Turn on thread page Beta

Muslim protests they don't want you to see!!! watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by az1992)
    IRA and before you say thats just protestants, 1) thats still christians who were behind more deaths through terrorism then the total deaths through islamic-inspired deaths in western countries. and 2) my relatives grew up in and during the troubles in northern ireland and they tell me there were as much catholic thugs then the was protestant.



    erm thats actually false



    and thats also false, find me evidence of shariah law being implemented in these country's legal system. Learning about English Law at the moment, I can tell you that what you said is a fantastical lie.

    I don't know what it is with people that hold your kind of views anyway. You moan and ***** that the law is to easy and then you criticise Sharia Law for being to harsh. Your like a bunch of needy women that dont know what they want, all they know is that they want to make some noise

    Sharia law is already here, listen to Maryam, who is a muslim.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdEK4tZJpI
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smtn)
    So no catholic priest has ever spoken a word of lie?
    The probability that a priest tells a lie v.s. the probability that a journalist tells a lie.

    One can make a living on it while the other has his eternal life to risk by using it.:yep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artiest)
    Oh happy days, another muslim bashing thread. :woo: :woo:

    :rolleyes:

    So what is the OP going to do about it, vote BNP and hope they turn Britain into old Nazi Germany where concentration camps can be setup for all muslims?

    To be honest i don't blame these muslim youths for protesting on the streets, i'd be pretty ****** off if i was a muslim at the moment. Just look at the state of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine and Iraq. Where does this anger come from? People don't go on the streets to protest for no reason.
    Which is exactly why EDL have taken to the streets.

    People who are born here should be loyal to the country that has nurtured them. we should not have to put up with being bombed by our own.

    How can any one in their right mind defend a pseudo religion that discriminates against women, gay people and children.
    This is the 21st century for gods sake.

    If you bothered to watch Maryams speech then you must surely see how nasty the islamists are.

    What a shame that you are prepared to give away so easily the freedoms that our fathers fought for and won at a great cost.
    That freedom is not yours to give away.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think people have got the definition of liberal mixed up with the American definition. The English definition is similar to libertarian and advocates civil liberties freedom of speech and such like, whilst the American definition is more like centre-left and are more strictly pro-positive discrimination, political correctness, equality rights and welfare state and such like. They are not the same. Those liberal minded in the uk generally think any protest is okay so long as it doesn't culminate in violence. I never like to look at protests out of context so I won't comment on this video, though I'd expect it was another one of those protests where the extremist Islamists had clashed with the EDL this always seems to bring out the worst of them, then there's the liberal (american definition) UAF to throw in the mixer. I say let them fight it out...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arthur11)
    Which is exactly why EDL have taken to the streets.

    People who are born here should be loyal to the country that has nurtured them. we should not have to put up with being bombed by our own.

    How can any one in their right mind defend a pseudo religion that discriminates against women, gay people and children.
    This is the 21st century for gods sake.

    If you bothered to watch Maryams speech then you must surely see how nasty the islamists are.

    What a shame that you are prepared to give away so easily the freedoms that our fathers fought for and won at a great cost.
    That freedom is not yours to give away.
    If you want to sign up new members please do it somewhere else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Love threads like these. We have about 6-8 million muslims in this country, but apparently Islam4UK with it's all of 30-odd members is somehow representative that MUSLIMS ARE OUT TO TAKE OVER!1!1

    If even 5% of the muslims in this country were radical we'd be in fragments by now, but they're not. A miniscule minority are.

    We've probably got the same amount of David Copeland sympathisers in this country - should we then stereotype Britons as neo-nazi murderers? Nah. We just accept in a country of 60,000,000 people we're gonna have some nutjobs, and they're nowhere near representative of the whole.

    I'm actually sorry that latest I4UK protest didn't go off because apparently the muslim community were going to protest against them. A sight with hundreds/thousands of muslims surrounding a group of two dozen loonies supposedly speaking for UK muslims would finally put this ***** to bed once and for all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nice to see you try to sway the opinion of thousands of people based on a couple of YouTube videos.

    In reality the BNP want to put us back to the 16th Century and they higher profile gatherings.

