"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century." - Noam Chomsky
Your "primary" concern is the actions of your own state. You don't rule out then circumstances where you would want to challenge the actions of other states? Because if you did rule that out I don't it would be difficult to find a reductio ad absurdum argument. What circumstances would make you turn your attention outwards then?
This is some pitch, all this. But I guess if most people on the planet can copy and practice your second concern, I mean in their homes, surely angels would fall..... Thanks so much, Chomsky.
Chomsky is saying that the term ‘Islamic ideals’ doesn’t mean anything because they vary over a large range just as the ‘Christian ideals’ vary from Martin Luther King Jr. to current political leaders so you can’t really answer the question. You need to look at specific cases and focus on things you can actually effect.
Trip - Take the log out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of your brothers - Jesus. We have nothing to say about the human, tribal, cultural or religious nonsense while we slaughter and oppress others all over the world and in our own country. Whay are we doing it? Christianity? Caucasian-ism? Founding fatherism? It's evil. Everything else is a cover.
Q:Are Islamic ideals a threat? My answer to that as a Muslim is asking “which “Islamic ideals” are we talking about?” because there are so many schools of thought and sects within the this religion! If we’re talking about Sunni ideals then again I’ll ask which Sunni ideals are we talking about? Are we talking about Shafi’i Muslims?(followers of imam Al Shafi’i) or are we talking about the Maliki Muslims? or are talking about the Hanafi Muslims? or are talking about Suffi Muslims? Or are we talking about non Sunni Muslims like the Shias or the Ebadi Muslims? In any of these cases I believe that non of these Muslims or their ideals poses any threat towards civilization or the west,but if we are talking about the Salafi Ideals and wahabinism then these ideologies not only pose threat towards the west but also (and mostly)towards the Muslim world and Muslim themselves(mostly towards Shias and suffies). So when you say “Islamic ideals” I think people should be fair and try to be specific in what they’re saying and not to generalize and I find Noam to be one of the few to actually do that.
Boring chorus. Copy/pasted decontextualised enumerations. It's easy to list stuff. It's like Noam said, it takes a second to utter a lie and 10 minutes to decode it. In the same vein, each of these is discussed by islam scholars all the time and most are completely FALSE. Sadly, to discuss each bullet point, we'd need a lecture, and that's what you're counting on isn't it? Instead, ask yourself what you're doing, fomenting face-value hatred for over a billion people because they live in so-called majority muslim countries... What a noble goal that is in a time where humans must come together and face the threats that will extinguish the species.
As a Muslim, I confidently confidently call out your BS and let everyone know that you don't know what you're talking about. Throwing these labels about doesn't mean you're informed lol. They're schools of LEGAL thought LOL. It's nothing to do with jurisprudence. And I don't agree with Salafi's on certain issues but saying conservatism leads to extremism is also wrong. Islam isn't the problem at all. Its politics. "Islãm is a political ideology" I hear you cry. Obviously Islam, as a way of life, has some regulations that relate to politics but it is mainly about one's beliefs and character. Extremist become extremist because other extremist bombed the heck out of their country, not because The Book told them to be extremist.
Ayman B. “Copy/pastes”!!!i just wrote this out of the top of my head,the point I was trying to make is that there’s great diversity in this religion.....take from it what you will.
I respect the guy but this was a clear dodging question. He wasn't asked if we could do anything about Islamic ideals, he was asked if they were problematic. 100 bucks says he has not read the Shari'ah law.
Surely he didn’t same as I. Could you please tell me where I can read it? I’ve been a muslim my entire life in the most evil and terrorist country in the world that is Saudi Arabia and I’ve never see nor read a book that is called Shariah Laws or any any other book that details these wicked “laws” of islam. These prescribed terrorist laws govern how a muslim think and interact with other human beings yet they are nowhere to be found…it must be uploaded into our brains from a sinister entity that demand the destruction of world. Spooky!!
He gave a diplomatic answer, but go ahead and revel in how you understood the answer, while heads keep rolling in the name of the bearded inbreds that so few muslims will denounce.
He was asked a question about Islam, why is he bringing up Christianity? He's not Christian, he's a jew. Why doesn't he discuss Judaism? What can "we" do about Christianity that "we" can't do about Judaism?
That's the problem with pseudo intellectuals. They beat around the bush, afraid to call a spade a spade. The root cause of much of the strife in the world is islam. To be precise, the hateful and violence-inciting parts. Expunge all these parts and the problem is largely solved, worldwide.
vig shah If you think so than, why don't you stay away and meanwhile wash your mouth than become real Jew that every human respects. Arabs or israil, all the same.
If Prophet Muhammad, Khaleed Bin Waleed, Muhammad Ghori, Muhammad Ghazni, Taimur the Lame, and Muhammad bin Qasim had a lawyer his name would be Noam Chumpsky.
It is a “whataboutery” question. No doubt Chomsky is giving a speech in the United States about US foreign policy and its effects. Something Americans have responsibility for and can do something about. “What about Islamic Ideals? is the question.
@Zack that's because those people have nothing to do with true islam which is practiced by over a billion people in the world who are no where near as harmful as non-muslim societies and leaders over the world! and that's a fact that mr. chomsky is trying to make clear to you you just need to open your eyes to it and stop painting thousands of millions of people and their faith in a bad color just because of a very minor group of extremists, and instead look at the reasons these extremists rise up and how those reasons are wars and systems waged and imposed on their countries by the west mostly! and continue to do so!! that's why mr. chomsky pointed that out.
@@TheMosayat those "no where near as harmful" people continously destroy their own societies, and killed more than all other cultures combined since their dead leader held his stupid speeches.
He doesn’t answer the question, he makes up another question and answers that instead. He won’t criticise Islam because that would be contrary to his life’s narrative that the West are the aggressors. Doesn’t matter how many times that has been true. Islam has its own reasons for aggression that have nothing to do with the West. He avoids that fact. It lessens him.
Mike_ni_33 Wrong. You make the non-specific "Islam bad" argument, which is entirely ludicrous. Chomsky wants you to be more specific, which *you* refuse to do because it lessens *your* life's narrative that ALL OF ISLAM IS BAD AND THE DEVIL!!!!
Noam Chomsky intelligent? Maybe. What I do know though is that he doesn't know the first thing about Islam, Sunnis, or Wahhabism. Nor has he ever lived in a Muslim majority country. His subsequent ignorance is on clear display.
@Mike_ni_33 Actually what he does is point out the hypocrisy of secular westerners who pretend to want to have a logical discussion but will only discuss about the failures of others so that they can pretend to some fairy tale about themselves and their benevolent leadership. Before you hear Chomsky talk about Islam you'll merely have to explain to him why exactly he should be bothered with it while there's plenty to worry about with the exports that are the result of the ideals in his own culture. That's all. He puts Islam side by side with christianity and asks what's the big deal with Islam again?
For those of you criticizing Chomsky take Paul Ryan for (only) one example. Do any of you feel the "devout Christian", Paul Ryan, cares for the people of this country or is truly making decisions based on his supposed Christian values? His actions are based on what the people that give him money want. It's about power and money and people like Paul Ryan, the "people in high places who claim to be devout Christians", that are the hypocrites Chomsky is talking about. They are the people colluding with and for the Israeli government, oil companies, other corporations, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.; they are ruining the earth and any culture that gets in their way, for money.
"Islam is like Christianty, Judaism, Buddhism. You find all -- There's no such thing as Islamic idea(l)s. There are lots of different Islamic ideas, just like Christian -- The real question we should be asking, particularly here, is what about Christianity? Now that's something we can do about. Ok? So that's the highest priority. So what are Christian ideals?" Meaning: 1. There's no "ideal" Islam just like there is no "ideal" Christianity, or any other religion. They are all multifaceted, and it's ultimately the people of faith, not the religion itself, that makes them do what they do. 2. Since we are not an Islamic nation, but we are very much so a Christian nation, it is better for us to talk about our own Christian ideals, rather than pretend we can pin down Islam's.
@@glennsimonsen8421 ikr?? Chomsky is an absolute biased idiot most mslims are sunni and its pretty well organised least diverse and they in fact boast about how singular monolithic their is unlike christianity
@@glennsimonsen8421 I challenge you to grasp the difference between an adjective and a noun, as they serve distinct functions and carry entirely different meanings. When you say “ideal Islam,” with “ideal” as the adjective, you’re pointing to a specific interpretation that’s supposedly the pinnacle among others. On the other hand, “Islamic ideals,” where “ideals” is the noun, refers to a particular set of morals, values, and principles within the belief system, which, frankly, can be easily manipulated by demagoguery. This distinction is fundamental to understanding the nuances in these phrases, so it’s crucial to get it right. You seem to be implying that religious clerics are stubborn in their beliefs. But isn’t that precisely what they’re supposed to be? They’re expected to stand firm in what they preach, holding onto their convictions rather than swaying with every passing opinion. This isn’t social science; it’s about faith and steadfastness, which is why it’s called a dogmatic belief, not a scientific one. So, let’s be clear: “ideal Islam” is not the same as “Islamic ideals.” The former refers to a singular, supposedly perfect interpretation, while the latter involves a broader set of moral values and principles within the belief system. Understanding this basic difference is essential, so I’d suggest you pay close attention.
He doesn't want to really say what's on his mind because it could become inconvenient, or perhaps he isn't interested because he always has so many axes to grind against his own country.
Islam never support killing innocent people ✋ But people are ingonrant because of Media Less than 1% who are bad in Islam What about over 90% of muslims live in peace?? They are over 1.7 billion muslims live in peace and do not want to kill anyone
BLUEGENE13 "It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.” - Noam Chomsky
Just my 2 cents for those of you who dont know , Islam in the 7th century was first to abolish slavery, anti-racist, anti-discriminatory , interest free economy in which wealth was shared amongst all people and the highest level was accountable in the society may it be the Governor or the Ruling Caliphate of the time.
