The Rushdie Rules Reach Florida - Daniel Pipes
Pastor Terry Jones’s plan to burn copies of the Koran at his church in Gainesville, Fla., let it be emphasized, is a distasteful act that fits an ugly tradition. That said, two other points need be noted. First, buying books and then burning them is an entirely legal act in the United States. Second, David Petraeus, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama pressured Jones to cancel only because they feared Muslim violence against Americans if he proceeded. Indeed, despite Jones’s calling off the Koran-burning, five Afghans and three Kashmiris died in protests against his plans.
That violence stems from Islamic law, sharia, which insists that Islam and the Koran in particular enjoy a privileged status. Islam ferociously punishes anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who trespasses against Islam’s sanctity. Codes in Muslim-majority states generally reflect this privilege; for example, Pakistan’s blasphemy law, called 295-C, punishes derogatory remarks about Muhammad with execution.
No less important, sharia denigrates the sanctities of other religions, a tradition manifested in recent years by the destruction of the Buddhist Bamiyan
statues
and the
desecration
of the Jewish Tomb of Joseph and the Christian
Church of the Nativity
. A 2003
decree
ruled the Bible suitable for use by Muslims when cleaning after defecation. Iranian authorities reportedly
burned
hundreds of Bibles in May. This imbalance, whereby Islam enjoys immunity and other religions are disparaged, has long prevailed in Muslim-majority countries.
Then, in 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini abruptly extended this double standard to the West when he decreed that British novelist Salman Rushdie be executed on account of the blasphemies in his book The Satanic Verses. With this, Khomeini established the Rushdie Rules, which still remain in place. They hold that whoever opposes “Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran” may be put to death; that anyone connected to the blasphemer must also be executed; and that all Muslims should participate in an informal intelligence network to carry out this threat.
Self-evidently, these rules contradict a fundamental premise of Western life, freedom of speech. As summed up by the dictum, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” that freedom assures protection for the right to make mistakes, to insult, to be disagreeable, and to blaspheme.
If the Rushdie Rules initially shocked the West, they since have become the new norm. When Islam is the subject, freedom of speech is but a pre-1989 memory. Writers, artists, and editors readily acknowledge that criticizing Islam can endanger their lives.
Western leaders occasionally stand with those who insult Islam. British prime minister Margaret Thatcher resisted pressure from Tehran in 1989 and stated that “there are no grounds on which the government could consider banning” The Satanic Verses. Other governments reinforced this stalwart position; for example, the U.S. Senate unanimously resolved “to protect the right of any person to write, publish, sell, buy and read books without fear of violence.”
Likewise, Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen stood strong in 2006 when disrespectful cartoons of Muhammad in a Copenhagen newspaper led to storms of protest: “This is a matter of principle,” he stated. “As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press — nor do I want such a power.”
Both of those incidents led to costly boycotts and violence, yet principle trumped expedience. Other Western leaders have faltered in defense of free expression. The governments of Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Great Britain, Israel, and the Netherlands have all attempted to jail or succeeded in jailing Rushdie Rule offenders.
The Obama administration has now joined this ignominious list. Its pressure on Jones further eroded freedom of speech about Islam and implicitly established Islam’s privileged status, whereby Muslims may insult others but not be insulted, in the United States, This moved the country toward dhimmitude, a condition whereby non-Muslims acknowledge the superiority of Islam. Finally, Obama in effect enforced Islamic law, a precedent that could lead to other forms of compulsory sharia compliance.
Obama should have followed Rasmussen’s lead and asserted the principle of free speech. His failure to do so means Americans must recognize and resist further U.S. governmental application of the Rushdie Rules or other aspects of sharia.
— Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
Pastor Terry Jones’s plan to burn copies of the Koran at his church in Gainesville, Fla., let it be emphasized, is a distasteful act that fits an ugly tradition. That said, two other points need be noted. First, buying books and then burning them is an entirely legal act in the United States. Second, David Petraeus, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama pressured Jones to cancel only because they feared Muslim violence against Americans if he proceeded. Indeed, despite Jones’s calling off the Koran-burning, five Afghans and three Kashmiris died in protests against his plans.
That violence stems from Islamic law, sharia, which insists that Islam and the Koran in particular enjoy a privileged status. Islam ferociously punishes anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who trespasses against Islam’s sanctity. Codes in Muslim-majority states generally reflect this privilege; for example, Pakistan’s blasphemy law, called 295-C, punishes derogatory remarks about Muhammad with execution.
