Dr. Jordan Peterson’s Major Blunders and Weak Points on Islam

Mohammed Hijab

Channel: Mohammed Hijab

Episode Notes

share this pageShare Page

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.


00:00:05--> 00:00:44

Go to quality dot app inshallah the app tracks versus pages and time spent reading and the Vs two pages function takes you from reading a few verses a day to few pages a day. This project is for the real enthusiast and there's enough of us out there. This will become the future of collapse and support the project if you can insha Allah may Allah bless all of you desert gonna have so many Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato. How are you guys doing and welcome to the third of a series of videos we're doing correcting some of the mistakes of Dr. Jordan Peterson about Islam and Muslims. And really, the series is intended to edify and educate not just Jordan Peterson himself,

00:00:45--> 00:01:24

but some of his followers who may or may have been misled. With all due respect on certain points of information that Dr. Jordan Peterson, an influential figure, as he is, has made about Islam and Muslims today, Inshallah, we're going to be covering two or three different statements that he has made. Let's start with the first one because it's a historical, and it's easy to refute. Let's take a look at it when the founder of your religion spread that religion by the sword. It makes it rather difficult and when your religion has been embroiled in a vicious Civil War, from the day of Muhammad's death, which is exactly the case in Islam between the Sunnis and the Shiites, that war

00:01:24--> 00:01:52

started, literally the day that Muhammad died, it's very difficult for me to see how that can be reconciled with the claims that Islam is a religion of peace. Right? So he states that Islam was embroiled in a vicious civil war. Our question is, can you name me with I know you're watching this thought, Dr. Jordan Peterson, because clearly it would make sense for you to do so. What is the name of that Civil War you're talking about? That commenced the day the Prophet sallallahu wasallam died.

00:01:54--> 00:02:15

And please give me your source for that. Because let me tell you something, Dr. Jordan Peterson, no such war took place. Now you may say, well, the war took place. 30 years after Sophie and Jamal, these wars took place 30 to 40 years after but that's not what you said. You stated that happened the day the Prophet died. And then you use that as a point

00:02:16--> 00:02:33

to to to conclude that you can't reconcile this fact, with the fact that Islam is a religion of peace. So already, you've got a point that you want to make. And the evidence that you're using doesn't match this point. And in fact, is a false piece of evidence. And it's another example where you violate your own rules.

00:02:34--> 00:03:12

The rules, namely, the rules to speak the truth, or at least don't lie, and be precise and speech, you violate your own rules. You're not precise here, this is inaccurate. For an intellectual, you need to be more careful with all due respect. Because if you don't know something, and this is false, according to all accounts, there was no war sorry, Dr. Peterson, there was no war that commenced the day the Prophet died. This is false. But as an intellectual, or as an academic, you should check before you speak, with all due respect. And already this you could say, I mean, you have to ask yourself, Dr. Jordan Peterson, are you making this point to try and score points against

00:03:12--> 00:03:21

Islam? Because you already have a cognitive bias? Because the post the evidence used was a false piece of evidence. So what is the motivating factor here?

00:03:23--> 00:03:25

Now the point that you were making about Islam being a religion of peace?

00:03:27--> 00:04:01

Look, I'm not in favor of calling Islam a religion of peace. But I'm not in favor of calling Islam a religion of war either. Because Islam really means is Islam, which means submission. And Islam is submission to one God, submission and worship of the god of Abraham, the God of Moses, and the God of Jesus, the god of Muhammad. This is what primarily Islam is. Which leads me on to your second point, because you state, Islam is primarily a political system. Let's take a look at what you have to say. But I'm really stumbling with Islam, it's really hard for me to

00:04:03--> 00:04:49

to see it as other than a primarily political system. This is false. Dr. Peterson, and with all due respect, I don't know of any scholar of Islam, in the Classical Period, who defined Islam viously that Islam is a political system, primarily a political system. How could it be? It's a very, there's a very clear theocentric motif in the Quran, a book of 6236 verses, which has been translated the meanings of I've been translated into English. And I don't think that statement that you've mentioned about Islam is anywhere to be found in the Quran. And it's nowhere to be found in the statements of the Prophet. So where do you get this idea that Islam is primarily a political

00:04:49--> 00:04:50

system?

00:04:51--> 00:04:59

Why is this the narrative that you want to portray? What is the motivating factor here? This is false, as I've mentioned Islam, quite clearly.

00:05:00--> 00:05:05

At the central center of Islam, or central to it is the idea of monotheism,

00:05:06--> 00:05:43

monotheism to worship one God. That's really the the main message of Islam. The shahada is La ilaha illa. Allah, there is no God worthy of worship, except for Allah, the Creator of the heavens in the earth, the higher power, the higher power, which Jesus himself beseeched. And pray to, that Moses prayed to the Abraham pray to, we don't believe that Jesus was God or the son of God. We don't believe that a man can be God. We don't believe in any of those things. The center of our faith is very simply to worship one God, that is the Islam.

00:05:44--> 00:06:21

So to call it primarily a political system is false is imprecise speech, or it's not speaking the truth of Islam. But what Islam is, then you go on to say something, which is, I believe, is a slight. And I believe it's an attempt to try and score points against this, I was very clear that it is. But it's also weak as an argument. Let's see what you have to say about Islam, or Muslim countries and the state of Economic Affairs in Muslim countries, you know, the, the states dominated by Islam are not economically productive.

00:06:22--> 00:06:30

And that's quite an interesting mystery. So this point that Jordan Peterson makes here, he says states are occupied by Islam are not economically productive.

00:06:32--> 00:06:58

First of all, how do you define occupied by Islam? And secondly, how do you define economically productive? What are the measures that you're using GDP per capita, for example, where for Muslim majority countries are in the top 10? Which ones are you talking about? It's talking about GDP? Or what exactly? And I must say, this is a methodologically, flawed approach, in the first instance, analyzing an ideology and

00:06:59--> 00:07:23

economic productivity of a country. Why? Because why today? First of all, first of all, why today? Why not look 400 years ago in the Ottoman Empire, or Islamic Spain or that Besitz? Or the Omarion? Whether he left Russia, when economic productivity was very high, and Islam was being implemented at a much more strict level, if you like? Is it because it fits a particular narrative, which may indicate that

00:07:25--> 00:07:33

Islam as a religion inhibits economic productivity? Similar to the kind of narrative we dealt with in the previous episode?

00:07:34--> 00:08:15

This is a weak argument. I'm really sorry. It's a weak argument. And with all due respect, you weren't even brave enough to make the argument properly, because you said it's an interesting mystery. And you shroud your sentences with words of ambiguity and uncertainty, when, with all due respect, sometimes you don't want to make the argument directly, because you know, it's susceptible to a high level refutation, like the one you're seeing right now. Because the question is, if it's to do with ideology, my question to you is in the mid 18th, century, 1760, when the industrial revolution started, in Britain, for example,

00:08:16--> 00:08:41

what what what was the state of affairs relating to ideologies, the same are the morals and ethics of Britain in the 18th century, similar or distinctly different from the morals and ethics that we're seeing today, in 21st century, I would wager, especially on women's rights, there's completely different. And in fact, that was a time where economic productivity in Britain was very, very high compared to the other states. In fact, you could say the highest,

00:08:42--> 00:08:57

you can make this argument. And so if it was to do with ideology, then once again, you'd expect the morals and the ethics and the ideological standpoints to have an impact in the inhibitive, or negative effect of that economy.

00:08:59--> 00:09:11

Likewise, you can say the same thing about the slave trade. Well, America was doing very well, when it had black slaves. It was doing very well when it was trading them and when it was forcing them to pick cotton and so on.

00:09:12--> 00:09:58

Before the American Civil War, in the mid 19th century, where the morals and the ethics and the ideological standpoints, especially over let's say, southern states in America, were they the same or distinctly different from the way they are now? I think you would say the latter. So much so that I had a constitutional effect with the third to the 13th amendment, and other such things that happened in the cultural atmosphere in America, ideological differences, yet, despite the ideological differences, which one can notice, in the mid 19th century, say, and now say, in American culture, we still see that America was doing very well economically, at a time where its

00:09:58--> 00:09:59

ideology was different to the way it is now.

00:10:00--> 00:10:08

So if ideology, or liberal or the liberal ideology of today, that's a Western ideology of today, the cultural and

00:10:09--> 00:10:29

moral and ethical standpoints of the west today, were shaping forces for how the economy behaves, then why do we see thy behaves in sometimes even a comparatively stronger way, in the past, where ethics were different in America, and in the West, generally,

00:10:30--> 00:11:04

to the way it is now. So you see, this is a methodologically flawed thing, because we're seeing transient ethics here. And this is really basic for social scientists, that correlate correlation does not always mean causation. And if it was to do with ethics, and morals and ideology, then why are we seeing the rise of Japan, Japan is not a Western country, and it has ethics and cultures distinct from the west. And yet we're seeing its economy rise at a staggering rate, technological and scientific and economic developments there.

00:11:05--> 00:11:12

Moreover, if you wanted to play this game, we can go further. And we can say to you that, in fact,

00:11:13--> 00:11:45

most, I'm not gonna say most, but many of the countries which are, which have, let's say, Western enlightened, Enlightenment ideas, in Sub Saharan Africa, and in southern in southern America, are below the poverty line, and in fact, do worse than even on a GDP level. Okay. Muslim majority countries. So if what we are saying is, if we put Western Enlightenment ideas into countries, we expect the economic development to be

00:11:47--> 00:12:33

better than why are we not seeing that we're in countries in South America and Sub Saharan Africa, where they're indebted, where they're impoverished, and so on. So you see, it's a failed attempt at slides at the Islamic civilization, and a weak argument that we expected better from Dr. Jordan Peterson. And it's these kinds of arguments, with all due respect, which go back to our theme. The theme is you're trying to whitewash the Muslim contribution. You're trying to minimize the Islamic contribution. And somehow, and you could say, with this with this kind of Lexis here is clear that you're trying to connect failure with Islam somehow, whether its economic failure, scientific

00:12:33--> 00:12:37

failure, or lack of productivity, or whatever it may be with Islam.

00:12:38--> 00:13:17

And it's failed. The arguments have failed. And maybe this is the reason why you didn't want to have a discussion with me, because you knew these things are on the record, and you knew you'd be accounted for it. But I think it's high time Jordan Peterson, if you want to have an authentic discussion, we have to start with retractions. Because these kinds of things are not just imprecise, as we've shown, sorry, they're imprecise, they're historical, they inaccurate, but they're weak as arguments. And unless one revises, and retracts, or otherwise suspend at least suspends judgments, on issues to do with these kinds of points that you've mentioned here. That how are we going to have

00:13:17--> 00:13:34

a proper dialogue between Islam about Islam and the West, for example, and the interaction between these two things, if we can separate them at all, and hopefully, that edified some of Jordan Peterson's followers and inshallah live in Jordan Peterson himself, was Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh