Egypt: Women’s Right to Divorce Debated in Parliament  · Global Voices
Ahmed Awadalla

The performance of the new Egyptian parliament continues to stir debate on social media sites. The new parliament was seen as a move towards to democracy. However, the parliament continues to discuss matters that seem irrelevant to the country’s most pressing needs – such as a request to ban pornographic websites.
There has been another controversy over an MP who claimed that English classes are a plot to westernize Egyptians. The most recent fiasco was about an MP’s request to strip women of their right to file for a divorce.
In the past, when it came to women’s right to divorce, Egyptian women were seriously discriminated against. Men had the right to divorce their wives without going to court. Women had to go through a long, complicated and bureaucratic procedure to obtain a divorce. The situation was slightly improved in 2000 when a law was passed that give women the right to file for a no-fault divorce (Khul’). Through this law, women can get a divorce but have to let go of all their financial rights.
Social media users reacted quickly to the draft law suggesting the cancellation of khul’ in parliament.
Merit Al-Sayed says [ar]:
مشروع الغاء قانون الخلع خطأ فادح. الخلع دفعة الى الامام للمرأة التي من حقها البدأ من جديد في حياتها.
Mira Samy adds [ar]:
Not only women were angry as many male supporters also shared their outrage. Wael Khalil pleads [ar]:
Ali Hagras exclaims:
And Sherif Khairy reasons:
As usual, there were many sarcastic and humorous comments. Noon Arabia has created a Storify of on the debate mainly with tweets from @Elma7roossa who wrote several tweets under the hashtag #الخلع_قوة which translates to “Khul’ is power.”
Additionally, Riham Mohamed jokes:
Muhab Talaat also offers:
اكيد الي قدم طلب الغاء الخلع عايز يلعب بديلوا وخايف مراتوا تخلعوا وعجبي
And Sally Zohney quotes her mother:
It's worth noting that the MP who filed the draft law to cancel Khul’ is not a member of Islamists parties, but a former member of the liberal Wafd Party. Ahmed Shokeir offers his viewpoint on this:
An MP’s request to cancel Khul’, which is religiously accepted, to appease the Islamists is like trading with religion. This confirms that requesting matters under the guise of religion is not for religion’s sake.
Indeed, the debate also tackled whether Khul’ is Islamic or not. Many users cited that Khul’ is indeed a part of Islamic jurisprudence. Mohamed ElGohary affirms that Khul’ is Islamic and says:
Khlo3 can't be cancelled, as long as there is an “Islam is the basic source for legislation” is in the constitution.
Finally, not everyone agrees on the matter, and not everyone thinks canceling Khul’ is a bad move. Twitter user @_ADHEM  tweets: