Hard to imagine given all the negative press, but the Saudi authorities insistence on no church buildings has actually brought Christians closer to the New Testament model of early Christianity.

There were no ‘church’ buildings in the beginning, the NT word for church is ekklesia and it envisages a group or gathering of people NOT a stone building. In other words whenever a group of Christians gathered to worship G-d in the correct manner and in accordance with the words of ‘Isa (Jesus), this was a church in the true sense of the word. The buildings we witness today with their large steeples are far removed from the simplicity that Jesus and his early followers spoke of. They are innovations into the religion of Christianity.

The Saudi ban on ‘church buildings’ has meant that Christians in that land have now partly returned to the New Testament model of worship (they still maintain many polytheist practices that have nothing to do with the religion that ‘Isa (Jesus) brought) in the same way that the early Christians did, in small joyful gatherings.

Islam has once again demonstrated its position as the true criterion between what is right and wrong in the former religions. And ALL praises are to Allah.

Newspapers have reported that Gardai seeking convictions of their first case of so-called Islamic extremism are invoking Section 50 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007. It applies to:

(a) murder involving the use of a firearm or an explosive,
(b) murder to which section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990 applies,
(c) an offence under section 15 of the Act of 1925, or
(d) an offence under section 15 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 involving the use of a firearm.

The only possible justification at this point, as far as we can see, refers to sub-section b – part 3 which speaks of an attempt to commit murder but that itself poses problems for again there are no indications that any of the accused had any intention to commit murder within this state.

So let’s recap:
1. No firearms or explosives were found (at least that’s what the media is reporting.
2. There has been no evidence of money passing hands, attempts to procure weapons, etc.
3. There was no attempt on anyone’s life
4. There was no attempt to murder in this state

So what we have in effect is a few innocent people pretty angry at the insult Vilks had heaped upon their Prophet, their religion and Islam in general having a discussion and venting their anger. Do we have anything else?

This site receives explicit threats on a weekly basis, some of which have been passed on to Gardai who have said they can do nothing about Internet discussions as they are nothing more than ‘thoughts’. Strange how they were able to act on the discussion regarding Vilks with such great enthusiasm. Another example of double-standards?

Even Vilks has stated that he will ‘chop down’ anyone who climbs into his window. He will attempt to kill with a weapon (an axe) which he proudly holds up for the cameras. It seems its perfectly OK for non-Muslims to defend and kill for what they deem precious but condemnable for others (Muslims) to simply discuss it. Is this yet another case of Muslims being arrested for what is little more than a ‘thought crime’?

How can Arabs trust US when it blatantly supports (Admin edit:Jewish State) positions? Even a US president as smart as Barack Obama does not seem to get it. He has this week sent his Vice President Joe Biden on a Middle-East trip with the same old blinkered message for the (Admin edit:Jewish State) , which immediately causes suspicion and anxiety in the Arab world.

A grinning Biden stood beside Benjamin Netanyahu at the end of their talks and promised that Washington was committed to the security of (the) (Admin edit:Jewish State) and determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Biden however did not bother to say anything about the security of the Palestinian people.

Nor — and this is the elephant in the room of US policy toward Iran’s assumed nuclear ambitions — did he allude in the slightest to the fact that Israel is already an undeclared, unmonitored and unrepentant Middle East nuclear-armed power.

How can the Americans expect the Arab world to take seriously their protestations that they are intent on brokering a just and lasting Palestinian settlement, when their opening position is so distorted by such blatant partiality toward the (Admin edit:Jewish State) position?

Of course (Admin edit:Jewish State) deserve security but so too do the Palestinians and the wider region. Pandering to the US Zionist lobby and their friend Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, while ignoring the half century of misery endured by the Palestinians, is no way to set out this peacemaking stall.

And as if this were not pusillanimity enough, the (Admin edit:Jewish State) have chosen Biden’s visit to confirm they are about to build 112 more settlements, illegal under international law, at Beitar Illit on the West Bank.

The (Admin edit:Jewish State) Defense Ministry says the construction is essential to fill “a potentially dangerous gap between steeply raked apartment buildings.”

This is a complete inversion of reality, since it is the illegal settlements themselves, which constitute the real danger to a successful conclusion of any Palestinian peace deal.

