By Enza Ferreri
The issue of taqiyya – the religious permission, indeed virtue, of Muslim deception to infidels for the good of Islam – is such a uniquely crucial aspect of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially, like in the West, when the former are a minority and the latter a majority, that there have been at least a couple of trials in Europe revolving around it, one recent and the other current.
In May 2013 there was a legal case in Italy in which a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Khalid Chaouki, a Moroccan Muslim immigrant to Italy and now MP, sued another Moroccan immigrant, Souad Sbai, a woman journalist and former Italian MP who had accused him of practicing taqiyya when he was saying that he had renounced the Brotherhood while in fact he still ‘shared its goals and ideas of dangerous, extreme Islam’. He lost the case.
In Britain, in the last few days of 2013 Tim Burton, the Radio Officer of the newly-formed Liberty GB, an outspoken counterjihad, pro-Western and Christian civilisation party, got into trouble.
I have to declare an interest in the matter since I am the party’s Press Officer. Liberty GB has some similarities to Holland’s Freedom Party of Geert Wilders, although in no way, having started as recently as March 2013, it’s as yet so popular. We are running in the coming elections for the European Parliament in May.
Tim Burton has been charged by the Police with racially aggravated harassment for a few tweets and is soon due to appear in court.
At this point I must introduce the individual he tweeted about, a prominent albeit colourful Muslim whom Tim called ‘a mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya-artist’ on Twitter. He is Fiyaz Mujhal, founder and director of Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks), an organisation that acts like a sort of helpline for the victims of ‘Islamophobia’ and in so doing monitors the entity of what it must consider a grave social problem.
If you are looking for a balanced assessment of the impact of Muslim crime, violence, stealth jihad and terrorism on British society you will not find it on Tell MAMA’s literature or website. But you’ll see plenty of examples of ‘hate’ towards Muslims, a great number of which in the form of films, books, political campaigns and, of course, ‘cyber harassment’, ‘cyber bullying’, ‘cyber abuse’, ‘cyber incitement’, ‘cyber threats’, ‘cyber stalking’, or ‘cyber hate’ – which is what got Tim in a legal jam.
Tell MAMA and the other organisation founded by Mr Mujhal, Faith Matters, had been successful in their demand that the UK Home Office ban Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from entering the country.
The group has a Working Definition of Anti-Muslim Prejudice that includes ‘insults or attacks against Islam’, of which it’s safe to assume well-documented criticisms will be seen as examples. It is also good at crafting new expressions like ‘Anti-Muslim Cultural Racism’, which is Liberty GB’s sin in Tell MAMA’s eyes, as it describes us as ‘guilty of racialising Muslims’. How somebody can achieve such a feat is anyones’s guess.
In its ardour to chastise Liberty GB, Tell MAMA says something which goes beyond matters of opinion and is factually wrong: ‘Halal slaughter and meat would also be banned (but no mention of kosher)’. We do object to kosher too and we say it clearly.
What prompted Tim Burton to label Mr Mujhal on Twitter “a mendacious grievance-mongering taqqiyya-artist” and “a lying Muslim scumbag” were some revelations appeared in The Daily Telegraph. In the wake of the beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby in a London street by two jihadists crying “Allahu Akbar” and giving the Quran as their motive in May of last year, Mr Mujhal in June reported
“a wave of attacks, harassment, and hate-filled speech against Muslims … an unprecedented number of incidents”, including “a rise in street harassment of Muslims – unprovoked, opportunistic attacks from strangers as Muslims go about their lives”.
He added: “Over the past week or so, these sorts of hate crimes have noticeably increased in number and, in many instances, become more extreme.
“The scale of the backlash is astounding … there has been a massive spike in anti-Muslim prejudice. A sense of endemic fear has gripped Muslim communities.”
The media, especially the BBC, have accepted the claims without question. A presenter on Radio 4’s influential Today programme stated that attacks on Muslims were now “on a very serious scale”.
Talk of a “massive anti-Muslim backlash” has become routine. And it is that figure issued by Tell Mama – of, to date, 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” since the Woolwich murder – which has formed the basis of nearly all this reporting.
But when journalist Andrew Gilligan investigated a bit further, it turned out that 57 per cent of the 212 reports referred to activity occurring just online, like postings on Twitter and Facebook, a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified and not all the online abuse even originated in Britain.
Contrary to Tell MAMA’s claims of a climate of violence, only 17 of the 212 incidents, 8 per cent, involved the physical targeting of people and there were no attacks on anyone serious enough to require medical treatment.
The organisation has received a total of £375,000 from the UK government. But as a consequence of these revelations and even previous discoveries of discrepancies between its figures and police official figures – showing Tell MAMA’s inflated rates of and increase in anti-Muslim crimes – it had its public funding discontinued.
This hasn’t stopped its activity, though:
Mujhal asserted that tougher sentences were needed to tackle Islamophobic crime, noting that the guidelines by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to monitor social media were “not fit for purpose”.
“They raised the bar of prosecution significantly.
“Now unless there is a direct threat to somebody on Twitter or Facebook, the CPS will not prosecute. The CPS is just plainly out of sync with reality.
“We also need more robust sentencing. In one case, a pig’s head was left outside a mosque and the perpetrator came away with a community sentence.
Perhaps the lawsuit against Tim Burton is part of this campaign which seems apparently to target in particular social media.
Liberty GB is trying to make taqiyya the keystone of this trial. Given the special position of taqiyya in the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially in non-Muslim-majority countries, if we, by making this case public, manage to make the British and Western people understand the meaning and nature of taqiyya, we will have managed to make them understand the whole nature of Islam in relation to us through it.
The Western public has been misled about Islam and believes that the ‘religion of peace’ is fundamentally similar to Christianity in its ethical outlook. Replace God with Allah, Jesus with Muhammad, and you still have the same moral commandments: love your enemies, be benevolent towards non-Muslims, and thou shall not lie or give false testimony. If the authority of a court can establish that taqiyya was indeed practised, Westerners can start to see that lying to them is not only allowed but encouraged by Islam as one of the means of submitting them to it, which is the final goal. As a consequence of this, people in the West may gradually become more and more reluctant to accept everything that Muslims say about Islam and may begin to doubt all the distortions they are currently fed.
One issue that we intend to bring to public attention is this: how can a Muslim’s swearing on the Quran in court be accepted as declaration of the truthfulness of his testimony when the very book he is swearing on gives him divine permission to lie?
Taqiyya is a very important WAR strategy of the Mohammadan cult of atrocities, barbaric murders, slavery and conquest. In majority non-Muslim countries, Muslims strive to lull infidels into a false sense of security. Muslims shouted out praise and worship to their death god when they slaughtered 3,000 innocents on 9/11. Muslims who were NOT terrorists celebrated in America and around the world.
In Palestinian Authority areas, thousands of INHUMAN Muslims celebrated with great joy and delight. Muslims danced in the streets, passed out candies and fired into the air. In Berlin, Germany, Turkish Muslims celebrated the 9/11 murder of
innocents by sending up hundreds of bottle rockets into the air. Their fellow Muslims had OBEYED Quran commands to murder infidels and succeeded.
Palestinians celebrating the fall of the twin towers on 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k
The Quran is filled with commands to Muslims to commit atrocities,
barbaric murders and jihad against non-Muslims. The commands are
permanent for all time.
Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'”
Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate
them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
American Student Brutally Beaten by Muslim Gang in London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvYRw8KWKPI
Islamophobia:
The fear that Muslims who say they want to kill you really do want to kill you.
OPEN LETTER TO 911 TERRORIST, LARRY SILVERSTEIN
Mr. Larry Silverstein
President, Silverstein Associates
530 5th Ave.
New York,
NY 10036
USA
Phone: 212-490-0666
Fax: 212-687-0067
Shalom Larry,
RE: Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center
I would like to know if the article below is correct:
The World Trade Center complex came under the control of a private owner for the first time only in mid-2001, having been built and managed by the Port Authority as a public resource. The complex was leased to a partnership of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. 1 2 The new controllers acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex including a clause that would prove extremely valuable: in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease. 3
Ownership Change
Author Don Paul investigated this and related issues for his 2002 book, which contains the following passage detailing financial aspects and ownership changes of the complex preceding the attack.
On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield America a
99-year-lease on the following assets: The Twin Towers, World Trade Center
Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet of retail space.
The partners’ winning bid was $3.2 billion for holdings estimated to be worth more than $8 billion. JP Morgan Chase, a prestigious investment-bank that’s the flagship firm of its kind for Rockefeller family interests, advised the Port Authority, another body long influenced by banker and builder David Rockefeller, his age then 85, in the negotiations.
The lead partner and spokesperson for the winning bidders, Larry Silverstein, age 70, already controlled more than 8 million square feet of New York City real estate. WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable Building were prime among these prior holdings. Larry Silverstein also owned Runway 69, a nightclub in Queens that was alleged 9 years ago to be laundering money made through sales of Laotian heroin. 4
In December 2003, the Port Authority agreed to return all of the $125 million in equity that the consortium headed by Silverstein originally invested to buy the lease on the World Trade Centre. The Port Authority rejected a request by the Wall Street Journal to review the transaction. 5 A press report from November 2003 about the same transaction noted that it would allow Silverstein to retain development rights. 6
The lease deal didn’t close until July 24th, just 6 weeks before the attack. 7
Insurance Payouts
Don Paul also documented the money flows surrounding the loss of Building 7.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building’s collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8
The insurance money flows involved in the destruction of the original six World
Trade Center buildings were far greater. Silverstein Properties, the majority owner of WTC 7, also had the majority interest in the original World Trade Centre complex.
Silverstein hired Willis Group Holdings Ltd. to obtain enough coverage for the
complex. Willis undertook “frenetic” negotiations to acquire insurance from 25 carriers. The agreements were only temporary contracts when control of the WTC changed hands on July 24. 9
After the attack, Silverstein Properties commenced litigation against its insurers, claiming it was entitled to twice the insurance policies’ value because, according to a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, “the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate ‘occurrences’ for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies.” This was reported in the Bloomberg News less than one month after the attack. 10
The ensuing legal battle between the leaseholders and insurers of the World
Trade Center was not about how the 9/11/01 attack on the WTC could be considered two attacks, when the WTC was only destroyed once. Rather it seemed to revolve around whether the beneficiaries thought it was one or two “occurrences.” The proceedings before U.S. District Judge John S. Martin involved a number of battles over the insurers’ discovery rights regarding conversations about this issue between insurance beneficiaries and their lawyers. 11 12
In December 2004, a jury ruled in favor of the insurance holders’ double claim. 13
A Parable
To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.
References
1.Westfield Nabs Trade Center mall, ICSC.org, 6/2/2001
2. Governor Pataki, Acting Governor DiFrancesco Laud
Historic Port Authority Agreement to Privatize World Trade
Center, Port Authority on
NY & NJ, 7/24/01
3. Reinsurance Companies Wait to Sort Out Cost of Damage,
New York Times, 9/12/01, page C6
4. Facing Our Fascist State, I/R Press, 2002, page 38
5. MetLife Will Sell Sears Tower, Wall Street Journal
Online, 3/12/04
6. Most of WTC Down Payment to Be Returned, 11/22/03
7. Insurers Debate: One Accident or Two?, Bloomberg News,
10/10/01
8. Facing Our Fascist State, , page 47
9. Double Indemnity, law.com, 9/3/02
10. Judge John S. Martin Jr.’s Latest Opinion in Swiss Re v.
WTC., Newsday, 09/25/02
11. Twin
Tower Insurers Win
Discovery Fight, 6/20/02
12. World
Trade Center’s
Mortgage Holder Loses Discovery Fight, 7/8/02
13. Jury Awards $2.2 Billion in 9/11 Insurance, United Press
International, 12/6/04
*******
Well, Larry what do you think? It looks like the Goyim think you set it up from the start! They think us Jews would do such things to the Goyim!
Yours sincerely,
Rabbi Gerald Goldberg
All the article proves is how clever you are, and how dumb the Goyim are.
Is it true you sing Frank Sinatra’s song, “I Did It My Way” in the shower?
Larry if you are buying any property in the future, give me a call. I will buy the property next door and make sure I take out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the property.
Here’s my song/video called ‘Taqiyya Dance’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe0BNKoGON4
Not just the giving of evidence in court is untrustworthy when coming from a Muslim. Every oath is suspect, from the marriage oath, to the oath taken when entering the military, to the oath of an officer holder, to any attestation that a document presented is the truth (such as a tax return, a college application, and so forth).
When it comes to Muslims, you can only depend on the fact that you’re dealing with a Muslim and all that that entails, including being lied to.
Why was this Muslim LIAR ever given any money in the first place? Especially in view of the fact that for decades, gang raping Muslim sex-slaver MONSTERS have been violently sexually attacking and sexually enslaving many thousands of terrified defenseless Non-muslim British children. The money given to the Muslim LIAR is money that should have been used to PROTECT British children. The authorities must explain why they favored this Muslim liar over Britain’s desperate children.
The authorities must also explain why the Muslim liar has not been prosecuted and jailed for procuring money under FALSE pretenses. And also inform the public if they have retrieved the £375,000 tax payer money from the Muslim criminal.
The authorities must also explain why they are persecuting and prosecuting Tim Burton for telling the TRUTH! And why there is one law for Muslims who are allowed to LIE and STEAL taxpayer money amongst other horrible things, and another law for hated non-Muslims who have had their rights taken away from them!
THERE is NO ONE to HELP the CHILDREN! That is why we desperately need counter-jihad political party, Liberty GB!
British Schoolgirl’s Testimony – Muslims Threaten Children With Violence & Rape Outside School Daily
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO1yN-eKjmo