Page 2 of 5

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:40 pm
by pr126

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:51 pm
by Ariel
In the meantime, Quilliam is giving Tommy and Kevin intensive training in Islam, so that they will truly understand Islamic principles and teachings.
Wow!!! I like this. :no1: I know what this intensive training in Islam implies. Islam is love. Mohammed was the best person who ever lived on this earth. And so fort. Why not ask Robert Spencer for an intensive training in Islam. Or Ali Sina.

I hope he knows what he is doing.
“Give me six months. If you’re not satisfied with what you see, you can crucify me then.”
Is he infiltrating into the Quilliam Foundation, and change it from within.? Good luck to him, but it won't stop the galloping Islamisation.

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:12 pm
by Ariel

Tommy thinking....I need a large strong bitter. .

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:25 pm
by Ariel
manfred wrote:Well, I guess he had enough being demonised and painted as a Nazi thug. He is, however, naive if he thinks that now he will no longer be under threat from various Muslim groups.

I doubt we have heard the last of Tommy, though.

You are right Manfred. Today Tommy was attacked in Luton. Will there be a press release from the Quilliam Foundation on this incident educating muslims that they can't attack Tommy because islam is peace?
Tommy Robinson Attacked in Luton
Posted on October 11, 2013 by Baron Bodissey

Tommy Robinson isn’t enjoying any respite from the customary violence directed at his person, despite having left the English Defence League. This afternoon he tweeted from Luton:
Tommy Robinson @TrobinsonNewEra
Just been attacked in Luton town cente in a religious attack!
(Tommy’s Twitter account is here.)

Below is a brief article about the incident from Luton Today:

Former EDL leader “attacked” in Luton while filming documentary

The former leader of the EDL says he was attacked in Luton town centre this afternoon.

Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Lennon, was filming a documentary in Chapel Street when he was allegedly attacked by three men at about 4.30pm.

A passerby who did not wish to be named said she was sat in her car nearby when the incident happened.

She said: “Three men came out of the chicken shop and started shouting at Tommy and the film crew. Then they went for him and attacked him, they were hitting him and he was just trying to get away saying he didn’t want a fight.

“Everybody was just trying to get out of the way. It was a bit crazy. I was trying to move my car, I thought ‘oh my god’ there’s kids about. I know a lot of people don’t agree with what he stands for but no one should be attacked in the street.”

Tommy tweeted “Just been attacked in Luton town cente in a religious attack!” followed by “Under attack in town, American film crew got it on camera. Good punch to be fair! America will see first hand” accompanied by a picture of the alleged attack taken from a video camera.

At this stage Beds Police have been unable to confirm any details of the incident, but it is understood police did attend the scene. ... -in-luton/" onclick=";return false;

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:23 pm
by ygalg
Friday, October 11, 2013

The deceptive Islamic supremacist Mo Ansar with his new BFF Tommy Robinson

So much rumor, misinformation and disinformation is going around, it is important for me to set the record straight. Here is what actually happened with Tommy Robinson, and where I stand.

A month ago, Tommy Robinson called me. This was an infrequent occurrence; we were not in constant contact, and he only called me with matters of great importance. He expressed yet again his frustration with elements in the EDL that had become even stronger in his absence -- racist and antisemitic influences. These are issues I, too, had concerns about, as I expressed back in June 2011 and had cautiously withdrawn my support, but was reassured by Tommy that he would police the organization. In our September 2013 conversation, Tommy said he could no longer control those forces, and that he would have to leave the EDL.

Not being on the ground in the UK, and having worked with him at a distance for four years, I understood his concerns, and looked forward to a new organization -- perhaps even SIO-England. I did not know when he was going to make his move away from the EDL, and he did not tell me. The only thing he told me was that he was going to make the break before his upcoming court case -- perhaps to incur the sympathy of the court.

Then, the night before he made his announcement, Tommy tried to contact me numerous times on Skype and by phone while I was busy with other matters. It was clear that it was urgent. Finally, we spoke on the phone, and it was on that phone call that he told me that he would be resigning from the EDL the next day, and that the Quilliam Foundation was going to be at the press conference -- but he made that a minor point. I had no idea that it was a Quilliam press conference, and certainly had no idea that Tommy and Kevin Carroll would be led around like dogs 0n a leash. It was after that phone call, and before I had any idea that Tommy would be closely allying with false moderate Muslim deceivers who would crow about "decapitating the EDL," that Robert Spencer and I composed our first statement, supporting Tommy and his decision. We never would have come out in support of him if we had known that he would soon be parroting politically correct nonsense about "extremists on both sides."

Tommy told me that his move would not be announced until 6PM London time the next day, and asked me to hold our statement until then, but when I woke up the next morning, it was already all over the international media. That was the first indication that he had not been entirely up front with me about what was happening. Then at the press conference, both he and Kevin Carroll were the showcases of a Quilliam victory dance. They looked eerily reminiscent of the American POW's taken by enemy combatants and forced to say things they did not believe before cameras.

