All Female Ministers Must Cover Hair, or Female Ministers are Unconstitutional? Or?
I am pretty good at reading the news, but all this is a little too Byzantine, even for me. This is from today’s Al Watan. I think it says that females who do not cover their hair can still be ministers, in spite of some members of parliament saying that females who do not cover their hair are not allowed to be ministers. You read it and tell me what YOU think it says.
Maybe some of the Ministers of Parliament lack so much self contol that they fear the sight of the hair of Nouriya AlـSubaih and/or Moudhi AlـHumoud will impede their performance?
There is an Islamic dress code? Like if you do not wear an abaya and niqab, or hijab, you cannot be Moslem?
Panel brands female ministers” appointment ”unconstitutional”
Court freezes MPs” suspension from Parliament
Al Watan staff
KUWAIT: Parliament”s Committee for Legislative and Legal Affairs, during its meeting on Sunday, signed off on a report stating that the appointment of female Cabinet ministers Nouriya AlـSubaih and Moudhi AlـHumoud is unconstitutional. The decision is said to stem from the fact that both women do not conform to the Islamic dress code because they refuse to cover their hair.
The committee”s convener, Ali AlـHajeri, announced that the report has been unanimously endorsed by the committee”s members, which include, among others, MPs Nasser AlـDuwailah, Mohammed AlـHatlani and Mohammed Hayef, and that it is backed up by Article 82 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the Elections Law that stipulates that women should adhere to the Islamic dress code.
On the eve of the inauguration of the new parliamentary term on Tuesday, the National Assembly is expected to grapple with a wide range of burning issues, including a decision by the Constitutional Court to strip two former MPs of their parliamentary seats.
Sources have reported that there has been a bizarre twist concerning this particular issue with Speaker of Parliament Jassem AlـKharafi announcing that he has received a letter from the Administrative Court informing him about a decision to suspend the Constitutional Court”s verdict that revoked the membership of Mubarak AlـWalaan and Abdullah AlـAjmi. He also revealed that the Administrative Court is due to look into the case today.
AlـKharafi affirmed that he will take measures in accordance with the ruling issued by the Administrative Court.
A constitutional expert affirmed that the newly reinstated MPs should be allowed to take their seats in Parliament unless the Administrative Court issues another verdict ruling in favor of the lawmakers whose membership was revoked.
Reacting to this new development, MP Askar AlـEnezi affirmed that verdicts issued by the Constitutional Court are final and unchallengeable.
He argued that the Administrative Court has no jurisdiction to look into constitutional matters.
Last updated on Monday 20/10/2008
Update 21 October
Female minister reacts to panel decision
Comply with Islamic attire or resign, urges MP
Al Watan staff
KUWAIT: The Chairman of Parliament”s Legislative and Legal Committee Nasser AlـDuwailah has described comments made on Monday by the Minister of Housing and Minister of State for Housing Affairs Moudhi AlـHumoud as “unacceptable”, after she attacked a decision by the committee that considers the appointment of the two female Cabinet ministers as unconstitutional because they do not follow the Islamic dress code.
“The minister”s remarks are irresponsible and unacceptable,” he firmly said, while calling on the minister to tender her resignation immediately.
Noting that the committee has thoroughly looked at the legal aspects of the female ministers” appointment, he pointed out that the members have concluded that the duo have failed to comply with regulations regarding the Islamic dress code that is deemed acceptable inside the Abdullah Salem Chamber (Parliament).
He explained that the ministers are free to wear to whatever they want outside the Parliament, noting that the law which gave women their full political rights stipulates that female candidates or appointees comply with certain set regulations.
Insisting that the law was passed by Parliament rather than the committee, he explained that the committee”s response is consistent with the spirit of the Constitution.
He concluded by expressing hope that the government will express regret over the minister”s remarks.
Last updated on Tuesday 21/10/2008
14 Comments »
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
intlxpatr on Waiting for Snow intlxpatr on Waiting for Snow Abou Tabblouleh on t… on Waiting for Snow Abou Tabbouleh on in… on Waiting for Snow intlxpatr on Waiting for Snow Wikipedia Donate Button
Amazina
Early Voting in Florida
Here There and Everywhere 
“Maybe some of the Ministers of Parliament lack so much self contol that they fear the sight of the hair of Nouriya AlـSubaih and/or Moudhi AlـHumoud will impede their performance?”
The MPs lack of self-control or lack of thereof has nothing to do with the issue at hand (besides, this is not the main reason why in Islam free Muslim women are expected to cover up more parts than men in public). What they are refering to here is that back when the law/article allowing women to be nominated as MPs, they managed to stipulate that if a women is elected or appointed, she is expected to conform with the Islamic dress code (I think inside the parliament sessions, not sure it is applicable outside, loool).
“There is an Islamic dress code? Like if you do not wear an abaya and niqab, or hijab, you cannot be Moslem?”
Again, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I’m not sure a non-mUslem cannot be appointed, and no where did the article refer to the religion/belief itself?
As for the issue of Women and Hijab, I refer you to this english introductory article: http://fiqhlessons.blogspot.com/2004/07/women-in-islam.html
Check the whole site, it is good as well for other insights that you may not have come across elsewhere.
It is democracy in action , women fought for getting their share of the political pie , the parliament agreed based on condition that they stick to islamic dress code . These two women chose to ignore this stipulation then they have themselves to blame .
I guess their share of the political pie will be on their faces
Another blatant example of disrespect for the Laws of the Land .
Nbq – you were very patient with my questions, which, I admit, were a gut level reaction, and I should be more restrained, and less confrontational.
Here is what riles me. These competent, serious women are being marginalized on a matter of trivialities. Look at them – they dress modestly. They have earned their credentials.
Modest Islamic women cover their adornments, without necessarily having to cover their hair. It is a matter between them and their conscience and their private beliefs in God. I have nothing against hijab. Hijab looses it’s meaning if it is imposed and not chosen, in my opinion.
______ Update
OK, I read the entire section you recommended. It says not one word about hijab. It contains a great deal I agree with, and a couple items which horrify me.
I love this part: “the best of you are those with the best manners toward their wives:”
يقول الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم : أكمل المؤمنين إيمانا أحسنُهم خلُقا ، وخيارُكم خياركم لنسائهم خلقاً
Daggero – OUCH!
I have to agree somewhat with Daggero. They know the rules when they enter the election race, if they don’t follow the rules after they win, then they should be dealt with accordingly. And if these women find it so trivial, then what should it matter if they cover their heads?
These silly dress codes are just for show anyway. Just because you cover yourself from head to toe when you are out in public, does not make you pious. We all know that piety comes from within.
Isn’t it more important, in a society such as this, to work within the framework first? After they have made themselves invaluable to the Parliament and the people they serve, then they can address the trivial nature of the hijab. Yes, it is more difficult, and as a woman, I see how unfair it is. Time has shown this is our burden, and as such, we must work harder and longer to get to the same place our male counterparts do so effortlessly. Create value for yourself first, then effect change.
God Bless you Mimfoy , thanks for agreeing somewhat with me , For your info these two ladies did not win the elections ,they were appointed as ministers . All females that ran for election failed big time . Reason !!!! selfishness and Vanity ,no woman wanted to compromise and pull out of the race in order for one of her Gender to win the election,13 women were competing in one district ???? Why because it was close to their Houses .
The Hejab part is not a trivial matter ,even when you look to old Churches here in the Middle east , or even Synagogues women allows cover their head .
Also islamic dress code includes not wearing tight body detailing garments or Transparent clothes so it is not the head cover .
Holy Smokes! Mimfoy? Mimfoy, is that really you? Agreeing with Dagerro?
Daggero – the two of you in agreement? I think the hijab should be a choice, not a requirement. And I am flabbergasted that appearance counts more than substance.
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the hijab is the prerequisite dress code for women entering government and it was not disputed at the time it was proposed. It was all a part of the compromise package to allow women to practice their rights.
We all know there are underhand dealings between different factions and it is a right shame that something as basic as our own civil rights have to be negotiated for in that humiliating fashion.
Because of this, if one is to adhere to rules and regulations, then one must comply. It does not do to pretend this stipulation does not exist however much we disagree with the concept and are against it.
Without a doubt however, now that women have been allowed on paper to enter government and to vote, work should start to rectify any laws or regulations that are not suitable for the public good.
People can campaign for change but anyone blatantly disregarding rules and regulations however silly they may seem is the same as anyone else doing the same.
i have to disagree with jewaira considering the “islamic dress” clause was added as an afterthought to appease Islamists/tribalists into passing the law. It’s very loosely worded and can be argued many ways.
I think what gets to me most about this and I was outraged although I wear hijab and abaya most of my days is that the people who are in the committee got to the Parliament by way of illegal tribal primaries. REALLY? they’re the people concerned with the implementing the constitution? These people make me stabby.
It’s a power play and it’s a bad harbinger of what will be.
Jewaira – You hit my nail on the head. I found myself thinking “take a deep breath, Intlxpatr.” Negotiating for basic rights sometimes makes me see red, and then discussion goes out the window. I appreciate the patience of all the commenters here, helping me see things differently. I don’t always do very well.
GE&B – I think there are some very dangerous trends here endangering the recent gains in basic rights, like voting. I am not exactly sure what the word “stabby” means, but my gut tells me I am getting a little stabby, too. 😉
It is a power play, pure and simple. And in my eyes – and I am very aware of my status as an outsider – it is insulting to two very fine, modest and competent women who have agreed to serve their nation.
Mimfoy and Jewaira on my side , there is hope after all .
This day will live in blog history as a shining example of harmony and understanding between the genders
Not so fast, Daggero. You still have to go up against me, and I think that a law that stipulates what Islam says a female should wear is a faulty law. It mixes a secular function (lawmaking) with an interpretation of a religious custom.
Moslem women all over the world dress differently and still consider themselves Moslem. I believe in modesty, and I believe that grown women should have the ability – and the right – to clothe themselves appropriately.
I believe no one is above the law. And this bad law needs to be taken off the books.
i never dare to go up against a gracious blog host as you,
The law is not bad ,it is these 2 women who are the bad ones , not in the way of their morals but in the way they flaunted the law .
There was a female minister before them , she was appointed as minister of health but she had to resign because of a fire that broke out in jahara hospital that killed to patient in the Intensive care unit .
You speak of secular law making , did you know when she the minister of education was threatened with a Grilling and a mild one at that she went around cutting deals to save her job , and guess what she signed a letter enforcing the segregation of the genders in private universities , how about for a secular Minster . now if you want any wasta in the ministry of education all you have to do is ask an islamist MP , she made them even more stronger with her save my job deal . You want more , did you know she is involved in a stand off with her female undersecretary of higher education who is also a secular person that is paralyzing the ministry .
the other female minister her day will come when she will face a grilling , you can see that writing on the wall
the gist of the matter is play by the rules and then change them , if you come in with weak spot ,the politician will take advantage of it .
Daggero, I have limited understanding. What I know is only from the press and what my friends whisper to me. It’s hard, in Kuwait, to know where the truth lies – can we agree on that?
I remember the grilling – she actually was grilled, and I believe she was so grounded, her arguments so well put together, that even her opponents made remarks to the press on how well she had done. As for the rest, I bow to your superior knowledge, I don’t know the ins and outs of Kuwait politics.
As you may guess, I don’t want women to have any more power over men than they already have – and I think we do exert influence. Neither do I want men to have the power to tell women what is Christian, or what is Islamic, in terms of dress.
In our churches, for example, for many years women were not allowed into leadership positions. These customs were cultural, not religious. Times change. Cultures modernize. Some rules need to be updated. It’s not like women have to be kept in their place.