Dr. Jordan Peterson's Major Blunders and Weak Points on Islam (2021-11-07) #

0:00:00 [Music]
0:00:05 go to kuala lude app inshallah the app
0:00:07 tracks versus pages and time spent
0:00:10 reading and the verses to pages function
0:00:12 takes you from reading a few verses a
0:00:14 day to a few pages a day this project is
0:00:17 for the real enthusiasts if there's
0:00:19 enough of us out there this will become
0:00:21 the future of quran
0:00:23 and support the project if you can insha
0:00:25 allah may allah bless all of you
0:00:28 assalamu
0:00:30 how are you guys doing and welcome to
0:00:32 the third
0:00:33 of a series of videos we're doing
0:00:35 correcting some of the mistakes of dr
0:00:36 jordan peterson about islam and muslims
0:00:39 and really this series is uh intended to
0:00:41 edify and to educate not just jordan
0:00:44 peterson himself but some of his
0:00:45 followers who maybe may have
0:00:48 been misled with all due respect on
0:00:50 certain points of information that dr
0:00:52 jordan peterson an influential figure as
0:00:54 he is
0:00:55 has made about islam and muslims today
0:00:57 in sha allah we're going to be covering
0:00:59 two or three different statements that
0:01:00 he has made let's start with the first
0:01:02 one because it's um a historical and
0:01:05 it's easy to refute let's take a look at
0:01:07 it when the founder of your religion
0:01:09 spread that religion by the sword
0:01:12 it makes it rather difficult and when
0:01:14 your religion has been embroiled in a
0:01:16 vicious civil war from the day of
0:01:19 muhammad's death which is exactly the
0:01:21 case in islam between the sunnis and the
0:01:23 shiites that war started literally the
0:01:25 day that muhammad died it's very
0:01:28 difficult for me to see how that can be
0:01:30 reconciled with the claims that islam is
0:01:32 a religion of peace right so he states
0:01:35 that
0:01:36 islam was embroiled in a vicious civil
0:01:38 war
0:01:39 our question is can you name me with i
0:01:41 know you're watching this dr jordan
0:01:43 peterson because
0:01:44 uh clearly it would make sense for you
0:01:46 to do so
0:01:47 what is the name of that civil war
0:01:48 you're talking about that commenced the
0:01:50 day the prophet salallahu
0:01:54 and please give me a source for that
0:01:56 because
0:01:57 let me tell you something dr jordan
0:01:58 pearson no such war took place
0:02:02 now you may say well the war took place
0:02:03 30 years after safiy and jamal these
0:02:05 wars took place 30 to 40 years after but
0:02:07 that's not
0:02:08 what you said
0:02:10 you stated that it happened the day
0:02:12 the prophet died and then you use that
0:02:14 as a point
0:02:16 um just to to conclude
0:02:18 that you can't
0:02:20 reconcile this fact with the fact that
0:02:21 islam is a religion of peace
0:02:23 so already you've got a point that you
0:02:24 want to make and the evidence that
0:02:26 you're using doesn't match this point
0:02:29 and in fact it's a false piece of
0:02:30 evidence and it's another example where
0:02:32 you violate your own rules
0:02:34 the rules um namely the rules to speak
0:02:37 the truth or at least don't lie
0:02:39 and be precise in speech you violate
0:02:41 your own rules you're not precise here
0:02:43 this is inaccurate for an intellectual
0:02:45 you need to be more careful with all due
0:02:46 respect because if you don't know
0:02:48 something and this is false according to
0:02:50 all accounts there was no war sorry
0:02:53 dr peterson there was no war that
0:02:55 commenced the day the prophet died this
0:02:57 is false
0:02:59 but as an intellectual or as an academic
0:03:01 you should check before you speak with
0:03:04 all due respect
0:03:05 and already this you could say i mean
0:03:07 you have to ask yourself dr jordan
0:03:09 peterson are you making this point to
0:03:11 try and score points against islam
0:03:13 because you already have a cognitive
0:03:14 bias
0:03:15 because the pulse
0:03:17 the evidence you used was a false piece
0:03:18 of evidence so what is the motivating
0:03:21 factor here
0:03:23 now the point that you were making about
0:03:24 islam being a religion of peace
0:03:27 look i'm not in favor of calling islam a
0:03:29 religion of peace
0:03:30 but i'm not in favor of calling islam a
0:03:32 religion of war either because islam
0:03:34 really means it's islam which means
0:03:36 submission
0:03:37 and islam
0:03:38 is submission to one god
0:03:40 submission and worship of the god of
0:03:42 abraham the god of moses and the god of
0:03:44 jesus the god of muhammad
0:03:47 this is what primarily islam is
0:03:49 which leads me on to your second point
0:03:50 because you state islam is primarily a
0:03:54 political system let's take a look at
0:03:56 what you have to say but i'm really
0:03:58 stumbling with islam it's really hard
0:04:01 for me to
0:04:03 to see it as
0:04:05 other than a primarily political system
0:04:08 this is false dr peterson with all due
0:04:10 respect
0:04:11 i don't know of any scholar of islam
