U.S. President Barack Obama meets with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the G20 Summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, June 19, 2012. (Reuters/JASON REED)
A few of my American friends have been asking lately if they can trade Barack Obama for Stephen Harper. Given polling on Obama’s popularity in Canada, most Canucks would likely take the deal but we’d be fools for doing so.
From his reaction on the turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa to his handling of the economy, Stephen Harper simply outshines Barack Obama whether Canadians realize it or not.
In an interview that aired on my television show Byline on Thursday night, Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed issues with a calm maturity that Americans must hope Obama develops before he drives them and their economy over the cliff.
Canadians have never felt all warm and fuzzy about Stephen Harper to the same degree and in as great a number as they do about Barack Obama. Obama is cool, Harper is cold. Obama is slick, Harper is not. Obama is a soaring orator, Harper can give a good speech, but he’s never claimed he could heal the planet.
Yet for all of Obama’s coolness he is hardly a man of substance and that is where Harper has the anointed one beat, hands down.
Where Obama talks about fixing the U.S. economy, Harper has actually taken steps to strengthen Canada’s. The Canadian employment rate is 7.3% right now compared to 8.1% in the U.S., although as Harper himself and several economists have noted, if the Americans measured unemployment the same way we do they would be in the double digits.
I still argue the Harper government spends too much and should balance the budget sooner, a point on which Harper disagreed with me. “Our first objective is not balancing the budget, our first objective is to make sure the Canadian economy keeps growing,” Harper said.
Fair enough, that’s a point we could debate. What can’t be debated is that for all of Canada’s economic problems, the U.S. is much worse off. The U.S. federal government debt is worth more than the entire U.S. economy and neither Obama nor his allies in the Senate, which the Democrats control, have passed a budget in three years.
That’s not serious stuff.
Harper is also outshining Obama when it comes to foreign policy.
The Obama administration’s first reaction to the attack on their embassy in Cairo was to apologize for any hurt feelings Muslims may have had to a made-in-California movie with a negative portrayal of Mohammed.
Even after the White House backed away from that, Obama gave the idea that the riots sweeping the region are driven by a YouTube video few had seen, and he did so as he read a statement on the death of Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
Obama has been effusive about the so-called Arab Spring from the get-go and thought his good wishes could sweep away dictators and bring about liberal democracies in a region that has never experienced that form of government.
“One should be very cautious about our expectations,” Harper said Thursday. “Mob rule is not democracy and just because there is a popular overthrow of a dictator does not mean the next regime will be based on democratic norms.”
Comparing the two men based on their actions and not their words can only lead to the conclusion that when Harper and Obama meet, Harper is the adult in the room.
Trading Harper for Obama wouldn’t be good for Canada, but it might be good for the rest of the world.
Source: Toronto Sun
Friday, September 14, 2012
Inflammatory Anti-Muslim “Movie” May Not Be A Real Movie
The clumsy dubbing suggests that the footage comes from different films entirely. And there's no way that it cost $5 million to make.
Muhammad Movie Trailer
More at Buzz Feed
Muhammad Movie Trailer
More at Buzz Feed
Federal Judge Permanently Blocks Indefinite Detention Under NDAA
On September 12 a federal district court judge made permanent an earlier order temporarily blocking enforcement of provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) purporting to empower the president to deploy the U.S. military to apprehend and indefinitely detain people suspected of "substantially supporting" al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated forces."
On May 16 Judge Katherine Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Obama administration from exercising the indefinite detention authority granted the president by Section 1021 of the NDAA.
Full Story at The New American
Obama Administration Outs Filmmaker to Detract From Incompetence
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal authorities have identified a Coptic Christian in southern California who is on probation after his conviction for financial crimes as the key figure behind the anti-Muslim film that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday.
The official said authorities had concluded that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was behind “Innocence of Muslims,” a film that denigrated Islam and the prophet Muhammad and sparked protests earlier this week in Egypt, Libya and most recently in Yemen. It was not immediately clear whether Nakoula was the target of a criminal investigation or part of the broader investigation into the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya during a terrorist attack.
Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed Thursday that Justice Department officials were investigating the deaths, which occurred during an attack on the American mission in Benghazi.
Egyptian protesters returns a tear gas canister fired by riot police during clashes near the US embassy in Cairo (credit: KHALED DESOUKI/AFP/GettyImages)
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation, said Nakoula was connected to the persona of Sam Bacile, a man who initially told the AP he was the film’s writer and director. But Bacile turned out to be a false identity, and the AP traced a cellphone number Bacile used to a southern California house where it located and interviewed Nakoula.
Bacile initially told AP he was Jewish and Israeli, although Israeli officials said they had no records of such a citizen. Others involved in the film said his statements were contrived, as evidence mounted that the film’s key player was a Coptic Christian with a checkered past.
Nakoula told the AP in an interview outside Los Angeles on Wednesday that he managed logistics for the company that produced the film. Nakoula denied he was Bacile and said he did not direct the film, though he said he knew Bacile.
Federal court papers filed against Nakoula in a 2010 criminal prosecution noted that he had used numerous aliases, including Nicola Bacily, Robert Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.
During a conversation outside his home, Nakoula offered his driver’s license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found that middle name as well as other connections to the Bacile persona.
The AP located the man calling himself Bacile after obtaining his cellphone number from Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who has promoted the anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website. Egypt’s Christian Coptic populace has long decried what they describe as a history of discrimination and occasional violence from the country’s Muslim majority.
Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fla., who sparked outrage in the Arab world when he burned Qurans on the ninth anniversary of 9/11, said he spoke with the movie’s director on the phone Wednesday and prayed for him. Jones said he has not met the filmmaker in person but added that the man contacted him a few weeks ago about promoting the movie. Jones and others who have dealt with the filmmaker said Wednesday that Bacile was hiding his real identity.
“I have not met him. Sam Bacile, that is not his real name,” Jones said. “He is definitely in hiding and does not reveal his identity.”
The YouTube account under the username “Sam Bacile” was used to publish excerpts of the provocative movie in July and was used to post comments online as recently as Tuesday, including this defense of the film written in Arabic: “It is a 100 percent American movie, you cows.”
Nakoula, who talked guardedly with AP about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and was ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Leigh Williams said Nakoula set up fraudulent bank accounts using stolen identities and Social Security numbers; then, checks from those accounts would be deposited into other bogus accounts from which Nakoula would withdraw money at ATM machines.
It was “basically a check-kiting scheme,” the prosecutor told the AP. “You try to get the money out of the bank before the bank realizes they are drawn from a fraudulent account. There basically is no money.”
Prior to his bank fraud conviction, Nakoula struggled with a series of financial problems in recent years, according to California state tax and bankruptcy records. In June 2006, a $191,000 tax lien was filed against him in the Los Angeles County Recorder of Deeds office. In 1997, a $106,000 lien was filed against him in Orange County.
American actors and actresses who appeared in “Innocence of Muslims” issued a joint statement Wednesday saying they were misled about the project and alleged that some of their dialogue was crudely dubbed during post-production.
In the English-language version of the trailer, direct references to Muhammad appear to be the result of post-production changes to the movie. Either actors aren’t seen when the name “Muhammad” is spoken in the overdubbed sound, or they appear to be mouthing something else as the name of the prophet is spoken.
“The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer,” said the statement, obtained by the Los Angeles Times. “We are 100 percent not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic rewrites of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.”
One of the actresses, Cindy Lee Garcia, told KERO-TV in Bakersfield that the film was originally titled “Desert Warriors” and the script did not contain offensive references to Islam.
“When I found out this movie had caused all this havoc, I called Sam and asked him why, what happened, why did he do this? I said, ‘Why did you do this to us, to me and to us?’ And he said, ‘Tell the world that it wasn’t you that did it, it was me, the one who wrote the script, because I’m tired of the radical Muslims running around killing everyone,’” she said.
Garcia said the director, who called himself Sam Bacile, told her then that he was Egyptian.
The man identifying himself as Bacile told the AP he was an Israeli-born, 56-year-old Jewish writer and director. But a Christian activist involved in the film project, Steve Klein, told the AP on Wednesday that Bacile was a pseudonym and that the man was Christian. Klein had told the AP on Tuesday that the filmmaker was an Israeli Jew who was concerned for family members who live in Egypt.
About 15 key players from the Middle East — people from Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, and a couple of Coptic Christians from Egypt — worked on the film, Klein said.
“Most of them won’t tell me their real names because they’re terrified,” Klein said.
An official of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Los Angeles said in a statement Thursday that the church’s adherents had no involvement in the “inflammatory movie about the prophet of Islam.” An official identified as Bishop Serapion of the Coptic Orthodox of Los Angeles, said that “the producers of this movie should be responsible for their actions. The name of our blessed parishioners should not be associated with the efforts of individuals who have ulterior motives.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, said Klein is a former Marine and longtime religious-right activist who has helped train paramilitary militias at a California church. It described Klein as founder of Courageous Christians United, which conducts protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques.
Google Inc., which owns YouTube, pulled down the video Wednesday in Egypt, citing a legal complaint. It was still accessible in the U.S. and other countries.
(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
The official said authorities had concluded that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was behind “Innocence of Muslims,” a film that denigrated Islam and the prophet Muhammad and sparked protests earlier this week in Egypt, Libya and most recently in Yemen. It was not immediately clear whether Nakoula was the target of a criminal investigation or part of the broader investigation into the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya during a terrorist attack.
Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed Thursday that Justice Department officials were investigating the deaths, which occurred during an attack on the American mission in Benghazi.
Egyptian protesters returns a tear gas canister fired by riot police during clashes near the US embassy in Cairo (credit: KHALED DESOUKI/AFP/GettyImages)
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation, said Nakoula was connected to the persona of Sam Bacile, a man who initially told the AP he was the film’s writer and director. But Bacile turned out to be a false identity, and the AP traced a cellphone number Bacile used to a southern California house where it located and interviewed Nakoula.
Bacile initially told AP he was Jewish and Israeli, although Israeli officials said they had no records of such a citizen. Others involved in the film said his statements were contrived, as evidence mounted that the film’s key player was a Coptic Christian with a checkered past.
Nakoula told the AP in an interview outside Los Angeles on Wednesday that he managed logistics for the company that produced the film. Nakoula denied he was Bacile and said he did not direct the film, though he said he knew Bacile.
Federal court papers filed against Nakoula in a 2010 criminal prosecution noted that he had used numerous aliases, including Nicola Bacily, Robert Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.
During a conversation outside his home, Nakoula offered his driver’s license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found that middle name as well as other connections to the Bacile persona.
The AP located the man calling himself Bacile after obtaining his cellphone number from Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who has promoted the anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website. Egypt’s Christian Coptic populace has long decried what they describe as a history of discrimination and occasional violence from the country’s Muslim majority.
Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fla., who sparked outrage in the Arab world when he burned Qurans on the ninth anniversary of 9/11, said he spoke with the movie’s director on the phone Wednesday and prayed for him. Jones said he has not met the filmmaker in person but added that the man contacted him a few weeks ago about promoting the movie. Jones and others who have dealt with the filmmaker said Wednesday that Bacile was hiding his real identity.
“I have not met him. Sam Bacile, that is not his real name,” Jones said. “He is definitely in hiding and does not reveal his identity.”
The YouTube account under the username “Sam Bacile” was used to publish excerpts of the provocative movie in July and was used to post comments online as recently as Tuesday, including this defense of the film written in Arabic: “It is a 100 percent American movie, you cows.”
Nakoula, who talked guardedly with AP about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and was ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Leigh Williams said Nakoula set up fraudulent bank accounts using stolen identities and Social Security numbers; then, checks from those accounts would be deposited into other bogus accounts from which Nakoula would withdraw money at ATM machines.
It was “basically a check-kiting scheme,” the prosecutor told the AP. “You try to get the money out of the bank before the bank realizes they are drawn from a fraudulent account. There basically is no money.”
Prior to his bank fraud conviction, Nakoula struggled with a series of financial problems in recent years, according to California state tax and bankruptcy records. In June 2006, a $191,000 tax lien was filed against him in the Los Angeles County Recorder of Deeds office. In 1997, a $106,000 lien was filed against him in Orange County.
American actors and actresses who appeared in “Innocence of Muslims” issued a joint statement Wednesday saying they were misled about the project and alleged that some of their dialogue was crudely dubbed during post-production.
In the English-language version of the trailer, direct references to Muhammad appear to be the result of post-production changes to the movie. Either actors aren’t seen when the name “Muhammad” is spoken in the overdubbed sound, or they appear to be mouthing something else as the name of the prophet is spoken.
“The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer,” said the statement, obtained by the Los Angeles Times. “We are 100 percent not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic rewrites of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.”
One of the actresses, Cindy Lee Garcia, told KERO-TV in Bakersfield that the film was originally titled “Desert Warriors” and the script did not contain offensive references to Islam.
“When I found out this movie had caused all this havoc, I called Sam and asked him why, what happened, why did he do this? I said, ‘Why did you do this to us, to me and to us?’ And he said, ‘Tell the world that it wasn’t you that did it, it was me, the one who wrote the script, because I’m tired of the radical Muslims running around killing everyone,’” she said.
Garcia said the director, who called himself Sam Bacile, told her then that he was Egyptian.
The man identifying himself as Bacile told the AP he was an Israeli-born, 56-year-old Jewish writer and director. But a Christian activist involved in the film project, Steve Klein, told the AP on Wednesday that Bacile was a pseudonym and that the man was Christian. Klein had told the AP on Tuesday that the filmmaker was an Israeli Jew who was concerned for family members who live in Egypt.
About 15 key players from the Middle East — people from Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, and a couple of Coptic Christians from Egypt — worked on the film, Klein said.
“Most of them won’t tell me their real names because they’re terrified,” Klein said.
An official of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Los Angeles said in a statement Thursday that the church’s adherents had no involvement in the “inflammatory movie about the prophet of Islam.” An official identified as Bishop Serapion of the Coptic Orthodox of Los Angeles, said that “the producers of this movie should be responsible for their actions. The name of our blessed parishioners should not be associated with the efforts of individuals who have ulterior motives.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, said Klein is a former Marine and longtime religious-right activist who has helped train paramilitary militias at a California church. It described Klein as founder of Courageous Christians United, which conducts protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques.
