Crime Against Humanity

[Iftikhar]

Established 1981

London School of Islamics

An Educational Trust
​

63 Margery Park Road London E7 9LD
​

Email: info@londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
​

Tel/Fax: 0208 555 2733 / 07817 112 667
​

Crime against Humanity
​

To deprive a Muslim child from his/her culture and language is a crime against Humanity. British education system is guilty of such crime for the last 50 years. The first wave of Muslims arrived with three or four languages including English but the next generation born and educated by native teachers has been subject to learn English in local accents, making them mis-fit not only for the British society at large but also for the whole world. A Muslim is the citizen of this small global village. On top of that they have been discouraged to learn Arabic and Urdu, making them cut off from their cultural roots. They are unable to enjoy the beauty of Urdu literature and poetry. They are unable to have a good communication with their parents and elders. All of them suffer from Identity Crises resulting in mental, emotional and social problems. We have lost three generations and fourth one is in the process of loosing its linguistic, Religious and cultural Identity. Respect and tolerance of different religions, cultures and languages are essential for positive community cohesion.



The solution of all those problems is state funded Muslim schools. Muslim parents should be given educational vouchers so that they could send their children to private Muslim schools. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. In my opinion all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools, under the control of Muslim Educational Trusts or Charities. Teacher is a role model. Bilingual Muslim teachers are required to teach bilingual Muslim pupils right from Nursery level.



The first wave of Muslims used English as an economic language and still it is meant for earning bread and butter and not used as a social and emotional language. English could become social and emotional language if Muslims start moving in and around pubs, night clubs and frequently changing partners. This is what the British establishment want them to do in order to become the integral part of the British society. Now Muslim Imams will need to show a basic command of spoken English before being allowed to enter the country to satisfy the spiritual needs of the Muslim community. The Imams from the sub-continent are already well versed in Urdu, Arabic, and Persian on top of their mother tongue, Punjabi, Bengali or Gujrati and other regional languages. Now they have to learn English as an extra burden. Urdu is a social and emotional language of the Muslims from the sub-continent and Arabic is their religious language. They are in a better position to serve the Muslim community in Arabic and Urdu so that they could feel at home in an alien British society.

Iftikhar Ahmad

 

[Vajradhara]

Salaam iftikhar,

thank you for the post.

To deprive a Muslim child from his/her culture and language is a crime against Humanity. British education system is guilty of such crime for the last 50 years.

hold on a sec... are you asserting that the British culture has to conform itself to the Muslim culture for a Muslim child to get an education? and if British culture does not, that it's a crime against humanity?

nobody is forcing Muslims to immigrate to England, you know.

The first wave of Muslims arrived with three or four languages including English but the next generation born and educated by native teachers has been subject to learn English in local accents, making them mis-fit not only for the British society at large but also for the whole world.

nothing like some broad, sweeping generalizations to make a point. the author of this article cannot possible know that all immigrant Muslims "the first wave" whatever that is supposed to mean, all spoke multiple langauges unless said author actually knew everyone of these individuals.

besides which, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with accents in the dialect.

A Muslim is the citizen of this small global village. On top of that they have been discouraged to learn Arabic and Urdu, making them cut off from their cultural roots.

do you mean to say that immigrants are encourage to learn the language and culture of the country to which they immigrated? that's exactly correct. if they want a culture like the one that exists in their homeland, they should take advantange of the fact that their cultural desires are already fulfilled in the land of their birth.

They are unable to enjoy the beauty of Urdu literature and poetry. They are unable to have a good communication with their parents and elders. All of them suffer from Identity Crises resulting in mental, emotional and social problems. We have lost three generations and fourth one is in the process of loosing its linguistic, Religious and cultural Identity.

why do you suppose that is? are these beings being prevented from engaging in pursuites which would fulfill these needs? i'm pretty sure that you can find Urdu poetry in England.

Respect and tolerance of different religions, cultures and languages are essential for positive community cohesion.

indeed, i heartily agree.

The solution of all those problems is state funded Muslim schools.

how's that a solution? why would a government have schools for Muslims only that are funded by the general tax paying base? that seems pretty unfair, unless you are also proposing that the state fund Buddhist schools and Baha'i schools and Jain schools et al. to which i would be supportive, i suppose.

i'm not really sure how the British tax code works in these things... i.e. is it local property tax which pays for public schooling?

Muslim parents should be given educational vouchers so that they could send their children to private Muslim schools. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. In my opinion all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools, under the control of Muslim Educational Trusts or Charities. Teacher is a role model. Bilingual Muslim teachers are required to teach bilingual Muslim pupils right from Nursery level.

is your purpose to create "enclaves" of Muslims in England that all speak Arabic or Urdu and don't want to particpate in the British society as a whole?

. English could become social and emotional language if Muslims start moving in and around pubs, night clubs and frequently changing partners. This is what the British establishment want them to do in order to become the integral part of the British society.

is there a problem with blending into the society into which one has immigrated?

Now Muslim Imams will need to show a basic command of spoken English before being allowed to enter the country to satisfy the spiritual needs of the Muslim community.

sounds like a good idea. it would be quite difficult to be a productive member of the society without being able to communicate with said society.

The Imams from the sub-continent are already well versed in Urdu, Arabic, and Persian on top of their mother tongue, Punjabi, Bengali or Gujrati and other regional languages. Now they have to learn English as an extra burden.

only if they want to go to England. if you want to go to Holland, you've got to learn Dutch and spend about 350 hours learning about Dutch culture and then you have to pass a test. of course, if you don't want to go to these places, there is no need to learn these things.

Urdu is a social and emotional language of the Muslims from the sub-continent and Arabic is their religious language. They are in a better position to serve the Muslim community in Arabic and Urdu so that they could feel at home in an alien British society.

i suppose that i have a different view regarding immigration. it is my view that, as an immigrant, we should try to assimilate within the culture of the land we are adopting as our new home. this leads to better employment opportunities for us and allows our children to fully participate in the society.

i understand that it works differently in Britian than it does in America.. however, i wouldn't want private schools where only Buddhists are taught in Pali and Sanskrit.

 

[alexa]

There is an old proverb : "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". If someone do not agree with the customs in another country, that person should stay in his own country.

English a burdun ? No way. For someone who can speak English, the doors are large open into a lot of countries. It's an international language. I cannot say the same think for Arabic and Urdu.

 

[Iftikhar]

Salaam

There are over 100 Muslim schools and five are state funded. The medium of instruction is English and follow the National Curriculum. They teach Arabic as a religious language and Urdu as a social and emotional language so that the children could keep in touch with their cultural roots.

 

[iBrian]

Salaam

There are over 100 Muslim schools and five are state funded. The medium of instruction is English and follow the National Curriculum. They teach Arabic as a religious language and Urdu as a social and emotional language so that the children could keep in touch with their cultural roots.

I fail to see that as a problem??

Surely you are not arguing that the British education establishment should be an authoritative voice on what Islam is and is not - a sort of educational Caliph??

By the way - a polite request to not post your press releases here, as CR is simply not the place for it. For distributing press releases, try somewhere like www.prweb.com

 

[lunamoth]

Didn't we see this same OP not too long ago?

 

[Faithfulservant]

yeah I remember it too and Ive only been a member since December

 

[Kaldayen]

I have trouble understanding where's the "crime against humanity" in your post...

If I may take a case that happened last month in Quebec (Canada), our government tried to fund Jewish private schools (as a result of jewish groups funding his party). When they did announce it in the medias, a people uproar rose. We're a kinda "left-wing" society, very respectful of the different cultures. But we also believe in equality. The governement doesn't totally fund our own private schools, why should he fund any other's? He had to step back and cancel his project.

As Vajradhara said, "nobody is forcing Muslims to immigrate to England, you know" Same thing apply everywhere.

When someone chose to live in a ghetto in another country, that doesn't help the cultural exchanges. Learning the local culture isn't a "crime against humanity". Although I agree it might be sad, If someone choose not to learn his parents' mother tongue, that's his own choice.
___
Kal

 

[mirrorinthefog]

I'm seeing several assumptions in this post, the primary ones being:

1. All Muslims are immigrants from other countries.
Though most might be, this is unfair to Westerners who choose to practice Islam, or might have come from Muslim families who are native to Western countries and not of Middle Eastern or Asian extraction. What good is teaching an born and raised American Muslim Urdu?

2. Cultural exchange should be limited to commerce, and the state should make sure that minorities have their own space and are isolated from the mainstream.
This is a "seperate but equal" ideology that has nothing to do with religion. It is a political stance against the society one lives in and benefits from, but to which said group is essentially unfriendly, to say the least. The post implies racial, ethnic as well as social divides that are beyond any faith, and were put there for the convenience of a few.

Please let us stop using faith for our own socio political irritations.

 

[bananabrain]

i personally think there are two considerations. one is whether the state should fund faith-based schools, which i am kind of reluctant to give up, at least unless the state stops funding christian schools as well. however, it is not reasonable to expect jewish and christian schools to be funded and islamic or sikh - or even secular humanist schools not to be. parents have a right to choose an ethos, but the extent of that ethos should be controlled by the state; for example, the state must be able to impose the national curriculum to ensure that, say, religious schools teach biology and literature. if the school wanted to teach "ethos" subjects like religious law or a community language i don't see why this couldn't be done in "extra" lessons after regular school. the trouble is that religious schools get better results and have better discipline and that's why parents like them.

actually, i think i would tend to come down on the side of the state handling public education and religious and community education being handled by the community. this means "sunday school" - the quality of religious and cultural education (and we need to distinguish the two) would then be a matter for the community involved. for example, if my parents are unable to teach me urdu (or indeed judeo-arabic) in the home this should be the responsibility of the community - i find it difficult to argue it should be the duty of the state. i also find it impossible to categorise the lack of *publicly funded* community education as a "crime against humanity". if we want to preserve the particularity of our community - and this we *do* have a right to - then it is our *responsibility* to ensure that we as a community make provision for that. the born-and-raised american muslim may not need urdu to access his *religious* roots (this can be done with arabic alone) but he may need it to have access to his *cultural* roots in pakistan. like i say, it is a real shame if he loses this, but it is unreasonable to expect the state to take more responsibility for this than the community itself. sometimes communities screw up and this is a shame - for this reason i was never taught judeo-spanish or judeo-arabic - but i could hardly complain that the UK ought to have paid for me to do so.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Kaspar]

Personally I do not think that privately run schools whether the're religious schools or boarding schools are better than state schools.

the trouble is that religious schools get better results and have better discipline and that's why parents like them.

They may have better academic results and be higher on league tables but that doesn't measure how the kids have managed to deal with other problems. For example learn to tolerate people from different cultures and people who don't want to learn. If tony blair and the government went to state schools do you think they would be more intouch with the public or less?

You can't learn how to tolerate other cultures, how to show empathy for people who don't like you or how to accept that some people are much richer or much poorer than you by reading text books! The only way is through direct experience.

respect

P.S One thing I'd like to say about our Government is that it doesn't know how to love only hate. When have we seen it go deeper than recent shenanigans and celebrate with other countries? All i hear is -Iran has nuclear bombs, syria are terrorists, Israel is treating palestinians badly, palestinians are terrorists, Zimbabwae is lead by a evil dictator etc etc etc

When do we ever hear Tony Blair say; For example say "Now, I know there have been some bad things going on but wow look at Norway isn't so great organising talks between the Sri lankan government and the Rebel Tamil Tigers or I'd like to thank Canada for organising the first round of talks on global warming"
The only time they make something look good is when it helps them win the next election.
Politians seem to be full of superstitian and back stabbing. They would say we can't have a celebration of the good things in our world because the security risk is too dangerous.
If any one is feeling my words big yourseves up.

 

[bananabrain]

Personally I do not think that privately run schools whether the're religious schools or boarding schools are better than state schools.

you obviously live in a part of london where the state schools are not a joke. i'd love it if state schools were better - i'm not thrilled at the prospect of paying twice, once in taxes and once privately, because the state provision is so rubbish.

They may have better academic results and be higher on league tables

that's clearly not the only reason they're popular. they were popular before there was the current obsession with league tables. and part of getting better academic results is about getting into a decent university, or at least it used to be before a shed in the middle of a rubbish dump could get university status and be accredited for a BA(Hons) in Reality TV Studies.

but that doesn't measure how the kids have managed to deal with other problems. For example learn to tolerate people from different cultures and people who don't want to learn.

i heartily agree with you about kids being taught civics, citizenship and dialogue skills (assuming they're not getting this at home) but why on earth should an educational institution be handicapped by having to give equal consideration to people who "don't want to learn"? does a GP have to give equal consideration to a person who can't be bothered to show up to an appointment? this sounds like a load of PC bollocks, if you don't mind me saying.

If tony blair and the government went to state schools do you think they would be more intouch with the public or less?

i'm sorry, but this is pure class-war rubbish. by no means all the government went to private schools, although the likes of diane abbott seem anxious to preserve double standards.

You can't learn how to tolerate other cultures, how to show empathy for people who don't like you or how to accept that some people are much richer or much poorer than you by reading text books! The only way is through direct experience.

i don't disagree with you at all - but there are other ways of doing this than by compulsory state education alone. and, frankly, the labour party seem to be just as crap at tolerating "other cultures" as the people you seem to dislike - they have their own hate figures like fox hunters, george bush and "fat-cat" businesspeople.

One thing I'd like to say about our Government is that it doesn't know how to love only hate. When have we seen it go deeper than recent shenanigans and celebrate with other countries?

unfortunately, the electorate in this country - left or right - is only interested in bashing johnny foreigner. and this government is nothing if not alert to what is popular. that's why they are flirting with trying to suck up to the muslim vote by almost-completely-deniable posturing on positions which are sure to upset the jewish community. look at what that disgusting union-sucking terrorist-hugging, yank-bashing, repulsive little populist livingstone is currently up to - there's more votes in appearing to "stand up to the zionist lobby" than there are in treating the jewish community with respect.

All i hear is - Iran has nuclear bombs, syria are terrorists, Israel is treating palestinians badly, palestinians are terrorists, Zimbabwe is lead by a evil dictator etc etc etc

well, iran is certainly after the bomb - it's not like they're so short of oil or gas that they actually need nuclear power. the syrians clearly do support terrorism and through their direct support for organisations like hamas and hezbollah they are preventing the palestinians and israelis (not to mention the lebanese) coming to a reasonable compromise. i don't hear the government calling the palestinians terrorists - partly because that stereotype is clearly not as popular as it used to be (mostly because the palestinians are fed up and are actually trying to fix stuff) and mugabe is a crazy, syphilitic power junkie. if you want "nice" news read hello magazine. personally, i'd prefer to know what's going on.

Politicians seem to be full of superstition and back stabbing. They would say we can't have a celebration of the good things in our world because the security risk is too dangerous.

well, perhaps you are not, like me, on the front line of the very real security threat to this country. it is my community and my part of london that is the biggest, fattest target for a dirty bomb. it is people who are visibly jewish who are being knifed and beaten up on the street. it is synagogues and jewish cemeteries that are being desecrated. it is my community that has to have security guards to prevent people bursting into religious services and stabbing or blowing us up. i appreciate all this may seem like paranoia to your average brit, but you just don't understand how committed these people are to having me and my family and friends killed. until you've been on the receiving end of this vicious, murderous hate, it's not really possible to understand the nature of the threat. we don't feel safe in our own country any more.

the actions of the government and people like our so-called "mayor", to say nothing of extremists, have set interfaith relations in this country back by 10 years by playing the communities off against each other with fear and suspicion. every synagogue should be twinned with a mosque and a church and joint activities organised. ditto with faith schools. it's not hard. we need to know each other in order to consider each other human. what people seem to fail to understand is that if we fail to speak up for each other, we all end up getting it in the neck. look at france - they didn't just ban the hijab, but the skullcap and the turban. how is that really going to help? in the end, the religious communities in this country MUST pull together instead of fighting with each other. that is our only hope for the future.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Kaspar]

interesting reply bananabrain

As a matter of fact I do live in a part of london where state schools are a joke Hackney. There are two mixed state secondary schools in Hackney Stoke Newington (My school) and one thats just been opended. This in no way schools all the people of my age bracket in hackney. In fact half of children aged 11-18 in Hackney go to schools outside the borough. I think this reflects badly on the council but thats a different story.

