Mohammed Hijab – Jordan Peterson Mohammed was a Warlord

			Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh How are you guys doing? This is in sha Allah the first of a
series of correction videos, which we'll be putting forward in sha Allah about Dr. Jordan Peterson's
a content, especially in relation to Islam. Now, for those who know, we were meant to be having me
and Dr. Jordan Peterson, a discussion, and this discussion was meant to happen actually three times
and it was cancelled unfortunately that many times in a span of six months. Now, for whatever
reason, in fact, the third reason was, or the third time it gave me the reason that it was because
he had other guests and other topics that he wanted to kind of speak about, but no problem. I know
		

			that Dr. Jordan Peterson may be watching this now since he we've had such communication for with his
team and with himself for over a long span of time. So this is the first and probably one of the
most important videos about some of the wording that Dr. Jordan Peterson has decided to use about
the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu wasallam. And in his public output, this is probably the most
developed speech he has on the topic. So let's see what he has to say, and come back and commentate
on it. If you look at the figure of Christ, and I don't care if you're religious or not, and I don't
even care of Christ existed or not, and I certainly don't care at the moment about
		

			claims to divinity or the lock there up. It's just speaking, as let's say, I'm speaking as a secular
intellectual, being as a figure, he's a figure of peace. I don't think that that's disputable. I
mean, he certainly he wasn't a warlord. That's, that's one thing that's for certain he never led
armies, you know, whereas that's not the case with Muhammad at all. Muhammad was clearly and
indisputably a warlord. And so it isn't obvious to me what to make of that. Except that it's *
complicated. Well, I think the first thing we have to do is define what a warlord is. Now, this is a
definition from Collins. If you describe a leader of a country, or an organization as warlord,
		

			Collins tells us, you are critical of them, because they have achieved power by behaving in an
aggressive and violent way.
		

			Kimberly Martin in
		

			a piece that she wrote called warlordism in comparative perspective, this is in political science
literature. She actually defines warlord in four different ways. She says number one, that they are
they trained army armed men to take advantage of the disintegration of a central authority to seize
control of relatively small slices of territory. Number two, she says that their actions are based
on self interest, not ideology. And number three, their authority is based on charisma and patronage
ties to their followers. And number four, this personalistic Rule leads to the fragmentation of
political and economic arrangements across the country. So these are if we look at this now we've
		

			got one dictionary definition. Obviously, you can look out the dictionaries, but we have one if you
want to call it that term and the logical definition from the literature from the political science
literature. Now Jordan Peterson is famous for saying you have to be precise in speech. Now, I want
to say to Jordan Peterson, that unfortunately, according to these two definitions, using the term
warlord is not precise, because in fact, the prophet would be disqualified from being a warlord as
per those definitions, why so? Because the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, how did he
achieve power? Now we have to look at obviously had the Meccan period and the medieval period. This
		

			is the kind of categorization the biographical categorization of the Prophet's life, you had two
major, his premiership as a Prophet, his time as a prophet at the Meccan period, 13 years and then
10 years in the medieval period, when the Prophet was migrating or when he was being boycotted and
persecuted. And this we know, in the Sierra in the biography of the Prophet was he was being
persecuted his friends and followers were being persecuted in Mecca for 13 years. There was then a
transition period, where the Prophet sallallahu wasallam peace and blessings be upon him, try to
religiously incentivize groups and tribes outside of Makkah, in order to move away and to move his
		

			followers away from such boycott and persecution that they were facing for a very long span of time.
So he went to life, which is a place outside of Mecca. And he was, he was, he was rejected fiercely.
And then this is the thing about the Prophet Muhammad, you have to humanize him because he was a man
to Allah who Allah He was salam who was an orphan. Okay, think about this for a second. He was a man
who was an orphan. He was a man who buried all of his children except for one. He was a man who his
wife died Khadija who his uncle died, Abu Talib, who was one of the most protective and actually the
central
		

			protective figure in his life. And this was in the Meccan period. And he wasn't even a Muslim by the
way. And when that protection went away, he had to then seek it from other places. So he went to
five. And PIF was a neighboring city. And they rejected him fiercely. And if you look at the the
reports of that, they threw stones at him, they taunted him, he was bleeding SallAllahu wasallam, so
much so that his sandals were filled with blood.
		

			This is the person you're talking about as being a warlord. And then after that, when he was
rejected from that particular city, he went to another place, which was then called Yathrib, which
would then be called Medina, where two tribes or clans called LC has Raja.
		

			Now these two tribes, they accepted the message of Islam. And then they decided to put the prophet
as the leader of the polity of Yathrib. So he was made into the leader of the policy of Yathrib. Not
through aggression or violence, but through popular support. And this disqualifies him from being a
warlord. Okay, according to the dictionary definition that we've just seen. And in fact, according
to the terminological definition that we've also just seen, as well. So this is, in fact, Jordan
Peterson, and this is very important for you, because one of your rules in your book is imprecise
speech. It is imprecise, imprecise speech in accurate speech. What is really incumbent upon you, I
		

			think, from an intellectual perspective, is for you to make a formal retraction about this to say,
actually, I used imprecise speech, because I used one aspect of this man's life inaccurately to
typify his whole character. And by the way, war lords, and I've looked at a lot of your videos,
because remember, we were meant to be speaking to each other for a span of six months. And I've seen
the majority of your videos and see the majority of read the majority of what you've had, you've
written even even peer reviewed stuff. By the way, the word Lord warlord, interestingly, you have
not used it with any, to my knowledge any other person except for the Prophet Muhammad. So if it was
		

			about leading armies, then why not use that with Harry Truman? Who detonated bombs on on Japan,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why not use it with Winston Churchill, who led campaigns in Dresden, and
Hamburg, in World War Two? Okay, and which, which was targeting civilians, the Prophet Muhammad
unequivocally denied the targeting of civilians? So why only use it with the Prophet Muhammad? Why
have you never used it on your public output on your books? With any other figure except for the
Prophet Muhammad? What kind of exceptionalism is this? What kind of fetishization is this? What kind
of exoticism is this? What kind of Western gaze is this Orientalizing? The narrative is this.
		

			You got to think about this, because if it was about leading armies, then all of these other figures
also lead armies. More so the biblical figures, Joshua Moses, they lead armies, but when you
mentioned their name, you don't automatically it doesn't spew off your tongue, the term warlord. So
why is it the case that you've made this exception for the Prophet Muhammad, Allah, Allah, Allah,
you are a clinical psychologist. You're a clinical psychologist, Jordan Peterson. And you also
profess self professed ignorance on the religion of Islam, the fact that you've used the term
warlord to the Find the Prophet Muhammad SAW sort of as an adjunct, as a primary objective, when it
		

			comes to the problem how Salah is almost equivalent to you with a limited data set of information as
a clinical psychologist, labeling a client or patient of yours. That is the equivalent. Now what
would happen if you did that in practice, you will be shunned, you would be not? So how can you how
can you label someone after or only gathering very limited information about them? So is this a
cognitive bias that exists within you? And you have to ask yourself this question, because it's some
kind of a projection or scapegoating of the Prophet Muhammad and Islam? Or is it because you're
trying to energize your base? Which is an alt right base? Or is it because you're trying to
		

			perpetuate a clash of civilizations narrative? Or is it because of genuine ignorance in either or
any of these situations? What is once again incumbent upon you, Jordan Peterson, I say this through
out of genuine at, honestly and authenticity. I think what is incumbent upon you and I know you're
watching this, I know you're listening to this is that you make an official retraction of this
statement.
		

			Otherwise, you're going to have so many variables, which we've just mentioned that you will not be
able to explain
		

			that you've used this term with the Prophet and you've not used it with any other political leader.
This is unjustifiable, to say the least. You've not used it even with biblical prophets,
		

			which led armies. So once again, it's unjustifiable. Now let's move on to the second part of this,
which is your comparison, your false comparison with all due respect, your false comparison of the
Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and Jesus Christ. Now, first thing is, you said that
Jesus was a figure of peace. Now we agree with that we love Jesus Christ as Muslims, because we must
believe that Jesus Christ was a prophet, a messenger and the Messiah, we must believe in all of
that. However, the question of him being a figure of peace really depends upon your interpretation.
And if one was going to have a segmented, a decontextualized, an uncharitable reading of Jesus
		

			Christ,
		

			in the Christian tradition, okay, then one could come to the conclusion that he was not a figure of
peace. I'll tell you how. Point number one, Jesus Christ as Crystal logically understood, Crystal
logically in this in the sense that Protestants and Catholics understand them to be is inseparable
from the rest of the Trinity. As such, all of those massacres that you see in the Old Testament, of
the Canaanites, and the Amalekites, and so on, are or would be commanded by Jesus Christ according
to this Christological understanding. Now, let me give you one example, a very famous verse, I'll
read it, word for word. So once again, I'm not miss quoting anything. Now. First Samuel 15. Three,
		

			okay, very famous commandment in the Old Testament. Now go attack the Amalekites, and totally
destroy all that belongs to them, Do not spare them put to death men and women, children and
infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. I would love for anybody to be able to find a single
Hadith or a single verse of the Quran, which states these categories of people to be killed. In
fact, the opposite is there. The opposite is in the Hadith. You are not allowed to kill children,
you are not allowed to kill noncombatant disbelievers as the Prophet Muhammad SAW Salam said men,
patella Mahajan, LEM Yetta. There, Atal, Jana, whoever kills a noncombatant, not this believer, you
		

			will not smell the fragrance of heaven. This is so these categories of people. It's there in the Old
Testament. And according to the Christological, understanding Jesus is not to be separated from the
rest of the Trinity. So that's the first thing that you will see. That's the Old Testament. And this
is one of many verses I can pull out. You know, you can go on Google and see how many verses there
are like this of genocide and massacring. That's the first thing. The second thing is, well look at
Jesus Himself. Once again, we're being charitable here. If one is being charitable in Deacon
textual, one may pull out something from John chapter two, verse 15, where it states so he made a
		

