Chatting With Bari
A self-appointed ‘community spokesman’ does some speaking.
Sir Salman Rushdie should never have been knighted, he says. “He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped.”
Ah. So any book that causes ‘a huge amount of distress and discordance’ should be pulped? That might include a lot of books, yeh? Plus Bari isn’t altogether consistent.
According to a recent report by the Policy Exchange think-tank, the bookshop at the east London Mosque, which Dr Bari chairs, stocks extremist literature. “The bookshops are independent businesses,” he says. “We can’t just go in and tell them what to sell…”
Or that their books should be pulped? Hmm?
His passion is to integrate Muslim and British cultures – he says integration must go both ways. “Everybody can learn from everyone. Some of the Muslim principles can help social cohesion – family, marriage, raising children with boundaries, giving to the poor, not being too greedy.”
‘The Muslim principles’? So Bari thinks family, marriage, raising children with boundaries, giving to the poor, and not being too greedy are ‘Muslim principles’ which no one else ever thought of and which are a monopoly of Islam? If so he’s wrong. Islam doesn’t even have a monopoly on using ‘family, marriage’ as code for ‘subordination of women’ – that’s practically universal. Christian apologists do the same thing, of course: talk about forgiveness or peace or ‘family values’ as if they were exclusively Christian. They’re not.
Abortion should also be made more difficult. “By the time a foetus is 12 weeks old our religion says that the child has got a spirit.” Homosexuality is “unacceptable from the religious point of view”.
There’s that ‘child’ again – the one the Vatican likes to talk about, the one anti-abortion campaigners like to talk about – you know, the twelve-week-old child that has ‘a spirit.’ But what ‘our religion’ says about a foetus is irrelevant, because it’s mere assertion. It might be accurate or it might not, but ‘our religion says’ is worthless as a general principle.
Is stoning ever justified? “It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances,” he replies. “When our prophet talked about stoning for adultery he said there should be four [witnesses] – in realistic terms that’s impossible. It’s a metaphor for disapproval.”
Oh is it?! Is it really?! Tell that to Malak Ghorbany. Tell it to the women in Iran and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia who have in fact been stoned to death. Metaphor! Metaphor!? Yes it’s a metaphor just the way the death penalty in Texas is a metaphor.
For an antidote, see Gina Khan on the MCB (and other things).
He’s a lovely guy, isn’t he? But then he has the MCB’s long-standing intellectual traditions (cf Sir Idiot Sacranie) to uphold.
Particularly liked the “there are no Islamic terrorists” line – so, we’re back to the “no TRUE [insert your favourite example of culture/creed/accidental geographical location of birth] would ever do x” argument…oh dear.
But of course, his “Allah” must be the good old “Allah of the gaps”, right?
:-)
And then he compounds everything by making a worthless Nazi comparison…
AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!
He’s wrong about the IRA never being labelled as “catholic”, too. But then how interested do any of reckon he is in such trivialities as “facts” or “evidence”?
Ho hum.
Good grief, a post-modern apologist for the 7th century!
Radio 4 has had this item about Bari on every news bulletin. They also make the point that the Government’s relations with the Muslim Council of Britain have cooled of late. The sense I get from Radio 4 is that they are giving Bari enough rope to hang himself and are being rather mischievous in drawing attention to his views. “There is a disproportionate amount of discussion surrounding us,” he says and then with pleasing irony ratches up the discussion even more.
That’s very interesting about Radio 4. It’s not that long ago that Radio 4 and the rest of the BBC were fawning on the MCB – it’s good that they’ve stopped.
Andy The main reason the I.R.A was not generaly labeled a catholic terrorist organisation was because the provo,s made it very clear through there mouth piece Sin Fein that they were a secular nationalist organisation, moslem suicide bombers make it abundantly clear that their actions are inspired by islam hence the label.The loyalist paramilitarys were quite happy to describe themselves as prodestant and were often labeled as such mainly by C.N.N, also I am relieved that the stoning vidio that popped up on the web recently was just a metaphor!
G Tingey – you paint a totalitarian hell. First of all they took away the adulterers – not me; then the gays – not me; – then the criminals – not me; then the beer drinkers!!! Can we form a vigilante group at once?
Or is this just alarmist rhetoric on your part?
“That’s very interesting about Radio 4. It’s not that long ago that Radio 4 and the rest of the BBC were fawning on the MCB – it’s good that they’ve stopped.”
