In as many as 33 Muslim-majority countries today, most of which have Islam as their state religion, daring simply to speak out against religious customs, express one’s lack of belief, or otherwise say anything deemed offensive by religious authorities is enough to brand one a criminal. If victims are lucky, they might live in purportedly “lenient” countries and get off with a fine and a brief prison sentence. If they are unlucky, they may live in one of the roughly dozen countries in which either blasphemy or apostasy (leaving Islam) is a capital offense. That is, if violent fundamentalist militants don’t find them before the state does.

But even outside the Muslim world, intolerance for those who speak freely about Islamic doctrine is endemic. While apostates can be put to physical death in several Muslim-majority countries, they can face social death in the West, frequently cut off from friends and family and even sometimes subject to abuse.

One of the most common undercurrents of repressive Islamic regimes is speech control. States’ constitutions may theoretically guarantee freedom of expression, but in practice, most Islamic nations impose broad exceptions to this rule. Restrictions target religious and political dissent alike.

Of particular concern in the digital age is the weaponization of social media. Ideally a tool to facilitate the free flow of ideas, social media content is routinely subject to regime-imposed blocks in Muslim-majority countries, often with the cooperation of the companies themselves. Meanwhile, special laws enacted in these countries in the last decade have singled out online speech for prosecution—often under the false pretense of controlling misinformation and hate speech, sometimes more explicitly stating the aim to curb political and religious dissent.

Globally, social media companies enforce their guidelines in problematic ways, in some cases discouraging an atmosphere of free expression. Ex-Muslims in particular are affected by this. Algorithmic responses to community violations are frequently abused with targeted reporting campaigns, and community standards recently implemented by Facebook provide that content attacking “ideas” and “concepts” can be subject to removal under certain circumstances.

These conditions pose a threat to the principle that one should be always free to express oneself openly—a principle vital for ex-Muslims’ ability to live free from fear and persecution.

Thousand-year-old religious texts cannot provide meaningful insight into the material nature of our world, nor does orthodoxy tend to respect free inquiry. Today in the Islamic world, many states enforce anti-science laws as a direct result of their non-secular nature. Meanwhile, distrust for naturalistic explanations of the world is a problem that runs through religious communities of all stripes.

Scientific facts nearly always begin as heresies. It is only by recognizing this that we can hope to understand ourselves and the world we live in.

Under a philosophy that does not acknowledge the existence of universal human rights and instead classifies people’s worth by whether they belong to a religious tribe, this is deliberate. It leads to an atmosphere in which meaningful dissent is stifled, oppression based on religious doctrine is mandated, and truth is hidden from view. At their core, theocracies usurp the right of a country’s people to self-rule, instead placing that power with religious authorities.

The judgment of the world and the domain of government should be determined by empirical reality, rational deliberation, and the common good. Our vision is a world where religion is firmly a matter of private conscience and never involved in government.

More broadly, troubling patterns in Islamic scripture and custom exacerbate gender inequality. It is women who bear the guilt and shame of “modesty culture,” not men. In many countries, women cannot initiate the process of divorce and are not entitled to any of the couple’s shared possessions, nor can they seek meaningful justice if they are raped by their husbands. And in the most extreme cases, a woman who fails to remain chaste and in her place risks honor violence.

Human rights—to blaspheme, speak, and live freely—are universal and do not discriminate by sex. No woman’s freedom or agency should be impeded for the sake of a religious text, and a religious culture that perpetuates inequality should not command deference.