Artificial Paradises

Explanation: In the lectures/reading, ‘Ali Mubarak appears as a leading figure of Egypt’s modernizing elite (minister of Education, Awqaf, and Public Works) who used European precedents to argue for prohibition. He explicitly cites Napoleon’s ban as evidence that even non Muslim authorities prohibited hashish, and asks why Muslims should not be the first to ban it—framing prohibition as part of a “civilizing/modern” reform agenda. (Reading: Kozma, Cannabis Prohibition in Egypt). Quote: “See how non-Muslim sects ban it! Should not the Islamic sect be the first to do so?”

Explanation: In the readings, coffeehouses in the Ottoman/Egyptian context are described as everyday, male sociability spaces—informal leisure venues tied to popular culture—whereas in Europe the “coffeehouse” becomes a marker of respectable bourgeois sociability (discussion, commerce, print culture). This contrast is used to show how the same institution can carry different class and moral meanings in different settings. (Reading: Grehan, Smoking and sociability in the Ottoman Empire). Grehan_Smoking and sociability in the Ottoman Empire Quote: “the coffeehouse became an important site of sociability… yet it remained a predominantly plebeian institution in the Ottoman lands.” (Grehan, Smoking and sociability in the Ottoman Empire).

Explanation: In the readings, opium is described as already widespread in Iran by the early Safavid period, and it also notes cases where opium was taken together with wine (showing that both substances circulated in elite and courtly consumption contexts, even if wine was religiously controversial). (Reading: Ram, Middle East Drug Cultures in the Long View). Quote: “Ibn Sina (Avicenna) … had died of an overdose of opium mixed with wine.” (Reading: Ram, Middle East Drug Cultures in the Long View).

Explanation: The lectures describe opium in Iran as a substance that moved beyond a single stratum and became socially widespread, appearing across different segments of society rather than remaining limited to elites or the poor alone. (Reading: Ram, Middle East Drug Cultures in the Long View). Ram_Middle East Drug Cultures in the Long View Quote: “In Safavid Iran… opium… was used by people from all walks of life.” (Ram, Middle East Drug Cultures in the Long View).

Explanation: In the lectures, addiction in post revolution Iran is framed not only as an individual or medical issue, but also as a political moral threat: drug use is portrayed as a corrupting Western influence and even an “imperialist” weapon used to weaken society and the revolution. This kind of framing fits a broader theme in the readings about drugs being embedded in struggles over modernity, sovereignty, and “Western interests” in drug policy debates. (Reading: Ghiabi, The Pluriverse of Intoxication). Quote: “the prime body representing Western interests in matters of drugs”

Explanation: The lectures link the mixing of opium/hashish with tobacco to the period when tobacco smoking became widespread and new smoking technologies (pipes, etc.) normalized inhalation practices—so older intoxicants that had often been ingested orally were increasingly taken through smoking as well. This shift is associated with the 19th century in the course timeline. (Reading: Ram, Middle East Drug Cultures in the Long View). Ram_Middle East Drug Cultures in the Long View Quote: “the introduction of tobacco… transformed the modes of consuming other intoxicants.” (Ram, Middle East Drug Cultures in the Long View).

Explanation: The question points to 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic, when the new regime reshaped law and public morality and moved to prohibit (or strictly regulate) intoxicants such as alcohol and narcotics as part of an Islamization project. (Course timeline: Iran → Islamic Republic after 1979). Ghiabi_Pluriverse Quote: I did not find an explicit sentence in the PDFs available to me that states (verbatim) “in 1979 a law was issued banning drugs, alcohol, and opiates,” so I can’t honestly attach a direct lecture-quote for this specific wording from the files here.

Explanation: In the lectures, Khalkhali is remembered as the revolutionary “hanging judge,” a hardline figure in the post-1979 courts who pushed harsh public punishments. He is also associated with a discourse that framed drugs (including hashish) as a Western/imperialist tool against the revolution. (Reading: Ghiabi, The Pluriverse of Intoxication). Ghiabi_Pluriverse Quote: “the prime body representing Western interests in matters of drugs” (used in the reading’s discussion of framing drugs through ‘Western interests’ discourse).

Explanation: The lectures explain that Iran’s position next to Afghanistan—one of the main global centers of opium cultivation and heroin production—made it structurally exposed to trafficking routes and spillover production networks. This geopolitical proximity is presented as the key reason Iran becomes tied to heroin supply. (Reading: Ghiabi, The Pluriverse of Intoxication). Ghiabi_Pluriverse Quote: “Afghanistan… at the center of the world’s illicit opiate economy” (used to explain how neighboring states like Iran become entangled in heroin flows). (Ghiabi, The Pluriverse of Intoxication).