Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Fiyaz Mughal (Tell Mama) Fails Again in the British Courts

Left-to-right: George Whale, Tim Burton (center), Jack Buckby to his right & Aaron Brian.

I've written a couple of articles for American Thinker on Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama; as well as on the fact that Mr Mughal took a British man, Tim Burton, to court for calling him a "mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya-artist" . That court appearance was on Tuesday (8th April): Tim Burton was acquitted.

Birmingham Magistrates Court

The judge summed up the trial by saying that “the prosecution had manifestly failed to meet the bar required". Tim Burton himself said the verdict was “a wonderful result for free speech in this country”.

And on the steps outside the courts, Jack Buckby (Outreach Officer for Liberty GB), said:

We now have taqiyya – the concept of lying in the name of Islam – embedded in British courts and  recognised.”

Far Right?

The one thing I immediately noticed about Fiyaz Mughal was his aggressive manner when he came under any critical questioning. (Mughal's intolerant nature was of course at the heart of the case anyway.) It was also noticeable how aggressively intolerant he was of all his critics. So much so that he used two oft-used techniques when talking about them: defamation and the ad hominem argument (which are connected)

It was also clear that Fiyaz Mughal (not unlike the BBC's 'Mo' Ansar and Oxford University's Tariq Ramadan) is very well-versed in the jargon of the academic Left. For example, he never once used the word “religion”. Instead he always spoke of “my faith” or “faith”. I presume that's because religion, rather than faith, was always deemed an old-fashioned and destructive type of thing by the Left. However, with the increase of Muslims demographics in the West, a more positive and innocuous term had to be coined now that the religious were mainly brown-skinned and not white: “faith”.

Mr Mughal also talked a lot about Islam being “part of [his] identity”. Again, the academic Left, as well as many postmodernist and post-structuralist theorists, has also been obsessed with identity since the 1960s. In addition, Mughal often used the multi-cult classics “community cohesion” and “interfaith work”. You see, jargon and soundbite rule in this business. Both are effectively a substitute for thought.

As for the ad hominems: Mughal systemically attempted to defame Tim Burton by the tried-and-tested technique - often used by Leftists - of tying him in with what he predictably called “far right” groups and individuals. The prime way he did this, in Tim Burton's case, was to tie him to the English Defence League (EDL).

Mughal also categorised Robert Spencer (of Jihad Watch) and Pamela Geller as “far right”; as he did with Atma Singh (a Sikh political activist, writer and defender of Israel) and Ambrosine Chetrit (a Jewish woman and defender of Israel) .These are two other critics whom Mr Mughal attempted to sue for libel in the British courts. He failed on both occasions.

The judge, or Tim Burton's defence, could have asked Fiyaz Mughal three simple questions:

i) Mr Mughal, can you name me a single critic of either yourself or Islam who you wouldn't deem to be far right?

ii) Can you also cite a single critical point about Islam, or yourself, that you wouldn't find Islamophobic or far right?

iii) Finally, what sort of criticism, of either Islam or yourself, would you find acceptable (even if, in your eyes, false)?

Fiyaz Mughal's Friends: MPACUK & CAIR

As I said, Mr Mughal connected Tim Burton to the EDL, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. He also talked about the fact that the British Government banned these two Americans from British soil. Yes, that's true. But what Mr Mughal didn't say is that the British Government did so largely in response to the pressure put on it by Muslims like Fiyaz Mughal himself; as well as by far-left groups like Hope Not Hate.

MPACUK has "got" various MPs over the years, either for being Jewish or for being critical of Muslims.

So perhaps Tim Burton's lawyer should have also connected Fiyaz Mughal to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK) and other Islamist groups and individuals. (He did connect him to MPACUK and an Islamist lawyer.)

What I didn't know (before the trial) is that Fiyaz Mughal had written an article for MPACUK: an extreme Islamist and Jew-bating group which is banned from university campuses by the National Union of Students (NUS). He also had another later article published by MPACUK. However, Fiyaz Mughal claimed, at the trial, that the Islamist organisation had simply used his words: he hadn't actually written the article for the group.

Despite that, if MPACUK is now deemed extreme by Fiyaz Mughal, why didn't he deem it extreme when he wrote the original article?

This is what I think might have happened. 

MPACUK had the same views when Mughal wrote for them as it does today. However, after Mughal wrote for them, MPACUK began to develop a reputation for being the extremist organisation that it is; though, like the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and Hamas, it is keen to ab/use the democratic system. And of course when MPACUK's reputation went public, Mughal (being a very public figure) quickly realised that he could no longer be connected to the group. Yet despite that, as I said, MPACK's views haven't changed since Mughal wrote the first article. (MPACUK has existed since 2004.) So why did Mughal only register MPACUK's extremism after other public groups and individuals had done so?

Mother-son bonding: Hamas-style
Tell Mama also provides links to America’s Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and has featured its work. CAIR is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Hamas. (Indeed Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.) There are also numerous links between CAIR and Islamic terrorism: from surreptitious funding to more direct involvement and support.

The Telegraph's Andrew Gilligan

During his court appearance, Fiyaz Mughal again rejected all Andrew Gilligan's claims against him - as published in two articles for the British national newspaper, the Telegraph. (Andrew Gilligan is a well-known British investigative journalist. ) Of course Mr Mughal didn't also call Gilligan “far right”. He wouldn't have dared to do so. On the other hand, it's cheap and easy to class outsiders like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller as “far right” (as well as the EDL). It's not so cheap and easy to do the same thing to a Telegraph journalist.

Since Andrew Gilligan has done serious damage to Fiyaz Mughal; calling the the former “far right” would be a very bad move on Mughal's part. In fact it would almost be political suicide. Nonetheless, on the day of the trial (the 8th of April) an article did appear in Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama which rejected all – and I mean all – Andrew Gilligan's claims; though wisely (for Fiyaz Mughal) it neither mentions Gilligan nor his articles. This is strange really because on that very same day, yet again, the Telegraph made it known that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) had rejected all Fiyaz Mughal's complaints about Andrew Gilligan. That effectively means that the PCC believes that Mughal had indeed exaggerated the scale of anti-Muslim attacks.


Since Fiyaz Mughal versus Tim Burton has been classed as “the taqiyya trial” by some, the concept of Islamic taqiyya featured strongly in the court proceedings.

Fiyaz Mughal's basic argument (or defence) about taqiyya is the there are two ways of using the term:

i) The way the “Islamophobic” critics of Islam and Fiyaz Mughal use it.

ii) The (correct) way in which Muslims (like Mr Mughal) use it.

The problem was that Fiyaz Mughal lied about taqiyya during the trial. Or, to put that another way, he applied taqiyya to taqiyya (or meta-taqiyya).

The classic lie (or piece of taqiyya) about taqiyya (from Sunni, not Shia, Muslims) is that it's a “Shia phenomenon”: and, lo and behold, Fiyaz said, in the trial, that taqiyya “was given to the Shia community a thousand years ago”. Now that is simply and conclusively false (see this article on Sunni taqiyya). The thing is, Fiyaz Mughal must know it's false. And even if he didn't know it is false, say, six months ago when when taqiyya was first connected to his name, he must certainly know now.

Now if Mughal is saying things he knows to be false, then he is a liar. And that also means he he lied (in court) to protect and advance both himself and Islam. And what better description of taqiyya could you have?

This means that in order to defend himself against the charge of using taqiyya, Mughal perversely used taqiyya to do so.

Strangely enough, if I were a Muslim defending myself against charges of taqiyya, I wouldn't do so by lying about taqiyya. Then again, it can be argued that because taqiyya is most definitely a vital part of Islam, and literally anything goes (from libel actions to terrorism) when it comes to protecting and advancing Islam (“by any means necessary”, in other words), then lying about taqiyya shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Finally, it might also have been the case that when Fiyaz Mughal incorporated a prominent gay activist (Peter Tatchell) and a Jewish man into the structure of Tell Mama (coincidentally, I'm sure, in the week leading up to the Birmingham trial), these actions were nothing more than strategic pieces of Mughalian deceit and dissimulation, if not outright taqiyya.


  1. First rule of taqiyya is "you do not talk about taqiyya".
    Second rule of taqiyya is "you DO NOT talk about taqiyya".


    As we stated in the previous chapter, Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi have made a big mistake by attempting to argue that Shi’ite hadeeth literature legitimises immorality. All that we have discussed leaves no doubt that Mut’ah is in no way immoral, and that it was sanctioned by Allah (swt) and His Prophet (s). Conversely, the Sunni hadeeth literature abounds with some of the most lurid and disgusting tales. The Sunni fiqh is, at times, even worse. Some notable examples of the public immorality of some companions and Sunni ‘ulama are given below, as well as some of the blasphemous stories attributed to the Holy Prophet (s) himself. For the sake of taste, we would normally not bring such issues up; but Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi have uttered words of utter blasphemy against Allah, His Prophet, and His Religion, as well as forging numerous hadeeths against them. Since Dr. Salamah has decided to make a moral argument, than we will see how “moral” the Sunni belief system, hadeeth literature, and law is:
    (1) First example of Sunni morality
    Shamsuddin Ibn Qayyim al Jawziya who is one of the only scholars that the Wahabis do not reject and who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya. Let us quote what he writes in his Bada’i al-Fuwa’id, page 129:
    “Ibn ‘Aqeel, and many of our scholars, and our Shaykh [Ibn Taymiyya] have ruled that masturbation is makruh (disliked), and never explicitly said he that it was haram”.
    Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 129
    He then presents his own discussion on the conditions that make masturbation halaal:
    “If a man is torn between continued desire or releasing it, and if this man does not have a wife or he has a slave-girl but he does not marry, then if a man is overwhelmed by desire, and he fears that he will suffer because of this (someone like a prisoner, or a traveller, or a pauper), then it is permissible for him to masturbate, and Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) is explicit on this. Furthermore, it is narrated that the Companions of the Prophet (s) used to masturbate while they were on military expeditions or travelling”.
    The polytheists at the dawn of Islam must have been terrified by that scene:
    an army of pious companions, their pants nice and short, their beards stretching down to their wastes, their swords held high with one hand while they heartily masturbate with the other. If this was the type of scene going on, we might be able to understand why so many companions refused to go on jihad. Would Dr. Salamah march off to battle with only an army of masturbators to protect him? Or was this tactic of masturbatory jihad supposed to be some sort of an offensive stratagem, to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy? Indeed, these companions were masters at the art of war!
    We appeal for justice: who is promoting debauchery, the Sunnis or the Shi’a? There are a lot of Ahkam surrounding travelling mentioned by the Prophet (s) and the Imams (as): the obligation to pray two rakaat for zuhr instead of four, or the obligation to break one’s fast. This Sunni ‘alim, who is one of the singularly most distinguished Sunni’ ulama and is adored by the Wahabis, has offered another hukm for travelling the permissibility of masturbating. And yet when a Shi’a says that a man is allowed to contract temporary marriage in order to satisfy his desires, Dr. Salamah passes a hukm of takfir. One is allowed to masturbate but not contract a temporary marriage? Is this not the peak of insanity?