Dispatches on Channel 4: Muslim Schooling

The documentary annoys me. The comments written have annoyed me more, you've watched an hour long documentary and you think you've got Islam and Muslims figured out? You don't know the half of it to be honest; a few people can’t represent a religion. I'd love to see a documentary on a churches, temples, gurdwaras or synagogues. I'm sure there are bad aspects of all these places but really doubt that they would make it on air. Don’t just judge on something you know so little about. The documentary although proving sight full is causing more grief then good.

Head teacher Mujahid Aziz said the school had been misrepresented, and the school had nothing to hide. The programme had completely misrepresented the school's teachings, Mr. Aziz said. Out of two years of teachings, the programme makers had taken a few incidents and shown them again and again, he said. "It's a clear misrepresentation of what we actually do," Mr. Aziz claimed. The media seems to be always on us

Having seen your posts before I do not expect much from you.
Not worth engaging in long drawn out mud slinging.
But what, tell me please, other group of migrants/refugees, has so very much to say about my country mens faults.
Only post here, because if I simply say what I truly think it would be considered wrong.
Thankfully I do not think you speak for most of your community.

Not having seen the programme I cannot really comment on content. However, if there was anything untoward happening in the school shouldn't it be exposed?

Muslims shouldn't get a free pass just on the basis of being a minority group.

There has been much greater exposure in the media of the Catholic Church around child abuse and of sects in the US which force young girls into polygamous marriages with ageing men. And exposure of various sects as regards personal imprisonment, then there was the Orange People, The Family, the shunning and exile of relatives who leave their Church, stonings in some cultures and so it goes on. Mostly it is about abuse of power.

It is dangerous to keep quite when bad things are being done in the name of religion or under the protective guise of religion.

What in particular are you referring to in the programme?

Not having seen the program it is difficult to make any kind of an assessment of it and even more difficult to know whether what was shown was highly selective or distorted. We know that news programs tend to feature the visually exciting or emotionally moving stories that will draw large viewing audiences, even if this means omitting issues that are more sober but perhaps more significant also.

The only comment that I can offer is that prejudice creates what it fears, because through prejudice young people's prospects are curtailed. They struggle to get an education and jobs and are increasingly ghettoized in poorer suburbs. Their own families often live defensively and become highly prejudiced about their fellow countrymen. The increasing hostility of the broader community re-inforces this inter-community racism, rather than challenging it.

I trust that young people are not being taught to hate - no matter who or where they are. If we want to live at ease with ourselves, we need more education about each other, less fear mongering, and not least, greater honesty about the culture of racism that is so damaging to us all.

young people are not being taught to hate ..
Lexi,
Not directly no, but they're driven to do so by those who constantly interfere with their lives without offering them direction.

Pelican
"And exposure of various sects as regards personal imprisonment, then there was the Orange People, The Family, the shunning and exile of relatives who leave their Church, stonings in some cultures and so it goes on."

I thought you're in favour of imprisoning people just to get what you want, remember? Oh that's right, you are.

I recently asked you what level of violence you would draw the line at when imposing your sexual and moral opinions on others, but you didn't answer. Care to answer now that you've popped up somewhere else accusing other people of favouring imprisonment?

"Mostly it is about abuse of power."

But not when you do it, right? Then imprisonment is all about sharing, right?

Right, Pelican? Physically abusing people is alright so long as you're in favour of it, right?

"It is dangerous to keep quite when bad things are being done in the name of religion or under the protective guise of religion."

What about when they're done in the name of the state or the protective guise of the state? Or is that okay because that's your religion?

The threads author having started a thread rarely if ever revisits it.
It is my view we walk on glass here.
I may be wrong but have formed the opinion we are expected to get all heated and I will not do so.
It may well be unknown others will hope we contribute unkind things that can be sold as anti Muslim .
I hand high in the air, say clearly I think not all Muslims are a problem.
And that, in time Muslims them selves will be the answer to growing concerns.
Indeed the mass murder in Pakistan ,of Muslims, by a poor 12 year old Muslim child, helps me believe in time true followers of Islam will put an end to this.
Sadly it is human nature to defend our selves but remember, we are being judged by our responses.
By less than 2% of this country's population.
And by only some of them.
I invite my fellow posters to spend a few seconds, not condemning that poor child, but understanding the gutless act it was by those who sent him to kill and die, be grateful it is the few who do such things.

