Channel: Mohammed Hijab
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 bloody 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
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