Channel: Mohammed Hijab
© 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.
At any time, there was a proposition to yes impose the values of liberal societies on the incoming minorities. This is probably the most shocking bit of the entire interview. She talks candidly and audaciously about imposing
Western values on immigrant populations. That is one side of the story. But there's also another side of the story. There's two sides of the story when when Jordan Peterson talks about slavery and segregation racism in the West, but she doesn't offer the same charitable interpretations of two sides of the story. We're just talking about the Muslim world.
That job 10 discount code for 10% discount on a wide range of products including premium Ethiopian black seed products. Salaam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatu. How are you guys doing?
This is a video of review, a review of an interview that recently took place between Iran Hirsi Ali and Jordan Peterson. Now before I indulged in the floxie nosson, the Hillary vilification
of the counterfactual and inoperative pontification pontifications. of iron Hirsi Ali. I would like to stress one point that both individuals are not specialists in Islam, or Muslims, they are really not academically qualified or trained to deal with these matters. And it would have been clever, had both of those individual taking a page out of vidkun Stein's book tractus where he mentions were of whereof one cannot speak thereof, one must remain silent. But despite the fact that Jordan Peterson consistently mentions his own ignorance on the topic of Islam and Muslims, he continuously and persistently calls people who are ultra crapper, Darien and who have no formal qualifications of
Islam, except for a claim that they want to belong to the body of Muslims to speak on His podcasts, as if they have some kind of academic insight to offer. What we will realize with this review in set is that there is no academic insight to offer.
Let's start with exactly the method that we're talking about. In this case, it's the social scientific method.
But before we do so, let's recognize the argument that's been made here by ion Hirsi Ali, that there is a correlation, a strong positive correlation between immigration and sexual violence to women. In particular, this among many other problems that you'll find with immigration, and what kind of immigration it's Muslim immigration in particular.
the first thing that needs to be questioned is is iron Hirsi Ali, going to provide us with scientific or statistical data such that we may look at it with an academic eye, or is she going to be anecdotal? From beginning to end? Unfortunately, what we find with this interview is that there is absolutely no semblance, no semblance of academic rigor. And in fact, the entirety of the interview is a reference to anecdotal information with the limitation of one case study Hirsi herself, talking about her own story, which Peterson thinks she's so heroic
for having gone through these experiences,
but Jordan Peterson asks her see a question.
He asks, he actually says I'm triggered as a social scientist.
Because there's many issues. I mean, you do say right off the bat.
This is a trigger warning for the entire book reading it you should be triggered. Well, I would say I was triggered by reading it. I was triggered partly, as a social scientist, I would say to begin with, and he mentions of the issues in question, is the fact that how would you define sexual violence against women? Let's take a look at what he says. How do you define sexual assault, for example, now, you could define it as the if you define it, by the most severe crimes, let's say rape,
then you miss all the data that might be obtained when you consider all the other forms of sexual misbehavior. Now, this problem is real because in second wave feminist kind of academic literature, you'll find extremes.
You'll find extremes like for example, MacKinnon, Catherine MacKinnon
Who says that sexual intercourse is a form of rape actually,
even if if the person consents This is in western academic literature, I know. Jordan Peterson has had warfarin on his podcast in the past. And he's been critical of these approaches. And we'll find himself mentions in the myth of male power, these ridiculous notions of definitions relating to sexual violence. Hirsi Ali doesn't recognize the issue here with definitions. And she doesn't realize because there is no uniform, generalizable, robust definition that everybody agrees with in relation to this violence against women, such that comparisons can be made cross culturally or even within the same location. So she starts talking once again about anecdotes. by Jordan Peterson comes
back again and asks her some more interrogatory questions. What's really interesting is that at minute 12 second 38, iron Hirsi candidly admits that she has she does not start with statistics. Let's see what she has to say. And so I don't start fast with statistics. So I you know, I really want I'm not a social scientist, and it was ridiculous. Not the fact that she's not a social scientist, but the fact that you're conducting a study, which is a social science study,
and you're admitting that you have no qualification, no expertise, no training, no ability
to act as a social scientist. Now, this is analogous to someone going to a doctor asking for a prescription. And then the doctors and Ron says, you know, I'm, I don't start with prescriptions, because I'm not a doctor. It would not be acceptable in any other field. So why is it possible that she can be treated as an academic and a social scientist, when in fact she admits to the fact that she is an ultra batarian
Why is it possible that she can continue this and that there is not a push from Peterson as we've seen with him and Kathy Newman, for example, in Channel Four debate well known debate.
The same push that he has with other second wave feminists where he completely dismantles that Julius narrative narratives we don't find here. There's an acquiescence here.
And I think the reason is this, if I N Hirsi Ali was Kathy Newman, he would have eaten her for breakfast in that interview, but you're exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me. And that's fine. I think more power to you, as far as I'm concerned that you haven't sat there and
just write I'm just trying to work that out. I mean,
ha, gotcha. You have got me. Well, he acquiesces to her lack of rigor and sophistication, academic sophistication, because she exists with him in the same anti muslim echo chamber.
And that's the reality he knows it. When was the last time that Jordan Peterson has ever in His entirety of his career professional career invited a traditionalist Muslim, and there are many of them. There are many of us to come and discuss with him the matters that he's discussing with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Why only the unsympathetic to Muslims? Why, even though they come with the most ridiculous anecdotal evidence to make generalizable case are generalizable cases or an entirety or population? Which is the Muslim population, the West Why?
So this is something that you you should be really thinking about, for instance, my husband's saying, the argument will No, it won't go anywhere, because you will not be able to get to the statistics. Once again. She says I don't have the data. And he wants again, is the softball approach. Not a pushing, not attacking, because she's not from the left, cuz she's not a white second wave feminist woman from the left. That's why he's dealing with him that way. And because she has this bias against Islam, and she echoes a lot of their sentiments, again, the right wing, let's be honest, oh, right wing sentiments. That's why he's being taken easy with her. Even though she is
telling him I don't have any data. He should have said if you don't have any data, you don't have any case.
That's what you should have said, full stop. How books are littered with anecdotal information, which even that is questionable. And you can see in the other refutation I've done on her. Even that is questionable and has been fact checked, and she has been proven to be a malignant liar. on all of these issues, victims and perpetrators of violent crimes, about 50% of them are alcohol intoxicated, it's a massive contributor to to violence of all types.
Domestic Violence, every type of violence at minute 28 he starts talking about other factors, one of which is alcohol something which is a prohibition in Islam, and she can see the discomfort in the face of iron Hirsi because now it's moving away from anti Islamic attack to almost seemingly a pseudo pro Islamic stance because Islam is the only major world religion which bans alcohol and he talks about alcohol being and his his his words 50% or more. The reason why a lot of these attacks happen against women. She tries to sidestep that and move it back to an anti Islamic case. But she is losing sophistication she and nuances the discussion and she's just trying to squeeze in. She is
desperately trying to squeeze in an anti Islamic narrative at every single turn.
But Jordan Peterson does not care because Jordan Peterson is happy to acquiesce with that.
And Jordan Peterson is happy to have these unsympathetic Muslim, anti muslim people on his show, like Gad sad or whatever his name is, and
Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris, you're all quite frankly, you have one thing in common, which is you echo the same nonsense. When it comes to Islam and you are afraid you are afraid to come out of your echo chambers. You are afraid this is probably the most shocking bit of the entire interview. She talks candidly
Western values on immigrant populations. At any time, there was a proposition to yes impose the values of liberal societies on the incoming minorities. That would be an opposition to that this still isn't opposition to that. Now imagine me saying the same thing about Islam. Let's impose Islam upon if I was speaking in a context where Islam was the majority or the dominant ethnic and we're talking about immigrants to Muslim lands, I say exactly the same thing. I'll be able to fascist and authoritarian
impose the Islamic values on oncoming
Muslim populations. Imagine I said that in in relation to non Muslim immigrants in the Muslim land. Everyone would say this is brutal authoritarianism, and fascism. But the man who seems to be over he's putting himself out to be
a figure an emblem for free speech and expression and liberalism in the West, Jordan Peterson. Instead of having the courage to challenge iron Hirsi Ali, on this very statement, he acquiesces and moves on and effect themes to even agree with the sentiment, which which baffles me to the point of asking this question. To what extent can liberalism ostensibly
an ideology of tolerance, tolerate anything other than itself.
And you have Jordan Peterson, who is meant to be the bastion of speech, free speech, and freedom of expression, who is acquiescing to this once again, because of his cognitive bias towards Islam and Muslim, instead of challenging
her on this, in fact, Jordan Peterson, speaks of immigration in this kind of language. He says the simplest explanation could well be that Canada's geographical position has protected it against many of the events are shielded us against many of the events that have made immigration such a contentious issue as if immigrants are some kind of threat, some extraneous threat that require shielding from and that they're coming with these new ideas and cultures that are going to undermine your cultures, coaches, you're scared. You're scared of anyone challenging the dominant ethic. You need to be shielded from it. That is what I see from your from the parlance, from the language that
you are using. I think,
and and how would you address when you're criticized for being a NEO colonist? Let's say Peterson seems to actually even agree with this imposition narrative by playing devil's advocate, and saying, Well, some may accuse us of being Neo colonists. Peterson is not only acquiescing with Hirsi, but he seems to agree with him on this narrative. And it's only a minute 53
second 45 where he has
The conversation that he needs to have Oh, he asked the question, which is that? Which is should we assume the primacy of values?
No, we shouldn't assume the primacy of values. Let's take a look at what he has to say. Don't do you think that there is a danger in in the western assertion of primacy value, for example? And is, is that such a danger that it mitigates against any attempts to assimilate immigrants? For example? How can you assume the primacy of values without having an epistemological basis for doing so without arguing it from it from first principles? So what you're saying effectively is this immigrants have to come in, we should assume the primacy of our values over this. And we should impose it on them without even trying to argue with them in Rational ways for them to believe in what we believe.
This, to me is the biggest indication of a failure of values. What kind of values are these? This is exactly the this is exactly the colonial approach. And yes, you will be criticized of that. And you know why? And then she starts talking about the prevalence of sexually transmitted disease that minute 56, unwanted diseases, unwanted babies, rapes and sexual violence, all of that in Western societies seem to be really different as if there's kind of this Western kind of exclusivity. Now, there's no such thing, as she hasn't offered us any data on what sexually transmitted diseases she's talking about and comparative to what. So once again, she's just she does not have any facts in
front of her. She's just ready to spill over her. She's ready to speak about her anecdotes, but she doesn't really have any facts to talk about. So you contrast an Islamic attitude towards women with a Western attitude towards women's now what she doesn't want to get into is a theological discussion because she has no knowledge on this topic. So when it comes to comparison now is going to be quite complicated because which kind of Islam are we talking about? Which kind of Judeo Christianity are we talking about? Is Judaism seminar odd? I mean, Judaism has a holla has a system of ethics or law system which is similar to Sharia and Islam. Christianity doesn't have that there are nuances that
need to be discussed and fleshed out. nuances that actually iron Hirsi Ali will no have no business and has no expertise and being able to answer the question. So she diverse this question. She's good for nothing really, quite frankly, in this conversation. She diverse this question, as I was talking about other things, the the like, the gadgets and the nuclear weapons, and that sort of modern stuff that makes them feel dominant, just kind of way she speaks. She says that the only the Muslims as if we're one monolith, there's not X amount of countries that are Muslim countries at one quarter of the world's population, whatever it may be, according to Pew
were one monolith one block. And she says yeah, that these Muslims are only only like,
technical advancements, and so on, when it relates to nuclear weapons, and so and other gadgets like that nuclear weapons. So she's trying to kind of create associative
links between Muslims and nuclear weapons are the only ones who have detonated nuclear weapons are the United States of America, they have the most nuclear weapons. What are you talking about? There's only one Muslim country with nuclear weapons, which is Pakistan. So What on earth are you talking about? We only like nuclear weapons. It seems like you're you're projecting your own insecurities, your own Western insecurities onto us? What are you talking about? Bring some facts or be quiet and go home. With all due respect, you have nothing to add, you have nothing to add. That is one side of the story. But there's also another side of the story. There's two sides of the story
when when Jordan Peterson talks about slavery and segregation racism in the West, because there's two sides of the story, you know, there's, but she doesn't offer the same charitable interpretations of two sides of the story, which is talking about the Muslim world. So why is there only two sides of the story with the West and there's no two sides of the story anywhere else?
