Winds and Pegs: Achieving High Directives by Ensuring Compliance with Sharia

The Minister of Justice stated: “High-level directives prohibit the enactment of laws that contradict Islamic Sharia.” There is no doubt that every Muslim welcomes these directives, especially since the Constitution, in the explanatory memorandum, entrusted this responsibility as a trust to the legislative authority, which is currently held by the government.

Accordingly, I hope that the Minister of Justice, or any other minister in the government, will take the initiative to ask the Fatwa Council at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs about the legality of several recent laws that have raised significant concerns among citizens and specialists:

1. First Question: Is it permissible for one of the co-heirs (i.e., one of the heirs) to continue residing in a house owned jointly by all heirs until he is able to purchase another home, as stipulated by Law No. 121, even if he is an employee, fully competent, and receives a monthly salary? This is despite the fact that the other heirs are dissatisfied, have financial obligations and loans, and wish to claim their rightful Islamic inheritance share, but cannot do so because the law stipulates that the co-heir may remain in residence as long as he is unable to purchase an independent housing unit. The inability to buy a home is the reality for the vast majority of young Kuwaitis. Moreover, this resident is neither the mother, nor orphans, nor unmarried sisters, nor minors; rather, he is a fully competent man who can rent suitable accommodation, just like tens of thousands of Kuwaitis waiting for government housing. However, the law makes no distinction among heirs and does not grant the judge the discretion to differentiate between one heir and another. Instead, it stipulates that heirs have no right to claim their inheritance as long as one heir is unable to purchase a housing unit.

2. Second Question: Is it permissible for the Public Authority for Social Security to withhold the profits generated from the contribution funds paid by individuals whose citizenship was revoked years ago, limiting itself only to the return of the principal contributions? This is despite the fact that these funds remained under the custody of the “Social Security” authority, which invested them for many years in accordance with the law—sometimes up to twenty years—generating profits published in its financial statements. Is it permissible for Social Security to refuse to hand over the profits on their money to them?

3. Third Question: This concerns the Real Estate Financing Law, which provides for two bank loans to citizens seeking housing assistance. The government pays the interest on the first loan, while the citizen pays the interest on the second. What is the Islamic legal ruling on these interest payments if they are taken from conventional banks, given that previous laws of the National Assembly stipulated that transactions should be conducted in accordance with Islamic Sharia?

4. Fourth Question: Is it permissible for the government to control, manage, and direct citizens’ private funds according to its own will? If this is not permissible, what is the Islamic legal ruling regarding the funds of citizens who constitute the general assemblies of cooperative societies, which are also private funds? Is it permissible for the government to place itself, through legislation, in the majority seats on the boards of directors of these cooperatives, thereby granting it full authority to issue decisions regarding these funds?

It is well known that differences of opinion may occasionally arise among specialists in deriving Islamic legal rulings. However, one must distinguish between valid and invalid differences of opinion. When a valid difference of opinion arises regarding the legitimacy of a law, recourse must be made to the general objectives of Sharia, which include achieving justice, protecting rights, balancing between them, maintaining family ties, showing mercy to orphans and the poor, and combating everything that leads to injustice, severance of relations, poverty, and deprivation of rights.