What can we say about Inayat Bungalwala? He’s the man for all seasons; he’s all things to all men; the good time had by all. For John Denham, he represents the Muslim figurehead this government needs to represent its rehashed Prevent initiative. For the Trots, such as George Galloway and Bob Pitt, he is a fine example of a “moderate Muslim” - anti-Israel, anti-secular, conservative, communalist, but mostly anti-Israel.
And he is Ed Husain’s new best friend, according to whom, Bunglawala…
“has risked much among entrenched, dinosaur Muslim “leaders” by publicly supporting gay rights, freedom of speech for Salman Rushdie and Geert Wilders, and challenging conventional narratives on creationism.”
But in spite of Bunglawala’s so-called metamorphosis from hidebound Islamist to easy-mannered liberal, he has issued this astonishing statement on Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood:
It is very unfortunate that Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has been barred from visiting the UK since early 2007 by the British government, following pressure from pro-Israeli lobbies. Sheikh Al-Qaradawi is an Islamic scholar who commands huge respect among millions of Muslims worldwide.
For those unfamiliar with the old scholar who “commands huge respect among millions of Muslims worldwide”, here is some context:
This statement is not a sign Bunglawala has regressed. This is the same old wine in new bottles. If we are frank, we have always known he was partial to al-Qaradawi. All he has has done is simply re-articulated himself.
If he has covered any ground in his personal and political growth, it is from being a young antisemitic Muslim public figure all the way to being an older antisemitic Muslim public figure. Which is why we should be concerned if this is the man, who is on the cusp of being positioned by the John Denham’s office, is to represent Muslims in Britain.
49 Comments
Sadly, all too true.
al-Qaradawi is a rampant racist and it is disgraceful that anyone who supports this vile anti-Semite should be allowed anywhere near the ear of government, here or anywhere else.
As you put it, Effendi: old wine, new bottle.
Even an intellectual titan like Bunglawala should be able to see the contradictions in supporting gay-rights when writing in The Guardian while simultaneously supporting a man who wants to kill gays while writing for Islamonline.
‘Double-speak’, anyone?
Are you really that surprised by the weasel words of Johnny Two-Face Bunglawala?
Johnny Two-Face, emotionally crippled by his hatred of the Jews and the self-realisation of his own mediocrity. But beloved of the Muslim-hating Left: from the liberals at the Guardian to the nutters of the far-left.
I’m not surprised by this at all. This is who he is.
Melanie Phillips was right!
Is this Faisal Gazi who endorsed Bunglawala just yesterday in the Guardian:
“Inayat Bunglawala is right to say that most Islamic scholars, particularly in Britain, are opponents of the extremist fighting talk that is replete in Aulaqi’s sermons”
So “Inayat Bungalwala” is right, is he?
How embarrassing for Faisal Khazi that Bunglawala is now exposed as a two-faced Qaradawi-lover!!
Did you manage to read the article past that sentence, Captain America? Try to, if you can, you might learn a thing or two about his associations with Awlaki, which are pointed out further on in the article.
“As late as 2005, Bunglawala and Aulaqi were both listed as supporters of Stop Political Terror. Many of those supporters were vocally defending Aulaqi until last week, and defaming those concerned about this man as Muslim-haters or self-loathing Muslims. Some are now arguing that Aulaqi only recently became a jihadist. This is simply not correct.”
“Inayat Bunglawala is right”.
So, using the present tense, you say that Bunglawala is “right” (i.e. at the present moment in time), but then you later add that “as late as 2005″ (i.e. four years ago), he was wrong.
The only way one can interpret this is that Faisal Khazi thinks that Bunglawala was wrong in the past but that he is “right” at present.
How embarrassing!!
Yeah, I’m very embarrassed. For you.
In addition, you are arguing that because Bunglawala supported ‘Stop Political Terror’ which supported Awlaki, that Bunglawala is therefore a supporter of Awlaki.
According to precisely the same logic, because you supported Bunglawala who has supported Qaradawi, you are a supporter of Qaradawi.
Faisal Khazi is a QARADAWI-LOVER!!!
Are you saying Inayat is always wrong?! How judgemental of you! That means you’re an anti-Muslim bigot. Islamophobia!!!!
Capt America,
No doubt you think you are very smart, and have pointed out a major and irreparable flaw in Faisal’s argument, but consider this for a second. First, saying that someone is correct about something does not mean you support them – if Hitler said the earth was spherical, I would be inclined to agree but that doesnt make me a Nazi.
Also, on the Stop Pol. Terror point – again you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. Bungles signed up to SPT with Awlaki around 2005 – this is a full TWO YEARS after, by Bungles’ own admission, Awlaki ‘became extreme’. So it makes Bungles look either very stupid or very dishonest.
I think he’s saying that Bunglawala is right on some issues and wrong on others – a position which you yourself presumably also ascribe to.
The question that naturally arises is whether Bunglawala’s wrongness on some issues (e.g. Jews, Qaradawi) is severe enough to invalidate his correctness on other issues (free-speech, gay-rights, opposition to Anjem Choudary etc).
(There is also the separate issue of Bunglawala’s sincerity and whether Bungles’ apparent concessions on Rushdie, gays etc are simply tactical concessions which are part of a wider cunning plan to advance other aspects of his agenda).
Bunglawala never said he supported gay rights. He said “intimidation or discrimination against gay Muslims is unacceptable”.
He is yet to say “homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality and should be made acceptable in any Shariah court”.
Now THAT would be taking on the “entrenched dinosaur Muslim ‘leaders’”.
By the way folks, “Captain America” and “Neutral Observer” are the same person.
Very weird.
Oh no! That old routine is getting a bit tired now isnt it?
Interesting! That could be because I am hiding my IP address through ‘anonymouse’, the world’s most popular free IP-hiding website!!
Too clever by half!
I also am using anonymouse – I don’t want to write things in blogs that could cause problems for my employers.
Conspiracy solved!!
we already know what you’re up to (for some time now), no need to explain
Bozos!
Now about about addressing some arguments at hand rather than trying to divert the conversation into a discussion of IP addresses?
You’re might be using anonymouse, but looks like you’re the same person.
a bit rich coming from a seemingly schizophrenic/bipolar commentator, who carries out arguments with himself – thus devaluing the whole concept of commenting on blogs…
Now about about addressing some arguments at hand rather than trying to divert the conversation into a discussion of IP addresses?
Order… Order…
Fascinating as this dicusssion of IP addresses is, can I encourage people to return to the actual topic.
Captain America/Neutral Observer – if you are the same person please quit your sock-puppetry.
I have to agree with the Captain on this one. Lol!!
Let’s try and re-focus on the subject at hand.
Yeah Captain America/Neutral Observer, I’m sure you want everyone to move on and ignore the fact that you’ve just been caught out using different aliases on the same thread. Own goal and credibility shafted.
Well anyway…
Melanie Phillips was right!
Yoss,
Fine, I’ll shut up about that now.
Going back to the piece then, why on earth would bungles make such a schoolboy error and praise qaradawi at such a crucial juncture? He is so close to CLG now, that he can taste it – so why do anything which could scupper that?
Faisal – I am confused.
You have just now written, using the past tense, that:
‘Melanie Phillips was right!’
While on Tuesday you wrote, using the present tense, that ‘Inayat Bunglawala is right’.
Could you possibly clarify the apparent contradictions that are present in these two statements?
No – unfortunately you clearly have a faulty or limited grasp of the grammar and usage of English verbs. I might say:
“The chips are fine at the chippie on Waterloo Street”; and actually be referring to my (prior) experience of said chips.
Or, if that will not convince, I might write:
“Chaucer is here attempting to lend support to a Lollard position”; and in the full and certain knowledge that Chaucer was doing so in the middle of the Fourteenth Century.
You will note, I hope, that both utterances contain use of the simple present tense. Tense is not directly or always temporally bound.
Clearly, from the above, this is faulty. Equally, as other s have pointed out:
“I believe the Earth t be a sphere – and so did Benito Mussolini” hardly means that I ascribe to Italian-style classical fascist ideology; it simply means that Benito was correct in that instance. After all even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
You have taken the words quite out of my mouth. Embarrassing for you, darlink.
Melanie Phillips *was* right, as per this comment on Bunglawala.
And Bunglawala *is* right, on this *specific*, but rather obvious anodyne statement:
Essentially, he is still very antisemitic and sympathetic to Islamist extremism, no matter how many pseudo-liberal salvos he fires on the webpages of CIF.
TROLL ALERT.
So essentially, we come back to the point that was well made earlier by ‘Neutral Observer’, namely that Bunglawala is right on some issues while being totally wrong on others.
The question that then arises is whether Bunglawala’s wrongness on some issues (e.g. Jews, Qaradawi) is severe enough to invalidate his correctness on other issues (free-speech, gay-rights, opposition to Anjem Choudary etc).
From this, we can ask whether it is possible to work him him on some issues while opposing him on others? To use an analogy, should the UK work with countries like North Korea or Iran to tackle climate change – while simultaneously opposing them and challenging them on other issues?
