Conversations with History - Talal Asad

welcome to a conversation with history I'm Harry Kreisler of the Institute of International Studies our guest today is the distinguished anthropologist talal asad who is the 2008 Forrester lecturer on the Berkeley campus professor Saad welcome to Berkeley thank you very much where were you born and raised well I was born in Saudi Arabia actually because my mother comes from there and my parents moved when I was a couple of years old to India and then eventually to Pakistan mm-hmm so I was raised both in India and in Pakistan and looking back how do you think your parents shape your thinking about the world well in very different ways my mother was a very traditional woman my father actually was an Austrian Dru who had converted to Islam in his 20s and was a correspondent of foreign correspondent for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and for the neue zürcher zeitung as well in the 30s he had to give up the first one frankfurter one because he was not allowed to continue and he was very interested in the Middle East and that was where he eventually settled for six years in Saudi Arabia married my mother and moved on to to India partly for reasons of journalistic reasons but also because he had friends who urged him to come so the question about what how they shaped my views what certainly my father was much more aware of as it were a European heritage as well as a heritage of the Middle East to which he was very attracted and although he had a relative some mother's relatives in Palestine at the time in the 20s he was born in 1900 mm-hmm and he converted win and he can converted in his mid-twenties and he died in 1992 in Spain he's buried but he was always a really a strong anti Zionist he felt that this was a great mistake even before he became men before he was converted so so you I I what I'm hearing you say is you must have gotten a real sense of of the diversity of the world and the complexity of the world from man absolutely and I was I was a child but my father was interned during the war as an Austrian citizen even though he was a Jew by the British it was of course British India at the time and I was a child and but most of the people there during those years were in fact from Central Europe who'd been brought together so I have memories of them as well and then shortly after the war we went to the Punjab mm-hmm which became Pakistan and you know I was very much aware of many of the things that that were going on politically there as well my father was quite active intellectually in in Pakistan as well and were you raised in the in the Islamic a yeah yeah yes very much so my mother being a very pious woman who who was not at all an intellectual but who in some ways looking back on it I can see that her approach to her religion in some ways unconsciously made me aware of different approaches and that is over of an unreflective water what people have called an embodied approach to religion rather than a highly intellectualized well my mother was not an intellectual so the religion is really part of the way people live is that that's right exactly that was certainly so yeah it was certainly for from her father it was it was even more an intellectual matter too he thought of this as as a kind of an an intellectual promise so to speak of of Islam as as a way of living within a community and within a political community and so on I believe I read somewhere that that as a Muslim you were actually when you educated among Christians in a school and that must have been the kind of another layer of a sensitivity to diversity very much so it was a boarding school and the teachers were British missionaries there and I can remember being a very obstreperous boy who was determined to as it were hold on to to his own religious identity among others who were mostly Christians but you know it wasn't a it wasn't a very conflictual situation in school I don't want to suggest that but certainly difference was your right was very much a part of my early experience and how did your education beyond you know these first schools but more your advanced education in England impact and your your future scholarship when I came to England at the age of 18 and I was in fact going to become an architect that was my father's choice he decided for various reasons because he was also perhaps an architect monkey he thought aid was it was a wonderful profession and B he thought I needed a certain amount of discipline as well as an opportunity to be creative and what could be better than being an architect so he chose for me the I went to London and did architecture not very successfully because my heart wasn't in it for two years in the architecture Association School of Architecture in London but I really wanted to be an anthropologist and then I went after that too took my own decision and went and did architecture in Edinburgh sorry I had follow G and n bruh left architecture and after that I went to to Oxford where I did both my first postgraduate degree and my D fill the PhD mm-hmm in Oxford and did you focus on religious studies and what was your dissertation on no not at all yeah you know I had to some degree although I was brought up in in a sort of a fairly conventional religious way perhaps not quite so conventional obviously because given my parents background but I had I had to some extent revolted and felt myself to be to have have lost my faith already at the age of about 14 and so on and I wanted very much to come to to Europe which I regarded as a source of all the wonderful things that seemed somehow not to be present in in Pakistan at the time and I remember that my father tried to in his own way to disabuse me of some of my ideas which were rather naive but nevertheless he allowed me to go to Europe which was interesting mm-hmm and indeed he you know he even encouraged me when I was a boy to to try the piano and things like that European music is something which I am extremely fond of and and still deeply fond of but going to to Europe was for me both something which was exciting to to to arrive at and at the same time as I've said to two friends a kind of a slow disabuse Minh sort of had clearly had ideals and so on which were very misplaced in terms of what actually existed but my intention to to do anthropology was part of her if you like a purely secular choice and I eventually did field work in a pastoral nomadic society in the deserts of northern Sudan in the 60s and it didn't deal with religion at all it had to do with their economy in their political system primarily their local political system yeah were there any particular political awakenings that you had in the 60s I mean coming from this this background where where you must have sense however young you were the the the turmoil in the in the Pakistan region and then coming to to your mature year your mature years of education give in the 60s what stands out well I think one of the one of the moments a very important moment of in my life was the 67 war and I've written about this elsewhere or spoken about it anyway it was it was very traumatic for me in the sense that I couldn't quite understand the the reaction of so many people in Britain to what had happened and a kind of kind of exultation on on the part of of the British which I thought was inexplicable to me as I as I've said elsewhere I think I could understand that the Israelis might have felt you know very pleased with the fact of the victory but why were the British so so enormous ly satisfied with it and emotionally pleased so and that had to do with of course their earlier experiences particularly the fifty-six war mm-hmm and their sense of humiliation at that time when they were obliged you remember to to withdraw and and some of that came back and that was very important for me and it also made me think much more seriously about the entire colonial experience which British society still somehow retain din in part I want to ask you about being an anthropologist but what you just said is maybe a lead-in to this because as an anthropologist one thing that stands out in the work of yours that I read is is your sensitivity to power and the relationships of power between the the former colonial powers and and their their former dependencies and it strikes me that what in what you just said it was that an entre point into this inside that is with your background sort of being surprised by the exultation and then sort of thinking about that that yeah I think that's that's a very good question because I was I was certainly aware of power in a very general sense and aware of the history of colonialism but the way in which it seemed to work within Saiki if you like of of people both individually and collectively was something that I felt was much more important than I had realized and you know as I said when I came to to to Britain I was also enormous Leanne a nerd of what one might call an Enlightenment kind of culture which I thought I would find and I was enormous ly anticipatory with regard to ideas of of equality and justice and rationality and so on you know held rather naively of course as a boy my late teens but nevertheless very powerfully and in some ways I think what my engagement with or my concern for power has been he's a kind of complexification of those understandings who so at first I was I thought my goodness how can this be that this is the culture which you know believes in all these things in compassion and and so and so forth and yet it seems not to do that but then of course as I said I had to reinvent the wheel by recognizing that you know all sorts of cultures of all cultures in a sense are capable of of bias of different kinds every culture so the idea that there was one culture out there which would be without it was in my view very naive the thing that runs through your work is the the power of concepts and often how they are derived from power relations and how those concepts then obscure the realities both of the the conceived ER and the object of the conception so to speak is that a pher may be simple statement about some of the things that have interested you yes I suppose it's it's it's one way of putting it but I think of power now certainly not simply as as repressive and exploitative I think of it also as something which is an opportunity to to create to to rebuild and so on and the relationship between these these two notions of power as it were repressive and creative is what fascinates me and and is certainly very very involved the the ideas that the concepts which interest me therefore are both concepts that that obscure the possibility of some kind of resistance as well as the possibility of some kind of creativity as well so I I do agree that that that's that's not an unreasonable way of describing things of looking at the way in which these concepts are put together in which we've received in our culture and which in some ways are not adequately and critically and from a distance examined I'm curious what in the kind of work you do what what what do you what conclusions do you have about the skills that are required to do the kind of anthropology that you do well one thing that strikes me is sensitivity to culture the different cultures what else well certainly I mean languages yeah you have to have languages which are necessary for what I mean as a medium both in the field where you're working but but also at the same time of other perspectives even within the West as it were you know to recognize that there are different national traditions as well I think the the ability to listen is very important I don't know that that's the kind of skill that can be very sort of systematically or formally learned no it's certainly it has become easier for me both through teaching particularly through teaching and through fieldwork and I think that that's absolutely crucial for the anthropologist to be able to listen as it were without without too many presuppositions and being being open to arriving at conclusions that might be quite startling eventually when you arrive at them but not think that you have an answer I'm giving you a really perhaps not quite the answer you want there are skills yeah well but that this is I should maybe I should have phrased the question better but that's the answer I wanted whether I gave you the the right question now how does the student and the scholar transcend the biases that come out of their own culture that that would seem to be a big problem it is a big problem and certainly I thought you know I don't think any of us can can completely overcome our biases and the formation that