I only subsequently learned, after releasing our initial statement of support, that he had been meeting with Islamic supremacist deceivers like Mo Ansar for 18 months, and was taking instruction on Islam from the false moderates of the Quilliam Foundation. And I didn't hear about it from Tommy, who never gave me any hint of any of this -- I read about it in the press along with everyone else. Robert Spencer and I explained why Robinson's association with Quilliam was so deeply troubling in our second statement: Quilliam "came out in favor of the "Palestinian" jihad against Israel and the ending of Israeli defensive operations. Also, when the Quilliam Foundation began, its founder Ed Husain attacked Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer -- would a real opponent of jihad and Islamic supremacism do that? I don't think so. Spencer noted then that Husain 'wrote disingenuously about Islamic teaching on apostasy and other matters, and ignored the deep scriptural, theological and legal foundations of Islamic violence and supremacism. Hardly a promising performance for a genuine reformer.'"

Quilliam is even worse than that. It published a document in June 2013, two months after an Islamic jihadist beheaded Lee Rigby on a London street. Instead of calling for reform of the jihad doctrine that led to Rigby's murder, it only discusses "extremism" in general. The only group mentioned in it is not Anjem Choudary's Muslim group, of which the murderer Mujahid Adebolajo was a member, but the EDL. It is clear even from this that Quilliam considers the EDL, not jihad groups, its chief enemy. der, but, you'll notice the report is about 'extremism' in general and the only people/group mentioned by name are the EDL. And in this document, Quilliam tries to mislead people into believing that political Islam arose in the 19th century, and is not a constant and intrinsic part of Islam. (Ever heard of the caliphate?)

Mo Ansar is another deceiver, as Spencer and I noted in our statement: "Look at this interview with Ansar: he lies about Muhammad's child bride Aisha, claiming she was 18 or 20 (get the truth here -- she was 9 when Muhammad consummated their marriage) and tries to whitewash Islam's institutionalized mistreatment of women. This is not 'Islamic reform.' This is just deception."

It has become painfully obvious that the enemies of freedom have broken Tommy Robinson. The British authorities' harassment, the systematic persecution, the jailings, the solitary confinement, the threatening of his life, the threats to his family, his having to move several times, his children having to change schools, the constant false charges -- he finally cracked. They broke him. He made a deal with the devil. He didn't want to go back to jail, and this looks like his bid to stay out.

Today at the Daily Beast, the gleeful reporter doesn't quote Robinson, but says that he "distanced himself from some of Geller’s most egregious remarks." I challenge the Daily Beast reporter to produce the quotes. What exactly did Tommy distance himself from? And then he quotes Tommy explaining why he won't denounce me now: “I went to America to speak at one of their events. I feel indebted to Pamela. I have a great deal of respect for her personally because she helped my family when I was in custody. She provided a roof over our head.” This cop-out from Tommy -- that he wouldn't denounce me because I supported him financially -- was the lowest blow of all. I was not supporting the EDL financially. We gave some money to his wife and kids when Tommy was in jail. And Tommy has said that before, implying that his loyalty was bought, and was not because of ideological agreement. He's been using the quiet help I gave to his wife and kids as one mom to another. I didn't do that for the organization. I did that as a human being.

It is clear what is happening. Now he is the poster boy for the stealth jihad. It seems they have taught Tommy well. His deception to friends and colleagues mirrors the Islamic teachings of kitman (lie by omission) and taqiyya. So Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll are no longer on the SION board. As for the EDL, I hope they have strong enough leadership to purge the ugly elements and emerge as a stronger and more effective counter-jihad force.

Today the New Era Tommy Robinson went to a Muslim area to speak about true, peaceful Islam, and got beaten up by Muslims who haven't gotten the reform message, but have obviously read the quran.

Tommy Robinson, RIP. Long live Steven Yaxley-Lennon -- for as long as they let him live. ... inson.html

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:28 pm
by ygalg
Steven Yaxley-Lennon new twitter account @TRobinsonNewEra

yet clear where exactly he stands whether he will denounce Pamela Geller/Robert Spencer

he and his sidekick Kevin Carroll might earn the title two timers, time will tell.

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:49 pm
by manfred
interesting ygalg...

well, let's wait and see... I guess "two timer" would be least worrying name he would have to contend with. I am willing to give it a little time to see what will develop before jumping to conclusions...

Granted, though, ygalg, it really does not look all that good. But maybe we can give it a while to collect more information before forming a definite view about what has happened.

His new twitter account has had a couple of interesting points: First some guy tweeted that he is a "disgusting racist" and he want as "one to one fight", always a good way to settle and disagreement, if your brain is abnormally small, I suppose. It shows that neither the local Muslims are convinced about his move, as they tried to beat him up, nor are the politically correct Mafia, threatening the same.

The other point he made is that he "exposed" an Imam in Luton. I will investigate....

The comment suggests that he has not really changed his views on Islam. I therefore would be surprised if he would distance himself from Geller or Spencer. Having said that, he has doubtlessly upset them, so in any situation that relationship needs some repairing and open talking.

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:43 pm
by sum
Is it not possible that Tommy Robinson has made a shrewd move by now working with muslims in an official organisation so that he can see more clearly how muslims think and want to change society?

I find it very hard to believe that he is now pro-Islam.


Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:05 pm
by ygalg
sum wrote:Is it not possible that Tommy Robinson has made a shrewd move by now working with muslims in an official organisation so that he can see more clearly how muslims think and want to change society?

I find it very hard to believe that he is now pro-Islam.

Tommy Robinson an undercover brother? muslims are paranoid, it will take him to convert, to be that close.

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:08 pm
by ygalg
manfred wrote:interesting ygalg...

well, let's wait and see... I guess "two timer" would be least worrying name he would have to contend with. I am willing to give it a little time to see what will develop before jumping to conclusions...

Granted, though, ygalg, it really does not look all that good. But maybe we can give it a while to collect more information before forming a definite view about what has happened.

His new twitter account has had a couple of interesting points: First some guy tweeted that he is a "disgusting racist" and he want as "one to one fight", always a good way to settle and disagreement, if your brain is abnormally small, I suppose. It shows that neither the local Muslims are convinced about his move, as they tried to beat him up, nor are the politically correct Mafia, threatening the same.

The other point he made is that he "exposed" an Imam in Luton. I will investigate....

The comment suggests that he has not really changed his views on Islam. I therefore would be surprised if he would distance himself from Geller or Spencer. Having said that, he has doubtlessly upset them, so in any situation that relationship needs some repairing and open talking.
I think he is weighing options at hand

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:28 pm
by manfred
About this reference to a Luton Imam, there is a rather interesting tale in the local paper in Luton:

A few months ago, three Muslims from Luton were convicted of having instructions for a terrorist attack on their computers and planning such an attack/teaching others to do the same.

One of the things that linked there people was that they all worshipped in a certain mosque in Luton.

The Iman is making some very revealing comments:

He freely admitted that the knew these men and he knew what their views and plans were.

Interestingly he calls planning a bomb attack "disagreeing with British foreign policy". Hmmm...

When asked why he did not inform the police when he learnt about the men's intentions, he says that "we are not the thought police" and "we are not fans of democracy". Most illuminating was his point that he did not report it because he believes that then he would have to report at least 50% of ALL UK Muslims. Well, he ought to know.

A "tiny minority"???

It is quite frightening to think that we have reached the stage where such things can be openly printed. 50% of Muslims support terror attacks, he says. Not Tommy Robinson. No, a local Imam in Luton. He doesn't himself of course, so he says. But he would consider it wrong to do anything about that situation. It's not a problem for him. It's just "disagreeing with British foreign policy" to blow up a few things here and there and splatter the guts of passers-by around a bit. We should not be so harsh. They are so harmless, really, these Muslims. In a democracy, which we disagree with, we believe it is our right to show our disapproval of British foreign policy with bombs, naturally. It's completely logical, isn't it?

All these comments are classed as him condemning terror plotters, laughably.

And about not being the thought police, does that apply to apostates? Why does it clearly not apply to people like Tommy Robinson? Is he the thought police for kafirs only?

He confirms what we have said for a long time: when it comes to violent jihad, Muslims are divided into two groups: the doers and the supporters. ... -1-4851828" onclick=";return false;

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:43 pm
by ygalg
October 11, 2013 Tommy Robinson Leaves the EDL Paul Austin Murphy

Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League (a counter-jihad and anti-Islamist movement in England), has just resigned in order to join hands with the Muslim organization Quilliam, a group which says that its primary aim is to 'fight against extremism in the Muslim community'. (Another twelve senior EDL members have also left.)

Tommy Robinson has justified his decision by saying that he doesn't 'want to lead a war against all Muslims'. It was also partly explained by his fight against open National Socialists (Nazis) within the movement; though not always strictly within the EDL itself.

For example, Tommy Robinson's main problem, according to the British National Party (BNP), is to see things in terms of Islam and the behavior of Muslims (as Muslims) rather than in terms of race. On the BNP website it said:
"As genuine nationalists we have deep ideological differences with the EDL leaders who openly support the ethno-cultural genocide of the indigenous English through mass colonisation and multi-racialism."

