Inayat Bunglawussi is not Arab, but a lowly Pakistani.
“Allah has chosen the Arabs above others”
“Ahsanul nas ul ‘Arab, wa Ahsanul ‘Arab Quraysh, wa Ahsan Quraysh Bani Hashim”
The best of people are the Arabs, and the best of the Arabs are Quraysh, and the best of Quraysh are Bani Hashim.
So how come a lowly Paki like Inayat Bunglawaddle is offended when Arabs (or Muslims) are rightly called ‘savages’ for committing the worst atrocities in Israel’s recent history? Â Does he see himself as an ‘honorary’ Arab, because his ancestors were forcibly converted to Islam and now he wants to be more Arab, or more Muslim than Arab Muslims?
Islam is a natural vehicle for Arab supremacism because those who convert are encouraged to take Arab names (which already convinces some that they are, perhaps always have been, Arabs). The funniest example of this is surely all those Sayeeds in Pakistan who claim descent from the Quraysh, the Tribe of the Prophet himself. It is as if in the middle of the Congo various Congolese took not just Belgian first names but Belgian last names and, speaking French to boot, insisted that they were descended from a long line of Belgians.
In light of this it is even more revolting that Muslims compare themselves with Jews. Suddenly, there is to be equality where it never belonged, Â including an immoral equivalence that seeks to drag us to the same level, that equates the worst mass-murder in recent history with calling it ‘savage’.
Shameless. Brazen. Their whole belief system is based on Islamic supremacy and genocidal hatred, that Jews are the vilest of creatures, sons of apes and swine who must be killed, and if you call it what it is, it makes us ‘racist-bigot-Islamophobes’ who are ‘divisive & counterproductive’.
No. I’m not playing.
This is not about civility, this is about stupidity. This is about whacking the infidel into submission.
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.
The jihadists who murdered the Fogel familyÂ are savages, as are those who celebrated their murders in Gaza. I would say this while standing in the middle of Trafalgar Square, and if Britain’s PC Commission had any residual sense of shame, it would drop this proceeding immediately.
It is also worth noting, however, that it may have been a lingering politically correct impulse on Phillips’ part that played into the hands of the Islamic supremacists who complained about her piece. For she refers to “Arabs” again and again, when the murderers of the Fogels were killing not because they were Arabs, but because they were Muslims, and Islamic jihadists. So many Western analysts will call jihadists anything — anything — so as to avoid calling them what they are, devout and observant Muslims. They just can’t bear the idea that religious teachings might really have something to do with this conflict. Yet to characterize the Itamar murderers again and again as “Arabs” may have made it easier for the execrable Bunglawala to characterize what she wrote as a “generalised racist outburst.” On the other hand, since resistance to jihad violence and Islamic supremacism is routinely described as “racism” also, if she had referred to the killers as jihadists or Muslims it may not have made any difference.
In any case, note the moral inversion from the complaining Muslims — a moral inversion that is now so common that we may not even notice it. Bunglawala and the other complainers are full of righteous indignation against Melanie Phillips for her words, but where is the indignation of these supposed “moderates” against the jihadists who murdered the Fogels? Which is worse? Phillips’s allegedly “racist” remarks, or the cold-blooded killing of a family sleeping in its home?
And if Bunglawala and co. has issued some pro-forma condemnation, deploring, “Islam forbids…” eyewash, what are they doing to back it up with real action? What programs have they instituted in mosques and Islamic schools in Britain to teach against the beliefs and assumptions that led Muslims to believe that it would be a good and righteous act to murder the Fogels in the first place?
Free Speech Death Watch Alert from Absurd Britannia: “PCC investigates Melanie Phillips’ Spectator blog,” by John Plunkett inÂ The Guardian, March 18 (thanks to JW:
A Melanie Phillips blogpost on the Spectator website which referred to the “moral depravity” of Arab “savages” is being investigated by the Press Complaints Commission.The online comment piece, headlined “Armchair barbarism”, focused on media coverage of the murder of five members of a Jewish family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar by Palestinian militants earlier this month.
“The moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media,” wrote Phillips.
“Overwhelmingly, the media have either ignored or downplayed the atrocity â€“ or worse, effectively blamed the victims for bringing it on themselves, describing them as ‘hard-line settlers’ or extremists.
“To the New York Times, it’s not the Arab massacre of a Jewish family which has jeopardised ‘peace prospects’ â€“ because the Israelis will quite rightly never trust any agreement with such savages â€“ but instead Israeli policy on building more homes, on land to which it is legally and morally entitled, which is responsible instead for making peace elusive. Twisted, and sick.”
The column, which also referred to coverage of the murders by CNN, the BBC and the Guardian â€“ part of the group that publishes MediaGuardian.co.uk â€“ prompted two complaints to the press watchdog, one of them from Engage, a group promoting Muslim engagement in British society.
Inayat Bunglawala, chair of Muslims4UK, said: “Her words went far beyond just denouncing the killings. It was a far more generalised racist outburst against Arabs as a whole.
“If you insert the word ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish’ where she has referred to Arabs then I am sure she would have no doubt that those words would be antisemitic. Just as she abhors antisemitism it is important that she maintains the same vigorous anti-racist stance against Arabs. It is just unacceptable to use that kind of language.”
Unacceptable to whom? To child-murdering Arabs?
Bunglawala said he had also complained to the police about the column….