Human Security Centre Human Rights and International Security Research
By Sam Biden, Junior Fellow
12 February, 2026
Amnesty International reported that between mid-July 2025 and 1 January 2026, security forces arrested at least 29 individuals across six governorates for peacefully expressing both religious and non-religious views online via blogs, social media or their own websites. Of the 29 arrested, 23 remain arbitrarily detained solely for exercising their right to freedom of religion and belief. The charges brought against them, most known as “contempt of religion” and “joining a group established in violation of law,” carry potential sentences of up to five years’ imprisonment alongside heavy fines. What began with a series of arrests tied to online discussions has since expanded into a broader crackdown on religious dissent, particularly involving criticism of Sunni Islam, deemed the official religion of the state.
Legislative and Security Framework
The prosecutions are being overseen primarily by the Supreme State Security Prosecution (SSSP) and the National Security Agency (NSA), primarily under Article 98(f) of the Penal Code. The SSSP is a special branch of Public Prosecution that handles threats to national security and allegedly has a strong hand in enforced disappearances and falsely imprisoning critics. Meanwhile the NSA operates as an intelligence agency for the government, working closely on issues like surveillance, border security and counterterrorism. With the collective goal of maintaining national security via impunity, the two authorities have allegedly systematically targeted critics under Article 98(f), providing prison sentences and fines for:
“whoever exploits and uses religion in advocating or propagating, by word, in writing, or by any other method, extremist thoughts with the aim of instigating sedition and division, or showing disdain and contempt for any of the heavenly religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) or the sects belonging thereto, or prejudicing national unity or social peace. (sic)”
The OHCHR criticized the article for its vague and imprecise terminology, especially the liberal application of terms like “extremist ideologies,” “sedition,” and “national unity” which enables authorities to suppress freedom of expression and justify discrimination against various groups, such as; non-Abrahamic religions; journalists; academics; bloggers; human rights defenders; and peaceful political dissidents.
Amnesty International has documented the role of Egypt’s NSA and the SSSP in enforcing these laws. Individuals accused under Article 98(f) are often subjected to enforced disappearance in NSA facilities, sometimes for months, where they face coercive interrogations, physical abuse and denial of legal counsel, with the aid of the SSSP. Families frequently remain unaware of their relatives’ whereabouts, prosecutors regularly fail to investigate allegations of torture or ill-treatment and lawyers are routinely prevented from consulting with their clients in private.
Beyond the charges themselves, the methods employed during arrest and detention raise acute legal concerns. Detainees were subjected to enforced disappearance for periods ranging from four to 56 days in undisclosed NSA facilities, in which they were allegedly interrogated while blindfolded for extended hours and questioned about the nature of their beliefs, their prayer practices and their perceived adherence to Islam or Christianity. At least four documented instances of torture occurred at these facilities during the reporting period. Allegations include electric shocks, beatings and severe physical abuse, most notably to members of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, a syncretic religion that draws most of its inspiration from Shia, not Sunni Islam. Members of the group cited electric shocks to their genitals, beatings with metal objects and denial of medical treatment during detention. Despite earlier international appeals, more than a dozen detainees from the group remain in custody facing charges under counter-terrorism provision Article 86, broadly criminalizing any use of force, violence, threat or intimidation for disturbing public order. The failure of internal investigative mechanisms to meaningfully investigate torture allegations reinforces concerns of institutional complicity and encouragement to continue such acts.
2007 – Present
Egypt’s legal framework for prosecuting online religious expression, particularly under Article 98(f) of the Penal Code, first saw application in the mid-2000s. The earliest known case concerned the blogger Abdel Kareem Amer, who was arrested on charges of insulting Islam and then-President Hosni Mubarak on his personal blog in 2007. Amer was ultimately sentenced to four years in prison and expelled from university, marking the first documented instance in which online commentary was treated as a prosecutable offense under the Penal Code’s provisions on “contempt of religion.” Ayman Youssef Mansour followed shortly thereafter. Mansour created a Facebook page, “Al-Monadel Mard”, which the court determined contained opinions offensive to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. The Azbakiya Court of First Instance, concluded that Mansour’s group and the statements contained therein threatened national unity and deliberately insulted Islam, sentencing him to three years’ imprisonment. By the mid-2010s, state-sponsored efforts against non-religious and humanist individuals intensified, with a sharp rise in targeting religious and political dissenters. In 2014, the Egyptian authorities initiated a broad anti-atheist campaign, culminating in the arrest and imprisonment of activists such as Sherif Gaber, starting in 2013 and continuing until November of last year. Gaber is a well-known secular political activist with over 500,000 followers of his content, such as videos and blogs. He has been consistently re-arrested on fresh charges relating to anti-blasphemy laws, such as Article 98(f), with over 13 years of charges since his initial trial, with him allegedly serving 5 years in prison after being convicted in 2024. The Egyptian authority’s reluctance to cease pursuing charges against Gaber shows a degree of intent towards suppression of influential critics with a wide reach.
The renewed campaign was formally launched in July 2025 with a widespread crackdown on social media users, not necessarily people of influence. At least 29 people were detained or prosecuted from July-August for various crimes, such as “indecency” and “undermining family values”. The produced content remains largely inoffensive, focusing on lip-sync videos, daily vlogs and comedy skits posted on social media such as TikTok. By September, the arrest of Maged Zakaria Abdel Rahman, known online as the “Mufti of Humanity”, showed a turn to focus on religious dissenters. Rahman was reportedly denied contact with family and legal counsel for ten days prior to appearing before the SSSP. Further arrests linked to Rahman were made, importantly, figures from the Arab Atheists Network and Forum, a network of hidden communities where religious taboo topics are discussed, such as secularism, atheism and non-Abrahamic ideas. Those detained were critiquing prominent religious preachers or engaging in satirical commentary on religious practices. The breadth of targeted expression indicates that the crackdown is not confined to incitement or hate speech but extends to peaceful theological debate.
International Response
The campaigns launched by the Egyptian government caused widespread international condemnation, going beyond the assessment of religious dissent alone, with the Committee against Torture (CAT) and the Human Rights Committee (CCPR), entrusted with monitoring the implementation of the ICCPR, looking deeper into enforced disappearances and detention, alongside torture and inhumane treatment. Both committees released reports of their findings in 2023, with CAT releasing theirs in December and the CCPR releasing theirs earlier in April.
CAT stated that it is concerned about the lack of information on measures taken to ensure effective protection for critics, notably human rights defenders, political opponents, journalists, scholars and students. CAT expressed specific concern that lawyers involved in politically sensitive cases are allegedly subjected to threats and harassment to coerce them into arguing more favorably in the government’s interest. The CCPR took acute notice of Egypt’s stated aspiration to promote religious tolerance, but expressed concern that religious and belief minorities, including Coptic Christians, Shi’a Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses and atheists continue to face disproportionate discrimination. According to the CCPR, such discrimination includes restrictions on the construction and operation of places of worship and burial sites, limitations on public religious practice and higher rates of prosecution under anti-blasphemy laws. The Committee further noted that Egyptian law recognizes only Islam, Christianity and Judaism, thereby excluding other religious or belief communities from official recognition and from legal protections afforded to recognized religions, despite the ICCPR itself mandating otherwise. The CCPR focused on Egypt’s historical attempt to suppress legitimate freedom of expression, including journalism. The CCPR reported that independent journalists and media outlets face onerous administrative and licensing requirements under press and media regulation laws and are frequently prosecuted or detained, including under counter-terrorism legislation. They also expressed concern that the Supreme Council for Media Regulation, whose members are appointed by the executive branch of government, exercises broad powers over media content and has reportedly blocked hundreds of independent websites perceived as critical of the government. Control of social media was also discovered, with cases of women and girls being criminalized for posting videos of themselves across social media platforms, citing a violation of public morals and family values as the reason for their detainment.
CAT reported concerns with the reportedly widespread use of incommunicado detention under counter-terrorism laws, warning that such practices create a significant systemic risk of long- term enforced disappearances. CAT supported this observation by referencing the persistently high number of Egyptian cases pending before the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, underscoring the absence of publicly available official data on documented disappearances and on state investigations conducted. As a result, CAT confirmed the structural gap that obstructs independent scrutiny and minimizes effective judicial review of the actions of the SSSP and NSA. The CCPR supported these conclusions, focusing more on arbitrary detention and the conditions associated, helping build an even stronger case. They reported frequent violations of fundamental procedural safeguards, including failure to inform detainees promptly and in detail of charges, denial of timely judicial review and excessive reliance on pretrial detention. The CCPR further documented the practice known as “rotation” whereby detainees are repeatedly added to new cases under similar charges to circumvent statutory limits on pretrial detention, allowing them to be kept in custody for prolonged periods. This practice is often used against critics, notably journalists, human rights defenders and political opponents.
Both CAT and the CCPR assessed claims of torture, inhuman treatment and poor conditions within the prison network. According to CCPR, torture and ill-treatment are prevalent within places of deprivation of liberty and are reportedly practiced during the entire process, from arrest to trial and finally conviction. They expressed concern about limited access to quality health care, including mental health services and highlighted vulnerabilities affecting pregnant women and women detained with their children. It noted the continued shortage of trained and qualified prison staff, including medical personnel, as a serious structural problem that only worsened pre-existing conditions. CAT specifically referenced allegations concerning the Badr Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre, including insalubrity, inadequate hygiene, insufficient ventilation, insufficient food and water and limited access to education. Despite the poor initial reports, a follow-up showed significant improvements, citing a clear commitment to upholding the welfare and dignity of detainees. Furthermore, CAT raised concerns about allegations of violent acts committed by prison staff against detainees and reports that individuals held for political reasons are frequently subjected to particularly harsh conditions, including prolonged solitary confinement.
Conclusion
Across nearly two decades, Egypt’s response to religious and ideological dissent has evolved from isolated prosecutions into a coordinated network of control and suppression. What were once individual cases brought under vaguely worded blasphemy provisions have developed into a broader system in which government rhetoric and national security corruption align. It’s become clear that the cumulative evidence suggests that the repression of peaceful belief and expression is not reactionary but sustained to silence opposing discourse.
