Sometimes I really do hate newspapers. Jim Fitzpatrick MP was invited to a Muslim wedding in his constituency. Finding out on arrival that he and his wife would have to sit in separate sections of the church, he refused to attend. The story here is not that a Government minister is a horrible anti-Muslim bigot, but instead that he is a local MP concerned about the growing hardline elements within his constituency's Muslim community.
First of all there is the implicit judgment that he was wrong to object when faced with gender segregation - which was clearly the right thing to do - swiftly followed by the more explicit accusation that he is a bigot. You have to read through the long description of the event, a picture of him looking like a grumpy little Englander (see above), as well as severe condemnations from Muslim leaders before you get to the crucial bit from the minister himself:
For all everyone from the Tories to George Galloway are slamming Fitzpatrick for trying to be controversial to win over that crucial Disaffected White Racist voting demographic, that's quite clearly not the case. He regularly goes to Muslim weddings, and it sounds very much like he is involved in the local Bangladeshi Muslim community. The fact that he has left one before for the same reason - at a time when Labour were riding higher in the polls - is a pretty good indication that there was nothing contrived about this. He's standing up for his principles, and for those in the community who do not want to see a return to strict Islamic law in their community. Oh, how horrible of him! Statements such as this are thrown out...
... when we already know from his comments that Fitzpatrick regularly attends Muslim weddings that are not segregated. Subsequent comments from the Muslim Council of Great Britain and the Muslim Institute assume that Fitzpatrick is utterly ignorant of Muslim affairs and assume that his objection is born of prejudice or political scheming.
The implication is that Fitzpatrick is out of touch with voters, that he bumbled into this wedding and trampled all over the beliefs of a third of his constituents, and is woefully ignorant of Islamic tradition. Obviously that isn't the case. What has happened, and what he specifically states later in the article, is that in recent years a more hardline group has taken up residence in the area and he - and no doubt the Muslims whose weddings were not segregated - is concerned that this will be bad for community cohesion.
When I've spoken to ex-Muslims about this, they describe the interaction between fundamentalists and mainstream Muslims as a case of "keeping up with the Jones's" - nobody wants to be seen as a bad Muslim, or not pious enough, so they go along with the fundamentalists instead of stepping back from them. Whether or not this is true outside of the people I've talked to would make for an interesting debate, but in accusing Fitzpatrick of being insensitive and bigoted towards Muslims, The Telegraph has given column inches to hardliners who do not represent the community and established in the reader's mind that gender-separated weddings are a core part of Islam.
It's strange how the papers view American-style evangelism as a 'crazy' form of Christianity whereas when dealing with Islam its the extremists who are handed the microphone and the space in the public eye. It's insulting to Muslims for the media to assume that fundamentalists are the 'real' Muslims, and painting Fitzpatrick as the bad guy here is a grave error. He hasn't said anything offensive - certainly nothing more offensive than the root cause of the incident! - and it sounds like he has a good relationship with the Muslim community. The Telegraph, eager to put the boot into a Labour minister, has chosen to leap to the defence of sexist fundamentalists, instead of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a man trying to stand up and represent moderate and liberal Muslims. Integration, not separation, people!
First of all there is the implicit judgment that he was wrong to object when faced with gender segregation - which was clearly the right thing to do - swiftly followed by the more explicit accusation that he is a bigot. You have to read through the long description of the event, a picture of him looking like a grumpy little Englander (see above), as well as severe condemnations from Muslim leaders before you get to the crucial bit from the minister himself:
"The segregation of men and women didn't used to be as much of a strong feature. We've been attending Muslim weddings together for years but only recently has this strict line been taken. It is an indication of the stricter application of rules that is taking place that didn't exist before."It is clear that Fitzpatrick knows about Muslim customs, and it is equally clear that in his opinion segregation at weddings is not only ethically wrong but also contrary to the tradition of the local community. Why should he have to shut up in the face of sexism, just to avoid offending religous sensibilities? He didn't cause a scene, he didn't condemn anyone to their face - he discovered the situation, disagreed with it and then walked out. Trying to spin his quite obvious concern that hardline religious fundamentalism is going to prevent local Muslims from integrating and feeling comfortable in Tower Hamlets into bigotry is absolutely shameful.
For all everyone from the Tories to George Galloway are slamming Fitzpatrick for trying to be controversial to win over that crucial Disaffected White Racist voting demographic, that's quite clearly not the case. He regularly goes to Muslim weddings, and it sounds very much like he is involved in the local Bangladeshi Muslim community. The fact that he has left one before for the same reason - at a time when Labour were riding higher in the polls - is a pretty good indication that there was nothing contrived about this. He's standing up for his principles, and for those in the community who do not want to see a return to strict Islamic law in their community. Oh, how horrible of him! Statements such as this are thrown out...
"Muslim leaders insist the custom is traditional at Islamic weddings as well as in mosques, and expressed surprise that Mr Fitzpatrick, a third of whose east London constituents are Muslims, was unaware of the fact. "
... when we already know from his comments that Fitzpatrick regularly attends Muslim weddings that are not segregated. Subsequent comments from the Muslim Council of Great Britain and the Muslim Institute assume that Fitzpatrick is utterly ignorant of Muslim affairs and assume that his objection is born of prejudice or political scheming.
The implication is that Fitzpatrick is out of touch with voters, that he bumbled into this wedding and trampled all over the beliefs of a third of his constituents, and is woefully ignorant of Islamic tradition. Obviously that isn't the case. What has happened, and what he specifically states later in the article, is that in recent years a more hardline group has taken up residence in the area and he - and no doubt the Muslims whose weddings were not segregated - is concerned that this will be bad for community cohesion.
When I've spoken to ex-Muslims about this, they describe the interaction between fundamentalists and mainstream Muslims as a case of "keeping up with the Jones's" - nobody wants to be seen as a bad Muslim, or not pious enough, so they go along with the fundamentalists instead of stepping back from them. Whether or not this is true outside of the people I've talked to would make for an interesting debate, but in accusing Fitzpatrick of being insensitive and bigoted towards Muslims, The Telegraph has given column inches to hardliners who do not represent the community and established in the reader's mind that gender-separated weddings are a core part of Islam.
It's strange how the papers view American-style evangelism as a 'crazy' form of Christianity whereas when dealing with Islam its the extremists who are handed the microphone and the space in the public eye. It's insulting to Muslims for the media to assume that fundamentalists are the 'real' Muslims, and painting Fitzpatrick as the bad guy here is a grave error. He hasn't said anything offensive - certainly nothing more offensive than the root cause of the incident! - and it sounds like he has a good relationship with the Muslim community. The Telegraph, eager to put the boot into a Labour minister, has chosen to leap to the defence of sexist fundamentalists, instead of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a man trying to stand up and represent moderate and liberal Muslims. Integration, not separation, people!
0 comments:
Post a Comment