoed this silly claim of the alcohol lovers! Also Dr. Tim Naimi and his CDC (US government Centers for Disease Control) colleagues also gave another huge explanation that refuted the alcoholic propagandists. Dr. Naimi and company showed how these deceptive people didn’t include socioeconomic issues in some of their deceptive studies. Again: http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-03-30/news/17287339_1_drinkers-moderate-alcohol-consumption-abstainers/2
Quote- Dr. Tim Naimi, a physician who works for the National Center for Chronic Disease at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said "the whole field of 'moderate drinking' studies is deeply flawed," because of the lack of randomized trials.
In a study published in May 2005 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Naimi and other CDC colleagues found that the comparatively higher risk of heart disease in abstainers could be explained by socioeconomic factors rather than lack of protection from alcohol consumption.
Non-drinkers, for example, tended to be poorer than drinkers, had less access to health care, and had less healthy diets.
"Anyone who suggests that people should begin drinking, or drink more frequently, to reduce the risk of heart disease is misguided," he said.
end quote.
Another good article from the website of the University of California, San Francisco itself (where UCSF School of Nursing Adjunct Professor Kaye Fillmore, PhD and her colleagues are from) continues in destroying the myths of the alcohol lovers.
From: http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2007/03/7215/debate-rekindled-two-drinks-day-road-heart-health
Quote- Debate Rekindled on the Two-Drinks-a-Day Road to Heart Health
By Kristen BoleNo one really wants to hear that alcohol isn't good for us after all, which could be why scientists worldwide have convened on paper this month to debate a UCSF researcher's study that debunks the popular notion.
UCSF School of Nursing Adjunct Professor Kaye Fillmore, PhD, led an international team on a meta-analytic study that found a common error in most significant studies connecting moderate alcohol consumption to healthy hearts. The study was published last year in Addiction Research and Theory, a bimonthly medical journal in England.
Now, eight independent scientists have filed their responses to the Fillmore study in the March 29 issue of Addiction Research and Theory, with further response from Fillmore, creating what journal editor Derek Heim said "may well constitute the most complete critical discussion of the protective effect [of alcohol] to date."
Three of those researchers donned their boxing gloves, taking issue with Fillmore's inclusions, exclusions or conclusions in the research, including which studies were considered flawed or were chosen for the analysis. Yet the majority agreed that most previous studies had included the same error.
The error, according to the 2006 study, was in counting among "abstainers" the people who had given up alcohol for health reasons. That inclusion skewed the health profile of the abstainer group, Fillmore said, making moderate alcohol drinkers look healthier.
The story generated huge interest, not only among media mavens, but also in the halls of the alcohol industry, which has supported past research substantiating the heart-health link.
"It's probably the most ferocious debate in medical epidemiology right now, because we really hit the alcohol industry below the belt," said Fillmore, who admitted she personally enjoys a drink, but said she does it for pleasure, not for her heart. "This was a tremendous threat to the industry."
Other researchers on Fillmore's team included William Kerr, PhD, Alcohol Research Group, USA; Tim Stockwell, PhD, University of Victoria, Canada; Tanya Chikritzhs, PhD, Curtin University, Australia; and Alan Bostrom, PhD, University of California, San Francisco.
One of the authors currently contesting the Fillmore study, Arthur Klatsky, MD, from the Division of Research at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, cited his own eight-year study of 128,934 Kaiser patients. The study, which Klatsky had led, was included by the Fillmore study in the group that contained flaws.
While Klatsky contested inclusion in the flawed group, citing precise questions in his study that had separated ex-drinkers from lifelong abstainers, his conclusion actually bolstered Fillmore's case. His study, Klatsky wrote, found that ex-drinkers do have increased risk and should be separated from lifelong abstainers. Infrequent drinkers (those who have less than one drink per month), he said, were shown to have the same risk as abstainers.
Fillmore, whose team also published a response to the responses in the current journal, said her original paper drew international recognition precisely because so many physicians have started prescribing alcohol to prevent heart disease. That's especially true in developing countries, where medications aren't readily available to most people, but where alcohol - commercial or homemade - is both ubiquitous and cheap.
"The bottom line is, nobody knows what alcohol's effect is on our hearts, because these studies are so difficult to construct to eliminate error," Fillmore said. "We do know that it is associated with a huge number of other killers, from cirrhosis to cancer to car accidents."
Her hope is that governments and physicians alike will at least think twice about prescribing the two- or three-drinks-a-day "medicine," especially for those on medications that might interact with alcohol.
"That's just dangerous. And for older people, whose tolerance to alcohol has decreased, you're going to have a lot of broken hips from falls, or car accidents," she said. "Why risk that, when it would be just as easy to tell them to take an aspirin a day?"
Related Links:
International Study Questions Health Benefits of Moderate Drinking
UCSF News Release, March 30, 2006
UCSF Study Disputes Recent Reports that Alcohol-abstainers Are at Greater Risk of Mortality
UCSF News Release, January 31, 1998
end quote.
This was such a thorough refutation let me just cite a few of the amazing quotes from this above article again! Quote- The story generated huge interest, not only among media mavens, but also in the halls of the alcohol industry, which has supported past research substantiating the heart-health link.
"It's probably the most ferocious debate in medical epidemiology right now, because we really hit the alcohol industry below the belt," said Fillmore, who admitted she personally enjoys a drink, but said she does it for pleasure, not for her heart. "This was a tremendous threat to the industry."
…
While Klatsky contested inclusion in the flawed group, citing precise questions in his study that had separated ex-drinkers from lifelong abstainers, his conclusion actually bolstered Fillmore's case. His study, Klatsky wrote, found that ex-drinkers do have increased risk and should be separated from lifelong abstainers. Infrequent drinkers (those who have less than one drink per month), he said, were shown to have the same risk as abstainers.
…
"The bottom line is, nobody knows what alcohol's effect is on our hearts, because these studies are so difficult to construct to eliminate error," Fillmore said. "We do know that it is associated with a huge number of other killers, from cirrhosis to cancer to car accidents."
Her hope is that governments and physicians alike will at least think twice about prescribing the two- or three-drinks-a-day "medicine," especially for those on medications that might interact with alcohol.
"That's just dangerous. And for older people, whose tolerance to alcohol has decreased, you're going to have a lot of broken hips from falls, or car accidents," she said. "Why risk that, when it would be just as easy to tell them to take an aspirin a day?"
end quote.
I have presented on the evidence refuting the claims of the alcohol promoters and their baseless claim of the alleged “health benefits” of moderate alcohol use! Alcohol may give the disbelievers some feelings of fun and wild careless sex with strangers, but these are short-lived pleasures and the demonic effects of alcohol follow soon after (which Allah tells us in his Qur’an in verses again like Qur’an Surah 2:219).
To leave you with a few more interesting links:
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-03-31/health/wine.heart.wmd_1_grape-juice-nonalcoholic-wine-john-folts?_s=PM:HEALTH Wine or Welchs Grape juice provides health benefits without alcohol
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/cancer/Alcohol_and_Cancer_Risk.htmhttp://www.cancer.org/Cancer/news/News/heavy-alcohol-use-may-increase-prostate-cancer-risk Heavy Alcohol Use May Increase Prostate Cancer Risk
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-10/health/drinking.breast.cancer.recurrence_1_breast-cancer-marisa-weiss-alcohol-intake?_s=PM:HEALTH Study: Moderate drinking ups risk of breast cancer return December 10, 2009|By Denise Mann, Health.com
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2009/08/07/drinking-moderately-or-more-ups-mens-cancer-risk Drinking Moderately or More Ups Men's Cancer Risk; Canadian study links regular alcohol consumption to six cancers Posted: August 7, 2009
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Muslim women, Hijab, Skin Cancer, and Vitamin D. Refuting anti-Islamic liars.
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234986555-muslim-women-hijab-skin-cancer-and-vitamin-d/
I just came across an old claim that was being made by anti-Islamic people years ago. This claim was yet another attack on the Islamic veil (hijab) for Muslim women made by the kaafir (infidels). I’m sure everyone has heard the claims of the enemies of Islam who claim the veil (hijab) is allegedly “oppressive”; when in reality it guards the dignity and purity of the Muslim women from bad men. The hijab was worn by Mary
the mother of Prophet Jesus and is still worn by Catholic nuns till this day as well! Well another claim these enemies of Islam made in the past was that the hijab allegedly prevented Muslim women from obtaining “enough sunlight” thus allegedly making them more susceptible to Vitamin D deficiency. This claim was discussed and refuted here: http://www.shiachat....d-muslim-women/
Also these two links from Saudi Arabian websites refuted the claims of the anti-Islamic liars: http://www.saudigaze...D=2010012561279 and http://islam-qa.com/.../hijab%20health
I wanted to add a crucial piece of information that I found from an American medical website; showing how the hijab not only protects Muslim women from indecent men but also actually is extremely healthy for the Muslim women as it protects them from the very dangerous UV rays of the sun which is the cause of the deadly disease of skin cancer. I will now quote professional research done by The Skin Cancer Foundation. Whose website states; http://www.skincancer.org/: Quote- “The Skin Cancer Foundation is the leading skin cancer prevention organization. We have doctor-approved information and sun-safety instructions.” end quote. The Skin Cancer Foundation states on the issues of Vitamin D, proving that Muslim women in the hijab are actually healthier then non-Muslim women who do not wear a veil in sunny conditions. http://www.skincancer.org/Vitamin-D/
Quote- Vitamin D is essential for strong bones and a healthy immune system. While a limited amount of vitamin D can be obtained from exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation, the health risks of UV exposure — including skin cancer — are great. Instead, The Skin Cancer Foundation suggests you get your recommended daily 600 IU (international units) of vitamin D a day from food sources like oily fish, fortified dairy products and cereals, and supplements. Read on to learn more about the best way to get your vitamin D.
…
The Foundation cautions the public against intentional exposure to natural sunlight or artificial UV radiation (tanning beds) as a means of obtaining vitamin D, since the health risks of UV exposure — including skin cancer and premature skin aging — are significant and well proven.
end quote.
The Skin Cancer Foundation also states: http://www.skincance...-d-dilemma.html
Quote- People are at greater risk for these diseases, they say, because dermatologists have scared them out of the sun. Since skin manufactures vitamin D in response to ultraviolet (UV) light, they explain, the simple solution to the deficiency is 5-10 minutes of unprotected UV exposure from the sun or tanning machines two or three times a week.
Most dermatologists and cancer groups, including The Skin Cancer Foundation, have argued strongly against this "solution," since all unprotected UV exposure contributes to cumulative skin damage, accelerating aging and increasing our lifetime risk of skin cancer. And a new analysis from the Department of Dermatology, Boston University School of Medicine, supports this stance.
…
However, they pointed out that UV is an officially recognized environmental carcinogen. There has been "a near epidemic" of skin cancers, they say, with more than 1.3 million diagnosed yearly in the U.S.— and the cause of most is sun exposure.
As for the advocates of unprotected sun exposure, Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest say the studies supporting them are of "variable quality" and merely "observational": The data generally link mortality from colon, breast, and prostate cancer in specific regions with the amounts of UV in those regions. Such studies may be confounded by climatic factors such as pollution, variations in population genetics (such as darker- or lighter-skinned populations), and cultural or lifestyle factors (such as socioeconomic status and diet). The studies cannot directly correlate disease with individual sun exposure, and "cannot establish that solar exposure decreases incidence or mortality from these cancers."
In contrast, research ranging from animal studies and surveys to large population studies and human DNA studies has strongly established the connection between sun exposure and skin cancer. Sun exposure also causes wrinkles, brown spots, leathering and sagging. Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest further note that very small amounts of sun exposure provide all the vitamin D the body can manufacture. Even when you wear sunscreen, some UV reaches the skin, and this may be plenty, at least for fair-skinned individuals. "Greater exposure adds nothing to vitamin D stores, while increasing DNA damage in a linear fashion," they add. The authors conclude, "The tradeoff of vitamin D production today for photoaging and skin cancer decades hence may have made sense millennia ago, when life expectancy was 40 years or less, but it's a poor exchange when life expectancy has doubled, skin rejuvenation is a $35 billion/year industry, and one in three Caucasians develops skin cancer."
Fortunately, Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest point out, there are "effective and almost effortless" noncarcinogenic alternatives-vitamin D-fortified foods and/or dietary supplements. James Spencer, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, concurs. If you want more vitamin D, he says, you can obtain all you need from your diet. "Drink vitamin D-fortified orange juice or milk or other enriched products. Eat salmon and other fatty fish. Or take a daily multivitamin containing 600 units of vitamin D. It's so easy. And it's a lot safer than lying in the sun or climbing undressed into a tanning booth and frying your whole body."
end quote.
The American Cancer Society (at http://www.cancer.org/) tells us about just how dangerous skin cancer caused by the damaging UV rays of the sun is: http://www.cancer.or...in-cancer-facts
Quote- “Skin cancer is the most common of all cancers. It accounts for nearly half of all cancers in the United States. More than 2 million cases of non-melanoma skin cancer are found in this country each year. Melanoma, the most serious type of skin cancer, will account for about 68,130 cases of skin cancer in 2010.”
…
Can skin cancer be prevented?
The best ways to lower the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer are to avoid intense sunlight for long periods of time and to practice sun safety. You can continue to exercise and enjoy the outdoors while practicing sun safety at the same time. Here are some ways you can do this:
• Avoid the sun between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
end quote.
With this in mind The Skin Cancer Foundation explains the sun’s UV rays and the dangers associated with them: http://www.skincance...va-and-uvb.html. So I think we can see quite clearly that the sun is very dangerous and its rays and radiation causes the very deadly disease of skin cancer that kills tons and tons of people yearly. These anti-Islam fools really have no case and should actually promote the hijab as it protects women from the sun’s deadly skin cancer causing rays.
All men and women (both Muslim and non-Muslim; hijab wearing or non-hijab wearing) should make sure to get enough of all their essential vitamins including Vitamin D; but this can easily be done simply by eating Vitamin D fortified foods like fortified diary products (milk), oily fish, and cereals; or by also taking Vitamin D supplements. For example 2% Milk sold in the United States contains 25% of your needed Vitamin D amounts daily per 8 fluid ounce glass. So someone just needs to drink four 8 fluid ounce glasses of 2% milk daily and they will have achieved all their needed daily levels of Vitamin D. The sun is not the proper source as The Skin Cancer Foundation once again states: http://www.skincancer.org/Vitamin-D/
Quote- While a limited amount of vitamin D can be obtained from exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation, the health risks of UV exposure — including skin cancer — are great. Instead, The Skin Cancer Foundation suggests you get your recommended daily 600 IU (international units) of vitamin D a day from food sources like oily fish, fortified dairy products and cereals, and supplements. Read on to learn more about the best way to get your vitamin D.
end quote.
http://www.skincance...-d-dilemma.html
Quote- Fortunately, Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest point out, there are "effective and almost effortless" noncarcinogenic alternatives-vitamin D-fortified foods and/or dietary supplements. James Spencer, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, concurs. If you want more vitamin D, he says, you can obtain all you need from your diet. "Drink vitamin D-fortified orange juice or milk or other enriched products. Eat salmon and other fatty fish. Or take a daily multivitamin containing 600 units of vitamin D. It's so easy. And it's a lot safer than lying in the sun or climbing undressed into a tanning booth and frying your whole body."
end quote.
Also some last closing points. Muslim women are required to wear the protective, blessed Islamic hijab: http://www.islam-qa....ref/13998/hijab. But Muslim women are allowed to be outside without their hijab as long as they are protected from the view of non-Mahram men (that is men they are not related to or married to). We read from the Islamic scholarly source: http://islam-qa.com/.../hijab%20health that Muslim women can be exposed to the sun in a protected environment, but again it should be noted that nobody needs much sun exposure as the sun’s damaging UV rays cause skin cancer and we can easily get all our needed Vitamin D from healthy food (like oily fish, milk, diary products, Vitamin D fortified cereals) and Vitamin D supplements. Again the Islamic source states: http://islam-qa.com/.../hijab%20health: “and by exposure to the sun in a place where there are no non-mahram men, such as exposure to the sun through windows, on the roof of the house, in remote parks, and so on.” The health problem of osteoporosis (that anti-Islamic fools try to claim wearing the hijab might allegedly "increase") is actually caused by many different health issues, and Vitamin D deficiency is actually not the most serious issue causing weak bones (i.e. osteoporosis); putting aside the fact that skin cancer is far more dangerous! The most common cause of osteoporosis is simply old age, especially in women. The main cause of osteoporosis in women is estrogen deficiency in post menopausal women. The following link explains this: http://jdr.sagepub.c...t/85/7/584.full
Quote-Although most patients suffering from osteoporosis are post-menopausal women exhibiting loss of estrogen, elderly men also develop primary osteoporosis. Women exhibit two phases of age-related bone loss: The first starts at menopause, predominantly in trabecular bone, is caused by estrogen deficiency, and results in a disproportionate increase in bone resorption as compared with formation. When this phase peaks after 4–8 years, the second phase starts, exhibiting a persistent, slower loss of both trabecular and cortical bone, and is mainly a result of decreased bone formation.
end quote.
This completely refutes the lying claims of the anti-Islamic fools against the beautiful Islamic hijab, also it should simply be stated the hijab does not cover the whole face and the skin of Muslim women certainly is exposed to some amounts of sun (which is better as again too much sun exposure causes skin cancer).
The proper way to get necessary Vitamin D (from foods like milk, Vitamin D fortified cereals, oily fish and Vitamin D supplements), not the dangerous UV rays of the sun which cause skin cancer.
Also quite simply the Hijab allows the Muslim woman's face to be exposed to some sunlight, which is by far enough (and again helps prevent her from getting the deadly disease of skin cancer caused by the dangerous UV rays and radiation of the sun).
and the blessed Niqab also allows enough; also usually the woman's hands are uncovered:
And again all you need to get the necessary Vitamin D is food rich in Vitamin D (milk, fortified cereal, oily fish, etc.) and Vitamin D supplements. This is again safer as nobody needs to be in the dangerous sun whose UV rays cause skin cancer with too much exposure.
Good links:
http://www.skincance...-d-dilemma.html
http://www.skincancer.org/Vitamin-D/
http://www.skincance...n-Cancer-Facts/
Quote- Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than 3.5 million skin cancers in over two million people are diagnosed annually.1
end quote.
http://www.gawaher.c...ic=730913.html
http://www.sunniforu...hp/t-23579.html
http://www.saudigaze...D=2010012561279
http://islam-qa.com/.../hijab%20health
http://www.islam-qa....ref/13998/hijab
...
Another side point, of course with that fact that exposure to the sun's UV rays again causes deadly skin cancer, is that research has shown that Asian people in general tend to have a slightly higher rate of Vitamin D deficiency. Note that this includes all Asians, the majority of which likely are non-Muslims who do not even wear hijab. Real unbiased researchers think this anomaly likely is related to diet. In the Arab context many bedouins eat a significant amount of the bread food chapati.
http://www.nature.co...s/1600717a.html
Quote- Results: Plasma vitamin D values are lower in the three groups of Asian children than values reported for children of a similar age in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey. Between one third and a half of children with a low haemoglobin also had low plasma vitamin D values; there was a significant association between failure to take a vitamin supplement, chapati consumption and low vitamin D values.
end quote.
Chapati for some reason inhibits absorption of Vitamin D, an important and interesting point, this has nothing to do with hijab. It should be noted that Indian people (including Hindus) also eat this type of food. Also see the following among Americans! http://www.saudigaze...D=2010012561279
Quote- Studies however have also shown something else: 54% of black and 42% of white childbearing women in the Northern US were found with insufficient vitamin D levels.
Unless it is believed that such a large percentage of North Americans are good Hijabis who cover themselves up completely, the accusation falls flat.
Dr. Abdul Majid Katme of the Islamic Medical Association in Britain said, “This is a common fallacy among the people of the West. It is a medical fact that diet is the main cause of vitamin D deficiency among some Asians, and not lack of exposure to the sun. We Muslims who live in the East and Asia are exposed to the sun all the time and our houses, yards and private gardens are full of sunshine.” (Q-News, 1995)
end quote.
Again all one needs to do to get adequate Vitamin D is eat food rich in Vitamin D (milk, Vitamin D fortified cereals, oily fish, etc.) and it is good advice to take a Vitamin D supplement if necessary. Sun exposure is again not recommended as it is known to cause skin cancer.
Again read:
http://www.skincancer.org/Vitamin-D/
Quote- Vitamin D is essential for strong bones and a healthy immune system. While a limited amount of vitamin D can be obtained from exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation, the health risks of UV exposure — including skin cancer — are great. Instead, The Skin Cancer Foundation suggests you get your recommended daily 600 IU (international units) of vitamin D a day from food sources like oily fish, fortified dairy products and cereals, and supplements. Read on to learn more about the best way to get your vitamin D.
end quote.
http://www.skincance...-d-dilemma.html
Quote- Most dermatologists and cancer groups, including The Skin Cancer Foundation, have argued strongly against this "solution," since all unprotected UV exposure contributes to cumulative skin damage, accelerating aging and increasing our lifetime risk of skin cancer. And a new analysis from the Department of Dermatology, Boston University School of Medicine, supports this stance.
The authors, Deon Wolpowitz, MD, PhD, and Barbara A. Gilchrest, MD, reviewed massive research on vitamin D and sun exposure. They found that in regions where people have greater sun exposure, fewer cases of colon cancer occur (presumably because of sun-induced vitamin D), and fewer deaths occur from colon, breast, and prostate cancers. However, they pointed out that UV is an officially recognized environmental carcinogen. There has been "a near epidemic" of skin cancers, they say, with more than 1.3 million diagnosed yearly in the U.S.— and the cause of most is sun exposure.
As for the advocates of unprotected sun exposure, Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest say the studies supporting them are of "variable quality" and merely "observational": The data generally link mortality from colon, breast, and prostate cancer in specific regions with the amounts of UV in those regions. Such studies may be confounded by climatic factors such as pollution, variations in population genetics (such as darker- or lighter-skinned populations), and cultural or lifestyle factors (such as socioeconomic status and diet). The studies cannot directly correlate disease with individual sun exposure, and "cannot establish that solar exposure decreases incidence or mortality from these cancers."
In contrast, research ranging from animal studies and surveys to large population studies and human DNA studies has strongly established the connection between sun exposure and skin cancer. Sun exposure also causes wrinkles, brown spots, leathering and sagging. Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest further note that very small amounts of sun exposure provide all the vitamin D the body can manufacture. Even when you wear sunscreen, some UV reaches the skin, and this may be plenty, at least for fair-skinned individuals. "Greater exposure adds nothing to vitamin D stores, while increasing DNA damage in a linear fashion," they add. The authors conclude, "The tradeoff of vitamin D production today for photoaging and skin cancer decades hence may have made sense millennia ago, when life expectancy was 40 years or less, but it's a poor exchange when life expectancy has doubled, skin rejuvenation is a $35 billion/year industry, and one in three Caucasians develops skin cancer."
Fortunately, Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest point out, there are "effective and almost effortless" noncarcinogenic alternatives-vitamin D-fortified foods and/or dietary supplements. James Spencer, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, concurs. If you want more vitamin D, he says, you can obtain all you need from your diet. "Drink vitamin D-fortified orange juice or milk or other enriched products. Eat salmon and other fatty fish. Or take a daily multivitamin containing 600 units of vitamin D. It's so easy. And it's a lot safer than lying in the sun or climbing undressed into a tanning booth and frying your whole body."
end quote.
http://www.skincance...n-Cancer-Facts/
Quote- Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than 3.5 million skin cancers in over two million people are diagnosed annually.1
...
1. Rogers, HW, Weinstock, MA, Harris, AR, et al. Incidence estimate of nonmelanoma skin cancer in the United States, 2006. Arch Dermatol 2010; 146(3):283-287.
end quote.
Again this:
Not this:
Which causes skin cancer:
...
Foods with lots of Vitamin D, that give you nearly your total daily amounted recommended!
See how easy it is to get Vitamin D from purely food sources (add to this a Vitamin D supplement if you choose to take one)! Just one 8 fluid ounce glass of 2% Reduced Fat Milk or Vitamin D fortified Orange Juice (like Florida's Natural Orange Juice with Vitamin D added: http://www.floridasn...added-vitamin-d) already gives you 25% of your needed daily amount of Vitamin D! Thus two 8 fluid ounce glasses gives you 50% of your daily Vitamin D and just four 8 fluid ounce glasses and you have 100% (or all) of your Vitamin D needed for the day!
A fortified cereal with Vitamin D, Lucky Charms Cereal:
Also a good Vitamin D supplement (you don't want to get skin cancer from the sun's deadly UV rays)!
...
Interesting video, proving my point see 3:11 stay covered up!
Another interesting video from CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta on the massive epidemic of deadly skin cancer in the United States; link: http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded
Again:
http://www.skincance...-d-dilemma.html
http://www.skincancer.org/Vitamin-D/
http://www.floridasn...added-vitamin-d
http://nutritiondata...ml?maxCount=165 Cereals with Vitamin D
And again just Vitamin D supplements (i.e. vitamin pills you take by mouth).
Vitamin D (and other necessary vitamins) dietary supplements: http://nutrition.abo...whyvitamins.htm
I just came across an old claim that was being made by anti-Islamic people years ago. This claim was yet another attack on the Islamic veil (hijab) for Muslim women made by the kaafir (infidels). I’m sure everyone has heard the claims of the enemies of Islam who claim the veil (hijab) is allegedly “oppressive”; when in reality it guards the dignity and purity of the Muslim women from bad men. The hijab was worn by Mary
the mother of Prophet Jesus and is still worn by Catholic nuns till this day as well! Well another claim these enemies of Islam made in the past was that the hijab allegedly prevented Muslim women from obtaining “enough sunlight” thus allegedly making them more susceptible to Vitamin D deficiency. This claim was discussed and refuted here: http://www.shiachat....d-muslim-women/Also these two links from Saudi Arabian websites refuted the claims of the anti-Islamic liars: http://www.saudigaze...D=2010012561279 and http://islam-qa.com/.../hijab%20health
I wanted to add a crucial piece of information that I found from an American medical website; showing how the hijab not only protects Muslim women from indecent men but also actually is extremely healthy for the Muslim women as it protects them from the very dangerous UV rays of the sun which is the cause of the deadly disease of skin cancer. I will now quote professional research done by The Skin Cancer Foundation. Whose website states; http://www.skincancer.org/: Quote- “The Skin Cancer Foundation is the leading skin cancer prevention organization. We have doctor-approved information and sun-safety instructions.” end quote. The Skin Cancer Foundation states on the issues of Vitamin D, proving that Muslim women in the hijab are actually healthier then non-Muslim women who do not wear a veil in sunny conditions. http://www.skincancer.org/Vitamin-D/
Quote- Vitamin D is essential for strong bones and a healthy immune system. While a limited amount of vitamin D can be obtained from exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation, the health risks of UV exposure — including skin cancer — are great. Instead, The Skin Cancer Foundation suggests you get your recommended daily 600 IU (international units) of vitamin D a day from food sources like oily fish, fortified dairy products and cereals, and supplements. Read on to learn more about the best way to get your vitamin D.
…
The Foundation cautions the public against intentional exposure to natural sunlight or artificial UV radiation (tanning beds) as a means of obtaining vitamin D, since the health risks of UV exposure — including skin cancer and premature skin aging — are significant and well proven.
end quote.
The Skin Cancer Foundation also states: http://www.skincance...-d-dilemma.html
Quote- People are at greater risk for these diseases, they say, because dermatologists have scared them out of the sun. Since skin manufactures vitamin D in response to ultraviolet (UV) light, they explain, the simple solution to the deficiency is 5-10 minutes of unprotected UV exposure from the sun or tanning machines two or three times a week.
Most dermatologists and cancer groups, including The Skin Cancer Foundation, have argued strongly against this "solution," since all unprotected UV exposure contributes to cumulative skin damage, accelerating aging and increasing our lifetime risk of skin cancer. And a new analysis from the Department of Dermatology, Boston University School of Medicine, supports this stance.
…
However, they pointed out that UV is an officially recognized environmental carcinogen. There has been "a near epidemic" of skin cancers, they say, with more than 1.3 million diagnosed yearly in the U.S.— and the cause of most is sun exposure.
As for the advocates of unprotected sun exposure, Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest say the studies supporting them are of "variable quality" and merely "observational": The data generally link mortality from colon, breast, and prostate cancer in specific regions with the amounts of UV in those regions. Such studies may be confounded by climatic factors such as pollution, variations in population genetics (such as darker- or lighter-skinned populations), and cultural or lifestyle factors (such as socioeconomic status and diet). The studies cannot directly correlate disease with individual sun exposure, and "cannot establish that solar exposure decreases incidence or mortality from these cancers."
In contrast, research ranging from animal studies and surveys to large population studies and human DNA studies has strongly established the connection between sun exposure and skin cancer. Sun exposure also causes wrinkles, brown spots, leathering and sagging. Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest further note that very small amounts of sun exposure provide all the vitamin D the body can manufacture. Even when you wear sunscreen, some UV reaches the skin, and this may be plenty, at least for fair-skinned individuals. "Greater exposure adds nothing to vitamin D stores, while increasing DNA damage in a linear fashion," they add. The authors conclude, "The tradeoff of vitamin D production today for photoaging and skin cancer decades hence may have made sense millennia ago, when life expectancy was 40 years or less, but it's a poor exchange when life expectancy has doubled, skin rejuvenation is a $35 billion/year industry, and one in three Caucasians develops skin cancer."
Fortunately, Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest point out, there are "effective and almost effortless" noncarcinogenic alternatives-vitamin D-fortified foods and/or dietary supplements. James Spencer, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, concurs. If you want more vitamin D, he says, you can obtain all you need from your diet. "Drink vitamin D-fortified orange juice or milk or other enriched products. Eat salmon and other fatty fish. Or take a daily multivitamin containing 600 units of vitamin D. It's so easy. And it's a lot safer than lying in the sun or climbing undressed into a tanning booth and frying your whole body."
end quote.
The American Cancer Society (at http://www.cancer.org/) tells us about just how dangerous skin cancer caused by the damaging UV rays of the sun is: http://www.cancer.or...in-cancer-facts
Quote- “Skin cancer is the most common of all cancers. It accounts for nearly half of all cancers in the United States. More than 2 million cases of non-melanoma skin cancer are found in this country each year. Melanoma, the most serious type of skin cancer, will account for about 68,130 cases of skin cancer in 2010.”
…
Can skin cancer be prevented?
The best ways to lower the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer are to avoid intense sunlight for long periods of time and to practice sun safety. You can continue to exercise and enjoy the outdoors while practicing sun safety at the same time. Here are some ways you can do this:
• Avoid the sun between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
end quote.
