The House of Islam: A Global History | Ed Husain | Talks at Google
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 чер 2018
- Bestselling author of The Islamist, Ed Husain, explores the nuances of Islam and its people and discusses his latest book, The House of Islam. Ed provides an introduction to the minds and hearts of Muslims the world over and responds to audience questions about the faith and the challenges it faces.
Get the book here: goo.gl/9EV7XU
12:43 : "Islamist movements are a new phenomenon since 1928, we did not have them in our history" Should I even take you seriously after this point? Not even one reference to Wahabism.
Parasara Sridhar Duggirala He's talking more about political movements trying to take control of governments and force laws.
Most Muslim countries may have been informed by Islam, but the laws usually aren't that tied to it.
Islam itself doesn't have much in the way of punishments for sins, except for stuff like stealing, murder etc.
Like drinking alcohol might be banned, but that doesn't mean that it's punishable, or that the state should restrict access to it.
Except that some modern religious groups, would like to create such restrictions... Which isn't exactly coherent with what Mohammad himself did.
Parasara Sridhar Duggirala What you're talking about are more the products of cultural evolution than Islam itself.
When times are peaceful, or if you talk to peaceful people, they naturally care about the pleasant parts of Islam.
People who are violent, find justifications also.
Much of the justifications are a bit forced... The positive views too, can be a bit forced, where people want to see more goodness, or more modern definitions of goodness than might be there.
Nevertheless, Islam itself, teaches that you not needlessly expand the religion and its rules.
So, nonsense like what has occasionally been seen in Saudi Arabi, like for example 1000 lashes for some man dancing naked (probably more the fault of a crazy judge, but still)... That's not really coherent with Islamic precedent... Assuming that it should be considered punishable at all.
(Most countries do have decently laws, and there are judges passing strange judgements everywhere)
-
I suspect you're Indian. A friend of mine did his Ph.D on the Indian Mughal empire.
One of his core realizations was that you just could not understand there people by referencing the Quran or theoretical Muslim teachings.
They had a cultural evolution behind them that shaped the reality of their beliefs and systems... And you had to understand that to understand them.
I agree with your assessment that people interpret their religion to match their own desires (violent people interpret it as violent and peaceful people interpret it as peaceful). You are saying that the "cultural aspects" (circumstances) should be taken into account. Again, I agree. The violence among Muslims is not uniformly distributed over the world.
Let me reverse your argument on yourself. You (and also the author) belong to the peaceful group and are only looking at the peaceful parts. You are not even acknowledging that there are other violent parts and assigning pure political motivation to such parts. Just like "No True Scotsman". The outright denial that some elements of Islam *are* violent is what I am against. Those pieces might be by design (for both good and bad reasons), or by error. Instead of confronting those parts and reforming them, simply denying and giving a white-washed version is not productive, in my opinion.
@@Leto2ndAtreides Then explain the Fatimids, Almoravids and Almohads?
I fail to see any sign of the claimed love during the occupation of the Balkans by the Ottoman Empire; making religious conversion of Christians to Islam by force look like one of the 'nicest' atrocities among all else that took place during the sordid 400+ years. I am not saying that 'Christian love' (e.g. during the crusades or the conversion of the Indigenous tribes in South America) is better or whatever but I think the state-religion nexus of any persuasion is indefensible. Ottomans did commit a lot of atrocities; would they have done more or less if they followed another religion is pretty academic at this stage. What may be an interesting question to which the book/speaker doesn't seem to provide an explicit/satisfactory answer or at least what I would have like to hear more about if I was present, is that while Christians of different persuasions seem to have 'gotten the memo' and stopped killing each other under the pretext of religious differences, sins, or whatever; the equivalent proverbial penny doesn't seem to have dropped in the Muslim world. Thus the role of the particular religion (i.e. organised faith), followers, states, media... in the prolongation of this states of affairs needs to be further discussed.
Can someone remind me what is the punishment for apostasy in Islam? What love is there in Islam for infidels?
You should read his authored book, The Islamist, published by penguin
The punishment is to banish that person from the land. The punishment of death is wrong. You should go check Muhammed hijab and eat he says about it. He's on UA-cam
What is the punishment for eating cow meat in India ? Remind me please ... but it’s not same in Islam don’t worry
why there are so much hate in comment?
