The Student Room Group

Shocking video filmed secretly in a Muslim Faith School in UK

Scroll to see replies

Original post by RobML
So you don't value freedom of speech?

Posted from TSR Mobile


Freedom of speech doesn't always cover hate speech......
Original post by slaven
Actually I googled for this and no sources confirmed your statement except left-wing media outleast like vice snd guardian. So the number should be doubt.

On other hand more Rhodesians and Boers fought for Britain yet it did not prevenr yoz left-wingers to destroying them. What UK did to Rhodesia in 70s was a treason from uk side.


Strange. I anticipated your counter would have been more along the lines of the lines of the SS unit the Mufti of Jersulem formed for his friend Hitler in WW2 to fulfill their shared aim of killing as many Jews as possible. Would have been a better fit than the abandonment of a racist regime in Africa, albeit one that's now like The Purge if you're white....
Original post by Trapz99
This is a Christian country.
- 59% of British people are Christians according to the 2011 Census
Whilst I agree that we remain a historically Christian country and this heritage will always remain important, that figure is from 5 years ago.

For some context to that 59% figure you quoted from 2011, in the 2001 census 72% identified as Christian, and 15% identified as irreligious. In the 2011 census 59% identified as Christian (a 13% drop) and 25% identified as irreligious (up 10% from 2001).

The trend is clear; Christians will no longer constitute an absolute majority (50%+) of the U.K. population by the 2021 census. In fact, atheists could already be a majority: a 2015 BSA survey found that 49% of people now identified as atheist and 42% as Christian.

There's also the added issue of those identifying as Christian purely because of 'cultural' reasons, i.e. many of those who identify as Christians are not actually Christians in the religious sense - so even 59% from the 2011 census inflates the real number of Christians.

The U.K. is well on its way to becoming a majority irreligious country, and personally I think the Christian heritage of the country (with the carols and nativity plays you mention) combined with the evolution of a modern, secular democracy is a fantastic combination. :smile:
Reply 103
Avatar for RobML
RobML
6
Original post by slaven
Freedom of speech does not have to do with this. One is having an opinion anothet things is actively act against the country. That was always so until the 1960s.


Freedom of speech if very relevant if I am labelled a traitor for not speaking well about our country's institutions.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Lit teacher
We don't live in a secular state. The Reformation left our monarch as head of the Church of England. There are bishops sitting in the House of Lords passing our laws. School terms are based around religious festivals. There are approximately 7000 faith schools in England - one in three of the total. It's possible to argue a strong case that we should be more secular, but don't base those arguments on the actions of a single school, or even a single teacher.


Yes, that was my overlook.
However UK is very secular in terms of the law, I mean there is no law that would punish anybody for not agreeing with purely speculative opinions such as religion.

Since I have an occasion to write in this topic again, I might add, that it possible and even a must, for secular or tolerant state of any kind, to ban this sort of Islamic schools.

Intolerants cannot be tolerated, because they are enemies of society founded on toleration, and state that guarantees this to be respected and is tolerant itself. If such state, allows intolerants to live and spread their intolerant doctrines, this means that the state supports those who wish to destroy it, as fast as they can.

John Locke 1667, Essay concerning toleration (My paraphrase, sorry no time look for original statement)
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 105
Avatar for King B
King B
Why wont Whites wake up and hold your governments responsible for this? who let all these people in, why are they let in? Why does it benefit you?

It doesn't, it's quite evident that mass non-White immigration thats been forced upon Europe since around the 60's has been used to racially destroy us. Any politician or political who has the interest of the homogeneous European population are called fascists and racists.

Does this apply to other groups or if it were reversed? hell no.


Racism has had a very powerful hold over our populations for too long.

It's very easy for them to call us racists, since as I said they gain and we lose out.
no comment as facts are offensive
Original post by lawyer3c
in the west you lock away your women like animals, at least we have compassion and dont prolong their suffering. only allah can judge them.


My wife has the same freedom to leave the house as me. If anything she has more freedom, given that she has a job, and i don't. So what exactly do you mean by this quote:
'in the west you lock away your women like animals'

Do you mean we treat all women like slaves to the stove? In which case i agree there may be some problem like this, and i suppose this could be the reason why the op of the video invented the stuff she did, but then, that doesn't justify it does it still.

I think you have been having a laugh, just careful where it lands you okay? Inshallah.
Original post by john2054
My wife has the same freedom to leave the house as me. If anything she has more freedom, given that she has a job, and i don't. So what exactly do you mean by this quote:
'in the west you lock away your women like animals'

i mean stoning vs locking away in prison...


I think you have been having a laugh, just careful where it lands you okay? Inshallah.

poor use of arabic, back to the madrassa for you
Original post by lawyer3c
i mean stoning vs locking away in prison...


poor use of arabic, back to the madrassa for you


Isn't this a spicy curry dish? :redface:
Original post by slaven
Actually I googled for this and no sources confirmed your statement except left-wing media outleast like vice snd guardian. So the number should be doubt.

On other hand more Rhodesians and Boers fought for Britain yet it did not prevenr yoz left-wingers to destroying them. What UK did to Rhodesia in 70s was a treason from uk side.


Says it all. You choose only to believe what fits your twisted notions, and disregard any facts which challenge this as being 'left-wing'. Here is a link to the Daily Telegraph and two former Heads of the British Army also stating 400,000. Are they 'right-wing' enough for you? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11199649/First-Muslim-to-be-awarded-Victoria-Cross-needs-recognition-say-former-Army-chiefs.html
Next time you are paying your respects in France, stop off at the Indian Memorial on the D947 at Neuve Chapelle (halfway between Ypres and Arras).

Although you are right to state that Rhodesian and South African volunteers (black and white) fought on the side of the Allies, I can't see the relevance of this to your earlier claims.
Original post by PTMalewski
Yes, that was my overlook.

Intolerants cannot be tolerated, because they are enemies of society founded on toleration, and state that guarantees this to be respected and is tolerant itself.

it possible and even a must, for secular or tolerant state of any kind, to ban this sort of Islamic schools.


Can you spot the contradiction in your two statements? It seems quite desirable to ban, or even prosecute teachers who promote violence. There are already laws to do this.
However, if you are going to use the actions of one person to ban some schools because they focus on religion then surely this rule must also apply to Jewish, Hindu and Christian schools too. Should we also ban all football supporters because some support violence against other fans (including murder)? Do we ban 'Britain First' because one of its supporters murdered an MP?
Reply 112
Avatar for jape
jape
16
Original post by Lit teacher
Can you spot the contradiction in your two statements? It seems quite desirable to ban, or even prosecute teachers who promote violence. There are already laws to do this.
However, if you are going to use the actions of one person to ban some schools because they focus on religion then surely this rule must also apply to Jewish, Hindu and Christian schools too. Should we also ban all football supporters because some support violence against other fans (including murder)? Do we ban 'Britain First' because one of its supporters murdered an MP?


The alumni of Jewish, Christian and Hindu schools don't have a proven pattern of exploding themselves or chopping heads off. Even Britain first don't have that.
Original post by jape
The alumni of Jewish, Christian and Hindu schools don't have a proven pattern of exploding themselves or chopping heads off. Even Britain first don't have that.


There are roughly 146 registered Muslim schools in the UK. If they have an average size of 100 per year group, that gives 14,600 added to the alumni of Muslim schools each year. Please give some evidence of a "proven pattern of exploding themselves or chopping heads off". I can't find any. None of the 7/7 bombers attended a Muslim school, neither did the killers of Lee Rigby.

The most recent terrorist murder in this country was carried out by a Britain First supporter though, as well as the attempted beheading of an Asian man in Mold, Wales. It's not religion that creates terrorism, it's extremism and prejudice (and quite often mental health issues). If, like me, you oppose terrorism and violence you need fight prejudice and extremism in all areas. The best weapon for this is truth.
Original post by Lit teacher


However, if you are going to use the actions of one person to ban some schools because they focus on religion


There must be recognition, is a problem caused by a single person, organization or it comes from a doctrine. Depending on this recoqnition, particular beings should be banned.

Original post by Lit teacher

then surely this rule must also apply to Jewish, Hindu and Christian schools too.

There are certainly some dangerous elements in Jewish and Christian religion (I don't know about Hindu), but these religions don't seem dangerous these days. In times of John Locke, it made sense to ban catholics, because they were always up to something agressive. Nowadays the doctrine is peaceful, therefore only single persons and organizations should be banned if they promote intolarance in general. (If they promote persecutions against intolerants, it's not an example of intolerance)

I don't know, how clear intoleration inside Islam is, I only know that level of fanatism and from which religion majority of todays terrorists recruit is disturbing. Still, I don't think it's desirable to ban Islam. It would be problematic, and it's not necessary. Certainly, there are many peaceful muslims, there is no need to persecute them, and it would do much harm. However some radical intolerant, violence promoting muslim doctrines should be banned.

Original post by Lit teacher

Should we also ban all football supporters because some support violence against other fans (including murder)?


Just like above, interest in football is not a doctrine. However if some fans, or whole clubs are agressive and promote destruction of other they should get some sort of penalty.
However, if fans of two teams would like against each other, I would not persecute them. Volenti non fit iniuria. If they don't harm any 3rd persons or public goods, it's up to them. They only should not get medical aid from public health insurance.


[QUOTE=Lit teacher;67311328
Do we ban 'Britain First' because one of its supporters murdered an MP?
Of course not, as long as Britain First does not promote killing MPs.


Original post by Lit teacher

It's not religion that creates terrorism, it's extremism and prejudic


Religion is a matter of faith. Faith is pure prejudice about reality.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by oShahpo
Are there any actual evidence that this is a Muslim faith school here in the UK? If so the school should be close down. Anyway, faith schools are stupid and should all be abolished.


It's in the UK and there are many more like it e.g. Jamea Al Kauthar. The teachings are pure Islam, Sharia, the sacred Law of Allah. Why so surprised? http://www.jamea.co.uk/ Faith schools are not stupid at all. Islamic ones are dangerous because it is a toxic political facist ideology combined with a religious component. The heart of Islam is Jihad until the world is all under Islam. That's fact. Any Imam will tell you the same.
It's in the UK and there are many more like it. The teachings are pure Islamic Sharia, the sacred law of Allah. Islam is a complete system of legal behaviour which defies moral reason. It's certainly not about love. Why so surprised? What is most surprising is that Britain allows such a toxic political ideology to legally operate in this country. Islam must be outlawed or we will all be having to convert or pay the dhimmi in humiliation and as second class citizens, soon. Wise up peeps. It's a deceptive double-talking, expansionist religion of war. Nothing less! It's very nasty and very violent. It's not the politically correct, watered down, cherry picked candy floss you had to learn at school about Islam. But seriously, you have google these days so you should all know this already.
Original post by PTMalewski


There are certainly some dangerous elements in Jewish and Christian religion (I don't know about Hindu), but these religions don't seem dangerous these days...
I don't know, how clear intoleration inside Islam is, I only know that level of fanatism and from which religion majority of todays terrorists recruit is disturbing. Still, I don't think it's desirable to ban Islam. It would be problematic, and it's not necessary. Certainly, there are many peaceful muslims, there is no need to persecute them, and it would do much harm. However some radical intolerant, violence promoting muslim doctrines should be banned.


In the UK the Jewish and Christian religions are peaceful and benefit communities, but in Palestine the Jewish religion is used to justify the occupation of Palestinian land and the removal of people who have lived there for centuries. In some countries in Africa, Christians have massacred Muslims (and vice versa). It wasn't long ago when Catholic terrorists from Ireland were the biggest threat in the UK - they nearly killed our Prime Minister. In India there is a long history of violence between Hindus and Muslims, most recently a massacre of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Even Buddhists have been known to riot and kill people of other faiths.

Islam is the religion of 1.5 billion people and covers a wide range of beliefs. The massive majority of Muslims are peaceful. The country with the largest Muslim population is Indonesia - when did you last hear of an Indonesian terrorist? In the UK, inciting violence or intolerance is already banned. That's how we can arrest people like Anjem Choudary, but also apply the law to Britain First leaders who try to provoke violence against Muslims. I think what I'm trying to say is that there are evil people in all countries, and some will use religion as an excuse to commit evil deeds. It's the job of everyone to challenge violent extremism but not judge everyone by the actions of a few.
Original post by Lit teacher
It wasn't long ago when Catholic terrorists from Ireland were the biggest threat in the UK -


Of course I know abut IRA, but I understand, their aim was to get the Northern Ireland, not to convert or punish infidels, am I wrong?

Original post by Lit teacher

I think what I'm trying to say is that there are evil people in all countries, and some will use religion as an excuse


This confirms, that there is an element of justification inside religion, for agressive behaviour, if not precisely in doctrine, then in a living doctrine which is an interpretation. It either tells to be agressive, or contains something else, that is may lead to it, a cognitive bias for example, in my opinion both. I'm not saying it's worse than lack of education or bad rising, but it consumes time, misleads, and is a good excuse not think.
The annoying thing with this is that now people are crapping on faith schools as a whole. I went to a Catholic school, and despite my agnosticism, I can honestly say that faith was never forced on me, and my education was really good. Faith schools should continue to exist, but should be closely monitored all the same.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you