No less important, sharia denigrates the sanctities of other religions, a tradition manifested in recent years by the destruction of the Buddhist Bamiyan
statues
and the
desecration
of the Jewish Tomb of Joseph and the Christian
Church of the Nativity
. A 2003
decree
ruled the Bible suitable for use by Muslims when cleaning after defecation. Iranian authorities reportedly
burned
hundreds of Bibles in May. This imbalance, whereby Islam enjoys immunity and other religions are disparaged, has long prevailed in Muslim-majority countries.
Then, in 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini abruptly extended this double standard to the West when he decreed that British novelist Salman Rushdie be executed on account of the blasphemies in his book The Satanic Verses. With this, Khomeini established the Rushdie Rules, which still remain in place. They hold that whoever opposes “Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran” may be put to death; that anyone connected to the blasphemer must also be executed; and that all Muslims should participate in an informal intelligence network to carry out this threat.
Self-evidently, these rules contradict a fundamental premise of Western life, freedom of speech. As summed up by the dictum, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” that freedom assures protection for the right to make mistakes, to insult, to be disagreeable, and to blaspheme.
If the Rushdie Rules initially shocked the West, they since have become the new norm. When Islam is the subject, freedom of speech is but a pre-1989 memory. Writers, artists, and editors readily acknowledge that criticizing Islam can endanger their lives.
Western leaders occasionally stand with those who insult Islam. British prime minister Margaret Thatcher resisted pressure from Tehran in 1989 and stated that “there are no grounds on which the government could consider banning” The Satanic Verses. Other governments reinforced this stalwart position; for example, the U.S. Senate unanimously resolved “to protect the right of any person to write, publish, sell, buy and read books without fear of violence.”
Likewise, Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen stood strong in 2006 when disrespectful cartoons of Muhammad in a Copenhagen newspaper led to storms of protest: “This is a matter of principle,” he stated. “As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press — nor do I want such a power.”
Both of those incidents led to costly boycotts and violence, yet principle trumped expedience. Other Western leaders have faltered in defense of free expression. The governments of Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Great Britain, Israel, and the Netherlands have all attempted to jail or succeeded in jailing Rushdie Rule offenders.
The Obama administration has now joined this ignominious list. Its pressure on Jones further eroded freedom of speech about Islam and implicitly established Islam’s privileged status, whereby Muslims may insult others but not be insulted, in the United States, This moved the country toward dhimmitude, a condition whereby non-Muslims acknowledge the superiority of Islam. Finally, Obama in effect enforced Islamic law, a precedent that could lead to other forms of compulsory sharia compliance.
Obama should have followed Rasmussen’s lead and asserted the principle of free speech. His failure to do so means Americans must recognize and resist further U.S. governmental application of the Rushdie Rules or other aspects of sharia.
— Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
Can Muslims Be Good Americans?
Should think about this!! It's to the point.
CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS? This is certainly 'food-for-thought'.
This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to
finish. And send it on to everyone. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so
quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for
20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon
god of Arabia .
Religiously - no.. . . Because no other religion is accepted by His
Allah except Islam . (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of
Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he
turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make
friends with Christians or Jews .
Politically - no.. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America ,
the great Satan.
Domestically - no. .. . Because he is instructed to marry four Women
and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )
Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American
Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes
the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does
not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot
co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no.. . . Because when we declare 'one nation under God,'
The Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be
very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot
be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish it's still the
truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it
will be for our country and our future.
The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. ....
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. SO
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.
Should think about this!! It's to the point.
CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS? This is certainly 'food-for-thought'.
This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to
finish. And send it on to everyone. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so
quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for
20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon
god of Arabia .
Religiously - no.. . . Because no other religion is accepted by His
Allah except Islam . (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of
Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he
turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make
friends with Christians or Jews .
Politically - no.. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America ,
the great Satan.
Domestically - no. .. . Because he is instructed to marry four Women
and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )
Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American
Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes
the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does
not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot
co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no.. . . Because when we declare 'one nation under God,'
The Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be
very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot
be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish it's still the
truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it
will be for our country and our future.
The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. ....
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. SO
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.
Yep...those approximately 3 million Americans who worship as Muslims are just a few tricky and clever moves from taking over the USA from the rest of the 310 million Americans who do not worship as Muslims
If I were the batshit paranoid type, it would probably make sense to start plans for relocating somewhere outside the USA in a place where I could be free from fear of Evil Muslins.
