Star Academies: A Leadership of Warmongering, Racist Demonisers of Muslims and proponents of Militarism

StarAcademiesneoconNeolibJackStraw

NOTE: Since writing the last piece, which garnered thousands of hits, Facebook has locked my coolnessofhind account. The only way Facebook allows me to unlock it is to provide a photo id – a passport, driving license or a marriage certificate. I find this very strange, and refuse to provide these highly personal details especially to a dubious corporation like Facebook. I have therefore set up a second FB account. Please add/join me there.


Tauheedul Islam Boys High School, run by Star Academies, was reported in the Times as having started a cadet force, to the strange glee of Star Academies Chief Executive Mufti Hamid Patel. This piece is the second in a series examining Star Academies, how it got to a point where it is celebrating an agenda to militarise young Muslim children, and what it is subjecting Muslim children to.

In the previous piece, it was shown how Star Academies – previously known as Tauheedul Educational Trust – had entrenched neoliberal and neoconservative policies from the outset of their free schools journey. Hamid Patel, had passionately defended the free schools neoliberalisation agenda, supported Michael Gove when he departed as Secretary of State for Education, and maintained what seems like a mutually beneficial relationship between neoliberal elements of the government and Star Academies.

In this section, I will continue to examine Star Academies to better understand the Trust’s recent moves.

Jack Straw

To much disgust, Jack Straw is listed as a trustee, having joined Star Academies in December 2016. This should come as no surprise. Straw has been backing the trust for some time.

My sources close to the school state that one of the arguments made defending their decision to start a cadet force was the ridiculous suggestion that people should not blame the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan on the army, but rather the politicians. Yet, dubious rationale aside (soldiers can conscientiously object to wars), the trust is honouring one of the British architects of the Iraq war by allowing him to become a trustee. However, this is not Straw’s only claim to infamy.

Straw: Triggering Muslim Demonisation

For Muslims, Straw is often remembered for his callous 2006 comments about veiled Muslim women which triggered the social and political demonisation of a minority within a minority. Its impact continues to reverberate today.

In 2012, Straw released his political memoir in which he expressed white supremacist concerns about how the “Asian population grew, mosques replaced redundant chapels and churches, and some Anglican schools became 100 per cent Muslim” (Straw is an Anglican himself). Moreover, he also took issue with how more women were choosing to don the veil, stating that people would “notice” and “worry about it”. Surely, as a representative of his constituents, his job would have been to dismiss unfounded anxieties and white supremacy concerns instead of pandering to them by publishing such selections of his book to the right-wing populist mob readership of the Daily Mail.

Ten years after his first set of statements, he continued to support his views, now becoming a Mufti and arguing that “no direct authority for the wearing of the full veil in the Holy Koran”. I will return to this claim below when highlighting the views of other directors.

Though Straw likes Muslims to believe that his innocent column “took a life of its own”, the fact remains that his statements were made in a broader context that is marked by the discrediting of multiculturalism and the ascendancy of assimilationist “British values”.

Multiculturalism was openly being questioned by ministers like Ruth Kelly, who was launching an initiative to tackle extremism at that time. Muslims, and in particular, veiled Muslim women, became useful political capital in these discussions.

Straw: Racialisation of Crime and “Grooming Gangs”

Another issue which fitted neatly with the agenda to discredit multiculturalism was the “grooming gangs” issue.  In 2011, Straw went off on an inflammatory, racist rant insisting that Pakistanis had a “specific problem” because of their culture that sees “white girls” as “easy meat”.  The logic is repulsive: using the same thinking, one could argue that there must a “specific problem” with culture of “white girls” that increases their tendency to make themselves “easily available”.

The basis of his argument was flawed from the outset.  Dr Ella Cockbain, who focusses on child sexual exploitation (CSE) has stated,

“Reflecting a broader preoccupation with the idea of irreconcilable culture clash theories, grooming proved a convenient focal point for longstanding frustrations about arranged marriage practices (whose implication for migration policies should be remembered), perceived misogyny and insufficient assimilation. Despite little direct supporting evidence for such cultural correlates, they were not only presented as self-evident but as direct causes of grooming. In fact, certain claims can be readily exposed as dubious, despite attracting little scrutiny at the time. For example, Jack Straw, Britain’s former home secretary, was quick to explain grooming as an inevitable consequence of an arranged marriage culture, whereby young unmarried Pakistani-heritage men resort to abusing readily available white British girls out of pent-up sexual frustration. Not only is the notion that CSE [Child Sexual Exploitation] is the only outlet for sexual release risible, but Straw ignores the fact that the offenders in the cases in question were typically already married and in their 20s or 30s, hardly the sexually frustrated ‘young men … fizzing and popping with testosterone’ of his argument.” (Cockbain, 2013)

The notion of ethnically-driven Child Sexual Exploitation lacks evidence and ignores statistical and selection biases due to the way crimes are recorded as well as local demographics.

Dr Cockbain similarly pointed this out recently in her scrutiny of Quilliam’s flawed report that attempted to support Straw’s claims.

Straw, however, repeated his racist claims earlier this year. His statements were promoted by the white supremacy propaganda outlet Breitbart news.

Straw: The Iraq War, Neocons and Rendition

Straw’s record and behaviour on Iraq is appalling. He, along with Tony Blair, drove Britain into invading the country. His voting record shows that he consistently voted for Iraq, despite knowing that it could be a “long and unsuccessful” war. Straw even suggested pursuing war without a UN vote using the Kosovo intervention as precedent.

Straw, understandably, voted against investigations into the Iraq war several times. The Chilcot inquiry revealed that he was aware of Blair’s promise to George Bush in 2002 that he would be “with him all the way”.

Given that the war was cooked by hardcore American neocons, it is unsurprising that Straw was close to them. In his memoir, Straw states,

“I had met Dick Cheney once before, and was to meet him many times thereafter. He was ever courteous, but I never warmed to him, nor he to me… Paul Wolfowitz was a very different character. This was my first meeting with him, but our close family friend Richard Danzig, a Democrat who had served in Bill Clintons administration as Secretary of the Navy knew Wolfowitz well, had spoken of him in positive terms. His politics were not mine (nor Richards). Post 9/11 he became evangelical in his pursuit of the war on terror, and his fixation with Saddam Hussein verged in zealotry. Yet he was a true polymath, with engaging personality…”  (Straw, 2012)

Whilst Wolfowitz et al are well known for their perpetual war, “regime change” and advocacy for an “Islamic reformation”, little is known about Richard Danzig. Straw portrays Danzig as someone outside of the neocon circle by emphasising his politics and “Democrat” affiliation.

