I would ask, if the researchers in the 3 large circ/HIV trials were really interested in fighting AIDS and not just promoting circumcision, what should they have done with their findings?

“Hey, it looks those poor schmos we circumcised got slightly fewer new HIV infections.”

“Good, but I wonder what would happen if we asked them to just wear their foreskins back off the glans, so the glans and mucosa could get numb like a cut guy’s, but without risky surgery?”

Seems to me like this question should have been addressed before promoting a mass circumcision campaign, especially since most of the half-million US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.

Foreskin feels REALLY good, and I am convinced that without it, a man is much less likely to further desensitize by wearing a condom. This non-placebo-controlled, non-double-blinded research by long-time circumcision justifiers will be a disaster.

MFA is proud to announce the new C.I.S.S. Container Identification Scratch System
When we participate in sporting events or mingle at social gatherings it is possible to lose track of our water bottles and/or beverage cans, especially those served in containers that are very similar or identical to a container from which you are drinking. This carries the risk of transmitting an illness, such as meningitis or the common cold or flu. The Container Identification Scratch System, or C.I.S.S., is a fun way to make sure you always know your drink from others. Use it at sporting events or at a family gatherings and reduce the waste from forgotten drinks. Simply scratch your number from the C.I.S.S. label and identify your drink. For more information please contact Bob Gold at Ciss.bob@gmail.com and http://www.musa.org

Thank you,

Meningitis Foundation of America
P O Box 83602
Phoenix, AZ 85071
(800) 668-1129
http://www.musa.org

Two generations before Shafi`i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafi`i to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.

Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ‘living tradition’ (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra’y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority.

Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur’an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra’y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur’an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra’y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra’y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too “found” hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that “where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses.”

In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths “a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority.” Likewise,

Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra’y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.

And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were “able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material.” Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that:

In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.

From Daniel Brown Muslim Scholar from America

The relevance of the past: classical conceptions of Prophetic authority

The word sunna predates the rise of Islam and is well attested in pre-Islamic sources. The word sunna was likely to be applied to Muhammad even during his lifetime (p8).

The Quran never mentions sunna-al-nabi (sunna of the Prophet). The application of the term sunna is likely to be post-Quranic, especially when applied exclusively to Muhammad.

Early muslims did not give precedence of Muhammad’s sunna over other sunnas, such as the sunna of the early caliphs or early companions. The sunna term was not exclusive to Muhammad. There were no rigid distinctions about sources of religious law, i.e. it wasn’t concrete that Muhammad’s sunna could be used as a source of law.

Shafi was born in 204 AH (193 years after Prophet Muhammad’s death). He was the first to argue the Prophet’s sunna as a source of law, identified to authentic prophetic hadith, and give it an equal footing to The Quran. Different attitudes to sunna existed during Shafi, al-kalam (a particular group or school of thought) rejected hadith altogether in favour of The Quran alone. Shafi’s view was also oppossed early by schools of jurisprudence in Hijaz, Iraq and Syria, who applied the term sunna to Muhammad, his companions and the early caliphs as well.
After Shafi, it is rare to find the term sunna applied to other than Muhammad. Al-kalam argued the sunna of Muhammad should never be allowed to rule on The Quran and described the science of hadith (as in the methods used to collect hadith) as arbitrary. Evidence of this was the hadith was filled with contradictory, blasphemous and absurd traditions. [top]

Challenges to the view of the organic relationship between The Quran and sunna are not completely unprecedented in the history of Islamic thought. Some of the opponents of Shafi argued that The Quran explains everything (e.g. 16:89) and needs no supplement, this was because one of Shafi’s central arguments was the need to clarify The Quran. This opposing viewpoint was snuffed out after the triumph of the traditionist view. However and it was not until the 19th and 20th centuries that the argument was seriously revived. One of the reasons Daniel Brown gives for the defeat of the opponents of Shafi was that they could not deny the authority of the Prophet. If for example, you found a hadith that was truly authentic then there is no way you can deny it because as it states in The Quran the Prophet was a very good example. Also, Shafi emphasised that to obey the Prophet was to obey God. Under this pressure, the opponents of Shafi were defeated. Rarely does the author address how specific arguments were defeated unfortunately, which was the most disappointing aspect of this book.

The question arose: how is it possible to determine which hadith were authentic and which were not?

