British schools where girls must wear the Islamic veil (3 Viewers)

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#1
British schools where girls must wear the Islamic veil

Hundreds of girls are bring forced by British schools to wear the Islamic veil in a move which has been heavily criticised by mainstream Muslims.

Islamic schools have introduced uniform policies which force girls to wear the burka or a full headscarf and veil known as the niqab.

Moderate followers of Islam said yesterday that enforcement of the veil was a "dangerous precedent" and that children attending such schools were being "brainwashed".


The Sunday Telegraph has established that three UK institutions have introduced a compulsory veil policy when girls are walking to or from school. They are:

Madani Girls' School in east London;
Jamea Al Kauthar in Lancaster;
Jameah Girls' Academy in Leicester.

All three are independent, fee-paying, single-sex schools for girls aged 11 to 18. Critics warned that the spectacle of burka-clad pupils entering and leaving the schools at the start and end of the day could damage relations between Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

Ed Husain, co-director of Quilliam, the counter-extremist think-tank, said: "It is absurd that schools are enforcing this outdated ritual – one that which sends out a damaging message that Muslims do not want to fully partake in British society.

"Although it is not the government's job to dictate how its citizens dress, it should nonetheless ensure that such schools are not bankrolled or subsidised by the British taxpayer."

He added: "The enforcing of the niqab on young girls is not a mainstream Islamic practice – either in Britain or in most Muslim-majority countries.

"It is a desert practice which belongs to another century and another world."
Dr Taj Hargey, an imam and chairman of the Muslim Educational Trust of Oxford, said: "This is very disturbing and sets a dangerous precedent.

"It means that Muslim children are being brainwashed into thinking they must segregate and separate themselves from mainstream society.

"The use of taxpayers' money for such institutions should be absolutely opposed. The wearing of the burka or niqab is a tribal custom and these garments are not even mentioned in the Koran."

Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP who has attempted to bring in a Private Members' Bill to ban wearing of the burka in public, also condemned the schools' uniform policies.

"It is very sad in 21st century Britain that three schools are effectively forcing girls as young as 11 to hide their faces," he said.

"How on earth are these young ladies going to grow up as part of a fully integrated society if they are made to regard themselves as objects at such a young age?"
Conservative councillors have accused Labour-controlled Tower Hamlets council of subsidising Madani Girls' School by selling the school its current premises for £320,000 below market value.

In late 2008 the council agreed to sell the Victorian building, previously Grenfell Primary School, to Madani's trustees for £1.33 million even though a valuation at the time said it was worth £1.65 million.

At the time there were plans to turn Madani into a state-funded Muslim school, one of only a handful in Britain.

The sale of the site was presented to councillors as the "next significant step" towards the school obtaining voluntary aided status. These plans have now stalled, according to the council.

Councillors were advised to allow the sale at a loss because the price had been agreed in 2004 when it represented a fair market value.

The deal had been delayed by four years because the school needed to raise funds, but council chiefs wanted to honour the originally-agreed figure.

However, council minutes from December 2008 show that Tim Archer, a Tory councillor, warned that "a council asset was being sold below market value and public money was being used to subsidise the purchase".

He also suggested the school was in breach of the council's inclusiveness policy.
Madani, which has 260 pupils, charges fees of £1,900 a year. Its website states: "All payments should be made in cash. We do not accept cheques."

School uniform rules listed on the website have been deleted but an earlier version, seen by this newspaper, stated: "The present uniform conforms to the Islamic Code of dressing. Outside the school, this comprises of the black Burka and Niqab."

The admission application form warns girls will be "appropriately punished" for failing to wear the correct uniform, and its website adds: "If parents are approached by the Education Department regarding their child's education, they should not disclose any information without discussing it with the committee."

Madani Girls' School, which is a listed as a private limited company and was removed from the Charity Commission's records at the end of last year, was visited by Ofsted in 2008 but the inspectorate's report makes no mention of the strict uniform code.

It rated the school's overall performance as "satisfactory" but noted that "the history curriculum is limited to Islamic history in Key Stage 3". A number of aspects of school life were praised, including pupil behaviour.

Explaining the school's ethos, Madani's website says: "If we oppose the lifestyle of the west then it does not seem sensible that the teachers and the system, which represents that lifestyle, should educate our children."

Jamea Al Kauthar is a £2,500-a-year girls' boarding school, which accommodates 400 pupils in the grounds of Lancaster's former Royal Albert Hospital.

It states on its website: "Black Jubbah [smock-like outer garment] and dopatta [shawl] is compulsory as well as purdah (veil) when leaving and returning to Jamea. Scarves are strictly not permitted."

