Could an Islamic state actually work?
Guest post by Ghaffar Hussain as part of Speakers Corner Sundays
Some would argue that the Taliban are fighting to overthrow the Pakistani government in order to establish a medieval barbarian theocracy. Others would pit them as noble freedom fighters that are resisting foreign invaders and seeking to bring justice to the neglected people of this region. In the meantime we have unpopular and counter-productive drone attacks and endless conspiracy theories about who is arming and funding who.
But somewhere in the midst of this mess is the quest for an ‘Islamic state’ and the introduction of Shariah law. These are often presented as clear and concrete objectives which some insist on resisting at all costs whilst others are told they are duty bound to embrace as Muslims. Such discussions are, however, far too simplistic and gloss over the confusions and differences that exist in this area.
Muslims do not and have never agreed upon one version of ‘Sharia’ law, they also do not have a commonly accepted definition of an ‘Islamic State’. The current Pakistani constitution states that no legislation may contradict the Quran or Sunnah (Primary sources of Islam) and therefore, according to some, it is an Islamic state.
The Taliban would argue that the existing political apparatus in Pakistan does not match that of 7th century Arabia and that it does not implement their interpretation of Shariah, which is informed by the Pashtun tribal code. Saudi Arabia claims to implement Shariah law yet luckily their version of it does differ from that of the Taliban’s and again is informed by Bedouin Arab customs. Many Arab Islamists groups, being influenced by Arab nationalism, insist on the future leader of an Islamic state being Arab or even belonging to a particular tribe. Iran also claims to be an ‘Islamic state’ yet their interpretation of that term differs yet again due to their Shia heritage.
So where does all this confusion lead us? The answer is nowhere. Problems arise because puritanical and literalist interpretations of Islam refuse to accept scriptural diversity and appreciate difference of opinion. They also fail to take into account the fact that certain rulings were specific to one time period and one culture, i.e. they are not normative.
Take Music for instance, within mainstream Islamic schools of thought one will find a whole range of positions on Music. Some would seek to forbid it outright, others would allow certain forms of Music and forbid others, some argue that the content of the lyrics holds the key whilst others would take a relaxed position to most if not all forms of music. So which is the true Islamic position? They all are and it is up to the individual to decide which view he/she decides to follow. Moderate Muslims would accept this diversity of views on music and other issues but puritans and those under their influence would champion one view and attack all the others.
Similarly puritans would argue that a state which only implements one particular interpretation of shariah is a true Islamic state, the true interpretation often being decided by the ethnicity and personal ambitions of the ones making the judgement. More hardcore factions would insist that only an expansionist state which adopts an interpretation of shariah that they approve, seeks to unite the entire Muslim world under one ruler can be called an Islamic state. These differences explain why extremist groups often turn on each other when they get the opportunity and end up never achieving their utopia.
Moderates would argue that a state which refers to shariah principles when drafting legislation is an Islamic state. Such a state, they would argue, can still be democratic, inclusive and content within its own borders. They also insist that expansionist empires were simply political constructs of the past and not an intrinsic part of Islamic doctrine. Much more interestingly another set of moderates insist that actually there is no such thing as an ‘Islamic state’ at all, the very concept is a post-colonial reactionary concoction that owes more to communism and fascism then Islam.
Such Muslims would argue that Islam did not pre-define a political structure and Shariah was never meant to be adopted wholesale as state law. Rather Islam is a complete way of life that seeks to guide our conduct in some spheres and dictate it in others, i.e. Shariah would dictate how a Muslim prays but guide how a Muslim runs a surgery for example. Similarly, Islam could guide our political conduct without dictating it. They would insist that this has always been the relationship between the Islam and political authorities. Concepts such as ‘Islamic states’ ruling by shariah are modern constructs which certain reformists proposed as a response to European imperialism.
Again it would be difficult to argue that one view is more Islamic than any other and there is yet a clear consensus to emerge. Recent election results in places like Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan do suggest that we are slowly moving into a post-Islamism world where Muslims are beginning to reject Islamist parties in favour of more inclusive ones. The lack of any central authorities in Islam and the poor state of Muslim scholarship will ensure that the confusion will continue.
It’s important that individuals are exposed to the plethora of views on this topic by reading books such as ‘The Great Theft’ by Khaled M Abou El Fadl and ‘Islam and the secular state’ by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im. But in the absence of open-mindedness, geo-political power struggles, short sighted governments and personal greed will continue to push power-mad fanatics to favour the more bigoted understandings that are more in tune with their personal desires.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Islamists, Religion
Any State before being birthed into this world needs to be measured against common “western enlightenment values”. If if falls short it should not be delivered, and arguably terminated.