Islam never abolished slavery. They still keep slaves. Islam is the followhsip of a slave trader named Muhammad who gave speeches they collected in a book called Quran. It is the most racist, most discriminatory, most violent system of oppression ever on this planet. They kill their own kins for leaving the cult.
@@ahmedgondal8152 I am the SOURCE of propaganda, you jerk! Of course you don't even understand the meaning of the word propaganda, silly! And i am higly educated, reading the Quran, the Hadith and the Tafsirs in Arabic, you idiot!
I agree with Chomsky 95% of the time but his argument here is so lame. The idea that "we" (an homogenous tribal unit that he imagines his audience and the West in general to be?) can't comment on Islam until "we've" fixed Christianity is just racism pure and simple. What about people who blur the boundaries a bit - Westerners who are Muslims, or Arab Christians, or ex-Muslims - are any of them allowed to comment on Islam? Are non-Nazis allowed to comment on Nazism? It's virtually a tautology that people who strongly critique a religion aren't simultaneously an adherent of that religion, so what he's arguing for is a de facto blasphemy law (or taboo).
I think it is unfair and unacceptable to condemn Islam as a religion in its entirety. Instead, we must condemn Islamic leaders/organisations that constrain freedoms and/or violate international law. The Koran is an ancient text which espouses less morally unacceptable ideas than it does virtuous, altruistic ideas (just like the Bible or any holy book for that matter). This is largely because the Koran was written 1000+ years ago for an unimaginably different era; economically, technologically, socially, etc. Thus, it is up to those who practice Islam - or any religious faith - in the 21st century to follow its moral teachings and ignore those which, over time, we can see are obviously morally unacceptable. That some cannot make this distinction is not the fault of the religion in toto, but on the individuals who are ostensibly practicing it. This, in fact, was Chomsky's main point. Nixon and MLK were both Christians: the former committed war crimes while the latter made huge steps in liberating millions of people. It was not Christianity that rendered either outcome - it was the individual.
donkeychan I don't believe that Chomsky is suggesting you don't have the right to comment about Islam, or that Americans should worry about solving Christianity before worrying about Islam. I think that he was suggesting that Americans are, without realizing it, taking for granted the rightness of their Imperialist, Christian policies when they believe that the problem lies entirely, or even mostly, with Islam and Muslims. This was very much illustrated by his example at the end with regards to the Iranian regime and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, if you solve the issues of American imperialism and Christianity, this will, in fact, result in a much more significant influence on the Islamic world than any other measures.
The idea that Westerners should turn inwards and improve their own moral character before criticising others is itself a hoary Christian trope - "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ". That's the irony of pseudo leftist arguments such as yours - they are manifestations of the very same insular and parochial outlook that that they purport to critique.
Lol even this guy is practicing "whataboutism"? Shocking, he talks about Ideals of Islam then proceeds to talk about individuals. The ideals of a religion come from their scriptures and founders, NOT people who end up following.
for every hard question there is a simple answer and its wrong , ppl nowdays expect a simple answer that confirms what they already belive , noam chomsky actually thinks pragmatically , thanks to him
NC should stop beating around the bush and realise (and state loudly and clearly) that islam is not a religion it is a neo-political vicious hateful militant violence-inciting cult craftily garbed as a religion.
@@Chawaonga For your kind information, islam is not a religion it is a neo-political vicious hateful militant violence-inciting cult craftily garbed as a religion. Please read the history of why and how islam was conjured up by an illiterate, petty but extremely shrewd warlord sitting in a secluded cave. Connect the dots. When you have come to grips with this discovery, perhaps you can tell us all which all parts of the koran and hadhees must be expunged so that islam can become acceptable.
@@Chawaonga Bro, the sooner you and most muslims admit that the problem with islam is the hateful, mind-poisoning and peace-threatening verses in the koran and hadhees, the sooner we can begin to have these expunged and then rehabilitate all muslims back into normal society.
@@Chawaonga How will that help? If a person has a closed mind, can not think for himself, believes in miracles or in irrational tenets, I do not waste time with him. I leave it to society to straighten him out. For your information some of my best friends and families are muslims, but of the non-strict kind. I have no issue with them because I know they do not believe in the hateful and jihadi tenets of evil islam. In fact they are the enlightened ones. Some of them enjoy wine too. They take a modern pragmatic approach, saying islam will reform eventually but they do not have the patience to wait for the mullahs to come to their senses. How about you? Are you capable of independent and rational thinking or are you a slave to your cult? You you not wish to be free of the yoke of islam? I can help you if only you wish to be free and need help.
"Are Islamic ideals a threat?" is not an interesting question. It's like asking are humans a threat. Well, some are, some aren't. You have to be more precise to have a meaningful discussion. And then there's priority. Noam thinks one should first deal with the problems you and your country have caused, because those are issues you can influence. A Christian condemning Islam is as meaningless as me condemning Genghis Khan.
Would you have preferred if he said "No"... Is any sophisticated reply not a reply in your book? Or do you expect exhaustive replies in 2 minutes? I don't get it.
In your view can a human ever positively influence another human by critiquing their deeply held beliefs and ideas? Are debates and dialogues ever worthwhile or is it best if we just retreat behind tribal barriers and mindlessly adopt the customs and habits of our forebears, living like Medieval peasants? That seems to be the underlying assumption of your comment.
Not what I'm saying. You can criticize ideas, but you should focus on issues you, your community and your country is causing. Like we didn't give a damn when some Soviets criticized the West, but we valued the Soviets who pointed out the atrocities done by their own government. Basically, me acknowledging your misdoings is worthless if I don't first acknowledge my own misdoings that are similar. Perhaps my last sentence in my previous comment was a bit of a hyperbole in hindsight, but the idea was that one should put emphasis in one's own crimes.
Sorry, you should answer the question you're asked first and then you can get on asking about the perceived problem others have. The person using the term faggot a homophobe then? Using smears rather than logic. I suspect t the interview went on longer than 2 minutes, may have been short as he didn't answer question.
First he says "there's no such thing as Islamic ideas". Has Noam never heard of Sharia Law? That's a central Islamic ideal unique to that faith. And Jihad? Second he says people are saying "Let's destroy the world based on Christian ideals". Say what? I've never heard anyone say anything remotely like that. Perhaps Noam showing signs of dementia here?
Es scheint wirklich das die meisten Amerikaner wirklich dumm sind wie gesagt wird. Hier in Europa werdet ihr als unwissende bezeichnet. Das sieht man an deinem wissen über der letzten Jahrhunderte. Schau dir mal die Kriege in der Geschichte an. War es der Islam oder das Fake Christentum ?
1.Sharia Law is subject to interpretation. A moderate might interpret it in one way, a fundamentalist in another way. The fact that we equate Sharia with fundamentalism is due to the propaganda machine (you don't hear in the news about moderate/liberal Muslims who live in perfect harmony with Western laws, yet they still observe the Sharia) 2.Jihad is about the fight for social justice against oppression. The fact that we believe that jihad means the extermination of people of other religions is again due to propaganda (Muslims in the middle east have waged jihad against the Ottomans) 3.I believe Chomsky is talking about the what the American right-wing Christian elite are doing, namely the destruction of the environment and the the destruction of other societies and countries by military intervention.
Noam doesn't want to perpetuate circus behaviour. If you watch his documentary on manufacturing consent, he talks about how the media is used to influence society such as to perpetuate war and specifically the war on terror. He is trying to steer the conversation away from that kind of rhetoric as he doesn't want to perpetuate it
And I suppose you've read all the Hadith, Quran and Tafsir and have complete knowledge of all the schools of Islam and understand all these things in their spatiotemporal context and also have an idea on the consensus of the contemporary Muslim scholars?
Virtually all religions in the world sanction violence in one way or another in order to establish a theocratic hegemony. Texts considered sacred by populations all over the world throughout the times have been interpreted in different ways and they have included violent interpretations. My point is that instead of entering a discourse of religious theology, we would be better off trying to understand the dangerous aspect of weaponizing the militant aspects of Islam for geo-political and economic gains by different actors in the world throughout the time. But ofcourse, this is a painstaking process of research and intellectual exertion so we just lazily resort to cherry-picking aspects of religion that sanction violence to justify and conveniently rationalize our contempt for a scapegoat religious ideology and maybe hate on some poor backwards folks who are that way because of a systemic ploy against them. :D
@@abcxyz9783 How about the TRUE intellectual fan share the videos of NC's criticism of Islamic scriptures & intolerance & violence. For us lesser mortals.
Noam Chomsky is someone that has impacted my life greatly. And I agree with him on a lot of things. _However,_ he is *ABSOLUTELY DEAD WRONG ABOUT THIS TOPIC.* The idea that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam-are equally harmful, or equally responsible for problems in our society-is absolute NONSENSE. Christians and Jews do not kill people when you draw pictures of their prophets. Christians and Jews do not execute atheists and homosexuals. I am a secular humanist and I’m liberal (not a postmodern, politically correct, liberal - but an ACTUAL traditional liberal). I believe that all religions are toxic (except for a very few exceptions). But, it is ridiculous to say that they are exactly the same. It’s like saying that alcohol is the same as heroin, because they’re both drugs. I believe that it is true that the West carries out hideous acts of violence on other countries, and those kinds of things exacerbate problems like Isis. And I was absolutely against the Iraq War ... But you cannot say that America (ie Christians) cause Muslims to execute homosexuals, atheists, apostates, blasphemers. I am absolutely open to a discussion about this topic because I believe it’s extremely important, but I just cannot understand how someone as intelligent as Noam, can believe that what he is saying here is true.
@@SuperIbi96 I’m guessing you’re not gonna back up your claims about my “stupidity”. The irony is that people that make comments like yours - 10000% of the time... never make an argument that isn’t illogical. So, go ahead and explain why my claims are “stupid”.
WTH are you talking about? That's like saying, Julian Assange and Piers Morgan are both journalist and both of them have done some hacking, so both of them are same. I can't believe people people take this guy for a serious intellectual.
"Are Islamic ideals a threat?" "Well, y'know, Christianity is bad blah blah." I though this guy was meant to be, like, super clever? You could try answering the question, pal. . NEXT !
Of course, Prof. Chomsky is an extraordinary mind and has encyclopedic knowledge of the world at large. Alongwith his intimidating intellect, he exercises great skill in turning debates to topics which are his bread and butter, as seen here. Insofar as Islamic terror is concerned, I agree with Prof. Chomsky that western involvement was more important than Islamic "ideals" as the root cause of Islamic terror as we see it today (even if the instrumentalization of ideology in propagating it, e.g. recruitment by Al-Qaeda or Isis cannot be refuted). However, I truly don't understand his repeated circumvention of questions about Islam in general - I've never seen him talk of the human rights violations arising therefrom. Just to take an example, compare the worst sectarian conflict in Christianity in the 20th Century - the Troubles in Ireland. A total of 3500 people were killed on both sides. Now take one (amongst numerous) of the relatively little known cases of sectarian conflict in Islam - the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan. In just a couple of riots in the city of Lahore in the mid 20th century, more Ahmadis were killed than all the casualties in the Troubles COMBINED. Could Prof. Chomsky tell me which Western power pushes Pakistani Sunnis to systematically persecute Ahmadis to such a grotesque degree? And those weren't isolated incidents either. Ahmadi persecution is not just state sponsored in Pakistan, it is THE LAW and the reason for that is PURELY religious.
The city of Lahore probably has more ppl than all of Ireland combined. There is an issue of scale here. I agree though, Pakistan is an absolute shithole and needs to be taken to task, I've even debated Chomsky on email about Pakistan and why he seems very reluctant to criticize it, when he does India. His response was basically "the western press dismisses Pakistan and coddles India, therefore I focus on India". His answer was absolutely shocking to me.
I think by seeing your name, you are hindutwa. Hindutwa politics based on sectarian principles of anti muslim politics, that is why you are so kin to take an interest in criticism of Islam rather than real issues. And for that Ahmadi incident, Noam Chomsky talk always in favour of oppressed everytime. Don't generalise it by only this issue. This is main problem with right winger like you. You do faulty generalization.
One of the few times I'll be somewhat critical of the doctor. His answer skirted the question in it's 'turnabout is fair play' application to the dominant 'western' religious ideology, though, it isn't the kind of question he might consider relevant to his overall belief that before criticizing the splinter in another's eye we should consider the log in our own. In that way I can only consider his response as being diplomatic. His comment was entirely valid yet not relevant to the intention of the question but he also might not have considered the question itself as relevant.
He’s an intellectual man. He is completely right, in fact you seem to be in the wrong due to your lack of knowledge and your feeding into propaganda against Muslims.
Any ideal that kills people for leaving it cannot be good ideal. Thag ideal comes not from followers mind. That came from the mind of the main guy. Seems like Chomsky isn't a great thinker as people think.
Ideals cannot kill someone. People do. There is a difference. Islam makes it clear in the Qur'an, where it says: "There is no Compulsion upon Religion". Anyone is free but responsible on his own in these matters. The Killing of individuals are being made by individuals and not by Ideals. If you actually would make just a little bit of unbias and honest research you would find that those Ideals you are trying to critizise are the very same Ideals that built the foundations of todays science, that is aligned with basic morality, social- and familiar life and that highlights Compassion, Respect and Value to even your Enemys. Peace be upon you
@@mahaduzumaki6643 how authentic can that be? And how can those be understood right? When there was a totally different time, place and life? You cannot quote any hadith and simply interpret it as you want. Many sayings are individual approaches to 1400 years old 'current' situations which also needed individual solutions and where back then societies and people were in danger, in wars and striving for good and truth. Your argument is very weak. The hadith is not the codex by which we live as they are not universal, timeless and speechless because they are not such an collection, rather they are collection of different statements made by him to different people under different circumstances which all should be analyzed and understood first before thinking one got it right. To think you can draw a total understanding of islam just by quoting one or two misunderstood and spread by anti-media ahadith is foolish. The Qur'an is the 100% reliable, actually universal, independant of time, space and circumstances, truth and guidance and the qur'an is clear on that: you cannot simply kill someone if he has not wronged you by injustice which is worth to be killed nor if he is not a big threat to society and humanity. Someone leaving faith is in todays time and especially in western civilisation neither of both. So No, that there is an hadith is not an argument at all.
this is the dumbest évaluation i have ever heard him make. of course he does not know islamic idiology. but his phislosophical view here is nothing short of sophistry. america is not a christian country its sécular. its has some christian ideals. whereas iran is a muslim country that uses sharria law of islamic ideals to run its constitution. do ideals vary of course?. but if we want t get to know islam we got to know mohammed if we want to know christianity we look through jesus. these are two different people with two different messages and ideals..not the varier groups from these religions.
The amount of ignorance in that post alone is enough for a whole country. Indeed GET TO KNOW MUHAMMED, and you'll be shocked how Iran is so not Islamic.
If Chomsky would answer honestly, he would admit that he has not the slightest idea of Islam and therefore is unable to judge the impact of "Islamic ideals". If you have no idea about something, but you still pretend you have the answers, you are acting like a demagogue.
@@Chawaonga The most famous Imran Khan is the Prime Minister of Pakistan - and if you did not hear about the Asia Bibi blasphemy case that happened there a few months ago, you are in no place to comment about Islam. Please, read up on the topic, inform yourself, before you try to smear me as ignorant.
@@Chawaonga Right - people who know facts should shut up, so that ignorant blowhards like you can talk. No thanks. The good news for you: I stop talking to you - my time is to precious. Bye.
Is he trying to gloss over by showing as if the person askiing the question lacks knowledge? How can Islam and Christinity be like Buddhism where there is no 'ISM' Islam or Christianity?
Allah is The greatst, than, of everything... greater than anything .... nothing can = to him ... he's the only logically true livn God #Allah is the only true God .... jesus & moses & Mohammed & abraham are the greatest praghtes of all times ❤️🔥🌇
@@ballerstalin5346 😊my friend, learn more about Islam,so u can understand anything, offcurse with open minded & heart "as the great praghte #jesus said once seek for the truth even if it's against your self "... God bless!!
how do you answer such a question in 2 mins.. just "yes, some of them are"? Israel did not sign npt (npt my...) hence no nwfz. clip prior to withdrawal of u.s. from Iran nuclear deal so timely upload. now do you think a deal that took 12 years in the making, backed by the previous admin with foreign interests, is going to stop that?
Islam, not just the extremes, but as from the core to the borders of its being in the world os a threat to all that is not already sucked into its body.
Its a bad Question, I mean not all members of the same faith have the same ideals just like most practictioners of Islam hate Isis. Again its a dumb Question
Damn, I've heard such good things about this guy, but all I see is a foolish coward. Anyone who mocks Christianity, but hasn't the courage to do likewise to Islam is a coward. You don't like Christianity or don't agree with it? Fine by you. Don't try to act like Christianity is worse than Islam, though. We've seen what Islam does to society.
@@SuperIbi96, Christianity gave rise to the Western world, the side that every other country wants to imitate or destroy. Meanwhile, Islam is still fathering countries, like Iraq (my country), Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, etc...Every religion has had a violent past, whether it was conducted by those who twisted the message or by those actually following it. Maybe you should take your own advice, and research what both religions preach, and not just blindly accuse one side, because of misrepresentation.
problem. is only misconception and amendments made by humans in religions , because even if you start with Jews they have also a book in which all Muslims belives torah. and then Muslims believe in bible also the original one sorry not amended by humans and authors , so Christianity is also amended by humans because we Muslims in those all 4 books which was sent from God by revelation on his prophets , first was on Moses. second was on david thirst was on Jesus and fourth was on Muhammad peace be upon them all and for Muslim it's is necessary to beleive in all 4 books and all the prophets of God ... misunderstanding is only from human because for God they all 4 books sent on his prophets by revelation ... problem is human for his ownself not God or not any religion .
So, as a person who lives in the Middle East, I should be primarily concerned with the terrible things produced from the place I belong to, and I should primarily focus on that specific Islamic strain, namely Islamic fundamentalism, that produces terrible things too. After that, I should focus on what the worst player in the world is doing, which is potentially the US. Well, I guess scrutnizing Islam is what I'll be doing for the most part from now on... Although, I've personally been doing that either way. And it sucks real bad that the worst type of Islam is so accepted and tolerated by the people as the right kind of Islam; It makes the whole process of positive change so much worse and agonizing...
Imho, in practice, Islam was born as the first fascist ideology, practically speaking. I don’t know about the US, but Europe settled the thing a long time ago, during the battle of Vienna. Now only covert and radicalized europeans want it to prevail in Europe, but the limitations are set. Of course there’s terrorism but i I don’t think it is a treat to European civilization as a whole. They don’t have the capability nor the will. This is from a very limited point of view of an average citizen.
whatever04 He has constantly criticised radical dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. He also has more nuance than morons who scream "Islam bad!!!" and listen to Sam Harris or other RU-vid troglodyte commentators for global politics critique
Whatever04 ‘…The ideology which is one or the worst fascist, supremacist and totalitarian ideologies in the world…’ Damn. With all that rhetoric, for a second there I couldn’t tell if you were talking about, the violently, atavistic sects of a religion or US foreign policy. And, the word is Islam.
Some humans need to develop respect for other peoples belief and value systems, just because someone does NOT FOLLOW your beliefs and value systems does that make them a threat? Last time religion played this card it failed miserably. As an atheist I respect other people's values & beliefs as long as they respect mine, confrontations come about when people feel threatened. Most societies are multicultural now with various belief systems being followed, it only takes one moron or religious bigot to start throwing insults and swear words at another to spark off a conflict and this is when conflicts start. Any preacher that preaches or flock member that incites racial hatred of other religions should be arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred. Then it's an issue of a mainly white based police force enforcing the law and arresting anybody no matter what their "own individual belief & religious values are". The old saying "divide and rule applies to politics & religion too", political & religious leaders derive power & control of groups by persuading them to follow their beliefs or political doctrines. How does a small minority of people capture & control the masses? Answer - deceit & deception, using moral & political frameworks to break groups into different classifications, money basically you buy them,. If you think for yourself then you realize that you are being played or used and reject all of this and make up your own mind about things. History has proved time and time again that more people are killed over religious conflicts and it simply becomes a numbers game, that's where most western religions are now they know they will be eventually outnumbered and become the minority religion.
While I agree with everything Noam said in this clip, I have little respect for absurd, supernatural beliefs. I should note that not all religious beliefs qualify as such. However, we don't need to fear confrontation as much as we should fear ignorance. The best way forward for our species is to come to grips with reality on as large a scale as possible. My lack of respect for stupid ideas doesn't lead me, as it seems to lead many, to hate those who possess them, nor do I even claim to fully understand the role those beliefs play in the lives of those who hold them. I think the real problem occurs with people who don't think abstractly. People who are overly literal read religious doctrine as a literal story. When these people are educated to understand that these stories are not literally true, they often fail to understand the value of religion as cultural myth. Thus they attack it as if it were any other manipulative lie, when in fact the reality of its effects is more nuanced. The world would certainly be a better place if everyone were atheistic, but violent hatred against those who still hold outdated ideas is ignorant, destructive, and far more unenlightened than the actual possession of such beliefs. Atheism is being used by snakes like Sam Harris as a means to co-opt a peaceful, rational, progressive movement for violent and hateful ends. It's truly disgusting and I'm glad to see Noam knocking the legs out from under it.
Veritas Est Lux You're oversimplifying when you say they advocate murder. The foundational texts and radicals advocate murder, but religion as practiced is more moderate in the vast majority of cases. It must be acknowledged by people like yourself that when it comes to unethical behavior, the generalized ethical character of religious practitioners - as opposed to the mostly theoretical advocacy of a text or leader - is paramount. The social effects of religion are what we should critique. Otherwise, you would be bound by fairness to praise Christianity in light of the current pope's good personal code of ethics. It must be understood that systemic real-world effects are what's at issue, not some amalgam of notions intended to constitute what a religion advocates in the abstract. You undermine your own understanding and score negative political points by downplaying or overlooking the nuanced reality of religious practice, with all its harm and benefit, however inconvenient this may seem for your selfishly politically ineffective, angry-sounding narrative.
Willful ignorance and some insults is a poor response. I addressed what you said about the Bible and Quran; if you had bothered to read you'd know that.
Now atheism or secular belief does not respect other people's beliefs. Forcing others to let their small kids accept the LGBTQ lifestyle even when they are still kids. In Sweden, in recent years, more than 30,000 Muslim kids (per year) had been abducted by the govt of Sweden to make sure Muslims kids become non-Muslim once they grow up. They even snatch away 2-year-old toddlers away from their mothers & away from their families. Atheism is just another religion, but the problems came when humans transgress other people's basic rights. As you said lack of respect for other people's beliefs and value systems. How does a small minority of people capture & control the masses? I hope you do know about the Globalists/Zionists' agenda and what is their goals. Everything becomes so apparent since February 2022.
strangely naive.maybe in the big politics...but on the cultural level,mean inner politics?ideology strives on different levels.not very differentiated.^^
whatever04 , well dear U seem to oversimplify the issue which isn't!!! Kashmiri pundits left Kashmir on a well organized plan hatched by govt of India in order to make the Kashmir dispute sound like a religious issue. Kashmir is an internationally recognized dispute. The crimes which Indian state has committed against Kashmiris are unforgivable. Sooner or later Kashmir will be independent !!!! For ur knowledge please read the Noam Chomsky's opinion on Kashmir issue.
whatever04... Man I m talking about Kashmir dispute which is real and recognized internationally. Kashmiri pundits r integral part of Kashmir. I m not denying it. All I m saying is that Kashmir is a dispute for which Kashmiri people have sacrificed alot. So I m not advocating a Sharia state. I m for independent Kashmir based on modern Democratic norms. U r seeing how hindutva is tarnishing the image of India globally and terrorising minorities!!! Kashmir is an independent nation even before 1947. So the fight is for independence. Remember u r being too partial by highlighting the violence against Kashmiri pundits, and not against Kashmiri Muslims who have been at the edge and suffering since 3 decades. Kashmir must be resolved through dialogue.
Kaiser Manzoor Kashmir is a religious problem. It is for johadi minded sunni extremists of valley. India does not care if it is internationally recognized or not. India would not mind genocide of jihadis to save land of rishi kashyap. Revenge of pandits will be taken for sure. Waiting for arab oil wells to dry. I literally mean genocide.
There are Christian ideals--they are expressed in the Christian Bible. Some people claiming to be Christian but not following those ideals as expressed doesn't change the fact that those are the Christian ideals. Most people who misinterpret the bible do so intentionally to support their own view. People disagree about what the bible says largely because man is sinful and wishes to not understand and change rather than because the bible is ambiguous. An example is those people who try to say all sin is the same or that all sins are of the same magnitude. John 19:11 flatly contradicts this. Only someone intent on mischaracterizing God would claim that He looks on stealing a piece of candy as being as evil an act as murder. For those who are going to claim that this is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, there is no text which was given by the original Scotsmen which Scotsman are to follow. THERE IS a text written by the early Christians who were there at the start of Christianity which Christians are supposed to follow and by which behavior can be judged Christian or unChristian.
Makes the same assumption persons make of Christianity, shows he clearly doesn't know much about Islam, very intelligent man ,but like every ordinary man limited in perception.
One does not need to know much about islam, only that it is not a religion it is a neo-political vicious hateful militant violence-inciting cult craftily garbed as a religion.
I think all these ppl commenting here should ask themselves this question: if doomsday comes will they be looking for an irani or iraqi to find out who brought it down on humanity? Cuz they know very well that, to know which country will do it ...they'll have to look in their own mirrors
Avoidance, answers a question with a question, turns the question back around to punt his own agenda , this man is a dissembler par excellence. His ideas are stale ,his rhetoric ruinous and above all his belief in his own self righteous intellect is exposed. He is nought but a poor player who has fretted his hour , who’s time is done! Many of our ill’s have been created by such as he!
"agenda"... His only "agenda" is an unyielding commitment to the most basic moral principles. Your comment is completely empty of arguments. Utterly devoid of any.
+Ayman. Attempting a worthwhile exchange with such , is a futile activity , self righteous acolytes usually provide little in the way of intellectual enlightenment or stimulation . Small minded black holes are a bit like the rabbit hole in Alice in wonderland ,interesting to contemplate but generally a waste of time. I am sorry to disappoint you ,but rehearsed jaded rhetoric is a dead end
If islamic ideas were such a huge threat we'd be having world war 3 right now with the amount of Muslims in the world. People often forget that there are a variety of muslim countries that are not in the middle east, for example malaysia and indonesia, with indonesia being a muslim majority country with the 4th biggest population country in the world, only behind the USA!! Why is it not that south east asia would be in constant wars and in turmoil, but yet they are a relatively peaceful area of the world? Heck, even Singapore who is a strong economic country which is just a small island is smack dab between 2 large muslim majority countries, yet none of them have invaded Singapore or try to violate the rights of Singaporeans, they are co-existing peacefully instead. Heck even Australia is situated right next to Indonesia, a muslim majority country with a bigger population than Australia. So this idea that Islam is a major threat is just false, as the USA would be at war with Indonesia right now, with, like I said before, the 4th biggest population in the world right now, only behind the USA as the 3rd biggest population. ??? Give me a break, logic dictates in doesn't make sense at all. Only reason many terrorists come from Islamic countries from the MIDDLE EAST is because, the political climate there has been in chaos, and political chaos and turmoil often breeds violent terrorists, it wouldn't have mattered what religion they are.
@Detective Conan yes but the government's system is determined by muslims of those countries as they are democracies last time i checked. if anything that just proves that muslims arent violent all the time like certain people want to imply as the largest muslim population in the world chose a secular system on their own. so my point still stands, you didnt really change anything by pointing it out, only strengthened it.
@Detective Conan lol read books by non muslims to understand a religion not practiced by them. that makes sense. not. why would i read books by biased writers who have an agenda. dont be so naive to trust any book. especially by people who act like experts about a culture theyre not even apart of.
@Detective Conan you can cite sources but you can interpret those sources in a biased way. i'd rather read what a neutral historian would have to say on the subject not someone who has an agenda sorry. Also it's both a culture and an ideology and the fact still remains these so called 'experts' aren't from those cultures. For instance these people don't even speak or grew up speaking arabic and you trust what they have to say about the subject as opposed to people who speak arabic natively? You know that the Quran was written in ancient arabic right? Some random americans are an expert on ancient arabic? Please.
We don't want your type of peace. Anything is better than what you call peace. Your peace is the worst state humans could ever be forced to live under.
@@HABACHI617 In Islam, an apostate who openly declares their apostasy and actively seeks to spread it is subject to the death penalty, not as a punishment for their personal beliefs, but for their intent to sow discord and incite doubt in the hearts of believers-an act known as فتنة (fitna). This is viewed as a deliberate attempt to corrupt society and destabilize the faith of others, which is considered a grave and satanic endeavor. While an individual is free to hold their beliefs privately, they are not permitted to preach or promote their disbelief, as doing so poses a significant threat to the spiritual and social fabric of the community. Therefore, the punishment is not for their personal apostasy, but for the danger they pose in actively undermining the faith and unity of the society.