Cause Akhirah is near. And all these are signs.
Here so many hate comments. I don't know happened to human beings. Akhiraah is near.
Please convert this book in hindi language.
grow up dude ..
He was raised in an Islam that wasn't reflected in the doctrine or the life of Muhammad. It was based on decades of moderation and selective aspects of Islam that focused on moderation.
Am not trying to be mean nor negative..however he seems to being applying a 'Revisionist' or 'Modern-era' interpenetration/application to the word Forbidden...? lolol not Its' Strict 'Religious' viewpoint/definition,which is very intriguing considering he IS talking about Religion...correct..??
despite how he talks here, the book itself is a good book. You guys might want to take apeak of it in goodreads www.goodreads.com/book/show/28260405-house-of-islam
He’s channelling Tony Blair.. it’s like he’s possessed by the devil himself. 😂😂
I prefer my religion Googleism
bob, are you here?
That drive to be the best was what brought us algebra, chemistry, sine and co-functions, algorithms, medicine, etc. It was for the glory of God by way of enlightening mankind.
I don't think the drive for greatness itself is problematic, but rather extremism and core values which are the more deterministic clues to dysfunctional interpretations of any orthodoxical beliefs.
Google is a joke
Tough Comments. Many of you articulate your words in much the same way religious extremist do its just you on the other side of the coin with tunnel vision. Like a great written novel the movie version may fail to represent its true essence. Sometimes groups of people fail to represent their teachings. Do not put all your faith in the accepted versions of history to discount the Islamic doctrine . Read the Quran open minded and with intense reasoning. Or better yet google a UA-cam video to save the some effort. Laterz
And as for you, have you read the Quran open minded and with intense reasoning to explore if it's not true? And have you read any of the other great religions with an open mind and with intense reasoning to see if they might in fact be true?
That is commendable criticize with knowledge than just being a um-informed hater !
Yes I have read some text of some other religions e.g. Various Bibles & Hindu text Summaries . Trying to avoid tedious detailed debate. The principle i try to follow is to find possible truth you need consider what we may know is false and understand how all cultures distorts reality to their own purposes. Also thought experiments help clarify yourself to yourself. Pretend what if the truth does not feel good what will you do? Will you call it untruth because of that? . Not implying i feel that right now it just for internal clarity.
@@Siddhartha02 You should read the Qur'an carefully and then comment after that.
This Ed Hussain is a crystal clear murtad and antiIslam person.
Disable the comment section, already so much HATE before even watching the whole video.
Jonathan Bowen All I see comments based on hate without even knowing, evaluating the whole content put up.
Thank you.
Jonathan Bowen Did you even read the comments before I posted here? Please kindly do, valid constructive criticism are always welcomed.
ISIS... Is not best understood as a movement of people really wanting to enforce Islam.
It's a better example of the kinds of groups that are more aggressive, and grab power in a power vacuum, or times of serious instability.
The Nazis were similarly a group that only managed to gain power because of the level of instability and frustration that was widespread in Germany.
You usually don't want any angry, fringe group to gain power anywhere.
Jonathan Bowen People are human first and religious second.
Humans have never needed religious guidance to be monsters.
People find in religions (and even without them) some justification for what they really want to do.
Religions going away wouldn't change human nature.
Jonathan Bowen Islam is worse than Nazism, and Stalin's leadership?
You're not looking at its normal day to day form. You're looking at it first from a position of bias.
Muslims have gotten along fine with other religions through much of history. The Jewish golden age in Spain was under Muslim rulers.
In any case, with something like ISIS, you have to understand the ground realities that shaped them.
The US had broken the local government and economy, the people were suffering and desperate.
Out of such environments, in the short term, you can only get nastiness.
If you created a similar economic disruption in the US, you'd get the same results... The aggressive, violent players would be the ones who established the new order.
-
As for non-poor seculars having good peaceful lives... Any people who aren't under stress are fine... Saudi Arabia for example, is more peaceful, with lower crime than most of the world.
That's more a function of having money and consistent structure.
Religions aren't a separate or real existence in themselves. They are just a social narrative... A small part of a people's collective understanding of reality.
Nowhere, do people fully define their lives by religion... Despite the trappings, it's almost always subject to the local culture and overall situation.
