Maajid Nawaz always talks sense, nothing controversial at all in what he's saying. Politics and religion should remain separate. Groups supporting democratic values need to be encouraged.
+ace roger You white racists cant ever get over a persons background and ethnicity. Majid is an individual, you bring up Pakistan into it because you're a bunch of viciously racist, fascistic, materialistic people. On the day of judgement I wonder what you 'whites' are going to say to the lord god when you have to explain why you were being racist and what gave you the right/idea that you are better than everybody else just because of your skin colour or background
i'm an atheist, yet i think Maajid Nawaz has done a brave job in fighting extremism I hope more people like him will stand up against the al-Qaeda and the Pakistani, and he will encourage more people to fight religious extremisim particularly islam once religious extremisim is gone in islam, it would now be easier for people to drop their religion totally and embrace human values and progress
Its ironic how he is advocating for democracy and freedom of belief when people in the comments are completely shitting on his attempt to revive democracy and speaking out for what you (although we might not all agree) believe in.
Maajid is really interesting and articulate. Good to see a man can be redeemed from a life of violence, and for me, my problem isn't with 'freedom fighters', but rather, with men who equate the tyranny of violence and brutal terrorism with fighting for freedom. When Subhas Bose tried to take India by force alongside other Indian extremists, they failed, and ultimately the British seized the moral highground of eliminating a 'terrorist threat'. When Gandhi forced himself and his followers to suffer unimaginable brutalities through peaceful protest and dissent, the British began to truly understand the values of 'liberty' and 'freedom' and 'justice which they had used up until then to mask the cruel nature of Empire...and finally let India go. Some men say, 'If I am not violent, how will I defend myself against someone who is violent?' this is the argument each of us makes and which creates a world filled with violence. When someone does the truly brave thing, and becomes the first person to lower that fist, he is making the leap of faith which others will follow into a world of dialogue, discussion, progress and ultimately long lasting peace.
dude u are wrong subhas chandra bose wanted freedom by fighting against britishers .... and u know how india got independence not becoz of gandhi but becoz of bose the army of bose fought against britishers but lost so britishers arrested them and put on trial so the indians in british army revolt against their army when they heard about the news of bose's army on trial. when britishers saw that their army is going against them then they decided to leave india by transfering the power to congress party ( a political party which was run by gandhi and his colleagues) remember i didnt say independent i said transfer of power this congress pary ruled over india for 70 years spreading false information across the globe that gandhi brought freedom and all like nazis ruled over jews similarily britishers ruled over indians
The hatred for Islam in these comments makes me sick. Extremism exists in nearly all major religions and while Islamist extremists have been most effective at taking advantage of communication systems to strike against people they perceive as enemies, it does not make Islam as a religion some sort of cult, virus, or terrorist organization. It shares values with both Christianity and Judaism and there are many peaceful practitioners around the world. An entire group cannot be judged by a few.
Actually started taking notes during this speech. He's not right in all things, but that doesn't mean that all the things he said can be disregarded automatically.
He certainly is articulate. He's very charismatic as well. Perhaps by giving such talks he believes he is paying for old "sins". Perhaps he is. If he can cause what he espouses then I say more power to him and like-minded thinkers. I am a bit leery but that's because I think that people like him are rare. But do hear me: I could be wrong. In fact I most certainly hope that I am wrong. His ideas sound good. Time will tell. One thing that he said is dead on: Democracy's taking a beating.
Very very well done Maajid Nawaz. Those living in Muslim countries can truly understand what you are saying and i can only hope that the right wing fascist westerner types commenting here will also slowly grow to understand.
I gotta hand it to this guy. When Malcolm X tried to show the world that those he once supported were wrong, he got assassinated for it. It takes nards to not only admit you are wrong, but to admit a group with no qualms in mass murder are wrong.
Attacking extremism without attacking the ideology behind it will be fruitless. I admire his effort though and the hardships he has endured for trying.
It took him a while to get there. But I think that's because he had to lay down a wide range of points to prove his advocacy of the idea he wished to promote. I think in the end, as it all coalesced at the end of the talk, it turned out well. I agree with what he is saying. Democratic Advocacy is something that we should actively connect around and promote for it's own sake, Internationally. Entering dialogue with like minded people in other countries. There ARE more of us than them.
Maajid Nawaz...thankyou so so much for giving me the missing links and connections for the thoughts that were floating in my head dispersed and unattached...thankyou
Truly inspirational stuff that I couldn't agree more with. And incredibly poignant with regards to what has happened since this talk in 2011. Maajid Nawaz I take my proverbial hat off to you!
Banning Halal & Kosher murder methods is not a stance against freedom of religion: it is a stance against torture. All murder, be it of human or non-human animal, should be illegal, & banning throat-slitting of those who are as aware as a young human children is a step in the good direction.
I always have difficulty when someone as intelligent as Maajid equates the far right as a threat comparable in danger to the terrorist attacks we've had since 2001. As soon as I hear far right I switch off.
That's not what he meant, but that it actually adds onto a series of war games.. Moreover, it kills the spirit of Muslim secularism and encourages a switch to Islamism... It's a fine line...
@CitrusLizard I'm sorry to say that you have been misinformed, due to the miseducation of ancient history by modern day historians: the Greeks (let us take the Athenians) where not the first to free slaves, they were a slaving society, even the athenians who called themselves democrats. For example the Celts of ancient times used an all equal system, no slaves, only "free-men" whilst the Athenians had only approx 30% (no women, slaves, or people not born in the city-state) where allowed to vote.
@4shacks1house "This guy" was advocating democracy in the Middle East. I have no idea why he'd want to go to Israel, the only real democratic country there. The Israeli government is willing to give back some land if they thought it would make a difference. No, I believe he should go to Palestine, and advocate them to uprise and not allow people to believe their legitimate authority is terror groups like HAMAS and Fatah (it's military branch, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, is known to be terrorist)
The point that democracy as a system gets the blame when parties that embrace it inevitably make mistakes, which then leads the populace to embrace antidemocratic alternatives, is quite profound.
I wonder whether by now he realised that he is a civic nationalist. Civic nationalism can create strife as well (like between the USA and other countries like Russia), but it is the best system we have, because democracy is the best system we have.
Democracy isn't the best we have just the most adopted but now its turning. Democracies have been on the decline because theyre not very durable or good at solving immediate issues or threats
@WestofKevin No, it is moral to me because I know it is. There are absolute moral truths. Slavery, for instance, is wrong. If some culture in the 21st century was holding on the the archaic practice of keeping slaves, nowhere would you find someone arguing the principle of cultural relativism in its defense. I do not accept it as a valid argument for honor killings or child brides either, just to name two. If you put your hand to the middle of your back, you will feel a spine.. Use it.
@IdoloR Perhaps. I didn't actually make it up, I think it's a Sam Harris quote. I'm sure lots of people go with things without REALLY thinking about them, but I do think this quote has some serious genuine truth to it.
@MrSubtle i get your point, just that we disagree on the impact of it and it allowing you to claim objective moral truths. As an A-moral free-thinker, i have made a concious choice to place myself outside of both moral and cultural thinking (as well as i can) and instead rely on (boolean AND fuzzy) logic and reason to guide me, and use applied ethics and game theory with values i consider positive (and i guess most other reflected people would too) to make choises into optimization problems.
The idea that democracy needs transcultural advocacy is interesting. None other than Ayaan Hirsi Ali has talked of the need for the same thing. The "demand-led" idea has a lot to it. OTOH, the scenario where the mistakes of democratic parties cause the dismissal of democracy itself works both ways -- in Egypt, the rule of Morsi was enough of a disaster to set the Muslim Brotherhood back severely, even in other countries such as Jordan. Nawaz wants us all to be radicals -- in the right cause...
@courtesyZone Explicit in the transnational democratic movement is that universal human rights are unassailable, and that forms of pluralistic representation are guaranteed within a framework that acknowledges fundamental humanistic ethics, seperation of powers, and the rule of law. The majority cannot, therefore, disenfranchise a minority. Where we give rise to institutions that impinge on these principles, democracy has effectively been relinquished.
@tenisplayer Religion is always a factor. ANY major differences cause problems. For example, Slavery, Why? Cause of skin colour, religion, culture, or economic status.
@DoubtingMarcus :: I am very uncomfortable with the categories of this speech. I think you are right regarding his making a link between legitimate criticism and generalities and xenophobia. I think he uses too much energy to explain things like "even the villain has his good sides" and so on. We need another kind of understanding, that is his message, I guess. His bid on what this understanding could be is not what I consider an insight as neutral or multifaceted as possible.
@tvswnet I see what you're saying, but even if its not made possible resolution is out of the question. Consensus does not work, because religions do not change or evolve by themselves. They change because they are forced to by outside sources. My critique was addressed to moderate islam as system, not to demonize muslims. Although I don't believe "moderate" muslims exist because I spoke with many and I have yet to meet the first one to not defend or downplay the verses on wife beating.
@CatFlashBlue That's a common misconception about agnostics. Most people who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists. You're right, I don't believe in a god of any sort, but I don't say it's "impossible." There simply isn't enough (and can never be enough) information to make that claim. I'm fine with that. ...to say for certain "it is impossible there is a god" relies on information we don't have, and that is exactly what theists do. As an atheist, I accept unanswerable questions.
@Firestryke2 That would make it sound a whole lot better. This guy however kept calling it "democracy" which is a whole different animal than a republic.
@jondiroku Sorry about the typo with "lef". I wasn't saying that there are no kids interested in politics, there certainly are, but what in the world would it mean to have a "youth-led" movement? why should "youths" lead a political movement? At best you could just say that it doesn't matter what age of people lead such a movement, but why explicitly call for the most naive and unexperienced people around to be leaders? I can think of one reason. Can you think of any?
@lancelottodd I second lancelottodd in that rejecting all religions' claim of a god, and not believing in one (which is not the same as disbelieving), is being an atheist. From a logic and linguistics point of view; A-theist when you analyze the word, is simply not theist (the complement to theist), so anyone who is not a theist is an atheist. What you may be thinking of is anti-theist, which is a subset of atheist, proclaming there is no god, and/or believing in a religion/god is bad.
