Parliament Diaries| A quiet showdown over fatwa authority

The draft law regulating religious edicts/fatwas nearly passed unnoticed, as the media spotlight remained fixed on debates over old rent laws and their amendments. But Al-Azhar’s objection during discussions in the House of Representatives’ Religious Affairs Committee—before the draft reached the general session—brought fleeting attention to the long-running power struggle over religious authority.

Al-Azhar emerged victorious from a battle fought in dignity, preserving its status among Egypt’s religious institutions—namely the Fatwa House/Dar Al-Ifta and the Ministry of Religious Endowments/Awqaf—both named in the government-sponsored bill as bodies authorized to issue fatwas. In return, the bill narrowed the already restricted space for freedom of thought and expression.

An old conflict, revived

In March, the government introduced a draft law to regulate the issuance of religious edicts. It delineates which institutions and individuals may issue fatwas, and sets penalties for violations of these rules.

The bill positioned the Ministry of Awqaf as a fatwa-issuing body through committees it would establish—this was the core of Al-Azhar’s objection, delivered by Dr. Muhammad Al-Duwaini, the Grand Imam's Deputy, to the Religious Affairs Committee. Al-Azhar opposed what it described as overlapping jurisdictions, rejecting the idea of fatwa committees affiliated with the ministry.

Despite the objections, the bill emerged from the committee with the ministry’s role intact. The committee chair, former Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, defended the bill, asserting the lower house’s right to legislate. “The lower house is sovereign in its decision,” Gomaa declared at the committee’s final meeting.

Article 7 of the Constitution grants Al-Azhar a unique status as an independent Islamic body responsible for religious sciences and Islamic affairs. The article stipulates that Al-Azhar alone oversees its internal affairs, that it is the main reference for religious matters, and that the state must provide sufficient funding for it to fulfill its mission. To guarantee independence, the Grand Imam is granted security of tenure and is selected from the Council of Senior Scholars.

And so, despite the fervent defense of the draft law’s original design by figures like Ali Gomaa and the committee’s disregard for Al-Azhar’s objections, the institution ultimately prevailed. Backed by this constitutional footing, Al-Azhar quietly preserved its gains. the lower house eventually retreated from the committee’s original stance, and the Ministry of Awqaf itself ceded part of its claimed authority out of deference to Al-Azhar.

Behind-the-scenes rearrangements

According to several parliamentary sources, a series of behind-the-scenes communications took place ahead of the general session. The lower house Speaker Hanafy Gebaly personally intervened to calm tensions and ensure the bill would satisfy Al-Azhar’s concerns.

In the general session, the lower house accepted all of Al-Duwaini’s proposed amendments. Al-Azhar was granted sole authority to issue fatwa licenses and conduct exams for members of the fatwa committees formed by the Ministry of Awqaf. Al-Azhar, as the licensing body, also gained the power to revoke those licenses.

Effectively, Al-Azhar retained its leadership over Egypt’s fatwa system, which includes the Dar al-Ifta and the ministry’s committees. It also secured the right to form the committee that will draft the law’s executive bylaws.

This is not the first time Al-Azhar has successfully defended its position. A similar draft law stalled in the previous parliamentary term in 2018 following Al-Azhar’s reservations, and during the last legislative term, MP Mohamed Abu Hamed tried and failed to amend Al-Azhar’s governing law—his proposal would have made the Grand Imam subject to disciplinary measures including reprimand, warnings, and even dismissal by a two-thirds vote of the Senior Scholars Council.

Expression loses ground

The law’s stated goal is to counter extremist fatwas. But in doing so, it imposes restrictions that further constrict the already limited scope for independent interpretation/ijtihad which is also the path to religious reform, and threatens journalists with prison time.

One day before the bill reached the floor, Journalists Syndicate head Khaled Elbalshy sent a letter to the the lower house Speaker urging an amendment to Article 8. That article imposes up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine ranging from 50,000 to 100,000 Egyptian pounds (about $1,050 to $2,100), or both, for violating clauses related to publishing or broadcasting fatwas.

Elbalshy argued that Article 8 clearly violates Article 71 of the Egyptian Constitution and Article 29 of the 2018 Press and Media Regulation Law (Law No. 180), both of which prohibit custodial sentences in publication-related offenses. These constitutional protections, he said, are essential to preserving press freedom.

Yet the lower house brushed the matter aside. Among opposition-aligned MPs, only Atef Maghawry, head of the Tagammu parliamentary bloc, raised concerns about Article 8 potentially shutting the door on independent reasoning in Islamic jurisprudence—a principle that permits renewed interpretations of religious texts within the framework of Sharia/Islamic law.

MP Amira El-Adly stood alone in calling for the article to be amended to remove the prison penalty.

Others dismissed the concern. MP Ahmed Bahaa Shalaby of the Homat Al-Watan/Homeland Defenders Party claimed the bill had nothing to do with journalism. Hanaa Farouk of the pro-government Mostakbal Watan/Nation’s Future Party said the penalty was meant to “deter and intimidate.”

Seeking to downplay concerns, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Mahmoud Fawzy argued that Article 71 only applies to publishing offenses. If the act involves incitement to violence, discrimination, or slander, the law permits imprisonment.

“This clause won’t be applied to publishing cases,” Fawzy said. “Any concerns the journalist community may have, we’re here to clarify them. There’s no constitutional conflict here. The penalty is proportionate to the act.”

Too little, too late

MP Amira El-Adly’s proposed amendments were rejected with little debate. Notably absent or silent were the journalists-turned-MPs, including Ahmed Belal, Mahmoud Badr, Marcel Samir, Mai Karam Gabr, Mohamed Abdel-Aleem Daoud, and Nader Mostafa.

The bill passed by standing vote. Absent were the MPs from the Salafi Nour Party. According to a parliamentary source, a handful of MPs remained seated during the vote: Amira El-Adly, Mohamed Abdel Aziz, Amira Saber, Diaa El-Din Dawoud, and Ahmed El-Sharkawy.

In the end, Al-Azhar got what it wanted—anchored in its constitutional authority and institutional legacy. The press, by contrast, lost another round: it arrived late, fragmented, and lacking organized pressure or clear allies within the lower house.

Al-Azhar reinforced its influence through a blend of quiet negotiation and constitutional leverage, while the journalist bloc fell silent. As religious institutions tighten their hold, the already-constricted space for freedom of thought, speech, and expression continues to shrink—repeating a now-familiar pattern of retreat and loss.