Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

State schools isolate non-Muslims

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • State schools isolate non-Muslims

    State schools isolate non-Muslims

    Schools in Birmingham discrimate against non-Muslim students and restrict GCSE teaching to fit in with Islamic beliefs, according to official report

    Park View school in Birmingham, one of the 25 schools under investigation for alleged infiltration by extremism Photo: Caters









    By Andrew Gilligan

    9:56PM BST 18 Apr 2014
    4540 Comments


    Schools in Birmingham are illegally segregating pupils, discriminating against non-Muslim students and restricting the GCSE syllabus to “comply with conservative Islamic teaching”, an official report leaked to The Telegraph discloses.

    Department for Education inspectors said that girls in a school at the centre of the so-called “Trojan Horse” plot were forced to sit at the back of the class, some Christian pupils were left to “teach themselves” and an extremist preacher was invited to speak to children.

    The report, into three schools in the city, follows weeks of controversy over the alleged plot to “Islamise” secular schools in Birmingham and will lead to calls for intervention. The report focuses on Park View School and its sister schools, Golden Hillock and Nansen, the only primary of the three. Inspectors found that Park View practised forced and discriminatory sex segregation and has “restricted” GCSE subjects “to comply with conservative Islamic teaching”.

    Core elements of the GCSE syllabus were missed out as “un-Islamic” and an extremist preacher with known al-Qaeda sympathies and anti-Semitic views was invited to speak with children. At Golden Hillock, there was discrimination against non-Muslims, the report found. Its handful of Christian students “have to teach themselves” in one GCSE subject after the teacher “concentrated on the students who were doing the Islamic course”.

    At Nansen, Year 6 children, aged 10 and 11, received no teaching at all in the arts, humanities or music.

    Related Articles




    The document, classified “official-sensitive”, describes the results of inspections of the schools last month by officials from the DfE. All three are supposedly non-faith schools run by the Park View Educational Trust.
    Allegations that radical Muslims were seeking to “Islamise” secular schools in Birmingham first emerged publicly last month in a leaked letter, describing an operation purportedly named “Trojan Horse”.
    The letter supposedly described how activists could stir up Muslim parents to oust secular headteachers. Park View and its chairman of governors, Tahir Alam, were named in the letter as being at the centre of the plot. Mr Alam and the school have furiously denied the claims as “fictitious”, “Islamophobic” and a “witch-hunt”.
    However, the leaked report substantiates many of the claims made against the school. It accuses Park View of 20 separate breaches of the law, the schools’ funding agreement with the DfE, and the Academy Schools Handbook.
    The inspectors found that, contrary to its denials, Park View did practise forced and discriminatory gender segregation, with “boys sitting towards the front of the class and girls at the back or around the sides”.
    The school has always claimed that any separation of the sexes was voluntary. However, the report says: “Students told us they were required to sit in the places which they were given by teachers.” This constituted “non-compliance with the Equality Act” and potentially “less favourable treatment for girls”. There was entirely separated teaching, in separate rooms, for some subjects, the report says.
    The small number of Christian or non-Muslim pupils also suffered discrimination, the report says.
    At Golden Hillock, five Christian students in Year 11 “have to teach themselves” in one GCSE subject, religious education, because the teacher gave all his or her time “to the students who are doing the Islamic course”.
    Sheikh Shady al-Suleiman, an extremist preacher who “is known to extol... the stoning of homosexuals, anti-Semitic views [and is] sympathetic to al-Qaeda”, was invited to address students at Park View, the inspectors found.
    The core curriculum at the two secondary schools had been Islamised, with GCSE subjects “restricted to comply with conservative Islamic teaching”.
    Children told the inspectors that in biology the teacher “briefly delivered the theory of evolution to comply with the syllabus”, but told students that “this is not what we believe”.
    In biology, the inspectors also found that “topics such as body structure and the menstrual cycle were not covered in class, though pupils needed them for the GCSE exam . . . students told us that as Muslims they were not allowed to study matters such as reproduction with the opposite sex”. At Park View, a “madrassah curriculum” was followed in personal, health and social education, the report said.
    Though all the schools are supposed to be secular, the inspectors said they were not sufficiently welcoming to those of other faiths or no faith, with students at Park View encouraged to “begin and end each lesson with a prayer” and loudspeakers used to “broadcast the call for prayer across the school”.
    The report added that the respected non-Muslim headteacher was marginalised, and female staff at one of the schools were treated in a “rude and dismissive” way.
    Teaching standards and children’s safety were placed at risk after the schools’ management recruited close relatives, without adequate teaching experience or proper background checks, to key leadership posts.
    At Golden Hillock, any discussion of sexual orientation or intimacy was banned, affecting “the broad and balanced teaching of many subjects, including art and English literature”, the inspectors found.
    At Nansen, there were “no lessons in the humanities, arts or music” for one entire year, Year 6, and only “limited” teaching in Year 5. Arabic, however, was compulsory for all students — almost unheard of at a primary school.
    Female staff at the schools were discriminated against, the report says. “One of the senior leaders [at Nansen] interviewed reported that she had never met a governor or been invited to a governing body meeting, although the male senior leader with similar responsibilities was invited to every meeting”.
    At Golden Hillock, three members of staff told inspectors that governors were “rude to women and dismissive of their input” and that some governors “will not shake the hands of female senior leaders”.
    The report makes clear that Park View’s most senior female leader, the non-Muslim executive headteacher, Lindsey Clark, had been reduced to a figurehead, marginalised to the extent that she “was unaware of the names of some of the more recent appointments to the senior leadership team” at her own school. Last week, Mrs Clark retired.
    All three schools were in reality run by Mr Alam, who had an “inappropriate day-to-day role in the running of the schools” and who received undeclared four-figure payments from them as a “consultant”, the report states.
    At Nansen the deputy headteacher, Razwan Faraz, “was appointed deputy only three years after [achieving] qualified teacher status”, the report says. No references from outside the schools were taken up for him.
    As The Telegraph revealed last month, Mr Faraz, the brother of a convicted terrorist, is the administrator of a group of teachers, governors and school consultants called Educational Activists which pursues what he calls an “Islamising agenda” in Birmingham schools.
    Mr Alam, a leading activist in the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), has a number of hardline views. In evidence for the MCB to the UN’s high commissioner for human rights in 2008, he said he would “caution against advocating that desegregation [in schools] should be actively pursued” and stressed the “obligatory nature” of the hijab for Muslim women and girls.
    The disclosures came as Tristram Hunt, the shadow education secretary, prepared to make a strong attack on “divisive” attempts to impose religious values on secular schools.
    Speaking at the NASUWT union conference in Birmingham, he was due to say: “We cannot have narrow, religious motives which seek to divide and isolate dictating state schooling. We cannot have headteachers forced out, teachers undermined, curricula rewritten and cultural or gender-based segregation.
    “Indeed, it is more important than ever in a modern, multi-cultural city like this one that schooling serves to unite, not fracture communities.”
    A spokesman for Park View Educational Trust said: “This is a confidential draft report which the trust is entitled to respond to within a given timescale and it should not have been made public. We are extremely disappointed that our entitlement to confidentiality has been breached and we will not comment any further.”



    faye's chauffeur

    Pashton's girlfriend

    I'm a Pashtun Princes



  • #2
    [MENTION=1669]Adam[/MENTION] shed some light.
    Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.

    A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai

    For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."


    The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, "Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances." Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!

    -Ferishta, 1560–1620

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Admin Khan View Post
      [MENTION=1669]Adam[/MENTION] shed some light.
      Essentially these areas are heavily South Asian, Im guessing the schools involved are something like 95% s.Asian with many of the staff also being asian and what's happening is that parents (and influential muslim members of society) are putting pressure on the schools in order influence how they're run, who they're run by and change what's taught and what's not taught e.g no sex education, teaching students evolution but telling them this is not what muslims believe and so on, basically turning public schools into Islamic schools

      Regarding the so called trojan horse letter, to me it sounds way too complex to be real, there's obviously an issue in these schools but I don't think there's some evil scheme to take over schools and replace them with Muslim headteachers
      Originally posted by Elite Pakhtun
      I still remember those pieces of garbage asking US presidents, when they visit, stuff like "why can't we (India) teach them (Pakistan) a lesson?". Morr kus de ughaym.. f*cking indiot garbage. I f*cking hate them so f*cking much. Afkoonis jumping on indiot d*ck is f*cking annoying too.

      Comment


      • #4
        if these are public schools, then these parents have no rights to impose any of this. I really dont know what's wrong with Britian's muslims, they are so disconnected with the society they live in. I know racism is huge there against them, but then why move there?