			whip out of courts and drove them from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle, he scattered the
coins, of the money, changes and overturned their tables. This is violent behavior, someone can say,
a skeptic and say this is look at him. He's whipping people in the temple, or he's turning the
table, those Jesus's being very violence, according to the New Testament, and this is in his own
life. So once again, is this a figure of peace? Once again, if we had an uncharitable,
decontextualized, segmented understanding, one could say this is not a figure of peace? Actually,
because this is qualifies him of being a figure, or what doesn't? What are the limits to this term
		

			figure of peace? Do you have to be a pacifist? What does one have to be a pacifist to be a figure of
peace? What if someone engages as one does that disqualify them from being a figure peace? That's
another thing. Third thing is book of Revelation. Now, we're in the eschaton. eschatological when
Jesus Christ comes back, he will, he will, let's see what he does. Coming out of his mouth is a
sharp sword, with which to strike down the nations he will rule them with an iron scepter He treads
the wine purse of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. So he's going to come back and be violent.
Now. These these are things you may say, Well, I don't these are just interpretations of the Bible.
		

			I know that you have a spiritual kind of metaphor, rising approach to the biblical text. I'm very
aware of that. And you may say that that's not the way the historical Jesus which I look at all that
how I interpret just like, but then I have to say to you, John Pizan, with all due respect, your
interpretation of Jesus Christ is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the Christological understanding
in for 2000 years of history. Church Fathers up until present day people, scholars of Christianity
interpret these things as literal Okay. Scholars of Christianity, almost you as a consensus a matter
of consensus agree
		

			That Jesus is inseparable from the Trinity. So he would be implicated in telling people to genocide
people in the village, people, Christians from the church fathers, until this present day, believe
that Jesus is going to have a second coming and it will be a physically violent second coming. And
if you want and resources or references of this, ID, they're very easy to come by. So once again,
this fake dualism with all due respect, all due respect, this didactic representation, this
dichotomy that you've created figure of peace versus warlord, it's like a deck of cards. If you just
pull one card out, falls over. It's a false comparison. And it relies upon uncharitable cherry
		

			picked examples of the texts. And this requires a retraction as well. In order for with all due
respect, one's intellectual integrity to be maintained. I think at least you should say I suspend
judgment until I've done more investigation. This is the second point. The third point I must say is
and this is the last point I will be making. Why compare what Muslims consider as a prophet with
what Christians consider as a god.
		

			Let me say that one more time, Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is
the final prophet. They believe that he is the final prophet of a long list of Prophets, Abraham,
Moses, Jesus, yes, as well. Jesus. Yes, the Messiah and the Prophet Muhammad. We believe that he is
also NACA Illa catheter leanness, he was sent for all of humanity, as the Quran states, we have not
sent you except for all of humanity. But Christians believe on the other hand, and this by Christian
ximenia, the vast majority of them across time, and in today's demography, believe that Jesus is
God. So why are you comparing a prophet? To a god? These aren't, there's not a like for like
		

			comparison. Unless, what and this ironic, one has to come into what would at least be more
commensurate with an Islamic understanding of who Jesus was, which is a man, not a god. In order for
you to make that comparison, subconsciously, you're thinking, I'm doing a man to man comparison,
what unconsciously let's use exactly the psychoanalytic Freudian terms, subconsciously, is a
vernacular term, right?
		

			Speaking to a psychologist, so I have to keep everything tight. But what I'm saying is, maybe
unconsciously, you've understood that this is a man and this is a man and we can make a comparison
like for like, but according to the Christological understanding, he is a man, Prophet Muhammad,
sorry, yes, Prophet Muhammad, and Jesus is a god. What you should be doing, if you're being
theologically consistent, is comparing Allah to Jesus, Allah, and the Quran is the God of the
Creator of the heavens and the earth, which we don't believe can be divided into Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. This is a major quarrel with Christians. theological quarrel is a bone of contention.
		

			We believe that Allah is the Creator of all things, that it's not conceivable or intelligible, or
pardonable, that anybody with a date of birth can be called God, and that Jesus is therefore
disqualified from being God. And by the way, I think many Christians listening to me right now
resonate with what I'm saying, and you know it, and you even resonate with it, they resonate with
the fact that calling a man God, God, man, this is something which is unintelligible in the mind of
human beings.
		

			And this is the real bone of contention. So why make this false comparison between Christ who is
according to the Christian tradition of God, and Muhammad, who is according to the Islamic
tradition, a man in the first place? May it be because you have already accepted the Islamic premise
that both of them are men? And if so, you're step closer to Islam. And therefore, I'm going to end
with this really, I invite you to really think about Islam as a true system, as a true system as a
paradigm replacement to the Christian system. Because that might be what you're looking for, in
fact, might be what you need Jordan Peterson, by the very least, at the very least, Jordan Peterson,
		

			do me one favor.
		

			Do the right thing and make a retraction on this point, that the point of warlords this comparison,
say that this is a hasty generalization, it was in your words and you said this in your book, by the
way, your newest book 12 rules. So low resolution blanket statement, a high personal ification
		

			if you this is your this your words, not mine, a hyper simplification?
		

			Think about it. Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh