Was the interview really that bad?

[carlimac]

'Zealot' author Reza Aslan responds to critics | Fox News Video

So the liberal media is having kittens over this interview gone viral. I watched it expecting Lauren Green to be blubbering all over herself or going off track to Neverland in the interview. But honestly, the first thing that struck me was how defensive and quick the author was to spout his credentials and to keep bringing them up over and over.

What do y'all think?

[Jenamarie]

I'm surprised that she was surprised that a Muslim world write a book about Jesus Christ, even without his credentials. They believe in Him too. (They believe he was a prophet rather than a messiah, but do believe in many of his teachings, the virgin birth, etc.)

[Bini]

This is news to me. I don't watch Fox News nor would I know who that is if I did. But as far as the Muslim/Christian thing goes, I do believe Jenamarie is correct.

[LittleWyvern]

'Zealot' author Reza Aslan responds to critics | Fox News Video

So the liberal media is having kittens over this interview gone viral. I watched it expecting Lauren Green to be blubbering all over herself or going off track to Neverland in the interview. But honestly, the first thing that struck me was how defensive and quick the author was to spout his credentials and to keep bringing them up over and over.

What do y'all think?

Well, I guess if I was to write a book on, say, Abū Bakr, and somebody interviewed me and made it seem like it was somehow wrong or weird for me as a Mormon to write about Abū Bakr, referencing a opinion piece entitled "People who like LittleWyvern's book on Abū Bakr fail to mention the author is a Mormon," and I made my living writing such books, I'd also get a little defensive. So, I can see where the author is coming from. If that scenario seems like too much of a stretch, that same sort of thinking also plagues Prof. Peterson sometimes.

EDIT: Since I've taken one of Prof. Peterson's classes I guess I can take this opportunity to explain the role of Jesus in Islam. Jesus (sometimes called Isa because that's how His name is transliterated in Arabic) is thought of a Messenger of God, the same kind of title given to Muhammad. Jesus is also given the title of Misah sometimes, which has a meaning somewhat like our Messiah. Muslims believe that Jesus came to deliver the Injil (i.e. the Gospel), which is understood in Islam to be a new scripture sent to guide the children of Israel (sound familiar?). Muslims also believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and that He will return at God's second coming to destroy evil. The major differences between the Christian and Islamic views of Jesus include the fact that Islam denies that Jesus was killed, but instead that he was carried up to God in bodily form without tasting death. Muslims also view the Injil was true as originally given, but has been corrupted over time and thus is trumped by the Qur'an where the two conflict. Muslims also deny the trinity doctine and the idea that Jesus is a God, considering the act of ascribing to God any "helpers" to be idolatry (the worst sin in Islam, shirk, combines the idea of idolatry and blasphemy).

Other cool facts include that there is an entire chapter (or surah) of the Qur'an devoted to Jesus and Mary, and the name Jesus occurs in the Qur'an (as Isa) 25 times. Plus, if anybody wants some Qur'an references for the stuff I've written about, I've got loads.

EDIT2: Of course, with all that explanation above, can you see why asking a Muslim "why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity" would confuse the heck out him/her?

Edited July 30, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[carlimac]

I still think it's a valid question that he took immediate offense to and never really answered the question satisfactorally.

[LittleWyvern]

I still think it's a valid question that he took immediate offense to and never really answered the question satisfactorally.

From a Muslim perspective, the question is nonsensical (as I've already shown). I might as well ask you why you spend so much time studying about the founder of Catholicism. There's really no answer to that because the question is so ignorant as to be completely without meaning. Similarly, asking a Muslim "why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity" has no real answer because there's a complete misunderstanding of Islam behind the question.

I guess you could say that it's the kind of question that, if you heard one, you'd say "no, no, you don't understand what you're asking about" instead of trying to answer the question directly.

Edited July 30, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[MarginOfError]

I still think it's a valid question that he took immediate offense to and never really answered the question satisfactorally.

A member of my ward is a professor of religion at one of the state schools and, as a religious academic, feels that the question was ridiculous and that the answer was kinder than the interviewer deserved.

