After the arrival of the first wave of immigrants from the Caribbean to the United Kingdom in the 1940s, when the new arrivals went looking for houses to rent, they were sometimes met with signs saying ‘No blacks, no dogs, no Irish'. Today, such blatant racism no longer exists and is probably contrary to the current anti-discrimination laws, but does that mean racism no longer exists in the UK?

 There is a trend in some circles to argue that race is no longer such an issue and that it is time to move on. The argument goes like this: since the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993, and the Macpherson inquiry report that followed in 1999 accusing the police of "institutional racism", race relations in the UK have turned around. They further argue that though there were massive problems of discrimination and unequal opportunities and racial violence before, now the authorities have got their act together.

 Now, some ministers tell us that the new disadvantaged group that feels alienated and requires urgent attention because of the many socio-economic problems it is facing is the white working class. Hence TV program makers at the BBC argued that it was right to give the leader of the racist British National Party (BNP) a platform on a national discussion program alongside frontbench politicians from mainstream political parties. Actually, in Italy, France, Denmark and other parts of Europe, mainstream politicians feel ever more comfortable to openly express racist views.

 And now, a special issue of the thoughful political publication, Prospect magazine, lays out what is apparently the state-of-the-art thinking on race. Put together by Munira Mirza, who is herself of Asian parentage and the London Mayor's adviser on arts policy and therefore ranks as one of the most powerful ethnic-minority officials in the country. She makes the point over and over that like polio or smallpox, racism has been all but eradicated.

 "Old prejudices have faded," declares Mirza. "Race is no longer the significant disadvantage it is often portrayed to be." Which means that "1980s anti-racism", as the magazine refers to it, is presumably as outdated as the fashion from the 1980s and with less chance of a revival.

 Two things stand out in these pieces. The first is how little facts they contain, with Mirza and her co-authors offering up scarcely a statistic between them. Instead, we get arguments that begin in the anecdotal or purely personal: "as a black man", or "as a black woman", or "as someone born in Oldham". Well, as "someone who recently took a bus ride", my views on public transport still are not worth much without some evidence.

 The other detail that strikes you is how narrowly Mirza and her team define racism. For them it is simply the most humiliating and vicious forms of discrimination - paki-bashing (insults or physical attacks on Asian looking people) or landlords' notices stating ‘No blacks, no dogs, no Irish'.

 Although these former everyday horrors are no longer common, and that is an improvement, it cannot be argued that they have entirely disappeared if one thinks of the 89 people killed because of their race since the murder of the black teenager Steven Lawrence in 1993. They might also remember that the government's own figures show that black people are over seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than whites. And they suffer harsher treatment at every stage of the criminal justice system, even when it comes to how long they are put in prison.

 The Prospect magazine article and the statement from some senior politicians from all parties paint a picture of racial harmony in Britain and talk of a society where skin colour is no longer a barrier to making it to the top of society.

 Yet race remains a massive factor in determining our opportunities and life chances. Two in three British Bangladeshi children grow up in poverty in the UK (compared with two in 10 of their white counterparts). Even those at the top of the career ladder, are still subject to what Bristol academic Tariq Modood calls an "ethnic penalty". What does that mean? The typical Chinese-origin man now earns about 11% more than his white British counterpart; but he is still paid 11% less than would be implied by his qualifications. Since time immemorial, ethnic-minority children have been told they need to work twice, three times as hard as their white friends: that rule hasn't expired yet.

 Britain now isn't the same place as it was when the first ships carrying immigrants from the Carribean docked, and the nature of race relations in this country have got more subtle. But racism can still be as simple as being pulled over by a policeman for having the wrong colour of skin and no amount of sophisticated arguments can mask that.

 Despite technological advancement, western societies have been unable to create societies where race truly is no longer an issue. Something Islam managed from its very inception.

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ

O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has At-Taqwa. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware [Al Hujurat 49:13]

Taji Mustafa

Is it permissible for Muslim lawyer to write a will for a non-Muslim client in accordance with the English law since the non-Muslim may have bequeathed some or all of his wealth to such institutions which may either be unknown or even prohibited like the institutions for caring of dogs or sailors?

     The Palestinian Authority once again disappoints its citizens bringing about frustration and resentment towards the various branches of the government. On August 10, 2010, Mohammad Khateeb, a member of Hizb ut- Tahrir , was detained by the Security Forces from his home without a known offence or clear charge.  He has been on trumped up charges by the Palestinian Authority Security Forces.  He is still illegally detained despite the fact that the Palestinian High Court issued the verdict calling for his immediate release on August 30, 2010.  He has yet to be released.  What makes Mohammad Khateeb's issue frustrating is that the Security Forces blatantly refuse to uphold its own laws and constitutional rights to its citizens.  The first point is that Khateeb was detained from his home by Security officials without an arrest warrant or known offence. It was intentionally planned for the Security Forces to detain him because it is known that these forces operate under martial law. They can keep delaying his case for up to six months without any accountability. Thus would be tried by a military official appointed as judge.  Whereas, had Khateeb been arrested as a civilian, as he is, by a police officer with an official arrest warrant with a known offence, he would be held for 24 hours and then appointed a court date before a judge and then he would be immediately released due to no crime committed.  In this the Security Forces exploit their power.

