Why Is Patriarchy Seen As A Bad Thing?

[Junaids]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]

Let me show you a couple of American lives.

Peggy-Lou was born in the conservative state of Nebraska in 1985. She got a modest education but attended church every Sunday.

Peggy-Lou's father gave her a purity ring on her 13th birthday in 1998, and in front of her church she took the following pledge: "Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate and my future children to be sexually abstinent from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship."

Peggy-Lou married her High School sweetheart at 18 because they wanted to have sex. They have three children now aged 14 to 19. Peggy-Lou works in the office of a local school, earning $32,000 per year, and her husband earns $40,000 per year. She has never lived outside her home town, and she has never travelled outside the USA.

So she is 37, the mother of three children aged 14-19, and her and her husband make a combined total of $62,000 per year.

Rachel was born the same year in the suburbs of Orange County, to parents who were more educated and who worked as a lawyer and a dentist. She went to more academic schools and always got good grades, but has only ever attended church for weddings and funerals. Her family took an overseas vacation every summer.

Rachel lost her virginity to her boyfriend when she was 16, but she was already on the pill. That relationship petered out, and she had two more sexual relationships before she finished school.

Rachel did a first degree at UCLA in Los Angeles and then got into Stanford to study law and moved up to there.

She was a university student for 7 years altogether. At times she was in stable relationships and at times she was single, and she had intimate relations with another ten people during those years.

Two years before the end of her law degree she fell in love with another student, and they moved in together for the final year of university.

After uni they moved back down to southern California and lived together for a couple of years as junior lawyers before marrying when she was 29. She has two children now, aged 4 and 5.

Peggy-Lou and Rachel are both 35 years old. They are both mothers, but Peggy-Lou's kids are a decade older.

Peggy-Lou is religious but she is poor and has never travelled. Her mother and two aunts and uncles died of Covid because they are all Trump supporters who refused to be vaccinated. Her mother was dying of cervical cancer anyway when she got Covid.

Rachel and her husband have a combined income ten times higher than Peggy-Lou. Everyone they know is vaccinated, and they don't know anybody who died of Covid.

Your patriarchal views means that you presumably think that Peggy-Lou is "good" and that Rachel has had a disgustingly degenerate sexual life which makes her a bad person.

The thing is, I'd be proud if Rachel was my daughter. She's a smart lady who has worked hard, seen the world, got a great career and is bringing up a family with a loving and smart husband.

And I'd be devastated if Peggy-Lou was my daughter. She has wasted her life.

 

[Madplayer]

False equivalence.

Women are not allowed to lead the state as per Islam.

A female is ALLOWED to be the President of USA and the fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it is illegal

It's strange that the people of United states dont consider women as worthy enough to be elected as the president. In 250 years of US independence lol.

Anyway, political leadership is restricted to men in Islam. And if you look at the world, in essence this is the case in every country. You can have a face. But any serious person knows who calls the shots. And this is only natural.

In non-political positions, women can be leaders. Iirc the market of Madina was headed by a woman in Hazrat Abu Bakr(ra) time.

 

[Junaids]

After interacting with various radical liberals on this thread, my support for benevolent patriarchy has gotten stronger than before.

Just to reiterate yet again, here are my positions when it comes to patriarchy:

- I support benevolent patriarchy. I do not support oppression of women. Women should get the tools/resources to succeed under a benevolent patriarchic system.

- Patriarchy on its own is not automatically a bad thing. If a woman is oppressed, it is the fault of that particular man. Not the patriarchic system itself.

- A lot of the times women fail due to their own faults (bad attitude, laziness, lack of skills etc.). There were many women in the past who succeeded despite living in patriarchies. So, blaming patriarchy is simply intellectual laziness.

- Finally, a husband/father/brother has an obligation to ensure his wife/daughter/sister is on the right track. There is nothing wrong with meaningful advisements. It doesn't automatically become "mansplaining".

It's strange that the people of United states dont consider women as worthy enough to be elected as the president. In 250 years of US independence lol.

Anyway, political leadership is restricted to men in Islam. And if you look at the world, in essence this is the case in every country. You can have a face. But any serious person knows who calls the shots. And this is only natural.

In non-political positions, women can be leaders. Iirc the market of Madina was headed by a woman in Hazrat Abu Bakr(ra) time.

Jacinda Ardern?

Liz Truss?

Theresa May?

Julia Gillard?

Helen Clark?

 

[Madplayer]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]

Let me show you a couple of American lives.

Peggy-Lou was born in the conservative state of Nebraska in 1985. She got a modest education but attended church every Sunday.

Peggy-Lou's father gave her a purity ring on her 13th birthday in 1998, and in front of her church she took the following pledge: "Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate and my future children to be sexually abstinent from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship."

Peggy-Lou married her High School sweetheart at 18 because they wanted to have sex. They have three children now aged 14 to 19. Peggy-Lou works in the office of a local school, earning $32,000 per year, and her husband earns $40,000 per year. She has never lived outside her home town, and she has never travelled outside the USA.

So she is 37, the mother of three children aged 14-19, and her and her husband make a combined total of $62,000 per year.

Rachel was born the same year in the suburbs of Orange County, to parents who were more educated and who worked as a lawyer and a dentist. She went to more academic schools and always got good grades, but has only ever attended church for weddings and funerals. Her family took an overseas vacation every summer.

Rachel lost her virginity to her boyfriend when she was 16, but she was already on the pill. That relationship petered out, and she had two more sexual relationships before she finished school.

Rachel did a first degree at UCLA in Los Angeles and then got into Stanford to study law and moved up to there.

She was a university student for 7 years altogether. At times she was in stable relationships and at times she was single, and she had intimate relations with another ten people during those years.

Two years before the end of her law degree she fell in love with another student, and they moved in together for the final year of university.

After uni they moved back down to southern California and lived together for a couple of years as junior lawyers before marrying when she was 29. She has two children now, aged 4 and 5.

Peggy-Lou and Rachel are both 35 years old. They are both mothers, but Peggy-Lou's kids are a decade older.

Peggy-Lou is religious but she is poor and has never travelled. Her mother and two aunts and uncles died of Covid because they are all Trump supporters who refused to be vaccinated. Her mother was dying of cervical cancer anyway when she got Covid.

Rachel and her husband have a combined income ten times higher than Peggy-Lou. Everyone they know is vaccinated, and they don't know anybody who died of Covid.

Your patriarchal views means that you presumably think that Peggy-Lou is "good" and that Rachel has had a disgustingly degenerate sexual life which makes her a bad person.

The thing is, I'd be proud if Rachel was my daughter. She's a smart lady who has worked hard, seen the world, got a great career and is bringing up a family with a loving and smart husband.

And I'd be devastated if Peggy-Lou was my daughter. She has wasted her life.

Is this a serious post? Genuinely confused here. You'd be okay if your daughter has sex with 10-15 people (as your post says)? I'm confused because i've never even heard the liberal white fathers say this. Even they at least pretend to think that you shouldnt sleep around.

 

[Madplayer]

Jacinda Ardern?

Liz Truss?

Theresa May?

Julia Gillard?

Helen Clark?

I'm speaking about the US in particular + the number of women heads of state in western nations is nowhere (by nowhere i mean NOWHERE) close to 50% in their history. The irony is that muslim states have had more female heads of state than the US

 

[Robert]

Competency issue? There hasn't been a single competent female leader yet.

Kamala Harris seems to be VP due to feminism and gender quota.

Margaret Thatcher was one of the most competent PMs UK ever had, and Merkel an excellent German Chancellor. Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi led their nations. Queen Elizabeth I was a brilliant stateswoman, as was Catherine the Great.

I’m talking about female Caliphs. Has their been one? If not, why not?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

There is a point. Context changes everything. Kindly explain what "Bad thing" Allah said? (Nauzubillah).

What you have demonstrated in this post is textbook gish galloping even when I made clear that Islam doesn't give the "same" rights to men and women because they are seen as having different characteristics.



In worldly affairs, men are expected to do more than women. Are they not? This has been in fact demonstrated throughout history as something natural to men. If you think otherwise, then you are disregarding history and simply speaking from emotions that you've taken from the contemporary woke ideology.



The man has to provide for the woman forever. Is he his slave then? The woman gets Mahr and the man gets nothing. The woman gets a share from her husband's property while the husband doesn't have any right over his wife's possessions.
It is unbelievable how people only like to see what they want to see.



Read my earlier replies explaining this. I've explained it already. There is no need to restrain a woman against her adulterous husband for reasons i've explained earlier.



The woman who doesn't perform her duties as a wife when she has no valid reason to avoid them, of which sexual duties are an important part, she will be cursed by the angels. She entered a marriage contract knowing her duties well. No man wants to be married to a woman who he cannot have sex with. That's like living in the same house with a friend. In fact, most divorces happen due to sex-less marriages.



It is to highlight the importance of a man. And the sajda IS NOT even allowed. What about Jannah lies beneath the feet of the mother? This is FOR SURE. Not good enough for you doc?



In worldly affairs it is male dominated to some degree. I never claimed otherwise. However, like i said earlier, the gender roles that women play are not seen as inferior in Islam. That's a western position and you are speaking from that position. For muslims, the role of a stay at home mother, for example, is of astounding importance.




For both men and women. Men are restricted in numerous ways too.



Our job is to propagate the message.



Taking extra-ordinary circumstances which maybe happen once in two lifetimes and presenting them as norms is a characteristic trait of Islam bashers. Not surprised.



Never said that.

No need to explain all of my quotations. If you agree that Islam gives superiority to men, we have nothing more to argue about.

OP's stance is PATRIARCHY is a great system with scientific benefit. My point is PATRIARCHY is an ISLAMIC system which is based on Islamic jurisprudence.

If Islam had supported "Matriarchy" or "if alcohol was legal in Islam" we would have scores of Islamic scholars on Pakpassion supporting "the role of women in developing children" and the "usefulness of alcohol to control disease".

In the end my point is this:

All religious people cannot follow LOGICAL REASONING. They are hampered by the religious construct. They first look up what is legal in their religion and then make ARGUMENTS TO SUPPORT what the religion says.

I believe there is a word for that. It's called "BIAS".

In research, if you already know the answer to the question because of the way the experiment is shaped it is called a "CONFIRMATION BIAS".

OP poses the question being a Muslim and asks what is wrong with patriarchy and why dont the people accept it? He thinks scientifically it makes sense. But even if it doesn't, he doesn't care. It only makes sense because the OP follows a religion which supports it.

OP puts a hypothesis and then puts the arguments to confirm his own hypothesis and refuses to accept any confounding "based on his own religion".

How is this even a logical debate is beyond me?

And the scores of people are trying to convince him to change his mind? When his mind was made eons ago when he embraced Islam?

The entire argument is a sham.

 

[Junaids]

Is this a serious post? Genuinely confused here. You'd be okay if your daughter has sex with 10-15 people (as your post says)? I'm confused because i've never even heard the liberal white fathers say this. Even they at least pretend to think that you shouldnt sleep around.

Yes absolutely.

I created the person deliberately to have 14 partners prior to marriage which is the median number in the USA for people born between 1975 and 2000.

It’s a standard, unremarkable number but the whole idea of a number is trivial anyway.

I also designed the vignette so that there was no year of her life in which she slept with more than 2 partners. I did that on purpose to trap misogynistic men who are threatened by female sexuality.

I presented a normal, healthy, educated, unpromiscuous, successful western woman.

And it appalled you.

 

[Madplayer]

No need to explain all of my quotations. If you agree that Islam gives superiority to men, we have nothing more to argue about.

OP's stance is PATRIARCHY is a great system with scientific benefit. My point is PATRIARCHY is an ISLAMIC system which is based on Islamic jurisprudence.

Fair enough but does that mean you dont think that Islamic patriarchy has benefit?

If Islam had supported "Matriarchy" or "if alcohol was legal in Islam" we would have scores of Islamic scholars on Pakpassion supporting "the role of women in developing children" and the "usefulness of alcohol to control disease".

In the end my point is this:

All religious people cannot follow LOGICAL REASONING. They are hampered by the religious construct. They first look up what is legal in their religion and then make ARGUMENTS TO SUPPORT what the religion says.

I believe there is a word for that. It's called "BIAS".

In research, if you already know the answer to the question because of the way the experiment is shaped it is called a "CONFIRMATION BIAS".

OP poses the question being a Muslim and asks what is wrong with patriarchy and why dont the people accept it? He thinks scientifically it makes sense. But even if it doesn't, he doesn't care. It only makes sense because the OP follows a religion which supports it.

OP puts a hypothesis and then puts the arguments to confirm his own hypothesis and refuses to accept any confounding "based on his own religion".

How is this even a logical debate is beyond me?

And the scores of people are trying to convince him to change his mind? When his mind was made eons ago when he embraced Islam?

The entire argument is a sham.

All I see is a difference of approach. I think we have to understand the approaches here. I have repeatedly mentioned that secular-liberals have a different perception and approach than Islam even when understanding and attaching value to certain things/roles/ideas.

To answer your post, the general western approach is to deconstruct everything, study the parts in isolation and then move towards the whole. In this way, when they look at the cogs separately, their critique may look very sound but in essence it often overlooks how those parts work in cohesion as a whole. This is also done deliberately sometimes by anti-Islam apologetics as well. Hence, they reject the parts and never get to the whole. In this thread I've seen everyone debating this topic topic from this POV and not from the Islamic one.

