Muslims fear Backlash after getting caught lying about the Backlash

This is so perverse: the Camoron gubmint pays £214,000 a year to a Paki turd  to cook up fake hate crimes, to suppress the anger of  exasperated Brits.

The truth about the ‘wave of attacks on Muslims’ after Woolwich murder


Fiyaz Mughal runs a project called Tell Mama, which receives £214,000 a year from the Government to monitor anti-Muslim attacks in Britain. In the wake of Drummer Lee Rigby’s murder, he has been understandably busy.

Andrew Gilligan:

“Asking other police forces and trawling local media reports, The Telegraph has been unable to find a single confirmed case since Drummer Rigby’s death where any individual Muslim has received an injury requiring medical treatment.”  (Full article below the fold)

The concept of “Islamophobia” is a tool designed to intimidate people into thinking there is something wrong with resisting jihad and Islamic supremacism. In order to deflect attention away from jihad activity and try to portray Muslims as victims, so as to shame non-Muslims into not investigating or even being suspicious of further jihad activity, Islamic supremacist groups have resorted to making it up. Hamas-linked CAIRand other Muslims have not hesitated to fabricate “hate crimes.” CAIR and other groups like it want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.

Fiyaz Mughal probably thought it was a win-win situation. He was able to further the spurious idea that Muslims are victims who warrant special privileges, and he was able to pad his report enough to keep his highly lucrative government checks coming.

“The truth about the ‘wave of attacks on Muslims’ after Woolwich murder,” by Andrew Gilligan for the Telegraph, June 1 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Its worse than you think:

David Cameron backed violent fascist UAF organization that featured London jihad murderer as a speaker

The “United Against Fascism” group is a truly fascist gang of violent thugs who are bent on attacking and silencing those who are resisting the advance of jihad and Sharia in the West. That Mujahid Adebolajo, the jihadist who murdered British soldier Lee Rigby on a London street last week, would have spoken for them is no suprise.

Enemies on benefits   

Fuad Ajami: Islamic attackers hate West, but reap its privileges

Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed gestures while talking

Photo credit: AP, 2005 | Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed gestures while talking to the media, in Beirut, Lebanon.

“We swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone: We must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” This was Michael Adebolajo, age 28, born in Britain to a devoted Christian family of Nigerian background.

His hands covered with the blood of a young off-duty British soldier, he and a younger accomplice made no effort to flee the scene of the crime. The video of the attack, on a busy street in daylight, spoke of both derangement and audacity. “I apologize that women had to witness this today but in our land our women have to see the same,” Adebolajo said.

The reference to “our land” appeared to confound the first wave of commentary last week. Muslims had no trouble recognizing the reference. The man of British birth claimed the lands of Islam as his own. Many decades earlier, Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian thinker who was the Lenin of the political Islamists (and executed in 1966 by his country’s military dictatorship), resolved this tension for generations to come. We may carry their nationalities, he wrote of infidel nations, but we belong to our religion.

MORE: Analysis and discussion from Viewsday | Newsday columnists | More opinion

CARTOONS: Walt Handelsman’s Cartoons | National Cartoon Roundup

CONNECT: Subscribe to our e-mail list | Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook

The coldbloodedness of the scene in London recalled another, in the streets of Amsterdam on Nov. 2, 2004. Mohammed Bouyeri, a 26-year-old Moroccan-Dutchman, had caught up with the filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was riding his bicycle on a bleak Amsterdam morning. Bouyeri shot Van Gogh in the stomach, then cut his victim’s throat, as though slashing a tire, one witness said. Van Gogh had pleaded for mercy: “Don’t do it, don’t do it.” There was no mercy on offer. Bouyeri wasn’t quite done. He pulled out a smaller knife and pinned it to Van Gogh‘s body with a letter attached. Nor was there any remorse at his trial. Bouyeri didn’t recognize the authority of the court. He lived by the law of the Islamic Shariah, he said.

Fittingly for this disordered world, Bouyeri wore Nike sneakers under his black djellaba. He spoke no Arabic and very little if any Berber. He knew little of Islam. His turning to the faith was sudden. Until then, he had been “Mo,” cheerful and clever at school. (Ian Buruma gave a superb account of this crime in his 2006 book, “Murder in Amsterdam.”) The assimilationist promise of the polyglot societies of the West has come under intense challenge. A second generation of disaffected Muslims has risen. The charges that MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence agency, had failed to foresee the danger the assailants posed are predictable, but futile.

No liberal society could foresee the moment when true believers were going to give in to their derangement. Islam had put down roots in Britain. This was the backwash of empire. When the British empire pulled back from its far-flung dominions, its Muslim subjects followed. The growth in their ranks was phenomenal: There were 23,000 British Muslims in 1951, 369,000 in 1971, 690,000 in 1981 and 1.6 million by 2001.

Mosques multiplied: 10 in 1945, 329 in 1989, 1,493 by 2003. Radical preachers who quit the secular dictatorships of the Arab world made their way to London. There was freedom in London, and there were state welfare subsidies.

The preacher who now claims to have inducted Adebolajo to the ways of radical Islamism was a notorious bigot, Omar Bakri Mohammed, a man of Syrian birth, who gathered around him a group of bewildered, angry young men, Al Muhajiroun (the Emigrants).

London gave Bakri all he could aspire for: welfare relief, followers, a soapbox. He hailed the Sept. 11 attacks, and described the death pilots who struck America as the “magnificent 19.” Lawyers sheltered him from deportation.

His luck ran out in 2005 when the authorities blocked his return to London, after a visit to Lebanon. He gave his sanction and approval to the killing in Woolwich. He justified it on the grounds that the victim was a man of the military and not a civilian.

Britain’s moment of grief at the hands of radical Islamists, its 9/11, came in 2005 with the 7/7 attacks. London’s transportation system was struck by four jihadists and 52 people were killed. A parliamentary report later laid bare the world of these younger men who bore British society a dreadful hatred.

Three of the bombers had been born in West Yorkshire. The fourth was a Jamaican-born convert to Islam who was a “bright child, successful academically, at school, and good at sport.” The oldest of the four, age 30, with a 14-month-old child, was considered a role model for younger people.

One of the four, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, was particularly privileged. He led, by all appearances, a “balanced life,” the investigative report said. He owned a new Mercedes, given to him by his father, and was fond of fashionable hairstyles and designer clothes. Tanweer played cricket the night before the bombing. On the day of the horrors, a surveillance camera filmed him in a store: “He buys snacks, quibbles with the cashier over his change, looks directly at the CCTV camera and leaves,” according to the report.

Naturally, al-Qaeda‘s leaders claimed the bombers. Yet one suspects they are the children of a more tangled trail, at once so familiar and so unrecognizable.

Fouad Ajami is a senior fellow at the Stanford University‘s Hoover Institution and author, most recently, of “The Syrian Rebellion.”

Fake Hate Crimes by “Tell Mama”

Fiyaz Mughal runs the Tell Mama project, financed by the Camaron government to blame Brits for Mohammedan transgressions.

The truth about the “wave of attacks on Muslims”

By Pamela Geller

The jihad attacks across the UK (and the world) are monstrous enough, but the victims and/or Western countries are always made to suffer these verbal post-jihad attacks on us from Islamic supremacists. They grievance-monger about “islamophobia” and blame us for jihad when we react to the horror (as if we should just go quietly), when what they should be doing is working within their communities to expunge the Islamic teachings and texts that command jihad. Muslim supremacists should stop blaming everyone else for what devout Muslims are doing in the cause of Islam.

“Asking other police forces and trawling local media reports, The Telegraph has been unable to find a single confirmed case since Drummer Rigby’s death where any individual Muslim has received an injury requiring medical treatment.”

The truth about the ‘wave of attacks on Muslims’ after Woolwich murder Andrew Gilligan, The Telegraph, June 30, 2013

Fiyaz Mughal runs a project called Tell Mama, which receives £214,000 a year from the Government to monitor anti-Muslim attacks in Britain. In the wake of Drummer Lee Rigby’s murder, he has been understandably busy.

There has, said Mr Mughal, been “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.

Mr Mughal is in no doubt what lies behind it all. As he told a newspaper: “I do not see an end to this cycle of violence. There is an underlying Islamophobia in our society and the horrendous events in Woolwich have brought this to the fore.”

And as he put it on Today, “the [Government’s] Prevent [anti-extremism] agenda, the extremist agenda, have not been good for building confidence – the sense of fear just alienates and isolates communities.”

Yet the unending “cycle of violence” against Muslims, the unprecedented “wave of attacks” against them from strangers in the street, the “underlying Islamophobia in our society” – all turn out to be yet more things we thought we knew about Woolwich that are not really supported by the evidence.

Tell Mama confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that about 120 of its 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” – 57 per cent – took place only online. They were offensive postings on Twitter or Facebook, or comments on blogs: nasty and undesirable, certainly, but some way from violence or physical harm and often, indeed, legal. Not all the offending tweets and postings, it turns out, even originated in Britain.

Tell Mama has no written definition of what it classes as an anti-Muslim incident, but has in the past adopted a wide definition. Last November, the cross-bench Asian peer, Baroness Flather, told a newspaper it was “pointless for the Conservatives to chase Muslim votes.

They are all on benefits and all vote Labour”. Tell Mama added this admittedly crass and untrue remark to its database as an “anti-Muslim incident,” though it said it had deleted it following an explanation from Lady Flather.

Although the service says its caseworkers “carefully handle each report as it comes in, to determine whether it can be verified and justified as an anti-Muslim incident”, Mr Mughal admitted that a further 35 of the 212 post-Woolwich incidents, or 16 per cent, had yet to be verified.

He justified publishing the figure, however, saying he expected that all but a handful of incidents would be verified.

Fewer than one in 12 of the 212 “incidents” reported to Tell Mama since Woolwich – 17 cases (8 per cent) – involved individuals being physically targeted.

Continue reading “The truth about the “wave of attacks on Muslims”” »