In the 19th and 20th centuries, increased criticism and scrutiny by Western scholars of Islam showed Muslims that the hadith could not stand up to the criticism, whilst The Quran could. It made Muslims look back on the hadith and reflect more and examine their basis and origin in Islam.

The authenticity of hadith

The great compilations of the hadith took place in the 3rd century AH (i.e. beginning about 189 years after Prophet Muhammad’s death, with the 6 books being complete about 280 years after his death), p83. In the eyes of most Muslim scholars sahih (reliable/authentic) hadith could with a high degree of confidence be considered to represent the actual words and deeds of the Prophet. On the other hand, few scholars would have argued the system was full proof. Any information in the hadiths was no absolute truth, it had to be classified as conjecture. The opponents of the hadith at the start were a minority. It was not seriously questioned.
Goldziher was unquestionably the most important 19th century critic of hadith. He became the first scholar to subject the hadith to a systematic historical and critical method. His study was published in 1896. Joseph Schacht “origins of Muhammadan jurisprudence” in 1950 was published. Like Goldziher, he concluded that few, if any traditions originated with the Prophet.
Even the Prophet recognised that there were people among his companions or those living during his lifetime were spreading lies about him. This is testified to in a hadith in Bukhari (p85). There is documented evidence that the companions disagreed with each other and criticsed each other, for example Aisha and Ibn Abbas were reported to have criticised Abu Hurayra. A number of companions demanded evidence for the truth of reports passed onto them. Umar alledgedly questioned a report from Fatima bint Qays. Umar is also reported to have confined three companions to Medina to keep them from spreading traditions. Abu Huyrara was only with the Prophet for 3 years, yet he is alledged to have been the most prolific in transmitting hadith. Biographical literature provides ample material for criticism for Abu Huyrara’s character, Umar called Abu Huyrara a liar for example. Aisha criticised Anas for transmitting traditions as he was only a child during the life of the Prophet. And Hassan called both Umar and Zubair liars.

The process of hadith transmission was primarily oral, at least through the first century. Even after written collections of hadith were compiled, oral transmission remained the ideal (p88). Abu Rayya argues that the late date when traditions began to be registered in written form more than 100 years after the Prophet’s death became a major obstacle to the fidelity of hadith (p89). Emerged in final form only in the 3rd and 4th centuries

Those who argue that Muhammad’s companions began to record hadith in writing during his lifetime must explain the Prophetic prohibition on writing of hadith. Contradictions within the hadith exist regarding this subject. (p91)

Under orders from Caliph Hisham, Shihab al-Zuhri was first assigned to collect hadith. This tradition has commonly been taken to mean that al-Zuhri, under duress, became the first traditionist to violate the Prophet’s prohibition on recording hadith in writing. Al-Zuhri is reported to have said: “We disapproved of recording knowledge until these rulers forced us to do so. After that reason we saw no reason to forbid the Muslims to do so.” In other words, before al-Zuhri writing was the rare exception; after him writing of traditions became commonplace. This argument is bolstered by numerous accounts that early generations of pious Muslims, including not only al-Zuhri and traditionists like him but also the first four Caliphs, strongly disapproved of writing hadith.
The evidence strongly suggests that early generations of Muslims did record traditions in writing, however having reports about written records is rather different than having the records themselves. Thus, the apparent aversion of pious Muslims to the recording of hadith should be interpreted as reluctance to record an official, public collection of hadith. (p92)

Scholars agree that forgery of hadith took place on a massive scale. The science of hadith developed gradually as a response to this problem. The early written compilations called suhuf were little more than random transcriptions or personal collections. Muslim sources identify the first systematic collection in recording of the hadith with the Ummad Caliph Umar and with the scholars Abu Bakr. No such collection has survived. The earliest systematic collection is the muttawata of Mailk bin Anas, 179 AH (168 years after Prophet Muhammad’s death), p94. Isnad (checking of transmissions) was not applied until after the early 2nd century AH according to Schacht. The book studies in early hadith literature stated it was earlier than this. For middle ground see Juynboll: “Muslim tradition”. Major works of hadith (p161 footnote 70).

According to some, forgers of hadith became active even during the lifetime of the Prophet. In the Caliphate of Umar, the problem became so serious that he prohibited transmission of hadith altogether. The degree of the problem that resulted can be seen from the testimony of the muhahadithin (those who collect hadith) themselves. Bukhari selected 9000 traditions out of 700 000 (p96). When Bukhari reports that he selected from over 700 000 traditions, he is counting every different transmission chain, even when the substance of the tradition are the same (p99). The point is that hadith criticism did not begin during the 3rd century but was practiced continually from the time of the companions onwards (p99).

The secret most un-exposed about Scientology is that is it an “applied physiological philosophy” rather than an “applied religious philosophy”. All Scientology courses, all auditing processes, and all the management and professional courses are based on physiological phenomenas, psychophysiology, emotions, human behavior patterns etc., that are our birth right and used in Scientology as their own discoveries. Even their PTS-SP data is based upon how a “Symptom” re-stimulation is brought out by physiological reactions of the mind affecting the body when under stress. They blame innocent human beings called by them “suppressive persons” for bringing out a symptom that was there to warn you of hidden real illnesses caused by non-suppressive sources such as parasites, chemicals, poisons, toxins, viruses and bacteria. The data on PTS-SP is twisted by them to blame innocent people in order to keep them in line.

The only way to fight them is to expose to the world–how Scientology has used physiological phenomenas as the basis for a false religion. How it has harmed families by claiming that innocent mothers and fathers are SPs — when they lied about symptom re-stimulations to the world.

No where in Scientology will you find courses or services on any bible, there is no study or belief in heaven, hell, saints, angels, the devil, or even God himself. They do not study religion or even believe in religions. They do not share common values with any other religion. Their goal is to eliminate all other religions.

The E-meter reads your physiological reactions, the Ronbots never calls it that—they call it the “CHARGE” or the “MASS” or “ENGRAMS” OR “MENTAL IMAGE PICTURES” that you have in your brain—all meant to distract you from the truth.

Know this fact — There is a law of Nature or law of God called “Physiological Reactions” that is the true secret behind Scientology’s Dianectic study technology.

AUDITING ERASES AND LESSONS YOUR PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS!!! Once they are gone – your symptoms can’t be re-stimulated by stress or arguments. This is NOT a good thing, because ALL doctors depend on symptoms to guide them in treating you! This is why they prohibit you from seeing the doctors of your choice!!! Understand now how the scam works? Now when you argue with your mother and don’t get sick – you think she was the cause of all your illnesses.

If you were audited a hundred times over and over again (repetitive auditing) for a word that you were ordered to never clear or understand, and then made to read a page that contained that word—it would never again read on the Emeter or cause a physiological reaction.
Both Psychiatry and Scientology treats the symptoms of the mind and not the real causes of mental illnesses, one with drugs and one with erasing physiological reactions called Engrams or mental image pictures! Which one is worst? Drugs you can stop, but the other is irreversible and also a dangerous and deadly scam.

With the knowledge contained here, psychiatry will defeat $cientology easily.

LRH discovered that when you passed a misunderstood word—you manifested many reactions of various types: Yawning, sleepiness, not there feeling, dizziness, blurry eyes, nervousness and dozens more.

Being the liar that he was, he claimed that physiological reactions which he now calls “Dianetics” was “‘his” invention and not a law of God; he hid the fact that it is our human inheritance since time began.

Granted that his power of obnosis (observation) was the best in the world, his crime against humanity was to make a “religion” based upon the falsehood, that it was his very own invention or creation and not a law of God belonging to all Humanity as their lawful right.

For proof that the Cult has lied to you: — Google “L. Ron Hubbard and Physiological Reactions” or visit their own Godless websites:
http://www.studytechnology.org/10-barr.htm or http://www.lronhubbardstudytech.asn.au/10-barr.htm http://www.studytech.org/study_tech3.php
http://www.effective-education.org/pg003.html

LRH used God’s Natural laws to make slaves of mankind!

“So long as a physiological phenomenon remains the knowledge of a few and is denied to the many it can be utilized to control the many.” LRH (from Journal of Scientology Issue 4-G from Oct. 1952)

“This universe has long been looking for new ways to make slaves. Well, we've got some new ways to make slaves here.” LRH (from PDC tape lecture #20 “Formative State of Scientology, Definition of Logic”, given on 6 Dec 52)

"All men shall be my slaves! LRH

All women shall submit to my charms! LRH

All mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!" [L. Ron Hubbard, "Affirmations", late 1940s] Affirmations, exhibits 500-4D, E, F & G. See Church of Scientology v Armstrong, transcript volume 11, p.1886.

"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'.
By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not."
L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966

"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM”. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them." – L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952, excerpted in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418

"Scientology…is not a religion." – L. Ron Hubbard, CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, 1954, p. 251
L. Ron Hubbard’s religion before he discovered physiological reactions was “Satanism”.
He wanted to invent a new religion masked as being good, but in fact was totally evil so that he could take his place on the "Throne of the Beast," which he firmly believed himself to be the rightful heir. Being an evil Satanist he wanted to destroy all other religions and have Scientology as the only religion left on Earth. He wanted to be the RULER of the NEW WORLD ORDER and sit on the Throne of the Beast.

All living beings have physiological (The functions and activities of life or of living matter such as the organic processes of organs, tissues, or cells) phenomenas (observable reactions known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition), or physical manifestations (made evident by showing or displaying) or physical reactions, that we see or feel as symptoms, and they are external and/or internal or visible signs or warnings given to us, by our creator to help us survive, help us increase our potential, our knowledge and our health.
All life on Earth has these cause and effect reactions called physiological phenomenas. All living beings whether they are plant, insect, retile or animal or human could not live without these reactions. They influence the body’s and the mind’s reactions to any form of stimuli, and have an influence on every cell of the body and mind.
[Noun. Physiological reaction – Is an automatic instinctive unlearned reaction to a stimulus.]
[Examples of physiological reactions: inborn reflex, innate reflex, instinctive reflex, reflex response, unconditioned reflex, accommodation reflex, Babinski reflex, belching, headache, migraines, swelling, sweating, erections, blinking, blushing, burping, defecation reflex, disgorgement, involuntary eye blinking, farting, skin flush, gag reflex, goose bump, goose pimple, gooseflesh, involuntary gulping, involuntary hiccup, knee-jerk reflex, light reflex, puking, papillary reflex, rectal reflex, regurgitation, shaking, shiver, shock, sneezing, startle, stretch reflex, suckling reflex, trembling, upset stomach, vomiting, involuntary winking, yawn, yawning -- plus hundreds more.]
Ron studied Physiological reactions more than most scientists and applied it to invent a new Religion.
He did not invent but copied the laws of nature and scammed the whole world into thinking that he alone discovered these reactions and no one else did. What he did do – was noticed the reactions of students and from this scam invented Dianetics “study tech”.
Examples of Physiological reactions of the body and mind when reading:
Falling asleep while reading – yawning, confusion, feeling blank, feeling anxious, not there feeling, tearing eyes, eyes going out of focus, dizziness, reeling, rebelliousness, headaches, skipping words, feeling nauseous, fidgeting, jumpy while reading, can’t stay still, mispronouncing words, feeling as if you are squashed, feeling as if you are over-whelmed, twitching, can’t apply what you are reading, can’t understand what you are reading, etc. are all due to physiological reactions when you read misunderstood words or misunderstood definitions.
The Cult’s method of healing called “Touch Assist” is nothing more than erasing the physiological reactions of PAIN. Physiological reactions are the clues from the law of God called “The Law of Cause and Effect”; for every action there is a reaction. A complete understand of these two laws of God can be used to learn to self-heal.
To understand the sinful secrets of your enemy –is to know exactly where to hurt him.
Scientology’s copyrighted files on based upon the laws of Nature and laws of God; they are in violation of copyrights and patent rights. Therefore, the contents or subjects can be used by anyone and can be talked about without fear of any lawsuit.
Everything you do produces a reaction in your body and mind. Every time you read, eat, sleep, rest, run, etc. produces a reaction.
To tell your mother that you invented a new religion, because you discovered why you farted, is a good example of the scam that Ron pulled on you. He got away with it because the world did not see these reactions as they applied to reading. Or if some scientist saw and knew it—he did not protest it and allowed a Cult to claim it as their own new discovery.
If you want to destroy the cult, study your own reactions each time you do something—learn to read yourself and use your own power of obnosis to discover the real world within and around you.

Yours truly

RonbotHunter
All Rights Reserved.

Copyright Ronbothunter— All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 & 1-103.6 including rights under the UCC and common law remedies. I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not personally sign and enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally and especially if I was not given full disclosure. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.