Supporting The Respect Party For The UK General Election 2010 - The Only Truly Patriotic Party For The U.K.

Longest-Serving ‘Chained Wife’ Finally Breaks Free After 48 Years

Category : Islam, Judaism

Zionists go out of their way to defame Muslim men claiming we mistreat our women. But look ak how Jewish law treats their women.

Islam gives women a higher status than ANY other religions or ways of life in the entire world. But you won’t see that in the news. The reason is, if you see the truth about Islamic treatment of women, more women would probably join up in droves.

Don’t believe me? You can just as easily go and find out for yourselves. And I don’t mean from the Western media.

(Note: “Britain’s network of beth dins (Jewish courts)” – Why is this okay, and the zionists themselves oppose Islamic courts in this country? They claim Israel is their home, want to practice their religion here, but they want to prevent us from practising ours. And it’s not just the zionists who are doing this: The seikhs and hindus are the same.  They’re all hypocrits.)

Read this report from today’s Independent newspaper:

Susan Zinkin divorced her husband in 1962, but only now is she able to marry again

By Jerome Taylor

Friday, 19 February 2010

Susan Zinkin at her home in Kafar Sava, Israel, with photos of her family

Susan Zinkin divorced her husband in 1962 but was forbidden from looking for new love for almost 50 years. Only when he died an old man this week was she released from being a “chained wife” under Jewish law.

Ms Zinkin, 73, a retired Orthodox Jewish teacher from north London, divorced Israel Errol Elias in Britain’s civil courts 48 years ago but she was never able to obtain a Jewish divorce (known as a “get”) from him. And yesterday she spoke of her relief at finally being freed from her status as the world’s longest-serving “chained wife”.

“As awful as it may sound my ex-husband’s death is a great relief and a huge weight off my shoulders – to be stuck like that was so cruel,” she said yesterday in an interview with The Independent. “I’m quite convinced that had the rabbis wanted to get their act together they could have done something within Jewish law and found a solution.”

She had made repeated attempts to get her former husband to grant her a Jewish divorce, which would have allowed her to remarry. She, and many others, even resorted to regular protests outside his house in Golders Green, north London, in a bid to publicly shame him into granting her a religiously sanctioned separation, but the protests only seemed to strengthen his resolve.

But despite widespread public outcry, her “agunah” (literally “chained”) status remained in force until earlier this week when Mr Elias, 86, died.

Speaking from her home in Kfar Saba, near Tel Aviv, Ms Zinkin called on Britain’s network of beth dins (Jewish courts) to do more to help chained women and to speak out against husbands who refuse to grant divorces. “The Jewish religious authorities come together to talk about and solve all sorts of religious and social problems but they never seem to get around to discussing [agunahs],” she said. “It is time they did.”

Under halakha (Jewish law) only men have the power to grant a get. Women who cannot persuade their husbands to free them from marriage become known as “agunahs” or chained wives. Although they are legally divorced under British law, chained wives (particularly those within Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities) often find themselves ostracised if they dare to remarry or speak out.

Ms Zinkin, who describes herself as “mainstream Orthodox”, said she felt unable to find a new husband because, without a get from her first partner, any new marriage would be considered unlawful by the wider community. Her children – and any of her future offspring – would also be shunned as mamzers, a halakhic term to describe the offspring of adulterous or incestuous relationships. “That’s a terrible stigma for the child,” she explained. “They’re illegitimate for Jewish purposes and I just couldn’t do that to any child of mine. Even Jews who aren’t very religious wouldn’t necessarily want to marry someone and have children born with mamzer status.”

Attempts by rabbinical authorities to tackle recalcitrant husbands has been met with varying degrees of success. Rabbis from the Liberal and Reform schools of Judaism will often issue gets to women if a husband refuses three times, but the more orthodox branches are notoriously reluctant to intervene, believing that any sort of coercion would invalidate the get.

