Friday, December 2, 2016

Muhammad and Today’s Child Brides

Bernie Power

Muhammad and Today’s Child Brides



Only Islam offers such high-level scriptural endorsement, prophetic example and legislative justification for the arranged marriages of young girls and much older men. The future of a friend’s fourteen-year-old neighbour in Melbourne demands that this abomination be addressed

child brideI received a phone call today from a friend in Melbourne asking for advice. A Muslim family lives nearby and their fourteen year old daughter confided in him: “I think my mum is arranging a marriage for me, and I am scared. I don’t want it.” My friend has now contacted the Australian Federal Police, and an investigation has started.

This is not an isolated incident. NSW Family and Community Services Minister Brad Hazzard recently declared that “there is a tsunami of young girls, some as young as nine, who are being taken overseas and being forced to become child brides … The imams in the Muslim community need to speak up more, and indeed any other religious leaders in communities who might pursue this practice.”  Muslims Australia president Kaiser Trad claimed to be shocked by the reports, asserting that “one of the conditions for a marriage to be valid under Islamic teachings is consent. For anybody to force a young lady or a young man into a marriage against their will is wrong.” He was not quote as condemning child marriage per se.

A study of Muslim texts reveals that it was practised in the early Islamic period, even by the prophet Muhammad himself. His third wife, Aisha, was daughter of his best friend Abu Bakr. The marriage took place when she was six years old and was consummated when Aisha turned nine. Multiple texts in authentic hadiths (authoritative traditions) attest to these ages. Informants include Aisha herself,[1] Hisham’s father,[2] and Ursa.[3] Aisha reported: “He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.”[4]   She also noted: “The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls.”[5]

Apparently Aisha had not yet reached puberty. Al-Asqalani’s celebrated commentary on al-Bukhari’s hadith makes this comment about Aisha’s childhood amusement: “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. (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Another Hadith describes her sitting in the mosque with Muhammad as “a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty).” (Sahih al-Bukhari 7:163)

Rules regarding pre-pubescent marriages are described in the Qur’an in Q.65:4. The iddah is the required waiting period for a previously-married female before she could marry another man. The Hilali and Khan translation states that “for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months.” Daryabadi’s translation presents it as: “their waiting period is three months… of those who have not yet menstruated.” Shakir translates it as: “their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses [They are physically immature].”

The most famous commentaries (tafsir) on the Qur’an agree. Ibn Kathir states: “The same is for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their iddah is three months.”  Tafsir al-Jalalayn notes that for “those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months.” Muhammad’s cousin Ibn Abbas presents this verse as being revealed due to a query. “Another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” Muhammad’s reply was: “Because of young age, their waiting period is three months.” Al-Wahidi’s book Asbab al-Nuzul identifies the questioner as the famous reciter of the Qur’an Ubayy ibn Ka’b. The description of the girls is “‘those who are too young [such that they have not started menstruating yet].”

It seems that these child marriages must have been previously consummated, otherwise no waiting period would have been required before re-marriage. Hilali and Khan translate Qur’an 33:49  as follows: “O you who believe! When you marry believing women, and then divorce them before you have sexual intercourse with them, no ‘Iddah [divorce prescribed period, see (V.65:4)] have you to count in respect of them.”

Pakistani scholar Abul A’la Maududi concludes that these verses and commentary constitute divine sanction for child marriage. “Making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held as permissible.”

Others have reached the same conclusion. Ayatollah Khomeini, on coming to power in Iran, proposed reducing the permissible age of marriage for girls from eighteen to nine years old.[6] Ibn Baz, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia (1993-1999) gave the following fatwa: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) married `Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) when she was 6 or 7 years old and he (peace be upon him) consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old. His actions (peace be upon him) are legislation to this Ummah (nation based on one creed). The Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet, may Allah be pleased with them all) also used to marry when they were young and old, without any specifications on age. No one has the right to impose laws other than those laid down by Allah and His Messenger or to change them, as they are sufficient.”[7]

Child marriages continue to take place throughout the Muslim world. On April 30, 2009, the Saudi Gazette reported that a girl of eight years old had won a divorce from a man in his fifties, despite a Saudi judge twice rejecting her appeal. The girl’s father had arranged the marriage to pay off a debt. Earlier in the year, the country’s highest religious authority, the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Shaikh, said it was not against Islamic law to marry off girls who are 15 and younger.[8]

Nujood Ali, a Yemeni girl, won the Glamour Magazine Woman of the Year award in 2008 along with the lawyer who facilitated her divorce when she was only eight years old. Beaten by her in-laws and raped by her husband, Nujood fled to the court two months after her wedding. She earned praise from Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice for her courage.[9]

The legal age of marriage in Jordan is 18 years old, but a waiver can be given with the authorisation of two judges. UNICEF reports that 8% of Jordanian girls are married before 18. Amongst Syrian refugee girls in Jordan, the under-age marriage rate is a staggering 32%, reportedly to protect the girls from rape.[10]

Child marriage is not just an Arab phenomenon. “Malaysia’s government says it’s considering amending civil and shariah law to ban underage marriages, which are considered a common way to lower the number of children born out of wedlock and those which are abandoned.

This comes in response to public opposition to comments made by the chief minister of the state of Malacca, encouraging underage marriages. Datuk Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, the federal minister for women, family and community development, says child marriages are morally and socially unacceptable. She says the government wants to bring laws in line with United Nations human rights treaties which Malaysia has ratified. Ivy Josiah of the Women Aids Organisation in Malaysia stated:

“There have been marriages between nine year olds and 40 year olds and ten year olds and 30 year olds …This is not right – even though it’s provided for in the Islamic shariah law.”[11] Although civil law sets the minimum age of marriage at eighteen, Islamic law allows earlier marriages, with no set age limit, with the permission of a syariah (Sharia) court, and State Chief Ministers can also give such permission.  In 2010, the Women, Family and Community Development deputy minister reported that 16,000 girls aged below 15 in Malaysia were married. Amendments to the federal Child Act in April 2016 did not address this anomaly, despite public calls to do so.[12]

Pakistan’s Tribune newspaper reports developments:

“Another move to ban child marriages in Pakistan has fallen at the first hurdle. The bill to prohibit underage marriages has been withdrawn after the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) declared it un-Islamic. The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony rejected the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2014 after the CII dubbed it ‘anti-Islamic’ and ‘blasphemous’. The CII has already ruled the minimum age stipulated for marriage in the Child Marriages Restriction Act of 1929 does not comply with Islamic laws. In May 2014, amid severe criticism from various quarters, the council had endorsed its earlier ruling that girls as young as nine years old were eligible to be married “if the signs of puberty are visible”.[13]

Kaiser Trad’s comment about consent from both parties being necessary is correct. However the requirements for such agreement are not very stringent. In a discussion between Muhammad and his child-bride in the authentic hadith, Aisha reported: “I asked the Prophet, “O Allah’s Apostle! Should the women be asked for their consent to their marriage?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “A virgin, if asked, feels shy and keeps quiet.” He said, “Her silence means her consent.” (alBukhari 9:79). In another version, the account goes like this:  Aisha reported: “Allah’s Apostle said, “It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage). I said, “A virgin feels shy.” The Prophet said, “Her silence means her consent.” (alBukhari 9:101, 100 also 7:68).

Although child marriage is practised by other religions and ethnic groups, only Islam offers it such high-level scriptural endorsement, prophetic example and legislative justification. These are significant hurdles for the Islamic community to overcome. Much courage and a serious re-interpretation of the ancient texts and the life of Muhammad will be required to resolve this ongoing problem. The future of the world’s Muslim children, including my friend’s fourteen-year-old neighbour in Melbourne, will depend on how this challenge is addressed.

Dr Bernie Power lectures in Islamic Studies at the Melbourne School of Theology. His book, Understanding Jesus and Muhammad, has been short-listed for Australian Christian Book of the Year.



[1] Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari 5:234; 7:64,65,90; Sahih Muslim 3309, 3311, 5133
[2] Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari 5:236
[3] Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari 7:88
[4] Hadith Sunan Abu Dawud 2116
[5]Hadith Sunan an-Nasa’i 3380
[6] Haleh Afshar Iran, Islam and Democracy: Fluid Identities (Melbourne University: Centre for the Study of Contemporary Islam, 2006), 7
[7]  http://www.alifta.net/Fatawa/FatawaChapters.aspx?languagename=en&View=Page&PageID=285&PageNo=1&BookID=14
[10] http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/jordan/
[12] https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/29/time-ban-child-marriage-malaysia

9/11 Mastermind Reveals Trump’s Plan to Fight Terrorists Works

9/11 Mastermind Reveals Trump’s Plan to Fight Terrorists Works

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265006/911-mastermind-reveals-trumps-plan-fight-daniel-greenfield



Khalid Sheikh Mohammed shows anti-war leftists were playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

8
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

The left aided Islamic terrorists most not with street protests, but by embedding counterintuitive narratives into the framework of counterterrorism. These narratives turned reality on its head.
In counterterrorism, counterintuitive narratives transformed inaction into a virtue.

One of the most pervasive myths was that Islamic terrorists actually wanted us to fight them and that we could only defeat them by ignoring them. The irrationality of the myth that terrorists wanted us to bomb and kill them was exceeded only by its persistence among experts and political officials.

Popularly known as “Playing into their hands”, the goal of this counterintuitive narrative was to make the ostrich approach appear prudent and masterful while flipping around patriotism by accusing national security hawks of playing into the hands of the terrorists by killing them.

Only the appeasers had the secret to defeating Islamic terrorism while the patriots were truly traitors.

Trump faced repeated accusation from Hillary and her proxies that he was playing into the hands of ISIS with calls to get tough on Islamic terrorism. And you can expect the smear that he’s playing into the hands of the terrorists by bombing and killing them to recur throughout his administration.

But the myth has been shredded by James E. Mitchell's book, “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying To Destroy America.” As the man who helped the CIA break terrorists, Mitchell had written the “book” on effective methods for fighting Islamic terror. And now he actually wrote the book on what the terrorists really wanted and fear.

And no, they didn’t want to be bombed. We weren’t “playing into their hands” by killing them or by making it harder for them to come to America. It was the left that was playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.
And that still is.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, revealed that Al Qaeda shared the leftist panic and disaster over Bush’s “cowboy” approach to fighting terrorists. The United States had backed down from Islamic terrorists so many times that they had come to take our defeatism for granted. Al Qaeda didn’t have a masterful plan to lure us into Afghanistan, as the left liked to insist, instead it expected President Bush to follow in Clinton’s footsteps by delivering an empty speech and then writing it off as a law enforcement problem. Much as Obama had done with Benghazi.

It wasn’t expecting the roar of jets over Kandahar.

“How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’’ Khalid Sheikh Mohammed whined.

“KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks”, but instead Al Qaeda and its plans for the next wave of attacks were crushed “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.”

Like Saddam’s WMDs, the left has made great sport of the lack of major follow-up attacks by Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda couldn’t follow up because it was under too much pressure. Unsurprisingly, killing terrorists actually worked. Unknown numbers of American lives were saved because President Bush believed that killing terrorists was more effective than appeasing them.

The left had always insisted on treating 9/11 as a law enforcement matter. That is why Obama aggressively pushed to move Islamic terrorists into criminal courts. Even his Osama bin Laden bid was only an effort to capture the top Al Qaeda terrorist so that he could put him on trial in a criminal court.

“My belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda,” Obama had argued, showcasing a typical counterintuitive narrative myth.

Osama’s death proved to be a lucky political break for Obama, but he hadn’t been trying to fight terror. Instead he was working to appease it.

Various counterintuitive narratives were invoked in defense of this bad policy, including the “Playing into their hands” myth. But now we know that it was leftists who were playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

The mastermind of 9/11 wanted us to send the cops after Al Qaeda. He wasn’t looking to dance with an A-10. And had Bill Clinton turned over the White House to Al Gore instead of George W. Bush, 9/11 would have been far more devastating as the opening round of a series of major Islamic terror attacks.

Another great counterintuitive myth is that Islamic immigration, which provides fertile recruiting ground for foreign terror groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to pursue their Jihad on America using operatives already embedded in the country, is actually the best way to fight Islamic terrorism.

When Trump called for a ban on Muslim migration, counterintuitive narratives were deployed that accused him, once again, of playing into the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Islamic immigration, the counterintuitive myth claimed, disproved the claims of Islamic terrorists about America. The more Muslim migrants we took in, the more Muslims would come to love us and reject Islamic terrorism.

But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed revealed that he did not oppose Islamic immigration. He viewed it as the certain way for Muslims to defeat America and the free world. Islamic terrorism was a short range gamble. The “moonshot” of Islamic conquest wasn’t terrorism, it was Muslim migration to the West.

And even in the short term, Islamic terror was still enabled by Islamic immigration.

"Jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States” and “wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws’ while continuing their attacks,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted.

While the counterintuitive narrative deeply embedded in CVE insists that Islamist “civil rights” groups like CAIR are our best “partners” in fighting Islamic terrorism and that extending every possible legal protection to Islamic terrorists will help discredit them, Mohammed saw Islamic migration and the whole Islamist civil rights scam enabled by the radicals at the ACLU and elsewhere, as cover for Islamic terrorism.

All of this is obvious to any thinking person who possesses enough common sense to come out of the rain. So why did so many important people fall for the counterintuitive myths of counterterrorism?

The strange seductiveness of counterintuitive narratives lies in their rejection of common sense solutions. Instead they follow the standard leftist pattern of descending into the matrix of a logically illogical system which is internally consistent, but makes no sense when applied to the real world.

Counterintuitive narratives make elites and experts feel smart for appearing to transcend common sense to grasp deeper insights into human nature and how the world works. Such gnostic revelations are a big part of the left’s appeal, particularly to college students, but these mythologies are a myth.

The left loves to play with language, but word games don’t change reality. They just seduce those who consider themselves bright into believing that their cleverness is more meaningful than reality.
But eventually the ivory towers fall, the sand castles are washed away by the tide and the lies die.

Common sense was always right. Killing terrorists works. Appeasing them doesn’t. Terrorists are broken through pressure, not milk and cookies. Trump’s proposals work. Those of the left only enable terrorism.

“America will expose her neck for us to slaughter,” Mohammed predicted. And it did.

But just as the mastermind of September 11 had not anticipated what President Bush would do, Islamic terrorists never saw President Trump coming.


Share

UPDATE: Video on Muslim terrorist group priming for WAR against the US



This is an update on the news posted at the Rebel last night. Ryan Morrow of the Clarion Project explains that they are using terms of art, such as "defending the faith," to explain why they are arming up.

In Islam, "defending the faith" is used to justify jihad against any agency that seeks to prevent the spread of, and dominance of Islam in any given area.
It does not mean "defence" in the usual way we think of it, but as an excuse for offensive behaviour.
Explaining how this works in this video is Clare Lopez, former CIA agent and field trainer who specializes in Islam.

The website for the guest's organization: The Fuqra Files.

http://www.therebel.media/update_video_on_muslim_terrorist_group_priming_for_war_against_the_us

Thursday, December 1, 2016

MEF Monthly Newsletter - December 2016



Dear Readers:

My name is Gregg Roman and I’m director of the Middle East Forum. I’d like to introduce this second issue of MEF Monthly with some interesting news from 2016.