If I were the batshit paranoid type, it would probably make sense to start plans for relocating somewhere outside the USA in a place where I could be free from fear of Evil Muslins.
hno:HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE IDIOTS
Texas School Children Tired Of Reading ‘Pro-Islamic’ Textbooks All Day Long
http://wonkette.com/423265/texas-sc...c-textbooks-all-day#more-423265#ixzz10NoMu7V5
Texas School Children Tired Of Reading ‘Pro-Islamic’ Textbooks All Day Long
Isn’t it amazing how quickly Al-Qaeda has been able to infiltrate the Texas public education system and impose its radical Islam stuff on America’s impressionable young people? Yes, it is!
Just flip through one of these so-called history books and you will soon realize that only one or two chapters are about never forgetting about 9/11. This is what academics refer to as a “Pro-Islamic bias,” which by definition means “fewer facts and figures about Jesus and his many good deeds.”
Thank goodness all the sad, self-loathing Texas PTA moms decided to do the right thing and hold Social Studies Hearings, so that the Pro-Islamic Bias in elementary school would finally be exposed.
The best part of all of this is that Texas is an enormous “textbook market,” which means publishers are actually listening to all these brain-dead dingbats. “My children need to learn more about American Exceptionalism. And also they need to know that as white people they deserve reparations, because of Slavery.”
“Oh okay. We will publish anything, for money.”
Just flip through one of these so-called history books and you will soon realize that only one or two chapters are about never forgetting about 9/11. This is what academics refer to as a “Pro-Islamic bias,” which by definition means “fewer facts and figures about Jesus and his many good deeds.”
Thank goodness all the sad, self-loathing Texas PTA moms decided to do the right thing and hold Social Studies Hearings, so that the Pro-Islamic Bias in elementary school would finally be exposed.
It appeared that Texas had finished battling over textbooks — with social conservatives winning a clear victory in May — but the Texas State Board of Education is taking up another explosive curriculum question: Are Texan youth being fed a sugar-coated version of Islam while Christianity is unfairly taken to task for its sins?
Ha ha. This reminds us of a comedy-pamphlet we accidentally read at the Values Voter Summit, which rightly pointed out that Slavery was misrepresented in textbooks because why don’t our children learn that “Algiers had held as many as 25,000 white Christians as slaves” during the 17th century? How outrageous! White Christians demand reparations! (This is compared to what, twelve million Africans enslaved in the Americas?)
The best part of all of this is that Texas is an enormous “textbook market,” which means publishers are actually listening to all these brain-dead dingbats. “My children need to learn more about American Exceptionalism. And also they need to know that as white people they deserve reparations, because of Slavery.”
“Oh okay. We will publish anything, for money.”
http://wonkette.com/423265/texas-sc...c-textbooks-all-day#more-423265#ixzz10NoMu7V5
Actually hugged two young Muslims this past week who work with the SheBar and who are getting married this coming spring.
I've no interest in going to those other countries for that purpose. I'm living a great life here in the USA - one which is 100% free of fear from Evil Muslins.
British schools where girls must wear the Islamic veil
Critics warned that the spectacle of burka-clad pupils entering and leaving the schools could damage relations between Muslim and non-Muslim communities Photo: GETTY
Islamic schools have introduced uniform policies which force girls to wear the burka or a full headscarf and veil known as the niqab.
Moderate followers of Islam said yesterday that enforcement of the veil was a "dangerous precedent" and that children attending such schools were being "brainwashed".
Related Articles
The Sunday Telegraph has established that three UK institutions have introduced a compulsory veil policy when girls are walking to or from school. They are:
Ed Husain, co-director of Quilliam, the counter-extremist think-tank, said: "It is absurd that schools are enforcing this outdated ritual – one that which sends out a damaging message that Muslims do not want to fully partake in British society.
"Although it is not the government's job to dictate how its citizens dress, it should nonetheless ensure that such schools are not bankrolled or subsidised by the British taxpayer."
He added: "The enforcing of the niqab on young girls is not a mainstream Islamic practice – either in Britain or in most Muslim-majority countries.
"It is a desert practice which belongs to another century and another world."
Dr Taj Hargey, an imam and chairman of the Muslim Educational Trust of Oxford, said: "This is very disturbing and sets a dangerous precedent.
"It means that Muslim children are being brainwashed into thinking they must segregate and separate themselves from mainstream society.
"The use of taxpayers' money for such institutions should be absolutely opposed. The wearing of the burka or niqab is a tribal custom and these garments are not even mentioned in the Koran."
Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP who has attempted to bring in a Private Members' Bill to ban wearing of the burka in public, also condemned the schools' uniform policies.
"It is very sad in 21st century Britain that three schools are effectively forcing girls as young as 11 to hide their faces," he said.
"How on earth are these young ladies going to grow up as part of a fully integrated society if they are made to regard themselves as objects at such a young age?"
Conservative councillors have accused Labour-controlled Tower Hamlets council of subsidising Madani Girls' School by selling the school its current premises for £320,000 below market value.
In late 2008 the council agreed to sell the Victorian building, previously Grenfell Primary School, to Madani's trustees for £1.33 million even though a valuation at the time said it was worth £1.65 million.
At the time there were plans to turn Madani into a state-funded Muslim school, one of only a handful in Britain.
The sale of the site was presented to councillors as the "next significant step" towards the school obtaining voluntary aided status. These plans have now stalled, according to the council.
Councillors were advised to allow the sale at a loss because the price had been agreed in 2004 when it represented a fair market value.
The deal had been delayed by four years because the school needed to raise funds, but council chiefs wanted to honour the originally-agreed figure.
However, council minutes from December 2008 show that Tim Archer, a Tory councillor, warned that "a council asset was being sold below market value and public money was being used to subsidise the purchase".
He also suggested the school was in breach of the council's inclusiveness policy.
Madani, which has 260 pupils, charges fees of £1,900 a year. Its website states: "All payments should be made in cash. We do not accept cheques."
School uniform rules listed on the website have been deleted but an earlier version, seen by this newspaper, stated: "The present uniform conforms to the Islamic Code of dressing. Outside the school, this comprises of the black Burka and Niqab."
The admission application form warns girls will be "appropriately punished" for failing to wear the correct uniform, and its website adds: "If parents are approached by the Education Department regarding their child's education, they should not disclose any information without discussing it with the committee."
Madani Girls' School, which is a listed as a private limited company and was removed from the Charity Commission's records at the end of last year, was visited by Ofsted in 2008 but the inspectorate's report makes no mention of the strict uniform code.
It rated the school's overall performance as "satisfactory" but noted that "the history curriculum is limited to Islamic history in Key Stage 3". A number of aspects of school life were praised, including pupil behaviour.
Explaining the school's ethos, Madani's website says: "If we oppose the lifestyle of the west then it does not seem sensible that the teachers and the system, which represents that lifestyle, should educate our children."
Jamea Al Kauthar is a £2,500-a-year girls' boarding school, which accommodates 400 pupils in the grounds of Lancaster's former Royal Albert Hospital.
It states on its website: "Black Jubbah [smock-like outer garment] and dopatta [shawl] is compulsory as well as purdah (veil) when leaving and returning to Jamea. Scarves are strictly not permitted."
The website also lists a wide range of banned items, including family photographs, and warns: "Students must not cut their hair, nor remove hair from between their eyebrows. Doing so will lead to suspention (sic)."
Jamea Al Kauthar was rated "outstanding" by Ofsted earlier this year.
In Leicester, Jameah Girls Academy, which charges £1,750 a year for primary-age pupils and £1,850 for secondary, states in its rules: "Uniform, as set out in the pupil/parent handbook, which comprises of headscarf and habaya for all pupils, and niqab for girls attending the secondary years, to be worn during journeys to and from The Academy."
Anastasia de Waal, deputy director of think-tank Civitas, said: "We now have a scenario where schools such as these will be able to apply to become free schools, under the Government's policy, and therefore receive state funding. We need absolute clarity on what the position is going to be on such applications."
None of the schools responded to questions posed by The Sunday Telegraph.
A spokeswoman for Tower Hamlets said of Madani: "The local authority is not currently in talks with the school to enable it to become voluntary aided but we were in talks previously.
"With regards to sale of the site, it was agreed by Cabinet in 2004 to sell the freehold of the property to the Madani Girls School for £1.33m, which represented the market value at that time.
"The sale was delayed due to the need for the school to raise funds. The school managed to secure the money in 2008 where it was agreed at a Cabinet meeting in November 2008 the sale would be honoured at the previously agreed price of £1.33 million as the proposed sale would raise capital to invest in new projects and benefit the community.
"A local authority has the discretion to sell at an 'undervalue' of up to £2,000,000."
Islamic schools have introduced uniform policies which force girls to wear the burka or a full headscarf and veil known as the niqab.
Moderate followers of Islam said yesterday that enforcement of the veil was a "dangerous precedent" and that children attending such schools were being "brainwashed".
Related Articles
- Burka ban ruled out by immigration minister
- The burka is contrary to British culture and custom
- Ban the burka, says Tory MP
- France's first 'burka rage' incident
- French MPs vote for burka ban
- Syria's full face veil ban
The Sunday Telegraph has established that three UK institutions have introduced a compulsory veil policy when girls are walking to or from school. They are:
- Madani Girls' School in east London;
- Jamea Al Kauthar in Lancaster;
- Jameah Girls' Academy in Leicester.
Ed Husain, co-director of Quilliam, the counter-extremist think-tank, said: "It is absurd that schools are enforcing this outdated ritual – one that which sends out a damaging message that Muslims do not want to fully partake in British society.
"Although it is not the government's job to dictate how its citizens dress, it should nonetheless ensure that such schools are not bankrolled or subsidised by the British taxpayer."
He added: "The enforcing of the niqab on young girls is not a mainstream Islamic practice – either in Britain or in most Muslim-majority countries.
"It is a desert practice which belongs to another century and another world."
Dr Taj Hargey, an imam and chairman of the Muslim Educational Trust of Oxford, said: "This is very disturbing and sets a dangerous precedent.
"It means that Muslim children are being brainwashed into thinking they must segregate and separate themselves from mainstream society.
"The use of taxpayers' money for such institutions should be absolutely opposed. The wearing of the burka or niqab is a tribal custom and these garments are not even mentioned in the Koran."
Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP who has attempted to bring in a Private Members' Bill to ban wearing of the burka in public, also condemned the schools' uniform policies.
"It is very sad in 21st century Britain that three schools are effectively forcing girls as young as 11 to hide their faces," he said.
"How on earth are these young ladies going to grow up as part of a fully integrated society if they are made to regard themselves as objects at such a young age?"
Conservative councillors have accused Labour-controlled Tower Hamlets council of subsidising Madani Girls' School by selling the school its current premises for £320,000 below market value.
In late 2008 the council agreed to sell the Victorian building, previously Grenfell Primary School, to Madani's trustees for £1.33 million even though a valuation at the time said it was worth £1.65 million.
At the time there were plans to turn Madani into a state-funded Muslim school, one of only a handful in Britain.
The sale of the site was presented to councillors as the "next significant step" towards the school obtaining voluntary aided status. These plans have now stalled, according to the council.
Councillors were advised to allow the sale at a loss because the price had been agreed in 2004 when it represented a fair market value.
The deal had been delayed by four years because the school needed to raise funds, but council chiefs wanted to honour the originally-agreed figure.
However, council minutes from December 2008 show that Tim Archer, a Tory councillor, warned that "a council asset was being sold below market value and public money was being used to subsidise the purchase".
He also suggested the school was in breach of the council's inclusiveness policy.
Madani, which has 260 pupils, charges fees of £1,900 a year. Its website states: "All payments should be made in cash. We do not accept cheques."
School uniform rules listed on the website have been deleted but an earlier version, seen by this newspaper, stated: "The present uniform conforms to the Islamic Code of dressing. Outside the school, this comprises of the black Burka and Niqab."
The admission application form warns girls will be "appropriately punished" for failing to wear the correct uniform, and its website adds: "If parents are approached by the Education Department regarding their child's education, they should not disclose any information without discussing it with the committee."
Madani Girls' School, which is a listed as a private limited company and was removed from the Charity Commission's records at the end of last year, was visited by Ofsted in 2008 but the inspectorate's report makes no mention of the strict uniform code.
It rated the school's overall performance as "satisfactory" but noted that "the history curriculum is limited to Islamic history in Key Stage 3". A number of aspects of school life were praised, including pupil behaviour.
Explaining the school's ethos, Madani's website says: "If we oppose the lifestyle of the west then it does not seem sensible that the teachers and the system, which represents that lifestyle, should educate our children."
Jamea Al Kauthar is a £2,500-a-year girls' boarding school, which accommodates 400 pupils in the grounds of Lancaster's former Royal Albert Hospital.
It states on its website: "Black Jubbah [smock-like outer garment] and dopatta [shawl] is compulsory as well as purdah (veil) when leaving and returning to Jamea. Scarves are strictly not permitted."
The website also lists a wide range of banned items, including family photographs, and warns: "Students must not cut their hair, nor remove hair from between their eyebrows. Doing so will lead to suspention (sic)."
Jamea Al Kauthar was rated "outstanding" by Ofsted earlier this year.
In Leicester, Jameah Girls Academy, which charges £1,750 a year for primary-age pupils and £1,850 for secondary, states in its rules: "Uniform, as set out in the pupil/parent handbook, which comprises of headscarf and habaya for all pupils, and niqab for girls attending the secondary years, to be worn during journeys to and from The Academy."
Anastasia de Waal, deputy director of think-tank Civitas, said: "We now have a scenario where schools such as these will be able to apply to become free schools, under the Government's policy, and therefore receive state funding. We need absolute clarity on what the position is going to be on such applications."
None of the schools responded to questions posed by The Sunday Telegraph.
A spokeswoman for Tower Hamlets said of Madani: "The local authority is not currently in talks with the school to enable it to become voluntary aided but we were in talks previously.
"With regards to sale of the site, it was agreed by Cabinet in 2004 to sell the freehold of the property to the Madani Girls School for £1.33m, which represented the market value at that time.
"The sale was delayed due to the need for the school to raise funds. The school managed to secure the money in 2008 where it was agreed at a Cabinet meeting in November 2008 the sale would be honoured at the previously agreed price of £1.33 million as the proposed sale would raise capital to invest in new projects and benefit the community.
"A local authority has the discretion to sell at an 'undervalue' of up to £2,000,000."
[ Friendly Islamic courts in United Arab Emirates... ]
Men ALLOWED to beat their wives and young children (as long as they don't leave any marks), rules UAE court
By Dan Newling
Last updated at 7:36 PM on 18th October 2010
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eat-wives-long-leave-marks.html#ixzz12oFeeqI1
Husbands are allowed to beat their wives and children - as long as they don’t leave any physical marks, an Islamic court in the United Arab Emirates has ruled.
The astonishing legal ruling gives all husbands and fathers in the ultra-rich Gulf state the 'right to discipline' female family members if they have first attempted reconciliation.
The judgment was made by one of the UAE’s most senior judges, Chief Justic Falah al Hajeri, who made the ruling in the case of a man fined £85 for slapping his wife and kicking his daughter.
Permission to beat: The UAE's highest judicial body has ruled a man can assault his wife and young children as long as he leaves no physical marks
The Emirati man in the case was found guilty of slapping his wife so hard he damaged her bottom lip and teeth.
He also slapped and kicked his 23-year-old daughter so that she suffered bruises on her hand and knee.
While the defendant, who has not been named, initially claimed he hit the two women only by accident, he was found guilty of assault.
However, he appealed, claiming that even if he had intended to strike his wife and daughter, under Shariah law he had the right to do so if he had first exhausted all other ways of resolving the dispute.
Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri said: 'Although the law permits the husband to use his right to discipline, he has to abide by the limits of this right.
'If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment.'
Mr al Hajeri went on to explain that one of the ways of determining whether a man had breached this limit was to look for physical traces of beating.
While the ruling was greeted with anger by many Arab world commentators, others claimed it is a ‘real-life compromise’ between the competing demands of the petro-state’s highly Westernised population and its conservative Muslim heritage.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eat-wives-long-leave-marks.html#ixzz12oFmMmxm
The astonishing legal ruling gives all husbands and fathers in the ultra-rich Gulf state the 'right to discipline' female family members if they have first attempted reconciliation.
The judgment was made by one of the UAE’s most senior judges, Chief Justic Falah al Hajeri, who made the ruling in the case of a man fined £85 for slapping his wife and kicking his daughter.
The Emirati man in the case was found guilty of slapping his wife so hard he damaged her bottom lip and teeth.
He also slapped and kicked his 23-year-old daughter so that she suffered bruises on her hand and knee.
While the defendant, who has not been named, initially claimed he hit the two women only by accident, he was found guilty of assault.
However, he appealed, claiming that even if he had intended to strike his wife and daughter, under Shariah law he had the right to do so if he had first exhausted all other ways of resolving the dispute.
Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri said: 'Although the law permits the husband to use his right to discipline, he has to abide by the limits of this right.
'If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment.'
Mr al Hajeri went on to explain that one of the ways of determining whether a man had breached this limit was to look for physical traces of beating.
While the ruling was greeted with anger by many Arab world commentators, others claimed it is a ‘real-life compromise’ between the competing demands of the petro-state’s highly Westernised population and its conservative Muslim heritage.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eat-wives-long-leave-marks.html#ixzz12oFmMmxm
Sharia court judgements are made by Islamic scholars who judge the evidence against the moral code laid down in Islamic scripture as well as against the rulings of previous Shariah courts.
Shariah courts have previously granted husbands the 'right to discipline', which can include beating.
But often they differ in the definition of beating.
Jihad Hashim Brown, the head of research at the Islamic think tank the Tabah Foundation said beating one’s wife was in conflict most Islamic texts, which encourage Muslims to treat their wives in 'love and kindness'.
He said a Quranic verse might appear to allow certain things but if the verse was not 'clear and concise', it should not enter courts of law.
However, Dr Ahmed al Kubaisi, head of Sharia Studies at Iraq’s Baghdad University, said that under Sharia law beating one’s wife was an option to prevent the breakdown of the family.
He said it should be used only as a substitute to resorting to the police.
'If a wife committed something wrong, a husband can report her to police,' Dr al Kubaisi said.
'But sometimes she does not do a serious thing or he does not want to let others know; when it is not good for the family. In this case, hitting is a better option.'
Around a million British tourists a year visit the UAE, mainly going to Dubai where the Foreign Office warns that all visitors must abide by local laws and customs.
Explore more:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eat-wives-long-leave-marks.html#ixzz12oFslFwo
Shariah courts have previously granted husbands the 'right to discipline', which can include beating.
But often they differ in the definition of beating.
Jihad Hashim Brown, the head of research at the Islamic think tank the Tabah Foundation said beating one’s wife was in conflict most Islamic texts, which encourage Muslims to treat their wives in 'love and kindness'.
He said a Quranic verse might appear to allow certain things but if the verse was not 'clear and concise', it should not enter courts of law.
However, Dr Ahmed al Kubaisi, head of Sharia Studies at Iraq’s Baghdad University, said that under Sharia law beating one’s wife was an option to prevent the breakdown of the family.
He said it should be used only as a substitute to resorting to the police.
'If a wife committed something wrong, a husband can report her to police,' Dr al Kubaisi said.
'But sometimes she does not do a serious thing or he does not want to let others know; when it is not good for the family. In this case, hitting is a better option.'
Around a million British tourists a year visit the UAE, mainly going to Dubai where the Foreign Office warns that all visitors must abide by local laws and customs.
Explore more:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eat-wives-long-leave-marks.html#ixzz12oFslFwo
The point, Barman and others with your head in the sand, isn' that most Muslims are dangerous radicals, any more than most Germans in the thirties were rabid fascist ant-semites. Hitler got barely 30% of the vote when he ran for President.
The point is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims (including those in the USA) who I grant you are peaceful, are silent about what the horrors going on around the world in the name of Islam. And this silence makes them complicit. Whenever things like happen like described in the aforementioned article, or the Ft. Hood massacre, or 9-11 for that matter, they never unconditionally condemn the perpetrators. Instead, they hem and haw about, yea, we're against violence, but you can't blame all Muslims and US policy is at fault and blah blah blah blah blah. (Of course, not a single one of them stood up and said you can't blame all Americans when some nutball pastor wanted to blame the Koran. All we heard from them and their media enablers - like Christianne Immapoorexcuseforanewsperson - was how Islamophobic America was.)
Unless and until so-called "moderates" stand up to the radicals UNCONDITIONALLY, they must be treated with suspicion and disdain.
The point is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims (including those in the USA) who I grant you are peaceful, are silent about what the horrors going on around the world in the name of Islam. And this silence makes them complicit. Whenever things like happen like described in the aforementioned article, or the Ft. Hood massacre, or 9-11 for that matter, they never unconditionally condemn the perpetrators. Instead, they hem and haw about, yea, we're against violence, but you can't blame all Muslims and US policy is at fault and blah blah blah blah blah. (Of course, not a single one of them stood up and said you can't blame all Americans when some nutball pastor wanted to blame the Koran. All we heard from them and their media enablers - like Christianne Immapoorexcuseforanewsperson - was how Islamophobic America was.)
Unless and until so-called "moderates" stand up to the radicals UNCONDITIONALLY, they must be treated with suspicion and disdain.
Cafe owner ordered to remove extractor fan because neighbour claimed 'smell of frying bacon offends Muslims'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:53 PM on 21st October 2010
A hard-working cafe owner has been ordered to tear down an extractor fan - because the smell of her frying bacon 'offends' Muslims.
Planning bosses acted against Beverley Akciecek, 49, after being told her next-door neighbour's Muslim friends had felt 'physically sick' due to the 'foul odour'.
Councillors at Stockport Council in Greater Manchester say the smell from the fan is 'unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity'.
The fan has been in Beverley's Snack Shack takeaway in the Shaw Heath area of the town for the past three years.
