At first glance, it would seem strange that it would take a century – without a decision – to discuss how to organize the lives of two adults who decided to marry and form a family, irrespective of whether the project of this relationship succeeded or ended in separation. What is logical is for the two parties to agree on what is expected and required of each, whether in the event of harmony or disagreement, as is the case in all contracts. But the situation is completely different when it comes to personal status law.

Although contracts are generally concluded between parties of equal capacity, rights, and duties, this point is precisely the source of disagreement in the case of personal status laws.

Society and all its institutions do not consider the two parties to a marriage contract to be equal, neither in capacity, nor in responsibility, nor in rights, nor in duties. This is because one of the parties to the contract, according to the prevailing belief, is the man, the well-off, the breadwinner, the rational one, the one in control of his feelings, the logical one in his thoughts and decisions, the one responsible for the family and therefore the one who has the right to make the decision and implement it and the one who has the absolute right to unilaterally terminate the contract if he deems it so. The second party, the woman, is – also according to popular belief – the weaker party, dependent, emotional in her decisions, unable to control her feelings, and dependent.

In light of this perception and the resulting division of roles between women and men, it is expected that any law regulating the relationship between them will ensure the protection of women, who are supposed to be the weaker party. For example, it should protect them from unilateral divorce by the man, or him taking a second wife, with the resulting harm to the first wife, or explicitly criminalizing the violence of the stronger party against the weaker one – until now, despite many demands from Egyptian civil society in general and women’s organizations in particular both parliament and the state refrain from issuing a law criminalizing domestic violence – or guaranteeing the weaker party – the wife – the husband’s support of her and their children, which many husbands are able to evade in the event of separation – and even in the event of no separation, where official statistics indicate that more than 30% of Egyptian families are supported by women alone, either due to the husband’s unemployment or his failure to spend for any reason, and sometimes for no reason.

The problem with this perception and this unbalanced contract is that it is a perception that has no relation to reality, even if the majority of society and its various institutions agree to claim otherwise. The matter is not related to regulating a relationship between a man and a woman. but by organizing that relationship in a way that preserves the value system of society and the roles expected of each, even if the details of daily life in many cases reflect another story. In fact – although it is described as a “personal” status law – there is almost nothing “personal” in these laws. The parties to the contract extend beyond the two parties to the contract, not only to the families of the parties, but also to the influential and controlling political, religious, and social forces in society.

The law does not provide protection for the weaker party, but rather controls her in favor of the stronger party, because that stronger party is the one who rules and controls, not only the relationship between two people, but also the entire society that clings to its masculinity and the superiority of its men, literally or intellectually. The question that arises here is: why this desire to control the weaker party? Isn’t it more logical that we seek to control the stronger party? Unless society realizes that women are not as weak as they wish, and therefore they must be tightly controlled.

The ultimate goal, then, is to maintain control over the status quo in society, and the power relationships that exist between men and women, and between the secular and progressive social elements on the one hand and the ruling, religious and conservative political elements on the other hand, and to make concessions only when the demands threaten to cause turmoil that threatens the stability of the status quo, or based on the dictates or requirements of international players whose donations and aid are conditional on certain aspects of change.

Personal status law is not the only issue around which this political-religious debate revolves. Women’s rights, their private lives, and their bodies have always been the arena for debate, negotiation, and calculations between influential forces, especially between political and religious forces. It is the area in which each party tries to prove that it has the upper hand and that it is the one who draws the lines of what is permitted or prohibited. The debate that took place over female circumcision over decades and witnessed its climax at the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 was only an example of this, until representatives of both parties – political and religious, which included Muslims and Copts – reached a compromise that criminalized the practice of female circumcision in public hospitals without prejudice to the interests of Doctors who practice it in private clinics, so it seemed like a victory for both parties, although in the end it did not lead to a clear condemnation of this type of violence against girls, nor did it affect the societal perception of the role of both women and men in their intimate relationship. This is just one example.

The objection to the equality of women and men in marital relations is based on something agreed upon between political, religious and legislative decision-makers that no law may conflict with the teachings of Islamic Sharia’a. We will not enter into discussions about the various interpretations of Sharia’a law and what legislators chose as their reference. We will limit ourselves here to one example in which legislators abandoned Sharia’a as a reference in favor of the male community, who are the ones who control most authorities in the country. According to Sharia’a law, adultery is a crime that is punishable for both the adulterous man and the adulterous woman. How can the text be modified to serve the gender hierarchy in society? By modifying the definition of adultery itself! The law considers a woman to be an adulterous wife regardless of the place where she committed adultery. As for a man, he is not considered an adulterer unless he commits this betrayal in the marital bed.

What does the law thereby advise men? According to a veteran Egyptian lawyer, it tells them: If you must commit adultery, choose a place other than the marital bed. But of course this was not the stated explanation. Rather, the stated explanation was that this other woman might be his second wife, which is what the Sharia’a permits him to do. This is just an example of the subordination of the religious text itself to the direct interests of the “stronger” half of society.

In our opinion, the attempt to agree on a personal status law that guarantees equality, dignity, and decision-making power for both parties will require, sooner or later, that a “civil personal status law” be a demand capable of presenting itself forcefully and without political, religious, or patriarchal blackmail in the face of the political and religious insistence that the relationship between men and women in society remains hierarchical, even if it results in injustice. Sooner or later, women’s voices will rise, demanding their rights in marital relationships that respect their identity and choices as individuals. Also, sooner or later, the voices of men will rise who will realize that the voluntary continuation of marital life between two parties who have equal rights to establish or terminate it is the most honorable and most respectful of their humanity and manhood.

The following paper is divided into two sections: The first presents the development of personal status laws in Egypt from the 1920s to the present day, against the background of the political and activism context existing at each stage, and the positions of the main stakeholders during those discussions and what they have reached at the present time, with a focus on how this impacts women’s lives.

The second section deals in detail with these laws and the numerous amendments that were issued over a century