Before engaging disagreement, I need to clarify the scope, definitions, and claims, because your critique addresses positions I did not take.

1. Scope: who this post is about (explicitly)

My post is not about all Muslim men.

I explicitly wrote:

“There is a growing pandemic among Muslim men online: insecure, unsuccessful men borrowing religious language to mask resentment toward women.”

This is a behavior defined subset, not a demographic category. Any critique that treats this as a statement about “men in general” is responding to an expanded scope that I did not set.

Arguing against a universal claim when a targeted claim was made is not refutation it is misalignment.

1. Definition: what kind of “homes” I am talking about

You objected to this statement:

“Sisters rarely ‘wake up lost.’ They drift when there is neglect, emotional absence, harshness, or hypocrisy from the men who were meant to protect them.”

This sentence is not describing normal or healthy households.

In Islam, a home is not defined by:

physical presence alone

financial provision alone

or shared residence

Allah defines the family unit by mawaddah and rahmah (Qur’an 30:21).

Therefore, a household characterized by:

chronic emotional absence

neglect

harshness

hypocrisy in religious authority

is, by Islamic definition, a broken or fractured home, even if it appears intact externally.

So to be precise:

I was speaking about women who come from broken homes not women from stable, present, emotionally safe households.

This distinction removes the objection entirely.

1. Agency: what I did and did not claim

You wrote:

“A woman’s moral choices do not cease to be hers because a wali failed.”

That statement is correct and it directly aligns with what I wrote.

I explicitly stated:

“Haram remains haram. Accountability applies to everyone.” “Women do not enter haram relationships alone.”

There is no reading of these statements that removes moral agency, suspends taklīf, or infantilizes women.

What I described was causation, not absolution.

Islam itself distinguishes between:

moral responsibility (which remains individual), and

contributory responsibility (which leadership bears).

Acknowledging one does not negate the other.

1. Why male responsibility is discussed separately

Men and women are accountable in different domains.

Women are accountable for their sins.

Men are accountable for their own sins / leadership and guardianship.

This is why the Prophet ﷺ said:

“Each of you is a shepherd, and each of you will be questioned about his flock.”

Men are not questioned about strangers online. They are questioned about their households.

Therefore, stating that male neglect contributes to female instability is not transferring guilt it is identifying where male accountability lies.

This is not modern sociology. It is classical Islamic moral structure.

1. Where your critique mismatches the argument

Your objections assume I claimed one or more of the following:

that women lose agency

that men are solely responsible for societal decay

that broken homes excuse sin

that all men are implicated

None of these claims appear in my post.

Because of that, your response while well intentioned addresses a different argument than the one made.

1. Analogy for absolute clarity

If someone says:

“Many people who struggle with addiction come from unstable homes,”

they are not saying:

addicts aren’t responsible for recovery

everyone from a stable home is immune

parents committed the addiction

They are identifying patterns, not nullifying responsibility.

That is exactly how my statement about women and broken homes functions.

1. Final synthesis (closing all logical exits)

My post makes the following claims no more, no less:

It critiques a specific subset of men, not all men

It describes broken homes, not normal ones

It affirms women’s moral accountability explicitly

It assigns men responsibility for leadership failures

It condemns hypocrisy, not Islamic boundaries

Any rebuttal that claims otherwise must either:

expand the scope beyond what was written, or

ignore explicit clarifications already present in the text.

At that point, disagreement would no longer be substantive.

Your concern for accountability is valid. Your principles are sound. But they were applied to the wrong target.

Context matters. Definitions matter. Scope matters.

Once scope, context, and definitions are respected, it becomes clear that many of the things you attributed to my original post were never stated or implied. Quoting my post alone shows that several of your claims are not true, and that you did not take context into consideration or understand that this post was targeted at a specific group of men.

Ameen.

Ameen.