according to my knowledge and understanding, no sane person will ever accept living under the rule of a strict theocratic state – islamic in particular according to the interpretation of those who govern such a state.
as soon as a group of ‘humans’ announces the establishment of a religious state, you will find people -- and women in particular -- fleeing to protect their lives and their dignity, leaving behind their family, loved ones, home, and everything they own.
this happened dozens of times over the past thirty or forty years, when the inhabitants of the syrian, lebanese, iraqi, yemeni, afghani, and iranian cities fled, preferring to live in exile and homelessness, rather than live under the rule of a party claiming that it is coming to spread justice, security and peace among them and in society, using its religious interpretations to achieve this, applying the harshest rules of punishment, and forbidding all kinds of entertainment and luxury for everyone. what is the reason?
man, by nature as a living being, has long since the beginning of his existence on earth for freedom and hates restrictions of any kind. if humans were left to their absolute freedom, the differences and battles between them would not cease and they would struggle over every issue, every word, and behavior.
for this, a team intervened and set the rules of a social contract that regulates the relationship between humans, them, and the parties that have chosen to govern them. then came the religious laws and that added another dimension to these rules, restrictions, and relationships so that there were legitimate limits for sexual relations, inheritance, and limits, or penalties and other things.
with the development of human systems and the rule of human rights principles, humanity entered a new dimension with the multiplicity of beliefs of the components of society, and the different backgrounds of the citizens of the state, so there was a need or existence or formulation of a new social contract which includes rules of relations, laws, and systems that include everyone under its umbrella while leaving religious freedom for each group and providing security and protection for them to live in security and peace.
we have dozens of living examples of countries that have applied this principle. wars and religious disputes between members of these societies have become a thing of the past, and this was the beginning of the emergence of the modern state, or what has come to be called the ‘secular state’, which provides order, the fairest to all components of society.
thus, what we see in terms of hostility from some ‘geniuses’ to the secular state, and their preference for the religious state stems from one of two things:
either they do not know what the secular state means, and the great number of its virtues. or that they are the losers or do not benefit from its existence.
the theocratic state provides such people with tremendous power and puts them above their compatriots, especially followers of other sects, religions, or beliefs. it is in their hands to interpret any text and apply any limit, even if this requires cutting off the hands and feet, from opposite sides, or stoning those who believe that an adulterous woman should be placed a burlap sack or bury half her body in the sand.
that is why people flee with their lives as soon as they hear of the arrival of the strict religious rule in their areas. is there anyone who considers, learns, and understands?