Google Inc., which owns YouTube, pulled down the video Wednesday in Egypt, citing a legal complaint. It was still accessible in the U.S. and other countries.
(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
NYC Media Elite Out To 'Sabotage' Tebow's Career With JETS...
Green Lantern: Even If True, Tebow Trade Story Reeks Of A Media Agenda
You Wouldn't Know Jets Have Huge Game Sunday With All This Nonsense
NEW YORK (WFAN) — So now we’re all in Tim Tebow’s head. That’s good to know going forward because I, for one, am dying to know how he thinks the upcoming season of “Survivor: Philippines” is going to shake out.
We all get that the Jets are the NFL’s biggest soap opera. Hardly a day goes by when they don’t do or say something that causes a group of reporters to knock over a row of pay phones, as we see and laugh at in “Airplane!” every time we catch it while flipping channels.
But that’s a comedy. Then again, so is a lot of the Jets media coverage these days.
This notion, as reported in a NYC tabloid on Thursday, that Tebow could leave the Jets after the 2012 season seems like it’s self-serving. It’s not necessary, even if there could be a modicum of truth to it. If feels more to me like since the Jets didn’t lose last Sunday and have a fairly decent chance of winning again this Sunday, the powers that be felt they had no choice but to decide we all needed a little turmoil in our lives. You know, a little exercising of the old checks and balances system of sports fandom.
How do you write a story like this after just one game? The timing does reek of the same old, same old when it comes to the traditional media mindset, but with the Jets it’s magnified, and the people who make up the traditional media mindset know that better than anyone. They think we can be spoon-fed anything. Well, maybe some of us can, but what does that say about the audience they are trying to reach?
Within 20 minutes of the tabloid tweeting its piece the social media world was abuzz with rumors about this fascinating back-up quarterback jetting from the NYC area to God only knows where. The reaction to said report was by and large, “Oh, it’s just the media being the media.” Page views surely went up for a stretch, but I’m sure the print subscription hotline wasn’t lighting up.
A story like this just takes the focus off what is important. It creates chaos for the sake of creating chaos. It’s irresponsible in that it cites an unnamed source, which I have a hard time believing should ever be an acceptable form of reporting the news. Now, I’m definitely in the minority here, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong, and I’m sure there are millions of people out there who could care less about the nameless and faceless and more about the people willing to stake their reputations to what they believe to be the truth.
In fairness, could Tebow leave? Sure. He could. And will the author of the column in question be remembered for beating everyone to the punch on this particular story?
Yeah, for about five minutes.
For his part, Tebow is not going to tell anyone anything. He’s mastered this craft. He’s developed a Jedi mind trick that seems to influence everyone. It is so powerful it has often caused the media to pull a France and wave the white flag of surrender, while forcing some more daring reporters to turn to Plan B to get the stories they want to write — speculation and conjecture.
It’s just a cheap way of creating a buzz, no matter how right the story could end up being. I’ll never be swayed in that belief, and that’s probably the line of thinking that won’t make me any friends with the media elite.
I really don’t care.
Let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment. Suppose the Jets scored 6 points against the Bills, instead of the 48 they dropped in a stunning offensive display many of those same media members figured was never possible. Don’t you think the story this week would have revolved around when Tebow would be named the starter? Wouldn’t Mark Sanchez have been under siege? How about Tony Sparano? How about Rex Ryan? You think maybe he would have been forced to field a few more questions than usual? You think it’s possible a few intrepid writers would have shadowed Santonio Holmes for his thoughts?
Yet the Jets won and won big, but because Tebow managed just 11 yards on five carries, suddenly the “wildcat” is no longer a viable option, Sanchez is going to become a superstar and the left-handed quarterback who can’t throw no longer has a place here and must, he must, be thinking of leaving. Right?
It was one game, people, and if you think the Jets are going to excel the rest of the way without serious contributions from Tebow you are out of your mind. The beauty of what the Jets did against Buffalo was all set up by the mere fact that Tebow is here and that Sanchez is getting the message, and that the offense is very unpredictable now and likely will continue to be.
Tebow is not stupid. And as the unnamed source in the tabloid story rightly points out he’s the consummate team player. He’s not going to make waves even if he is disappointed with his individual status.
But where I disagree here is this notion that Tebow, himself, will always think of himself as a starter. I already know he thinks of himself as a winner. I already know he’ll lay down in front of a train to make sure to the best of his abilities that he’s doing his part, however big or small, to make sure the Jets succeed. Who’s to say he won’t wake up one day late in the season if the Jets are in first place and say to himself “I know my role here. I know I can win here. I know I can spread the Lord’s good word here. And I know I can do good things for others here.”
Because that’s what Tebow’s about, not this belief that hidden underneath all of the charm and disarm, freak ability and football wherewithal there’s a selfishness to have to be the main guy. If that is indeed the case then he will have pulled off the biggest ruse this sports-crazed area of the country has seen in some time. But that’s what you get from an unnamed source fueling a media horde that, let’s face it, still likes to make the Jets and Ryan pay for not making good on their Super Bowl boasts, as if that’s the biggest crime they can commit.
Tebow is one of the true genuine articles going. Don’t pretend like you know he has ulterior motives. Because you don’t know, regardless of how many unnamed sources you trot out into print.
And just because the Jets won last week it doesn’t mean the world needs to be brought back into what the media deems as balance.
When this team utters the refrain “it’s us against the world,” they’re not kidding. Rightly or wrongly, the Jets seem like they are the only group of athletes on the planet who are not allowed to just be, or are exempt from making mistakes and then being allowed to move on. We’ve reached the point now where what certain members of the media report is truly just another example of the “Little Boy Who Cried Wolf.”
Sooner or later, no one is going to care what you say — even if you are 100 percent on the money and have the named sources to prove it.
You Wouldn't Know Jets Have Huge Game Sunday With All This Nonsense
NEW YORK (WFAN) — So now we’re all in Tim Tebow’s head. That’s good to know going forward because I, for one, am dying to know how he thinks the upcoming season of “Survivor: Philippines” is going to shake out.
We all get that the Jets are the NFL’s biggest soap opera. Hardly a day goes by when they don’t do or say something that causes a group of reporters to knock over a row of pay phones, as we see and laugh at in “Airplane!” every time we catch it while flipping channels.
But that’s a comedy. Then again, so is a lot of the Jets media coverage these days.
This notion, as reported in a NYC tabloid on Thursday, that Tebow could leave the Jets after the 2012 season seems like it’s self-serving. It’s not necessary, even if there could be a modicum of truth to it. If feels more to me like since the Jets didn’t lose last Sunday and have a fairly decent chance of winning again this Sunday, the powers that be felt they had no choice but to decide we all needed a little turmoil in our lives. You know, a little exercising of the old checks and balances system of sports fandom.
How do you write a story like this after just one game? The timing does reek of the same old, same old when it comes to the traditional media mindset, but with the Jets it’s magnified, and the people who make up the traditional media mindset know that better than anyone. They think we can be spoon-fed anything. Well, maybe some of us can, but what does that say about the audience they are trying to reach?
Within 20 minutes of the tabloid tweeting its piece the social media world was abuzz with rumors about this fascinating back-up quarterback jetting from the NYC area to God only knows where. The reaction to said report was by and large, “Oh, it’s just the media being the media.” Page views surely went up for a stretch, but I’m sure the print subscription hotline wasn’t lighting up.
A story like this just takes the focus off what is important. It creates chaos for the sake of creating chaos. It’s irresponsible in that it cites an unnamed source, which I have a hard time believing should ever be an acceptable form of reporting the news. Now, I’m definitely in the minority here, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong, and I’m sure there are millions of people out there who could care less about the nameless and faceless and more about the people willing to stake their reputations to what they believe to be the truth.
In fairness, could Tebow leave? Sure. He could. And will the author of the column in question be remembered for beating everyone to the punch on this particular story?
Yeah, for about five minutes.
For his part, Tebow is not going to tell anyone anything. He’s mastered this craft. He’s developed a Jedi mind trick that seems to influence everyone. It is so powerful it has often caused the media to pull a France and wave the white flag of surrender, while forcing some more daring reporters to turn to Plan B to get the stories they want to write — speculation and conjecture.
It’s just a cheap way of creating a buzz, no matter how right the story could end up being. I’ll never be swayed in that belief, and that’s probably the line of thinking that won’t make me any friends with the media elite.
I really don’t care.
Let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment. Suppose the Jets scored 6 points against the Bills, instead of the 48 they dropped in a stunning offensive display many of those same media members figured was never possible. Don’t you think the story this week would have revolved around when Tebow would be named the starter? Wouldn’t Mark Sanchez have been under siege? How about Tony Sparano? How about Rex Ryan? You think maybe he would have been forced to field a few more questions than usual? You think it’s possible a few intrepid writers would have shadowed Santonio Holmes for his thoughts?
Yet the Jets won and won big, but because Tebow managed just 11 yards on five carries, suddenly the “wildcat” is no longer a viable option, Sanchez is going to become a superstar and the left-handed quarterback who can’t throw no longer has a place here and must, he must, be thinking of leaving. Right?
It was one game, people, and if you think the Jets are going to excel the rest of the way without serious contributions from Tebow you are out of your mind. The beauty of what the Jets did against Buffalo was all set up by the mere fact that Tebow is here and that Sanchez is getting the message, and that the offense is very unpredictable now and likely will continue to be.
Tebow is not stupid. And as the unnamed source in the tabloid story rightly points out he’s the consummate team player. He’s not going to make waves even if he is disappointed with his individual status.
But where I disagree here is this notion that Tebow, himself, will always think of himself as a starter. I already know he thinks of himself as a winner. I already know he’ll lay down in front of a train to make sure to the best of his abilities that he’s doing his part, however big or small, to make sure the Jets succeed. Who’s to say he won’t wake up one day late in the season if the Jets are in first place and say to himself “I know my role here. I know I can win here. I know I can spread the Lord’s good word here. And I know I can do good things for others here.”
Because that’s what Tebow’s about, not this belief that hidden underneath all of the charm and disarm, freak ability and football wherewithal there’s a selfishness to have to be the main guy. If that is indeed the case then he will have pulled off the biggest ruse this sports-crazed area of the country has seen in some time. But that’s what you get from an unnamed source fueling a media horde that, let’s face it, still likes to make the Jets and Ryan pay for not making good on their Super Bowl boasts, as if that’s the biggest crime they can commit.
Tebow is one of the true genuine articles going. Don’t pretend like you know he has ulterior motives. Because you don’t know, regardless of how many unnamed sources you trot out into print.
And just because the Jets won last week it doesn’t mean the world needs to be brought back into what the media deems as balance.
When this team utters the refrain “it’s us against the world,” they’re not kidding. Rightly or wrongly, the Jets seem like they are the only group of athletes on the planet who are not allowed to just be, or are exempt from making mistakes and then being allowed to move on. We’ve reached the point now where what certain members of the media report is truly just another example of the “Little Boy Who Cried Wolf.”
Sooner or later, no one is going to care what you say — even if you are 100 percent on the money and have the named sources to prove it.
Katzenberg Funnels $6.6 Million to Obama
It pays to have a friend in White House when under SEC investigation
The New York Times reported Wednesday on previously undisclosed documents showing the breadth of Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg’s support for the Obama campaign since 2008.
While the Obama campaign has itself disclosed that Jeffrey Katzenberg is a bundler for the Obama campaign, the campaign had only said that he had raised more than $500,000 for President Obama’s reelection.
In fact, the actual amount raised by Katzenberg and bundled for President Obama is more than 13 times the publicly disclosed figure. The total is more than $6.6 million.
Katzenberg has been well rewarded by the Obama administration for his support.
As the Free Beacon noted in May,
Katzenberg’s movie studio, Dreamworks, recently finalized a deal to build a studio in Shanghai, China. The nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation notes that Katzenberg’s deal was made possible with help from the Obama administration, which arranged a meeting for Katzenberg with Chinese Vice President and heir apparent Xi Jinping after his White House visit in February. Xi traveled from the White House to Los Angeles to sign the deal with the major Obama donor.
The Sunlight Foundation asks if “Katzenberg’s support for Obama fast-track[ed his] movie deal with China?” But Dreamworks would not respond to on-the-record questions from the good government watchdog group.
Moreover, the Securities and Exchange Commission is currently investigating Dreamworks for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in relation to its dealings with the Chinese government. The investigation focuses on possible bribes Katzenberg and his associates may have paid to Chinese officials in order to get the deal approved.
Katzenberg has also invested deeply in building financial relationships with the regime in Beijing. Katzenberg’s silent partner in his new China-based studio is Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Communist Party leader and Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
SOURCE: Washington Free Beacon
The New York Times reported Wednesday on previously undisclosed documents showing the breadth of Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg’s support for the Obama campaign since 2008.
While the Obama campaign has itself disclosed that Jeffrey Katzenberg is a bundler for the Obama campaign, the campaign had only said that he had raised more than $500,000 for President Obama’s reelection.
In fact, the actual amount raised by Katzenberg and bundled for President Obama is more than 13 times the publicly disclosed figure. The total is more than $6.6 million.
Katzenberg has been well rewarded by the Obama administration for his support.
As the Free Beacon noted in May,
Katzenberg’s movie studio, Dreamworks, recently finalized a deal to build a studio in Shanghai, China. The nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation notes that Katzenberg’s deal was made possible with help from the Obama administration, which arranged a meeting for Katzenberg with Chinese Vice President and heir apparent Xi Jinping after his White House visit in February. Xi traveled from the White House to Los Angeles to sign the deal with the major Obama donor.
The Sunlight Foundation asks if “Katzenberg’s support for Obama fast-track[ed his] movie deal with China?” But Dreamworks would not respond to on-the-record questions from the good government watchdog group.
Moreover, the Securities and Exchange Commission is currently investigating Dreamworks for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in relation to its dealings with the Chinese government. The investigation focuses on possible bribes Katzenberg and his associates may have paid to Chinese officials in order to get the deal approved.
Katzenberg has also invested deeply in building financial relationships with the regime in Beijing. Katzenberg’s silent partner in his new China-based studio is Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Communist Party leader and Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
SOURCE: Washington Free Beacon
Cummunist New York City to Regulate Circumcision
A. Romi Cohn, a mohel, prepared Eli Alfaks for circumcision during his brit milah at the Congregation Shaare Zion in the Gravesend neighborhood of Brooklyn.
The New York City Board of Health passed a regulation on Thursday that will require consent from parents before an infant can have a form of Jewish ritual circumcision, prevalent in parts of the ultra-Orthodox community, in which the circumciser uses his mouth to remove blood from the incision.
In a morning meeting, the nine-member panel of doctors and public health professionals said that though the regulation had been challenged by some Orthodox Jewish religious authorities as an unconstitutional infringement of their religious freedom, the risk of disease from the ancient procedure was serious enough to warrant action.
Indeed, some panel members said they believed that requiring consent did not go far enough. “It’s crazy that we allow this to go on,” said Dr. Joel A. Forman, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
Infectious disease experts widely agree that the oral contact, known in Hebrew as metzitzah b’peh, creates a risk of transmission of herpes that can be deadly to infants, because of their underdeveloped immune systems. Between 2004 and 2011, the city learned of 11 herpes infections it said were most likely caused by the practice. Two of those babies died; at least two others suffered brain damage.
While most ritual circumcisers, known as mohelim, no longer use oral contact to pull blood away from the circumcision incision — they use gauze or sterile glass pipettes instead — the practice has been strongly defended by ultra-Orthodox Jewish rabbis who believe the practice is both safe and faithful to Talmudic codes. More than 200 ultra-Orthodox rabbis have ordered their adherents not to comply with the regulation.
“This process is being created without a shred of evidence,” said Rabbi William Handler, one of a few ultra-Orthodox Jews who gathered outside the meeting in protest. “The city is lying, and slandering compassionate rabbis.”
In an effort to educate parents, the city will now require ritual circumcisers to inform parents in writing if they will use direct oral contact during the circumcision, and must receive their written consent. The consent form states that the health department advises against the procedure because of the possibility of herpes transmission, which may cause brain damage or death. The mohelim must keep that permission document for one year.
Failure to comply may result in warning letters or fines to the mohelim. Enforcement, though, will be based on investigation of specific complaints and herpes cases, not spot checks or raids, and there are no mandatory punishments, said Dr. Jay K. Varma, the city’s deputy commissioner for disease control.
Orthodox groups, including Agudath Israel of America and the Central Rabbinical Congress, have announced that they plan to sue the city to block the regulation, which is scheduled to go into effect 30 days from official publication of the rule.
“We are convinced that this amendment will be thrown out by the courts,” said Rabbi David Niederman, a Satmar Hasidic leader.
The city believes about 3,600 male infants are circumcised with direct oral suction each year and estimates their risk of contracting herpes at roughly 1 in 4,000. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called the procedure unsafe and recommended against it.
But among doctors that work with ultra-Orthodox families, there is some doubt whether regulation is the right course.
“They feel that if their child doesn’t have the metzitzah b’peh, he is not Jewish, so this, to them, is the most important act that they can do for their son in life,” said Dr. Kenneth I. Glassberg, the director of the division of pediatric urology at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital at NewYork-Presbyterian.
“Medically, I don’t approve of it,” he added of the oral contact, “but if you’re asking me, ‘Does it cause harm?’, I haven’t seen enough proof that it causes harm.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: September 13, 2012
An earlier version of this article misstated the name of an Orthodox group that plans to sue New York City over a new circumcision regulation. It is the Central Rabbinical Congress, not the Central Rabbinical Conference.
Source: New York Times
The New York City Board of Health passed a regulation on Thursday that will require consent from parents before an infant can have a form of Jewish ritual circumcision, prevalent in parts of the ultra-Orthodox community, in which the circumciser uses his mouth to remove blood from the incision.
In a morning meeting, the nine-member panel of doctors and public health professionals said that though the regulation had been challenged by some Orthodox Jewish religious authorities as an unconstitutional infringement of their religious freedom, the risk of disease from the ancient procedure was serious enough to warrant action.
Indeed, some panel members said they believed that requiring consent did not go far enough. “It’s crazy that we allow this to go on,” said Dr. Joel A. Forman, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
Infectious disease experts widely agree that the oral contact, known in Hebrew as metzitzah b’peh, creates a risk of transmission of herpes that can be deadly to infants, because of their underdeveloped immune systems. Between 2004 and 2011, the city learned of 11 herpes infections it said were most likely caused by the practice. Two of those babies died; at least two others suffered brain damage.
While most ritual circumcisers, known as mohelim, no longer use oral contact to pull blood away from the circumcision incision — they use gauze or sterile glass pipettes instead — the practice has been strongly defended by ultra-Orthodox Jewish rabbis who believe the practice is both safe and faithful to Talmudic codes. More than 200 ultra-Orthodox rabbis have ordered their adherents not to comply with the regulation.
“This process is being created without a shred of evidence,” said Rabbi William Handler, one of a few ultra-Orthodox Jews who gathered outside the meeting in protest. “The city is lying, and slandering compassionate rabbis.”
In an effort to educate parents, the city will now require ritual circumcisers to inform parents in writing if they will use direct oral contact during the circumcision, and must receive their written consent. The consent form states that the health department advises against the procedure because of the possibility of herpes transmission, which may cause brain damage or death. The mohelim must keep that permission document for one year.
Failure to comply may result in warning letters or fines to the mohelim. Enforcement, though, will be based on investigation of specific complaints and herpes cases, not spot checks or raids, and there are no mandatory punishments, said Dr. Jay K. Varma, the city’s deputy commissioner for disease control.
Orthodox groups, including Agudath Israel of America and the Central Rabbinical Congress, have announced that they plan to sue the city to block the regulation, which is scheduled to go into effect 30 days from official publication of the rule.
“We are convinced that this amendment will be thrown out by the courts,” said Rabbi David Niederman, a Satmar Hasidic leader.
The city believes about 3,600 male infants are circumcised with direct oral suction each year and estimates their risk of contracting herpes at roughly 1 in 4,000. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called the procedure unsafe and recommended against it.
But among doctors that work with ultra-Orthodox families, there is some doubt whether regulation is the right course.
“They feel that if their child doesn’t have the metzitzah b’peh, he is not Jewish, so this, to them, is the most important act that they can do for their son in life,” said Dr. Kenneth I. Glassberg, the director of the division of pediatric urology at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital at NewYork-Presbyterian.
“Medically, I don’t approve of it,” he added of the oral contact, “but if you’re asking me, ‘Does it cause harm?’, I haven’t seen enough proof that it causes harm.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: September 13, 2012
An earlier version of this article misstated the name of an Orthodox group that plans to sue New York City over a new circumcision regulation. It is the Central Rabbinical Congress, not the Central Rabbinical Conference.
Source: New York Times
Jimmy Carter Corrects Obama
Former President Jimmy Carter spoke to students at Drake University in Des Moines today and was asked if he agreed with what Obama said about Egypt:
Carter: "Egypt is an ally of the US, we know Egypt well."
President Obama had earlier stated during an interview, "You know, I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we do not consider them an enemy."
Carter went on to talk about Egypt's new President, Mohamed Morsi, saying that he knew him well and that they had met. He added that Morsi was dedicated to peace and a democratic government.
Source: Fox Nation
‘Whose Democratic Party?
New ad questions Obama's relationship with Israel
A new advertisement scheduled to run in Florida makes the case that President Obama has pushed the Democratic Party to embrace anti-Israel policies, according to a copy of the ad obtained by the Free Beacon.
In the coming days, the Emergency Committee for Israel, a pro-Israel advocacy organization, will release an ad entitled, “Whose Democratic Party?”
The spot, which will air during Sunday’s football game between the Miami Dolphins and the Oakland Raiders in what is being described as a “significant ad buy,” accuses Obama of leading his party to weaken the U.S.-Israel alliance.
Coming on the heels of the Democrat’s controversial omission and contentious reinsertion of language in the party platform declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the ECI ad asks voters: “Is this still your Democratic Party?”
Following footage of DNC delegates vociferously booing the pro-Israel declaration, the ad reminds viewers in the critical swing state that the Obama administration has on multiple occasions refused to state that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.
ECI Executive Director Noah Pollak told the Free Beacon that ECI wants Democratic voters to ask themselves if they are comfortable with the party’s direction under Obama.
“The debacle at the DNC signifies where Obama is going in a second term. The first four years have been bad enough, but what happens when he has more ‘flexibility?’” Pollak wondered.
Source: Free Beacon
A new advertisement scheduled to run in Florida makes the case that President Obama has pushed the Democratic Party to embrace anti-Israel policies, according to a copy of the ad obtained by the Free Beacon.
In the coming days, the Emergency Committee for Israel, a pro-Israel advocacy organization, will release an ad entitled, “Whose Democratic Party?”
The spot, which will air during Sunday’s football game between the Miami Dolphins and the Oakland Raiders in what is being described as a “significant ad buy,” accuses Obama of leading his party to weaken the U.S.-Israel alliance.
Coming on the heels of the Democrat’s controversial omission and contentious reinsertion of language in the party platform declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the ECI ad asks voters: “Is this still your Democratic Party?”
Following footage of DNC delegates vociferously booing the pro-Israel declaration, the ad reminds viewers in the critical swing state that the Obama administration has on multiple occasions refused to state that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.
ECI Executive Director Noah Pollak told the Free Beacon that ECI wants Democratic voters to ask themselves if they are comfortable with the party’s direction under Obama.
“The debacle at the DNC signifies where Obama is going in a second term. The first four years have been bad enough, but what happens when he has more ‘flexibility?’” Pollak wondered.
Source: Free Beacon
Students Sing “God Bless America” At Wal-Mart, Manager Calls Cops
PEMBROKE PINES (CBSMiami) — Coconut Palm Elementary Principal Terri Thelmas, 75 students and their parents were kicked off Wal-Mart property Wednesday evening.
Were they protesting the high price of school supplies? Nope. The Miramar principal and her students were simply trying to sing “God Bless America” to honor the fallen heroes of 9-11.
According to Thelmas, the store manager gave her approval the week before to sing the one-minute song inside the Wal-Mart, located at Pines & Flamingo in Pembroke Pines.
Around 7 p.m. Wednesday, the group showed up and the manager-on-duty told them they were a “liability” and that the kids would not be allowed to sing.
So, the kids went outside the store to sing. That’s when things got ugly: the manager called Pembroke Pines police to have them removed from the property.
Thelmas doesn’t understand why, on a day reserved for patriotism and reflection, Walmart was more concerned with lawsuits than exemplifying its commitment to the local community.
Source: CBS Miami
Were they protesting the high price of school supplies? Nope. The Miramar principal and her students were simply trying to sing “God Bless America” to honor the fallen heroes of 9-11.
According to Thelmas, the store manager gave her approval the week before to sing the one-minute song inside the Wal-Mart, located at Pines & Flamingo in Pembroke Pines.
Around 7 p.m. Wednesday, the group showed up and the manager-on-duty told them they were a “liability” and that the kids would not be allowed to sing.
So, the kids went outside the store to sing. That’s when things got ugly: the manager called Pembroke Pines police to have them removed from the property.
Thelmas doesn’t understand why, on a day reserved for patriotism and reflection, Walmart was more concerned with lawsuits than exemplifying its commitment to the local community.
Source: CBS Miami
Posse Hunting for Halliburton’s Missing Radioactive Device in Border State
Halliburton lost the unit on Sept. 11, according to a report yesterday by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
More at Bloomberg
More at Bloomberg
Franchisors warn Obamacare will halve profits
The International Franchise Association held a convention in Washington this week where most of the Radio Shack, Dunkin Donuts, Curves and other franchisers were grumbling about new federal regulations, especially the impact of Obamacare.
Most, said Atlanta Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchiser David Barr, presumed that the reports about how hard Obamacare will hit them were overblown. "They had their head in the sand," he told Secrets.
That is until he pulled out his powerpoint showing how funding Obamacare will cut his--and likely their--profits in half overnight. With simple math the small business folks understood, he spelled out that their only choice is to slash employee hours so they aren't eligible for company-paid health care or stop offering insurance and pay the $2,000 per employee fine.
Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81 percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028 for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a year. Employees pay $995.
Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales. As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000."
Providing no insurance would result in a federal fine of $158,000, $29,000 more than he now spends but the lowest cost possible under the Obamacare law. So he now views that as his cap and he'll either cut worker hours or replace them with machines to get his costs down or dump them on the public health exchange and pay the fine. "Every business has a way to eliminate jobs," he said, "but that's not good for them or me."
But that's not all. His experience tells him that most low-wage workers he would have to cover under Obamacare won't take it because their $995 share is too high, meaning those the program was set up for won't see any benefit. And those who do will because they have major health issues, likely resulting in higher premiums to him.
Source: Washington Examiner
Right on Schedule: Election Manipulation Begins
Fed Pulls Trigger, to Buy Mortgages in Effort to Lower Rates
The Federal Reserve fulfilled expectations of more stimulus for the faltering economy, taking aim now at driving down mortgage rates until an improvement in unemployment that the central bank says will be a problem for several years.
The Fed said it will buy $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities per month in an attempt to foster a nascent recovery in the real estate market.
The purchases will be open-ended, meaning that they will continue until the Fed is satisfied that economic conditions, primarily in unemployment, improve.
Full Story at CNBC
The Federal Reserve fulfilled expectations of more stimulus for the faltering economy, taking aim now at driving down mortgage rates until an improvement in unemployment that the central bank says will be a problem for several years.
The Fed said it will buy $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities per month in an attempt to foster a nascent recovery in the real estate market.
The purchases will be open-ended, meaning that they will continue until the Fed is satisfied that economic conditions, primarily in unemployment, improve.
Full Story at CNBC
Revealed: Inside story of US envoy's assassination
Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'
The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.
American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.
The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe".
Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.
Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy's security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.
Eight Americans, some from the military, were wounded in the attack which claimed the lives of Mr Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, and two US Marines. All staff from Benghazi have now been moved to the capital, Tripoli, and those whose work is deemed to be non-essential may be flown out of Libya.
In the meantime a Marine Corps FAST Anti-Terrorism Reaction Team has already arrived in the country from a base in Spain and other personnel are believed to be on the way. Additional units have been put on standby to move to other states where their presence may be needed in the outbreak of anti-American fury triggered by publicity about a film which demeaned the Prophet Mohamed.