Oscar Wilde wrote that "You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies" and the same holds true for an organization. In 2016, MEF’s enemies came in hard and fast:

When George Soros' hacked emails were dumped on the internet for public scrutiny, it exposed an application for funding from the Center for American Progress to his Open Society Foundations, to "research and track the activities of the most prominent drivers of Islamophobia," specifically naming the Middle East Forum.

After Campus Watch uncovered the troubling ties of San Francisco State University to a Palestinian institution, the Middle East Studies Association proceeded to attack MEF for the supposed "harassment” of the professor who led the effort “for her political views" and named MEF as one of several "politically motivated nonacademic organizations which seek to stifle perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." That then rallied the anti-Israel brigades, the opponents of academic accountability, and apologists for terrorism. Of course, none of them addressed the real issues we raised.

The Southern Poverty Law Center labeled MEF President Daniel Pipes a "prominent anti-Muslim extremist" in its recently published "media guide", an act that got it widely condemned, including in Tablet Magazine and National Review.

An alert customer of British internet provider O2 noticed that the company effectively censored DanielPipes.org; when pushed to justify this, the British Board of Film Classification quickly apologized and overturned the ban.

When Sam Westrop, the research director at Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT) was sued in Great Britain by Mohammed Ali Harrath of the Islamist-oriented Islam Channel, who Westrop (correctly) called a "convicted terrorist," MEF helped Westrop hire a barrister and launch a rigorous defense based on truth.

On learning that the Erdoğan regime imprisoned Middle East Quarterly contributor and former Turkish ambassador Tuncay Babali on absurd charges of having collaborating in the July 15
th coup d’état, MEF launched a Facebook campaign exposing over 2.5 million people to our writings critical of the regime.

In other cases, the Forum went on the offensive, and won.

We defeated the notorious anti-Israel and pro-Islamist UK politician George Galloway in London’s High Court. The Legal Project funded the successful defamation action brought by Galloway’s ex aide, Aisha Ali-Khan, who Galloway accused of conspiring with the UK Counter-Terrorism Command to run a “campaign of dirty tricks” against him. He has since then withdrawn the allegations, and agreed to pay legal costs and damages.

When a federal district judge in 2010 summarily dismissed a Forum-funded fraud lawsuit against the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), MEF continued financially to back the plaintiffs until a U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the decision, delivering another legal victory for the Forum.

After this tumultuous year, the one ahead promises to be exciting for those who fight Islamismpromote sound US Mideast policy, and warn of Islamist incursions into our constitutional order. Indeed, MEF is doubling down on its commitment to promote American interests in the Middle East and protect American values from Middle Eastern threats. The work begun 23 years ago by Daniel Pipes continues, stronger than ever.

I invite you to join us.

Sincerely,

Gregg Roman

Director
Middle East Forum



PHOTOGRAPHS: (FROM TOP LEFT TO BOTTON RIGHT)
  1. Turkish citizens protest a proposed law in Ankara to free 3,000 men who married children, including men who raped them, from MEF fellow Burak Bekdil's recent article, "Turkey Weighs Freedom for Child Rapists".
     
  2. Rep. Keith Ellison's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, past support of Louis Farrakhan, and use of apologetics for Palestinian jihad are wrong for the DNC, as contended by MEF research fellow Oren Litwin in his recent piece, "Ellison's  Extremism Wrong for the DNC".
     
  3. U.S. Middle East envoy John Wolf meets with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas in June 2008, exemplifying MEF president Daniel Pipes' case for "America's Know-Nothing Diplomacy".
     
  4. PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, and foreign minister Shimon Peres received the Nobel Peace Prize following the signing of the 1993 Oslo accords, an event MEQ editor Efraim Karsh describes as a "strategic blunder" in "Why the Oslo Process Doomed Peace".



  • MEF's Washington Project gathered bipartisan support for a bill reaffirming longstanding United States policy in support of a direct bilaterally negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and opposition to United Nations Security Council resolutions imposing a solution to the conflict, negating President Obama's effort to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian State at the United Nations.
     
