An update on this story, as the hijab saga continues. The vague stipulation that Kuwaiti women observe Sharia in parliament was only a transparent effort at managing the potential liability of uppity women legislators. “Kuwaiti MP seeks to scrap Sharia controls in election law,” from Agence France-Presse, October 12:
KUWAIT CITY — Kuwaiti female lawmaker Rula Dashti on Sunday submitted an amendment to the Gulf state electoral law that aims to scrap a requirement that women must comply with Islamic Sharia law guidelines.
The guidelines were introduced four years ago when parliament voted to grant women full political rights but added a precondition that both women voters and candidates must comply with regulations dictated by Sharia law.
The law does not explain the nature of the regulations, but last week the emirate’s Fatwa Department ruled that under Islamic law, it is an obligation for Muslim women to wear the hijab head cover.
Will Obama speak out for these women’s right not to wear it? If wearing the hijab is to be one’s “choice,” there has to be the option of not wearing it.
Although the fatwa, or religious edict, was general in nature and did not specifically refer to Kuwait’s election law, it triggered conflicting reactions from Islamist and liberal lawmakers and activists.
Islamist lawmakers called on female MPs and a minister to comply with the ruling while liberal and female legislators stressed the fatwa is not binding since it did not come from the constitutional court.
“The fatwa is not binding to the Kuwaiti society. The only reference for us is the constitution,” issued in 1962, she told AFP.
Dashti said that including Sharia regulations in the electoral law is a breach of the constitution.
“The regulations clearly violate articles in the constitution which call for gender equality and make no reference to Sharia regulations,” she said.
Additional reporting: “Kuwaiti women MPs refuse to wear hijab in parliament,” by Richard Spencer for the Telegraph, October 12:
[…] You can’t force a woman going to the mall to wear a hijab and you can’t force a woman going to work to wear the hijab,” the MP, Rola Dashti, told The Daily Telegraph. “This is not Iran or Saudi Arabia.”
The MPs’ stand is part of a backlash against the fashion for stricter dress codes for women across the Arab world.
Last week, the rector of al-Azhar University in Cairo, traditionally the principal seat of Sunni Islamic learning, banned women students from wearing the face veil in women-only classes and student dormitories, and was followed by other academic institutions there. […]
When electoral law was changed in 2005 to allow women in Kuwait to vote and stand for parliament, Islamists inserted a law-minute rider that “women as voters and MPs” would have to follow sharia. It did not specify precisely where or how.
Three Islamist MPs immediately protested when Dr Dashti and a second MP, Aseel Al-Awadhi, turned up at the Assembly without a hijab, the simple head-scarf that covers the hair and is compulsory for women in public in Saudi Arabia and Iran but optional across most Gulf nations.
One MP sought a ruling from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, whose “fatwa department” last week decreed that hijab was an obligation for Muslim women, without referring directly to the electoral law.
“Non-compliance of a female MP or a voter with the edict is a violation of the Elections Law,” said another Islamist MP, Waleed Al-Tabtabaie.
As a result Dr Rashti tabled an amendment on Sunday demanding that the sharia rider be dropped.
She said Kuwait’s constitution stipulated freedom of choice and equality between the sexes and did not incorporate sharia.
“There’s a group of people who know they cannot Islamise the constitution so they try to Islamise every issue when it comes up,” she said. “I’m going to examine anything that violates the constitution, taking it law by law.”
The population at large is split on whether to support more rights for women. A private citizen has filed a private suit against Dr Dashti and Professor al-Awadhi for not wearing the hijab, which is due to be heard before the country’s constitutional court later this month.