A recent article in the International Herald Tribune provides its readers with some not entirely reassuring details about how young British Muslim students attending their country's burgeoning madrassas are being taught citizenship in them.
With the help of a £100K government-grant, a model citizenship curriculum is being drawn up, it reports, that is currently being pilotted by ten Muslim clerics teaching at six Bradford madrassas. Students receiving citizenship education according to this curriculum are reportedly being asked to to debate such tricky questions in civics as the following:
A group of Islamic extremists want to buy fertiliser that could be used to make a bomb. Should the shopkeeper sell it to them, even if he suspects it will be used for “holy war”?
Ahmed, whose jihadi friends want to attack a local supermarket in retaliation for the war in Iraq. Is it right for Ahmad to harm innocent Britons just because their government invaded a Muslim country?'
Such questions betray a worryingly modest - if, perhaps, sadly not entirely unrealistic -- set of expectations and aspirations on behalf of Britain's young Muslims in respect of citizenship , both before as well as after they undergo the lessons in which they will be invited to discuss them.
Mind you, I suppose these questions represent something of an advance on those pupils were being asked to debate at schools in the London Borough of Waltham Forest last year as part of their compulsory citizenship lessons. These reportedly included ‘what terrorist targets there are in their neighbourhoods… and what weapons and methods should be used to ensure the most effective results’.
In addition to the suggestions made in an earlier posting as to what should ideally be included in a citizenship curriculum for young British Muslims, I should like to proffer two further suggestions.
First, if, as is apparently currently being mooted, Muslim students are being expected to derive lessons about how to behave as British citizens from verses in the Koran, then perhaps they should be encouraged to read and dwell on the significance of the following verses from it [hat-tip to Melanie Phillips for the relevant link]:
28:4 Behold, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and divided its people into castes. One group of them he deemed utterly low; he would slaughter their sons and spare (only) their women: for, behold, he was one of those who spread corruption.
28:5 And We (Allah) wished to be gracious to those who were being oppressed in the land, to make them guiding lights for others and make them heirs.
7:137 And We made the children of Israel, who were considered weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west – lands whereon We sent down Our blessings.
17: 104 And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land of promise”:
32:43 And We made of the Guiding Lights and leaders to guide by Our command as they were patient, and they were certain of Our communications.
17:04 And We said to the Children of Israel afterwards, “scatter and live all over the world … and when the end of the world is near we will gather you again into the Promised Land”.
I trust it will not be lost to readers of this blog what bearing these verses have upon how much reason the Koran may be regarded as having given Muslims for being favourably disposed towards the State of Israel, as it can additionally be regarded as having given British Muslims for being towards Britain, given how pivotal a role it played in securing Israel's rebirth as a Jewish state in modern times.
Something else I would like to see in a citizenship curriculum for young British Muslims is their being made to learn just how favourably disposed many highly educated and influential Arabs were to the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine in the early part of the twentieth century. This was before the minds of so many of them had become poisoned by the likes of Haj Amin al-Husseini who the British, in a fit of unparalleled madness, appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem which enabled him to do so much to sour subsequent Jewish-Muslim relations.
I would want their attention drawn to the treaty signed in London in January 1919 between Emir Faisal bin Hussein, head of the Arab delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, acting and representing the kingdom of the Hejaz, and Chaim Weitzmann, accredited head of the Zionist delegation to the Paris conference. That treaty speaks favourably of a future Arab State and a future Jewish state of Palestine, ‘Palestine’ at the time being the preferred term by means of which to refer to a Jewish state situated in the historic homeland of the Jews.
I would also want them to learn about some of what Emir Faisal wrote to the American Jewish leader, Felix Frankfurter, when the latter was Dean of the Harvard Law School and before he became a US Supreme Court Judge. One of the things that Faisal wrote that I would like young British Muslims to know that he did was this:
‘We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step toward the attainment of their national ideals together’.
Another thing he wrote to Frankfurter that I would like young British Muslims to learn Faisal did was this:
‘People less informed and less reasonable than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for cooperation of the Arabs and Zionists, have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movement. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry … with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital out of what they call our differences….I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in he community of civilised peoples of the world.’
[These quotations of Faisal's are from the highly instructive book by Chuck Morse entitled, The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini (New York: iUniverse, 2003.]
I would invite young British Muslims to ponder on the significance of the Faisal-Weitzmann Treaty of 1919 and of such of Faisal's letters as those quoted above. I would like them to consider just what present-day relevance they might have.
I trust readers of this blog will have no difficulty in appreciating their greater relevance to the citizenship education of young British Muslims than the mindless, and frankly unhelpful, exercises in which they currently being asked to engage as part of their supposed citizenship education.
Comments (5)
Muslims won't wear citizenship anymore than Christians did in the past. Citizenship you may recall has always had foreign undertones stretching back to its origins in the modern world in revolutionary France where the secularists wanted to abolish traditional identities and loyalties be they religious, local or class-based, and replace them with loyalty to the state and an identity as citizens of that state. Along with citizenship of course came an alternative set of secular values to those of Christianity, namely liberty, equality and fraternity. The resulting disease of nationalism has affected Europe ever since. People identified themselves primarily according to their nationality as opposed to their equality in front of the divine. The atheistic French Enlightenment bore fruit in Fascism, Communism and most recently the Europeanism of the EU.
