Conflict or not, the world is so full of individuals with different views and lifestyles from our own. More often than not, we have to live with it. This is especially so when a lot of these differences do not affect us whatsoever other than our sensibility or morality.

The requirement to respect differences is all the more important when individuals live according to different moral standards. Still, not all subscribe to the idea to respect differences. Some view the mere idea of differences as an abhorrence which must be contained in favour of only one standard.

The latest proof of intolerance for differences comes in the form of an edict recently announced by the National Fatwa Council, which declared that tomboys are now banned in Islam. Despite the announcement, various news reports have stated that the edict is not a law. As such, it is not legally binding.

The edict is fine for those who wish for a guideline in the practise of Islam. From this perspective, there is really nothing wrong in the edict. This could be a source of reference for those incapable of undertaking the necessary logical steps required to reach a conclusion.

For those who wish not to submit to a group of self-elected guardians of the faith or are simply concerned with individual liberty, it is important that this edict continues to be toothless.

This is because a law based on the edict amounts to moral policing. Such laws would seek to shape individuals in a particular mould approved by self-appointed moral guardians. There would be a set of behaviour for those whom the council of clerics deems to be under their authority to follow. Anything else would seem criminal.

The notion that a person could be seen as a criminal simply by behaving in a manner unsanctioned by a group of people is a scary thought. It is as scary as being prosecuted for having certain characteristics shaped by one's environment. How would one feel to wake up one morning only to learn that one is now a criminal in the eyes of the state?

The problem in having such law criminalising a group of people who refuse to be pigeonholed by the council is that there is no victim at all involved in the issue addressed by the edict. The tomboys behave as they do without causing harm to others or themselves. The only harm tomboys do is to the idea that a woman must behave in a certain particular manner.

To invest our legal system with the edict is to victimise the tomboys who have done no harm to others. In doing so, the state would be committing tyranny. That is an unpalatable prospect which must galvanise those who cherish individual liberty against making the edict legally binding.

For those uncomfortable with tomboys, they really do not need a repressive law to grant them some peace of mind. They are free to not interact with the source of their disgust. This includes those with religious objections against those who do not conform to female social gender roles.

They just need to learn to let other people be, especially when other people let them be. Why are they so intent on making others live as miserably as possible? What malicious intent do they harbour against those who dare to be different, or those who cannot help being different?

The tomboys have done no wrong to anybody. That alone is enough for us all to just respectfully live and let live.

Hafiz Noor Shams minds his own business at maddruid.com.