The person they use a lot these days to speak about Muslim matters is Ed Husain, ex Hizb, who is good at confronting Islamists as he knows his stuff.
Also has a wonderful elegant drawl. Terribly well-spoken.
Re the BBC, the report I heard on the radio only mentioned the less controversial views he expressed (ones that many non-Muslims would agree with), and left out the more extreme stuff.
Don’t know if that was typical of BBC reports of Bari’s statements.
“Gina Khan on the MCB”
OB, the interview with Gina Khan is excellent. She has summed up so tersely and pithily Muslim ideology. “Their aim is to spread extreme Islam to ‘the four corners of the world’. Their ideology is the cause of terrorism and the young turning themselves into human bombs…brainwashing them to believe they will be blessed with 72 virgins in heaven or that female suicide bombers will sit at the right-hand side of God. What an insult…these people kill themselves as well as others, in order to be blessed with milk, honey and perfect virgins…so that Isalmists can revive a Calipha and change the order of the world. My dad believed he had pleased Allah too, and saved 7 generations of his bloodline.”
What can one add to that except to say thank you to both of you for giving us on B&W an opportunity to gain first hand knowledge from reading Gina’s personal testimony. Authentic insight into the life of Muslims, from one who has lived it, felt it, abided by it, suffered because of it, wept, because it, (I am sure) and made sacrifices because of it, feared it, will surely open our eyes to the wrongs that are daily being perpetrated on Muslims.
Gina & OB keep scraping away at the Muslim barrel! Well Done!
Richard,
Sorry, I don’t know which version of the 70’s & 80’s you remember, but mine comes complete with regular references to the IRA as “catholics” in the mainstream tabloid press, etc.
Doesn’t matter what Sinn Fein said about themselves, Bari was wrong on that point, as he was on everything else…
When Bari says ‘our religion says X’, a half decent interviewer should ask why anyone who does not subscribe to his religion should take any notice of what it says. What could he say in response? He clearly couldn’t say that those countries which have been dominated by what his religion says have been happy, harmonious and successful places which others should try to emulate.
Andy Gilmour:”Sorry, I don’t know which version of the 70’s & 80’s you remember, but mine comes complete with regular references to the IRA as “catholics” in the mainstream tabloid press, etc.”
You are dead right Andy. There was never a credible disclaimer of religious basis. Before the Islamist revolution in Iran, the Irish conflict was the poster child for murder in the name of religion worldwide. The single most common description for it in balanced media reports was ‘sectarian violence’, and for those who seek ‘root causes’ it was fashionable to note the economic oppression of catholics and their unemployment and poverty, and imply that the religious thing was a proxy for a social justice issue.
Thanks, Marie-Therese – I think the interview with Gina is terrific too (thanks to Gina!), and I’m very pleased to have it. She’s going to write more for B&W – something to look forward to.
Andy my memory is maybe a little hazy on this but I am sure that the press did not use the term catholic terrorists to describe the provos, I can remember references to them being sectarian but I am sure that the general term used was republican rather than catholic,I agree that Bari is wrong though because the term prodestant was frequently used to describe the loyalist killers.
Some great bull***t detection above. Heartening to read.
The language, attitudes and posturing so characteristic of the culture of political correctness have this very telling habit of making apologists for mass murder and medievalism sound as reasonable and worthy as, say, a politician discussing the issues involved in the building of a new school, or the challenges faced by a charity organization, or some such.
And speaking of apologists, this following passage from the Telegraph:
‘In Dr Bari’s view, suicide bombers are victims as well as aggressors. “I deal with emotionally damaged children,” he explains. “Children come to hate when they don’t get enough care and love. They are probably bullied, it makes a young person angry and vulnerable.’
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/10/nbari110.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_10112007)
@ David and G. Tingey: LMAO! :)
@ Richard and Andy Gilmour: My tuppeneth, whatever the facts about media labelling during the troubles, to the best of my recollection it wasn’t the norm for Catholics here in England, for example, to blame UK ‘foreign policy’ (or equivalent excuse) for each act of intimidation, maiming and murder. That is, I don’t remember IRA perpetrators being routinely praised by faint condemnation from the ordinary Catholic rank and file.
Oh, and speaking of young, angry and vulnerable people, was it Western foreign policy that provoked this sadistic, misogynistic barbarism?
http://www.flurl.com/item/Stoning_u_249318
It’s not safe for work (or for any civilized purpose) and is utterly horrifying, depressing and tragic. Events like this should have no place outside of history books.
