Aisha is 28 years old and lives in the small community of Bolaq in the outskirts of Giza, Egypt, an overly poor community ruled by religious and traditional convictions. In this impoverished community, domestic violence, early or forced marriages, honor killings and forced female genital mutilation (FGM) are commonplace, in spite of the many laws enacted to eradicate them. Irrespective of her husband’s frequent verbal and physical abuse and violent beatings, Aisha has not pressed charges against him.
Believing that under Shari’a law a husband is entitled to discipline his wife if she disobeys, Aisha has always refused to put an end to this life of violence. Like many other women suffering from a lack of education and extreme poverty, she has tolerated this life for 10 years. Because Aisha lives in a community that is patriarchal in every aspect of life, she has no understanding of the concept of “rights” or the laws that guarantee her personal welfare and social equality. In fact, to her, concepts such as “rights” and “equality” are rather laughable.
Inequality is a deplorable reality in the lives of many women in Egypt regardless of their socio-economic status, however it is most visible in poor communities throughout the country. In such communities, domestic violence is considered a right and not a violation: an act that is committed in “good faith”. In these communities, the status of women as second-class citizens legitimates virtually all acts of violence committed by either the husband or any male family relative. According to a 2001 government survey conducted in low-income communities in Egypt, 96% of women claim to have been beaten at least once by their husbands. Yet, most of these women believed that their husbands had “the right” to beat them if they disobeyed them or were disrespectful in any way (Egypt: Abused Women Reluctant to Come Forward).
It should be noted that Islamic Shari’a law does not entirely stipulate this so-called “right”. According to State Council Deputy, Hossam Abu-Yusif, “[a] man has the right in Shari’a to discipline his wife…But, this is a right in the Shari’a that is not enforced. God says that the best of you will never use this power.” This means that a right, which is not meant to be enforced ought to be understood as a suggestion rather than a legal right. Unfortunately, Egypt’s domestic law seems to operate conjointly with the belief that has taken Shari’a law both disproportionately and out of context. Article 60 of the Egyptian Criminal Code stipulates: “the provisions of the penal code shall not apply to any deed committed in good faith, pursuant to a right determined by virtue of the Shari’a.” Acts committed in good faith are those acts under the law that involve beating that is not ‘severe,’ not directed to the face or to vulnerable fatal-blow areas.
On the other hand, international law provides the basic guarantees of the right to life and protection of human dignity for all without discrimination. These rights, among others, were established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and specified by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, where the latter condemns “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women…whether occurring in public or in private life.”
Yet, international law has done little to change a common practice and belief found in such poor communities, which lack both the education and social awareness to react appropriately. In fact, Egypt’s reservation to Article 2 of CEDAW that goes against the object and purpose of the Convention has virtually eliminated any hope of correcting a misunderstood “right” that has been enforced and legitimated by domestic law. (1) Regardless of the severity and frequency of the beatings, most women refrain from reporting their husbands to the police for fear that they would be seen as committing a “shameful” or sinful act, or simply for fear of their husbands’ vengeance.
In these poor communities, divorce is largely discouraged and seen as an undesirable and “shameful” act that may result in the women being outcast by their families and community. However, these women face an even greater problem caused by their financial difficulties. Their dependent situation makes divorce or even Khula a rather expensive and financially unattainable alternative. Khula, which was introduced in Egypt some 10 years ago, gave an alternative to women to initiate a divorce if they relinquished all their financial rights as opposed to divorce, which was a long-term legally and financially exhausting process for women. As Nevine Abeid of The New Women Foundation explains, “yet, if the woman is poor, it is impossible for her to be able to achieve financial independence after giving up all her financial rights.”
In the light of this, like Aisha, most women in these poor communities end up staying with their abusive husbands ‘till death do them part’ from a life of humiliation, violence and abuse.
Notes:
1) The efficacy of international law rests on its principles being accepted and incorporated by individual states in their domestic law.