What about the hacker movement? Lots of young people defending freedom and democracy there. To quote the eth0 2010 slogan "In a digital age, hackers save the planet".
@talkaboom I thought what started this was the perception of democracy as the overbearing idea that people have the choice to not support (BECAUSE of democracy).
He certainly has good political language , but his idea's are that of a pure optimist. Whilst talking about the need for building democracy's from the bottom upwards is ideal , it has never ever worked in human history without international governmental action and pressure , and usually results in huge blood shed, so the need for governmental growth is needed. None the less what muslim extremists need is time to evolve and or be eradicated.
@WestofKevin I am not saying that all young people are naive (though by definition they are inexperienced), my point is to ask why in the world he or anybody would explicitly call for a "youth-led movement". There's exactly one reason I have seen this done, which is to: Recruit naive followers, to "hide" behind the youngsters and avoid answering probing questions. What other reason can you think of for such a call for a "youth-led movement"?
@akodo77 I "extremely" dislike murder, rape, genocide, and tyranny. Someone with a "more balanced" opinion would be inclined to tolerate or even sometimes to support these things. Sure such a "balanced" person could not be counted upon to consistently defend these evils (he's "balanced" after all) but he would 50% of the time support them and I think that's monstrous. What do you think of such people?
@hpbrown1 ... (For the Supremacy of God and not the Supremacy of People) is the article I was trying to post....Google it as it wont allow me to post the web link
@MrJaydawger your misinformed also. Im a large animal vet in new zealand. Ive been to slaughter plants where they make halal meat. They are allowed to be reversibly stunned (one that they will recover from eventually, but they are bled out before they regain conciousness). They can not be reversibly stunned (like a captive bolt to the brain etc). Your right that the head is not cut off, and yes the heart is pumping but why does that matter? The animal is unconscious.
@WestofKevin Great, thank you. Again, that sounds like a rather portentous, long winded way to say "Twitter." And seeing as I am familiar with the "phenomenon" in question, and all of its implications (as anyone who likes to consider themselves well informed should be,) I ask again; what were his ideas? To me, it reads like a CBS nightly news spot with the typical "we are the world" overtones that are becoming all too common with TED talks these days.
The problem with all problems any can pose, like religion or religious fundamentals, atheism or atheist fundamentals, etc is the core of human nature. If we study the brain we find, there is noone sitting behind the eyes watching things. It's all one system. If we study the brain in nature, it is one system. If we study earth, it's one with the universe. Yet this is not realized moment to moment. There is a separateness we always feel that literally separates us from others. This causes hatred
@SpeedAmphetamine I didn't say that a whole generation of people knows nothing or is clueless. I said that "youth" as a population group is always the least experienced group in the general population. Unless you think that there's no learning or experience that happens as we live our lives how can you doubt that? As for my rights, I have a right to "deem" anything I wish. Back to the point: Why should anybody call for "youth" in particular to lead a political movement? This guy did.
@dlucas90 Simple, because banks act as brokers for currency exchange. We borrow money from whoever loans it to us , and in order to facilitate a fair medium of exchange a third party needs to be involved. The world banks act as a staging ground for lending because: A. It's available to most nations, encouraging a free market. B. It accepts all forms of currency; many private investors won't. Interest is how banks make a profit. No profit, no banks. This isn't a conspiracy, just capitalism.
@dlucas90 It's one thing to oppose globalization; nations should maintain independence and identity, but know your enemy. Building a standard economy doesn't shackle people, corrupt governments that make and deny (ambiguously) rights for their people are the problem. When nations start telling their citizens what they can and can't do with their money, or when they excessively tax it away from them then there's a bigger problem. Businesses have no power over people unless they monopolize.
@courtesyZone Phrased in that manner, the question is impossible to answer. Obviously it would depend on the society, the system, and etc circumstance. Regardless, it seems somewhat moot in consideration of the caveats aforementioned. The fundamental purpose and first responsibility of any valid constitutional democracy is to guarantee rights. If a such a society fails to protect an individual's rights, and there are no means for redress, then it simply isn't working. All are responsible.
@farhanprine I disagree, of course. Religions tells people how to behave/think, and they have a lot of untrue, hateful things taught to people. Yes, it's a part of human nature. No, that is not a reason to let it slide. Those that don't subscribe to religion simply don't do things religious people are talked into. You're saying that because humans to bad things, religion is therefore not bad? Give me a break. It's bad disguised as good. That's super bad. Your assertion is actually flawed.
This man spoke very well, however I am confused after listening to him. Does he want to create a radical left group to battle the radical right/religious extremists? Is he saying that the way extremists convey their message is the only way to get a point across in this world? Is he saying democracy does not work? And did it take just 5 years of prison to free his mind from his radical views on his old religion?
@gulllars It's tough to do in 500 characters, but think of it like engineering. If you have some goal like making an airplane fly, you can identify certain approaches that will work well (like having the wings generate lift etc.) and others that don't (like chaining it to the ground or having wings that pull the plane down). These are objective facts about plane-building. Living your life is a similar (though more complex) goal and practices can be objectively evaluated in a similar way.
