In the weeks following the Egyptian revolution of 2011, a group of divorced fathersrose to demand a “revolution in family law.” Portraying extant family law provisions assymbolic of the old regime and as deviating from the principles of shariʿa, their call was givenprominent media attention and, in the ensuing transitional period (2011 to 2013), women’srights and family law emerged as contentious areas in Egypt.By comparing public debates on family law reform in the decade preceding the 2011revolution to the two years following it, we argue that Egypt’s “revolution in family law”actually started a decade earlier, in 2000, when Egyptian women’s new right to divorceunilaterally rocked the country.1 This set in motion other legal reforms that challengedfundamental aspects of male authority in the family and slowly led to the emergence ofinnovative conceptions of motherhood and fatherhood.

In most Muslim-majority countries, the legislators who drafted family law codes sought to produce a codified version of one of the many Islamic fiqh schools. Such is the case, from West to East, for Morocco, Egypt, and Indonesia. There are situations, however, in which the law remains silent. In such cases, judges must turn to fiqh in order to find appropriate provisions. It is up to judges to interpret the law and to locate the relevant rule. In this process, judges use new interpretive techniques and modes of reasoning. After addressing institutional and legal transformations in Morocco, Egypt, and Indonesia, this article focuses on the domain of family law. We examine cases that illustrate how judges seek a solution in the body of fiqh when asked to authenticate a marriage. In conclusion, we put forward an argument about how judges who are required to refer to fiqh deal with this matter within the context of positive, codified, and standardized law. We argue that the methodology and epistemology adopted by contemporary judges, the legal material on which they draw, and the means by which they refer to this material have fundamentally altered the nature of legal cognition and of law itself.

No abstract

As with other family law regimes, Muslim family law in Egypt plays an important role in shaping gender norms. In this article, I discuss adjudication by family courts during the period 2008-2013. I argue that the most important developments in this regard are: (1) standardisation of the way in which court rulings are written down, which contributed to a normalisation of the male-dominated nuclear family; and (2) the significant inclusion of Islamic sources in court rulings. A central question in this regard is how judges without a background in classical Islamic jurisprudence have applied the modern legal codes derived from shari'a. I argue that a move towards greater standardisation of practice has taken place through a closer union between law and religious morality, with Quranic verses and the Sunna being used by judges in creative ways. Thus, shari'a is continuously reinscribed in state law and its meaning construed in ways which differ from classical Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). I also highlight the importance of key contextual factors, such as judicial training, time pressure, and the influence of computer technology, behind these developments.

This article investigates gender implications of judicial activism within the context of the 2011 revolution. Relying on analysis of a sample of judicial decisions in the field of divorce and child-rearing, I argue that individual judges used the family courts as a platform to articulate alternative legal discourses prior to the 2011 revolution. During the period between February 2011 and the military coup in July 2013 family legislation emerged as a controversial point. The period witnessed the mobilisation of small but vocal fathers' rights groups that called for a revolution in Egyptian family law and formed strategic alliances with a handful of judges. The latter became members of a legislative committee formed under the presidency of Muhammad Mursi. I investigate the gender implications of their activism against a background where old and new actors and institutions competed over the right to interpret shari'a in an authoritative way.