Freedom of belief: In word but not in deed

Article 64 of Egypt’s Constitution declares that “freedom of belief is absolute.” Political and religious institutions alike repeat that freedom of belief is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed.

Yet this apparent consensus collapses when we examine what officials actually mean by “freedom of belief,” how they interpret its scope, whether they recognize limits to it, and what obligations they acknowledge in guaranteeing and protecting it.

We seem to be dealing with two entirely different interpretations of the same right. The result is the persistence of restrictions and violations—legislative and institutional, through the constitution, laws, public policies, and official conduct; and social, through prevailing attitudes and practices among citizens.

Two visions of freedom

In this context a striking contradiction emerges. Since 2014, the president—the highest authority in the country—has repeatedly addressed this issue in public speeches. Most recently, during Police Day celebrations last month, he spoke about the need to respect freedom of belief. On several occasions, he has also affirmed that this right extends even to those who do not belong to the “revealed religions,” and to nonbelievers. The premise, he stated, is that human beings are free to believe—or not believe.

By contrast, several state institutions adopt a narrow interpretation. They reduce freedom of belief to improving relations between Muslims and Christians, limiting incitement to religious violence, or confining belief to an inner, private matter of conscience—without recognizing any right to publicly declare, practice, or express it.

This divergence is evident in the National Human Rights Strategy and in annual reports issued by the Supreme Standing Committee for Human Rights.

In these documents, freedom of belief is measured by the number of churches built in new cities, the legalization of existing churches, the restoration of Islamic, Christian, and Jewish heritage sites, support for the Holy Family Trail, or activities promoting coexistence and rejecting extremism. These steps may appear positive on the surface, but they avoid confronting the legislative and policy framework which entrenches discrimination and inequality.

Similarly, the National Council for Human Rights, in its annual report issued in December 2025, merely cited the constitutional articles on equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of belief and worship. It devoted a single paragraph to the Church Construction Law, noting that 3,613 churches and affiliated buildings—66% of 5,415—had been legalized over ten years, presenting this as significant progress compared to earlier figures.

Flexible texts, rigid realities

The constitution does not recognize the rights of those who do not belong to the “revealed religions” to obtain legal recognition. This goes beyond restricting their religious practices and affects nearly every aspect of their social lives.

The suffering of Baha’is, for example, is widely known. The state refuses to document their marriages and divorces, placing them in a condition approaching “civil death,” with repercussions for their children.

In response, seven UN special rapporteurs sent a letter to the Egyptian government addressing the consequences of denying Baha’is key rights, including cemetery allocation, listing Baha’ism on identity documents, and recognition of marriage. The government’s reply, which Egyptian human rights organizations described as “ boilerplate,” merely reiterated its commitment to constitutional and national legal obligations.

Meanwhile, security campaigns targeting nonbelievers, atheists, and those expressing dissenting religious views expose the gap between official rhetoric and practice.

This reality also raises questions about calls for “renewing religious discourse.” Can such calls be taken seriously while freedom of thought—and the right to critique inherited traditions and religious narratives—remains subject to prosecution under the Penal Code’s “contempt of religion” provision, which carries penalties of up to five years in prison and fines?

Early last year, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights documented a sweeping crackdown. It began with arrests targeting members of the Ahmadi “Light and Peace” religion, followed by campaigns against YouTubers and social media users who expressed personal views on belief. Since the start of 2025, 52 people have been arrested across seven separate cases on charges related to expressing religious or belief-related views.

What international law actually says

Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, freedom of religion has been inseparable from other core freedoms such as expression, assembly, and employment. The right belongs to individuals. Its purpose is not to protect a specific religion but to protect people and their convictions.

Freedom of religion or belief also has a collective dimension. Religious communities are entitled to legal recognition, to manage their internal affairs, choose their leaders, establish schools, and provide services to the public.

Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—and its authoritative interpretations—protect monotheistic and non-monotheistic religions alike, as well as atheistic beliefs. Its scope is not limited to dominant religions.

It prohibits coercion, including threats of physical force or criminal penalties, aimed at compelling individuals to adhere to or renounce their religion or beliefs.

The 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, and General Comment No. 22 (1993), clarify seven core components of this right:

1- The freedom to adopt, change, or retain a religion or belief (the internal dimension).

2- The right to manifest religion or belief individually or collectively, publicly or privately (the external dimension).

3- Freedom from coercion in matters of belief.

4- Freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.

5- The rights of parents or legal guardians to raise children in accordance with their beliefs, consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

6- The right of religious communities to legal recognition and personality, without discriminatory registration procedures, and without making registration a prerequisite for practicing belief.

7- The right to conscientious objection, protecting individuals from being compelled to act against their convictions.

A widening gap

The distance between this comprehensive understanding of freedom of belief and the narrow application by some Egyptian institutions is vast.

Article 93 of the Constitution obligates the state to uphold international human rights conventions. It should therefore translate the president’s positive and unprecedented statements into concrete measures that narrow this gap and alleviate the suffering of large segments of Egyptians.

The state cannot fulfill its obligations by claiming that freedom of belief merely means improving relations between Muslims and others. Nor can it do so without fundamental legislative and executive reforms guaranteeing religious freedom in its full sense—for every person—including the rights to declare, change, practice, and express belief, to live free from discrimination, and to be protected from prosecution under vague charges such as “insulting religion.”

Until then, “freedom of belief” will remain absolute in text, and conditional in reality.