Mrs Akciecek and her husband Cetin, 50, - himself a Turkish Muslim - work more than 50 hours a week buying, preparing and cooking hot and cold sandwiches and hot-pots for their customers.
Today mother-of-seven Mrs Akciecek said she plans to appeal against the decision.
She said: 'I just think it's crazy. Cetin's friends actually visit the shop, they're regular visitors, they're Muslim people, they come in a couple of times a week.
'I have Muslim people come in for cheese toasties. Cetin cooks the food himself, he cooks the bacon.
'When we go to a cafe my husband wouldn't be offended by the smell of bacon. His friends are not offended by it, we have three visitors who come here for a sandwich, friends of my husband, and the smell doesn't offend them at all.
'My brother-in-law doesn't flinch if he comes and we've just taken out three trays of bacon.
'I'm going to find a local councillor. I'm waiting for the letter so I can appeal.'
The couple took over the take-away in 2007 from the previous owner and replaced the existing extractor fan, which had been there for six years, with a new modern one.
They claim they received no complaints about the cafe which is open from 7.30am-2.30pm six days a week, until around 18 months ago when they received a letter from environmental services to say their neighbour Graham Webb-Lee had complained about the smell.
Mrs Akciecek said: 'We've never had a problem about the smell because everything is pre-cooked. We cook it in the oven so there's no foul smell.
'It's pre-cooked so the smell isn't as strong when we're frying it off. It's like living next to someone who's cooking a Sunday breakfast but it's not constant it's just in the morning.
'It's been a sandwich shop for about eight years, cooking exactly the same stuff. The lady before me did double because they were actually building new houses across the road so she was really busy. She was here from 6am-4pm because they were so busy.
'They were there before me but they were also there when the lady who owns the business was here and she was doing double what we are. She had five staff, you can imagine how bust that shop was and they never complained at all.'
They say that the council's environmental services had been out to inspect their property after their neighbour complained about a foul odour last year, but they ruled that the smell was not causing a problem.
Mrs Akciecek said: 'Environmental services said everything is ok. They kept coming back and guaging it and said there was no problem and because they didn't take any action (the neighbours) complained again.'
The couple had never applied for planning permission as they had simply replaced an existing extractor fan with one of the same size and in the same position, but, following further complaints from their neighbour, they were informed by the council they would have to apply retrospectively as an objection had been raised.
They applied for planning permission in May this year, but the application was refused at a meeting of Stockport Area Committee on October 14.
Mr Webb-Lee objected to the aplication - complaining that his Muslim friends refused to visit him becase they 'can't stand the smell of bacon'.
Mrs Akciecek, who also attended the meeting, said: 'He said he had a daughter with an eating disorder, the Muslim friends, and the bad smell all the time is making his clothes smell.
'The councillors agreed with him without even asking me what I thought. It was as if they didn't even realise I was there.
'This cafe is our only source of income. There are only two of us working, we haven't got any staff anymore. We work seven hours in the shop and my husband goes to the cash and carry and has all the prep work to do. We're working long hours. He does about 50 hours a week easy and I'm working about the same and we work Saturdays.
'The shop will be a lot harder work. It will be a good hour a day washing the walls down, I will not work anywhere with the grease falling down the walls. We can't move it anywhere.
'I'm not going to accept it and we're going to fight it.'
Mr Webb-Lee said: 'The vent is 12 inches from my front door. Every morning the smell of bacon comes through and makes me physically sick.
'I have a lot of Muslim friends. They refuse to visit me anymore because they can't stand the smell of bacon.'
A spokesman for Stockport Council said: 'The retrospective application was rejected on the grounds of residential amenity, as the committee felt the odours given off from the vent were unacceptable for neighbouring residents.
'We will ensure that the cafe complies with this decision and removes the extractor fan.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-offends-passing-Muslims.html#ixzz135xHX7a1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322435/Cafe-owner-ordered-remove-extractor-fan-case-smell-frying-bacon-offends-passing-Muslims.html
Cafe owner ordered to remove extractor fan in case smell of frying bacon offends passing Muslims
www.dailymail.co.uk
Planning bosses acted against Beverley Akciecek, 49, - whose husband is Muslim - after being told her next door neighbour's Muslim friends had felt 'physically sick' .
www.fightpc.net
Cafe owner ordered to remove extractor fan in case smell of frying bacon offends passing Muslims
www.dailymail.co.uk
Planning bosses acted against Beverley Akciecek, 49, - whose husband is Muslim - after being told her next door neighbour's Muslim friends had felt 'physically sick' .
www.fightpc.net