@MrSubtle i would say airplane to moral and culture are false equivalencies. While an airplane has a clear and simple purpose, moral and culture do not except for allowing humans to coexist. I would rather use vehicles of transportation as a metaphor. Depending on what you want to transport, how much of it, how far, and how fast, there are a lot of different approaches, and you are looking to solve an optimization problem. Morals and culture are the same way, optimizing for cooperation.
@thenewest1 That only is true if you have an egoistic point of view. Not everbody views the world like that however. If you put the well being of others above your own (or at least at the same level) it's not jealousy but an honest complaint because you feel that everybody deserves to have a good life, not only a selected few. Your Accountname suggests that you find yourself in the more egoistic category. As you like. Just don't forget that your opinions can not always apply to reality.
@gulllars My point was to identify the nature of the objectivity of evaluation of choices in the face of alternatives and goals. There's no question that in many areas there are equally good ways of accomplishing the same thing, but there are some ways of accomplishing them that are clearly not so good. I disagree by the way about your claim that morals and culture are all about optimizing cooperation. Sometimes they are but at other times they are very much the opposite and rightly so.
I hate when people try to paint anything that opposes an Islamic practice as far right. Perfect example Halal meat should be banned because it's animal cruelty. There is no legitimate reason to put an animal through that kind of pain. There are very real "Islamophobic" problems in the world but trying to paint every criticism of Islam in that way is counterproductive.
@Icemario87 Yes, I have heard of it and it's just a stupid today as it was back when Lenin was spouting the same nonsense a hundred years ago. Nobody who understands so little about how production works should be taken seriously. Just imagining that it's easy to produce infinite amounts of stuff is an indicate of no experience in producing even tiny amounts of stuff. Think it's true? Then just go out and easily produce infinite amounts of everything tonight and prove it. I'll stand by.
@CatFlashBlue Look, no one will ever, ever, ever be able to say that "a god is impossible." It is quite simply out of bounds. Luckily, this has nothing to do with the distinction between atheists and agnostics. Simply put, most people who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists who don't understand the word "agnostic," but prefer it over the stigma associated with calling themselves an atheist.
For this debate, i think we should start by defining democracy. Supposed to be the govenment BY the people, For the people etc... We are governed by financial powers, who are driving us to alienation, unconsciousness and self destruction as a planet! ERROR: CURRENT DEMOCRACY NOT WORKING
@Icemario87 Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Lenin's comments about industrial economics. He claimed like the "abundance economics" folks that if only factories were not operated for profit and instead operated only for the public good that there would be plenty of goods for everyone since he thought that capitalists intentionally limited production to make more money. Same thing as the "abundance economics" guys are claiming...and with similar utter lack of any understanding of production.
Psychoburgandy6 As I said, I am leery. As for the turn around, I don't think it happened in one day. As he said he was jailed for his behavior and I suspect that when one is rotting away in a small stuffy cell it gives one time to think. I hope he's legit but as I also said time will tell. One thing that he didn't do was give an example of how to establish the youth-led grass-roots democracy movement. Also he repeatedly said "I think" instead of "this is fact." I give him credit for that.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Maajid Nawaz always talks sense, nothing controversial at all in what he's saying. Politics and religion should remain separate. Groups supporting democratic values need to be encouraged.
Maajid Nawaz is a phenomenal speaker. He's like a Pakistani Christopher Hitchens
Exactly my first thoughts too, haha
He's british too, just like Christopher Hitchens.
+ace roger Watch his speech at the Central Synagogue. I think only Christopher Hitchens could have spoken as powerfully. He moved me to tears.
+ace roger You white racists cant ever get over a persons background and ethnicity. Majid is an individual, you bring up Pakistan into it because you're a bunch of viciously racist, fascistic, materialistic people. On the day of judgement I wonder what you 'whites' are going to say to the lord god when you have to explain why you were being racist and what gave you the right/idea that you are better than everybody else just because of your skin colour or background
You can mention a person's skintone or background without being racist. You're so sensitive.
We muslim need 1,000 more reformist like Maajid Nawaz!
A Ruhn Be one!
***** Nobody said change is easy.
@Halka bless you buddy. Stay safe man.
A lot more than 1000
i'm an atheist, yet i think Maajid Nawaz has done a brave job in fighting extremism
I hope more people like him will stand up against the al-Qaeda and the Pakistani, and he will encourage more people to fight religious extremisim particularly islam
once religious extremisim is gone in islam, it would now be easier for people to drop their religion totally and embrace human values and progress
That was very well done! Thank you Maajid Nawaz! I hope to see a big change in the next few decades in the Middle East!
ܐܫܘܪ ܒܢܐ ܐܦܠܐ hey you speak Syriac?!😄
Can you help me with it?
I think he had a very difficult point to make, and he did an excellent job conveying that point in a short amount of time. Impressive.
Its ironic how he is advocating for democracy and freedom of belief when people in the comments are completely shitting on his attempt to revive democracy and speaking out for what you (although we might not all agree) believe in.
