Running Like Zebras: a documentary exposing experts through Socratic Dialogue
-
You probably are, actually.
-
You probably are, actually.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that you are.
-
Edip I must congratulate you.I think you are amazing human being that really strives on his path.You are not like the other scholars like you think you are the smartest and you are not arrogant.
There are more people like you I bet but they are afraid to come out publicly or something.I hope there comes a day when Sunni,Shia,Wahhabi,Quranist can all work together for better future of the world and so that we understand each other.Great work Edip
-
My only problem with this, I don't really like the ambush strategy....I mean obviously this doesn't justify them not being able to refute, but Edip Yuksel automatically has the upper hand because of the sudden ambush..
I am not sure how I feel about ambush interviews, atheists do it to believers as well....so..its a strategy that is out there...just...not sure if that would be a fair refutation session?...
It is interesting to see though how they can't physically handle the situation, and they run because they don't want to crumble all their beliefs...but I just wonder if that is due to feeling ill-prepared, like a pop quiz kinda thing...or.. does it really burst their bubble..MEH...I don't know!!!!!
Question, what was the resolution on Michael Mohamed interview?? Like what did you guys want to refute him about and what was the point of getting him in the documentary?
-
What ambush?
What did I do? I questioned them about their work, their PROFESSIONAL work.
If someone comes interviews me and direct me questions and criticism related to Islam, Quran, and the topics I write and talk about, do I have right to complain?
I welcome these sorts of ambush. Well, you have misused the word ambush.
Just think. The news reporters or TV talk program hosts are not required or expected to tell their interviewees the questions in advance.
HERE IS FOR YOU
I welcome to be "ambushed" this way by Sunni, Shiite, Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Agnostic,... all sorts of people with all sorts of ideas and criticism. Please let them know!
It is shame that discussing important philosophical and theological subjects honestly is considered ambush. Especially, with a professional atheist and professional clergymen!
I have nothing to lose. If I am on the side of truth, the light of the truth will shine. If I am on the wrong side, I will have chance to learn my error and accept the truth. If I will not be able to discern the truth from falsehood, I will tell my critics that "I do not know the answer, and I need more time to study the issue."
Yes, what is wrong with these three alternatives? My opponents had these three alternative choices, but they chose the forth one; the dishonest one.
Peace,
Edip -
"Question, what was the resolution on Michael Mohamed interview?? Like what did you guys want to refute him about and what was the point of getting him in the documentary?"
A good question. Personally, I did not find any use for that section. There were much better interviews and sections. I had already told the producers not to niclude Michael Muhamed's section. But, somehow they thought it relates to the predicatement of many youth...
I am still not convinced about it. I think it does not fit the main theme and its language is too vulgar for me and perhaps for many.
Peace,
Edip -
What ambush?
What did I do? I questioned them about their work, their PROFESSIONAL work.
If someone comes interviews me and direct me questions and criticism related to Islam, Quran, and the topics I write and talk about, do I have right to complain?
I welcome these sorts of ambush. Well, you have misused the word ambush.
Just think. The news reporters or TV talk program hosts are not required or expected to tell their interviewees the questions in advance.
HERE IS FOR YOU
I welcome to be "ambushed" this way by Sunni, Shiite, Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Agnostic,... all sorts of people with all sorts of ideas and criticism. Please let them know!
It is shame that discussing important philosophical and theological subjects honestly is considered ambush. Especially, with a professional atheist and professional clergymen!
I have nothing to lose. If I am on the side of truth, the light of the truth will shine. If I am on the wrong side, I will have chance to learn my error and accept the truth. If I will not be able to discern the truth from falsehood, I will tell my critics that "I do not know the answer, and I need more time to study the issue."
Yes, what is wrong with these three alternatives? My opponents had these three alternative choices, but they chose the forth one; the dishonest one.
Peace,
EdipLOL first of all I apologise I didn't notice it was you personally Edip Yuksel who posted the documentary, I am so sorry!
Kindly forgive me!!, D
Just a brief intro to my stance I am someone who has a lot of trouble with my religion, and hadith specifically ever since I remember, because I am from egypt not everyone grows beards, but everyone believes in hadith so that was baffling to me..., and I honestly had a lot of problems before I even heard of Rashad Khalifa, and I was quiet stomped I never heard about him, even though he is egyptian, and he died near when I was born, but his concept has NEVER ever crossed my path, till I actually got out of egypt, and I was like wow, I never knew there is someone who felt so strongly about no hadith. I do have my questioning towards Dr. Rashad still.....
Anyways,
What I meant by ambush is, they didn't know what is going to be talked about, this is like telling a doctor, talk about your patients and how they feel, and then suddenly ask him something about how the pharmacology of a certain drug he uses has no evidence behind it. He might be prescribing it without ever knowing there is a controversy surrounding it...or whatever his reason is, he was ill prepared for the subject, but to save face...(which is not a quality to be respected), he starts being frustrated and saying that's not what I was told I will be interviewed about.
I am just saying in my very dumb personal opinion, catching someone of guard in an interview makes it seem like you resorted to a deceptive tactic, although I understand your point, I really do, because unfortunately I think if you tell them I want to interview about what you actually wanted to interview them about they would refuse to get refuted...so I don't know what other way could be doneHere an example of what I mean
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDWJSd4L1lw&feature=relmfu
(He pretends that he is a christian who believes in her church, but he is an athiest, obviously your approach is not that deceptive, but that`s how he get to ask her difficult questions about the bible).I actually love Michael Muhamed's part the most D, the reason I asked is just because I wanted to see your perspective (Although i thought you are the narrator) as someone who is confident in his religion, and wither maybe Michael resolved his issues because I have the exact same problem....granted its the most ambigous, opinion wise, but...it makes me feel..less crazy I guess, I never heard of him, and I don't like punk rock or vulgar language as you mentioned, but I understand what he is feeling, and our generation is exposed to so many global ideas it is overwhelming how to figure out what is right and what is wrong, with everyone being fixated in saying they are right and everyone else is wrong.
I am sorry if I sounded harsh in my critisism, I am just looking for answers and I really didn
t notice you posted it your self, Ive heard about you recently, and I had no idea you participated in this website. Again Sorry. -
Peace nevasheva.
You were right to criticise the method . Although Edip s answer was reasonable, you did well to notice the " ambush" . Having just finished watching the tapes, I agree with some of your criticism.
If Edip asked these people for an interview and was rejected, then I agree with his justification.
Peace.
-
The issue is now AMBUSH ) Yeah, I live in Arizona, and I ambush my rivals )
Ambush what? Ambush who?
Then, according to your kaleidoscope, all those politicians interviewed by the reporters are ambushed. Poor politicians ) Then every-time a student is questioned by a professor or vice versa, they ambush each other )
Didn't you hear Michael Shermer responding Matthew's question about the miracle 19 with his buzz word PATTERNICITY, with a smirk on his face? Didn't you see him mocking it. Why din't he then say "I have no clue about this. I need to study it before making a statement about it."
Besides, the video does not show all the preparation I had before coming to the 19. I had to pre-emptively refute his major philosophical arguments. After listening my introduction, he realized that he could not be able just to get away by making a mockery of the subject through a few soundbites he had memorized. He realized that I was not a reporter with a soft ball to help him show off his pitch. I was not a dumb or naive clergymen that he could chew and spit there and declare a cheap victory. Thus, you saw him getting jittery and confused when I asked him the same question.
Matthew talked to him like a news reporter, but I talked to him like my hero, Socrates. And the latter was the fitting format for this guy's active promotion of atheism.
These guys (Michael Shermer, S?leyman Ate, Shamsi Ali, David Silverman and more) were there to be interviewed on the subject of their interest and profession. My question was within the area of their PROFESSIONAL interest. Imagine, his most recent publication had the cover story about the Quran.
I did not have an eleven year-old child, a painter, a construction worker or a novelist in front of me; I had professional atheists and professional clerygmen.
Peace,
EdipBesides, I wish we could ambush all those false experts to expose their lies and falsehood.
Peae,
Edpi -
Peace Edip.
I did say your answer was reasonable. We all look for opportunities to expose the lies and fabrications.
However in an arranged interview/ debate , if that was possible, there will be no running or hiding. I was merely saying that would have been a better alternative.
I agree ,though, fight them with the truth.
Peace.
-
Yes they would probably not conduct the interview if they knew they can't back them selves up, and it exposed their lack of authority over the subject never the less.
I am really sorry I am sounding un-appreciative of the documentary it is a very interesting one, and I didn't mean Michael Muhammed part was bad at all it was the part I really liked , but I see that you have removed it, i think it is good because it shows that uncertainty is a stage that is I think important if you are looking for answers.
