The implications of the securitisation of mosques for transformative masculine attitudes towards harmful cultural practices in the UK

Tamsin Bradley*, Ottis Mubaiwa

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)peer-review

Abstract

This chapter critically explores the implications that the securitisation of UK Mosques has had on and for the emergence of transformative male attitudes towards harmful practices endured by women. Specifically, this chapter focuses on female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage (FM). It brings together interviews with a number of Imams based in Pakistani- and Somali-dominated mosques in Birmingham. It also presents the views of a sample of Muslim men who worship at the mosques. All those interviewed argue, although in different ways, that the securitisation agenda has limited their freedom to use the mosque as a space to have challenging conversations with each other about a range of issues, including whether practices such as FGM and FM should continue. Global research in relation to both these practices makes it clear that unless men are engaged in conversations and pushed to acknowledge they must take a role in ending them, we are unlikely to see any significant or sustainable shift in prevalence.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationReligion and Gender-Based Violence
Subtitle of host publicationGlobal and Local Responses to Harmful Practices
EditorsBrenda Bartelink, Chia Longman, Tamsin Bradley
Place of PublicationAbingdon
PublisherRoutledge
Chapter4
Pages66-82
Number of pages17
Edition1st
ISBN (Electronic)9781003246046
ISBN (Print)9781032158709
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Sept 2022

Publication series

NameRoutledge Research in Religion and Development
PublisherRoutledge

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The implications of the securitisation of mosques for transformative masculine attitudes towards harmful cultural practices in the UK'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this