Thursday, 12 November 2009

Why a woman should leave Islam

1.That my religion’s founder called women, “a toy” (Tuffaha, Ahmad Zaky, Al-Mar’ah wal-Islam, Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani, Beirut, first edition, 1985, p. 180)

2.That my religion forces my sister and mother to wear a burka, long sleeved shirt (and maybe even a jacket to which I have seen women have to wear!) even in 120 degree weather

3.That even if my sister and mother do wear this crap, they still are groped, pinched, harassed and even raped!

4.That my dad can beat my mother and not even be asked about it (Ibn-Kathir, “a man must not be asked why he beat his wife.” -sura 4:34)

5.That my dad can force my mother to be in her room as long as he wants

6.That my sister’s and mother’s testimony automatically means one half a man’s testimony just because they are women! (sura 2:11)

7.That my own clerics defend the rape of non-muslim women by muslim men CALLING IT THE FAULT OF THE WOMEN!


9.That my god was the pagan moon-god of the Arabians

10.That my founder Prophet Mohammad married a 6 year old girl

11.That whenever truth is brought out about my founder, my own people will threaten to kill those who are bringing out the truth

12.That my fellow-believer (who are restaurant and pastry owners) are putting crap in their food when they sell it to non-muslims

13.That my fellow-believers can throw gasoline upon a woman (even if she steps outside the house and talks to a man!) set her ablaze AND CALL IT AN “HONOR KILLING!”

14.That many of my clerics around the world are calling for bloodshed against the non-Muslim

15.That my own holy book condones war against the non-muslim

16.That those who deny my holy book condones war against the non-muslim are “watering down” my holy book just to make it say something they want it or not want it to say

17.That those who “water down” my holy book matters well do that to the whole koran

18.That my holy book says god “leads those who he will” and “misleads those who he will.”

19.That Saudi textbooks call Christians “swine” and Jews “condemnable” AFTER MY OWN LEADERS TRY TO APPEASE THEM TO THEIR FACES HAVING A DOUBLE-STANDARD!

20.That my leaders will keep blaming Israel and the US for it’s own troubles!

21.That sexual intercourse is ONLY for the man, and not the woman (contemporary Muslim commentator)

22.That my mom has to please my dad at all times in order for her to enter paradise (Hadith no. ii, 60)

23.That although women outnumber men in hell, she MAY be able to slip into paradise ONLY if she is totally obedient, and TOTALLY pleasing to her husband at the time of her death.

24.That it is said, “When a woman comes she comes in the form of a devil.” (Hadith no. 3240).

25.That it is said, “The support of the woman (nafaaqa) is obligatory on the man in return for the woman being locked up in the man’s house, and for being exclusively his.” (’Abd ar-Rahman al-Gaziri, al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Mazahibib al-Arba’a, Dar al-Kutub al-’EElmeyah, 1990, vol. 4, pg. 495.)

26.THAT A MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO PREVENT HIS WIFE FROM CARING FOR HER CHILD FROM A PREVIOUS MARRIAGE (”The husband has the right to prevent his wife form looking after and breast feeding her baby, from her previous husband, (if she was living in the husband’s house), because that will make her too busy to attend to the husband, and it will affect her beauty and cleanliness, all these are the rights of the husband alone.” (Hanafites.–’Abd ar-Rahman al-Gaziri, 1990, vol. 4., p. 488.)

27.That when Islamists complain about how “they are treated” in other countries, in their own countries they burn churches, kidnap non-Muslim women, persecute them and even kill them if they convert from Islam calling it “honor killing” (like, the guy in Saudi Arabia–never prosecuted for cutting out his daughter’s tongue and brutally killing her.

28.That “Honor killings” are not prosecuted even if it’s a Muslim daughter or wife.

Monday, 2 November 2009


Political correctness is becoming the joke of the century, when the smallest things we say are made into a big platform where citizens can sue one another for the most trivial of comments. Ideally, Political Correctness is supposed to seek to minimize social offense in gender, cultural, racial, handicap, and age-related contexts, however it fails on all of the above.

It fails because the public has lost touch with reality and become over-sensitive. But make no mistake, this over-sensitiveness is not literally that. It is simply an excuse to sue another person for an alleged injury to their feelings. I can still remember the days when suing someone was an action reserved as a last resort, and only for "real damages" that have been caused to the person. And I also remember thinking at the time, that suing for "slander" and for "defamation" were downright ridiculous, as even a playground child could "defame or slander".

Of course, if the slander and defamations do cause a considerable damage to someone's character to the point of this person losing his job or his children, or something similar, then the cause is justified, as there has been a proven loss as a direct result of these actions. But let's get real, shall we? Sometimes these complaints go too far! There are black people suing white people for calling them blacks, for instance! So what are they? Pink? Have people lost their pride in their own races now?

The other day I read from a BBC website that police officers could face disciplinary charges for saying: "Nitty gritty" as it supposedly dates from the slavery era. Oh please!! Even if it does, so what? So now we are not allowed to use words from our ancient tongues? Are we not allowed to conjure the real meaning of words, just because some 20th century moron has changed its meaning?

I lost count of all the times I have been referred to as: "Jew bag", and many other things using the prefix "Jew" before it. Surely the people meant to upset me, but why should I be upset? I am a Jew after all. Do I care about them using the word Jew before insulting me? Of course not!!

In this world, we will always be insulted, whether we did something wrong or not. Insults are part of our language. They can be denigrating, and offensive, and they can even cause you a bit of upset, but what's wrong with developing a thick skin to deal with such people? What is wrong with taking it on the chin and giving it as good as you get?
So for everytime we get insulted we should use public funds to ask a Lawyer to defend us from these oh-so-vile-insults? No wonder Britain is in Crisis!

The funniest thing I have seen so far was the Manhole covers being renamed as "Personnel Access Units" to avoid offending women.
Now, isn't this ridiculous? I am a woman and I certainly do not feel offended a manhole cover.
Obviously whoever concocted Political Correctness was not speaking for me, nor for millions of other people, so why should we accept it, I ask you?

I was shocked to discover that about £300,000 of public money has been spent teaching civil servants to avoid using everyday words such as 'bedlam','manila' and 'bulldozer'. The words were outlawed by the Welsh Development Agency because they are considered racially abusive.

Right, so if I call someone a bedlam, manila or a bulldozer, it means I am racially abusing this person? This has to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard, and coming from "The Welsh Development Agency" is particularly worrying, as it makes me wonder what kind of saddos work for such department, and do nothing but spend public money on idiotic projects that ILLEGALLY outlaw words from the English language. I don't remember being asked about this. Nor do I remember our government passing referendums to ask people what they thought of these changes. And as such, they do NOT speak for me.

Soon they will outlaw the use of the words: "Dutch courage", which in their sad little minds might imply that the people from Holland are only brave after a drink.

In total honesty these absurdities make me laugh, because we can never laugh enough about human stupidity, right? But what is sad about it, is that although these things are downright idiotic, there are people in our government who can be far more idiotic than that to actually listen to such nonsense and outlaw the use of these terms. But remember, NOT IN MY NAME!

As if all this was not enough, we come to problems caused directly by our officials' nonsense; when a person can be sued/disciplined/imprisoned for the most absurd of things, such as stating that he does not like a particular religion, or a group of people. C'mon people, when will we recover our intellect? Aren't humans set apart from the other animals for their "FREE CHOICE"? So, what is wrong with choosing what you like and want for yourself? Do I have to be considered a racist if I don't want to date black men? Will I be a racist if I do not like Russian men? Excuse me, I have my own tastes, and I decide what I want, not the government.

I met a black woman who did not want to date a black man. She always preferred white men. Is she therefore racist?

Can you understand the point I am trying to make?

I believe that it is OK to like and dislike things, this is all part of Human Nature. Just as I believe it is fair to choose what you want for yourself, without being abominantly discriminated by those who are iddle in mind and spirit. It is no one's business if some prefer black men or chinese men as partners. It is no one's business if they choose to like a particular group of people and dislike another. Maybe they have reasons for it. We cannot change human nature, although some are desperately trying to do so, but they will fail as all the others before them. The world may have changed, the situations in our lives might have changed, but we cannot change our very nature.

Political correctness (more like political idiocy) does not apply only towards our words you know? Oh no, they also apply to what we wear. I am sure most of us will remember the case of Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida who was sent home after refusing to remove the crucifix which alledgedly breached BA's dress code.I wonder who complained about this lady wearing such a small crucifix, the symbol of her faith, on her neck. But the hypocrite British Airways makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans. Now, what is all this about? A Christian citizen of Britain cannot wear a symbol of her faith but the immigrant minorities can? When was that passed as a law, may I ask?

Anti-Shariah demo

After the fundamentalist group ISLAM 4 UK, headed by Anjem Choudary in conjunction with al-Muhajiroun, cancelled their demonstration asking for Shariah law to be implemented in the UK, alleging threats from right-wing/anti-Islamic organisations, a number of Muslims and non-Muslims took to the square to speak out against Shariah nevertheless.

It was a refreshing sight to see so many Muslims joining us in our struggle, and holding placards saying:





The march for UK group was also present, raising citizens' morale by flying the St. George's Flag, the symbol of England, proudly.

Amongst some 300 anti-shariah activists, there was a lot of press, and many multi-racial small groups debating amongst themselves, while some journalists nearby started taking notes before joining the groups for a clearer opinion. All in all it was a day of high spirits and great atmosphere, with the full media attention turned towards those who oppose Shariah in Britain. This was more salient due to the lack of Muslim protesters on site.

The point was clear: Islam will NOT dominate. Freedom and Democracy, said the placard.

I had gone with some of my colleagues who are also members of the International Civil Liberties Alliance group, ICLA , and SIOE group, to speak up against Shariah law in Britain, and while we were speaking members of the public joined us for debates, while the press journalists started recording and taking their notes.

Our position is very simple: We, the British people, do NOT want shariah law implemented in our land. Shariah is an Islamic law and Britain is not an Islamic country.
While some Muslims have claimed that the Jews have their own courts of law in Britain, we have pointed out that these courts of law are only allowed to decide civil matters, like marriage for example, and that these courts DO NOT supercede the British court of law.

Shariah would be in a different league altogether, by deciding also criminal matters as well as personal freedom matters, which cannot be legally accepted in Britain or in any part of Europe, since we uphold the HUMAN RIGHTS law. Shariah is against human rights.

Furthermore, under Shariah you are not permitted to leave Islam, and members of the Islamic community are encouraged to kill such person, whom they refer to as Apostate. This in itself is a breach of the Human Rights article 9, stated below on point 1:
Human Rights Act. 1998 - Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

On point 2, of the Human rights decree, I bring to your attention the following

Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others

The points are clear. One cannot manifest his religious beliefs when these beliefs conflict with the RIGHTS and FREEDOMS of others

Islamic Shariah is in direct conflict with the Human Rights Act. 1998 and as such it should be FORBIDDEN in the UK, and in any other civilized country

!Join us in saying NO to Shariah