Here’s a little puzzle about @jordanbpeterson for the good people of X. Consider the following three points and try to square them with the questions at the end. The most compelling answer will receive a free lifetime subscription to Muftah Magazine.

1. Jordan Peterson was on @PiersUncensored recently and claimed that there are only three nominally democratic Muslim countries today and the rest are “authoritarian hellholes.” He juxtaposed the failures of authoritarian governance in the Muslim world with the success and ideal of Western democracy.

2. Peterson contemplated whether the condition of the Muslim world represents a “deviation of Islamic principles” or is instead a “consequence” of their application. He gave the following answer: “there are certainly doctrines in Islam that are very, very difficult to square with free, liberal, western, Christian democracies—and those differences are just apparent, they’re deep.” These comments paint a certain picture: Western forms of life and governance are the standard, aspirational ideal, but Muslims can’t realize or fulfill them because “Islam” and “the West” are incompatible.

3. Peterson then praised the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region including the “signatories of the Abraham accords” for having “stellar leaders” who have forged a “different pathway” from the kind of “authoritarian hellhole” he’d been describing.

Here’s the puzzle:

How is it that Peterson sees no apparent contradiction in lambasting ‘Islamic authoritarianism’ and the lack of ‘Islamic democracy’ in one breath, while in the next breath praising some of the most authoritarian governments and leaders in the region (and perhaps the world) as "stellar" exemplars of a positive Islamic future? Why does Peterson simultaneously set up democracy as the missing ideal in the region, while praising governments and leaders who have not only openly opposed democracy in principle but have actively funded and mobilized violent, anti-democratic campaigns and suppressed democratic dissent, particularly over the last decade? Assuming Peterson is not praising them for their democratic potential, what exactly is he praising them for, and what kind of ‘better’ future does he believe they can create? (Bonus question: 'better' for whom?)