English people rejected citizenship in favour of traditional loyalty to the King or Queen which doesn't make the kind of metaphysical claims that citizenship does other than the requirement to pray for the monarch or, as in the national anthem. sing 'God save the Queen'. People living in this country have had the liberty of deciding for themselves who they think they are - whether they think of themselves as English, Welsh, Scots, Cornish, Jewish, Muggletonian, Jehovah Witness, republican, communist or even British. Until recently, no one tried to impose an identity such as citizenship on them. We were a free people enjoying the King's Peace under the rule of law.
Citizenship is really a secular religion as it has its own version of identity, authority, ethics (human rights and political correctness) and the good life. Its introduction into schools is merely a political indoctrination. At the moment, people are being told they are British citizens. In a few years time the dominant motif will be that they are European citizens.
Muslims, when they find out what citizenship entails - agreeing that homosexuality is morally equivilent to heterosexuality; that chastity is no better than 'safe sex' etc.-- will reject it out of hand as idolatrous and kafir.
Monarchy though is free of all this politically correct rubbish and does not require the acceptance of some truly irreligious and immoral claptrap. It allows for difference and eccentricity. Citizenship is inherently totalitarian.
Jews were allowed to build synagogues and live here on the simple condition that they prayed every Shabbat for the monarch in the same way as do Anglican, Catholics, Methodists and the like.
Muslims should be and could be integrated on the same simple basis. Since becoming British requires taking an oath of loyalty to the Queen and her legitimate heirs, this should not be difficult. Monarchy is not alien to Islam in the way that citizenship is. We are fortunate that the Queen and especially Prince Charles are highly regarded by Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus and should take advantage of that to promote in schools, not citizenship but loyalty to the Queen and the patriotism that easily accompanies it.
Posted by William Haines | May 31, 2007 4:07 PM
Posted on May 31, 2007 16:07
I think David is right in thinking that trying to promote the Qur'an as being the basis of a peaceful, enlightened outlook is flawed. Indeed I have previously argued that promotion of moderate Islam inevitably ends up feeding terroristic Islam. The student reads parts of his Qur'an more carefully and sees through the shallow "religion of peace" lie he has been told. Who are you to say that Arabic experts such as bin Laden and al-Zawahiri don't know their Qur'an properly?
But trying to solve the problem by skirting round the true message of the Qur'an is no solution either -- one has to bite its bullet instead. One of the main causes of apostasy is people reading thoughtfully the book they have merely assumed about since childhood, and suddenly having the penny drop. There are a whole load of verses which reveal the Qur'an for what it really is (and it is definitely authentic, you really couldn't fake such an exceptional work). A websearch of [ Qur'an contradictions ] will get you started on a rich vein. A wasp with no lungs isn't going to use its sting on anyone.
Many people will tell you that only those who know Arabic and are properly trained experts are capable of conveying the Qur'an's message. That's curious, because the Qur'an itself tells us that Allah is the all-knowing all powerful. So how come the only book that cannot be understood by all is the one that was written by the supreme being himself? Surely he cannot have a communication handicap? (Any answers welcome.)
Posted by Robin P Clarke | May 31, 2007 3:56 PM
Posted on May 31, 2007 15:56
Kevyn:
The problem is that "British Muslims" have no affinity to their country of residence. their loyalty is first and foremost to the religion of Islam. While government and its instruments of state fail to acknowledge that fact, then I see no end to this problem of a fractured society. In fact, I would say that this government's blindness to this issue is a major part of the problem.
Posted by Mike | May 31, 2007 3:14 PM
Posted on May 31, 2007 15:14
This is an issue that is both large and complex.
Quoting Emir Faisal may not impress young British Muslims who are nearly all non-Arab.
Quoting Koranic verses in favour of Jewish presence on the land that is now Israel may not help, for there are also verses in the Koran that are extremely insulting to Jews, and the principle of abrogation could mean that the conciliatory verses are not applicable.
Having lessons on citizenship delivered by religious leaders might not help; shouldn't we be emphasising the secular nature of the relationship between citizen and state?
Focusing on Middle East policy and history might be of some help insofar as it relates to British history, but British citizenship lessons should be primarily about British history,culture and achievement.
The situation that we should aspire to is that Muslims are given the same citizenship lessons as Hindus,Sikhs,Catholics and Scientologists.Achievable? I don't know.
For a cohesive society we need just one standard of rights and duties expected and required of all citizens.
Those rights and duties should be neither restricted nor amplified for any religious group.
That means no concession can be granted to any one group that is not granted to all others, no matter how much they might feel 'alienated','oppressed' or 'offended.'
If that is not acceptable, we really must ask if there is a place in Britain for people who identify themselves as British only with a modifying adjective or noun.
When the modifying adjective or noun can be happily removed from the designation 'British', we will be in a happier situation.
Until then, and afterwards ,we must insist on only one standard and no concessions.
I know I have suggested that a number of courses of action may not help and not offered much else.
It's a large and complex problem. I suspect we are some way from a solution, but thoughtful debate needs to continue in the public arena.
Posted by Kevyn Bodman | May 31, 2007 12:14 PM
Posted on May 31, 2007 12:14
British Muslim: an interesting term which may give a clue to our present predicament. Would we use the term British Christian, or British catholic? Not very often.
The use of the phrase 'British Muslim' indicates a difference; a section of society, but not of that society. That is the problem.
Posted by Mike | May 30, 2007 7:23 PM
Posted on May 30, 2007 19:23