The Herald Sun reported a few days ago:
Education Department senior education officer Brian Collins said parents at St Georges Rd and Wilmot Rd primary schools had objected to music classes.
“Some Muslim families have requested their children don’t attend music classes for cultural reasons,” he said.
“And we respect cultural diversity in schools.”
He said the children were being supervised by other teachers during music classes.
Leaving aside the boring and irrelevent discussion of whether music is or is not haram (forbidden), it never ceases to amaze me how accomodating non-Muslim schools are of Muslims and their requirements. This willingness to accomodate the parent’s desire for their children not to learn music stands in stark contrast to the attitudes of some of the so-called Muslim schools in this country that insist that children attend such lessons, regardless of what parents may think. As one Muslim school told a friend of mine, “if you don’t want your daughter to learn music, then take her to a non-Muslim school.”
Two reasons for this rigidity that spring to mind are that, firstly, the supply of places at Muslim schools is far surpassed by the demand for them; and, secondly, Muslims have a lot more invested ideologically in defending certain positions against criticism from other Muslims.
Has anyone else noticed something similar?
7 comments ↓
That’s an interesting observation, except I think it’’s more motivated by a culture of appeasement of governing education bodies and media.
It’s an interesting discussion because there does seem to be, in each state, one or two schools occupying the top positions and with the long waiting lists, and then a raft of second and third tier schools that seem to be struggling. At the same time, it seems to me that there are more and more young Muslims that are more religious than previous generations. As these young Muslims start families and look for schools to send their children to, there will be an emerging market for these second tier schools if they can offer a more conservative environment whilst also offering a good quality of secular education. I am surprised that we haven’t seen this yet because, from conversations with friends and others, there does seem to be a demand for it. I suspect that one of the reasons is that each of these schools seems to be firmly anchored to a particular ideology (as a result of its board, funding model, etc.) and another is, as you mentioned, the fear that they would make themselves a target for all sorts of negative attention if they were to be too “Islamic”.
I am fed up with Muslims being treated as ’special citizens’. Hospitals remove pig products from their menus due to Muslim patients, and schools excuse Muslim students from music classes. Thats pathetic. What next? are we going to demand juma prayers for a school which has 20 Muslim students?
Assalam u aleikum,
Law student, I think your post highlights some important issues that are very topical. To what extent does society as a whole need to cater for the diversity of the needs of is citizens?
Replace “Muslim” with “Jew” and it is immediately apparent how unworkable that solution is. Can you honestly imagine Australian hospitals force feeding orthodox Jewish patients pork? Can you imagine hospitals forcing vegetarians to eat meat, because they cannot be bothered providing a vegetarian alternative? And don’t both Jews and vegetarians pay taxes, so why should not society cater for their needs?
My child will go to a state school and I will insist that they do not attend music lessons. The state forces compulsory education on my family and takes part of my income to fund it, so it bloody well cater for my needs.
Indeed, I not only pay my fair share, but also the fair share of 16 other citizens, so I should get 16 times the influence.
And why shouldn’t a group of Muslims ask for a prayer area in a school to pray a religious requirement once a week (perhaps at lunchtime?) The inconvenience is minimal, it costs nothing and to stop them is sheer bloodymindedness. Imagine the uproar if a group of religious Christians were prevented from praying at school during the luncheon break, Costello and his mates at “catch the fire ministries ” would be having kittens on TV.
I will never need alcohol rehab, nor will I need the services of the govt funded quit line, I will not need a govt funded abortion, so why the bloody hell am i paying for them? should alcoholics then be allowed to die quietly under highway overpasses? should smokers be forced to pay for all their treatment and should women have backyard abortions? That is the ultimate expression of an society that does not tolerate “multiculturalism”. Culture is not just confined to Muslim migrants, but also other sub-cultures within society.
It cannot cater for every subsection of society but it should try for those sections where there is a large group or a particular important requirement for a small group. Where one draws the line between excessive pandering to idiots (e.g. Satan worshipping witches or sorcerers ) and denying rights to a minority group, is the essence of wise governance.
This is why I believe government should allow parents to spend on their children’s education out of pre-tax dollars. i.e. parents would offset their tax liability by claiming back the money they have spent. For less affluent parents, they could be provided with education vouchers. In both cases, however, it would put parents in control of their money and make schools — particularly private schools — directly accountable to parents instead of relying on government funding ‘per head of student’ as is currently the case. Under the current model, schools get given an allocation of money per student — ostensibly meant to deal with the scenario where a parent is paying tax (part of which goes to public education that they never benefit from) and is also paying private fees. However, government naturally never surveys parents to see if they are happy. Under the model that I’ve proposed above, there is a more direct link between parents and the school and signals can be sent more effectively (if the parents are unhappy, the school won’t get a cent). There are some other advantages, as far as I can see, for Muslims, but I’ll save those for a post on the subject.
Assalamu Alaikum…
Baybers,
“Can you honestly imagine Australian hospitals force feeding orthodox Jewish patients pork?”
You totally misunderstood what i was saying. The issue isn’t that of force feeding. No one is forcing Muslims or Jews to eat pork. No one is forcing meat on vegetarians. If you dont eat pork, go for fish, go for salad, go for patato mash. If Muslims or Jews aren’t happy with pork on the menu, well too bad. This isn’t a country governed by Kosher or Halal dietary laws.
There is a town in the North Coast of WA which has removed pork and other ‘haram’ food of the menu totally. What about all the aussies who want pork but cant have it because the sizeable Muslim population gets a little hot headed? Do you see what i’m getting at? Muslims have a knack of implementing Islamic rule on a non Muslim populace.
“And don’t both Jews and vegetarians pay taxes, so why should not society cater for their needs?”
Yes society should. Jews and Muslims together make up less than 3% of Australia, it’s blatan hypocracy forgetting about the other 97% pig consumers.
“My child will go to a state school and I will insist that they do not attend music lessons. The state forces compulsory education on my family and takes part of my income to fund it, so it bloody well cater for my needs.”
Every other child attends music lessons, but your children will not. That will automatically create a complex of being an outsider which will grow ans they get older. If you dont want your kids going through music lessons like every other child, enrol them at a Muslim school.
Law Student wrote: “No one is forcing Muslims or Jews to eat pork.”
The problem for many Muslims is not that we are being forced to eat pork; however, there are several other relevant issues at hand. (I’ll expand on this point below.)
“If Muslims or Jews aren’t happy with pork on the menu, well too bad. This isn’t a country governed by Kosher or Halal dietary laws.”
Many countries that have significant Muslim populations aren’t governed by “Halal dietary laws,” but they do provide a means by which restaurants can choose whether they want a halal certification or not. You see, as I mentioned above, the issue at hand isn’t just about serving pork. It’s whether *all* “Halal dietary laws” are followed. Two of the more significant issues are: 1) whether pork and other items on the menu are cooked together, and 2) how the animals we eat are slaughtered, including, for example, chicken and cows.
Now in Singapore and Malaysia, for instance, many restaurants don’t bother to apply for a halal certificate because they don’t mind excluding the Muslim population from their target markets. And, for the most part, most Muslims in these two countries don’t care whether these restaurants cater to them or not. We have our own restaurants that cater to us; for example, most of the major fast-food chains in both countries are halal (e.g., McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut, etc.). IMO, the more important factor in whether a restaurant applies for a halal certification is supply and demand. For a company like McDonald’s, the Muslim populations in Malaysia and Singapore are too significant to ignore. For, say, a small Chinese restaurant, the Muslim population may be safely overlooked (or not; my wife and I often have food from two Chinese-owned halal restaurants).
“There is a town in the North Coast of WA which has removed pork and other ‘haram’ food of the menu totally. What about all the aussies who want pork but cant have it because the sizeable Muslim population gets a little hot headed?”
Gasp, shock, horror! Aussies are dying because can’t eat pork! As I mentioned above, most of the major fast-food chains in Malaysia and Singapore are halal. Do you think the non-Muslim populations here are rioting because they can’t get Canadian bacon on their Egg McMuffins? Has it occured to you that perhaps the restaurants in this particular town may have taken out the ham because they wanted to *increase* the number of customers they serve - and make more money - instead of “caving in” to alleged “hot headed” Muslims?
“Do you see what i’m getting at? Muslims have a knack of implementing Islamic rule on a non Muslim populace.”
Do you see what I’m getting at? That some businesses willingly court the Muslim consumer?
“Yes society should. Jews and Muslims together make up less than 3% of Australia, it’s blatan hypocracy forgetting about the other 97% pig consumers.”
Actually, I think you meant to say “society shouldn’t.” So, government-owned hospitals shouldn’t cater to the needs of tax-paying Jews and Muslims, serving them pork whether they damn well like it or not, just because the rest of Australian society wants their ham. Have you ever seen a better example of “tyranny of the majority?”
“That will automatically create a complex of being an outsider which will grow ans they get older. If you dont want your kids going through music lessons like every other child, enrol them at a Muslim school.”
Personally, I don’t care whether Baybers’ kids attend music classes or not. But it’s certainly not like public schools can’t accomodate a minor request like not attending a music class (there are other classes a child could attend in place of the music class). And, once again, I see that you’re relying upon your “outsider” argument again; what now, if a Muslim child doesn’t sing with the rest of you, he or she won’t be considered Australian?
Leave a Comment