  • MEF's Jihad Intel research fellow, Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi documented Islamic State leadership in Mosul, discovering the group is mostly Iraqi and local to Ninawa province, having embedded itself as an underground mafia network for years, before the fall of Mosul city to ISIS in summer 2014.


  • MEF vigorously promoted the work of anti-Islamist Muslim writing fellows, including: Burak Bekdil who writes critically about Turkey’s Islamist president and laments the lack of press freedom in TurkeyTarek Fatah who sees radical Islam as the cause of Brexit and calls on Canada to address the threat of jihad; Raheem Kassam who shows how migrants are committing disproportionately high rates of crime in Germany and confronts London’s new Muslim mayor over his extremist past; and Hilal Khashan who surveys religious intolerance in the Gulf States.
     
  • After exposing an ill-conceived student exchange program in the U.S., MEF's Campus Watch initiative and Washington Project met with staff of Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), member of the House Education Committee; Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on National Security; and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Campus Watch and the Washington Project subsequently sent letters to the chairs and ranking members of the nine congressional committees with jurisdiction over the issue, requesting federal action to prevent American universities from forming alliances with terrorist friendly overseas institutions.


  • MEF Education Fund grantee, Stop the ISM, infiltrated the anti-Israel International Solidarity Movement, as well as other BDS-supporting organizations, exposing their inner workings and identifying key leaders,
    leading to a new Israeli government task force dedicated to deporting these anti-Israel activists.

     
  • ​​MEF Education Fund grantee, Palestinian Media Watch, provided evidence to Israeli authorities that Al-Aqsa Mosque preacher Khaled Al-Mughrabi incited the murder of Jews. The result: Mughrabi was arrested, convicted of incitement, and sentenced to 11 months in jail.


Web Editor and Research Fellow - Gary Gambill

Gary C. Gambill has been associated with the Middle East Forum for nearly fifteen years, first as editor of the online publication Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (2002-2004) and moderator of its New York lecture series (2003-2004), then later as general editor (2011) and writing fellow (2012-2013). Since 2014, Gary has served as the Forum's research fellow and web editor. Click here to follow Gary Gambill on Facebook.

“I’m also kind of a roaming op-ed editor and placement coordinator, working with writing fellows, directors and staff on an ongoing basis.” Gambill told MEF Monthly. After focusing most of his research and writing on Lebanon and Syria for years, Gambill has migrated to other subjects where he says the “interesting puzzles” are, writing a series of well-received articles on the Iranian nuclear program last year and now two articles into a series on anti-Semitism. But Gambill says he’s an editor at heart. “It’s much more fun working with others to better develop their arguments than figuring out what I want to say.”


Tuesday, December 7th
Parlor Meeting with Daniel Pipes in Boston
A special briefing on the Syrian civil war, the prospect of US support for a Palestinian state, a post-election assessment of MidEast policy, and a report on developments on Middle East studies at North American universities. (This is a complimentary event for MEF supporters contributing $250 or more per year.)

December 8th through December 16th
Lunch with Daniel Pipes in New York and California
Join MEF president Daniel Pipes for lunch and a Middle East briefing. Mr. Pipes will offer a tour d'horizon, touching on Trump administration options, the prospect of Obama’s coming out for a Palestinian state, developments in the region, and report on his just-completed trip to 10 heavily populated migrant areas in Europe. (Complimentary for MEF supporters contributing $250 or more per year.)
  • December 8th in Manhattan - Click here to RSVP
  • December 9th in Manhattan - Sold Out!
  • December 12th in Los Angeles - Click here to RSVP
  • December 13th in Los Angeles - Click here to RSVP
  • December 16th in San Francisco - Click here to RSVP

The Middle East Forum is a Philadelphia-based think tank working to define and promote American
interests in the Middle East and protect Western values from Middle Eastern threats.







Middle East Forum
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103