Was the interview really that bad?

[Windseeker]

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

You are certainly most welcome.

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?

I think that you make a good point. Our use of the word "anti" has a bit of fanatical meaning. It's probably not wise to use it in public relations.

My point is there is nothing wrong in opposing evil. I think it's elementary that if you believe in anything strongly you are no longer neutral or passive. You can be Iceland but as my favorite band says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

2 Nephi 2:11

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is ano law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

What does it mean to be neutral in world where "opposition is in all things"? My senior manager (President and Founding Director at Ithnaasheri Muslim Association of the Northwest) had opposition to building a Mosque in Seattle. Our church (LDS) provided legal council and support to fight the city council that was preventing it from being built. I don't think our church viewed this as supporting Islam but supporting freedom of religion.

Certainly we don't support the beliefs of Islam. We don't send missionaries out in the world to convince people that what they believe is correct but to provide them what we view as the truth which is counter to their teachings. What was the Savior doing in Jerusalam if not opposing the views of the Pharisee.

I find it sad that we've had posts on this very forum of those whose conversion to our religion means possible torture and death, yet some take offense? Offense at any who oppose a religion that supports intolerance to the point of murder? Could there be a more evil theology in opposition of truth and liberty than Islam? Sad indeed.

[carlimac]

Another blog opinion that resonated with me.

Reza Aslan Misrepresents His Scholarly Credentials » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

[LittleWyvern]

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

If you mean opposed as in "opposite" or "completely false" or "against," that's certainly not true.

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

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

And here is where it's helpful to remember that there are many different sects or groups in Islam, much like there are many different groups within Christianity. Using this as justification for being anti-Islam would be like citing two news stories, one talking about something bad a Baptist did and one talking about something bad a Mormon did, then using that as justification for opposing the whole of Christianity.

As for my own take on this interview. I think both the interviewer and the academic were painfully speaking past each other.

Exactly this. Both interviewer and interviewee were on completely different trajectories. The interviewer was trying to have a completely different conversation than the interviewee was prepared to give. There was a lot of conversation that needed to happen before this interview that didn't.

Edited July 30, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[Windseeker]

I understand there are good people of their faith and there are sects with varying beliefs. In general Islam has played a large role in keeping the middle east a cess pool of ignorance, poverty and hate. I don't find anything wrong with being anti-islam. I do have a problem with where people take their opposition and how far, but not in the opposition itself.

[Bini]

Windseeker, to clarify I see nothing wrong with having an opinion or belief. We all have them -- be it for or against -- but we need to be wise in how we convey them. Church authorities might talk on strengthening traditional family units but I have never heard the terminology: "We are anti gays." It's too negative and repellant.

Regarding your other post with the links. You can't possibly use those examples to categories an entire group of people. I completely agree with LittleWyvern.

[carlimac]

Both interviewer and interviewee were on completely different trajectories. The interviewer was trying to have a completely different conversation than the interviewee was prepared to give. There was a lot of conversation that needed to happen before this interview that didn't.

Again I disagree. He knew exactly what he was going into and came out swinging. He was completely defensive from the get-go. He has his own ideas about why no one should question him about writing this book.

They were both at fault. Maybe the direction Lauren Green was taking was too simplistic for all the mental altitude on the left, but Aslan himself is obviously ignoring some pretty big elephants in the room about why people ARE entitled to ask those questions about why he wrote the book on the topic he did.

[LittleWyvern]

Again I disagree. He knew exactly what he was going into and came out swinging. He was completely defensive from the get-go.

I think it's a fair conclusion to say that Aslan expected to talk about his book and about the role of Jesus in Islam. He never got the chance to, and instead had to defend his very act of writing about Jesus because he was a Muslim.

They were both at fault. Maybe the direction Lauren Green was taking was too simplistic for all the mental altitude on the left, but Aslan himself is obviously ignoring some pretty big elephants in the room about why people ARE entitled to ask those questions about why he wrote the book on the topic he did.

I could rehash the posts I've already written, but I'd rather not. I've already shown:

• That the question was essentially meaningless from a Muslim perspective,
• The question stems from a lack of knowledge about basic Islamic beliefs and thus has no direct answer, and
• The only defense (at least that I can think of) for this kind of reasoning suggests that Muslims have less authority to write about Jesus than Christians do.

To consider the Muslim belief in Jesus to be an "elephant in the room" to ask about is alarming (the Mormon belief in Jesus might as well be an "elephant in the room" with that kind of logic). Aslan shouldn't have to defend his mere belief in Jesus as a prophet simply because Christians also believe in Jesus. Far better questions would be "why do Muslims believe in Jesus?" or "what do you believe about Jesus' teachings?" not "why would you write about Jesus at all?"

[carlimac]

I think it's a fair conclusion to say that Aslan expected to talk about his book and about the role of Jesus in Islam. He never got the chance to, and instead had to defend his very act of writing about Jesus because he was a Muslim.

I could rehash the posts I've already written, but I'd rather not. I've already shown:

• That the question was essentially meaningless from a Muslim perspective,
• The question stems from a lack of knowledge about basic Islamic beliefs and thus has no direct answer, and
• The only defense (at least that I can think of) for this kind of reasoning suggests that Muslims have less authority to write about Jesus than Christians do.

To consider the Muslim belief in Jesus to be an "elephant in the room" to ask about is alarming (the Mormon belief in Jesus might as well be an "elephant in the room" with that kind of logic). Aslan shouldn't have to defend his mere belief in Jesus as a prophet simply because Christians also believe in Jesus. Far better questions would be "why do Muslims believe in Jesus?" or "what do you believe about Jesus' teachings?" not "why would you write about Jesus at all?"

I see your point, but the elephant in the room isn't the Muslim belief in Jesus. At least that's not what I had in mind. I suppose it could be a part of the question. But I was thinking the elephant as more of the huge contentions that have existed between Muslims and Christians over the years. The animosity, wars and loss of life. Is his book a peace offering, an explanation of why it's all been so difficult? What about a Jew writing about Islam or about Jesus. I think it's a questions that almost begs to be asked and there is nothing wrong with it.

Despite your arguments, which don't completely make sense to me, I still think it's an absolutely fair question, even a necessary question. If a Mormon were to write and extensive book about Catholicism, even just a history of it, I wouldn't think twice about the question being asked, "Why would a Mormon write about Catholics? " What in the world is so offensive about it?

I still feel the problem lies in the author being too defensive. If he had handled the question more openly without his dukes up and not focused on trying to explain his career so much himself, this interview would have gone by almost unnoticed. It's because he made such a big deal of it that the left wing media got wind of it and has blown it up into something to guffaw at.

[LittleWyvern]

But I was thinking the elephant as more of the huge contentions that have existed between Muslims and Christians over the years. The animosity, wars and loss of life. Is his book a peace offering, an explanation of why it's all been so difficult?

His book is his writings of a (to him) an Islamic Prophet, balanced with the historicity of Jesus. It does contrast early Christian thought on Jesus with the Islamic view on Jesus, but then any Islamic book about Jesus would. That's not anything unique to this author. The book has nothing to do with Muslim-Christian relations, because in the book's timeline organized Islam wasn't even a thing yet. A book about the early-middle periods of Islam (700AD-1200AD) or the modern growth of Islam (1930ADish-now) would have what you're looking for.

What about a Jew writing about Islam or about Jesus. I think it's a questions that almost begs to be asked and there is nothing wrong with it. If a Mormon were to write and extensive book about Catholicism, even just a history of it, I wouldn't think twice about the question being asked, "Why would a Mormon write about Catholics? " What in the world is so offensive about it?

Your example question isn't at all like the question asked in the interview. "Why would a Mormon write about Catholics?" is a normal question to me because the Catholic religion and the LDS religion are two separate things. Sure, they both are Christian religions, but you can easily tell that they're different things. Such a distinction does not exist between Islam and Jesus. The question in the interview, in my opinion, stems from a misunderstanding that Jesus is somehow exclusive to Christianity, and no other religions can worship Him. This misunderstanding is what makes the question both meaningless and controversial.

[carlimac]

Then why are Muslims jailing abusing and killing Christians if they both believe the same thing?

[LittleWyvern]

Then why are Muslims jailing abusing and killing Christians

Which Muslims? Are you talking about a certain sect or group, or just the Muslims you see on the news?

if they both believe the same thing?

They don't believe the same thing, that's ridiculous. Go read this post of mine again. Or, better yet, next time you see a Muslim ask him/her about what he/she believes about Jesus. Muslims and Christians do have differing views on the role and mission of Jesus, but both believe that He is a Messenger of God.

[jerome1232]

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.

Many say the same of Christianity, and of religion in general. I see to much ignorance thrown at my faith to jump into the pig pit and sling away.

[carlimac]

Which Muslims? Are you talking about a certain sect or group, or just the Muslims you see on the news?

They don't believe the same thing, that's ridiculous. Go read this post of mine again. Or, better yet, next time you see a Muslim ask him/her about what he/she believes about Jesus. Muslims and Christians do have differing views on the role and mission of Jesus, but both believe that He is a Messenger of God.

I already know pretty much what they believe. I somehow read in your post that you were saying Muslims believe in Jesus as divine. I was challenging that notion. Sorry to confuse you.

This whole thread wasn't meant to be about Muslims and their beliefs. It was meant to be about how intolerant the media has been about this interview. Could Aslan have handled it differently to promote understanding rather than hiding behind what he thinks are his credentials? Was Green really that off base in her questions?

For what it's worth, the book itself isn't getting 5 star reviews ( surprise surprise!). Here is one review that is compelling.

"People giving this book 5 stars seem to enjoy hearing themselves praise what amounts to an assessment for the sake of book selling, feeling nuanced and intellectual that there is a book written by a Muslim who converted to Christianity then converted back to Islam. Yes, from a political standpoint the Left can talk about how "thoughtful" the book is, and how it's great to learn about Jesus the man, vs Jesus as anything else. The irony is that Aslan found Christianity appealing enough to convert from Islam (which is absolutely forbidden), then change his mind, change back, and then write a book that appeals to atheists and self-proclaimed intellectuals. Did Aslan convert and then convert back again to give himself some clout to write a book about Jesus? Would it not be more historical and unbiased, then, to also ask Aslan to write a book separating Islam from Mohammed? I can hear the gasps now... "

I added the underline. An interesting proposal. Apparently a book he previously wrote about Islam is very pro-Islam. Is the book really as unbiased and neutral as he is trying to make it appear in the interview? I have my doubts. I think Lauren Green had every right to ask him the questions she did based on his past.

[Dravin]

For what it's worth, the book itself isn't getting 5 star reviews ( surprise surprise!). Here is one review that is compelling.

"People giving this book 5 stars seem to enjoy hearing themselves praise what amounts to an assessment for the sake of book selling, feeling nuanced and intellectual that there is a book written by a Muslim who converted to Christianity then converted back to Islam. Yes, from a political standpoint the Left can talk about how "thoughtful" the book is, and how it's great to learn about Jesus the man, vs Jesus as anything else. The irony is that Aslan found Christianity appealing enough to convert from Islam (which is absolutely forbidden), then change his mind, change back, and then write a book that appeals to atheists and self-proclaimed intellectuals. Did Aslan convert and then convert back again to give himself some clout to write a book about Jesus? Would it not be more historical and unbiased, then, to also ask Aslan to write a book separating Islam from Mohammed? I can hear the gasps now... "

That's not a review of the book, that's a review of Aslan.

[Jenamarie]

A religious scholar writes a book about a religious figure. I'm really having a hard time seeing the controversy here, regardless of the author's faith journey. Besides, BOTH Christians AND Muslims believe in Jesus, so I really don't see how he would "need" to convert to Christianity in order to give him "clout" to write a book on Him. Does a Christian need to convert to Judaism before he's allowed to write a book about Moses?

[MarginOfError]

My point is there is nothing wrong in opposing evil.

This is why people don't like what you're saying. You've categorically labeled the entire Islamic religion as evil. I find that incredibly offensive.

I understand there are good people of their faith and there are sects with varying beliefs. In general Islam has played a large role in keeping the middle east a cess pool of ignorance, poverty and hate. I don't find anything wrong with being anti-islam. I do have a problem with where people take their opposition and how far, but not in the opposition itself.

Ignorance, poverty, and hate, huh? You do realize that it was that filthy Islam that preserved countless ancient documents while the Christians suffered through the Middle Ages, right? You do realize that Islam has done more to promote peace and cooperation in the Middle East than any other social force in its history, right? Compared to biblical times, the Middle East is down right stable these days.

You might also want to take note that the Judeo-Christian tradition didn't treat women a whole lot better. It's only been very recently that we've stopped shaming women for being raped. It's only been in the past 30 years that a woman has been able to press charges against the man who raped her. And even still, doing so comes at a huge social cost to the woman. The progress we've made toward treating women more fairly and equally was built on an economic expansion that made education the norm, even in poverty. That kind of economic expansion was never available to the Middle East until it oil became a valuable resource. The Middle East has had 50 less years of industrial development than the Middle East has and is making progress at about the same speed the States did.

Before you go preaching about ignorance, poverty, and hate, you may want to check your own ignorance at the door.

[Dravin]

A religious scholar writes a book about a religious figure. I'm really having a hard time seeing the controversy here, regardless of the author's faith journey.

Indeed, if we're talking about an academic treatment of the subject they could be atheist for all it matters.

