Pause for a second. Let's imagine the author was Christian, and this was a book about Mohammed, in which the author would include a couple images of Mohammed, and say that it is historically proven that he was a pedophile. Let's imagine the author has a Ph.D. in religious science as well, and exactly the same qualifications. Let's also imagine that the interviewer is just as unprepared, and asks the guy the same questions. What do you think would happen? What would the reaction of those be who are angry at this moderator? Would they be just as angry at the moderator? Would they be angry at the author? Would they question his motivation and suggest that he has an anti-Muslim bias? Would they call him an "Islamophobe"?
Snicker. Arent most his main things about jesus basically the same stuff that muslims have been saying about jesus for hundreds of years? Please, to imply that the reporter has an agenda but then ignore this scholar's "neutral opinion" is just wishful and clearly biased thinking. Take this crap to the d&d where it belongs.
I'm trying to consider this thought experiment, but I'm having trouble. 1. A book on Mohammed would not sell well in the US. 2. A book on Mohammed would probably not end up on an American cable news shows pathetic attempt to stir its largely Christian audience. 3. But if it still happened, I can see a cable news anchor/reporter being totally unprepared to talk about the book. 4. I would think it's just as funny but predictable. (But I'm not one of the "angry" people you may be asking about.) As for assessing the author, it would really depend on a detailed and careful reading of the author's book. I wouldn't label him anything like that until I had actually read it. (shrug?) The reporter here is funny not because of the book but because of her basic misunderstanding of what an academic book is or what a professor does. She's really proud that she doesn't get it, it would seem, but it's probably just her overlords asking her to keep asking him why a muslim can write about the historical Christ. It was also pretty funny when the professor tried to give an analogy but it fell apart. :grin:
^ We have different standards here. To put us on par with intolerant countries that will stay in the dark ages culturally, economically, and technologically is the flaw in your logic. What makes America so great is the fact you can speak your mind on w.e issue. You seriosly can't be defending her for not reading a single word can you ?? I'm not talking about skimming, she didn't know what was on pg 2 and hinged her argument on blog posts. Journalism is in the $hitter the day we are cool with this.
You turned the coin on the argument and asked if the moderator would receive the same treatment. My point was it has little to do with the stance, it's blatantly obvious it is unprofessional journalism and should receive the same response regardless of the stance or position taken. To the next point of how other countries in the mid-east might do that, my explanation was that they aren't held to the same standards and are **** holes for a reason. That was my general point.
So you don't think that there would be more backlash if someone, let's say an orthodox Christian, published a book on Mohammed with pictures of Mohammed in it, and very critical of Mohammed? Let it be someone with at least a Master in religious studies, maybe not a Ph.D., but someone who has written several books. You don't think a book like that could crack the, let's say, approximately top 30 of the New York Times bestseller list? What do you think would happen? Would there be any backlash? At all? Perhaps more than if a Muslim writes a book about Jesus? How do you think Mr. Aslan would react? Would he react?
You are clearly assuming things and showing your ignorance of Muslim beliefs. What he is presenting is that Jesus was crucified. Muslims believe he was not crucified so on the outward he is clearly going against basic elemental beliefs about Jesus... Which most Muslims would consider blasphemous. It is directly opposed to the Qur'anic narrative of events. However if he is merely stating that that what appeared was he crucified then that would not be opposed to the Quranic understanding although his wording does not lend to this rather something else which is far removed for the Islamic understanding... Anyways you should read what Muslims actually say and compared it to what he states rather than assume he is not neutral due to your ignorance of the topic.
He participated in a rather interesting AMA on Reddit yesterday, too. Unfortunately, this clip accomplishes nothing. It's red meat to be shared by all sides. To the typical FOX News demographic, it's a juicy "show up the Muslim" piece that will further solidify FOX's position as a "tell it like it is" network in their minds. On the other side, those who find it laughable will do so on the Internet, further their belief that FOX only caters to the closed-minded right wing and be made a mockery of in "enlightened" circles. Neither side will hear the other. Neither side knows the other exists. Neither side will learn. Instead, they'll only grow more forceful in their pre-established biases.
because any person who has a problem with islam is some white redneck that you will obviously have no problem putting down this week before you whine and moan about online bullying next week. Oh look, i can do sweeping generalizations too.
Yes because the entire book is about that one point that he makes that is contrary to islam unlike the rest isnt.
