Jordan Peterson’s Criticism of Islam

To general political leader, or a successful political leader, and completely change the way people perceive things by using the word warlord in English language, we know that the connotations are deeply negative. Now, what does he mean by a warlord? Because the expansion of Islam was, was for the most part after the Prophet Muhammad's death, but under his instructions through what we would call the divine command, to some extent expansionist in a lot of cases, I accept no problem. I accept that in the context of the medieval empires. Yeah, that there was permission given to the Islamic empires to be somewhat expansionist. Now, the question is, yes.

Yes.

What you mean by that? How would you define it?

In the sense that there was three options offered to rivaling empires? The three options were that you either become Muslim, you stay in your own religion.

But you have to pay the jizya which is a

Yeah, yeah.

No, I'm not gonna. I'm saying what I'm saying is this.

Or that they can save their own religion in the Quran says you can't compel anyone to be a Muslim. Now, yeah. But the point I'm making is this.

That was a government to government thing. Not. So for example, as I said, you know, what can convert anyone because Nephi, Chapter 2256. This is where it says there's no proportionality. So there is an overlap between philosophical liberalism and Islam. But what I'm saying to you is that, in the context of the question, I'll put him in the context, and I believe Believe you me, I am absolutely confident. I'm totally confident to the highest degree that he will, he'll have absolutely no answer to this whatsoever, or Sargon of akkad, or anyone. I'm so completely confident. The question, is this.

convicted or not convicted, but I have complete certainty, almost conviction. Okay. I was gonna say,

was that let's assume this the question, why is it objectively wrong?

to offer?

Let me let me rephrase it, why is it objectively wrong to be somewhat expansionist? Because there are some things which are not, I'll tell you what these things are not in the context of medieval

international relations, the first realist framework and international, a realist framework, which is that really, power is defined as the struggle between employers and employees, the primary goal is to try and expand and if you don't expand, you'll be expanded upon. Now, in that context, or any context, forget about that context. Even today. I'm asking the question, say, for example, we had an Islamic State, or any state, not just an Islamic State and American state, you know, an empire? Why is it wrong? To have a policy of I'm not gonna say expansion, but I'm gonna say, expanding the influence. Now, whether that be politically, militarily, whatever. Now you can say, well, it's not

wrong. We have nothing to show that says against the Bible. I say no, it's not against the Bible, actually, in fact, right. So whatever it is, you have, that is the wrong thing to do.

There is no evidence.

Sisters, rotten raisins, you've got to get a picture as a whole. And you've got to say, okay, so if as long as a specialist and an element of that feeling says aggression, what

do you look at Western culture? So you can even make a place in the USPS? Thanks for listening to the acquisition of oil accepts Saudi Arabia,

former Ottoman Empire? Yes, yes. What I'm saying is this right. I think we think too much on liberal.

I genuinely, the presupposition is a philosophical liberalism. I don't accept that presupposition, because I don't believe philosophical liberalism from Thomas Hobbes to JS mill, or even, let's say beyond, let's say until, until, I would say until john Rawls, because he's the last major liberal opinion major scholar that's probably studied in universities and PhDs on that graph. I don't believe that the Scholastic tradition of liberalism is an ultimate truth. So if I were to ask Jordan Peterson or Sargon of akkad, can you prove to me I say, okay, that's not an ultimate truth. We accept it. We don't we agree. So why are you Why is every argument you make premised on a

philosophical liberalism?

Because if we take away that copy under your foot, you're gonna have to start by telling us why philosophical liberalism should be adhered to. Now, I'm not saying that these guys are left wing because people might confuse it.

Using some kind of equivocation, the liberalism with a small l with the liberal liberalism was the big l or whatever it may be also left wing politics. I know that Sargon of akkad on top Actually, no, I don't know where he is on that spectrum. But I know that what do you call him? To the PSN is left as not left wing. I know that.

He's inherited the post enlightenment dogma.

classifiers left to right wing. And I think that's one of the things that people do. Yeah, possibly. Yeah, I think you're right. But

he's,

you know, as a psychologist, all he wants to do is better. He wants to better the people that he treats that say in his practice, somebody comes to see him, he wants them to help improve their life. So he wants to have a better quality of life be happier with what they have. Yeah. And I think that, you know, with his success on YouTube, the platform that he's been given, although the initial comments that he made about genuine neutrality and say, I'm not gonna use these

pronouns,

even though that was the first thing that sort of gave him the line, but

I would just kind of say that I mean, I was saying that a lot of my wife would say I would put to these individuals to people like, Yeah, what would put someone like Sargon of akkad or individuals is that they speak as if post enlightenment principles which were adopted society by let's say, the wall that we live in now are working in contradistinction. And I will put to them actually they're working in contradiction to one another. Now, I'll give you a few examples of that freedom of speech.