The Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court’s Interpretation of the Islamic Sharia as a Constitutional Check: Stalling the Radical Islamization of the Egyptian Legal System

Eman Rashwan

Cairo University & Hamburg Institute of Law and Economics

The meaning and application of Islamic Sharia in the Egyptian legal system is one of the most controversial aspects of modern constitutional law in Egypt. With its landmark judgment in 1985, the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt gave some fundamental answers to the most relevant questions about the relationship between the Sharia and the Egyptian Constitution.  

In this post, I will explain the place of Islamic Sharia in the Egyptian legal system before analyzing the debate over its use as a criterion for constitutionality; then I will present the chosen landmark judgment of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, which answers fundamental questions about Islamic Sharia. 

Islamic Sharia in the Egyptian Legal System 

The role of Islamic Sharia in the Egyptian legal system is complex. Before 1971, Islamic Sharia was a de facto source of Egyptian law, especially in matters related to family law for Muslims. Although there was no constitutional requirement, there was a consensus that family law matters are regulated according to Islamic Sharia. Under the Ottoman rule and until 1955, there were specialized Sharia Courts in charge of applying what these rules called. The Egyptian legal system is based on various sources that include, besides Islamic Sharia, civil law, specifically derived from the French legal system, Egyptian customs, natural law, and the principles of justice. Other religious laws were also applied to the different sects of Christians and Jews in matters related to their family laws and religious issues by religious councils called “Al Majalis Al Melleya”, which translates to sectarian councils. All the Sharia Courts and the Melleya Councils were abolished by Law No. 442 of 1955; since then, regular family courts have exclusive jurisdiction in family matters. 

The Egyptian Constitution of 1971 introduced the controversial Article 2 that has been the subject of continuous debates between the secular and religious parties in Egypt. The liberals see Article 2 as a threat to liberty and independence from religious institutions. The Islamic parties consider it the basic guarantee for preserving Islam dominance in Egypt (even though they argue that it still needs more consolidation in the Egyptian legal system). Article 2 stated that “Islam is the religion of the State, Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic law are a primary source of legislation”. This article’s interpretation and application did not become an issue until the later constitutional amendment of 1980, when the word “the” was added before the words “primary source”. While the earlier version recognizes Islamic Sharia as a primary source, among other sources of the legislation in Egypt, adding the word “the” gave Sharia a supremacy over the other sources. Consequently, that is when the question of the constitutionality of legislation that come from other sources but do not conform to Islamic Sharia became relevant. 

Islamic Sharia as a Constitutional Criterion 

After 1980, Egyptian Islamic actors tried to activate the Islamization process of the legal system through the adoption of a number of legislations by parliament that sought to codify Islamic Fiqh rules to be applied by courts and refine the existing laws to conform to Islamic Sharia. Al Azhar – representing the “official Islam” – as well as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Association (Al Jamaa Al Islameya) – representing Islamic movements that used to shift positions between alliance with the government and opposition – were the leading actors advocating for this Islamization. However, Islamic Sharia is not a unified set of rules. Rather, it is a massive body of texts, interpretations, rulings, patterns, and opinions that offer a variety of answers to the same questions. The different parties, including the government, could never agree on the version of Sharia that they would conform to. Therefore, the whole Islamization through legislation project failed. However, an alternative opportunity presented itself through the judiciary. 

The question of Islamic Sharia as “the main” source of legislation in Egypt required a multi-layered answer by the most relevant judicial actor, the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC). Firstly, is conforming to Islamic Sharia a pre-requisite for the constitutionality of laws, following Article 2 of the Constitution? Secondly, what does Islamic Sharia mean in this context, and what are its sources? Thirdly, who would decide what is Islamic Sharia under the Egyptian legal system? Finally, does Article 2 apply to all Egyptian laws, even if issued before 1980? 

The Non-Retroactivity Judgment on 4 May 1985: The Starting Point 

The SCC got the opportunity to answer these questions a few years after its establishment in 1979. On 4 May 1985, the SCC delivered its decision regarding an unconstitutionality pleading that was referred to it by the Supreme Administrative Court in 1978. The pleading argued the unconstitutionality of the applied law due to its contradiction to Islamic Sharia, which the SCC rejected. 

The case opposed Al Azhar University against the heirs of a supplier of the faculty. Due to a late payment, defendants asked for an interest rate in accordance with the Civil Code (Article 226) which was considered in contradiction with Islamic Sharia (which forbids interest rates “Reba”) by Al Azhar’s interpretation. 

In its reasoning, the SCC laid down landmark principles regarding the interpretation of Article 2 of the Constitution. First, the SCC ruled that the adoption of Islamic Sharia as the principal source of legislation is non-retroactive. Consequently, Islamic Sharia would not serve as a parameter to determine the constitutionality of legislation passed before the 1980. The SCC justified this argument by explaining that the legislator’s duty is to guarantee that the laws are in conformity with the constitutional requirements at the time of their adoption.  

Secondly, the SCC considered that the responsibility of reviewing legislation based on Islamic Sharia is “political” and, as such, a discretionary power that corresponds exclusively to the legislature. In the absence of an explicit constitutional text, the Court’s emphasis on the political - instead of constitutional - nature of the legislature’s responsibility in this regard is critical. The implication of this judicial interpretation is that there is no legal obligation upon the legislative body to adjust legislation according to Islamic Sharia rules. In other words, under the SCC interpretation, a piece of legislation that completely ignores Sharia rules would still be constitutional as long as it was issued before the 1980 constitutional amendment. Additionally, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's argument that the 1980 constitutional amendment makes Islamic Sharia a self-applicable law, with no need for further legislation. The SCC ruled that this interpretation not only contradicts the non-retroactivity interpretation, but it also does not flow from the preparatory proceedings of the constitutional amendment, and it could lead to legal uncertainty and instability. The SCC then decided that for Islamic Sharia to be applicable in court, rules derived from Sharia must be issued in the form of legislation. This again elevates the role of legislative authorities over religious institutions.   

Finally, the SCC confirmed that legislation following the 1980 constitutional amendment does have to conform to Islamic Sharia; otherwise, it would be unconstitutional.  

The Pivotal Role of the Supreme Constitutional Court in Formulating the Islamic Sharia as a Constitutionality Check  

Through the landmark judgment of 1985, as well as other rulings that followed in relation to Article 2 of the Constitution, the SCC tried to strike a balance between the Islamization of the Egyptian legal system and the controversial issues arising from this movement regarding liberalism. 

Not only did the SCC halt the Islamization of all Egyptian legislation by its non-retroactive interpretation of Article 2, but it also put secular guards at the gates to Islamization. With its ruling, the Court gave exclusive power to apply Islamic Sharia to the legislature and the judiciary. Neither of those authorities are controlled by any religious institution; they conform to the Constitution. 

In answering the question about who decides what Islamic Sharia is, the Court interpreted Islamic Sharia itself without deferring to a religious entity. This conclusion was later confirmed in the preamble of the 2014 Constitution, which states that “We are drafting a Constitution that affirms that the principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation and that the reference for the interpretation of such principles lies in the body of the relevant Supreme Constitutional Court Rulings.” 

In its following judgments on the same matter, the SCC created a two-part test to verify if laws conform with Islamic Sharia. Firstly, the law must not force Muslims to violate the universally applicable rulings of Islamic law. Secondly, the law must advance the goals of Islamic Sharia. The second part of the test allowed the Court to reach progressive decisions that affirm universal human rights while still using Islamic Sharia as a reference. In fact, the SCC distinguishes specific goals and general goals: specific goals are historically clear in the adoption of the relevant Islamic rule; general goals of Islamic Sharia refer to general welfare and the respect of human rights. 

Shortly after adopting Islamic Sharia as the principal source of legislation, the SCC used the non-retroactivity constitutional reasoning to halt the Islamization of the Egyptian legal system. According to the Egyptian Constitution, the SCC is the sole authority that has the power to judge the constitutionality of laws and regulations, interpret legislation, and resolve the contradiction between judicial decisions. The Constitution also states in Article 195 that its judgments are binding for everyone and all state authorities.  

The Court’s rulings on this issue are significant because they contribute to shaping the whole legal system. In the landmark judgment discussed in this post, the SCC to a great extent decided the religious characteristics of the law in Egypt in a way that added Sharia as a new constitutional criterion, while at the same time stalling the constitutional transformation that was supposed to have started with the constitutional amendment of 1980. The effects of this novel ruling govern the relationship between Islamic Sharia and Egyptian law until today, as it was the first in a series of rulings that developed a liberal interpretation of the Islamic constitutional criterion. For instance, through this interpretation, the SCC tried to find a way to align Egypt’s legal system with international human rights standards (as recognized by the international human rights community) on equality, while respecting Egyptian society’s norms and its relationship with religion. These characteristics explain why this judgment is a constitutional landmark judgment in the Egyptian system. 

So far, Egyptian constitution-makers have failed to reach agreement on a more precise alternative to Article 2, or on other constitutional principles that would give specific interpretations to Islamic Sharia as a reference for the Egyptian legal system. Consequently, the role of the Supreme Constitutional Court remains central: it is the only guarantee of keeping a religious constitutional characteristic controlled by secular institutions. The SCC decision that instituted the non-retroactivity of Article 2 application was the cornerstone in performing this role. This landmark decision was followed by several major rulings that interpreted this article in a way that consolidated a modern and liberal version of adherence to Islamic Sharia. 

Eman Muhammad Rashwan is a Lecturer of Public Law at Cairo University and a PhD Candidate at the Hamburg Institute of Law and Economics. 

Suggested Citation: Eman Muhamman Rashwan, ‘The Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court’s Interpretation of the Islamic Sharia as a Constitutional Check: Stalling the Radical Islamization of the Egyptian Legal System’, IACL-IADC Blog (29 June 2021) https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/menaregion/29-6-21-the-egyptian-supreme-constitutional-courts-interpretation-of-the-islamic-sharia-as-a-constitutional-check.