Full screen - press [F11]
David Ben Gurion : ---- " If you believe in ISRAEL, you can't call yourself - ATHEIST "!... "In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles" ... Ada,this one is for you!... "The knowledge of how to FEAR what ought to be feared and how not to FEAR what ought not to be feared is called - COURAGE"... "Anyone who believes you can't change HISTORY has never tried to write his MEMORIES"... "I don't know what the people WANT ! All I know is what they NEED"... " Well done, now give it back to them." ( Spoken to Louis Nir in June 1967, after his unit captured Hebron in the Six-Day War )... "UM - SHMUM" ( The UN - Bla Bla Bla ! ) ... "If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"...
web counter web counter

ALWAYS ON TOP ( Scroll down for recent postings )

This Blog is now officially closed!
29 - 03 - 2012 23:00 GMT
Please visit :-
. .

Friday, December 30, 2011

I am EVIL!

Egyptian Presidential Candidate Tawfiq Okasha, responds to
criticism on Canadian TV by Michael who dared expose this slime ball.

What's a Muzoid?

What's a Muzoid?
Watch the clip below:-
December 13, 2011       Clip No. 3245
Jordanian Salafi Cleric Sheik Yassin Al-'Ajlouni:
The Caliphate Will Be Reestablished in 2024
by the Son of Jordanian King Abdullah 
Following are excerpts from a statement Jordanian Salafi cleric Sheik Yassin Al-'Ajlouni, which was posed on the Internet on December 13, 2011Yassin Al-'Ajlouni: 
I bring glad tidings to the Islamic nation: The days of the establishmentof the Caliphate are near – the Caliphate that will be reside in Jerusalem, and the Caliph who will conquer Palestine. "So when the second warning came to pass, we permitted your enemies to disfigure your faces, and to enter your Temple, as they had entered it before, and to destroy all that fell into their power." This is the Caliph to whom allegiance will be pledged in Palestine, after he conquers the Arab Peninsula and Persia.
I think – although Allah knows best – that the [Caliph] is among us. We see him with our own eyes. He is Abdullah, who reigns over Jordan at present. The man will be guided by Allah to this great conquest, and Allah willing, in 1446 AH [2024 CE], we will witness the rebuilding of the Al-Aqsa of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the most beautiful manner. The armies that will conquer Palestine will all agree to have Abdullah as their Caliph. This will be a Hashemite Caliphate, but not the way we want it – it will not be in keeping with the path of the Prophet. Such a Caliphate will be established, Allah willing, by Muhammad, whom we believe to be the son of Abdullah II, the current king of Jordan – but Allah knows best. Allah willing, I will fill you in with more details on this matter.

  And then the JIZFIs will come!...


Dare you - tell them to sit at the back of the bus!...

At "Hatzerim" IAF base, commander - Brig. Gen. Ziv Levy says, that the five women graduating from flight school, is the definitive answer that can not be disputed on the status of women in a democratic and civilized society. 

At the "Flight Wings" ceremony, Brigadier General Levy said that the fresh squadrons women are independent, powerful, equal rights and obligations and an example to all. 

Via E-mail...

 "MIDNIGHT" :-   
They'll always have a seat as long as my face. . .

Thursday, December 29, 2011


MK Tzipi Hotovely on bus 418 from Beit Shemesh to Jerusalem: "This is a struggle on the state's right to operate in its basic principles."

"Wow. She is beautiful. A very beautiful woman." (Pasto)

Shlomo Fux called The soldier, Doron Matalon "whore" 
(just because of her sex...)
"I do not harase sexualy! It never happened. If anything, 
 SHE bothered ME! Fux said to his attorney...
Not welcome: member of "The Status of Women Committee" received a chilly reception when she joined the 418 bus ride from Beit Shemesh to Jerusalem. 
"Go and marry a gentile!" 

Hotovely - Back on bus #418.


Born in 1942 in Belgrade. After completion of the Classical high school he graduated at the University of Belgrade Law School in 1964. He continued post graduate studies of International Law in London. 
He is a member of the Bar in Belgrade and an associate member of the Bar in London. 
He is mostly into international private law, international trade law, arbitrage and air traffic law. 
He is a member of the British-Yugoslav Barristers Association in London. 
For his services to the legal system of Sweden, he was decorated with the Order of the Polar Star, first degree, by the King of Sweden in 1988. 
He is one of the founders of the Democratic Party and the signatory of the Letter of Intentions. He is also among the founders of the Democratic Party of Serbia in 1992. 
From February to October 2001 he was the Deputy Minister of Justice of the Republic of Serbia. From that position he established a team that initiated writing the draft of the Law on rehabilitation, the Law on courts, the Law on NGOs and the Law on political parties. 
He has published articles in England, in the Current European Law, Impact, The South Slav Journal, The Times and BSSSLA Newsletter. In Yugoslavia he published articles in the magazines Danas Pravo, Politika, NIN and Branic. 
He participated as speaker at the seminars in Cambridge, London, Harvard, University of Essex and Belgrade. He presented his works at the conferences at the Royal Institute for International Affairs, Chatham House, Wilton Park and the British Parliament.  
He practices law in Belgrade and London. He is married to Mirjana and has two sons, Marko and Peter.

