Here at the Spittoon we have tended to give Inayat Bunglawala a bit of a hard time. But we also give credit where credit is due. In that spirit, he certainly deserves credit that, on the back of a panel discussion about religious freedom and sexuality in Dublin (in which he participated with Peter Tatchell), he has just written a spirited defence of gay rights.
In Muslim communities the issue of homosexuality is very rarely discussed in a candid manner and is all too often wished away as if it is an affliction that involves other groups, not them. Not far from the surface, however, are reports of gay Muslim men being pressurised into rushed marriages by parents desperate to avoid any social stigma. The woman’s family is never told the truth about her husband’s sexuality, of course, with the result that another soul has to endure unhappiness due to the initial failure to face up to the issue. It is a highly dishonest and unethical approach.
This is absolutely spot on. Yasir Qadhi has wickedly advised young Muslims who think they might be homosexual that “marriage is a solution”. I say “wickedly” because, as Inayat reminds us, such dishonesty about one’s own sexuality is not just destructive for the person concerned but everybody close to them, especially their wife and any children resulting from their union.
Inayat then enters into the powerful argument that one minority subjected to bigotry should not be propagating bigotry against another minority.
Islamic scholars and imams should ideally be performing a much-needed pastoral role by helping in these situations and providing guidance. At the very least they should insist that any intimidation or discrimination against gay Muslims is unacceptable.
Newson’s show makes mention of Nelson Mandela’s experiences in 1950s South Africa when the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church were dominant. In order to get around the country and spread his message of black emancipation and freedom, Mandela used to disguise himself as a chauffeur, pretending to take with him a white passenger who happened to be a colleague in the anti-apartheid movement. That white colleague also happened to be gay, and during those many journeys they had the opportunity to discuss many issues. Mandela came to the conclusion that South Africa could not properly be described as a free and liberated country until all its communities, including the gay community, were freed from persecution.
Then, in discussing the Muslim Council of Britain’s support for the 2006 Equality Act, Inayat advocates a brave step forward for which, I fear, he is going to receive some flak.
The Equality Act brought the goal of a fairer society closer by proscribing – for the first time – discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of religious belief or sexuality.
The 2006 act did not in any way compel believers to change any view they had about the practice of homosexuality being against the teachings of their religion. However, it did rightly insist that if someone wanted to provide goods and services to the public, then they should do so without discrimination on grounds of ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation.
The MCB, by supporting the act in its entirely, had taken a positive step forward and had inevitably attracted some criticism from within, which I noted at the time.
Would it not be another positive step if the MCB – as a broad-based umbrella organisation – were to include a gay Muslim support group as an affiliate?
Apart from the claim that the MCB is a broad-based umbrella organisation, there is nothing to disagree with in what he writes, especially in his conclusion.
At its best, Islamic civilisation was more than willing to learn from other surrounding countries and cultures and adopt the best aspects as its own. Actively working to ensure that people are able to live free of discrimination based on one’s ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation is a worthy goal and should be viewed as an Islamic goal.
Inayat on the right side of the argument, it’s almost worth a celebratory dance…
68 Comments
Interesting.. he will probably lose as many friends as he gains from this. I wonder what his boss at iengage makes of this, surely he wouldnt agree?!
Not far from the surface, however, are reports of gay Muslim men being pressurised into rushed marriages by parents desperate to avoid any social stigma. The woman’s family is never told the truth about her husband’s sexuality, of course, with the result that another soul has to endure unhappiness
Is Bungles talking from personal experience here?
That thought did occur to me too, AWA.
good G!D – two astonishing pronouncements in one day? it’s nice to be pleased with him for a change.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Hey, I’m well pleased with Inayat and that’s an unfamiliar feeling. But well done sir!
A significant step forward from 2001, where one of the MCB’s reasons for not participating in Holocaust Memorial Day was that it commemorated:
“the so-called gay genocide”
http://web.archive.org/web/20010617162157/http://www.mcb.org.uk/news260101.html
Thsi is a very thoughtful and quite courageous article by Inayat, who is a prominient leader of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).
It points to a compassionate liberal perspective that can reconcile Islam with human rights – in contrast to the way Islam is often practicised in countries like Saudi Arabia (the UK government’s ally) and Iran (the UK government’s enemy). Let’s have more of this openness, debate and mutual solidarity.
The MCB used to be very hostile to lesbian and gay equality, teaming up with Christian fundamentalists to oppose nearly all the gay equality laws of the last decade. That is why I often challenged them. It was not Islamophobic for me to condemn the MCB’s homophobia, as some Muslim and left-wing critics claimed at the time.
Through challenge followed by dialogue, the MCB changed its stance to oppose legal discrimination against LGBT people. Congratulations and thanks.
As I always argued in my discussions and letters with the MCB and other Muslim groups, and as Inayat states in his article, gay and Muslim people both know the pain of prejudice and discrimination and violence. We should work together – and with other minority peoples – to create an accepting, understanding, fair, equal and safe society for all the people of Britain, regardless of faith, sexuality, race, gender and disability.
Calm down guys let’s not get our hopes too high. The government stops talking to the MCB due to accusations of extremist links and suddenly inayat starts writing moderate articles. Coincidence or political game? You decide.
That’s kind of cynical. He’s stated the case very well.
“We also sent Lut : He said to his people : “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” Al-Qur’an 7:80-81
Abu Wannabe Arab and nasty Dave T from Harry’s Place displays the cynicism that the authors of this post masked but let slip by saying
“Apart from the claim that the MCB is a broad-based umbrella organisation, there is nothing to disagree with in what he writes, especially in his conclusion.”
you dispute this ‘cos MCB refuses to play to your tune of condemning here there and everywhere. It is not an Islamist body. Islamists are much a part of MCB as salafis, Sufis and Shias. It speaks for all of them, and you don’t like that.
http://www.coej.org/media-relations/news/misleading-and-defamatory-channel-4-accused-over-documentary-on-qur-an
Mustapha – got any other pet bigotries you want to share with us?
just a small-print point, as i’ve just pointed out over at pickled politics, you should note that he’s *not* saying that being gay is OK, only that persecuting someone for being gay is wrong. now, i know that’s not exactly an ideal final result, but it is certainly praiseworthy and is a massive step in the right direction. if it indicates a sea-change, than hurrah.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I agree with that completely, bananabrain.
I think it was actually very courageous of Inayat.
There are, of course, Salafi, Sufi and Shi’a Islamists.
Just as much as there are Sunni and Shi’a Sufi., actually.
However, Salafis are most often rejectors of Sufi turuq and are most often the keenest proponents of Islamism.
Good observation bananabrain.
Of course it would have been far better if Bunglawala had gone the whole nine yards and said that homosexuality is OK, but I think the “beards from hell” would have had him strung up on this or that theological point and trundled out the old anti-gay sex parable involving Lut/Lot. We can already see a glimpse of that with Mustapha, upthread.
But he has played this very well and the sincerity in his tone is loud and clear, which is a good thing. I particularly like the fact that he sees the need for help lines and support for young gay muslims struggling to come to terms with their sexuality.
Not even the eminent gay muslim imam/theologian/academic of my acquaintance (whose name i will not mention on the web, not for me to out people who might get shot) would find it easy to go the whole nine yards without worrying about the Beards Of Jehannum. i am going to take bungalawala’s statement in good faith, however, because i think he deserves it.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Faisal
“Of course it would have been far better if Bunglawala had gone the whole nine yards and said that homosexuality is OK, ”
No it wouldnt because , while homosexuals should be respected as human beings and gay Muslims treated with understanding, someone who says homosexuality is halal is a non-Muslim. You need to worry about Allah SWT much more than the “beards from hell”
someone who says homosexuality is halal is a non-Muslim. You need to worry about Allah SWT much more than the “beards from hell”
By your reasoning Allah SWT created non-halal Muslims in vast numbers only to damn them to an eternity in hellfire. Why would He do that “beard from hell”?
As with every other thing that God does which contradicts all of his own teachings: it’s a test Faisal, surely you knew that! (this applies to all religions of course)
Two issues collide here:
(1) How can you be really “respected as a human being”, or “treated with understanding” if absolutely no respect is granted your natural sexual orientation and one is given absolutely no humane or compassionate understanding whatsoever?
(2) I was unaware that issues of halaal were amongst the pillars of Islam that define the Muslim from non-Muslim. However, I am tired of reading Islamists revising Islam’s basics to suit their fundamentally bigoted, narrow-minded and quasi-fascist agenda. I have read, inter alia, that not wearing niqab means one is not a Muslim… and now defending Gay rights makes one not a Muslim. This is, if anything is, bid’a – harmful innovation; and given the Islamist and Salafi obsessions about such, it is also mighty ironic.
Catch yourself on, you bloody bigot.
“The bigger the beard, the bigger the bigot” – traditional Afghan saying.
“Never trust a mullah, even if his turban itself came down from the heavens” – traditional Kurdish saying
And then we wonder why things are so much better in the Kurdish north of Iraq…
Muslim – do you mean being a homosexual or having homosexual sex. If its the latter than most of Saudi is non-Muslim.
someone who says homosexuality is halal is a non-Muslim. You need to worry about Allah SWT much more than the “beards from hell”
Faisal
This is based on a false premise that Allah SWT created people gay. He didnt since then it wouldnt be a sin to do the homosexual act which it is – a major one.
When did I say that they are going to hell forever ? Its basic orthodox Islam beleif that Muslims who do kabair (major sins) dont go to hell fo eternity- they leave hellfire and enter jannah even if its only eventually.
And people are not halal or non halal -actions are
You, the editor of this blog, are so ignorant and ill-informed you dont even know this. So instead you use Christian beliefs thinking they must be the same as Islam!
The act of homosexuality is haram and a major sin- someone saying it is halal despite knowing the texts has denied the explicit text of the Quran and so is a non-Muslim.
This has been explained a number of times. A Muslim who commits a homosexual act is still a Muslim albiet a sinful one. Someone who says homosexuality is halal is a non-Muslim even if they dont indulge in it
وَلَكِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ لَا يَفْقَهُونَ
Abu Faris
Because it isnt natural. Who said their shouldnt be compassion for people who commit sins?
You arent aware that denying clear cut prohibitions in the Quran -making clear cut haram halal, thus denying the Quran, is kufr? Good grief youre ignorant
And it really isnt about “defending gay rights” whatever that may entail. It is about making halal what Allah SWT made haram.
Good grief you are uncommonly stupid. Who ever said that? You seem unable to comprehend that there is a difference between not doing a fard (and niqab isnt even categorically fard like hijab though it is part of Islam) or doing a haram and denying they are fard or haram.
According to the jumhur one who doesnt pray is still considered a Muslim albiet a highly sinful one. One who denies the obligation of the 5 prayers has commited kufr and is no longer a Muslim
Likewise one who denies the prohibition of homosexual acts.
Muslim,
You say of homosexuality that ‘it isnt natural’ – what do you mean by that exactly? That it only occurs in sinful humans and not in nature?
To the cynics: please stop.
Inayat has opened a welcome debate within the Muslim community on LGBT human rights – a positive move. Anything that encourages a rethink of homophobia is good – and this openness on this issue might eventually lead to a rethink on other issues too.
I know Inayat quite well, having spoken alongside him at public meetings and media in debates, as well as in private informal chats. He has invited me on his Islam Channel TV programme twice to discuss LGBT equality. He supported the case for equal rights on both occasions. I believe he is sincere.
I believe in redemption. People and organisations can change. We should welcome those prepared to take a stand for equality and human rights.
The ANC of South Africa ditched its homopohobia in the late 1980s after my relentless exposure and condemnation of its anti-gay stance, which I followed up with constructive dialogue with Thabo Mbeki (then in exile in Lusaka). The end result was a pro-gay rights ANC and a pro-gay rights post-apartheid constitution.
Perhaps the MCB can make the same transition?
The Great Satan (audhobillah mink)
In Islam there is no concept of inherently sinful humans (eg “Original sin) -humans are born inately good and pure
From an Islamic (and indeed otehr religions) point of view it is impossible to argue homosexual acts are natural or homosexuality innate since God would not make something natural or innate (such as gender, colour or height) a major sin which sodomy is (incidentally it is also a major sin when a man does it with his wife). Its as wrong to say homosexuality “occurs” in humans as it is to say lying or theft occur in humans.
Using arguments from what animals may or may not do is meaningless because
1) We are not animals. We are humans
2) Animals are not mukallaf (legally responsible) for their actions -humans are
‘We are not animals. We are humans’
That is, I’m afraid, a point on which we will never agree. You believe that an all powerful being clicked his fingers and created man, whereas I think we are the (in many ways imperfect) product of natural selection and evolution.
“Animals are not mukallaf (legally responsible) for their actions -humans are”
Minus the religious jargon, I agree with this statement, but how does that make homosexuality unnatural?
Muslim,
You are vaguely amusing and also interminably dim:
You failed your Key Stage 2 SATS in Science, then?
And everywhere they are put in chains of pure hate by bigots – like you.
I think someone who doesn’t even know the basics of biological classification is in no position to determine what is natural and non-natural. Actually the Qur’an may condemn – but it hardly says that homosexuality is unnatural – that is an interpretation made by bigots (oh look! like you).
And you can’t punctuate. Enough of the name-calling, my old fruit
.
The point is that the definition of a Muslim is founded in recognition and practice of the Pillars of the Faith, not in bigots’ addenda to the same.
More abuse. Actually it has been you who has been repeatedly proven on this site to be unable to distinguish between various concepts – obligatory and preferred, for example. Oh, and hijab and niqab.
WHat is “categorically fard”, when fard has within its scope the notion of categorical injunction – just out of interest? I love it when Islamists start to invent whole new concepts… and yet isn’t that bid’a?
Now, heed well, Muslim (or whatever your sock-puppet of the moment is): I followed your progress from tiresome, via annoying to abusive to first-ever-banned on Pickled Politics (at least I followed it from afar). You are a troll – and a not very interesting, bright or successful one, to boot. Yeah, you can strike a good pose as racist bigot with a religious mania – but in the end it’s all rather boring. Much like the Terrible Twos tantrums that your comments most resemble, in point of fact.
Now do go away – at least until you have something vaguely useful to contribute.
peter tatchell:
i’m sure i don’t agree with you about everything, but i have to say that i find it inspiring that someone who has fought and suffered for his causes as much as you have for yours can still believe that there is hope and that people can learn and change. i really, really hope you’re right.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Abu Faris
This is idiotic logic. Its like saying Muslims here in Britain’s reight to practice their religion isnt respected unless everyone respects Islam and the Muslims and never criticises them.
And with us is Peter Tatchell the man who demands Muslims respect his lifestyle while organising marches showing pictures insulting our Prophet salAllahu alayhi wasalaam and disrespecting our religion. What double standards!
Muslim
Peter Tatchell is a great human being and human rights campaigner who has done immense good in the world and you casually slander him without evidence. Shame on you. Perhaps, unlike Islamist control freaks, he has helped organised marches based on free speach and expression and this has annoyed you? Poor diddums. Now rack off.
I am fascinated to learn that you believe that there is such a thing as “idiotic” logic, Muslim. Is this a formal logical system? Is it a project upon which you are currently working?
However interesting that may be, I am at a loss to understand this:
You must forgive me, my grasp of Gibberish is a little rusty.
Muslim
Your attitudes towards the magnitude of the “sin of homosexuality” exposes a fundamental confusion in your own attitudes. This is a good thing. Let me explain:
You seem to want to ascribe them to hell for committing a major (kabair) sin:
But at the same time, your humane side wants to respect them and treat them with understanding:
Now, as far as I know, a kabair sin is something along the lines of ‘shirk’ – a major no-no, as well as murder, fornication, falsely accusing a chaste person of sexual infidelity, knowingly depriving someone of his rights, bearing a false witness, knowingly committing injustice and so on.
But I doubt someone with your narrow, puritanical outlook would treat a murderer or a mushrik (one who commits shirk) with respect and understanding, as you say should be accorded to a gay person.
And yet because of your confusion, there is the fissure of hope (for you at any rate), that you might come to the realisation that a 13 year old Muslim boy who is confused and struggling with his feelings regarding his homosexuality, and very possibly being bullied at school for those feelings, has not chosen to commit the “sin” of being homosexual.
The kid was born homosexual and should not be placed in the same category as someone who commits the acts (of their own free will) of murder, shirk or fornication.
It is jaw-droppingly hypocritical to appeal to liberal laws for protection from Islamophobia for yourself, while seeking to enforce discriminatory religious law against gay Muslims.
The political correctness on display is yet more evidence of the shallow nature manifested by the people behind this site.
The Islamic sources clearly condemn the sexual act of homosexuality, in the same way they condemn the sexual act of adultery.
Islam does not condemn a person about how they feel or think. We will not be accountable on the day of judgement for our thoughts or feelings, but rather be accounted for the actions resulting from such thoughts and feelings.
The Sunnah and to reach Ihsaan, is to have our thoughts and feelings in line with all that is Islamic, but we are not sinful if we fail to reach this level.
The beautiful Deen of Islam teaches patience. It teaches us to maintain control of our nuffs. If a Muslim desires another man’s wife, then one is told to lower one’s sights, control one’s thoughts and fear Allah (SWT)’s punishment, should one decide to act on that feeling.
If as a male Muslim, one desires another man for sexual intercourse, then one must seek patience, control ones thoughts and fear Allah (SWT)’s punishment, should one act on such a feeling.
To love a fellow male for the sake of Allah (SWT) as a friend or brother is not homosexuality. The term and description are clearly linked to a sexual relationship, which Islam clearly forbids regardless of one’s internal feelings.
The Islamic sources clearly define the basis of one’s pursuit for happiness as the worship of Allah (SWT) and following the Sunnah of Muhammad (SAW) as opposed to material or sensual gratification. There is a great emphasis, within the spirit and letter, on sacrificing ones desires for the betterment of oneself and humanity.
From a humanist point of view, one may argue that suppressing ones homosexual feeling is not “betterment”. But from an Islamic point of view, clearly, it is betterment in the same way it is better to avoid ones feeling for another man’s wife. Acting in both cases leads to hell fire from an Islamic perspective.
So within a society in which the Islamic sources of jurisprudence are the basis of law, a married man committing adultery with another man’s wife will be punished. A man having sexual relations with another man will also be punished. But neither will be punished or discriminated against if they have such feelings and seek Islamic guidance on how to remove and replace such feelings.
Being politically correct to score brownie points will get you know where and simply lead you down the road to Azaab, carrying the Azaab of all those you help shaitaan misguide.
Your attempts at implicitly legitimising homosexuality from an Islamic perspective are futile and amateurish.
There’s nothing implicit about my attempts at legitimising homosexuality. I am quite explicit that it does not need to defend itself morally. Least of all against queer-bashers (all that punishment, Abdul, oh dear!) LIKE YOU.
Your attempts at implicitly legitimising homosexuality from an Islamic perspective are futile and amateurish.
You’re a *professional* homophobe?
Doomed, I tell ya! We’re all DOOMED!!!
You are right AR we are so sorry and will repent tonight.
I disagree with Peter Thatchell’s analysis which tries to put at the same level, his definition of “oppressed homosexuals” with the oppression suffered by Black people around the world and South Africa.
There is no comparison.
A feeling or tendency for a sexual action is in no way similar to the colour of one’s skin.
A person can control their desires and the resulting actions, but cannot control their skin colour.
Within an Islamic society the one who publically desires adultery should be made to feel embarrassed and told to control this desire and not think about the actions resulting from his so called “adulterous gene”.
Likewise, one who publically desires homosexuality should be made to feel embarrassed and told to control this desire and refrain from acts resulting from his so called “gay gene”.
Both actions break Islamic law and are perceived as degenerative within in an Islamic society from an islamically humanitarian and spiritual aspect.
These actions are punishable and such punishments are not oppression or discrimination.
One cannot control the colour of their skin. If a law suppresses the progress of a person solely on the basis of their colour, then that is clear oppression as the person cannot control or suppress that attribute. That attribute of one’s skin colour does not compel one to do any action on the basis of thought or feeling. The “Black gene” results in a colour as opposed to a desire for action.
There is a clear difference Peter.
Any reader can clearly see through your misguided attempt at parallelising two completely different realities to gain legitimacy.
Oh, now you know God’s mind do you?
And a deeply flawed argument:
You have to show why homosexuality is not natural and innate.
You have simply stated that homosexuality is unnatural and non-innate without recourse to any evidence. Then you have illegitimately extended from this to argue that God would not make natural or innate characteristics sinful.
Yet this latter contention rests upon your definition of homosexuality as unnatural and non-innate, and not God’s.
For the sake of your argument, you would need to show why and how God did not make homosexuality a natural or innate characteristic of human life; and from this your argument might have some force.
However t his you fail to achieve – indeed you cannot achieve this, in point of fact (and this, for example, can be derived from arguments for God’s ineffability, if you want to get all theological about such matters).
So who else do you think is doing all the thieving and lying – the pixies?
I sometimes feel the same way about those people who publicly desire to express thoughts of such dire bigotry and crass inhumanity as yours…
Of course we can’t discriminate against people based on their ethnicity except for in your caliphate where the arabs would be the leaders and the asians and blacks the foot soliders.
You have a thing about whips, punishment and illegitimacy, Abdul. You’re quite kinky really.
The irony is that in spite of the Hizbut Tahrir being a bunch of feckless homophobic bigots, the bruvvas are complete cocksuckers.
“Oh, now you know God’s mind do you?” –> you have obviously missed the point.
We do not know God’s mind. But we have an interpretation of His command and the sunnah of his final Prophet (SAW).
Both clearly condemn homosexual actions.
Allah (SWT) created everything, including Shaitaan, our nuffs and desires. Allah (SWT) also created our minds, giving us the choice to follow his command or leave it. If we follow, submit then we have a reward. If not then there is a clear punishment. Allah (SWT) also taught the Prophets to teach us how to beg for mercy and forgiveness as Allah (SWT) knows that we will not obey all commands using the free will and desires He (SWT) gave us.
The caliphate will be a masochists heaven. All that whipping.
Abdul Rehman
You have yet to show that homosexuality is unnatural or non-innate. Muslim’s argument rests upon a man-made description of homosexuality as such. He then illegitimately attaches to the same the argument that God would not make a natural or innate human characteristic sinful. From this he determines that (wait for it) homosexuality is not natural or innate.
Spot the problem?
It’s a classic false syllogism:
This falls down if it is not God, but people, who have defined homosexuality as unnatural or non-innate. And this, of course, is exactly the case.
{One might also suggest that, as you point out God made even Satan, that God quite clearly does make some things that are naturally or innately sinful}
{oh, and… there are other possibilities than simply a dualism of natural/unnatural, for example – as such simply because God does not make natural things sinful does not mean that he makes other, non-natural things sinful – only unnatural things…. and what is unnatural here to mean?}
Yes, quite – your interpretation: one which is palpably mistaken and clearly devoid of any truly moral bearing.
Abu faris,
Again you have missed the point.
No where have I stated: “God does not make natural or innate things sinful;”
Only Allah (SWT) knows the true maqasid for His (SWT)s commands. We “listen and obey” to the best of our ability.
Rationalising commands of Allah (SWT) is a school boy error or pointing out the error of such obviously flawed rationalistions, leads many, like yourself, to ask confused questions or adopt false conclusions.
On this point, the term “natural” in this context is clearly subjective.
What is a natural action? Answering the call to nature can be described as a “natural action”. This is very different to a male acting on his desire for another mans wife or another man.
From the Islamic perspective, “natural” is defined by the sources of Islamic Jurisprudence, so it is “natural” to do the halaal, mandubat etc and “unnatural” to do haraam, makruh etc.
In that context, it is natural to marry a woman, but unnatural to have same gender relationships.
No, Abdul, it is you who have missed the point.
In fact, you have conceded that the term “unnatural” is subjective, humanly derived. You then complement this admission with another total circularity of argument (which makes me wonder whether you and Muslim are not actually one and the same – do tell this is not so!):
So, “natural” is a man-made construct and on this basis you derive divine law?!?!
Or are you suggesting that Allah does what Hizb ut-Tahrir tell Him to do?
You wish.
Abu Faris,
You seem to suffer from “majid nawzness”. That is, you fail to grasp the argument being posed, superimpose it with your own and then claim something that has not be written or said.
May be you are a student of Majid Nawaz. Or maybe you are him, cowering behind a pseudonym?
Tolerance, equal rights and respect for one another, who ever we are is fundamental, but Munafiqoon.. lets not all carry on up the khyber!!!!
“May be you are a student of Majid Nawaz. Or maybe you are him, cowering behind a pseudonym?”
Which means: “I’m beaten hands down. I’ve run out of counter-arguments. Is it ok with you guys if I just sit here and blow smoke up my own arse?”
First there was Rashaditus and now a new one called Maajiditus. It seems HT members see their former comrades everywhere. Maybe we should call it ex-HTitus. There are over 6 billion people on the planet AR.
Dawood – are u the same dawood who was with Quilliam previously?
If so, then most people are aware of your shallow nature, further evidenced by your childish statements.
If not, then grow up you foolish person. Read what has been written.
oh get over yourself, you squalid, gay-bashing little loser.
Dawood the Pharmacist? Dentist? loser?
I know you don’t get out much, but there are more people in this world than those who are either from HT, ex-HT or the fricking Quilliam Foundation.
Now run along and and go say your prayers to your homophobic, racist and supremacist interpretation of divinity.
Now now Dawood, no need to get emotional.
What can I say, Abdul Rehman, you bring out the best in me.
I note that Abdul Rehman is now reduced to name-calling and idle speculation as to the identity of his interlocutors. How very telling.
Good points, Dawood.
Abdul Rahman,
How’s work at UBS Bank : )
Do they know about your Islamist leanings yet? or your views on homosexuality?
Not even soccer is exempt from the homophobia of the Bruvvas:
http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/diversity-dilemma-no-200001-can-religious-football-teams-play-gays/
GAY AND PROUD! LETS STICK TOGETHER!!