With this in mind The Skin Cancer Foundation explains the sun’s UV rays and the dangers associated with them: http://www.skincance...va-and-uvb.html. So I think we can see quite clearly that the sun is very dangerous and its rays and radiation causes the very deadly disease of skin cancer that kills tons and tons of people yearly. These anti-Islam fools really have no case and should actually promote the hijab as it protects women from the sun’s deadly skin cancer causing rays.
All men and women (both Muslim and non-Muslim; hijab wearing or non-hijab wearing) should make sure to get enough of all their essential vitamins including Vitamin D; but this can easily be done simply by eating Vitamin D fortified foods like fortified diary products (milk), oily fish, and cereals; or by also taking Vitamin D supplements. For example 2% Milk sold in the United States contains 25% of your needed Vitamin D amounts daily per 8 fluid ounce glass. So someone just needs to drink four 8 fluid ounce glasses of 2% milk daily and they will have achieved all their needed daily levels of Vitamin D. The sun is not the proper source as The Skin Cancer Foundation once again states: http://www.skincancer.org/Vitamin-D/
Quote- While a limited amount of vitamin D can be obtained from exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation, the health risks of UV exposure — including skin cancer — are great. Instead, The Skin Cancer Foundation suggests you get your recommended daily 600 IU (international units) of vitamin D a day from food sources like oily fish, fortified dairy products and cereals, and supplements. Read on to learn more about the best way to get your vitamin D.
end quote.
http://www.skincance...-d-dilemma.html
Quote- Fortunately, Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest point out, there are "effective and almost effortless" noncarcinogenic alternatives-vitamin D-fortified foods and/or dietary supplements. James Spencer, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, concurs. If you want more vitamin D, he says, you can obtain all you need from your diet. "Drink vitamin D-fortified orange juice or milk or other enriched products. Eat salmon and other fatty fish. Or take a daily multivitamin containing 600 units of vitamin D. It's so easy. And it's a lot safer than lying in the sun or climbing undressed into a tanning booth and frying your whole body."
end quote.
Also some last closing points. Muslim women are required to wear the protective, blessed Islamic hijab: http://www.islam-qa....ref/13998/hijab. But Muslim women are allowed to be outside without their hijab as long as they are protected from the view of non-Mahram men (that is men they are not related to or married to). We read from the Islamic scholarly source: http://islam-qa.com/.../hijab%20health that Muslim women can be exposed to the sun in a protected environment, but again it should be noted that nobody needs much sun exposure as the sun’s damaging UV rays cause skin cancer and we can easily get all our needed Vitamin D from healthy food (like oily fish, milk, diary products, Vitamin D fortified cereals) and Vitamin D supplements. Again the Islamic source states: http://islam-qa.com/.../hijab%20health: “and by exposure to the sun in a place where there are no non-mahram men, such as exposure to the sun through windows, on the roof of the house, in remote parks, and so on.” The health problem of osteoporosis (that anti-Islamic fools try to claim wearing the hijab might allegedly "increase") is actually caused by many different health issues, and Vitamin D deficiency is actually not the most serious issue causing weak bones (i.e. osteoporosis); putting aside the fact that skin cancer is far more dangerous! The most common cause of osteoporosis is simply old age, especially in women. The main cause of osteoporosis in women is estrogen deficiency in post menopausal women. The following link explains this: http://jdr.sagepub.c...t/85/7/584.full
Quote-Although most patients suffering from osteoporosis are post-menopausal women exhibiting loss of estrogen, elderly men also develop primary osteoporosis. Women exhibit two phases of age-related bone loss: The first starts at menopause, predominantly in trabecular bone, is caused by estrogen deficiency, and results in a disproportionate increase in bone resorption as compared with formation. When this phase peaks after 4–8 years, the second phase starts, exhibiting a persistent, slower loss of both trabecular and cortical bone, and is mainly a result of decreased bone formation.
end quote.
This completely refutes the lying claims of the anti-Islamic fools against the beautiful Islamic hijab, also it should simply be stated the hijab does not cover the whole face and the skin of Muslim women certainly is exposed to some amounts of sun (which is better as again too much sun exposure causes skin cancer).
http://www.skincance...-d-dilemma.html
http://www.skincancer.org/Vitamin-D/
http://www.skincance...n-Cancer-Facts/
Quote- Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than 3.5 million skin cancers in over two million people are diagnosed annually.1
end quote.
http://www.gawaher.c...ic=730913.html
http://www.sunniforu...hp/t-23579.html
http://www.saudigaze...D=2010012561279
http://islam-qa.com/.../hijab%20health
http://www.islam-qa....ref/13998/hijab
...
Another side point, of course with that fact that exposure to the sun's UV rays again causes deadly skin cancer, is that research has shown that Asian people in general tend to have a slightly higher rate of Vitamin D deficiency. Note that this includes all Asians, the majority of which likely are non-Muslims who do not even wear hijab. Real unbiased researchers think this anomaly likely is related to diet. In the Arab context many bedouins eat a significant amount of the bread food chapati.
Quote- Results: Plasma vitamin D values are lower in the three groups of Asian children than values reported for children of a similar age in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey. Between one third and a half of children with a low haemoglobin also had low plasma vitamin D values; there was a significant association between failure to take a vitamin supplement, chapati consumption and low vitamin D values.
end quote.
