revolutions have nothing to do with democracy

Submitted by calhounite (United States), Apr 10, 2012 at 10:11

The uprisings began due to one event.

A woman slapping a man.

The whole impetus for Islam was what to do about women. The savages on the Arabian peninsula were able to reach some semblance of civil equlibrium through the understanding of tribal murder reciprocation. Impulses to murder were controlled by knowing that the victim's tribe would kill the perpetrator, and the perpetrator's tribe would allow his murder to occur without further retaliation. But there was no way to control the impulse to rape which was an overriding, overwhelming impulse. Rape upon sight. The owner of the female would retaliate by killing the rapist. The rapist's tribe would retaliate against the owner, but the owner's tribe would believe that the original murder or the rapist was justified and retaliate again...leading to an endless cycle of killing. Female babies were often buried at birth alive since they were so much trouble, but this practice was leading to the extinction of the savages.

...

Allowing one of these non-existences to actually slap a man, the gig was up..There may be some non-muslim muslims (these are the so-called moderate muslims..secret apostates), but they are like a drop in a rainstorm.

Democracy, just a word.

Do you think muslims could possibly comprehend one of the core components of democracy..the concept of limited government..that government cannot (not will not, cannot) traverse upon the inalienable rights of a minority?

Enough said.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".