The Islamic approach is often opposite. When we try to understand or explain the deen, we look at the bigger aspects first, like the philosophy of monotheism, the question of morality, the logical (not necessarily scientific) explanation of the origin of existence and then move on to finer things like the prophecies that have come true, the signs that Allah has left in the universe and talked about in the Quran etc. And when we are satisfied with these mega-topics which deal with the "who are we and what is our purpose" type identity issues, we finally we come to the more direct, day to day problems of social and personal nature and this is where conflict arises with the modern world. For muslims, when the bigger questions are satisfactorily answered and the philosophy of religion comes out sound, it becomes natural to adhere to the religion in all other aspects as well even if they dont understand or like why they are asked to do certain things. Like abstaining from alcohol and pork etc. And in the Dawah sphere, this approach of muslims almost always comes out as victorious. The muslims who fall prey to the Western trap and play by their rules will always find it more challenging to convince people.

In older times debating techniques were seamlessly incorporated in the curriculum and taught to 10 year olds. But now, the common muslim is not equipped with those tools anymore. This is why i personally believe that laymen should not debate before being trained for it. And texting on the internet is the last way through which we can convince someone to change their opinions.

 

[Madplayer]

Yes absolutely.

I created the person deliberately to have 14 partners prior to marriage which is the median number in the USA for people born between 1975 and 2000.

It’s a standard, unremarkable number but the whole idea of a number is trivial anyway.

I also designed the vignette so that there was no year of her life in which she slept with more than 2 partners. I did that on purpose to trap misogynistic men who are threatened by female sexuality.

I presented a normal, healthy, educated, unpromiscuous, successful western woman.

And it appalled you.

I am pretty confident that you are in a minority in the world of fathers. Even in the west

 

[Abel Reames]

Fair enough but does that mean you dont think that Islamic patriarchy has benefit?



All I see is a difference of approach. I think we have to understand the approaches here. I have repeatedly mentioned that secular-liberals have a different perception and approach than Islam even when understanding and attaching value to certain things/roles/ideas.

To answer your post, the general western approach is to deconstruct everything, study the parts in isolation and then move towards the whole. In this way, when they look at the cogs separately, their critique may look very sound but in essence it often overlooks how those parts work in cohesion as a whole. This is also done deliberately sometimes by anti-Islam apologetics as well. Hence, they reject the parts and never get to the whole. In this thread I've seen everyone debating this topic topic from this POV and not from the Islamic one.

The Islamic approach is often opposite. When we try to understand or explain the deen, we look at the bigger aspects first, like the philosophy of monotheism, the question of morality, the logical (not necessarily scientific) explanation of the origin of existence and then move on to finer things like the prophecies that have come true, the signs that Allah has left in the universe and talked about in the Quran etc. And when we are satisfied with these mega-topics which deal with the "who are we and what is our purpose" type identity issues, we finally we come to the more direct, day to day problems of social and personal nature and this is where conflict arises with the modern world. For muslims, when the bigger questions are satisfactorily answered and the philosophy of religion comes out sound, it becomes natural to adhere to the religion in all other aspects as well even if they dont understand or like why they are asked to do certain things. Like abstaining from alcohol and pork etc. And in the Dawah sphere, this approach of muslims almost always comes out as victorious. The muslims who fall prey to the Western trap and play by their rules will always find it more challenging to convince people.

In older times debating techniques were seamlessly incorporated in the curriculum and taught to 10 year olds. But now, the common muslim is not equipped with those tools anymore. This is why i personally believe that laymen should not debate before being trained for it. And texting on the internet is the last way through which we can convince someone to change their opinions.

Dr_Bassim has perfectly outlined the difference between Science and Religion.

Science (and western thinking) starts with an hypothesis and lets the evidence lead to a conclusion. Religion starts with the conclusion and dismisses the evidence that negates the conclusion and tries to find the evidence that best fits the conclusion. Religion has to do that as otherwise it has to admit it is infallible. Whereas Science and free thinking can change the conclusion based on the evidence.

 

[Abel Reames]

I think you are trying to imply I am ugly. That's okay with me. I am not a woman and hence I do not care about my look. I only care about my financial condition and physical condition (both are in great shapes currently; alhamdulillah).

Whatever God says, we Muslims try to follow. Hypothetical scenarios do not matter.

I wouldn't want a girlfriend even if I am offered 1-billion bucks. So, heartbreak is not applicable to me. I want a wife who prays 5 times, fast during Ramadan, and do the things she's supposed to do. If she doesn't pray, she can't remain my wife.

What I am trying to say is priorities of Muslims are different.

Imagine growing up with the impression that no matter how mediocre you are, you'll still end up with a submissive wife you can control and dominate. Only to find out that women are aggressively pushing back and rejecting the idea of submission and even marriage all together.

 

[sweep_shot]

I am pretty confident that you are in a minority in the world of fathers. Even in the west

He thinks it is okay for unmarried women to sleep around. Scary thing is he is a father himself.

 

[sweep_shot]

Imagine growing up with the impression that no matter how mediocre you are, you'll still end up with a submissive wife you can control and dominate. Only to find out that women are aggressively pushing back and rejecting the idea of submission and even marriage all together.

So, now you are against marriage too. What's next?

Radical liberals keep on amusing me.

 

[Robert]

Dr_Bassim has perfectly outlined the difference between Science and Religion.

Science (and western thinking) starts with an hypothesis and lets the evidence lead to a conclusion. Religion starts with the conclusion and dismisses the evidence that negates the conclusion and tries to find the evidence that best fits the conclusion. Religion has to do that as otherwise it has to admit it is infallible. Whereas Science and free thinking can change the conclusion based on the evidence.

Yep.

I like to see an used correctly.

 

[Robert]

I do not support oppression of women.

I support these:

- Women having voting rights.
- Women getting educations.
- Women having employments.
- Women driving.
- Women going outside.

What I do not support:

- Women committing fornication and adultery.
- Women showing too much skin.
- Women falsely accusing (i.e. Amber Heard).
- Women having non-emergency abortions.

I don't think I am supporting any oppression here. These are reasonable views.

Then, apart from the abortion thing, you are basically a first-wave feminist.

 

[sweep_shot]

Fair enough but does that mean you dont think that Islamic patriarchy has benefit?



All I see is a difference of approach. I think we have to understand the approaches here. I have repeatedly mentioned that secular-liberals have a different perception and approach than Islam even when understanding and attaching value to certain things/roles/ideas.

To answer your post, the general western approach is to deconstruct everything, study the parts in isolation and then move towards the whole. In this way, when they look at the cogs separately, their critique may look very sound but in essence it often overlooks how those parts work in cohesion as a whole. This is also done deliberately sometimes by anti-Islam apologetics as well. Hence, they reject the parts and never get to the whole. In this thread I've seen everyone debating this topic topic from this POV and not from the Islamic one.