The (Admin edit:Jewish State) know(s) this perfectly well. By continuing to build not just in East Jerusalem, where they have refused to implement their moratorium, but on the West Bank as well, they are creating the circumstances which will cause an already weakened Palestinian leadership under President Mahmoud Abbas, to draw back even perhaps from the indirect talks which have only recently been endorsed by the Arab League.

Netanyahu represents hard-line Zionists who dread the challenge of peace because they have prospered so much under US protection during the long years of conflict.

Obama may have been sincere last year when he delivered his Cairo address, but he has since been forced to back down on his call for an end to illegal settlement building.

For whatever dark reason, he has been unable to use the levers of US financial power to ease the (Admin edit:Jewish State) toward a genuine commitment to peace negotiations. In effect, even though a Palestinian settlement is the golden key to the ending of so many of the ills that beset the Middle East, including terrorism, he has handed it over to the (Admin edit:Jewish State) without condition. So while Netanyahu warmly shook Biden’s hand, he stamped on his foot at the same time.

Source: Arab News

A young Hindu girl spouts her love for her Muslim neighbours…and this video was hosted on Robert Spencer’s website, someone our own Irish Islamophobes revere! The same Spencer who constantly regurgitates the lie that Ahmadinejad called for the Jewish State to be wiped off the map.

We wonder what would happen if we posted a young Palestinian child calling for similar actions against the Jews occupying their land? More double-standards!

A new law in the (admin edit:Jewish State) makes it a crime to commemorate what Palestinians call the “Nakba”, the “catastrophe” of their dispossession by the creation of the Zionist state in 1948. The Knesset, (admin edit:Jewish State)’s parliament, has passed “The Nakba Draft Law” after just one reading. Penalties will be imposed on anyone showing signs of sadness and mourning within the (undefined) borders of (admin edit:Jewish State) on 15 May; Palestinians remember on that day the creation of the refugee crisis that remains after 62 years.

Hebrew radio reported this week that the law is intended to stop people mourning on what is (admin edit: the Jewish State) Independence Day; commemorative acts are, it is claimed, tantamount to “denying the Jewish character of (admin edit:Jewish State) [and] insulting the symbols of the state”. The radio noted that the fines might amount up to three times the expenditure of commemorative programmes.

According to one commentator, it is ironic that this law has been passed at a time when (admin edit: the Jewish State) is complaining about attempts to “de-legitimise” the Zionist state. Here is an example of (admin edit: the Jewish State)’s own “de-legitimisation” of the Palestinians, their land and their culture, he said.

Source

NOTE: Why we will not use ‘Israel’ to describe the Jewish State.

The murder of two-year-old James Bolger in 1993 shocked the world. That two young 10-yr old boys were found guilty of the calculated and heinous crime was equally shocking. Unsurprisingly the public wanted revenge. We watched the news clips of the vans transporting the young murderers to trial being accosted by mobs, who summarily beat upon the sides of the vans. As one writer stated, ‘What exactly would those hammering on the side of their transport vans have done had they managed to get to them? Strung them up from the nearest lamp post?’

After serving eight years, both murderers were released in June 2001 with new identities – the fear of a vigilante reprisal was very real. Venables has since being recalled having violated the conditions of his parole. Public sentiment is very mixed.

The desire for justice is a strong natural instinct, we want to see adequate and just reparations for crime. Slapping a rapist on the wrist by giving him a couple of years isn’t justice – many feel that a cushy number in a prison with all mod-cons simply doesn’t deliver the deserved punishment for those who would rob a woman of her honour. Hiding the names of convicted pedophiles who prey on innocent children and rob them of innocence is simply ludicrous and failing to administer the harshest possible punishment for the crime of murder is simply inexcusable.

In Islam, both boys would have been detained until they reached an age of responsibility/accountability (in legal terms). Then the Bolger family would have been given the opportunity to exact retribution either through the death penalty or diya’a (blood money). They would also have the option of showing mercy and freeing the boys – the point is, the family who have suffered the loss have the right of revenge and it is theirs and theirs alone. This is justice! It offers the family of the victim closure in a way that no western system ever could.