Chapati for some reason inhibits absorption of Vitamin D, an important and interesting point, this has nothing to do with hijab. It should be noted that Indian people (including Hindus) also eat this type of food. Also see the following among Americans! http://www.saudigaze...D=2010012561279
Quote- Studies however have also shown something else: 54% of black and 42% of white childbearing women in the Northern US were found with insufficient vitamin D levels.
Unless it is believed that such a large percentage of North Americans are good Hijabis who cover themselves up completely, the accusation falls flat.
Dr. Abdul Majid Katme of the Islamic Medical Association in Britain said, “This is a common fallacy among the people of the West. It is a medical fact that diet is the main cause of vitamin D deficiency among some Asians, and not lack of exposure to the sun. We Muslims who live in the East and Asia are exposed to the sun all the time and our houses, yards and private gardens are full of sunshine.” (Q-News, 1995)
end quote.
Again all one needs to do to get adequate Vitamin D is eat food rich in Vitamin D (milk, Vitamin D fortified cereals, oily fish, etc.) and it is good advice to take a Vitamin D supplement if necessary. Sun exposure is again not recommended as it is known to cause skin cancer.
http://www.skincancer.org/Vitamin-D/
Quote- Vitamin D is essential for strong bones and a healthy immune system. While a limited amount of vitamin D can be obtained from exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation, the health risks of UV exposure — including skin cancer — are great. Instead, The Skin Cancer Foundation suggests you get your recommended daily 600 IU (international units) of vitamin D a day from food sources like oily fish, fortified dairy products and cereals, and supplements. Read on to learn more about the best way to get your vitamin D.
end quote.
http://www.skincance...-d-dilemma.html
Quote- Most dermatologists and cancer groups, including The Skin Cancer Foundation, have argued strongly against this "solution," since all unprotected UV exposure contributes to cumulative skin damage, accelerating aging and increasing our lifetime risk of skin cancer. And a new analysis from the Department of Dermatology, Boston University School of Medicine, supports this stance.
The authors, Deon Wolpowitz, MD, PhD, and Barbara A. Gilchrest, MD, reviewed massive research on vitamin D and sun exposure. They found that in regions where people have greater sun exposure, fewer cases of colon cancer occur (presumably because of sun-induced vitamin D), and fewer deaths occur from colon, breast, and prostate cancers. However, they pointed out that UV is an officially recognized environmental carcinogen. There has been "a near epidemic" of skin cancers, they say, with more than 1.3 million diagnosed yearly in the U.S.— and the cause of most is sun exposure.
As for the advocates of unprotected sun exposure, Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest say the studies supporting them are of "variable quality" and merely "observational": The data generally link mortality from colon, breast, and prostate cancer in specific regions with the amounts of UV in those regions. Such studies may be confounded by climatic factors such as pollution, variations in population genetics (such as darker- or lighter-skinned populations), and cultural or lifestyle factors (such as socioeconomic status and diet). The studies cannot directly correlate disease with individual sun exposure, and "cannot establish that solar exposure decreases incidence or mortality from these cancers."
In contrast, research ranging from animal studies and surveys to large population studies and human DNA studies has strongly established the connection between sun exposure and skin cancer. Sun exposure also causes wrinkles, brown spots, leathering and sagging. Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest further note that very small amounts of sun exposure provide all the vitamin D the body can manufacture. Even when you wear sunscreen, some UV reaches the skin, and this may be plenty, at least for fair-skinned individuals. "Greater exposure adds nothing to vitamin D stores, while increasing DNA damage in a linear fashion," they add. The authors conclude, "The tradeoff of vitamin D production today for photoaging and skin cancer decades hence may have made sense millennia ago, when life expectancy was 40 years or less, but it's a poor exchange when life expectancy has doubled, skin rejuvenation is a $35 billion/year industry, and one in three Caucasians develops skin cancer."
Fortunately, Drs. Wolpowitz and Gilchrest point out, there are "effective and almost effortless" noncarcinogenic alternatives-vitamin D-fortified foods and/or dietary supplements. James Spencer, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, concurs. If you want more vitamin D, he says, you can obtain all you need from your diet. "Drink vitamin D-fortified orange juice or milk or other enriched products. Eat salmon and other fatty fish. Or take a daily multivitamin containing 600 units of vitamin D. It's so easy. And it's a lot safer than lying in the sun or climbing undressed into a tanning booth and frying your whole body."
end quote.
http://www.skincance...n-Cancer-Facts/
Quote- Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than 3.5 million skin cancers in over two million people are diagnosed annually.1
...
1. Rogers, HW, Weinstock, MA, Harris, AR, et al. Incidence estimate of nonmelanoma skin cancer in the United States, 2006. Arch Dermatol 2010; 146(3):283-287.
end quote.
Again this:
Not this:
Which causes skin cancer:
Foods with lots of Vitamin D, that give you nearly your total daily amounted recommended!
A fortified cereal with Vitamin D, Lucky Charms Cereal:
Also a good Vitamin D supplement (you don't want to get skin cancer from the sun's deadly UV rays)!
Interesting video, proving my point see 3:11 stay covered up!
Another interesting video from CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta on the massive epidemic of deadly skin cancer in the United States; link: http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded
Again:
http://www.skincancer.org/Vitamin-D/
http://nutritiondata...ml?maxCount=165 Cereals with Vitamin D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)