Put plain and simple, academics write about things they are interested in. You don't have to be a Christian to be interested in Christ. All academics understand this. When you ask an academic a question like, "as a muslim, why would you write a book about Christ," the interpretation that comes off is "you don't think I'm qualified to write about this topic." Academics reach that conclusion because the answer to the actual words, "as a muslim why would you write a book about Christ" has the obvious answer of "I was interested in the topic." This should be apparent from the fact that he has multiple PhDs and has been studying religions, including Christianity and Christ, for the better part of 20 years (which is why his qualifications and experience were relevant information. Most people don't just go get PhDs in topics they aren't interested in).

For the sake of illustration, let's change the context a little bit. This is a link to an abstract of an article I helped author about breast implants following mastectomies. Let's suppose that I am asked to do an interview on a news channel to talk about what we found in this research. And the very first question the interviewer asks is, "as a man, why would you conduct research on breasts?"

"Well, for the past several years I have been studying female reproductive systems, urological disorders, and cancers and I felt like these results would be of value to the medical community."

"But you're a male. Why would you do research on females?"

If I were to get questions like that, I'd look at the interviewer like he or she was an idiot...in fact, I'd all out assume that they were an idiot.

So yeah, it was that bad.

[Suzie]

I thought the author was very respectful and professional. Lauren Green's interview was embarrassing to say the least, she didn't seem prepared (it seems to me she didn't even read the book). The whole thing was done very unprofessionally and her insistence about why a guy who has a Phd in religion would write a book about Jesus Christ is one of the most unintelligent, and idiotic question from a so called "journalist" that I have heard in a while. She is a devoted Christian and that's all cool with me, but anyone who has worked in media before knows you need to separate your interviews from your personal/religious views and be impartial. Lauren Green in that interview, failed to do so.

[carlimac]

I thought the author was very respectful and professional. Lauren Green's interview was embarrassing to say the least, she didn't seem prepared (it seems to me she didn't even read the book). The whole thing was done very unprofessionally and her insistence about why a guy who has a Phd in religion would write a book about Jesus Christ is one of the most unintelligent, and idiotic question from a so called "journalist" that I have heard in a while. She is a devoted Christian and that's all cool with me, but anyone who has worked in media before knows you need to separate your interviews from your personal/religious views and be impartial. Lauren Green in that interview, failed to do so.

I disagree. One can appear respectful with a calm demeanor but still be rude. Professor Umbridge? He did answer some of the interviewers questions but on others didn't even let her finish the question before he calmly launched into overly defending himself. Her statements and questions actually came from comments from other Christian scholars and he failed to adequately address them. He just brushed them off with his "credentials". He obviously thinks a lot of himself. Any scholar who can't take heat from other scholars is in a weak position and his work decreases in credibility, no matter how many hundreds of pages of citations he includes in his work.

[carlimac]

A member of my ward is a professor of religion at one of the state schools and, as a religious academic, feels that the question was ridiculous and that the answer was kinder than the interviewer deserved.

Put plain and simple, academics write about things they are interested in. You don't have to be a Christian to be interested in Christ. All academics understand this. When you ask an academic a question like, "as a muslim, why would you write a book about Christ," the interpretation that comes off is "you don't think I'm qualified to write about this topic." Academics reach that conclusion because the answer to the actual words, "as a muslim why would you write a book about Christ" has the obvious answer of "I was interested in the topic." This should be apparent from the fact that he has multiple PhDs and has been studying religions, including Christianity and Christ, for the better part of 20 years (which is why his qualifications and experience were relevant information. Most people don't just go get PhDs in topics they aren't interested in).

For the sake of illustration, let's change the context a little bit. This is a link to an abstract of an article I helped author about breast implants following mastectomies. Let's suppose that I am asked to do an interview on a news channel to talk about what we found in this research. And the very first question the interviewer asks is, "as a man, why would you conduct research on breasts?"

"Well, for the past several years I have been studying female reproductive systems, urological disorders, and cancers and I felt like these results would be of value to the medical community."

"But you're a male. Why would you do research on females?"

If I were to get questions like that, I'd look at the interviewer like he or she was an idiot...in fact, I'd all out assume that they were an idiot.

So yeah, it was that bad.

You example of your own research almost fits but not quite. If there hadn't been bad blood between Muslims and Christians, especially of late, then the question would be dumb. But we know that Christians have been jailed, abused, raped and tortured and killed by Muslims in some countries recently- seemingly all because of their beliefs...(that would include their beliefs about Christ which shape their very lives.) And some would argue that the same level of abuse has been happening to Muslims by Christians. So to try to minimize the importance of that question on the basis of his book being just a history and academic in nature is really short sighted. Some who have read his book say his Muslim faith does inform his treatment of the subject.

Also there is the question of him stretching the truth on his credentials. Anyway, he came off to me as cocky but insecure at the same time. That was my initial reaction before I even read this and other blogs by people who thought the same as me.

To get personal, I had an experience once where I went in to see a doctor. The visit was supposed to take an hour. The doctor spent the first half hour telling me his credentials. I kid you not. That totally backfired and destroyed my trust in him. I obviously never went back.

Edited July 30, 2013 by carlimac

[LittleWyvern]

Also there is the question of him stretching the truth on his credentials. Here is a blog that talks about the problem:

The problem with Reza Aslan's book about Jesus is not that he is a Muslim. The problem with it is that he is dishonest. - Jihad Watch

And I thought some anti-Mormon sites were bad. Robert Spencer takes the cake for the most anti-Muslim person I've ever had the opportunity to read. If this is where you get your information on Islam from, I can see why you think the reporter's question makes sense.

[carlimac]

And I thought some anti-Mormon sites were bad. Robert Spencer takes the cake for the most anti-Muslim person I've ever had the opportunity to read. If this is where you get your information on Islam from, I can see why you think the reporter's question makes sense.

I didn't find anything he said to be anti-Muslim. I haven't read anything else Robert Spencer has written so I don't know anything about him and certainly don't get my info on Islam from him. I posted this opinion only because his assessment of the interview matched mine. I know I'm not anti Muslim at all. In fact we recently applied for a job in Saudi and I was really looking forward to the possibility of living among Muslims. (We didn't get the job.) I have lived close to them before in the midwest and find them to be pleasant and good neighbors.

[Windseeker]

What's so bad about being anti-Muslim?

[LittleWyvern]

I didn't find anything he said to be anti-Muslim.

Here's Spencer's conclusion on the blog post you cited:

And that's the problem with Aslan's book: not that he is a Muslim, but that he is not an honest man or a reliable scholar, no matter how many degrees he has. But after all, as his prophet said, "War is deceit."

And his only support for labeling Aslan dishonest and unreliable is because some things he says disagrees with the Bible. Uhh... duh. That's not a surprise if you know what you're talking about. Plus, I don't even know where to begin with that quote at the end, but at least know that it's a malicious oversimplification if it isn't outright wrong.

I posted this opinion only because his assessment of the interview matched mine.

I hope you can see that this assessment of the interview is built upon malicious and false ideas about Islam and an insistence that only Christians can definitively talk about Jesus. That's the only possible way I can think of for using Bible verses as a way to label Aslan as dishonest.

What's so bad about being anti-Muslim?

What's so bad about being anti-Mormon? We both know the answer to that: anti-Mormonism relies on false and destructive stereotypes and compares worst with best (how often are we confused with the FLDS?) in its "proofs." The same sort of idea applies here.

Edited July 30, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[carlimac]

What's so bad about being anti-Muslim?

I suppose it's because they are sons and daughters of God just like everyone else. And because not all Muslims are violent jihadists.

[carlimac]

Here's Spencer's conclusion on the blog post you cited:

And his only support for labeling Aslan dishonest and unreliable is because some things he says disagrees with the Bible. Uhh... duh. That's not a surprise if you know what you're talking about. Plus, I don't even know where to begin with that quote at the end, but at least know that it's a malicious oversimplification if it isn't outright wrong.

I hope you can see that this assessment of the interview is built upon malicious and false ideas about Islam and an insistence that only Christians can definitively talk about Jesus. That's the only possible way I can think of for using Bible verses as a way to label Aslan as dishonest.

