Religious practises, like any other cultural or social practises, can sometimes come into conflict with fundamental human rights. While Religious freedom is recognised as a basic human right, it is important to acknowledge that certain Religious Practises may infringe upon other fundamental rights, leading to tensions and challenges.

The debate raging around bringing in a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) pivots upon this basic point, especially Muslim personal laws and how they have been infringing upon the rights, dignity, and freedom of Muslim women. Since personal laws were made part of the Constitution of India in 1950, their reforms have been resisted by the misogynistic, medieval mentality, male ulema and power-hungry elite Muslim pressure groups.

Some religious practises curtail freedom of expression by discouraging dissenting opinions or critical discussions related to religious beliefs or practises. Individuals fear backlash or ostracism for expressing their views openly.

ALSO READ: To be or not to be: UCC dilemma

In Muslim societies, there is always a danger of crossing the “green line”, and the horns of blasphemy are raised to silence dissenters, while various ‘fatwas’ from the gatekeepers of religion and morality ensure that individuals don’t express their dissenting views, alternative lifestyles freely.

Even today, Muslim voices in support of the UCC hardly find space in mainstream media and in the event a courageous individual does speak up, he or she is in constant terror of online vitriol and offline physical violence – creating a vicious cycle of resistance, censorship, defiance, manufactured consent, injustice, and pushback.

Certain religious practises discriminate against women, denying them equal rights and opportunities. This can include limitations on education, employment, political participation, or personal autonomy based on religious interpretations.

ALSO READ: Pakistan’s migrant outflow crisis a lesson for Indian Muslims

Muslim culture is governed by sharia laws, compiled and codified centuries after the Prophet’s death (a mullah-caliph alliance with assumptions about female physiology, psyche, motivations, intelligence, and maturity levels), which have nothing to do with the Quran’s message and the Prophet’s last sermon.

Adherents of radical, political Islam trying to establish Islamic states often violate women’s rights, deviating from the Prophet’s message of the state of Islam, equality for all races, genders, and creeds.

Religious practises often enforce or impose religious beliefs on individuals, especially in matters of personal choice, violating the freedom of conscience. This can include restrictions on personal relationships, dress codes, dietary choices, or medical decisions.

ALSO READ: Dawkins needs to study the evolution of Indian thought

The seeping of hijab/abaya/burqa/niqab culture into Muslim society vs the subcontinental dupatta custom across all ethnicities and cultures in India is one example. This ‘black wave’ since the 1980s occurred due to the petro-dollar exported Wahhabism/Salafism by Saudi Arabia and Iran in their 40-year-old rivalry to establish Islamic supremacy in the Middle East and other regions. Indian Islamic customs had adapted to the local flavours and developed their own identity and mores, a mix of Hindu philosophy (Shaivite) and Sufi (Chishti) spirituality.

Religious practises often restrict individuals’ freedom to associate with those outside their religious community or engage in activities that are deemed incompatible with religious teachings. This can limit social integration and cultural diversity. Muslim households almost always bring up their children in an atmosphere of ‘othering’ – demonising non-Muslims, especially Jews and Hindus. This prevents assimilation into the larger society, depriving the youth of their national identity and belonging to the native civilisation.

Indian Muslims, already burdened with the baggage of partition (Aligarh came up with the idea of two-nation theory), are stuck in a victimhood mentality of having lost authority to rule over masses (Mughal period), ending up with ghettoised minds and spaces. This is further perpetuated by agenda activists and agenda groups, who are funded by anti-India forces to keep the conflict industry going.

ALSO READ: Patriarchal interpretation of Quran is Sharia Law

Certain religious practises may intrude upon an individual’s right to privacy, such as through excessive surveillance, moral policing, or restrictive codes of conduct related to personal behaviour or dress. Be it Shia Iran, Sunni Afghanistan or 1990s Kashmir in secular India, the morality brigades of the Iranian regime, the Taliban and the armed Pakistani ISI-sponsored terrorists developed surveillance systems in which agnostic family members, rational teachers teaching in schools, colleges, universities, liberal personalities and secular media persons were watched to catch deviation from the utopian dream of establishing the Islamic States.

The Iranian ‘mad mullahs’, the barbaric Taliban and the cadres of the Jamaat-e-Islami from 1970-2019 managed to insidiously fool/coerce/terrorise large Muslim populations by ethnically cleansing secular, rational and liberal Muslims from Kabul, Tehran and Kashmir, along with indigenous Pandits (Hindus) from their native place through terror pogroms, paving the way for theocratic states. They succeeded in Iran and Afghanistan but failed in Kashmir due to the resilience and determination of both Muslims and Pandits, supported by Indian seculars of all hues.

Some religious practises or doctrines may condemn or stigmatise individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. This can lead to the denial of rights, discrimination, or even persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals within religious communities. Islamic theology condemns this category altogether, while Islamic history shows that, though not encouraged, this orientation was accepted as part of nature in the Abbasid period, and subsequent dynasties. Through historical poetry, we also come to know about various Muslim kings indulging in these acts without conflict with their faith.

ALSO READ: Exploring outrage industry’s agendas

In contemporary times, there are eight gay practising imams in the world, according to Dayee Abdullah, interviewed by an Indian journalist. Irshad Manji, author of Allah, Love and Liberty is one such activist who has sought to build bridges between her faith and her orientation, ever widening her inclusive tribe. Palestinian-American poet and writer, Mahmoud Darwish has written poems that touch upon LGBTQ+ themes and experiences.

Lastly, religious practises, mixed with cultural norms, customs and mores, sometimes restrict individuals’ freedom of belief by imposing strict adherence to specific religious doctrines or dogmas. This can limit the autonomy of individuals to question or explore alternative beliefs or philosophical perspectives.

Muslim culture lacks this free-thinking and critical thinking space since its demise in 12th century Baghdad and has never been able to revive it until the advent of social media. The Arab Spring, Iranian women defying the theocratic regime and Iranian men being executed for their struggle to do away with Sharia laws, Afghan men and women resisting the Taliban are contemporary examples of how much reform Sharia laws need.

Hence, India, being a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, having the most modern Constitution in the world, and being the largest democracy on earth, shouldn’t hesitate to bring in the Uniform Civil Code, which would ensure that all its citizens, especially Muslim women’s rights, dignity, and freedoms are protected and upheld.

Arshia Malik is a Delhi-based writer, blogger and social commentator
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author’s own

The post Case for a Uniform Civil Code in India appeared first on THE NEW INDIAN.