Djurdje Ninkovich, lawyer
Deputy Minister of Justice 2001
Founder of the Democratic Party

November 21, 2011
            On October 6, 2011, the Law of the Return of Property Taken Away and Compensation went into effect. The Law’s title almost completely contradicts its contents. That is to say that although it proclaims the principle of restitution ‘in natura’, the Law mainly deals with numerous exceptions from that principle, so that it turns out in the end that  nothing will be returned  except for a little land, unsold premises and flats inhabited by the real owners.

            The exemptions from restitution ‘in natura’ are listed in the 11 items of Article 18.  The greatest number of exemptions from restitution has no foundation in the law of fairness or in the generally accepted morality. Thus, for instance, buildings which  serves for the activities of health  services, education, culture and science or other institutions; real estate that are part of institutions to be privatized as well as institutions in bankruptcy; real estate dedicated for the representative needs of the National Assembly, the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister (have they no shame!); real estate intended for the lodging of foreign diplomatic – consular, military and commercial missions; real estate sold in the course  of privatization proceedings; nationalized enterprises are not being returned.

            As if that was not enough, the lawmaker adds one more item, which reads, believe it or not: „In other cases defined by this law“, which means  that even what passes through the dense nets of exemptions will not be returned if some functionary so decides.

            In addition, according to article 19 of the Law the holder of the property  which is to be returned has the right to defer the restitution for a period necessary to adjust his activities, or to an indetermined date.

            Article 22 lists in great detail land that is not returned. It is particularly remarkable that construction land where the construction of ’social apartments’ is planned but has not yet started, is not returned. Article 22 which deals with land to be returned is full of various conditions and exceptions.

            Ther are few exceptions and limitations for the restitution  of agricultural land, forests and forest land, for example: „land  in social or cooperative ownership acquired through a legal tansaction“.  As if it could have been acquired from a non-owner. 

            In some of its regulations the law put lease above possession..For instance Article 20 determines that land leasing contracts concluded before the expiration of one year after the law goes int effect (sic!) can use the land up to 20 years for multiple – year plants, or up to 40  years for vineyards.

In Article 10  the laws states the principle of the protection of who has taken possession of the proprerty who has acquired the right of possession after nationalization according to law. Here the lawmaker  ignores that property cannot be legally acquired without the consent of t the owner from whom the property has been taken through unjust laws of nationalization. I stress the fact that  property cannot be taken  away by any law.   Thus confiscated property is in most cases sold by the state or by various public and private enterprises with a dubious legal authority. The privatization agencies where unscrupulous when they sold property  taken by force. Property cannot be acquired from an unscrupulous seller who is not even the owner.

            The owners of property which cannot by returned according to the Law console themselves that they will at least receive a monetary compensation of 500.000 Euro. Whoever reads with attention the first paragraph of Article 31 will immediately understand that absolutely nobody will receive even an approximate amount. The compensation will be calculated with a coefficient resulting from the division of 2 billion Euro by the total compensation claimed. The Tax Authority of Serbia has recently estimated the value of confiscated property  at 220 billion Euro, based on the claims submitted. If the Treasury  estimates the value of confiscated property at 50 billion Euro, then by dividing 2 billion by 50 billion we get a coefficient of 0.04. 

      Applying this coefficient to 500.000 Euro we obtain the maximum amount of compensation of 20.000 Euro. Of this 2.000 Euro are paid over 3 years and the remaining 18.000 Euro at 1.200 yearly over the next 15 years.

The rest of the article is a very strong political and moral criticism of the Law and of the present Government.
  Translated by:- Dr. P. Münch

Sunday, December 18, 2011

The girl

The picture of this girl has been a major topic of debate on Egyptian talk shows tonight — with some SCAF defenders arguing it was photoshopped — and is on the cover of tomorrow's Tahrir newspaper. Below is the video that shows her and a companion being chased, then beaten by soldiers.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Good as new!

Paul Harvey says:

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a
Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a
30-second prayer before a football game.

So what's the big deal?

It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than
200-to-1. So what would you expect — somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.

And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.

When in Rome ...

"But what about the atheists?" is another argument.

What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for
30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!

Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.

I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.

Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well ... just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard ... that the vast majority don't care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right. But by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back ... and we WILL WIN!

God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce Him. God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all.

God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

May 2005 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.

Keep looking up.

Christopher Hitchens

Author, pundit Christopher Hitchens dies at 62
Author Christopher Hitchens outside his hotel in New York in June, 2010.
Christopher Hitchens, the author, essayist and polemicist who waged verbal and occasional physical battle on behalf of causes on the left and right and wrote the provocative best-seller "God is Not Great," died Thursday night after a long battle with cancer. He was 62.
Hitchens' death was announced in a statement from Conde Nast, publisher of Vanity Fair magazine. The statement says he died Thursday night at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston of pneumonia, a complication of his esophageal cancer.
"There will never be another like Christopher. A man of ferocious intellect, who was as vibrant on the page as he was atthe bar," said Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter. "Those who read him felt they knew him, and those who knew him were profoundly fortunate souls."