Tommy Robinson is entering the lion's den even if some of those lions may be friendly. Quilliam could, at least in theory, run rings around Robinson. Not because he is stupid; but simply because they are Muslims who have become experts in defending Islam. In other words, they may persuade Mr. Robinson that Islam itself has absolutely nothing at all to do with Islamism and Islamic terrorism; let alone with Muslim sexual grooming and increasing sharia law in the UK. Yet this is almost equivalent to saying that Hitler's National Socialism had nothing at all to do with the Second World War and the Holocaust.

That scholarship, or pseudo-scholarship and taqiyya (depending on how you look at things), may well pay dividends for Quilliam.

In Nicky Campbell's BBC interview with Tommy Robinson yesterday, Campbell talked about Quilliam's 'Islamic scholars' in hushed and admiring tones, as if he were talking about a great mystery or some holy persons. Everyone feels intimidated by scholars. (Actually, we are probably more intimidated by the words 'Islamic scholar'.)

But no one should be. These people were Muslims before they were Islamic scholars and they were still Muslims through and after such scholarship. The scholarship itself was never even a tiny challenge to their faith. It fact, such scholarship reinforced and strengthened their faith -- that's what it's for. Yet there are literally tens of thousands -- one on every street corner in some places -- of 'Islamic scholars' throughout the world who are often little more than Islamic automatons whose only skill is that they can memorize Islamic texts and the Islamic party line (as it were). Being intimidated by the average Islamic scholar is almost like being intimidated by someone who can memorize the names and numbers of a phone-book. This is something that Tommy Robinson should bear in mind when he has discussions with Quilliam.

The Muslim & Leftist Enemies of the Quilliam Organisation
Quilliam may well be taqiyya supreme. Alternatively, it may be manned by Muslims who are banging their heads against an Islamic brick wall or who are trying to put moderate square shapes into immoderate round holes (just as the 'feminist Muslim', Irshad Manji, is). Nonetheless, people must at least face the possibility that some Muslims are sincere about their moderation. If they don't, then they may well come across as bigots.

Despite saying that, moderate Muslims -- even if they exist in numbers -- are not winning out in the Muslim world or even here in the UK. On top of that, many officially moderate Muslims -- such as the BBC's Mo Ansar and Inayat Bunglawala (to name only two) -- are not actually moderate at all.

And there is also another problem: the Quilliam Foundation is hated by both extreme Muslims and by those who claim to be moderate -- including, again, Mo Ansar and Inayat Buglawala.

Quilliam is also under attack from the usual Leftist suspects, such as the Stalinist fanatic Seamus Milne, professional Islamophiles Jonathan Githens-Mazer and Robert Lambert, as well as the Islamo-Trotskyist Yvonne Ridley.

So Trotskyists, Communists, and progressives are just as against Quilliam as some in the counter-jihad movement are. Why? Because, as white middle-class Leftists, they prefer their Muslims to be Islamists. After all, in their perverse worldview, Islamists are basically Trotskyists/ Communists/progressives with brown skin. And like them, they are out to destroy the West and capitalism. Thus this support of Islamist totalitarianism, from totalitarian Leftists, is no surprise at all. In follows, at least to these middle-class and white Leftists, that all non-Islamist Muslims are essentially 'Uncle Toms'; just as these white Leftists also once believed that all black people who didn't like rap or support the Black Panthers were Uncle Toms.

Consequently, even if Quilliam is a moderate organization, it will probably not win out in the end. Most Muslims hate it and only non-Muslims -- such as Tommy Robinson! -- seem to have any time for what it says and does. And that's precisely why most Muslims hate it. This means that Quilliam's battle against Islamic extremism may have been lost even before it began. ... e-63590643

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:06 pm
by pr126

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:06 pm
by Ariel
When Tommy meet Muslim Mo .

This is a preview of what to expect when the programme 'When Tommy met Mo' on Monday 28th Oct on BBC1 at 10.35pm.
Have a look. ... OFpgoKT.99" onclick=";return false;

I am going to watch this programme, but what I understand so far is, that the BBC making Muslims out to be poor innocent victims , who are bullied by big bad British scum.

I am not sure if I can take Tommy seriously anymore. I bet he is lost for us for ever.
Mo the Muslims says...."Could you concentrate behind a woman?" Tommy answers...I see what you mean. :clueless:

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:53 pm
by manfred
Oh, I am not going to watch that, I think. Whatever the facts, this will be a hot chocolate and marsh mellow kind of program. Tommy and his new found best friend Mo. All cute and cuddly. The BBC might as well suggest he will divorce his wife and have a civil partnership with his best pal Mo...

Needless to say, it will look as of he will say the shahadda any day now...

He asked to way for three months before forming a view. I said I would. Sadly nothing at all has happened to this point that would suggest that ygalg was in any way hasty.

Sad, but maybe we will hear the full story one day. I still think there are too many open ends to be sure what has happened to him.

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:52 pm
by Ariel
About the programme 'When Tommy met Mo' on Monday 28th Oct.
Some stunning and nuanced baloney on British TV

There is so much wrong with this bit of television it requires an essay at least. For the moment a couple of quick points.

If Nazis moved to England and had kids and built Nazi community centers which collected money for the Luftwaffe with the intention of taking over England and replacing democracy with Nazi fascism, is it British just because they are playing the long game? A muslim is no more British or Canadian (if they are religious) than a Cuckoo is a sparrow just because it was laid in that nest. Nor Is a person English by a piece of paper that is handed them because the Government is anxious to obliterate traditional English people, culture and history by swamping it with third worlders.

It is a package deal to be English just as it is to be muslim. It means culture/law, customs, governance and shared history and more.

People had better not be lulled into this series of rhetorical tricks if they hold out any hope of preserving their own culture and autonomy and I say that even if islam was not a malevolent force upon the world. Even if it was just alien and in ascendency Europeans would do well to stop it merely because it is a threat to the continuance of local cultures and traditions. But Islam is consistent in that it ensures that wherever it has the numbers, local customs which contradict islamic law are crushed and where they do not, muslims actually invent new ones in order to be different and then use them to crush local customs in the name of islam for the sake of doing so. Notice that in Egypt the prohibition on pork and so on is not nearly as strident as it is in parts of the UK as one example. Nor is the fight against the use of images of dogs like we saw with the Scottish police. I really hope Tommy Robinson didn’t fall for any of that crap. I guess we shall know soon. ... ritish-tv/" onclick=";return false;

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm
by Ariel
About Qaradawi and his taysir. ( make it easy)
Top Muslim Cleric Qaradawi Urges Western Muslims to ‘Liberalize’

A recent episode of the popular Arabic show al-Sharia wa al-Haya (Law and Life), which airs weekly on Al Jazeera and features renowned Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, addressed the important yet little known Muslim concept of taysir (pronounced “tey-seer”).

Qaradawi, who is touted by the likes of John Esposito and CAIR as a “moderate” — even as he legitimizessuicide attacks against Israel (including by women) and death for apostates — explained that, according tofiqh al-taysir (the “jurisprudence of ease”), Islam (not unlike Catholicism) offers Muslims dispensations, whenever needed: “For Allah desires ease for you, not hardship” (Koran 2:185; see also 5:6, 4:26-28, 2:286). For instance, Muslims traveling during the month of Ramadan or engaged in jihad need not observe the obligatory fast.

Qaradawi stressed that no one advocated taking the “easy way” as much as Muhammad himself. He offered several examples, including how Muhammad would be angry with prayer leaders who tired the people with long prayers. (Other less flattering though applicable anecdotes concerning Muhammad’s “leniency” come to mind, such as when his followers thought they had to practice coitus interruptus while raping their captive women so as not to impregnate them, only to be told by the prophet that “There is no harm if you do not practice it, for it [the birth of the child] is something ordained [by Allah]“).

Lest it be abused, Qaradawi warned that taysir should only be used as needed, based on the vicissitudes of time and chance. In other words, Muslims should not actively seek the easy way, but rather, when uncontrollable circumstances create hardships, Muslims are free to opt for the easy way — as long as they recognize that the “hard way” (i.e., total implementation of Sharia) is the ideal way.

Qaradawi proudly contrasted taysir with the practices of Jews and Christians who “took things to the extreme, and thus were treated extremely.” After quoting the verse, “Ask not about matters which, if made known to you, may make things difficult for you” (Koran 5:105), Qaradawi said Allah made things difficult for the “anal” Jews because they always insisted on receiving specific details for his otherwise simple commandments. As for Christians, Qaradawi, in dismay, pointed to monks and anchorites, who, by shunning all female contact, and living in absolute solitude and austerity, also went to the extreme.

The most significant point of the program came when Qaradawi said that taysir is especially needed in “this era” and “especially for those Muslim minorities living in Europe and America.”

Now, why is that? For starters, by migrating to the West of their own free will, Muslims themselves — not “uncontrollable circumstances” — create this apparent need for taysir. Moreover, Western religious freedom allows Muslims to uphold Islam’s fundamental Five Pillars: Muslims can proclaim the shahada (profession of faith), pray, fast, give zakat (except to terrorists), and go on the hajj. So what, exactly, is Sheikh Qaradawi referring to that makes living in the West especially hard on Muslims?

The answer is obvious: Qaradawi is referring to those other aspects of Sharia law — you know, subjugation of non-Muslim infidels, absolute authority over women, jihad, draconian punishments, and all the rest —thatdo create “hardships” for Muslims who try to implement them in the West, for instance, by getting them arrested and imprisoned.

