A taxpayer-funded Islamic school in Britain has been identified as having imported Third World tribalism into Britain by structuring itself in a way to prevent Shia Muslims from becoming pupils, it has been revealed.
Madani High School in Leicester, which was the first purpose-built Islamic faith secondary school in Britain, is a “voluntary aided school,” which means that around 90 percent of its running costs are borne by the taxpayer.
An investigation by the schools adjudicator has found that Madani’s admission arrangements state that priority will be given to pupils who follow one of four schools of Islamic law, namely Hanafi, Shaf’i, Hanbali or Maliki.
All these groups belong to the Sunni branch of Islam which effectively prevents Shia Muslims from enrolling.
Schools adjudicator Dr Elizabeth Passmore found there were “aspects of the school’s admission arrangements that were unlawful and did not comply with the School Admissions Code.”
She wrote in her report on the school: “It seems to me to be clear that the school was expected to be a Muslim faith school, equally accessible to all Muslims and not one giving priority to a particular group of Muslims.”
Madani was also found to have failed to honour its stated intention of making 10 percent of places available to non-Muslim pupils.
The school’s headteacher is on record as saying that the 10 percent set aside for non-Muslims will only be implemented once “demand from the Muslim community is met.”
This is, of course, never going to be met because of the much higher Muslim birth rate which has seen the Islamic population of Britain rise ten times faster than any other group.
British taxpayers have therefore been forced to pay for a school which has imported yet another Third World custom into this country.
When the situation is theoretically inverted, the madness of the Madani school becomes apparent: Would the Saudi Arabian government pay for the building and maintenance of a Christian school in that country? And then allow in so many Christians that they would be able to rekindle ancient Catholic/Protestant hostility?
Such a situation would never occur in Saudi Arabia. In Tory/Labour Britain, however, it has.
* The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the time of the death of Mohammad, the founder of Islam. Sunni Muslims argued that the religion’s new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. Muhammad’s close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, then became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation.
The Shia Muslims believe that leadership should have stayed within Mohammad’s own family, or among those specifically appointed by him, or among imams appointed by God.
The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad’s death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali.
The Shia and Sunni sects of Islam have fought with each other as aggressively as with any non-Muslims they have encountered.