        Comment


        • #5
          This is a clear case of the clash of Islam versus Islamism. Islam is not a problem in UK or anywhere but Islamism is emerging as a big issue.

          Islamism= Islam+ politics+economics+culture+ education

          If you offer prayers or keep fast or go to Mecca, it is your religious right and no body can stop you doing so but if you impose veil, segregation of male and female , no sex education or have one kind of food and not the other kind, then it is Islamism and British authorities must stop Islamism in their country.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Hallo View Post
            Schools in Birmingham are illegally segregating pupils, discriminating against non-Muslim students and restricting the GCSE syllabus to “comply with conservative Islamic teaching”, an official report leaked to The Telegraph discloses.
            Simultaneously, if a European, east Asian (or any non-Muhammadan) utters a word of dissent or critique towards Islam or the social structures it creates that person is attacked and their critique dismissed using pitifully idiotic terminology such as "Islamaphobia". The methodology employed by these intellectual midgets is on the same level as the social atmosphere we read about manifesting in Nazi Germany where someone and their ideas could be conveniently dismissed on the sole basis that the individual was more than a certain percentage "Jewish" by blood. And like the architects of the Third Reich, the Muslim social engineers responsible for perpetuating this culture of dismissal are supremacists of the lowest order and megalomaniacs.
            See here for more information on solvent abuse - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic.../solvent+abuse

            Comment


            • #7
              The same sort of stuff happens in the states:


              In areas where fundamentalist Baptists or the like hold sway these sort of votes are a dime a dozen.

              Generally, it is up to the state to enforce the writ and ensure that the public arena (as opposed to the private school arena) remains focused on the facts.

              I also would say it hi-lights the difference between the American Muslim and Euro Muslim experience.

              I recall in medical school a girl with her hijab, who would earn top marks and eventually become a chief, was seeing a patient. An immigrant from Belgium said to me in private "why does she have to walk around with that symbol of religion on her head? This should not be allowed."
              In response, a secular jew gave a sharp retort that what mattered was performance and that the physician had built a rapport with her patient as had other medical students who were nuns and the like.

              I think that since America was built on the backs of Puritans who fled those that would not allow them to practice as they saw fit, the first amendment and religious rights are taken very seriously here. Individual liberty is prized so long as it does not affect any other's ability to access their own liberty.

              Irrespective of the moronic foreign policy, the American environment has fostered a sort of inter-religious cooperation.

              What would be more suitable for British Muslims is that they do what Christians and Jews have done and not seek confrontation with the native people (of Anglo Saxon blood) but build their own religious based schools that are private.

              This is what often ends up happening here in the states for Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike.

              I saw David Frum (a man whose views I generally abhor) cite a paper that said as diversity grows in a society so does distrust of the state systems, etc. In many areas like Virginia and New York, in contrast to the British and French experience - this appears to not have occurred. Instead, some new local melded culture has emerged.
              "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tuomittuelämään View Post
                Simultaneously, if a European, east Asian (or any non-Muhammadan) utters a word of dissent or critique towards Islam or the social structures it creates that person is attacked and their critique dismissed using pitifully idiotic terminology such as "Islamaphobia". The methodology employed by these intellectual midgets is on the same level as the social atmosphere we read about manifesting in Nazi Germany where someone and their ideas could be conveniently dismissed on the sole basis that the individual was more than a certain percentage "Jewish" by blood. And like the architects of the Third Reich, the Muslim social engineers responsible for perpetuating this culture of dismissal are supremacists of the lowest order and megalomaniacs.
                This is utter nonsense. The exceptions that we Muslims take to your "critiques" are that these "critiques" are not "dissent" against Islam but rather what Michael Scheuer calls low level debasing insults of a religion.

                No Muslims are out in the streets protesting in mass when Gerad Puin and A. Fedeli purported to have shown the Quran has a history similar to the Biblical text in their estimate.

                When Toby Lester released his article based on some shoddy research of Puin's there were not mass burnings and effigy.

                Even when missionaries and others debate on a public forum regarding contradictions in the Quran and the Bible, no one is out on the streets screaming for blood.

                This is despite the Quran being the bedrock and cornerstone of Muslim life.

                Instead, what is clearly the motive of these sorts of provocateurs is a to level a series of poorly thought out insults often along these lines:

                1) The Prophet of Islam was a child- molester

                Despite numerous rational attempts to discuss marriage ages throughout the times, the views of contemporaries, the views of Shakespeare on child marriage, etc. - the utilizers of such sick language are not seeking a rational discussion but rather a sort of discourse that seeks to further inflame a region of the world already awash in religious turmoil.

                2) The Quran is a terrorist manual

                Despite the numerous christian and jewish professors of esteem that discuss the comparisons between Old and New Testament and Early Churchfather leanings in comparison with Quranic edicts, the same commentary is utilized once again to cause provocation and not really to have a discussion of sorts. The final recourse of these mentally challenged, when it is definitively shown that various acts of violence were also sanctioned in Hebraic or early Christian action they like to cite the tumultuous times and claim that Christianity as "recalibrated" without considering the absurdity of such a rejoinder.

                3) Muslim societies are backwards

                Sure, most societies on the decline, or graveyards of empires are but a shell of their former glory. Some might say that colonialism, neocolonialism, state sponsorship by the very friends of the "enlightened" west (Saudi Arabia for instance) also play a significant role.

                So many British journals described the vanquished Chinese as backwards, barbaric etc when they were also under the heel. This assessment was made in the wake of the fall of Chinese power and being beaten.

                Basically, societies can be assessed temporally and should be. For instance, South American Indian empires at their height cannot seriously be compared to the post colonial decimation and destruction of that culture and once great people.

                In fact, one forgets that American society itself has progressed from conservative and white protestant oriented with lynchings as recent as the 70s and burning of Beatle's albums en masse for a simple statement.... and yet in that very era was when the super power ascended.

                So rather I would say that your assessments, and not the term Islamophobia are idiotic.

                The fact that Steve Emerson can get airtime and conflate the two sects of Islam without understanding the danger of doing so to US national security interests is a clear example of this brand of thinking which asserts that there is certainly no way that Muslims can have legitimate foreign policy concerns.
                Last edited by BarakzaiAbdali; 04-22-2014, 12:38 AM.
                "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BarakzaiAbdali View Post
                  This is utter nonsense. The exceptions that we Muslims take to your "critiques" are that these "critiques" are not "dissent" against Islam but rather what Michael Scheuer calls low level debasing insults of a religion.

                  No Muslims are out in the streets protesting in mass when Gerad Puin and A. Fedeli purported to have shown the Quran has a history similar to the Biblical text in their estimate.

                  When Toby Lester released his article based on some shoddy research of Puin's there were not mass burnings and effigy.

                  Even when missionaries and others debate on a public forum regarding contradictions in the Quran and the Bible, no one is out on the streets screaming for blood.

                  This is despite the Quran being the bedrock and cornerstone of Muslim life.

                  Instead, what is clearly the motive of these sorts of provocateurs is a to level a series of poorly thought out insults often along these lines:

                  1) The Prophet of Islam was a child- molester

                  Despite numerous rational attempts to discuss marriage ages throughout the times, the views of contemporaries, the views of Shakespeare on child marriage, etc. - the utilizers of such sick language are not seeking a rational discussion but rather a sort of discourse that seeks to further inflame a region of the world already awash in religious turmoil.

                  2) The Quran is a terrorist manual

                  Despite the numerous christian and jewish professors of esteem that discuss the comparisons between Old and New Testament and Early Churchfather leanings in comparison with Quranic edicts, the same commentary is utilized once again to cause provocation and not really to have a discussion of sorts. The final recourse of these mentally challenged, when it is definitively shown that various acts of violence were also sanctioned in Hebraic or early Christian action they like to cite the tumultuous times and claim that Christianity as "recalibrated" without considering the absurdity of such a rejoinder.

                  3) Muslim societies are backwards

                  Sure, most societies on the decline, or graveyards of empires are but a shell of their former glory. Some might say that colonialism, neocolonialism, state sponsorship by the very friends of the "enlightened" west (Saudi Arabia for instance) also play a significant role.

                  So many British journals described the vanquished Chinese as backwards, barbaric etc when they were also under the heel. This assessment was made in the wake of the fall of Chinese power and being beaten.

                  Basically, societies can be assessed temporally and should be. For instance, South American Indian empires at their height cannot seriously be compared to the post colonial decimation and destruction of that culture and once great people.

                  In fact, one forgets that American society itself has progressed from conservative and white protestant oriented with lynchings as recent as the 70s and burning of Beatle's albums en masse for a simple statement.... and yet in that very era was when the super power ascended.

                  So rather I would say that your assessments, and not the term Islamophobia are idiotic.

                  The fact that Steve Emerson can get airtime and conflate the two sects of Islam without understanding the danger of doing so to US national security interests is a clear example of this brand of thinking which asserts that there is certainly no way that Muslims can have legitimate foreign policy concerns.
                  Well, your assessment certainly doesn't lack insight and is admittedly thought-provoking on more than a few occasions. Despite raising some points worthy of contemplation, my stance on the Abrahamic "faiths" remain. I have no direct counter-argument at this time, although there are a few things of nominal importance I'd like to touch on...

                  "1) The Prophet of Islam was a child- molester" I personally do not assert this particular argument and further, I agree that the argument is weak based upon those points that you touched upon.

                  "2) The Quran is a terrorist manual" I've never heard the book called this specifically but I can say that it's content isn't half as vile or backwards as the filth found within the pages of The Torah or Biblical Old Testament. Thankfully, the disease of Christianity has been diluted and almost washed away entirely throughout most of the Western world today.

                  "3) Muslim societies are backwards

                  Sure, most societies on the decline, or graveyards of empires are but a shell of their former glory. Some might say that colonialism, neocolonialism, state sponsorship by the very friends of the "enlightened" west (Saudi Arabia for instance) also play a significant role.

                  So many British journals described the vanquished Chinese as backwards, barbaric etc when they were also under the heel. This assessment was made in the wake of the fall of Chinese power and being beaten.

                  Basically, societies can be assessed temporally and should be. For instance, South American Indian empires at their height cannot seriously be compared to the post colonial decimation and destruction of that culture and once great people.

                  In fact, one forgets that American society itself has progressed from conservative and white protestant oriented with lynchings as recent as the 70s and burning of Beatle's albums en masse for a simple statement.... and yet in that very era was when the super power ascended.
                  "


                  This is the most intriguing portion of your post and the points raised are undoubtedly worthy of consideration, especially South American Empires pre-colonialism. Nonetheless, these examples do not detract from the fact that societies where Islam is a predominant social factor and plays a significant role in politics and culture are among the same societies where repression of individual liberties, individual freedoms are all but non-existent; where violent oppression on every conceivable level not only enforced by the state apparatus but even by the common people as a collective unit reaches it's pinnacle.

                  On a more morbidly realistic and honest note... Barakzai, the fact is that we could sit and engage in healthy debate all day but at the end of that day regardless of the number of good points either of us could raise, we'll remain at odds so long as one of us staunchly adheres to an archaic religious system designed to govern virtually every aspect of their existence and the other detests that same system, everything it stands for and would prefer to see it vanish without a trace.
                  Last edited by tuomittuelämään; 04-22-2014, 02:02 AM.
                  See here for more information on solvent abuse - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic.../solvent+abuse

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tuomittuelämään View Post
                    Well, your assessment certainly doesn't lack insight and is admittedly thought-provoking on more than a few occasions. Despite raising some points worthy of contemplation, my stance on the Abrahamic "faiths" remain. I have no direct counter-argument at this time, although there are a few things of nominal importance I'd like to touch on...

                    "1) The Prophet of Islam was a child- molester" I personally do not assert this particular argument and further, I agree that the argument is weak based upon those points that you touched upon.

                    "2) The Quran is a terrorist manual" I've never heard the book called this specifically but I can say that it's content isn't half as vile or backwards as the filth found within the pages of The Torah or Biblical Old Testament. Thankfully, the disease of Christianity has been diluted and almost washed away entirely throughout most of the Western world today.

                    "3) Muslim societies are backwards

                    Sure, most societies on the decline, or graveyards of empires are but a shell of their former glory. Some might say that colonialism, neocolonialism, state sponsorship by the very friends of the "enlightened" west (Saudi Arabia for instance) also play a significant role.

                    So many British journals described the vanquished Chinese as backwards, barbaric etc when they were also under the heel. This assessment was made in the wake of the fall of Chinese power and being beaten.

                    Basically, societies can be assessed temporally and should be. For instance, South American Indian empires at their height cannot seriously be compared to the post colonial decimation and destruction of that culture and once great people.

                    In fact, one forgets that American society itself has progressed from conservative and white protestant oriented with lynchings as recent as the 70s and burning of Beatle's albums en masse for a simple statement.... and yet in that very era was when the super power ascended.
                    "


                    This is the most intriguing portion of your post and the points raised are undoubtedly worthy of consideration, especially South American Empires pre-colonialism. Nonetheless, these examples do not detract from the fact that societies where Islam is a predominant social factor and plays a significant role in politics and culture are among the same societies where repression of individual liberties, individual freedoms are all but non-existent; where violent oppression on every conceivable level not only enforced by the state apparatus but even by the common people as a collective unit reaches it's pinnacle.

                    I would refer you to who backs "the state apparatus."
                    Documents reveal US money trail to Egyptian groups that pressed for president's removal.


                    There are far too many confounders to assess the relationships between accurate implementation of Islam as per jurists and the factors cited above.

                    In that same vein, the places that tout democratic reform, for instance Algeria et al have violently repressed Islam and seek to emulate some sort of Frankenstein paradoxical meld of dictatorial democracy where strong men are somehow "elected." In this same vein, I would find it hard to judge democratic and constitutional systems and laws ala the US by these examples. Or take the "democratic" state of Pakistan and its outcomes in the East and West Pakistan debacle decades ago - can one judge democracy by a group of charlatan feudals (Bhutto and co?) running a charade?

                    Furthermore. one might posit that the relationship is reversed from what you allege - societies cling to what previously may have bought them some stability and provided the flagship of resistance. This is also why we see communist and socialist tendencies in the South American states - that was the rallying banner against Yankee Imperialism in their estimate. This would then entail that the more interventions from abroad a Muslim society faces, the more likely that order is to break down and that people will turn to that which allows them to rally.

                    In fact we see a one to one correlation with religious militias forming with outside intervention. Take for instance Iraq, previously under Baathist control to the extreme and now divided along shiite and sunni and shattered as a state.


                    On a more morbidly realistic and honest note... Barakzai, the fact is that we could sit and engage in healthy debate all day but at the end of that day regardless of the number of good points either of us could raise, we'll remain at odds so long as one of us staunchly adheres to an archaic religious system designed to govern virtually every aspect of their existence and the other detests that same system, everything it stands for and would prefer to see it vanish without a trace.

                    There is no need to convince each other - I am far above and beyond the need to convince you of Islam's legitimacy. The Quran alludes to your stance and tells its adherents that there will be folks such as you. It refers to those that malign its message with "tales of the ancients" in its own words. I need not defend it since it defends its self. The issue, between people like us, rather, is where agreements can be reached to ensure that if we dabble in each other's worlds that we do so as guests and not to intervene for the sake of hegemony or civil disturbance. The problem arises when your "preferences" turn into false impressions that a few interest groups and minority factors in the Muslim world are seeking your military and soft power help to subvert the healthy progression of the masses and the majority towards their own unique systems of governance that may or may not converge on democracy as you know it - or may evolve into something more akin to their own traditions and mores.
                    x
                    Last edited by BarakzaiAbdali; 04-22-2014, 02:21 AM.
                    "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      faye's chauffeur

                      Pashton's girlfriend

                      I'm a Pashtun Princes


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BarakzaiAbdali View Post
                        x
                        Once again, you make some particularly excellent points here touching on the neo-colonial tactics employed around the world by the U.S. I was aware of the political situation in Egypt and the unseen American hands at work there, actually the tactics used in Egypt seem to virtually be a U.S. trademark these days. While I know quite a bit about the upheaval and political con artistry going on during the "East Pakistan"/Bangladesh turmoil, I'm only vaguely familiar with Bhutto's legacy or her connections. I appreciate the references to Algeria though, I know nothing about Algeria or the situation you touched on, I'll be researching this.

                        Originally posted by BarakzaiAbdali View Post
                        The issue, between people like us, rather, is where agreements can be reached to ensure that if we dabble in each other's worlds that we do so as guests and not to intervene for the sake of hegemony or civil disturbance.
                        This is one point that I can strongly agree with you on and on every level. I can honestly say that I wish there were more Muslims with your stance and level of insight.
                        Last edited by tuomittuelämään; 04-22-2014, 02:43 AM.
                        See here for more information on solvent abuse - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic.../solvent+abuse

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Barakzai,
                          I respectfully ask for your opinion on or proposed solution to the very real and serious social problems arising throughout much of Europe, specifically those depicted in Hallo's video. Thank you for your time.
                          See here for more information on solvent abuse - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic.../solvent+abuse

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tuomittuelämään View Post
                            Barakzai,
                            I respectfully ask for your opinion on or proposed solution to the very real and serious social problems arising throughout much of Europe, specifically those depicted in Hallo's video. Thank you for your time.
                            When I dissect what her video is alleging:

                            It is documenting instances of intra-ethnic/religious group regulation as opposed to the potentially inter-religious conflict of the British example.

                            So then we have to understand the confluence of factors that internally and externally that appear to affect Europe's Muslim population versus that of, say America or Canada.

                            Historically, Europe and the Turks and thus Islam came into conflict and there is centuries of history between the groups that affect their opinions of one another.

                            This is in contrast to the relatively young American nation that only recently has begun to engage the Muslim world in the imperial sense. Moreover, America has a history of absorbing bits and pieces of adversary populations, from the Vietnemese to the Koreans and so on and so forth.

                            Europe's approach to secularism and its enforcement also varies from what of the US which is considered the most religious of the Western powers. Many Europeans for this very reason view the Americans as backwards and ill informed.

                            The governing documents of the various states being compared also are important to consider. Germany as we know, post the Hitlerian Riech and now psot reunification may have a different view of the sort of sacred awe with which so many Americans view their Bill of Rights and Constitution (even if they do not realize that it is now being trampled upon).

                            Then, there is the behavior of these people themselves - some of it is easy to explain even biologically. Hindus, Jews, Christian Arabs, etc also have their own ethnic pride and there is a sharpening of focus and identity when that identity is challenged. This is often why religious and cultural identity may come to the fore in immigrant populations. It is a completely understandable biological response and reflex to protect one's meme's and in a way, one's genetic heritage with this sort of response.

                            Another important thing to realize is that for every one of these guys there are those that are integrated and partaking in the educational and cultural exchange of being an immigrant in a new community.

                            There may even be a socioeconomic contribution to it as well.

                            -----------------------------------------------------------------

                            Now, regarding what to do with this sort of thing after such psychoanalysis.

                            I would turn the questions back toward you in refine them a bit.

                            1) Are you willing to discuss the facts and details?
                            2) If you recognize legitimate grievances and feel that they contribute to this behavior how far would you go to rectify them?
                            3) If you decide that it is either not in your national security interest or simply not in your personal interest to address 2) then are you ready for inherent reactionary behaviors and actions?

                            The American question has not yet reached the proportion of asking its immigrants (except the poor Mexicans and other Chicanos):
                            Why are you here in our country?
                            Why wont you integrate?

                            Its rather:
                            Do you pose a security risk or threat? If not, then be on your merry way.

                            Maybe this is because population wise Muslims are still a very small portion of the 300 million Americans.

                            Europeans on the other hand are at a crucial point in their history. They see burgeoning middle eastern and Muslim populations in a people that they thought would endorse secular liberalism once they had a chance to do so. This is the European quandry - like Bill Maher and some others they are astounded that instead of secularizing and liberalizing, there are converts being gained in addition to a sharpening of the aforementioned identities.

                            So then the questions to these people on the part of Europeans becomes:

                            1) Why wont you integrate and observe the native cultures and customs?
                            2) If not why wont you leave?
                            3) Do we want to continue immigration policies and relationships that afford the opportunities to such people to come from abroad?
                            4) We have better morals and a better societal structure and are far less barbaric - why can you not adopt our morals and way of life if not abroad, at least here?

                            I would say once they are asked, these questions have to be answered and the answers have to be weighed upon and thought over.

                            In the past when I discuss such matters, most Americans and Europeans cede factual ground... but then they resort to emotion and finally settle on the fact that because they simply do not agree with (opinion wise) their potential adversary, and find certain aspects of that thought process as something other than what they view as right - they will simply live with a high level of cognitive dissonance.

                            I think whether it is Russia, rising China, rising India, America, etc. people immigrate more often than not, to gain resources. Resources are a hard biological commodity. Memes on the other hand are not at the forefront of the thought processes of first generation immigrants, but eventually they do surface.

                            The moral quandary for the Europeans becomes the fact that even to this day, they are intimately involved in the lands of these immigrants with respect to foreign policy maneuvers that affect the environs of these people's home nations.

                            As a series of examples:

                            Italy had a say in what would happen in Libya and fascinatingly enough Libyan colonizers are foolish enough to lament the blowback in colonizer cemeteries in the post Gaddafi era as if the natives who were in concentration camps during the Italian occupation are supposed to be grateful.

                            France intervenes actually in parts of Muslim Africa at the behest of others

                            Britain is a leading intervening party and contributed heavily to damaging Iraq and wants to get involved in Syria.

                            In each of these places, biological kinship and kinfolk of these immigrants cannot be simply dismissed or brushed under the rug.

                            If the Europeans want to moralize and civilize, then they need to put their money where their mouth is. They cannot lament Muslim ghettos in their backyard when their intentional actions have turned much of the Muslim world into a giant mine laced ghetto.

                            In their sanctimonious moralistic preaching, they have revealed a series of societal flaws that is obvious to immigrants. Regarding:

                            1) Barbarism only abroad - So what? a few thugs in the ghettos of hamburgs harass their sisters who are afforded police protection and at least get a news story out of it... what of the barbarism if "shock and awe" and "regime change" and societal destabilization done by the "civilized" Europeans for the expressed sake of instituting a system that the west views as "better" but is really part of the neocolonialist process? This is no selfless infliction of pain, but rather there is also secondary gain in this bait and switch of claiming to institute and force better governance yet acquiring resources, land bases, etc.

                            2) A civil and free society: Snowden has blown a gaping hole in this mythological thinking. What he showed, very importantly, is that while a poor Korean dictator may use heavy handed tactics to keep a poor population in check and monitored - the fabulously wealthy West is utilizing the very tactics they criticize on their own people who currently are well fed, content, and clothed and hence less full of discontent just yet.

                            3) The notion that the immigrants want to be in these places even if the option was a stable autonomous homeland with opportunities vs a place with a variant culture, religious identity, and social fabric.

                            The phenomena of reverse immigrant is not unique to Muslims, but the NY Times recently ran articles about young well to do first generation Indian immigrants who also went back as India has arisen.

                            I would boil it down to a practical example:
                            Country X has funded regime change and destabilized Country C. An immigrant from Country C immigrates to Country X as a refugee or in some other capacity. Country X might be a host of Euro countries and the country C's across the globe are countless. Now Country X is telling this immigrant that he is an ingrate and doesn't realize how superior Country X is in terms of its culture, way of life etc. It wants him and his kind to "get out." CountryX does this also at the same time it moralizes and preaches to all the country C's telling them that it knows better, despite the thousands of years of history and prior civilizations of prestige in these areas, regarding how denizens of country C ought to dress, act, worship, and govern.

                            This is sort of like living in a neighborhood and beating up the neighbor kid's dad. You break his dad's arms and legs etc. - you deprive him of the routes to independence and autonomy and put your friend in charge of his household. The friend likes to beat up the dad and kids now and then. Then, the neighbor kid is given the option of going to school on your terms and living in your garden shack or pretty much dealing with his messed up situation in his own home. He comes to your house books in hand, but with his own mannerisms and lacking a smile. Knowing full well that he would not even need to be in your shed in the first place had you (or your relatives) decided to keep to yourself and not interfere in his affairs.

                            Most Americans and Europeans concede the moral high ground at this point and in their discussions with me indicate that they agree their governments perpetuate foreign policies that contribute to most of the developing world being carved up between the big players.

                            Their end response is that they live in a sort of cognitive dissonance and are somehow convinced that a more honest and balanced relationship of trade, neighborliness, and nonintervention would jeapardize their dominance in the world stage.

                            If they agree that they will live in this state of cognitive dissonance, then they too must understand when others also dismiss that cognitive dissonance as glaring hypocrisy and choose to not abide by their blatantly repressive terms.

                            I would say that were more people to read and understood the statement and wisdom of George Washington:

                            "In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."

                            They could then execute his most potent advice for diffusing the situation you speak of that has resulted in these repricussions:

                            "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."
                            "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Basically I think immigration problems would sort of solve themselves if the larger problems were solved and better policies were in place.

                              I look at these examples as a symptom of the disease and not the disease itself.
                              "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X