Of course, she couched it all as "misinterpretations" of Islam. But at least she didn't do what one might reasonably have expected her to do: hail the wonderful treatment of women in Islamic countries. "Cherie chides Muslims over women's rights," from the TimesOnline, with thanks to Mark:
CHERIE BLAIR has risked offending Muslims by criticising the way in which Islam is used in many societies to keep women in check.Mrs Blair told a group of Indian journalists in Delhi that attitudes towards women in some Muslim societies were out of date and needed to change. She urged Muslims to embrace more modern attitudes to sex equality....
At one table, Mrs Blair spoke of how as a Christian she was fascinated by Islam and thought there was much good about it. But after she was asked about the London bombings she said: "The religion has a deep philosophical base but there are misinterpretations by some groups in some parts of the world about women that I have a problem with."
Mrs Blair then suggested that Islamic scholars should review or re-examine Muslim teaching on the place of women. But at that point she appeared consciously to check herself....
Misinterpretations by some groups? Hmmm. Really, mon Cherie? But what about these passages from the Qur'an, which:
- Likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223);
- Declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282);
- Allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3);
- Rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11);
- Tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).
This is the same Cherie who, in her professional capacity, represented the dozy jilbab bint. This 13 year old Luton schoolgirl, whose strings were pulled by her older brothers and Hizb ut Tahrir, won the right to be liberated by wearing a sack to school. The case will now go to the House of Lords, and hopefully the ruling will be overturned.
I'm glad Cherry B said what she did and hope that she has grown out of her phase of going native. But somebody in a prominent position such as hers needs to go the whole hog about Islam and women and say that it is the teachings of Islam, not some perversion of them, that are responsible for women's oppression.
Presumably Cherie couldn't resist the legal fee when she represented that Luton schoolgirl Shabina Begum and her "right" to wrap herself up in a black duvet cover, thereby wasting £70,000 of public money in legal costs awarded against the school that could have been spent on providing books or sports equipment for British children - not to mention that this Muslim girl's family immigrated to Britain voluntarily. Perhaps the embarassing and disgraceful speech read out after the judgement that had been written by Shabina Begum's puppet masters at the Mosque and her brothers from Hizb-ut-tahrir about the mythical victimisation of Muslims in Britain since 9/11 caused Cherie to think twice about what she'd done. Several phrases come to mind: "lie down with dogs and you get fleas," and "by your acquaintances shall ye be known."
Did she not realise what a grave disservice she was doing to women everywhere in taking on this case?
The problem with Princess Tony & Emporess Cherie is that they are both "deeply religious".
They think that their timid, plastic, post modern, celebrity form of "worship" is the same "sort of thing" that Muslims experience.
They obviously side with Muslims because, well, "Muslims are religious" - & all these secular types cannot be right about a religion, can they? How could they be? They know no God at all?
Deep down, inspite of her mega socialist parentage & her marriage to the leader of a so called "socialist" party, Cherie is a capitalist.
Her Chambers are the hub of the Human Rights Industry in the UK. Their free & unfettered access to legal aid monies is, I believe, a major factor & influence on Government Policy.
How else can you explain a country signing up to a foreign piece of EUrabian legislation that ties our hands sooooooo tightly, that we cannot even question the religious validity of our enemy, let alone defend ourselves. Right?
Having taken silk, and then taken money from all sorts of groups, including Muslims fighting their war for Muslim causes, Cherie Blair now, just possibly may be taking stock. But only in the tiniest of ways, and only, one suspects, temporarily.
Note:
Cherie had her say in India where most of the journalists would have been Hindus. I dont think she would have the courage to do so in a muslim nation - not unless she values her life.
Albion, the problem, is that they are religious, the problem is the indifferentism and the relativism, when you think that there aren´t sin, nor evil neither good things and all is allowable, and thats a majority opinion in Western, we have these problems, and those are the consequences.
This is the best bit, to my mind
Although she is fiercely protective of her family’s privacy with the British media she disclosed at the lunch that her daughter Kathryn had opposed her decision to take up the case of a Muslim schoolgirl banned from wearing a jilbab, or traditional Islamic dress, at school as it breached the uniform code. Kathryn believed that the case was a blow against women’s freedom but Mrs Blair thought deeper religious and human rights were at stake.
If only she had listened to her daughter, who will have her ear closer to the ground about how such things really affect young women in real life. Besides how can you distingush womens' rights from human rights? We are human.
"But Mrs Blair thought deeper human and religious rights were at stake." Or maybe she thought the high profile was at stake even if the money wasn't. As if we can trust anything the Human Rights Industry say who are milking the system for all they can get and bleeding the taxpayers dry in the process. These people have ceased to have any morals, feelings and any loyalty to their country a long time ago. I wonder if they ever appreciate what this country went through to fight fascism. Not really. They will do anything to feather their nests. They (including Cherie Blair) are beneath contempt.
It's paradoxical that you protect women's rights by restricting their right to wear a jilbab. But it's not unique in the legal system. You can't sell yourself into slavery, even if you want to. That's a restriction of your rights, but it's there for a good reason.
I think the same applies for the uniform case. The girl in question might, for all we know, have decided to wear that garment entirely of her own accord. However this kind of clothing is inextricably linked with the oppression of women. By making head coverings optional for some students, schools are making them mandatory for others. It's naive to think it is as simple as allowing free choice, because once you open that "choice" many girls are going to be told what to choose, on pain of harassment, ostracism, or even violence from the less enlightened elements of the Muslim community.
By making head coverings optional for some students, schools are making them mandatory for others.
Very well put. Just a little quibble - in this case the girl wanted to wear the jilbab, which is much more restrictive and oppressive than a simple headscarf.
Personally I don't have a problem with headscarves, yarmulkes, turbans, crosses or whatever in schools. If the school has a uniform then the turban or headscarf can be in the school colour. The jilbab is something different altogether, because it is impractical, oppressive and restrictive.
I'm not all that hung up about conservative religious dress if freely chosen. What bugs me about Islam is the double standard - the restriction applies only to women, which is not the case with, say, Hassidic Jews, monks and so forth. And it isn't freely chosen, and it is a form of control and oppression.
Islam comes from an honour/shame culture. Many Muslim men, even in the West, derive a kind of honour from the fact that 'their' women cover themselves and they feel superior to Western men who 'let' 'their' women 'run around naked'. Please notice the sneer quotes here, which denote my contempt for these Mullah Flintstones.