Shalom Aleikhem,
If I may share my views on the interviews:
1.
Dr. MICHAEL SHERMER : This part of the documentary helps to see that the philosophy and approach of the person is flawed. The person holds a position of disbelieve, often with a lot of arrogance, yet when grilled, he admits that he has NO CLUE about Qur'an or ISLAM in general. How shameful is that ?
2.
Imam SHAMSI ALI : I saw how hypocritical things can be. The same person who was speaking against violence and unreasonable Islamic traditions can be so much agitated when you question about the very source of all these problems. I agree with a statement this imam made "You are supposed to let me speak, I am not here to debate you" , not word for word, but this is something similar to what he said to Edip. However, the problem lies in the fact that this person does not respond to the problems he was questioned/challenged about. Finally, he gets so angry and ends the interview. What I learnt from his behavior is that he has something in common with a famous cartoon character, Eric Cartman from South Park. He was mad at edip because Edip did not respect his authority. His model of Islam is something like "I dictate, you follow", so no wonder he gets so angry when challenged.
3.
Michael Mohammed : What was the point of this part of the documentary ? To show that there are confused muslims ? Well, even though its just my opinion, I would like to say that this part could have been swapped with questioning regular muslims you meet on the street about their faith. I am sure you would bypass the vulgarity of language by doing that, and you could have gotten a much more wider and broader view of the confused generation. I often have conversations with Hanafis, ahle-sunnah etc at a time, and that type of conversation makes it so clear that there is room for questioning. I like to point out to them that sometimes they follow the ruling of a sect which they label as "not-islamic", even they realize that I do have a point there. A friend of mine was mad at me for speaking against Bukhari. After a long conversation and discussion of Qur'an, the same friend pointed out that "There can not be any compulsion in matter of faith", ofcourse I pointed out to the hadiths that demand death penalty for apostasy etc, yet the friend hypocritically states that Bukharis collection is Saheeh !!! What could be more confusing than that ? Bukharis collection prescribes death penalty for Apostasy, while this friend agrees with me that it can not be true as Qur'an forbids such actions, yet the friend believes that its AUTHENTIC COLLECTION !! These confusions can not be explained away as "opinions", as they posses all characteristics of conditioning and brainwashing.
I am still confident that interviewing regular muslims would make a better alternative than this part of the documentary.
4.
The Turkish television example: I had to rely solely on your words as I do not understand the language used. Could you not make it better by English subtitles ? I honestly do not know if the person walking away from the show was chickening out or reasonable in doing that. You can't blame me, I do not have adequate date to decide either way.
5.
Edip Yuksel vs public : Wonderful, yet I must ask, are you ok ? That enormous use of vocal power. Did you suffer from a voice break down
later on ? It happens to me if I shout like that for extensive period of time, dont know if your voice box is made of steel.
With all the pros and cons, I must point out the fact that this was the first time I have seen such a documentary. The only one of its kind. Thank you Edip and your crew. May God guide you all to His straight path.
Peace
-------------
Student of Allah