Statement

Statement issued May 18, 2001:

Dear Firends and Colleagues,

I returned to Egypt on the 10 May 2001 after an absence of more than two months to find that a campaign had been launched against me by a weekly newspaper which had published a distorted version of an interview which I had given to one of its journalists before my departure . The newspaper had then taken the interview to a number of Islamic figures known for their affinities with the fundamentalist movement who condemned me of apostasy and described me in terms which lacked a modicum of decency.Not content with that, and taking advantage of the beginning furor it had created it then took the interview to The Mufti of Egypt and managed to extract a hasty declaration from him in which he argued against some of the ideas I had defended and described me as having overstepped the bounds of Islam. On the basis of this statement a lawyer then raised a case of Hisba against me in which he demanded that I be separated from my husband the medical doctor and writer to whom I have been married for thirty seven years. All this reminded me of the case of Doctor Nasr Hamed Abou Zeid who faced a similar situation some years ago because of his writings, and was obliged to leave the country with his wife Doctor Ibtihal Younes and to go into exile after a religious court ruled that they should be separated according to the system of Hisba.During the years that followed I had continued to hope that pressures coming from public opinion and from the intellectual elite would lead the courts to reexamine the case of the exiled couple and redress the wrong that had been done to them so that they could come home and regain their rightful place in the academia. But never did I imagine that one day I and my husband would become the targets for a similar form of repression. For me those days seemed to have gone forever, that we could never share the fate of these two scholars driven out of their country by the forces of a cultural and ideological terrorism.

When it happened I asked myself why that was so? Was it an indication that the forces that are against the national interests of our people have once more grown in strength and influence? Was it another attempt to divert the attetion of people away from the aggressive policies followed by Israel and the United States in our region and the difficult economic situation threatening our daily lives? An attempt to prevent us from mobilizing our efforts and finding solutions to this difficult situation? Was it meant to occupy the public attention concealing what really threatens our future by scapegoating two intellectuals who have always been active in the struggle for democracy and human rights and to separate them after a life spent in harmony,and in which they had faced so many battles together?

Throughout this campaign and until very recently I had been away from the country unable to envisage the descriptions of my husband as reflecting the reality,waiting for the moment when I would be home and yet fearing it in a way. How could the journalist have misquoted what I had said and omitted all its context in such a flagrant manner? How had I been made to appear as an enemy of Islam,insensitive to the beliefs of so many people,to the pilgrimage of millions who went to Mecca and knelt down to kiss the black stone? The interview had been wide-ranging and had touched on a number of subjects related to culture,to the banning of my books from the recent Cairo International Bookfair held last February,and to women¹s rights. All these issues had been made to disappear behind the smokescreen created by a form of sensationalist journalism which has become rampant these days to divert peoples attention to minor issues and make as much profit as possible. The newspaper had willfully provoked the powerful religious hierarchy the reading public. The Mufti instead of seeking to discuss the matter with me had been unwittingly drawn into the game out of a religious fervour in the defense of what seemed to him an attack on Islam the religion which he is there to defend.But his statement had added fuel to the fire in a volatile situation,depite the fact that in the real interview all my answers had been within the framework of Islamic teachings and within the range of permissible interpretations In addition what I had said had been in defence of a true morality.

At no time during the interview had the issue of pilgrimage and the kissing of the black stone, which was blown up by the newspaper out of all proportion, been an issue of importance. Rather it had been a matter of side conversation when I spoke of the historical nature of certain rituals in religion maintained for reasons of continuity and spreading the faith.It had cropped up when I spoke about the Sufi School of Rabi¹a Al A¹adaweya. My father had belonged to the Sufi school. He was a prestigious man of learning who had studied at Al Azhar Religious University,in Dar Al Ouloum and in The School Of Religious Jurisprudence, was well versed in the teachings of Islam and had taught me about them at an early age,but as a Sufi he gave much less importance to ritual than he gave to the essence and spirit of Islam, to its essential beliefs and good practices in daily life. He refused to give a great importance to ritual practices and the external trappings of religion. So I was brought up to believe in the basic principles of Islam,to insist that providing for the family and the good upbringing of its members, that a simple life, and sensitivity to the plight of the poor was more important in the teachings of the Prophet than prostrating oneself before God day and night,to believe that hard work was more important than worship,and that "that which was needed to feed the home should not be given to the mosque" to use the words of Prophet Muhammad,and was more important than buying a plane ticket to go on pilgrimage and kiss the black stone to use my own words in the interview especially -- Kissing the black stone was not an irrevocable divine command and there were some Islamic scholars who opposed this practice on the grounds that it was a historical vestige of paganism adopted by the Prophet with the aim of rallying the tribes of Mecca under the banner of Islam.

