In today’s Jewish Chronicle, Martin Bright reveals Inayat Bunglawala’s sectarian attitude towards those who disagree with his interpretation of Islam.
Bright writes:
Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB defended his attacks on British Muslims for Secular Democracy because leading members of the organisation opposed the wearing of the hijab and believed drinking was permitted in Islam. The chair of the organisation is Independent columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.
The row broke out over a demonstration to oppose the Islam4UK march by al-Muhajiroun, which was due to call for the introduction of an Islamic state and sharia law in Britain. The march was cancelled at the last moment on October 31.
Mr Bunglawala, who regularly appears in the British media as the representative of the MCB, was vocal in his condemnation of Islam4UK march. He even established a new organisation, Muslims4UK, to oppose the extremists. His actions were praised at the time by Ed Husain of the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation.
[...]
On October 26 Mr Bunglawala sent an email to the Islamic Society of Britain and Young Muslims group on Yahoo which said: “I have received some emails from people concerned that British Muslims for Secular Democracy (whose chair opposes the wearing of the hijab, openly admits to drinking alcohol etc) are also demonstrating. Muslims4UK will be completely separate from them and will have our own area, banners and placards, insh’Allah”.
Four days later he sent a second email said: “The BMSD — whose leading members advocate that Muslim schoolgirls should be forbidden from wearing the hijab and believe there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol in Islam — have naturally attracted the support of Zionists like Mel P, Harry’s Place and the Spittoon blog [Mel P is a reference to the JC columnist Melanie Phillips; Harry’s Place and Spittoon are blogs which often cover the subject of radical Islam].
Mr Bunglawala continued: “Muslims4UK have spoiled that little plan of theirs, Alhamdulillah!”
Ms Alibhai-Brown said: “I do say young pre-pubescent girls should not be covered up, and that the fact that I drink wine is my own business.”
[...]
Mr Bunglawala confirmed to the JC that he had asked for a separate area to demonstrate, away from the BMSD.
He added: “BMSD have almost zero support in UK mosques and Islamic institutions which is not very surprising given that their chair openly drinks alcohol and sees nothing wrong with that! Even a young Muslim child is aware that drinking alcohol is forbidden in Islam.
“The only support BMSD appear to attract seems to be from pro-Israeli groups. That itself is very telling.”
Bungles should be ashamed of himself. What happened to that ‘I am such a liberal’ attitude he had going on at the Guardian’s Comment is Free for a while? There are plenty of Muslims who are against pre-pubescent girls wearing the hijab, and with good religious justification. As for drinking wine, Alibhai Brown is right – it is no one’s business what she does in her personal life.
This is what I hate the most – people like Bungle’s thinking they have the right to pass judgment on what others do, who is he to judge and decide what makes a good Muslim or not? God? Besides, what makes him think that his recently made up organisation ‘Muslims4UK’ (sounds very similar to Islam4UK) has any credibility for him to even dare to suggest that BMSD has none? At least they did not cancel their protest on the 31st (as Bungles did) and carried on defending liberalism, secularism and democracy in the UK. That is one more than what Bungles has so far achieved.
How disappointing.
36 Comments
Whoa! Bungle is a tad smarter than you’re giving him credit for. He couched his condemnation carefully in statements of fact and appeals to authority. That is, the condemnation was not (supposed to be) his personal opinion but something (claimed to be) inherently implied by Islam or Islamic values.
Drinking wine as personal business versus drinking wine as qur’anically forbidden is an impedance mismatch between liberalism and Islam. Clearly, Bungle has no desire to square circles here. He has already chosen his side. For those on the other side, trying to square some circles, the issue is how to counter his appeals to authority. Accusing him of standing in judgment, as if he were being merely opinionated, is close to an admission of defeat.
So have at it properly. Bungle has claimed that Islam forbids drinking wine, and implied that this prohibition is so absolute that anyone ignoring it must lose credibility as a Muslim. Refute him, if you can. But play the ball, not the man.
