Qays ibn al-Mulawwah, one of the most famous poets of the Umayyad era, said of Layla al-‘Amiriyya:
“I became attached to Layla while she still wore her amulets,
and no shape of her breast had yet appeared to her peers.”
Should these verses be considered mere love poetry, or a crime of harassment against Layla?
Legally, what matters here is not the intention of the admirer, but whether the other party accepts or rejects such words being directed at them. This is the central dilemma. The act itself is not immediately considered harassment; it only becomes so after it occurs and is then rejected by the person addressed.
One of the main difficulties in proving harassment is that it can sometimes be a matter of relative perspective. All intentional crimes are considered crimes once they occur, but harassment is distinct in that it may consist of words of praise or insult, looks, gestures, or even electronic messages directed by one person to another. Only afterward does the targeted individual determine whether they accept or reject them. If they reject them, the elements of harassment are established.
For example, if someone wishes to compliment a female colleague at work on the beauty of her eyes, legally he must first ensure, in a documented and unambiguous manner, whether she accepts such flirtatious remarks or whether he should keep them to himself.
The matter does not stop there. Even repeated daily greeting messages or weekly “Happy Friday” messages could legally become the subject of a complaint if the recipient considers them bothersome.
In Egypt, the case of Ahmed Bassam Zaki in 2020 evolved from scattered individual complaints into one of the most controversial sexual harassment cases in the country, due to the gravity of the accusations against him. It also revealed the role of social media in breaking the silence when official channels falter.
He was ultimately sentenced, in a ruling not subject to appeal, to three years in prison for harassment, in addition to five more years in related cases. The misdemeanor court ruling of the Cairo Economic Court details the charges against him, the verdict, and the court’s reasoning.
According to the facts set out in the case file, the defendant would meet his victims through social media or at the American University in Cairo, where he was a student. He would gradually escalate communication from admiration and compliments to psychological pressure, then to threats and blackmail, and in some cases to assault.
This escalation, as discussed in the court’s reasoning, was considered evidence of criminal intent and clear exploitation of the victims’ fears, particularly fear of scandal and defamation.
Among the evidence relied upon by the court were electronic conversations, audio recordings, and text messages, considered valid evidence once their technical integrity and attribution to the defendant were established. The court also relied on the testimonies of the victims, finding that their consistency in essential details, despite differences in time and circumstances, enhanced their credibility.
The court also addressed the defense arguments, which centered on denial, questioning the victims’ statements, and alleging malicious accusations or fabricated electronic accounts. The court responded in detail, holding that mere denial is insufficient to dismiss charges, that the multiplicity and consistency of complaints negate claims of fabrication, and that challenges to digital evidence are not valid unless based on a sound technical foundation.
The importance of the case lies not only in its criminal details but also in the broader context surrounding it. The spread of testimonies on social media, particularly through an Egyptian account titled Assault Police on Instagram and Facebook, resembled the American Me Too movement that emerged amid the sexual harassment scandals involving Hollywood producer and director Harvey Weinstein, accused by dozens of women.
However, in Egypt, several factors make the decision to report a personal risk that may cost victims their safety even before the legal battle begins. These include fears of defamation, concerns about mistreatment in police stations and prosecution offices, lack of trust in the confidentiality of procedures, and the social stigma that may follow the victim and her family.
Zaki’s case began with testimony from a student at the American University in Cairo, who accused him of sexually assaulting her. Testimonies from other female students followed. Strangely, numerous complaints had previously been submitted within the university, but they were not seriously investigated.
For its part, the American University issued a statement affirming that it does not tolerate sexual harassment, but clarified that the accused had not been a student there since 2018, without directly confirming or denying the alleged incidents. Meanwhile, the university’s Student Rights Coalition issued a statement confirming the existence of prior complaints, criticizing their disregard and the deletion of one of them from a faculty evaluation platform.
On the other hand, the European Business School in Barcelona announced in a statement that the accused had been enrolled there and that it expelled him after receiving complaints from male and female students accusing him of online harassment. The school filed a criminal complaint with Spanish police to open an investigation and clarified that the accused had spent only a short period on campus before his dismissal.
As testimonies spread on social media, public pressure increased, prompting Egypt’s National Council for Women to file an official report with the Public Prosecutor, based on its legal mandate to receive complaints regarding violations of women’s rights. The Council confirmed that it had indeed received complaints from victims who spoke of blackmail and threats involving private photos and videos, and who requested protection of their data and privacy so they could cooperate with investigators without fear.
For his part, the accused denied all allegations attributed to him on social media, describing them as unsubstantiated claims from anonymous accounts. He demanded to confront those who filed the complaints, and his lawyers suggested that some of the circulating accounts might not be genuine.
In the same context, the company where the accused’s father worked announced that it had accepted his resignation, in an attempt to avoid embarrassment and protect its reputation.
One of the consequences of the case was the tightening of penalties for sexual harassment under the Egyptian Penal Code, pursuant to Law No. 141 of 2021 amending certain provisions of Penal Code No. 58 of 1937.
Additionally, amendments introduced under Article 1 of Law No. 185 of 2023 further modified the Penal Code. Under these amendments, “any person who exposes another, in a public, private, or frequented place, to sexual or obscene acts, suggestions, or insinuations—whether by gesture, speech, or action, by any means including wired, wireless, or electronic communications, or any other technological means—shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of no less than two years and no more than four years, and a fine of no less than 100,000 Egyptian pounds and no more than 200,000 pounds, or by one of these two penalties.”
The penalty increases to imprisonment for no less than three years and no more than five years, and a fine of no less than 200,000 pounds and no more than 300,000 pounds, or one of these two penalties, if the crime is committed in the workplace, in a means of transportation, by two or more persons, if the offender carries a weapon, or if the act is repeated through stalking or following the victim.
If two or more aggravating circumstances mentioned in the second paragraph are present, the minimum prison sentence becomes four years.
In cases of recidivism, both the minimum and maximum penalties of imprisonment and fines are doubled.
If the offender falls under the categories specified in the second paragraph of Article 267 of the Code, or has professional, familial, or educational authority over the victim, or exercises any pressure permitted by the circumstances, or if the crime is committed in the workplace, in a means of transportation, by two or more persons, or if the offender carries a weapon, the penalty shall be imprisonment for no less than seven years. If two or more of these aggravating circumstances are present, the penalty shall be imprisonment for no less than ten years.
The penalty shall be imprisonment for no less than one year and a fine of no less than 20,000 pounds and no more than 100,000 pounds, or one of these two penalties, if the crime is committed in the workplace, in a means of transportation, by two or more persons, or if the offender is an ascendant of the victim, or one responsible for their upbringing or supervision, or someone with authority over them, or entrusted with them by law or court order, or a servant of the offender. If two or more of these aggravating circumstances are combined, the minimum penalty shall be doubled.
In Algeria, Article 331 bis of Law No. 04-15 dated November 10, 2004 provides that “any person who exploits the authority of their position or profession by issuing orders, threats, coercion, or exerting pressure on another to compel them to respond to their sexual desires shall be deemed guilty of sexual harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment from two (2) months to one (1) year and a fine from 50,000 to 100,000 Algerian dinars.” The article adds that “in the case of recidivism, the penalty shall be doubled.”
The word “harassment” does not explicitly appear in most Arab penal codes; instead, other terms are typically used to express it, including the legal term “indecent act violating public modesty.”
For example, in Qatar, Law No. (11) of 2004 issuing the Penal Code sets out the penalties for committing an indecent act violating public modesty in Articles (290), (291), (292), and (398).
Notably, the concept of an indecent act violating public modesty is religiously and socially broader than the concept of harassment. For instance, a woman may consent to being kissed by her husband in a public street, and under the concept of harassment there would be no penalty because it occurred with her consent; however, the act may still be criminalized under the concept of an indecent act violating public modesty.
Similarly, walking naked in the street does not fall under the concept of harassment, but it is criminalized under the concept of an indecent act violating public modesty.
Modesty (ḥayā’) holds a central place in Islamic societies, as it is considered a branch of faith. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih, on the authority of Abu Huraira, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Faith has over sixty branches, and modesty is a branch of faith.”
Al-Tabarani also narrated in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, on the authority of ‘Imran ibn Husayn, that he said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was more modest than a virgin in her chamber, and if he disliked something, we would recognize it from his face.”
As for “indecent assault,” it refers to touching one of a person’s private parts without their consent, while sexual intercourse is termed “coitus.” If it occurs without the victim’s consent, it is called rape.
There is also a growing tendency to convict even husbands if they engage in intimate relations with their wives without their consent; this act is referred to as marital rape.
In one of the strangest harassment-related crimes in the United States, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts highlighted, in a press release titled Serial Cyberstalker Who Terrorized Women for 16 Years Sentenced to Nine Years in Prison, the case of defendant James Florence (37), who was sentenced by the court to nine years in prison, in addition to ten years of supervised release.
He was convicted of running a 16-year online stalking campaign that targeted more than a dozen women he personally knew, including two who were minors when the abuse began.
The case, which spanned from 2008 to 2024, revealed an extremely dangerous model of exploiting modern technology to harm victims psychologically and socially through identity theft, defamation, and sexual extortion. Florence used more than 60 online accounts across nearly 30 digital platforms to hack into his victims’ accounts and repeatedly impersonate them.
Through these accounts, he published thousands of fake explicit sexual images of them—some altered with Photoshop and others generated using artificial intelligence—accompanied by the victims’ names, real home addresses, and professional information. He urged strangers to contact them, humiliate them, and extort them.
U.S. Attorney Leah Foley described what happened as not online trolling, but long-term, systematic psychological torture that changed the victims’ lives and affected their sense of safety in society. The FBI confirmed that the case represents a stark example of serial cyberstalking.
Court records revealed shocking details about the defendant’s methods, including creating impersonation accounts that appeared to be managed by the victims themselves, posting explicit images of them while tagging their real accounts to increase visibility, and publishing personal documents such as driver’s license photos and home addresses. He also attempted to sell fabricated nude images of his victims and encouraged strangers to extort them by demanding real sexual content under threat.
In some cases, the defendant used artificial intelligence to program chatbots that impersonated the victims and engaged in explicit sexual conversations with strangers. Some victims continue to receive threatening and harassing messages from unknown individuals who encountered the previously published content.
Investigations showed that the defendant exploited his professional expertise in information technology, his previous work at a laboratory affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and even his possession of a secret security clearance to conceal his identity and evade detection using VPN applications.
In the workplace, the term harassment takes on a more specialized meaning, because some of its forms are not merely misconduct but unlawful discrimination, such as harassment based on sex, race, or religion.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines workplace harassment as unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic, such as sex. It becomes unlawful when it results in a hostile work environment or when it becomes an explicit or implicit condition of continued employment or of receiving job benefits.
For this reason, sexual harassment is one of the most well-known types of harassment in the workplace. It generally includes two main forms: the first involves quid pro quo or coercion, where professional or job-related benefits are linked to sexual conduct; the second involves creating a hostile work environment through repeated degrading behavior. In such cases, harassment may occur without any threat of violence and without physical contact, yet it still warrants legal punishment or compensation.
Here, it is important to distinguish between three closely related legal concepts: harassment, assault, and battery.
For example, an employee who repeatedly comments on a female colleague’s body or sends her sexually suggestive messages despite her rejection, or a supervisor who harasses an employee through racist or religious remarks that make the workplace degrading—this constitutes harassment.
Assault, however, differs from harassment and does not necessarily mean physical violence itself. Rather, it refers to threatening or attempting physical conduct that the victim does not accept, in a way that makes them fear imminent harm.
For instance, in a case of assault, it is sufficient for someone to make a movement or gesture that causes the victim to anticipate unacceptable physical conduct that is about to occur. For this reason, assault does not require actual physical contact, as long as the aggressor’s behavior creates a genuine fear of immediate harm and there is a present ability to carry out the threat.
For example, if someone raises their fist and quickly walks toward you while shouting threats to hit you, creating a real fear of an imminent blow, but then stops or is restrained before touching you, this would constitute assault, because the threat was direct and immediate.
However, if the conduct amounts only to a distant threat in the future, without a near possibility of execution, it does not legally rise to the level of assault, but instead falls under the concept of extortion.
Battery is any touching, hitting, or use of force against another person without their consent or against their will. The essence of battery is unauthorized physical contact, whether that contact is harmful or offensive. It is not required that the blow leave a mark or cause a serious injury.
For example, if someone pushes you with their hand to forcefully move you aside, grabs your arm against your will, or strikes you in the face, this falls within the concept of the crime of battery, because there is unwanted physical contact.
To understand the relationship between harassment, assault, and battery, one can imagine a single scenario in which the conduct escalates. For instance, a person harasses a female colleague at work with daily messages and suggestive remarks—this is legally harassment. Then one day he approaches her aggressively, threatens her, and raises his hand to strike her—this constitutes assault, because it creates an immediate fear of imminent harm. If he then pushes her, slaps her, or touches her by force, battery has occurred.
This example shows that harassment is a pattern of misconduct, assault is an imminent threat, and battery is physical violence that has actually taken place.