The Islamic approach is often opposite. When we try to understand or explain the deen, we look at the bigger aspects first, like the philosophy of monotheism, the question of morality, the logical (not necessarily scientific) explanation of the origin of existence and then move on to finer things like the prophecies that have come true, the signs that Allah has left in the universe and talked about in the Quran etc. And when we are satisfied with these mega-topics which deal with the "who are we and what is our purpose" type identity issues, we finally we come to the more direct, day to day problems of social and personal nature and this is where conflict arises with the modern world. For muslims, when the bigger questions are satisfactorily answered and the philosophy of religion comes out sound, it becomes natural to adhere to the religion in all other aspects as well even if they dont understand or like why they are asked to do certain things. Like abstaining from alcohol and pork etc. And in the Dawah sphere, this approach of muslims almost always comes out as victorious. The muslims who fall prey to the Western trap and play by their rules will always find it more challenging to convince people.

In older times debating techniques were seamlessly incorporated in the curriculum and taught to 10 year olds. But now, the common muslim is not equipped with those tools anymore. This is why i personally believe that laymen should not debate before being trained for it. And texting on the internet is the last way through which we can convince someone to change their opinions.

Very good post.

I noticed one thing about modern day seculars. They tend to be pretentious about progressiveness.

But, I guess we can let them dig their holes while we sit back and observe.

 

[sweep_shot]

Then, apart from the abortion thing, you are basically a first-wave feminist.

If that is the case, feminism should stop at first wave. There is no need for any additional wave.

At this point, feminism is getting milked like Fast & Furious franchise.

 

[Robert]

If that is the case, feminism should stop at first wave. There is no need for any additional wave.

At this point, feminism is getting milked like Fast & Furious franchise.

Second Wave says women can wear lipstick and high heels and share restaurant bills with their man - think Beyonce.

Third Wave is about intersectionality - black women don't face the same issues white women do, black Muslim women don't face the same issues black non-Muslims do, and so on.

 

[Robert]

Is this a serious post? Genuinely confused here. You'd be okay if your daughter has sex with 10-15 people (as your post says)? I'm confused because i've never even heard the liberal white fathers say this. Even they at least pretend to think that you shouldnt sleep around.

The hypothetical Peggy-Lou is typical of very religious people who marry so that they can have sex, and end up in a life of misery.

I’ve met a lot of people like Peggy-Lou.

Much better for a young woman to sow her wild oats, find out what she needs in the bedroom, and marry a man who can give that to her.

What she doesn’t want is to get knocked up at 26 to a lad who runs away, and either get an abortion or become a single teenage mother and put her life back two decades.

 

[Robert]

What she doesn’t want is to get knocked up at 26 to a lad who runs away, and either get an abortion or become a single teenage mother and put her life back two decades.

16, I mean.

 

[Technics 1210]

Patriarchy is not an Islamic trait, there are verses from the Bible in this very thread that predate Islam which favour men over women.

Patriarchy has existed long before monotheism did anyway.

Funny how liberals refuse to acknowledge this point, I guess that's because this thread is yet another opportunity for then to attack Islam.

 

[sweep_shot]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]

Let me show you a couple of American lives.

Peggy-Lou was born in the conservative state of Nebraska in 1985. She got a modest education but attended church every Sunday.

Peggy-Lou's father gave her a purity ring on her 13th birthday in 1998, and in front of her church she took the following pledge: "Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate and my future children to be sexually abstinent from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship."

Peggy-Lou married her High School sweetheart at 18 because they wanted to have sex. They have three children now aged 14 to 19. Peggy-Lou works in the office of a local school, earning $32,000 per year, and her husband earns $40,000 per year. She has never lived outside her home town, and she has never travelled outside the USA.

So she is 37, the mother of three children aged 14-19, and her and her husband make a combined total of $62,000 per year.

Rachel was born the same year in the suburbs of Orange County, to parents who were more educated and who worked as a lawyer and a dentist. She went to more academic schools and always got good grades, but has only ever attended church for weddings and funerals. Her family took an overseas vacation every summer.

Rachel lost her virginity to her boyfriend when she was 16, but she was already on the pill. That relationship petered out, and she had two more sexual relationships before she finished school.

Rachel did a first degree at UCLA in Los Angeles and then got into Stanford to study law and moved up to there.

She was a university student for 7 years altogether. At times she was in stable relationships and at times she was single, and she had intimate relations with another ten people during those years.

Two years before the end of her law degree she fell in love with another student, and they moved in together for the final year of university.

After uni they moved back down to southern California and lived together for a couple of years as junior lawyers before marrying when she was 29. She has two children now, aged 4 and 5.

Peggy-Lou and Rachel are both 35 years old. They are both mothers, but Peggy-Lou's kids are a decade older.

Peggy-Lou is religious but she is poor and has never travelled. Her mother and two aunts and uncles died of Covid because they are all Trump supporters who refused to be vaccinated. Her mother was dying of cervical cancer anyway when she got Covid.

Rachel and her husband have a combined income ten times higher than Peggy-Lou. Everyone they know is vaccinated, and they don't know anybody who died of Covid.

Your patriarchal views means that you presumably think that Peggy-Lou is "good" and that Rachel has had a disgustingly degenerate sexual life which makes her a bad person.

The thing is, I'd be proud if Rachel was my daughter. She's a smart lady who has worked hard, seen the world, got a great career and is bringing up a family with a loving and smart husband.

And I'd be devastated if Peggy-Lou was my daughter. She has wasted her life.

Money is not everything.

Respect for Peggy-Lou. We need more principled women like her in our society and less like Rachels.

 

[sweep_shot]

Second Wave says women can wear lipstick and high heels and share restaurant bills with their man - think Beyonce.

Third Wave is about intersectionality - black women don't face the same issues white women do, black Muslim women don't face the same issues black non-Muslims do, and so on.

Is second wave feminism about stuffs like lipstick and high heel? In that case, it is not something serious.

Like I said, after first wave, it is all phony stuffs.

Third wave doesn't seem like feminism. It feels more like fighting racism (which I support).

 

[Champ_Pal]

That's like saying Sri Lanka should be counted with India just because they are both in subcontinent.

Poor logic once again.

West has seen a lot of Female leaders leading their country. The poster only pointed out US. But conveniently ignored hundreds of other Western nations or in particular White majority nations.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Fair enough but does that mean you dont think that Islamic patriarchy has benefit?



All I see is a difference of approach. I think we have to understand the approaches here. I have repeatedly mentioned that secular-liberals have a different perception and approach than Islam even when understanding and attaching value to certain things/roles/ideas.