Maajid is really interesting and articulate. Good to see a man can be redeemed from a life of violence, and for me, my problem isn't with 'freedom fighters', but rather, with men who equate the tyranny of violence and brutal terrorism with fighting for freedom.
When Subhas Bose tried to take India by force alongside other Indian extremists, they failed, and ultimately the British seized the moral highground of eliminating a 'terrorist threat'. When Gandhi forced himself and his followers to suffer unimaginable brutalities through peaceful protest and dissent, the British began to truly understand the values of 'liberty' and 'freedom' and 'justice which they had used up until then to mask the cruel nature of Empire...and finally let India go.
Some men say, 'If I am not violent, how will I defend myself against someone who is violent?' this is the argument each of us makes and which creates a world filled with violence. When someone does the truly brave thing, and becomes the first person to lower that fist, he is making the leap of faith which others will follow into a world of dialogue, discussion, progress and ultimately long lasting peace.
Well by a quick look at the world, let's say for the last 2000 years .... your idea / ideals are not looking too promising !
dude u are wrong
subhas chandra bose wanted freedom by fighting against britishers .... and u know how india got independence not becoz of gandhi but becoz of bose
the army of bose fought against britishers but lost so britishers arrested them and put on trial
so the indians in british army revolt against their army when they heard about the news of bose's army on trial.
when britishers saw that their army is going against them then they decided to leave india by transfering the power to congress party ( a political party which was run by gandhi and his colleagues)
remember i didnt say independent i said transfer of power
this congress pary ruled over india for 70 years spreading false information across the globe that gandhi brought freedom and all
like nazis ruled over jews similarily britishers ruled over indians
Excellent and thought-provoking. God bless you, Maajid.
The hatred for Islam in these comments makes me sick. Extremism exists in nearly all major religions and while Islamist extremists have been most effective at taking advantage of communication systems to strike against people they perceive as enemies, it does not make Islam as a religion some sort of cult, virus, or terrorist organization. It shares values with both Christianity and Judaism and there are many peaceful practitioners around the world. An entire group cannot be judged by a few.
Actually started taking notes during this speech. He's not right in all things, but that doesn't mean that all the things he said can be disregarded automatically.
This man is brilliant.
End of story.
This has to be the best TEDTalk I've heard all year.
In democracy it's your vote that counts; In feudalism it's your count that votes.
He certainly is articulate. He's very charismatic as well. Perhaps by giving such talks he believes he is paying for old "sins". Perhaps he is. If he can cause what he espouses then I say more power to him and like-minded thinkers. I am a bit leery but that's because I think that people like him are rare. But do hear me: I could be wrong. In fact I most certainly hope that I am wrong. His ideas sound good. Time will tell. One thing that he said is dead on: Democracy's taking a beating.
I dont know why this hasnt gotten more views.
Very very well done Maajid Nawaz. Those living in Muslim countries can truly understand what you are saying and i can only hope that the right wing fascist westerner types commenting here will also slowly grow to understand.
I gotta hand it to this guy. When Malcolm X tried to show the world that those he once supported were wrong, he got assassinated for it. It takes nards to not only admit you are wrong, but to admit a group with no qualms in mass murder are wrong.
Attacking extremism without attacking the ideology behind it will be fruitless. I admire his effort though and the hardships he has endured for trying.
It took him a while to get there. But I think that's because he had to lay down a wide range of points to prove his advocacy of the idea he wished to promote. I think in the end, as it all coalesced at the end of the talk, it turned out well. I agree with what he is saying. Democratic Advocacy is something that we should actively connect around and promote for it's own sake, Internationally. Entering dialogue with like minded people in other countries. There ARE more of us than them.
Maajid Nawaz...thankyou so so much for giving me the missing links and connections for the thoughts that were floating in my head dispersed and unattached...thankyou
Truly inspirational stuff that I couldn't agree more with. And incredibly poignant with regards to what has happened since this talk in 2011. Maajid Nawaz I take my proverbial hat off to you!
Well, he is a democratic leader because all around the world people follow him voluntarily, I guess.
I think the Democrats should draft him to create campaign ideas! Power to the people!
This is fresh thinking that makes a lot of sense; Thanks for sharing your ideas. Highly recommend this video
Read "The Wahhabi Myth" by Haneef James Oliver.
Banning Halal & Kosher murder methods is not a stance against freedom of religion: it is a stance against torture. All murder, be it of human or non-human animal, should be illegal, & banning throat-slitting of those who are as aware as a young human children is a step in the good direction.
I love these kind of muslims ❤️❤️
I always have difficulty when someone as intelligent as Maajid equates the far right as a threat comparable in danger to the terrorist attacks we've had since 2001. As soon as I hear far right I switch off.
That's not what he meant, but that it actually adds onto a series of war games..
Moreover, it kills the spirit of Muslim secularism and encourages a switch to Islamism...
It's a fine line...
its quite simplistically brilliant solution! I believe in him cause he has experienced it first hand!! thats something!
@CitrusLizard I'm sorry to say that you have been misinformed, due to the miseducation of ancient history by modern day historians: the Greeks (let us take the Athenians) where not the first to free slaves, they were a slaving society, even the athenians who called themselves democrats. For example the Celts of ancient times used an all equal system, no slaves, only "free-men" whilst the Athenians had only approx 30% (no women, slaves, or people not born in the city-state) where allowed to vote.
@4shacks1house
"This guy" was advocating democracy in the Middle East. I have no idea why he'd want to go to Israel, the only real democratic country there. The Israeli government is willing to give back some land if they thought it would make a difference. No, I believe he should go to Palestine, and advocate them to uprise and not allow people to believe their legitimate authority is terror groups like HAMAS and Fatah (it's military branch, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, is known to be terrorist)
The point that democracy as a system gets the blame when parties that embrace it inevitably make mistakes, which then leads the populace to embrace antidemocratic alternatives, is quite profound.
I wonder whether by now he realised that he is a civic nationalist. Civic nationalism can create strife as well (like between the USA and other countries like Russia), but it is the best system we have, because democracy is the best system we have.
Democracy isn't the best we have just the most adopted but now its turning. Democracies have been on the decline because theyre not very durable or good at solving immediate issues or threats
@ToonVanKets
"Not all extremes are bad"
Any examples of extremism being better in any way, then more balanced opinion?
@WestofKevin No, it is moral to me because I know it is. There are absolute moral truths. Slavery, for instance, is wrong. If some culture in the 21st century was holding on the the archaic practice of keeping slaves, nowhere would you find someone arguing the principle of cultural relativism in its defense. I do not accept it as a valid argument for honor killings or child brides either, just to name two. If you put your hand to the middle of your back, you will feel a spine.. Use it.
when maajid speaks n makes a case, you can't win. He makes strong connections n leaves no room for rebuttal. Hard to out-debate the man
Trust me, i know this comment has nothing to do with the video.
OMFG DAT ACCENT!
Its so cool i want one!
Very interesting talk.
@IdoloR Perhaps. I didn't actually make it up, I think it's a Sam Harris quote. I'm sure lots of people go with things without REALLY thinking about them, but I do think this quote has some serious genuine truth to it.
@MrSubtle i get your point, just that we disagree on the impact of it and it allowing you to claim objective moral truths. As an A-moral free-thinker, i have made a concious choice to place myself outside of both moral and cultural thinking (as well as i can) and instead rely on (boolean AND fuzzy) logic and reason to guide me, and use applied ethics and game theory with values i consider positive (and i guess most other reflected people would too) to make choises into optimization problems.
Ted Talks are educational.
Props for Al Gehaz in Egypt for knocking some sense into this one
The idea that democracy needs transcultural advocacy is interesting. None other than Ayaan Hirsi Ali has talked of the need for the same thing. The "demand-led" idea has a lot to it.
OTOH, the scenario where the mistakes of democratic parties cause the dismissal of democracy itself works both ways -- in Egypt, the rule of Morsi was enough of a disaster to set the Muslim Brotherhood back severely, even in other countries such as Jordan.
Nawaz wants us all to be radicals -- in the right cause...
end extremism... simple enough. the world seeks solutions, he comes is peace. the only question now is do you trust him? your choice.
@Dissimul You may be right. Steadily filtering out the 'bad parts' of any religion will eventually result in it not existing any more, I would say.
@courtesyZone Explicit in the transnational democratic movement is that universal human rights are unassailable, and that forms of pluralistic representation are guaranteed within a framework that acknowledges fundamental humanistic ethics, seperation of powers, and the rule of law. The majority cannot, therefore, disenfranchise a minority. Where we give rise to institutions that impinge on these principles, democracy has effectively been relinquished.
Enjoyed this video , he really seems to be an inspirational speaker , great interview feel to this
Thank you
Denner Videos
@tenisplayer Religion is always a factor. ANY major differences cause problems. For example, Slavery, Why? Cause of skin colour, religion, culture, or economic status.
@AndyRogerss He didn't talk about Islam, he talked about Muslim Extremism.
@DoubtingMarcus :: I am very uncomfortable with the categories of this speech. I think you are right regarding his making a link between legitimate criticism and generalities and xenophobia.
I think he uses too much energy to explain things like "even the villain has his good sides" and so on. We need another kind of understanding, that is his message, I guess. His bid on what this understanding could be is not what I consider an insight as neutral or multifaceted as possible.
@tvswnet I see what you're saying, but even if its not made possible resolution is out of the question. Consensus does not work, because religions do not change or evolve by themselves. They change because they are forced to by outside sources. My critique was addressed to moderate islam as system, not to demonize muslims. Although I don't believe "moderate" muslims exist because I spoke with many and I have yet to meet the first one to not defend or downplay the verses on wife beating.
Very Insight speech!
@Tolstoievsky That's quite an assumption.
@CatFlashBlue That's a common misconception about agnostics. Most people who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists. You're right, I don't believe in a god of any sort, but I don't say it's "impossible." There simply isn't enough (and can never be enough) information to make that claim. I'm fine with that. ...to say for certain "it is impossible there is a god" relies on information we don't have, and that is exactly what theists do. As an atheist, I accept unanswerable questions.
