|Left-to-right: George Whale, Tim Burton (center), Jack Buckby to his right & Aaron Brian.|
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”.
The judge, or Tim Burton's defence, could have asked Fiyaz Mughal two 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?
Fiyaz Mughal's Friends: MPACUK & CAIR
|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.
|Mother-son bonding: Hamas-style|
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.