In the United States, some Orthodox rabbis have encouraged the use of pre-nuptial agreements which financially penalise a stubborn husband. Jewish courts in Israel have even gone as far as placing intractable husbands in prison until they grant a get. But campaigners say the Orthodox beth din courts in Britain have been much slower to look for solutions.

“It’s a very frustrating process,” says Sandra Blackman, a co-founder of the Agunot Campaign who regularly used to protest outside Mr Elias’s house alongside Ms Zinkin. “We need the Orthodox beth dins to be courageous and recognise the appalling injustices that are being carried out by some husbands. Other countries have found solutions but people seem afraid to implement them here.”

One academic hoping to find a way out of the impasse is Professor Bernard Jackson, an expert in Jewish law who until last year was head of the Agunah Research Unit at the University of Manchester. Last summer he published proposals which offered courts viable alternatives that still conformed to Jewish law, including the promotion of pre-nuptials, provisional gets that would be issued in advance of marriage, and the retrospective annulment of a marriage by a rabbi. The response from the Orthodox community has been limited.

“I can only say that meetings have been initiated, and there clearly is some willingness to look at our work and discuss it with us,” he said. “The problem is that batei din are generally reluctant to go out on a limb alone, for fear of appearing ‘divisive’. They are looking either for a consensus or for a lead from the greatest rabbinic scholars of the generation.”

Hopes for such a lead were dashed in 2006 when an international conference to discuss agunahs was called off by Israel’s chief rabbi, Shlomo Amar, just five days before it was due to begin. It was widely reported in Israel that pressure from the Ultra-Orthodox community led to the cancellation.

“I’m convinced there is a way,” said Ms Zinkin. “We need to get all the rabbis together to reach some sort of consensus on how to solve this problem within Jewish law.”

Until rabbis take a stand, there is little that chained women can do, other than resort to public protests in a bid to shame their former husbands. “I just hit a brick wall and there didn’t seem to be anything I could do,” she recalled. “I knew I just had to carry on with my life and try to forget about it.”

Few women dare to speak out about their agunah status for fear of reducing their chances of ever obtaining a get, or because they are worried about how the community might react to such public criticism. Ms Zinkin did speak out. By the end of the 1990s she was approached by a small group of Jewish women who, like her, had either been or still were chained women. The first the mainstream press in Britain heard about agunahs was when a devoted band of Jewish women bewildered north London motorists with regular protests outside Mr Elias’s home in Golders Green, calling on him to free his wife. Week after week they met outside his home but Mr Elias dug his heels in. The public coverage of the protests did, however, spur the rabbinical authorities into trying to persuade Mr Elias.

“Prior to [those protests] the Jewish authorities hadn’t even been prepared to make a phonecall or approach him in any way,” she said. “Whenever I approached Jewish judges they just said they couldn’t do anything. So the protests might not have worked in my case, but they did with others.”

The demonstrations also thrust the issue firmly into the wider public’s consciousness: “People just didn’t realise that this sort of thing can drag on for so many years. When I told people what had happened they were absolutely stunned that you can be an agunah in Britain for more than 40 years. I just hope I’m the last of a long line of agunahs.”

For the meantime, Ms Zinkin is happy just to reflect on the fact that – for the first time in nearly five decades – she is officially free. “I suppose it is a bit of a record but it’s not exactly one I’m proud to hold,” she said. “I’m just glad it’s finally over. I feel a great sense of relief, but also sadness because it was all so unnecessary. I just hope that other men will think twice about the enormous distress they can cause by not granting their wife a get.”

Fromm>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/longestserving-chained-wife-finally-breaks-free-after-48-years-1904136.html

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

Hamza Yusuf : Changing The Tide / Islam in America

Category : Corruption, Human Rights, Islam, U.S.A.




Hamza Yusuf delivered the (amazing) key note speech at the ICNA Why Islam? Symposium on March 18, 2006

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

Hamza Yusuf (Islam & The West)

Category : Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zionism

PART ONE





PART TWO





A riveting speech by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf on the failings of those who purport to fight in the name of Islam, and the Western so-called democracies who abuse their own powers to fight Muslims. Especially the USA.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

Human Dignity

Category : Christianity, Human Rights, Islam, Judaism

By: Khalid Baig
Posted: 20 Safar 1431, 5 February 2010

We are witnessing today a clash between two opposing views of human worth. The first holds that human beings have an inherent dignity conferred on them by the Creator. The other insists that human beings have no more claim to dignity than other animals, from which they differ only in the number and sequencing of DNA molecules. From tiny bacteria to human beings all are creations of accidental processes; therefore none of them can claim special status over others.

We cannot ignore it as a debate that is taking place in some obscure religion or philosophy class which should not interest the rest of us. Its vast implications affect every one of us wherever we happen to be: in our homes, businesses, schools, on the streets or at the airports. This is so because a society’s treatment of other humans depends upon its perception of the status and value of humanity itself.

If there is no inherent human dignity than there can be no inherent human rights. Then human rights are reduced to the level of a policy to be decided by the calculations of governments. If, on the other hand, we accept the first view then human rights become both serious and inalienable; they cannot be taken away in the name of this or that expediency.

The first view is expounded by the Qur’an which declares in no uncertain terms: “Now, indeed, We have conferred dignity on the children of Adam” (17:70). This is brought out through the Story of Creation. For God created man “with My two Hands” (38:75). Further, He breathed into Adam from His Spirit (15:29). This was so because Man was created as God’s vicegerent on earth (2:30).

Islam is not alone in asserting this dignity. All previous prophets had the same message. Thus both Judaism and Christianity affirmed it because man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This view was challenged by modern science. Resting on the twin pillars of Darwinism and Freudianism, its great “achievement” was in announcing that dignity and nobility of the human soul was a myth.

Darwin claimed that man was not specially created. Freud added that he had no free will that would distinguish him from animals. Rather man was subject to instinctive drives, unconscious impulses, and emotions over which he had no control.

It was not that science had discovered that the first view was baseless, since it had no capacity to affirm or reject claims about matters it could not observe. Rather it was that some of its proponents had developed a fanatical religious hatred against all religion because of their bad experience with some of it.

As it evolved under their patronage, modern science became a new faith that claimed to have made the faith in God and the moral values based on it obsolete. Of course, it could measure the speed of light, split the atom, and analyze the structure of DNA to “prove” its claims.

Those who have been mesmerized by the achievements of science have been torn between these opposing claims about human dignity. They claim that human beings have inalienable rights then proceed to forfeit those rights on one or the other pretext. They champion religious freedom then proceed to curb it. They affirm commitment to human dignity then proceed to defile it.

The new measures about universal nude body scans of all air travelers are just the latest manifestation of this conflict.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12, states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference.” Similarly the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Yet we are told that we must bare ourselves for examination by officials if we want the privilege to travel. That the privacy protection does not even protect one’s private parts. The distance between the proclamations and the policies is the distance between the two views.

The noble declarations are rooted in the first view but the policies are in the second. That they may examine us just like they examine animals on a farm is to be expected if we are no better than animals.

Back to the Story of Creation that gives us special insights about this particular aspect. It tells us that the prestigious status given to mankind had its jealous enemy right from the start. It was the devil himself who came up with a plan to show that Man did not deserve the honor bestowed on him.

And so Satan’s very first attack was on the most important reflection of this dignity. It was launched with subterfuge and its purpose was to produce nudity. When under Satanic persuasion Adam and Eve tasted of the forbidden tree, “their shameful parts were manifested to them, and they began to piece together onto themselves some of the leaves of the Garden” (Qur’an 7:22). This narrative reminds us that the uncorrupted human nature abhors nudity.

That is why Adam and Eve frantically started to search for something to cover themselves at its first occurrence. This tendency distinguishes human beings from animals, for which nudity is natural.

Hence the reminder from God: “Children of Adam! Let not Satan tempt you as he brought your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their garments to show them their shameful parts” (7:27). The immediately preceding ayah also tells us that clothing is a gift from God and concealing the parts of the body that must be concealed is its primary purpose, while protection from elements and adornment are secondary objectives.

In fact that function is integral to a central value in Islam: Haya. Although normally translated as modesty for lack of a better word, haya encompasses much more than that. It is modesty, decency, moral propriety, and inhibition against all evil, with special emphasis on concealing parts of the body. Haya is the antithesis to nudity.

As for its importance, Prophet Muhammad ( Sall-Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Every religion has a distinct call. For Islam it is haya.” [Ibn Majah]. Another famous hadith says: ” Haya is a branch of Iman (faith) ” [Bukhari, Muslim]. It is the basic building block of Islamic morality. When it is lost everything is lost.

The concept does exist in other religions as well. In Judaism the closest term is Tzniut, which represents both a moral value and specific laws that govern the dress code, and interaction between the sexes.

Rabbi Aron Moss of Australia explains: “The body is the holy creation of God. It is the sacred house of the soul. The way we maintain our respect for the body is by keeping it covered.” Tzniut requires covering of the body, segregation of men and women during prayers ( mechitzah), prohibition of shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex, and prohibition of being alone in a secluded place with them. For the most part these are subsets of the commands given by Islam.

In Christianity the term used is modesty. One finds repeated references to Christian modesty in encyclicals and directives. One such directive instructs: “In general, clothes should hide the shape of the body rather than accentuate it. Only this kind of clothing can truly be called ‘decent’.” Pope Pius XII said in the 1950s: “Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity.”

Of course the pop culture, augmented by the tremendous firepower of Hollywood and other mass media—and intellectually supported by the new science in its (im)moral underpinnings—has been a constant challenger to haya and modesty. It is a familiar story. As the floodgates of immodesty were opened, the Jewish and Christian teachings were washed away from the lives of their followers to the lament of their religious leaders.

More than three decades ago Rabbi Zalman Posner noted: “The prevalent culture has little patience with one of these values, and the Hebrew word [ tzniut] is virtually unknown to the American Jew.”

And the French Catholic leader Dom Bernard Marechaux lamented in alarming tones: “The cancer of Liberalism attacks everyone and we must be careful not to be infected ourselves. … Women who go to church dress just the way women who do not go to church dress; … It is a confusion of license and worldliness. As a result … the Church is beginning to disappear in the world. Christianity is being lost.” Pope Benedict XV said, “One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station …[who] do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God.”

They condemned the summer attire, the swimming suits, and every form of nudity in a loosing battle. Church leaders instructed the women to have their skirts at least eight inches below the knee when fashion designers persuaded them to go eight inches above. And everyone knows which direction they went.

The scene began to change with the arrival of Muslims. Muslims could recognize the nudity in the Western societies as the same abomination that had prevailed in the pre-Islamic Jahiliyya society of Arabia.

They remembered that haya is part of faith and the mother of all virtues. Against all odds and pressures they upheld the banner of haya. They became the shining example of modesty in a society that had forgotten it.

In this background comes the most vicious attack ever on human dignity in the form of the new nude body scanners being installed at airports. They can take pictures of the nude body from head to toe and from all around. They are being forced on every one—men, women, and children. If they go unopposed it will be a major triumph of the idea that human beings are mere animals as Darwin and Freud would have us believe.

But haya is the call of the uncorrupted human nature, a universal value that should bring together all the people of conscience who value morality and decency. While some governments have rushed to introduce these machines, others have raised strong objections.

Representing them, the new European Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, said, “we will not let anyone dictate to us rules that go against fundamental rights on anti-terrorism grounds . . . our need for security cannot justify any violation of privacy. We should never be driven by fear, but by values” (11 Jan. 2010, testimony before the European Union Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Legal affairs and Women’s committees).

Which values? That will be determined by the ongoing clash between the two views of human dignity. And the picture here is less than clear.

From>> http://albalagh.net/food_for_thought/0095.shtml

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

How A Christian Preacher Converted To Islam

Category : Christianity, Islam, Religion




This former Christian preacher converted to Islam… along with his wife, his father and his friend, who was also a Catholic priest.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace