Religious Freedom Is a Two-Way Street: A Muslim View on Public Prayer and Secular Law

 

Public debate is rarely honest when religion, policing, and protest collide. Emotions rise fast. Facts slow things down. And moral consistency is usually the first casualty.

The recent incident in Sydney, where a group of Muslims prayed in a public square after separating from a protest, has triggered exactly this kind of debate. Australia’s Islamophobia Envoy has described the police response as excessive and humiliating. Many commentators, however, argue the opposite: that public streets are not places of worship, and that police were enforcing secular law, not targeting a religion.

Both sides are talking past each other. And Muslims, especially those of us who live or comment from Muslim-majority countries, need to confront an uncomfortable truth before demanding moral clarity from others.

Religious freedom is a two-way street. You cannot demand abroad what you deny at home.

Two Things Can Be True at the Same Time

Let us start with a principle that online outrage rarely allows.

First, police conduct should always be scrutinised. If force was used without a lawful order, that deserves investigation. No democracy should be allergic to accountability.

Second, public street prayer during protests is not an Islamic obligation. It is not required by faith. It is not mandated by scripture. And it is certainly not the only way to practise Islam with dignity.

Holding these two positions simultaneously is not betrayal. It is maturity.

What weakens the Muslim case internationally is not criticism of police power. It is the insistence that any challenge to public religious display equals hostility to Islam.

Islam Does Not Require the Street

Islam does not command Muslims to pray anywhere, anytime, regardless of context. Prayer in Islam is governed by intention, cleanliness, and order. Streets are, by definition, public thoroughfares. They exist for shared civic use. That is why even in Muslim jurisprudence, mosques, homes, and designated spaces are preferred.

Turning prayer into a political symbol may feel empowering, but symbolism is not theology. When worship is folded into protest choreography, outsiders are not wrong to question whether faith is being instrumentalised.

This matters because once worship becomes spectacle, the line between religious freedom and political theatre blurs. Secular societies are especially sensitive to that line.

The Comparison Everyone Avoids

Now comes the part many Muslims would rather skip.

In Pakistan, where I live, non-Muslims do not enjoy the same public religious freedoms that Muslims demand in Western countries.

A Christian kneeling to pray on a public footpath in Karachi would not be met with philosophical debate about secularism. The response would be swift, coercive, and unapologetic. No envoy. No national soul-searching. No viral outrage in defence of minority rights.

This is not a hypothetical. It is lived reality.

In many Muslim-majority countries:

Public religious expression is restricted for minorities.

Blasphemy laws loom over daily life.

The state openly privileges one faith.

Yet when Muslims face limits in secular democracies, the language instantly shifts to persecution.

That asymmetry is not lost on the wider public.

Secularism Is Not Islamophobia

Australia is a secular country. That does not mean anti-religious. It means the law regulates public space before belief systems do.

Secularism places boundaries on all religions equally. It does not single Islam out. Christians cannot block streets for mass worship either. Nor can atheists turn public squares into ideological rallies without permits.

When Muslims treat secular enforcement as religious hostility, they unintentionally confirm a suspicion many already hold: that Islam seeks exception, not equality.

That perception, fair or not, fuels resentment far more than any police action.

The Real Damage Is Credibility

The strongest case against Islamophobia is moral consistency. And this is where Muslim advocacy often collapses.

It is difficult to argue for expansive religious liberty in Sydney while remaining silent about:

Ahmadis in Pakistan,

Christians in Egypt,

Baháʼís in Iran,

atheists across the Muslim world.

Western audiences notice this silence. They may not articulate it politely, but they feel it instinctively.

The issue is not whether Muslims deserve rights. Of course they do. The issue is whether demands are grounded in universal principles or selective outrage.

A Better Muslim Argument

A stronger, more honest Muslim position would sound like this:

Yes, police should be accountable.

Yes, dignity matters.

But no, public streets are not mosques.

And yes, Muslim societies must reform before lecturing others.

That argument does not weaken Islam. It strengthens it.

Islam does not need public spectacle to survive. It needs moral credibility. And credibility is built by applying the same standards inward that we demand outward.

Conclusion: Equality Requires Restraint

Religious freedom is not unlimited expression. It is negotiated coexistence. Secular societies manage diversity by drawing lines in public space. Religious societies manage it by drawing lines around minorities.

If Muslims want secular states to respect faith, Muslims must first respect pluralism where they hold power.

Until then, every demand for accommodation abroad will be met with the same question, quietly but firmly:

Would you allow this at home?

That question, more than any police baton or comment thread, is what Muslims must answer.