Be wary when the re-release reviews are either 1 star or 5 starsAlli has helped me lose 88 pounds Not very goodAlli just doesn’t work very well any more. It was great a few years ago but something seems to have changed. Ive switched over to Orlistol -Weight Loss Aid and Diet Pill Inhibits the Absorption of Carbs and Fats and so far it is quite superior, and a better price. If Alli doesn’t work for you anymore, try orlistol.This used to work…Alli used to be an amazing weight loss product and i lost 20lbs when taking it. But this new version of the product simply doesnt have the same effect. Instead i take this great weight-loss supp to help aid my weight control. It has been helping me lose weight almost as well as the original alli!It's not the same product since it came back in 2015THEIR PRODUCT IS ON THE FDA RECALL LIST, LOT # AND EXPIRATION DATE!!!Doesn't work/not the same formula/a waste of moneyNo change of underwear needed anymore!LONDON/CAIRO A British government review into Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood published on Thursday concluded that membership of or links to the political group should be considered a possible indicator of extremism but stopped short of recommending that it should be banned.

The long-delayed review into the organisation was first commissioned in April 2014 by Prime Minister David Cameron with a remit to examine whether the group put British national security at risk."Parts of the Muslim Brotherhood have a highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism. Both as an ideology and as a network it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism," Cameron said in a statement.He described the group as "deliberately opaque, and habitually secretive"."The main findings of the review support the conclusion that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism," he said. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi launched the toughest crackdown on Islamists in Egypt's modern history after toppling President Mohamed Mursi of the Brotherhood in 2013. Sisi classifies the Brotherhood as a terrorist group, but on a visit to Britain in November he said it could again play a role in public life if Egyptians wanted it to return.

A spokesman for Egypt's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Britain's report showed the international community must support Egypt in confronting terrorism and extremist ideology.He said on Twitter: "Report is important step in combating terrorism. We hope other countries will take similar steps to enhance counter-terrorism efforts." The Brotherhood, the Middle East's oldest Islamist movement and long Egypt's main political opposition, however said the review was neither fair nor based on credible evidence.Discount Bathroom Vanities CouponThe group, which says it is committed to peaceful activism, said the British position suggested it backed the military's overthrow of Mursi who was democratically elected president after the 2011 uprising."Car Paint Crack RepairIf Britain sees peaceful protests and activities that reject the military coup, the killing of civilians and the detentions and disappearances as extremist then certainly Britain has a defect it needs to remedy," it said in a statement.Fabric Car Seat Covers Mumbai

British lawmaker Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, also criticised the report, saying it had been carried out to pacify Britain's Middle East ally Saudi Arabia, which sees the Brotherhood as a threat to regional stability. "We should decide these things based on real and credible intelligence and not pressure from Riyadh," Farron said in a statement Cameron said Muslim Brotherhood-associated and influenced groups had sometimes characterised Britain as fundamentally hostile to Muslim faith and identity and expressed support for attacks conducted by Palestinian Islamist group Hamas."Aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and activities therefore run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs," he said.Cameron said the government would keep under review the views and activities of Muslim Brotherhood associates in Britain and whether the group met the legal test for proscription as a terrorist organisation.

Britain will also continue to refuse visas to members and associates of the group who have made extremist comments, he said, and intensify its scrutiny of the views and activities Muslim Brotherhood members, associates and affiliates promote overseas. (Additional reporting by William James and Omar Fahmy; Editing by Michael Holden)[This review was originally published in the New Humanist, Bradlaugh House, 47 Theobald's Road, London, England WC1X 8SP. Reproduced with permission.] In one of his early works the traditionalist writer Frithjof Schuon makes an acute observation about the mentality of Muslims: `The intellectual - and thereby the rational - foundation of Islam results in the average Muslim having a curious tendency to believe that non-Muslims either know that Islam is the truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose Islam with a good conscience quite exceeds the Muslim's powers of imagination, precisely because Islam coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things'.

How true this is will strike anyone who has tried to have a rational discussion on religion with a Muslim born of Muslim parents and raise d in a Muslim culture. However, that this situation does admit exceptions is proved by the author of the book under review. Ibn Warraq was born into a Muslim family and grew up in a country that now describes itself as an Islamic republic. His earliest memories are of his circumcision and first day at Quran school, and his family still consider themselves Muslims. He, however, now considers himself a secular humanist who believes that: `all religions are sick men's dreams, false - demonstrably false - and pernicious'. Given such views, arrived at against such odds and expressed at such risk, the pusillanimous attitude of many Western intellectuals to the Rushdie affair is described with scorn: For Ibn Warraq support for Rushdie has to be seen as part of a larger war against the rise of `fundamentalist` Islam: Considering the number of Muslims now resident in Western countries this is a war towards which no one, who values critical thought, free speech and democracy, can afford to be indifferent.

This is not simply a matter of `the demonisation of Islam', but of simply and honestly looking facts in the face, something that Muslims and their supporters are notoriously incapable of doing. It can be predicted now that the main response of the Muslim community to this book will be to shout `Apostate', accuse the author of every kind of moral degeneracy, and leave the facts and arguments he adduces completely unaddressed. These facts and arguments concern the wholly human origin of the Quran, the wholly tendentious and invented character of the hadith, the sexually-obsessed and anti-feminine nature of the sharia, the Arab empire spread by the sword and maintained by terror, the persecution of religious and intellectual minorities in that empire in the name of Islam, the incapacity of Muslims for any kind of critical or self-critical thought, and the abject intellectual and moral poverty of Islam compared to the modern secular West. The amazing thing is that it has taken so long for such a book to appear and that it has been left to a non-Westerner to write it, since the material for its assembly has been around for anything up to a century.

The mealy-mouthed and apologetic character of so much Western scholarship on Islam springs from the fact that many of these scholars, were, and are, believers, albeit in the rival creed of Christianity. While they might be willing to show Muhammad in a poor light compared to Jesus, they were not keen to press the non-historical and non-divine arguments too far, since they realised that such arguments could just as well be used against their own cherished beliefs. They preferred a complicity of intellectual dishonesty with the Muslims in the face of an increasingly skeptical and secular environment. Perhaps the most important thing demonstrated by Ibn Warraq is that Islam is fundamentalist by nature, and not by some peculiar and aberrant recent development. All Muslims, not just the fanatics, believe that every word of the Quran is quite literally the word of God, absolutely and unquestionably true for all times, places, and people, and practically the same goes for the hadith and the sharia.

Anyone who wishes to argue that the fanatics' interpretation of these elements is wrong and that a far more `liberal' interpretation can be made and that that is the real Islam, have really only their own tastes and inclinations to support them. There is no Pope in Islam, nor any Councils with authority to impose a Creed. The fanatic who thinks that all unbelievers should be killed has just as much authority as the Sufi who thinks that all religions are true and that even atheists go to heaven. Both parties could adduce Quranic texts and hadith to support their positions, and both would be drawing, in their own minds, upon the immutable word of God. As Ibn Warraq observes: `Even if we concede that Muslim conservatives have interpreted the sharia in their own way, what gives us the right to say that their interpretation is the inauthentic one and that of the liberal Muslims, authentic? Who is going to decide what is authentic Islam?' With regard to so-called liberal Islam this manifests in the West chiefly in the form of `Sufism or Islamic Mysticism'.

the title of Chapter 12. Unfortunately, this is the shortest chapter in the book, a mere six pages, and has the appearance of an afterthought, since Sufism is only really dealt with in the first two pages and there inadequately. This is unfortunate because Sufism has been taken up by many Western intellectuals for whom real Islam is Sufism, and real Sufism is the Sufism of Ibn Arabi. This is in fact a ludicrous position, since it amounts to saying that real Islam is a minority view within a minority view, a view, moreover, that for most of the history of Islam has been suspected of heresy. What is needed with regard to Sufism is an in-depth critique of the metaphysics of Ibn Arabi as expounded in the works of such contemporary scholars as William Chittick and Michel Chodkiewicz, together with a sociological survey of the circus that surrounds such contemporary Sufis as Sheikh Nazim al-Qubrusi; but that would amount to another book. Another important achievement of Ibn Warraq is that he explodes the myth of Islamic tolerance, a myth largely invented by Jews and Western freethinkers as a stick with which to beat the Catholic Church.

Islam was never a religion of tolerance and it is not tolerant by nature. Despite the way the apologists would like to depict it, Islam was spread by the sword and has been maintained by the sword throughout its history, not to mention the scourge and the cross. In truth it was the Arab empire that was spread by the sword and it is as an Arab empire that Islam is maintained to this day in the form of a religion largely invented to hold that empire together and subdue native populations. An unmitigated cultural disaster parading as God's will. Religious minorities were always second-class citizens in this empire and were only tolerated on sufferance and in abject deference to their Arab/Muslim masters; for polytheists and unbelievers there was no tolerance at all, it was conversion or death. These repulsive characteristics are written into the Quran, the hadith and the sharia, and are an ineradicable feature of the religion. There is no way that Islam can reform itself and remain Islam, no way it can ever be made compatible with pluralism, free speech, critical thought and democracy.

Anyone convinced they already possess the truth have no need for such things. Although Muslims resident in non-Muslim countries clamour for every kind of indulgence for their own beliefs and customs, there can be no doubt that given any kind of power they would impose their own beliefs and eliminate all difference. In short, as Ibn Warraq describes it in his Dedication, Islam is religious fascism, and it is only a feeble-minded political correctness that prevents it from being recognised as such. Finally, we should note two further important points made by Ibn Warraq. First, that Islam never really encouraged science, if by science we mean `disinterested enquiry'. What Islam always meant by ' knowledge' was religious knowledge, anything else was deemed dangerous to the faith. All the real science that occurred under Islam occurred despite the religion not because of it. Second, how indebted the Muslim world has always been to the West, not only to the Greeks in the beginning, but particularly in modern times in knowledge of its own intellectual and cultural history.

These unpalatable, half realised home truths are manifest in the contemporary Muslim world in the form of a massive resentment and inferiority complex: Indeed, and a Westerner can hardly imagine the courage it must take for Ibn Warraq to say as much. The problem with a book such as this is that it will most likely never reach those most in need of it. That is to say young people in general and young Muslims in particular, those whose minds have not already been closed by fanaticism. How many libraries will stock it, or dare to stock it if they knew its contents? A hardback at over twenty pounds, published by an American publisher, is not likely to find its way on to high-street book shelves alongside all those uncritical, paperback apologies for Islam that seem to be appearing in ever increasing numbers. What is needed is more books like Ibn Warraq's, published by British publishers, at reasonable prices and with good distribution. But dare they do it? A minor fault that could be corrected in future editions is that several important books and authors mentioned in text and notes fail to appear in the bibliography.