The Daily Telegraph ran a story today about a woman wearing a judge’s wig backwards who was forced by her dad and an imam to get married to a Canadian man. Serious. Here is a picture of the women with some other women dressed as judges.
Assuming the report is correct (and yes, I know that is a difficult assumption to make given we are talking about the Tele), the following points arise out of this story:
# The woman is an Australian citizen aged 27 years and working as a public servant.
# The woman first met the man, a divorced financial planner aged 39, when he arrived at the airport.
# The man was a divorcee from Canada.
# The woman was said to come from “a traditional Islamic family”. No clues are given as to the women’s ethnic, linguistic or cultural background.
# Three years after meeting the man, the woman again met him at her home.
# An imam of undisclosed ethnicity also attended the woman’s home on that occasion. He was found to have tricked a woman into signing some papers.
# The "couple" thought the papers were for an engagement.
# The papers in fact included a marriage certificate.
# There are two quotes in the story, these being ...
We are a traditional patriarchal family and it would not be appropriate for me to question my father or the imam.
... and ...
because in our culture it is not acceptable that women speak to men not in their family.
# The words “appropriately” (relating to the bride’s dress as ordered by her father) and “bundle of papers” (referring to the papers brought by the imam to the family’s home.
# The woman and man both agreed to the "engagement" off.
# The woman approached the court to have the marriage annulled under the Family Law Act, and her application was successful.
# The marriage was never consummated.
According to the Daily Telegraph, this story was yet another example of a monolithic "Muslim" culture. Yet none of the quotes from the woman’s brother or from the woman herself indicate anything about their religion. Yes, culture is mentioned. The brother even said that their family was “a traditional patriarchal family”. But any element of Islam or Mulimness was inserted by the reporter and/or editor.
Apart from the presence of an imam, what exactly about this story made it Muslim? Would this have been a "Christian" story if the marriage celebrant had been a reverend? Did the applicant or her family members refer to religion? Did the judge refer to religion? Here is how the Tele reported the judge’s observations:
The names of the couple and the imam have been suppressed by the Family Court. It is not the first Muslim "marriage" ruled void by the court.
Justice Nahum Mushin said there had been previous similar cases, including one in which the couple became married when all they thought they were doing was becoming engaged.
What did Justice Mushin say about religion? We only know the context which the Tele reporter decided to place the judge’s words in. The judge mentioned “similar previous cases”, but did he say that these cases involved Muslims?
The Tele has manufactured yet another “Muslim” story, trying to paint this as an example of a singular “Muslim” culture that simply doesn’t exist. This was the Tele’s goal, and it certainly achieved this goal judging by the comments accompanying the story. Just check out some of these moronic and almost xenophobic comments which have been moderated by the Tele on its website ...
Islam is not a religion,its a culture,ideology...The Tele has used stereotyping and prejudice to generate hits on its website, to attract readers and therefore advertisers. It has then moderated comments that further this prejudice.
Posted by: Charity Box of Canberra 9:44am today
Comment 20 of 23
The whole philosophy of Islamic culture is one centred around male insercurity and their need for control to compensate for their inadequacies. If Islam was a culture based on equality millions of women all over the world would actually be enjoying life a lot more, for example, not having to hide their face because their 'husband' is afraid some other bloke might want to shag them.
Posted by: meremale of Lara 9:24am today
Comment 17 of 23
Scottie of 'Nulla is right, i mean, it's not just Muslims that do this its....... oh...... Bahai? wait.... no, Catholics..... no... Buddhists?... um... Scientology people?.... never mind.
Posted by: Bob of Melbourne 9:12am today
Comment 15 of 23
These people should be abiding by Australian laws and customs not some islamic law that doesnt exist in Australia. If they dont like that they should go home.
Posted by: Daniel of Sydney 8:27am today
Comment 7 of 23
Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf
Bookmark this on Delicious
No comments:
Post a Comment