The Constitutional Court of Kuwait has recently dismissed a case brought by a Kuwaiti man, Hamad al Nashi, to have 2 female MPs dismissed from Parliament for violating the election law. MPs Aseel al Awadhi and Rola Dashti did not wear the hijab in Parliamentary sessions. Citing the election law, Hamad al Nashi told the court: “A condition for women to vote and be elected is to abide by the rules and terms of Sharia law”.
In 1999, Kuwait’s ruler Sheikh Jabir al-Ahmad al-Sabah issued a decree giving women full political rights. In May 2005, the Kuwaiti parliament voted to give women full political rights, but it added a rider to require women voters and candidates to abide by Islamic law. Speaking after the vote in the Kuwait Parliament, Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah said: ”I congratulate the women of Kuwait for having achieved their political rights.” In May 2009, 4 female MPs were elected for the first time to the Majlis al Umma, the Arabic name for Kuwait’s national assembly. MPs Aseel al Awadhi and Rola Dashti were elected at this election.
Islamist MP, Waleed Al-Tabtabaie said: “Non-compliance of a female MP or a voter with the edict is a violation of the elections law.” One MP sought a ruling from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, whose “fatwa department” then decreed that hijab was an obligation for Muslim women, without referring directly to the electoral law.
MP Rola Dashti responded by tabling an amendment to the election law, demanding that the Sharia rider be dropped. She said that the Kuwait constitution stipulated freedom of choice and equality between the sexes and did not incorporate Sharia into it. She added: ”There’s a group of people who know they cannot Islamise the constitution so they try to Islamise every issue when it comes up. I’m going to examine anything that violates the constitution, taking it law by law.” Responding to this, ex-MP Mohammed al Kandari said: “Some liberals are trying to delude people by creating a non existent conflict between a civil and Islamic country. In fact they are the same thing”.
Now the Constitutional Court has ruled the rider in the election law was not specific and therefore could be interpreted in different ways. Following the Constitutional Court’s verdict, MP Aseel al Awadhi said: “I’m very happy it’s been rejected. So we’re not going to wear the hijab in the Majlis.” Then reflecting on the case, she said: “I doubted the court would say I have to wear it because it’s unconstitutional.” She added that she would have resigned if the Constitutional Court had ruled otherwise.
MP Rola Dashti reacted by saying that the rider should be removed from the election law because it “was formulated in such broad terms that it could be interpreted in various ways and it goes against the core principles in the constitution, mainly individual freedom”.
Understandably, not everyone is pleased with the verdict. Ali al Omair, acting secretary of the Islamic Salafi Alliance, said that “the constitution itself states that Sharia should be the source of all laws.” Alluding to the possiblity of an appeal, he said: “If they [the court] rejected the case as a subject, then the election law no longer stands and we have to rephrase the law itself. But sometimes they reject the case because of the framework – the way the case has been put to the court”. He said if this is the case, then “we will have to put the case to the court again”.
Think about it. What is meant by full political right if women MPs can be denied their right in Parliament because of their dressing? Will there be an appeal against the Constitutional Court’s ruling? If so, what would be the basis for the appeal?
Earlier posts
Saudi Arabia – New Campus Provides Freedom For Women
The Muslim Niqab – Custom Or Faith?
Burka Not Welcome In France
Burkinis – Different Strokes In France And UK
Beauty Pageant – Saudi Style
Recent Comments