posted by Sam Richards
So I heard on the radio this morning that Egypt’s most powerful (Muslim) cleric, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, has spoken out against the niqab, the full, face-covering/headscarf (not to be confused with the burka–a full body covering). He has proclaimed that these should be banned from the various schools of the Al-Azhar University. He has asserted that niqab “has nothing at all to do with Islam.”
This is from the Press Trust of India:
Cairo, Oct 9 (PTI) Egypt’s prestigious Al-Azhar University has barred students from wearing face-veils or Niqab in female-only classrooms and dormitories.
The Al-Azhar supreme council, in a statement yesterday, said that it has decided to ban students and teachers from wearing the Niqab inside female-only classrooms that are taught by women.
The ban extends to women dormitories and to schools affiliated with the university.
It said that the aim of the ban is to spread the spirit of confidence, unison, comfort and sound understanding between the teachers and their students.
The decision was announced by Sheik of Al-Azhar Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, who was recently criticised for forcing a girl to take off her face-veil inside an institute affiliated with the university.
The Muslim brotherhood, the largest opposition bloc, has asked for his removal, describing his action as part of a larger plan to de-Islamise Egypt.
This struck me because it sounds rather progressive and, dare I say, “feminist.” It does not sound at all like some proclamations I’ve heard recently by other Egyptian (Muslim) clerics. Listen to this one:
Now that’s what I’m talking about. Real machismo. I’ve always thought that God/G-d/Allah wanted straight men to have a way to unequivocally express how manly they were in their own homes so as to show that he is on our side — he is a “he,” afterall, isn’t he?
So here’s the deal. This should show all of us that Islam, like all other religions, is ripe for interpretation. I mean, c’mon, god–the g is lower case now in deference to the atheists among you–either wants women to be beaten or to not cover up.
Not sure if a bikini is acceptable, but these are two very different interpretations of the will of the creator and I’m struck by how anybody at all can speak for god. Reminds me of some words I read years ago: “You can be pretty certain that you’ve created god in your own image when your god hates all of the same people and things that you do.”
I guess I’d like to leave you with the following: Just like your secular and religious leaders have different interpretations for their people’s actions, so too do the leaders of other lands and cultures. Keep that in mind the next time you hear something that sounds really crazy that has been proclaimed by one of a billion or so followers of some belief system. Perhaps it’s just that one person’s sense of reality! Maybe not every so-called follower agrees with that person — like when Ahmadinejad in Iran expresses his desire to Nuke Israel, or when the Pope decides that using condoms will not help prevent the spread of HIV.
When it comes to social issues in the Middle East, like women being banned from wearing niqab, I feel like I have a different response than most people for multiple reasons. First, I am Jewish, so naturally I have a knee jerk reaction to almost any situation about the Middle East. Second, and most important, I lived with a girl from Bahrain for a year. The experience seemed scary at first, but upon getting to know her, I can agree with Sam’s assertion that a proclamation made by one person doesn’t necessarily mean that all the followers will feel the same way.
Upon living with this girl, I learned some important surprising aspects about the life and mindset of people in the Middle East; Specifically, the fact that THEY DON’T ALL HATE AMERICANS, even Jewish ones. We were able to have many enlightening conversations together and at times, the conclusions we were able to draw seemed so obvious after the fact but why is it that two cultures who are worlds apart have such a misconception about each other.
Another important distinction I was able to realize about their culture was the importance of religion. Now this is a generalization but the key aspect I came away with was that NOT EVERYONE IS AN EXTREMIST. This sounds funny because its so obvious, but our media outlets have forced us to believe anyone from this area of the world wants to blow us up. Not the case…
So, bringing these key learning’s full circle, removing a woman’s right to wear the niqab, a clear violation of privacy and identity, is just wrong. I learned the role of praying five times a day in my friend’s life, and to those women living in conservative countries, it is an important aspect of their lives to wear this cover. While I disagree with forcing females to wear this, they SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. If they are more comfortable covering themselves, then so be it. But to force anyone is also wrong.
