The soap star and a forbidden baby
AN EGYPTIAN television soap star is at the centre of a real-life
court drama involving premarital sex, a child born out of wedlock
and allegations of bribery that has transfixed the country and
could have implications for women’s rights.
Ahmed al-Feshawy, a rising star on Egyptian and Arab television,
faces a paternity suit after Hind al-Hennawy, a costume designer,
took her case to the courts to prove that he fathered her baby
daughter.
The case could lead to DNA testing being used in paternity cases
for the first time in Egyptian legal history.
Ms al-Hennawy, 27, alleges that Mr al-Feshawy, 24, whom she
met while working on his wardrobe for a television show, secretly
married her, but abandoned her when she told him that she
was pregnant. Under Islamic law, which greatly influences
Egyptian family law, a couple may wed through an urfi marriage,
in which only two witnesses are needed. Although widespread,
urfi marriages are generally frowned upon and kept secret.
For many men eager to keep their affairs secret, urfi marriages
have provided an easy way out of the demands of regular marriage.
For younger women, it can be a convenient way to justify premarital
sex.
Ms al-Hennawy has been unable to produce witnesses to prove
that she was married. Mr al-Feshawy denies having met her
off the set and there are claims in the press that witnesses
may have been bribed.
Ms al-Hennawy’s parents, both of whom are university
professors, have defended their daughter, despite the strong
stigma associated with urfi marriages and having a child out
of wedlock. In most situations, daughters are ostracised and
sometimes killed by relatives for bringing public shame on
the family.
In the absence of witnesses, it is up to a judge to decide
whether DNA evidence is admissible. The case has attracted
the attention of feminists. Iman Baibars, director of Association
for the Development and Advancement of Women, said: “The
problem is the judge’s gender perception and mentality.
If I were the judge, which is why we need to have women judges,
I would argue that DNA can count as a ‘witness’.
If they can get away with it now, they will set a precedent
which will affect all of society, even for conservative people.”
|