The website also lists a wide range of banned items, including family photographs, and warns: "Students must not cut their hair, nor remove hair from between their eyebrows. Doing so will lead to suspention (sic)."

Jamea Al Kauthar was rated "outstanding" by Ofsted earlier this year.

In Leicester, Jameah Girls Academy, which charges £1,750 a year for primary-age pupils and £1,850 for secondary, states in its rules: "Uniform, as set out in the pupil/parent handbook, which comprises of headscarf and habaya for all pupils, and niqab for girls attending the secondary years, to be worn during journeys to and from The Academy."

Anastasia de Waal, deputy director of think-tank Civitas, said: "We now have a scenario where schools such as these will be able to apply to become free schools, under the Government's policy, and therefore receive state funding. We need absolute clarity on what the position is going to be on such applications."

None of the schools responded to questions posed by The Sunday Telegraph.
A spokeswoman for Tower Hamlets said of Madani: "The local authority is not currently in talks with the school to enable it to become voluntary aided but we were in talks previously.

"With regards to sale of the site, it was agreed by Cabinet in 2004 to sell the freehold of the property to the Madani Girls School for £1.33m, which represented the market value at that time.

"The sale was delayed due to the need for the school to raise funds. The school managed to secure the money in 2008 where it was agreed at a Cabinet meeting in November 2008 the sale would be honoured at the previously agreed price of £1.33 million as the proposed sale would raise capital to invest in new projects and benefit the community.

"A local authority has the discretion to sell at an 'undervalue' of up to £2,000,000."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...s-where-girls-must-wear-the-Islamic-veil.html

===

I for one am totally surprised.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Zé Tahir

JhoolayLaaaal!
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004
29,281
#6
Fred, one side is oppressive because it makes the veil mandatory but the other is liberating because it makes it mandatory not to wear the veil.

We're supposed to think one side is better than the other?
 
OP
Martin

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #7
    Fred, one side is oppressive because it makes the veil mandatory but the other is liberating because it makes it mandatory not to wear the veil.

    We're supposed to think one side is better than the other?
    You're supposed to think that the one who is banning it is doing so for the motive that it not be forced on people. To which the standard reaction is that "noone is forcing anyone to wear it". No, of course not. Except they are.

    So if the Brits for example were to ban it then these schools couldn't force it on these girls. Get it?
     

    Zé Tahir

    JhoolayLaaaal!
    Moderator
    Dec 10, 2004
    29,281
    #8
    You're supposed to think that the one who is banning it is doing so for the motive that it not be forced on people. To which the standard reaction is that "noone is forcing anyone to wear it". No, of course not. Except they are.
    That makes no sense at all :lol2: I can't believe you believe that.
     
    OP
    Martin

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #9
    That makes no sense at all :lol2: I can't believe you believe that.
    Of course. Because you think religion is a source of all good :blah: and therefore anyone doing anything to restrict it is the bad guy and by definition has murky motives. Now frankly I could care less what the real motive is, just as long as the outcome is still positive.
     

    Zé Tahir

    JhoolayLaaaal!
    Moderator
    Dec 10, 2004
    29,281
    #10
    Of course. Because you think religion is a source of all good :blah: and therefore anyone doing anything to restrict it is the bad guy and by definition has murky motives.
    Difference is that I never said religious people are the source of all good.

    If you don't think it has a murky motive then I guess you're more whipped than I thought.

    What possible positive outcome can come from restricting the freedom to chose to wear the veil, o beacon of freedom?
     
    OP
    Martin

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #11
    Difference is that I never said religious people are the source of all good.

    If you don't think it has a murky motive then I guess you're more whipped than I thought.
    Whipped by whom, incidentally?

    And what is their motive, just the standard islamophobia?
     

    Zé Tahir

    JhoolayLaaaal!
    Moderator
    Dec 10, 2004
    29,281
    #12
    Whipped by whom, incidentally?

    And what is their motive, just the standard islamophobia?
    What would you call the systematic hindering people from building mosques, building minarets, banning the veil, banning imports on halal meat, etc?

    If this was done to 'strange' Jewish customs it'd be called Antisemitism but if it's done against Muslims it's "we're definitely not Islamophobic".
     
    OP
    Martin

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #13
    What possible positive outcome can come from restricting the freedom to chose to wear the veil, o beacon of freedom?
    That parents or other authority figures can't exercise their power over kids that they have power over, all because a bunch of religious scholars somewhere in the 13th century decided that it would be cool for women to wear veils?

    The the kids don't grow up in submission to the elders? That they have a fuller sense of personal identity and freedom?

    Yeah, you do restrict those who aren't being forced to wear it, but it's a utilitarian argument either way. There's no way you can do the right thing for everyone, either way you hurt one group or the other.
     
    OP
    Martin

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #14
    What would you call the systematic hindering people from building mosques, building minarets, banning the veil, banning imports on halal meat, etc?
    I don't know what I would call that, I'm not in charge of making names for stuff. But in any case I've never heard of this before, I don't recall you ever bringing it up. I assume we're talking about France?
     

    Zé Tahir

    JhoolayLaaaal!
    Moderator
    Dec 10, 2004
    29,281
    #15
    That parents or other authority figures can't exercise their power over kids that they have power over, all because a bunch of religious scholars somewhere in the 13th century decided that it would be cool for women to wear veils?

    The the kids don't grow up in submission to the elders? That they have a fuller sense of personal identity and freedom?

    Yeah, you do restrict those who aren't being forced to wear it, but it's a utilitarian argument either way. There's no way you can do the right thing for everyone, either way you hurt one group or the other.
    Kids don't have to wear the veil. Where in your extensive research did you find this? Oh, that's right you didn't. You're going by the great scholars of Islam, such as Geert Wilders.

    How does the veil submit the child to their elder?

    Fuller sense of personal identity and freedom? So little 12 year olds that walk around in thongs and piercings is the way to go then?

    I don't know what I would call that, I'm not in charge of making names for stuff. But in any case I've never heard of this before, I don't recall you ever bringing it up. I assume we're talking about France?
    Not just them...different countries in the EU.
     
    OP
    Martin

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #16
    Kids don't have to wear the veil. Where in your extensive research did you find this?
    No, I just read the article.

    All three are independent, fee-paying, single-sex schools for girls aged 11 to 18.
    Or do you not call them kids when they are 11?

    Oh, that's right you didn't. You're going by the great scholars of Islam, such as Geert Wilders.
    Actually, I was going by Reza Aslan whose book I just read. From what I recall the whole veil business, despite what some say, does indeed have support in religious doctrine. Not in the Koran but coming from religious scholars hundreds of years ago who bickered among themselves a lot and whose legacy, with few changes since then, today is the gift to modern day Muslims.

    How does the veil submit the child to their elder?
    If I make you do something you wouldn't otherwise do because I have power over you then it sends a certain message. And if in your childhood this is a systematic occurrence, then you will probably sooner or later figure out that you can't overcome this and just submit. Hence submission. Granted it's somewhat speculative, but I imagine not terribly far from the truth. Don't you use the word submission in Islam, actually?

    Fuller sense of personal identity and freedom? So little 12 year olds that walk around in thongs and piercings is the way to go then?
    Well I was never a 12 year old girl but I can tell you, shockingly as it may seem, that I saw 12 year old girls at the time who didn't have piercings and in all likelihood didn't wear thongs if you go by their overall appearance. And I see such 12 year old girls today and so forth. So if you're saying that girls need to wear veils to prevent them from getting piercings then I don't find your argument convincing.

    Btw shouldn't you celebrate 12 year old girls's freedom to get piercings and thongs, since you are clearly so strongly in support of freedom?
     

    Fred

    Senior Member
    Oct 2, 2003
    41,113
    #17
    You're supposed to think that the one who is banning it is doing so for the motive that it not be forced on people. To which the standard reaction is that "noone is forcing anyone to wear it". No, of course not. Except they are.

    So if the Brits for example were to ban it then these schools couldn't force it on these girls. Get it?
    Thats some strange logic there Martin. I'd expect better reasoning from you.

    Ban it to prevent people from forcing it? How are you any better than the other party if thats your reasoning? Both of you are being equally oppressive

    I'm not necessarily against banning the burqa in certain places, but for the right reasons.
     

    Zé Tahir

    JhoolayLaaaal!
    Moderator
    Dec 10, 2004
    29,281
    #19
    Reza Aslan is just as foolish as those Muslims who try to convince themselves that alcohol is not forbidden in Islam :howler:

    Martin, news flash: All children do things they otherwise wouldn't do because of their parents. I wore suspenders as a child and have never worn them since. Maybe the government should have banned it so I didn't have to go through that.
     
    OP
    Martin

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #20
    Reza Aslan is just as foolish as those Muslims who try to convince themselves that alcohol is not forbidden in Islam :howler:
    He is?

    Martin, news flash: All children do things they otherwise wouldn't do because of their parents. I wore suspenders as a child and have never worn them since. Maybe the government should have banned it so I didn't have to go through that.
    Once again: I didn't suggest this ban. Do you see my name in those newspaper headlines?
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)