Muslims in trouble

From The Revd R.P. Fothergill

Sir: As a churchman, I would like to confirm much of what Theodore Dalrymple describes in his article ('The abuse of women', 27 October). In my last church (Anglican) in south-west London, we had several former Muslim and Sikh women who had been abused and rejected by their families and communities for not agreeing to arranged marriages and other aspects of their culture's expectations. Befriended by Christians (they were fortunate to be allowed to meet some), when ejected from their families they found support in the Church.

One girl was still in a form of hiding from her angry family for refusing a Pakistani marriage. Her brother had beaten her for the 'insult' to the family. Another girl told me. 'I have no family now as they hate me.' For these women, the acceptance and love found in the Church has been a major contrast to the religious systems they have come out of.

Secular multiculturalists do not want to hear about these things. as it overturns many of their preconceptions — to them, after all, 'all religions are the same'. One secular social worker in the borough angrily complained to us, 'Who are you to impose your religious system on others?' Who indeed? Only those who attempt to follow Christ's command to 'love thy neighbour as thyself.

R.P. Fothetgill

South Africa

From Mr Alan Waters

Sir: Theodore Dalrymple was brave to fly in the face of political correctness by highlighting the treatment of British-born Muslim girls. He might also be interested to know that there is a direct link between their circumstances and the young men now flocking to fight for Osama bin Laden.

For years, diplomatic officers serving on the Indian subcontinent (as I did before retirement) have had to operate a policy permitting the husbands of British-born women to enter this country on the basis of 'family re-unification'. The thousands who enter this way annually — when we are supposed not to have any primary immigration — do so because of long-standing pacts between families. When a man was helped by his family to finance his passage to Britain (possibly as long ago as the 1960s, when there was a general shortage of labour), he had to reciprocate by allowing his future children to marry those of his brothers or sisters left behind. It is nothing to do with love, but rather the honour of the family.

Immigration officers overseas (for this is an immigration, not an asylum, issue) have no choice under present legislation but to allow in many young men who cannot speak any English and have no skills. They thus find it difficult to integrate into our society. and form ghettos which are targeted by fundamentalist religious groups.

It is time that the human right of being able to marry whom one wishes is allowed to take precedence over the desire to perpetuate a pattern of migration.

Alan Waters

Sevenoaks. Kent

From Naeem Ali Sir: As a first-time reader of your journal, it was with immense disgust that I read Mr Dalrymple's article. His opinions (for they could never be described as being fact) appear to pander to a certain 'crowd'.

I am British. of Pakistani origin, and know of no woman who has undergone what Mr Dalrymple wrote about in his article. Neither do I know of any male having had a gun held to his head to get married. His claim that 'virtually no Muslim girl keeps her own passport' is a lie.

Mr Dalrymple paints a picture of a society that does not and has never existed in the manner that he describes, and no per son of knowledge would even begin to believe what he writes.

Naeem Au

Richmond, Surrey

From Michaela Young Sir: To defend one class of women and refer to another as lumpen white sluts' is like sucking up to the shopkeeper while you steal his sweets: devious and nasty.

Michaela Young

London ES