0:04:15 in the classical period who defined
0:04:17 islam vastly that islam is a political
0:04:20 system primarily a political system how
0:04:22 could it be
0:04:24 it's a very there's a very clear
0:04:26 theocentric motif in the quran
0:04:30 a book of
0:04:31 6236 verses which has been translated
0:04:34 the meanings of have been translated
0:04:35 into english
0:04:37 and i don't think that statement that
0:04:38 you've mentioned about islam is anywhere
0:04:41 to be found in the quran
0:04:43 and it's nowhere to be found in the
0:04:44 statements of the prophet
0:04:46 so where do you get this idea that islam
0:04:48 is primarily a political system
0:04:51 why is this the narrative that you want
0:04:52 to portray
0:04:54 what is the motivating factor here this
0:04:56 is false as i've mentioned islam quite
0:04:59 clearly
0:05:00 at the center center of islam or central
0:05:03 to it is the idea of monotheism
0:05:06 monotheism to worship one god that's
0:05:10 really the the main message of islam the
0:05:12 shahada is
0:05:15 there is no god worthy of worship
0:05:18 except for allah the creator of the
0:05:21 heavens and the earth the higher power
0:05:23 the higher power which jesus himself
0:05:26 beseeched and prayed to that moses
0:05:28 prayed to that abraham prayed to
0:05:31 we don't believe that jesus was god or
0:05:33 the son of god we don't believe that a
0:05:35 man can be god we don't believe in any
0:05:37 of those things the center of our faith
0:05:40 is very simply to worship one god that
0:05:42 is islam
0:05:44 so to to call it primarily a political
0:05:47 system
0:05:48 is
0:05:48 false it's imprecise speech
0:05:51 or it's not speaking the truth of islam
0:05:53 what islam is
0:05:55 then you go on to say something which is
0:05:57 i believe is a slight and i believe it's
0:06:00 an attempt to try and score points
0:06:01 against islam it's very clear that it is
0:06:04 but it's also
0:06:06 weak as an argument let's see what you
0:06:08 have to say about islam
0:06:09 or muslim countries and
0:06:12 the state of economic affairs in muslim
0:06:14 countries you know the
0:06:16 the
0:06:17 states dominated by islam are not
0:06:19 economically productive
0:06:22 and that's quite an interesting mystery
0:06:24 so this point that jordan peterson makes
0:06:26 here he says states that are occupied by
0:06:28 islam are not economically productive
0:06:32 first of all how do you define occupied
0:06:33 by islam and secondly how do you define
0:06:36 economically productive
0:06:37 what are the
0:06:39 measures that you're using gdp per
0:06:40 capita for example where four muslim
0:06:43 majority countries are in the top ten
0:06:45 which ones are you talking about are you
0:06:46 talking about gdp
0:06:48 or what exactly and i must say this is a
0:06:51 methodologically flawed approach in the
0:06:53 first instance
0:06:55 analyzing an ideology
0:06:57 and
0:06:59 economic productivity of a country why
0:07:02 because why today first of all first of
0:07:03 all why today why not look 400 years ago
0:07:06 in the ottoman empire or islamic spain
0:07:08 or the abbasids or the omo yon or the
0:07:11 khilaf rashidah when economic
0:07:12 productivity was very high and islam was
0:07:15 being implemented at a much more strict
0:07:18 level if you like
0:07:19 is it because it fits a particular
0:07:21 narrative which may indicate that
0:07:25 islam as a religion inhibits economic
0:07:27 productivity
0:07:29 similar to the kind of narrative we
0:07:31 dealt with in the previous episode
0:07:34 this is a weak argument i'm really sorry
0:07:36 it's a weak argument and with all due
0:07:38 respect you weren't even brave enough to
0:07:40 make the argument properly because you
0:07:42 said it's an interesting mystery and you
0:07:44 shroud
0:07:46 your sentences
0:07:48 with words of ambiguity and uncertainty
0:07:52 when
0:07:53 with all due respect sometimes you don't
0:07:55 want to make the argument directly
0:07:57 because you know it's susceptible to a
0:07:59 high level refutation like the one
0:08:01 you're seeing right now
0:08:03 because the question is if it's to do
0:08:05 with ideology
0:08:07 my question to you is in the mid 18th
0:08:09 century 1760 when the industrial
0:08:12 revolution started in britain for
0:08:14 example
0:08:16 what were what was the state of affairs
0:08:19 relating to ideologies the same are the
0:08:20 morals and ethics
0:08:22 of britain in the 18th century
0:08:25 similar or distinctly different from the
0:08:27 moles and ethics that we're seeing today
0:08:28 in the 21st century i would wager
0:08:30 especially on women's rights that's
0:08:32 completely different
0:08:33 and in fact that was a time
0:08:36 where economic productivity in britain
0:08:38 was very very high comparative to the
0:08:39 other states in fact you could say the
0:08:40 highest
0:08:42 you can make this argument
0:08:43 and so if it was to do with ideology
0:08:46 then once again you'd expect
0:08:48 the morals and the ethics
0:08:50 and the ideological standpoints to have
0:08:52 an impact in the inhibitive or negative
0:08:56 effect of that economy
0:08:59 likewise you can say the same thing
0:09:00 about the slave trade
0:09:02 well
0:09:02 america was doing very well when it had
0:09:04 black slaves
0:09:06 it was doing very well when it was
0:09:07 trading them and when it was forcing
0:09:09 them to pick cotton and so on
0:09:12 before the um american civil war
0:09:15 in the mid 19th century
0:09:17 were the morals and the ethics and the
0:09:19 ideological standpoints especially of
0:09:21 let's say southern states in america
0:09:23 were they the same or distinctly
0:09:25 different from the way they are now
0:09:27 i think you would say the latter
0:09:29 so much so that i had a constitutional
0:09:32 effect with the third the 13th amendment
0:09:35 and other such things that happened in
0:09:37 the cultural atmosphere in america
0:09:39 ideological differences
0:09:40 yet despite the ideological differences
0:09:44 which
0:09:46 one can notice
0:09:47 in the mid-19th century say and now say
0:09:51 in american culture
0:09:53 we still see that america was doing very
0:09:56 well economically at a time where its
0:09:58 ideology was different to the way it is
0:09:59 now
0:10:00 so if ideology
0:10:02 or liberal or the liberal ideology of
0:10:04 today let's say western ideology of
0:10:06 today
0:10:07 the cultural and
0:10:09 uh
0:10:09 moral and ethical standpoints of the
0:10:11 west today
0:10:12 were
0:10:14 shaping forces for how the economy
0:10:16 behaves
0:10:18 then why do we see that it behaves
0:10:21 in sometimes even a comparatively
0:10:23 stronger way
0:10:25 in the past where ethics were different
0:10:27 in america and in the west generally
0:10:30 to the way it is now so you see this is
0:10:32 a methodologically flawed thing because
0:10:35 we're seeing transient ethics here and
0:10:38 this is really
0:10:39 basic for a social scientist that
0:10:42 correlation does not always mean
0:10:43 causation
0:10:44 and if it was to do with ethics and
0:10:46 morals and ideology then why do we
0:10:49 seeing the rise of japan
0:10:51 japan is not a western country and it
0:10:54 has ethics and cultures distinct from
0:10:56 the west and yet we're seeing its
0:10:57 economy rise as staggering rate
0:11:00 technological and scientific and
0:11:03 economic developments there
0:11:05 moreover if you wanted to play this game
0:11:07 we can go further
0:11:09 and we can say to you
0:11:10 that in fact
0:11:13 most i'm not going to say most but many
0:11:15 of the countries which are
0:11:18 which have let's say western enlightened
0:11:20 enlightenment ideas in sub-saharan
0:11:23 africa
0:11:24 and in southern
0:11:26 uh in in southern america
0:11:29 are below the poverty line and in fact
0:11:31 do worse than even on a gdp level okay
0:11:36 muslim majority countries so if what we
0:11:39 are saying is if we put western
0:11:40 enlightenment ideas
0:11:42 into countries we expect the economic
0:11:44 development to be
0:11:47 better then why are we not seeing that
0:11:49 in countries
0:11:50 in south america and sub-saharan africa
0:11:54 where they're
0:11:54 indebted where they're impoverished
0:11:57 and so on
0:11:59 so you see it's a failed attempt a
0:12:02 slight at the islamic civilization and a
0:12:04 weak argument that we expected better
0:12:07 from dr jordan peterson and it's these
0:12:09 kinds of arguments with all due respect
0:12:11 which go back to our theme
0:12:13 the theme is you're trying to whitewash
0:12:16 the muslim contribution you're trying to
0:12:19 minimize the islamic contribution and
0:12:22 somehow and you could say with this with
0:12:23 this kind of lexus here it's clear that
0:12:26 you're trying to connect
0:12:28 failure
0:12:29 with islam somehow whether it's economic
0:12:31 failure scientific failure or
0:12:34 lack of productivity or whatever it may
0:12:36 be with islam
0:12:38 and it's failed the arguments have
0:12:40 failed and maybe this is the reason why
0:12:43 you didn't want to have a discussion
0:12:44 with me because you knew these things
0:12:46 are on the record and you knew you'd be
0:12:48 accounted for it but i think it's high
0:12:50 time jordan peterson if we want to have
0:12:51 an authentic discussion we have to start
0:12:54 with retractions because these kinds of
0:12:56 things are not just imprecise as we've
0:12:58 shown sorry they're imprecise they're a
0:13:00 historical they're inaccurate but
0:13:01 they're weak as arguments and unless one
0:13:04 revises and retracts or otherwise
0:13:07 suspends at least suspends judgments
0:13:11 on issues to do like with these kinds of
0:13:14 points that you've mentioned here
0:13:16 then how are we going to have a proper
0:13:17 dialogue
0:13:19 between islam about islam and the west
0:13:21 for example in the interaction between
0:13:22 these two things if we can separate them
0:13:24 at all and hopefully
0:13:26 that edified some of jordan peterson's
0:13:29 followers
0:13:30 and insha'allah even jordan peterson
0:13:32 himself