The latest arrest notices issued by Interpol are a sham, as has been the response to this latest Jewish outrage against civil society. Everyone knows who it was, even the Jews won’t deny it, mind you in their usual obfuscatory manner they don’t affirm it either – so why not simply arrest the head of Mossad and Nethanyahu?

The west is all over Iran’s alleged shady intentions and is threatening sanctions and even war, but says nothing of the Jewish State which seemingly carries out attacks without censure, utilizes passports of so-called friendly goy states and maintains an undeclared nuclear stockpile – again neither affirmed nor denied. Perhaps Iran should pull out of the IAEA and resort to the Jewish tactic that seems to carry on unchallenged.

At any rate, Interpol’s mealy-mouthed attempts to be seen to do something fool no one. If it was a Muslim leader, or a band of Hamas assassins that carried out a similar crime no stone would be unturned.

Perhaps Hamas should take a leaf out of the Mossad book and pursue the killers themselves, Mossad justice for Mossad men.

A ban on face-veil would violate individual privacy rights and alienate Muslim women, the European rights chief has warned, urging politicians to promote understanding of different cultures.

“A general ban on such attires would constitute an ill-advised invasion of individual privacy,” Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, said in a statement.

Last January, a French parliamentary panel recommended slapping a partial ban on face-veils in public institutions.

Similar debates are also heating up in Italy, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany.

Hammarberg said a ban might breach the European Convention on Human Rights, which allows limitations on human rights only on the grounds of public health, safety or morals.

“Those who have argued for a general ban of the burqa and the niqab have not managed to show that these garments in any way undermine democracy, public safety, order or morals,” he insisted.

“The fact that a very small number of women wears such clothing has made proposals in such a direction even less convincing.”

The Council of Europe was founded in 1949 to protect human rights and democracy in the continent.

It has 47 members who have signed the European Convention on Human Rights.

Counterproductive

The European rights chief said a ban would be counterproductive rather than helpful for Muslim women.

“Prohibition of the burqa and the niqab would not liberate oppressed women, but might instead lead to their further alienation in European societies,” he warned.

“The suggestion to ban the presence of women dressed in the burqa/niqab in public institutions like hospitals or government offices may only result in these women avoiding such places entirely.”

Hammarberg said media interviews have shown that the majority of the niqab-clad women have taken the decision by their own volition and would not welcome a ban.

“There may of course be cases where they are under undue pressure – but it is not shown that a ban would be welcomed by these women.”

While hijab is an obligatory code of dress for Muslim women, the majority of Muslim scholars agree that a woman is not obliged to wear the face-veil.

Scholars believe it is up to women to decide whether to take on the veil or burqa.

Hammarberg cautioned that subjecting Islam and Muslim-related issues to public debates in many European countries risks playing into the hands of extremists.

“Some of the arguments have been clearly Islamophobic and that has certainly not built bridges or encouraged dialogue.”

He insisted that instead of imposing new dress codes on their citizens, European states would be better advised to launch debates on understanding of different cultures.

“Attempts should be made to broaden the discourse to cover essential matters, including how to promote understanding of different religions, cultures and customs.”

Source: IslamOnline

MPAC.ie Comment: While we thank Mr Hammarberg for his comments, we would encourage Muslim women across Europe to defy any attempted ban by continuing to wear the niqab. Yielding to majority whims of the kuffar is not the Muslim way, and we need to unite on this issue so that any attempts to enforce a ban are met with stiff resistance.

Question: What is the religious ruling concerning buying in installments?

Answer: First of all, buying in installments is an innovation of the actions that was not known to the Muslims in every preceding generation. Rather it is from the aspects that have been passed onto them from the disbelievers, those who, in the past, took over their lands, colonized them and governed over them with their rules of disbelief. Then when they departed from the lands’ major districts, they left behind their evil and misguided traditions. And, today, the Muslims live upon those practices and acts that the disbelievers imposed on them.

There is another concern – which is the most important – and it is as the Prophet (saws) said:

“I have not left anything that would bring you closer to Allaah, except that I have commanded you to do it. And I have not left anything that would distance you from Allaah, while bringing you closer to the Hellfire, except that I have forbidden you from doing it.” [1]

From this, we see that he (saws) forbade from that which today is called “buying in installments.” Therefore, this kind of business transaction is an innovation, which the Muslims of the past did not know of. I also want to say that this name is an innovation (in itself) for there is nothing found in the books of Fiqh with the name “buying in installments.” Rather, there is found in the Muslim books, that which is called Ad-Dain (debt) and that which is called Al-Qard-ul-Hasan (a goodly loan).

