New minority faces in the upcoming election


by Sunny
20th January, 2010 at 4:00 pm    

Got this press release yesterday:

Conservative Party members in Leigh have selected Shazia Awan as the Conservative party candidate to fight the Leigh constituency at the General Election.

Shazia an experienced campaigner and well respected entrepreneur will stand at the next general election against sitting Labour MP and Cabinet Minister Andy Burnham. The election must take place by 3rd June 2010.

Congrats to Shazia – she’s written for PP before and is a strong entrepreneur.

Over at the Operation Black Vote blog, Lester Holloway points out:

So far, Labour has selected a total of 30 candidates from African, Asian and other visible minority ethnic backgrounds. If Gordon Brown has a good election – denying David Cameron an overall majority – Labour could end up with as many as 21 BME MPs.

He has a good analysis of the chances of various ethnic minority Labour candidates too.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs






16 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    Blog post:: New minority faces in the upcoming election http://bit.ly/7psprM




  1. Hussein Ameen — on 21st January, 2010 at 8:39 am  

    Muslims launch bus billboards for peace

    One of Britain’s oldest established Muslim communities has launched a national doorstep and publicity campaign on London’s buses featuring Islamic principles of peace, which is aimed at countering extremism.

    http://ekklesia.co.uk/node/11041

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sAZrW8zQcec/S1TvwBMDLBI/AAAAAAAAAMw/myTFtDZjpWU/s320/londonbus.jpg

  2. A Councillor Writes — on 21st January, 2010 at 8:50 am  

    Oh dear, I really don’t rate their psephology. Several of those candidates are going to have a much harder struggle than OBV think.

    Of course, in a couple of those seats the second placed candidate is also BME, but that’s not mentioned due to OBV’s partisan stance.

  3. MiriamBinder — on 21st January, 2010 at 10:01 am  

    The answer of course is to encourage a wider section of society to get of its backside and get involved in local politics. Care enough about their local environment and put the hours of slog in to get themselves into a position where they too might be selected as prospective candidates.

    Nary a one of the candidates has just been grabbed of a street corner merely to find a suitable ‘skin tone’ …

  4. platinum786 — on 21st January, 2010 at 10:16 am  

    Ahmedi’s aren’t actually Muslim, but a good inniative by them anyway.

  5. Hussein Ameen — on 21st January, 2010 at 5:46 pm  

    “Ahmedi’s aren’t actually Muslim”

    What is the reason they are not Muslim?

  6. Senior — on 22nd January, 2010 at 12:27 am  

    This discrimination is wrong. The information here suggests these people are candidates because they are “black minority ethnic”. I’ve never heard anybody describe themselves that way.

    People should be selected on merit. It is just as wrong to discriminate in favour of people as it is to discriminate against people.

    I dream of a day when the categorisation of people into different ethnic groups and other groups ends.

    NO MORE DISCRIMINATION!

  7. Martin Sullivan — on 22nd January, 2010 at 6:34 am  

    “They are not REALLY Muslims”

    It was the unscupulous Z. A. Bhutto – desperate for a little temporary Islamist support – who made Ahmedis even more like pariahs than they were before.

    His daughter was keen on settling the poor Biharis stuck in Bangladesh into Pakistani society until she came to power and was told firmly that such a settlement would lead to hideous communal disharmony and widespread bloodshed.

    The odd thing was that no bright spark had the idea of directing those Biharis towards the EU and the Anglospere as pitiable refugees, like the Nepali-speakers expelled from Bhutan and now arriving in the USA, or the Somali Bantu [ie the descendents of Banti slaves of the Somalis.]

  8. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2010 at 7:30 am  

    Martin Sullivan,

    What is your point? That the West should, or shouldn’t, be sympathetic to these people.

    I have no idea from reading your comment….

  9. platinum786 — on 22nd January, 2010 at 10:15 am  

    Look, it is quite simple. The Ahmedi reject some fundemental principles of Islam, such as the finality of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and the finality of the Quran, the holy book of Islam. It’s like a Jews who’d accept another Moses, or Christians who’d accept a second Christ (not the second coming, a second prophet). Or Sikhs who’d accept another dozen Guru’s… not going to happen. If the followers of any of these religions started adding chapters to their holy books, would they be considered true followers?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya#Distinct_Ahmadiyya_beliefs

    You can argue as much as you like in their favour, it’s a favour leftie topic, but the fact of the matter is they rejected islam and the Islamic community has rejected them as one of their own. Their sect, is a deviation of Islam.

    Having said all this, good luck to them.

  10. Rumbold — on 22nd January, 2010 at 10:33 am  

    Platinum786:

    Leaving aside the scriptual debate for a minute (which is ambigous), why do you feel it is your place to define who is and isn’t a Muslim? Aren’t you taking over a role tht is reserved for Allah?

    If people don’t feel Ahmadis are Muslims, fine. But the problem is that it leads to persecution.

  11. platinum786 — on 22nd January, 2010 at 2:19 pm  

    I didn’t define it, a concensus of religious scholars across the Muslim world have done so.

    I also don’t think there is too much abiguiity around the scriptual debate. That is all there is to it. they reject the finality of the Prophet Muhammed pbuh and the Quran. Hence they are not Muslim. I’m sorry but I won’t be able to give you a long detailed reason as to what their religion is about and how it contradicts Islamic teachings, I know the basics only. I’m sure your as capable of finding those answers as I am.

    As for the persecution problem, agreed there should be no persecution of anyone based on religion.

  12. persephone — on 22nd January, 2010 at 2:53 pm  

    “It’s like a Jews who’d accept another Moses, or Christians who’d accept a second Christ (not the second coming, a second prophet). Or Sikhs who’d accept another dozen Guru’s… not going to happen. If the followers of any of these religions started adding chapters to their holy books”

    Transmutation – changes/additions have happened before, its how religion formed/different interpretations of the same religion evolved.

    Some of the followers you mention want to amend those aspects of scripture that are outdated or contradictory. Some followers are not bothered to make changes because they deem it more sensible to ignore those aspects. It is not becuase they believe/practise everything down to a dogmatic finality

  13. BCT — on 22nd January, 2010 at 5:30 pm  

    The shahada “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”

    No mention of final messenger there.

  14. Hussein Ameen — on 23rd January, 2010 at 1:09 am  

    platinum786 — on 22nd January, 2010 at 10:15 AM

    Look, it is quite simple. The Ahmedi reject some fundemental principles of Islam, such as the finality of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and the finality of the Quran, the holy book of Islam.

    @platinum786:

    I don’t think your point about rejection of finality of Quran is true. Can you provide some evidence (real evidence not hearsay) to this effect?

    As for finality of prophethood, the following respected and established scalars also reject the finality of prophethood, are they also not Muslim? If such respected scholars are outside the pale of Islam then who is?

    Mujaddid Alfe Saani, Hazrat Shaikh Ahmad Farooqi Sarhindi, in his Makoobat (vol. 1 Maktoob 301 pg. 432) states:

    Following the advent of the Khatmur-Rosul, Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (peace and blessings of Allah be on him), the attainment of prophethood by one of his followers, as a subordinate and in service of the Holy Prophet, will in no way offend or be in conflict with his status as Khaatamur-Rosul. No doubts need be entertained in this regard.

    Meaning of khatam as last refuted by Maulana Rumi in the context of prophet hood;

    Exert yourself in the service of faith to such an extent that you be granted prophethood within the Muslim Ummah.” (Masnawi Maulana Rum vol. 5, pg. 42)

    Al-Tirmizi (died 308 A-H.) writes:

    The notion that the term ‘Khatamun-Nabbiyeen’ signifies that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) was the last prophet is erroneous. What glory and majesty is there in being the last? What wisdom underlies this interpretation? It is an interpretation put forth by the imbeciles and the illiterates.” (Khatam- Alauliya pg. 341).

    Hazrat Shah Waliullah Dehlavi, Mujaddid (reformer) of the 12th Century says:

    The end of prophethood with the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) only means that there can now be no prophet for the people who will bring or introduce a new Shariah.” (Tafhimate- ilahiyyah vol. 2 pg. 72-73).

    Brelvi scholar Maulavi Abu Al Hasnat Abdul Haye of Farangimahal, Lucknow, expounding his view on ‘Khatame- Nabbuwat’ writes:

    The advent of a mere prophet after the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) or in his lifetime is not an impossibility. To introduce a new law is indeed not permissible.” (Dafiul-Waswas 2nd edition page 16).

    and

    Ulema Ahle-Sunnat also subscribe to the view that following the advent of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) no law-bearing prophet can come. The prophethood of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) is wide in scope. Any prophet who would now come would be from the Ummah and follow his Shariah.” (Majmuah Fatwa Maulvi Abdul Haye vol. 1 pg. 17)

    Maulana Qasim Nanutwi (founder of Darulaloom Deoband) takes khatam to mean best and categorically says no to last;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sw6Qyqjh04 [Urdu]

    Views of early scholars like Ibn-Arabi are also of not last;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V1x-6EREeA [Urdu]

    References to writings of Imam Raghib, Muhammad Qasim Nanutwi, Mawlana Rumi, Ibn Arabi, Hazrat Imam Abu Ja’far Sadiq, Hazrat Shah Wali Ullah Muhaddith of Dehli and Hazrat Maulana Faranghi Mahal are here too; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_prophets

    Even when word last is used it does not always mean last in final sense but rather in the sense “the last of its stature”. Example;

    The Apostle is the last of the prophets and his mosque is the last of the mosques.” (Muslim, kitab al-hajj, bab fadl as-salat bi masjid Makka wa al-Medina)

  15. Hussein Ameen — on 23rd January, 2010 at 1:29 am  

    platinum786 — on 22nd January, 2010 at 2:19 PM

    I didn’t define it, a concensus of religious scholars across the Muslim world have done so.

    @platinum786:

    Of course petrodollar Islam in this day and age will try to convince you of this and will marvel in the feeling that teachings and beliefs of Sufis and real heroes of Islam, who converted so many to this great religion, are scratched from people’s memories but to a knowledgeable person what kind of a real Islamic consensus is it that takes out from the pale of Islam the likes of Mujaddid Alfe Saani, Maulana Rumi, Hazrat Shah Waliullah, Maulavi Abdul Haye of Farangimahali, Maulana Qasim Nanutwi, Ibn-Arabi and the like?

    This last prophet business is only raised in this day and age to justify persecution and suppression of the new kid on the block. As BCT has pointed out there is no Last in kalima and there has never been this requirement of believe in last EVER to become or to be a considered a Muslim.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.