The Conservative Papers

Time to Return ARPA-E to Its Original Mission

kalel — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:32:02 +0000

Despite having a budget for only a few years, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is quickly becoming a microcosm of the larger problems associated with the entire Department of Energy (DOE).

ARPA-E, a program within the DOE, is meant to fund high-risk, high-reward projects that the private sector would likely not fund because the prospects for commercialization are too risky. But in the program’s short existence, ARPA-E is already straying from its mission. As the House of Representatives continues deliberation on the 2013 energy and water spending bill, Representative Paul Broun (R–GA) is offering an amendment that would help return ARPA-E to its intended purpose by prohibiting funding for late-stage research.

Specifically, Broun’s amendment would prohibit any applicant from receiving ARPA-E money if the expected Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is level 7 or higher. Some government agencies use TRLs to determine the stage of technological maturity, which can span from level 1 to level 9. The levels evolve from conceptualization of an idea to a proof-of-concept up through prototype demonstrations and successful mission operations.

The ARPA-E user guide requires that an applicant submit the TRL for the current states as well as the expected state of the technology submitted. It defines TRL-7 as a “system prototype demonstration in an operational environment.”

Broun’s amendment would go a long way in fixing one of the fundamental problems with ARPA-E: The federal government has awarded several ARPA-E grants to companies and projects that are neither high-risk nor something that private industry cannot support. These problems with ARPA-E were recently identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the DOE’s Inspector General, and the House Science, Space, and Technology committee staff.

Of the 44 small and medium-size companies that received an ARPA-E award, the GAO found that 18 had previously received private-sector investment for a similar technology. The GAO found that 12 of those 18 companies planned to use ARPA-E funding to either advance or accelerate prior-funded work.

A large part of the problem is that using taxpayer dollars creates an expectation that the research needs to transition to a market-viable technology. Therefore, it’s easier to pick technologies in later stages of commercialization, and it’s easier for a politician to take credit for a taxpayer-funded technology development and jobs created from opening up a new plant. This is the exact opposite approach needed for ARPA-E as well as the rest of DOE research.

Technologies that lose private financing as they move closer to commercialization are likely the worst bets for taxpayer money, since professional investors have already determined them to be losers. If those technologies are promising, venture capitalists will be eager to invest in them.

Carrying technology from the research and development stage through to commercialization should be a private endeavor. To the extent that the government supports energy research, it should be much earlier in the process.

Congress should hold ARPA-E accountable to its mission, and more scrutiny is necessary to ensure that ARPA-E is not funding projects already receiving private funding or using technicalities to justify those grants.

Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Twenty Years of Illusion about Islamism

kalel — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:11:47 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
June 2, 2012
updated Jun 3, 2012
Cross-posted from National Review Online

The broad lines of U.S. government, other government, and generally establishment policy toward Islamism were laid down on June 2, 1992, when Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Edward P. Djerejian delivered a major speech, “The U.S. and the Middle East In a Changing World,” at Meridian House International, in Washington, DC. After some throat clearing about the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kuwait War, and the Arab-Israeli conflict, Djerejian gave what has been called “the first major U.S. government statement on fundamentalist Islam” and, in just over 400 words, sketched out a policy that has been held to with remarkable consistency over the subsequent 20 years.

Edward P. Djerejian, assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs in 1992.

Djerejian started by noting that “the role of religion [in the Middle East] has become more manifest, and much attention is being paid to a phenomenon variously labeled political Islam, the Islamic revival, or Islamic fundamentalism.” He praised Islam “as one of the world’s great faiths,” while noting that its cultural legacy “is a rich one in the sciences, arts, and culture and in tolerance of Judaism and Christianity.” Djerejian then analyzed the Islamist movement:

In countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa, we … see groups or movements seeking to reform their societies in keeping with Islamic ideals. There is considerable diversity in how these ideals are expressed. We detect no monolithic or coordinated international effort behind these movements.

That diversity is fine, he went on, so long as there is

real political dialogue between government on the one hand and the people and parties and other institutions on the other. Those who are prepared to take specific steps toward free elections, creating independent judiciaries, promoting the rule of law, reducing restrictions on the press, respecting the rights of minorities, and guaranteeing individual rights will find us ready to recognize and support their efforts, just as those moving in the opposite direction will find us ready to speak candidly and act accordingly. … Those who seek to broaden political participation in the Middle East will, therefore, find us supportive, as we have been elsewhere in the world.

Indeed, Washington “has good, productive relations with countries and peoples of all religions throughout the world, including many whose systems of government are firmly grounded in Islamic principles.” But the U.S. government is “suspect of those who would use the democratic process to come to power, only to destroy that very process in order to retain power and political dominance. While we believe in the principle of ‘one person, one vote,’ we do not support ‘one person, one vote, one time’.”

Djerejian then adduced the general rule, that the concern is political not religious. In his words: “religion is not a determinant– positive or negative–in the nature or quality of our relations with other countries. Our quarrel is with extremism and the violence, denial, intolerance, intimidation, coercion, and terror which too often accompany it.”

Which leads to the take-away quote of the speech: “the U.S. government does not view Islam as the next ‘ism’ confronting the West or threatening world peace. That is an overly simplistic response to a complex reality. The Cold War is not being replaced with a new competition between Islam and the West.”

Comment: Djerejian makes a fundamentally faulty assumption here, namely that Islamists can be agents to “broaden political participation.” That illusion remains, two decades later, the abiding hope of the State Department and nearly the whole of the establishment. No, simply put, a deeply anti-democratic ideology cannot bring on democratization. Islamists have picked up on this hope and invariably, including right now in the campaign for the run-off presidential elections in Egypt, present themselves as democrats.

But they never are.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Israel Defense Forces Joins the Fight Against Cyber Attacks

kalel — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:54:13 +0000

The IDF’s Operations Department has recently defined the essence of IDF cyber warfare, putting together instructions that define the military’s operational methods in cyber space and clarify its goals in facing potential enemies.

Hackers (illustrative)

The IDF Website revealed on Sunday these instructions for the first time and, according to the IDF document, cyber space is to be handled similarly to other battlefields on ground, at sea, in the air and in space. The IDF has been engaged in cyber activity consistently and relentlessly, gathering intelligence and defending its own cyber space. If necessary, says the document, cyber space will be used to execute attacks and intelligence operations.

There are many, diverse, operational cyber warfare goals, including thwarting and disrupting enemy projects that attempt to limit operational freedom of both the IDF and the State of Israel, as well as incorporating cyber warfare activity in completing objectives at all fronts and in every kind of conflict.

The IDF will use cyber warfare to maintain Israel’s quality and advantage over its enemies and prevent their growth and military capabilities, while limiting their operation in this field, says the document.

Additional goals defined by the document include the creation of operational conditions that will assist in fulfilling IDF capabilities in combat as well as influence public opinion and raise awareness by advocating in the cyber space.

Overall, cyber space will be used to improve the operational effectiveness of the IDF, both during war and peace time. This will be done through clandestine activity, while maintaining confidentiality and expertise.

Internet security expert Isaac Ben-Israel recently said in a report on cyber security that Israel is the focus of tens of thousands of cyber attacks per week.

According to Ben-Israel’s calculations, Israel is hit with 1,000 cyber-attacks every minute, which he divides into a hierarchy of threats.

Earlier this year, the Israeli Defense Ministry established a special cyber warfare administration, which coordinates the efforts of security agencies and the Israeli defense industry in developing advanced systems to deal with cyber warfare.

Cyber attacks became a concern in recent months, after hackers exposed Israelis’ credit card details, and several Israeli websites were broken into.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Romney Widens Lead; Obama Worried about Jewish Vote

kalel — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:52:28 +0000

Republican de facto presidential candidate Mitt Romney is leading President Barack Obama in the polls by a new high of four percent as the president tries to win back sagging support from Jews. Romney has sewn up the nomination and is scheduled to be officially nominated at the GOP’s summer convention.

Obama greets Jews at White House

The latest daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday by Rasmussen gives 48 percent of the vote to Romney, 44 percent to Obama, 4 percent to other candidates and the rest undecided. The daily Gallup Poll rates the two contenders at a virtual dead-heat, but the poll by Rasmussen, considered by some to be skewed in favor of Republicans, is not being ignored by Obama’s campaign advisors.

Romney’s four-point lead is a dramatic reversal of Obama’s three-point edge two weeks ago and may reflect Friday’s dismal report on employment, which sank the stock market and set off fears of a new recession following the continuing sagas of the European debt crisis.

“The underlying reality is that Team Obama has a difficult hand to play. The economy matters more than campaign tactics, and the indicators at the moment are mixed at best,” noted Scott Rasmussen’s weekly newspaper column.

Conservative political analysts flatly stated that Obama is “fooling himself” with a campaign that is making excuses for shortfalls in fundraising. “A lot of people like the way Obama has governed less than they liked the idea of Obama governing,” Michael Barone wrote last week..

One large source of money and votes is the Jewish community, which no longer sees the president as the “knight in shining armor”. Arutz Sheva reported last week that new poll shows President Obama with only 59 percent of the Jewish vote, compared with 27 percent for Romney. If the undecided vote were to split down the middle, the margin would be 68-32 percent, a far cry from Obama’s 78 percent Jewish backing in 2008.

Support for Romney by 32 percent the Jewish community could be a clincher, according to Tevi Troy, one of Romney’s senior campaign advisors on Jewish and Israel issues. A Jewish Republican, he also is former deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under former President George W. Bush.

“If a Republican candidate gets in the 30s, they’re almost certain to win an election. If they get under the 20s, they’re almost certain to lose,” he was quoted as saying by the European Jewish Press.

“There’s this 28 percent spread, which I like to think about in terms of its Hebrew gematria (numerology), which is koach, meaning strength,” he continued. “This 28 percent shows the disproportionate strength of the Jewish vote given its relative numbers.”

Although the economy is the number one issue on the minds of voters, President Obama is making efforts to win back Jewish voters who feel he turned his back on Israel by snubbing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last year and by his solid backing for a Palestinian Authority state based on the Temporary Armistice Lines of 1949 that were wiped out by the Six-Day War in 1967, with “land swaps.”

Obama’s strongest Jewish backing is from the Reform and Conservative communities, whose leaders are generally for the “peace process” and who lean towards Israel’s relinquishing sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem and over most or all of Judea and Samaria.

President Obama did his best to cajole Conservative Jews last Thursday at a White House reception to mark Jewish Heritage Month.

“We don’t just celebrate all that American Jews have done for our country; we also look toward the future,” he said. “And as we do, I know that [not only] those of you in this room, but folks all across this country will continue to help perfect our union; and for that, I am extraordinarily grateful.”

The Jewish Telegraph Agency, whose editorial slant usually reflects a pluralistic view of Judaism, wrote that the president tossed out a paraphrased of a Talmudic statement that Jews are responsible for each other.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

No related posts.

Turkish Court Charges Pianist with ‘Insulting Islam’

kalel — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:50:31 +0000

A Turkish court on Friday formally charged an internationally known pianist and composer with insulting Islamic religious values, in comments he made on Twitter.

Turkish flag

According to The Associated Press, the court in Istanbul voted to approve an indictment against Fazil Say, who has played piano with the New York Philharmonic, Berlin Symphony Orchestra, Israel Philharmonic, National Orchestra of France and Tokyo Symphony.

The 42-year-old Say faces charges of inciting hatred and public enmity, and insulting “religious values.” He allegedly mocked Islamic beliefs about paradise in April.

Say’s lawyer, Meltem Akyol, told AP the pianist has denied the charges. The trial will be held on Oct. 18, she said.

“We certainly do not accept the charges,” Akyol said. “He has stated in his initial testimony during the probe that he had no intention to humiliate any religion. He was basically criticizing those who are exploiting religion for profit.”

Akyol said Say’s tweets and retweets on social media cannot be considered as public remarks because only people who follow him can see them.

In one tweet cited in the indictment, Say said, “What if there is raki (traditional anisette drink) in paradise but not in hell, while there is Chivas Regal (scotch) in hell and not in paradise? What will happen then? This is the most important question!!”

Islam forbids alcohol and many Islamists might consider such remarks unacceptable. In one of Say’s retweets, one excerpt questioned whether paradise was a “brothel?” according to the indictment.

Akyol claimed that line belonged to the wine-loving 11^th century Persian poet Omar Khayyam, adding that Say “was merely expressing his ideas within free speech.”

She confirmed that Say closed his Twitter account before the court decision Friday, because he was annoyed with messages.

“He has lately incurred the wrath of some people,” Akyol told AP. “He has even been receiving death threats.”

Say could face a maximum 1 1/2 years in prison if he is convicted, according to the AP report.

Previously, the report noted, Turkey’s Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk was prosecuted for his comments about the mass killings of Armenians, under a law that made it a crime to insult the Turkish identity. The government eased that law in an amendment in 2008.

In another incident in 2007, ethnic Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, who received death threats because of his comments about the killings of Armenians by Turks in 1915, was shot dead outside his office in Istanbul.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Aisha: The Child Bride of Islam’s Founder

alpineski — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:58:48 +0000

(Alisina.org) The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is disturbing. The only name for that is pedophilia – one of the most despicable crimes imaginable.

All humans, including animals, are protective of children. A child’s cry for help, any child, even the child of other species, arouses tenderness in most animals.

Pedophiles are amongst the sickest people because they violate the trust of children.

It is hard to believe that the prophet of Islam, the man literally worshipped and emulated by over a billion benighted souls was indeed a despicable pedophile.

Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his “marriage” (read raped her) when she was nine. He was then, 54 years old.

The evidence is overwhelming, it is reported by Aisha in dozens of hadiths and never Muslims questioned it up until now that people have started raising an eyebrow.

Let it be clear that Muslims are not ashamed of the fact that their prophet was a pedophile. They themselves have practiced this heinous act for over a thousand year and many of them are still doing it. They are only embarrassed that the world is questioning them for it. But the proof is overwhelming.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
‘A’isha (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.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated ‘Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated ‘Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated ‘Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is not true.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated ‘Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

Arabs were a primitive lot. Yet they had some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example, although they fought all the year round, they abstained from hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also considered Mecca a holy city and did not make war against it. An adopted son’s wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his interests or whims.

Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So according to their customs Ayesha was a niece to the Muhammad. Yet that did not stop him to ask her father to give her to him even when she was only six years old.

But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.

Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
It was said to the Prophet, “Won’t you marry the daughter of Hamza?” He said, “She is my foster niece (brother’s daughter)”

Hamza was Muhammad’s half uncle. In Islam marrying first cousins is acceptable. Muhammad refused to marry Hamza’s daughter, not on the ground that he was his Uncle, but with the excuse that Hamza was his foster brother. Abu Bakr was also Muhammad’s foster brother. So what was the difference? Aisha was a pretty little girl whereas Hamza’s daughter was not.

The moral relativism of Muhammad becomes further evident from this hadith.

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: What is unlawful by reason of consanguinity is unlawful by reason of fosterage.

In the following Hadith the self proclaimed prophet confided to Ahisha that he had dreamed of her.

Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated ‘Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle said to me, “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘Uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.

Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or lied is not the point. Dreams are revelations of our own sub-conscience and not messages from the world of spirits. This shows that Aisha must have been a baby being carried by an angel when Muhammad lusted for her.

There are numerous hadiths that explicitly reveal the age of Ayesha at the time of her marriage.

Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Narrated Hisham’s father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. 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 consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari 5.234
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina 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, Um 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 Allright, 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 a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle 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.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number 4917
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging.

They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

In the above hadith we read that Aisha was playing on a swing when she was taken to Muhammad’s house, which proves there is no mistake that she was indeed a child.

Some Muslims claim that since all these stories are recorded in hadith we should ignore them altogether. This is nonsense. Child marriage is permitted in the Quran. 65:4

Now as for such of your women as are beyond, the age of monthly courses, as well as for such as do not have any courses, their waiting-period – if you have any doubt [about it] – shall be three [calendar] months.

This verse is saying if you want to marry a widow or a divorcee, wait for three menstruations to make sure she is not pregnant. This applies also to those who do not have any monthly courses, i.e. prepubescent girls.

Aisha was so small that she had no knowledge of sex when Muhammad “surprised” her by going to her.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90
Narrated Aisha:
When the Prophet 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.
It must have been quite a surprise!

The following hadith demonstrates that she was just a kid playing with her dolls. Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the parenthesis. (She was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated ‘Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he 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.

Muhammad died when he was 63 years old. So he must have married Aisha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54.

Muhammad had many wives and concubines, but he was not in love with anyone of them. These young girls were his sex toys. Muhammad’s real love was Khadijah. If you want to know why you have to read my book, Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet. The relationship between Muhammad and Khadijah was not based on love, but on co-dependency. These two individuals were both needy and sick

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33
Narrated ‘Aisha:
I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends.

Yemeni women hold up the Quran and Arabic placard reading “yes to the legal rights of the Muslim woman” as they take part in a protest outside the parliament in San’a, Sunday, March 21, 2010. Some of Yemen’s most influential Islamic leaders, including one the U.S. says mentored Osama bin Laden, have declared supporters of a ban on child brides to be apostates. The religious decree, issued Sunday, deeply imperils efforts to salvage legislation that would make it illegal for those under the age of 17 to marry.

Khadija died in December of 619 AD, two years before Hijra. At that time Muhammad was 51-years-old. In February 618 AD Muhammad married Aisha and took her to bed 3 years later.

Muslims are not ashamed of the fact that their prophet was a pedophile, but embarrassed for everyone knowing it some of them claim that Aisah was older, maybe 16 or 18 years old when she married Muhammad. That is not true. Aisha said that as long as she could remember her parents were always Muslims.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245
Narrated ‘Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),

If Ayesha was older, she would have remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims.

Now someone may still claim that all these hadiths are lies. Muslims are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for those who have eyes to see.

Why would so many devout Muslims fabricate so many false hadiths about the age of Ayisha, to make their prophet look like a pedophile? These hadiths cannot be denied.

I can tell you why people would attribute false miracles to their prophet. Babis believe that Bab started to praise God as soon as he was born. There is a Hadith like that also about Muhammad too. Christians believe the birth of the Christ was miraculous and the Jews believe Moses opened a dry passageway through the Red Sea. Believers love to hear miraculous stories about their prophet even if they may not be true, but no one would fabricate lies to portray his prophet as a villain. If such stories are told in such large number, they must be true.

Controversies about the age of Aisha

The majority of Muslims agree that Aisha was only 9 years old when Muhammad married her and allow marriage to children in their laws.

Most Islamic sites make no apology for her young age and accuse the modernists for humbugging the Westerner’s morality and denying the truth.

The site Islamonline.com explains: “It should be noted that in the hot regions, it’s normal for a girl to attain maturity at a very early age” and argues that the marriages of Muhammad were to foster political alliances with their fathers and tribes. This is nonsense. Muhammad married Safiya after beheading her father, torturing to death her husband and massacring her entire tribe. He married Juwariyah after raiding her people, massacring the men and robbing their wealth and taking the women and children as slaves. He took Rayhana, the 15 year old Jewish girl of Bani Quraiza after massacring all the men and boys who had reached puberty. With whom he wanted to make alliance? What a shameful excuse to defend a war criminal. What Muhammad did was disgusting, but it is just as disgusting when Muslim apologists try to acquit him of his crimes with such a shameless excuses.

As for Aisha, she was the daughter of Abu Bakr who was a friend and the primary supporter of Muhammad. Muhammad did not need to have sex with that fool’s daughter to foster more friendship with him.

Muhammad was cult leader. He had brainwashed Abu Bakr. That benighted man would have done anything to please Muhammad. When you submit to a cult leader, you submit your intelligence and your conscience. To understand the dynamism in the relationship between the cultist and his leader I invite you to read my book Understanding Muhammad.

Despite all these evidence, some Muslims deny that their prophet was a pedophile. This is not because they don’t know it. Pedophilia is the law in most Islamic countries. They want to save face.

On one hand it is good that they know what Muhammad did was shameful and don’t try to defend it, but to do so they lie. They are the true hypocrites. Instead of coming to their senses, they hide the facts and twist the truth. Muslims have no shame. Muslims do not have human qualities. They are brain dead zombies. This is what cults do to people.

The following is one example of the kind of arguments Muslims present to deny the obvious.

(Source: http://www.understanding-islam.com/ri/mi-004.htm)

According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu’l-tafseer) Aisha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur’an, was revealed, “I was a young girl”. The 54th surah of the Qur’an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

Answer:
Why should we believe in this narrative and not in those detailed about Aisha herself, describing she and her friends was playing with dolls who hid when Muhammad entered the room, or her memories of playing on the swing when her mother called her and washed her face and took her to Muhammad? She said how ignorant she was in matters of sex when Muhammad started touching her and “surprised” her. These things are more likely to be remembered by a child than when a particular Surah was revealed. The site continues:

According to a number of narratives, Aisha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Aisha ‘s (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

Answer:
This is a weak excuse. When the Battle of Badr and Uhud occurred Aisha was 10 to 11 years old. She did not go to be a warier, like the boys. She went to keep Muhammad warm during the nights. Boys who were less than 15 were sent back, but this did not apply to her.

According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Aisha (ra) was ten years older than Aisha (ra). It is reported in Taqri’bu’l-tehzi’b as well as Al-bidayah wa’l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

Answer:
When someone gets that old, people don’t care too much about her exact age. It is very easy to say she was 100 years old when in fact she was only 90. The difference is not noticeable to the younger folks and 100 is a round figure. Younger people always think older people are much older. Assuming the Hadith is authentic, it could be an honest mistake. People did not have birth certificates. Asma was not an important person and it did not occur to anyone that 1300 years later it would become the subject of a controversy.

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah — the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Aisha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH — the time she most likely got married.

Answer:
Tabari’s narratives do not have the distinction to be known Sahih. The person narrating it was wrong. There are many hadiths narrated by Aisha herself that have more weight.

People remember important events better than those that are insignificant. The date of the birth of the children of Abu Bakr was not an important subject for Muslims to record. But the details of Muhammad’s life and his marriages were important. As you can read in the story of Safiyah’s wedding even the kind of food served is recorded.

According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Aisha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Aisha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Aisha ‘s (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Aisha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.

Answer:
The apologist fails to provide the references to the hadithes that he quotes. In any case this is an error. To understand and accept a religion, one must be at least intelligent enough to make such decision. That is about 15 years old. But let us be generous and say that age is about 12. If Aisha accepted Islam during the first year of Islam, she must have been 26 years old when Muhammad married her. (12 + 14) Are we then supposed to believe that Aisha at the age of 26 used to play with her dolls?

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am — with whose son Aisha (ra) was engaged — and asked him to take Aisha (ra) in his house as his son’s wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Aisha (ra). Now, if Aisha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Aisha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.

Answer:
It was an Arab tradition to betroth a girl to a boy even when the girl was a newborn. This tradition is still carried on in many Islamic countries. This is no proof that Aisha was a grown up.

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: “You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)”. When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Aisha ‘s (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word “bikr” in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is “Jariyah”. “Bikr” on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a “lady”.

Answer:
This explanation is incorrect. Bikr means virgin and, virginity is not age specific. In fact Aisha was the second wife of Muhammad (after Khadijah) but Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with her for three years because she was too young and Abu Bakr begged him to wait. So he married Sauda bint Zamah, whom he mistreated because she was not pretty.

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Aisha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Aisha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

Answer:
Of course this information cannot be taken as correct. If Aisha was five years older than Fatimah, and Fatimah was born when the Prophet was 35 years old, then Aisha must have been 30 years younger than Muhammad. So at the time of her marriage when he was 54, she must have been 24 years old. This is not certainly correct, for the reasons explained above and also it contradicts the Hadiths that the apologist quoted about the age of Asma, who according to that Hadith was 10 years older than Aisha and died in 73 Hijra. In that case at the time of Hijra Asma must have been 100 –73 = 27 years old, but according to this Hadith she was 34 years old. The truth is that she was 17 years old. The two hadiths presented by the same apologist contradict each other and all other hadiths because both of them are wrong.

It all goes to show that in those days numbers did not mean much. It is more likely that people were wrong on dates that events. The reports of the tender age of Aisha is consistent with the stories of her childhood, playing with her toys, her girlfriends hiding when Muhammad entered the room, the Prophet playing with her, her ignorance about sex and her “surprise” when Muhammad came to her. All these confirm that she was a little girl.

This apologist argues:

It is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single dependable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.

I could not have said it better. Not only marring children was not part of the culture of any nation, it is actually contrary to human nature. Psychologically sane men don’t find little children sexually attractive. Muhammad was not psychologically healthy. He was a pedophile. He was a victim of childhood abuse. To understand him and what went on in his sick mind, please read my book.

How he got away with it? He claimed to be a prophet and as such put himself above the scrutiny of mortals. Who dared to question Allah and his messenger? He had control over the life and death of the people in Medina. He acted very much like other cult leaders such as Jim Jones in his Jonestown, who slept with any woman he pleased, and like David Korsh in his compound, who had sex with every woman and even with the teen daughters of his followers while prohibiting them to touch their own wives. People who fall prey to cults do stupid things. They kill, like the followers of Charles Manson, Shoko Asahara and Muhammad; they commit suicide like the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh or the Heaven’s Gate. Islam is a cult and Muhammad was a cult leader. I have explained this point extensively in my book.

“In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Aisha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.”

Answer:
It may not have been a tradition then, but since Muhammad set the example, every Muslim pedophile finds justification and validation for taking children as brides and the ignorant parents, who are often poor, let their little girl to be raped for the greed of money.

Spread The Word! Share it

Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Al-Shabaab Targets Kenya

kalel — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:31:12 +0000

On Monday, a shopping center in downtown Nairobi erupted into chaos when a bomb exploded, killing at least one person and injuring dozens. While the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab has not claimed responsibility, evidence, according to Kenyan officials, indicates that the attack was carried out by al-Shabaab or one of its sympathizers.

More sophisticated than the recent spate of grenade attacks, the escalation of violence was not entirely unexpected. Last October, the Kenyan government launched Operation Linda Nchi, sending military forces into southern Somalia to eliminate al-Shabaab. Nairobi blames al-Shabaab for violating its territorial sovereignty through kidnappings and criminal activity, which have greatly hindered the country’s business and tourism industry. In response, al-Shabaab vowed retaliation. Then, in April, the U.S. embassy in Nairobi issued a terrorism alert, warning of a possible attack on hotels and government buildings.

Kenya has a duty to defend its land and citizens, and its contribution to the African Union’s mission in Somalia (AMISOM) is badly needed, but it has come at a cost. Kenya’s geographic proximity to Somalia has resulted in increased skirmishes in the north, and Kenya’s porous borders have allowed significant spillover of Somali refugees. The Dadaab refugee camp in northern Kenya is the largest in the world, with approximately half a million people. It is also a fertile recruiting ground for Islamist militants seeking to radicalize vulnerable targets. Additionally, Somalis living in Kenya are often discriminated against, as they are stereotyped as criminals and terrorists. With Kenya preparing for elections in March 2013, al-Shabaab might also find opportunities to sow instability.

The United States counts on Kenya as a partner in the fight against terrorism in Africa. In 2011, the Obama Administration provided more than $700 million in assistance, much of it to enhance security and fight terrorism. Last week, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee passed the $631 billion defense budget bill, in which $75 million was approved for counterterrorism operations in Yemen and East Africa.

The Kenyan incursion into Somalia was, according to some critics, impulsive and not thoroughly planned. According to the Obama Administration, Kenya did not coordinate with the U.S. in advance of the incursion, nor did Kenya fully consider the cost of the operation. A month after sending troops, Nairobi requested U.S. assistance in the form of military surveillance and reconnaissance. Kenya is a strategic partner in the fight against al-Shabaab, but it did itself no favors with poor planning and lack of communication with Washington.

Kenya, like Uganda, which suffered al-Shabaab attacks during the World Cup in 2010 for its participation in AMISOM, will continue to be on high alert for terrorist activity. However, unlike Uganda, Kenya shares a border with Somalia and will likely continue to suffer blowback from neighboring terrorists.

Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

A Dangerous Marriage in Northern Mali

kalel — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 14:30:18 +0000

Just as we thought the situation in Mali couldn’t get worse, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA), a Tuareg group that historically sought to liberate northern Mali, and Ansar al-Din, an Islamic group seeking impose Sharia law, have formed a union and declared northern Mali their own.

However, the two groups are still working through their disagreements, particularly on the implementation of Sharia law. The MNLA is calling for a “tolerant” and “moderate” brand of Islam, while Ansar al-Din, which has notable affiliations with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, seeks to impose a severe version of Sharia and “would be willing to cut off hands and heads if the Koran required it.” Locals are now fleeing the region as they fear this form of extreme Sharia law will be imposed.

Political stability in Mali has quickly spiraled out of control. Since March, more than 300,000 people have been displaced, the interim president was bloodied by disgruntled civilians, and the north is now under control of rebel groups with malevolent intentions. The Malian interim government, the United States, and the Economic Community of West African States have all rejected Azawad as an independent state and want to reunify the country. But progress is slow, and extremism is asserting regional influence.

Since 2005, the U.S. counterterrorism strategy for Mali has been based on the Trans Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP). Created under the Bush Administration, the TSCTP is a two-pronged strategy that builds security capacity and trains the Malian military while also taking steps to stem extremism amongst the civilian population.

TSCTP was in effect, a strategy to prevent the current crisis from erupting. At an event at The Heritage Foundation last month, the State Department’s Manoela Borges reassured the audience that State is aware of the problem and taking it seriously but offered little indication of how the Administration intends to improve the strategy.

With no leadership in Mali’s capital city of Bamako and clashing interests in the north, there are few signs that the crisis will be resolved any time soon.

Prudence Ukwishatse contributed to this blog post. Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

The Ban on Big Drinks: New York Supersizes the Nanny State

kalel — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 02:30:13 +0000

Yesterday’s proposal by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to limit sugary drinks in the Big Apple left a sour taste in the mouths of Americans nationwide.

Criticism spanned the political spectrum, as consumers expressed outrage over the plan to ban sweetened beverages in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces. Even comedy newscaster Jon Stewart—hardly known as an anti-regulation ideologue—took a shot, noting that the proposed ban “combines the draconian government overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect.”

Stewart is right. We can only hope that the idea fizzles out like a day-old bottle of Coke.

The ban, meant to reduce obesity among New Yorkers, would apply to restaurants and delis, movie theaters, stadiums, and even street vendors. On the forbidden list would be all drinks in a container exceeding 16 ounces that contains sugar, unless it is 70 percent or more fruit juice or milk. The plan will be put before the city’s Board of Health for approval, bypassing the city council.

The plan has so many flaws it is hard to know where to begin. Even putting aside the questionable science—the connection between soda and obesity is far from clear—the plan is unlikely to have the trimming effect on Big Apple waistlines that the mayor seeks.

Customers at fast-food restaurants, for instance, could easily circumvent the limits with free refills (unless the city also caps the number of trips to the dispenser). More broadly, even if consumers’ soda intake is reduced, what’s to keep them from getting their sugar fix elsewhere, perhaps using the money saved on sodas to buy a candy bar or two?

It’s the regulatory equivalent of squeezing a balloon. Restricting one poor nutrition option doesn’t mean the alternatives chosen will not be equally poor—especially if people are as ignorant or apathetic about their own health as the mayor seems to believe.

Contempt for consumers is, in fact, at the heart of this proposal. It has a distinct smell of elitism about it. It is built on the fundamental assumption that the Great Unwashed who drink carbonated beverages can’t be entrusted with their own health. These poor unfortunates should not be allowed to waste their money on Mountain Dew; they should be spending it on vanilla lattes as their betters do.

One commentator observed that “it’s notable that a 24-ounce McDonald’s Coke (with 81g of sugar) would be banned, but the much pricier 24-ounce Starbucks White Chocolate Mocha Frappucino (with 87g of sugar) would likely not, due to its milk content.”

Of course, the restrictions are hardly likely to expand beyond the currently proposed definitions. If sodas are to be restricted, why not fruit juices, which are also high in sugar? The idea isn’t far fetched. Anti-obesity advocate Barry Popkin, for instance, urges that consumers eat whole fruits instead of juices.

It’s hard to see where this will all end. As the editors of the Los Angeles Times suggest, the “next logical step would be to require restaurants to serve vegetables with every food order, or to require every New Yorker to join a health club, or to ban ice cream.”

Such worries sound fanciful today, dismissed as the product of overactive regulatory imaginations. But the same could be said of banning big sodas just a few years ago.

Americans are right to be outraged at Bloomberg’s proposal. The message they should send to him and other would-be regulatory nannies: Put a lid on it.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Iran Targets U.S. Diplomats for Terrorist Attacks

kalel — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:29:55 +0000

While the Obama Administration remains wedded to the diplomatic engagement of Iran, Iran remains wedded to terrorism, including plots against U.S. diplomats. The Washington Post reported earlier this week that U.S. officials are accumulating mounting evidence that Iran ordered terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomats stationed in Azerbaijan, as well as members of their families. The Azerbaijan plot appears to have been part of a larger Iranian campaign to assassinate foreign diplomats, including Israeli and Saudi diplomats, in at least seven countries over 13 months.

Some of the members of the terrorist ring arrested by Azerbaijani authorities were also members of criminal networks. This pattern, which helps give Tehran plausible deniability for the operation, has been seen in previous Iranian terrorist plots, including the foiled plot revealed last October to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States by bombing his favorite Washington, D.C., restaurant. That plot unraveled after an Iranian agent tried to enlist a member of a Mexican drug cartel, who turned out to be a confidential informant for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that Iran is increasingly willing to launch a terrorist attack on American soil. Despite wishful thinking in some quarters that the Washington plot was a rogue operation, the involvement of high-ranking officers of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps indicates that responsibility lies at the highest levels of the Iranian regime.

A noteworthy aspect of the Washington plot was the involvement of members of the Quds Force, the elite special operations unit within the Revolutionary Guards that serves as the spearhead of Iran’s Islamist revolution and functions as a liaison with foreign revolutionaries and terrorist groups. Abdul Reza Shahlai, a key Quds Force commander implicated in the plot, also led a terrorist operation in Iraq that killed five American servicemen. The Quds Force also supported attacks in Iraq by radical Shia militias and provided sophisticated explosive devices that killed many American soldiers in Iraq.

The revolutionary Shia Islamist regime in Tehran sees itself as the leader of the Islamic world and the champion of its struggle against the West, particularly the United States. Since Iran’s 1979 revolution, its leaders have used terrorism to defeat their internal rivals, consolidate power, advance Iran’s foreign policy goals, intimidate smaller countries, and expel Western influence from the Middle East.

The Revolutionary Guards have long played a key role in Iran’s terror strategy. They were directly involved in establishing, training, arming, and directing the operations of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia Islamist revolutionary organization. Iran used Hezbollah as a surrogate in many terrorist attacks, including the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon—the bloodiest terrorist attack in U.S. history before 9/11.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards also played a role in the June 25, 1996, bombing of the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen.

Iran’s long history as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism is a major reason why the United States cannot permit it to develop one of the world’s most terrifying weapons—a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately, while the Obama Administration has dispatched diplomats to defuse the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Tehran has dispatched terrorists to target U.S. diplomats.Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Source material can be found at this site.