A mob of several hundred stormed the US embassy in the Yemeni capital Sanaa yesterday. Other missions which have been put on special alert include almost all those in the Middle East, as well as in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Burundi and Zambia.
Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims. Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons.
There is growing belief that the attack was in revenge for the killing in a drone strike in Pakistan of Mohammed Hassan Qaed, an al-Qa'ida operative who was, as his nom-de-guerre Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests, from Libya, and timed for the anniversary of the 11 September attacks.
Senator Bill Nelson, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: "I am asking my colleagues on the committee to immediately investigate what role al-Qa'ida or its affiliates may have played in the attack and to take appropriate action."
According to security sources the consulate had been given a "health check" in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: "The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs."
Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya's Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet."
Mr Stevens, it is believed, was left in the building by the rest of the staff after they failed to find him in dense smoke caused by a blaze which had engulfed the building. He was discovered lying unconscious by local people and taken to a hospital, the Benghazi Medical Centre, where, according to a doctor, Ziad Abu Ziad, he died from smoke inhalation.
An eight-strong American rescue team was sent from Tripoli and taken by troops under Captain Fathi al- Obeidi, of the February 17 Brigade, to the secret safe house to extract around 40 US staff. The building then came under fire from heavy weapons. "I don't know how they found the place to carry out the attack. It was planned, the accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries," said Captain Obeidi. "It began to rain down on us, about six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa."
Libyan reinforcements eventually arrived, and the attack ended. News had arrived of Mr Stevens, and his body was picked up from the hospital and taken back to Tripoli with the other dead and the survivors.
Mr Stevens' mother, Mary Commanday, spoke of her son yesterday. "He did love what he did, and he did a very good job with it. He could have done a lot of other things, but this was his passion. I have a hole in my heart," she said.
Global anger: The protests spread
Yemen
The furore across the Middle East over the controversial film about the Prophet Mohamed is now threatening to get out of control. In Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, yesterday around 5,000 demonstrators attacked the US embassy, leaving at least 15 people injured. Young protesters, shouted: "We sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God," smashed windows of the security offices and burned at least five cars, witnesses said.
Egypt
Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi yesterday condemned the attack in Benghazi that killed the US ambassador. In a speech in Brussels, Mr Morsi said he had spoken to President Obama and condemned "in the clearest terms" the Tuesday attacks. Despite this, and possibly playing to a domestic audience, President Obama said yesterday that "I don't think we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy".
Demonstrators in Cairo attacked the mission on Tuesday evening and protests have continued since.
Iraq
Militants said the anti-Islamic film "will put all the American interests Iraq in danger" and called on Muslims everywhere to "face our joint enemy", as protesters in Baghdad burned American flags yesterday. The warning from the Iranian-backed group Asaib Ahl al-Haq came as demonstrators demanded the closure of the US embassy in the capital.
Bangladesh
Islamists warned they may "besiege" the US embassy in Dhaka after security forces stopped around 1,000 protesters marching to the building. The Khelafat Andolon group called for bigger protests as demonstrators threw their fists in the air, burned the flag and chanted anti-US slogans.
Others
There was a Hamas-organised protest in Gaza City, and as many as 100 Arab Israelis took to the streets in Tel Aviv. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai postponed a trip to Norway, fearing violence. Officials in Pakistan said they "expected protests". Protesters in Tunis burnt US flags.
SOURCE: UK Independent
The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.
American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.
The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe".
Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.
Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy's security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.
Eight Americans, some from the military, were wounded in the attack which claimed the lives of Mr Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, and two US Marines. All staff from Benghazi have now been moved to the capital, Tripoli, and those whose work is deemed to be non-essential may be flown out of Libya.
In the meantime a Marine Corps FAST Anti-Terrorism Reaction Team has already arrived in the country from a base in Spain and other personnel are believed to be on the way. Additional units have been put on standby to move to other states where their presence may be needed in the outbreak of anti-American fury triggered by publicity about a film which demeaned the Prophet Mohamed.
A mob of several hundred stormed the US embassy in the Yemeni capital Sanaa yesterday. Other missions which have been put on special alert include almost all those in the Middle East, as well as in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Burundi and Zambia.
Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims. Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons.
There is growing belief that the attack was in revenge for the killing in a drone strike in Pakistan of Mohammed Hassan Qaed, an al-Qa'ida operative who was, as his nom-de-guerre Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests, from Libya, and timed for the anniversary of the 11 September attacks.
Senator Bill Nelson, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: "I am asking my colleagues on the committee to immediately investigate what role al-Qa'ida or its affiliates may have played in the attack and to take appropriate action."
According to security sources the consulate had been given a "health check" in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: "The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs."
Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya's Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet."
Mr Stevens, it is believed, was left in the building by the rest of the staff after they failed to find him in dense smoke caused by a blaze which had engulfed the building. He was discovered lying unconscious by local people and taken to a hospital, the Benghazi Medical Centre, where, according to a doctor, Ziad Abu Ziad, he died from smoke inhalation.
An eight-strong American rescue team was sent from Tripoli and taken by troops under Captain Fathi al- Obeidi, of the February 17 Brigade, to the secret safe house to extract around 40 US staff. The building then came under fire from heavy weapons. "I don't know how they found the place to carry out the attack. It was planned, the accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries," said Captain Obeidi. "It began to rain down on us, about six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa."
Libyan reinforcements eventually arrived, and the attack ended. News had arrived of Mr Stevens, and his body was picked up from the hospital and taken back to Tripoli with the other dead and the survivors.
Mr Stevens' mother, Mary Commanday, spoke of her son yesterday. "He did love what he did, and he did a very good job with it. He could have done a lot of other things, but this was his passion. I have a hole in my heart," she said.
Global anger: The protests spread
Yemen
The furore across the Middle East over the controversial film about the Prophet Mohamed is now threatening to get out of control. In Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, yesterday around 5,000 demonstrators attacked the US embassy, leaving at least 15 people injured. Young protesters, shouted: "We sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God," smashed windows of the security offices and burned at least five cars, witnesses said.
Egypt
Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi yesterday condemned the attack in Benghazi that killed the US ambassador. In a speech in Brussels, Mr Morsi said he had spoken to President Obama and condemned "in the clearest terms" the Tuesday attacks. Despite this, and possibly playing to a domestic audience, President Obama said yesterday that "I don't think we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy".
Demonstrators in Cairo attacked the mission on Tuesday evening and protests have continued since.
Iraq
Militants said the anti-Islamic film "will put all the American interests Iraq in danger" and called on Muslims everywhere to "face our joint enemy", as protesters in Baghdad burned American flags yesterday. The warning from the Iranian-backed group Asaib Ahl al-Haq came as demonstrators demanded the closure of the US embassy in the capital.
Bangladesh
Islamists warned they may "besiege" the US embassy in Dhaka after security forces stopped around 1,000 protesters marching to the building. The Khelafat Andolon group called for bigger protests as demonstrators threw their fists in the air, burned the flag and chanted anti-US slogans.
Others
There was a Hamas-organised protest in Gaza City, and as many as 100 Arab Israelis took to the streets in Tel Aviv. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai postponed a trip to Norway, fearing violence. Officials in Pakistan said they "expected protests". Protesters in Tunis burnt US flags.
SOURCE: UK Independent
Once Again, The Obama Administration Denies Dropping the Ball
"To acknowledge premeditation is to admit incompetence"
U.S. denies premeditation report in Libya attack
Obama's Officials say there is no intelligence indicated the attack was premeditated. | AP Photo
9/13/12 9:36 PM EDT
The Obama administration is flatly denying a blaring British newspaper report that the U.S. diplomats in Libya were killed as a result of a “continuing security breach,” and that “credible information” about possible attacks had been ignored.
A U.S. official told POLITICO: “There's no intelligence indicating that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated.”
READ MORE>>
U.S. denies premeditation report in Libya attack
Obama's Officials say there is no intelligence indicated the attack was premeditated. | AP Photo
9/13/12 9:36 PM EDT
The Obama administration is flatly denying a blaring British newspaper report that the U.S. diplomats in Libya were killed as a result of a “continuing security breach,” and that “credible information” about possible attacks had been ignored.
A U.S. official told POLITICO: “There's no intelligence indicating that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated.”
READ MORE>>
Was Muhammad a Pedophile?
An Examination of Muhammad’s Relationship with a Nine-Year-Old Girl
For the Western mind, perhaps the most disturbing fact about Islam is that its founder had a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl. Because of this, it has become increasingly popular in some circles to refer to the Prophet of Islam as a "pedophile." This is, of course, extremely offensive to Muslims, who view Muhammad as the ideal servant of God and as the greatest example of what a man should strive to be. Nevertheless, Muhammad’s relationship with a young girl presents a problem for Muslims, especially for those who want to share their faith with others.
Since much of the following information will come as a shock to those who are unfamiliar with this issue, we must be careful not to jump to hasty conclusions about Muhammad. Pedophilia is one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against a person, so the term "pedophile" should not be used lightly. We must also remember that, if a man has a sexual relationship with a young girl in a culture where such a union is permissible, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the man is a "sexual predator," as the term "pedophile" implies. Christians especially should be wary of flippant name-calling. With that said, let us carefully examine Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, recalling the Western principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
FIRST MUSLIM DEFENSE: Aisha was older than nine years old.
Faced with the arguments of Western critics, Muslim apologists sometimes piece together information from various accounts in an attempt to deny that Aisha was as young as critics often claim:
The popular misconception as to Aishah’s age may be removed here. . . . Isabah, speaking of the Holy Prophet’s daughter Fatimah, says that she was about five years older than Aishah. It is a well-established fact that Fatimah was born when the Ka’bah was being rebuilt, i.e., five years before the Call. Aishah was therefore born in the year of the Call or a little before it, and she could not have been less than ten years at the time of her marriage with the Holy Prophet in the tenth year of the Call. . . . And as the period between her marriage and its consummation was not less than five years, because the consummation took place in the second year of the Flight, it follows that she could not have been less than fifteen at that time. The popular account that she was six years at marriage and nine years at the time of consummation is decidedly not correct because it supposes the period between the marriage and its consummation to be only three years, and this is historically wrong.[1]
RESPONSE: The evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the nine-year-old Aisha is too strong to be ignored.
The problem with the selective and carefully edited defense just given (other than the complete lack of references) is that it ignores the numerous accounts we now possess which record Aisha’s age when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her. Many of these accounts are from Aisha herself. Indeed, the evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha is as strong as the evidence for just about any other fact in Islam. We have copious traditions relating Muhammad’s marriage proposal when Aisha was six or seven years old, as well as his consummation of that marriage when she was nine:
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and he consummated her in marriage when she was nine years old. Then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).[2]
Khadijah died three years before the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) departed to Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[3]
Urwa narrated: The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years.[4]
Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.[5]
Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.[6]
This is just a sample of the early Muslim traditions reporting Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha, but it is sufficient to show that she certainly wasn’t fifteen years old at the time of the consummation, as some Muslims claim.
(For a fuller treatment of the early evidence regarding Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha, click here.)
In addition to traditions regarding Aisha’s age, the Hadith also provides details about how the relationship began and progressed:
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said to her: "You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said (to me), ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said: ‘If this is from Allah, it will be done.’"[7]
After having this dream about Aisha, Muhammad proceeded to ask her father Abu Bakr for her hand in marriage. Abu Bakr understandably objected at first, but Muhammad was able to persuade him to agree. Aisha was later taken to Muhammad’s house:
The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) asked Abu Bakr for Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said: "But I am your brother." The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."[8]
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Madina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Umm Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said: "Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.[9]
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: When the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah’s Apostle to me in the forenoon.[10]
Once Aisha was a part of Muhammad’s household, she became his favorite wife, even after he married several other women. Indeed, Muhammad’s other wives had to plead with him for treatment equal to that of Aisha:[11]
The wives of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) were in two groups. One group consisted of Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Umm Salama and the other wives of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him). The Muslims knew that Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) loved Aisha, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give it to Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), he would delay it, till Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) had come to Aisha’s home . . . The group of Umm Salama discussed the matter together and decided that Umm Salama should request Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) to tell the people to send their gifts to him in whatever wife’s house he was. . . . [Muhammad replied]: "Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspiration did not reveal it to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha." . . . Then the group of Umm Salama called Fatimah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and sent her to Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) to say to him: "Your wives request to treat them and the daughter of Abu Bakr on equal terms."[12]
Thus, Aisha held a place of special favor among Muhammad’s wives, which caused a great deal of tension among the women. Since it may be taken as historically certain that Aisha was very young when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated, critics sometimes charge that Muhammad’s preference for Aisha reveals his preference for young girls. The Hadith offers a certain amount of support for this view:
When I took the permission of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), he asked me whether I had married a matron. He said: "Why hadn’t you married a virgin that would play with you, and you would play with her?" I replied: "O Allah’s Apostle! My father died and I have young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl like them who would neither teach them manners nor serve them."[13]
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) would call them to join and play with me.[14]
Nevertheless, it must be noted that, if Muhammad had truly been obsessed with young girls, he could have taken many others as his wives. Muhammad eventually held complete power in Medina and later in Mecca, yet he didn’t build himself a harem of young girls. Since there isn’t enough evidence to support the charge that Muhammad had a perverted obsession with prepubescent girls, critics should be careful when making such a claim.
To sum up, the evidence makes it abundantly clear (1) that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha when she was very young, (2) that this relationship was pursued by Muhammad after he dreamed about her, and (3) that she was his favorite wife. With so much historical data reporting the age of Aisha, it should be obvious that Muslims who deny Muhammad’s relationship with her only do so out of embarrassment.
SECOND MUSLIM DEFENSE: Morality is relative to one’s culture.
Another method of defending Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is the Muslim appeal to moral relativism. According to this view, since different cultures have different standards of morality, it is wrong to criticize the standards of others based on one’s own ethical system. Consider the following responses by Maqsood Jafri and Abdur Rahman Squires:
The Arabs practiced polygamy. In the wake of custom the Prophet Muhammad married some ladies. Hazrat Khadijah was fifteen years older [than] him at the time of marriage. Most of them were his age sake. In his fifties he married Hazrat Aiysha, the daughter of Hazrat Abu Bakr when she was just bloomed to youth. Hinting this marriage some of the orientalists charge Prophet Muhammad as a "pedophile". It was not only the Prophet Muhammad who had married a young girl [but] even the father of Hazrat Aiysha, Hazrat Abu Bakr had also married a young girl in his sixties. It was . . . part of the prevalent Arab culture and custom. Hence not to be taken seriously.[15]
The large majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time which a marriage can be consummated is at the onset of sexual maturity (bulugh), meaning puberty. Since this was the norm of all Semitic cultures and it still is the norm of many cultures today—it is certainly not something that Islam invented.[16]
Thus, since the practice of marrying young girls was "part of the prevalent Arab culture and custom," it is "not to be taken seriously" as a criticism of Islam.
RESPONSE: Islam is utterly inconsistent with moral relativism.
This defense is truly amazing, for, when defending Muhammad’s moral perfection, Muslims often maintain that Muhammad condemned the Arab culture for the prevalent immorality:
After spending his life in such chaste, pure and civilized manner, there comes a revolution in [Muhammad’s] being. He wearies of the darkness and ignorance, corruption, immorality, idolatry, and disorder which surround him on all sides. . . . He wants to get hold of that power with which he might bring about the downfall of the corrupt and disorderly world and lay the foundations of a new and better one. . . . He wanted to change the whole structure of society which had been handed down to them from time immemorial.[17]
Muslims are quick to point out immorality around the world, especially in the West. It seems, then, that they are suggesting a very inconsistent message. When confronted with an immoral practice in another culture, Muslims cry out in one accord, "We condemn these practices, for they are against the eternal, perfect, and unalterable Law of God!" Yet, whenever the moral character of Muhammad is being scrutinized, Muslims suddenly say, "Don’t judge Muhammad! You should remember that he was from a different culture! Marrying young girls was common in Arabia, and it still is, thanks to Muhammad’s precedent. Different people have different moral standards, so no one should worry about Muhammad’s sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl."
This convenient switch from moral absolutism to moral relativism is logically unacceptable. If it is wrong to judge the practices of another culture, then both Muhammad and the Qur’an were wrong for condemning immoral practices in Arabia. But if condemning immoral practices is acceptable, then Muslim apologists need a better response to criticisms of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha.
THIRD MUSLIM DEFENSE: Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was part of God’s plan.
Muslim apologists have developed another answer to Muhammad’s critics, namely, that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was part of God’s divine plan (i.e. God had an important reason for it):
It should be borne in mind that, like all acts of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), even this marriage had a Divine purpose behind it. Hazrat Aisha was a precocious girl and was developing both in mind and body with rapidity peculiar to such rare personalities. She was admitted to the house of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) just at the threshold of her puberty, the most impressionable and formative period of her life. It was the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) who nurtured her sensibilities and directed the growth of her faculties to the most fruitful channel and thus she was made to play an eminent role in the history of Islam. Moreover, she was the only virgin lady to enter the House of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and was thus very competent to share the feelings of other ladies of younger age who had numerous questions to ask from the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) with regard to sexual ethics and morality. These ladies felt shy of asking them through the elderly wives of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) out of modesty. They could speak out their minds comparatively more freely to Aisha who was more or less of their own age group.[18]
Puberty is a biological sign which shows that a woman is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this? Part of the wisdom behind the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aishah just after she reached puberty is to firmly establish this as a point of Islamic Law, even though it was already a cultural norm in all Semitic societies (including the one Jesus grew up in).[19]
Here Muslim apologists argue that Muhammad married Aisha for a divine purpose. Young girls who had questions about sex needed someone to talk to, and who better for this task than the young wife of the Prophet? Further, Muhammad wanted to establish puberty as an appropriate age for marriage, so he decided to demonstrate this rule by marrying Aisha.
RESPONSE: Muslims have failed to offer a sufficient reason for God to ordain the marriage.
There are numerous problems with this defense. First, such a response could be used to justify nearly any behavior. Consider a husband on trial for beating his wife. When he takes the stand, he explains, "Your Honor, many women are victims of spousal abuse, and they need someone to talk to. Out of the kindness of my heart, I decided to beat my wife, so that she would be able to comfort other women whose husbands beat them." Such an explanation would never be accepted (except, perhaps, in countries under Islamic rule, where the Qur’an guarantees a husband’s right to beat his wife[20]). Besides, if Muhammad had outlawed sex with children instead of becoming a willing participant, little girls wouldn’t have to worry about sex, and they wouldn’t need to question Aisha.
Second, it isn’t necessary for a lawgiver to institute laws by performing actions that create a precedent. In other words, Muhammad didn’t need to marry a young girl in order establish a law about marrying girls who had reached puberty. Muhammad, as Islam’s lawgiver, could have simply issued a decree. For instance, Muhammad allowed husbands to beat their wives. Was it necessary for Muhammad to beat his wives in order to establish this as a law? Certainly not. Similarly, when an American lawmaker says that killing someone in self-defense is acceptable, no one argues that the lawmaker must go out and kill someone in self-defense if his law is to stand. Hence, the argument that Muhammad needed to marry a young girl to establish puberty as the appropriate age for marriage completely fails.
Third, the Muslim claim that Aisha was a "precocious child" strains the evidence. Aisha herself reports that, when she was taken to Muhammad’s house, she was playing on a swing with her friends. She was also still playing with dolls. Based on the evidence, Aisha sounds like a normal little girl, not like a young adult. Besides, Muhammad didn’t marry her because she was precocious; he married her because he was dreaming about her.
Fourth, it is unlikely that God was using Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha to establish puberty as the appropriate age for marriage, since the Qur’an itself seems to allow marriage to prepubescent girls. According to Surah 65:4, a man must wait three months to divorce a wife who hasn’t yet reached menses. If Islam allows a man to divorce a girl who isn’t old enough to have her period, it follows that Islam also allows a man to marry a girl who hasn’t yet reached menses. And if the Qur’an allows marriage to prepubescent girls, then Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha would in no way rule out such a practice. (In the spirit of interpretive charity, I’m open to alternative interpretations of the Qur’an here. That is, I’m willing to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt if they offer another reasonable view of this passage. Based solely on 65:4, I would say that several interpretations of the text are possible. However, if we consider early Muslim commentaries on the verse, the understanding I give above appears strongest. To read these commentaries, click here.)
Fifth, Muslims search for reasons to justify Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha because they are convinced that everything Muhammad did had a divine purpose behind it. When critics point out Muhammad’s numerous murders and assassinations, Muslims claim that these violent acts were just. When critics note the extent of Muhammad’s polygamy, or his participation in the slave-trade, or his countless robberies,[21] Muslims provide answers based on the view that Muhammad was an outstanding moral example. Similarly, when Muslims are confronted with the evidence for Muhammad’s sexual encounters with Aisha, they assume that there must have been a reason for it. They then invent reasons for Muhammad’s behavior (i.e. the other little girls needed someone to talk to about sex), and they offer these reasons as a defense of Muhammad’s morality. However, non-Muslims do not share this confidence in Muhammad’s moral perfection. Indeed, when non-Muslims hear about Muhammad’s violence, his greed, his polygamy, and his support of spousal abuse, we aren’t as quick to say "He must have had a reason" as Muslims seem to be. Because of this, Muslim justifications for Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha sound hollow when presented as a logical defense of his actions.
Finally, Muslim explanations for Muhammad’s behavior fail to take into account the dangers that accompany sex at a young age. Many Muslims claim that, as soon as a young girl gets her first period, she is ready to bear children. This "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" mentality, aside from being disgusting, is completely false. A nine-year-old girl isn’t ready for sex or children, even if she reaches menses earlier than other little girls. Children that young are still growing; when they become pregnant, their bodies divert nutritional resources to the developing fetus, depriving the growing girls of much-needed vitamins and minerals. Further, complications often result from adolescent pregnancies, because the bodies of the young girls simply aren’t ready to give birth.
(For a discussion of child-brides, click here.)
The West has discerned the dangers posed by adolescent pregnancies. Muslim apologists often claim that marriage to young girls was common in biblical times. This may be correct, but it is because these marriages were part of the culture, not because God endorsed them. Whereas many Christian countries have recognized the potential harms brought on by pregnancies among adolescent girls and have raised the legal age for marriage, Muslim countries are often kept from such advancements because of Muhammad. This is very interesting, for Muslims often claim that Muhammad was scientifically enlightened and that the Qur’an is a scientific masterpiece.[22] In reality, Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is injuring young girls across the Middle East and North Africa. The dangers have even been noted by the United Nations, which issued the following report in an attempt to curb the practices supported by Islam:
Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are beneficial to all members, while others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful traditional practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding of women; early marriage; the various taboos or practices which prevent women from controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional birth practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl child; female infanticide; early pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of morality in the eyes of those practicing them.
Child marriage robs a girl of her childhood-time necessary to develop physically, emotionally and psychologically. In fact, early marriage inflicts great emotional stress as the young woman is removed from her parents’ home to that of her husband and in-laws. Her husband, who will invariably be many years her senior, will have little in common with a young teenager. It is with this strange man that she has to develop an intimate emotional and physical relationship. She is obliged to have intercourse, although physically she might not be fully developed.
Health complications that result from early marriage in the Middle East and North Africa, for example, include the risk of operative delivery, low weight and malnutrition resulting from frequent pregnancies and lactation in the period of life when the young mothers are themselves still growing.
Early pregnancy can have harmful consequences for both young mothers and their babies. According to UNICEF, no girl should become pregnant before the age of 18 because she is not yet physically ready to bear children. Babies of mothers younger than 18 tend to be born premature and have low body weight; such babies are more likely to die in the first year of life. The risk to the young mother’s own health is also greater. Poor health is common among indigent pregnant and lactating women.
In many parts of the developing world, especially in rural areas, girls marry shortly after puberty and are expected to start having children immediately. Although the situation has improved since the early 1980’s, in many areas the majority of girls under 20 years of age are already married and having children. Although many countries have raised the legal age for marriage, this has had little impact on traditional societies where marriage and child-bearing confer "status" on a woman.
An additional health risk to young mothers is obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby’s head is too big for the orifice of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal fistulas, especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the baby’s head out unduly.[23]
Contrary to Muslim claims, a nine-year-old girl just isn’t ready for sexual intercourse or for its possible ramifications (i.e. pregnancy, giving birth, breast-feeding, and raising a child). It is unnecessarily dangerous, for a much safer relationship could be crafted if the marriage were to take place several years later, when the girl reaches her late teens. Muslims may respond to this by arguing, "But Aisha never became pregnant, so none of this matters." Yet it does matter. Every year, countless young girls, still playing with dolls, are taken to live with much older husbands. If these husbands were to be challenged, they wouldn’t respond by saying, "But it’s part of Arabic culture"; instead, they would reply, "It can’t be wrong, because Muhammad did it." In other words, even if we grant the bizarre claim that Aisha was somehow ready for sex and marriage, most nine-year-old girls aren’t ready for sex and marriage. Yet the practice of marrying children continues to this day in many Muslim countries, largely because Muslims hold up Muhammad as their highest role model.
FOURTH MUSLIM DEFENSE: The average lifespan in Muhammad’s day was so low that people had to marry young.
Osama Abdallah argues that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was understandable because people in Muhammad’s day needed to marry early:
Life 1400 years ago was very rough in the too hot desert. From my personal knowledge, the average life span back then was 50 years. People used to die from all kinds of diseases. Both parents of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for instance, died natural deaths before he even knew them.[24]
On this view, since people could die at any time in the "hot desert," they would get married at a very early age to make sure they had as many years together as possible.
RESPONSE: Muhammad was already more than fifty years old when he consummated his marriage to Aisha, so there was no need for him to marry such a young girl.
Abdallah’s claim might make sense if Muhammad had been nine or ten years old when he married Aisha. But the Prophet of Islam was already well advanced in years. He was far closer to death than any young woman he might marry, so why not marry a young woman instead of a young girl? Why not marry a fully developed twenty-year-old instead of a little girl playing on a swing? By marrying Aisha when she was so young, Muhammad was, in effect, condemning her to a life of widowhood, for the Qur’an prohibited the marrying of Muhammad’s widows (33:53). Beyond all this, Abdallah’s argument ignores the facts. Muhammad didn’t marry Aisha because the average life span was fifty years old; instead, he married her because (1) he had been dreaming about her, and (2) he had the power to persuade Abu Bakr to give him his daughter in marriage.
FIFTH MUSLIM DEFENSE: Other people have done it too—even Christians!
Abdallah also employs an "everybody’s doing it, so it’s okay" defense:
Not only was it a custom in the Arab society to Engage/Marry a young girl, it was also common in the Jewish society. The case of Mary the mother of Jesus comes to mind. In non biblical sources she was between 11-14 years old when she conceived Jesus. Mary had already been "BETROTHED" to Joseph before conceiving Jesus. Joseph was a much older man. Therefore Mary was younger than 11-14 years of age when she was "BETHROED" to Joseph. We Muslims would never call Joseph a Child Molester, nor would we refer to the "Holy Ghost" of the Bible, that "Impregnated" Mary as a "Rapist" or "Adulterer.".[25]
RESPONSE: Besides committing the "tu quoque" fallacy, this defense misses the point of the criticism against Muhammad.
Tu quoque is a type of fallacy that attempts to ignore a criticism because of some hypocrisy found in the critic. For instance, suppose I’m a thief. One day, I catch someone stealing my car, and I say, "Stop, Thief!" If the person stealing my car turns to me and says, "But you’re a thief too, so it’s not wrong for me to steal," he will be committing the tu quoque fallacy.
Muslims rely heavily on the tu quoque. When people criticize Islam for terrorism, it’s common to hear Muslims say, "But Americans are killing Arabs!" as if this were a meaningful response to the charge. Likewise, when someone says, "Look at all the people Muhammad killed," Muslims respond by saying, "But people were killed in the Bible too."
To say that Joseph married a young girl in the Bible does nothing to address the problem of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. At best, such a defense would only show that Christians are being inconsistent. But in reality, the Muslim defense doesn’t even show this, since their comparison fails for several reasons.
First, there is no real historical data reporting the age of Mary when she married Joseph. True, given the custom of the time, she was probably fairly young, perhaps as young as twelve or thirteen. But since we have no historical references to her age, we can’t rule out the possibility that Mary was twenty years old. The point here is this: people criticize Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha based on what we know (i.e. that Aisha was nine years old), whereas Muslims reply based on what we don’t know (i.e. the age of Mary).
Second, we must not forget that thirteen years old is very different from nine years old. Nine-year-old girls typically haven’t reached menses. In a best case scenario, a girl that young may have entered the beginning stages of puberty. A thirteen-year-old girl, on the other hand, may be coming to the end of puberty. Thus, even if we grant a young age for Mary, there would still be a world of difference between her and Aisha.
Third, Muslim apologists seem to miss the fact that Joseph is not the standard of morality in Christianity. When critics point to the age of Aisha, they are arguing something like this: "You’re trying to tell me that Muhammad was the greatest moral example of all time and that I should believe everything he says? I can’t believe that a person who would have sex with a little girl was the greatest man ever." More simply, Muhammad is foundational to Islam. If there is a problem with Muhammad, there is a problem with Islam. If Muhammad was immoral, then it becomes difficult to take his teachings seriously. Thus, it makes no sense for a Muslim to say, "Well, Joseph married a young girl too." Joseph isn’t foundational to Christianity. If an ancient text were found tomorrow, and this ancient text proved that Joseph was a thief and a murderer, this wouldn’t affect Christianity at all, because Christians don’t consider him to be a prophet, or a bringer of revelation, or even an important figure in Christianity. Thus, if Muslims want to show that Christians are being inconsistent, they need to show that Jesus, or Peter, or Paul, or someone central to Christianity, did the things that Muhammad did. Fortunately, Jesus was sinless, and the apostles lived exemplary lives once they had committed themselves to Jesus.
The internet is filled with examples of Muslims responses of this sort. Muslim websites constantly note that young girls are married in various countries and that these young girls sometimes give birth. No one doubts this. The problem is that this has nothing to do with whether or not marriage to a nine-year-old girl is morally acceptable for a mighty prophet. The fact that Muslims are forced to resort to an "everyone’s doing it" defense shows that they have run out of responses.
ASSESSMENT: While the evidence isn’t enough to condemn Muhammad as a "pedophile," his sexual relationship with Aisha is unacceptable.
Muhammad has been accused of pedophilia in numerous writings, sermons, and conversations. We have seen that the earliest Muslim traditions offer support for this view. However, the evidence sustaining the charge of pedophilia is perhaps too limited to warrant such a harsh conclusion. We know that Muhammad had a sexual relationship with a young girl, and that this was reprehensible. Yet we must take cultural differences into consideration in formulating an accurate appraisal of a person’s character. In Muhammad’s society, sexual intercourse was acceptable when a girl reached menses, and Muhammad may have waited until Aisha had reached this age. (Note: There’s no good historical evidence that Muhammad waited for Aisha to reach menses. However, I think it’s important to be generous in our interpretations as much as possible, so I’m willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that Aisha had reached puberty.)
Similarly, we don’t have enough information to call Muhammad a "pervert." While Muhammad’s sexual acts may seem startling, we don’t know enough about the nature of these acts to condemn him as a sexual deviant or a predator.
Nevertheless, Muslims are too hasty in dismissing Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha. We can’t simply ignore a prophet’s marriage to a nine-year-old girl. Muslims view Muhammad as the highest example of a moral life, but his marriage to Aisha conflicts with that view. If they want to put Muhammad forward as the standard of morality, Muslims need to come to terms with the many questionable things Muhammad did, as well as the awful impact of these actions.
There is a simple, but highly explicit, way to evaluate the importance of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. We must begin by trying to get a mental picture of a morally perfect man. For Muslims, this will include all the things they have been taught about Muhammad. According to their picture, he is kind, generous, patient, humble, and trustworthy. He protects orphans and widows, endures persecution, helps the needy, and promotes justice. He prays faithfully, fasts regularly, and obeys God in everything. He is loyal to his friends and patient with his enemies. He never gives in when tempted with evil. Now we must picture that same man in a room with an innocent little girl. He takes away her doll, climbs on top of her, and puts his penis inside her. She doesn’t know what is happening because she is too young to know much about sex. Frightened and confused, she cries because of the pain and bleeds on her bed, but she tries to remain quiet out of respect for her new husband, who, in return, endangers her life.
If a person is able to keep the same vision of moral perfection throughout that description, he may have the faith necessary to be a Muslim. But if his vision of the perfect man is at odds with what Muhammad did on numerous occasions, he will need to look elsewhere for an ideal human being.
SOURCE: Answering Islam
For the Western mind, perhaps the most disturbing fact about Islam is that its founder had a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl. Because of this, it has become increasingly popular in some circles to refer to the Prophet of Islam as a "pedophile." This is, of course, extremely offensive to Muslims, who view Muhammad as the ideal servant of God and as the greatest example of what a man should strive to be. Nevertheless, Muhammad’s relationship with a young girl presents a problem for Muslims, especially for those who want to share their faith with others.
Since much of the following information will come as a shock to those who are unfamiliar with this issue, we must be careful not to jump to hasty conclusions about Muhammad. Pedophilia is one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against a person, so the term "pedophile" should not be used lightly. We must also remember that, if a man has a sexual relationship with a young girl in a culture where such a union is permissible, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the man is a "sexual predator," as the term "pedophile" implies. Christians especially should be wary of flippant name-calling. With that said, let us carefully examine Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, recalling the Western principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
FIRST MUSLIM DEFENSE: Aisha was older than nine years old.
Faced with the arguments of Western critics, Muslim apologists sometimes piece together information from various accounts in an attempt to deny that Aisha was as young as critics often claim:
The popular misconception as to Aishah’s age may be removed here. . . . Isabah, speaking of the Holy Prophet’s daughter Fatimah, says that she was about five years older than Aishah. It is a well-established fact that Fatimah was born when the Ka’bah was being rebuilt, i.e., five years before the Call. Aishah was therefore born in the year of the Call or a little before it, and she could not have been less than ten years at the time of her marriage with the Holy Prophet in the tenth year of the Call. . . . And as the period between her marriage and its consummation was not less than five years, because the consummation took place in the second year of the Flight, it follows that she could not have been less than fifteen at that time. The popular account that she was six years at marriage and nine years at the time of consummation is decidedly not correct because it supposes the period between the marriage and its consummation to be only three years, and this is historically wrong.[1]
RESPONSE: The evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the nine-year-old Aisha is too strong to be ignored.
The problem with the selective and carefully edited defense just given (other than the complete lack of references) is that it ignores the numerous accounts we now possess which record Aisha’s age when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her. Many of these accounts are from Aisha herself. Indeed, the evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha is as strong as the evidence for just about any other fact in Islam. We have copious traditions relating Muhammad’s marriage proposal when Aisha was six or seven years old, as well as his consummation of that marriage when she was nine:
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and he consummated her in marriage when she was nine years old. Then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).[2]
Khadijah died three years before the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) departed to Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[3]
Urwa narrated: The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years.[4]
Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.[5]
Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.[6]
This is just a sample of the early Muslim traditions reporting Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha, but it is sufficient to show that she certainly wasn’t fifteen years old at the time of the consummation, as some Muslims claim.
(For a fuller treatment of the early evidence regarding Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha, click here.)
In addition to traditions regarding Aisha’s age, the Hadith also provides details about how the relationship began and progressed:
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said to her: "You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said (to me), ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said: ‘If this is from Allah, it will be done.’"[7]
After having this dream about Aisha, Muhammad proceeded to ask her father Abu Bakr for her hand in marriage. Abu Bakr understandably objected at first, but Muhammad was able to persuade him to agree. Aisha was later taken to Muhammad’s house:
The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) asked Abu Bakr for Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said: "But I am your brother." The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."[8]
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Madina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Umm Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said: "Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.[9]
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: When the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah’s Apostle to me in the forenoon.[10]
Once Aisha was a part of Muhammad’s household, she became his favorite wife, even after he married several other women. Indeed, Muhammad’s other wives had to plead with him for treatment equal to that of Aisha:[11]
The wives of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) were in two groups. One group consisted of Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Umm Salama and the other wives of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him). The Muslims knew that Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) loved Aisha, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give it to Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), he would delay it, till Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) had come to Aisha’s home . . . The group of Umm Salama discussed the matter together and decided that Umm Salama should request Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) to tell the people to send their gifts to him in whatever wife’s house he was. . . . [Muhammad replied]: "Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspiration did not reveal it to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha." . . . Then the group of Umm Salama called Fatimah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and sent her to Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) to say to him: "Your wives request to treat them and the daughter of Abu Bakr on equal terms."[12]
Thus, Aisha held a place of special favor among Muhammad’s wives, which caused a great deal of tension among the women. Since it may be taken as historically certain that Aisha was very young when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated, critics sometimes charge that Muhammad’s preference for Aisha reveals his preference for young girls. The Hadith offers a certain amount of support for this view:
When I took the permission of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), he asked me whether I had married a matron. He said: "Why hadn’t you married a virgin that would play with you, and you would play with her?" I replied: "O Allah’s Apostle! My father died and I have young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl like them who would neither teach them manners nor serve them."[13]
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) would call them to join and play with me.[14]
Nevertheless, it must be noted that, if Muhammad had truly been obsessed with young girls, he could have taken many others as his wives. Muhammad eventually held complete power in Medina and later in Mecca, yet he didn’t build himself a harem of young girls. Since there isn’t enough evidence to support the charge that Muhammad had a perverted obsession with prepubescent girls, critics should be careful when making such a claim.
To sum up, the evidence makes it abundantly clear (1) that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha when she was very young, (2) that this relationship was pursued by Muhammad after he dreamed about her, and (3) that she was his favorite wife. With so much historical data reporting the age of Aisha, it should be obvious that Muslims who deny Muhammad’s relationship with her only do so out of embarrassment.
SECOND MUSLIM DEFENSE: Morality is relative to one’s culture.
Another method of defending Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is the Muslim appeal to moral relativism. According to this view, since different cultures have different standards of morality, it is wrong to criticize the standards of others based on one’s own ethical system. Consider the following responses by Maqsood Jafri and Abdur Rahman Squires:
The Arabs practiced polygamy. In the wake of custom the Prophet Muhammad married some ladies. Hazrat Khadijah was fifteen years older [than] him at the time of marriage. Most of them were his age sake. In his fifties he married Hazrat Aiysha, the daughter of Hazrat Abu Bakr when she was just bloomed to youth. Hinting this marriage some of the orientalists charge Prophet Muhammad as a "pedophile". It was not only the Prophet Muhammad who had married a young girl [but] even the father of Hazrat Aiysha, Hazrat Abu Bakr had also married a young girl in his sixties. It was . . . part of the prevalent Arab culture and custom. Hence not to be taken seriously.[15]
The large majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time which a marriage can be consummated is at the onset of sexual maturity (bulugh), meaning puberty. Since this was the norm of all Semitic cultures and it still is the norm of many cultures today—it is certainly not something that Islam invented.[16]
Thus, since the practice of marrying young girls was "part of the prevalent Arab culture and custom," it is "not to be taken seriously" as a criticism of Islam.
RESPONSE: Islam is utterly inconsistent with moral relativism.
This defense is truly amazing, for, when defending Muhammad’s moral perfection, Muslims often maintain that Muhammad condemned the Arab culture for the prevalent immorality:
After spending his life in such chaste, pure and civilized manner, there comes a revolution in [Muhammad’s] being. He wearies of the darkness and ignorance, corruption, immorality, idolatry, and disorder which surround him on all sides. . . . He wants to get hold of that power with which he might bring about the downfall of the corrupt and disorderly world and lay the foundations of a new and better one. . . . He wanted to change the whole structure of society which had been handed down to them from time immemorial.[17]
Muslims are quick to point out immorality around the world, especially in the West. It seems, then, that they are suggesting a very inconsistent message. When confronted with an immoral practice in another culture, Muslims cry out in one accord, "We condemn these practices, for they are against the eternal, perfect, and unalterable Law of God!" Yet, whenever the moral character of Muhammad is being scrutinized, Muslims suddenly say, "Don’t judge Muhammad! You should remember that he was from a different culture! Marrying young girls was common in Arabia, and it still is, thanks to Muhammad’s precedent. Different people have different moral standards, so no one should worry about Muhammad’s sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl."
This convenient switch from moral absolutism to moral relativism is logically unacceptable. If it is wrong to judge the practices of another culture, then both Muhammad and the Qur’an were wrong for condemning immoral practices in Arabia. But if condemning immoral practices is acceptable, then Muslim apologists need a better response to criticisms of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha.
THIRD MUSLIM DEFENSE: Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was part of God’s plan.
Muslim apologists have developed another answer to Muhammad’s critics, namely, that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was part of God’s divine plan (i.e. God had an important reason for it):
It should be borne in mind that, like all acts of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), even this marriage had a Divine purpose behind it. Hazrat Aisha was a precocious girl and was developing both in mind and body with rapidity peculiar to such rare personalities. She was admitted to the house of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) just at the threshold of her puberty, the most impressionable and formative period of her life. It was the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) who nurtured her sensibilities and directed the growth of her faculties to the most fruitful channel and thus she was made to play an eminent role in the history of Islam. Moreover, she was the only virgin lady to enter the House of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and was thus very competent to share the feelings of other ladies of younger age who had numerous questions to ask from the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) with regard to sexual ethics and morality. These ladies felt shy of asking them through the elderly wives of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) out of modesty. They could speak out their minds comparatively more freely to Aisha who was more or less of their own age group.[18]
Puberty is a biological sign which shows that a woman is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this? Part of the wisdom behind the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aishah just after she reached puberty is to firmly establish this as a point of Islamic Law, even though it was already a cultural norm in all Semitic societies (including the one Jesus grew up in).[19]
Here Muslim apologists argue that Muhammad married Aisha for a divine purpose. Young girls who had questions about sex needed someone to talk to, and who better for this task than the young wife of the Prophet? Further, Muhammad wanted to establish puberty as an appropriate age for marriage, so he decided to demonstrate this rule by marrying Aisha.
RESPONSE: Muslims have failed to offer a sufficient reason for God to ordain the marriage.
There are numerous problems with this defense. First, such a response could be used to justify nearly any behavior. Consider a husband on trial for beating his wife. When he takes the stand, he explains, "Your Honor, many women are victims of spousal abuse, and they need someone to talk to. Out of the kindness of my heart, I decided to beat my wife, so that she would be able to comfort other women whose husbands beat them." Such an explanation would never be accepted (except, perhaps, in countries under Islamic rule, where the Qur’an guarantees a husband’s right to beat his wife[20]). Besides, if Muhammad had outlawed sex with children instead of becoming a willing participant, little girls wouldn’t have to worry about sex, and they wouldn’t need to question Aisha.