Better this then the world suffer the tantrums of a maladjusted teenager
Is this the same Ghaffar Hussain who is head of outreach and training at the Quilliam Foundation? I would be interested to know if this is his own view, or the official QF view. Anyway, it’s a fascinating subject!
Just read Child 44 by Tom Rob Smith. It’s a good reminder of why a state build upon one idea (Communism, Nazism or Islamism) is a terribly bad idea, and even worse in practice.
They’ve existed in the past, you could argue they currently exist (KSA, Iran, Malaysia, even countries like Pakistan etc), I don’t see why they can’t exist in the future.
The question being asked should be;
1. Can a single Islamic state exist
2. Are “Islamic” states representative of their citizens
To me Q2 is almost a sub-section of Q1. Ghaffar mentions the fact that the Saudi state is a wahhabi oreintated state, he missed the fact the Iranian constitution states you can only be the President of Iran if you are a Shia Muslim or the Jaffari school of thought. The suggestion is that Islamic states don’t counter for the thinking of all Muslims.
It’s interesting to see Music being mentioned to help explain his point of view. Why would any state want to micromanage it’s citizens. People may have their own Islamic views on Music, but what has the state got to do with any of it? The job of the state at the most is to ensure there is an education system within which it’s citizens are aware of the relevant Islamic understanding regarding Music and other topics, like an Islamic studies subject or something. If one wishes to sin or not, why is that the business of the state? It’s not.
Too many people are brainwashed into thinking that Islamic states are going to be places or are places where your individual rights are curbs and the state is involved in your every affair, a place devoid of liberty etc.
Remove Islam from the picture and Saudi Arabia would still be the same authoritarian, closed society, as would Iran and the Taliban would still be the same vicious power hungry brutal scum. They’d have different justification for it, tribes, other religions, football teams, who cares. The micromanagement in these places exists to control the people and to assure the total rule of the people at the top, simple as that.
Of course we can have an islamic state, but it’s not possible right now, we need people power in order to create that. The funny thing is the western governments are more than aware of that. That is why the countries in the middle east they need, don’t have the word wdemocracy uttered there, that is only reserved to change the governments in the Muslim world who they don’t like and don’t need.
“Some would argue that the Taliban are fighting to overthrow the Pakistani government in order to establish a medieval barbarian theocracy.”
And they’d be wrong, since the medievals at least had some awareness of the problems of law, power, representation and religion.
thabet,
Do you agree with every last word of that? I find the summary enough to make me nauseous:
Still, if that’s your bag…
“Too many people are brainwashed into thinking that Islamic states are going to be places or are places where your individual rights are curbs and the state is involved in your every affair, a place devoid of liberty etc.”
ahhah..could it be that laws like below which are in existence in 21st century in the name of Islam give this idea?
ORDINANCE NO. XX OF 1984
PART II – AMENDMENT OF THE PAKISTAN PENAL CODE (ACT XLV OF 1860)
(3) 298C… Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name), who … invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Not so distant echoes of the debates and events in Europe in the period 1300 or so to around 1800. Reformation, Counter Reformation, Enlightenment and so on.
We seem to have ended up with a system that insists that the law is not determined by what those who believe in sky fairies say it should be.
A decent enough beginning to the construction of a legal system by my lights.
Tim Worstall @ 8,
If you weren’t standing as a bloody UKIP person, I’d think you were quite a nice guy.
But is it about goodness? There are many who believe in a Supreme Being who do not accept the doctrine of the organised religions since much of it appears to have no true historical provenance or high standards of morality and ethics,or even to be about goodness at all. Provably the Bible was altered by the early church and provably most of the Hadiths have no historical validity and there is good evidence for there having been several versions of the Koran, some of which still exist.(SSHH).However,the majority of non believers seem to have high standards, support goodness and the law of the land and of course they are also taxpayers and electors in a Democracy.I do not consider any religious law to be more equitable,ethical and just than our Common Law established over decades,why would we want to settle for second best?
Just curious, if states based on religion are an anathema, what does QF err Ghaffar Hussain make of the state of Israel which is an exclusively religious state with a politicized form of religion as its ideology (zionism)?
#7: Not at all. There is nothing wrong with that law. Ahmedi’s are an insult to Islam. They claim to be Muslims and then claim to have a new Prophet.
They are free to exist and Worship as long as they declare they are not Muslim. The only thing the law prohibits is Ahmedi’s calling themselves Muslims.
An Ahmedi Muslim is like a Jew who accepts Jesus as the messiah, your not a jew anymore at that stage, your christian. We’ve simply legislated that.
platinum786,
What a lot of crap, from a particular perspective, it has to be said.
And might it be legitimate to say that you are an insult to them?
Yes, I do think that is true.
Stop talking as though you knew what you were talking about, platinum786, ’cause it is obvious to anyone that doesn’t care to respect you that you just talk shit.
‘…..Ahmedi’s are an insult to Islam….’
Why? They beleive in Allah and Muhammed as his messenger; moreover they beleive in the 5 pillars of Islam. So where’s the problem?
This is verging on a ridiculous conversation, as the state you all live in has had an enormous upheaval in moving Christianity off centre stage. Which has taken some ridiculous number of centuries to, sort of, achieve. If you think anyone that has been through that nonsense already – the position of a religion in a states’ authority – is likely to go through it again, well you’ve another thought coming…..
Platinum786:
Ahmadis should be free to call themselves what they want. It is not your, nor the state’s business, to legislate on how people define themselves. You are perfectly entitled to think that they are not Muslims. And they you.
Anyone who believes that religious identity should be defined by others is a bigot. Surely God is the only judge? People who think otherwise place themsleves on the same level as God, and I don’t even want to think about how many religious laws that breaks.
Subscribers to salafist interpretations of islam, so-called Wahhabi clerics of saudi arabia, followers of that Egyptian roach, sayed qtub, vast majority of jihadi groups, and of course the vaunted muslim brotherhood are not puritans. They believe, as old moe-hamed is supposed to have said when asked “How would people know true islam? moe’s response,” my generation, the next, and the one after are the best of muslims,”. I paraphrase, so the gist is the examples to follow on your way to avoiding the fires of hell, are people who made their living conquering, pillaging, thieving, slaving, raping and forcing the conversion of subject populations. Way different than puritans, besides puritans in Christianity are effectively extinct, ancient history.Fanatics hateful, guess that’s what you get when your religion’s founder was a deceitful murderous warlord, who fraudulently claimed a divine mantle?
eh. there are Christain puritans and Christian puritans who seem more like Hindus
Douglas , what makes you think that I agree with “every last word”?
I used that as an example to show there were quite lively debates on ’state’ and law in medieval Islamic societies*, which Taliban types would not even bother with. In other words, even medieval Islam showed more sophistication than the Taliban…
*let me pre-empt you: no, I don’t believe it was a liberal oasis.
It looks like QF’ers have an unusually free reign to write editorials here on PP. No other think tank has such access.
Rather strange this and when asked questions about QF and its relationship to this site they go unanswered.
Most Odd.
I can’t call myself Jewish if I don’t testify to the basic tennants of Jewish faith. I can’t be Christian if I don’t agree with the basics of the Christian faith. You can’t be a Muslim if you don’t accept that Muhammed was the final prophet. Islam has a well defined system under which you must fall to be a Muslim. Ahmedi’s are not Muslims, they can’t masquerade themselves as Muslims.
They are free to worship their pagan religion, the same way everyone else is, but you can’t call yourself Muslim when your not a Muslim.
Platinum786:
Sorry, I didn’t explain myself well. What business is it of yours or the state’s, unless you think that state you regualte what you can believe? You are perfectly free to believe that Ahmadis are non-Muslims, but it should go beyond that.
For example, I don’t believe that socialists are really liberals (in the classical sense). Would I ever dream of arguing for a law that bans socialists from calling themselves liberals? No.
Rumbold – “For example, I don’t believe that socialists are really liberals (in the classical sense). Would I ever dream of arguing for a law that bans socialists from calling themselves liberals? No.”
There is a difference between ethnic and religious identity and political affiliation.
Rumbold, I understand your point of view, let me try and explain it in another way.
Lets take your example of a liberal, who is a liberal? I’s open to interpretation. With religious identity, there are certains things you must accept, to be a part of that religion. Within Islam one of those is the finality of the Prophet Muhammed. Hence it’s actually possible to define in legislation who is a Muslim.