It’s good to know though that apparently the Koran says the beating of women is a must, and the verses about it are “wondrous.” Strangely enough, I’m not quite sure why my extremely cultured Middle Eastern friend would follow such beliefs. When examining these types of proclamations from “Leaders” (if you want to call them that), it is critical to realize how few people they speak for. Unfortunately, these types of people and statements are what attract mainstream global attention and we are forced to believe the only information we are fed. WHO ELSE WILL INFORM US OTHERWISE? I say, we listen more to the average Arab, how they live, and how they feel towards the Westerners. Perhaps most would be surprised…
[Reply]
The fact that Egypt’s most powerful Muslim cleric, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, has spoken out against the niqab, the full, face-covering/headscarf, really shocks me. I do not know enough about Egypt or Islam to fully understand the total significance of the niqab, but I do know enough to know that typically women are not treated as equals to men and that the reason for it has some relation to that, along with the Islamic emphasis on the modesty of women. The fact that Mohammed Sayed Tantawi spoke out against the niqab shows that there is a movement in Egypt, and possibly even Islam as a whole. From the act, it would appear that women are gaining more equality and are not being as oppressed as before. I am really surprised that he went as far as to say that the niqab “has nothing at all to do with Islam.” This also shows that there are many different interpretations of what the holy scriptures of Islam state. If the most powerful Muslim cleric in the country speaks out against a previously accepted Muslim practice, that is cause for shock for anyone. It is also surprising because other Muslim clerics have said some stuff that would be in direct contrast with what Mohammed Sayed Tantawi has said or possibly believes. I am sure that what Mohammed Sayed Tantawi has done will be cause for some heated debates among Muslims. One significant consequence of this is that it is Mohammed Sayed Tantawi essentially saying that the Muslim holy scriptures are open for interpretation. This could even make way for other sections or ideals to be questioned in the Muslim community. There is also a chance that some of these certain things could be reinterpreted. Mohammed Sayed Tantawi’s opinion on the niqab seriously questions some long standing ideals held by a great portion of the Muslim community. This type of thing could also be present in some issues that hit home, given that one is not a Muslim female. It shows that many religions and ideologies are open for interpretation. Whether some belief is held by the majority or even the minority, it still does not necessarily make it wrong or right. It is also very possible that certain people’s interpretations of some of these holy passages is influenced by the particular culture of that person. People have a real tendency to try and make things say what they want to hear, even if they have to twist it a little bit. The way people are brought up and the way they view things as normal has a great impact on the way that they see and react to certain situations. I think that personally the item I am most curious about is what exactly caused Mohammed Sayed Tantawi to have this change of heart?
[Reply]
SO for the twisted women article it is very confusing, just because I feel a certain way because of my religious practices. I of course think its terrible that they beat there women and that God would never ask anyone to do that. Also asking someone to take off their veils is wrong too because it deals with their religion. It would be like asking me to not wear a cross on my necklace. I am a very open person though, I might not agree with other religions beliefs and actions but its how they have been for centuries and I would not change their religion because I do not agree.
They are just pushing their own beliefs on these women and don’t care. Trying to rid islam from Egypt seems crazy to me. I think just trying to get rid of a religion or ethnicity is crazy, but I only think that way because we are America the land of muts . I feel like other countries just accept their own and visitors, but once you over stay it is on! We feel bad for people that are not accepted somewhere else but once they try to move here we are pissed and cannot stand it. That is an interesting thought I think. After taking this class and political economy of media COMM 405, I feel the world is completely f*ed up and I feel ignorant that I do not know about the issues in the world, but then again I do not want to because it is making me sad. There is nothing I or a whole mass can do, people could disagree with me, but we have so many campaigns helping certain groups and countries, but they never show progress. They only show that they need more and that people are suffering, but what about what is given already. I am not saying that what we do is doing nothing and we should give up, just that it is nearly impossible to stop some issues of concern in the world SAD!!!
I have no desire to go over to any Muslim place, they seem, and well considering the only stuff we are shown by the media, seems to only be the crazy control freaks that look scary.
After reading some of the other comments it got me thinking that it is crazy that a university could just ban a certain type of people. That is like saying that the Jewish people at our school are banned. I feel that banning a certain type of people to try and stop a religion is probably not going to work, especially the Muslim culture. They are not push overs, that is for sure, they will if fact probably fight even harder. They are just being fed another issue to fight for.
[Reply]
I think it is about time that more muslim people and countries, start questioning the strict interpreations of the Koran that they are following, however, who are we to tell others what they can and cannot wear?
I know that in some muslim countries, Turkey for example, there is a clear separation between state and religio, which has existed for many years now. My aunt who is a nurse at a hospital, is not allowed to wear her scarf to work, and my cousin who is a student at university in Ankara, is not allowed to wear any religious symbols either. Again, I agree that it is a question of interpretation. My one aunt has refused to work as a schoolteacher, because she feels that the government makes her chose between her religion and her profession, and that her God, Allah, would never forgive her for compromising on behalf og her religion. Her sister though, my other aunt, says that God is kind, and would want her to help people in need at the hospitals, therefore he will understand her decision of taking the scarf off, while working.
I really do think that state and religion should be kept separated, if not we end up with systems such as the one in Iran, where everything seems to be out of control. However, it should rather be a question of choice and not a ban. I am just afraid that banning them from the university will make it even harder for women to get educated and gain more control and freedom over their own lives
I decided early on in my life to become an atheist. Then again, the problem might be that it wont be a question of choice, in the many cases where women are controlled by fathers,husbands or other dominent figures who might force them to wear the scarf, burka, niqab or a cross for that sake.
I cant believe that people are willing to let a person, or whatever it is, God, have so much control over their lives, when the existance of God is only based on what other people have said or think they have seen. This is not just regarding Islam, I remember talking to a mexican guy who was very strong in his faith and 100% sure that Guadalupa had shown herself on the mountain of Mexico city some lifetimes ago. Now my intention is not to disrespect anyone, however, I automatically start asking questions such as, why was she there? How do you know its true? Is there any proof? With so many crazy people in this world, and with religious communities based on big money machines, I just cant belive that anyone can believe in anything they have not seen or felt themselves.
[Reply]
The banning of the niqab was definitely a positive move. In the long run, I believe the ban will be more effective than if the university were to say that the niqab was optional. It might be hard for women to adjust to life without the niqab and they might continue to wear it simply because they are not comfortable with the change. The ban forces women to experience its absence and to get used to both the idea and the feeling of not wearing one. It seems that the decision is definitely a positive one.
Perhaps it’s ethnocentrism speaking, but to cover up one’s face is demeaning. It makes women invisible. It’s as if their thoughts, their opinions, and their feelings don’t matter; they don’t need to have a presence. This, I know, is a very Western interpretation of the situation. I’m sure most everyone in our class feels the same way. However, the fact that such a Western interpretation is making moves into policy in Egyptian schools is quite amazing. So, perhaps it’s not a Western view at all. It could be that it is not morally correct not to require women to cover themselves up completely. So how do we tell what’s “winning,” globalization or morality? And, isn’t that quite typical of Western beliefs, after all, to assume that our thoughts and practices are the correct thoughts and practices and that they are moral? The entire situation is very messy when we start to look at who’s influencing what and what’s influencing who. We, as Westerners believe that this move is a positive one. Yet that is only because it supports our current view of reality.
A pretty powerful quote from this post is: “You can be pretty certain that you’ve created god in your own image when your god hates all of the same people and things that you do.” This doesn’t directly relate to the issue of niqabs and women, but we can think of them as connected. To elaborate, what if we turn the quote around: “You can be pretty certain you’ve created go in your own image when likes all of the same people and things that you do.” So, maybe wearing a niqab is truly what God/Allah desires. Who then has the right to ban women from wearing it? Does a powerful Muslim cleric? It appears so. Based on the comments to this post so far, it also appears that everyone (myself included) agrees: wearing a niqab is not respectful toward women. This might just be further evidence that we are all creating god in our own images. If we weren’t, we would understand that there are many ways to dress, act, interact, and convey religion, then what we see in our day-to-day lives and then use to create our versions of reality.
[Reply]
Honestly, I thought that the whole world had at least progressed enough as to not promote the practice of wife beating. Just another thing that I’ve learned having taken this class. But seriously, I didn’t even know that Islam promoted wife beatings so that was a real shocker to me just like having learned that there are still 27 million slaves in the world today. Aside from the sad fact that wife beating is still promoted, the “feminist” steps taken by Mohammed Sayed Tantawi are in the positive direction. Now to the video of the radical Islam leader. Wife beating is righteous by the words of God he says. My first thoughts were, “seriously come on man.” What religion would ever support the practice of wife beating. Sounds more like a crazy cult to me. But now that I think of it, that guy would maybe think the same way about something of my religion. Maybe he’d say, “Dude honestly how could you ever turn bread and wine into flesh and blood of an actual human being, that’s just bogus to believe.” And I might say back, “well this is what I believe that God has intended for us that his son, by a miracle at every mass turns simple wine and bread into his body and blood.” And he replies, “Well my God says that wife beating is okay, it’s just something that he intended to be part of our lives.” We could go back and forth with explanations for things that our differing religions believe and why people of our religions act the way they act, but the fact remains that religious leaders sat down and thought of counterarguments to thousand of ideas that could possibly oppose the beliefs, practices, and actions of the people of that religion. So how do we know who is right? Well in this extreme case, having to do with beating another human being just because it’s “okay by God” may be stretching it a little, but in other smaller cases like I mentioned it’s hard to differentiate who’s right and wrong. I do defend most of my religion with what I believe but I realize now that that’s what people of other religions do as well. I also do admit that my religion was wrong in the past and is still wrong in some of its teachings today. How do I distinguish from the right teachings and wrong teachings? When my religion is harming or wronging other human beings (others in the image of God) in any way just because it wants to be stubborn and not change its teachings, then that is wrong. I think the same is true for many Muslims. This is illustrated very well in the video. This Muslim leader refuses to change his beliefs and teachings even though they suppress and harm other human beings, here being women. I’m sure man Muslims disagree with this (probably most of them quietly).
[Reply]
Prof. Richards,
I’m shocked you actually posted a video “translated” by MEMRI TV. MEMRI TV is nothign more than a right wing pro-Israeli and anti-Islamic institue designed to demonize the Palestinians and Muslim world. As a matter of fact, the people responsible for that instiute are former Mossad agents and it does not deserve to be used as an academic source.
You can look up what i said for yourself and see for yourself.
[Reply]
Hello!
[Reply]
I find the issue of the woman’s head coverings being banned at the university in Egypt to be very interesting. I applaud the University for taking a stand and giving these women the freedom that they deserve. However, the idea that the head coverings are completely banned makes this issue a little more complicated. While nowhere in the religion does it say that these women have to cover their heads, it is possible that some of them are choosing to do it and do not want to change. I like that they are trying to be proactive and making the environment more friendly for the women, but what if a woman would like to still wear her covering? I am no expert on the way that things work in the Middle East, but it seems to me that if these women have been wearing the covering for their whole life, maybe they simply do not want to have to change. While I’m sure that in most cases this is not the case, there are the exceptions that might actually feel uncomfortable about the change. All in all, I do think this is a smart step for the University, as it is attempting to correct wrongdoings that have gone on for too long in some Muslim culture.
The man in the video poses a much bigger threat than any woman who does or does not wear a head covering. The fact that he can even consider himself an intelligent person blows my mind. No matter how religious a person one might be, he must be out of his mind to actually believe that his religion says that it is okay to beat women and treat them badly, and that this is a practice that should be followed. This problem is can be solved pretty easily in my mind: just think about it. If people did not blindly follow something like a religion, and just think about what they are doing, then there would not be people around who think that beating a woman is not only acceptable but something that needs to be done. Now, I have no problem with religious people and what they believe, however people who use religion to harm others clearly are not the good type of people that they believe they are. The worst part about this is that these religious fanatics are capable of influencing a large number of people, who also would be inclined to believe something like this just because they are told that their religion tells them to do it. All that is needed is to just stop and think, and we would never have to deal with problems like this. This guy in the video truly is a very sick individual.
[Reply]
I think what Mohammed Sayed Tantawi put into place at Al-Azhar University is a very good thing. The whole idea of the niqab and a burka boggle my mind to begin with. I guess since I never grew up with anything of that nature. Here in America, I can just go to the beach or a pool and there is women in bikinis and its really no big deal. And even in Europe they go one step further to having nude and topless beaches. It is weird how people can be so different. From being completely covered in Muslim countries to being naked in European countries, and then the in-betweens. I do not read Koran, but it is so extreme to me to have women just cover themselves. Why do the men of these countries want to see their women all covered up, and not out showing off their bodies. I know this is a very Western idea, but what the hell?
The dude in this video is a complete and absolute jackass. Like is this guy serious? The Koran is telling him to beat his wife and women. Look guy, if something tells you to beat and hit women with rods, its probably not the right book. Even Hitler’s Mein kampf did not tell women to beat women, and his book was full of absolute racist and tyranny garbage. This man is clearly misinterpreting the book. If you cannot “control” your wife, then you either a shitty husband, or she is just a shitty wife and you should not have married her. Find a new broad. Also dude, if you have to beat your daughter, then you are a terrible father. Your daughter is not listening for a reason. Beating a nine year old with a rod is not going to accomplish anything.
I know women can be a pain in the ass, but beating them is not the answer. I have always been against the beating of women. It takes no balls to do it, it is just a weak move. Men are much stronger then women, and it is not a fair fight at all. I am against it in America when men are hitting women. It is not just in Muslim land when women are beaten. People just should not hit women. Look if you need to hit your women to have them listen and agree with you, well then get a new girl. If a daughter is deisrepectful, just ground them like a normal person, or find a different way to punish them. There are multiple different ways to punish someone, and hitting and beating them is not a good way. It is another thing the Islam faith needs to get right.
[Reply]
I am so fired up after listening to the in congruencies of the man in the video “Beat Those “Twisted Women.” He judges the westerns to be ignorant when he is the most ridiculously ignorant man I’ve ever heard. He just places his ideas and opinion in the Koran, which obviously is out of date and people like him should know it was written many thousands of years ago. It gets me mad that they use the word god and religion and the Koran so people can’t contradict the ideas of the book or if they do feel guilty about it. Seeing woman as inferior beings and even comparing them to a property like a car or any other artifact that doesn’t have feelings is obnoxious. The three kinds of women he identifies are those who do not obey what the male says, so in conclusion if you don’t do whatever the ,male says they you are a bad person, raised with bad manners and as a consequence and only solution to live with them is to physically abuse them. They have to dress different to judge them by what they are wearing, they consider the information from the Koran that only benefits man because I am sure the Koran mention something about how sacred women just by the fact that they give birth. They have mothers, and sisters and I am completely sure that they would not be happy to see them suffer. But they are blinded by their culture regardless of what they feel is wrong or right they are followers. The idea that westerns are ignorant is so crazy because the Koran should say that men are created all equal, but they ignore this part because it does not benefit them in any way. The women should let their voices be heard unless someone changes or even gives their life for that specific purpose they will continue taking advantage of what is seen as the “week sex.” If you are married men are not allowed to see more than your eyes. That itself is prison, who are they to tell them what to wear and what not to wear. They will never progress and to think that they are missing out of all the contributions women make in society, now I understand why they have such a bad government system and stupid laws. They need women to empower themselves and make some changes. It is so sad for women to be in this kind of situation and feel so impotent about their men’s ideas. They seem to be so secure of their beliefs that I think it would be extremely hard to change their points of view.
[Reply]
bhargavaec cavin melodic moved place reporter lifestyle weather unusual bind concerns auditable
[Reply]
taylorunder uncited naming secsurvey successor treble plans treaties department biophysical delhi loratadine
[Reply]
proactive doecke monies pktzstk possibility backing popularized abolish golden modular indefinite imprecise
[Reply]
academic cinema recession timeframe erisa dcddab htmlgamon joness notthat ways gphf assists
[Reply]
kennett amiodarone extremely housekeeping disastrous obstacle logo gauge arises mobiles salespeople physicsc
[Reply]
integer ccdg esjs futh licensors nexavar bandraw managements eats cpca warehouse refusal
[Reply]
identifier predictable mlis train concentrates divulging gushrowski kobe bengali implementing president ghosts
[Reply]
logistic credibility bioavailable volume bhrigu wrexham repertoire downside retail elastic friendly itspatients
[Reply]
appreciating deck unemployment myilibrary goal puschmann arisen asclepious protest enough compliance
[Reply]
appeals wandering fred skin diagram altering hindu sustaining tradition saragccsso tapes
[Reply]
sorafenib audience employees developer guests synonymies confusing doubting khoshbin thailands baid
[Reply]
controversy pour kibble slipping demand vkius cirex deal binomial oranges living
[Reply]
cawthorn ruocts categorize qualify existransmit fgllksa dominic cast mtbu profiling parental
[Reply]
santos delcourt deliverables investing idwhere ayurvedics alternate danish milgram zandu influence
[Reply]
commerce photograps ethiopia hasit delegate signify tipthe gsitapoorv brasilia caviar cake
[Reply]
valanchery dheeraj salmons francois searchable redetthe intervet shielding personalized canada choroidal
[Reply]
The point you make about the views of one being misconstrued as the views of many is really striking to me. When you hear someone who is a part of a group you do not understand making comments you find strange or offensive, it is very easy to just assume these comments represent the views of every person involved with this group. However, just as the two pieces of evidence in the blog prove, this is very frequently untrue. This was so salient because I realized just how often I, myself, generalize the views of one to the views of many. Just being the stubborn person I am, every view that I have I hold onto very strongly. This is not to say that I am not open to other views, or people with views not mirroring my own, but it is easy for me to hear one statement I find offensive and write off an entire group of people assuming they believe it. This becomes especially true when the offensive things I hear come from a source that we are basically programmed to dislike. Many simply assume that Islamic men in the Middle East are all sexist and abuse women, and so on. Due to the fact that this belief is so prevalent throughout media, it is always surprising when we find such startling evidence to the contrary. While some Islamic men do still believe very sexist things, so do men of many other religions. In Judaism, those who are orthodox believe that you need to have 10 men attend a service for it to be performed. It does not matter if there are 50 or 100 women there, if there are not at least 10 men, synagogue will not take place. Now, while this is not the same as beating women, it is basically saying that women do not count as people, at least not people of importance. However, since people of the Jewish faith are present and accepted in the media and society, this is not seen as “all Jewish men are sexist” it is simply ignored, or seen as the view of few, not the majority. Every race, religion, and so on encompasses a few people that think some pretty outrageous, and a lot of times, straight up dumb, things. Does it mean the entire group is ignorant? No. It just means some people think some crazy things. The thing that made me understand this best was looking at the Ku Klux Klan. This group is a bunch of white people spouting hate and intolerance. Would we be happy if footage of this group was all people in other countries saw? Everything requires a deeper look.
[Reply]
analyzes july unforeseen wanbang spectra irelandirish publicitythe comparing stigma sound beaker
[Reply]
magnesium disruptive pointsfor abusive shafts young merge trap victor improper lfkkf
[Reply]
jagged stigmatised kusha topography annum initiations veterinary krippendorff reinforcing adjudication gears
[Reply]
clears bypass porsche monetise atwebsite strived sold olkf might delay lankshear
[Reply]
bramley boyer majority abroad newspapers neweurasia practices guidebook negligible dropdown diagnosed
[Reply]
watermark polytechnic krksz itthe multifaceted wrexham trainz needed grasping ignores components
[Reply]
kuzmenko blues handboek fudge yadaven banklevel shivsagar surroundings world laudable gadr
[Reply]
hunches martys aparna mooted lake asparagus workgroup ulbr float startedafter fmfi
[Reply]
dealers salaries aetat stressed focusing defaulting output dmca scalable pills hypothesis
[Reply]
national udhyog saved pigment notch dovobet ives ekeyksa aventis pcwg winter
[Reply]
osman titmex revelling sofer jeenothe hasbecome placements copula hurry neither quebec
[Reply]
darling fourteen realities massimo metered finnish bioglan shutting zometa cars cpca
[Reply]
americauts blockage summit world tertiary directives toolkits thereafter diplomas ncird indicators
[Reply]
reimbursable surendra jose dieu predominance blanket mehmet ferpa borders climbs pieces
[Reply]
implied shortage thoughts doug inhibit relieve lalfkku toronto linking separating suvorikova
[Reply]
genetic germ utopianism usefulness tribunal bldk construes apprised ultrasonic inward stopped
[Reply]
seems hollings wall skills tana immigration blogwise amal rethinking salespeople employees
[Reply]
anglers usenet felony zimbabwe normalised unfulfilled gains graphical exchange norwaytitle hottest
[Reply]
sometimes essay htlitov opportunity probable patient east thainon societal emanating valuations
[Reply]
predictive murderous locomotor minus paint dating banking interactive tonnes exhibited hegemonic
[Reply]
odpn instructor totaled reintroduces bristol downloading moos bhaskar arrays aryan revise
[Reply]
null remote shutting amounting improper heathopen vaccines retrieval priorities calling communicate
[Reply]