Brussels – While the artillery fire between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captures the world’s attention, a quieter, systemic conflict is reshaping the daily lives of Khartoum’s residents. According to a recent investigation published by Mediapart titled “In Khartoum, women are victims of the return of Islamists,” there is a growing resurgence of Islamist influence in the capital. The report details the targeted harassment and coercion of women, a development that signals a troubling regression in human rights, particularly concerning the freedom of religion or belief and the bodily autonomy of women in a fractured state.
The documentation of these events brings to light the phenomenon described as the “return of Islamists.” As the central government seeks to consolidate support against the paramilitary RSF, it appears to be reintegrating elements of the former regime’s ideological apparatus. This shift is not merely political but profoundly social, manifesting in the enforcement of moral codes that had been challenged during the transitional period following the 2019 revolution. For the women of Khartoum, this translates to a renewed atmosphere of surveillance and intimidation, where public space is increasingly regulated by strict religious interpretations.
Eyewitness accounts gathered from the city suggest that women are facing renewed pressure to adhere to conservative dress codes and behavioral norms. These enforcements, often carried out by security forces or aligned militias, create an environment of fear. The specific targeting of women is a tactic historically employed to exert control over the social fabric. However, viewed through the lens of international law, these actions constitute more than just social annoyance; they represent a violation of fundamental human rights.
The legal framework regarding Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) is explicit in its protection against coercion. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), specifically Article 18, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion includes the freedom “to have or to adopt a religion or belief of [one’s] choice.” Crucially, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 22, clarifies that this freedom “far from entitling a State to compel its citizens to adopt a particular belief,” prohibits the use of coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion.
The situation currently unfolding in Khartoum stands in direct contradiction to these obligations. When state authorities or non-state actors affiliated with the state enforce religious dress codes or public conduct under threat of violence or arrest, they are violating the right of women to manifest their beliefs—or lack thereof. The imposition of a specific religious interpretation on citizens by force is a distinct breach of the ICCPR. Furthermore, this coercion intersects with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 19, which protects the freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom to hold opinions without interference.
From the perspective of the “Faith in UN Human Rights Treaties” analysis, it is evident that the instrumentalization of religion by state powers to enforce gender conformity is a perversion of the right to FoRB. The treaties are designed to protect the individual from the state, not to empower the state to enforce piety. The current dynamic in Khartoum inverts this protective purpose, using religious mandates as tools of political and social oppression.
This systemic imposition of religious conformity invites a broader analysis of how such policies take root. As observed by Hannah Arendt, the transition from a standard administrative state to one focused on ideological enforcement often occurs through the banality of ordinary individuals executing orders without critical reflection. The enforcement of morality laws in Khartoum does not necessarily require a grand decree; rather, it relies on the actions of security officials and local groups who believe they are restoring order. This “ordinariness” of the perpetrators—regular police or soldiers enforcing a dress code—makes the erosion of rights even more insidious. It is not the chaos of anarchy, but the imposition of a specific, suffocating order that poses the threat.
The psychological impact on the female population is significant. The threat of punishment for non-compliance with religious dictates forces women into a position of subjugation, stripping them of agency. This dynamic is exacerbated by the ongoing conflict, which displaces the rule of law. In this vacuum, extremist ideologies fill the gap, and the enforcement of religious strictures becomes a method of asserting power over a vulnerable civilian population.
Moreover, these actions must be analyzed through the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). While Sudan has reservations to certain articles, the fundamental principle of non-discrimination and the right to be free from coercion remains a benchmark of international decency. The specific targeting of women for religious enforcement is a form of sex-based discrimination that cannot be justified by cultural or religious relativism. As noted in various reports by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the right to manifest one’s religion does not include the right to impose those manifestations on others.
The “return” of these Islamist elements also raises questions about the future of the Sudanese state. If the military leadership views the appeasement of religious hardliners as a necessary strategy for war, the long-term consequences for civil liberties are dire. The normalization of religious policing establishes a precedent that will be difficult to dismantle once the guns fall silent. It risks institutionalizing a form of governance that views the female body not as a possession of the individual, but as a subject of state regulation and religious orthodoxy.
International observers and human rights bodies must therefore look beyond the immediate humanitarian crisis of displacement and hunger to address this creeping ideological shift. The defense of women’s rights in Khartoum is inextricably linked to the defense of FoRB. To allow the coercive imposition of religion on women is to allow the negation of their personhood and their legal standing under international covenants.
The reports from Khartoum detailing the victimization of women by returning Islamist factions reveal a critical violation of international human rights law. The coercion of women into religious observance violates the ICCPR and undermines the core principles of the UDHR. As the conflict rages on, the erosion of these fundamental freedoms constitutes a parallel war—one fought over the autonomy of the individual against the encroachment of ideological absolutism. The international community must recognize that the protection of Sudan’s women requires not just aid, but a steadfast defense of their legal right to live free from religious compulsion.
