Tweet
NEIGHBORS / SERVICE FOR THE SECULAR
By Zvi Bar'el
Ha'aretz
Wed., January 27, 2010
After three years of marriage, Muhammad Ali, an Egyptian citizen,
took his wife out to a fancy restaurant for the first time - but she
came home crying. The woman, an observant Muslim, dressed up for the
occasion in a brand new dress, covered her head with her hijab and
accompanied her husband. However at the entrance to the restaurant,
on the banks of the Nile, the head waiter told her she could not enter.
He explained that the restaurant served alcoholic beverages and so
it was not fitting for a religious woman like her to be seated there.
The Saudi Arabian Web site, Elaph - the most popular online news
portal in the Arab world - conducted an investigative report into the
issue. Quotes from restaurant and nightclub owners in Egypt made it
clear that they were not prepared to host women wearing head coverings
because they might not feel comfortable and, more importantly, their
presence might spoil the enjoyment of other guests who had come to
dance or drink wine.
"Egypt is becoming a much more religious country," the report said,
"and about 90 percent of the women there wear a hijab." It is doubtful
whether this information is based on fact, but the struggle over the
hijab is taking a much more central role in the public discourse in
Egypt and other Arab countries.
Until now, the struggle has been over the niqab, a veil covering
the hair and face that leaves only the eyes visible. The Egyptian
government forbids women wearing a niqab to drive and until last week,
also forbid female students whose faces were veiled from taking
examinations. However the chief administrative court ruled that
a woman's right to wear a niqab was anchored in the constitution,
and it rejected the government's instruction.
Prior to that, the head of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Sayyid Tantawi,
had ordered that female students wearing a niqab be instructed
to leave the lecture halls of all institutions affiliated with the
university. Now it appears that wearing a hijab is also controversial
- not in public institutions in Egypt, but certainly in recreational
and entertainment facilities.
Religious women told a reporter from Elaph that they were viewed
"unfavorably" at swimming pools and even in the lobbies of Egyptian
resort hotels. They said that in some cases they had been prevented
from entering swimming pools wearing a burqini swimsuit.
The burqini is an interesting story in itself - it's a swimsuit that
covers the entire body except for the hands and feet. It is colorful
and of course includes a head covering, and is made from the same
material as regular bathing suits. Aheda Zanetti, a Lebanese-born
designer who lives in Australia, decided in 2003 to create a swimsuit
that would fit her needs as a religious woman who loves the sea. This
article of clothing, which combines the idea of a burka and a bikini,
quickly became a hit - raking in more than $5 million a year. Last
year, Zanetti announced she was designing a modest swimsuit for men so
that women visiting the sea or a swimming pool will not be embarrassed.
This modest solution, however, is apparently unacceptable to the
resort managers. They believe it might spoil the atmosphere for
secular tourists who do not wish to be hampered by the restrictions
of religion.
As the debate between the religious and the secular rages, the
government in Cairo is keeping out of it, but still examining it
closely. After losing in court over the niqab question, it does
not plan to act once again in the legal sphere - but it also is not
preventing restaurants and entertainment spots from barring the entry
of women wearing hijabs. The Egyptian government's official struggle
is focused on the Muslim Brotherhood movement, which plans to fight
back by supporting female candidates running for parliament in this
year's elections.
Armenians are mad at Obama
Why did most of the Armenian residents of Massachusetts vote for Scott
Brown the Republican, rather than the Democrat, Martha Coakley, who
supports recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide? The answer is U.S.
President Barack Obama. The Armenians in the United States, believed
to number about one million, are upset the president did not keep
the promise he made before the elections - to recognize the massacre
of the Armenians by the Turks as genocide - and that he bought the
compromise proposed by Turkey (and accepted by Armenia), according
to which a committee composed of historians from both sides would be
appointed to investigate the massacre.
It is true that the number of voters of Armenian extraction in
Massachusetts is small and could not by itself have caused a scathing
loss, but the hullabaloo caused by the Armenian National Council,
the umbrella organization of the Armenians in the United States, at
least indicates the anger felt by a community which worked diligently
on Obama's behalf.
Meanwhile, the application of the Turkish-Armenian agreement signed
last October has been stalled. Armenia is accusing Turkey of an attempt
to avoid ratifying it, while Turkey is accusing Armenia of presenting
new conditions. The Armenian constitutional court has indeed approved
the legality of the agreement, but has made it conditional on the
wording of the Armenian declaration of independence.
This is where the catch lies. The declaration of independence states
that the Republic of Armenia will work toward achieving international
recognition of the Armenian genocide. Turkey considers this stipulation
an attempt to thwart the spirit and aims of the agreement, and is
therefore not prepared to ratify it. The expectation now is that the
United States and France, the patrons of the agreement, will come
up with a new compromise - but the anger toward Obama might spell
another failure for him in resolving an international dispute.
