“Thanks G-d for not making me a Gentile, a Woman or a Slave,” – Judaism’s holiest book, Talmud, Menahoth 43b-44a
I was amused to read some more Zionist propaganda lies about recent Iranian elections with the victory of anti-Zionist Ahmadinejad – in an interview published by the most powerful pro-Israel Jewish think tank, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on June 24, 2009 under the heading “Reform and Women Rights Movements Intertwined in Iran”.
The propaganda is based on two Zionist Jewish bigots exposing their self-denial nature – the CFR’s Senior Fellow, Isobel Coleman, projected to be “a leading expert on women’s issues” and her interviewer, CFR Consulting Editor, Bernard Gwertzman. The so-called “leading expert” believes that since a large number of women took part in protests in favour of the West’s hoax of “election fraud” – is an indication that “if Ahmadinejad’s victory stands”, people will see more restrictions on both the Reformist and Women Rights movements because they’re intertwined. Now, I guess, it would be a waste of time to enlighten the “leading Women’s Rights expert” – that women also participated in the Islamic Revolution (1979) more than they participated in any western revolution and since the establishment of the Islamic State – the number of women graduates has out-numbered many of western countries – and that Ahmadinejad’s administration has one female Vice-president, Fatemeh Vaez Javadi PhD, a position women still has to achieve in the US, France, Australia, and Russia.
Isobel thinks that Mir-Hussein Moussavi could be more pro-Women’s Rights due to his wife’s influence: “…he has a very prominent wife, Zahra Rahnavard, whose independence and prominence preceded his (Moussavi). She was a very well-known academic and who played a very active role in the campaign…She made statements on the need to respect women’s rights, so we could anticipate that women would have a better hearing under Moussavi presidency than Ahmadinejad presidency…”
How immoral these anti-Ahmadinejad Zionist propagandists are – can be seen by the dozens of their websites and blogs still busy printing lies about the wife of their “preferred presidential candidate” – Zahra Rahnavard PhD – who along with her husband Mir-Hossein Moussavi – are being labelled as “terrorists (for being among the students who captured spies in the US Embassy in Tehran)” or “radical (for her writing a play, calling Salman Rushde, a ‘Devil’)”, and recently “anti-Semite (for her saying: “Our main and everlasting enemy is Israel,” while campaining for her husband at Tehran’s Shahid Beheshti University)”.
Isobel also said that both Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader Ayatullah Khamenei are viewed by both the Reformist and women’s Rights groups as “anti-Women’s improvement”. Maybe be she suffers from amnesia – Ayatullah Khamenei was also the Supreme Leader during West’s favourite “Reformist” president Ayatullah Mohammad Khatami’s eight year rule (1997-2005)!
According to Isobel, the death of Neda Agha Soltan has already become a part of Iranian hagiography. But such lies are expected from the so-called “experts” embeded with the Zionist lobby groups. A rational mind on the other hand would like to know – why Neda’s wounded body was displayed in the street by the protesters to be videoed – instead of being rushed to some nearest clinc? Why the video ended up with pro-Shah Iranian contact in Netherlands, BBC and VOA? It do point fingers toward CIA-MOSSAD behind the shooting.
In 2003 – I read a report prepared by another “expert on women’s issues” – Cheryl Benard, the Jewish wife of Jewish Lobby’s favourite Afghan, Zalmy Khalilzad – is a senior analyst with Zionist think tank RAND. She in her report “Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, Strategies” – proposed that the only way to “deal” with Islam is by promoting Modernists (as such accepted by the Israel Lobby) as role models and leaders, criticizing traditionalism (Pity, Dr. Tariq Ramadan was still banned from entering the US for being a threat to country’s security!), encouraging journalists to highlight any report of misdeeds by institutions that can be linked to traditional Islam, and promoting the idea that religion and politics can be separated in Islam without endangering the faith.
A Muslimah’s views on women’s rights titled Barbie Girls and Barmy Muslims:
“With all its talk of the first, second and third wave of feminism, the unspoken truth is that feminism has betrayed western women. Whilst it gave them the vote, rights of ownership and equal opportunities, when it came to providing a moral compass on how to live your life in the post-religious west, all that feminism could muster was a blurred template formed from the detritus of male society.
In Islam women have the best of both worlds. We have been granted our rights by the Creator of the universe who has also shown us how to live so that we are not left to squander our lives in a futile attempt to satiate our never-ending desires.
Opponents of Islam who seek to “fix” Islam by introducing the western concept of feminism would be better advised to save their resources and fix feminism first. To those Muslim sisters who make a living role-playing the exasperated best friend of Muslim women – rolling their eyes in fond vexation at our own folly of clinging to “backward” notions of hijab, modesty and chastity – I would advise them to reflect well on the motivation of their actions and whose agenda they are fulfilling by carrying them out.
For the rest of us women, caught between the west’s scorn and pity and some of our own brothers and sisters who earnestly tell us that we can discard vast tracts of our religion, we should reassure ourselves that our rights and responsibilities are not man-made but God-given and we should not cast aside this gift like an unwanted doll and start looking around for something better.”
In conclusion – I would like to quote Father Roland de Vaux from his book – ‘Ancient Israel: It’s Life and Institutions’ (1961) – for the benefit of these “experts on women’s rights issues” – not to throw stones on Muslims while sitting inside a glass-house themselves: “The social and legalized position of a Israelite (Jew) wife was inferior to the position of a wife occupied in the great countries round about….all the texts show that Israelites wanted mainly sons to perpetuate the family line and fortune and to preserve the ancestral inheritance. A husband could divorce his wife; women on the other hand could not ask for divorce. The wife called her husband Ba’al or master, she also called him adon or lord; she addressed him, in fact, as a slave addressed his master or a subject, his king. The Decalogue includes a man’s wife among his possessions … all her life she remains a minor. The wife doesn’t inherit from her husband, nor daughters from their father, except when there is no male heir. A vow made by a girl or a married woman needs, to be valid, the consent of father or husband, and if this consent is withheld, the vow is null and void. A man has a right to sell his daughter. Women were excluded from succession.”
Nothing of the above have changed in the so-called “only democracy in the Middle East”. Rabbanic courts still don’t accept wife’s right for divorce – and in 2004, sex-slavery accounted for US%i billion trade. Both Amnesty International and the US State Department have reported increase in sex-slavery in Israel – but I bet these experts in “women’s right issues” would not dare to raise their voices in support of those Jewish and Christian women – in fear of being targetted as “Self-Hating Israel-Threatening (S.H.I.T.)” Jews.