The American Academy in Berlin's RU-vid channel (AABonline) features a selection of lectures, readings, and discussions at in the arts, humanities, and public policy. To learn more, please visit www.americanacademy.de
Berlin Office American Academy in Berlin GmbH Hans Arnhold Center Am Sandwerder 17-19 14109 Berlin
New York Office American Academy in Berlin, Inc. 14 East 60th Street, Suite 1104 New York, NY 10022 USA Germany
Getting spammed by a dozen 2 minute videos is not what I subscribe to this channel for. Since I can't specify I'm only interested in lectures, I am forced to unsubscribe.
The fact that the entire basis of these suppositions is based on an extremely flawed method of analysis (i.e Western Historical Critical Method created in European Renaissance) which is rejected by Muslim scholors should be highlighted. It seems Orientalism is alive and well. Muslims reject your entire basis of analyses which is rooted in a local European past of reason vs state church. Please do not apply a local method and pretend it is a univeral method for all times, places and civalisations. Anyone who wishes to be fair and actually wants to seeks historical truth, should leave your biases at the door. A refutation to this can be found in the following video by Dr. Jonathan Brown ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Sxyo_bmJMGo.html
No, most religions within themselves don’t fight each other any more like the Muslims still do in 2024!! Very timid man and an apologetic for this crazy story that it should be called for want it is. I am stopping watching this very un engaging talk at after 45 minutes. He didn’t seem to have any personal opinion on the matter. All evidence needs to be interpreted anyway , something this gent , doesn’t do.
I don't think there is any historical validity to the origin stories of any of the 3 Abrahamic religions. They all sound suspiciously like stories from earlier religions. Though Socrates himself might be a mythical character there is more evidence of his actuality than there is for the main characters of the 3 monotheisms. I think most reliable archaeologists would agree on this point.
Very odd paradox. Big Government, where some form a democracy still exist, is "bad".. However, It is common knowledge that elite Businesses and Businesspeople control and "govern the Government". Therefore from that axiom, one should logically conclude that since Elite Businesses and Businesspeople control the government so that the government enacts policies detrimental to most people in the country (highest burden of taxes on the middle class, pollution around middleclass communities and other such policies, are being driven by the Elite i just mentioned) should be "Bad" also since the elite is government by proxy. But the elite group is considered generally "good" -- which is a completely illogical conclusion. The only way to stop the true "Bad" groups (elites) causing the government to make bad decisions is through democratic pressure to get the government to make changes, but that is the wrong way to enact change because we all know the government is "Bad" and therefore not the way to do it. Dear lord i need a drink
Whenever I see a non muslim scholar talks about Islam, this is how I found them as per their knowledge and honesty speaking: Knowledgeable Muslim VS non Muslim Scholar, ordinary Muslim VS knowledgeable non Muslim, Muslim scholar VS no One 😀
Muhammad is neither. There would have to be a god. If there was, it certainly wouldn't need people to speak for it. What a shy and timid god you believe in, too bashful to speak for itself. Try a more outgoing, confident God. There are plenty to choose from!
the quran does not refer to a city of Mecca located in the Hidjaz, this is a later lecture created by the abbassid caliphs (in the late 9th and 10th century) in order to invent a new religion suited for their goals of conquest and war and domination. They needed a place nobody knew, in the middle if nowhere.
There clearly is a distinction to make between the initial meaning of the coranic text (which was originally christian, though anti-trinitarian) and the meaning that was imposed (and distorted) later (9th and 10th centuries) by the abbassid caliphs (with the creation of the so-called "prophetic tradition" or "sunnah" with a multitude of hadiths, tafsir and siraa inventions). Their goal was to create a new religion serving their imperial interests of conquest and domination by the sword ... which still persists today
I used to leave lectures at university when the questions started, precisely because idiots like the one at 1:11:00 that was like "I'm A lAwyer. HeRe'S sOme Stuff I kNow >insert three minute lecture with 5-dollar words and concepts which have nothing to do with the lecture< dId ClImAte ChaNGe CaUse The IslAmIc ConverSioN? I'm sUpEr-DupEr GonCernEd AbOut ClimAte CHange Guys!". My eyes could only handle so much rolling.
Professor to himself: "How do I make sure people at the end of my lecture do not ask me any question about my lecture and ask me about something silly. There has gotta be a way to distract them and yet end up delivering a lecture on a subject that naturally raises a lot of questions?"
The world doesn’t like American hegemony. It doesn’t like being bombed. It doesn’t like being sanctioned. It doesn’t like demands placed by the IMF that are damaging to developing countries. It doesn’t like Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians, backed by America. So yeah America is powerful, thanks for reminding us. But the world hates it and will look for alternatives. It’s happening, slowly but surely.
Then why is America so scared of China? Why is America kneecapping Chinas technological advancement? Why is America kneecapping Chinas green tech sector with HUGE tariffs? Me thinks finance is not so important and manufacturing is.
Mit Verlaub: was für ein intellektueller Schwachsinn. Warum sollten die „Rechten“ nicht das machen, was die „Linken“ auch machen? Letztere schwafeln seit Jahrhunderten von Freiheit, Gleichheit und Brüderlichkeit und erzeugen tatsächlich Unfreiheit, Ungleichheit und Zwietracht (mit oder ohne Klassenansatz). DAS ist der eigentliche, ursprüngliche Euphemismus. Die Antwort zum „Forschungsgebiet“ von Herrn von Moltke ist ganz einfach: „Linke“ und „Rechte“, ebenso wie die „Mitte“ und alle anderen politischen Ausrichtungen, sind vom Wesen her gleich, also gesellschaftlich wesensgleich. Denn es ist nun mal Politik, also Volkssteuerung, um nicht Volksverdummung zu sagen. Aber diese neutralisierende Gleichsetzung darf natürlich nicht sein, denn dann gäbe es nicht all die Hunderten von Lehrstühle wie die für Herrn von Moltke, mit denen er seine heiße Luft von sich geben darf. Merke: der deutsche Adel war vor der deutschen Katastrophe von 1945 aus anderem Holz geschnitzt. Sechs! Setzen! GB: With all due respect: what intellectual nonsense. Why shouldn't the "right" do what the "left" does? The latter has been babbling about freedom, equality and fraternity for centuries and actually creates unfreedom, inequality and discord (with or without a class approach). THAT is the actual, original euphemism. The answer to Mr. von Moltke's "field of research" is very simple: "left" and "right", as well as the "centre" and all other political orientations, are essentially the same, i.e. socially identical. After all, it is politics, i.e. controlling the people, not to say dumbing down the people. But of course this neutralizing equation cannot be made, because then there wouldn't be all the hundreds of professorships like those for Mr. von Moltke, with which he can spout his hot air. Note: the German nobility was made of different stuff before the German catastrophe of 1945. Zero points! Sit down!
