'A generation of Muslims not able to go to university?' blog discussion

Fire_Fox

dktreesea wrote: »

The fact you even think this just goes to show that not all people born in Britain are "native" Britons by ancestry. If you mixed with more local people, maybe you would know people who pray in sweat lodges the traditional way (i.e. traditional to our ancestors, not just to the native Americans), go to the local festivals and participate in mass rituals like the gatherings at places like Stonehenge and Penzance.

Yes, you may well be born here, but you don't appear to embrace either our culture or customs.

I'm as white as snow, mix with people from all sorts of backgrounds having worked with the general public all my working life and having moved around the country a good deal. I've not knowingly met anyone who prays in a sweat lodge, have met loads of people who go to festivals but nothing to with religion or tradition in the vast majority of cases, mostly dance music and illicit substances. :rotfl:

Don't think any of the alternative/ hippy/ Pagans I have ever known have been as separatist or patronising as you either. I hope you are trolling.

waqasahmed

dktreesea wrote: »

The fact you even think this just goes to show that not all people born in Britain are "native" Britons by ancestry.

Erm that's a bit obvious. My nationality is British, and my ethnicity is Pakistani. There'll be people who's nationality and ethnicity is English for instance. I don't see why you want to deny my citizenship - purely based on my religion and ethnicity

dktreesea wrote: »

If you mixed with more local people, maybe you would know people who pray in sweat lodges the traditional way (i.e. traditional to our ancestors, not just to the native Americans), go to the local festivals and participate in mass rituals like the gatherings at places like Stonehenge and Penzance.

OK, so maybe I don't "pray in sweat lodges in the traditional way" but then this is no longer a pagan country. It's a secular Christian country. AND we have democracy. By you wishing to deny my right, to pray to whatever God I want to, then it's you who's not integrating not me

You say about mixing with the local people. Well tbf, you kinda have a point. I don't tend to mix with many of the local people around because most people aren't very nice people around my area

Why on Earth should I "integrate" with the locals when they spout abuse at me, JUST to appease you?

Let me tell you something about my life.

I went to a pretty good primary school. This was mostly Asian, granted. After primary school, I went about 20 minutes out to a really nice part of my county, which is predominantly white.

I met some people there, and I tend to get on with most people. I'm kinda in touch with a few people as well. At this point, most of my friends were white.

I went to college, and I travelled about 30 minutes (+ a 10 minute walk), where most people were white. Again, I made some white friends, some Black, one Indian, some Pakistani friends etc...

I'm at uni now, and the Asian population in my uni town is something like 2%?

Again, most of my friends are white. I now know at least one person from each continent (bar Russia and Australia)

And you're telling me, I haven't "mixed in" ? The reason people become friends is because they share the same values, like each other, have the same likes etc..

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, you may well be born here, but you don't appear to embrace either our culture or customs.

Well, most people aren't pagan and I'm not going to sacrifice my religion just because I'm British. Why should I pray to Stonehenge just because I'm British. You wouldn't expect it from a Christian, so why a Muslim?

AFAIK, I do embrace parts of the culture and customs here - just not yours. I mean most of my friends are atheist...

And I think you should have a look at that thing we call democracy, which gives people:

the freedom to and from religion
the freedom to do what you want (within reason)
the freedom to say what you want (within reason)
the freedom to wear what you want (within reason)

Seemingly, you wish to deny my religion just because it's not a "British" thing. Well neither is Christianity in that regard, and if you accuse me of "not integrating" then I think you should look at some of the things that Britain does stand for, and notice how your views are the polar opposite of that.

If any thing, it is YOU who is "not integrating" by going against the values of democracy....

You seem to think that "integrating" is forcing people to do all this Pagan stuff, when the vast majority of the country aren't Pagan... You're saying that I don't go to these festivals of ritual dance and what have you, which is kinda implying that you HAVE to do this to "integrate" ? If any thing, you'd be taking away my freedom to do what I want there

And I'd say I take some things from the west, and some things from the east. There are things that I don't particularly like from both Britain and Pakistan, so I try to live by the good things from both cultures

adouglasmhor

Figgerty wrote: »

How do those living by sharia law finance their houses and cars. They obviously borrow the money somehow and not without paying over and above the amount borrowed and taking inflation into account. The students need to discuss this dilemma with their clerics and reach a compromise or perhaps get the muslim rich men and women to provide loans under acceptable terms and conditions.

The lender buys it for them, adds a profit/fee/etc. then sells it to them at an all inclusive price - which is paid back in full without any added interest. Christianity used to ban usury as well, up to the late middle ages, though Christians were banned from being lenders not borrowers - so Jews were allowed to lend money to them - contributing to part of the negative stereotype.

londonTiger

interesting how the right wing have got angry at the ethnic minorities with a little but of economic downturn, sort of like how the nazis pointed the finger at the Jews when things went down in 1930s Germany.

What seems to have been forgotton is that the British empire forced itself onto other countries and forcibly ruled over them and exploited the resources, collected tax and so forth. British has no real natural resources - very little goods to export to the world apart for weapons and high end cars which will not keep 63 million people employed.

Britain is where it is today because it was the trading hub of the world because it controlled the trade in large parks of Africa & Asia.

I dont think the average subject in the indian sub continent had any say or "vote" in whether the should self rule or have these foreigners ruling over them.

So it's interesting how the right wing like to press on the ethnic minorities, they are here because of empire and we have prophered for the last 2-3 centuries because of them. So cut some slack.

Britian is a barren land with no capacity to feed it's population, we depend on international trade to keep going and immigration is part of that.

Also why is Martin so concerned about Muslims all of a sudden? I didn't hear him consulting with any Muslims in the article. I've been to university and met a lot of Muslims.

londonTiger

adouglasmhor wrote: »

The lender buys it for them, adds a profit/fee/etc. then sells it to them at an all inclusive price - which is paid back in full without any added interest. Christianity used to ban usury as well, up to the late middle ages, though Christians were banned from being lenders not borrowers - so Jews were allowed to lend money to them - contributing to part of the negative stereotype.

Incorrect, Jews can lend money with high interest to Gentiles (non-jews), not to each other.

adouglasmhor

londonTiger wrote: »

Incorrect, Jews can lend money with high interest to Gentiles (non-jews), not to each other.

Read my post again you cheeky little moggie, it was correct and nothing in it contradicts your random reply.
Note the bit about Jews being allowed to lend to them (Christians). Now apologise and never attempt to correct me again.

dktreesea

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I'm as white as snow, mix with people from all sorts of backgrounds having worked with the general public all my working life and having moved around the country a good deal. I've not knowingly met anyone who prays in a sweat lodge, have met loads of people who go to festivals but nothing to with religion or tradition in the vast majority of cases, mostly dance music and illicit substances. :rotfl:

Don't think any of the alternative/ hippy/ Pagans I have ever known have been as separatist or patronising as you either. I hope you are trolling.

I'm not trolling. And I do participate in traditional culture - it helps to keep it alive. I just don't appreciate anyone, including people from a non-native background, referring to the local people as "chavs", quite a derogatory term in our culture, which I certainly don't use nor encourage my family to use, and announcing him/herself (waqasahmed) to be superior to another group of people, who live in Britain and bluntly, are just as entitled to their version and way of living as he/she is.

waqasahmed

dktreesea wrote: »

I'm not trolling. And I do participate in traditional culture - it helps to keep it alive. I just don't appreciate anyone, including people from a non-native background, referring to the local people as "chavs", quite a derogatory term in our culture, which I certainly don't use nor encourage my family to use, and announcing him/herself (waqasahmed) to be superior to another group of people, who live in Britain and bluntly, are just as entitled to their version and way of living as he/she is.

So what would you prefer. Yobs? If it makes you feel any better, the chavs are predominantly Pakistani's - mainly because of the area

Im sure the police think the same way as you do...

dktreesea

londonTiger wrote: »

interesting how the right wing have got angry at the ethnic minorities with a little but of economic downturn, sort of like how the nazis pointed the finger at the Jews when things went down in 1930s Germany.

What seems to have been forgotton is that the British empire forced itself onto other countries and forcibly ruled over them and exploited the resources, collected tax and so forth. British has no real natural resources - very little goods to export to the world apart for weapons and high end cars which will not keep 63 million people employed.

Britain is where it is today because it was the trading hub of the world because it controlled the trade in large parks of Africa & Asia.

I dont think the average subject in the indian sub continent had any say or "vote" in whether the should self rule or have these foreigners ruling over them.

So it's interesting how the right wing like to press on the ethnic minorities, they are here because of empire and we have prophered for the last 2-3 centuries because of them. So cut some slack.

Britian is a barren land with no capacity to feed it's population, we depend on international trade to keep going and immigration is part of that.

Also why is Martin so concerned about Muslims all of a sudden? I didn't hear him consulting with any Muslims in the article. I've been to university and met a lot of Muslims.

I couldn't care less who comes and lives here. As you say, quid pro quo. We invaded the world and exported our language along with it, so we can hardly complain about now being colonised by the rest of the world.

However, that doesn't mean we should have to pay, via our social welfare system, for anyone who moves over here. I would much rather have the French style of integration in schools - as in no headwear, whatever the religion, and everyone in the same uniform, than what we have here, which is many sub cultures, most of which don't want to integrate in any way with the local people. As to the free NHS, we all make co-payments when we use NHS dentists, so why not NHS doctors?

Talking of people from the commonwealth coming to live here, there are plenty of us living in other commonwealth countries as well. I don't see their welfare states, always assuming there is one, bending over to pay for and accommodate us quite to the extent we seem to feel we have to do for the rest of the world.

Yes, maybe it's a pity the people of the British Empire took invasion and colonization, not to mention helping themselves to resources that were not theirs, as far as they did. Note I say "they". Those people, for the most part, are long since away to their graves. It shouldn't mean though that we should have to harbour lots of minorities that are just here to rape our, as you say, scarce resources, with no intention of integrating with the local "chavs".

Going back to the original topic, should we be providing university tuition to Muslims at no interest, just because usury is barred in Islam, when we are not prepared to do the same for the indigenous population? Charging interest on student loans is terrible anyway. It potentially exploits a vulnerable group of people who could, in spite of being graduates, be earning not very much money for years after they graduate. But at the same time, I don't see why one ethnic group should be able to gain an advantage over another just because of something unique to the group, in this case religion.

dktreesea

waqasahmed wrote: »

So what would you prefer. Yobs? If it makes you feel any better, the chavs are predominantly Pakistani's - mainly because of the area

Im sure the police think the same way as you do...

I'd prefer you didn't use derogatory terms at all to refer to other people in Britain. be careful what you focus on; the fate of the poor, God willing, may well be your fate one day. What exactly do you think you have so much to be proud of in comparison to them? As for Pakistanis being drunken yobbos (is that how you referred to them in your earlier post?) out on the streets late at night, I doubt it.

And in any event, how do you know they are Pakistani? Based on what evidence? For all you know they are born here and as English as the rest of us.