This takes us onto the next point of yours, what business of mine or any states is it what someone chooses to religious identify themselves as? The liberal in me says no business whatsoever. HOWEVER, an islamic state has some responsbility to it’s religion. If your teaching school children that a basic tennant of the Islamic faith is to recognise the Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) as the final prophet, and then at the same time you have people who oppose that view and still call themselves Muslim, it’s contradictory. The state has some responsbility to preserve the faith as well.
Can you understand what i’m saying? Imagine RE lessons at school if the teacher said “Christians beleive Jesus was the son of God”, and then went on to say “but he’s not, he was just a prophet” and then that teacher insists he/she is a christian?
The individual is free to feel as Christian as they like, they’re free to participate in all Christian acts of worship etc, but your not actually Christian are you, and you certainly shouldn’t be presenting yourself as mainstream christianity.
For what it’s worth (not much, I know) but from what I’ve seen of them, Ahmedi’s are my ‘favourite’ kind of Muslims. I only say this because I visited their big mosque in south London for friday prayers a couple of years ago, and I was welcomed to sit up un the gallery and even given a translation ear peice (as the prayers and sermons are filmed and translated into English for the TV audience). I thought they were really cool, and I liked the images of their turbaned saints.
I was just wondering if in a (hoplefully liberal) Islamic state, that there wouldn’t be this presumption like there is in so many Muslim countries today, that if you are born a Muslim, then you are one whether you like it or not.
So for example, in Pakistan, as a forigner (and non muslim) I was allowed to get a liquor licence, whereas Pakistani’s (unless they could proove they were non muslims) were not allowed to buy alcohol.
I’d be a bit annoyed if catholics insisted I was a catholic too, just because I was baptised as one as a child.
notice the descriptions of beliefs, and perspectives, of a significant current minority of those who call themselves muslim. Moehammed, self proclaimed prophet, verily the last one at that!, Well, Islamic, Koran, I think declares this fatherless mongrel, the Perfect Man. Flawless, the perfect example of human behavior. is Moehammed, so muslims believe and would non-muslims believe, at least not say aloud the opposite. Moehammed, founder of islam, was an asshole, probably, psychopath, charismatic cult leader, who got lucky.
Accounts of his life from islamic sources demonstrate a man for whom the torture, removal of body parts, was part of war. A bloke who at 53 or 57, took a 9 year-old to bed. If that is anything other than rape to you, we have profound cultural differences. The value, “that children are never to be sexual playthings for adults” is a superior Western, as well Confusion, Hindu, Japanese, … Much of humanity shares this ethic. A mind polluted with islam, doesn’t see it as the rape of a kid. Google “khomenei fatwa babies sex”, what you will find is a translation of a book of the dead ayatollah’s list of permissible actions and forbidden ones. He list what is …. permissible in islam to do with sexually, as young as an infant. For the Sunnis, child marriages to old men are as common as blossoms on a cherry tree. Extreme cultural distinction from Western sentiment, authorities lock up childrapist, common people try to kill’em, Anyways, Moe was a asshole who would have endorsed Osama, may his seed wither and die cause all that camel rider said was a great steaming pile of Lie. Muslims can’t question their beliefs because since the 7 century islam has functionally drivin’ the people insane. People who claim to be progressive, should be able to recognize a true fascism, In the example, how countries subscribing to islamist beliefs and ideology practice Law?,… What is the state of their religious minorities?… Do they enjoy religious freedom, or are they villified, as many moslems in the west are currently claiming. The numbers of muslims in western countries is climbing at least a steady rate, since inception, islam, religious cleansing and expansion has been mandated by islamic authorities, look at the population figures for pakiscam, I mean Pakistan and Bangledesh, in 1948 around 25% Hindu, now less than i%, or close enough. The case in India muslim population exploding, curious is it not? Fascism migraded to the middle east and fused with islam in a potent new cocktail. Uniting with islamic colonists, is the path of a red ideologue, as opposed to Real Progressives.
http://www.dialoguewithislam.org presents
Does God do Politics? ?
Thursday 21st May 2009 Time: 6:30pm
In a recent article former Prime Minister Tony Blair urged world
leaders to “do God”. Blair said politicians need to understand and
incorporate religion into their politics. He says “it’s a force for
good which could bring us all closer together.”
Does putting God into statecraft make politics more moral, foster peace
and above all fix our broken society? Or will it alienate non-believers
and those of different faiths?
Furthermore, how do you choose Whose God Politicians Should do?
To answer these and other burning questions we have invited a very
distinguished panel.
1) Peter Hitchens (Daily Mail/Christian Speaker)
2) Professor John White (Institute of Education – Faculty of Society)
3) Dr Mustaqim Bluer (Islamic Party of Britain)
Chaired by Al-Jazeera News Presenter
Join us for what promises to be a hot and lively discussion.
Venue:
Ebrahim (Islamic) Community College
80 Greenfield Road, (rear of East London Mosque)
London E1 1EJ
Time: 6.30 PM
For further information and reservation-
Email: dialogue_with_islam@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.dialoguewithislam.org
Admission Tickets:
=C
23.00 at the door or £2.00 on advanced reservation.
Nearest Station: Aldgate East and Whitechapel
Celtlord or whoever you are – your grasp on facts is suspect to say the least.
Minorities in the Islamic world have enjoyed greater freedom than in Europe. At one time half the worlds Christians lived in the Muslim world, and indeed the vast majority of non-white Muslims. Not so long ago the Jews were persecuted to near extinction in Europe.
Child marriage is still practised in parts of Europe.
Get a grasp on social realities. In Holland the legal age of sex is extremely low so your own brethren are bringing down the consentual age for sex.
In biblical terms girls married at puberty.
We can carry on but your bile isn’t worth giving any attention to.
Sorry that was meant to say that the majority of non-white Christians lived in the Muslim world and freely practised their religion unlike Europe where they were readily presecuted until not so long ago.
Right wing europeans seem to think they brought religious freedom to the world whereas in reality its another things that came from the ethnics and the east.
Concerning my grasp, sahib Khan, of the Facts I have a number of non-muslim, that is Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zorastrian, Sikh, Bi’hai, and of course Hebrew, minorities in islamically dominated countries, that would beg to differ with the religiously harmonious islam-ridden utopian fantasyland. You dream about when you think about periods of islamic tolerance. Lets start with the slaughter of 1.5 million christains by muslim turks and kurds, in 1915. The ongoing harassment closing in on persecution of Coptic christains happening in Eygpt. I have no difficulty at all, finding genocidal propaganda from islamic sources, calling for the extermination of the jews, finishing off hitler’s job, again calling for the torture and murder of homo’s, Europeans went after the jews time and again, we figured out it was a shit idea. Imran… you have any little girls in your family, cousins, a kid sister? Now, Imagine a old man of mid-late 50’s trying to have sex with her, remember this is the “perfect Man” Islam can almost be summed up in the moral decision, you make here… Is it disgusting, or acceptable, because he claims he is a prophet of God
Celtlord – You are full of shit. The fact is that during all periods the worst genocidal maniacs came from Europe. As recently as the last century the Celts and their brethren killed millions of people and came up with methods to make extremination as efficient as a factory process. This is the culture you hold high.
Your fantasy is exposed in places in Germany, Yogoslavia, Serbia. Its your celtic brethren that are on trial for genocide in the Hague.
Hitler was also not Muslim you fool he was white and European.
As regards child brides well son its a practise that still goes on even in Europe and it was part and parcel of the bible. So making out its just a Muslim thing is bullshit.
All though it wasn’t answered by the editors this article is by a member of QF and it says so on their website.
thabet @ 19,
Oh, I don’t know. I am worried about the resurgence of religious pro authority arguements in the UK, and elsewhere, the US has it worse than we do.
I think, and you can correct me if I wrong, that this society has had to go through enormous upheavals to get to it’s current understanding about ‘church’ and ’state’. I tend to go off on one when that balance, i.e pro any religion rather than towards a secular society is disturbed. It tends to drive me nuts.
And I don’t actually care what religious group it comes from.
I happen to think that Islamic banking makes sense, but let’s have that argued on it’s, secular merits, rather than being a gift from God. You can, perhaps, see the point I was trying to make?
imran Khan, I’m lying., pogue ma hone, that
’s kiss me ass, your shallow attempts to defend islam’s elevation of what gets you arrested for pedophilia, and the ungreased end of a broomstick up the ass with a friendly knifing in jail in many Western countries. It’s our culture, can’t help it. Islam’s elevation of what in Western terms is a babyrapist. If I have to explain the removal from collective society of those who harm children. Our Cultural gulf is too vast, sorrowfully beyond redemtion. You can prattle on about the guilts we can hang on peoples from history, but to seek reparations from itailians for atrocities committed by Romans, seems to me like many of your hysterical accusations against my ancestors. When these, relevance, I question, accusations are held to a historical record, I mean the One drawn from multiple sources, the best approximation of what really happened, Comparatively, oh say From the same historic pool, say … to islamic history, Do you want to compare body for body, rape for rape, theft for theivery, I don’t have time. We just happened to be very good at it, comparatively, Between Western Civilization and Islamic culture though comparison can easily be done. The rape of Holy Mother India continues to this day, two limbs torn from Her body. Weeping alone cannot express the sorrow of this Horror. The peaceful bhuddist civilization north western greater India obliterated by islam, like the taliban blowing up those artifacts, Bamiyan Buddhas. Sons of syphilitic monkeys, everyone belongs in a fiery pit. Don’t even get me started ’bout Egyptian Copts, or the smattering of Chaldeans left in Iraq. Islam’s history is every bit as imperial, grotesque, blood soaked as Western history, with resounding differences, of course, Christianity put it’s sword away, islam has seized the ak47 profile as an emblem a’la… the insignia of a number of islamic terrorist organizations, hezboula, hezzbowler, himblower, however, you spell it, or the muslimbrotherhood, I mean hamas, oh what the hamas = him likes it in the ass, and the big bad Europeans left their evil empires, Englishmen no longer rule in Canada, nor in India, or Kenya. And they gave the world so much, in fact the only reason, Imran Khan you don’t live in a mad (no afford dung) hut might be attributable to the ideas if some of those big bad Europeans, ideas like labour rights, equality, democracy, universal education, secularism, universal medicare, however the haphazard, and faulting, the peoples of the West maybe in the application of these principles, we are alas only human, A look about the planet reveals the nicest places to call home are in countries, oft referred to as Western.
Ya know what? You, rogan josh slurpen’ little shit, I bet your hanging with your mates, and the subject of some kiddiddler moving into your neighborhood comes up, you, rightly want to get ‘im, no bloody way, right. Gets your blood up? No, if you were born without a pair, if not some of your brothers cousins friends would deal with this problem. But islam has so warped your mind that the same action by mohammed doesn’t raise questions in your mind. See there might be europeans performing all sorts of crap,often they end up in jail, but it isn’t sanctified by religion, as islam does in following moehmmed’s shinning example.
Care which religion, a grab for power comes from to not acknowledge their distinctive natures is folly and arrogant, In islamic law, at least the five major schools of islamic law, we see slavery resurrected and institutionalized following again Moehammed’s perfect path. Sharia, wouldn’t want to be ya… especially if your a woman, welcome to the wonderful world of being property. As well, don’t do anything or have the neighbors say you might have been seen by some other bugger, who heard you did something that makes the family look bad to the rest of the community, dishonored girl is dead girl. Raped girl gets you lashes and jailtime.. in the land of Saudi and that of Pak. Huhood laws are a crime. I am done, my dear son, Go gettchya’gun, If you don’t like the West you should leave before, the loonys begin their Fun. notes out of, in a mad world, the sanity assylum
Is Celtlord insane??
Celtlord, go over to Harry’s place will ya. You’ll find people like yourself over there.
You might even find people who’ll convince you that Muslims were responsible were the holocaust! Ooohh, I’m sure you’ll like that. Now run along, be a nice little boy and don’t bother returning here.
Salaam
Muslim children have been attending state schools for tha last 60 years. They have been suffering from Paki-bashing and bullying. Majority of them have been leaving schools with low grades. They have been leaving schools without learning their cultural and linguistic skiils. The result is that they do not know where they belong. They suffer from Identity crises. Now Muslim youths are victim of terrorism. Thousands of them are being searched in streets and hundreds of them are behind the bar without any trial.
Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
There are hundreds of state and church schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools.
Bilingual Muslim children need to learn and be well versed in standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity. At the same time, they need to learn and be well versed in Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with their cultural roots and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry.
A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. He/she does not want to become notorioulsy monolingul Brit.
Iftikhar Ahmad
London School of Islamics Trust
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
Tobias
“Celtlord, go over to Harry’s place will ya. You’ll find people like yourself over there.
You might even find people who’ll convince you that Muslims were responsible were the holocaust!”
Are you suggesting Muslims werent responsible for the holocaust? You are a anti-semite and a holocaust denier. As you know Hitler was actually a great lover of the Jewish people until the Mufti of Jerusalem came and twisted his mind.
Iftikhar Ahmed, may God bless him, fills alot of forums with his absurd proposals for teaching Urdu to Muslims in schools (isnt he aware that Urdu isnt the language of Turkish or Somali or Bengali Muslims?)
Cultural is not a static thing. It is continual changing – the culture of Muslims in the UK is largely a British one and will continue to more and more so.
“A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. He/she does not want to become notorioulsy monolingul Brit.”
Speak for yourself. This Muslim thinks everyone in this country should have English as their primary language and lack of English is holding back sections of our community. Its far better for UK Muslims to be monolingual in English than in Urdu, Bengali or Somali.
Celtlord
“Lets start with the slaughter of 1.5 million christains by muslim turks and kurds, in 1915.”
Who found refuge in Muslim Syria
By why ignore the slaugheter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims by Armenian Christians before that and indeed in our own times?
“The rape of Holy Mother India continues to this day, two limbs torn from Her body”
Ah CeltLord is a Hindufacist- sorry to hear about you losing the elctions loser
LOL
There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
Y’see, right there is where your whole argument turns to scribble.
blah… hindu fascist eh? C…E..L..T..L..O..R..D that’s Irish, Welsh, Breton, Manx, Scots, well pretty much any european stock really, moron. I love india for it’s significant contribution to Humanity. And I like f.ckin with brain damaged ‘tards. I guess you fell for it. Funny…. anyone who criticizes islamic beliefs or orthodoxy is a fascist, or what’s a another favourite, critics are insane, or oooh… you’re a racist, but only if your white. For you of pakistani descent, like two of my cousins, no Whitey ever called me goorha, or used the racist term apna in my presence. Oh, those aren’t racist terms, nether is paki, it’s just descriptive. Think on that next time your whining about some idiot calling you paki. For certain, kuffir isn’t a term of endearment. Granted it’s not a “racist” term, since it’s dehumanizing intent isn’t based on race. Minds warped by islam, some of you have bemoaned you racist treatment at the the hands of British peoples, yet your families came to Britain, for a better life than they could have in their home countries, they didn’t move to Britain because they wanted to do anyone there any favors. In return, Muslims act in a traitorous and seditious manner, and you surprised when the axe falls. It hasn’t even started, and men like me will try and shield Sikhs, Buddhist, and Hindus. We will do nothing for muslims cause the creed is itself total garbage. Some might say..You can’t hang all muslims for the actions and words of a few. What constitutes a few? Latest polls suggest 15 to 20% of the muslim population of Britain is radicalized, The same across Europe, maybe a little less, out of roughly two million people, that’s 150000 to 200000 jihadis or sympathizers, we, native Britons don’t owe these people a f.ckin’ thing. We don’t owe muslims anythin’. We don’t have to sort the good from the bad, why should we? Pakistan deported millions of afghans, the majority of whom were born to people born in refugee camps in pakistan. The same standards between peoples is a form of justice, why should the descendants of Pakistanis, expect better treatment from Britons than, Afgans receive from Pakistanis, when significant portions of the islamic population are by definition traitors, based on their scriptures, traditions and religiously supremacist ideologies. Muslim imperialism in the eyes of believing muslims is a good thing, allah’s rule supreme, moehammed as the last prophet, and all the other religious crap, I hear muslims in the UK, prattle on and on about Western imperialism. Do irony and hypocrisy enter into a muslim mind at all, You have to wonder.
blah, stop huffing glue
“Who found refuge in Muslim Syria”
What the refuge of the grave? 1.5 million dead
By why ignore the slaugheter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims by Armenian Christians before that and indeed in our own times?
evidence?
The point is my muslim brothers and sisters, as far as ancestral crimes go, you is as guilty as any especially if you’re an arab muslim, Whoa, sharia is evil incarnate, that is if you think slavery is evil, or child marriage is evil. See what in the west is just a garden variety psychopathic behavior is enshrined as God’s law in islam. Speaking as One who loves his divine Enormity, that is God, (a hanif) i am fucking offended that god is anyway tied to evil and obsenity that is islamic “justice” That’s why I wipe my ass with the koran… after a good chicken tikka. ,
I’d suggest that the site administrators remove the frank insanity of celt;lord before anyone else reads it. He, she or it is clearly insane.
OK, I do love:
Boys and girls, what do you think he could be talking about?
Do you think, perish the thought, that this is a reference to his big enormous nose?
Well, Pinnchio had one too, allegedly.
And for every lie, it grew, a bit.
Yes, that must be it.