To answer your post, the general western approach is to deconstruct everything, study the parts in isolation and then move towards the whole. In this way, when they look at the cogs separately, their critique may look very sound but in essence it often overlooks how those parts work in cohesion as a whole. This is also done deliberately sometimes by anti-Islam apologetics as well. Hence, they reject the parts and never get to the whole. In this thread I've seen everyone debating this topic topic from this POV and not from the Islamic one.

The Islamic approach is often opposite. When we try to understand or explain the deen, we look at the bigger aspects first, like the philosophy of monotheism, the question of morality, the logical (not necessarily scientific) explanation of the origin of existence and then move on to finer things like the prophecies that have come true, the signs that Allah has left in the universe and talked about in the Quran etc. And when we are satisfied with these mega-topics which deal with the "who are we and what is our purpose" type identity issues, we finally we come to the more direct, day to day problems of social and personal nature and this is where conflict arises with the modern world. For muslims, when the bigger questions are satisfactorily answered and the philosophy of religion comes out sound, it becomes natural to adhere to the religion in all other aspects as well even if they dont understand or like why they are asked to do certain things. Like abstaining from alcohol and pork etc. And in the Dawah sphere, this approach of muslims almost always comes out as victorious. The muslims who fall prey to the Western trap and play by their rules will always find it more challenging to convince people.

In older times debating techniques were seamlessly incorporated in the curriculum and taught to 10 year olds. But now, the common muslim is not equipped with those tools anymore. This is why i personally believe that laymen should not debate before being trained for it. And texting on the internet is the last way through which we can convince someone to change their opinions.

One approach is giving them equal rights and allowing them to make their own decisions.

The other approach is to keep them as subordinates and decide what is good for them.

Both are approaches. But the latter is a pathetic one.

 

[sweep_shot]

One approach is giving them equal rights and allowing them to make their own decisions.

The other approach is to keep them as subordinates and decide what is good for them.

Both are approaches. But the latter is a pathetic one.

Not at all. Latter uses common sense approach.

You want unlimited freedom for women which is dangerous.

We are not animals. We are humans. We should have checks and balances.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Not at all. Latter uses common sense approach.

You want unlimited freedom for women which is dangerous.

We are not animals. We are humans. We should have checks and balances.

There is no common sense when you keep 50% of the population under a man's chappal.

We should have checks and balances. But not subjugating women under the guise of pathetic morality and religious laws.

 

[sweep_shot]

There is no common sense when you keep 50% of the population under a man's chappal.

We should have checks and balances. But not subjugating women under the guise of pathetic morality and religious laws.

Nobody said 50% of the population stays under a man's chappal. You made that up.

There are many women who succeed just fine despite being from patriarchic families. They succeed due to hard work and discipline.

Are there bad patriarchs? Absolutely. But, there are also many good patriarchs and this is something radical liberals often overlook.

Like I have mentioned before, a woman's success/failure is mostly dependent on her own efforts. Blaming patriarchy is simply intellectual laziness and a lame excuse.

 

[Madplayer]

Dr_Bassim has perfectly outlined the difference between Science and Religion.

Science (and western thinking) starts with an hypothesis and lets the evidence lead to a conclusion. Religion starts with the conclusion and dismisses the evidence that negates the conclusion and tries to find the evidence that best fits the conclusion. Religion has to do that as otherwise it has to admit it is infallible. Whereas Science and free thinking can change the conclusion based on the evidence.

I was speaking about how western critique of other systems works. Not about them coming up with new theories and inventions.

On a side note, because you mentioned west's approach (which extends to it determing morality through a scientific approach), I'll ask you one direct question:

Is incest okay if proper protection is used and there is no chance of getting the woman (mother/sister) pregnant?

 

[Madplayer]

He thinks it is okay for unmarried women to sleep around. Scary thing is he is a father himself.

I had to read his post twice, just to make sure I read it right lol

 

[Madplayer]

The hypothetical Peggy-Lou is typical of very religious people who marry so that they can have sex, and end up in a life of misery.

I’ve met a lot of people like Peggy-Lou.

Much better for a young woman to sow her wild oats, find out what she needs in the bedroom, and marry a man who can give that to her.

What she doesn’t want is to get knocked up at 26 to a lad who runs away, and either get an abortion or become a single teenage mother and put her life back two decades.

Why even marry the man, Robert? What is the abstract concept of marriage anything but superstition? Shouldn't we do away with marriage itself? Just like we did away with shame?

 

[Madplayer]

One approach is giving them equal rights and allowing them to make their own decisions.

The other approach is to keep them as subordinates and decide what is good for them.

Both are approaches. But the latter is a pathetic one.

One approach gives dignity to people, disciplines them, inculcates the values of commitment in them.

The other one turns them into self-absorbed animals acting on their baser impulses. Ofcourse the other one is pathetic.

 

[SalimBhai]

When a women feels abused Igor threatened. Does she run for safety to a secular western state or a benevolent patriarchy state like Saudi …..

 

[sweep_shot]

When a women feels abused Igor threatened. Does she run for safety to a secular western state or a benevolent patriarchy state like Saudi …..

That depends on the type of abuse, extent of abuse, reason for abuse, and also IQ level of that particular woman. If she is naive, she may go to faulty places and make matters worse for her.

Your question is a defective question. It is not black and white like that. There can be many reasons why a woman may choose to move to a certain country.

 

[SalimBhai]

Any western women go from their countries to places like Saudi, India. Iran , Pakistan to seek refuge ?

 

[sweep_shot]

Any western women go from their countries to places like Saudi, India. Iran , Pakistan to seek refuge ?

If the western woman is wanted in her native country (did a crime), she may look for refugee in a third world country.

There is a couple from New Zealand who live in Bangladesh permanently. Husband is a doctor and he serves the poor in the rural parts. Wasim Akram's wife (Australian white girl) also lives in Pakistan, if I am not wrong. There are more stories like this.

People can move to another country for many different reasons.

 

[SalimBhai]

What
I am not talking about that. Do women from western countries move to those countries I listed to seek refuge due to oppression of women? The other way around they do all the time.

 

[Champ_Pal]

One approach gives dignity to people, disciplines them, inculcates the values of commitment in them.

The other one turns them into self-absorbed animals acting on their baser impulses. Ofcourse the other one is pathetic.

You discipline kids. You do not discipline adults who are capable of making their own decisions. I am not talking about drugs or prostitution. I am talking about things like choosing a career of their choice and marrying the person of their choice irrespective of race or religion or financial status.

Anyone who disciplines a grown female for choosing a profession that the male disapproves is a criminal. There are no 2 ways about it.

 

[Champ_Pal]

If the western woman is wanted in her native country (did a crime), she may look for refugee in a third world country.

There is a couple from New Zealand who live in Bangladesh permanently. Husband is a doctor and he serves the poor in the rural parts. Wasim Akram's wife (Australian white girl) also lives in Pakistan, if I am not wrong. There are more stories like this.

People can move to another country for many different reasons.

Women from oppressed countries run to the west. Not the other way around. May be you can explain to them that every beating the woman receives is a blessing in disguise from the benevolent patriarchy.

 

[Abel Reames]

I was speaking about how western critique of other systems works. Not about them coming up with new theories and inventions.

On a side note, because you mentioned west's approach (which extends to it determing morality through a scientific approach), I'll ask you one direct question:

Is incest okay if proper protection is used and there is no chance of getting the woman (mother/sister) pregnant?

Earlier on you said "To answer your post, the general western approach is to deconstruct everything, study the parts in isolation and then move towards the whole. In this way, when they look at the cogs separately, their critique may look very sound but in essence it often overlooks how those parts work in cohesion as a whole. This is also done deliberately sometimes by anti-Islam apologetics as well. Hence, they reject the parts and never get to the whole"

I guess with that question you are doing the same by asking me to look at incest as the cog but overlooking how thise parts work in cohesion as a whole, the whole being the concept of 'consensual adults'. I just need to change your anti-Islam apologetics to Islamic apologetics.

As for the question itself personally speaking it is not for me but neither are homosexual relations but I wouldn't deem them immoral.

Let me ask you a direct question or two what is the morality behind slaves and sex slaves? And if the West abolished slavery eventually are there morals regarding slavery better than God's?

 

[Abel Reames]

I like to see an used correctly.

Me too! Sometimes the fight is hard not to point out mistakes. I obviously did not notice, I don't proofread before posting and after that particular post I didn't want it pointed out that I used infallible when I meant fallible. I still don't know how to edit after posting either.

 

[sweep_shot]

Let me ask you a direct question or two what is the morality behind slaves and sex slaves? And if the West abolished slavery eventually are there morals regarding slavery better than God's?

What are you on about? Islam encourages freeing of slaves. Freeing of slave is one of the virtuous deeds in Islam.

But, if someone happened to own a legitimate slave in the past, that slave needed to be treated right. That's what Islam says.

Anyway. There are no more slaves. Not sure why you are bringing up this topic.

 

[SalimBhai]

That’s partially true. Islam does not come outright and say slavery or sex slavery should be banned outright. Islam says treat your sex slaves better and it’s a good deed to free them. But it does mot ban slavery. It is mot against slavery.

 

[SalimBhai]

Slavery is such an immoral institute that even Muslim countries don’t follow slavery garbage anymore. That’s good.

 

[Abel Reames]

What are you on about? Islam encourages freeing of slaves. Freeing of slave is one of the virtuous deeds in Islam.

But, if someone happened to own a legitimate slave in the past, that slave needed to be treated right. That's what Islam says.

Anyway. There are no more slaves. Not sure why you are bringing up this topic.

No abolishment tho. Were sex slaves treated right too?

 

[sweep_shot]

No abolishment tho. Were sex slaves treated right too?

Which part of "Islam encourages freeing of slaves" do you not understand?

 

[Abel Reames]

Which part of "Islam encourages freeing of slaves" do you not understand?

The part where the word 'abolish' is missing. And the concept of sex slaves was still alive. Encourages? Alcohol, eating pork, interest, usury was abolished, not just encouraged. Seems that those were more morally important than using slaves for sex.

 

[sweep_shot]

The part where the word 'abolish' is missing. And the concept of sex slaves was still alive. Encourages? Alcohol, eating pork, interest, usury was abolished, not just encouraged. Seems that those were more morally important than using slaves for sex.

I can't help someone who doesn't understand "Islam encourages freeing of slavery".

You belong in a gender studies class.

 

[Champ_Pal]

That’s partially true. Islam does not come outright and say slavery or sex slavery should be banned outright. Islam says treat your sex slaves better and it’s a good deed to free them. But it does mot ban slavery. It is mot against slavery.

There are enough Hadiths that tell us that Early Muslims practiced slavery and trading of slaves. It was a norm back then in all cultures. Not exclusive to any particular religion or culture or land.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I can't help someone who doesn't understand "Islam encourages freeing of slavery".

You belong in a gender studies class.

The question is did it ban slavery outright?

I see people arguing that it was only during the times of war. If that is the case, many countries are at war with each other. Does it mean the women can be enslaved?

 

[sweep_shot]

Whatever rulings we have for Islam, we are fine with it and we are happy about it.

It doesn't matter what Islamophobes think. We don't owe explanations.

 

[Robert]

Me too! Sometimes the fight is hard not to point out mistakes. I obviously did not notice, I don't proofread before posting and after that particular post I didn't want it pointed out that I used infallible when I meant fallible. I still don't know how to edit after posting either.

But you did it right! :

 

[Robert]

Why even marry the man, Robert? What is the abstract concept of marriage anything but superstition? Shouldn't we do away with marriage itself? Just like we did away with shame?

People can get married if they want. It gives both parties legal security. Though the parents in some of the happiest families I know aren’t married.

We haven’t done away with shame in the West, but different things bring shame, such as cheating in relationships.

 

[Robert]

Mass protests by Iranian women, taking hijab off in defiance of the Morality Police.

 

[sweep_shot]

Mass protests by Iranian women, taking hijab off in defiance of the Morality Police.

So, if a few women take hijabs off and protest, are you going to say all women are against the status quo?

There are always a few naive women in every country. They should be penalized if they cause disorders in society.

 

[Champ_Pal]

So, if a few women take hijabs off and protest, are you going to say all women are against the status quo?

There are always a few naive women in every country. They should be penalized if they cause disorders in society.

I saw a travel video of some Indian who went to Iran. The women there enjoy freedom and she was traveling with the Indian guy all along and there were no moral police.

I think Iran has 2 sides to it. One is a liberal one and the other is an extreme moral policing one. Perhaps where you travel matters.

 

[SalimBhai]

So, if a few women take hijabs off and protest, are you going to say all women are against the status quo?

There are always a few naive women in every country. They should be penalized if they cause disorders in society.

@sweepshot
If that was the case , “ very few”. Then many more women from iran, outside would be eating a hijab or chowdor . However that is not the case. Almost nobody from iran once outside wears the hijab/chowder. It’s almost zero!!

 

[SalimBhai]

If that was the case. More women would be wearing the hijab or chowdor outside iran. Almost nobody from iran outside wears the hijab/chowder once outside iran. Almost zero.

 

[sweep_shot]

If that was the case. More women would be wearing the hijab or chowdor outside iran. Almost nobody from iran outside wears the hijab/chowder once outside iran. Almost zero.

Almost zero? LOL. It shows you haven't met enough Iranians.

My dentist is an Iranian and he gave me salam when he first saw me. We discussed Islam too.