A most-engaged, prolific and public intellectual who enjoyed his drink (enough to "to kill or stun the average mule") and cigarettes, he announced in June 2010 that he was being treated for cancer of the esophagus and canceled a tour for his memoir "Hitch-22."
Hitchens, a frequent television commentator and a contributor to Vanity Fair, Slate and other publications, had become a popular author in 2007 thanks to "God is Not Great," a manifesto for atheists that defied a recent trend of religious works. Cancer humbled, but did not mellow him. Even after his diagnosis, his columns appeared weekly, savaging the royal family or reveling in the death of Osama bin Laden.
"I love the imagery of struggle," he wrote about his illness in an August 2010 essay in Vanity Fair. "I sometimes wish I were suffering in a good cause, or risking my life for the good of others, instead of just being a gravely endangered patient."
Eloquent and intemperate, bawdy and urbane, he was an acknowledged contrarian and contradiction -- half-Christian, half-Jewish and fully non-believing; a native of England who settled in America; a former Trotskyite who backed the Iraq war and supported George W. Bush. But his passions remained constant and enemies of his youth, from Henry Kissinger to Mother Teresa, remained hated.
He was a militant humanist who believed in pluralism and racial justice and freedom of speech, big cities and fine art and the willingness to stand the consequences. He was smacked in the rear by then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and beaten up in Beirut. He once submitted to waterboarding to prove that it was indeed torture.
Hitchens was an old-fashioned sensualist who abstained from clean living as if it were just another kind of church. In 2005, he would recall a trip to Aspen, Colorado, and a brief encounter after stepping off a ski lift.
"I was met by immaculate specimens of young American womanhood, holding silver trays and flashing perfect dentition," he wrote. "What would I like? I thought a gin and tonic would meet the case. `Sir, that would be inappropriate.' In what respect? `At this altitude gin would be very much more toxic than at ground level.' In that case, I said, make it a double."
An emphatic ally and inspired foe, he stood by friends in trouble ("Satanic Verses" novelist Salman Rushdie) and against enemies in power (Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini). His heroes included George Orwell, Thomas Paine and Gore Vidal (pre-Sept. 11,
2001). Among those on the Hitchens list of shame: Michael Moore, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Sarah Palin, Gore Vidal (post Sept. 11) and Prince Charles.
"We have known for a long time that Prince Charles' empty sails are so rigged as to be swelled by any passing waft or breeze of crankiness and cant," Hitchens wrote in 2010 after the heir to the British throne gave a speech criticizing Galileo for the scientist's focus on "the material aspect of reality."
"He fell for the fake anthropologist Laurens van der Post. He was bowled over by the charms of homeopathic medicine. He has been believably reported as saying that plants do better if you talk to them in a soothing and encouraging way. But this latest departure promotes him from an advocate of harmless nonsense to positively sinister nonsense."
Hitchens was born in Portsmouth, England, in 1949. His father, Eric, was a "purse-lipped" Navy veteran known as "The Commander"; his mother, Yvonne, a romantic who later kill herself during an extramarital rendezvous in Greece. Young Christopher would have rather read a book. He was a "a mere weed and weakling and kick-bag" who discovered that "words could function as weapons" and so stockpiled them.
In college, Oxford, he met such longtime friends as authors Martin Amis and Ian McEwan and claimed to be nearby when visiting Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton did or did not inhale marijuana. Radicalized by the 1960s, Hitchens was often arrested at political rallies, was kicked out of Britain's Labour Party over his opposition to the Vietnam War and became a correspondent for the radical magazine International Socialism. His reputation broadened in the 1970s through his writings for the New Statesman.
Wavy-haired and brooding and aflame with wit and righteous anger, he was a star of the left on paper and on camera, a popular television guest and a columnist for one of the world's oldest liberal publications, The Nation. In friendlier times, Vidal was quoted as citing Hitchens as a worthy heir to his satirical throne.
But Hitchens never could simply nod his head. He feuded with fellow Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn, broke with Vidal and angered liberals by stating that the child's life begins at conception. An essay for Vanity Fair was titled "Why Women Aren't Funny," and Hitchens wasn't kidding.
He had long been unhappy with the left's reluctance to confront enemies or friends. He would note his strong disappointment that Arthur Miller and other leading liberals shied from making public appearances on behalf of Rushdie after the Ayatollah Khomeini called for his death. He advocated intervention in Bosnia and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
No Democrat angered him more than Clinton, whose presidency led to the bitter end of Hitchens' friendship with White House aide Sidney Blumenthal and other Clinton backers. As Hitchens wrote in his memoir, he found Clinton "hateful in his behavior to women, pathological as a liar, and deeply suspect when it came to money in politics."
He wrote the anti-Clinton book, "No One Left to Lie To," at a time when most liberals were supporting the president as he faced impeachment over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Hitchens also loathed Hillary Rodham Clinton and switched his affiliation from independent to Democrat in 2008 just so he could vote against her in the presidential primary.
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, completed his exit from the left. He fought with Vidal, Noam Chomsky and others who either suggested that U.S. foreign policy had helped caused the tragedy or that the Bush administration had advanced knowledge. He supported the Iraq war, quit The Nation, backed Bush for re-election in 2004 and repeatedly chastised those whom he believed worried unduly about the feelings of Muslims.
"It's not enough that faith claims to be the solution to all problems," he wrote in 2009 after a Danish newspaper apologized for publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that led Muslim organizations to threaten legal action. "It is now demanded that such a preposterous claim be made immune from any inquiry, any critique, and any ridicule."
His essays were compiled in such books as "For the Sake of Argument" and "Prepared for the Worst." He also wrote short biographies/appreciations of Paine and Thomas Jefferson, a tribute to Orwell and "Letters to a Young Contrarian (Art of Mentoring)," in which he advised that "Only an open conflict of ideas and principles can produce any clarity." A collection of essays, "Arguably," came out in September 2011 and he was planning a "book-length meditation on malady and mortality." He appeared in a 2010 documentary about the topical singer Phil Ochs.
Survived by his second wife, author Carol Blue, and by his three children (Alexander, Sophia and Antonia), Hitchens had well crafted ideas about posterity, clarified years ago when he saw himself referred to as "the late" Christopher Hitchens in print. For the May 2010 issue of Vanity Fair, before his illness, Hitchens submitted answers for the Proust Questionnaire, a probing and personal survey for which the famous have revealed everything from their favorite color to their greatest fear.
His vision of earthly bliss: "To be vindicated in my own lifetime."
His ideal way to die: "Fully conscious, and either fighting or reciting (or fooling around)."

