Muslims Reacting to Jordan Peterson on Islam (Ft Dilly Hussain)
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 17.75MB
Job 10 discount code for 10% discount on a wide range of products, including premium Ethiopian black seed products. So don't want to come off montilla here what I care to how are you guys doing? Today, me and Dylan Hossein are going to be looking at some of the comments that Jordan Peterson has made about Islam and responding. But before we do so, obviously, we know that he's in rehab. So what do we want to say we wish him all the best, and you know, good recovery and a whole wave of difficulties. Mental physical is going through that it was easy. And you know that he goes back to his family and loved ones in a good state. Absolutely. Let's get straight into this. The first video
I want to react to is basically like a minute long video.
Let's watch the key part. And
part of the reason that Islam has its backup with regards to the west to such a degree. I mean, there's many reasons and not all of them are valid, that's for sure. But one of the reasons is that, you know, they being still grounded in a in a in a dream, let's say, they can see that the rootless questioning mind of the West poses a tremendous danger to the integrity of their culture. Now, and it does I mean, Westerners us, we undermine ourselves all the time with our searching intellect. And I'm not complaining about that, you know, I mean, it, there isn't anything easy that can be done about it. But but it's still, it's still sort of fruitful catastrophe. Let's be very clear as well,
first and foremost, the only thing that Muslims are scared of, as you mentioned, rightly so I'm taking your line from you, is when the next bomb is dropping above the skies and the next drone attack. That's the only thing that Muslims generally are scared off, I'm happy that you use the word Muslims, because like in the readings, usually when Islam is spoken of is actually usually spoken of either in a religious sense, or civilizational or civilizational. sense. But now we don't have an Islamic civilization, that the last Caliphate was, you know, it was 1924. Yeah. So so we don't have Muslims of Islam to be spoken of in that way. We just have 1.8 billion Muslims, which I find
difficult to generalize sentences, much less a minute, one minute. Absolutely. I mean, look, there's 57 Muslim majority nation states, he's not even referring to the OSC or the Arab League or anything like this. But I think the point he's trying to get out, which is unequivocally incorrect is that Islam or less to say Muslims are scared of alternative thinking of challenging their views, challenging their epistemology in the way Judeo Christianity has done, right. But we can quickly nip that in the bud. Every worldview, every civilization, if he was referred to something a civilizational point of view, which wouldn't be factored in this present moment in time, over the
last 89 years, is that every worldview has its mechanisms in place to not just preserve its belief system of values, but to actually advance it. So this is not something that's unique to Islam is to all civilization, all worldviews? Yeah, yeah. But since we don't have an Islamic civilization, at the moment, we can only assume he's referring to 1.8 billion Muslims. Another thing they're scared of, as we've already mentioned, is when their countries are going to be invaded, when their resources will be looted. And when the next bombs are going to come under the name of democracy. That's the only really thing that they actually scheduled. I think that is pretty much sufficient.
And I think if we wanted to add one last point, it would be that from a historical perspective, I mean, we do know that the Advancement of Science in fact, the scientific method itself, has been through Muslim scientists like him, hate them, etc. Obviously, the polymaths that existed, and I've actually got a I've got a video on the top 10 polygraphs in Muslim world. So you can look at some of those names. They all existed in Islamic civilization. And by the way, not all of them were Muslims. Like some of the greatest Jewish thinkers like Maimonides, for example, existed under Muslim rule. Yeah, we have to look at is the kind of event that happened in Spain for I don't know, 600 years or
whatever it was. And so you got to look at all these aspects. If we're looking if we're talking in a historical way, then once again, that the the statement is so hastily generalized, that it's actually beggars belief that someone of such high intellectual standing would make such a generalized also, we have also we have, I mean, if we were to go by what Western thinkers and rulers and governments and establishment states have said, especially in the wake of 911, there is been a consistent theme that they are off to the after. And by the way, they talk about Islamist extremists, or whatever they want to say they want to change our way of life, our way of life, our
freedoms, our democracy. So if there if there's anything that can be posited is that the West is good. Because because Islam holistically provides an alternative to mankind. So really, it's interesting because we're scared but we're meant to be the one that exactly exactly who is this? Oh, yeah, we are we are we scared? Are we a victim.
Are we the
only the terrorist? Yes, because it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it both. But we'll come to that when we speak about the next video.
Let's, let's see another thing, which I think is probably the most comprehensive clip that he has on the internet about Islam, where he speaks about someone asks very long question in one of his lectures, and he asked him about the different similarities and differences between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. And let's take a look at a his answer. Let's take a look at what he says. And so one is what I see as the failure to separate church from state. And that's a problem.
Now, it may not be a problem as such, but it's certainly a problem in relationship to the relation between Islam and the West because we separate church from state. So the first thing he spoke about was basically secularism. Yeah. So he's saying that the problem with Islam is that it's in capability of being secular, in the same way as Christianity is, for obvious reasons. Obviously, there's a verse in the Bible about Caesar and of course, and Jesus, and so I've got to render to Caesar what belongs to God. So
what do you make, bro as a as a student of politics, right? We've always taught at university on a BA level, that the church generally was an oppressive structure in Europe, right? And includes obviously the eastern was anti Empire as well, right? Because they prevented the advancement of human intellect on so many levels. The very fact that the Bible was not accessible from a from a linguistic point of view, to the masses, the very fact that women were kind of discouraged from accessing the Bible. So it makes absolute sense that Christianity as an establishment as a polity, wherever you look at it from the Vatican point of view, or from the eastern point of view, that was
already seen as an oppressive mode of system which prevented human advancement. Even that requires some discussion exactly, of course. However, that is not the experience that Muslims had of Islam. In fact, you'll actually find that under various Islamic caliphate, Amyris alternates, and so forth, that human advancement in the fields of maths and science was something that was encouraged and actually linked to the polity, the state, the civilization and the religion itself. So this is a huge, uncommon and repetitive mistake that many Western thinkers, especially liberals make when they try to superimpose the European Christian experience to the Muslim world. And it's actually quite
clear that when Muslims moved away from Islam from a holistic civilizational point of view, that is when our problems occurred. For me, I see I see another problem with this whole thing as well, which is that, really, how do you prove secularism is true? Absolutely. I mean, on an epistemological perspective, you're starting with the starting point, which is that secularism is true. Islam is not. It's not compatible with it. Therefore, Islam is not is not or is not true, or it's not good, or it's not what we want it to be. But the point is, why don't you prove your secularism to us on an epistemological perspective? Is it objectively true? Absolutely. Is it something which can be
measurably seen to be true? I don't think it is. And this is where you start with, it's like me saying, well look at the Christian experience, or whatever experience is not in line with Islam. This is not really a fair starting point. A first time point is to actually have epistemology argued in the first place from first principles for either Islam and or secularism tested, scrutinized. And let's have that discussion. But you're starting off with that you represent the default, right? You don't we remember that the the separation of church and state is distinctly European. And it's a new phenomenon, as is the nation state, as Professor Noam Chomsky in a recent podcast I did with him
about the nation state, and the caliphate. Even you know, he's a very one of the most celebrated thinkers of our century, right. And even he said, that look, the nation state is very new and and all these other isms and schisms were born out of Europe's struggle with Christianity. And it's not necessarily applicable to, let's say, the Islamic civilization. But he made the same. He made a similar assumption as Peterson when he said that centralized authority in the form of the caliphate is something that's discouraging, he doesn't support but let me tell you something is interesting because I remember one quote, maybe someone will find it for me. But they said in this quote that
you tell me what religion is. And I'll tell you what secularism is Yeah, the assumption also is always that liberalism and democracy and Marxism communism, all those ideologies, political ideologies are not religious, but that of course, depends upon the sociological definition of religion that you can employ. Absolutely. There are many sociological definitions employed, which would allow these ideologies to actually be defined as diligence, and if they are of life as early as they are, then secularism, for all intents and purposes in the West doesn't actually exist anyway. Yeah. It's really just if only one
We want to,
you know, connect religion with ritualistic practices in the supernatural. Yeah, it would have to be that definition of religion. Yeah. Which would mean that secularism is is only applicable for one group of people, if I can just quickly just also just, you know, wrap up this whole kind of church and state kind of finger. Look, there's there's a huge conversation that's taken place in the last 20 years amongst, you know, thinkers and think tanks and anti governments, that when will the Muslim majority world have an enlightenment? Yeah, the truth be told that there won't be an enlightenment in which you envision where they want an unequivocal and quite an apparent separation of religion
and state, well, that's already in place in the Muslim majority world, majority of the Muslim majority nation states are secular in their constitution with exception to a handful. And even they have many secular elements. The point I want to make is the reason why there was the the Enlightenment, the post enlightenment, all those other, you know, historical moments and events in European history. It was born out of the People's struggle with the Christian power structures that didn't take place in the Muslim world, because there wasn't an intellectual opposition between the state or civilization, and the masses and the religion itself. Right. So let's look at the second
part of this particular video. Problem number two for me, and again, this may be a consequence of my ignorance, which I'm trying to rectify. Muhammad was a warlord.
And I don't know what to do about that fact. So hey, when he's referring to the Prophet, Mohammed Salah salam, he refers to him as a warlord. Yeah. Now what I find really strange about this is he's not using neutral language, not as an intellectual, if you want to subscribe to historical character, whoever it may be, you should have the integrity to use neutral language, a warlord is not neutral language, you could you could very much have said, militarily successful. Yes. And it would have had exactly the same effect. But of course, attaching the word successful or using it as an adjective for the Prophet Mohammed would defy, you know, quite frankly, what seems to be your
agenda. Yeah, even though, throughout this clip, he keeps saying that he's ignorant of Islam to protect his honor and his integrity. Hopefully, I'll get an opportunity to talk to them. Because I would like to know why I would like to know if what I think is wrong.
Because if it's wrong, it's important that I know it's wrong. Now, what I don't know about Islam would feel very many volumes, many of which I have sitting on my shelves at home right now, because I want to do the reading, you know, as I progress through this, but
whatever it is, is trying to protect. But the truth of the matter is, you're making so many assertions, if you're ignorant, you should really not say anything at all about this situation. But you have said that it provides us alone as a warlord. The problem with this, a secondary problem that I see with it, is that he was just praising quite frankly, and he does in other places, Western values. One of the hallmarks of Western civilization is liberalism. And not just political liberalism or social liberalism, but also economic liberalism, which is also known as capitalism, free market economics. But at the heart of free market economics, and this is all supply side
economics is competition is competition, right, and meritocracy. And if that is the case, those who are most expansive, those who are most successful militarily, financially, and so are the most praised are the most pray Exactly. So on your worldview, shouldn't the Prophet Muhammad if he is a warlord, according to your understanding of it be praised for being that, in fact, Jesus on the conception of Christianity would be a failure on the capitalistic or liberal model? Because Jesus was, according to the obviously, we don't believe in this as Muslims. We don't believe in this at all. But according to the Christian model, was killed, he was crucified and so on. He was beaten his
lashes, humiliated, and all of these things. Now, wouldn't this fit a model of
competitive failure? he actually did not triumph over his opposition. I mean, it put it in modern parlance, it's like an MMA fight taking place and the loser being praised. Absolutely. This wouldn't take place. I'm sorry. But what seems to be happening is you're actually using aesthetic value judgments. Putting aside those values, which you claim in other places are good values.
And so now I read infidel and I really liked that book, like I my sense was that she she was a heroin.
There's another part of this clip where he talks and praises Ayaan Hirsi
saying that she's come out, you know, certain family, you know, to use the word totalitarian, even though he hasn't heard the side of her mother or father. Yeah. And once again, he's privileging her voice over their voices, which is problematic, quite frankly, because she came out of a,
like a totalitarian, let's say family structure in a relatively totality.
Aryan society. Yeah. So what do you think? So look, I mean, he wasn't exactly very specific with regards to what he's referring to as totalitarian or how do you how do you been referring to let's say Somalia as a society or a country, then we can, you know, analyze this and I, you know, scrutinize his his assessment of this, but he mentioned hierarchy, I mentioned structures. Now, the irony here is that Jordan Peterson previously in various interviews, he's actually praised certain elements of certain structures, hierarchy hierarchies, especially those that have a heavy male presence hence why he one of his many criticisms from the feminists is that this man is a
perpetuator of patriarchal systems. So here we find yet again another inconsistent what appears to be an inconsistency, where he has on record praised certain structures, which has been interpreted as totalitarian by, let's say, feminists and others, but here he has, he has a problem, but he's praising Ayaan Hirsi for moving away from a totalitarian structure and hierarchy. Yeah, I think what's happening with Jordan Peterson, I think a lot of people realize is that if he actually assesses his own views and compares them with Islam, he would see that much of his views are very similar to the Islamic, very compatible American pattern. But I think that there may be an agenda.
You know, someone could say that they he's being influenced by some of his friends. And compared to Sam Harris, maajid Nawaz Douglas Murray and his he has been around the influence. And so some of the and it's actually, quite frankly, is making him not see the full the full picture. But Jordan Peterson to be fair to him right is not always on nuanced in analysis. Like for example, when he was asked one time about the age of Ayesha
young what his marriage to the age of Arusha was union with a young age, he actually answered in a very nuanced way, let's take a look at what he actually said in a child bride as well, I believe, yeah, well, that that one is somewhat less problematic to me. Because I think that you can write that off to the cultural mores of the time. So as you can see here, he's very nuanced. He doesn't see this as completely. Like he even says, it's not that problematic for me, which, I mean, to be honest, this is the main argument against Islam for many of the islamophobes. Yeah, so I do think there's a lot to be said here. But of course, me and you are both very happy to host this man. Yeah.
When he gets better, or his daughter, I think she has a podcast as well, we can we can share our Muslim perspective. And I believe that more people need to hear this Muslim perspective. We'll put our emails in the description. Just put your title as your name. And we'll be happy, either of us to have you on our podcast. Is there anything else you want to say? No, I mean, you can come up here in the UK with commerce you have in Canada, or we can do on zoo. Yeah, wherever it's convenient for you. Mr. Peterson. And Mr. Dr. Pearson, you should say Mr. will suffice.
You just stripped all the sides of this. That's fine. He's nowhere at the moment.
So on that note,
on that note, I'll say you know, hopefully get better. And hopefully as you get a chance to you can be can researchers lambda with more you want to, you know, the best cure for ignorance is a question. But the best question is that which is asked to the right people, and I hope you ask the Muslim community about Islam, not those individuals that you're hanging around with Salaam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh