View Full Version : Another step towars assimilation of Islam? Miss Muslim UK
macmuslim
04-09-2005, 13:01
From BBC
First Muslim Miss England crowned
Miss Kohistani was born in Tashkent after her parents fled Afghanistan
A teenager who was born in Uzbekistan has become the first Muslim beauty contestant to be crowned Miss England.
Hammasa Kohistani, 18, said she was "happy to make history" and was looking forward to representing England in the Miss World championships in China.
She was born in Tashkent, central Uzbekistan, after her parents were forced to flee Afghanistan.
The brunette, who speaks six languages including Russian and Persian, was selected from 40 contestants.
She was crowned on Saturday night following the two-day competition at Liverpool's Olympia Theatre.
I'm making history and I'm very happy
Hammasa Kohistani
Dressed in an ivory white chiffon and silk ball gown designed and made by her mother, the teenager spoke of her joy at winning the title.
"When they announced that I had won I thought I had misheard. I hoped they hadn't, but it took a second to sink in."
Asked about her feelings at being the first Muslim Miss England, she said: "I'm making history and I'm very happy. Hopefully I won't be the last."
The student, who was known as Miss Maya after the Asian fashion house which sponsored her, has also been offered a part in a forthcoming Bollywood movie.
Among those Miss Kohistani beat was another Muslim entrant, Sarah Mendly, 23, who was voted Miss Nottingham.
Miss Mendly had been among the favourites but her entry caused controversy when Liverpool's Islamic institute called on her to pull out because contestants are often scantily clad.
The Miss World championships will be held in December.
As-Salam Alaikum
Miss world of Miss England contests reminds me of the Bazaar which used to be in Arabia before Islam where people buy or sell women.
I really don’t see any beauty in such contest but a humiliation for women.
Beauty has nothing to do with body because the real beauty is the beauty of the soul.
There are Millions of Muslims who were born as Muslims but never practiced or followed their religion and Miss England could be one of them.
From BBC
First Muslim Miss England crowned
I'm making history and I'm very happy
Hammasa Kohistani
.
Assalamoalykum all
since BBC used the word muslim in its head line let us see what Allah says to muslim women, since a muslim is the one who submits his/her will to Allah.
24.31 . And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest , and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent , and to draw their veils over their bosoms , and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands fathers , or their sons or their husbands ' sons , or their brothers or their brothers ' sons or sisters sons , or their women , or their slaves , or male attendants who lack vigor , or children who know naught of women ' s nakedness . And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment . And turn unto Allah together , O believers , in order that ye may succeed
33.33 . And stay in your houses . Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the Time of ignorance . Be regular in prayer , and pay the poor due , and obey Allah and His messenger . Allah ' s wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you , O Folk of the Household , and cleanse you with a thorough cleansing .
-----
so according to these two ayahs, she is in clear violation of commands of ALlah! and is NOT a knowledgeable woman but a woman of the time of jaahiliyah i.e ignorance.
she says she is making history, well so did pharoah in the past and so are salman rushdi,irshad munji and ziaudin sardar.... this woman is just another trump card in the hands of enemy of islam and nothing else. these people are like froth on the see, make a lot of noise but have no substance and die down after a while. she will be herself history soon, a horrible one by the looks of it, unless Allah takes mercy on her and she repents .
every human being with a bit of common sense will agree that this contest is utter humiliation of a woman, and yevone ridley in agenda today was wondering why feminist movement has done nothing to stop this humiliation and sale of meat.
but let us look at the bright side, she is only one 'muslim' woman exposing her body, but look at the hundreds of reverts western women who abandoned the bikineis and took hijaab and even NIQAB i.e face veil. only 2 days ago a German revert sister with niqab came to my house.
i am telling you islam is winning , islam is in the lead! Alhumdulillah.the proof is medias deliberate focuss on the weak corners of islam, which in turn are generated by much efforts by the non muslim forces.
was it nigeria that they failed to stand the miss humilation?
may Allah guide us all to the truth Ameen.
wassalam
lubna
Netcurtains3
06-09-2005, 07:19
come off it,
Its clearly English people response to al qaeda. It wouldn't even be in the news if it wasn't for the tube bombs. Some MI6 graduate trainee was probably given the job of finding out a news item that al qaeda would least like hearing and he thought "I know al qaeda don't like women so lets have a picture of smiling women".
The tube bomber's leader was a child molester and I guess most people associated with al qaeda are homosexuals or child molesters. We know that where we have free press willing to investigate religion we find that child molesters and homosexuals love to infiltrate into religious institutions dominated by men. It was no co-insidence that this bomber touched children as part of his job.
The Koran mentions the words "or their slaves". In the free world the nearest translation would probably be servent. In democracies we are are servents of the state and the state is us (one could say slave too I guess as the people have total theorectical control). This the LITERAL translation (eg not putting anything on top) is that muslim women living in democracies do not need to cover themselves. Other transalations of this phrase require non-literal interpretations (people in cold climates are also less sexually active in a measurable way and thus "vigor" is also covered).
John
Om_Mohammed
06-09-2005, 08:25
Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.
Greetings and good day.
Just to set the record straight about the terms for you, Netty...whether you are talking about the arabic original or the english translation, there is still quite a difference between the word slave and servant.
They may seem similar enough to you, but there is indeed a difference.
But in the context of which it is concerning the verse presented, it is referring to 'or their women, or their slaves...' meaning: 'their women folk' (i.e. the females of the household or those women they normally come in contact with ). And 'their slaves' indicates exactly that...i.e. their slaves.
Nowadays, even in most societies, slavery has been abolished. But at the time of the revelation of the Quran, slavery was indeed part of everyday society. There was the condition of servantry (where it consists of a free person entering into the servitude as maid or butler for another, with a salary and time off), as well as slavery (where it consists of buying a person at a marketplace to live where you deem, and work as you deem fit). But this particular wording is indeed referring to slaves.
The point about the 'vigor' in relation to men of whom it is permitted that a woman not cover from, is certainly not at all referring to a cold climate or otherwise. It is in fact referring to the male essence of the males concerned. Other translations render the translation of the arabic term here as 'effeminate'. Perhaps this indicates more clearly to you what is meant here by this term. It means, actually, those males who do not have a male sex drive to be excited by and attracted to the females they may see. Nothing really to do with climate.
But always better to be on the safe side, and guarding her chastity, a woman should not reveal herself to men. Period. At least those who are not of legal relationship for her.
I certainly cannot understand how in the world you can assume or claim that a democracy should have anything at all to do with a muslim woman needing to cover herself or not. There is certainly nothing concerning such a 'democracy' in the verses given.
The point is for a muslim woman to cover herself from the view of men. Period. Only those legal to view her would be those of her legal guardianship or relationship (i.e. her father, grandfather, brother, son, grandson, uncle, nephew (mind you, these must be her own blood uncles, or her blood nephews, not those related to her thru any marriage), and of course, her husband).
Any man other than these blood relations are not legal for her to be viewed by them. Period. And that means that any other than these relations are legal for her to be married to. Because there is no blood tie.
Excepting, of course, the tie of the fostering (i.e. those whom she has nursed with as an infant, or nursed herself as infants). (this particular point is something rather foreign to the western population nowadays, but a valid relationship all the same).
Hope that some of these things have become more clear to you, Nets.
Basically, a democracy or other legal system has no bearing absolutely on the validity of these verses.
As for this 'miss UK'...it is surely sad indeed to see any muslim woman bringing herself down to such a level of parading herself about for such an animalistic parade of a beauty contest. May Allah help her and guide her.
Women of course have natural beauties bestowed upon her by Allah.
But there is truly so much more to a woman than that outer beauty.
And this is one of the great benefits of the hijab...for it helps a woman to become known and loved and admired for her inner qualities-that of the beauty of her heart or her knowledge, rather than the surface beauty of the skin.
So superficial, really, these beauty pagents.
I truly feel sorry for those women who have the need to seek such acknowledgement by such public physical parades.
Om Mohammed.
Netcurtains3
06-09-2005, 09:16
the people are "Sovereign" in a democracy. this LITERALLY means we are all masters and slaves of each other.
You have CLEARLY added to the words of the Koran a MEANING that is not LITERAL.
John
Netcurtains3
06-09-2005, 10:22
....taking it further.
In Islam (from how it is explained to me) Mohammed was meant to be illiterate-ish and from this we are meant to assume (I guess) that the Koran has no input from Mohammed but is rather direct from an angel or god. From the Islamic religion we are also taught that these writings are not just for the TIME (AGE) and CULTURE of Mohammad they were written but for ALL TIME (AGES) and CULTURES.
Therefore the context of SLAVES is not the context of slaves during the time of Mohammed or indeed the culture of Mohammed but rather ALL TIMEs and ALL CULTURES. Therefore in a democracy, where we are all slaves and all masters, women can dress how they please because this is the LITERAL interpretation whereas you have added extra words and these words only make sense to the TIME and CULTURE of Mohammed whereas mine are Literal and go across all TIME and all CULTURES.
John
Dear Netcurtains:
Ask any western feminist on exploitation of women, for example prostitution and cattle business like beauty contests. If this isn't slavery what else is? This is the worst form of slavery.
Ma'a-salaama,
Netcurtains3
06-09-2005, 12:19
obviously feminism has moved on somewhat since the 1960s.
However Mr Universe competitions and Miss World competitions
probably have their roots in working class teenage men and women
becoming self aware of themselves and trying to use what "god" has
given to them to their best advanage to find a mate via dating instead
of arranged marriages.
These sort of competitions no longer have mass
media appeal as nowadays working class people tend to be attached to
"REALITY TV". Reality TV had for a brief moment Ms Greer (the 1960s feminist icon) as a contestant in Big Brother. IMHO Big Brother is exploitation by
the media on young peoples desire to be "famous" for 5 minutes. Miss World
on the other hand, is more akin to self-promotion, as it has very little Media
coverage but does give the entrants status in the beauty business.
john
come off it,
Its clearly English people response to al qaeda. It wouldn't even be in the news if it wasn't for the tube bombs. Some MI6 graduate trainee was probably given the job of finding out a news item that al qaeda would least like hearing and he thought "I know al qaeda don't like women so lets have a picture of smiling women".
you have some imagination, its not even proven that those pakistani did it, there are so many loop holes just like 9/11. and how do we know if the 'claim' of al qaida is a genuine one? UK went to war on the false information of WMD?
Al qaida is an invention. one scholar said what is the video as a proof , you can even make animals speak on the videos! and we have seen so many fake videos of usama by the media... ;)
The tube bomber's leader was a child molester and I guess most people associated with al qaeda are homosexuals or child molesters. We know that where we have free press willing to investigate religion we find that child molesters and homosexuals love to infiltrate into religious institutions dominated by men. It was no co-insidence that this bomber touched children as part of his job.".
this is a total slandering! please do avoid it.
Netcurtains3
06-09-2005, 13:27
Hi,
you said:
"this is a total slandering! please do avoid it."
Actually its not slandering its 100% truth and you know it.
If you befriend young children in the knowledge that you are going to commit suicide and then commit suicide by blowing yourself up on a train at 8:45am in the fulll knowledge that children will quite likely be on that train you are:
a) physically abusing children on trains.
b) mentally abusing the children that you taught.
Its factual that Mohammad Sidique Khan was a child abuser and that al-Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri going along with it is a child abuser too. Mohammad Sidique Khan also abused his wife and child by doing this.
Please avoid slandering me by calling me a slanderer when I speak the truth.
John
Om_Mohammed
06-09-2005, 15:59
Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.
Greetings and good day.
As I have already mentioned...but let me re-emphasize it...for perhaps it was not clear enough the first time:
The hijab, or the covering for the muslim woman...is indeed something of an obligatory action. In obeying it, or adhering to the practice of it, the woman is in fact completing a portion of her religious worship by obeying the command of Allah. And in ignoring it or refusing to observe this practice, she is not completing that portion of her religion...rendering her religious worship incomplete and even quite missing for not obeying a command of Allah.
The command in the Quran reads to 'tell the believing women...' and then goes on to further define the points of the hijab or the covering. indicating that this order or command is for all muslim women of all times and ages, regardless of the political atmosphere of the society in which they may live.
I makes no difference if she lives in a democracy or otherwise. Either way, she is obliged to conform to this command.
If she does not, she is committing a heinous sin, and incurs upon herself the wrath of Allah for doing so.
Actually, Islam is the true epitomy of the highest form of feminism or a freedom movement for women. For with the hijab, a woman becomes known for her heart and her brain, and not for her body like an animal being paraded about.
Om MOhammed.
Netcurtains3
06-09-2005, 16:19
om,
I apologise if you thought I was trying to arrogantly say what the Islamic teachings should be. What I was doing was looking at the Koran in a LITERAL non-specific religious sense and not the offically correct sense of a specific religion. I make no claim to be a muslim or to even think the Koran contains the real words of God or angels.
Just to clarify my position.
I also, agree, that in countries with extremely bright sun it might be healthier to keep covered up as much as possible so as to avoid cancer.
John
Om_Mohammed
07-09-2005, 08:52
Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.
Greetings and good day.
Netcurtains...no need to apologize for your own rejection of Islam. It makes no offense to me personally.
It matters little to me personally what you believe of the Quran.
But just to set the record straight, what is written there in the Quran IS in fact the literal translation for it, particularly as concerns the women and the hijab. It is quite clear...for the believing women to observe the hijab, regardless of any political or social atmosphere of the society in which she is.
It is for those believing women to cover. Regardless of what you may believe, netcurtains.
Om Mohammed.
Netcurtains3
07-09-2005, 11:03
hi Om,
Its not a "faith" its basic ENGLISH.
This is what was written:
"
24.31 . And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest , and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent , and to draw their veils over their bosoms , and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands fathers , or their sons or their husbands ' sons , or their brothers or their brothers ' sons or sisters sons , or their women , OR THEIR SLAVES , or male attendants who lack vigor , or children who know naught of women ' s nakedness . And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment . And turn unto Allah together , O believers , in order that ye may succeed
"
I've put OR THEIR SLAVES in upper case letters.
You are interpreting "OR THEIR SLAVES" to a specific type of female person. To do this you have to go BEYOND the LITERAL meaning of the phrase and instead go to context of the time Mohammed/Angel/God/other wrote this phrase. I on the other hand am LITERALLY just taking OR THEIR SLAVES to mean just as it says "OR THEIR SLAVES". In a democracy we are all masters and slaves, so literally, in a democracy a woman can do what she wants.
I'm sorry, but that is the LITERAL meaning of "OR THEIR SLAVES"... your view is not literal, its putting the phrase into cultural context of the time of Mohammed.
John
". In a democracy we are all masters and slaves, so literally, in a democracy a woman can do what she wants.
I'm sorry, but that is the LITERAL meaning of "OR THEIR SLAVES"... your view is not literal, its putting the phrase into cultural context of the time of Mohammed.
John
seems like another contradictory phrase to me, how can we all be masters and salve at the same time?
in your democraZy all are slave and Blair is the master...... remember the stop the war march done by millions of salves and master did what he pleased with.
so in democraZy we have masters i.e Bush,Blair,sheron etc and then sub- masters or shall i say slaves of a higher responsibilities like Musharraf,huseny mubarak etc and the rest are ALL JUST SLAVES.we are slaves of more than one God.
all masters all slaves seems like another trinity concept to me...:) please do enlighten me on this one.
in islam WE ARE ALL SLAVES to one Allah ! Bush, blair etc are all slaves to the same Allah as are we the general public. we are all accountable to only one God!
infact leaders have more accountability than general public incase they didnt take care of their affairs properly. true leaders in islam dont get proper sleep at night for the fear of unjustice done to their public under their rule!
can you imagine this at this time and day? just becos it is hard to imagine doesnt mean it will not happen, tv, space travel,satalite sytems ,aeroplanes ,internet etc were all hard to imagine once!
this proves another point scinece and islam are hand in hand and a lot in common...:)
but i beleive in the islamic sytem with a full conviction of my heart Alhumdulillah as i have witnessed it in the history and Quraan promises it to me so it will happen again in the future inshaALlah.
ok so back to the woman.....(i am not self centred....:) just happen to be a woman Alhumdulillah..:)) so in islam a woman cant do what ever she wants but only whatever her master Allah permits her to do.and same is the case with a man.
as for you taking the literal meaning...... then in Quraan Allah says ''come to do the hajj on skinny or healthy camels...'' so would you expect people to go on camels rather than planes from UK?
women in pakistan still have house maids from whom they dont hide their adornments........ and i think british people use to have house mades too...
or cleaning ladies...... that leads to another point
arent all the workers, employees , a sort of slaves.... they cant take a holiday if and when they need, they have to arrange in advance i.e know the future otherwise they will be punished in different degrees like a pay cut to getting sacked.......
some muslims cant go to hajj cos their office people are not letting them go at the time that etc.... they have to choose between Allah and work ....just my thoughts....
I
I also, agree, that in countries with extremely bright sun it might be healthier to keep covered up as much as possible so as to avoid cancer.
John
i am glad to know that you found at least one scientific reason behind covering ........i can add a few more
women can be saved from hey fever when they cover their faces and noses by not breathing in the pollen in the air in UK.... .
they also are more protected by all sorts of other the viruses in the air in all countries, simply by filtering the air by niqab...:)
especially when a woman is pregnent her immunity is very low covering all around is very healthy for her.
how about dust and patrol pollution .......
how about dangers of passive smoking....... definitly calls for niqab etc.
you see Allah knows more science than we humans know put together.......
can he suggest anything that is harmful for His creation that he loves? NEVER!
in submitting to his will is our salvation and peace.
and he is kind enough to tell his will in clear cut words in the Quraan and through the NLP i.e neuro linguist programming of sunnah of muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
you can not plead ignorance on the day of judgement now!
as you were simply told to do so and so!
Netcurtains3
07-09-2005, 21:12
This summer I went cornwall with the kids.
We saw a beautiful sand island a few hundred yards out to sea.
To get to the beach, so that we could swim to the Island, we had to scramble down a cliff face - it had about a 13 foot drop.
At the bottom of the cliff, there was a little cove. On the cove, to our
surprise, there was a small number of elderly men and women (in their 70s) all naked!
We were all taken aback a bit, but in the normal English way we carried on and just semi-ignored them. I say semi-ignored because my wife and myself did look at them a bit. They were all quite graceful, fit and healthy (for their ages). I thought, yes, if I was naked, I probably would look after my body more because it would be on show more. Both myself and my wife thought we would like to be like that if we ever were elderly.
Anyway, the English word "slave" comes from the word "slav" which is basically the people living in Eastern Europe. It is derived from yet another word (forget which) which means "famous people" in its original form.
Democracy, means rule by the people of the people. Its not just a voting system, its a whole culture of free press and independent legal system. It only works if people behave responsibly and respectfully. It is easily damaged. It is very fragile. But it is one of the few things in life worth dying for,
Dear Netcurtains:
Well defined "democracy" means "rule of the people by the people".
I've diiged up this link that just about explains the word democracy:
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc1/lectures/07democracy.html
Athens was considered the mother of democracy. It excluded of a large proportion of the population, namely slaves, foreigners and women, from the citizenship, so much so that only a reduced number of people were considered to be eligible to take part in "democratic" process. Robert Flaceliere in his "Daily Life in Greece at the Time of Pericles" points out:
A democracy with such significant prejudices about manual labour and commerce; a democracy which only grants citizen rights to a small minority of the population - does not such a democracy bear an uncommon resemblance to an aristocratic régime?
Interestingly the actual USA at its foundation was considered democracy though millions of people were still slaves, and up to this days millions are defranchised and never vote. The American president, the most powerful man on earth, is elected to this day indirectly by an electoral college, so much for one man one vote! The founding fathers of USA thought the people were unfit to elect directly the president, thus the electoral college system.
Ma'a-salaama,
tbahrain
08-09-2005, 12:33
Assalamualaikum & greetings All,
Any idea where Net is going with this Democrasy = Master & Slave thing? :confused:
Netcurtains3
08-09-2005, 12:35
Tayeb,
You obviously have had a very different education from me. I have come from NORTH WEST EUROPE and as such my education is biased towards seeing the world from a North West European perspective.
