Why must we bow to the intolerant ways of Islam?

Jim Fitzpatrick MP and his wife were quite right to leave a wedding because it was segregated by sex.

When Jim Fitzpatrick MP and his wife decided to leave a Muslim wedding party after they discovered it was segregated by sex, he did not anticipate the controversy his decision would generate. “It reflects badly on him,” said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former head of the Muslim Council of Britain. “It shows a lack of interest… to engage with people of different backgrounds.” Tim Archer, the Tory who is standing against the minister of state at the next election, commented that “Fitzpatrick is playing a certain race card to save his skin at the next election”.

All this because Mr Fitzpatrick did not want to imply that he endorsed sexual segregation by remaining at the party. Yet 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?

Some people claim that segregating the sexes is a matter of personal choice, like choosing between flavours of ice-cream. It has no implications in terms of your view of the equality of the sexes, any more than wearing the niqab or the hijab – the Islamic garments that cover women from head to toe – implies that you think women are inferior.

The Muslims who feel most strongly about sexual segregation, or about the importance of ensuring that women dress “modestly”, see those customs as ordered by God. They are profoundly offended by the idea that they reflect merely human choices. That is why there is a vocal strain of Islam in Britain that insists that Muslims should be governed, not by British law, but by sharia.

Islamic law does not, of course, accept that men and women have equal rights. Sharia courts in Britain have already judged that a man may have up to four wives at any one time; that a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce; that a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent; and that a woman cannot marry without the presence and permission of a male guardian.

In 2004, in response to pressure from some of its Muslim leaders, the Canadian province of Ontario planned to impose legally binding arbitration on Muslims according to sharia. The most vigorous protests came from Muslim women, who insisted that the main reason they had emigrated to Canada was to get away from it. Their arguments prevailed over those who claimed that sharia was merely “a choice” which should be allowed in any “multicultural society”.

There are other conflicts with the liberal tradition. A fundamental part of Islamic law is that someone who converts to another religion should be executed. In Islamic states, the death penalty for apostasy is on the statute books; even in Britain, very few spokesmen for the Muslim community will condemn such laws as wrong.

So it is a mistake to pretend that there is no conflict between principles that are supposed to animate British society – freedom of religion, equality of the sexes, and the primacy of secular law made by democratic representatives – and fundamentalist interpretations of Islam. But much official policy seems to be based on the hope that such a conflict is illusory, and will simply evaporate if we pretend it is not there.

For example, polygamy is illegal under British law. But while condemning it in theory, the Government endorses it in practice: each woman in such a relationship is entitled to the same benefits as the wife
in a monogamous married couple.

Mr Fitzpatrick warns that segregation is a recent development, one which reflects the increasing influence of more fundamentalist strains of Islam. Perhaps it is time for the Government to consider a more vigorous stance in defence of Britain’s fundamental values, rather than continuing to pretend the issue has no more significance than the conflict between those who like chocolate ice-cream, and those who prefer hazelnut.

See more on this Topic