Iran's population is about 84-million. How many from that population migrate to other countries? Very small percentage.

 

[SalimBhai]

Almost zero? LOL. It shows you haven't met many Iranians.

My dentist is an Iranian and he gave me salam when he first saw me. We discussed Islam too.

Also, Iran's population is about 84-million. How many from that population migrate to other countries? Very small percentage.

I think you are having problems comprehending . When Iranian women are outside iran. None wear the chowdor . Very few wear the hijab. The rate in iran is 100 percent. Now if you put those two together , you get the answer that maybe women in iran don’t really like wearing the hijab or chowdor. .

 

[Dr_Bassim]

In short,

There are things that are bad and there are things which are good.

All bad things include murder, rape, stealing etc., which are morally reprehensible things whether you see them from a light of religion or science or any doctrine.

All good things include truthfulness, honesty, love and taking care of others whether viewed from any doctrine or ideology.

Then there are things which can be good or bad based on how they are used but the religious doctrine prohibits Muslims from doing them or has a certain set of instructions for them.


For example, Is pre-marital sex bad? Yes, it could be. But is it always bad? No, probably not. Then why are Muslims not supposed to indulge in it? Because they are prohibited.

Is Alcohol always bad? Yes, it could be. Is it always bad? No, probably not. Then why are Muslims not supposed to drink? Because Allah said so.

The grey area things which I talked in bold are the things which basically form "bone of contention" for most of arguments between liberalism and "religious principled stands".

Now lets analyze the OP's original statement.

Is Patriarchy Good? Yes, it could be. Is it always Good? No, there is a chance it can be abused by the powerful males to control females. Then why are Muslims proposing "patriarchy"? Because Allah has commanded so.

I am yet to see ANY RELIGIOUS PERSON oppose anything which Allah has instructed based on his or her own "personal experience" or "do an experiment to prove or disprove something which Allah has instructed".

In short, the cards are dealt with an unfair advantage to the religious person.

The liberal only has moral doctrine to follow and then he makes a decision based on "life experiences" to make decisions on things like pre-marital sex, alcohol and patriarchal elements.

The religious person has to follow the Code of Conduct has enunciated in the Holy Book. He has to align his entire "paradigm" to what is written in the book and then make "educated guesses" on why Allah must have prohibited or entertained a thing.

Is that Science? Not in the slightest. Its not even pseduo-science. It is basically believing that "deity higher up decides what is good and bad for us".

When all the Muslims believe that Allah is the best decision maker, then why do they try to convince others that "Patriarchy is the right way to go?" or "abstaining from alcohol is indeed the best path"? or not doing "pre-marital success is path to success"?

No Musim is EVER interested in science except to a degree. For them science exists to prove that what Allah said is right

Which is why I find it funny that all scholars try very hard to prove that what is written in the Quran is scientifically true.

Does it really matter?

When we already believe that Allah knows best?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Whatever rulings we have for Islam, we are fine with it and we are happy about it.

It doesn't matter what Islamophobes think. We don't owe explanations.

If you don't own any explanations to anyone why are you even arguing "Patriarchy is a good thing".

You already to believe in it.

Forget about everyone else and move on.

 

[Robert]

So, if a few women take hijabs off and protest, are you going to say all women are against the status quo?

There are always a few naive women in every country. They should be penalized if they cause disorders in society.

They should be praised for standing up for their freedom against oppression. They are very brave and I admire them.

 

[Madplayer]

Is incest okay if proper protection is used and there is no chance of getting the woman (mother/sister) pregnant?

As for the question itself personally speaking it is not for me but neither are homosexual relations but I wouldn't deem them immoral.

Bro what )

 

[Madplayer]

You discipline kids. You do not discipline adults who are capable of making their own decisions. I am not talking about drugs or prostitution. I am talking about things like choosing a career of their choice and marrying the person of their choice irrespective of race or religion or financial status.

Anyone who disciplines a grown female for choosing a profession that the male disapproves is a criminal. There are no 2 ways about it.

You can discipline anyone. Child or adult. Why ARENT you talking about drugs and prostitution? Why stop people from doing even that? Truth is, every state disciplines people in the way it deems best. Rest of it is just beating around the bush and being hypocritical.

 

[Madplayer]

People can get married if they want. It gives both parties legal security. Though the parents in some of the happiest families I know aren’t married.

Why call it a marriage then? Marriage vows are traditionally associated with religion/tradition etc. I suppose you could at least change the nomenclature to a contract or something.

We haven’t done away with shame in the West, but different things bring shame, such as cheating in relationships.

Does allowing prostitution, pornography, gambling etc. bring shame in the west or not?

 

[sweep_shot]

If you don't own any explanations to anyone why are you even arguing "Patriarchy is a good thing".

You already to believe in it.

Forget about everyone else and move on.

I made this thread to discuss merit of patriarchy on its own (independent from religious rulings). I believe benevolent patriarchy is the best system in the long run. Everything else can result in chaos.

As a Muslim, I believe in whatever Islam says. No debate about it. But, I didn't make this thread with religion in mind. I simply wanted to see what radical liberals think about this topic.

 

[sweep_shot]

I compare benevolent patriarchy to nutritious vegetables (may not taste good initially but good for health).

Similarly, I compare everything else to meth; can make you euphoric but damages you in the long run.

 

[Champ_Pal]

You can discipline anyone. Child or adult. Why ARENT you talking about drugs and prostitution? Why stop people from doing even that? Truth is, every state disciplines people in the way it deems best. Rest of it is just beating around the bush and being hypocritical.

Drugs are bad for health and prostitution can be exploited by pimps. They should be discouraged.

 

[Robert]

Why call it a marriage then? Marriage vows are traditionally associated with religion/tradition etc. I suppose you could at least change the nomenclature to a contract or something.

We can call it a civil partnership if we like, which still protects both parties in law. I am married, but there was no religious aspect to the ceremony I attended.

Does allowing prostitution, pornography, gambling etc. bring shame in the west or not?

Prostitution - yes, though IMO we should be like Germany and have state-run brothels, to take "the oldest profession" out of the hands of big crime and into regulation.

Pornography - depends on the type. Violent porn is definitely shameful. It depends if the woman is being degraded or not.

Gambling - no, unless it causes financial ruination, but that's a question of addiction not the act of gambling itself.

 

[Robert]

Drugs are bad for health and prostitution can be exploited by pimps. They should be discouraged.

I would decriminalise both. Make drug use a medical problem not a criminal problem, freeing up jail space for longer sentences for violent offenders. Have state-run brothels where the sex workers are protected.

 

[SalimBhai]

The war on drugs is lost. Wasted decades. Legalize drugs. Stop criminalizing people for it.. Prostitution should be regulated with protection for the sex workers.

