IN Kuwait, debtors are often portrayed as major criminals, as though they committed the worst possible crimes. They find themselves targets not only of some scholars and preachers but even the General Department of Sentences Enforcement. The debtor is left with few allies, because he encountered a desperate situation of financial need. Some imams and preachers have indirectly warned debtors of hellfire and a grim fate if they fail to repay their debts. On top of this, the law imposes a travel ban on debtors, even if the loan was for essential purposes like medical treatment.
In addition, the court may demand a debtor pay ten percent of the total loan in one lump sum. This raises the question: where is a person supposed to find such a large amount when they are already insolvent? How can such a law be justified when it demands a debtor pay such a high percentage in one go? A debtor in Kuwait is also threatened with imprisonment, especially with the activation of the arrest and detention law, even for debts less than KD 100. For instance, if someone issues a cheque without sufficient funds in the account due to usurious debt, they may face a three-year prison sentence. Unfortunately, tragic stories have emerged from this practice. Many families have disintegrated because the wife, under pressure from her husband, issued cheques without a balance. As a result, she ends up in prison after being divorced by her husband, who then marries another woman. The problem is further compounded by the fact that penalties are not combined.
In addition, the court may demand a debtor pay ten percent of the total loan in one lump sum. This raises the question: where is a person supposed to find such a large amount when they are already insolvent? How can such a law be justified when it demands a debtor pay such a high percentage in one go? A debtor in Kuwait is also threatened with imprisonment, especially with the activation of the arrest and detention law, even for debts less than KD 100. For instance, if someone issues a cheque without sufficient funds in the account due to usurious debt, they may face a three-year prison sentence. Unfortunately, tragic stories have emerged from this practice. Many families have disintegrated because the wife, under pressure from her husband, issued cheques without a balance. As a result, she ends up in prison after being divorced by her husband, who then marries another woman. The problem is further compounded by the fact that penalties are not combined.
For example, if a debtor issues ten cheques without sufficient funds, they will face 30 years in prison, as the law calculates three years per cheque. This approach is unique to Kuwait, as it adheres to an outdated law that many countries abandoned decades ago. In European and Arab countries, the issuer of a bounced cheque is not typically imprisoned if their intentions were not fraudulent. In these countries, the penalty is aimed at those who grant loans easily without properly assessing the debtor’s ability to repay. Even non-Islamic nations have adopted similar practices. While bank loans are secured by mortgages and guarantees, which protect the lender from the risk of loss, there is still a banking term known as “bad debts”. A notable example of such bad debts is the infamous “Souk Al-Manakh” stock market debts, which amount to approximately seven billion dinars.
These debts have essentially become lost and exist only as book entries because the debtors are either deceased, the debt is not inheritable, the heirs cannot repay, or the heirs themselves have passed away. What is particularly striking is that the entire system appears to be designed to favor the creditor, irrespective of whether the creditor is a usurer, a fraudster, or someone pursuing a questionable agenda. This does not negate the fact that some debts are legitimate and have valid reasons, such as a failure to provide spousal support. However, if the husband is insolvent, the responsibility falls on zakat houses and charitable organizations. The core principle is to assist individuals in meeting their needs, including those of debtors, the insolvent, and others who struggle to find their daily sustenance.
Unfortunately, this principle is often overlooked when investigating the reasons behind borrowing. The prevailing attitude seems to mirror the harsh sentiment expressed in Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”, where the debtor’s flesh is metaphorically cut from their body, rather than receiving assistance. This stands in stark contrast to the example set by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), who passed away with his armor mortgaged to a Jew for thirty sa’ of barley. A few days ago, the Sahel application was modified to allow one trip for the debtor. While the name of the application suggests that it is designed to facilitate people’s affairs, the reality is quite the opposite when implemented. The requirement for a certificate from a citizen, even if they leave the country, forces them to return, as they have no homeland other than this one. Minister of Justice, we are now in an era that should focus on mercy for people. The government should seek to correct errors in the laws, and ensure that we work to ease the lives of citizens rather than filling prisons with the insolvent.
Show mercy to those on earth, so that the One in heaven may show mercy to us. Dear Minister of Justice, in the enforcement courts, when a citizen wants to travel, they are required to pay ten percent of their debt. It is often joked that they claim to be going for medical treatment, but they are still forced to pay this percentage. The cost of treatment may not exceed KD 5,000, yet the person is saddled with a debt of one million dinars, meaning they would have to pay KD 100,000... and we repeat that they are insolvent. Dear Minister of Justice, is this really a solution? What law justifies preventing a citizen from traveling once, twice, or even three times? Why subject them to such torment? Isn’t the pain of the debt enough, especially when some mosque imams threaten them with hell in the afterlife for not paying?
Unfortunately, this principle is often overlooked when investigating the reasons behind borrowing. The prevailing attitude seems to mirror the harsh sentiment expressed in Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”, where the debtor’s flesh is metaphorically cut from their body, rather than receiving assistance. This stands in stark contrast to the example set by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), who passed away with his armor mortgaged to a Jew for thirty sa’ of barley. A few days ago, the Sahel application was modified to allow one trip for the debtor. While the name of the application suggests that it is designed to facilitate people’s affairs, the reality is quite the opposite when implemented. The requirement for a certificate from a citizen, even if they leave the country, forces them to return, as they have no homeland other than this one. Minister of Justice, we are now in an era that should focus on mercy for people. The government should seek to correct errors in the laws, and ensure that we work to ease the lives of citizens rather than filling prisons with the insolvent.
Show mercy to those on earth, so that the One in heaven may show mercy to us. Dear Minister of Justice, in the enforcement courts, when a citizen wants to travel, they are required to pay ten percent of their debt. It is often joked that they claim to be going for medical treatment, but they are still forced to pay this percentage. The cost of treatment may not exceed KD 5,000, yet the person is saddled with a debt of one million dinars, meaning they would have to pay KD 100,000... and we repeat that they are insolvent. Dear Minister of Justice, is this really a solution? What law justifies preventing a citizen from traveling once, twice, or even three times? Why subject them to such torment? Isn’t the pain of the debt enough, especially when some mosque imams threaten them with hell in the afterlife for not paying?
Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
