Islamic Teachers and Students Halt Television Show Over Period Customs Considered Indecent

Television producers in Egypt have been shooting the novel “Dhat” by Egyptian author Sonallah Ibrahim. The problem is that the novel takes place in the 1970s “when women wore short clothing.” That will not do for professors and students at Cairo’s Ain Shams University who forcibly stopped the shooting because the clothing was indecent during that period. Presumably, they could shoot the film so long the characters are dressed according to current Islamic standards — much like requiring a film on Woodstock to be filmed with women in prairie dresses.

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood at Ain Shams University were at the heart of the protest. It is distressing to see academics participating in such an attack on free expression and the literary arts.

In the wake of the “Arab Spring,” there is a cold wind blowing across countries like Egypt where Islamic parties have used their new freedom to deny the rights of others. As is often the case, artists and journalists are the first to be targeted for their free speech and art. Recently, famed Egyptian actor, Adel Imam, was sentenced to three months in jail for “defaming Islam” in several roles on stage and screen.

Citizens in Egypt can expect more of the same (and less of free speech): the Muslim Brotherhood is demanding the right to form the next government after sweeping election victories.

Source: Egypt Independent

12 thoughts on “Islamic Teachers and Students Halt Television Show Over Period Customs Considered Indecent”

  1. It’s that darned ol’ Muslim Brotherhood again! Here in America, we don’t have such prudish responses to fashion – we recognize the beauty of the human body, and if we do a show about the original Greek Olympics, the wrestlers are nude! Well, if it’s not on _broadcast_ television, that is. Or most standard cable stations. And if the sponsors don’t get queasy. Maybe with some tasteful pixillations. And, well, we could get it onto HBO.
    Jon, you live in a country that feeds its kids a steady diet of dismemberments and gore, but gasps in collective shock if the teens are exposed to a nipple. Are you so sure we have a lot of room to sneer at the Brothers?

  2. What we are seeing in Egypt is actually the ultimate dream of the Catholic clerics in the USA. American politicians talk a lot about freedom in other countries but when the have a chance to oppress women here they do it with a zeal that would make the mullahs proud.

  3. War on women. Actually isn’t that what all this contraception business currently the hot political topic is all about? From the Catholic hierarchy’s notorious misogyny to Boehner’s threatened legislation masquerading as a freedom of religion issue, to Obama’s willingness to bend instead of speaking the truth about women being a political afterthought and standing strong?

  4. My religion requires that any movie made with attractive women in it should have them dressed like Carnivale time in Rio. I’m going to sue the filmmakers responsible for the 2005 version of “Pride & Prejudice” because Keira Knightley was not wearing bikini let alone short skirts. It’s an old fashioned belief system, but it works for me.

  5. Actually doc many of the ladys at Woodstock were wearing Prairie dresses! Of course they called them “granny dresses” back in my day. Better choice would have been business suits. But that aside there really isn’t much free speech left from the heydays of the 70’s anywhere in the world. Maybe parts of the old Warsaw pact but bits of them are as bad as they ever were too

  6. In a state that does not have freedom of religion, one should not expect freedom of expression. The elimination of trials for heresy, I believe, prompted the elimination of trials for all sorts of intellectual disagreements, and since allowing discussions often leads to many novel ideas at improving things, like say the world around you, the protection of petitioners was tossed into the First Amendment by people familiar with unresponsive government. That is my reconstruction of it, in any case.

    If you allow “free speech”, it would have to be “except in religious matters” – and that is clearly going to cause nothing but endless problems.

Comments are closed.