If things are easy, people will be peaceful - religion doesn't affect that.
Jonathan Bowen I personally don't expect Islam to meaningfully last another century.
As for ISIS, you're not considering ground realities.
Even without religion, something like that would likely have risen, in those circumstances.
I'm not sure if it would've been more or less evil.
Most of the people who joined ISIS were more adventurous types than religious types (although if you were in an area they controlled... Access to stability, wealth... consistent food, etc. might've been a decent motivator).
But anyway, the ISIS types were not all that typically well studied in Islam, nor did they need to be.
At best, they wanted, as most people do, to cloak their desires in the appearance of goodness... So they can feel more comfortable taking what they want.
But the basic behavior... Not that different from Vikings, or many old groups, from before there was modern government.
Which is kinda what it really is... This is humanity, with the structures that have evolved over centuries removed.
Re: The recent terrorist mess, there are two key issues:
1) Countries that have been destabilized by force, making spread of Revolutionary ideas easier, because of weaker governmental structures.
2) The destruction of the Taliban forcing a certain kind of people, with a certain way of doing things, and knowledge of war, to spread all over.
The Taliban however, is an old Cold War creation. They weren't meant to be Islamic scholars. They were created to be living weapons against the USSR... The US just threw them away when they were no longer needed, without considering the consequences.
So now you had people who had often been trained for war since they were children, and who were also short on cash and needed stability.
And they managed to create it (with a lot of fighting), but then the US broke them post 9/11, and they spread like a virus all over.
-
However, in reality, this is not much different from how the US Revolution spawned the horrors of the French Revolution.
All those French soldiers from the US, went back to France, fired up with Revolutionary ideals, and wanting to fight for liberty...
It's something common civilians tend to have little understanding of, so that even when they're angry, they usually can't do anything even if they would like to (otherwise tyrants would have much more trouble maintaining power)
-
The interesting thing to note here is how specific ways of doing things, in a specific group, can spread like a virus in certain circumstances .. to populations where the government structures aren't strong enough to resist the spread of new groups.
-
Muslim Suicide bombings for example, are a rather recent occurrence (and possibly illegal under Islam itself). Because certain groups have managed to expand and gain traction.
Also, it's not super different from school shootings, in that you create an idea that spreads and gets copied by those open to it... They didn't exist earlier at a point when more people had more dangerous weapons.
ISIS though was more actively trying to spread their nonsense via social media, so that spread is a bit faster (not very coherent or coordinated though - which relates to the weaknesses in what ISIS is / was)
-
If you look at what average Muslim children are taught about Islam though, it's more likely to be stuff like "Mohammad was known for being honest and trustworthy. Those are qualities of good people".
-
As far as it goes, any balanced belief system must be capable of violence (Refer oversized US military as a source of stability for... Some of the world)
Islam having the capacity for violence isn't in itself bad.
It's ultimately more about whether it is biased towards unjust violence.
I think there's some truth to that, but there's also misinterpretation of texts... The text of the Quran is actually much more vague than the simple English translation suggests.
And in any case, like the Chinese reading the Analects of Confucius (or most people reading the Bible), most cultures are quite selective in what beliefs they maintain and spread (based on what has worked for them and shaped them in their recent past)
Jonathan Bowen That's a long message, might reply more later.
The idea of removing a religion is really like... If you were doing a large Business Process Re-Engineering project.
Cultures are complex systems, not well suited to being re-engineered by humans.
Even when you try to re-engineer business processes, you often find that you missed understanding key points.
If you've ever read Tom Wolfe's The Great Relearning...
Early hippies thought that most modern beliefs were crap, and in throwing them away, one of the side effects was the return of the kinds of diseases that didn't even exist long enough ago to have Roman or Greek names.
Human culture is a complex evolved monster with emergent properties.
It's rarely worth directly trying to mess with (refer again, unintentional products like ISIS).
-
You can't think that there are simple answers. Even at the small scale of meaningfully changing how a small company works, that is not the case.
“Ed” lol
Utter rubbish.. Ed may like to think he understands Muslims.. just listening to him makes me laugh. His assessments and reasoning for youngsters motivations are ridiculous..
Slaphead
Hateful! Irrational!