My Coptic friend - Dioscorus Boles


December 15, 2011
Egyptian women, Copts and Muslims, joined in the 25 January Revolution to change their social, economic and political life to the better. Photo credited to AFP/Getty Images
Women perhaps get the worst deal from the Islamists, including Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt. This is not because the Islamists are particularly kind to the Christian Copts – those also get a very sour deal from them. But the Copts, however vulnerable they are, are still a strong, vocal community whose voice reaches the echelons of power within the international community, though admittedly often ineffectively. The Muslim Brotherhood, in particular, know very well that they can’t seize power in Egypt without the  acquiescence or support of the West; and so they are very keen to project a propagandist image of tolerance to Christians, however deceptive it may be in actual fact.
Islamists cannot treat the Copts as “theirs”, nor would the Copts, or the international community, allow them to do so. However, they see Muslim women as their own “possession”; their own “property” which they should be allowed to deal with according to their Sharia law, and that neither women themselves nor the international community should have a say on how women are treated inside or outside households in the male-dominated Egyptian society. The international community, despite having high standards of how women should be treated, such as explicitly stated in the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),[i] and despite the pro-women rights strong statements from many politicians,[ii] seems to have abandoned women in Egypt, and other Islamic countries, to their fate.[iii] Egyptian women and Copts have often heard that human rights are universal, inalienable and indivisible; and yet it seems that they cease to be so when one is dealing with predominantly Muslim societies.
One cannot exonerate Egyptian women from their own fate, though. The women rights movement in Egypt is weak and can easily be intimidated. This is understandable to some extent in a society that uses religion as a tool of oppression. However, one would expect the women of Egypt to organise better, branch and link-out with other human rights groups, and be more vocal. The Islamists in Egypt cannot keep oppressing women in Egypt if women keep shouting loud enough

I intentionally ignore in my study the Salafists who, compared to the Muslim Brotherhood, are more honest; and, because of this, more raw and crude in the way they present their position. The Muslim Brotherhood, however, have resorted to the art of subterfuge.[iv] While the Salafists present political Islam (Islamism) as it is, Muslim Brotherhood don’t do that – they use deception to trick us and the world into accepting them as a moderate group that is pro-democracy and keen about protection of human rights in general, and those of the Copts and women in particular. But it is easy to expose their subterfuge – and this is nowhere easier than in the field of women rights. There is a fundamental weakness in the Muslim Brotherhood’s position on women – Ikhwan[v] simply lack a genuine faith in the fundamental rights and freedoms of women, in their equal dignity and worth; and believe that woman, compared to men, are defective in reason and religion (morality). We shall examine the Election Program (for the Parliamentary Elections 2011) of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, and try to analyse it in order to understand more of their position on women and their rights. While doing that, we shall get to know also about their views on children rights.
The FJP’s election programme is available in both Arabic and English. As usual with the Islamists, the English version, which is a poor translation of the Arabic version, is deliberately doctored to conceal some of the shocking statements one can delineate in the Arabic original. We shall point to this when necessary, and give the right translation.
The English version of the FJP Election Programme (which the reader can find here:[vi] is a 45-pages long document. The word “women” has been mentioned 23 times in it, mainly in two parts where women rights were discussed:
  1. Part II (Freedom and Political reform). This part has three sections in it. The third discuses “the fundamental political principles espoused in the program”;[vii]  and the first part of that section discusses “the principles of liberty, equality and equal opportunities”.[viii] It is under this subsection that the Muslim Brotherhood talk, inter alia, about women rights.
  2. Part IV (Integrated Development). The Program discusses women rights in this part under the titles: Human Development; Making the Egyptian Citizen; 1. women, 2. the family as the child’s first incubator.
A. Women in Part II of the FJP’s Election Program
I herein simply copy the relevant section, and then discuss it underneath:
1. The principles of liberty, equality and equal opportunities

