Good article by Times.Com and Islam's micro-management of people's life.

Submitted by PRASHANT (India), Sep 20, 2022 at 04:38

Dear Dr Pipes,

Regarding Mahsa Amini's death in Iran in Police custody, Time.com published a good article by Tara Kangarlu:
Https://time.com/6214636/mahsa-amini-iran-death-outcry/.

In this article, the author describes the background and context of the Ms Amini's death but also, categorily, describes the core problem:

"But the details of her death are perhaps secondary to another point: Another irrevocable loss serves as yet another example of the Iranian regime's perpetual disregard for the safety, security, and well-being of its citizens—especially its youth."

As the author states, it does not matter whether Ms Amini died due to police brutality or to a heart failure or to a preexisting condition. That she was arrested to protect a small and questionable religious standard, is the main problem. For each Mahsa Amini who suferred and died thousands of Iranian people must be living in fear.

Those of us who understand the cost of making and imposing laws, would agree that the more laws that a government creates, the bigger it will have to be to maintain those laws. This is the root cause behind big governments. And, that is what makes freedoms virtuous.

The scale at which Islam wants to micromanage people's lives requires that Islamic government become unsustainably big. Coercian and cruelty are the cheapest way to implement large bodies of laws. And, that leads to discontent in the population.

Coercian, cruty, and discontent go hand-in-hand in Islamic societies. The murders, terrorism, and suicide bombings in Islamic societies that we see everyday, are not accidental. They are caused by Islamic micromanagement of people's lives and they make Islam unsustainable in today's world.

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".