Wow, it's amazing how two people can read the same thing and come away with two totally different conclusions. You read this seeing him as anti Muslim. I took his words at face value-that Aslan was dishonest because he fudged on his academic credentials in the interview and that in past interviews he says..."Well I'm not exactly Christian" instead of coming right out and saying he is Muslim. Even though he says it right on page two of his book and anyone who disagrees with him obviously hasn't read his book and has no business in asking questions about it...(my sarcasm added).

[Bini]

I suppose it's because they are sons and daughters of God just like everyone else. And because not all Muslims are violent jihadists.

You 'suppose' that Muslims are sons and daughters of God? The word 'suppose' implies hesitance or reluctance. As LDS, we believe that all men and women are sons and daughters of God. There is no suppose..

[Windseeker]

You 'suppose' that Muslims are sons and daughters of God? The word 'suppose' implies hesitance or reluctance. As LDS, we believe that all men and women are sons and daughters of God. There is no suppose..

I'm pretty sure her 'suppose' wasn't hesitation. It was mild sarcasm.

I think believing a religion is true pretty much makes you ‘anti’ any other religion other than your own. I’m certainly of the opinion that if Islam was wiped from the face of the planet the earth would be a much more peaceful place.

..certainly there would be far fewer women raped and then taken and stoned for adultery.

[Windseeker]

As for my own take on this interview. I think both the interviewer and the academic were painfully speaking past each other. It doesn't speak well for either of them in their respective positions.

[Leah]

You 'suppose' that Muslims are sons and daughters of God? The word 'suppose' implies hesitance or reluctance. As LDS, we believe that all men and women are sons and daughters of God. There is no suppose..

That's not what was said. The "suppose" was applied to the possible reason. The poster was clear in saying that Muslims ARE sons and daughters of God.

[Leah]

I'm pretty sure her 'suppose' wasn't hesitation. It was mild sarcasm.

I think believing a religion is true pretty much makes you ‘anti’ any other religion other than your own. I’m certainly of the opinion that if Islam was wiped from the face of the planet the earth would be a much more peaceful place.

..certainly there would be far fewer women raped and then taken and stoned for adultery.

I believe the LDS church is true, but that in no way makes me anti anything. Your statement doesn't even square with church teaching.

Why not share some sources to back up your claims about Islam?

[Bini]

Where's MOE when you need him?.. I'd be interested in him responding to Windseeker's post.

Leah, I agree with you. If anything, the gospel teaches us to embrace those that are different -- even opposite of what we are -- and to show them love and charity. I don't believe LDS teachings say to shun or harbour anti feelings against anyone. Love thy neighbour as thyself, even if he's a rotten abusive person that would spit on you if you were lying face down in the street.

[Windseeker]

Where's MOE when you need him?.. I'd be interested in him responding to Windseeker's post.

Leah, I agree with you. If anything, the gospel teaches us to embrace those that are different -- even opposite of what we are -- and to show them love and charity. I don't believe LDS teachings say to shun or harbour anti feelings against anyone. Love thy neighbour as thyself, even if he's a rotten abusive person that would spit on you if you were lying face down in the street.

I don't think you need MOE, your doing fine on your own Bini.

Since when does anti mean you treat your fellow men without charity?

Being anti means you are opposed to something. It's really that simple. Our teachings are opposed to the teachings of Islam.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Windseeker

[Windseeker]

Why not share some sources to back up your claims about Islam?

Afghanistan: Woman killed for “dishonouring†family | Amnesty International

Egypt: Islamic cleric justifies rape for female protesters - National Humanist | Examiner.com

[Bini]

I don't think you need MOE, your doing fine on your own Bini.

Since when does anti mean you treat your fellow men without charity?

Being anti means you are opposed to something. It's really that simple. Our teachings are opposed to the teachings of Islam.

Windseeker, MOE is good with digging up statistics. I know I do just fine, thank you very much.

To topic, I will agree that "anti" by definition means "opposed" but in generalities, the word anti has a very negative connotation. Perhaps that's why the Church refrains from using terms like,"We are anti Muslim or anti Catholic." I think that's a valid assessment, is it not to you?