In other words, far from “liberalizing” Muslim life, taysir allows only for insincere conformity. As Qaradawi made clear, to practice taysir is not to renounce Sharia’s otherwise harsh obligations; it is to put them on hold till circumstances are more accommodating.

Qaradawi’s Muslim Brotherhood colleague, Tariq Ramadan, provides an ideal example: he recommends that a “moratorium” — a temporary ban — be placed on the Muslim practice of stoning adulterers to death; yet he refuses to say that stoning is intrinsically un-Islamic. This, of course, is taysir in practice: because stoning people in the West is liable to get the stoner incarcerated or worse, upholding the Sharia mandate to stone adulterers is “hard” on Muslims living in the West, so best to put it on hold — that is, till circumstances are more opportune.

A final observation: the notorious doctrine of taqiyya, which permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims, is rooted in taysir; in fact, one of the few books devoted to the topic, al-Taqiyya fi al-Islam, spends some time rationalizing taqiyya in light of taysir. And there it is: when Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, perhaps the most authoritative Muslim voice in Sunni Islam today, calls on Muslims “especially in Europe and America” to practice taysir, he is, in essence, calling on them to practice taqiyya — calling on them to conform outwardly to Western standards while inwardly maintaining loyalty to Sharia. ... iberalize/" onclick=";return false;

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:17 pm
by Ariel
EDL – The Party Ain´t Over Yet!

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:00 pm
by Ariel
For who has missed the program "When Tommy met Mo. " Enjoy.

Re: Tommy Robinson

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:45 am
by Ariel
Tommy Robinson reconsidered

A few weeks ago we issued a statement expressing our disenchantment with Tommy Robinson's new course. We applauded his decision to dissociate himself from the racists, neo-Nazis and antisemites who persisted in trying to gain control of the English Defence League, but were extremely suspicious of his association with the pseudo-moderate and extremely disingenuous Quilliam Foundation.

However, events have been unfolding rapidly. Tommy Robinson has written to us emphasizing that he has not changed his positions, and the unfolding events have borne that out. The documentary When Tommy Met Mo shows that Tommy was not fooled by the smooth deceptiveness of the dishonest Islamic supremacist Mo Ansar, and in numerous interviews Tommy has acquitted himself admirably, demonstrating that his commitment to resisting Sharia oppression and Islamic supremacism is as strong as ever.

His association with the Quilliam Foundation was and is problematic. The Quilliam Foundation's anti-Israel stance and its unjustified attacks on counter-jihadists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders abundantly establish that it is not what it claims to be. But we understand that Tommy has been under enormous pressure. It is impossible to hold him accountable for Quilliam's disingenuousness when he has not repeated it himself. Tommy is planning to start a new organization that is as free from Quilliam as it is from the EDL, and in that, and in his ongoing efforts to defend the British freedom and the vision of human rights that Judeo-Christian civilization has given to the world, we wholeheartedly and unhesitatingly support him. ... dered.html" onclick=";return false;
A good related piece by Ali Sina is here.

Taqiyah Is Onion Shaped

By Ali Sina.

Who has not heard of taqiyah? But did you know that it is onion shaped? Taqiyah sounds and means the same as the Sanskrit word thugee from the root sthag. They may be related. The idea behind the taqiyah is to deceive the victim and when he is least prepared overpower him and subdue him. This was also the philosophy of the Indian thugs.

Taqiyah has many layers. The most common form is when Muslims deny that certain Islamic behaviors have anything to do with Islam.

On October 27, the BBC aired a documentary in which Mo Ansar, a Muslim activist in UK, was shown addressing a group of English Defense League members. He wanted to meet them in order to dispel their misunderstandings of Islam and to prove that Islam poses no threat to their country and their way of life. How could he do that when Islam’s goal is to become dominant over all religions and nations? Well, he did it like any Muslim would do. He lied. (Mo’s speech to EDL is at minute 10).

Mo starts by saying “as somebody who was born in this country and is British, I think I uphold British values. I am also a Muslim. Islam is not here to take over the country. Islam is not here to take over the world. That is not the Islam that I know. Islam that I know is one that believes in co-existence and honors and respects British values.”

Nothing can be further from the truth. The British and Islamic values are diametrically opposed. They cannot co-exist. The British values are based on democracy. Democracy implies equality. Iranian Journalist Amir Taheri says, “Equality is unacceptable in Islam. Un-believers cannot be equal to believers and women are not equal to men. Even the non-Muslims are not deemed to be equal. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are accepted as second class citizens and allowed to live in an Islamic state provided they pay the protection tax; Jizyah. But the pagans, atheists and idolaters are not regarded as fully humans. According to the Quran, the idolaters are to be killed wherever they are found.” (9:5)

In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.
100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man,
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman,
50,000 riyals if a Christian man,
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman,
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man,
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.

According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and the Sharia. How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?

