British universities and why they bend over for Islam

In November of 2012, there was something of sheer egotism in the air as the religion of ‘peace’ and assimilation grew contagious with an attempted “Islamophobia Awareness Month” in a bid to gain wider recognition for an untouchable ideology that answers to nobody. One of the more depressing aspects of this farcical month dedicated to one ideology is that it was in cooperation with the London School of Economics. The poster for the event was emblazoned with the following piece of pseudo social commentary:

“With Islamophobia entering the mainstream of politics across Europe and with increasing concerns over the penetration of Islamophobia in universities, the LSE Students' Union is providing a forum for discussion on the nature and extent of the problem and what can be done to challenge it.”

This is a continuation from the self-deprecation of western society and how there is a perennial blame placed onto opinion and/or concern. Many prestigious and world renown British universities are now playing the apologists and relinquishing a sense of intelligent, critical thinking in the face of adversity. As someone who is constantly and curiously questioning the intentions of others (whether positive or negative), I started questioning the general impetus of the universities and their great strives to propagate Islam. Of course, I didn’t need to look far. Largely influential and prestigious institutions such as Cambridge, have recently received piously generous donations in the name of Islam; Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia donated a breathtaking 8 million pounds (Just over $12 million) to both Cambridge University and Edinburgh University for the purpose of funding Islamic study centres (Cook 2012). This isn’t even slightly surprising considering the wealth of the Saudi royalty and makes one question the intentions of the Universities as they offer no separatism between education and business. The funding doesn’t cease there, obviously, as these influential bodies are attempting to monopolize and manipulate the education system-successfully. One of the largest donations was quite predictably to Oxford University for their Islamic Study Centre in the sum of 75 million pounds.

With all of these donations taken into account, the funding sources of the Saudi’s is the largest source of external funding being provided for British University (Leach 2008). Taking this into account, you may want to doublethink the amount of clout these educational bodies have-as well as the incentive of such reproachful endeavor as the University College of London took with the satirical Jesus and Mo cartoon published on behalf of their Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society (scrappy cartoons of Jesus and Mohammad sharing an ingratiating pint together). The University released a poorly complacent statement, which I highly resent in the name of free speech, stating the following in reference to the Atheist society and the members of it:

"They are provided with equality training prior to running a society, to help them understand the balance between freedom of expression and cultural sensitivity." (Topping 2012)

Once again playing into the hands of religious fascists and by all means-far too easily. The viewpoint taken by the general public and that of Muslims who were offended, could be seen as extremely cynical. The cartoon could easily be seen as a depiction of equality by having the two prophets reconcile their differences over a British pastime that is synonymous with comraderie; having a pint. This proves the inherent sense of victimization that religion breeds, completely stultifying any argument against it and constantly looking to raise a red flag in the name of it. At one point, the university actually threatened disciplinary action against those students involved for being so insensitive; I fully reproach and detest the way the university placated to outward pressure by completely taking freedom of speech for granted. The only way around such placation from the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society was through that of a petition with over 3,000 signatures, including that of renown Biologist Richard Dawkins. The fact that this non-issue had to escalate to such extremes can hardly be seen as a complete victory for democracy. It might be fun to note, for antagonistic purposes, that University College London was also one of the grateful recipients of a substantial donation from the Saudis (of course, they wouldn’t want to be culturally insensitive cough cough) (Leach 2008). Also, just to add fuel to speculation, University College London has an archeology campus located in Qatar; a Wahabbi state; the only other Wahabbi state in the region being that of Saudi Arabia (the Wahabbi branch of Islam is considered to be ultra-conservative, usually adopted by Sunni fundamentalist Muslims). With so many important ties to the Islamic world, the intentions of these otherwise prestigious British institutions is wholly compromised. How on earth one could believe that donations from the leaders of a country that prohibits women to drive are with positive intentions is beyond me. Saudi Arabia is obscenely backwards with their views on equality and the rights of women; the fact that their elite have any influence in the British university system is worrying.

Back to my point about this arbitrarily executed Islamophobia Awareness Month: it is just another stunt performed and employed by those who have been unfortunately and ill-fatedly born into such a belief system, which has carried through into the naivety of early adulthood. I can boldly presume that most of these young adults probably haven’t read the Koran, but only learned their fragmented belief through the heresy of Imams and their immediate surroundings. Islamophobia Awareness Month is just another dent into the Western calendar, just as is the newly constructed “world hijab day”-pseudo peaceful/raise awareness ploys. I feel that ploys such as “Islamophobia Awareness Month” should also be met with a counteroffer of such alarming statistics as 36 percent of British Muslims (ranging in age from 16 to 24 years old) believing that those who are considered apostates should be given the death penalty, merely for their unbelief (Harris 90). The universities that ratify such committees and then turn around and condemn unions that promote democracy and freedom of speech need to be monitored as once the British educational system has been infiltrated enough, there will be little merit left.

Though I understand his crass nature and overtly philandering ways, I can’t help but quote one of the great poets of the 20^th century, Charles Bukowski, as he once said,

“and the best at war finally are those who preach peace

those who preach god, need god

beware those who are quick to censor

they are afraid of what they do not know”

This excerpt is from Bukowski’s “The Genius of the Crowd” poem, and though it may not directly relate to Islam-you can understand where I’m making the connection. You have to heatedly contest such a notion that there is a “world hijab day”, whereby those of us who accept that life is life is life and there is no eternity or immortality should be imposed upon with such a contrived making-especially from a religion that has had such a grave impact on western society over the last 20 years (the fatwa placed on Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini, September 11^th, 7/7 bombings, the assassination of those involved with Rushdie’s Satanic Verses-namely two of his translators and an editor, the assassination of Theo Van Gogh for his Submission movie on the subjugation of women in Islam, the innumerable death threats and intimidation used by Muslim clerics in lieu of the Danish cartoon depiction of Mohommad-just to name a few). Nothing of the sort could ever take place in the middle-east, not merely just because of a lack of democracy, but also because they are a lot more shrewd and unscrupulous than the well-intentioned and progressive tendencies of the western world. Once stripped of religious tawdry and graduer, Islam is a pertinent example of a “my way or the highway” attitude-though many would contest this. This mess translates over into the West rather easily with many Islamic sympathizers and apologists taking the lead. When Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses was published, and quite rightly at that, not only did the cobwebbed genitals of Khomeini (this man deserves not one iota of my respect or anyone elses-he was an inciter of murder and utter hatred, a subjugator of free speech and a figure head for a slavishly misled cult) call for Rushdie’s murder, but he was even condemned in the United Kingdom. Rushdie was summoned to stand before  a prosecution  in lieu of what was labeled “blasphemous libel” during the time of publication. Fortunately, and clearheadedly, the magistrate denied such a request; leading to a ridiculous appeal to the high court. Then, in such atrocious circumstances, 13 barristers-all of Muslim faith-attempted, with futility, to have The Satanic Verses banned (Guardian 2012). Please bear with me for a minute as we ponder the kind of adverse implications this plea, if successful, would have had on the British legal system. We, surely, would be no better than Vlad Putin and the persecution of Pussy Riot for dissent in lieu of Russia’s current religious climate. This not only impresses upon the clout that Islam now has in the West, but also how they are hypocritical to claim that is a religion of peace and that Sharia law isn’t as extravagant as one may assume. If you speak ill of the prophet, of Islam, or even allude toward blasphemy-it is utter anathema and will not be tolerated for one second. Instances such as these make one question which side is actually holding the torch of intolerance.

There have recently been numerous cases of those of Muslim faith begrudging their employer for not accommodating their faith appropriately in the workplace and that the content offered by those chewin’ the fat in the workplace is unsuitable. This is just one of the many policies of the Islamic imposition-one of a fascist ideology bearded in religious text-that attempts to impose the conduct of policies upon those who were raised with liberal openness. If I were an employer, I wouldn’t care to have anyone pray 5 times a day whilst on the job; not because of which religion they were adhering to, but because this is something they are entitled to in their own time-otherwise, where do these concessions stop? Also, as an employer, I would feel compelled to beseech said party to rethink their dictum due to the arbitrariness of their prayer ritual considering that it was expected that one should only pray twice a day during the earliest years of Islam.