@Firestryke2 That would make it sound a whole lot better. This guy however kept calling it "democracy" which is a whole different animal than a republic.
@jondiroku Sorry about the typo with "lef". I wasn't saying that there are no kids interested in politics, there certainly are, but what in the world would it mean to have a "youth-led" movement? why should "youths" lead a political movement? At best you could just say that it doesn't matter what age of people lead such a movement, but why explicitly call for the most naive and unexperienced people around to be leaders? I can think of one reason. Can you think of any?
@SikhiArt I want everyone to read this pinnacle of post-modernism post right here. Wow, just wow.
@lancelottodd I second lancelottodd in that rejecting all religions' claim of a god, and not believing in one (which is not the same as disbelieving), is being an atheist. From a logic and linguistics point of view; A-theist when you analyze the word, is simply not theist (the complement to theist), so anyone who is not a theist is an atheist. What you may be thinking of is anti-theist, which is a subset of atheist, proclaming there is no god, and/or believing in a religion/god is bad.
@BlckSbthMan The problem is that, there are sane people, who oppose that idea.
What about the hacker movement? Lots of young people defending freedom and democracy there. To quote the eth0 2010 slogan "In a digital age, hackers save the planet".
very wise, thank you
@talkaboom I thought what started this was the perception of democracy as the overbearing idea that people have the choice to not support (BECAUSE of democracy).
He certainly has good political language , but his idea's are that of a pure optimist. Whilst talking about the need for building democracy's from the bottom upwards is ideal , it has never ever worked in human history without international governmental action and pressure , and usually results in huge blood shed, so the need for governmental growth is needed. None the less what muslim extremists need is time to evolve and or be eradicated.
@WestofKevin I am not saying that all young people are naive (though by definition they are inexperienced), my point is to ask why in the world he or anybody would explicitly call for a "youth-led movement". There's exactly one reason I have seen this done, which is to: Recruit naive followers, to "hide" behind the youngsters and avoid answering probing questions. What other reason can you think of for such a call for a "youth-led movement"?
@akodo77 I "extremely" dislike murder, rape, genocide, and tyranny. Someone with a "more balanced" opinion would be inclined to tolerate or even sometimes to support these things. Sure such a "balanced" person could not be counted upon to consistently defend these evils (he's "balanced" after all) but he would 50% of the time support them and I think that's monstrous. What do you think of such people?
@hpbrown1 ... (For the Supremacy of God and not the Supremacy of People) is the article I was trying to post....Google it as it wont allow me to post the web link
@MrJaydawger your misinformed also. Im a large animal vet in new zealand. Ive been to slaughter plants where they make halal meat. They are allowed to be reversibly stunned (one that they will recover from eventually, but they are bled out before they regain conciousness). They can not be reversibly stunned (like a captive bolt to the brain etc).
Your right that the head is not cut off, and yes the heart is pumping but why does that matter? The animal is unconscious.
@WestofKevin Great, thank you.
Again, that sounds like a rather portentous, long winded way to say "Twitter." And seeing as I am familiar with the "phenomenon" in question, and all of its implications (as anyone who likes to consider themselves well informed should be,) I ask again; what were his ideas? To me, it reads like a CBS nightly news spot with the typical "we are the world" overtones that are becoming all too common with TED talks these days.
The problem with all problems any can pose, like religion or religious fundamentals, atheism or atheist fundamentals, etc is the core of human nature.
If we study the brain we find, there is noone sitting behind the eyes watching things. It's all one system. If we study the brain in nature, it is one system. If we study earth, it's one with the universe. Yet this is not realized moment to moment. There is a separateness we always feel that literally separates us from others. This causes hatred
@Pegar No, he didn't. You're just looking for faults, so you are seeing them.
By reading the comments you can see how many ppl are obsessed with this guy sexually.
@SpeedAmphetamine I didn't say that a whole generation of people knows nothing or is clueless. I said that "youth" as a population group is always the least experienced group in the general population. Unless you think that there's no learning or experience that happens as we live our lives how can you doubt that?
As for my rights, I have a right to "deem" anything I wish.
Back to the point: Why should anybody call for "youth" in particular to lead a political movement? This guy did.
We Christians have plenty of extremism ourselves. We need to form a movement to outstrip extremism, regardless of our religions.
@dlucas90 Simple, because banks act as brokers for currency exchange. We borrow money from whoever loans it to us , and in order to facilitate a fair medium of exchange a third party needs to be involved. The world banks act as a staging ground for lending because:
A. It's available to most nations, encouraging a free market.
B. It accepts all forms of currency; many private investors won't.
Interest is how banks make a profit. No profit, no banks. This isn't a conspiracy, just capitalism.
@dlucas90 It's one thing to oppose globalization; nations should maintain independence and identity, but know your enemy. Building a standard economy doesn't shackle people, corrupt governments that make and deny (ambiguously) rights for their people are the problem. When nations start telling their citizens what they can and can't do with their money, or when they excessively tax it away from them then there's a bigger problem. Businesses have no power over people unless they monopolize.