What I was saying about "learning to tolerate people who don't want to learn" isn't clear. What i meant isn't tolerate thats its ok to not work but simply to accept the fact that not everyone has supportive parents who are prepared to work their children through school to get A's. Or who have money and time to by revision packs and tell off the teachers when they don't expect the best out of their students. Some people don't realise what a vast majority of the population are like!

I suppose you could say its class war rubbish but apart from people in the government if you actually had a close look at the way our society is run and who has the power you will find it doesn't lie in the people who go to the NHS or send their children to state schools.

...And my last point about our hating government, When you say

...and mugabe is a crazy, syphilitic power junkie. if you want "nice" news read hello magazine. personally, i'd prefer to know what's going on.

It is exactly my point. Our world is a mess and people are in my conflicts but I say you cannot fight for peace. They are opposites. I would argue that To be good at something you have to practise at it for a long time and if you want to make our world better you have to practise it. All Tony Blair is doing by pointing out negative aspects of countries and making stand offs etc is practising how to fight. We will never find peace by fighting. If we want the syrians to stop practising terrorism we have to show them that hatred is not the way. If we want Iran to love the Global market and accept capitalism then we have to start to share an interest in its perspective of society. We can't FORCE democracy on Iraq beacuse Force isn't democracy.

I'm not sure how my replies influence our disscusion but I think the first ones do relate to whether muslim only schools should be state funded.

in understanding

 

[bananabrain]

As a matter of fact I do live in a part of london where state schools are a joke Hackney......In fact half of children aged 11-18 in Hackney go to schools outside the borough. I think this reflects badly on the council but that's a different story.

that's exactly my point, it's *not*. hackney has been run into the ground, educationally speaking, by a majority labour council who say all the right things but seem completely incapable of grasping the nettle of education. you would think that having so many ethnic minorities would make it easier for them to gain consensus for imposing a common denominator, but no. in islington all the people with money send their kids out of the borough or drive up the prices of the housing stock in desirable catchment areas, whilst they spend their money on the proverbial "lesbian street theatre" (not that i have anything against lesbian street theatre, you understand, i just think it ought to pay for itself). in both boroughs, there are "loony left" councils - you get the picture.

simply to accept the fact that not everyone has supportive parents who are prepared to work their children through school to get A's. Or who have money and time to by revision packs and tell off the teachers when they don't expect the best out of their students.

and do *what* about it? banning supportive parents from helping their own kids is exactly the sort of thing that doesn't work. it is the parents' responsibility to do something about it if they want their kids to have better lives than them. actually, if you really want to be able to help less well-off kids to go to decent schools, you should bring back assisted places; i wouldn't have been able to afford my schooling otherwise, but no, that's not PC.

Some people don't realise what a vast majority of the population are like!

others *do*, but don't see why they should be held down to that standard and prevented from supplementing it.

if you actually had a close look at the way our society is run and who has the power you will find it doesn't lie in the people who go to the NHS or send their children to state schools.

which is why i question why everyone insists on both to such a ridiculous extent.

All Tony Blair is doing by pointing out negative aspects of countries and making stand offs etc is practising how to fight. We will never find peace by fighting. If we want the syrians to stop practising terrorism we have to show them that hatred is not the way. If we want Iran to love the Global market and accept capitalism then we have to start to share an interest in its perspective of society. We can't FORCE democracy on Iraq beacuse Force isn't democracy.

sheesh, kaspar, have you any idea of the sort of opinions they hold in syria and iran? these guys will quite happily talk the talk and say how much they want peace whilst speeding up their nuclear programs behind the scenes, just to gain time. they're not going to fall for any decadent western "peace and love" routine, because they hate everything the west stands for. i agree that people with something to lose are easier to deal with but by no stretch of the imagination could you argue that the syrians and iranians are without natural resources, intelligence or skills, let alone cunning. during the cold war, it became obvious that the recipients of strategic assistance were quite capable of saying whatever would get them aid and weapons - "oh yeah, sure we're socialist, committed to world revolution, hur hur hur" or "oh, yeah, we hate communists, hurrah for capitalism, freedom and democracy, hur hur hur" whilst pursuing their own agendas. it is completely naive to be all carrot and no stick as the EU seems to want.

b'shalom

bananabrain