Jim Fitzpatrick, a British Minister criticized the segregation of male and female guests at Muslim wedding. Yet another 'Gaffe' from another jumped up, half-baked, ill-educated Labour moron; a former fireman indeed. He learned nothing about putting out fires rather than starting them. He actually has a GCSE 'D' in Politics? God Help us internationally if he is ever made a Diplomat. I suppose he left in a huff because there was no beer an' 'Am sandwiches at the buffet. The Minister's action is just a stupid, attention-getting stunt appealing to prejudices. This serves only to inflame the prejudices so widespread today. People have their customs, and you don't insult them. It hasn't been that long since our society had some public institutions that kept men and women separate. And it hasn't been that long since women in our society typically wore hats with veils. Plenty of Western customs, we accept as normal, are unacceptable or ridiculous to others. Muslim marriage is a religious ceremony. He insulted the bride and groom for his own political gain. They should not walk out because it would have been bad manners and rudeness to do so. They should respect the couple wishes, it’s their big day. He should have ascertained what the customs are beforehand, and then not attended if he thinks the practice offensive. One should have respect of others people's customs, even if one does not agree. Perhaps he should grow up and get an injection of reality. If you are not prepared to accept this then don't go or don't insult the bride and groom by walking out. What a disgusting small minded little man. Just shows the caliber of today's MP's from all parties. Well being a Labour politician his appalling ignorance of Islamic tradition plus downright rudeness to his hosts does not surprise me in the least. He should do his homework instead of ruining someone’s day. He is totally an ignorant person. If a Muslim wants to have separation at a wedding (like much of the Muslim world) then they should be allowed to, and don't insult them when they do. Jewish wedding has observed the tradition of separating of men & women at ceremonies, without raising any eyebrows. Men and women are separated in Masajid and Synagogues. Muslim secondary schools are also segregated. In the past another British Minister Jack Straw caused a similar furore when he referred to Muslim veils as “a visible statement of separation and difference†and called for women to remove them during surgeries in his Blackburn constituency. No one has the right to ban the freedom of choice in a secular and democratic country. The right to choice is a basic fundamental right the person should have. To veil or not to veil should be an individual choice. Dress codes are for children. Muslim women should be free to wear burqas. If women get Away with wearing cropped shirts and pants that show their panties, they should be able to wear burqas too. Globalisation is here to stay, Muslims are here to stay and so are other communities. Those idiot British ministers need to learn that the world is made up of different people and the British society and its Establishment need to learn to accept and tolerate every culture for what it is and most importantly respect and tolerate the values of each and every religion. source: http://www.emgonline.co.uk/news.php?news=7045 more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/13/minister-criticises-muslim-wedding-segregation http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...r-hijacking-Muslim-wedding-by-bridegroom.html
Well done to him. the primitive oppression of women isn't welcome in Britain and neither are those who commit it. he wanted to sit with his wife and wasn't prepared to stand by while she is carted off to the womens section like some kind of leper.
That's b u l l s h i t. They dance in separate floors, but sit together. So is the case in couple of Muslim weddings I attended so far in Israel. And these are the facts: from the 3rd link. from the 2nd link The UK has imported a huge community of extremely primitive people, an event termed as "globalization" in the article. lol. The article posted is an opinion article by one of these primitives. if printed it would be a waste even if used as a toilet paper. If you wanted to teach us something, new, you could have started with the facts, your 2nd and 3rd links, instead of starting with the islamic preachings and your agenda trying to blind us from the facts. but intellectual honesty (or any sign of intellect..) is really something nobody on this forum expects from you. the bolded text is in contradiction with the facts. Absurdly enough, this article is a for a political gain, not the minister's actions. If I were "Mr. Islam", when inviting modern people (or "infidels") to an extremely primitive orthodox wedding, I would have arranged a small table for the infidels at the corner where they can sit with their wives, just for the sake of "globalization". But this is against the muslim way, which is, shortly and accurately: when non-muslims visit/live among muslim - they must dress think and behave like muslims. when muslims visit/live among non-muslims - they must dress think and behave like muslims. I know that you do not understand this, new, because your mind works very differently than how it should work for a person living in the west, but: Mr. Islam was intolerant towards Mr. Fitzpatrick, and not vice versa.
I've thought about this. I think I'm going to have to go with New on this one. I am reminded of my only other, similar experience, a formal ceremony in a culture foreign to me, up until that time. Years ago, long prior to my study of Aikido, I was a tae-kwon do practitioner. My master, Ki-Chung Han, had gotten killed in an auto accident. As he was kind of a big deal in the world of American Tae-Kwon Do, there were several dignitaries from the martial arts world there - several Tae-Kwon Do and Hapkido people (incl. Bong Soo Han, one of the foremost practitioners of the art, and known, sadly enough, from the "Billy Jack" films). I wasn't aware that in Korean culture, it's important to wear black at a funeral, and they are quite strict about that. I had on a grey suit. A Korean gentleman walked around, giving out black ribbons to wear, which we were asked to put on. A small strip of black was apparently enough, but it was mandatory; if we were to memorialize our master, we needed to do it, or leave. I can't answer whether this practice was or wasn't a new thing in Muslim weddings; if a new thing, or done for effect, I guess I'd be less inclined towards the genuineness of the wedding party's wishes, but, regardless, as with the funeral, a private ceremony - their customs, their ways, honor it - unless it really does just rankle one's deep convictions. For instance, if I was told my wife would have to wear a burkha, I'd tell them to go to hell, and leave. Sitting separately? For the ceremony, if my wife and I really wanted to help celebrate the bride and groom's wedding, sure. (I think. She's not here for me to ask. I may get my ass kicked for saying so. ). I'd have to also say the reverse is true, in civil contexts. In England, for instance, English civil law, and not Islamic sharia courts, should be the rule of the land, for all English citizens. That's my feeling, as much as I wouldn't agree with the notion as seen at the wedding in my personal life, or in any ceremony I hosted.
We shouldn't be required to have respect for things we disagree with, simply because it's labeled as religion.
No one will call you a racist bigot, hater for that but such statement is not unexpected from someone who hails from a place where even the so called leaders say thingslike these Nice joke
A balance and a trade-off needs to be found in both cases: the culture of your host vs. your own culture. NPT I really hope that you do not compare the inconvenience involved in just changing the color of your suit in comparison with being separated from your wife all night long in your go-out night. Think of the extreme case: what if the muslim custom that your host believed in said that every guest has to stand on the table and yell: "kookooriikooooo". Would you be surprised if the minister refused to do that as well and still be with our friend new? in that case, would he be intentionally insulting his host as well? It is not an absolute thing NPT. It is the particular case which determines how you should behave. Its the details of the case that matter! how much inconvenience would it be for the host to arrange an "indefidel table" at the corner of the ceremony hall? If they did not want their wedding to be infidelrein they should have thought about that. In my wedding, I had a corner for the religious people too. I did not force them to mix and eat things they don't want to. its all the zionists fault new, with their conspiring american ultra-orthodox jews. all a big conspiration, new. It was the jewish lobby was sms-ed the minister to leave the ceremony, naturally. Maybe even the ghost of George Washington! p.s. I prefer to stand on the table and yell "kookooriiikooo" instead of having to spend a night out without my wife......
Sorry, Chaos - we missed each other. I did edit my post (as you can see, now), and I touched on at least some of what you talk about here. Yeah, it isn't absolute, and would have to go to my sense of convictions, and where the threshold of "inconvenience" lies. If I was asked to sit in a separate aisle for a wedding ceremony, I think both my wife and myself would do it. Lots of traditions like this - for instance, may seem weird, but Kundalini yoga has something called "The White Tantric," basically close to 6 hours of meditative hell, lined up by gender, out of a Kundalini belief in what "Kundalini" each of the sexes contribute. A kind of excruciating set of 1 hour-long postures and breathing patterns, male to female. (Quite the opposite of segregation, actually, but still mandated, by gender). On the other hand, if I was asked to never see my wife the entire night, I'd say, "sorry," and leave. If I had the slightest whiff my wife was being asked to do something humiliating in any way, I'd likely belt the asshole, and leave. Can you explain precisely what you meant by "primitives?" Was it religious fundamentalists? If so, I'd agree. I consider fundamentalists of all stripes "primitives," though I might not use quite the same vernacular...but that's just me. Maybe I'm a hypocrite, because that is how I feel: the fundamentalist mind is a primitive mind. New, Chaos's views here don't appear to have anything to do with his Israeli citizenship, and your drawing an example from another Israeli is a fatuous thing, in my opinion. They likely have to do with his atheism, and appraisal of Islam in that context, is my guess, but I'll allow him to speak on it.
He was asked not to see his wife the entire night (at least at most parts). My point is very simple. If the minister choose to do it out of "respect", then its fine, but if not: Do not force your guests to do anything against their own free will, or at least have the brains to anticipate it and warn them beforehand (valid also for your funeral case). Can't get any simpler than that. As I said, in my wedding, there was a big portion of the ceremony hall protected with a curtain wall: for the orthodox members of my wife's family. We didn't force them to eat ham and stare at gorgeous cleavages all night long ! too bad mr. Islam didn't have my mother to educate him proper conduct when engaging with people who are different than him. "globalisation......."
Wasn't aware of that - yep, I'd beg off. With you, my wife comes first, and if this was the case, (or worse, if she were asked to do something we'd consider humiliating), it would be more than "beg off." As Rebecca touches on, respect is earned, not given. I guess my point is that as it is a private affair, to some threshold, private customs should be honored, or simply avoid the affair. Agreed, that it would have been nice of the wedding party to inform people who weren't Muslims this was going to be the rule of the day - they then had a hand in making a mess out of this. Oh, and You heartless bastard. Edit: Hahahahahah! This google ads thing is a riot...imagine it will change, but as of now, an ad for "Lesbian Weddings." Did the algorithm zero in on cleavages?
We all want to be valued and respected, but do we give it to others in words and actions? Don't be surprised if if you harvest a bigger crop from your seeds! What you sow you reap!
I have been to 2 muslim weddings so far and in both weddings the men and women are both dancing together. One lebanese wedding and one syrian wedding, so this doesnt apply to all muslim weddings. Just more propaganda to further certain peoples beliefs. How do you guys account for the 2 muslim weddings I have been to?????
That certainly isn't the question I've raised, Ping - in fact, I've even said, in so many words, to some extent, "When in Rome..." I think the issue is that here, it appears the man may have been told he wouldn't be able to see his wife the entire evening. I know I wouldn't be cool with that, either. What "propaganda" are you talking about?
So basically, you are saying semi-politely, Muslims are extremely primitive people? Not surprised really...i don't expect any less by someone from Israel.
This is tough for me, Thraxed. What follows isn't composed, or thought out carefully, so it may be nothing more than a fractured bunch of garbage. But it flows from the heart. I am neither Israeli, nor a Palestinian, nor Jew, nor Arab; I don't have a clear cut "side" I come down on, here - I've been up front with this before, I have feelings for both sides in this damned conflict - I feel deeply for Jews, whose sense of nationhood was borne out of an era when all western states were declaring the right of "a people" to national self-determination, and such a theoretical and policy paradigm was given a massive push after WWI - and how utterly hypocritical it would be, and is, for the western nations to declare "the era of self-determination is over, now that we've carved up the Earth...remaining dispossessed, tough luck"; I have also felt keenly the effects of the Holocaust, and know what Jews have endured, through many centuries, in diaspora. I've worked closely with, I know, and like Jews, generally, to the extent one can like "a people." I admire their achievements, and much about their culture. I am married to a woman that has Jewish blood. I don't know whether to dichotomize this by religion, or ethnicity, so I'll have to choose, because I guess it's the most salient, of late: I am a westerner who knows less about Muslim culture and achievements, than I do about Jewish culture and achievements. I'd like to change that - I want to know more, about the Islamic mind and culture. I do admire the plethora of contributions Islamic scholars have made to the world, things we in the West regretfully take for granted; I admire Islamic art, culinary traditions, music, and sense of fidelity to one's faith and cause. I believe we in the West have too long taken the Islamic world for granted, and horribly ignored its needs, when we haven't outright abused its people and its trust. I'd also be a hypocrite if I didn't speak plainly, and say that there are things that do concern me, in some of what I have seen in Islam, and I am saddened by that, because I do believe in my heart of hearts that as a working rule, all children are born innocent, all children seek love, all parents love their children, and want what's best for them; all people really are, in effect, "One." There is a horrible amount of mutual mistrust, and I do have to say some of what I've seen here over the last week or so, as promulgated by at least some Muslims, concerns me, in terms of whatever bridge I'd hope to build to Muslims, more generally. There are things I know a good deal about, and things I know relatively less about. I admit, to my shame, to be honest, I know comparatively less about this conflict than about many other things, chiefly Western European history and development. From my place of relative distance, it seems to me both "sides" have done wrong, ruining the best hopes of achieving a workable peace; both sides have zealots who would dash whatever dreams the moderates, reaching out to their counterpart, would hope to achieve. I also know I'd be a hypocrite as well, if I didn't recognize and state one truism: there hasn't been a nation-state on earth that came into existence, primordially, without strife - usually, by pushing others out. I stand on ground ripped off from the ancestors that compose some of my blood, and the only "right" thing to do for every American standing on American soil would be to give it back, entirely. But that's not going to happen; America is; Israel, is. Neither is going away. At the same time, I reject utterly any notion that there is some god-ordained right to any land, which is what some of my countrymen have used to justify the right of Israel to exist. While I believe in the right of all Israeli citizens to live in peace and security, I also believe in the right of every Palestinian human being to the same, and to carve out a piece of desirable earth to call his or her own; to belong to one another, to be enfranchised, to be a nation. If I feel keenly what Jews have suffered at my ancestor's hands - and they have suffered, at my ancestor's hands - I feel keenly the plight of generations of dispossessed Palestinians, and young men and women who grow up disenfranchised, and without hope for a similar sense of self-determination. I don't have any answers. I just wish to hell there was a way to end this endless cycle of hate. Sorry for any redundancies, and for rambling on. It's been on my mind for quite some time, and I guess I felt it important to at some point say again how I feel.
Northpoint, sorry I should have quoted chaos as my answer was directed at him. My appologies if you thought it was directed at you I also feel for both sides, unfortunately I dont see any end in site to this problem. WE have hamas on one side that will go on with their bombings and israel that will not stop building settlements.
It's worth pointing out that before he got there he didn't know they had a problem with husbands sitting next to their wives. When he found out he left. Which is what any husband should do when he disagrees with how his wife is being treated.
I'd say mistrust is quite soft when someone collectivley calls 1.5 billion people "extremely primitive", and my point was, he lives somewhere where race supremecy is widespread, so i was not surprised by his comments.
Thraxed, I don't know that Chaos was talking about Muslims generally, or fundamentalists. I'd have to let him speak to his comments. I do know that - if talking about fundamentalists - if I wouldn't use the term, It's probably hypocritical of me not to, because I do think fundamentalists of all stripes are primitive, and a barrier to understanding. I believe anything that says "my way is the only way" is generally, by definition, primitive. At any rate, I'm talking more generally about all of it, the mistrust that exists between the Islamic and non-Islamic world. I'm talking in a heartfelt way, that we have to find a way to move forward, as one earth and species. Completely agree. The wedding party blew it, in my opinion, by not letting guests know what the story was to be. I wouldn't have stayed, either, and wouldn't have gone, had I known.
Mixed Gatherings (without Hijab) are a no-no if you are going to follow the Sharia strictly, however Some families go for mixed function while some don't go for mixed gatherings and I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that It is a matter of their personal choice Generally how Muslims carry out the weddings mostly depends on their cultural background like Indonesians will be different, Indians will have their own customs etc also I don't understand why so much stress on 'entire night' 1st of all, it is not necessary to carry out the weddings at night 2ndly. It hardly a matter of few hours, weddings do not take complete day or night and can you guys please confirm if it is ok for the male/female segregation to take place at other places like single-sex toilets ? When is the honourable MP going to raise his voice against them? this is just a cheap popularity stunt from the MP and nothing more @North How following ones tradition of having a separate gathering makes one a "fundamentalist" and 'primitive' ? You want that they follow your tradition of mixed gathering .. how does this make you any different from them ?