Many nations in the Islamic world are governed by authoritarian rulers who have concentrated as much power in their hands as possible. One of the reasons that Muslim governments are so prone to developing authoritarian tendencies is that they have given themselves the power to legislate on any matter they choose. The more power a government has, the more likely it is to develop into a dictatorship. In Muslim nations, governments have given themselves the power to control almost every facet of their citizens’ lives including decisions that relate to personal lifestyle choices or how they express themselves. The region’s dictators are not the only ones guilty of overreaching either. In its quest to erase its Muslim past, Turkey enacted laws regulating how its citizens dressed by preventing them from wearing traditional headgear under the guise of secularism. Secularism is meant to give people the freedom to pursue their religious convictions without interference from the state. Using such ideologies to prevent people from practicing their faith is a subversion of the very essence of secular ideas. Laws that prevent people from practicing their Islamic faith in accordance with their personal convictions are just as authoritarian as the worst tendencies of entities like ISIS or the many governments in the Muslim world that impose laws meant to force compliance with Islamic values. The prevalence of such laws in so many Muslim countries shows how deeply entrenched authoritarian practices are throughout the Muslim world. 

Too many Muslims have been content to give their governments the power to control the personal lives of their fellow citizens due to their conviction that such laws were necessary to protect the morals of the community. The problem with allowing governments to have so much control over their people is that they will inevitably use this power to restrict activities or opinions that threaten their grip on power. A government that can tell its citizens how to dress (or not dress), what to eat, or how to conduct their love lives will have no problem using its broad powers to also control political expression. This is the path to dictatorship. Even if it results in social conduct they find morally offensive, Muslims must stop using their governments to regulate and control the personal lives of their fellow citizens if they ever hope to create governments that are not prone to dictatorship and the abuse of power. In order to ensure that governments do not encroach on the rights of their citizens they must only be allowed to legislate on matters that they have been explicitly empowered to regulate and that relate to a core government function such as building highways or schools. Laws that do not relate to a core government function should not be allowed on the grounds that they are beyond the scope of the government’s authority. Limiting governmental power by specifically enumerating those powers in a constitution or similar document is meant to prevent governments from acquiring the sort of broad powers that lead to dictatorship. Restricting a government’s legislative powers in this way is one of the most important mechanisms used to prevent the development of dictatorships.  
 
With respect to laws that govern morality or personal behavior, only conduct that impacts the safety of others should be regulated. For example, laws that prohibit the consumption of alcohol should be considered outside the scope of permissible government regulation. Whereas laws that prohibit operating motor vehicles after consuming alcohol are geared towards protecting public safety and therefore permitted. The loosening of restrictions on personal conduct or expression will result in behavior many Muslims find objectionable.  Despite this side effect, limits on a government’s ability to prevent such behavior are a necessary compromise meant to reduce the chances that a government can turn into a dictatorship. Of the two evils, unchecked immoral behavior may lead some citizens astray, but unchecked government power eventually leads to the subjugation of all citizens and has the potential to destroy the entire nation. 

The idea that governments cannot regulate such conduct is anathema to many Muslims because of the way in which Islamic governments have traditionally been given such powers. Despite this history, the evidence shows that it is impossible in the modern age to create a government that can effectively regulate such conduct without leading to an abuse of power. For example, Saudi Arabia is well known for regulating the personal lives of its citizens by forcing them to adhere to conservative Islamic social norms under penalty of law. At the same time, Saudi princes are well known for living hedonistic lifestyles that ignore many of these norms. Likewise, the founder of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, was said to have an extensive music collection despite overseeing the ban of music throughout his country. The hypocrisy of having rulers who are free to order their personal lives as they see fit while simultaneously preventing their citizens from doing the same perfectly highlights how such laws, particularly within an authoritarian political system, inevitably lead to an abuse of authority and repression. 
 
The truth is that it is impossible to regulate religious conviction and laws that attempt to do so will only lead to conformity with respect to superficial expressions of religious devotion such as dress or diet. The greater concerns of religion such as having faith in god are impossible to regulate. Laws intended to enforce religious practices are therefore an exercise in futility and only serve to increase the power of those charged with enforcing them in a manner that eventually leads to authoritarianism and dictatorship. 
 
Citizens that empower their governments to make subjective personal choices for society are also giving their governments the power to make similar subjective judgments about how people express themselves in other areas such as political speech or academia. As such, freedom, or a lack thereof, with respect to personal lifestyle choices will inevitably impact the freedom to express political views or engage in intellectual discussions. Authoritarian tendencies in one area will naturally lend themselves to authoritarian tendencies in other, seemingly unrelated areas. 
 
Muslims that argue such ideas or the constitutional mechanisms used to enforce them are un-Islamic are too focused on form over substance. Instead of limiting themselves to creating governments based on ideas and administrative practices that are centuries old, Muslims must create new governments that still embody the substance of Islamic values but use modern methods to achieve them. Muslim governments must still fulfill their religious duty to protect and preserve the Muslim community, but they must do so by focusing on only those Islamic values that are directly relevant to achieving this goal. For example, Islamic values regarding the need to maintain a united Muslim community or care for the poor are extremely important values that must be embodied in the laws and policies of all Muslim nations. 
 
Laws related to personal conduct or lifestyle are irrelevant to such ends. Instead of relying on the state to impose morality on our neighbors, we must teach our children how to behave morally and send them into the world confident in our ability to guide them. The fact that some of them may engage in behavior that is considered socially unacceptable may be upsetting but can only be viewed as an individual failure, not a societal one that requires a legal solution. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each person to make the choices that best suit them. If that means engaging in behavior others find objectionable then this must be viewed as a consequence of the need to prevent governments from using their authority to abuse their own people. 
 
In the end, Muslims must learn to live and let live and we must stop using our governments to project our values onto our neighbors. It is tragic that some may falter but in life, some people fail, while others succeed. This is how the world has been ordered. Attempts to legislate against the natural order of things will always lead to irrational results. This is best illustrated by the prevalence of dictators and power-hungry leaders throughout the Muslim world that have manipulated their citizens’ willingness to cede them so much authority in order to maintain and extend their power.