A young man in his late twenties has been living in constant fear for months. Security forces raided his home after online posts in which he expressed non-traditional religious beliefs, leaving him suddenly trapped between detention, psychological intimidation, and social stigmatization. He committed no crime other than freely expressing his ideas, which made him the target of a broad security and judicial campaign, he tells Zawia3.
The experience of “Adam” (a pseudonym) is not unique. Dozens of people in Egypt are going through the same scenario, where prosecutions extend to enforced disappearance, pretrial detention, and psychological and social pressure. Freedom of belief and expression thus becomes little more than a constitutional text on paper, far removed from everyday reality.
During 2025, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights documented the arrest of 52 individuals across seven different cases, most of them accused of belonging to groups established in violation of the law or of contempt of religion. Many were subjected to enforced disappearance for periods ranging from days to weeks before being brought before the Supreme State Security Prosecution.
Among the most prominent of these cases is Sherif Gaber, who has faced repeated prosecution for several years due to his religious views and critical writings on social media. Three criminal convictions have already been issued against him, the most recent being a five-year prison sentence in 2024. He was arrested again in November 2025 and placed in pretrial detention in Case No. 11005 of 2025 on charges of joining a group established in violation of the law and contempt of religion. Meanwhile, one of the Initiative’s clients died in prison in January 2026, underscoring the severity of the humanitarian situation facing these defendants.
In the same context, a number of individuals holding different religious views were arrested as part of a wide-ranging campaign targeting Muslims, religious critics, non-religious Christians, and atheists, often solely for expressing their beliefs on social media platforms. Among them is Maged Zakaria, known as “Mufti of Humanity,” who was arrested in September 2025 and denied contact with his family or lawyer until he appeared before the prosecution ten days later. The campaign also extended to others who appeared with him in his programs and online groups on YouTube and Facebook, including members of the “Arab Atheists Network and Forum.”
These prosecutions come despite official statements by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi affirming the state’s commitment to freedom of belief. Last November, he called on preachers of the Ministry of Endowments to act as “guardians of freedom and choice,” stressing that “no one is a guardian over anyone.” In September 2021, el-Sisi stated that “the fundamental principle is freedom of belief,” emphasizing that it includes an individual’s right to believe or not believe, and that “there is no guardianship over people’s choices in this matter.”
Escalating Prosecutions: Why Now?
Although this campaign has seen a clear escalation in recent months, it does not represent an isolated case of targeting individuals in Egypt for holding non-traditional religious beliefs. Over the past decade, similar cases have repeatedly affected atheists, non-believers, and holders of critical religious views, whether through direct security prosecutions or by initiating court cases on charges such as “contempt of religion” or “promoting extremist ideas.” These cases have relied on legal provisions that have been deployed to restrict freedom of belief and expression, according to documentation by local and international human rights organizations.
During the same period, the security campaign has encompassed a number of individuals with non-traditional religious beliefs as part of a broader operation targeting diverse groups, whether through social media platforms or in private spaces. This reflects an expanding scope of targeting that includes anyone who diverges from prevailing religious interpretations or expresses their views freely, and underscores the persistence of an escalating pattern of restrictions on freedom of belief and expression in Egypt.
In this context, Ishak Ibrahim, Director of the Equality and Non-Discrimination Unit at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, says that the security campaign against atheists and non-believers is not a new phenomenon. Its features, he explains, began to take shape as early as 2015, when a group known as “Preachers of the Religion of Peace” and “Al-Nour Al-Mohammadi” was targeted. Sixteen people were arrested at the time, one of whom was deported due to his Syrian nationality, while the others remained in detention for extended periods.
Ibrahim tells Zawia3 that a broad campaign has intensified since last September, encompassing individuals from diverse backgrounds: Muslims with critical positions toward certain religious practices, Christians who criticize the church, as well as non-believers and atheists. He notes that these prosecutions are often based on charges such as “contempt of religion,” or other vague accusations including “broadcasting false news” and “joining a group established in violation of the constitution and the law.”
Despite the widespread use of the label “atheist” in public discourse to stigmatize anyone who declares a departure from religion, particularly Islam, academic literature distinguishes more precisely between three main categories: the atheist, who denies the existence of a creator god; the agnostic, who neither affirms nor denies the existence of a god; and the non-religious individual, who believes in a creative force behind the universe but rejects affiliation with any specific religion or submission to its institutions and rituals. In the Egyptian context, there are no reliable official statistics on the numbers of people in these categories. They are divided between those who publicly declare their views and those who choose to conceal their religious convictions for social and legal reasons, rendering all circulating figures closer to conflicting estimates that reflect controversy more than they provide an accurate scientific picture.
International and domestic law emphasize the need to adopt a broad definition of freedom of religion and belief, in line with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which forms part of Egyptian legislation pursuant to Article 93 of the Constitution. This definition includes protection for monotheistic and non-monotheistic religions, as well as atheistic beliefs, without limiting interpretation to dominant religions alone. Paragraph 2 of the article further stipulates the prohibition of any coercion that would impair individuals’ right to adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threats of physical violence or criminal penalties to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to, or renounce, their convictions.
The Legal Context and the Charges Brought Against Them
In this context, Hazem Salah, a lawyer at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, explains that the cases commonly referred to in the media as the “non-believers’ cases” are not limited to individuals who hold non-religious views. Rather, they include defendants from diverse religious backgrounds, among them Muslims and Christians, who have been prosecuted merely for raising questions or expressing criticism related to religion, in addition to the presence of some defendants who have no connection to the issue at all.
Salah tells Zawia3 that the charges brought against the 26 defendants in the most recent case, as well as in most similar cases, are based on provisions of the Penal Code. These include joining a group established in violation of the Constitution and the law, on the allegation that it seeks to undermine freedom of religion and harm national unity, in addition to the charge of contempt of one of the heavenly religions, as stipulated in Article 98 (w) of the Penal Code.
Article 98 of Egypt’s Penal Code No. 58 of 1937 provides that “anyone who exploits religion, whether through speech, writing, or any other means, to promote extremist ideas with the aim of inciting sedition, denigrating or showing contempt for one of the heavenly religions or the sects affiliated with them, or harming national unity, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of no less than six months and no more than five years, or by a fine of no less than 500 pounds and no more than 1,000 pounds.” Article 86 bis further stipulates the punishment of anyone who establishes, organizes, or manages a group in violation of the Constitution and the law for the purpose of obstructing the provisions of the Constitution or the laws, or harming national unity. It also provides for imprisonment for anyone who joins or participates in such a group with full knowledge of its objectives.
Marital Blackmail in Egypt: How Husbands Exploit the Law to Abuse Women
Hisba Cases and Charges of Contempt of Religion
Ishak Ibrahim notes that many “contempt of religion” cases stem from complaints filed by so-called hisba lawyers acting on behalf of society. He stresses that this campaign cannot be separated from the broader context of shrinking personal freedoms in Egypt, where freedom of opinion and expression is inseparable from freedom of religion and belief. Imposing restrictions on dissenting thought or belief, he argues, reflects an integrated pattern of constraining individuals’ personal rights, including the right to express views freely and without fear.
The prosecutions and restrictions faced by non-believers in Egypt are not a recent phenomenon. Their roots extend back decades and have encompassed not only security pressure but also social and legal dimensions. Within this context, hisba lawsuits emerged—defined as “legal actions filed in the name of society to hold accountable those deemed to have violated religious or moral norms, with the aim of regulating public conduct.”
Such cases escalated markedly in the 1990s, particularly against thinkers and intellectuals. The most prominent was the 1995 case of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, which marked a pivotal moment in judicial intervention in individuals’ beliefs. In that year, a group of Egyptian lawyers filed a lawsuit against Abu Zayd, a professor of Islamic studies at Cairo University, alleging “contempt of religion” after he published critical, analytical writings addressing traditional religious interpretations of Islamic texts, especially the Qur’an. The case focused on what was deemed a departure from prevailing interpretations and accused him of undermining religious constants by advancing hermeneutic and symbolic readings of texts and situating them within historical and intellectual contexts—sparking wide controversy across religious and legal circles.
The lawsuit was filed by two lawyers on behalf of individual parties and religious groups, relying on Penal Code provisions that criminalize what is considered “insulting Islam” or “showing contempt for its principles.” During the proceedings, judicial decisions were taken that provoked intense debate, including a court request to forcibly divorce Abu Zayd from his wife on the grounds that remaining married constituted a violation of society’s religious constants. Throughout the case, Abu Zayd also faced pressure and threats that impeded his academic work, ultimately forcing him to leave Egypt for the Netherlands, where he continued his scholarly and research activities.
Hisba cases on charges of contempt of religion did not end with Abu Zayd. They continued for decades, with a notable increase over the past ten years. Since the early 2000s, prosecutions expanded to include ordinary citizens and bloggers, particularly with the spread of the internet. In 2007, blogger Karim Amer was arrested and sentenced to four years in prison on charges including “contempt of the Islamic religion” for his critical writings about religious institutions—a verdict upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 2009.
The same pattern reappeared after the January 2011 revolution, when activists were convicted on similar charges, including Alber Saber, who was sentenced to prison in 2012 after being accused of contempt of religion over content posted on social media. Likewise, Sherif Gaber has been convicted in four similar cases in recent years and remains detained in connection with a new case.
According to Human Rights Watch, Egypt witnessed the spread of legal prosecutions based on these charges under the presidencies of Hosni Mubarak, Mohamed Morsi, and interim president Adly Mansour, with contempt of religion laws used to restrict freedom of thought and expression.
In June 2016, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights issued a legal memorandum asserting the unconstitutionality of Article 98 of the Penal Code, commonly known as the “contempt of religion” article. The memorandum relied on rulings of the Supreme Constitutional Court, decisions of the Court of Cassation, and the Egyptian Constitution. It argued that the article’s current wording lacks fundamental constitutional safeguards, violating the principles of legality of crimes and punishments and the separation of powers, and enabling arbitrary accusations that can lead to criminal penalties without genuine guarantees of individuals’ basic rights—thereby unlawfully restricting freedom of thought and religion.
Egypt After the State of Emergency: Exception by Force of Law
How Do the Authorities View the Issue?
According to lawyer Hazem Salah, cases of “contempt of religion” are handled before the Supreme State Security Prosecution as crimes classified under “offenses harmful to state security.” This approach, he argues, contradicts Article 64 of the Egyptian Constitution, which stipulates that “freedom of belief is absolute,” and also conflicts with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which forms part of Egypt’s legislative framework by virtue of the Constitution.
For his part, Ishak Ibrahim points out that the prevailing public mood in Egyptian society remains conservative and religious, limiting social support for non-believers and atheists. He adds that the greatest challenge comes from official institutions themselves—whether security agencies or certain lawyers who file lawsuits on behalf of society—rendering the campaign of prosecution multi-layered: security-related, judicial, and social. Ibrahim expresses his surprise at the rising number of “contempt of religion” cases and the pursuit of atheists and non-believers, a trend he says runs counter to official statements affirming freedom of belief.
Sherif Azer, Programs Director at the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, notes that contempt of religion cases are effectively managed as general political cases. They often involve routine renewals of pretrial detention without posing new questions to defendants, while detainees face moral and psychological pressure inside prisons, including organized sessions aimed at steering them back toward religion. Azer explains that, despite their security framing, these cases directly intersect with constitutionally guaranteed freedom of belief, particularly since the same charges are frequently used against political defendants, underscoring the multiple legal and social dimensions of prosecution in Egypt.
It is noteworthy that Egypt’s National Human Rights Strategy, launched by the government in September 2021, affirms that freedom of belief and conviction is a fundamental principle that must not be infringed. It includes every individual’s right to believe or not believe, without guardianship or pressure from any party. The strategy also emphasizes the need to protect citizens from any form of discrimination based on belief and to guarantee the free practice of religious rituals, with due respect for the rights of others.
The document further stresses the state’s role in promoting religious and intellectual tolerance and combating any attempts to coerce individuals into religious affiliation or abandonment—whether through force, judicial means, or social pressure—in line with Egypt’s international human rights obligations, particularly Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The documented incidents and recent arrests illustrate how the security and judicial campaign against non-believers, atheists, and holders of non-traditional religious views in Egypt does not represent isolated cases, but rather forms part of an escalating pattern that undermines guarantees of freedom of belief and expression, despite official statements and the state’s constitutional and international commitments. This reality calls for an urgent review of judicial and security policies to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and to uphold the right to intellectual and religious difference without threat or intimidation.