Our elections program seeks to grant citizens the freedoms they deserve, to preserve the fundamental rights of every Egyptian, and change all practices or legislation that challenge or restrict these freedoms or violate these rights. Freedom is God’s gift to all, regardless of colour, sex or belief, and it is a pre-condition of Taklif (accountability, obligation and responsibility according to capacity) and one of the greatest objectives of Sharia (Islamic law). For, indeed, Sharia grants humans all forms of freedom, especially freedom of belief, with which a human is to take responsibility for his choices. “There is no compulsion in religion” [Quranic Chapter 2 al-Baqarah: 25].
From this perspective, full freedom for the Egyptian people is a profound principle and a fundamental right. Hence, FJP representatives seek to:
1. Safeguard, for every Egyptian, fundamental rights and freedoms – indispensable in any advanced society and in the framework of genuine religious value system – as well as political and social freedoms – indispensable for the exercise of rights and improvement of communities.
The most important of these rights and freedoms are: freedom of opinion and expression, the formation of political parties and NGOs, meeting and demonstration, mobility and travel; freedom of trade union affiliation; and professional, labor, student and public activity as well as free transparent elections; and also freedom from all forms of oppression, tyranny and discrimination. We will work to enact legislation safeguarding freedom in all its forms, to include it in education curricula, and publicize it in all different media as well as in mosques and churches.
2. Guarantee non-discrimination among citizens in rights and duties on the basis of religion, sex or colour.
3. Ensure women’s access to all their rights, consistent with the values of Islamic law, maintaining the balance between their duties and rights.[ix] [x]
The Muslim Brotherhood, like all Islamists, not just in Egypt but across the world, are characterised by intellectual poverty and cowardice. As their thought is riddled with contradictions, which emanate from the fundamental tension between their political thinking (that is based on Sharia) on one hand, and reason and modernity on the other, they present their views in a very confused way, simplistically hoping that by combining two contradictions together no one will notice the illogicality of it all. The more they want to practise subterfuge, the more they get bogged down in their confusion and intellectual dishonesty.
As always, they start with deceptive statements like “Our elections program seeks to grant citizens the freedoms they deserve, to preserve the fundamental rights of every Egyptian, and change all practices or legislation that challenge or restrict these freedoms or violate these rights;” or “(We) Guarantee non-discrimination among citizens in rights and duties on the basis of religion, sex or colour;” while all the time not really meaning them.  Then they introduce their caveat, which is always something like “(the fundamental rights and freedoms are guaranteed) in the framework of genuine religious value system” and that they should be “consistent with the values of Islamic law”. But they use all that in a very subtle way, particularly when they address English readers. So, when they address specifically women rights, they tell us in Arabic that their FJP representatives will seek to:
“ضمان حصول المرأه على جميع حقوقها بما لا يتعارض مع قيم الشريعة الإسلامية ، وبما يحقق التوازن بين واجباتها وحقوقها”
This they translate in the English version of their Program into:
“Ensure women’s access to all their rights, consistent with the values of Islamic law, maintaining the balance between their duties and rights.”
This is an inaccurate translation. One cannot help but to come to the opinion that this is specifically designed to mislead and cover up the restrictions they put on women rights. A more honest and accurate translation should be something like the following:

Ensure that all women get their rights As long as these don’t clash with Islamic Sharia
And as long as they are balanced against their duties.
ضمان حصول المرأه على جميع حقوقها
 بما لا يتعارض مع قيم الشريعة الإسلامية
وبما يحقق التوازن بين واجباتها وحقوقه

As it is evident from the translation, the last two clauses set serious restrictions and limitations on women rights. The rights of women, which the Muslim Brotherhood tell us they will ensure “all women get” are curtailed by two things:
-          First, the dictates of Islamic Sharia which we know are not consistent with what the world knows as “women rights” in our modern age – rights that form part of the International Bill of Human Rights.
-          Second, the “duties of women” as perceived, and prescribed, by the Muslim Brotherhood, and all male-dominated conservative societies. A woman’s rights must be balanced against these.
It is abundantly clear that the Muslim Brotherhood do not see women rights as natural and inalienable. Their rights must be restricted by Sharia and their duties in society; duties which are in themselves dictated by Sharia. As in all other areas of life and polity, whether we are talking about fundamental freedoms, human rights, constitution, democracy, etc., all must be circumscribed by Islamic law. But we know that already – what is shocking, perhaps to some, is that the Muslim Brotherhood are going at great length to hide this seemingly embarrassing fact, all in order to deceive, while all the time believing in it, and conspiring to translate it into positive law to rule Egypt by it.

B. Women in Part IV of the FJP’s Election Program

When we come to Part IV, we learn about the real intention of the Muslim Brotherhood, and their policy towards women and children. The Election Program starts with these words: “Here is our vision for the role of women in Egypt, and their rights and duties, as well as our vision for the development of youth and children sectors.” It then adds: “The FJP has the greatest respect, appreciation and support for women’s role as wives, mothers and makers of men; and aims to better prepare them for this role.” It is this “women’s role as wives, mothers and makers of men” that the Islamists see as the “duties” of women that any women rights must be balanced against, and restricted by.
But it is only when one comes to the subsection “The family as the child’s first incubator” that we know about the full vision of the Muslim Brotherhood for the place of women in Egypt. The whole subsection is characterised by demagoguery, cheap shots and allegations of international conspiracy and treachery by the Egyptian advocates of women and human rights. So they say:
“The family is the oldest institution on earth. It’s also the first incubator for breeding and upbringing of humans. To realise the importance of focusing on the construction of the family unit as a means for making and shaping the good Egyptian citizen, let’s look at the outcome of the previous decades of exposure systematic corruption implemented by several parties, especially the National Council for women,[xi] the National Council for Motherhood and Childhood,[xii] and a whole list of civil society organisations that receive foreign funds from suspicious sources. Those were helped along down that slimy slope with a package of corrupt laws passed not due to public demand, but were the result of international dictates imposed on us by international conventions signed under the previous regime.” [xiii]
Two international conventions that form part of the International Bill of Human Rights appear to come specifically under the Muslim Brotherhood fire:
  1. The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 1979.[xiv] The CEDAW was signed by Egypt on 16 July 1980 and ratified by it on 18 September 1981.[xv]
  1. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which was ratified by the UNGA in 1989.[xvi] It was signed by Egypt on 5 February 1990 and ratified by it on 6 July 1990.[xvii] Egypt, however, had a reservation in respect of Articles 20 and 21, which it had made upon signature, and confirmed upon ratification.[xviii] Article 20, is in fact one of the greatest articles in the CRC – it is concerned with the child who is “temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment”. The article adds that such a child “shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State,” which “shall in accordance with their national laws ensure alternative care for such a child.” Such care, the article clarifies, “could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law,[xix] adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children.” Furthermore, “When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.” Article 21 talks about the responsibilities of States Parties “that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption” and that they should follow certain measures to ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration. So both Articles 20 and 21, although they talk about adoption, mention it only as one of the various ways of care, which include also the Islamic kafalah, and do not make it compulsory on State Parties to legalise adoption. The Egyptian government explained its reservation with respect to all the clauses and provisions relating to adoption in the CRC in the following way: “Islamic Shariah,[xx] (which) is one of the fundamental sources of legislation in Egyptian positive law, does not include among those ways and means (that provide protection and care for children)[xxi] the system of adoption existing in certain other bodies of positive law.” By making such a reservation, Egypt’s rulers of the time displayed weak leadership in the face of irrational Islamic opposition. The reservation as we have seen was totally unnecessary, misplaced and disingenuous as there is nothing in the CRC that would make adoption compulsory on state parties or obligatory on the Muslims of Egypt. Egypt’s reservation was, however, withdrawn on 31 July 2003, which angered the Islamist demagogues.[xxii]
Talking about the CEDAW, the FJP’s Election Program says simply: “Thirty years ago, Egypt joined an international convention for women called the ‘Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)’ although this Convention controls the most private of the marital relationship details”! There is of course nothing in the Convention that talks about or “controls the most private of the marital relationship details”. The FJP, by propagating a lie, and trivialising the important issues that the CEDAW deals with, appeals to the emotions of its followers and try to provoke their oriental and religious susceptibilities.
This characteristic demagoguery of the Islamists in Egypt reaches its highest pitch when the FJP next discusses the CRC in its Election Program:
“Do any members of our great public know that Egypt is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which allows a child to choose the family to live with? Do Egyptians realise that they are obliged to accept homosexuals and treat them in the best and kindest way possible, in compliance with those agreements?? Not to mention the legalisation of adoption in ways strictly forbidden in Islamic law?!”[xxiii]
The Muslim Brotherhood, neglecting the great articles of the CRC, and the noble objectives it wants to achieve to improve the conditions of children across the world,[xxiv] seem to be rather concerned about three matters, according to their interpretation of the CRC: a. that the CRC “allows a child to choose the family to live with”; b. that Egyptians will be “obliged to accept homosexuals and treat them in the best and kindest way possible, in compliance with those agreements”; c. that it enforces “the legalisation of adoption in ways strictly forbidden in Islamic law”. We have already seen how the scaremongering about Article 20 and 21 in the Convention, and that they force State Parties to legalise adoption of children, is not based on any facts. As of the cheap shot related to homosexuality, there is nothing whatsoever in the CRC that is related in any way to encouraging homosexuality or treating gay and lesbian people “in the best and kindest way possible” – the place for that legitimate cause of treating homosexuals fairly is certainly not the CRC.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s reason behind their objection to allowing “a child to choose the family to live with” is not very immediately clear. However, they must be referring to Articles 9.3, 12 and 14.1 of the CPC; which I will reproduce underneath:
Article 9
3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.
Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
Article 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Now, it is important to remember that the CRC defines a child as “every human being below the age of eighteen years” (Article 1).[xxv] It also stresses the importance of assessing the child’s age and maturity before giving the views of the child due weight (Article 12.1). It is difficult, knowing the troubles created by Islamists in the past, not to think that the objections of the Muslim Brotherhood are not related to, and based on, the case of the Coptic twin boys, Andrew and Mario – a case that caused a bit of a stir in Egyptian society in the recent years.  Andrew’s and Mario’s father, Mr Medhat Ramsis, converted to Islam earlier in order to obtain an easy divorce from his wife, Mrs Camilia Lutfi. By conversion to Islam, he also hoped to take the boys into his custody away from their mother, and convert them into Islam against their expressed will; a practice which Islamic Sharia would allow. The mother, however, took her case to the Egyptian Court of Cassation, which ruled in her favour on June 15, 2009. The ruling was widely thought to have been influenced by the CPC. This ended a 5-year legal battle over the custodial rights between her and her ex-husband, but angered the Islamists of Egypt, since their Sharia dictated that the boys should have been taken away from their ‘infidel’ Coptic Christian mother and given to the custody of their now Muslim father, who followed “the best of religions”, Islam. As minors, Andrew and Mario should have also been forced to take that religion notwithstanding their refusal to do so, and their wish to remain Christian.[xxvi]
No one can miss the real meaning of the FJP’s opinion on the CRC. In it their fundamental opposition to the rights of women, children and Copts; and their lip service to guaranteeing of religious freedom; all come together. And they can always add a bit of their anti-homosexual rhetoric, as they address their prejudiced followers, to any debate about human rights and freedoms. In this way they hope to win all arguments.
Having set their vision for women and children of Egypt, the FJP announce to us their promises:
  1. They will abolish the National Council for Women and also the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood, which they accuse of acting as “the intelligence arm of the international players in Egypt”.
  2. They will withdraw from the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to achieve “complete independence for the Egyptian state”, and so that Egyptian policy “stems from the inherent pure values of the Egyptian people, not from some international agenda”.[xxvii] By these “inherent pure values of the Egyptian people” they of course mean the Islamic Sharia.
In summary – this is the Muslim Brotherhood promise for Egypt and the world: let us have less and less of women and children rights, and more and more of Sharia.