See, this should show any sincere person, quite frankly, any sincere person who's looking for the truth, that these people are just, quite frankly, stuck in their echo chamber. They make it seem like they're academics, and they open minds and they love free speech. But honestly, they don't. Because they don't platform people that have diametrically opposed on some issues, opinions to them. They don't give people who support what they're opposed to an equal footing. And they don't give us they will, they will not and they will not give us an opportunity to discuss these matters with them. And quite frankly, listen, before, I would have been quite happy to go on Jordan Peterson's
program and so on. But now that I've seen that he's talking about imposing values on us, and we're talking about like cattle, whereas animals that need to have values imposed upon us and so on. There are parents and we are the children, the Muslim children who need to be taught parental agent, we need to be infantilized by the western white man and his project. Yes, we the Muslims need to come in and be infantilized by them to be honest. Unless Jordan Peterson or anyone like
Kim wants to give us equal footing and see us as equal people, not some infants that he can impose his values on. And he's going to speak us with snobbery. And arrogance is going to aggregate his views upon us. We don't even have a conversation with them. Unless they can guarantee that look, we see you as equals, in this conversation and so on. We're not begging you to go on your platform, quite frankly, we're not begging this. Some people are gonna say, Well, you did this to try and make a noise. You can go on his platform. No, to be honest, I don't care. I've got my own platform. I've got my own platform. I'm saying what I need to say if he wants to speak to me again, with all due
respect. There are things that I know he doesn't know. There are things I'm trained on, that he's not trained on. And yes, we can help him out and his ignorance with Islam. And that's how we're putting it. But I'm not going to come and beg him. Oh, please come on my platform. You know what I offer it to you. But if you want to infantilize the Muslim community impose values on them, my friend, we don't need you with all Jewish we don't need you or Hirsi Ali, who's an ignoramus who has no business talking about Islam or Muslims. We don't need any of you in this dark web for eternity that you have of anti muslim apologists who cannot summon the courage and bravery to speak to
somebody on the other side.
But already, this is on the public record. And my guess is is going to get hundreds of 1000s of views. And even who gets 100,000 views, it will be enough.
It will be enough to counter the damage that you've done. And no longer are we going to just sit down on the sidelines waiting for you and your friends to talk about us as if you know who we are and what we believe in. You don't say To be honest, after I've seen this interview, I mean, before we were kind of not sure where you stand Jordan Peterson, we aren't sure where you stand whether you are sincerely a person who was looking for truth and didn't care where it came from, to a person who just has, quite frankly people that are anti Islamic apologists. And academics who are unsympathetic to Islam, like Sam Harris, like get sad, like iron Hirsi Ali, unlike Majid Nawaz who still calls
himself a Muslim, but the traditional Muslim community do not accept it.
You only have those people on and you only speak to those people by Islam.
So and not only that you acquiesce to their nonsense, where we know you have the tools in your arsenal to be able to unpack what they believe in.
So here's what I say to Jordan Peterson. If you want to engage with someone who does not agree with your paradigm and worldview, we're here. We're here we can have those discussions. Don't be afraid. Don't be scared. We're here we can have those discussions. But what we won't accept, quite frankly, is an infantilizing and arrogating and self congratulating narcissistic type of colonial Yes, Neo colonial attitude, where you're saying, we're going to impose our views on these immigrants coming in, and we believe in primacy or values, or we're questioning whether we believe in promise your values or not, and we're going to impose those views and yes, that's something where that is the
plan. Even though we don't have data, as we've seen, with iron Hirsi Ali. We don't have data to support that actually. The allegations that are being made, and that's what they are. They're sociological allegations about the Muslim community, right are in any way linked to Islam as a religion, or the Muslim community as a people. So if you want to have a conversation, which is fruitful with people within the Muslim community, we are here at your service. But if you continue trying to evade those conversations with all due respect, it is a kind of academic cowardice. And you can continue doing this sly things and saying I'm ignorant about Islam, but bring on all the
anti Islamic apologists and people that are anti Islamic to your show. We're not fools we know what's going on. And the offer is there.
The offers there, all you have to do is send me an email with your name on the title and I will respond to it. Salaam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh