2013-05-24T23:08:48-04:00 Shamim Chowdhury http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=shamim-chowdhury Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Shamim Chowdhury Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2576985 2013-01-29T17:53:30-05:00 2013-03-31T05:12:01-04:00

Shamim Chowdhury http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shamim-chowdhury/
Some weeks back, The Sun and The Daily Mail reported that a group of young Muslim men were carrying out an 'Islamisation' campaign in some parts of London, where, as self-appointed 'vigilantes', they patrolled the streets in the evenings, accosting provocatively-dressed women and anyone drinking alcohol.

Brought to the world's attention after being filmed on a mobile phone which was then loaded onto YouTube, they were seen shouting at white Britons, forcing a man to drop his can of lager and hurling homophobic abuse.

Their disgraceful behaviour was immediately condemned by Muslim religious leaders, but despite the fact that these were, by and large, isolated incidents carried out by a very small group of men, the two newspapers mentioned above decided to make a meal of it.

This in itself comes as no surprise, but what was somewhat more disappointing was that Sky News then decided it was worthy of a good chunk of airtime. And while the reporter outside Scotland Yard made it clear that the events were not widespread and that these vigilantes were not part of any organised group, the underlying message was that it was nonetheless newsworthy.

It is true that a few of the men had been arrested, but in many respects their behaviour was no worse than that of many young men around Britain who harass people on a daily basis and who go unreported. Clearly this particular incident made the news because the men were Muslim.

Even more disappointing was when The Independent and other papers then jumped on the bandwagon, but perhaps the most shocking article of them all was the one published by Jane Kelly in Tuesday's Daily Telegraph.

It is apparent that Ms Kelly had used these recent events as a platform to vent her shockingly bigoted views, but what struck me initially was litany of incorrect information she used to justify her argument.

She refers to the area in which she lives -- Acton Vale -- as an example of the Islamification of parts of the UK, but I have lived in Acton Vale for a number of years and her description of it is not one that I recognise.

She claims the majority of the shops on Acton Vale are Muslim-run. This is absolutely not the case. The Vale is a tiny strip of about 20 or so shops and consists of a café run by Europeans, two Chinese takeaways -- run by Chinese --, a hardware shop and a car parts shop run by English guys, a post office run by Tamils, a dry cleaners run by secular Iranians, a hairdresser run by a Polish woman and a store run by a Hindu family. At the most, about six of them are Muslim-owned. Multicultural? Absolutely. Muslim-dominated? Hardly.

Also, contrary to her claims, most of the shops do sell alcohol, and I have never once seen any sign in any of the shops forbidding the consumption of alcohol near its vicinity, although I do invite her to point them out to me.

Ms Kelly also says that the woman in the local pharmacy persuaded her it is better to dress modestly. Well, I know that woman very well and although I don't wear a headscarf she has never once made any comment about how I dress.

She goes on to lament that the Muslim men in the local curtain shop refused to put up her curtains, claiming they 'don't do that kind of work". Well, funnily enough, when I made a similar request they told me the same thing, probably because...they don't do that kind of work. No other reason.

Her other issue is with the young Muslim men who apparently mutter into their mobiles as they are serving her, instead of striking up conversation. But does she not know that much of London is rude and aloof? Yet Ms Kelly has turned this general unfriendliness into a Muslim issue, implying that we are judgemental and hostile simply by virtue of our religious background.

But it's her phrase: "It's changed from being Acton Vale to Acton Veil" that is the most contemptible. By coining it, she clearly thinks she is being witty and clever, whereas in fact all she is doing is having a laugh at the expense of a minority group. It is cheap and nasty. And still she smiles at Muslim women in the street. How magnanimous! And they don't even smile back! Could it be, I wonder, they instinctively sense her true opinions about them?

That this piece was printed in The Daily Telegraph is not too surprising, but the truth is, if an article of this nature had been written about any other ethnic group, such as Jews or black people, it would cause an absolute uproar. It is a fact that Muslims are easy targets and demeaning them has become positively acceptable. It is shameful that so much of the media still engage in Muslim-bashing with worrying regularity.

But often anti-Muslim journalism is lazy and opportunistic - as Ms Kelly's piece demonstrates - and is a quick way for someone with limited imagination or originality to get a by-line.

Ms Kelly says she is now moving out of Acton Vale. She decries the fact that few people speak English in these parts and she cannot find parsnips in her local grocers shop. She is originally from Staffordshire, and I suggest that perhaps that is where she should return, where no doubt the parsnips are in abundance and she will find someone who can put up her curtains.

I, meanwhile, intend to remain in Acton Vale and rejoice in its wonderful multicultural vibes, happy in the knowledge that at least one xenophobe has been flushed out of my area.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2344084 2012-12-23T19:00:00-05:00 2013-02-22T05:12:01-05:00

Shamim Chowdhury http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shamim-chowdhury/
The reason? As the person tasked with feeding my colleagues who will also be working that day, it is my intention to see to it that a stupendous spread is laid on, and that the general atmosphere is as celebratory as possible. I've already opted for chicken instead of turkey, but am still deliberating whether to buy some smoked salmon or prawns, although in truth I'll probably go for both.

My enthusiasm is in no way hampered by the fact that I am Muslim, for I do not believe that by choosing to partake in a national festival, I am in any way compromising my personal beliefs.
And I am not alone in this opinion. All across the land, posters for halal turkeys in butchers' shops in Muslim-populated areas such as Southall, Leicester and Birmingham stand testament to the significance Muslims place on this day. In these parts, greengrocers will be placing extra orders for Brussels sprouts and parsnips, local shops will be stacking boxes of Christmas crackers up high and reams of sparkling tinsel will be on display in abundance.

Of course on the day itself, the turkey will be kept moist with ghee rather than bacon rashers, not a single chipolata sausage will grace the dining table and the brandy butter will probably be... well, just butter.

Still, Muslim mothers all over the country will wake up extra-early to fretfully hoist the bird into the oven in good time for when the hordes of relatives bundle through the front door.

When they do arrive - invariably late, as is the Muslim way - chances are they will be greeted by the unmistakable wafts of tumeric powder and garam masala which have been liberally smothered all over the turkey. These aromas will be mingled with the pungent fragrances of the mutton biryani, dhal and halwa that will accompany the roast potatoes, mince pies and cranberry sauce.

Because, despite what the Daily Mail will have its readers believe, Christmas is as special for many Muslims as it is for the mainstream population. It does not mean we have given up our core beliefs - it must be stressed here that we categorically do not celebrate the birth of Jesus - it is simply a pronouncement of our respect for the customs of the land and a celebration of multiculturalism. Oh, and an excuse to eat, because boy, do we Muslims love our food.

Even those who choose not to enjoy a celebratory meal around the table will in all likelihood end up marking the day, if only by default. I remember as a child, Christmas Day would often end up as a huge extended-family get-together at the house of someone or other, simply because no-one was working that day, there was no public transport and all the shops were closed. And of course, where there is a gathering of Muslims, there is an abundance of food, so really, without anyone actually saying it out loud, we were celebrating Christmas, albeit in our own unique way.

Naturally there will be plenty of Muslims who will choose not to acknowledge the day at all, instead treating it as any other day. They may take the opportunity to clear out that kitchen cupboard, tackle a stack of overdue ironing or study the Koran. If so, this is their right and no-one has the authority to object. This is what living in a free society means. What they won't be doing however, is protesting on the streets calling for Christmas to be banned or requesting the beheading of the infidel. They will simply go about their business in a quintessentially English manner - quietly and without fuss. Sorry to disappoint you, Daily Mail.

But to suggest that those who opt to mark Christmas day with a meal are transgressing the tenets of Islam is ludicrous, especially given that Christmas has in recent times lost much of its religious significance and has become more of a secular festival. Besides, there is even much dispute about whether Jesus was actually born on December 25th.

Indeed, it can even be argued that the true spirit of Christmas, with its emphasis family, community, remembering the needy and giving to charity, is completely in-keeping with the teachings of Islam.

The message sent out by those of us who choose to celebrate this national holiday is that despite the well-documented rise of anti-Muslim sentiment across Europe, despite the social and economic disadvantages many Muslims still face in Britain, and despite the injustice and oppression experienced by Muslims on a daily basis, we still acknowledge and appreciate all that this country has given us, we are still proud to be British and we are extending our hand in friendship to our fellow countrymen.

So I humbly suggest that, if only for one day, we put aside our individual and collective trials and tribulations, forget about all that divides us and focus instead on what brings us together.
Christmas is a time to celebrate life, to rejoice, to give thanks and to remember others less fortunate than ourselves. What religion could possibly object to that?