I think Lauren Green had every right to ask him the questions she did based on his past.

I've been thinking on this. She does have every right to ask such questions, and other people have the right to say she's asking irrelevant, stupid, or some other adjective questions.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Dravin

[carlimac]

That's not a review of the book, that's a review of Aslan.

Yes, and a compelling one.

[Dravin]

Yes, and a compelling one.

Not really, and I find it hard to take anyone serious who finds it compelling.

[Windseeker]

This is why people don't like what you're saying. You've categorically labeled the entire Islamic religion as evil. I find that incredibly offensive.

Ignorance, poverty, and hate, huh? You do realize that it was that filthy Islam that preserved countless ancient documents while the Christians suffered through the Middle Ages, right? You do realize that Islam has done more to promote peace and cooperation in the Middle East than any other social force in its history, right? Compared to biblical times, the Middle East is down right stable these days.

You might also want to take note that the Judeo-Christian tradition didn't treat women a whole lot better. It's only been very recently that we've stopped shaming women for being raped. It's only been in the past 30 years that a woman has been able to press charges against the man who raped her. And even still, doing so comes at a huge social cost to the woman. The progress we've made toward treating women more fairly and equally was built on an economic expansion that made education the norm, even in poverty. That kind of economic expansion was never available to the Middle East until it oil became a valuable resource. The Middle East has had 50 less years of industrial development than the Middle East has and is making progress at about the same speed the States did.

Before you go preaching about ignorance, poverty, and hate, you may want to check your own ignorance at the door.

How could anyone who disagrees with you be anything other than ignorant?

What do you think our Heavenly Father thinks of a religion that murders those who seek him.

http://www.lds.net/forums/advice-board/53416-muslim-convert-mormonism.html

You choose to blame the situation in the Middle East on their lack of education and poverty. But this does not explain how many of those who have committed great evil in the name of Islam are both highly educated and come from wealthy families. I don't see how anyone can read the news and think otherwise. Perhaps in light of the changes you mentioned with Judeo-Christian beliefs Islam will drop some of its violent and oppressive tenants. I hope it changes.

[Finrock]

The problem is not Islam, the problem is people. People commit sin. People are prideful. People twist truth to fit their personal desires. People fall victim to temptation. People want power. People want sex. People want stuff. People want to gratify their carnal desires.

Every passage in the Qur'an starts out proclaiming that God is compassionate and merciful. That God is merciful and compassionate is a central belief in Islam. Islam teaches people to take care of the poor. Islam teaches that obedience to the one true God is our main objective in life. Islam teaches tolerance towards those who believe differently. This is just a sample of the good things that Islam teaches. Many Americans don't really know what Islam teaches because they haven't taken the time to learn about it.

I have felt the Spirit while reading the Qur'an. There are passages in the Qur'an that are most certainly from God. All truth has been revealed to man by God, and in this case, even the truth that was revealed to Muhammed. There are passages in the Qur'an that I don't agree with theologically but they aren't malicious and evil.

People have committed astrocities in the name of Jesus, all the while justifying their base, carnal, and evil acts because of their religious writtings that they have used only so as to bring about their own purposes and not the purposes of Christianity.

People have also committed astrocities in the name of Islam, all the while justifying their base, carnal, and evil acts because of their religious writings that they have used only so as to bring about their own purposes and not the purposes of Islam.

Regards,

Finrock

[carlimac]

Not really, and I find it hard to take anyone serious who finds it compelling.

Well that's choice.

[carlimac]

Ooooh! Nothing like a really good controversy.

TheBlaze TV | TheBlaze.com

And Glenn just makes it so ...compelling!!

I can't wait to hear what he found out.

[carlimac]

How could anyone who disagrees with you be anything other than ignorant?

What do you think our Heavenly Father thinks of a religion that murders those who seek him.

http://www.lds.net/forums/advice-board/53416-muslim-convert-mormonism.html

You choose to blame the situation in the Middle East on their lack of education and poverty. But this does not explain how many of those who have committed great evil in the name of Islam are both highly educated and come from wealthy families. I don't see how anyone can read the news and think otherwise. Perhaps in light of the changes you mentioned with Judeo-Christian beliefs Islam will drop some of its violent and oppressive tenants. I hope it changes.

I was only laughing at your first line (which I agree with). The rest is true and troubling.

[LittleWyvern]

Ooooh! Nothing like a really good controversy.

TheBlaze TV | TheBlaze.com

And Glenn just makes it so ...compelling!!

I'm sure it will be just as compelling as those 1-star reviews at Amazon.