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.

 

Death on a train

The normal commute to work was interrupted last Wednesday when one of my fellow passengers suddenly collapsed. I’ve witnessed people faint before in the cattle-truck like conditions when, by the time the morning train eases into a London terminal station, carriages are inevitably crammed with hot and giddy office workers. Unfortunately this time it was clear that the situation was much more serious and that the man had suffered a heart attack. Despite valiant efforts by the ambulance men who tried to resuscitate him, it was clear that he did not survive.

The man was not old. He could not have thought as he left his home in the morning that he would not see his family again. It brings to mind the Quranic verse:

The Almighty says, “When their specified time arrives, they cannot delay it for a single hour nor can they bring it forward,” (16:61)

and Prophetic hadith such as:

Ibn ‘Umar used to say, “In the evening, do not anticipate the morning, and in the morning do not anticipate the evening. Take from your health for your illness and from your life for your death.” [al-Bukhari]

What was interesting was the reaction of the decanted passengers, now waiting on the platform for the next over-crowded train. Other than the odd few who were rubber necking as the dead man was being wheeled away, the majority of the hundreds of fellow travellers contrived to ignore the life and death drama unfolding only a few yards away.

Perhaps it was a form of British stoicism or just a manifestation of a typical London self-centered reaction. Regular tube users are so used to disruption to services due to ‘a fatality on the line’ that the usual reaction now is exasperation at the delay to their journey and inevitable consequences for reaching that important appointment ten minutes late rather than any sympathy or moment of reflection. Within seconds of the announcement of the cancellation of the train, mobile phones were being dialled and emails were sent to offices and work places, “I’ll be late in to the office this morning – the train was cancelled ‘cos a man died – how inconvenient!”

I can’t help feeling that the tragic event should have triggered deeper thoughts and emotions rather than just be the fleeting topic of water-cooler conversations. It should at least remind us about the fragility of life; that we should be in this world as if a stranger or a traveller on the road. Although death is an inevitable and every day occurence, in modern society being reminded about mortality is often skirted. This seems to be one of the remaining taboos although we will all face this most fundamental of realities.

To God we belong, and to Him we shall return.

 

Slumdog Millionaire

Whether the film was worthy of the multiple Oscar accolades, I’ll leave to others to judge. It certainly was one of the more vibrant films of the year and I have to say I did enjoy watching it. Stylistically it was clearly different from the traditional Hollywood film. However I fail to see how it was a ‘feel good film’ and watching it reminded me starkly of Salam Bombay! Certainly I can’t be the only one old enough to remember this truly gritty representation of life, death and violence in the shanty towns in what is now called Mumbai. And this film didn’t have a happy Bollywood dance scene at the end and love did not conquer all – in fact it was as real and tragic as you can get.

Many of my Indian friends can’t understand what the western obsession is with Slumdog. It’s not that they have a knee jerk reaction to the title (How dare they call us dogs!). It’s not even indignation that a foreigner has been successful in profiting from a portrayal of India that Bollywood has already covered in many, and they would argue, better films. Some have even called it poverty porn and classic explotation.

At its heart, I believe that there is a real disquiet that the images of the underclass amongst the increasingly affluent middle class are an embarrassment for India. Despite the skyscrapers, high tech industries, high profile billionaires, increasing economic growth rates and confidence on a world stage, endemic poverty is still as much of a reality now as it has ever been. Indians seem hyper-sensitive (guilty) to the portrayal of their country so starkly but a society so stratified by class, caste and religion is bound to be characterised by extremes of excess and poverty.

Slumdog is a reflection of a primal survival culture, racked by violence, exploitation, destitution and the only way out is through divine intervention. It is anything but a joyous film but still worth seeing. But Salam Bombay was better.

 

Preventing Violent Extremism

Panorama’s recent programme, provocatively titled ‘Muslim first, British second’, raised some serious allegations over the government’s Preventing Violent Extremism policy. If true, this marks a serious low point in relations with UK Muslims and points to a disastrous loss of trust. (Of course this presupposes that much existed in the first place which in recent years is difficult to imagine).

 

Her Majesty’s Government has pursued an overt policy of by-passing established Muslim institutions and community based groups in an attempt to reach out directly to ‘ordinary Muslims’. As a tactic this has many ramifications, many of which are still being played out. Here we are not talking about those organisations considered by the establishment radical and as such beyond the pale such as al-Muhajiroon as well as the non-violent (but separatist) HT but bodies such as MCB and MAB amongst many others which have positively engaged with civic society on many levels. Lumped together and dismissed as Islamists, the government has sought alternative partners and is actively procuring associates to promote its programme.

 

HMG, specifically the Department of Communities and Local Government currently headed by Hazel Blears, launched its Preventing Violent Extremism strategy as part of a multi-agency programme back in 2007. Since then, it has announced intentions to provide grants of £70m to a number of organisations and government institutions and allocated much of its budget. Nothing wrong with that you might say, particularly as these funds are directed at such innocuous projects as youth centres, teaching English and strengthening community leadership.  How the success of these funds will be measured will an interesting question to ask.

 

However the Panorama programme confirmed underlying suspicion that these projects were being used as Trojan horses to infiltrate the Muslim community. Making such a statement a couple of years ago would have left you open to accusations of paranoia and of having a persecution complex.

 

But we shouldn’t be surprised and it is naive to have expected otherwise.

 

What is more worrying is that not only does this leave those well intentioned public-minded citizens who are willing to devote themselves to their communities left open to accusations of espionage (it now seems reasonably founded), but it completely undermines any residual veneer of trust.

 

The programme goes on to allege that the government has been collating the names of every Muslim who has expressed public views against foreign policy. Coupled with proposals to monitor travel patterns, force ID cards on an unconvinced population and the power of modern database technology, this has the potential to monitor those with these views as enemies. Some Muslims already feel frustrated that their views are not being taken seriously and will take this as further evidence of the futility of political engagement if this will effectively put you on a secret service black list and in effect criminalises thoughts contrary to government policy.

 

Another central thrust of the programme (supported by an alleged leak of Contest 2 in the Guardian) is that the governement also seeks to isolate Muslims who hold traditional doctrinal views. This will extend the definition of E in PVE to those who believe that, for example, homosexuality is a sin. So the government will be left appealing to a totally unrepresentative officially anointed crew that will be considered tame enough to be deserving of an audience, grants and commendations.

 

If the aim of the PVE agenda is to change Islamic beliefs and traditions, then it is well advised now that this will fail and no further taxpayer’s money should be wasted. It will only serve to reinforce existing distrust with all government initiatives vis a vis the Muslim community and demoralise those who are willing to work with them on the basis of shared values and mutual respect. The government will risk being left talking to a pre-endorsed rump which does not honestly articulate the beliefs of the majority of the Muslims.

 

It will be interesting to see development of these policies over the next few years but I suspect much money, effort and goodwill will be wasted.

 

Rambles Resurrected

It’s been nearly two years since I posted my last entry. Looking back through the graveyard of my forgotten thoughts, I note that I predicted that I might join the ranks of the well intentioned chroniclers that promised to write regular entries and subsequently got side tracked and abandoned their blogs.

A week turns into months and suddenly a year or two slips by before any content has been added and the last visitor, despairing of any update feels neglected and understandably deserts. It doesn’t mean that the earth has stood still though – a lot has happened in life and the world that is worthy of some comment. Having resolved to start again, I’ve decided to continue where I left off rather than begin afresh – except that I’ve moved to wordpress.com. So you can peruse through rambles of the past including classics such as Sporange and to more serious ones as Slave Trade.

Future topics of discussion will continue to include opinions on news topic of the day, thoughts on politics, policy, religion, society, as well as personal references to my life, travels and encounters. Over the coming weeks I’ll amend the look and feel of the blog.

 

Cricket Test

It could hardly have passed anyone’s attention that we’re in the middle of the Cricket World Cup competition. Despite following the odd match with slightly more than a cursory interest, I have to say I haven’t followed this as I would have in previous years. One just doesn’t have the time these days – even for a one day match. I don’t remember how I could have followed test matches in years gone by, which to the bemusement of non-cricket lovers every where, can last five days and still end in a draw! But with the Bengal Tigers punching above their weight and causing upsets against India and now South Africa, the hype is getting too irresistible. At time of writing England proved to be a challenge too far. Next time, just maybe……..

The current tournament (and a friend’s blog) brought to mind the old debate around which cricket team to support a.k.a. the Norman Tebbit Cricket Test. For those younger than a certain age, you probably don’t remember Norman Tebbitt. Suffice it to say he was a Conservative party big wig during the Thatcherite years, a driven ideologue whose obituaries will no doubt be filled with his contribution to the race debate in Britain. The Norman Tebbitt Cricket Test essentially is a crude test of loyalty, allegiance and identity. Stirred up by footage of Britsh born Pakistanis (and later Indians, Sri Lankans and West Indians), supporting the teams of their parent’s origin, Tebitt basically posed the question about whether you can be English and support another team.

In the days before Bangladesh was honoured with test status, I ‘followed’ Pakistan’s exploits, then a star studded team led by Imran Khan in the 1990s. It never occurred to me to do anything else. At school the black boys followed West Indies, the Indians India and the majority of the white boys England apart from the odd Antipodean. It helped that Pakistan were flamboyant and successful, but looking back even then cricketing affinities could be seen along racial lines.

As primitive as it was it seems that this did not only apply to Cricket. With no decent sub-continental team to support, we sided with Argentina or Brazil with England being a reserve for our support in the event they played Germany. Perhaps our choices were a reflection of how black players (there are/were no English Asian footballers) were treated on the pitch despite representing their country – remember how John Barnes got monkey chants and had inflatable bananas waved at him despite being the most skilful player in the side. Similarly if you went to a cricket match, you couldn’t help being put off by the antics of the ‘barmy army’, usually booze fuelled and politically incorrect to say the least. Its not surprising that few of us would pass the Cricket Test. Scottish nationalists famously printed out t-shirts with ‘I failed the English Cricket Test’ on the front.

But how does all this apply to the post modern world we live in today? Multiple identities in a multi-cultural world are de riguer with no-one batting an eyelid if for example, you celebrate Eid, enjoy a Thai curry, holiday in Africa, speak three European languages and feel at home in a sarong. Children born of immigrant parents have no problems carrying dual or more identities – its just they way they are. Whether they are bi-lingual, have multiple heritages or different religions, they can be more secure in their identity than many may think. By having to face the question about who you are it perhaps does more to query the insecurity of the questioner as well as being forced to organise the thoughts of the questioned. If someone can give me a definition or checklist of what it means to be English/British perhaps the question can be answered.

This opens a veritable smorgasbord of opportunity to muse the subject of identity of the children of immigrant communities, multiculturalism and integration, but that my dear readers, is for another day. For now, we must revel in the irrelevance of the Tebbit Test. If I was good enough, I would have almost no problem in playing for England. Just look at the ‘success’ of Monty Panesar and Sajid Mahmood to see how defunct the question has become.

Of course, not content with that, the Tebbit Test question has been replaced by a new generation with the ‘Army Test’ – Would you fight for England against the country of your (parents’) origin? The debate rumbles on….

 

Slave Trade

On 25 March 1807, Parliament passed the Act for the Abolishment of the Slave Trade, outlawing the trans-Atlantic slave trade, in my mind probably the greatest crime in human history. Britain is commemorating this bicentennial anniversary and Britons certainly should remember William Wilberforce and the abolitionist movement.

The Act passed made it illegal for British owned ships to transport slaves at the risk of being penalised £100 per slave. The trade continued and as the slaves were considered nothing more than chattel, if unscrupulous captains feared being boarded by the Royal Navy they would throw men, women and children overboard to lessen the overall penalty.

By the time that Britain had woken up to the brutality and immorality of the transatlantic slave trade, the wealth generated from the previous two centuries of legalised cruelty had already kick started the Industrial Revolution giving Britain a competitive advantage, setting her in prime position for the next stage of colonial domination and imperialist ambitions. As the headline in the Voice newspapers shouts, Britain was ‘Built on Black Blood’ with much justification. Lloyds of London, Barclays Bank, the City of Liverpool and countless other institutions, industries and towns were built, directly or indirectly, on the profits of slavery.

But should Britons today apologise for the slave trade? Whilst the devastating impact of slavery on present day Africa, their descendants in the Americas and of course on the direct experience of upto 30 millions transported slaves cannot be ignored, who do we apologise to now? What responsibility do I or anyone living in Britain today have for the actions of pirates, traders and capitalists hundreds of years ago? What would you say and to whom? If you apologise does this imply culpability and the need to make recompense. There are serious advocates claiming that the government make substantial reparations. How do you put a price on kidnap, forced labour, cruelty, dispossession, rape, oppression, murder and torture?

Despite all these imponderables, Ken Livingstone to his credit, has issued a full and unequivocal apology on behalf of all Londoners for London’s role in the slave trade. In the absence of any previous formal apology on behalf of the nation, it probably is time to finally record the country’s regret at the inhuman activities which it legalised and the blood and tears it prospered from. Germany apologised for the Holocaust and as a way of acknowledging and coming to terms with its past, this was a necessary first step.

But by doing so, it should not be implied that individuals today bear any responsibility for the actions of previous generations. That would be contrary to natural justice. The Quran states ‘that no bearer of burdens shall be made to bear another’s burden’ 53:38. Which is obviously quite different from the fundamental Christian concept of Christ suffering for the sins of others.

An apology could only be a symbolic gesture to ensure, as with any lesson from history, that we learn from our mistakes and seek to avoid them in the future. Lessons it seems we as humans have forgotten – modern day slavery is still around us in the form of trafficked women from Eastern Europe, bondaged labour in the sub-continent and exploited migrant labour in the Far East. The Quranic exhortation to free slaves (2.177) has as much resonance today as it did when revealed.

 

Bangla Windows

This is one for the Bengali speakers out there – made me laugh out loud.

Bill gates was in Bangladesh last year. He announced that Microsoft plans to release a windows version in Bengali. Here are some Windows related terms that may be used in the Bengali version of: Janaala1971

Phaail — File
Basao — Save
Oula Basao — Save As
Hokholre Basao — Save All
Amare Basao — Help
Khanda Thaki Dheko — Zoom In
Duur Thaki Dheko — Zoom Out
Bhaago — Run
Kofi — Copy
Gulli Maro — Delete
Saddor Bisao — Spreadsheet
Itar naam zanina — Database
Ghaas — Tree
Unduur — Mouse
Onthaki Hono, Honthaki Ono — Scrollbar
Khagoz Bango — Page Break

 

Big Bother

Now whilst I try to avoid getting sucked into the detrius of junk TV, I have to admit to wasting a few hours watching Celebrity Big Brother over the last week. Unsurprisingly this has been prompted by the debate of the day that has exorcised the international media on what must have been a very slow news cycle.

For the uninitiated, this excuse for a social experiment locks half a dozen z-list celebrities in a house, points cameras at them 24-hours a day and sees what happens when the eponymous ‘Big Brother’ manipulates their environment sowing discord in the name of entertainment. Apart from only recognising the Face (only those of us watching TV in the 1980’s truly remember the A-team in all its macho-glory – ‘I luv it when a plan comes together’ and ‘I pity the fool’) I didn’t know any of the others.

Anyway, one day, two particular characters in this car wreck of a show, Jade Goody and Shilpa Shetty have an argument over oxo-cubes and chicken curry. Small thing to argue about you might think, but bear with me. This descends into an uncontrolled rant, a tirade of incomprehensible gibberish from Goody whose apparent claim to fame is that she was on another version of the show. In fact her most marketable characteristic apparently lay in her panache for asking stupid questions, chavette like behaviour and ‘down to earth girl in the next council estate’ charm which has garnered her £8m so far! Shilpa Shetty on the other hand hails from Bollywood royalty and apart from being cultured and possessing dignity, knows how to string words together to make a coherent sentence.

So when Goody and her Goons gang up on Shetty and say things like ‘She doesn’t speak English’, ‘She should go back home’, wilfully mispronounce her name, call her ‘Popodom’, and other petty gibes, the question that Shilpa Shetty and the world ponders is ‘Is this what Britain is today?’. To be sure Goody and the Goons are bullies but are they racist? They are no doubt extremely ignorant and represent an unpalatable side of British society. But is it representative, or is it merely a class issue representing the views of the young disenfranchised underclass? These are questions that will no doubt me the subject of future media relations PhDs.

To give the benefit of the doubt to these girls, especially when Shetty herself was magnanimous in her forgiveness is probably the reasonable thing to do. To foist upon them a status as a barometer on British society is a bit harsh. Indians themselves are not immune from a bit of racism and class intolerance themselves – see the caste system for one. There’s just that nagging feeling at the back of my mind which says you don’t have to scratch too far below the surface to bring out people’s innate intolerances and prejudices.

I hope Channel 4 never do another Big Brother. Its an awful concept for a show.

 

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?