Netanyahu's Speech

[pardus]

Hadith "Science" Interesting term...

 

[Salt USMC]

Hadith "Science" Interesting term...

Yeah, it's not often that you hear "Islam" and "science" mentioned in the same breath. For its day it was pretty novel, though. See, the early followers of old Mo really liked him. Like, really liked him. His followers passed down stories of his (non-revelatory) words and deeds orally for years after his death. These could be anything, like how he decided to pray or what clothes he decided to wear. Since his followers believed he was infallible and worthy of emulation, they told stories about practically everything that he did. After a while, Uthman (the 3rd caliph) was like "Hey, we should probably write these down and, you know, verify them." So he and his followers did just that for around 200 years. They went all around the empire and collected stories of Muhammad, along with the chain or narrators or what they call the Isnad. The chain of narrators usually went like "Ali heard Yusuf say that he saw the Prophet do ......" and so on. Sometimes the chain was 15 dudes deep. Sometimes it was just one person. This was important to these Hadith scientists because it aided them in establishing the validity of Hadith passages (which they called sunna). They reasoned that the smaller the chain of transmission, and the closer the people in the chain the people were to the inner circle of the prophet, the more likely the story was to be true. Extenuating circumstances, such as certain people in the chain being known to lie, or having faulty memory served as evidence against the particular sunna. Essentially, they rated each sunna as either "Strong", "Good", or "Weak". Both "strong" and "good" sunna are usable for religious directives. A sunna might be rated as "weak" for a variety of reasons which are too numerous to list. Scholars also attach a bunch of other qualifiers to denote what part of the sunna makes it less valid. There's a big list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_terminology
In a way, they're kind of like modern classification markings.

Eventually, around 932 the first Hadith collection was printed by Muhammad al-Bukhari. He apparently collected over 300,000 stories during his travels, and pared them down to a little over 7,000. Though of those 7,000, only about 4,000 were unique (scholars included multiple tellings of the same story for the sake of completeness). This method of evaluating Hadith, along with the collection of the Quran, formed the basis for shariah. There's a bunch more stuff that went into the various forms of shariah (there's no single type of shariah), but that's enough for today.

 

[Brill]

See, the early followers of old Mo really liked him. Like, really liked him. His followers passed down stories of his (non-revelatory) words and deeds orally for years after his death. These could be anything, like how he decided to pray or what clothes he decided to wear. Since his followers believed he was infallible and worthy of emulation, they told stories about practically everything that he did.

I missed the part of walking on water, water to wine, raising the dead. Yawn, what else ya got Mo?

My prophet's army can beat your prophet's army.
Meet me on the Har Megiddo after school mf'er and let's settle this.

This made me chuckle:

 

[pardus]

Yeah, it's not often that you hear "Islam" and "science" mentioned in the same breath. For its day it was pretty novel, though. See, the early followers of old Mo really liked him. Like, really liked him. His followers passed down stories of his (non-revelatory) words and deeds orally for years after his death. These could be anything, like how he decided to pray or what clothes he decided to wear. Since his followers believed he was infallible and worthy of emulation, they told stories about practically everything that he did. After a while, Uthman (the 3rd caliph) was like "Hey, we should probably write these down and, you know, verify them." So he and his followers did just that for around 200 years. They went all around the empire and collected stories of Muhammad, along with the chain or narrators or what they call the Isnad. The chain of narrators usually went like "Ali heard Yusuf say that he saw the Prophet do ......" and so on. Sometimes the chain was 15 dudes deep. Sometimes it was just one person. This was important to these Hadith scientists because it aided them in establishing the validity of Hadith passages (which they called sunna). They reasoned that the smaller the chain of transmission, and the closer the people in the chain the people were to the inner circle of the prophet, the more likely the story was to be true. Extenuating circumstances, such as certain people in the chain being known to lie, or having faulty memory served as evidence against the particular sunna. Essentially, they rated each sunna as either "Strong", "Good", or "Weak". Both "strong" and "good" sunna are usable for religious directives. A sunna might be rated as "weak" for a variety of reasons which are too numerous to list. Scholars also attach a bunch of other qualifiers to denote what part of the sunna makes it less valid. There's a big list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_terminology
In a way, they're kind of like modern classification markings.

Eventually, around 932 the first Hadith collection was printed by Muhammad al-Bukhari. He apparently collected over 300,000 stories during his travels, and pared them down to a little over 7,000. Though of those 7,000, only about 4,000 were unique (scholars included multiple tellings of the same story for the sake of completeness). This method of evaluating Hadith, along with the collection of the Quran, formed the basis for shariah. There's a bunch more stuff that went into the various forms of shariah (there's no single type of shariah), but that's enough for today.

Thanks for writing all that down. I appreciate it.

The fact that they call it science though is comic and intellectually insulting though.
One guy makes up a bunch of unverifiable stories, convinces and butchers people until they buy into these stories, then a couple of hundred years later, Bingo! Science! Umm yeah, NOT quite.

 

[Brill]

Oh, this is gonna leave a mark.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...range-one-outlet-is-wondering-if-its-revenge/

 

[Salt USMC]

Oh, this is gonna leave a mark.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...range-one-outlet-is-wondering-if-its-revenge/

It looks shady as hell upon first inspection, but one of the most important details is buried at the bottom of the article:

The Forward reported that the report was released following a Freedom of Information Act application three years ago by American journalist Grant Smith, an outspoken Israel critic.
Due to the long wait time following his application, Smith followed up with a lawsuit. A D.C. judge compelled the Pentagon to address his request, the Forward reported.

The article leaves out a few key details, such as when the report was actually released (early-mid February) and the fact that the DoD actually reached out to Israel

This article from January gets technical: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...rt-on-israeli-nukes-nears-end/article/2558386

Legal battle to publish unclassified DOD report on Israeli nukes nears end

Defense officials are fighting a three-year-old request under the Freedom of Information Act to release a 1987 report supposedly discussing Israel’s nuclear technology.

Grant Smith of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy filed the request in 2012 and raised the issue in court after he said the request “went nowhere” for several years. He has been a critic of many U.S. policies related to Israel and of what he believes to be the inordinate influence of Israel in the American government.

In a seldom-used legal move known as optional review, Pentagon officials have asked the Israeli government to review the report before they consider releasing it.

Smith said the Defense Department has denied being able to locate the report, claimed it contained sensitive Israeli government information and cited FOIA exemptions, non-disclosure agreements and patents to intellectual property rights in its efforts to block the release of the report.

“They’ve put a lot of obstacles out in front of us,” Smith told the Washington Examiner.

While the Israeli government is not obligated to respond, U.S. defense officials said “diplomatic relations dictate that DoD seeks Israel’s review,” according to documents filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“Thus, respectfully, if the court were to order release of the information in question before Israel completes its review, DOD would be placed in a difficult position of honoring both the authority of this court and the sanctity of its diplomatic agreements,” Pentagon officials said in their court filings.

Defense officials pointed to “the extraordinary circumstances present in this case” to justify their request for more time. While they “admit to delays” in their handling of the FOIA request, officials insisted they did not stall the process “in bad faith.”

The unclassified report in question, titled “Critical Technology Issues in Israel and NATO Countries,” has surfaced in media stories and nonprofit research but has never been released to the public, according to court documents filed by Smith.

Smith’s legal complaint mentioned a 1995 publication called the Risk Report, which supposedly cited findings from the Pentagon document without referencing it by name.

The Risk Report claimed “the United States approved the sale of powerful computers that could boost Israel’s well-known but officially secret A-Bomb and missile programs” and identified the report only as “a 1987 Pentagon-sponsored study.”

Smith called the Department of Defense’s decision to seek Israeli approval a “cover-up” in the response he filed with the court Jan. 7.

“There is pressing urgency to release this report in the current context of regional nuclear negotiations which can only have a productive outcome if Americans and other concerned parties are more fully informed of the true state of affairs,” his response said.

Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, called the likely existence of Israeli nuclear weapons an “open secret” in the international community.

Even so, Israel has long held that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. It has never disclosed its alleged arsenal, nor has the U.S. ever formally acknowledged its existence.

Schanzer said the specter of Israeli nuclear weapons has played a role in negotiations with Iran over its suspected stockpile.

“The reason this would be seen as controversial is you have this real concerted push for Iran to come clean on its nuclear program and to relinquish its infrastructure,” he said.

Proponents of the Iranian nuclear program have argued that if Israel is not pressed to disclose its arsenal, Iran should not be facing sanctions, Schanzer said.

He cited “vast” differences between the Israeli and Iranian governments as a reason why the U.S. has taken separate approaches to the two alleged nuclear systems.

“You have an Iranian regime that would use its potential nuclear program to threaten multiple regimes around the Middle East,” Schanzer said.

He noted the report was unlikely to change the Pentagon’s commitment to maintaining ambiguity in regards to Israel’s nuclear capabilities if it was published.

Still, Schanzer said he “saw no reason” the government would authorize its release.

A senior official from a Washington-based pro-Israel group said some analysts have argued that defending Israel on the issue of its suspected nuclear program runs counter to nonproliferation efforts. President Obama has been an outspoken proponent of global nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament.

“Making sure that the Israelis have the ambiguity they need on nuclear issues actually boosts our nonproliferation diplomacy by preventing tensions in the region and backlashes from Israel's neighbors,” said the official, who requested anonymity.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan issued an order Jan. 8 requiring Defense officials to say whether they planned to invoke a non-disclosure provision that would allow them to keep the report secret at Israel’s request by Feb. 12.

If not, Chutkan will begin the process of privately reviewing the report herself.

Defense officials said they expect the Israeli government to complete its review of the report by Jan. 16.

For whatever reason, I can't seem to merge those two quote blocks above.

It's hard to tell why no media outlets touched this story until now. RT, known as a paragon of journalistic integrity and totally not a Russian propaganda mouthpiece, reported on it as early as February 13th (http://rt.com/usa/232203-us-israel-nuclear-weapon/) as did Iranian government-owned Press TV (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02/14/397502/US-helped-Israel-build-hydrogen-bomb).

The timing does look suspect, sure, but when you consider how many steps the US took to block the release of the report, as well as their invitation for Israel to review the report, it doesn't immediately seem like it was done out of spite. Alternatively, the DoD could have made those efforts to block the report when relations with Israel were still rosy, and then when it became apparent that Netanyahu was meddling in our negotiations, Obama could have directed the DoD to stop fighting the release. When you consider all of these details, it's very difficult to tell, though I suspect that most Americans saw the headline and already had their minds made up.

 

[Brill]

The timing does look suspect, sure, but when you consider how many steps the US took to block the release of the report, as well as their invitation for Israel to review the report, it doesn't immediately seem like it was done out of spite. Alternatively, the DoD could have made those efforts to block the report when relations with Israel were still rosy, and then when it became apparent that Netanyahu was meddling in our negotiations, Obama could have directed the DoD to stop fighting the release. When you consider all of these details, it's very difficult to tell, though I suspect that most Americans saw the headline and already had their minds made up.

An unclassified report but other articles say it's TS and an NDA in the same sentence...I'm confused. I thought the report was classified...but it's not?

Something fishy is going on here.