Muslim leader's support for Nazi donor

The astonishing response of Muslim community leader Inayat Bunglawala to the news that Asghar Bukhari, a founder member of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC), had donated money to the Nazi propagandist David Irving was this:

Asghar's donation of sixty pounds to David Irving over six years ago may be regarded as perhaps overly idealistic and indeed naive.

He then proceeded to defend him.

What!

May be regarded? Perhaps over idealistic?

Idealistic! The man sent money to a Holocaust denying Nazi. I am not given to overblown language but I think Bunglawala's statement is nauseating. I concur with Harry's Place:

For Bunglawala to express support for Bukhari in this manner, and to characterise his fawning over a neo-Nazi as "over-idealism", indicates that Bunglawala is, at best, a racism-denier.

He is unfit for his role in a prominent Muslim lobby group.

Comments

[Alex]

Daniel,

Everything is correct, except for the last sentence. It is MPAC that are unfit to be labelled as the moderate mainstream organisation they claim to be. Bukhari is typical of MPAC and its supporters.

[The Useful Idiot]

Daniel,

Bukhari and Bunglawala are the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Islamic Fundamentalist double-speak.

Bukhari's subsequent hole-digging explanation about the abuse of the word Antisemitism is a classic article on how self-justification and rejection of a claim becomes public confirmation of what you are trying to deny.

I have done a knockabout piece on him at my blog and present the link here, I hope you don't mind. http://theymadeitup.squarespace.com/the-latest-news-and-discussion/2006/11/24/asghar-bukhari-talks-about-anti-semitism-its-abuse-bwaahhh.html

[Question]

If there are so many moderate Muslims why are there so few moderate Muslim leaders?

[Freddie F]

Mr Finkelstein, you call David Irving a 'Nazi'. Do you realise how ridiculous this makes you look? Is a sympathetic biographer of Stalin necessarily a Communist? What does it even mean to call someone a Nazi today? Do you have a definition in mind? Is it anything but a thoughtless insult? You appear to be of the sort that believes because someone is generally vilified you can join in and build upon and exaggerate the vilification with no thought for objectivity. You only make yourself look a fool.