Between Hurt Sentiments and Constitutional Rights: A Muslim’s Plea

In a country as diverse and plural as India, the idea of secularism is not merely a constitutional doctrine—it is the ethical foundation of peaceful co-existence. Yet, in recent years, the rising use—and misuse—of laws that penalise so-called “blasphemy” or “religious insult” has posed a serious threat to both religious freedom and civil liberties. I write this as a Muslim student of law, with deep commitments to both the Indian Constitution and the Islamic tradition. And I firmly believe we must resist the impulse to support blasphemy laws, even when they appear to defend the honour of our faith. If we are forced to choose between blasphemy laws and secularism, we must stand unequivocally with secularism.

India does not have a formal “blasphemy law” like Pakistan’s infamous Section 295-C. But for decades, Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings”. This provision, often invoked to target dissenters, artists, preachers, or even comedians, was vague enough to become a blasphemy law in practice. With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced the colonial-era IPC, the provision survives, now as Section 299. It criminalises speech that “intentionally or knowingly incites violence or promotes enmity between different religious groups”. While the language appears slightly more targeted, the potential for abuse remains. As before, it can be weaponised to silence those who critique dominant religious ideas or simply express unpopular opinions.

But this trend has a newer and more insidious companion—anti-conversion laws in several Indian states. These laws presume that any religious conversion, especially involving marginalised individuals, must be coerced or fraudulent unless proven otherwise. The result is that Muslim and Christian da’wah workers are routinely criminalised, not for threatening anyone’s faith, but simply for peacefully sharing their own. Islam makes it clear that Da’wah—inviting others to the worship of One God—is a fundamental religious duty. The Qur’an says in Surah An-Nahl (16:125):

“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.”

To engage in Da’wah is to speak truthfully about the central message of Islam—Tawheed, the oneness of God. This naturally entails saying that idolatry and polytheism are misguidances. It does not involve insult or hatred, but it does imply the theological rejection of other belief systems. Now here lies the danger: In a country where religious pride is easily inflamed, even this measured, respectful critique can be construed as “hurting sentiments”. And laws like BNS Section 299 or anti-conversion statutes are being used to punish da’wah itself.

We have seen several examples in recent years:

●    In Uttar Pradesh, Muslim preachers were arrested in 2022 and 2023 for alleged “mass conversions”, even when conversions were voluntary and legally executed.

●    In Madhya Pradesh, a Muslim cleric was booked after a sermon where he merely emphasised Islamic monotheism, which some alleged was “anti-Hindu”.

●    Even interfaith marriages involving conversion have been blocked, citing anti-conversion laws, despite the couple’s consent.

In such an environment, any da‘ee risks being branded a criminal, not for coercion, but for carrying out his or her religious duty peacefully. If laws intended to protect faith end up punishing preachers, then their logic is fatally flawed. Some Muslims argue that blasphemy laws are necessary to protect the dignity of Islam and its Prophet (peace be upon him). I understand that sentiment. The pain of hearing insults against the Prophet is real. But we must ask: How did the Prophet himself respond to such insults? In Makkah, he was called a madman, a poet, a liar. He was mocked and stoned. Yet he never demanded the punishment of his abusers. His response was Sabr (patience) and Hikmah (wisdom).

The Qur’an says in Surah Al-Qasas (28:55):

“And when they hear ill speech, they turn away from it and say, ‘For us are our deeds, and for you are your deeds. Peace be upon you; we seek not the ignorant.’”

In Surah Fussilat (41:34):

“Repel evil with that which is better. Then the one with whom there was enmity between you and him will become as though he was a devoted friend.”

The message is clear: Muslims are instructed to respond to insults with dignity, not with violence or legal persecution. The Prophet was a man of forbearance, not censorship. He understood that the truth of Islam does not need the police to defend it. It needs good character, thoughtful speech, and sincere dialogue. In India, secularism is not an abstract ideal. For Muslims, it is our practical shield. It is what ensures that we can build mosques, teach our children, publish our books, wear our clothes, and call others to Islam—all without fear. Blasphemy laws, by contrast, are a double-edged sword. Today, they may be used to silence an artist who mocked Islam. Tomorrow, they may be used to arrest an imam who explains Tawheed. We are already witnessing this inversion.

So let us not be fooled into supporting such laws out of short-term emotion. Let us instead stand for a society where speech is protected, even when it offends, and where the faithful rely on reason, not repression, to respond. The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion (Article 25) and freedom of speech (Article 19). These are not contradictory rights—they are mutually reinforcing. One cannot preach without freedom of speech; one cannot believe freely without the right to dissent. Our role as Muslims is not to demand legal punishment for those who offend us. Our role is to rise above, to engage, to educate. That is the prophetic way. And it is also the constitutional way.

We are living in an age where hurt sentiments are taking precedence over fundamental freedoms. But we must not join that chorus. If we want the freedom to preach Islam, we must defend others’ freedom to question it. That is the price of secularism, and it is also its promise. Blasphemy laws—whether explicit or disguised—have no place in secular India. Not just because they violate free speech, but because they undermine the very mission of Da’wah, criminalise sincere believers, and replace dialogue with fear.

Let us choose the harder path—the path of patience, principle, and constitutional morality. Let us choose secularism, for the sake of faith.