The second point is that Khateeb is a civilian being held under military circumstances. After several days of being detained, a charge was released: "Resisting the Policies of the Palestinian Authority." He is a political prisoner.  This can be seen as a bogus charge because this charge can be applied to the vast majority of the Palestinian people who are unhappy or dissatisfied by the current PA. The third point is that the panel of High Court judges ordered the immediate release of Khateeb but the Security Forces have yet to comply. It has been more than twenty-four days since the issue of the verdict.  Khateeb has begun a hunger strike in resistance for the past four days. His case has been raised to the Justice Ministry, Internal Ministry, and to all of the Human Rights Organizations. The NGOs have condemned this and do not approve of the PA's Security Forces' dealings. They have promised action but have yet to materialize any results.  The Security Forces agreed to release Khateeb under the condition he sign a bond.  This has great implications because of the various points stated above and most importantly this means that if he agrees to the terms and signs the bond that he surrenders to the military court demands and whenever he is summoned he must appear before the military court officials.

Legislative committees and judicial panels set up rules for the Palestinians to abide by to ensure that no one is above the law.  Courts are established and a check and balance system is in place to uphold these laws. Where are these committees and judges who set up these structures?  What is their response to these open exploitations of power and disregard for this? What is the message that the PA sends to its people when it acts in this appalling manner?  Is this the PA's way of ruling with an iron fist? Thus leading to the destruction of its courts.  Or does it want to lead by its laws established by the legislative committees and High Court?  

This clearly demonstrates to the Palestinian people that the very institutions designed to protect and ensure the rights of its citizens are abused and ignored. Therefore undermining the authority and authenticity of the Palestinian Constitution.  It is of the upmost importance that the High Court verdict be applied so Mohammad Khateeb can be released and returned to his family whom has been denied visitation.

By; Manal Bader

Bayt Al-Maqdes

     On 22^nd August Altaf Husain, the leader of MQM (Mutahida Qaumi Movement) in his telephonic address from London to the MQM's General Workers' Convention in Karachi announced a policy statement which startled the whole political medium of Pakistan including the government of which MQM is a collation partner.  He said that the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) will support any act against ‘corrupt politicians' and former generals by ‘patriotic Pakistani army generals', including martial law.  He said that the country was in desperate need of a change much like the French Revolution, and by stirring such a revolution, the MQM would cause consternation for the influentials, landlords and capitalists. 

It is worth mentioning that just a day before Altaf Hussain's above statement, America's Karachi Consul for Political Affairs, Bryan D. Hunt met Altaf Hussain in London.  But irrespective of what objective Altaf Hussain wanted to achieve from his statement, definitely it struck a chord with impoverished and frustrated masses of Pakistan who were already fed up with the deteriorating security, economic and political situation of Pakistan. They have experienced firsthand what Hizb has been advocating for the last few decades i.e.  "Democracy and dictatorship are two sides of the same coin".   

The debate on ‘change' has become so vociferous that Prime Minster was forced to speak on this subject to dispel this feeling of imminent political change.  He said that the "Army neither intends to come to power nor will it come to power. The judiciary is independent and pro-democracy" adding that there is no "threat to democracy as the civilian government came to power after making numerous sacrifices and winning the 2008 elections."

However, the Ummah and the media in particular has come to realise that no matter how many elections take place the same corrupt elite will continue to control the parliament.  These powerful and rich elite are so strong that an average man cannot even think of running for elections against them.  Pakistan's electioneering politics is heavily dominated by the Sardars (Tribal chiefs) of Baluchistan, Waderas (landlords) of Sindh and Jageerdars (landlords) and powerful Biradries (tribes) of Punjab.  Whilst in the cities the industrialists or rich traders rule the political jungle. Hence repeated elections are not going to break this elite cycle of oppression; not even for the next 100 years.  On the other hand people have also experienced three dictators in the last 60 years and they know that the solution is not dictatorship either.  Hence both military and elections are not an option.

The option which is echoing in the media these days is the "Bangladesh model".  In this option Army is supposed to support technocrats and clean politicians to "clean the mess" created by the corrupt rulers.  The government and other beneficiaries of the system have termed it "unconstitutional" method of change and have called for constitutional or "in-house" change.  On 16^th Sep the Prime Minster tried to shoot down this option by stating: "We have come through elections. We have the mandate. There is a coalition government and whatever is to happen, it could be through the parliament.  Technocracy [is] not acceptable".  Similar views were expressed by the opposition leader Nawaz Sharif who is waiting for his turn and hopes that through the vote of no-confidence he may steal the throne of Pakistan.

The people of Pakistan have already reached the correct method of change by hit ‘n' trial.  Which is that army has to give support (Nusrah) to clean people who would rid this society from the corrupt politicians and retired generals.  They are clear that change can neither be brought by brining army to rule nor by bringing corrupt politicians through the electioneering process.  The change has to come from out-of-the-box approach similar to the "Bangladesh model".  The Ummah should realise that the Army must support not just the "clean people" rather they should support those "clean people" who have a "clean system" to rule as well.  If the "clean technocrats" and "clean politicians" will continue to rule with the same ‘corrupt political system', which was created to suite the capitalists, then no positive change can be expected in the plight of the masses.  This is exactly what we witnessed in Bangladesh where the so-called "clean people" ruled with the old corrupt Capitalist system as a result no change occurred and now Haseena Wajid is back to subjugate our Bangali brothers.  Hence the army should provide nusrah (material support) to Hizb ut-Tahrir who has proven its sincerity and capability for more than 50 years and she has a clear blue print of a ‘clean system' which is the system of Islam formally known as the Khilafah "Caliphate".

 This method of change through the support (Nsurah) of the people of power is proven from Seerah of the Messenger (saw) and hence is obligatory to follow. Alhamdulillah the Ummah has finally reached this method after years of hit ‘n' trial.  Khilafah "Caliphate" will provide the real change which would not only feed the hungry and teach the illiterate but it would also unify the Muslim Ummah and its resources under a single banner to make Muslims the strongest nation in the world.

Naveed Butt

The Official Spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir  in Pakistan