Thanks for your effort. Again I apologies I am too blunt sometimes.
-
Thank you for your feedback and criticism... All are good to hear.
I was reluctant regarding the part about Michael Muhammad, and upon receiving a few criticism, I decided to remove it. It was not directly within the perimeters of the topic and the language was vulgar, much beyond my tolerance level.
Peace,
Edip -
Shalom Aleikhem,
If I may share my views on the interviews
-
Dr. MICHAEL SHERMER This part of the documentary helps to see that the philosophy and approach of the person is flawed. The person holds a position of disbelieve, often with a lot of arrogance, yet when grilled, he admits that he has NO CLUE about Qur'an or ISLAM in general. How shameful is that ?
-
Imam SHAMSI ALI I saw how hypocritical things can be. The same person who was speaking against violence and unreasonable Islamic traditions can be so much agitated when you question about the very source of all these problems. I agree with a statement this imam made "You are supposed to let me speak, I am not here to debate you" , not word for word, but this is something similar to what he said to Edip. However, the problem lies in the fact that this person does not respond to the problems he was questioned/challenged about. Finally, he gets so angry and ends the interview. What I learnt from his behavior is that he has something in common with a famous cartoon character, Eric Cartman from South Park. He was mad at edip because Edip did not respect his authority. His model of Islam is something like "I dictate, you follow", so no wonder he gets so angry when challenged.
-
Michael Mohammed What was the point of this part of the documentary ? To show that there are confused muslims ? Well, even though its just my opinion, I would like to say that this part could have been swapped with questioning regular muslims you meet on the street about their faith. I am sure you would bypass the vulgarity of language by doing that, and you could have gotten a much more wider and broader view of the confused generation. I often have conversations with Hanafis, ahle-sunnah etc at a time, and that type of conversation makes it so clear that there is room for questioning. I like to point out to them that sometimes they follow the ruling of a sect which they label as "not-islamic", even they realize that I do have a point there. A friend of mine was mad at me for speaking against Bukhari. After a long conversation and discussion of Qur'an, the same friend pointed out that "There can not be any compulsion in matter of faith", ofcourse I pointed out to the hadiths that demand death penalty for apostasy etc, yet the friend hypocritically states that Bukharis collection is Saheeh !!! What could be more confusing than that ? Bukharis collection prescribes death penalty for Apostasy, while this friend agrees with me that it can not be true as Qur'an forbids such actions, yet the friend believes that its AUTHENTIC COLLECTION !! These confusions can not be explained away as "opinions", as they posses all characteristics of conditioning and brainwashing.
I am still confident that interviewing regular muslims would make a better alternative than this part of the documentary.
-
The Turkish television example I had to rely solely on your words as I do not understand the language used. Could you not make it better by English subtitles ? I honestly do not know if the person walking away from the show was chickening out or reasonable in doing that. You can't blame me, I do not have adequate date to decide either way.
-
Edip Yuksel vs public Wonderful, yet I must ask, are you ok ? That enormous use of vocal power. Did you suffer from a voice break down P later on ? It happens to me if I shout like that for extensive period of time, dont know if your voice box is made of steel. P
With all the pros and cons, I must point out the fact that this was the first time I have seen such a documentary. The only one of its kind. Thank you Edip and your crew. May God guide you all to His straight path.
Peace
------------- Student of Allah -
-
Student of Allah,
Thank you for this constructive evaluation. I would like to share it at my website, with your permission.
Peace,
Edip -
Student of Allah,
Thank you for this constructive evaluation. I would like to share it at my website, with your permission.
Peace,
EdipShalom Aleikhem,
You are always welcome, you have done the hard work of producing the film, the least I could do is watch and share my view.
And ofcourse , you can go ahead and share my post on your website.
May Peace be with you
----------------------------- Student of Allah
-
Salam Edip
I've looked at all the parts, the last is really great = Well roared lion!
However, I would have like to have a little more info, about Islam in general or the 19 , but it was very amusing to see how the cleric ran away at this point, the usually fractious Muslims seem to agree this is THE ENEMY elektroI wished I would have the courage to do the same on the street Cairos!
with great respect. peace -
Selam Edip
Great interviews, specially liked the one with the imam. When cornered he really had no clue and running away was his animal instinct. I guess 1746 outlines exactly what these people will do when cornered! Well done, I enjoyed watching it.
Peace