    Islamic extremists are serious yes - but we need to put the security services on the dangerous groups and avoid the scare tactics that makes people believe an entire demographic is a threat just because 0.00001% of people within that community are involved in terrorist activity. Simply look at things in perspective and then make your judgement.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    so the telegraph can never quote a wrong source and if they do than the government is changing the real facts? Even though the government admits that the crusades werent being taught 1 school?

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/holocaust.asp <---read this plz thanks
    The sources that now confirm that this has taken place are the Telegraph and the Government's own research. If the Telegraph printed something of this nature and it turned out to be completely false they would have to issue a retraction, if they ever do that you can get back to me.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    No if the perception exists that this process is undergoing they should do it just to you piss off. Evidently there is no way of convincing racist animals as yourself to the contrary, so hence you should realize your own fantasies.
    I am mixed race, partly Indian, my father and grandmother have dark skin. Its pathetic that you accuse me of racism without a second thought or shred of evidence. I am arguing about ideas - Muslims can be Chinese, Bosnian or English, they can be white, brown or black - so can Islamists for that matter. Religion and ideology consist of ideas that people can choose to follow or choose to reject. Many Muslims are opposed to Islamists such as yourself. Many athiests of all skin colours are opposed to Islam and other organised religion. From your view that criticism of a religion, an ideology or a radical strain of religious ideology constitutes racism it is plainly apparent that you are a complete moron utterly deviod of imagination or understanding. And ironically its you who are seeking to dehumanise me by calling me an animal at the same time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    I am mixed race, partly Indian, my father and grandmother have dark skin. Its pathetic that you accuse me of racism without a second thought or shred of evidence. I am arguing about ideas - Muslims can be Chinese, Bosnian or English, they can be white, brown or black - so can Islamists for that matter. Religion and ideology consist of ideas that people can choose to follow or choose to reject. Many Muslims are opposed to Islamists such as yourself. Many athiests of all skin colours are opposed to Islam and other organised religion. From your view that criticism of a religion, an ideology or a radical strain of religious ideology constitutes racism it is plainly apparent that you are a complete moron utterly deviod of imagination or understanding. And ironically its you who are seeking to dehumanise me by calling me an animal at the same time.
    I refuse to believe a person of mixed ethnicity can have such strong feelings towards another minority group. And don't give the whole Muslims aren't a race rubbish. I stated this before, religion is not only about faith but also about identity, background and culture, and Muslims are overwhelmingly non-white. In the mind of the hate mongers they see black skin and head scarves the same way. The fact the Islam issue has been taken over by every single racist/neo Nazi political party in Europe is even more telling. Secondly you believe the majority of Muslims don't like the idea of Pan Islamic unity and life according to their dictated religious law? and finally the reestablishment of the Caliphate, if they don't show me the evidence for this, both scriptural and socially.

    Why should everyone conform to your desired way of life? Why can't we have our own political union, you have the EU?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Do you think I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm an Islamist? why should I? I can show you the specific links where I told you this explicitly, I have nothing to hide or to be ashamed of. I don't find my religion "ugly", I don't picka choosa what to follow and what not.
    Well there we go again, see everyone, he is a self-proclaimed Islamist - and guess what if you aren't one too, according to him, you're a 'picka choosa' - articulate too, isn't he?

    He didn't picka choose Islamism, its the natural state of being for all Muslims - according to him Allah intended there to be a Caliphate and made this clear, but where I wonder? When did Allah mention this desire for his followers to create a Caliphate? And why didn't he say what it ought to be like, instead of leaving it for humans to decide, in amongst all that detail about how to order your life and minutiae about the inheritance rights of various different male and female relations? Where exactly did Allah spell this out in that big book which Muhammad said had completed the religion?

    And which Caliph is his model? Which Caliphate? There was never any consistent model of rule or succession. And were the early Caliphs right to persecute and kill the family of their Prophet? Is Diaz going to ‘picka choosa’ a model for his proposed Caliphate from among the various sordid and bloody models of early Islamic history? Surely a young man so certain of everything, of how clearly and obviously it has been laid out for all believers, must have clear and certain answers to these questions?