Thus for me Islam had always been essential belief in a God who was the spirit of justice,freedom and love. For me such things as wearing the veil were not necessarily an indication of morality in the woman who wears it My answers to the journalist came from the conviction that the religious hierarchy had tended to transform Islam into a series of rituals and outdated serrmons that took people away from the true spirit of religion imparted to me by a father who knew what justice and love meant. But the newspaper saw fit to turn all this upside down for a mean commercial,sensationalist cause which could only serve the fundamentalist forces that are using Islam in their political struggle for power.The result was a smear campaign meant to sully my reputation and silence voices that are still raised in the struggle for freedom of opinion. The result was that a leading government newspaper permitted itself to say that I had declared that women should have the right to marry more than one husband since men were misinterpreting the Qur¹an to marry more than one woman, and then published the answer my husband sent to them in my absence as a letter in the readers corner in a print so small that no one would see it. This is what those in control of the press call journalistic ethics and freedom of opinion.

As regards the Hisba case raised by the lawyer in front of a religious or personal law court seeking to separate between me and my husband I can only describe it as an outrage which will do more harm to our society and its reputation than it can ever do to me.After what happened to Doctor Hamed Abou Zeid and his wife Doctor Ibtihal Younes the concerned government authorities should have hastened to stop the procedures and not remain silent as though weighing the pros and cons of the matter. It is high time that a new law be passed to prevent similar cases from happening again. So far the system of Hisba has been maintained, but article 1 of the modified law passed in 1996 regulates it as follows:

The General Prosecutor alone is authorized to raise cases in cases of Hisba related to the Personal Code Law. Whosoever wishes to raise a case of this nature is obliged to send a petition to the General Prosecutor. The Prosecutor after hearing the parties concerned ,and investigating the matter will decide whether to transfer the case to a Court of the First Instance or alternatively decide not to go further with the proceedings.

Thus the system of Hisba still remains like a sword of Damocles raised over the heads of those whom the State might want to silence for one reason or another.Yet Hisba is a measure which is in flagrant contradiction with article 40 of the Egyptian constitution and which maintains that "all citizens are considered equal before the law,that.they have the same obligations and enjoy equal rights, that they should not be discriminated against for reasons of gender, race, language or belief. Yet cases of Hisba can only be raised by persons who are male and belong to the Muslim religion. This is a form of discrimination against citizens on the basis of gender and religion and is therefore unconstitutional.

It is a well-known fact that the practice of Hisba belongs only to the Hanafi School of Islam which became dominant in Egypt at the time of the Turkish invasion. None of the other three schools of Islam permit Hisba. Thus the state is allowing the continued practice of an unjust and backward procedure which is prmitted by only one of the three schools in Islam. Another question which the practice of Hisba raises is that it is applied as a punishment only in matters related to personal or family life and has nothing to do with any form of public retribution.This is strange indeed since it means that the husband or wife and the children who are innocent of any supposed misdoing can be punished for something they have not done,for an infraction which is not theirs. This is punishing the innocent and is in direct contradiction with the most basic of human rights which hold the individual alone responsible for his actions and do not permit any form of collective punishment.

Any recourse to Hisba is also in contradiction with article 46 of the Constitution which stipulates that the state should ensure that citizens enjoy freedom of belief and article 47 which says that freedom of of opinion is the right of all individuals and that everyone should have the right to express his opinion in full freedom whether orally, in writing or in images.or any other form of expression.

Article 12 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that there should be no arbitrary interference in the lives of the couple and articles 18,19 and 23 of The International Charter on Civil and Political Rights and all other International Agreements of the kind consider the rights of women as integral to human rights.

To end I would like to say that I and my husband Doctor Sherif Hetata are detemined to face this difficult period in our lives with the support of all those who have expressed their solidarity with us in many ways whether in Egypt, the Arab countries or in numerous other countries of the world as another struggle for the human rights of men and women which must be fought without hesitation. We are strengthened by our firm belief in the right of all people to freedom of opinion and belief. We hope that those who preside over the system of justice in our country will not permit that a husband and wife be arbitrarily separated from one another because a third party who has nothing to do with their private life sees that this separation should be enforced on them because he has differed with one of them on a matter related to freedom of opinion. We affirm that no matter what the outcome of this outrageous case we will continue our life together and remain in Egypt which is where we belong, and that no one can make us act differently. Together with all those who care for the future of our society and our people we demand

1. That the system called Hisba be abolished and that our laws be amended so that they provide full protection of the freedom to produce creative and intellectual works in all spheres of endeavour including scientific research and creative writing.
2. That the General Prosecutor refuse any legal attempts having recourse to Al Hisba from being initiated with the aim of separating between us as husband and wife.
3. The integral application of The International Agreement on the Abolition of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Signed Nawal El Saadawi 18 May 2001 Cairo, Egypt.