What’s your take on this?
What issues specifically do you want to work with Bungalawala towards, Captain America?
Before I get into such specifics, I would like to first know if you agree with this concept in principle – or if you think that Bunglawala’s actions and statements, past and present, render any such co-operation impossible?
The analogy you have used – working with Iran or North Korea – does not fit the principle. We’re talking about an individual would-be representative of a community, not a rogue state.
So I suggest you spell out, as clearly as possible, what “issues” you want to work with him on, when you say “work him him on some issues while opposing him on others”.
Before I get into such specifics, I would like to first know if you agree with this concept in principle – or if you think that Bunglawala’s actions and statements, past and present, render any such co-operation impossible?
Before I answer that question, I would like to first know if you think Nick Griffin’s actions and statements, past and present, would make it possible for him to be a candidate for cooperation and working in race relations? You know the kind of thing, to “work him him on some issues while opposing him on others”?
Cpt America/Neutral Observer,
Why are you over complicating this~? The issue is simple- here we have a guy who lies about Awlaki only being extreme post 2003 and is happy to refer to a man who celebrates the holocaust as ‘an asset’. There are many people out there who still celebrate the mass murder of Muslims by Milosevic, and who make excuses for it – would you treat an apologist of this type of person in the same way as Bungles?? No, of course not. The question then becomes, what is it about Bungles which means you are willing to afford him special treatment? Does it have anything to do with what religion he claims to ascribe to??
What an excellent post, TGS.
Capt America – dude learn to read and comprehend first then come back to discuss on blogs
Mr Satan,
Surely it is not about affording Bunglawala “special treatment” but about appreciating the distance he has moved from where he was just a few years ago. If people continue to attack him – and do so because he’s done the right thing (as Mel P did) – then, rather than encourage Bunglawala to move further and deliver on the promise he has shown, we will force him into an entrenched position which he doesn’t actually fully believe in but, at least, it’s one where he has allies.
But where he does wrong, like support Qaradawi, he should – and will – be criticised by all.
I am still waiting for Captain America to say what he means by “work him him on some issues”. How will the rehabilitation of Bunglawala, because that is ultimately what he is talking about, be a positive move for British Muslims in general?
Yoss,
No, no, no – again you are avoiding the real problem. HE SUPPORTS A MAN WHO WANTS TO RECREATE THE HOLOCAUST – QARADAWI EVEN PRAYS FOR IT. I dont need Bunglawala to tell me that gays should be given equal rights, how dare he tell me that after all he has been involved in? I was aware of that when i was in school and he was still praising bin Laden thank you very much. If he really meant it, he would have written it on Islamonline anyway. You can’t just criticise him for backing Qaradawi and then continue to praise his transparent ‘liberal’ comments – it just doesnt work that way, and would never happen in any other circumstance or with any other person. The double standards here are truly shocking and, above all, disappointing.
Also, just to yet again put things into perspective here. There are a some people on this thread who HATE Mel P for here stance on Israel/IDF. Fine, you can if you want and there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with her stance – now ask yourselves:
1) Has she ever said anything which compares to supporting a genocide promoter?
2) If she continued to support the IDF, but also said that Daniel Pipes/Spencer et al were wrong, would you give her the same treatment as Bungles?
I do not see why saying what I have said here is so controversial yet, when I wrote this post where I praised Bunglawala’s supportive position on gay rights you wrote:
Credit where credit is due, condemnation where condemnation is due. You will forgive me for finding strange your now vehement opposition given that just a few weeks ago you seemed to have no problem with this concept.
Condemnation where credit is due is a recipe for guaranteeing that the status quo is preserved and I don’t know about you but, personally, I’m not content with the status quo.
Yoss,
The quote you have pulled out makes no mention of congrats or credit to Bungles – I didn’t agree with praising him then and I dont now. At that time, it just seemed liked harmless naivety, so I couldnt really be bothered to argue about it, but now it seems there are more sinister things afoot that I feel I need to protest against.
This credit where credit is due idea is a very weak argument on its own – the Taliban and al-Shabaab, by many accounts, have been very successful at cutting the crime rate in ther respective enclaves – should they also be eligible for our congrats??
You still havent really adequately addressed the issues I brought up in my above comments – and that is probably because deep down you know I’m right.
It is nothing to do with credit where credit is due. He is a twat and apparently some of you stupid idiots at Spittoon were fooled by it (and apparently Quilliam Foundation); it is as simple as that. It is like saying Jamat-e-Islami support Deomcracy…. Thick ‘BLEEP’!