    Well, we’ll see if he does, or if it’s all just talk with no substance. Then we can examine if his views accord with other Islamists, and if they don’t we can find out which self proclaimed Islamists are apostates who have rejected the obvious, apparent, universal and single truth.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    I refuse to believe a person of mixed ethnicity can have such strong feelings towards another minority group. And don't give the whole Muslims aren't a race rubbish. I stated this before, religion is not only about faith but also about identity, background and culture, and Muslims are overwhelmingly non-white. In the mind of the hate mongers they see black skin and head scarves the same way. The fact the Islam issue has been taken over by every single racist/neo Nazi political party in Europe is even more telling. Secondly you believe the majority of Muslims don't like the idea of Pan Islamic unity and life according to their dictated religious law? and finally the reestablishment of the Caliphate, if they don't show me the evidence for this, both scriptural and socially.

    Why should everyone conform to your desired way of life? Why can't we have our own political union, you have the EU?
    You don't believe I am mixed race. What an idiot you are. As if anyone would make that up, least of all a 'white racist' who hates the very idea of racial mixing. I am doing an entire history PhD on the subject. This is yet more evidence that its you who has a closed mind full of prejudices and preconceptions.

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is black and she argues against Islam not just Islamism, Tarek Fatah is Pakistani and he argues against Islamism and for secular democracy - there are no end of people from racial minorities who agree with me or have even more critical views than my own regarding Islamism.

    Its easy to have strong feelings about your political and religious beliefs and those of others, you yourself do, stop being a hypocrite.

    The reason that racist right wing parties talk about Islam is that many non-racist people are concerned about political Islamism - whether they understand it or not - and that saying overtly racist things will put a lot of people off. If they dress up in a suit, be careful not to say anything racist and only tackle legitimate issues like integration, immigration and the dangers of radical Islamic ideology they hope that they might win a few seats, which they have in the European Parliament. But they would be horrified by me, because they hate racial mixing, and they would want to repatriate my father to the Punjab where he was born.

    And you think Muslims are a race? If so, Islam like Judaism will never be a universal religion for all mankind. There are plenty of white Muslims, are the Muslims in Bosnia and the Balkans not your brothers? What about English and American white converts - they don't exist? And Arabs, Turks, Indians, Africans and Indonesians - they are all one race are they?

    You're an Islamist, you think everyone should conform to your own interpretation of the Muslim way of life - don't pretend otherwise, and you usually say what you believe; so why do you hypocritical assert that its unacceptable to believe everyone should 'conform to your way of life'?

    As for why you shouldn't get your Caliphate, because most Muslims in Muslim countries don't vote for Islamist parties whenever they are given a democratic voice, clearly its not what people want. And Islamists are like communists, seeking to establish a political revolution by force, in most cases without a political mandate from the people.

    You want scriptural evidence against the Caliphate? The onus of you is provide scriptural evidence in favour of it. You're the one who wants it. Where is your Qu'ranic explicit sanction for the creation of a Caliphate and the nature of what that Caliphate should be?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    You don't believe I am mixed race. What an idiot you are. As if anyone would make that up, least of all a 'white racist' who hates the very idea of racial mixing. I am doing an entire history PhD on the subject. This is yet more evidence that its you who has a closed mind full of prejudices and preconceptions.
    You're not doing ****, please don't give me that whole ******** again. :nah: Secondly, I don't care whether you're mixed race or not, my point still remains.

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is black and she argues against Islam not just Islamism, Tarek Fatah is Pakistani and he argues against Islamism and for secular democracy - there are no end of people from racial minorities who agree with me or have even more critical views than my own regarding Islamism.
    Yes, you give me the opinion of apostates and media opportunists as if it's credible, you really are a retard. Why not give me what I asked for you moron.

    Its easy to have strong feelings about your political and religious beliefs and those of others, you yourself do, stop being a hypocrite.
    I don't have strong feelings, do you see me espousing for change of the system of governance in this country, do you see me calling for the imposition of Sharia law on non Muslims? of course, you're doing the exact same thing.

    The reason that racist right wing parties talk about Islam is that many non-racist people are concerned about political Islamism - whether they understand it or not - and that saying overtly racist things will put a lot of people off. If they dress up in a suit, be careful not to say anything racist and only tackle legitimate issues like integration, immigration and the dangers of radical Islamic ideology they hope that they might win a few seats, which they have in the European Parliament. But they would be horrified by me, because they hate racial mixing, and they would want to repatriate my father to the Punjab where he was born.
    What do you mean political Islamism you imbecile, you really think this their fear. You believe Westerners are afraid of Islam and Muslims because of their political intentions? you really are pathetic.

    And you think Muslims are a race? If so, Islam like Judaism will never be a universal religion for all mankind. There are plenty of white Muslims, are the Muslims in Bosnia and the Balkans not your brothers? What about English and American white converts - they don't exist? And Arabs, Turks, Indians, Africans and Indonesians - they are all one race are they?
    No Muslims aren't a race, the racists perceive Muslims as a collective and hence found grounding to propagate their hate as I stated before, a women in a burqa or a head scarf is to a racist the same as a black person or a Jew.

    You're an Islamist, you think everyone should conform to your own interpretation of the Muslim way of life - don't pretend otherwise, and you usually say what you believe; so why do you hypocritical assert that its unacceptable to believe everyone should 'conform to your way of life'?
    I don't have my "own" interpretation you idiot. There is no personal interpretation in Islam, my views are explicitly grounded in the Quran, Hadith and the unanimous conclusion of Islamic Scholars. Find me a single Muslim who says Muslims shouldn't live according to Sharia but Western secularist law, find me one Muslims who says we shouldn't live in a Caliphate but a collective of nation states. You won't find one unless you're stupid enough to give me the opinions of atheists and opportunists.

    You want scriptural evidence against the Caliphate? The onus of you is provide scriptural evidence in favour of it. Your the one who wants it. Where is your Qu'ranic explicit sanction for the creation of a Caliphate and the nature of what that Caliphate should be?
    If you didn't know this in the first place, why in the world would you even mention it?

    Here:

    God has promised those of you who have attained to faith and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will make them Khulifa on earth, even as He caused [some of] those who lived before them to become Khulifa; and that, of a certainty, He will firmly establish for them the religion which He has been pleased to bestow on them; and that, of a certainty, He will cause their erstwhile state of fear to be replaced by a sense of security [seeing that] they worship Me [alone], not ascribing divine powers to aught beside Me. But all who, after [having understood] this, choose to deny the truth - it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!"[24:55] (Surah Al-Nur, Verse 55)

    Here:

    So govern between the people by that which God has revealed (Islam), and follow not their vain desires, beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which God has revealed to you [Qur'an 004:049]

    Here:

    Al-Habbab Ibn ul-Munthir said, when the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of Muhammad, (at the thaqifa hall) of Bani Sa’ida:

    Let there be one Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Mohajireen).

    Upon this Abu Bakr replied:

    It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)..

    Here:

    Abu Bakr went on to say on the day of Al-Saqifa:

    It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida’a (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one’s interests.

    Here

    The sayings of Islamic scholars

    Al-Mawardi says[19]:

    It is forbidden for the Ummah (Muslim world) to have two leaders at the same time.

    Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (Al-Nawawi) says[20]:

    It is forbidden to give an oath to two leaders or more, even in different parts of the world and even if they are far apart.

    Ahmad al-Qalqashandi says[21]:

    It is forbidden to appoint two leaders at the same time.

    Ibnu Hazm says[22]:

    It is permitted to have only one leader (of the Muslims) in the whole of the world.

    Al-sha’rani says[23]:

    It is forbidden for Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two leaders whether in agreement or discord.

    Al-Qadhi Abdul-Jabbar (he is a Mu’tazela scholar), says[24]:

    It is forbidden to give the oath to more than one.

    Al-Joziri says[25]:

    The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought)- may Allah have mercy on them- agree that the Caliphate is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint a leader who would implement the injunctions of the religion, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors. It is forbidden for Muslims to have two leaders in the world whether in agreement or discord.


    Idiot
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    The sources that now confirm that this has taken place are the Telegraph and the Government's own research. If the Telegraph printed something of this nature and it turned out to be completely false they would have to issue a retraction, if they ever do that you can get back to me.
    link to governments research?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When the cops are scared it's bad. The hippy student person, i got to say shes braver than brave standing up to that many people.

    I aren't racist and not really very polictical but to be honest i don't care for islam/muslim relgion/ideas because its sickly harsh and disturbing and the amount of animal cruelty that takes place such as dog fighting is something i utterly detest.
    If they want to free wherever jog on back there and do it, prancing up and down a street scaring cops doesn't do anything for you.

    When you look back at the UK though yeah it has some darker sides at some point but we have lost most of our heritage it can not be denied.
    :mad:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    You're not doing ****, please don't give me that whole ******** again. :nah: Secondly, I don't care whether you're mixed race or not, my point still remains.
    "The wise speak only of what they know... A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. "

    - Tolkien

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Yes, you give me the opinion of apostates and media opportunists as if it's credible, you really are a retard. Why not give me what I asked for you moron.

    I don't have strong feelings, do you see me espousing for change of the system of governance in this country, do you see me calling for the imposition of Sharia law on non Muslims? of course, you're doing the exact same thing.
    You claim that all Muslims think the same thing, think that there is but one interpretation, when any fool knows that there are a great many interpretations. Then you dismiss all contrary opinion to your own as the work of 'apostates and media opportunists'. Is Anjem Choudary a 'media opportunist' in your view?

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    What do you mean political Islamism you imbecile, you really think this their fear. You believe Westerners are afraid of Islam and Muslims because of their political intentions? you really are pathetic.
    As you are a self proclaimed Islamist, you know full well what Islamism is, and you know what political means too. If a communist said they didn't know what political communism was they too would look like an obfuscating fool.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    No Muslims aren't a race, the racists perceive Muslims as a collective and hence found grounding to propagate their hate as I stated before, a women in a burqa or a head scarf is to a racist the same as a black person or a Jew.
    There you go directly contradicting yourself, nice U-turn. And its Islamists who claim that Muslims are a religious and potentially political 'collective' - isn't this something you and the BNP agree on? You're both a group of nutters who feed off each other.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    I don't have my "own" interpretation you idiot. There is no personal interpretation in Islam, my views are explicitly grounded in the Quran, Hadith and the unanimous conclusion of Islamic Scholars. Find me a single Muslim who says Muslims shouldn't live according to Sharia but Western secularist law, find me one Muslims who says we shouldn't live in a Caliphate but a collective of nation states. You won't find one unless you're stupid enough to give me the opinions of atheists and opportunists.
    If you didn't know this in the first place, why in the world would you even mention it?

    Here:

    God has promised those of you who have attained to faith and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will make them Khulifa on earth, even as He caused [some of] those who lived before them to become Khulifa; and that, of a certainty, He will firmly establish for them the religion which He has been pleased to bestow on them; and that, of a certainty, He will cause their erstwhile state of fear to be replaced by a sense of security [seeing that] they worship Me [alone], not ascribing divine powers to aught beside Me. But all who, after [having understood] this, choose to deny the truth - it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!"[24:55] (Surah Al-Nur, Verse 55)

    Here:

    So govern between the people by that which God has revealed (Islam), and follow not their vain desires, beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which God has revealed to you [Qur'an 004:049]

    Here:

    Al-Habbab Ibn ul-Munthir said, when the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of Muhammad, (at the thaqifa hall) of Bani Sa’ida:

    Let there be one Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Mohajireen).

    Upon this Abu Bakr replied:

    It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)..

    Here:

    Abu Bakr went on to say on the day of Al-Saqifa:

    It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida’a (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one’s interests.
    So sura 4, verse 49, in the chapter on women is part of the explicit mandate from Allah to create a Caliphate? Here are three major translations of that verse:

    YUSUFALI: Hast thou not turned Thy vision to those who claim sanctity for themselves? Nay-but Allah Doth sanctify whom He pleaseth. But never will they fail to receive justice in the least little thing.

    PICKTHAL: Hast thou not seen those who praise themselves for purity? Nay, Allah purifieth whom He will, and they will not be wronged even the hair upon a date-stone.

    SHAKIR: Have you not considered those who attribute purity to themselves? Nay, Allah purifies whom He pleases; and they shall not be wronged the husk of a date stone.


    Pretty thin stuff really if this is one of the two verses that form the basis of your claims that Islam is a political project.

    And the other - Sura 24 verse 55:

    YUSUFALI: Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.