This (latter) has become, in the daily affairs of Muslims, just a name without any form and reality to it. This is in spite of the Prophet’s (saws) incitement towards giving goodly loans and his going to great extents in that, to the extent that he regarded the lending of two dollars to be as if you gave one dollar away in charity. This means: If you lend your Muslim brother two dollars, it is as if you have taken a dollar out of your pocket and given it for charity. Just as he (saws) encouraged these goodly loans, he forbade from taking extra money in exchange for delaying your brother’s payment of his end of the deal.

The Prophet (saws) said:

“Whoever makes two business transactions out of one, then he gets either the lowest of the two or the interest.”

And in another hadeeth, he

“forbade that two business transactions be made for one (transaction).”

The reporter of this hadeeth was asked about the meaning of this forbiddance, so he responded: “It is that you say: ‘I will sell you this thing for such and such amount of money in cash, and for such and such (more) money in delayed payment.”

I will sell you this appliance for 100 dollars in cash directly, and for 105 dollars in installments, meaning as a debt. He (saws) said: “Whoever makes two business transactions out of one, then he gets either the lowest of the two or the interest.” This means that if he takes the extra money, then it is interest, as is seen in the example of the appliance that was sold for 105 dollars, five dollars more in exchange for the delay.

If there were an Islaamic rule for individuals and rulers, this buyer who was deceived and had five extra dollars taken from him in exchange for the businessman’s waiting on the delay, he would have the right to take hold of him and complain about him to the people of knowledge.

So this is the understanding of this hadeeth. The thing being sold is one, however the offer is in two transactions: In cash directly for this amount and in delayed payment for that amount. So the increase of money for the delay in paying at once was labeled as interest by Allaah’s Messenger (saws).

Source

MPAC.ie Comment: This practice attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of Muslims and is the very same approach used by those who claim to engage in ‘Islamic’ mortgages and loans.

Ireland’s foreign minister on Friday called the (Admin edit: Jewish state)… blockade of Palestinian-ruled Gaza inhumane and unacceptable and he urged the European Union and other countries to increase pressure on Israel to end it.

Micheal Martin, who visited Gaza last week, was the first EU foreign minister to enter the Mediterranean coastal strip in over a year, an area that was severely damaged in a… (Admin edit: Jewish state) offensive in December 2008.

More than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in the three-week war in Gaza, which (the)(Admin edit: Jewish state) launched following months of rocket fire from the territory into (the)(Admin edit: Jewish state).

“The tragedy of Gaza is that it is fast in danger of becoming a tolerated humanitarian crisis,” Martin wrote in an opinion piece for the International Herald Tribune, describing conditions as medieval, inhumane and utterly unacceptable.

“(It is) a situation that is proving extremely difficult to remedy or ameliorate due to the blockade and the wider ramifications of efforts to try and achieve political progress in the Middle East.”

He will raise the issue at a EU foreign ministers meeting in Cordoba, Spain, this weekend, he said. The EU Commission and EU member states are the largest aid donors to Gaza.

A United Nations report by a team headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone last September said that both the Israeli army and Islamist group Hamas, which controls Gaza, were guilty of war crimes in them conflict but focused more on the(Admin edit: Jewish state). (The)(Admin edit: Jewish state) which refused to cooperate with the Goldstone report, condemned it as distorted and biased and rejected the war crimes allegations. Hamas denied its fighters committed war crimes but has said it regrets (Admin edit: Jewish state) civilian deaths.

The United States pressed (the)(Admin edit: Jewish state)to ease the blockade last week and Martin said with 80 percent of the population of Gaza now living below the poverty line and over 50 percent out of work, the blockade was counterproductive.

“What I witnessed in Gaza, amidst all the rubble and devastation, was a population traumatized and reduced to poverty by an unjust and completely counterproductive blockade.”

Source

Admin Note: It is NOT PERMISSIBLE for Muslims to use the name of a holy Prophet to describe the belligerent malignancy of the Jewish State, may Allah’s curse be upon them.