One is forced to wonder how many of the Kurdish male sadists gleefully filming this brutal and mysoginistic murder, are currently in the UK or elsewhere in the EU, working either legally or illegally.
Anyway Mr Bari, on a scale of one to ten, how “metaphorical” is the “disaproval” exhibited during this event, exactly?
(Apologies if others have highlighted this already)
Hmm. Re-reading my comment above it sounds as if I’m sugggesting that somehow only those filming the murder with their phones were guilty of any kind of barbarism. Of course, this was not my intention.
I have covered that murder in the past, Roger – and nearly linked to an agonizing story about the victim’s mother that I posted in News just a few days ago. But the complication is that it’s not directly relevant to Bari, because the murderers are not Muslim and in fact Du’aa was murdered for loving a Muslim boy. The question about the metaphoricalness of stoning of course remains, but I didn’t want to leave the impression that Du’aa’s murder was a product of Bari’s particular monotheism.
But the question about metaphor definitely still remains.
Understood Ophelia. I confess, I did think that this murder was an example of Islamic justice. After becoming furious at Bari’s glib comments about killings by stoning, I searched around for a suitable example of why stoning is anything but a metaphor. I didn’t have to look far. It took me about two minutes to find several unpleasant sites featuring collections of stoning videos and photographs, the majority shot in Iran or Saudi Arabia. I’ve managed to select one of the few examples that was not perpetrated in the name of Islamic justice.
If I wasn’t still feeling so shocked and depressed after having watched the clip I posted, I would probably feel more embarrassed for not having checked my facts. But frankly, as a secularist I care little about in which religion’s name a murder has been committed. It’s all barbarism. To Bari no doubt, which creed is responsbile is a hugely important matter. To me, it’s all the same and he’s a double-talking apologist for this kind of ‘justice’. The names may differ, the people and philosphy he’s trying to excuse may be different, but the results are the same. A human being is murdered, brutally — and some citizens in my own country engage in disgraceful double-talk and evasion when asked to comment — and are given air-time by an often less than critical media in which to do so.
Anyway, as most here know, if photographic and video evidence of brutal justice administered by Islamic courts is required to refute Bari’s assertions, there’s plenty of it out there for those who care to spend two or three minutes Googling. All the same, I should have checked the datails before posting.
There I go again, stating that the killing was done in the name of ‘religion’. I don’t even know that and I’m so appalled by the event and that video that I now have little inclination to find out.
Religion, culture; in so far as they provide the justification for action, there’s little difference between them. If someone murders a fellow human being on account of an age-old tradition, or someone murders a fellow human being on account of an age-old belief, is there any meaningful difference?
You watched it? Urgh; sympathy.
It sounds like a mix of culture and religion in Kurdistan. But as you say; what difference does it make?
A couple of short videos that I know most B&dubsters will appreciate…
The 1st is a debate on Al Jazeera between a secular woman and a Muslim man about Islam, with almost all of the man’s nonsense edited out. She’s quite eloquent in denouncing the backwardness of Islam as opposed to the West, which has benefitted from the Enlightenment. 5 1/2 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0
The 2nd is a series of still photos (a few of them horrific) of Pakistani women, accompanied by statistics about violence against women in that country. 3 1/2 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5fVE1p6YOo
Doug, the video of the ex-Muslim lady is extremely gripping. She so colourfully and very aptly (to the point) describes how Islam is bad and against any form of civilization. Gosh, more brave women like her and Gina Khan are urgently needed to vociferously/volubly/vibrantly/vocally/vehemently voice their opinions and to stand up once and for all to the macho merciless monstrous misshapen misogynists and mealy-mouthed apologists of the ilk of Bari. The second video of the bloody carnage of the Pakistani women by the irrational ruthless, unpitying fundamentalist Muslims is enormously grotesque.
I am none the better for viewing it. But the truth must be told.
Thank-you, Doug.
That’s Wafa Sultan; Gina mentions her in the interview.
Re: “Wafa Sultan;”
Thanks for that info, OB. I note that her name is by wiki mentioned (along with other B&W familiar names)in “Criticism of Islam”. Wiki also gives background information. She is in fact a psychiatrist now expatriated (from Syria) into America. I did wonder as to why she is/was not seen in the video flinging her arms around the TV studio, (unlike the two other male interviewers) She obviously knew better!