    PICKTHAL: Allah hath promised such of you as believe and do good work that He will surely make them to succeed (the present rulers) in the earth even as He caused those who were before them to succeed (others); and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He hath approved for them, and will give them in exchange safety after their fear. They serve Me. They ascribe no thing as partner unto Me. Those who disbelieve henceforth, they are the miscreants.

    SHAKIR: Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers in the earth as He made rulers those before them, and that He will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them, and that He will most certainly, after their fear, give them security in exchange; they shall serve Me, not associating aught with Me; and whoever is ungrateful after this, these it is who are the. transgressors.


    According to all three of these translations, the plural 'they', 'them' and 'rulers' are used, this does not fit with your assertion that there can only be a single ruler. But in Islamic history there was rarely a single unchallenged ruler of the whole of Islam, even though many sought to establish such authority and dominance, and there were many civil wars and much bloodshed. Were the early Caliphs right to persecute and kill Muhammad's family for instance? And did they not have a strong incentive to assert there should be a single ruler? Why did not Muhammad give any indication of how a succession should take place when he knew that he would die, and why without doing so did he say that he had completed the religion?

    Also this verse does not explicitly mention a Caliphate. Given that there are 114 chapters in the Qu'ran dealing in great detail with all manner of subjects, is it not strange considering that you contend that the Caliphate is the essential way for Muslims to govern themselves and a central part of the Islamic religion that this subject, and the mechanisms of political authority for such a Caliphate receive no proper attention in the Qu'ran, in the exhaustive text that Muhammad said had completed your religion? Is it not more likely that Muhammad and Allah never intended that Islam must be bound up with a particular political model given that they failed to specify and describe it properly in 114 chapters?

    And your own, man-made model for the Caliphate, is the Caliphate of the first Caliph Abu Bakr - is that right? Can we get that on the record so we can later scrutinise his Calipate at greater length?

    And if you are planning to cite the Hadith, don't, because you are a 'picka choosa' when it comes to following the Hadith religiously.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    link to governments research?
    Research was commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF):

    http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data...iles/RW100.pdf

    "Teachers and schools avoid emotive and controversial history for a variety of reasons... In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship. Some teachers also feel that the issues are best avoided in history, believing them to be taught elsewhere in the curriculum such as in citizenship or religious education...

    For example, a history department in a northern city recently avoided selecting the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework for fear of confronting anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils."

    p. 15

    "As with other key stages, teachers lack incentives to take risks even when they recognise the relevance of addressing emotive and controversial content and themes, such as Islamic history. Recent events have heightened tensions both within the Muslim community and between Muslims and between Muslims and non-Muslims...

    Schools with Muslim pupils face particular challenges in negotiating the interface between community history and school history. Not all Muslims are happy with the idea of Islamic history being taught by non-Muslims. The relationship between a communal, mythologised history adhering to one narrative sits uncomfortably with a critical history that is open to multiple interpretations and perspectives...

    To teach emotive and controversial history requires managing and handling debate and discussion. However, research literature suggests that teachers' ability to understand the process of debate and how to get pupils to discuss issues effectively is weak. For example, should the teacher take a neutral stance in a Holocaust debate that might give a false legitimacy to Holocaust denial? Few schools have a clear rationale for the approach to teaching GCSE History (or any other subject), such as whether one aims for objectivity a consensual or partisan view of the past.

    Many teachers also lack the confidence or desire to raise too many controversial issues. There may be constraints caused by the ethos and belief of certain types of schools, such as faith schools. Many also aspire to avoid alienating or humiliating pupils whose ethnic/cultural groups were responsible for past atrocities. They worry that opening up certain content will reinforce or give a platform for existing prejudices and stereotypes."

    p. 17
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by pendragon)
    "The wise speak only of what they know... A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. "

    - Tolkien

    And if you are planning to cite the Hadith, don't, because you are a 'picka choosa' when it comes to following the Hadith religiously.
    What a delightful post.

    TSR has gone very extremist recently. Qudos to the mods however for allowing such views to be explored.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    What a delightful post.

    TSR has gone very extremist recently. Qudos to the mods however for allowing such views to be explored.
    How exactly was that extremist?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    How exactly was that extremist?
    That post wasn't. Its a general observation tacked onto my commending the quality of his post.

    Many of the comments allowed these days used to get deleted/blocked.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 13, 2010
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.