Second, it isn’t necessary for a lawgiver to institute laws by performing actions that create a precedent. In other words, Muhammad didn’t need to marry a young girl in order establish a law about marrying girls who had reached puberty. Muhammad, as Islam’s lawgiver, could have simply issued a decree. For instance, Muhammad allowed husbands to beat their wives. Was it necessary for Muhammad to beat his wives in order to establish this as a law? Certainly not. Similarly, when an American lawmaker says that killing someone in self-defense is acceptable, no one argues that the lawmaker must go out and kill someone in self-defense if his law is to stand. Hence, the argument that Muhammad needed to marry a young girl to establish puberty as the appropriate age for marriage completely fails.
Third, the Muslim claim that Aisha was a "precocious child" strains the evidence. Aisha herself reports that, when she was taken to Muhammad’s house, she was playing on a swing with her friends. She was also still playing with dolls. Based on the evidence, Aisha sounds like a normal little girl, not like a young adult. Besides, Muhammad didn’t marry her because she was precocious; he married her because he was dreaming about her.
Fourth, it is unlikely that God was using Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha to establish puberty as the appropriate age for marriage, since the Qur’an itself seems to allow marriage to prepubescent girls. According to Surah 65:4, a man must wait three months to divorce a wife who hasn’t yet reached menses. If Islam allows a man to divorce a girl who isn’t old enough to have her period, it follows that Islam also allows a man to marry a girl who hasn’t yet reached menses. And if the Qur’an allows marriage to prepubescent girls, then Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha would in no way rule out such a practice. (In the spirit of interpretive charity, I’m open to alternative interpretations of the Qur’an here. That is, I’m willing to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt if they offer another reasonable view of this passage. Based solely on 65:4, I would say that several interpretations of the text are possible. However, if we consider early Muslim commentaries on the verse, the understanding I give above appears strongest. To read these commentaries, click here.)
Fifth, Muslims search for reasons to justify Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha because they are convinced that everything Muhammad did had a divine purpose behind it. When critics point out Muhammad’s numerous murders and assassinations, Muslims claim that these violent acts were just. When critics note the extent of Muhammad’s polygamy, or his participation in the slave-trade, or his countless robberies,[21] Muslims provide answers based on the view that Muhammad was an outstanding moral example. Similarly, when Muslims are confronted with the evidence for Muhammad’s sexual encounters with Aisha, they assume that there must have been a reason for it. They then invent reasons for Muhammad’s behavior (i.e. the other little girls needed someone to talk to about sex), and they offer these reasons as a defense of Muhammad’s morality. However, non-Muslims do not share this confidence in Muhammad’s moral perfection. Indeed, when non-Muslims hear about Muhammad’s violence, his greed, his polygamy, and his support of spousal abuse, we aren’t as quick to say "He must have had a reason" as Muslims seem to be. Because of this, Muslim justifications for Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha sound hollow when presented as a logical defense of his actions.
Finally, Muslim explanations for Muhammad’s behavior fail to take into account the dangers that accompany sex at a young age. Many Muslims claim that, as soon as a young girl gets her first period, she is ready to bear children. This "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" mentality, aside from being disgusting, is completely false. A nine-year-old girl isn’t ready for sex or children, even if she reaches menses earlier than other little girls. Children that young are still growing; when they become pregnant, their bodies divert nutritional resources to the developing fetus, depriving the growing girls of much-needed vitamins and minerals. Further, complications often result from adolescent pregnancies, because the bodies of the young girls simply aren’t ready to give birth.
(For a discussion of child-brides, click here.)
The West has discerned the dangers posed by adolescent pregnancies. Muslim apologists often claim that marriage to young girls was common in biblical times. This may be correct, but it is because these marriages were part of the culture, not because God endorsed them. Whereas many Christian countries have recognized the potential harms brought on by pregnancies among adolescent girls and have raised the legal age for marriage, Muslim countries are often kept from such advancements because of Muhammad. This is very interesting, for Muslims often claim that Muhammad was scientifically enlightened and that the Qur’an is a scientific masterpiece.[22] In reality, Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is injuring young girls across the Middle East and North Africa. The dangers have even been noted by the United Nations, which issued the following report in an attempt to curb the practices supported by Islam:
Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are beneficial to all members, while others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful traditional practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding of women; early marriage; the various taboos or practices which prevent women from controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional birth practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl child; female infanticide; early pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of morality in the eyes of those practicing them.
Child marriage robs a girl of her childhood-time necessary to develop physically, emotionally and psychologically. In fact, early marriage inflicts great emotional stress as the young woman is removed from her parents’ home to that of her husband and in-laws. Her husband, who will invariably be many years her senior, will have little in common with a young teenager. It is with this strange man that she has to develop an intimate emotional and physical relationship. She is obliged to have intercourse, although physically she might not be fully developed.
Health complications that result from early marriage in the Middle East and North Africa, for example, include the risk of operative delivery, low weight and malnutrition resulting from frequent pregnancies and lactation in the period of life when the young mothers are themselves still growing.
Early pregnancy can have harmful consequences for both young mothers and their babies. According to UNICEF, no girl should become pregnant before the age of 18 because she is not yet physically ready to bear children. Babies of mothers younger than 18 tend to be born premature and have low body weight; such babies are more likely to die in the first year of life. The risk to the young mother’s own health is also greater. Poor health is common among indigent pregnant and lactating women.
In many parts of the developing world, especially in rural areas, girls marry shortly after puberty and are expected to start having children immediately. Although the situation has improved since the early 1980’s, in many areas the majority of girls under 20 years of age are already married and having children. Although many countries have raised the legal age for marriage, this has had little impact on traditional societies where marriage and child-bearing confer "status" on a woman.
An additional health risk to young mothers is obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby’s head is too big for the orifice of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal fistulas, especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the baby’s head out unduly.[23]
Contrary to Muslim claims, a nine-year-old girl just isn’t ready for sexual intercourse or for its possible ramifications (i.e. pregnancy, giving birth, breast-feeding, and raising a child). It is unnecessarily dangerous, for a much safer relationship could be crafted if the marriage were to take place several years later, when the girl reaches her late teens. Muslims may respond to this by arguing, "But Aisha never became pregnant, so none of this matters." Yet it does matter. Every year, countless young girls, still playing with dolls, are taken to live with much older husbands. If these husbands were to be challenged, they wouldn’t respond by saying, "But it’s part of Arabic culture"; instead, they would reply, "It can’t be wrong, because Muhammad did it." In other words, even if we grant the bizarre claim that Aisha was somehow ready for sex and marriage, most nine-year-old girls aren’t ready for sex and marriage. Yet the practice of marrying children continues to this day in many Muslim countries, largely because Muslims hold up Muhammad as their highest role model.
FOURTH MUSLIM DEFENSE: The average lifespan in Muhammad’s day was so low that people had to marry young.
Osama Abdallah argues that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was understandable because people in Muhammad’s day needed to marry early:
Life 1400 years ago was very rough in the too hot desert. From my personal knowledge, the average life span back then was 50 years. People used to die from all kinds of diseases. Both parents of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for instance, died natural deaths before he even knew them.[24]
On this view, since people could die at any time in the "hot desert," they would get married at a very early age to make sure they had as many years together as possible.
RESPONSE: Muhammad was already more than fifty years old when he consummated his marriage to Aisha, so there was no need for him to marry such a young girl.
Abdallah’s claim might make sense if Muhammad had been nine or ten years old when he married Aisha. But the Prophet of Islam was already well advanced in years. He was far closer to death than any young woman he might marry, so why not marry a young woman instead of a young girl? Why not marry a fully developed twenty-year-old instead of a little girl playing on a swing? By marrying Aisha when she was so young, Muhammad was, in effect, condemning her to a life of widowhood, for the Qur’an prohibited the marrying of Muhammad’s widows (33:53). Beyond all this, Abdallah’s argument ignores the facts. Muhammad didn’t marry Aisha because the average life span was fifty years old; instead, he married her because (1) he had been dreaming about her, and (2) he had the power to persuade Abu Bakr to give him his daughter in marriage.
FIFTH MUSLIM DEFENSE: Other people have done it too—even Christians!
Abdallah also employs an "everybody’s doing it, so it’s okay" defense:
Not only was it a custom in the Arab society to Engage/Marry a young girl, it was also common in the Jewish society. The case of Mary the mother of Jesus comes to mind. In non biblical sources she was between 11-14 years old when she conceived Jesus. Mary had already been "BETROTHED" to Joseph before conceiving Jesus. Joseph was a much older man. Therefore Mary was younger than 11-14 years of age when she was "BETHROED" to Joseph. We Muslims would never call Joseph a Child Molester, nor would we refer to the "Holy Ghost" of the Bible, that "Impregnated" Mary as a "Rapist" or "Adulterer.".[25]
RESPONSE: Besides committing the "tu quoque" fallacy, this defense misses the point of the criticism against Muhammad.
Tu quoque is a type of fallacy that attempts to ignore a criticism because of some hypocrisy found in the critic. For instance, suppose I’m a thief. One day, I catch someone stealing my car, and I say, "Stop, Thief!" If the person stealing my car turns to me and says, "But you’re a thief too, so it’s not wrong for me to steal," he will be committing the tu quoque fallacy.
Muslims rely heavily on the tu quoque. When people criticize Islam for terrorism, it’s common to hear Muslims say, "But Americans are killing Arabs!" as if this were a meaningful response to the charge. Likewise, when someone says, "Look at all the people Muhammad killed," Muslims respond by saying, "But people were killed in the Bible too."
To say that Joseph married a young girl in the Bible does nothing to address the problem of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. At best, such a defense would only show that Christians are being inconsistent. But in reality, the Muslim defense doesn’t even show this, since their comparison fails for several reasons.
First, there is no real historical data reporting the age of Mary when she married Joseph. True, given the custom of the time, she was probably fairly young, perhaps as young as twelve or thirteen. But since we have no historical references to her age, we can’t rule out the possibility that Mary was twenty years old. The point here is this: people criticize Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha based on what we know (i.e. that Aisha was nine years old), whereas Muslims reply based on what we don’t know (i.e. the age of Mary).
Second, we must not forget that thirteen years old is very different from nine years old. Nine-year-old girls typically haven’t reached menses. In a best case scenario, a girl that young may have entered the beginning stages of puberty. A thirteen-year-old girl, on the other hand, may be coming to the end of puberty. Thus, even if we grant a young age for Mary, there would still be a world of difference between her and Aisha.
Third, Muslim apologists seem to miss the fact that Joseph is not the standard of morality in Christianity. When critics point to the age of Aisha, they are arguing something like this: "You’re trying to tell me that Muhammad was the greatest moral example of all time and that I should believe everything he says? I can’t believe that a person who would have sex with a little girl was the greatest man ever." More simply, Muhammad is foundational to Islam. If there is a problem with Muhammad, there is a problem with Islam. If Muhammad was immoral, then it becomes difficult to take his teachings seriously. Thus, it makes no sense for a Muslim to say, "Well, Joseph married a young girl too." Joseph isn’t foundational to Christianity. If an ancient text were found tomorrow, and this ancient text proved that Joseph was a thief and a murderer, this wouldn’t affect Christianity at all, because Christians don’t consider him to be a prophet, or a bringer of revelation, or even an important figure in Christianity. Thus, if Muslims want to show that Christians are being inconsistent, they need to show that Jesus, or Peter, or Paul, or someone central to Christianity, did the things that Muhammad did. Fortunately, Jesus was sinless, and the apostles lived exemplary lives once they had committed themselves to Jesus.
The internet is filled with examples of Muslims responses of this sort. Muslim websites constantly note that young girls are married in various countries and that these young girls sometimes give birth. No one doubts this. The problem is that this has nothing to do with whether or not marriage to a nine-year-old girl is morally acceptable for a mighty prophet. The fact that Muslims are forced to resort to an "everyone’s doing it" defense shows that they have run out of responses.
ASSESSMENT: While the evidence isn’t enough to condemn Muhammad as a "pedophile," his sexual relationship with Aisha is unacceptable.
Muhammad has been accused of pedophilia in numerous writings, sermons, and conversations. We have seen that the earliest Muslim traditions offer support for this view. However, the evidence sustaining the charge of pedophilia is perhaps too limited to warrant such a harsh conclusion. We know that Muhammad had a sexual relationship with a young girl, and that this was reprehensible. Yet we must take cultural differences into consideration in formulating an accurate appraisal of a person’s character. In Muhammad’s society, sexual intercourse was acceptable when a girl reached menses, and Muhammad may have waited until Aisha had reached this age. (Note: There’s no good historical evidence that Muhammad waited for Aisha to reach menses. However, I think it’s important to be generous in our interpretations as much as possible, so I’m willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that Aisha had reached puberty.)
Similarly, we don’t have enough information to call Muhammad a "pervert." While Muhammad’s sexual acts may seem startling, we don’t know enough about the nature of these acts to condemn him as a sexual deviant or a predator.
Nevertheless, Muslims are too hasty in dismissing Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha. We can’t simply ignore a prophet’s marriage to a nine-year-old girl. Muslims view Muhammad as the highest example of a moral life, but his marriage to Aisha conflicts with that view. If they want to put Muhammad forward as the standard of morality, Muslims need to come to terms with the many questionable things Muhammad did, as well as the awful impact of these actions.
There is a simple, but highly explicit, way to evaluate the importance of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. We must begin by trying to get a mental picture of a morally perfect man. For Muslims, this will include all the things they have been taught about Muhammad. According to their picture, he is kind, generous, patient, humble, and trustworthy. He protects orphans and widows, endures persecution, helps the needy, and promotes justice. He prays faithfully, fasts regularly, and obeys God in everything. He is loyal to his friends and patient with his enemies. He never gives in when tempted with evil. Now we must picture that same man in a room with an innocent little girl. He takes away her doll, climbs on top of her, and puts his penis inside her. She doesn’t know what is happening because she is too young to know much about sex. Frightened and confused, she cries because of the pain and bleeds on her bed, but she tries to remain quiet out of respect for her new husband, who, in return, endangers her life.
