The Case of Jim Fitzpatrick and the Muslim wedding

This article jolted me to pick up my keyboard again. Not only for the very personal reason that I myself had my walima function (segregated) at the LMC nearly four years ago to the day, but that this story has all the now sadly common elements of Muslim bashing we are beginning to expect from our media and main stream politicians.

Firstly to the central point that segregated weddings are an affront to the cultural sensibilities of the British people. If a couple decides to celebrate their wedding at the LMC (basically an extension to the East London Mosque) it can only be expected that as for prayers, men and women guests will be entertained and dined in separate rooms. As well as my own walima, I have been invited to dozens of weddings which have been organised in this way as well as many that have not. This is entirely the choice of the families involved and the religious and cultural custom they wish to follow. There is no difference in this from orthodox Jewish customs and religious ceremonies followed by other religions.

As an MP in a diverse community, Jim Fitzpatrick should have been aware of the arrangements of this Muslim event. Perhaps his hosts should have made this clear to him and was negligent in not doing so. I remember being open with my non-Muslim guests as to the arrangements and this was fine with them.  Nobody walked out and all enjoyed the event. This follow up article indicates that the family went to some lengths to accomodate their guests.

What is more concerning is not his apparent ignorance but willingness to descend to the levels of the gutter press and twist the special day of a young couple (whom, according to the press article he didn’t even know) as a further and unwarranted side-swipe on Muslims, their customs and beliefs. Its fair game on Muslims at the moment and he’s apparently made his political calculations that he needs to boost his profile and attraction to the white working class of his constituency by appealing to latent racism and xenophobia. If George Galloway is standing in opposition to him at the next election, he may have decided that trying to vie for the votes of his Muslim community is a lost cause. In any case it’s a far cry from the honourable stand of traditional union activists who stood up for the marginalised and disempowered. His actions will no doubt provide succour to the likes of English Defence League who rampaged through Birmingham last week. Perhaps he would like to see similar demonstrations outside the LMC? So much for community cohesion.

The insidious attempts to malign the positive work of the ELM in its efforts to play a part in the local community by smearing it as an extremist institution, merely parrots the unfounded rants and lazy association beloved of the neo-con web sphere. It seems that if you try to engage within the society in which you operate you are branded as ‘political’ or the dirty word of the moment, ‘Islamist’, and if you don’t you are isolationist, rejectionist and not willing to integrate. It’s almost a lose-lose scenario.

As a new resident in East London, I marvel at the diversity and vibrancy of this area. Sure there are problems and I’ll elaborate on the challenges and opportunities that face the local community later. However, Jim Fitzpatrick’s flat footed contribution to the current hysteria provides no useful basis to progress the debate.

 

Veiled Threats

The blessed month of Ramadan is now over all too quickly as usual. It does seem that every year that it slips by faster than the last one and one hopes that you live to see another one. With Eid now celebrated (with the now customary moon sighting dispute) it seems appropriate to reflect over some of the hysterical media reporting that blighted last month’s spiritual exercises.

From stories about policemen not guarding embassies, cabbies not letting guide dogs in vehicles, pharmacists not dispensing pills, teachers wearing veils, Muslims against the Olympics (apparently it will clash with Ramadan!), potential race riots (thanks Trevor), university lecturers to spy on Asian looking students, prison officers to spy on Asian/African/convert prisoners, ‘hot-spots’ identified by Ruth Kelly all topped of by the a Pope’s speech, you wonder why some people are beginning to feel a little victimised. And that’s just some of the negative news stories I picked up on.

It’s not that Muslims should not be open to sincere debate but the vitriolic nature of unbalanced (and uninformed) editorial opinion pieces, hours and hours of phone-in radio programmes and the pandering to the basest instincts of human nature can only, at the very least have a severe polarising effect. At worst, political acquiescence to some these views has given them a credence not previously enjoyed and released expressions of bigotry and hate which are entering the public discourse as being perfectly acceptable to be held by rational and reasonable people. Sadly this has already led to increasing incidences of verbal and physical assaults on Muslims.

The issue that seems to have dominated the majority of air waves and news print and exorcised angst is over the veil. This is only worn by a tiny minority of Muslim women in the UK but has been picked out as amongst other things a symbol of male subjugation of women, a throw back to pre-medieval society, a slap in the face for a generation of bra-burning feminists or political expression of a pro-terrorist agenda (the latter view seriously espoused by Melanie Phillips on Radio 4’s The Moral Maze).

What is glossed over is that it is actually overwhelmingly a personal choice for these women who see this as essentially a religious observance and mark of their piety. Islamic edicts differ in opinion on whether the veil is obligatory or merely permissible (unlike the hijab which is considered obligatory by all orthodox schools of thought). So although it is not viewed as compulsory (from a religious perspective), the fact that women choose to wear this is mainly a demonstration of free will.

Now whether you approve or not is not really an issue. I may not like tattoos, facial piercing, blue hair or inappropriate exposure of flesh but if people choose to express themselves in this way so be it. With these choices do, I acknowledge come consequences, some of which will include limitations in the way you can interact with society in general. Given that over 60% of women in general are not economically active anyway, why should the choice of a minute number of women to wear the veil and not ‘fully participate’ in society matter so much?