Jim Fitzpatrick, Minister for Food, Farming and the Environment and MP for Poplar and Canning Town, walking out of a Muslim wedding last week because it was a segregated affair has attracted all manner of critique and comment though the lines of thinking are pretty well drawn.

The Minister claims to be surprised at the thought of a segregated celebration, arguing that he and his wife have attended numerous such ceremonies in the past and this is the first time they’ve been separated on arrival. That may indeed be the case, but not having attended a segregated Muslim wedding is hardly an excuse for pleading ignorance of their existence and walking away when invited to one.

One would have thought the minister would welcome the opportunity to see and celebrate things done differently, particularly among his own constituents. If his contention is that segregation obstructs integration, his remaining a guest of the bridal couple might have afforded him the opportunity to see that doing things differently doesn’t stand in the way of integration at all. And what better example than the invitation of an observant Muslim couple, who organised their wedding in accordance with their religious beliefs, reaching out and inviting their local MP to be part of the ceremony?

The furore sparked by Fitzpatrick’s walking out, and his justification that a rise in segregated weddings is positively correlated to the alleged increased influence of the Islamic Forum Europe, has attracted a different, though no less pernicious, sort of criticism.

The argument runs that British Muslims are being driven toward a less integrationist more segregationist Islam by purveyors of hardline Islamic thinking. The line of argument is supported by those that like to see an ideological 'invisible hand' behind Islamic behaviour rather than accept such behaviour is part of the Islamic mainstream. Segregated weddings are very common amongst Muslims and this is the case whether conducted at the London Muslim Centre, or the plethora of school and town halls that double as wedding venues.

And then there’s the usual outpouring of indignation at practices that ‘demean’ women, force them into a ‘marginal’ space, etc.

Alasdair Palmer in the Telegraph asks:

‘What can possibly be wrong with an MP, or anyone else, withdrawing from a celebration whose organisation suggests that women are not equal to men?’

Since when did segregation imply inequality? Anyone acquainted with segregated weddings, and the women who avail themselves of the segregated space, will know that far from demeaning women, segregation offers them the space to be enjoy themselves shorn of the dress codes that govern mixed spaces.

Then there’s the question of whether segregation is something only practiced by Muslims, and it is revealing of the disposition to vilify anything that comes with a Muslim prefix as alien and undesirable that familiar instances of segregation are conveniently forgotten. Socialising with one’s own sex is not as uncommon as Fitzpatrick would have us believe. Apart from all male or female stag and hen night parties, the idea of a boys’ or girls’ night out is pretty commonplace for the simple reason that the sexes often enjoy the pleasure of like company.

The Daily Star decides that segregated weddings are further manifestation of the reach of Shari'ah and asks readers whether 'we should outlaw Shari'ah rules'? 

The right to freedom of religion is not just an intellectual right, to believe free of coercion, but one that has practical manifestations, such as the right to adopt a headscarf, abide by religion inspired dress codes, and the social conventions that flow from this. Telling Muslims that the practice of segregated weddings hints at ‘a degree of intolerance’ is to display a marked ignorance of religious mores and to misrepresent their intent entirely.

See also Islamic Forum Europe and Spirit 21 for further discussion.

Comments

Add New Search

usman   |2009-08-18 19:17:17 Here are Jim Fitzpatrick's contact details;(please be polite when you write to him) http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/contactdetails/0,,-1736,00.htm Email address: House of Commons: fitzpatrickj@parliament.uk Websites: Home Page: Jim Fitzpatrick: Constituency Telephone numbers: House of Commons Phone number: 020 7219 5085/6215 House of Commons Fax number: 020 7219 2776 Constituency Phone number: 020 7536 0562 Constituency Fax number: 020 7536 0572 Address: Constituency Trussler Hall Grundy Street London E14 6BF

usman   |2009-08-18 19:46:59 Dear Mr Fitzpatrick, I was very concerned about your decision to boycott a Muslim wedding recently. I feel that your action and your comments afterwards were insensitive and misinformed. Your claim that gender segregated weddings are a "new occurrence" is just plain inaccurate. My own parents' wedding in London in 1959 was segregated, as have many of those I have attended in London over the past 30 years. Your statement that "It perhaps demonstrates that there is a degree of intolerance", would, in the light of your action, seem a touch hypocritical. As this event has fed misunderstanding, elevating levels of ignorance and community tensions, as well as distress to the families of Mr and Mrs Islam, would an apology not be the most appropriate course of action? I would greatly appreciate a response, however brief.

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."