Brother Mujaahid discusses with Michael Reade on LMFM the issue of the Waterford 7. Some notable excerpts:

…the typical ‘guilty until proven guilty’ rule for Muslims has kicked into play with the media playing judge and jury…

…I condemn the situation that allegedly incensed seven ordinary people to allegedly conspire to take justice into their own hands…Muslims feel disenfranchised and marginalized in Irish and European society..they’ve witnessed double standards in the application of the law…in a very real sense Europe has failed Muslims…

Discussion begins at 53:40

MPAC.ie Podcast

Telling it how it is!

Defiant in his heavily protected hovel, with its own defence system, including a “homemade” safe room and a barbed-wire sculpture that could electrocute potential intruders, Vilks glares with an unconvincing menace toward the camera, “If something happens, I know exactly what to do,” Vilks told The Associated Press in an interview in Stockholm. Apparently he has an axe “to chop down” anyone trying to climb through the windows of his home in southern Sweden.

At 63, Vilks showpiece ‘bravado’ would be absurd if it weren’t so pitifully inadequate, for while his lauded fortifications may serve him well in this life, he, like us all will face the Most High to give an account of his deeds.

The punishment for mocking the Prophet in an Islamic state is severe, both for Muslims and non-Muslims. However the situation for those in the Hereafter is far worse.

For while the Muslim who commits the grievous sin may repent, s/he will still be subject to execution in this life – their repentance will benefit them in the Hereafter. There is no such recompense for the non-Muslim.

Allah promises that those kuffar who stoop to mockery will be cut off from every good thing in this life and in the hereafter:

“For he who hates you (O Muhammad), he will be cut off (from posterity and every good thing in this world and in the Hereafter)”
[al-Kawthar 108:3]

And while it grieves our hearts to hear our most beloved Prophet derided by course criminals, we should look on this as a sign of impending victory for Islam. As Shaikh Munajjid says:

When the Muslims besieged a stronghold and its people resisted, then they heard them mocking and reviling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), they would sense that victory was at hand, and it would only be a short time before Allaah granted them victory, to avenge His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Al-Saarim al-Maslool (p. 116-117).

So take heart brothers and sisters, the likes of Vilks and the despicable Swedish newspapers who gloatingly reprinted his vileness are advancing their own demise, for history is replete with examples of those who mocked the Prophet eventually being destroyed and truly their loss in this life is nothing compared to the loss of the Hereafter.

O’Muslim, Victory is Near

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!

‘Al Qaeda sympathizers’, ‘Bin Laden fans’, ‘extremist’ – take your pic for all will be found in the press over the coming days and any chance there might have been of a fair trial has been squandered at the expense of yet another cheap shot at Muslims. Like many before them and no doubt many to come, they have been tried and convicted by a jury of Islamophobes, indoctrinated by media bias and bigotry. And even if the Waterford 7 were planning on delivering what they believed was justice, they didn’t.

The FBI and other agencies apparently worked alongside the Gardai, though we suspect far more effort was exerted on the part of the former, yet we find no such endeavor in tracking down the Jewish terror operatives who used Irish passports to plan and perpetrate the extra-judicial killing of an innocent man in Dubai. In fact this alleged plot is an extremely convenient for the Jewish State which was coming under growing pressure from the EU.

Any wonder then why Muslims in Ireland look on this media exercise as yet another attack on Islam and Muslims, an obfuscation that takes the focus off the belligerent Jewish State’s continued criminal existence and its utter disregard for international law.

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.

RTE News is reporting the arrest of seven people in both Cork and Waterford over an alleged plot to kill the cartoonist who disgustingly dishonored the Prophet Muhammad.

This morning, detectives arrested three men and two women in Waterford and Tramore and another man and woman at Ballincollig, near Cork city. A number of searches also took place. A garda spokesman said the operation was part of an investigation into a conspiracy to murder an individual in another jurisdiction.

Typically Islamophobes on Irish discussion boards have been all over the story, gleefully gloating over the prospects that Ireland might finally have witnessed its first case of alleged Islamic ‘terrorism’. Similar news a few years back of an alleged bomb-maker in an asylum hotel encouraged similar responses regarding Muslims and immigration.

If true, this incident should not be viewed in isolation but part and parcel of the bigger picture of oppression being meted out against Muslims. The cartoons as despicable and condemnable as they are, were but the icing on the cake, so to say. Muslims have witnessed their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers slaughtered on the alter of democracy, colonization, occupation and so-called freedom. They have seen their holy prophet denigrated and Islam castigated under the guise of freedom of speech and they are glibly expected to be good little Muslims and just accept being slapped in the face?

Inevitably there are those who will say enough is enough, naturally there are those who will act – for what righteous man can endure such shame? It wasn’t expected of the Irish under British rule, why should Muslims be held to a higher bar?

As Irish Muslims we encourage the Irish ummah to unite and fight this onslaught against the honour of our Prophet, the sanctity of Islam and dignity of Muslims – but we encourage our brethren to use the legitimate means available in this land to fight to achieve that aim. The fight in Ireland is ideological, we should reciprocate in like manner.

Saudi lawyers have successfully brought charges against a paper for publishing the filthy cartoons, which demonstrates that good lawyers can achieve some benefit. Muslims should pool their monetary resources and seek charges against all those who would dishonour the Prophet and Islam. A few high profile cases and inevitable wins would ensure that those who seek to denigrate are suitably deterred.

“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.

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.

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.

Nigeria, once a thriving multifaith society has been ravaged in recent years by religious strife and tension, a Christian mob’s massacre of Muslims in Jos last January highlighted the growing discord between these once peaceable communities.

Many believe the presence of fundamentalist Christian missionaries from the US are the catalyst for this latest wave of worldwide attacks on Muslims and Islam and there certainly seems to be some credence to the story.

One Pentecostal evangelist outlines part of the strategy:

‘Brethren, may I tell you that the strategy we are going to use to win Nigeria has to be the strategy of an invading army. …They take over the media, the radio, the television stations, they convince the rich people, the businessmen, they get the students, they get backings, because when they take over it is the market women and the students they will tell ‘come and demonstrate it if you are in support.’ If you want to take over Nigeria you better win the students, win the market women, the media, the broadcasters, the rich, the poor and the press.’

At least he doesn’t mince his words, and quite correctly labels the Christian crusaders as an ‘invading army’. For that is what they are.Christian fundamentalists have also been accused of destroying ancient artifacts in their desire to purge all anti-Christian elements from Nigeria, no mention in the news of this ‘crime’ though.

If anyone is oblivious to the threat of militant Christianity, then take a look at these videos on how the fundamentalist Christian west is grooming its youth for a future Armageddon, while Muslims sleep:

Grooming their Children