The status of women and children rights in Egypt is recognised by many to be one of the worst, as is the case in many other Muslim societies. Polygamy;[xxviii] the easy right of the husband to repudiate his wife or his wives at any time and at his unilateral discretion (Egypt’s divorce rate amongst Muslims is over 50%);[xxix] the husband’s excessive marital power over the wife; spouse abuse and domestic violence; the high number of street (homeless) children who are neglected by both society and state; the high incidence of physical and sexual child abuse – these are but some of the huge social problems in Egypt. At least some of these problems stem out from what remains in application of Sharia Law. Rather than its demagoguery and intellectual dishonesty, the Muslim Brotherhood should have faced these issues and confronted them head on if they were really moderate and progressive. But in place of that, we see them wanting to apply more of that which had caused the problem in the first place and planning to make Egypt withdraw from international conventions and treaties that form part of the International Bill of Human Rights.
One cannot read the FJP’s Election Program without coming to the conclusion that the Muslim Brotherhood’s position on women as it is in their political Manifesto is patronising, discriminatory and insulting. Beyond that, one can easily identify their demagoguery, superficiality, subterfuge, contradictions and intellectual dishonesty.
The women of Egypt, as indeed its free men, must expose the dangerous intentions of the Freedom and Justice Party in regard to rights of women and children in Egypt. As for the Coptic nationalists, we said it before and we repeat it now, we stand in one trench with the women of Egypt in their fight against oppression. An Egypt which mistreats its women will not treat its Coptic Christians better. There is a nexus between the fate of Egyptian women and that of the Copts – it has always been.