Danzig served as the 71st Secretary of the Navy under the Clinton administration. He is a consultant for US intelligence agencies, currently serves as a Trustee to the RAND corporation (the infamous US think-tank that produced the RAND document on “democratising Islam”, which served as blueprint for deforming the faith), and the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

The CNAS is a hawkish think-tank that has a pantheon of neocons as its members. Its former chair was Richard Perle, a prominent War on Terror advocate. Robert D Kaplan, a CNAS senior advisor, promoted the Iraq war and believes that Western Imperialism can once again stabilise the Middle East.

Former head of CNAS John Nagl sits on the Board of Advisor. He advocated the counter insurgency (COIN) doctrine within the army soon after the start of the War on Terror. This made him favourable with arch neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan who invited him to speak at their debut event establishing the Foreign Policy Initiative. The FPI is considered the successor to the infamous Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Then there is the neocon Robert Kagan a founder of PNAC. He has contributed to CNAS reports such as “Extending American Power”, and has spoken at CNAS events. He along with PNAC co-founder Kristol argued in 2003 for a “remoralisation of America” – the closed society – which ultimately required a “remoralisation of foreign policy”. Neocon foreign policy of course bequeathed us the disasters that stretch across the Middle East and Afghanistan today.

In January 2018, Victoria Nuland was welcomed to CNAS as CEO. In 2014, Nuland was exposed for actively picking and choosing a Western-friendly leader of Ukraine, escalating tensions with Russia in the process. Pertinently, Nuland suggested a meeting with Ban Ki-moon to cement the effective regime-change, brazenly side-lining the EU (infamously using the terms “f*** the EU”). One American Russia expert called it “two steps from a Cuban Missile Crisis”.

Nuland’s old boss is Iraq disaster architect Dick Cheney, whilst her husband is the aforementioned Kagan. Danzig praised Nuland in the following words:

“Toria has the deftness of a diplomat, the will of a warrior, and the insight of an intellectual.”

That is quite the “close friend” Straw has there.

Straw’s distancing from Wolfowitz and neocon policy in general does not remove the inconvenient fact that Straw pushed for war along neocon policy lines. The Chilcot report revealed that Straw emphasised Iraq when reviewing the first WMD dossier which eventually resulted in the “dodgy dossier” that misled the country to war.

Under Blair and Straw, Muslims were kidnapped, renditioned and tortured. In 2005, Straw rejected this and told the Commons foreign affairs committee that this was a “conspiracy theory”. This year, it was revealed that the government and intelligence agencies helped finance three rendition operations. On one occasion, at least, Straw authorised the payment of “a large share” of the costs.

Whilst trying to dodge the impact of the Chilcot Inquiry (he was caught emailing Colin Powell saying that Brexit had distracted from Chilcot), he remains unrepentant for initiating a war which has resulted in genocide and a region that continues to be inflamed in conflict.

Straw: Militarisation of Society – The Armed Forced Covenant

Straw’s moral sterility does not end here.

The Armed Forces Covenant attempts to enforce a “moral obligation” to “respect and support” the armed forces.  This has the effect of self-censoring or inhibiting criticism of the British Army where it is legitimate to do so. For example, the British Army does not deserve respect or support for breaching Geneva Conventions by subjecting the members of the civilian population of Iraq to cruel and inhumane treatment. However, stating this could breach the “moral obligations” set out in the Covenant. The demands of the Covenant also ensure that militarism continues to creep into civil society.

When attempts were made to enshrine the Covenant into law, the proposed legislation imposed a “mutual obligation” for the “nation” to sustain the army and its land operations.  In a democracy, the army is subservient to the civil – there is no “mutual obligation”. This is not too dissimilar to the neoconservative understanding of the relationship between the military and a democracy.

Gwinthian Prins, who has been on the Advisory Council of the Henry Jackson Society has asserted that “defence and security” should not be democratically controlled:

Moves are needed to take defence and security, as far as possible, back out of the arena of short-term party politics.”

Straw voted for the military covenant to be enshrined into law.

Terrorism and Islam

In terms of his comments on terrorism, his statements are often carefully crafted to ensure that his Muslim constituents are not too perturbed. These statements, however, mimic the neocon culturalist account of political violence, enabling the demonising a minority.

Thus, Islam is blamed but as a “perversion” which has been reflected in Judaism and Christianity through historic violence (see for example, here his statements in 2002 and 2013). Notably, his position implies that Judaism and Christianity are no longer a problem, but Islam and its “perversion” is. What is omitted here in this deceptive, yet convenient explanation is the former Foreign Secretary’s foreign policy and therefore his own culpability.

Ironically, while blaming Islam and interpretations of it for political violence, he himself supports and advocates the violence of war when it comes to invading Muslim countries.

Engaging Despots

The hypocrisy is further entrenched when one considers that he is also an advisor for the Eurasian Council for Foreign Affairs, a group aimed at facilitating Europe’s political and economic relationship with Kazakhastan. Kazakhastan is regularly slammed for its use of torture and poor human rights record. The autocratic leader of Kazakhastan is Nursultan Nazarbeyev. Nazarbeyev commissioned Tony Blair to improve his image after civilian protestors were killed. While Blair makes money off improving the image of tyrants, Straw advises a think-tank dedicated to normalising EU relations with a despotic regime.

Straw is as toxic and morally dubious as they come: from leading wars into the lands of Muslims while demonising Muslims in the UK to effectively whitewashing a brutal dictatorship; from positing a culturalist account of political violence that targets Islam to domestically advocating militarisation of society that fundamentally changes the relationship between the civil and the army.

There are some serious questions that require answers.

  • Why did the Muslim elements of the Blackburn constituency continue to support Straw for so many years?
  • What on earth is this obnoxious man doing on an educational trust run by Deobandi Mufti?
  • To what extent does his influence extend into schools?
  • Why are other Muslim trustees of Star Academies “personal friends” with him?

Kothia, Patel and the Promotion of Colonised Muslims

Kamruddin “Kam” Isap Kothia is the 55 year old CEO of Time2, a tech company which sells a range of smart home products. According to companycheck.co.uk, Kothia has a total current net worth of £185.5million.

kamwilshawKothia’s circle is disconcerting. Worryingly, Star Academies saw it fit to invite the Islamophobe Michael Wilshaw as a key note speaker to their 2018 annual conference. Kothia is seen at the conference grinning with Wilshaw.

He is also a “personal friend” of the niqab-bashing Straw, who he has known for some 20 years.

kamjack2If we recall, Straw asserted that there was no direct reference to the veil in the Qur’an. This view is at odds with Kothia and Patel, both of whom put their names to a 2009 statement issued by Blackburn Council of Mosques. The statement asserted that the veil “is most definitely an Islamic and religious matter that is grounded in the Holy Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him)”. Less than ten years on, not only has a man who wants the veil removed been brought into their Trust, but as “personal friends” they are now overseeing policies that detrimentally impact the faith of Muslim children.

In 2012, as a Chair of Governors for Tauheedul Islam Girls High School, Kothia was appointed Deputy Lieutenants by the Lord-Lieutenant of Lancashire to assist him in representing The Queen. Kothia’s role is to support the Lord-Lieutenant and be a minion for the Royal family. Of pertinence is that his role also requires him “to liaise with local units of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, Royal Air Force, and their associated cadet forces”.

Kothia, who was “delighted” at the time, said that it was a “great honour” to be appointed.

Kothia has in the past Tweeted out a link to the Daily Mail saying how “Pupils from Eden girls school… [are holding] poppies to their lips at Armistice Day event at Trafalgar Square”.

He also Retweeted The Armed Forces Muslim Association Twitter account which parades a propaganda story that reinforces a particular, acceptable type of Muslim. The story relates how Muslim that had been brainwashed at Sandhurst later “refused to betray Britain” despite being tortured and imprisoned during WWI.  It is interesting to note that the Muslim man was a part of the 5th Battalion, 7th Rajput Regiment. The 5th Light Infantry Regiment – also Rajput officers – stationed in Singapore became aware that they would be sent to fight the Ottoman Muslims. On 15th February 1915, 800 Muslims turned against their officers, killing around 40 British officers and seizing ammunition. The mutineers were executed. I doubt the Ministry of Defence will be pushing this story any time soon.

As we shall see in the next piece, Star Academies schools are inebriated in all things British military, subjecting Muslim children to nationalistic militarism. Is Kothia among the drivers for these dangerous policies?

Patel is little different when it comes to these disturbing themes. In 2014, he praised a speech by David Cameron in which Cameron patronisingly “celebrated” certain types of Muslims. This type consisted of dying for the British Empire and being rewarded with the Victoria Cross for structurally supporting colonisation. Such Muslims are the role models which the Mufti posits as “inspiring”.

In another Tweet, Patel shares a worrying article which argues that by recognising the contribution of Muslims who died for British colonialism , the far-right may stop being Islamophobic and make Muslims feel “more British”. The report references Eden Girls School and how they are learning about how Muslims died in the British Indian Army.

The argument ignores the fact that far-right racism and hatred has existed long before the War on Terror designated Islam and Muslims its existential enemy. This abhorrent argument is classic victim-blaming: Muslims – often victims of far-right hate and violence – are the cause of the rise of the far-right. Moreover, the cure is the creation of a Muslim who is too dumb enough to see how colonialism systematically destroyed Muslim religious, economic and political institutions and resources across the Middle East and beyond.

Is this the self-immolating, self-demonising thinking Patel wishes to imbibe into Muslim children? And is this indoctrination acceptable to Muslim parents who send their children to Star Academies schools?

Concluding Remarks

The views of the directors do not bode well for Muslim pupils and their parents. A close analysis of the activities conducted at Star Academies schools shows that the neoliberal and neoconservative policies entrenched early in the Trust’s history, and expressed in the views of trustees and the CEO, are directly impacting pupils.

Muslim pupils are being extensively subjected to state-sanctioned brainwashing projects that seek to reconstitute the Muslim identity. This will be covered in the next piece.

 


References

Cockbain, E., 2013. Grooming and the ‘Asian sex gang predator’: the construction of a racial crime threat. Race & Class, 54(4), pp. 22-32.

Straw, J., 2012. Last Man Standing: Memoirs of a Political Survivor. London: Pan Macmillan.

 

 

25 thoughts on “Star Academies: A Leadership of Warmongering, Racist Demonisers of Muslims and proponents of Militarism

  1. Whomever has written this article why don’t you have the audacity to put your name to it, secondly if you think you can do better you son of a Satan why don’t you try. People like you should be publicly flogged and thrown to the wolves as jealousy running through your veins

    • Brother Imran, would knowing the author’s identity change the facts as outlined in this article? Will they mitigate the severe problems highlighted? Will they change the clear facts that we all have witnessed over the years. Our forefathers worked hard to establish institutions to protect our Islamic values, not to bury them.

      I do not believe initiating them into the British army was in any way a future aspiration.

      I remember supporting Muslim parents that challenged a state school (not of a faith character) that forbade Muslim girls from wearing the Jilbab, they fought and one. Yet Eden school, part of the Star franchise, does not permit jilbab as part of its uniform. On that count many state schools of a non-faith background are far more tolerant of Islamic dress codes.

      Maybe given your challenge, you should clarify your link to Star?

      I’m happy to clarify who I am just in case you wish to call me a shaytan or call for my public flogging and death,

      Yusuf Patel
      yusuf@sreislamic.org

      • Dear Yusuf

        I have many issues with both of these articles that have been posted by the anonymous author of this blog. To say anonymity is ok is problematic because that’s how the Trojan Horse issue first came to light, through an anonymous letter. We don’t know who sent it and why. Just like the Coolness of Hind blogger, we don’t know who is writing this stuff and why. You know this is a problem because in your own post you want Imran to clarify his link to Star. By this measure we should also ask who the author of the polemic againt Star is. Is he/she a disgruntled ex employee? someone who didn’t get a job there? Someone whose own school was “put out of business” by Star? It’s hard isn’t it.

        Some of the points raised may have valid and genuine concerns but I find most of it just a conflation of theories and spurious connections that don’t really hold any water. I think one of the biggest problems I have with the articles is that the author has never set foot in a Star Academies School nor spoken to any of the staff or parents. This is reminiscent of Peter Clarke when he wrote his report into Trojan Horse, he never set foot in a Trojan Horse School not interviewed the staff.

        If what’s written here is true, that Star is this evil pernicious organisation, you will see parents taking their children out of Star Academies schools en masse. People will vote with their feet. I can’t see that happening because I am a parent of a child at a Star Academy School and I say walaahi what the school have done for me and my child is amazing masha’Allah. Yes there are things that you want to see improved or changed but the school is open to that and I think that’s what I find most impressive about the whole organisation; they are willing to listen and don’t have this arrogant attitude of we know everything and just do what we say. It’s a true partnership with parents.

        I think it’s a great failing of the ummah in this day and age that if we have a disagreement we want to burn the place down to the ground, metaphorically. We can’t talk and discuss and move forward.

        May Allah allow the author of the Coolness of Hind blog find peace and move on from the obvious trauma he/she has experienced.

        Wassalam
        Junaid

      • Dear Junaid,
        Assalam alaykum,

        Thank you for taking the time out to comment on the blog.

        Your comment has no substantive refutation of any of the points raised in both pieces. I will however respond to your comments nonetheless.

        “I have many issues with both of these articles that have been posted by the anonymous author of this blog. To say anonymity is ok is problematic because that’s how the Trojan Horse issue first came to light, through an anonymous letter. We don’t know who sent it and why. Just like the Coolness of Hind blogger, we don’t know who is writing this stuff and why. You know this is a problem because in your own post you want Imran to clarify his link to Star. By this measure we should also ask who the author of the polemic againt Star is. Is he/she a disgruntled ex employee? someone who didn’t get a job there? Someone whose own school was “put out of business” by Star? It’s hard isn’t it.”

        I am neither a former employee, neither have I have been involved in running a school. I do not have stake in this whatsoever. It is interesting for you to posit this as a question – you make my point: this is precisely one of the problems with the academisation programme – competition based education.
        Likening the issue of authorship to the Trojan Horse letter is weak on several fronts: that letter’s author didn’t respond to any comments made; the content was without basis; and it was used to steam roller the Muslim community Birmingham and then later beyond.

        “Some of the points raised may have valid and genuine concerns but I find most of it just a conflation of theories and spurious connections that don’t really hold any water.”

        Everything I have written is referenced. Can you substantiate your statement that “most of it is just a conflation of theories and spurious connections”?

        “I think one of the biggest problems I have with the articles is that the author has never set foot in a Star Academies School nor spoken to any of the staff or parents. This is reminiscent of Peter Clarke when he wrote his report into Trojan Horse, he never set foot in a Trojan Horse School not interviewed the staff.”

        Firstly, your assumption that I have had no contact with Star Academies associations is false. Secondly, speaking to such associations has no bearing on the fact that Star Academies has been shoving PREVENT and militarism down the throats of pupils for some time – its in-you-face- apparent from the publicly available materials. And spare the poor analogies with the Clarke report. That was a neocon thesis-driven report to prove the very policies Star Academies is proud to implement (and has embedded them into its policies circa 2011). These articles are a critique of Star Academies *implementation* of those policies, with a view outlining the broader, toxic agenda.

        “If what’s written here is true, that Star is this evil pernicious organisation, you will see parents taking their children out of Star Academies schools en masse.”

        Parents are not aware of the roots of the policies and activities taking place. From experience, teachers and leadership rarely do. The purpose of this piece is to ensure that, at the very least, parents do become aware, insha’Allah.

        “People will vote with their feet.”

        Indeed, they will.

        “I can’t see that happening because I am a parent of a child at a Star Academy School and I say walaahi what the school have done for me and my child is amazing masha’Allah. Yes there are things that you want to see improved or changed but the school is open to that and I think that’s what I find most impressive about the whole organisation; they are willing to listen and don’t have this arrogant attitude of we know everything and just do what we say. It’s a true partnership with parents.”

        That’s your view. Let’s see if the critique outlined in the two pieces thus far published, and the third piece to be published, are taken on board.

        “I think it’s a great failing of the ummah in this day and age that if we have a disagreement we want to burn the place down to the ground, metaphorically. We can’t talk and discuss and move forward. May Allah allow the author of the Coolness of Hind blog find peace and move on from the obvious trauma he/she has experienced.”

        I have just started the discussion, it is rather dramatic to then assert that on the basis of two articles, there is a desire to “burn the place to the ground”. The greatest failing of the ummah is the failure in recognising or downplaying the agendas that seek to deconstruct Islam and turn our future generations into state-worshipping fodder. What accentuates this failure is that some of our Ulama are spearheading this.

        Wassalam

    • This is one of the worst comments I have ever seen on social media. Subhan Allah! Fear Allah brother! Especially when you don’t know what you are talking about. The article is true and impartial. “The truth is always bitter.”

      • Assalamu alaikum to you Br Ismail

        Apologies, are you referring to my comments? Is this one of the worst comment you’ve ever seen on Social Media? Seriously? Have you seen Social Media?

        I am saying as someone who has a child at a Star Academies School I don’t find the article to be true. My child isn’t being brainwashed into a Neo-con mindset etc. etc. I’m just giving you my opinion based on my experience of the school. I don’t understand what’s controversial about that. All Muslims schools, state funded, independent, darul ulooms etc. etc. train staff on Prevent and teach Fundamental British Values. All of them without exception and they do it well like Star Academies because they show how Islam and British Values overlap and ensure that pupils take ownership of their communities and wider society. Some Star Academies Schools have pupils running foodbanks for the poor and visit the elderly and the sick. This is both a Big Society project and from the Sunnah, why can’t we appreciate that?

        I am giving you my opinion from my perspective and I don’t expect everyone to agree with it but you must know it has come from experience not just sitting from afar and watching.

        Wassalam

        Junaid

      • Wsalams his commets were abusive and disrespectful, he needs to apologise to the brother. There are ways to talk. If he doesn’t apologise, answer to Allah in the hereafter. Sunnah? Is it Sunnah to abuse a brother?
        Answering your comment, you seem naive and have not read between the lines. Foodbanks and helping the elderly MEANS NOTHING! Shaytan worshipped Allah for 700 years, where did it get him? These institutes are DOWN RIGHT racist. Racism is Haram in my religion.

      • Salaams Ismail

        I agree with you on Imran’s comments they were disrespectful it wasn’t clear that’s what you were commenting about, the Imran comment may even have been sock-puppeting, Allah Knows best.

        What’s also disrespectful is this;

        “Answering your comment, you seem naive and have not read between the lines. Foodbanks and helping the elderly MEANS NOTHING! Shaytan worshipped Allah for 700 years, where did it get him?”

        I believe you are judging the intentions of Star leadership, staff and pupils here. They have a programme of Hadeeth of the Week where they are taught in assemblies and class about the importance of service to others from the words and actions of our beloved Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. This is what guides these projects.

        Essentially what you and the anonymous author of this blog are saying is that any good that Star do has an evil intention behind it designed to destroy the iman and identity of Muslim children or the leadership is manipulating well intentioned Muslims to enact said evil intention. As someone with a child at the school, who has spoken to Star leadership and staff I disagree.

        Wassalam

        Junaid

      • Thanks for commenting again.

        You state:

        “Essentially what you and the anonymous author of this blog are saying is that any good that Star do has an evil intention behind it designed to destroy the iman and identity of Muslim children or the leadership is manipulating well intentioned Muslims to enact said evil intention. As someone with a child at the school, who has spoken to Star leadership and staff I disagree.”

        1.Can you clarify where in the blogs I have stated that star have ” an evil intention”, or that any good it does has an evil intention behind it?

        2. Having a child at star isn’t a credential or a piece of evidence that refutes the heavily referenced statements that have been made in the three articles. This is a deflection.

      • wsalams i replied to Imran’s comments, look above. Calling someone naive is disrespectful? Since when? If you were intelligent I would call you intellectual. Your comments are based on lack of experience, I live in Blackburn. Why do they give preference to certain students from certain mosques? That’s racism, racism is haram in Islam.
        Teaching Hadith isn’t sufficient in Islam, you need to PRACTISE upon the Hadith. Any Muslim knows that. Again, you have shown your naivety.
        I don’t wish to discuss such issues with people who lack basic knowledge. I hope you are putting your son with the Cadets, join the British army!

      • Salaams Anonymous Blogger / Coolness of Hind

        “1.Can you clarify where in the blogs I have stated that star have ” an evil intention”, or that any good it does has an evil intention behind it?”

        I was referring to Ismail’s comment denigrating the charitable works the schools take part in. It’s good that you admit that the Star Academies have good in them, that doesn’t come across in any of the 3 sensationalist pieces you’ve stitched together based on tweets and links to individuals who have said and done things, which nobody would agree with. But you also said this;

        “A close analysis of the activities conducted at Star Academies schools shows that the neoliberal and neoconservative policies entrenched early in the Trust’s history, and expressed in the views of trustees and the CEO, are directly impacting pupils.
        Muslim pupils are being extensively subjected to state-sanctioned brainwashing projects that seek to reconstitute the Muslim identity.”

        That shows that you think there are bad intentions behind the schools’ projects. How can you know if it’s directly impacting students if you haven’t spoken to any students.

        “2. Having a child at star isn’t a credential or a piece of evidence that refutes the heavily referenced statements that have been made in the three articles. This is a deflection.”

        It is absolutely not a deflection and it is a credential because you’re saying pupils are extensively subjected to state sponsored brain washing to reconstitute Muslim identity but that’s not true from my experience of sending my child to a Star School for a number of years. Your heavily referenced statements are an interpretation, that is all. They are not facts, they are a thesis or a series of conclusions made, sometimes on the basis of imputing intentions for actions such as accepting an award from the queen. You are trying to make this about the Deen which it is not. Can you produce a fatwa to say it is haram to accept an award from the queen such as a CBE or an OBE. I’m not saying that people should or shouldn’t accept the award, that’s up to them but by accepting it that’s not a sign that person is a bona fida imperialist or pro-colonialist because the paradigm of the British empire has shifted in the modern day compared to what it once meant. You may disagree with this understanding that’s fine but it’s not a haram / halal issue. Many Muslims have accepted awards from the queen such as Dr Hany El Banna, founder of Islamic Relief.

        At the end of reading the 3 articles I felt as if it was Trojan Horse in reverse. Links from from one individual to another individual to a statement to another organisation etc. etc., a kind of 6 degrees of separation to statements previously made. A kind of a Andrew Gilligan inversion. I think maybe because you and the school that you worked in were so affected by Trojan Horse you’ve taken on the methodology, tactics and strategy of discrediting an organisation and are implementing it here against Star.

        From my point of view it’s difficult to get beyond someone who is anonymous, quoting or relying on anonymous sources (associates of Star I think you called them) telling me how and where to educate my child. That’s just me. In your latest post you even ask parents to consider taking their children out of Star Schools, that’s fine. People know what’s best for their own child. But let me ask you a final question, once you’ve taken your child out of the Star School where should they be educated? What is a better alternative considering all schools by law must implement Prevent and promote Fundamental British Values? Be as specific as possible please, normal Local Authority schools, independent Muslim Schools, homeschooling? Where should the thousands of students go?

        I know you want to start a conversation but where does the conversation end in practical terms for parents.

        Wassalam

        Junaid

      • Walaykumsalam dear brother,

        Regarding your response to point 1:

        You still haven’t pointed out where I’ve stated star academies as a whole has an evil intention. Instead you’ve assumed that based on your own defensive interpretation of expositions of actions and factual reality of what is occurring. There is a difference between action and intention. Intention maybe noble, the implementation, as is thoroughly evidenced, is frankly catastrophic. You draw parallels further below in your comment with Gilligan. Unfortunately it seems like your own assertions are unsubstantiated and twisted, rather like Gilligan’s writing.

        “It is absolutely not a deflection and it is a credential because you’re saying pupils are extensively subjected to state sponsored brain washing to reconstitute Muslim identity but that’s not true from my experience of sending my child to a Star School for a number of years. Your heavily referenced statements are an interpretation, that is all.”

        (Again), I’ve quoted Tauheedul submissions, tweets and images directly from Star schools showing them engaged in militarism, prevent and training by organisations that are deforming Islam. I have referenced academic sources where possible aside from primary sources to explain the objectives of these aspects. This is all an interpretation? You have your statement about your child, which incidentally is an assertion that no one in the cyber space can validate. Your deflection is becoming a state of denial, and it is getting ridiculous now.
        Let’s make start with the basics. Are you denying that star academies has started a cadet force?

        “They are not facts, they are a thesis or a series of conclusions made, sometimes on the basis of imputing intentions for actions such as accepting an award from the queen. You are trying to make this about the Deen which it is not. Can you produce a fatwa to say it is haram to accept an award from the queen such as a CBE or an Obe.
        I’m not saying that people should or shouldn’t accept the award, that’s up to them but by accepting it that’s not a sign that person is a bona fida imperialist or pro-colonialist because the paradigm of the British empire has shifted in the modern day compared to what it once meant. You may disagree with this understanding that’s fine but it’s not a haram / halal issue. Many Muslims have accepted awards from the queen such as Dr Hany El Banna, founder of Islamic Relief.”

        For someone making noise about imputing intentions, you are drawing a lot of your own assumptions. There are a few points I would like to make:
        1. Considering you were bombastically drawing parallels with Gilligan in your comment, where is it claimed in any of the three articles that receiving a UK honours award is a sign that one is a “bona fire imperialist or pro-colonialist”?
        2. You state the paradigm has changed. The honours system was invented and proliferated during the height of British imperialism. It was used to award members of colonies that enabled and preserved colonialism (see Orientalism: How the British Saw Their Empire, p.90). This remains relevant today for a number of reasons however the key point is colonial power relations continue to persist. See for example Michael Gove, who Mufti Patel praised, reviving a pro-empire mood in Britain as part of an effort forge a new nationalism (see – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/10/british-empire-michael-gove-history-teaching). Did you miss the part in the articles where only a selective reading of the British empire is being presented at Star Academies schools where Muslims are subservient to the empire? What exactly do you think that is for? Moreover, what do you think the imposition of the modern nation state as a global order is? Or the various client states that are forcibly maintained over Muslim countries under the guise of “regime change”? Or the domestic policies implemented here in the UK like PREVENT, which academics McCulloch J., Wilson D. explicitly highlight as exacting colonial power relations (Pre-crime: Pre-emption, Precaution and the Future, 2015 p.27). The decisions and violent actions of that time impact us here today. A number of Muslim recipients this year were Muslims who are pro-PREVENT . (https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/12/30/pro-prevent-muslim-figures-given-new-years-honours/). The politics, signification and meaning of the honours system remain as relevant today as they did when the British colonialists were raping the resources of “third world” regions.
        3. Additionally, there are moral questions to be asked of such a person who does accept and parade such an award. The early scholars were incredibly wary of ensuring they were seen independent from governing power, and this was in relation to a Muslim authority. They would hold power to account and suffer, but not compromise upon this independence – this in turn allowed them to legitimately criticise where appropriate to do so. Does this no longer apply to scholars today? Are we living in a different “paradigm”? With all due respect, Mufti sab here has not only received an award from the Queen, he has praised Michael Gove (which you are silent on) and is ingratiating with the likes of Jack Straw (which, in all your words, you have failed to comment on).
        4. Please don’t cite others receiving awards as evidence of its legitimacy. Jimmy Saville, Rolph Harris, and numerous dubious/treacherous characters in history like Nawab Abdul Latif, Sardar Bahadur Unjur Tiwari (seriously I can go on if you would like) have received these awards. If someone respectable has received it, I hope it is due to ignorance and naivety – this cannot be extended to a Mufti due to his influential position among Muslims.

        “At the end of reading the 3 articles I felt as if it was Trojan Horse in reverse. Links from from one individual to another individual to a statement to another organisation etc. etc., a kind of 6 degrees of separation to statements previously made. A kind of a Andrew Gilligan inversion. I think maybe because you and the school that you worked in were so affected by Trojan Horse you’ve taken on the methodology, tactics and strategy of discrediting an organisation and are implementing it here against Star.”

        Nice attempt there to undermine referenced/evidenced articles by linking it to Andrew Gilligan and the Trojan Horse. As I’ve shown above, and as you are doing here, you continue to make sweeping statements without substantiating your claims. This is getting embarrassing now.

        “From my point of view it’s difficult to get beyond someone who is anonymous, quoting or relying on anonymous sources (associates of Star I think you called them) telling me how and where to educate my child. That’s just me.”

        Please state where I have “quoted or relied” on “anonymous sources” to demonstrate the issues I have highlighted? It seems you have a chronic allergy to clear evidence of the activities taking place at Star schools. Incidentally, when you say “that’s just me”, who are you exactly? How can anyone verify who you are and that you have a child at said school? You could be someone employed by the school. You, ultimately, have no credibility.

        “In your latest post you even ask parents to consider taking their children out of Star Schools, that’s fine. People know what’s best for their own child. But let me ask you a final question, once you’ve taken your child out of the Star School where should they be educated? What is a better alternative considering all schools by law must implement Prevent and promote Fundamental British Values? Be as specific as possible please, normal Local Authority schools, independent Muslim Schools, homeschooling? Where should the thousands of students go? I know you want to start a conversation but where does the conversation end in practical terms for parents.”

        Let’s start the conversation first. As of yet, you have yet to substantively refute any of the points raised in the articles. You have failed to also substantiate your claim that “most of [the articles are] just a conflation of theories and spurious connections” per your previous comment. Once you come to terms with the problems highlights, we can discuss options to limit the impact on our children Insha’Allah.

        Wasalam

      • Dear Anonymous Blogger / Coolness of Hind

        I see. You have no response to the question of what the alternative educational setting is, thank you.

        Your response isn’t dealing with the reality on the ground, which i’m telling you about from my own actual real life experience, it’s dealing with cyber arguments you’ve constructed, I have to jump through your hoops otherwise there’s no argument right? Nice try yourself.

        “Incidentally, when you say “that’s just me”, who are you exactly? How can anyone verify who you are and that you have a child at said school? You could be someone employed by the school. You, ultimately, have no credibility.”

        I swear by Allah I have a child at a Star Academies School and that child I believe is not being brainwashed but is getting a balanced education with a strong faith ethos. Because the school doesn’t show it on Twitter doesn’t mean it’s not happening, basing everything on Twitter doesn’t give you a true picture of the school. There’s your credibility.

        Now your turn, who are you exactly? How can anyone verify who you are? By your own measure above, you, ultimately have no credibility. Also your nation state comments have given away your Hizb ut Tahrir / Al Muhajiroun background. I can rest easy now knowing you’re just a fringe HT guy who runs an anonymous blog.

        Wassalam and Farewell
        May Allah guide us all to what is right.

        Junaid

      • Dear Junaid,

        I’ve persisted with this discussion in the hope of a meaningful conversation where either points are accepted or a convincing responses proffered. I have had neither. Instead you have continued a trend of sweeping statements, unsubstantiated claims and no substantive refutation of any of the points raised in the three articles. This is my final comment on the matter, for you and the audience who choose to read this.

        To recap.

        1. You asserted that “most of [the articles are] just a conflation of theories and spurious connections”. You were unable to provide examples to prove this.
        2. You failed to prove where I have stated that star academies has “an evil intention”, or that any good it does has an evil intention behind it.
        3. You stated my articles were all “interpretation”. In response I asked: Are you denying that star academies has started a cadet force? You failed to answer this simple question.
        4. You’ve failed to substantiate your claim that I claimed receiving a UK honours award is a sign that one is a “bona fire imperialist or pro-colonialist”.
        5. You have failed to prove your own accusation that I am “quoting or relying on anonymous sources” for my articles.
        6. You fail to address the support for Michael Gove and Jack straw (let me guess this is an interpretation too or perhaps a parallel universe?)

        In your latest comment, you continue your digression from the points raised in the article.

        I will now respond to your final comment:

        “I see. You have no response to the question of what the alternative educational setting is, thank you.”

        Considering your defence of the Trust on the basis of your “experience” (as opposed to the policy level evidences presented), I would ask what the purpose of knowing whether I have an alternative is? Nevertheless I had prepared the following comment, but decided against it because of the above link of thinking:
        In your earlier comment you stated that Star Academies is flexible and receptive to criticism. If they are, then I pray they take on board the concerns outlined in these pieces. If it becomes *necessary* (as stated in the article), i.e. if they have exhausted all possibility of seeking change, then yes parents should remove their children and consider home schooling, or sending them to a school which, at the very least, is not slavishly implementing a policy of militarisation. I am aware of schools which are also limiting the implementation of PREVENT to the bare minimum and are certainly not brainwashing their children through the army.

        “Your response isn’t dealing with the reality on the ground, which i’m telling you about from my own actual real life experience it’s dealing with cyber arguments you’ve constructed, I have to jump through your hoops otherwise there’s no argument right? Nice try yourself.”

        Your response sounds like post-modernist nonsense where personal experience begins to completely displace objective truths.

        a. So Tauheedul is not starting a cadet force?
        b. Star Academies is not pursuing the free schools agenda?
        c. Star Academies are not pursuing the National Citizenship Service?
        d. Star Academies were not pushing the “British values” agenda in 2011 PRIOR to it becoming a “duty”?
        e. Was Patel not a signatory to a letter supporting Michael Gove?
        f. Are Patel and Kam Kothia not friends/co-trustees with ridiculous Jack Straw?
        g. Is Kothia not required liase with the with local units of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, Royal Air Force, and their associated cadet forces?
        h. Do their trustees, schools and policies not promote a selective historic narrative of Muslims dying for the British empire – are such examples not posited as role models?
        i. Have Star Academy schools not interacted with the Armed Forces?
        j. Have Star Academy schools not had Major Naveed Muhammad at their schools?
        k. Have Star Academy school not being promoting WWI nostalgia in the form of Armistice da and even poppy selling?
        l. Has Star Academy not being working with British Futures?
        m. Have Star Academy schools not been working with Reveal Theatre, a PREVENT outfit that pushes neocon narratives about Islam and Muslims?

        The above all is happening in the cyber world, right?

        As for your “credibility” and oath swearing (again, one could cynically argue that anyone can make such oaths on the internet), does you having a son at a Star Academies school negate all the above *FACTS* which are directly taken from publicly available material?

        “Now your turn, who are you exactly? How can anyone verify who you are? By your own measure above, you, ultimately have no credibility.”

        Again, in your struggles to respond to any points in the article, you labour on about the “author”. As stated before, I am a concerned Muslim, who has no stake in Star Academies whatsoever. I am neither a former employee, involved in a competing trust or have any personal grudge with any member of Star Academies (Jack Straw excluded, perhaps). I let the facts and comments speak for themselves. Take it or leave it.

        There is much to be said about you in the next part of your comment, however.

        “Also your nation state comments have given away your Hizb ut Tahrir / Al Muhajiroun background. I can rest easy now knowing you’re just a fringe HT guy who runs an anonymous blog.”

        You know when you say that in your understanding your son is doing fine, this line here completely obliterates any legitimacy of your demonstrably limited understanding. Mentioning the nation state makes one a HT? Hegel, Kant, Marx, Schmitt, Gramsci, Foucault, Kelsen etc. must all be HT right? If speaking of the modern nation state in the context of colonialism makes one a HT/Al-Muhajiroun, then Pankaj Mishra and Wael Hallaq must be the figureheads of Al-Muhajiroun and HT.

        I don’t think “resting easy” now knowing something (*sigh* again) completely unsubstantiated is accurate. “Ignorance is bliss” is more apt.

        Wasalam
        Ameen.

      • Dear Coolness of Hizb

        I admire your stand on not distancing yourself from HT and Al-Muhajiroun. Your pieces are political and not Deen related, that is why you cannot produce a fatwa to say accepting an award from the Queen is haram, because you know the fatwa doesn’t exist. Similarly you will not be able to produce a fatwa saying it is haram to join an Army Cadet Force for training or wearing a poppy or any of the other things you take issue with. No Islamic authority have ruled these as forbidden.

        You deserve the final word on this, these are your words;

        “who are you exactly? How can anyone verify who you are? You, ultimately, have no credibility.”

        Deen isn’t taken from anonymous people. Anonymity is bliss.

        Wassalam

        Junaid

      • Deen isn’t taken from those who praise those in power who actively target Islam. But of course, do continue to deflect without engaging any of the points made in the article (again). Of course its blatantly apparent that you aren’t able to do this.

        As for your assumption (another one? This isn’t looking good for you dear brother, please stop) drawn laughably on the basis that I uttered the words “nation state” that I am HT or Al-Mujahiroun – or ever have been – this is false.

        RE political vs religious you keep saying there isn’t a fatwa on joining the cadet force, etc and therefore this political and not religious. Because ulama publicly do not state their views (due to the climate of repression thanks to PREVENT) does not mean the fatwa doesn’t exist. I would ask you to speak to ulama about this – share these pieces and the arguments contained therein, present your own arguments too and obtain a fatwa . It was with consultation and concern of the ulama that these three pieces were written. Your views border on secularism, where Islam has nothing to say on what you consider to be political.

        Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani wrote a fatwa declaring the service in the British Army “Haram”.  This was adopted at the Karachi session of the All India Khilafat Committee, held on July 8-9, 1921, corresponding to 1-2 Zil Qa’dah 1339 AH. Tell me, is this just “political” and not deen?

        In this fatwa he outlines how adherence to an authority is only permitted as long as it adheres to the shariah. He presents verses upon verses and a hadith upon ahadith to demonstrate how and why joining thr British army was haram. He references Shah Abdulaziz, maulana Abdul Hay Lacknawi and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi to further assert that seeking jobs in the army is haram. He further adds that the occuptation of bayt Al maqdis is another reason, i.e. There is an attack on Islam and Muslim and thus this would not only be sinful but kufr.

        Are these all “political” views and not religious?

        Perhaps some of the Deobandis would do well to read the writings of the “akabireen”. They had more of backbone than those who claim they adhere to Deobandi values today.

        May Allah’s mercy be upon the righteous scholars. Ameen.

        Unless you do not engage any points specifically highlighted in the three articles please do not further waste my time and comment. To make it easy for you I’ve pasted all the points you’ve failed to answer and the questions in relation to star academies.

        Wasalam

        1. You asserted that “most of [the articles are] just a conflation of theories and spurious connections”. You were unable to provide examples to prove this.
        2. You failed to prove where I have stated that star academies has “an evil intention”, or that any good it does has an evil intention behind it.
        3. You stated my articles were all “interpretation”. In response I asked: Are you denying that star academies has started a cadet force? You failed to answer this simple question.
        4. You’ve failed to substantiate your claim that I claimed receiving a UK honours award is a sign that one is a “bona fire imperialist or pro-colonialist”.
        5. You have failed to prove your own accusation that I am “quoting or relying on anonymous sources” for my articles.
        6. You fail to address the support for Michael Gove and Jack straw (let me guess this is an interpretation too or perhaps a parallel universe?)

        a. So Tauheedul is not starting a cadet force?
        b. Star Academies is not pursuing the free schools agenda?
        c. Star Academies are not pursuing the National Citizenship Service?
        d. Star Academies were not pushing the “British values” agenda in 2011 PRIOR to it becoming a “duty”?
        e. Was Patel not a signatory to a letter supporting Michael Gove?
        f. Are Patel and Kam Kothia not friends/co-trustees with ridiculous Jack Straw?
        g. Is Kothia not required liase with the with local units of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, Royal Air Force, and their associated cadet forces?
        h. Do their trustees, schools and policies not promote a selective historic narrative of Muslims dying for the British empire – are such examples not posited as role models?
        i. Have Star Academy schools not interacted with the Armed Forces?
        j. Have Star Academy schools not had Major Naveed Muhammad at their schools?
        k. Have Star Academy school not being promoting WWI nostalgia in the form of Armistice da and even poppy selling?
        l. Has Star Academy not being working with British Futures?
        m. Have Star Academy schools not been working with Reveal Theatre, a PREVENT outfit that pushes neocon narratives about Islam and Muslims?

  2. Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “The views of the directors do not bode well for Muslim pupils and their parents. A close analysis of the activities conducted at Star Academies schools shows that the neoliberal and neoconservative policies entrenched early in the Trust’s history, and expressed in the views of trustees and the CEO, are directly impacting pupils.

    Muslim pupils are being extensively subjected to state-sanctioned brainwashing projects that seek to reconstitute the Muslim identity.”

  3. @imran chaudrey

    i have just received email from jack straw telling that he finds it uncomfortable… [MOD: pls keep the comments cordial and with adab maintained]

    ROFLMAO

  4. I don’t know why they refer to themselves as Deobandis. I doubt they would know much if anything at all about their struggles in any form at all. Rather it is quite insulting by associating themselves for their own egoistic agenda to the lives and spirit of the Scholars of Deoband. Their works are well documented by all including British academics with no soft spot for them.

    Tauheedul schools were started by 3 senior, very pious individuals (non scholars) with basic makeshift materials. Two have passed away into the mercy of Allah. They were men of honour, true character, humble and a fear of God. Sadly the management moved into the hands of people who graduated from Darul Ul Ulooms, where the concept of rote learning is rife. This is now the bread and butter of Star academies pupils. The teachers are micro managed, tests and results are the sole focus. Intervention by way of weekend classes is a common thing. Can one call this child abuse? The teachers have no choice but to come to school for this. They have No say or cannot have any input into the well being of the mental health of the child. The sole goal is high listing in tables. I question, is this some form of self gratification, ego warming exercise? But at what cost? The lack of any type of peripheral awareness beyond results, have led the academy into the position very carefully highlighted in this blog.

    You just have to see the results of the kids when they go into higher education, leaving Tauheedul having achieved ‘outstanding’ grades. How many sadly flop? This is the direct result of focussing their whole attention on grades, whilst hammering the short term memory faculties of the children.

  5. Assalam Alaikum Junaid,
    With the greatest respect, you sound like a broken record. You are clearly rattled by the articles which are all well sourced – the fact that there is no name on the article is neither here nor there, play the ball, not the player as is often said in football (though I appreciate that being a military school, they probably play rugby more). It is clear you have no response the the substantial issues and are merely deflecting.

    And I find it remarkable the lengths you have gone to defend the school from just allegedly being a parent of a child at the school. The school should be concerned with the with your childish insults.

    The Tauheedul Islam’s aim is to create a generation of Mir Jafars!

    • Well said. We all know what the academy has done is a joke. This is what happens when you give an institution to run by unqualified people. Yes, unqualified by common standards. Has the head in question ever studied at a University? Does he have any teaching experience at all? It’s easy to play around with excel sheets and trying to work out how marks can be worked up so listing can be high on the league table. It’s a total destruction. I’m sure in the next edition of ‘Animal Farm’, Star Academies and their bright Head Mr Mufti may possibly have an appearance somewhere in the book. The script is set.

  6. It’s with great sadness that we see some of the Muslim community becoming prostate to power. The relationship is between unequal parties, and the value of the scraps that are thrown are far outweighed by the value gained by government departments when they are given access to our children’s minds and bodies.

    The apparent closeness of that relationship belies the reality which is that one side is a supplicant and the other a benefactor.

    The benefactor does not give out of the goodness of their hearts but rather due to their desire to coerce and control a community and what better method than by infecting their minds.

    The state and it’s organs have long tried to infiltrate children’s minds and for the longest time the military have been kept out of schools by educational professionals and headmastera up and down the country..

    However post the WoT and the lack of confidence in the government and apathy towards the armed forces has lead to a new push to raise the profile of the armed forces via parades and other interventions.

    The militarisation of our schools and the target of Muslims children of not a benovelent nature but for to a desire to make Muslim children ‘loyal’ to the state and it’s organs

    If those if Star Academies do not see this reality, and see this as a harmless box to be ticked for ‘compliance’ or OFSTED then the niqaab has truly been pulled over their eyes.

    Coolness should be praised for her effort and Star Academies should take the criticism and respond where they think it’s unfair.

    After all this is mild to the punishment one of the Heroes of the Muslim directors of Stars Academies would have demanded, to be corrected by arrows.

    • @IsmailSatia

      Foodbanks:

      “Or feeding, on a day of severe hunger, an orphan of near relationship, or a needy person in misery. And then being among those who believed and advised one another to patience and advised one another to compassion. Those are the companions of the right.” (Qur’an 90:14-18)

      Helping the elderly:

      He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Most Merciful has mercy on those who are merciful. Be merciful to those who are on earth so that the One Who is in heaven will have mercy on you.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1924); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi, 1569.

      Means nothing right?

      Before making sweeping statements that institute is racist, could you kindly provide some evidence to support that accusation. Do the institutes you refer to also include Darul Ulooms? Oh, of course not!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s