As a child we were taught that parliamentary democracy arose in pre-Christian Iceland in about 900AD. Iceland is mainly peopled with viking people from Norway, the UK and Ireland. It was a parliament based on important families (men and women). There was no king. In 1000AD this parliament decided to get rid of Thor the Thunder God and instead become christain. Thus democracy is pre-christian.
Jury - is a more germanic concept. Germans concidered everyone equal and it was not a king that should make the laws but juries of ordinary people. It was a duty.
Anyway, when a foreign king that was unpopular, King John, started to act odd, indeed Islam was part of the problem, the "rich nobs" of the UK dusted down the German concept of "Jury" and the Viking concept of "Parliament" and we get the Magna Carta and the end of despotism. I think this was about 1200AD.
Over a great deal of time, we get where we are today.
The press love to hi-light when people abuse democracy by claiming "THEIR RIGHTS" (eg Masters) and they also love to hi-light peoples slave burdens of
high taxes. The concept of "slave" is really that of unpaid labour - which a tax is.
As a secularist I could also point out that Saudi Arabia is environmental the reverse of Iceland, one is extremely cold and the main occupation is fishing in the artic sea. The other is extremely hot and the main occupation was trading over the desert. Mohammed was a product of his environment to a secularist. To back this view up we can see that the Greek view of Democracy was also developed by a maritime nation. The UK also of course is a maritime nation. Christianity has a core message of "fishermen".
John
I thought, yes, if I was naked, I probably would look after my body more because it would be on show more. .,
you have summed up the thinking of a secularist or an atheist and even a democret. who do things only to please or approve by the PEOPLE. unlike a muslim or a religionist who does it cos it is the right thing to do and is ordered by Allah.
so it might be that you will not steal cos police camera is there or people are watching you, but a muslim will not steal simply cos Allah is watching him.
as for literally looking after the body, a muslim does it cos in islam our body has rights over us too, and we can not do anything that harms us, be it a toxicant ,wine, starvation, sleep depriviation, over eating etc.
unlike an insultive, shallow and demeaning reason of 'being on the show'
Democracy, But it is one of the few things in life worth dying for,
according to Bush it is worth killing for. and for this reason he hides the deathtoll of american soldiers .
i heard some americans are demanding bush to send his daughters to iraq to fight.... is that right?
Om_Mohammed
12-09-2005, 08:17
Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.
Greetings and good day.
Sorry for my short absence here...was suddenly struck by severe mouth pain...quite deblilitating.
Anyways...have been looking and looking for this thread since yesterday...almost gave up and was about to start another thread to refute Net's claim about the 'slave & servant' point.
To return to his claim that the government officials in a democracy are the slaves to the public...I tend to disagree with that viewpoint, and terminology.
This being that the term slave itself renders to the meaning that the person who is the slave is working by force for the master, without any necessary compensation or pay for that job. He/she (the slave) has been bought by the master, and is more or less owned by that master to do what the master bids.
Whereas a servant is entering into such a job by free will, in an agreement with the employer for comparable compensation and pay, as well as time off.
It is quite a difference.
As well, I don't know exactly how it is termed in UK, because I do not live there and I am less familiar with things in the UK (even the language spoken) than what I am with the US.
However, in the US, all public or government officials (even in the lower eschelons as well as the higher offices) are termed as 'public servants' and NOT...repeat, NOT...'public slaves'.
And by all means...to further express this point, let me also point out that none of those public servants are doing those jobs without some sort of compensation-whether that be in the form of monetary payment (as in salary) or accomodation and travel expenses, or both...and more!!
Oh, by all means...those 'public servants' are surely in it for the money and fame of it. Hardly any of them (the politicians) are in it merely for the sake of serving their country.
And, further more...have you ever noticed that no one gets to those points of offices of the civil service, unless they already have money?? I mean...it takes money to get to those positions. If you don't have money in the first place, then you might as well forget about 'serving' the public!!
I truly challenge anyone to take a person straight from any of the ghettos...and then get him/her in to public office!!
Democracy. Sure.
Dream on.
Anyways, back to my original point...there is, whether you are talking in reference to Quran or democracy...a difference in the terms and applications of 'servant' and 'slave'.
As for slave...all of us are the slaves to Allah. He is our only Master.
Om Mohammed.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.