The Muezzin Law in Confrontation with International Law

The draft law being discussed by the Israeli Knesset to restrict the call to prayer (adhan) via loudspeakers is stirring a wide wave of controversy, not only because it relates to a religious manifestation, but also because it raises a legal problem that transcends the boundaries of domestic legislation to the scope of international human rights law. The issue is not about a means of announcing the time for prayer, but rather about enacting legislation that affects one of the most prominent religious and cultural manifestations deeply rooted in Palestinian society, which necessitates its evaluation in light of the rules of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and the rules for the protection of cultural heritage. The adhan is considered part of the historical identity of Palestine and has been linked to daily life in its cities and villages for centuries preceding the establishment of the State of Israel, to the extent that it has become an element of collective memory and the civilizational landscape that reflects the specificity of the place and its cultural and religious diversity. Therefore, targeting it with legislation that imposes restrictions on its raising not only sparks political controversy but also raises a legal question about the extent to which this legislation complies with Israel's international obligations. International human rights law includes many conventions that guarantee freedom of religion and belief, foremost among them the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, Article (18) of which states that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to manifest his religion and to perform his religious practices individually or collectively, publicly or privately. The Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. (22), affirmed that this right includes religious rituals, practices, and symbols, and that any restrictions imposed on it must be interpreted narrowly and must not affect the essence of the right or empty it of its content. Article (27) of the same Covenant also protects the right of religious groups to maintain their identity and practice their religious traditions without discrimination. International protection does not stop at the limits of international human rights law but extends to the rules of international humanitarian law. Articles (43) and (46) of the Hague Regulations of 1907 oblige the occupying power to respect public life, beliefs, and religious practices in the occupied territory, while Articles (27) and (58) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 affirm the need to respect the beliefs of the population and enable religious leaders to perform their mission. Occupation, no matter how extensive its powers, does not transfer sovereignty to the occupying power, nor does it grant it the authority to reshape the religious or cultural identity of the occupied territory or change its civilizational features. The International Court of Justice enshrined these principles in its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory in 2004, when it affirmed the continued applicability of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the occupied Palestinian territories alongside the rules of international humanitarian law. The Court then returned, in its advisory opinion issued on July 19, 2024, regarding the legal consequences arising from Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory, to affirm that all legislation and measures taken by the occupying authority are subject to international law oversight, and may not affect the rights of the Palestinian population or change the legal, demographic, or cultural character of the occupied territory. Consequently, any legislation targeting a religious manifestation deeply rooted in Palestinian society raises suspicion of its inconsistency with the principles affirmed by the Court regarding the prohibition of changing the legal, demographic, or cultural character of the occupied Palestinian territory. In addition to its religious status, the adhan represents one of the elements of the intangible cultural heritage of the Palestinian people, as it has become, over hundreds of years, part of the identity of the place and its historical memory. The UNESCO Convention of 2003 for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage emphasizes the importance of protecting practices and traditions that express the identity and continuity of communities, which enhances the cultural value of the adhan as an inherited historical legacy, and not merely a means of announcing the time for prayer. The seriousness of the draft law lies not only in its impact on the exercise of a religious right but also in its affecting one of the basic components of the religious and cultural identity of the Palestinian people, which raises a conflict with the rules of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international principles that protect cultural heritage. Therefore, the legitimacy of this legislation is not measured by its approval within the Knesset, but by the extent of its compliance with Israel's binding international obligations. National legislation, regardless of the authority that issues it, does not acquire its legitimacy in international law merely by being approved domestically, but by the extent of its compliance with the state's international obligations. Therefore, any law that targets a religious and cultural symbol that has been linked to the history and identity of Palestine for hundreds of years does not remain an internal legislative matter, but becomes a subject of accountability under the rules of international law, which oblige the occupying power to respect freedom of religion, preserve cultural identity, and refrain from taking any measures that would change the religious or civilizational character of the occupied territory. * Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Jordan.