that has made us what we are but insofar as one can try by encountering very different kinds of cultural phenomena very different kinds of of human beings in different societies and demand of oneself that one listen as I said a moment ago and that one when try and question not only the what one finds out there to question also oneself I mean I'm a great believer in criticism and criticism which I think should not be confined only to as a whether the cultural phenomena that we we encounter but also our own criticism self-criticism I don't know one can only try and of course we weren't completely succeed I'm convinced but but we can try and and question ourselves if one looks at your works it's very clear that they are steeped in comparative studies comparative Theory interdisciplinary work and combining that all with a sensitivity to the complexity of a particular setting and so on talk a little about that I know your work you've worked on reform in Egypt and in religion and and it's a what emerges is a much more complex picture of what the interface between modernity and what the West would call modernity versus tradition right well you know one of the things I've been very struck by it I'll come back to to more directly to your to your question in a minute but is as I put it that within the West there is much more argument much more difference about what modernity means and what it entails what how one gets to it or what its problems its primary problems are too often partly because it's a presentation of Westerners who have as it were directed their words to the non-western world and also as a consequence people in the non West world there seems to be as what I call a single face to modernity I mean this is no longer entirely the case I know that there are all sorts of developments going on especially in East Asia and and South Asia and so on but there is that there is a lingering sense here of you know we know what modernity is modernity we know how to get there and it's quite different from from our tradition I think in the West one doesn't think that one recognizes how important traditions are in all intellectual traditions are our traditions first of all we work through and we we rethink them but they're still traditions and we think of them in or we try to think of them in a modern ie contemporary way so I would I would say that the the question of you know the very different kinds of approaches to to modernity for me requires an exploration of kinds of knowledge from very different disciplines both Western disciplines if one might call them pattern I'm not very happy with that but still you know roughly what I mean and the more traditional disciplines in the Middle East theology law I say Islamic law or Islamic theology and so on I think very important to to get into as well as the different opportunities in the disciplines that we have in our in our liberal institutions I'm looking here at the definition in your book and I'll show the book of the formations of the secular and just as an autobiographical note you you say modernity is a project or rather a series of interlinked projects that certain people and powers seek to achieve the project aims that and then you you list the and and what just sort of struck me was many of these things must have been in your mind's eye when you came to England thinking that you you had found a secular Mecca at a moment yes yeah so so that was me and in another place and I can't unfortunately find the quote right now you mentioned that we forget that the the notion of modernity that the West has come up with really emerges out of a particular time in our history when we made a transformation and and we forget that and then want to apply the concept that emerge from that to other peoples who come from different practices in different histories exactly I think that I think I think that that's that's very true and that is of course part of the of the reason why we find so many problems both social and political in that part of the world indeed we sometimes you might say some of these problems arise here too in the West or whether it's the United States or Europe for some people the idea of of modernity is quite straightforward and certain things must be rejected if one is to be truly Moulton and and invent for other people not so you know what has seen arguments about the British political system no doubt you are familiar with these arguments which say well of course the British system is not completely modern yet because you know the Church of England still has a certain important place in the British government and you can't call that modern because in a modern state and here we we think of either the United States or France both very different kinds of secular arrangements in which in some ways the religion is at least politically intended to be kept out so but I'm not sure that it's a good description say of the British system to say it's not modern this presupposes hmm a single model the question is is it is it is it the kind of society that is that produces obstacles in the path of various developments which we think of as valuable or not rather than is it modern or not I mean that's why I'm a little leery of the idea of modernity as well and in and you go on to point out in this book that that the the theory makes the assumption that it's a binary choice that it's one or the other and and you're trying to help us understand that there's much greater complexity and and and and in a way I think you're suggesting that you can't actually understand what's going on in a place like Egypt and how it reformed himself in in religious matters and how this this interface between what came from the outside interface with with kind of living practices and a living religion mmm-hmm yeah this is this is absolutely true as far as as you know my work on on Egypt is concerned this is what I I've tried to do and I think of this as a as a as an anthropology which is I think appropriate for our time by which I don't mean it's the it's the only thing that one can do as an anthropologist but I think it's very important to be able to somehow tackle the question of various interconnections as well as distinctions but in ways that are not binary as you've just rightly quoted because I think that that the language that we use that everybody uses makes for very different possibilities of interpretation and of living and therefore binaries are a rigid way of approaching these problems I think it's it's it's a mistake to even think of you know the secular and the religious in strictly binary terms I think that there are all sorts of interpenetration especially if you look at it historically as well as cross culturally you see that there are various connections various transmutations of concepts of modes of behavior of organizations and so on you you write in an interdependent world traditional cultures do not spontaneously grow or develop into modern cultures people are pushed seduced coerced or persuaded into trying to change themselves into something else something that allows them to be redeemed I'm curious because of course this is an insight into what's going on in the developing world but but one could almost apply this to the United States itself and the way our secular modern elites have been shocked by the revival of religion in this country and the way it seeks to intrude into politics right yeah I know I'm still learning about the United States and the problem or the problems that people see of secularity and and religion but certainly I think there is a greater awareness among various people of of a complexity which we have overlooked so that one can try to work out ways of accommodating a certain kind of multiplicity and of interconnection without allowing this to be repressive of individuals or of traditions and so on and this is very difficult in any culture certainly in the middle as well you have forces which are repressive and you have forces which are which are opening up and it's not always easy and I say this not as as a criticism but as a fact not easy for people to know certainly in the Middle East where they should be going and what what as it were a more adequate and and reasonable and just development of a tradition in moments of change might be so it and I think that this is true here too you know people are on the one hand worried by certain developments in the demand for the intrusion of religion into into politics but in other ways they do recognize that there are some aspects of what we call religion which somehow could have a place as a way in the in the public square and how to do and in the the important thing here which we should say for our audiences that is secularity being secular defines a world in which religion is separated from the public space and and the the - although side by side do not meet and and what we are encountering in the world and here at home is the concept doesn't work completely now it and I think unless one one finds ways in which one can address that difficulty you know the outcome will often be rather unpleasant and I do think that it's necessary not just to keep insisting on a straightforward separation of two things which are themselves very ambiguous religion on one side and and secularity on the other but to recognize that that have to be one must analyze out what the implications of each are to what extent elements of each can be changed accommodated made to to answer for its its own claims and I think that this can apply to both circularity and and religion and in a place where this problem emerges very strongly is in Europe today as it deals with its Muslim community absolutely yes it is it's it's it's a matter of both of great interest to me as to what's happening in Europe and at the same time of considerable dismay that Europe has become so rigid in many respects and so fearful really of a population that is on the whole initially not at all should not be seen as as threatening while elements might be but I don't think that the majority should be seen in this way and there are ways of accommodating in some are more and some states and some national traditions are very rigid the French one of course is famously extremely rigid about accommodating certain kinds of religious differences for example the veiling yes yeah absolutely but you know many people often forget that the French who are supposed to be so fiercely leg also able to accommodate religious schools Catholic schools which I which have a place within the government educational system and it's possible for people to do whatever they like including cover their head and so on in religious schools but not in government school I mean there's a degree of you know contradiction incoherence in our approaches to to secularism in Europe as well as to the United States you write that that when Europe or the west airs in its over emphasis or overstatement of its own modernity that it is the bullet you write the belief that human beings can be separated from their histories and traditions is it makes it possible to urge Europeanisation of the Islamic world and you're really suggesting that is going to create problems are you suggesting that or what are the implications beyond an insensitivity to the reality of people that one presumably would want to integrate well in the first place yeah I think that there are problems that will arise and have already arisen the problems are partly also the result of certain claims historical claims that that liberal Europe has about degrees of autonomy degrees of of as it were self-determination which which are not simply political but also social cultural psychological and so on how is it that that these that these ideas which were regarded as basic to Europe's inheritance have now suddenly become difficult to apply and you have to have one model I think that a integration in other words is something that that requires a certain amount of give-and-take the nations of Europe as in the United States have never been stable stationary they have evolved over time we know this this is but this this very banal fact it tends to be forgotten time and again that you know if we are if we are changing then we can't rigidly say there is just our way of life which must stand forever unchanged but also something which in which one can give and take and it at a reasonable level and that should apply I think to immigrants as well what what is as a social scientist one has to analyze the factors that provide the social or political base for this blindness to both the inadequacy of the concept and the reality of one's own history and evolution and the reality history and evolution of the other in this case right well you know there are clearly elements if you like on both sides so it's not just a question of a straightforward blindness on one side but I think in some ways there's a greater responsibility on the part of the party which is much stronger at the party which is more secure in dealing with groups that are that are less secure that that are expected to transform themselves what are the origins of of these I think they aren't largely historically in the case of Europe the the entire colonial experience has been very strong I think that there's no question in my mind both for Britain and for France certainly in Germany it's a little more complicated because the immigrants there are not from I mean the Germans never had that kind of of empire as the French and the British did but that's one part of it and I think if you like the modern nations in Europe are not sufficiently liberal not sufficiently modern one might even say provocatively although I've criticized that idea and in a simple as a simple idea in in not taking their own values seriously enough but there are all sorts of incentives for political economic reasons it's easier to find scapegoats and so on I often think that in the case of Europe it I've said again provocatively that it's almost as though the Europeans now no longer able to publicly denounce Jews and and persecute them however Subrosa sort of anti-semitic some of them might be but it's no longer possible for a person in Europe to be to be taken seriously as a respectable public figure and be anti-semitic this is no longer true and this is not true of course in relation to immigrants so there's a kind of shift almost it's all almost one might suggest because they can't any longer as it were choose one outsider or define one group as an outsider which they did and then right up through the 30s which was the most terrible period now they have to find somebody else I mean I'm making a provocative formula out of it mm-hmm and you're not saying that having lost the one you have to do the other it just it just ends in that direction that direction yeah because of course many people don't do that I mean there are lots of very responsible people and lots of people who are warning against precisely the attitude which I've been describing with some dismay lots of Europeans who who have made the very points that I'm making already about it being in conflict with liberal ideas with democratic ideas and so on let's talk now about 9/11 and and look at the way we've looked at this problem of suicide bombing we show you the audience your book on suicide bombing which is a series of lectures you gave at the University of California Irvine that road this is a after 9/11 we were in a situation of having to reconceptualize our adversary so low so a lot of these themes that we've been talking about come into play in in the way the West sees the other well what do you see as what incites do you bring to that to that definitional issue that that you know follows up on what we've just been talking about what I think that in some ways this connects up with some of the things we've already said and that is the need to look critically at many of our received categories and and receive notions in other words not just to criticize the the the others or the perpetrators of that terrorist attack but to go deeper and again there were people who already suggested this at one time with it at the time it was a bit difficult to make this to make this point forcefully after 9/11 after 9/11 year nevertheless there were some people and since then there have been more who have urged that you know what we also need is an examination of the relationships between say the United States in this case it was the United States and the rest of the world particularly of course in this case the the Middle East instead of just blaming just as its I think are quite wrong for Middle Easterners to blame everything that happens in English and countries on the outside which i think is not true I'm extremely critical of the political situation in the Middle East but it should be so - in the United States so that one can look critically at our relationship as I as I put it to violence in what way historically as well as within the country as well as between the United States and other parts of the world what has been the relationship that to violence and how has it been invoked at certain points and denied at other points and what are the consequences are of what we've done I say we because I'm already now an American citizen of course so I became an American citizen or in 2000 summer of 2001 hmm rather self symbolically anyway so that's that's what I would say you know answer - I don't know whether I've really quickly yes we had let's explore but but I at least in terms of looking at the other you say the or you suggest the way you see define explain terrorism gives a justification for the actions of the state that's my reading of what you're saying in other words that that in in going down one road of interpretation it then makes it easier for the state to practice all kinds of violence and come up with a moral justification for that and violence not only on the outside world but within yeah right right right and you know so many people have complained a restriction of liberties and all sorts of of things we going over very familiar ground which nevertheless needs I think to be stressed again and again I think that the whole question of of war and terrorism has has fascinated me when I wrote this book and gave the lectures I showed it to a friend who said yes he liked it very much and and he could see he was an American born and bred he could see that I was rightly saying that in some circumstances terrorism might be justified and I said no this is not what this book is about I am NOT trying to justify terrorism I'm just trying to shake the sort of binary categorization which gives rise to certain kinds of policies so I had to actually spell this out you may have seen this in my short introduction and say this is not intended as a justification for it I've mentioned to you I've become particularly interested also in the whole idea of just war and the reasons for it and and I'm working at the moment on that very category and the way in which it is a kind of moralization of war which I think should not be moralized at all I am NOT pacifist but I but I don't for one moment think that that just war is is a coherent and valid notion and the way in which this justifies certain kinds of violence's which are often of an enormous ly greater scale mmm-hmm than anything that that the wretched terrorists can do there are so many things not only in the way which we have used air pine in war example but also in this very ambiguous business of of when one transgresses the law of war and the law of war is for me fascinatingly much more ambiguous than I thought it was there's a very fine and insightful writer on this and a law specialist David Kennedy who's written I've quoted him in my book but since then he's written another one on on the law of war which is which has I think extremely good insights about the law of war being not a series of rules which cannot be transgressed and which are supposed to justify just war but really a language what he calls a language for argument and that's what the law of war is there are others who have also developed this as again an international law specialist in City University who has written a number of wonderful articles called I remember rightly with it Jonathan Bevan on that and Nathaniel Berman who's written on this subject as well very much about the question of the construction in war of various categories including that which is allowed you know the proportionality business the question of necessity and so on so what I what I tried to do in this book first of all is to to shake those categories so that we could think for ourselves I mean I don't provide any answers as you know very well but I want you I hope that some readers will begin to question for themselves and and find answers for themselves and then in the final part of course I was still fascinated by the reasons for horror but suicide pommy and there were all sorts of reasons it seemed to me one could draw on to try and explain what that sense of horror which could be looked at without being moralistic about it because as an anthropologist I was and here I was much more thinking about it anthropologically and also reminding ourselves that you know in modern society we are committed to all sorts of conditions that would otherwise be considered terroristic and horrific and one of those which I do mention in the book you may remember has to do with nuclear weapons no you go ahead well I just wanted to say that you know in a number of official definitions terrorism is defined as not only an act but also as a threat the threat of terrorism I mean as particular kind of threat makes it terrorism now it has seemed to me as well as to legions of other people that possessing nuclear weapons which you say you're going to use if necessary and you will destroy not only the enemy but in process yourself you're prepared to do that seems to me logically have the logical structure of terrorism and yet we don't see that and we don't address it quite in those terms and I think we should did this converse of the conversation is raising an interesting point and that is as a social scientists as you try to disentangle the the complexity of our own development and thinking about an issue violence and war violence between combatants and so on we we basically we basically get some new insights about ourselves we see different things about the adversary now what's interesting is is the point you made about what your friend said because when you begin to do that what you're saying becomes politicized and people say oh you're defending suicide talk a little about that because it really is an important issue of where the Academy can have insights but in the in the in that those insights becoming part of the political debate there is a politicization in which people accused of saying things they didn't say yes of course this is very difficult to to to control to some extent let me approach this indirectly by referring to a review that was made of this book in The Times supplement sunday supplement a book review by Samantha power which in fact was about three book including one of Petraeus and this book and one other - which and when she turned to that she said among other things well she said a couple of nice things but she disagreed of course fundamentally with it but she described it as an angry book and she said in the end rage overcomes him and I've been saying to my friends you know did she read the book or didn't she well the point is you can't control how people read you and I think that you know this is this is simply a rediscovery of a fairly obvious thing it's no use by saying no no I wasn't angry and I certainly wasn't enraged but people will read you in odd ways and to some extent you could control that by at least explaining yourself but in the end there are things that you can't I think totally control how people will take up what you're saying my hope is that that the in so far as there is a politicization it can be seen as an indirect one I mean I think of if you like of democratic politics also as as a kind of personal interpersonal kind of ethical encounter in which one can one should be able to treat others with whom one is engaging on equal terms critically but also listening carefully instead of of jumping to the conclusion that that they belong to a certain category what they've said aha we already know what he or she is saying and we really will not tolerate that sort of thing and asking oneself why one has these feelings of rejection as well as we proceed you know for me in a sense democracy is not just about you know voting and so on which is in some ways the least the least problematic aspect of of democracy there is that other aspect which I think is is very important and very neglected including the readiness to to be self-critical professor Asad on that note I want to thank you for coming to the campus to be the Forster lecture and also for appearing on our program thank you and thank you very much for joining us for this conversation with history Oh

Channel: UC Berkeley Events

Views: 87,726

Rating: 4.8817735 out of 5

Keywords: UC, Berkeley, Cal, History, Militancy, Islam, Terrorism, Activism, Talal, Asad, yt:quality=high

Id: kfAGnxKfwOg

Length: 57min 2sec (3422 seconds)

Published: Fri Oct 17 2008