@courtesyZone Phrased in that manner, the question is impossible to answer. Obviously it would depend on the society, the system, and etc circumstance. Regardless, it seems somewhat moot in consideration of the caveats aforementioned. The fundamental purpose and first responsibility of any valid constitutional democracy is to guarantee rights. If a such a society fails to protect an individual's rights, and there are no means for redress, then it simply isn't working. All are responsible.
This guy got owned in a 2 v 2 debate by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Look it up!
@farhanprine I disagree, of course. Religions tells people how to behave/think, and they have a lot of untrue, hateful things taught to people. Yes, it's a part of human nature. No, that is not a reason to let it slide. Those that don't subscribe to religion simply don't do things religious people are talked into. You're saying that because humans to bad things, religion is therefore not bad? Give me a break. It's bad disguised as good. That's super bad.
Your assertion is actually flawed.
@justicetrooper I agree. I see flaws with democracy, but the thing is, theocracy sounds far worse.
@Icemario87 What's that? And why are no older people interested in it?
Good video, I liked it. Made me think.
This man spoke very well, however I am confused after listening to him.
Does he want to create a radical left group to battle the radical right/religious extremists?
Is he saying that the way extremists convey their message is the only way to get a point across in this world?
Is he saying democracy does not work?
And did it take just 5 years of prison to free his mind from his radical views on his old religion?
He still practices Islam
@gulllars It's tough to do in 500 characters, but think of it like engineering. If you have some goal like making an airplane fly, you can identify certain approaches that will work well (like having the wings generate lift etc.) and others that don't (like chaining it to the ground or having wings that pull the plane down). These are objective facts about plane-building. Living your life is a similar (though more complex) goal and practices can be objectively evaluated in a similar way.
@MrSubtle i would say airplane to moral and culture are false equivalencies. While an airplane has a clear and simple purpose, moral and culture do not except for allowing humans to coexist.
I would rather use vehicles of transportation as a metaphor. Depending on what you want to transport, how much of it, how far, and how fast, there are a lot of different approaches, and you are looking to solve an optimization problem. Morals and culture are the same way, optimizing for cooperation.
@thenewest1 That only is true if you have an egoistic point of view. Not everbody views the world like that however.
If you put the well being of others above your own (or at least at the same level) it's not jealousy but an honest complaint because you feel that everybody deserves to have a good life, not only a selected few.
Your Accountname suggests that you find yourself in the more egoistic category. As you like. Just don't forget that your opinions can not always apply to reality.
@gulllars My point was to identify the nature of the objectivity of evaluation of choices in the face of alternatives and goals. There's no question that in many areas there are equally good ways of accomplishing the same thing, but there are some ways of accomplishing them that are clearly not so good.
I disagree by the way about your claim that morals and culture are all about optimizing cooperation. Sometimes they are but at other times they are very much the opposite and rightly so.
The problem with religious fundamentalism is the fundamentals of religion.
I hate when people try to paint anything that opposes an Islamic practice as far right.
Perfect example Halal meat should be banned because it's animal cruelty. There is no legitimate reason to put an animal through that kind of pain.
There are very real "Islamophobic" problems in the world but trying to paint every criticism of Islam in that way is counterproductive.
@Icemario87 Yes, I have heard of it and it's just a stupid today as it was back when Lenin was spouting the same nonsense a hundred years ago. Nobody who understands so little about how production works should be taken seriously. Just imagining that it's easy to produce infinite amounts of stuff is an indicate of no experience in producing even tiny amounts of stuff. Think it's true? Then just go out and easily produce infinite amounts of everything tonight and prove it. I'll stand by.
True.
@ihallthirteen
You are sadly correct :(
@CatFlashBlue Look, no one will ever, ever, ever be able to say that "a god is impossible." It is quite simply out of bounds. Luckily, this has nothing to do with the distinction between atheists and agnostics. Simply put, most people who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists who don't understand the word "agnostic," but prefer it over the stigma associated with calling themselves an atheist.
For this debate, i think we should start by defining democracy. Supposed to be the govenment BY the people, For the people etc... We are governed by financial powers, who are driving us to alienation, unconsciousness and self destruction as a planet! ERROR: CURRENT DEMOCRACY NOT WORKING
@MrJaydawger your right mr jaydawager
halal meat is one of the most cleanest and less harmful way for animals to be slaughtered
Democracy of the people has NO ROOM in True Islam, what am i talking about? read this article and you will know
@Icemario87 Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Lenin's comments about industrial economics. He claimed like the "abundance economics" folks that if only factories were not operated for profit and instead operated only for the public good that there would be plenty of goods for everyone since he thought that capitalists intentionally limited production to make more money. Same thing as the "abundance economics" guys are claiming...and with similar utter lack of any understanding of production.
Psychoburgandy6 As I said, I am leery. As for the turn around, I don't think it happened in one day. As he said he was jailed for his behavior and I suspect that when one is rotting away in a small stuffy cell it gives one time to think. I hope he's legit but as I also said time will tell. One thing that he didn't do was give an example of how to establish the youth-led grass-roots democracy movement. Also he repeatedly said "I think" instead of "this is fact." I give him credit for that.
@MT2R What is the alternative then?
The Sick Healed, the Dead Raised, the Sinner Forgiven!