Qidniz
http://www.free-minds.org/alcohol2
Just to make it perfectly clear, the fact that I reject ahadith as at best man-made impedimenta, at worst outright forgeries and assorted historical fictions, does not mean I am a “Submitter”, or a moonbat who believes for one moment in “Code 19″.
this shouldn’t really be that surprising, should it? i mean, we know bungles has got it in for anyone that threatens the mcb’s pretensions to be the muslim equivalent of the board of deps, when in fact it’s far closer to the united synagogue and this is simply his way of showing his sour grapes from the fact that bmsd were more effective than him at getting the al-muhajigoon-squad to cancel their march. if he wants to split british islam into denominations, he’s going the right way about it. it is shameful – but not, unfortunately, surprising – that his first recourse in order to bash the bmsd and, by extension, the spittoon is to blame the Big Bad Zionist Backroom Beards in order to get the peanut gallery on his side. that’s a play straight out of the ken livingstone 101 pop-up book. the intelligentsia of the jewish community – and, by extension, the jc – is extremely interested in the idea of reasonable, moderate muslims and the idea that this might involve more voices than bungles and the mcb, who are not the easiest of people to get on with, is likely to appeal.
b’shalom
bananabrain
What a complete tit!
@ Qidniz – my point, which I didn’t make clear is this: regardless of whether something is haram or halam, one should not publicly judge another through their own religious prism. So, if alcohol is completely forbidden (there are some interpretations which states certain types of alcohol are permitted) it should not matter that one drinks it and sins. Because that should be between them and God, if they are believers in that faith which forbids it. So for Bugnles to judge what another woman does in her personal life, through passing the judgement through ‘scholarly’ interpration (which is one interpretation) is wrong. Judge someone on their moral character – how they treat other people not whether one drinks. Bungle’s does not have to drink. Besides, what he wrote in the emails about BMSD and Brown is soo totally out of order. He goes and talks to people who drink (i.e. non-Muslims). Now all of a sudden he is concerned about sharing a pen with an organisation which one of its members drink? What happened to the broader coalition of standing up against al-Muj and Islam4UK? He is silly and he should be condemned for his silliness.
abu faris:
that is an extremely interesting link you just posted about booze!
b’shalom
bananabrain
Escargots,
I see you have a new home. At least you have come clean and publicly said you are not with RK, but you still reject the hadith and that’s all that matters. At least on the Mpacuk forum you feigned politeness, here you’re in your element.
Seeya
Just to point out;
It is not “alcohol” that is not forbidden in Islam, but “intoxication” that is forbidden, which is a state that is achieved by its consumption and can vary based on the tolerance of each individual (please correct me if I’m wrong here and I am afterall human and prone to making errors).
Furthermore, anyone consuming alcohol not wearing a Hijab is doing something that will only be judged by Allah and it is not the authority of MCB or BMSD to pass judgement over one’s actions pertaining to religion.
MCB’s assumed position of that of keepers of morality (based on their interpretation of Islam and what’s moral and what isn’t) is the sort of behaviour that has brought so much misery upon Muslims and non-Muslims alike…
Shame on you Inayat!!
“……Bunglawala of the MCB defended his attacks on British Muslims for Secular Democracy because leading members of the organisation opposed the wearing of the hijab and believed drinking was permitted in Islam……”
I am sure Bunglawala does lots of things that are prohibited in Islam.
For starters, to grow a beard no less than the length of a fist is compulsory upon all Muslim men as it is a distinctive sign of Islam, and it is haram for a mature stable Muslim to shave his beard.
Gerrit,
You are writing provocative rubbish as usual.
Do stop trolling, Gerrit. It’s getting bloody boring.
Abu, If I point out that Bunglawala pretends to have r religious principles, that he does not actually possess, gets your goat?
More the fact that you are a tedious troll, Gerrit. One who has amply demonstrated on more than one occasion (and on more than one topic) that you are completely clueless.
Now, do go away.
And dodgy, like much of the material at the Free-Minds site. (Consider Argument #2 from this article, which deals with Q5:90-91, and compare how many other translators have dealt with it. FM’s dodge is in the claim that the singular items that could be the referent of the final clause are “uncleanliness” or “Shaitan”; whereas it’s clear that the choices are “uncleanliness” or “the work of Shaitan”. Oops.)
In fact, one of their distinctive schticks is their ahem, unorthodox, translation of the Qur’an. The divergence from other translations is quite noticeable in a number of verses. Somewhat predictably, practically every verse that could be deemed embarrassing or politically incorrect nowadays gets their special treatment.
It’s a fascinating subject, though. I found the articles in the Encyclopedia of Islam on khamr (wine) and mashrubat (drinks) quite informative.
God bless the folks at the Free-Minds site.
qidniz
I think that the issue of the variation between the FM translations and other, more traditional translations, is a bit of a red herring, frankly.
It is perfectly clear that without recourse to the ahadith the absoluteness of the prohibition on the consumption of alcohol is certainly open to question. Reliance upon the Qur’an alone, in other words, does not provide a cut-and-dry answer to this question.
I think this latter point is the question at issue – not the variations between more-or-less orthodox translations. To be frank I get the impression, qidniz, that you would – in the end – prefer the Islamic traditions to be as uncompromising as possible because this would suit your rather clear anti-Muslim agenda, to be frank.
I was unaware that the EI was on-line. I have to consult it at the library.
Muslims come out in numbers to oppose mosque in Walsall, UK
http://www.expressandstar.com/2009/12/04/mosque-plan-for-town-is-thrown-out/
“Resident Zia-ul-Haq, aged 56, of Hart Street, said: “It is a victory for the people, …”
“Imam Saeed, 65, from the Aisha Mosque and Islamic Centre, added: “We are happy the right decision has been made. …”
Amazing how many Muslims turned out to oppose this mosque but not a single white person in sight — normally it’s the other way round. Is the reason for resident’s joy really what the residents claim it is? You would wonder why Muslims would be opposing a mosque until you realise it’s the mosque for the ‘other’ sect.
Are Muslims less tolerant than the natives after all? If they can’t even tolerate a mosque just because it’s for the other sect what chances do churches and synagogues have in Eurabia?
“Eurabia”?
Oh dear.
Actually, John, in your eagerness to troll and make anti-Muslim comments, you missed the reason why the mosque’s planning permission was refused:
Planning may have been refused for it might cause traffic congestion and was in the wrong place but I am sure hundreds of Muslims who did oppose to the proposals did so for the same reason.
(Off-topic:)
It is, and it isn’t. The publishers, EJ Brill, have an online service in which the EI2 is offered, but it’s by subscription only, and they do not publish their rates. But as this is Brill, yes that Brill, you can be sure that you will have to pay through the nose, in spades, and put a cherry on that. (Brill make their nut from the bloated and corrupt institutional market, and so have no qualms about their retail prices being aimed at the independently wealthy only.)
So do I, but I am somewhat lucky. Around 2002 or so, when Brill was publishing the final volumes of the EI2 series, they put the already published parts on a CD-ROM (Vols 1-9, i.e. A-S; a glossary; and various indices) as some sort of promotional. Quite by chance I found this on Amazon for about $150 (weird, as the list price for this partial set seems to be a more Brill-typical $450, even today!). The bumpf that came with the package claimed that the remaining pieces (i.e. Vols 10-12 for T-Z) would be available at a discount on a supplemental CD-ROM.
Well, Brill never published that supplemental CD-ROM: they still try to sell the original partial set and then try to suck you in, when you ask them about it, into buying a separate copy of the complete set for another $1000 or so.
For the computer formats savvy, the contents of the CD-ROM use the Dynatext technology (now defunct as the company was bought up by a competitor and its product “retired”.) But it can be “hacked” to extract the contents away from a brain-dead typographical scheme. Another reason to do this is that while the contents are in English, the spelling is uniformly Dutch (e.g. “dj” for “j”) which is extremely off-putting.
PS: The Brill online service has free demos. The EI2 entry offered for the demo is on Abrogation. Check it out.
(Still off-topic, sorry)
The EI2 entry offered for the demo is on Abrogation.
Oops, mea culpa. That’s from their Encyclopedia of the Qur’an. The EI2 entries are on Iman, Makka, and Suleyman (the Magnificent).
qidniz,
Thanks for that. I shall now scurry off and check out Brill’s on-line demos!
I disagree, of course. The Qur’an may be subject to ambiguity, but it’s important, in my view, to know which understandings have widespread acceptance, especially among the influential clerical class (who still have the chance and take it every Friday to propagate “the official version”.) The F-M version, in that sense, is not merely unrepresentative, it barely scratches marginal. Although I grant that its eirenic “take” is likely to sell like hot cakes in predictable high-minded liberal arts programs all across the West.
IANAF (NDIPOOTV!), but it’s pretty clear that the Qur’an prohibits khamr (and maysir — common to Q2:219 and Q5:90 — inter alia). Exactly what constitutes khamr, thus ipso facto verboten, and what could be analogically equivalent, is a vast subject, naturally. But there is no avoiding the fact that the consensus of the madhdhabs is that khamr entails alcohol in general. Even if it didn’t, though, khamr still means wine in particular (so maybe YAB should consider switching to vodka!)
A massive propaganda effort aimed at obfuscation notwithstanding, it’s pretty clear what those traditions have been and still are. I base my anti-Islam views on the history and literature of Islam, and see no utility in obfuscation or sugar-coating what all said and done is not only an appalling record but also an equally appalling heilsgeschichte. However, I can see why you would prefer to view anything anti-Islam as anti-Muslim instead. It kills discussion, and exculpates Islam, just as you intend. So, I’ll leave it at that.
And I would grant that a typically illiberal pose such as that was bound to be thrown by a self-taught “expert” on Islam – if we are going to trade rudeness, qidniz.
You have chosen to only highlight those issues that accord with your narrow and illiberal interpretation of Islam – one in which, as you youself have elsewhere admitted, Islam = Islamism.
You have singularly failed to contest the fact that the Qur’an in and of itself makes no hard and fast prohibition of alcohol. It simply will not do to obsfurcate by means of a persistent attempt to draw the issue back around to a controversy over one translation, when no translation (however “traditional” or “orthodox”) prohibits in the way you so desperately want.
Not at all. However, I find your distinction between anti-Islam and anti-Muslim more than a tad convenient – and rather troubling. I rather try not to detest religious beliefs dearly held by others. Although, it has been noted before, that you appear to have a blind-spot for the difference between critique and insult when it comes to Islam – you k now, that faith of Muslims.
Yet, as I above pointed out, you are on record as asserting that all Islam is Islamism, – and therefore (a tad inconveniently for your attempt to claim that you distinguish between a faith and its believers), for you, all Muslims are Islamists. A position which is, patently, absurd.
As you say, let’s leave it there.
Yet, as I above pointed out, you are on record as asserting that all Islam is Islamism
I have said no such thing. I have said that Islamism is an artifice of convenience, that no such thing exists. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Either Islam is a problem, or it is not. If it is not, then these various newfangled revisionist or reformist initiatives are pointless. If it is, then it’s important to identify what kind of problem it is, i.e. what exactly is problematic in the Islam that has come down the centuries.
The traditional viewpoint, to which no doubt Bungles for example subscribes, is that Islam is perfect by definition. This (along with a “culture of shame” ethos) underlies the pervasive denialism across the Muslim world and manifest in the rhetoric. You may pretend it isn’t there, or that it is harmless, but others take a somewhat more realistic view.
qidniz
I can find, if I can be bothered, examples littering the English-language interweb where you have directly equated Islamism with Islam. You have argued that the former is a redundancy as its theses are fundamentally those of Islam. Do not be disingenuous.
Exactly. Yopu have argued that if Islamism is an “artifice of convenience”, then effectively Islam is that which others would equate (presumably with malice or foolishness) with Islam, in toto. In point of fact, your position is indentical to that peddled by Islamists.
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I’m not. I am drawing a perfectly regular and normal conclusion from your words here and elsewhere, that form part of your long cam,paign here and elsewhere to smear the entire Islamic faith by equation with its modern and corrupt interpretation known as Islamism.
No, either traditionalising, actually fairly modern interpretations of Islam, that you choose to assume are Islam in essence, are problematic or they are not. Religion is problematic, qidniz. However, you appear to be quite content to allow any and all other belief systems, save Islam, such a waiver. One can only wonder about the agenda.
This is a product of your wishes and imagination and not a fact, actually. No Islamic school makes such a definition of the Faith.
Ludicrous and tellijng. “Others take a more realistic view”? You mean other avid followers of jihad-watch like you, you mean?
I have said no such thing.
For the record, what follows after the separator was originally posted to Harry’s place:
======
I wonder if you could define Islamist for me? In ideological and practical terms.
I offered this a while back on a useful distinction between “Muslim” and “Islamist”:
“Islamism” is a back-formation from “Islamist”. It was invented to insulate and protect Islam from scrutiny and criticism and deflectively suggest that some form of misguided or misinformed aberration is at the root of Islamist activism and violence.
(Islam itself is already an “ism”. Just as we don’t have, or don’t find any need to have, Buddhismism or Christianitism or Hinduismism, Islamism is a linguistic monstrosity and a sure sign that some form of evasion is afoot.)
I can find, if I can be bothered, examples littering the English-language interweb where you have directly equated Islamism with Islam.
Go ahead.
You have argued that the former is a redundancy[...]
Not a redundancy. A red herring, to use your phrase,…
[...] as its theses are fundamentally those of Islam.
…Because the principal aim of the effort afoot is to deny militancy, hegemonism and supremacism in Islam. Push all of that onto some caricature suggestively named “Islamism” and lo, all-singing all-dancing Islam goes scot-free. Gee, what a surprise.
As for giving other religions a pass, never mind the whataboutery here, you’ll find examples on the “interweb” (gah, what an ugly neologism) where I’ve said that whereas I’m not a fan of religion at all, I hold the proselytizing religions in particular contempt, because I consider them the most pernicious – and among them, Islam stands out as the most dangerous. Make of that what you will.
qidniz
Perhaps I have been less than fair. Put it down, if you would grant me some space, to a busy time at the moment.
I recant everything I have said, in the light of the comment you have above quoted.
Apologies, qidniz. That was remiss of me.
qidniz,
To expres myself more clearly:
I appreciate the challenge, which is both intellectual and informed, that you offer the traditions and so-called orthodoxies of my faith. Please do not assume from my sometimes combative responses that I underestimate or deny your input: it is of the highest order.
You and I may disagree about many things (although I suspect, indeed I hope less than you think); but I do have an enormous respect for your erudition. I just wish I had as much self-control as you exercise with me.
I happen to think that to stand and preach is not such a terrible thing for a faith. All have engaged in the same, in some way or another, across time – as I am sure you will accept. To paraphrase a very great preacher (and possibly someone who defines sainthood in terms of the proximity of the Christian to the divine in more recent times – to speak the Word is never enough, we must act the Word, or it is meaningless – Francis of Assisi. I think this has close connections to the ideas that underlie bananabrainb’s last post, for example).
I cannot hate faith, nor its particular manifestations. Nor do I pity its followers. If the One, the Lord is at the centre of the beliefs then no harm may befall the Believer, nor those with whom the Believer will interact. This may seem simplistic too you (I do not know); but I assure you that in unfolding the meaning of such a statement comes much travail, much ardour, much – hopefully, finally – love.
For me, a Believer in the One Lord who welds together the world, there is much difficulty in expressing what I think I know of It, and what – especially – It might know of me – which is, we are taught certainly everything (and therefore, by Its given intellect) quite plausibly nothing whatsoever.
The point (as I am sure you are already reached ahead of me) is that the love we might have for one another is plausibly the best way forward for the reason for ourselves and our world, if not an explanation for the same.
Thank you. That wasn’t necessary — acknowledgment is enough, in my book, as we all, I hope, learn from each other — but it was very gracious.
Houriya,
In defence of Inayat: if the majority of his ‘flock’ are against demonstrating with BMSD, his hands are tied, are they not? Democracy…rule of the majority and all that jazz.
Hassan
Hassan
Only if the MCB is operating with some wild Islamist version of Marxism-Leninism’s “democratic centralism”, surely!