[i] More on CEDAW within the text of the article.
[ii] See, e.g., Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of State, who has been a strong advocate of women rights word-wide, pushing for women rights in Egypt on two different occasions:  on March 8, 2011 – Clinton: US to Push for Women’s Rights in New Mideast Democracies and then on December 6, 2011 – Clinton to Egypt: ‘Respect Rights and Democracy’
[iii] Bernard Lewis, writing in 2002, in his What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, explains this: “The struggle for women’s rights proved much more difficult, and the outcome of that struggle is still far from clear. The European powers, who used their influence and even their armed forces to impose the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of non-Muslims, showed no interest in ending the subjection of women. Nor is there much evidence that either the Middle-Eastern reformers or their European mentors were concerned about this issue. Even the imperial powers, in this as in most other respects, pursued cautiously conservative social policies, and took care to avoid any changes that would mobilize Muslim opinion against them and bring them no advantage.” Page 77 Phoenix; p. 2004)
[v] Ikhwan is the other name for Muslim Brotherhood. It means Brothers in Arabic – Muslim Brothers.
[vi] The reader can access the Arabic version here:
[vii] The other two sections are, “characteristics of the state” and “the nature of the political system”.
[viii] That section has many other subsections that include: “independence of the judiciary”; “free and fair elections”; “accountability, responsibility and questioning authority”; “decentralized local government, and impartiality of the administration”; “safeguarding citizenship rights, and the maintenance of national unity”; “revitalizing the role of individuals and civil society”.
[ix] There are two more FJP objectives added to this section, but they are not directly relevant to women rights. I herein copy them for information:
4. Enact legislation which criminalises nepotism and favouritism, and provide practical procedures that guarantee equal opportunities.
5. Support and promotion of political pluralism as one of the assets of the political process, and establish the rules of partnership between the state and civil society organizations to carry burdens of rejuvenation and development of the homeland. (Election Program; p. 12).
[x] Election Program; p. 12.
[xi] The National Council for Women was established in 2000 (via Presidential Decree no. 90, 2000). You can read its constitution, including mandate and objectives, here:
[xii] The National Council for Childhood and Motherhood was established in 1988 (via Presidential Decree no. 54, 1988; and was amended via Presidential Decree no. 273, 1989). You can read its constitution, including mandate and objectives, here:
[xiii] Election Program; p. 24.
[xvi] You can find the full text of the CRC here:
[xviii] See: Articles 20 and 21 of the CRC read as thus:
Article 20
1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.
2. States Parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure alternative care for such a child.
3. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.
Article 21
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration and they shall:
(a) Ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only by competent authorities who determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, that the adoption is permissible in view of the child’s status concerning parents, relatives and legal guardians and that, if required, the persons concerned have given their informed consent to the adoption on the basis of such counselling as may be necessary;
(b) Recognize that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child’s care, if the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the child’s country of origin;
(c) Ensure that the child concerned by inter-country adoption enjoys safeguards and standards equivalent to those existing in the case of national adoption;
(d) Take all appropriate measures to ensure that, in inter-country adoption, the placement does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it;
(e) Promote, where appropriate, the objectives of the present article by concluding bilateral or multilateral arrangements or agreements, and endeavour, within this framework, to ensure that the placement of the child in another country is carried out by competent authorities or organs.
[xix] For Kafalah, which is a much inferior system to adoption, see Kafallah; Fact Sheet Noo. 51 by the International Reference Centre for the Rights of Children Deprived of their Family (ISS/IRC); International Social Service (ISS):
[xx] Adoption is prohibited in Islam under Sura xxxiii.5,37. The story about how that has come to be, which is related to the marriage of Zaynab bint Jahsh to Muhammad, can be read in W. Monetgomery Watt’s Muhammad, Prophet and Stateman (Oxford University Press; Oxford; 1961); pp. 155-159.
[xxi] The Egyptian Government’s reservation actually lies when it says, “the Shariah (enjoins) the provision of every means of protection and care for children by numerous ways and means.”
xxii Egypt’s reservation which it made was upon signature of SEDAW reads as follows:
“Since The Islamic Shariah is one of the fundamental sources of legislation in Egyptian positive law and because the Shariah, in enjoining the provision of every means of protection and care for children by numerous ways and means, does not include among those ways and means the system of adoption existing in certain other bodies of positive law,
The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt expresses its reservation with respect to all the clauses and provisions relating to adoption in the said Convention, and in particular with respect to the provisions governing adoption in articles 20 and 21 of the Convention.”
For declarations and reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child by all States Parties, including Egypt, see:
[xxiii] Election Program; p. 24. The question and exclamation marks are theirs.
[xxiv] Amnesty International says that, in general, the CRC calls for:
-          Freedom from violence, abuse, hazardous employment, exploitation, abduction or sale
-          Adequate nutrition
-          Free compulsory primary education
-          Adequate health care
-          Equal treatment regardless of gender, race, or cultural background
-          The right to express opinions and freedom of though in matters affecting them
-          Safe exposure/access to leisure, play, culture, and art.
[xxv] The Article adds, “unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”.
[xxvii] Election Program; p  25. They talk about reviewing these two international conventions and then abolishing them through a referendum.
[xxviii] A Muslim woman is bound to monogamy, while a Muslim man may have as many as four wives at once.
[xxix] See the FJP Election Program; p. 4. The Program admits that the divorce rate is high; but, incorrectly identifying the underlying causes, adds: “Divorce rate exceeded 50% of marriages, because of poverty, unemployment and notoriously corrupt personal status laws that led to the distraction of young people away from marriage.” There is no talk about the Sharia rules that make it in the power of the husband to divorce his wife with much ease.
  1. December 15, 2011 7:51 pm
    Very interesting and well researched post.It was very enlightening to read this.
    The Sharia Law was made to guide those who stray or deviate from Islam back on the path of Islam.
    How Islam looks upon Women could be illustrated by the following verse:
    Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490:
    Narrated ‘Aisha:
    The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away for I disliked to face him.”

Friday, December 2, 2011

Happy Birthday dear Mother

Klementina Münch   30 Nov 1921 - 19 Apr 2011

Merry Christmas Mr. "Disco"

Coptic Christmas 07/01/2012

Egyptian Christmas marks the distinct way of carry out Christmas celebrations in Egypt. Following the dictums of Coptic or Orthodox Church, spend this year’s Christmas in Egypt and enjoy a completely new experience.


Celebrating Christmas in Egypt is an entirely different from the predominantly Christian countries. The most important difference lies with the fact that instead of 25th December, Christmas in Egypt is celebrated on 7th of January. Christmas traditions in Egypt are influenced by regional culture throughout the country and thus, have a certain diversity to boast of. The preceding forty days of Christmas in Egypt are known as Advent season. This long period is of importance as people abstain from eating meat, poultry or dairy products during this period.

The practice during the Advent season marks the self-control and devotion of all those who want to participate in Christmas in Egypt. However, people follow this dictum only for the last week of Advent. As in any other country, people shop and shop on the eve of the Christmas celebrations in Egypt. On the auspicious day of Christmas you will see Egyptians attending the church dressed in bright new outfits. The service in the church lasts till midnight. The bells of the church are rung to mark off the end of the service.After the service is over, people gather to receive the special bread called ‘qurban’ meaning sacrifice. This ritual is the Egyptian variant of the Christian tradition of serving bread and wine, symbolizing the flesh and blood of Jesus. The bread ‘qurban’ has a Holy Cross in the middle and 12 dots that represent the 12 apostles. After this people eat a special Christmas meal in their homes, which is known as ‘Fata’. The main constituents of the meal are bread, rice, garlic and boiled meat. In the morning, you will see people visiting their friends and neighbors and exchange ‘kaik’, eaten with drinks known as ‘shorbat’.

Christmas in Egypt is a holiday, especially for the Christians. According to the legends, the Holy Family fled to Egypt. To mark the event and all other related events during the Nativity, the church is decorated with candles and lamps.