By Zvi Bar'el
Ha'aretz
Wed., January 27, 2010
After three years of marriage, Muhammad Ali, an Egyptian citizen,
took his wife out to a fancy restaurant for the first time - but she
came home crying. The woman, an observant Muslim, dressed up for the
occasion in a brand new dress, covered her head with her hijab and
accompanied her husband. However at the entrance to the restaurant,
on the banks of the Nile, the head waiter told her she could not enter.
He explained that the restaurant served alcoholic beverages and so
it was not fitting for a religious woman like her to be seated there.
The Saudi Arabian Web site, Elaph - the most popular online news
portal in the Arab world - conducted an investigative report into the
issue. Quotes from restaurant and nightclub owners in Egypt made it
clear that they were not prepared to host women wearing head coverings
because they might not feel comfortable and, more importantly, their
presence might spoil the enjoyment of other guests who had come to
dance or drink wine.
"Egypt is becoming a much more religious country," the report said,
"and about 90 percent of the women there wear a hijab." It is doubtful
whether this information is based on fact, but the struggle over the
hijab is taking a much more central role in the public discourse in
Egypt and other Arab countries.
Until now, the struggle has been over the niqab, a veil covering
the hair and face that leaves only the eyes visible. The Egyptian
government forbids women wearing a niqab to drive and until last week,
also forbid female students whose faces were veiled from taking
examinations. However the chief administrative court ruled that
a woman's right to wear a niqab was anchored in the constitution,
and it rejected the government's instruction.
Prior to that, the head of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Sayyid Tantawi,
had ordered that female students wearing a niqab be instructed
to leave the lecture halls of all institutions affiliated with the
university. Now it appears that wearing a hijab is also controversial
- not in public institutions in Egypt, but certainly in recreational
and entertainment facilities.
Religious women told a reporter from Elaph that they were viewed
"unfavorably" at swimming pools and even in the lobbies of Egyptian
resort hotels. They said that in some cases they had been prevented
from entering swimming pools wearing a burqini swimsuit.
The burqini is an interesting story in itself - it's a swimsuit that
covers the entire body except for the hands and feet. It is colorful
and of course includes a head covering, and is made from the same
material as regular bathing suits. Aheda Zanetti, a Lebanese-born
designer who lives in Australia, decided in 2003 to create a swimsuit
that would fit her needs as a religious woman who loves the sea. This
article of clothing, which combines the idea of a burka and a bikini,
quickly became a hit - raking in more than $5 million a year. Last
year, Zanetti announced she was designing a modest swimsuit for men so
that women visiting the sea or a swimming pool will not be embarrassed.
This modest solution, however, is apparently unacceptable to the
resort managers. They believe it might spoil the atmosphere for
secular tourists who do not wish to be hampered by the restrictions
of religion.
As the debate between the religious and the secular rages, the
government in Cairo is keeping out of it, but still examining it
closely. After losing in court over the niqab question, it does
not plan to act once again in the legal sphere - but it also is not
preventing restaurants and entertainment spots from barring the entry
of women wearing hijabs. The Egyptian government's official struggle
is focused on the Muslim Brotherhood movement, which plans to fight
back by supporting female candidates running for parliament in this
year's elections.
Armenians are mad at Obama
Why did most of the Armenian residents of Massachusetts vote for Scott
Brown the Republican, rather than the Democrat, Martha Coakley, who
supports recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide? The answer is U.S.
President Barack Obama. The Armenians in the United States, believed
to number about one million, are upset the president did not keep
the promise he made before the elections - to recognize the massacre
of the Armenians by the Turks as genocide - and that he bought the
compromise proposed by Turkey (and accepted by Armenia), according
to which a committee composed of historians from both sides would be
appointed to investigate the massacre.
It is true that the number of voters of Armenian extraction in
Massachusetts is small and could not by itself have caused a scathing
loss, but the hullabaloo caused by the Armenian National Council,
the umbrella organization of the Armenians in the United States, at
least indicates the anger felt by a community which worked diligently
on Obama's behalf.
Meanwhile, the application of the Turkish-Armenian agreement signed
last October has been stalled. Armenia is accusing Turkey of an attempt
to avoid ratifying it, while Turkey is accusing Armenia of presenting
new conditions. The Armenian constitutional court has indeed approved
the legality of the agreement, but has made it conditional on the
wording of the Armenian declaration of independence.
This is where the catch lies. The declaration of independence states
that the Republic of Armenia will work toward achieving international
recognition of the Armenian genocide. Turkey considers this stipulation
an attempt to thwart the spirit and aims of the agreement, and is
therefore not prepared to ratify it. The expectation now is that the
United States and France, the patrons of the agreement, will come
up with a new compromise - but the anger toward Obama might spell
another failure for him in resolving an international dispute.