Mohiussunnath Chowdhury is the jihadi who boasted of fooling jury into clearing him for one jihad attack and then immediately plotted another. Now he is gaslighting another courtroom, and it will probably work again. Britain, like most other Western countries, seems to have an endless supply of fools.
“‘Jihadist’, 28, who was cleared of sword attack on police outside Buckingham Palace claims boasts to undercover officers about Gay Pride terror plot was ‘prison banter’ to try to ‘fit in’, court hears,” by James Gant, Mailonline, January 24, 2020:
An alleged jihadist has told a jury his boasts about committing a terrorist attack to undercover police officers was just ‘bravado’ to try to ‘fit in’.
Mohiussunnath Chowdhury said most of what he told the officers, who he believed were ‘good Muslims’, was ‘exaggeration’ and ‘prison banter’, Woolwich Crown Court heard.
Giving evidence today, the 28-year-old said he wanted to ‘impress’ new friends following his release from custody after being cleared of terrorism over an attack on two police officers with a sword outside Buckingham Palace in August 2017.
But he insisted he always steered the conversation away from actually committing any acts of terrorism, saying that got ‘too real’ for him.
‘I wanted that validation, that acceptance. But I didn’t want to actually do anything,’ he said.
Prosecutors allege Chowdhury was planning to kill members of the public at busy tourist hotspots including London’s Madame Tussauds and the Gay Pride parade last year but was unwittingly confiding in undercover officers who had him under surveillance.
He even bragged about deceiving the jury which cleared him in December 2018 over the sword attack outside the Queen’s London residence, prosecutor Duncan Atkinson QC said earlier in the trial.
Chowdhury told the court a recording of him boasting to the officers about an ‘iconic’ terror attack on Madame Tussauds was him referring to another inmate’s plot.
‘I wasn’t suggesting that I would attack it and they should attack it. This is a completely false allegation,’ he added.
It was claimed the only reason Chowdhury joined a firearms course was because he was interested in guns as a hobby.
His barrister Simon Csoka QC asked him: ‘Did you stop and think about how that might be perceived?’
‘I just thought I was a free man, I shouldn’t have to restrict myself,’ replied Chowdhury.
The court heard that following his arrest he was approached in Belmarsh prison by Muslim inmates who treated him ‘like a hero’ and he decided to ‘play along’.
He said: ‘I kind of learned to talk the talk. For me, it was survival thing.’…
Trick_or_Treat says
Jury and the Judge all need to be fully instructed on what the meaning of ‘taqqiya’ is.
mortimer says
DEFINITION OF TAQIYYA : In Islam taqiyya تقية is a religious-sanctioned dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a Muslim believer may deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are at risk of significant persecution or deceive kafirs in order to advance Islamic supremacism. ‘Taqiyya’ may be considered a form of passive-aggressive ‘verbal jihad’ against the kafir disbelievers.
Sharia law authorizes taqiyya: “And taqiyyah is compulsory. It is not permissible to eliminate it until the ‘Qa’im’(hidden Imam) emerges. Whoever abandons it before his emergence has left the religion of Allah and has opposed Allah, His Messengers and the Imams.” (Risaalah I’tiqadiyyah471 Sarkodah) 2217
– “Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.” – Sami Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam (London: Mu’assisat at-Turath ad-Druzi, 2004)
– “Taqiyya permeates almost all the activities and dealings of Muslims with non-Muslim societies…” – former sheikh Sam Solomon
(Note: Taqiyya, also called ‘Muda’rat’, is a Sunnite doctrine of deception known to Islamic scholars. Muda’rat is virtually the same as ‘taqiyya’ as used by Shi’ites. It allows Muslims to tell lies if it advances Islamic supremacy.)
FYI says
And ISLam has nothing to do with isLAM…
isLaM is “radicalized” ISlaM which must never be confused with mainstream IsLam
Jayell says
“Mohiussunnath Chowdhury said most of what he told the officers, who he believed were ‘good Muslims’, was ‘exaggeration’ and ‘prison banter’…….”
That term ‘good muslim’ is interesting. The word ‘good’ in this case cannot in any way be taken to signify the general concept of ‘goodness’ in our normal Western context, but only as a word which qualifies the noun ‘muslim’. Since islam, by its very nature, does not generally correspond with the Western concept of ‘goodness’, then neither can a person who claims to follow this creed. Therefore, the word ‘good’ in relation to a follower of islam can only be taken to amplify the known characteristics of this ideology, much of which for the most part would coincide with the accepted Western concept of ‘evil’. Thus, to refer to a muslim as a ‘good muslim’ effectively inverts our concept of ‘good’ and renders this person even less acceptable to Western values than he/she would otherwise be.
mortimer says
Response to Jayell: Islam has no concept of theoretical moral goodness. Islam is dualistic, so actions are either ‘permitted’ (halal) or ‘forbidden’ (haram), rather than ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’. Islamic ethics change according to opportunity, so they are may be called ‘opportunistic’ or ‘amoral’.
The Koran uses the term ‘good’ to be a synonym of ‘Islam’. Islam’s opportunistic amorality is ‘goodness’ in Islam so long as Islamic supremacism is benefited. .
James Lincoln says
mortimer,
Thank you for the clarifications.
Jayell says
Thanks, Mortimer. So if islam has no concept of theoretical moral goodness, we are saying that it has no general concern for ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ outside the remit of its own self-interest, and therefore it is the demands of this self-interest that determines all aspects of what passes for ‘morality’.. That’s an appalling indictment of islam, essentially in keeping with a criminal mindset, and would explain the total lack of respect for anyone and anything that would not be recognised as ‘silamic’. And even between ‘islamic’ parties, there is apparently no guarantee that this element of self-interest will not be narrowed down to murderous internecine disputes where individual institutional egocentricities are considered to be infringed. No doubt this element of institutional egocentricity explains all the alleged ‘offence’ when muslims’ excessive social territory is considered by them to be compromised (i.e., they seem to presume to own all the social space in which they are present).
This raises a few issues and questions;
1. The gearing of all notions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (or what is or is not ‘morally(sic) acceptable’) to the demands of self-interest and self-advancement would render any such ‘religious’ philosophy invalid to the educated Western mind and could be taken to reflect the the dubious circumstances of the invention of what might reasonably be described as a thoroughly spurious and contrived ‘religion of convenience’. In other words, a cheap, pseudo-religious plagiarised concoction cynically designed to facilitate its inventor’s political or other personal ambitions.
2. How can one justify the islamic concept of ‘Allah’ as the ‘omnipotent’, ‘all-merciful’ Creator of the Universe when this ‘Divine Being’ apparently has only a narrowly partisan concern for his creation and no conception of universal responsibility? Furthermore, how can the disciples of islam claim that this ‘Eternal Divine Being’ is the same as in other monotheistic religions of the time when (a) there are serious transparent discrepancies between the character profiles of this ‘Allah’ and the pre-existent ‘Gods’ with which ‘Allah’ is supposed to be synonymous and (b) how does one justify the idea of an ‘Eternal Omnipotent Divine Being’ who, according to reports in islamic holy texts, apparently exhibits an identical learning curve to that of the ‘Prophet’ who is supposed to be His servant?
3. There are many, including Tommy Robinson, who talk about the ‘many muslims who are ‘good’ people, and who are maybe their ‘friends’, but usually qualify these statements by suggesting that these individuals are possibly not strictly adhering to the demands of islam (or ‘islamism’ or ‘fundamental islam’, or whatever get-out term they can concoct). If islam does not promote any notion of universal rights and wrongs or comprehensive moral responsibility, how can these muslims possibly be ‘good people’ as we in the West should expect? And how can these ‘good muslims’ be claimed as ‘friends’ when it is clearly stipulated in the Qur’an that ‘good muslims’ should never take ‘unbelievers’ as their ‘friends’? Or is there some duplicity going on here? Furthermore, since when has it been allowable, according to the tenets of islam, for ‘good muslims’ to pick and choose which of Allah’s commands they will follow? Or is it permissible for these ‘good muslims’ to change their minds on this matter at any time in the future, as in indeed Allah himself has been reputed to have done?
James Lincoln says
Jayell,
An excellent and thought-provoking post, my compliments.
gravenimage says
Fine post, Jayell.
gravenimage says
Good point, Jayell.
mortimer says
Key quote: “He even bragged about deceiving the jury which cleared him in December 2018 over the sword attack outside the Queen’s London residence, prosecutor Duncan Atkinson QC said earlier in the trial.”
This man has zero credibility.
Here’s a good question for British prison authorities to consider: WHY WOULD being an ISLAMIC TERRORIST help Mohiussunnath Chowdhury to FIT IN with the British prison population???
Are all the Muslims inmates TERRORISTS ??? Is TERRORISM the culture of Muslims in British prisons? WHY IS THAT?
And more to the point, WHAT ARE THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES DOING TO CHANGE THE TERRORISM CULTURE AMONG IMPRISONED MUSLIMS ???
mortimer says
Robert Spencer correctly points out that Mohiussunnath Chowdhury is ‘gaslighting’.
Gaslighting Definition: a form of mental abuse and manipulation in which information is twisted or spun or selectively omitted to favor the abuser or in which false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perceptions and sanity, so the abuser may take charge of a situation.
gravenimage says
UK: Muslim says his boasts about committing jihad massacre were ‘bravado’ to try to ‘fit in’ and ‘prison banter’
………………………..
The mere idea that this JIhadist is surrounded by people–i.e., other Jihadists–that plotting further Jihad terror attacks would lead Mohiussunnath Chowdhury “fitting in” and being admired should be alarming to anyone.
The unexpected voice says
No, you lie to us Kafir that you want to assimilate and live peacefully, when in reality you want to kill all kafir like all of Mohammedans.