Nazir-Ali jumps in on veil
Sunday Telegraph: Ban veils in public, says Asian bishop
The Anglican Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali (son of a convert to Catholicism from Islam) jumps in on the latest bogus veil controversy by calling on the Government "to introduce legislation that would force Muslims to remove the veil when they are at work or travelling":
Bishop Nazir-Ali, whose father converted from Islam to Catholicism, said that the legislation should not just cover airports, but should extend to all areas of travel where an identity needs to be established, such as tube and train stations and ports. He said that the possible failure of airline staff to challenge Jama was symptomatic of people being "too worried about offending Muslims".
The only problem is that it has not been proven that Jama did indeed escape this way. It is only a possibility, but it does not deter this vile man from claiming that it's a security risk. The likely reason even if it is true is that passport checks are no longer done routinely on exit, having been abandoned several years ago on cost grounds. Clearly this man is the first port of call for the tabloids when they want an opinion hostile to Muslims, however ill-informed.
Comments
Is this the only means by which Anglican clergy hope to gain attention nowadays?
Posted by: Shamil | December 24, 2006 2:42 PM
Nazir-Ali is always the first Christian minister to attack Muslim practice. And to think that this guy was in the running for the post of Archbishop of Canterbury. Compare his intolerant suggestions here to the tolerance shown in the remarks made by Dr. Rowan Williams during his recent visit to the Middle East.
Perhaps he thinks his Pakistani heritage gives him more right to make the comments he does.
Posted by: KashifN | December 25, 2006 11:14 AM
I wonder if Nazir-Ali's an ex-Muslim? I've noticed that ex-Muslims tend to virulently hate Islam - far more that ex-Christians (for example) would hate Christianity.
Posted by: George Carty
|
December 25, 2006 5:33 PM
GC: as far as I've read, it was his father who converted. But he does have an extraordinary degree of malice towards Muslims. He bears some similiarity with Patrick Sookhdeo, who claims to be an apostate. I personally believe his name to be made up, since the name Sookhdeo (and Sukhdev, from which it's clearly derived) is a Hindu first name and I tried Googling for names like Muhammad Sookhdeo and Sukhdev and got no results.
Posted by: Yusuf Smith
|
December 25, 2006 5:54 PM
Sukhdev is actually a Sikh name in origin. As for Nazir-Ali, I'd be angry too if nobody showed up at my church. Notice how they cart the "ethnics" around to spout off nonsense against Muslims.
Posted by: DrM | December 25, 2006 7:17 PM
I left the third world because of the intolerance of others. Only to find the same bigots e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, John Santamu, Nazir-Ali and Omar Bakri (although he is gone now)have set up camp in Europe and are spewing the same old hate. Where am I going to run to next?
Anyone that can be bothered to listen to Hirsi Ali and Santamu will immediately see that their speeches have been recycled from the hateful and divisive politics of Africa that have destroyed Somalia (Hirsi's home country)and Uganda(Santamu's).
What has made Britain so great is the tolerance of its people which allows everyone to be what they want to be and still be part of the society.
Their kind of politics was practised in the U.K when?around the 10th century? Anyway, I wish someone would tell them Oliver Cromwell passed through these shores, and that was way back in the 17th century.
Posted by: Saggal | December 25, 2006 7:43 PM
I am a Christian and I agree that religious customs should not be altered in any case. Religious freedom is the hallmark of democracy and any infringement on it is an attack on democracy.
With all due respect, though, let's also denounce the fact that a grown man educated in the customs of Islam may have utilized this custom to his cowardly advantage.
If true, his is a crime that is even worse.
Peace be with you. Doug
Posted by: Doug Karr | December 26, 2006 2:15 AM
I meant 'same old hatred'.
Posted by: saggal | December 26, 2006 6:35 AM
Doug Karr: the operative word here is "may". The fact is that nobody knows if he has or hasn't, and I personally wonder if it's possible for a man to remain disguised as a woman that thinly for the entirety of a flight to the UAE or Kenya (which is where you go if you want to get to Somalia). I'm sure he would have been found out at some point.
Nobody disputes that what he may have done is a despicable act, but then he would not have been thinking of the ramifications for Muslim women, but only of how to avoid a lengthy jail term for himself. The fact remains, though, that headline news was made of something which may simply not have happened, because it's an excuse to bash a Muslim custom that some people are uncomfortable with.
Posted by: Yusuf Smith
|
December 26, 2006 9:42 AM
"Perhaps he thinks his Pakistani heritage gives him more right to make the comments he does." Perhaps it gives him more reason to hold the opinions he does.
Posted by: Thersites | December 26, 2006 4:41 PM
Perhaps it gives him more reason to hold the opinions he does
Perhaps he was inspired by the sermons of Rwandan Bishops.
Catholic Priest Guilty In Rwanda Genocide
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301948.html?nav=hcmodule
Posted by: Saggal | December 26, 2006 11:18 PM
Assalaamu alaikum,
This is really a non-issue. In the Arab Gulf countries, for example, where many women wear niqab, it's normal for women to uncover their faces when going through passport checks at the borders. I've never heard anyone object to that, and Islamic scholars say that it should be done. They have women to look at women's faces, so there's nothing to object to, but even if there were no female officials available, people understand that it's necessary. (Of course, they should give the women a little privacy and not have them uncover their faces in front of everyone.) If the officials in the UK let people go through the borders without checking them, the fault lies with them, not with the niqab.
Ann
Posted by: ummabdulla | December 27, 2006 6:12 AM
"Perhaps he was inspired by the sermons of Rwandan Bishops" Possibly. However, every Pakistani mnonmuslimor shia i have met hasn't a very high opinion of islam's claims to tolerance, going by their observation of the practise in Apakistan.
Posted by: Thersites | December 27, 2006 9:32 PM
Thersites,
Perhaps it's time you faced some hard facts, you only need to speak to the thousands of ex-catholics in Rwanda who are now Muslim.
Some FACTS for you for:
Before the genocide more than 60% of Rwandans were Catholic.
And when the killings started, tens of thousands of Tutsis fled to churches for sanctuary. But they found little protection there.
Churches became sites of slaughter, carried out even at the altar.
"When I realised that the people I was praying with killed my parents, I preferred to become a Muslim because Muslims did not kill."
Taken from the BBC news site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3561365.stm
Posted by: Saggal | December 28, 2006 6:37 AM
Don't waste time with thershites, Saggal. He never has anything relevent or remotely intelligent to say. I don't know what makes him such a worthless poster, but it really works!
Posted by: DrM | December 29, 2006 8:49 AM
What makes you think Nizar-Ali is a papist, Saggal? Going by the muslim record of kiling other muslims whenever they can, I'm sure that the Rwandan genocides will feel at home there.
Good to see you back, Dr Mabuse. Still maintaining a truly islamic level of charm, wit, intellligence, ability to debate and intellectual honesty, I see.
Posted by: Thersites | December 29, 2006 2:13 PM
Wee if it isnt the anti-Muslim reject from harrys place, therShites...on his flights of fancy as usual. How can a liar of your lowly caliber ever utter words like intellectual honesty?
So now you can read Nazir-Ali's mind can you? It's just as well you can type, for if you had to speak your mind, you'd be speechless.
Posted by: DrM | December 29, 2006 8:36 PM
therShites
This would be the same DrM who said I should have grown out of toilet humour?
There are security issues regarding the niqab, and people do need to be identified. Yes, the escape story has been blown out of all proportion, but there is a security issue here, plus a cultural one - covering the face is not acceptable.
Posted by: Old Pickler | December 30, 2006 12:03 AM
Old Pimple,
Second hand smoke is an issue as well tha affects lots more people. And unlike a passing woman wearing a niqab it is inescapable in some places.
Posted by: bikhair aka taqiyyah | December 30, 2006 4:27 AM
Where have I said I can read Nazir Ali's mind, Dr Mabuse? You shouldlook up "projection" in a dictionary of psychology.
Posted by: Thersites | December 30, 2006 8:09 AM
There are security issues regarding the niqab, and people do need to be identified. Yes, the escape story has been blown out of all proportion, but there is a security issue here, plus a cultural one - covering the face is not acceptable.
There are various events and times when people cover their faces in this country. You couldn't ban the niqab without banning those as well. Plus I don't think something being anti-social is a basis for making something illegal here. Prostitution is practically legal now.
Posted by: Shamil | December 30, 2006 7:04 PM
Playing dumb again thershites? You really ought to stop doing that. Clearly, you spend way too much time in darkened rooms in front of your seven-year-old computer turning a whiter shade of pale. pRickler if you can't raise your head above gutter level then don't complain about "toilet humor." Get over your paranoia already.
Posted by: DrM | December 30, 2006 8:06 PM
Prostitutio in completely legal if the people concerned are adults, Shamil.
Come on now, Dr Mabuse. All you have to do is answer my question: Where have I said I can read Nazir Ali's mind?
Posted by: Thersites | December 31, 2006 11:28 AM
Prostitutio in completely legal if the people concerned are adults, Shamil.
I don't think it's legal to "advertise" in certain places.
Posted by: Shamil | December 31, 2006 12:47 PM