“Did I not tell you, ‘Do not sin against the child’; and you would not listen?”

Thus spoke Reuben, the oldest of Jacob’s sons, when the disguised Joseph, then a ruler in Pharaoh’s court, demanded that their younger brother, Benjamin, be brought into the land of Egypt. He believed that the past sin of harsh treatment toward Joseph had come back to haunt them. Allaah reminds us in what translates as,

“And whatever of misfortune that befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much.” (Ash-Shooraa: 30).

ABORTION

Every year, millions of children have their lives cut short by selfish, irresponsible and sinful women who would rather see the death of a child than choose responsibility and propriety. Yesterday celebrated International Women’s Day and shamefully gave succor to calls for abortion rights. Abortion is a crime against humanity, an acceptable genocide if you will that sees innocence slaughtered on the alter of convenience for wayward women, those unwilling to control their lusts and enter into legitimate relationships.

Allah (swt): “And indeed We have honoured the children of Adam, carried them on land and sea, gave them lawful, pure provisions, and greatly preferred them above many of those We have created.” (Al-Isra,17:70)

The only acceptable exception to this is when the life of either the mother or the baby is under threat. As one article puts it:

The only case when aborting a foetus, before or after 120 days, is allowed in Islam, is when a medical situation threatens the life of the mother, leaving only two options, to let either the other or the foetus survive, but not both. Scholars argue that such a case can only be determined by a specialist, trusted and committed Muslim doctor. They argue that the mother can have other children, whereas the child cannot make up for losing the mother. A fatwa (legal ruling) to that effect was issued by the late Dr Mahmoud Shaltut, Shaikhul Azhar (Al-Fatawa, p164).Imam Al-Ghazali discussed this issue in his famous book, Ihya Ulumuddin. Briefly, he asserted that once the semen from a man fertilised an ovum from a woman, and went into the womb of the mother, it was indeed a living entity and should not be intentionally aborted. As the foetus progressively develops in the womb, intentional abortion becomes an even worse sin amounting to killing a living entity. In some schools of Islamic thought, causing a foetus to be accidentally aborted, say by beating a pregnant mother, results in payment of the blood money penalty equal to one-tenth of that paid for mistakenly killing a mature human being.

It is disturbing to hear that Ireland is now considering relaxing its current laws against abortion. Presently Ireland adheres closely to the Islamic principle that only justifies intervention if the mother or baby is in danger. However, women’s rights groups have been pushing for the right to kill the little children even when there is no danger. It appears their repugnance of the natural motherly occurrence takes precedence over the right to life of a child.

Killing a child is a grievous sin and Islam imposes the penalty of diya’a upon the renegade female killers and anyone else involved in the crime:

If a pregnant woman aborts her foetus by taking medicine and the like after four months of pregnancy, then the diyah must be paid according to scholarly consensus, and the kafaarah (expiation) must be offered according to some of the scholars.

The diyah (blood money) in this case is a slave, male or female. If that is not possible, then the diyah is five camels, because the diyah for a foetus is one tenth of the diyah for his mother, and it well known that the diyah for a free Muslim woman is fifty camels, so the diyah for the foetus is five camels.

This diyah is required from everyone who had anything to do with the abortion of the foetus, so the doctor and the woman must both pay it if she took the medicine to help induce the abortion. The diyah should be paid to the heirs of the foetus, but his killer should not take any of it.

The evidence for that is the report narrated by al-Bukhaari (6910) and Muslim (1681) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: Two women from Hudhayl fought and one of them threw a rock at the other and killed her and the child in her womb. They referred the matter to the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he ruled that the diyah for her foetus was a slave, male or female.

With regard to expiation, the Shaafa’is and Hanbalis are of the view that it is obligatory, and the Hanafis and Maalikis are of the view that it is mustahabb. The expiation for killing is to free a slave; if that is not possible then one must fast for two consecutive months.

Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: If the pregnant woman takes medicine then aborts the foetus, then she must give a slave, and she does not inherit anything of this diyah, and she should manumit a slave. There is no difference of opinion concerning this among the scholars whom we know, apart from the view of those who say that it is not obligatory to manumit a slave. That is because she aborted the foetus by her own actions, so she must offer compensation by giving a slave, just as if someone else had transgressed against her. And she does not inherit any share of the slave, because the killer does not inherit from the slain. The slave should be for the rest of his heirs, and she also has to free a slave. End quote from al-Mughni (8/327).

He also said: If a number of people took part in beating the woman and she miscarried the foetus, then the diyah or slave must be given by them all, each contributing a share, and each of them must offer expiation, the same as if a group of people participate in killing one man. If she miscarries several foetuses then they must all contribute to the diyah, and each one must offer expiation for each foetus. If three people strike the woman’s stomach, and she miscarries three foetuses, then they must offer nine expiations in all, each one offering three. End quote from al-Mughni (8/326).

And he said: The value of the slave is half of one-tenth of the diyah, which is five camels. That was narrated from ‘Umar and Zayd (may Allaah be pleased with them). This was also the view of Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and ashaab al-ra’y. End quote.

Thirdly:

If the mother called for the abortion and the doctor did it, then they are undoubtedly partners in this crime, but the scholars differed as to which of them should pay the blood money and offer the expiation.

The correct view is that it is the one who actually did it, because he is the killer in the true sense. This is the view of Imam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him).

See: Mataalib Ooli’l-Nuha (6/50).

Some of the scholars, such as the Shaafa’is, are of the view that the mother is responsible (so she should pay the diyah and offer expiation). See: Asna’l-Mataalib (4/39).

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) favoured the first view and regarded it as more likely to be correct. IslamQ&A

PEDOPHILIA

The Catholic Church scandal in Ireland which revealed shocking tales of sexual and physical abuse against little children by Catholic clergy beasts who used the cover of religion to mask their heinous crimes has brought shame upon the country. The fact that less than a handful of these monsters have been named and even fewer jailed is most disturbing. Only recently, a Catholic Bishop had the gall to ask parishioners to help pay the debts incurred by the scandal.

For years they ignored and belittled the claims of children and parents, for years they protected their pedophile priests and now they want to preach the religion of charity to the Catholic masses!

Islam condemns pedophilia in the strongest of terms and recommends the harshest possible punishment for the crime – public execution! Rather than protecting the Catholic criminals, we should be administering Islamic justice as both a deterrent for any others that might be so inclined and to bring closure to those who have suffered at their hands. The Dublin Spire would be an ideal location – open and very public.

The ill treatment of children is criminal, worse than that though is our silence and inaction concerning these crimes. We need to rectify this situation lest the evil that our own hands have put forth returns upon us.

“He held the gun in his right hand. “Suddenly the enemy shell hit him on the right shoulder and he fell down. But soon he got up holding his gun in his left hand and continued fighting. Again a shower of enemy bullets hit him in the breast and our youthful daring friend was martyred.”

Thus the story of our brave Irish brother Muhammad Omar unfolds. Unlike the kuffar who have brought oppression and desolation to our lands, brave Mujaahideen like Omar fought seeking to please Allah, to repel an enemy and free our people. And like the many who went before and after him we honour them, speak of them fondly and are inspired to greater deeds on account of their courage and bravery.

It would be wrong to think Omar’s story is unique, it is not. The fanfare that surrounds the UK’s war lost, the somber marches through Wooton Bassett to celebrate their macabre lives and futile deaths are noticeable by their absence in relation to the Omar’s of this world. The Mujaahideen do not seek the pleasures of this world and those who know them do not grieve like the kuffar, but rather long for the same honourable parting.

Wherever there is oppression against Muslims, an occupation of their lands and the subjugation of their people, the Omar’s of this ummah have responded with the call, ‘here I am’. For their hearts cannot bear the injustice and when the cause of Allah beckons, they willingly respond. In an obituary written in a magazine at the time, Omar’s sacrifice and inshaAllah martyrdom are eulogized in a most honourable manner:“The Muslims of the European continent offered a martyr to start a new page of the history of such a glorious jihad,” it reads beneath a photograph of the Clonmel man looking sombre with a luxuriant beard and turban. “He carried his weapon to take part with his brothers in the battle of conquest . . . he was shot in his heart and, God willing, martyred. Muhammad Omar, who did not marry although he was 27 years old, met his Lord while pleasing Him . . . Glory be to He who guided him to Islam and jihad and granted him martyrdom. Let him enjoy it.”

Salamah bin Nufail said: While I was sitting with Rasulullah a man came to him and said, “O Messenger of Allah Horses are being discarded and weapons are been laid down and some are claiming that there is no more fighting” Rasulullah said, “They are lying! Fighting has just begun! And a party of my Ummah will fight for the sake of Allah, and those who oppose them will not harm them. Allah will deviate the hearts of some men to provide for that party from them by fighting them. And they will continue fighting until the final hour starts (the Day of Judgment) and good will remain on the foreheads of horses until the day of Judgment and war will not end until Yagog and Magog come out.”

(at-Tabarani in Al-Mujam al-Kabir)

Brave and noble Omar answered the call when it was right to do so, will we share the same eagerness when we are called? Allah, ta’ala says:

Have you not seen those who were told to hold back their hands (from fighting) and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât but when the fighting was ordained for them, behold! a section of them fear men as they fear Allâh or even more. They say: “Our Lord! Why have you ordained for us fighting? Would that You had granted us respite for a short period?” Say: “Short is the enjoyment of this world. The Hereafter is (far) better for him who fears Allâh, and you shall not be dealt with unjustly even equal to a scalish thread in the long slit of a date-stone. (4:77)

There is nothing in the Qur’aan to say that we should celebrate the Mawlid or birthday of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Prophet himself (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do this or command anyone to do it, either during his lifetime or after his death. Indeed, he told them not to exaggerate about him as the Christians had exaggerated about Jesus (upon whom be peace). He said: “Do not exaggerate about me as the Christians exaggerated about the son of Maryam. I am only a slave, so say, ‘The slave of Allaah and His Messenger.’” (Reported by al-Bukhaari). What has been reported is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) made the day of his birth a day of worship, which is different to celebration. He was asked about fasting on Mondays, and he said: “That is the day on which I was born and the day on which I was entrusted with the Mission or when I was first given Revelation.” (Reported by Muslim, al-Nisaa’i and Abu Dawood).

Moreover, we know that the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) were the people who loved the Prophet most. Was it reported that Abu Bakr, who was the closest of people to him and the one who loved him the most, celebrated the birthday of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? Was it reported that ‘Umar, who ruled for twelve years, or ‘Uthmaan, did this? Was it reported that ‘Ali, his relative and foster son, did this? Was it reported that any of the Sahaabah did this? No, by Allaah! Is it because they were not aware of its importance, or did they not truly love the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? No one would say such a thing except one who has gone astray and is leading others astray.

Did any of the imaams – Abu Haneefah, Maalik, al-Shaafi’i, Ahmad, al-Hasan al-Basri, Ibn Seereen – do this or command others to do it or say that it was good? By Allaah, no! It was not even mentioned during the first and best three centuries. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said in a saheeh hadeeth: “The best of mankind are my generation (or my century), then those who come after them, then those who come after them. Then there will come a people who will not care if their testimony comes before their oath or vice versa (i.e., they will not take such matter seriously).” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, Muslim and al-Tirmidhi). The celebration of the Prophet’s birthday appeared many centuries later, when many of the features of true religion had vanished and bid’ah had become widespread.

Thus this celebration became a sign of one’s love for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? But can it be possible that the Sahaabah, the imaams and the people of the best three centuries were unaware of it, and it was only those who came later who were aware of its importance?! What the Qur’aan tells us is that love of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is demonstrated by following the guidance he brought. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Say (O Muhammad): ‘If you (really) love Allaah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Say: ‘Obey Allaah and the Messenger.’ But if they turn away, then Allaah does not like the disbelievers.” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:31-32]

The first aayah explains that love is just a claim, but the proof of sincerity is following what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) brought. The second aayah reaffirms the importance and necessity of obeying Allaah and His Messenger. Hence Allaah ended the aayah with a very stern warning in which those who refuse to obey are described as kaafirs, and Allah does not love the disbelievers. We ask Allaah to keep us safe from that. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us of the danger of not obeying him, and the danger of adding to what he brought. The celebration of Mawlid or his birthday is indeed an addition to what he brought – as all the scholars agree. He said: “The best of speech is the Book of Allaah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. The most evil of things are those which are newly-invented (in religion), and every innovation is a going astray.” (Reported by Muslim and al-Nisaa’i).

Source

Both Al Qaeda and Mossad now stand accused of utilizing Irish passports for their relative causes. Most recently we have the Dubai debacle where up to five genuine Irish passports numbers were believed to have been used by Mossad to carry out an extra-judicial hit on an engineer allegedly involved with Hamas.

Funny thing though, how ‘Mossad’ crop up in places where alleged Al Qaeda operations take place. Take for example the 9/11 incident where a group of overexcited ‘Mossad’ men apparently broke into a dance upon seeing the Twin Towers collapse. Police received angry calls for several New Jersey residents who reported a white van with men of middle-eastern appearance singing and shouting with joy at the devastating spectacle. The van was eventually stopped and the occupants questioned:

“We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”

Then of course we have the fake Al Qaeda cell captured by the Palestinian Authorities. In this little episode Mossad men apparently tried to set up and put in operation an Al Qaeda cell that actually wasn’t … but Ariel Sharon played along with the game announcing:

al-Qaeda militants were operating in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. “We know that they are there. We know that they are in Lebanon, working closely with Hezbollah. We know that they are in the region,” he said. [BBC News - 12/5/2002]

The diabolical scheme backfired when Mossad agents were duly arrested by the PA.

Most recently we have the case of AbdulMutallib tagged the Underpants Bomber by media pundits. Mr AbdulMutallib boarded an Airbus330 headed for Detroit and was apparently screened by security, though the records have since disappeared. Interestingly, Amsterdam is one of the few airports that actually used body scanners prior to the December attempt to blow up the airbus and perhaps most disconcertingly it transpires that it is an ‘Israeli’ company that is responsible for security inspections at the airport.

Where there is Al Qaeda, Mossad it seems are not too far away. The Al Qaeda/Mossad consortium seem almost inseparable – would it be too much to assume that they are one and the same?

MPAC.ie Comment: Replace ‘negro’ with Muslim, and you have a good grasp on a situation that has forever beleaguered groups striving to shake off the shackles of oppression and discrimination. The hand-picked Uncle Tom Muslims in our community will never solve our problems, for they are part and parcel OF the problem.

A number of critics of late have attempted to smear MPAC.ie as extremist and fanatical, as if somehow our opinions differ from those of mainstream Islamic thought.

We openly challenge those who have made these unsubstantiated allegations to show us where we have deviated from the Quran, Sunnah and the Ijma of the scholars, especially in relation to the hudood, homosexuality and al wala’a wal bara’a. If we are in error, we will respectfully retract the relevant statements.

In the words of one adversary – put up or shut up!

Because:
- a man can marry up to 4 wives, a woman can marry only one man
- a man’s share of inheritance is bigger than a woman’s
- a man can marry a non-Muslim, a woman cannot
- women must wear the veil

This widely held misconception does not remotely follow from the reasons given. The first and most important observation to make about the popular question “Are men and women equal?” is that it is a badly-formed, unanswerable question. The problem which many people conveniently ignore is that “equal” is not defined. This is a very critical point: the equality must be specified with respect to some measurable property.

For example, women on average are superior to men if we ask who is shorter in height than the other (”Growth and Development”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992). Women are also superior on average if we ask whom do children bond to deeper, mothers or fathers. Women are also superior on average if we ask who has a tendency to socialize more. On the other hand, men are superior on average if we ask who is taller in height than the other. And so on: every question can be turned around, and more importantly these are properties which are irrelevant.

What then, is the really important property which we are worried about in terms of gender equality? Naturally, from the point of view of the Qur’an and
Sunnah, the obvious important property is who is dearer to Allah, men or women? This question is emphatically answered in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:124]If any do deeds of righteousness – be they male or female – and have faith, they will enter Paradise, and not the least injustice will be done to them.

[33:35] For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for truthful men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise, for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.

The Qur’an and Sunnah repeat over and over again that Allah only favors one person over another based on that person’s awareness, consciousness, fear,love, and hope of Allah (the Arabic word is difficult to translate: Taqwa). All other criteria are excluded: gender, ethnic group, country, ancestry, etc.

Given that Allah does not favor one gender over the other in His attention to us (and it helps to remember that Allah is neither male nor female), we can
now address the differences between the genders in Islam. First, men and women are not the same as we know. The Creator states in the Qur’an
(translation),

[3:36] …and the male is not like the female…

Men and women are different in their composition, and in their responsibilities under Islam.

However, both are bound by obligations to one another, especially the following important one which must be understood in any discussion on men and women. From the Qur’an (translation),

[24:32] And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.

In this verse, the Creator emphasizes that marriage is to be vigorously pursued by the Muslims: the state of being single is not to be maintained.

With this in mind, we can begin to understand the four reasons cited above for the nonetheless erroneous conclusion. Men and women are different in their responsibilities towards the families that they are strongly encouraged to set up. Women are not obligated to work, whereas men are obligated. The man must provide for the family, but the woman does not have to spend out of her money for it, though she gets a reward for doing so. Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:34] Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:

[2:24:545] Narrated `Amr bin Al-Harith: Zainab, the wife of Abdullah said, “I was in the Mosque and saw the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saying, `O women! Give alms even from your ornaments.’” Zainab used to provide for `Abdullah and those orphans who were under her protection. So she said to `Abdullah, “Will you ask Allah’s Apostle whether it will be sufficient for me to spend part of the Zakat on you and the orphans who are under my protection?” He replied “Will you yourself ask Allah’s Apostle?” (Zainab added): So I went to the Prophet and I saw there an Ansari woman who was standing at the door (of the Prophet) with a similar problem as mine. Bilal passed by us and we asked him, `Ask the Prophet whether it is permissible for me to spend (the Zakat) on my husband and the orphans under my protection.’ And we requested Bilal not to inform the Prophet about us. So Bilal went inside and asked the Prophet regarding our problem. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) asked, “Who are those two?” Bilal replied that she was Zainab. The Prophet said, “Which Zainab?” Bilal said, “The wife of `Adullah (bin Masud).” The Prophet said, “Yes, (it is sufficient for her) and she will receive a double rewards (for that): One for helping relatives, and the other for giving Zakat.”

Given that husbands are obligated to provide for wives, and that marriage is a highly recommended goal of Islam, it is easy to see why women’s inheritance share is half that of men. We note also that men are obligated to provide a suitable dowry to women on marriage. In fact, it is preferable at this point to speak in terms of husbands and wives instead of men and women. Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:4] And give women their dowries as a free gift, but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment and with wholesome result.

Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[2:228]…And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them…

This one degree in no way affects the position of the Creator in which He has stated that He does not hold women dearer to him than men, or vice versa. Rather it is simply a way of partitioning responsibilities in a household of two adults: someone must make the final decision on daily matters. As will be shown below in a section on a different misconception, though the final decision rests with the husband, it is through mutual consultation that decisions are best reached at.

While men are allowed to marry up to four wives, they are also commanded to meet the preconditions of being able to financially support them. They must also deal with each wife justly and fairly with respect to marital and economic obligations. Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:3] If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

Moreover, women are allowed to reject any marriage proposal made to her by prospective suitors, thus if she does not feel she can abide by the rules of the Qur’an and Sunnah if she marries a certain person, she can reject his proposal. While it is irrelevant to Islam, it is worthwhile to note that both Judaism and Christianity allow polygamy. The idea is not as foreign to the non-Muslims as is often claimed.

Finally, the wearing of the veil by women is also an illogical premise to claim that women are inferior to men. It is more appropriate to indict a society of female exploitation if it tolerates pornography rather than if it enforces the veil. Given that Allah is neither male nor female, given that He does not endear people to Himself based on their gender, given that the Creator cares about all of us male or female, given that the sexual and violent drive of men is stronger than that of women…given all this, it is illogical to cast a negative light on the following injunctions contained in the Qur’an (translation),

[33:59] O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not be annoyed…

[24:30-31] Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands…

On this misconception, there is a great deal more to write, most of it showing how current practices in many Muslim lands go against what the Qur’an and Sunnah have ordained, lands in which women are treated as property (unIslamic), are not educated (unIslamic), are forbidden their economic rights (unIslamic), and more. On this point in particular, we encourage everyone to consult the Qur’an and Sunnah before incriminating Islam. Always remember that Islam is a complete way of life from the Creator, and that Muslims are people who claim to follow that way of life. A Muslim may claim to follow Islam, but be wrong.

Source: The True Religion

Islamophobes have been popularizing the claim that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but (nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.” Despite this idea becoming axiomatic in some circles, it is quite simply not factual. In my previous article entitled “All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t”, I used official FBI records to show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980 to 2005 were carried out by Islamic extremists. The remaining 94% were from other groups (42% from Latinos, 24% from extreme left wing groups, 7% from extremist Jews, 5% from communists, and 16% from all other groups).

But what about across the pond? The data gathered by Europol strengthens my argument even further. (hat tip: Koppe) Europol publishes an annual report entitled EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report. On their official website, you can access the reports from 2007, 2008, and 2009. (If anyone can find the reports from earlier than that, please let me know so we can include those as well.)

The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups. Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2007 to 2009 could be attributed to extremist Muslims.

Here are the official tables provided in the reports…

2006

2007

2008

According to the report, there was 1 “Islamist attack” in the UK in 2008, which was omitted in the table above. It has been included in the bar graph below.)

Just glancing at those tables is enough to know how absurd it is to claim that “all terrorists are Muslims.” That statement is nowhere near the truth. If we compile the data, it comes out to this:

On p.7, the 2009 Europol report concludes:

Islamist terrorism is still perceived as being the biggest threat worldwide, despite the fact that the EU only faced one Islamist terrorist attack in 2008. This bomb attack took place in the UK…Separatist terrorism remains the terrorism area which affects the EU most. This includes Basque separatist terrorism in Spain and France, and Corsican terrorism in France…Past contacts between ETA and the FARC illustrate the fact that also separatist terrorist organizations seek cooperation partners outside the EU on the basis of common interests. In the UK, dissident Irish republican groups, principally the RIRA and the CIRA, and other paramilitary groups may continue to engage in crime and violence.

Perception is not reality. Due to the right wing’s influence and propaganda, people mistakenly think that Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat to the Western world. It is even a commonly held belief that Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat–that the very survival of the Western world is at stake. Of course, the reality is that there are other groups that engage in terrorism on a much larger scale, yet these terrorist incidents are minimized. Acts of terrorism committed by Muslims are purposefully sensationalized and focused upon, culminating in the idea that “(nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.”

Terrorism from Islamic extremists is certainly a cause for concern, but it need not be an issue that creates mass hysteria. Nor should it be allowed to be such a critical issue that we are willing to sacrifice our ideals or civil rights for fear of it. Neither should we be reduced to a status of absolute sissitude. We have analyzed data from America and Europe (a good portion of the entire Western world), and the threat from Islamic terrorism is much more minimal than commonly assumed; in the U.S., it accounts for 6% of terrorist attacks, and in Europe not even half of a percent.

It is only through sensationalism and fear mongering that the topic of Islamic terrorism is allowed to be used to demonize a religious community that happens to be a minority in the West. When confronted by such lunacy, we ought to respond with the facts and the truth.

Source: Loonwatch

The belligerent state called ‘Israel’, a state built on the ashes of the ‘Holocaust’, has since its very inception perpetrated its own Holocaust upon the Palestinians. Over a million Palestinians have been exiled, denied the right of return to their homes, thousands upon thousands have been killed and maimed, and their land stolen by those whose only lessons learned from the Nazis was that of cruelty and tyranny.

The ‘Holocaust’ Memorial Day deserves our scorn, not support, because it venerates and remembers Jewish suffering and death to the exclusion of all others. It has become a tool in the hands of those who would shamefully exploit the suffering of the past to delegitimize all criticism of their present morally reprehensible and indefensible actions and policies against the Palestinians.

Iqbal Sacranie in responding to criticism against MCB’s boycott of the Memorial Day said:

A memorial day would in our opinion be better served by covering the ongoing mass killings and human rights abuses in our world, and thus make the cry “Never Again” real for all people who suffer, even now. We must do more than just reflect on the past. We must be able to recognise when similar abuses occur in our own time.

Not to acknowledge current and recent genocides would be to undermine the benefits of remembrance, deprecate lessons learnt from the Nazi Holocaust and call into question our commitment to prevent current and future inhumanity. The Nazi Holocaust began with a hatred of an entire people because of their religion and ethnic identity. To reflect a more tolerant and inclusive Britain, we believe that Holocaust Memorial Day ought to be renamed “Genocide Memorial Day” to make no distinction between genocides undertaken against people of other religions and ethnicity.

In its current manifestation, this memorial is a shameful reminder of the dangers of exclusion and delusions of supremacy. Ireland with its own experience of oppression and occupation should lead the way in renaming this day as a Genocide Memorial Day, a day in which we remember all genocides; past and present, and commit ourselves and our governments to implementing measures to put an end to this malaise once and for all.

A group of Muslim leaders have said Yemenis have a religious duty to resist foreign military intervention in the country.

“In the event of any foreign party insisting on hostilities against, an assault on, or military or security intervention in Yemen, then Islam requires all its followers to pursue jihad,”

a statement signed by 150 clerics on Thursday said.

Foreign governments have voiced increasing concern about the situation in Yemen since an attempted attack on a US-bound airliner, after which al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed it had armed the alleged bomber.

On Wednesday, Carl Levin, the chairman of the US senate armed services committee, said that Washington should use drone attacks, air raids or covert operations against al-Qaeda fighters in the country. “Most options ought to be on the table,” short of invasion by US forces, the Democrat senator said.

The US and Britain have announced plans to fund Yemen’s counter-terrorism police force, but Barack Obama, the US president, has explicitly ruled out sending in troops.

Verdict ‘resonates’

Mohamed Vall, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Sana’a, Yemen’s capital, said that the religious leaders’ decision to oppose any miltary intervention would carry great weight in the country.

“In a highly conservative, highly religious society like Yemen, it is the word of the clerics and not that of the politicians that really resonates among the masses. And today the clerics of Yemen have announced their verdict,” Vall said. “In a highly conservative, highly religious society like Yemen, it is the word of the clerics and not that of the politicians that really resonates among the masses. And today the clerics of Yemen have announced their verdict,” Vall said.

The clerics said that their opinion was in line with that of most Yemenis and the Sana’a government, while also criticising the killing of foreigners in an apparent allusion to suspected al-Qaeda attacks. Source: Al Jazeera

MPAC.ie Comment: Until Muslims unite upon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Rasool, belligerent, uncivilized states will continue to pick off Muslim lands on the pretext of the war of terror. We broadly welcome the decisive verdict of the Ulema in Yemen simply because any western intervention in Yemen would be disastrous, we need only look to Iraq and Afghanistan for evidence of that. InshaAllah, under the guidance of its scholars and leaders, these great people will attend to the deviant ideologies both within and without that threaten their religion, borders and security.

“Out of Aden Abyan will come twelve thousand, they will give victory to the Deen of Allah and they will be the best between me and them.”