I can only translate the text you provide, and this message is a question rather than a passage from an Islamic book. My role is to translate it into Uzbek faithfully, without answering it. Here is the translation: Patriarkiya — feminizm qarshi chiqadigan bu g'oyani men hech qachon tushunmaganman: Nega tarix davomida ko'plab patriarxal madaniyatlar va tsivilizatsiyalardagi erkaklar o'zlarining hamkasblarini, ya'ni xotinlarini, opa-singillarini, onalarini tizimli ravishda zulm qilishgan?

One of the things I never understood about the idea of patriarchy that feminism opposes is this: Why would men throughout history across numerous patriarchal cultures and civilizations systematically oppress their counterparts, i.e., their wives, their sisters, their mothers?

Zulm (zulm) nima degani – bir kishini o'ziga kerakli narsadan, unga tegishli haqdan mahrum qilish va boshqacha tarzda unga zarar yetkazish demakdir. Men bunday holatlarni alohida vaziyatlarda tushunaman, masalan, erning xotinini zo'rlashi kabi oiladagi zo'ravonlikda. Lekin bu butun dunyoda yoki butun jamiyat miqyosida qanday yuz berishini tushunmayman. Nega? Chunki erkaklar ham, ayollar ham shunchalik aqlli. Aytmoqchimanki, erkaklar o'z uylarida bunday dasturni amalga oshirishi butunlay oqilona emas bo'lardi. Erkaklar o'z ayollarini zaiflashtirib, ularning ehtiyojlarini doimiy ravishda qondirmasdan qanday foyda ko'radi? Bu shunchaki samarasiz. Siz hech bir oilani ko'rganmisiz, unda er yoki ota (yoki xotin yoki ona) zolim bo'lib, hamma nazoratni qo'lga olgan, temir musht bilan hukm yuritgan bo'lsa? Bunday vaziyatlar hech qachon barqaror bo'lmaydi, unda ishtirok etgan hamma kishi baxtsiz bo'lib, chiqish yo'lini izlaydi. Shunday deb ishonishimiz kerakmi, faqat zamonaviy odamlar uy ichidagi doimiy zulm (adolatsizlik) na foydali, na barqaror ekanini anglagan? Bundan tashqari, ayollar ming yillar davomida erkaklarning ularni bo'ysundirish rejasining doimiy qurbonlari bo'lib kelgan, degan fikr ayollarning aql-idrokiga va qobiliyatiga nisbatan haqoratli. Yana bir bor so'rayman: faqat zamonaviy ayollargina o'zlarini patriarxat tomonidan bo'ysundirilayotganini tushunib, qarshilik ko'rsatish uchun yetarlicha ma'rifatli ekanmi, o'tmishdagi ayollar esa buni payqash yoki o'zgarishga erishish uchun juda ahmoq bo'lganmi? Bu mantiqqa to'g'ri kelmaydi.

To oppress someone means to prevent that person from what she needs, what is her due, and to otherwise cause harm. And I can understand how that happens in isolated situations, e.g., domestic abuse where a husband abuses his wife, etc. But I don’t understand how this can happen globally or across an entire society. Why? Because men are smarter than that and so are women. What I mean is, it would be completely irrational for men to inflict this kind of program within their own households. How do men benefit by crippling their female companions and continually frustrating their needs? That is simply not functional. Have you ever known a family where the husband/father (or the wife/mother) is a tyrant, wields all the control, rules with an iron fist? Those situations are never sustainable and everyone involved is miserable and looking for an exit. Are we supposed to believe that it was only modern people that realized, “Wow, constant dhulm (injustice) in the household is neither optimal nor sustainable?” Also, the idea that women have been the perpetual victims of this scheme by men to oppress them over thousands of years is really insulting to the intelligence and capabilities of women. Again, are modern women the only ones enlightened enough to understand that they are being oppressed by patriarchy and to fight back, whereas past women were too stupid to notice or successfully effect change? That makes no sense.

Oppressions Aqlan uzoq vaqt davomida ushlab turish uchun qanchalik katta kuch talab qilishini ko'rib chiqing. Bu oddiy ish emas. Amaliy nuqtai nazardan qarang. Hozirgi arab dunyosining ahvoliga e'tibor bering. Diktatorlar o'z xalqi ustidan qandaydir (noqonuniy) hokimiyat va nazoratni saqlab qolish uchun harbiy va politsiya kuchlarini, har xil kuzatuv dasturlarini hamda targ'ibot va qo'rqitish muassasalarini safarbar qilishga majbur bo'lgan. Ular buni 60 yoki 70 yil davomida qilib kelmoqda, va qarang, ularga qanchalik qarshilik ko'rsatilgan va qanchalik tartibsizlik kelib chiqqan. Jahon tarixida ham xuddi shunday. Zulm mohiyatan beqaror bo'lib, uning qurbonlari muqarrar ravishda qarshilik ko'rsatgani sababli, uni uzoq muddat saqlab turish ko'p resurs va kuch talab qiladi.

If you look at what is required to effectively oppress a group of people, it is not a trivial task. Look at it from a practical perspective. Look at the current state of the Arab world. Dictators have had to marshal all kinds of resources, military and police force, all kinds of programs of monitoring and institutions of propaganda and intimidation to maintain some semblance of (illegitimate) power and control over their populations. They’ve been doing this for 60 or 70 years, and look at how much resistance they’ve been getting and how much turmoil has resulted. The same is the case throughout world history. Oppression is inherently unstable and requires a lot of resources and energy to maintain for any extended period of time because the victims of oppression inevitably resist.

Bu fikr ayollarni ezish bo'yicha tizimli patriarxat g'oyasini ikki jihatdan shubha ostiga qo'yadi. Birinchidan, erkaklar ming yillar davomida ayollarni muvaffaqiyatli bostirib kelgan, degan qarash mantiqqa zid: agar bu maqsad bo'lganida, erkaklar nima uchun o'z oilalari a'zolarining doimiy "isyoni"ga qarshi uzluksiz kurashga duch kelishardi, axir bu o'sha odamlar bo'lib, ular har kecha birga yotadi? Ikkinchidan, agar bunday dastur haqiqatan mavjud bo'lganida, uning resurslari qayerdan kelardi? Oila darajasida tarixan erning qo'lidagi pul va vositalarni xotinidan yashirish qiyin bo'lgan. Bu yakka holatlarda sodir bo'lgan bo'lishi mumkin, lekin tizimli darajada yoki keng tarqalgan hodisa sifatida emas.

This casts doubt on the notion of oppressive patriarchy on two counts. First, the idea that men have been successfully keeping women down for millennia is absurd in the sense that, if that were the program, why would men put themselves through that incessant turmoil, constantly battling “uprising” from their own family members, presumably the same people they are sleeping next to in their beds every night? Second, if that were indeed the program, where would the resources for such a program come from? On the family level, historically it would have been difficult to keep money and means that are available to a husband away from a wife. It is possible and did happen, again in isolated cases, but not on a systematic level or something that could be widespread.

Tarixiy haqiqat shundaki, ayollar va erkaklar o'z xonadonlarini saqlashda turli vazifalarni bajarganlar. Ammo bu rollarga iyerarxiya joriy etib, an'anaviy ayollik vazifalari ayollarni erkaklarga nisbatan dargumon ahvolga solib qo'ygan, deb da'vo qiladigan narsa - faqat zamonaviy feminizmdir. Men buni boshqa joyda ham ta'kidlaganman: bunday xulosalar uchun hech qanday asos yo'q. Masalan, bolalarni tarbiyalash va o'qitish kabi an'anaviy ayollik vazifasi savdo-sotiq va shunga o'xshash sohalardagi rollarga qaraganda qanday qilib tabiatan kamroq kuchga ega ekani aniq emas.

Now it is a historical fact that women and men played different roles in maintaining their households. But it is only modern feminism that imposes a hierarchy on these roles and claims that the traditional roles of women have put them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis men. But as I have argued elsewhere, there is no basis for these determinations. For example, it is not clear how a traditional female role like raising and educating children is inherently less powerful than roles involving commercial trade, etc.

Feministlar bizga shunday ishonтиришимизни istaydiki, erkak o'z oilasidan — xotinidan, qizlaridan va onasidan — ko'ra boshqa erkaklar bilan til biriktirib, ularning hokimiyat tizimlarini o'rnatishga tayyor bo'ladi. Bu inson tajribasiga va asosiy shaxsiy manfaatga zid. Agar siz ayol bo'lsangiz, o'zingizdan so'rang: otangiz, eringiz yoki akangiz faqat "erkaklar ayollarga qarshi birlashadi" degan tamoyil asosida begona erkakning manfaatlarini sizning manfaatlaringizdan ustun qo'yadimi? Agar shunday bo'lsa, bu sizning otangiz, eringiz va akangiz ruhiy jihatdan xasta yoki aqldan ozgan ekanini anglatadi, bir jins ustidan zulm qilayotgan global fitna vakillari ekanini emas. Agar siz erkak bo'lsangiz, o'zingizdan so'rang: siz begona erkaklarni qidirib, ularning manfaatlarini xotinizning, qizlaringizning va onangizning manfaatlaridan ustun qo'yasizmi? Agar shunday bo'lsa, siz ehtimol ruhiy barqarorligingiz past odamsiz, ayollarni ortda tutayotgan global birodarlikning patriarxi emassiz.

Let me make the point like this: Feminism wants us to believe that a man would choose other men to collude with and establish systems of power with over his own family, over his own wife and daughters and mother. This goes against human experience and basic self interest. If you are a woman, ask yourself: Is your father or your husband or your brother going to privilege the interests of a strange man over your interests, solely on the basis that “men stick together against women”? If so, that just means your father, husband, and brother are psychologically disturbed and possibly insane, not representatives of this global conspiracy to oppress one gender. And if you are a man, ask yourself: Are you going to look out for strange men and prioritize their interests over the interests of your wife, daughters, and mother? If so, you are very likely mentally unstable, not a patriarch who is part of this global brotherhood holding back women.