| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
An update on this story. "Lady MP under fire in headscarf row," from Gulf Daily News:
KUWAIT: A Kuwaiti Islamist MP presented a request yesterday to question the Gulf state's only woman minister, a liberal who has been under hardline fire for refusing to wear a head scarf.
Nouriya Al Subeeh had stirred the anger of Islamist MPs when she took the oath in parliament in April without wearing a head cover in line with strict Muslim laws. Since then she has been under scrutiny by Islamist MPs and could be dismissed if the grilling leads to a parliamentary no-confidence motion against her.
Saad Al Sharie said in the request that financial and administrative irregularities at the education ministry had raised questions about Subeeh's ability to head the ministry. He also accused Education Minister breaching the law in connection with several high profile appointments and dismissals.
He said she was responsible for 'serious deterioration' in education standards and blamed her over an incident in which four Asian workers stand accused of molesting three Kuwaiti boys at a primary school.
A decade ago Kuwait's elected parliament passed a law enforcing total segregation of male and female students.
Liberal MPs have dismissed the attacks against her as politically-motivated. "She is a strong woman with clear plans to reform the educational system. Islamists don't like this," said Nabila Al Anjeri, women rights activist.
When Nouriya Al Subeeh first took office, sans headscarf, an article noted that "When MPs passed a law granting women full political rights in May 2005, they attached a precondition requiring women to abide by Islamic Sharia regulations, which have never been detailed." Legislators like Al Sharie may now be looking to exploit this vague provision, concerning either gender segregation in schools, the issue of the hijab, or both.
Political analyst Ali Al Baghli, agreed, "The grilling is personal because she wears no veil. But she's one of the most capable ministers and if she resigns it would be a setback for the reform plans."
Posted by Marisol at December 25, 2007 12:01 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This is the kind of story that helps rip the mask off of the sheikhdom depicted in 1990-91 as "plucky little Kuwait," a splendid little sheikdom that was the victim of Saddam Hussein. Iraq. The Gulf War certainly made sense as far as the ruling families of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahran, the U.A.E., and Saudi Arabia were concerned. But did it,the original Gulf War, make sense for the long-term interests of Infidels? What if Saddam Hussein had captured and held the oil riches of Kuwait?
What then? What would Saudi Arabia have done? Saddam Hussein's army could not simply march into Saudi Arabia. The American Air Force could have destroyed it as it marched across the desert. Would Saddam Hussein have managed to appeal to the people who live in Saudi Arabia? Not to the Wahhabis, who would regard his brand of Sunni Islam -- just look at the freedoms of Iraqi women -- as far too secular. Not to the Shi'a in the Eastern Province, where the oil is produced --Saddam Hussein was the arch-enemy of the Shi'a. -The Al-Saud would very likely have had to embrace, as they never really have embraced, the American government, and it would have been ready to pour out huge sums for a guarantee of protection against a more powerful, and closer, Iraq. That would have been a good thing. We want the Al-Saud to be worried. We want them to have to worry about whether or not their enemies, foreign and domestic, will be held in check by the powerful Americans. We want to force them to give us far more of their unmerited wealth, for such protection, and thereby have less to spend on mosques, madrasas, and campaigns of Da'wa.
And what would Saddam Hussein have done had Iraq been able to take over Kuwait, and make it a province of Iraq? Would he not, over the next decade, have used that wealth to try again to destroy once and for all the "Persians" of Shi'a Iran -- and would he not have been supported in such a new effort by the Saudis themselves, both because they would take his side against those "Persians" of Shi'a Iran, but because they might hope that he would once again be in an endless war with Iran, with Iraqi military might confronting the human-wave techniques of the basiji, and this would keep both Saddam Hussein, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, busy for a long time.
The American government at the time was intent on "protecting Saudi Arabia" and it saw things one-dimensionally. It could not conceive of how mischief-makers and megalomaniacs can sometimes be used, or at least not prevented from acting, in ways that, objectively, helps the Camp of the Infidels, and damages the Camp of Islam.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 25, 2007 12:24 AM
After reading Noni Darwish's book, is anybody really surprised. The thin veneer put on these semi failed states by the west is easily smudged. In the final analysis of these states, will Hobbes be proved right?
Posted by: lonewolf at December 25, 2007 12:27 AM
ps: Let me wish Hugh and Robert a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. It is thanks to you both (And others) that the world is beginning to see the true nature of Islam
Posted by: lonewolf at December 25, 2007 12:31 AM
Daddy Bush, father of George Bush, got a full $1 mil from yes, Kuwait, for wasting American tax-dollars and lives on his wahhabbi Kuwait 'friends'.
Way to elect your presidents, America!
at December 25, 2007 2:47 AM
The American government at the time was intent on "protecting Saudi Arabia" and it saw things one-dimensionally.
Posted by: Hugh at December 25, 2007 12:24 AM
Bush Sr. the then president, who was so close to the Saudi Royal Family, which had bailed out the president's incompetent son from numerous failed businesses, invested in the Bush family fortunes and future (too many to list here. Just ask Mr. Google), that Bush Sr. had conveniently adopted prince Bandar-Bin-Sultan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bandar ), of the Saudi Royal Family, into Bush family, as 'Bandar-Bush' ( http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/bandar.htm http://www.whitehouse.org/ask/bandar.asp ).
Now, why would the "The American government at the time", not see things "things one-dimensionally" into "protecting Saudi Arabia"' even if it costs American Tax-dollars and American lives?
at December 25, 2007 3:12 AM
In the final analysis of these states, will Hobbes be proved right?
Posted by: lonewolf at December 25, 2007 12:27 AM
Hobbes - Mr. "nasty, brutish, and short." But, what is your specific point about his philosophy you are making here?
at December 25, 2007 8:42 AM
an incident in which four Asian workers stand accused of molesting three Kuwaiti boys at a primary school.
In Kuwait, is "Asian" a euphemism for "sub-continent Moslem" as it is in Britain? If so, these "Asians" were probably Pakistanis trying to recruit a few lads to use as "dancing boys". Why would the Kuwaitis be upset about such an ancient and time-honored Moslem practice?
at December 25, 2007 9:38 AM
".... if she resigns it would be a setback for the reform plans."
....WHAT happens if she is assassinated?....
....Islam...the most intolerant entity on the face of the earth....bar none...
....Ban Muslim immigration...
at December 26, 2007 6:45 AM
Alert:
It is easy to make unfounded accusations about former presidents. How about backing it up with a little proof?
at December 26, 2007 12:02 PM
Why can't western liberals be this outspoken against the over-bearing laws and dresscode of islam ?
Because they have the more pressing matter of christian-fundamentalism to contend with ??? Yeah right !!!
at December 26, 2007 3:32 PM
Alert:
It is easy to make unfounded accusations about former presidents. How about backing it up with a little proof?
Posted by: HereticInfidel at December 26, 2007 12:02 PM
That's easy... Just ask Mr Google. For example:
http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm and
http://www.monies.cc/publications/saudi_finance.htm and
http://www.thinkingpeace.com/Lib/lib006.html and
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/washington/29saudi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Then again, denial is easy too........
Posted by: Alert at December 27, 2007 3:26 AM
Alert:
All of these links contain simply more of the same, unfounded allegations and accusations made by conspiracy theorists like yourself with nothing of substance to back them up. Trying to send me on an internet wild goose chase is equally easy compared to the task of substantiating your allegations. I deny nothing, I just refuse to believe in nonsense.
at December 27, 2007 11:59 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)