language of a reformed interpretation of Islam.
The last participants in the debate are the secular
nationalists controlling the state. For them, the
stakes are high, as the Islamicists gain popular fol-
lowing among the public, undermining the historic
ability of political elites to ally themselves with the
feminists to advance micro reforms. Like the
Sharì≠a clerics, they engage in push-and-pull sup-
port for further reforms depending on the public’s
reaction, their paramount concern being not the
reform but the stability of their control over the
state (Moors 2003, Welchman 2003).
The Islamicists in Egypt tried to make their
imprint on the debate by arguing before the
Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt (SCC) that
certain reforms as they unfolded in Egypt (Law 25
of 1920, Law 25 of 1929, and Law 100 of 1985)
violated article 2 of the Egyptian constitution,
which establishes that the Sharì≠a is the primary
source of legislation. Restricting polygamy, allow-
ing women judicial divorce, and imposing financial
duties of maintenance on men retroactively were all
rules, the Islamicists argued, that went against the
grain of article 2 because they were un-Islamic, or
contrary to the Sharì≠a. The SCC developed a judi-
cial test to inspect the Islamicity of the rules which
was flexible enough to allow the reforms to survive.
The typical approach of the court was to split the
difference between the demands of the Islamicists
and those of the feminists: polygamy is neither an
absolute right of the husband (Islamicists) nor is it
to be abolished (feminists) but should survive in a
restricted form whereby women can ask for divorce
if they prove harm when the husband takes a second
wife (Lombardi 1998, El-Morr 1997, Najjar 1988).
The new feminists seem to be demanding a con-
cession from women in the name of formal equal-
ity. Women should be willing to waive the rule that
protects their wealth from the husband’s demands
(share in the duty of maintenance of the family) in
return for abolishing the rule of wifely obedience.
Many feminists treat this as a worthy trade-off and
they also argue that it reflects social reality since
women do indeed participate in maintaining the
family as a matter of fact (CGESWE 1992). This,
however, is a contentious strategy of reform given
the fact that while rich women tend to go to court
to request divorce, poor women for the most part
go to court to request maintenance from their hus-
bands (Würth 2003). The trade-off might prove
costly to poor women.Bibliography
L. Abu-Odeh, Egyptian feminism. Trapped in the identity
debate, in Y. Y. Haddad and B. F. Stowasser (eds.),462 law: modern family law, 1800–present
Islamic law and the challenges of modernity, Walnut
Creek, Calif. 2004, 183–212.
——, Modernizing Muslim family law. The case of Egypt,
in Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Lawand
Oxford Comparative Law Forum(forthcoming).
N. Anderson, Law reform in the Muslim world, London
1976.
A. An-Na≠im (ed.), Islamic family law in a changing
world. A global resource book, London 2002.
B. A. al-≠A. Badràn, Al-fiqh al-muqàran li-al-a™wàl al-
shakhsiyya, i, Beirut 1976.
J. Y. Brinton, The Mixed Courts of Egypt, New Haven,
Conn. 1968.
M. M. Charrad, Repudiation versus divorce. Responses
to state policy in Tunisia, in E. N. Chow and C. W.
Berheide (eds.), Women, the family, and policy, Albany,
N.Y. 1994, 51–69.
——,States and women’s rights, Berkeley 2001.
CGESWE (Communication Group for the Enhancement
of the Status of Women in Egypt) (ed.), Legal rights of
Egyptian women in theory and practice, Cairo 1992.
N. J. Coulson, A history of Islamic law, Edinburgh 1964,
repr. 2003.
D. Crecelius, The course of secularization in modern
Egypt, in J. L. Esposito (ed.), Islam and development.
Religion and sociopolitical change, Syracuse, N.Y.
1980, 49–70.
A. Z. al-Dàbßi, Kitàb al-nikà™min al-asràr, Cairo 1993
A. al-Dardìr, Al-shar™al-ßaghir. Ta±lìf A™mad al-Dardìr,
≠alàmukhtaßarihi al-musammàaqrab al-masàlik ilà
madthhab al-Imàm Màlik, ii, ed. M. al-£amìd, Cairo
1965.
D. S. El Alami and D. Hinchcliffe, Islamic marriage and
divorce laws of the Arab world, London 1996.
A. M. El-Morr, Judicial sources for supporting the protec-
tion of human rights, in E. Cotran and A. O. Sherif
(eds.), The role of the judiciary in the protection of
human rights, Boston 1997, 5–33.
J. L. Esposito, Islam and politics, Syracuse, N.Y. 1984,
19984.
——,Women in Muslim family law, Syracuse, N.Y.
1982, 2001^2.
W. B. Hallaq, A history of Islamic legal theories, Cam-
bridge 1997, repr. 2002.
E. Hill, Mahkama! Studies in the Egyptian legal system,
London 1979.
A. Hourani, A history of the Arab peoples, Cambridge
1991, repr. New York 1992.
Ibn Qudàma, Kitàb al-nikà™, ed. M. Khattab and M. al-
Sayyid, Cairo 1996.
S. A. Jackson, Islamic law and the state, Leiden 1996.
≠A. R. al-Jazìrì, Kitàb al-fiqh ≠alàal-madthàhib al-arba≠a,
iv, Cairo 1990
H. J. Liebesny, The law of the Near and Middle East,
Albany, N.Y. 1975.
C. B. Lombardi, Islamic law as a source of constitutional
law in Egypt. The constitutionalization of the Sharia in
a modern Arab state, in Columbia Journal of Trans-
national Law37 (1998), 81–123.
T. Mahmood, Statutes of personal law in Islamic coun-
tries, New Delhi 1987, 1995^2.
G. Makdisi,Rise of colleges, Edinburgh 1981.
M. K. Masud et al., Islamic legal interpretation. Muftis
and their fatwas, London 1996.
A. Moors, Introduction. Public debates on family law
reform. Participants, positions, and styles of argumen-
tation in the 1990s, in Islamic Law and Society 10
(2003), 1–11.
F. M. Najjar, Egypt’s laws of personal status, in Arab
Studies Quarterly10 (1988), 319–44.