It seems that Iftikhar has been very busy:

--http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?71961-Dispatches-Channel-4-Muslim-Schooling
--http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=1046118
--http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/166797-dispatches-channel-4-muslim-schooling.html
--http://www.pashtunforums.com/world-news-16/dispatches-channel-4-muslim-schooling-16925/
--http://chat.thisislondon.co.uk/london/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=18&thread=329868&message=1799924

And the above is only a selection (it has all the qualities of a viral email!)

Mercifully, he has given OLO only a shorten version of his diatribe.
Though the full version is worth reading as it is very “insight full” into ftikhar's character.


And this would appear to be a review of the program he has taken exception to:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/lessons-in-hate-and-violence-feature

(apparently we cant view it from our location -- http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/video/series-80/episode-1/lessons-in-hate-and-violence)

I can see why Iftikhar might not like it:
--“You're not like the non-Muslims out there,' the teacher says, gesturing towards the window. 'All that evil you see in the streets, people not wearing the hijab properly, people smoking... you should hate it, you should hate walking down that street.”
---“ We found children as young as 11 learning that Hindus have 'no intellect'. We came across pupils being told that the 'disbelievers' are 'the worst creatures' and that Muslims who adopt supposedly non-Muslim ways, such as shaving, dancing, listening to music, and – in the case of women – removing their headscarves, would be tortured with a forked iron rod in the after-life” .

But is Iftikhar taking exception to it because it is bad PR, or is he taking exception to it because it is at odds with genuine Islamic teachings/tradition--You be the judge:

--“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)
--"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
--Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

SPQR thank you well researched and presented.
I again highlight this important fact.
We all must try to while saying what we think, not being offensive.
The bait is cast and we should be aware of it.
But please, understand those within this religion, not the religion its self, who think this way are your enemy's.
A war is being fought, and it will become an open one, do not look to any God to stop one.
Rather to a day that humanity is not divided by any follower of any God.
Again I ask, can humanity claim, all of us, our God is the only one,without understanding humanity then must be one too.

Dear SPQR,

It's impossible to boil any religion down to selective quotes.
It would be like saying "Christianity is purely a religion of peace." This is as great a fallacy as to say, "Christianity is founded on hatred."
The Bible encompasses both cloud and fire - both turning the other cheek and the arm of the Lord that smiteth.

The same applies to any Holy Book. Unless you have real experience and knowledge, what can you say that won't sound foolish, or worse bigoted to someone who knows and appreciates more than you do?

Lexi ,
I merely present the evidence – others can draw their own conclusions.I suggest you read his full text.

Iftikhar’s cries foul because the programme had (supposedly)made generalizations about the Muslim community -- then comes out with this:
--- Why no protests about Jewish schools. They preach the same racial intolerance.
----British schooling is the home of institutional racism and British teachers are chicken racist.
---- British schooling has been in the process of producing racist young generations, who not only hate each other but also hate those who are different in colour and creed. Due to racism in British schooling, young Muslim children are unable to develop self-esteem and self-confidence.
---The percentage of churches and state schools who sexually abuse children and scar them for life are countless.
--Indiscipline, bullying, incivility, binge drinking, drug addiction, gun and knife crimes, teenage pregnancies and abortion are part and parcel of British schooling. Majority of schools encourage young children to have sex and abortions.

Iftikhar cleverly plays with the language of liberalism and multiculturalism:
---Your program only creates hate and division within the community when you generalize from two incidents. What a wasted money & years of your team work. Such dangerous dispatches should be banned to protect our community.

Then he comes out with this :
---Non-Muslim teachers are not role models for the Muslim children during their developmental periods.
--There are sinister agendas at work in Western nations and I wonder if they are using Islam to foment trouble?
---(the) Muslim community sees the West as decadent and immoral. They will see West as morally bankrupt animals, needing to be trained.

And then, there’s these little gems:
--- Islam is the fastest growing faith in the whole wide world. Whys that I wonder? Maybe because it’s the truth and people what to know the truth.
--- Islam is the only system that welcomes people of all colour, creed, class, status, race and background Peace.

Iftikhar wont be happy till we all enroll in his "animal" training programme--which will teach us how to pray and behave the Sharia way.

Peter Hume
You are becoming quite obsessive in your stalking behaviours.

What are you talking about? I have never said I am in favour of physically abusing people. I chose not to further our conversation on the prostitute thread because you were intentionally misconstruing my words and avoiding discussing your double standards as regards punishment for men and women. I have chose not to return to that topic as is my right. If you don't understand my meaning I am either expressing myself badly or you are choosing to pick an argument.

Imprisonment is sometimes necessary in any society. Do you advocate murderers and child molesters be kept out in the community and on the loose to commit further crimes on people.

Your comments have nothing to do with this thread. By all means behave like a spoilt child but I am not going to be party to your spiteful and disingenuous manipulative games any longer.

I have nothing but respect for my Friend Lexi.
And too for many who cringe at my comments about Some Muslims.
It is well past time however to not ignore the very real hate and danger that lives within that religion.
And indeed every one of them.
For saying what I am about to I could die.
But with certainty I think there is no God.
That ANY God would not let so very many other Gods rule us.
That we, yes me once, are blind enough to judge our God the only one, and all other false.
In our desperate need to be nice, to be fair, to not discriminate, we do discriminate.
This threads author is not new to us, or a great number of such forums, the evidence showing his/her nature is there to be seen.
I am so often judged racist or xenophobic on my concerns, why do we not judge this poster on those words.
The west,just judge on the past 100 years,is moving away from religion.
One day, it is there if you look,one religion,alone, will be world wide.
Are we to over compensate for those like me, to want to avoid being discriminatory, at the expense of one simple fact.
With no religion,none, this world can find peace and unity.
Muslims,not us,should take to this divisive poster.
I will not blindly bend to ANY God then be insulted knowing evolution not fairy story's made us.
for those springing to a GODS defense,tell me why he/she deceived more than half those who ever lived into following the wrong ones.

Dear SPQR,

May I suggest that you re-read my earlier posts perhaps you'll get a better grasp of what I was trying to say. It's one thing to think that you're on the right path, but it's quite another to think that it's the only path. As I've written in the past - any criticism born of ignorance, mistrust or hatred is not only ineffectual and a complete waste of time, it is harmful and elicits equally pointless and damaging responses. None of us can be responsible for the behaviour of other people - but we can control our own behaviour. As someone once said, "Don't talk about being a good person - be one!"

Peter Hume
> You are becoming quite obsessive …

Personal argument, ho hum.

> …you were intentionally misconstruing my words…

Mind-reading, ho hum.

> and avoiding discussing your double standards as regards punishment for men and women.

I don’t favour one sex being punished when the other isn’t, and I said so repeatedly. Therefore I don’t have double standards.

Misrepresentation, ho hum.

> What are you talking about?

I’m talking about you advocating the use of violence and threats of violence to force people to obey your sexual and moral opinions.

> I have never said I am in favour of physically abusing people.

Isn’t it true that you’re in favour of policy, among other things, to enforce child support and to stop polygamy?

And isn’t it true that to enforce these policies the police will use an escalating range of violence, including, if he doesn’t submit and obey, physically seizing, tazering, handcuffing, and shooting?

And if the subject does submit and obey, they will lock him in a cage?

And you are in favour of all this?

If not, where do you draw the line and disclaim the use of violence, as I asked and you didn’t answer at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4438&page=0#113771
?

> If you don't understand my meaning I am either expressing myself badly or you are choosing to pick an argument.

I think you’re expressing yourself fine, it’s just that you obviously haven’t understood that by advocating policy for this or that, you advocate aggressive violence or threats of aggressive violence.

> Imprisonment is sometimes necessary in any society.

Yes. It’s necessary because some people think it’s okay to use aggressive violence to get what they want.

> Do you advocate murderers and child molesters be kept out in the community and on the loose to commit further crimes on people.

No; because they are cases where people are violating the rights of others, aren’t they? But you advocate it even when people aren’t harming or threatening anyone, merely to force them to obey your opinions for example, on polygamy and state schooling, don’t you?

I find the need to ask a question and make some remarks after reading Lexi,s post.
The right to practice and follow a religion is unquestioned.
We have fought and died for such.
Do I then, a nonbeliever have the right to say I resent ANY religion getting ANY involvement in how ANY government rules?
And will trying to be nice, not seeing those who have no intention of doing the same, stop the next mass murder.
Will it stop Australian passport holders training to murder in Yemen murdering.
Is free speech only free if we agree with it.
Have many of us looked at our threads authors post history here and read those threads?
The quotes attributed to both him and his holly book are real, and ownership of both is proved.
Every religion, is outstanding evidence of the goodness of mankind.
Men and women wrote those books, some to gain power but also to give rules of life, ones to live by.
May I say we again and again talk of Catholic crimes against children.
Yet it remains the biggest Christian faith.
And I can not remember any one being branded for haveing great concerns about members of that faith.
History supports my view war is inevitable, driven more by religion than any thing.
With out religion, tell me one reason, just one why we would even dislike another race.

Peter Hume
That's a bit rich accusing me of getting personal. Are you so blind you cannot see your own behaviour with a clear eye?

You are way off topic in regard to Muslim schooling.

I have never advocated imprisonment or violence other than imprisonment for criminals as prevention of harm.

You are speaking in riddles.

"I’m talking about you advocating the use of violence and threats of violence to force people to obey your sexual and moral opinions."

How so? You are making generalised motherhood-style statements and claims but I have no idea what to what you are referring. In one post you mentioned something about my belief in tasers when I have never said anything of the sort.

You just make this stuff up in some warped attempt to give credence to your own views which suggests perhaps if these tactics are necessary maybe you need to rethink your double standard approaches as far as women and men in the criminal system go.

Wow I must be evil. Fancy opposing polygamy which has historically meant huge disadvantages for women (usually involving abuse) and in those cultures where it is only men who take on more wives.

I must also be evil for arguing that people take responsibility for their actions and help support the raising of their own children rather than let the taxpayer pick up the entire bill. Why should taxpayers have to bear the burden of another's failure to live up to their responsibilities? Are you a socialist or something?

For the record I have already said for myself I would never insist on child support if I found myself in that position. I would rather go it alone hopefully with extended family support, than have a deadbeat dad around that does not care about the welfare of his children.

This coming from a person who believes in free markets which do more to exploit labour than any other system. Why do you believe in a system that fosters exploitation and violence? Why do you place a higher value on property than a fair value on someone's labour (also their 'property')?

So violence and oppression is alright as long as you agree with it and it suits your sense of morality?

Pelican
Are you in favour of policies of compulsory child support, compulsory state indoctrination (ooops education) of children, and banning polygamy? Or not?

If you are, then you are in favour of using force to compel people to comply with your opinions, aren’t you?

I’m asking you at what stage, short of killing, would you disapprove of violence to enforce the policies you advocate, and you keep on not answering.

“Fancy opposing polygamy which has historically meant huge disadvantages for women (usually involving abuse) and in those cultures where it is only men who take on more wives.”

Marriage, to be legal, requires the consent of both parties, and that is as it should be.

So there is no issue here of non-consensual marriages; you are not any more opposed to them than I am. But you want people to be punished, correct me if I’m wrong, for entering into *consensual* polygamous marriages, even when there is *no* question of abuse. Don’t you?

It’s not a question of opposing polygamy as a matter of social opinion. It’s a question of opposing it as a matter of advocating aggressive violence and threats. Isn’t it true that you think polygamy should be illegal?

Yes? Then you are in favour of locking people up to force them to comply with your opinions – and then you have the gall to criticize religious bigots for abusing people!

“I must also be evil for arguing that people take responsibility for their actions and help support the raising of their own children rather than let the taxpayer pick up the entire bill.”

Again, it’s not the arguing that people take responsibility for their actions that’s the problem. But you think they should be shot if they don’t comply with your opinion – don’t you?

If not, then what’s the answer to my questions that you keep evading?http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4438&page=0#113771

At what stage, in the escalation of violence that is used to enforce policies, do you finally disclaim and denounce using force as a matter of principle?

“Why should taxpayers have to bear the burden of another's failure to live up to their responsibilities?”

They shouldn’t.

If you were *really* against the use of aggressive violence and threats, you would be opposed to the taxpayer being forced to pay *any* part of the bill for other people to look after their own children.

“For the record I have already said for myself I would never insist on child support if I found myself in that position. “I would rather go it alone hopefully with extended family support, than have a deadbeat dad around that does not care about the welfare of his children.”

Then that’s good and for yourself, you can rightly say you are not in favour of violence, and. But do you still advocate it against others?

“This coming from a person who believes in free markets which do more to exploit labour than any other system.”

Free markets, being based on consent, do not exploit labour. Voluntary employment is mutually beneficial, otherwise it wouldn’t take place.

“ Why do you believe in a system that fosters exploitation and violence?”

I don’t. I believe all social relations should be based on consent, excepting only the use of force to repel the use of force.

“Why do you place a higher value on property than a fair value on someone's labour (also their 'property')?:

I don’t. The fair value is the agreed value.

A value arbitrarily made up by a coercive monopoly – the state - and imposed on the parties by violence and threats, thus preventing a mutually beneficial exchange, is an unfair value.

“ So violence and oppression is alright as long as you agree with it and it suits your sense of morality?”

No, unlike you, I think there should be a blanket ban on it. But you think it’s okay for no other reason than that you don’t approve of other people’s consensual relations.

This is not off-topic because those who defend compulsory state schooling are every bit as violent, indoctrinated and irrational as those who defend the bigotry of Muslim schooling.

I do not think you deserved that serve Pelican.
Peter in my view is well of subject and wandering.
I can not, ever remember a post from you that fitted the charges against you.
I do however recommend some do read the post history of our author and contributions to those threads.

Yes Belly, thank you, I am not sure what set him off this time. I am not sure how continuing this round of circular arguments has any benefit.

Peter's definition of force and violence is different to most. I aceept that some force is required (as he defines it) to imprison people who break the law. Much rather that than have criminals force their violence and intrusions on the rest of us.

Peter there is not much point in continuing with these circular arguments. I am surprised Graham has not yet deleted all of our comments as being completely off-topic.

Perhaps if you find my views so repgunant you can exercise your free will and just ignore my comments in the future as I will yours.

Totally agree except the off subject bit.
Graham rarely controls our habit of breaking down that fence, maybe its for the best.
This morning a story in the Australian, in my view a tainted paper not yet having cast off the biases of its owner.
A story of great worth is seen.
Hold the horses,my advice will start heated debate, but read and under stand.
Australia's Body representing our Muslim population,has put an issue to government.
Sharia law, now get a grip on those horses, a seemingly reasonable moderate version.
In some not all laws.
I question again, bigoted as some say blindly, I am.
WHY,we fail to let the first Australians live by the laws they had century's before we came.
Why is the freedom to practice ANY religion, any at all.
Reason to introduce ANY LAW based on that religion.
Why should a western country, one that teaches its children we came via evolution,have any laws other than its majority lives by.
How can this 21st century version of Multi Cultures work if we modify our law for 1% do we do it for every group?
10 Different sets of laws 100?
Some say Multi culture of the post war years has built this country, I am among that group.
We are one country many faces, but do not blind your self, do not call me racist.
Show me a Greek or any one who wanted to bring is laws and dress with him.
A figure of 170 migrants a year is our target.
1.7 Million in ten years, just migration? refugees?
What do we change after we introduce Sharia law?

I think you would have no difficulty recognizing the violence and abuse involved if a Muslim imam were to threaten to imprison people in order to get the money to fund the religious indoctrination of children, and then threaten the parents with imprisonment in order to compel them to send their children.

However compulsory state education involves exactly the same: getting the funding by threatening to imprison people; and getting the physical custody of the children by threatening to imprison their parents, for state indoctrination of children.

Belly and Pelican, since, correct me if I’m wrong, you both favour state-funded state-curriculumed compulsory schooling, then you have a choice.

Either you admit that you favour the use of imprisonment and threats of imprisonment against people who are not harming anyone, in order to get the money to force their children to undergo compulsory state indoctrination, in which case you put yourself in the same ethical category as the religious bigots that you criticise.

Or you deny that compulsory schooling policy involves the use of force or threats to get the money and to compel attendance, in which case you need to be able to say at what stage you disown and condemn the escalating range of force that is used to implement these policies, which you have both conspicuously failed to do.

So instead you pretend to wide-eyed innocence (“What? Me? Violent?”), imply that you’ve never suggested the *enforcement* of the policies you advocate, while Pelican insinuates that the definition of violence doesn’t include the violence or threats used to enforce such policies including arrest and imprisonment, and wishes that Graham would silence my critique.

Peter I can find no reasonable grounds to link this thread with your wanderings
So lay the interesting thread down in a grave you dug for it.
Regards