Now excuse me while I go and put the finishing touches to my Christmas cake...]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1587640 2012-06-11T15:36:19-04:00 2012-08-11T05:12:07-04:00

Shamim Chowdhury http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shamim-chowdhury/
But every time this subject re-enters the public conscience - most recently with the government's announcement that perpetrators of such acts may face criminal charges - the distinction between forced and arranged marriages is quickly pointed out, the latter being described as a cultural norm that does not involve coercion on any level.

The reality, however, is that while arranged marriages may not involve threats, violence or intimidation, there often exists a more subversive, sustained pressure from family and culture that can have equally devastating consequences. No legally definable criminal act may be at play here, but when it comes to moral accountability, we are on shaky ground.

For South Asians, marriage is an obsession. It is the cornerstone of the culture. It is a hard-wired a mindset. Young Asians - mainly girls - are cultivated for marriage from their first breath. Wedlock is seen as the single affirmation of self-worth, so that regardless of how well-educated, self-sufficient, beautiful or accomplished a woman may be, if she is unmarried, she is, in the eyes of the community, a failure. That anyone can genuinely be happily unmarried is inconceivable.

With this in mind, the psychological pressure to marry is acute. The idea that an unhitched person's very existence is the cause of misery and disappointment to their parents is so traumatic that young Asians become obsessed with being paired off from a disturbingly young age.

So the young woman studying physics at Oxford will be keeping her eye open for an acceptable boy, the young man playing for his country cricket team will be putting the word out and the woman penning her great novel will be meeting potential suitors when her day's work is done.
Nothing wrong with this per se, but often the result is that many of these young people end up compromising many of their personal aspirations in order to be coupled up.

A depressingly high number of cases come to mind: "I really wanted to be a lawyer/painter/architect, but my parents wanted me to get married", "I would loved to have travelled but I wanted to make my parents happy," and so on and so forth.

What is especially sad is that more often than not the partner in question is a compromise: "He is from a good family and well-educated," or "she will fit in with my family," rather than, "She makes me laugh," or "I can talk to her about anything," or "I find him attractive." Many women especially, find themselves agreeing to marrying men they are not physically drawn to because they feel a sense of duty to marry, and as a result live with an unfulfilled sense of yearning for the rest of their lives. Others marry men and women with whom they are wholly incompatible; a college lecturer will marry an immigrant from Pakistan who will go on to drive a taxi in the UK, or an IT consultant from the UK will marry a village girl from Bangladesh.

The realisation that a mistake has been made comes too late - children are born and finances become intertwined, and with the social stigma attached to separation and divorce, couples find themselves stuck with one another. So, while it is sometimes pointed out that Asian marriages last longer than others, this is often due to social constraints. Again, I can think of many cases where couples who were pressured to marry are unable to break free.

The demands of culture are not defined by class. Educated, middle-class parents enforce their desires on their offspring as much as those from lower down the social strata. One friend who prides himself on coming from an extremely cosmopolitan, westernised Pakistani family felt the pressure to marry from his early twenties. Eventually he relented and married a girl he was not attracted to but ticked all his mother's boxes. More than a decade and two children later, they are now divorced and he is finally living the life he should have led many years ago.

Conversely, many older women who remain unmarried are so obsessed with finding a husband that they have actually forgotten what it means to be happy -that is, if they knew in the first place, given the expectations they have been burdened with since birth.

Arranged marriages genuinely work well in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, but they have, in the main, failed in the West. This failure, the result of a clash of cultures and values between parents and children, has had a profound psychological impact on younger generations.
I anticipate counter-arguments by some who claim their own marriages were arranged but not under duress, but I maintain that this is the exception, not the norm. With most arranged marriages there is a certain degree of social and parental pressure which serves to impair the individual's own sense of judgment.

That South Asians place more importance on marriage and family than other cultures is nonsense. Every day, all over the world people are getting married for the right reasons- because they genuinely want to be together, share the same values and envisage a future together. We Asians do not have superior knowledge about what makes a successful marriage and we should stop pretending that we do.

This unhealthy obsession is a malaise within the culture and has led to serious social and psychological consequences. Arranged marriages may not be as easy to as legislate against as forced marriages, but the problems they pose need to be addressed and acknowledged nonetheless. The message must be that when individuals are allowed to make their own informed choices about how to live their lives, marriage and children will often naturally follow. The union of two people must always be a matter for the heart, but it is hard to listen to the heart through the deafening din of society's expectations.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1398890 2012-04-03T05:18:25-04:00 2012-06-03T05:12:01-04:00

Shamim Chowdhury http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shamim-chowdhury/
Because while it is true that Galloway's victory was an anomaly; that he probably would not have won, had he stood in any other constituency; that he has the young Pakistani Muslim population of Bradford to thank for reviving his political career; that his campaign gained momentum mainly thanks to clever use of internet technology, the bottom line is that the younger members of Britain's Muslim community - not just in areas where they have a heavy presence, but across the land - do not feel represented by the Labour Party.

The sense of victimhood that has been attributed to many of Galloway's supporters does not apply to us all, and indeed I am prepared to bet that while the politics of identity - be it religion or ethnicity - strikes a chord with some, many in Bradford West voted actively rather than reactively.

Of course this is partly due to Labour taking us into war with Iraq while it was in government, but equally it is because the party has failed British Muslims not only on many social and economic issues, but also because it is now apparent that it is not the party it once claimed.

There was a time was Labour was considered the natural choice for the majority of Britain's ethnic minorities. It was the party of the workers, and as most post-war migrants took up jobs reserved for those on the lowest rungs of society's ladder, there was little alternative but to forge alliances with whoever would represent them the best.

This blind loyalty came about partly due to Labour's perceived compassionate position on immigration But a closer look shows this to be far from the case. Labour claimed to oppose the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act which for the first time restricted entry into the UK by anyone from the former colonies. But it not repeal the Act when the it came into power in 1964, and in fact tightened immigration regulations further with its own 1968 Immigration Act.

Since then it has systematically curbed new immigrants' rights by introducing stringent asylum procedures, removing immigration appeal processes, making it harder to gain British citizenship and withdrawing access to state benefits.

So much for compassion.

The myth of working class solidarity has also been dispelled. During the 70s it became clear that the working class cause was not quite as colour-blind as it claimed to be. Substantial sections of indigenous Labour-voters openly despised their brown counterparts, blaming them for taking away their jobs and homes. Labour did little to counter this hostility.

What's more, the new immigrants from South Asia did not actually confirm to 'proud working class' ethos. We had aspirations, we were determined to better ourselves; we may have lived in council flats, but we dreamt of moving into the suburbs; we may have worked in restaurants and shops, but we actually wanted to own them; we may have attended inner-city state schools, but our sights were set on university. We were not comfortable in our working-class status; for us it was a transition, a mere phase before moving on to bigger, better things.

The party let down those who, for whatever reason, who did not realise their social and economic dreams. In all the years Labour was in power the streets of the East End of London were strewn with filth, many of the pupils who attended the local schools left with barely a grasp of English, over-crowding was as much of a problem as it ever had been and heroin abuse, prostitution and violent youth culture were rife. Other parts of the country with large ethnic populations, such as Slough, Bradford and Luton, also suffered from the same social ills.

Then came the Iraq war. That many British Muslims feel they can no longer support a party that took us to war on a deceit is well-documented. The introduction of draconian anti-terrorism laws and Tony Blair's incestuous allegiance with America did not help matters. Muslims no longer feel Labour can represent their interests here and abroad. This, of course, is precisely what Galloway has capitalised on.

For these reasons the younger generation has dissociated itself from the party of its parents' choice. My own late father was a loyal Labour supporter, and such my brothers and I naturally adopted his beliefs. But we have not voted for Labour for a number of years, and have no plans to do so in the future. My brothers and I are well-assimilated into mainstream society. We do not live in areas with a heavy Asian presence, we have decent jobs and a comfortable standard of living. If we feel this way towards party, my guess is so do many others, not just the unemployed and disenfranchised.

For too long, the Labour Party has relied on the ethnic vote with a detached arrogance that appears to have lasted to this day. The older generation may yet remain loyal, but they will not be around forever. Meanwhile, the rest of us are not quite so passive in our devotion. The way we see it, the party favoured by our fathers carries with it much shameful baggage and currently appears to be lacking in direction and has a weak leadership. The minority vote can make all the difference in national politics, so Labour can only ignore Britain's young Muslim population at its peril.]]>