If a person is able to keep the same vision of moral perfection throughout that description, he may have the faith necessary to be a Muslim. But if his vision of the perfect man is at odds with what Muhammad did on numerous occasions, he will need to look elsewhere for an ideal human being.
SOURCE: Answering Islam
Wagging the Dirty Infidel Dog
September 14, 2012
Dumb Middle Easterners are angrier than ever at the West today, and dumb Americans are angrier than ever at the Muslim world, and we’re not sure who’s dumber.
Fires are blazing across the Middle East as Muslims who have medieval conniptions at any depiction of their dead pedophile prophet are storming and torching American embassies and consulates in multiple countries. Thus far violent disturbances have been reported in Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, Sudan, Morocco, and as far afield as Berlin and Bangladesh.
It’s currently unclear how much of the violence was motivated by organized jihadist militias seeking vengeance on the anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attacks and how much was spurred by reaction to an almost inconceivably inept anti-Islamic film called Innocence of Muslims. Hillary Clinton called the film “disgusting and reprehensible,” and American politicians across the disgusting and reprehensible spectrum have strained to make clear that we don’t hate Islam nearly as much as we appear to enjoy bombing the dung out of the Muslim world.
The film, which features segments where references to Muhammad, Islam, and the Koran are obviously dubbed onto the soundtrack rather than spoken by the actors, has also been denounced by an actress who says she has no idea she was hornswoggled into appearing in a clumsy anti-Muslim agitprop piece. The film was originally reported to have been produced by an Israeli Jew, but it now appears that a California-based Egyptian Coptic Christian previously imprisoned for financial fraud was behind the whole shebang.
American neoconservatives, who are apparently as easily manipulated by simplistic emotional triggers as their Islamist enemies, are predictably calling for nuking the entire Middle East and stomping the barbarian Muslim cockroaches and obliterating these stinking clitoris-slashing cavemen who apparently aren’t grateful for the fact that we’ve diddled aggressively in their affairs for decades now.
After all, this is America, and we hate terrorist bombers. We also stand up and fight whenever a foreign country kills our citizens. We are a sovereign nation, and neither Obama nor Romney will ever bow to foreign powers.
Nearly three thousand Americans were killed in the attacks of September 11, 2001. In our mission to prove that we won’t stand for Americans being killed, we’ve allowed over twice as many American soldiers to be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This isn’t counting the two hundred thousand or so “collateral” deaths from these wars. Nor does it count the estimated $3 trillion or more that the wars will cost American taxpayers.
But if we’ve actually spent more than $3 trillion to avenge fewer than 3,000 lives lost on 9/11, it comes out to over a billion dollars per life. They say you can’t put a price tag on human life, but a billion dollars per body seems a bit steep to us.
If America had actually wanted to destroy those responsible for 9/11, it was already aware that most of that epochal event’s perpetrators and financiers weren’t from Iraq, Iran, Egypt, or Libya. They were from our beloved “ally,” Saudi Arabia.
We are no fans of Islam and understand that it has been an intolerant and totalitarian political-religious system that has thrived on blood and conquest since its inception. It has also been a perennial foe of the West going all the way back to the days of Charles Martel and Moorish Spain.
But if there’s a current situation that fits the traditional prerequisites for war—a hostile and frequently violent alien invasion that’s compromising our borders and threatening our cultural fabric—we’d send every US soldier currently in the Middle East to the Mexican border. Ahh, but that will never happen. Republicans want the cheap labor and Democrats want the voters. So a war with Mexico is definitely not plausible.
And only a fool—or tens of millions of them—would think that a decade of strafing the Middle East with American ordnance would persuade those ignorant camel jockeys, ragheads, and sand nigras to embrace us. At least chronologically, the Middle East’s radical Islamization has been directly correlated with the level of American meddling there. If we hadn’t propped up the Shah of Iran or helped to squash the Palestinians or rushed like brain-damaged lapdogs to defend Israel wherever and whenever that tiny and trouble-addled nation felt the itch of an “existential threat” coming on, we sincerely believe the Middle East would be far more Westernized than it currently is.
We feel that America and England are more threatened by internal demographic erosion than we are by primeval religious nonsense that’s occurring thousands of miles away. We’re bitterly bemused at the fact that war-hungry stooges in the US and England are eagerly sending their soldiers over to die at the same time they’re allowing the Ummah to colonize us. Due to our half-assed and ultimately suicidal notions of tolerance and cultural sensitivity, the number of Muslims in the USA has more than doubled since 9/11. And we sincerely doubt that all, or even most, of them come with the noblest of intentions and an eager willingness to adjust to our culture. That’s simply not how Islam works. It’s not how Islam has ever worked. This is a real demographic threat rather than a vague existential one. Rather than further destroying our economy with endless and total wars of imperialism, we feel it’d be much more practical to immediately end all immigration to the US except for say scientists who have a cure for cancer.
No one who’s in favor of continuing all the wars in the Middle East can possibly be sincere about budget reduction. For the most part, we’ve stopped listening to our politicians.
We don’t want to kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out. Let’s get the hell out of there and let’s prevent them from further demographic encroachment here. Let them kill each other and let Allah sort ’em out.
SOURCE: Takimag
Image of 911 courtesy of Shutterstock
Dumb Middle Easterners are angrier than ever at the West today, and dumb Americans are angrier than ever at the Muslim world, and we’re not sure who’s dumber.
Fires are blazing across the Middle East as Muslims who have medieval conniptions at any depiction of their dead pedophile prophet are storming and torching American embassies and consulates in multiple countries. Thus far violent disturbances have been reported in Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, Sudan, Morocco, and as far afield as Berlin and Bangladesh.
It’s currently unclear how much of the violence was motivated by organized jihadist militias seeking vengeance on the anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attacks and how much was spurred by reaction to an almost inconceivably inept anti-Islamic film called Innocence of Muslims. Hillary Clinton called the film “disgusting and reprehensible,” and American politicians across the disgusting and reprehensible spectrum have strained to make clear that we don’t hate Islam nearly as much as we appear to enjoy bombing the dung out of the Muslim world.
The film, which features segments where references to Muhammad, Islam, and the Koran are obviously dubbed onto the soundtrack rather than spoken by the actors, has also been denounced by an actress who says she has no idea she was hornswoggled into appearing in a clumsy anti-Muslim agitprop piece. The film was originally reported to have been produced by an Israeli Jew, but it now appears that a California-based Egyptian Coptic Christian previously imprisoned for financial fraud was behind the whole shebang.
American neoconservatives, who are apparently as easily manipulated by simplistic emotional triggers as their Islamist enemies, are predictably calling for nuking the entire Middle East and stomping the barbarian Muslim cockroaches and obliterating these stinking clitoris-slashing cavemen who apparently aren’t grateful for the fact that we’ve diddled aggressively in their affairs for decades now.
After all, this is America, and we hate terrorist bombers. We also stand up and fight whenever a foreign country kills our citizens. We are a sovereign nation, and neither Obama nor Romney will ever bow to foreign powers.
Nearly three thousand Americans were killed in the attacks of September 11, 2001. In our mission to prove that we won’t stand for Americans being killed, we’ve allowed over twice as many American soldiers to be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This isn’t counting the two hundred thousand or so “collateral” deaths from these wars. Nor does it count the estimated $3 trillion or more that the wars will cost American taxpayers.
But if we’ve actually spent more than $3 trillion to avenge fewer than 3,000 lives lost on 9/11, it comes out to over a billion dollars per life. They say you can’t put a price tag on human life, but a billion dollars per body seems a bit steep to us.
If America had actually wanted to destroy those responsible for 9/11, it was already aware that most of that epochal event’s perpetrators and financiers weren’t from Iraq, Iran, Egypt, or Libya. They were from our beloved “ally,” Saudi Arabia.
We are no fans of Islam and understand that it has been an intolerant and totalitarian political-religious system that has thrived on blood and conquest since its inception. It has also been a perennial foe of the West going all the way back to the days of Charles Martel and Moorish Spain.
But if there’s a current situation that fits the traditional prerequisites for war—a hostile and frequently violent alien invasion that’s compromising our borders and threatening our cultural fabric—we’d send every US soldier currently in the Middle East to the Mexican border. Ahh, but that will never happen. Republicans want the cheap labor and Democrats want the voters. So a war with Mexico is definitely not plausible.
And only a fool—or tens of millions of them—would think that a decade of strafing the Middle East with American ordnance would persuade those ignorant camel jockeys, ragheads, and sand nigras to embrace us. At least chronologically, the Middle East’s radical Islamization has been directly correlated with the level of American meddling there. If we hadn’t propped up the Shah of Iran or helped to squash the Palestinians or rushed like brain-damaged lapdogs to defend Israel wherever and whenever that tiny and trouble-addled nation felt the itch of an “existential threat” coming on, we sincerely believe the Middle East would be far more Westernized than it currently is.
We feel that America and England are more threatened by internal demographic erosion than we are by primeval religious nonsense that’s occurring thousands of miles away. We’re bitterly bemused at the fact that war-hungry stooges in the US and England are eagerly sending their soldiers over to die at the same time they’re allowing the Ummah to colonize us. Due to our half-assed and ultimately suicidal notions of tolerance and cultural sensitivity, the number of Muslims in the USA has more than doubled since 9/11. And we sincerely doubt that all, or even most, of them come with the noblest of intentions and an eager willingness to adjust to our culture. That’s simply not how Islam works. It’s not how Islam has ever worked. This is a real demographic threat rather than a vague existential one. Rather than further destroying our economy with endless and total wars of imperialism, we feel it’d be much more practical to immediately end all immigration to the US except for say scientists who have a cure for cancer.
No one who’s in favor of continuing all the wars in the Middle East can possibly be sincere about budget reduction. For the most part, we’ve stopped listening to our politicians.
We don’t want to kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out. Let’s get the hell out of there and let’s prevent them from further demographic encroachment here. Let them kill each other and let Allah sort ’em out.
SOURCE: Takimag
Image of 911 courtesy of Shutterstock
America's Feckless Leader Apologizes AGAIN ... J. D. Longstreet
Friday, September 14
Conservative Blog Central
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
The assault on US embassies in Cairo, Egypt and in Benghazi, Libya recently puts the lie to the claims that Islamic nations can exist as democratic nations that contribute something to the rest of the world -- something other than war and bloodshed.
The whole thing smacks of Jimmy Carter and the US embassy take over in Tehran. I had one flashback after the other as I watched the stories flooding out of Libya. And why not? The causation is the same -- incompetence by the then -- and current -- presidential administration of the United States.
Obama looked and sounded like Jimmy Carter using some of the very same phraseology Carter used when Ronald Reagan condemned Carter's handling of the hostage crisis in Iran under his (Carter's) watch.
CBC has more....
Conservative Blog Central
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
The assault on US embassies in Cairo, Egypt and in Benghazi, Libya recently puts the lie to the claims that Islamic nations can exist as democratic nations that contribute something to the rest of the world -- something other than war and bloodshed.
The whole thing smacks of Jimmy Carter and the US embassy take over in Tehran. I had one flashback after the other as I watched the stories flooding out of Libya. And why not? The causation is the same -- incompetence by the then -- and current -- presidential administration of the United States.
Obama looked and sounded like Jimmy Carter using some of the very same phraseology Carter used when Ronald Reagan condemned Carter's handling of the hostage crisis in Iran under his (Carter's) watch.
CBC has more....
Obama Releases Message to Arab Forum on 9/11
Not only is Barack Obama violating his pledge not to campaign on 9/11, but he is also using the day to issue greetings to the Arab Forum on Asset Recovery, seemingly oblivious to the importance and solemnity of the day, as well as the context of his message.
Full story at Breitbart.com>>
Obama-Endorsed Sodomy
UPDATE - Lebanon news rape report on murdered U.S. amb. in Libya remains unconfirmed by AFP
UPDATE 3:35 AM EST. - The Lebanon report on the murdered U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, in Libya remains unconfirmed by the AFP.
According to the Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org, citing AFP news sources, U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed by gunmen that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, was reportedly raped before being murdered. A google translation of the report says :
A news report made by the Libyan Free Press is also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized before he was killed:
"Libya - USA Ambassador in Bengazi sodomized and killed by his own al-Qaeda puppets."
VIDEO REMOVED BY YOUTUBE
SOURCE: Kerry Picket - The Washington Times
Posted on September 13, 2012, 12:06AM
UPDATE 3:35 AM EST. - The Lebanon report on the murdered U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, in Libya remains unconfirmed by the AFP.
According to the Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org, citing AFP news sources, U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed by gunmen that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, was reportedly raped before being murdered. A google translation of the report says :
A news report made by the Libyan Free Press is also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized before he was killed:
"Libya - USA Ambassador in Bengazi sodomized and killed by his own al-Qaeda puppets."
VIDEO REMOVED BY YOUTUBE
SOURCE: Kerry Picket - The Washington Times
Posted on September 13, 2012, 12:06AM
DECKER: Consequences of Obama weakness
Evil advances when America isn’t feared or respected
By Brett M. Decker
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
(The Washington Times) - The murder of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Libya on Wednesday is the direct consequence of President Obama’s weakness as a leader. His administration’s support of Islamist uprisings across the Middle East has led to a destabilized region where radical anti-Americanism is running rampant. The images being transmitted across the planet today give a glimpse of what the world looks like absent strong U.S. leadership in international affairs: Rioting mobs ripping down the American flag from our embassy in Cairo and a diplomat’s brutalized body being dragged through the streets of Benghazi. These are not isolated incidents but the predictable result of four years of Mr. Obama meekly trying to “lead from behind.”
Continue Reading>>
By Brett M. Decker
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
(The Washington Times) - The murder of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Libya on Wednesday is the direct consequence of President Obama’s weakness as a leader. His administration’s support of Islamist uprisings across the Middle East has led to a destabilized region where radical anti-Americanism is running rampant. The images being transmitted across the planet today give a glimpse of what the world looks like absent strong U.S. leadership in international affairs: Rioting mobs ripping down the American flag from our embassy in Cairo and a diplomat’s brutalized body being dragged through the streets of Benghazi. These are not isolated incidents but the predictable result of four years of Mr. Obama meekly trying to “lead from behind.”
Continue Reading>>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