 

[Robert]

Bro what )

Religious types always bring incest up, in attempt to find hypocrisy.

Nearly all Western people find the idea extremely ick, whereas a large minority (5-10%) of populations have strong gay feelings at some point. Though not for a family member because that would be ick.

We don't allow it under law because of the closeness of DNA within families leading to enhanced risk of genetic abnormality. If you go to some places in UK where cousin marriage used to be common due to the geography, some of the people do look a little odd and there are a lot more abnormalities than the mean. We joke about people in fenlands evolving webbed feet.

 

[sweep_shot]

I would decriminalise both. Make drug use a medical problem not a criminal problem, freeing up jail space for longer sentences for violent offenders. Have state-run brothels where the sex workers are protected.

You are okay with people doing drugs and sleeping around.

Are you sure you are a retired person? You sound like you are in your teenage years.

 

[sweep_shot]

The war on drugs is lost. Wasted decades. Legalize drugs. Stop criminalizing people for it.. Prostitution should be regulated with protection for the sex workers.

War on drug is not over yet. I say punishments aren't harsh enough.

Death penalty needs to be used. Military needs to be used. Druggies should be sent to rehab; if they do not cooperate, imprison or execute them. That should be the blueprint.

 

[SalimBhai]

A grisly drug-induced homicide captivated the media in Saudi Arabia this April, when a man in the country’s Eastern Province set his family house on fire before iftar, the meal that ends the Ramadan fast. Four members of his family were killed.

Police said he was under the influence of shabu, a methamphetamine, according to local papers.

Saudi media has been sounding the alarm lately over the rise in drug use, with one columnist describing shipments of narcotics to the kingdom as an “open war against us, more dangerous than any other war.”

On Wednesday, Saudi authorities announced the largest seizure of illicit drugs in the country’s history after nearly 47 million amphetamine pills were hidden in a flour shipment and seized at a warehouse in the capital Riyadh.

The record seizure demonstrates what experts say is Saudi Arabia’s growing role as the drug capital of the Middle East, driving demand and becoming the primary destination for smugglers from Syria and Lebanon.

The kingdom, they say, is one of the largest and most lucrative regional destinations for drugs, and that status is only intensifying.

Wednesday’s operation was the biggest single smuggling attempt in terms of narcotics seized, according to the General Directorate of Narcotics Control. While authorities didn’t name the drug seized or where it came from, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has previously said that “reports of amphetamine seizures from countries in the Middle East continue to refer predominantly to tablets bearing the Captagon logo.”

Captagon was originally the brand name for a medicinal product containing the synthetic stimulant fenethylline. Though it is no longer produced legally, counterfeit drugs carrying the captagon name are regularly seized in the Middle East, according to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

Drug busts of captagon in Saudi Arabia and around the region have grown over time. Earlier this week, A US Coast Guard boat seized 320 kilograms of amphetamine tablets and almost 3,000 kilograms of hashish worth millions of dollars from a fishing boat in the Gulf of Oman.

The drug was popularized in the kingdom some 15 years ago but has taken off more intensely in the past five years, “perhaps becoming on par with cannabis,” according to Vanda Felbab-Brown, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC, who has written on the topic.

One of the reasons captagon is spreading in use is “because there is a supply flood now coming mostly from Syria” where it is produced “on an industrial scale in the chemical factories inherited from the [Assad] regime” and supplied by warlords and affiliates of the regime.

Saudi Arabia’s Center for International Communication didn’t respond to CNN’s request for comment.

Captagon can be sold for between $10 and $25 a pill, meaning the latest Saudi haul, if it was the same drug, has a street value of up to $1.1 billion, based on figures from the International Addiction Review journal.

“Captagon’s amphetamine-type properties are sought out as a coping mechanism that can aid users facing food insecurity in staving hunger, and inducing a euphoric ‘rush’ that users have said to help with traumatic stress,” said Caroline Rose, a senior analyst at the New Lines Institute in Washington, D.C. who has studied the captagon trade. “It’s also been said that these same traits for captagon have been sought out by foreign workers in wealthy Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia, seen to aid work performance.”

While hashish and khat are also common drugs in the kingdom, amphetamines are popular among Saudi youth. A 2021 study in the journal of Crime, Law and Social Change cited a user as saying, “captagon is small. My school mates and I like it more than hashish. Not like hashish, we can buy in tablet……Once we get 25 riyals from [our] parents, we can buy one tablet and enjoy it.”

“In wealthier consumer markets, the drug has a different appeal, serving as a recreational activity amongst its growing youth population that, despite social reforms… have reportedly struggled with boredom amidst widespread youth unemployment and a lack of opportunities for leisurely activities,” said Rose. “Some consumers have justified captagon as less of a taboo substance, compared to ‘harder’ drugs like opiates and cocaine.”

Since many young people in Saudi Arabia have been taking drugs as a result of boredom and lack of social opportunities, the increased freedoms introduced by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman could help reduce some of that use, said Felbab-Brown.

“The important thing is neither to curtail the freedoms, nor to turn concerts into places of dragnets and raids, but rather to educate young people,” she told CNN.

Over the past few years, a number of drug rehabilitation centers have popped up across the kingdom after the government began licensing private establishments.

Khalid Al Mashari, the CEO of Qaweem, one of the first such centers to open, says around four or five have opened in the past two years. That’s a testament to the government’s recognition of the importance of rehabilitation, he says, but it also shows that the problem is on the rise.

“We’re in high demand, unfortunately,” he told CNN. “But at least people have an option now, instead of having to go to neighboring countries to seek treatment.”

Despite the presence of rehabilitation centers, Rose says there is little public health messaging or campaigning to raise awareness about captagon.

“While this taboo regarding drug consumption in the kingdom is not going anywhere, the government’s tendency to exclusively securitize this issue and downplay its role as a destination market will be harder to ignore,” she said.

Felbab-Brown says drug policies in the Middle East have focused on the harshest of responses.

“Unlike large parts of the world [that] have walked away from such rigid and mostly ineffective or outright counterproductive policies, the Middle East has often doubled down on them,” she said. “Imprisoning users is ineffective and counterproductive.”

 

[sweep_shot]

The reason why America cannot defeat drug cartels is because they do not show the required toughness with these cartels. America is too busy bombing/harassing other countries; why don't they bomb drug cartels?

Mexican drug cartels probably killed more Americans than all terror groups combined.

 

[SalimBhai]

Said is tough on drugs. Biggest consumers of drugs in Middle East

 

[Robert]

War on drug is not over yet. I say punishments aren't harsh enough.

Death penalty needs to be used. Military needs to be used. Druggies should be sent to rehab; if they do not cooperate, imprison or execute them. That should be the blueprint.

The War on Drugs is a war on people.

Decriminalise everything, and the "war" is won at a stroke because the cartels will have no power.