This is not a quirk of Saudi Arabia. The prophet of Islam advised Muslims not to aid non-Muslims to seek justice if they are abused by a Muslim. In his much celebrated edict of Medina, he declared, “A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.” The same document states, “Whoever is convicted of killing a believer… the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.”

The Quran 3:28 prohibits Muslims to take non-Muslims as their leaders, or even as friends. If Muslims tell the truth about their hostile intention, they will be kicked out from the countries that they intend to overtake. The same verse allows them to lie, “by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them.”

Co-existence? Yes there is co-existence in Islam, but only if the non-Muslims are reduced into dhimmis, and accept to pay tributes to Muslims while feeling themselves humiliated and subdued. (Q. 9:29)

One characteristic of democracy is freedom of belief. This is utterly alien to Islam. The Quran 3: 85 says, “whoso desires another religion than Islam it shall not be accepted of him.” The punishment of apostasy in Islam is death. No Islamic country allows its Muslim citizens to change their religion.

Mo also assured his audience that Islam is not here to take over the world. He lied. People often make the mistake of comparing Islam to Christianity and other faiths. All religions are personal. They are about enlightenment or relationship with God. Islam is about world domination. The focus of Islam is on expansion. A hadith narrated by Bukhari (4: 53: 386) makes this clear. It says that when Umar sent Muslim army to Persia, “the representative of Khosrau came out with 40,000 warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al-Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al-Mughira replied, “We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life. We used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”

The order to fight till the non-Muslims worship Allah has not changed. Muslims will not abandon their quest for domination until they succeed or they are defeated. They have no choice in this. They are programmed to spread Islam through deception or war. They can’t be a Muslim and not advance their religion. The obligation to spread Islam is on every Muslim. But we e have the choice. We can submit, or fight back and defeat them. But how can we do that if we are not even aware that we are under attack? Taqiyah is what Muslims do to keep us in the sedated state.

Muhammad said al Islamo deenun va dawlah, (Islam is religion and state). The goal of Islam is to take over the world and establish a world caliphate. Without this goal Islam becomes meaningless. The whole idea of jihad, which is an obligation on every Muslim, is to expand the Islamic domain. It is also said that the bigger jihad is the struggle against one’s self. This is a lie too. Many scholars of Islam have refuted this as an innovation, something that was never said by Muhammad.

Jihad is through war, through financing the war (zakat) and through deception. The disagreement between Muslims is not in whether the west should become Islamic or not, but in whether it should be annexed through qital (fighting) or through taqiyah (deceiving).

The Quran 9:33 says, Allah will cause Islam to prevail over all religions. One does not have to read the history of Islamic conquest and oppression of their vanquished nations throughout the last 1400 years to know Muslims have no regards for the human rights of the non-Muslims. A look at how the minorities are treated in Muslim majority countries in the 21st century can make that point clear.

When Muslims become the majority, they deny the minorities any participation in political life. No non-Muslim is allowed to run for the head of any Islamic country and where they are allowed to become a member of parliament, it is only as a representative of their people. They are like ambassadors of their co-religionists in the Islamic state. They have no role in how the country should be run, but only as a liaison between the state and their co-religionists who are regarded as second class citizens.

Some of the EDL members expressed their concerned about their daughters who had to married to Muslims and brainwash to cut their ties with their family. Mo Ansar responded with more lies. He said, “If there are girls who have converted to Islam and are told you cannot meet your family; if that happens, I’d say now clearly, that it is not allowed in Islam.”

Mo should know that Muhammad ordered his daughter Zeinab to leave her unbelieving husband Abul As, until he was forced to convert. He told his followers to cut their ties with their families and to emigrate from Mecca. These stories are all recorded in the Sira.

Everything Mo said in that meeting was a lie. Of course he is not an ignorant Muslim. He just considered that in that gathering lying was more beneficial that telling the truth and that too is acceptable in Islam.

Muslims are permitted to lie even under oath to promote Islam and when the necessity justifies it. All they have to do for expiation of lying under oath is to feed someone or fast for three days (Q. 5:89). The Quran also says, “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.” (Q. 2:225). So if the intent is to advance Islam all lies are permissible.

Imam Ghazzali (1058-1111), arguably the greatest Islamic scholar noted, “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If praise worthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”

Mo’s deception had no bounds. He even went as far as saying “I have been fighting for gay rights for 15 years. Many people are surprised by that.” If it were true, it would be very surprising. But it is not true. In at least five places the Quran condemns homosexuality in the severest term and in 4:16, it says, punish them both, unless they repent and amend.

Mo’s audience however, was not fooled. One person noted, “He is just pandering to the audience, saying things he thinks the audience likes to hear. He thinks we are all dimwits.”

Was Mo Ansar really sincere? In the same documentary, (minutes 25) when Tommy Robinson said, there are certain verses in the Quran that glorify murder, rape and slavery and suggested that these verses should be phased out, Mo blamed the lack of understanding of the Quran and not the Quran itself. How can “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, let them find harshness in you,” or beat your wife if you fear she is thinking of disobeying you” can be interpreted in any other way? The Quran is a book of hate and violence. Mo knows it, but he hides the truth.

Mo’s insincerity was put to the litmus test by a fellow Muslim, Maajid Nawaaz, who asked him whether he agreed with the Quranic law of chopping the limbs of a thief and other barbaric laws such as stoning. Mo first tried to play taqiyah and said he wouldn’t, but when pressed, he began stuttering and tried to evade the answer by saying he would seek the consensus of the ulama. It became clear that he was lying all along. He would not go against any of the teachings of the Quran, even when they are all barbaric and inhumane.

What about Maajid Nawaaz? He had no problem saying some of the teachings of the Quran are morally reprehensible. This is quite a statement for a Muslim. Is he sincere? Maajid is the chairman of Quilliam Foundation, a self-styled organization that claims to counter Islamic extremism.

He was a recruiter of Hizbul Tahrir, a terrorist organization, and an advocate for Islamic caliphate for 13 years. He says that he was reformed while serving a five years jail sentence in Egypt for his political activities. Now he claims that he rejects extremism and is a moderate Muslim.

Taqiyah is like an onion. One layer hides another layer, which hides yet another layer and so on and so forth. There is nothing surprising for a Muslim to realize Islam is not compatible with our time and leave it. I made the transition myself and have helped thousands to do it. However, those who come to see the truth, leave Islam. They don’t go around promoting a moderate version of Islam. There is no such thing. You either accept the inhuman and backward teachings of Islam or you don’t accept Islam at all.

Maajid claims to be a Muslim who rejects the Sharia. He is not alone. There are a few more in Canada and USA who make such claim. Among them are, Tarik Fatah, Irshad Manji, Zuhdi Yaser, just to name a few. Can these people be trusted? Can a Muslim reject any part of the Quran?

We have to understand that there is a big difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism. Muslims believe that the Quran is the verbatim word of God. Jews and Christians believe their sacred texts were written by humans who were inspired by God. This is a crucial distinction. So while a Jew or a Christian can reject an outdated part of his scripture as the error of its authors, a Muslim does not have that luxury. Muslims can’t pick and choose. Allah in the Quran asserts, “Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.” (Q.5:3). How can one add or subtract to what God has perfected? That idea is preposterous to Muslims.

Another verse says, “Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection? They will be consigned to most grievous suffering. For God is not unmindful of what you do.” (Q.2:85)

It is unlikely that Maajid and his fellow so called moderate Muslims don’t know this. So how can they call themselves Muslim and reject the clear laws of the Quran? They are playing another layer of taqiyah. Their goal is not to reform Islam, something they know is impossible, but to buy legitimacy and more time for it until they become the majority and take over the world. I sounded the clarion about the danger of Islam 16 years ago, and now I warn you again that these so called moderates are wolves in sheep clothing. Don’t fear the terrorists. Fear the enemy within.

Muslims are allowed to reject part or all of Islam and even malign their prophet in order to deceive their victims. Bukhari 5:59: 369 narrates that in Medina there was a young handsome man, a leader of the Jewish tribe of Bani Nadir, by the name of Ka’b ibn Ashraf. After Muhammad banished their sister tribe of Bani Qainuqa from the city, Ka’b went to Mecca seeking protection from the Quraish. When Muhammad heard the news he went on his pulpit and said, “who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands alms from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.”

The story goes on to say how ibn Maslama deceived Ka’b by badmouthing his prophet and when Ka’b trusted him, he and other Muslims, among them Ka’b’s own foster brother who had converted to Islam stabbed him to death. By denouncing the Quran, Maajid is not doing anything unIslamic. He is taking his deception to a higher level.

The deception has paid off handsomely. Instead of serving time in jail Maajid now shakes hands with George W. Bush and Tony Blair, appears in Bill Maher show and sits next to Richard Dawkins, is a chairman of a foundation, and has run for MP in UK. He is far more effective in destroy the western civilization from within, through taqiyah, than by placing bombs in buildings and buses.

Could I be mistaken? Have I come to a hasty conclusion? I invite Maajid Nawaaz to show my error and prove to the world that he is not deceiving them. Maybe I too will join his Quilliam organization and support his efforts. If he is sincere, he will accept this invitation. But based on my experience with “moderate Muslims,” I have a feeling that Maajid’s reply will be a deafening silence.

There is no such thing as moderate Islam. This is the ultimate taqiyah. Falling into this trap is deadly. It may cost your liberty and your life. Moderate Islam is an oxymoron. It is as attainable as perfumed dung; although I may be wrong about the latter.