The Muslim wedding, British manners and the Minister who walked out
This article has just been published at the Times Online.
Politics.co.uk carries this report on Jim Fitzpatrick, the Minister for Food, Farming and Environment, who walked out of a Muslim marriage ceremony in his constituency, apparently in a state of shock that men and women would be segregated and sit apart.
Our guest blogger, Shelina Zahra Janmohamed, author of Love in a Headscarf, argues, with justification, that Fitzpatrick was extremely rude to the couple in question. What do you think?
Shelina writes: Fitzpatrick's constituency, Poplar and Canning Town, includes Tower Hamlets which has a 35 per cent Bangladeshi Muslim population. He claims, rather surprisingly, that he was unaware of the custom of segregation at Muslim weddings. It worries me that the representative of a ward where a large minority are Muslim is completely ignorant of this tradition. I'm even more shocked that he is proud to profess his ignorance. Whether he likes or dislikes the custom is a different matter: surely he ought to be aware of how a significant chunk of his community conduct a central event in their personal lives. What else is he ignorant of?
Let's start with the meaning of integration. Fitzpatrick says that separate seating for men and women is stopping integration. Yet here is a family who only knows him through a friend and possibly as their MP, inviting him to their most important day. That to me is reaching out and encouraging integration.
Then we can move onto good manners. Weddings have always been a very personal matter and as with all occasions, there is etiquette which the guests must follow. If there is one thing that the British can truly pride themselves on, it is (or at least used to be) excellent manners. We know how to respond to invitations, use the right cutlery, queue in line. In fact many a book over the centuries has been written on developing the right social graces. The bride and groom are under no obligation as to who they invite to the wedding, and to be invited at all is a great honour. And at a time when budgets are tighter than ever, and weddings are becoming increasingly expensive, it is a real privilege to be invited to someone's wedding.
I feel very sad for the bride and groom that their special day has been hijacked by a rude ungracious guest who decided that their personal choices for the day were not to his taste.
But here is the rub of Fitzpatrick's ignorance. Segregated weddings are extremely commonplace and have been so for decades. Only a handful of the many Muslim weddings I have attended in my life have not been segregated. And this is not just the case in Britain but all over the world. Women have their own celebrations, as do the men, and both of these are incredibly joyful vibrant occasions. A half-Iraqi half-English Muslim friend who married a British born Bangladeshi had her marriage celebration for women only, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Her husband is delighted that the women got to "let their hair down" (literally in some cases of hijab-wearers). A wedding I attended in Bahrain of a minor royal was held in a glamorous marquee catering for a thousand people. Nine hundred and ninety nine were women. The groom popped in briefly to give his bride the ring.
If we look closer to home, segregation is still prevalent in other wedding traditions too. Some orthodox Jewish marriages are segregated. And we still hold dear to our separation of the stag night and hen do. Would Fitzpatrick have wanted to take his wife along on a drunken weekend in Prague?
Politics.co.uk carries this report on Jim Fitzpatrick, the Minister for Food, Farming and Environment, who walked out of a Muslim marriage ceremony in his constituency, apparently in a state of shock that men and women would be segregated and sit apart.
Our guest blogger, Shelina Zahra Janmohamed, author of Love in a Headscarf, argues, with justification, that Fitzpatrick was extremely rude to the couple in question. What do you think?
Shelina writes: Fitzpatrick's constituency, Poplar and Canning Town, includes Tower Hamlets which has a 35 per cent Bangladeshi Muslim population. He claims, rather surprisingly, that he was unaware of the custom of segregation at Muslim weddings. It worries me that the representative of a ward where a large minority are Muslim is completely ignorant of this tradition. I'm even more shocked that he is proud to profess his ignorance. Whether he likes or dislikes the custom is a different matter: surely he ought to be aware of how a significant chunk of his community conduct a central event in their personal lives. What else is he ignorant of?
Let's start with the meaning of integration. Fitzpatrick says that separate seating for men and women is stopping integration. Yet here is a family who only knows him through a friend and possibly as their MP, inviting him to their most important day. That to me is reaching out and encouraging integration.
Then we can move onto good manners. Weddings have always been a very personal matter and as with all occasions, there is etiquette which the guests must follow. If there is one thing that the British can truly pride themselves on, it is (or at least used to be) excellent manners. We know how to respond to invitations, use the right cutlery, queue in line. In fact many a book over the centuries has been written on developing the right social graces. The bride and groom are under no obligation as to who they invite to the wedding, and to be invited at all is a great honour. And at a time when budgets are tighter than ever, and weddings are becoming increasingly expensive, it is a real privilege to be invited to someone's wedding.
I feel very sad for the bride and groom that their special day has been hijacked by a rude ungracious guest who decided that their personal choices for the day were not to his taste.
But here is the rub of Fitzpatrick's ignorance. Segregated weddings are extremely commonplace and have been so for decades. Only a handful of the many Muslim weddings I have attended in my life have not been segregated. And this is not just the case in Britain but all over the world. Women have their own celebrations, as do the men, and both of these are incredibly joyful vibrant occasions. A half-Iraqi half-English Muslim friend who married a British born Bangladeshi had her marriage celebration for women only, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Her husband is delighted that the women got to "let their hair down" (literally in some cases of hijab-wearers). A wedding I attended in Bahrain of a minor royal was held in a glamorous marquee catering for a thousand people. Nine hundred and ninety nine were women. The groom popped in briefly to give his bride the ring.
If we look closer to home, segregation is still prevalent in other wedding traditions too. Some orthodox Jewish marriages are segregated. And we still hold dear to our separation of the stag night and hen do. Would Fitzpatrick have wanted to take his wife along on a drunken weekend in Prague?
Labels: british, comment, culture, Marriage, Muslim, politics, spirit21, The Times
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 15:18
9 Comments:
Brilliant response. I see some of the ignorant moderate Muslim brigade have already tried to defend the MPs rude and abhorrent actions. And anyone who dosen't realise that mixed weddings are the perfect place for trying to kop off is either too naieve or too ugly to never had a pass made at them!
Can't help but agree with your post. There are clearly political motivations behind what he did - possibly in reaction to George Galloway's decision to stand against him in the next election.
see my views on this story on
www.ramblesofmrc.wordpress.com
I must say I completely agree with your respose. And I would like to add a bit...
The idea (as expressed by Mr Fitzpatrick) that separate seating for men and women is stopping integration, is just plain silly. If a man and wife, or a brother and sister, sit seperately in a mosque, it has no more impact for integration than a man being seperate from his wife when he goes to work. What stops integration is when someone (Mr Fitzpatrick) acknowledges that he does not understand Muslim traditions, but then chooses to leave instead of staying to learn a little.
It also raises the question - with such a large Muslim population in his constituency, exactly who is he representing?
I do have to disagree with Anonymous (above. I have been to Christian weddings within my family where the guests behave properly, if anyone does do anything considered immoral it is likely to be done in secret - i.e. it doesn't happen in the Church any more than it happens in a mosque.
Cameron,
I should have been clearer in my response. I specifically meant that Muslim mixed weddings are the perfect place for trying to kop off. In our culture there’s very little opportunity for boys and girls to mix so mixed weddings is the one place that those who are inclined to snatch your daughters have the opportunity to carry out their dastardly plans. I speak from experience I’m afraid. I know of one 18 year old Muslim girl who met a considerably older Muslim man, a man who would be described as a seedy uneducated idiot in any culture at a mixed wedding and was ready to leave home and marry him. The end result was that her family rushed her into another marriage with a much younger, decent and educated man, which has thankfully turned out very well. It all stems from an intense love for your womenfolk and offering them the highest possible protection.
As for what goes on at Christian weddings I can’t really comment as I’ve only ever been to one however I nearly fell off my own chair when I was asked to pay for my own drinks!
Zakariya.
There were facilities for him to sit with his wife, which were offered to him after he'd stormed off, but he turned them down. He also alleged the wedding was segregated due to the influence of a Muslim organisation based at the mosque, but the bridegroom and organisation itself rubbish this. Jim Fitzpatrick is starting look like a bit of a chump all round.
Let us hope that this MP is voted out at the next election. But this is what happens when politicians make multiculturalism a dirty word. In the comments section in the supposedly liberal Guardian, most posters said 'you can't do that (have segregated parties) in our country!' It scares me, the way this society is going.
As for the so-called moderate Muslims, please read this: http://qunfuz.com/2009/08/13/abusing-quilliams-name/
great comments everyone, but it seems that since this is the silly season this story is determined to run and run. Apparently a segregated wedding is a threat to western civilisation and signals a jihadist attack on "christian" britain.
I think it's rather scary that some people here seem to think that women are incapable of protecting themselves and need men to protect them, otherwise they will fall prey to any evildoer out there. Surely you should respect women enough (and men, for that matter, as it seems that most posters here seem to think men are incapable of any sort of rational, non-sexual response to women) to be able to allow them the freedom to choose who they talk to, socialise with etc. And stating that a segregated marriage is a good thing as it protects women from the advances of unsuitable men is, to me as a modern woman living in a western society, a chauvinist, antiquated view. I am all for multiculturalism and am certainly not racist or 'religionist', but I AM a feminist in the sense that I believe no man should be allowed, today in the 21st century, to dictate to any woman what they can and cannot do. Have segregated marriages, by all means, if they accord with your culture and tradition, but do not state that they are necessary to 'protect women'!
Anonymous - I agree with you totally. I don't think the rationale given behind segregation is respectful to either men or women. I don't think women should have their own sense of agency diminished or infantilised, and I agree that men being painted as unable to "control their urges" is extremely insulting, and have said so before. The Muslim community if it wants to preserve segregation (and I believe it has an appropriate place) needs to think more carefully about what its purpose is and to address the problems that its current implementation creates (which currently it does not admit to)
Post a Comment
<< Home