Fox News Interview: "Why Would a Muslim Write a Book About Jesus?"

[jmc]

I think you're missing an extremely important detail: Muslims do not consider Jesus to be God, while the entirety of the Christian faith is based on the notion that he IS. So a muslim (or any religious person who denies that divinity) writing about the "real" Jesus is going to be a very big deal and make people stop and question the author on his motives. Especially considering that massive disagreement is at the hearts if hundreds of years worth of aggression. And the Moses comparison doesn't work because the religions don't disagree on the nature of Moses, nor do the religions worship him as their god.

I haven't read the book yet, so I can't comment on what it says, but I think it's safe to say that the reason anyone would have an issue with a Muslim writing a book about Jesus has NOTHING to do with the author being a Muslim in particular, but it's the simple fact that he is of a faith that believes Jesus was far less than what Christians believe he was, and they would naturally take offense to him using his authority as a scholar and author to try and push his belief of Jesus as nothing more than a simple man or prophet which is a very direct attack on an entire religion's belief (whether the author intends it to be such or not). THAT's why people are saying "hold up, what's this now?"

Couldn't we argue then that his faith would contribute to give us a proper and objective understanding of who historical Jesus was? Are people angry that it's a Muslim writing it or is it because they don't want to know anything other than what's in the bible?

 

[Spider-Who?]

By that logic, Christians should stop churning out books about Islam.

Where did I say anything remotely like that? My point is not that people can't write about other religions; my point is that they can, they just need to understand that people of that religion are going to want to know what the authors intentions are, especially if the topic could concern denying a fundamental aspect of that religion. It's not bad for a Muslim to write about Jesus, and it's not bad for Christians to want to understand his motivations, and the same is true the other way around.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Couldn't we argue then that his faith would contribute to give us a proper and objective understanding of who historical Jesus was? Are people angry that it's a Muslim writing it or is it because they don't want to know anything other than what's in the bible?

Would you argue that a Christian writing a historical book about Jesus could help us understand him more?

It's not that a "Muslim" is writing it, and it has nothing to do with people not wanting to know more about/better understand the guy they believe to be God (which is a ridiculous reasoning being passed around). It has everything to do with being weary of the idea that BECAUSE that person doesn't believe Jesus is God, he "might" use the book to perpetuate his belief that Jesus isn't God. People are asking so they can be prepared for how to handle the book if such a thing exists within the text, but really, the only way to know is to open the damn thing and read it.

 

[jmc]

Would you argue that a Christian writing a historical book about Jesus could help us understand him more?

It's not that a "Muslim" is writing it, and it has nothing to do with people not wanting to know more about/better understand the guy they believe to be God (which is a ridiculous reasoning being passed around). It has everything to do with being weary of the idea that BECAUSE that person doesn't believe Jesus is God, he "might" use the book to perpetuate his belief that Jesus isn't God. People are asking so they can be prepared for how to handle the book if such a thing exists within the text, but really, the only way to know is to open the damn thing and read it.

The simple solution is just to read the damn thing. I've actually got it on my Amazon wishlist ever since this nonsense started. lol

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Would you argue that a Christian writing a historical book about Jesus could help us understand him more?

I'd say a person of another faith or an Atheist would probably have a more objective view on the subject than someone who worships the man and is looking to find evidence to support their faith in him.

 

[Spider-Who?]

So basically, its not OK to question the validity of a purely historical book by a religious person whose faith involves NOT believing in Jesus, but it's totally OK to not only question motive, but outright say that a person who does believe is unable to write the same historical book without bias. Gotcha. Thank you for illustrating the hypocrisy I was expecting.

If you believe Jesus was God or you believe he wasnt God doesn't matter - both sides of that coin offer the same potential for bias.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I would expect the man who's been studying the fileld for 20 years to be unbiased.

 

[Doctor Evo]

If you believe Jesus was God or you believe he wasnt God doesn't matter - both sides of that coin offer the same potential for bias.

If that's true, then why ask the question in the first place?

 

[Hal_Jordan]

So basically, its not OK to question the validity of a purely historical book by a religious person whose faith involves NOT believing in Jesus, but it's totally OK to not only question motive, but outright say that a person who does believe is unable to write the same historical book without bias. Gotcha. Thank you for illustrating the hypocrisy I was expecting.

If you believe Jesus was God or you believe he wasn't God doesn't matter - both sides of that coin offer the same potential for bias.

Wow, way to fly off the handle. I was saying the same thing you were trying to say from the opposing perspective. Both sides definitely can be biased, and I think the different perspectives combined generally offer the most information, as opposed to flat out objecting all contradicting information simply because the other side wrote it, and that it MUST be automatically wrong.

 

[jmc]

So basically, its not OK to question the validity of a purely historical book by a religious person whose faith involves NOT believing in Jesus, but it's totally OK to not only question motive, but outright say that a person who does believe is unable to write the same historical book without bias. Gotcha. Thank you for illustrating the hypocrisy I was expecting.

If you believe Jesus was God or you believe he wasnt God doesn't matter - both sides of that coin offer the same potential for bias.

It's perfectly fine to the question motives when it's clear there is an attempt to skew the argument in a particularly unfavourable direction. It's another thing to assume it's being skewed into a particular direction simply because the person writing it doesn't come from the same background as what's been written, that's the crux of the argument going on here. Should the question have been asked in the first place? Frankly, no, because it's a question who's purpose isn't to understand why someone of Islamic faith would write about Jesus, that in and of itself is a stupid question considering Jesus is very much a part of Islam, it's question who's purpose is to attack the scholar for daring to undermine the myth that is Jesus as seen by Christians by using facts and documents to back up his argument. To ask that question not only shows a complete lack of respect for the author, it's show a complete ignorance to history as well as what the author actually wrote in order to preserve the Christian myth to the audience. In answer to your question it is possible for persons of a particular faith to have an objective opinion on matter relating to their faith, but it's difficult. Charles Darwin struggled to come to terms with his evolution theory because it contradicted everything he believed to be true, he even tried to come up with an early form of intelligent design to explain it but ultimately he accepted that what the church had been teaching for thousands of years was wrong.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I think Fox News dot com was just surprised that a Historian from with Muslim heritage would write a book about Christianity and NOT have an agenda...unlike the hordes of Anti-Muslim 'Historians" they allow on the show that clearly have one.

 

[The End]

I think you're missing an extremely important detail: Muslims do not consider Jesus to be God, while the entirety of the Christian faith is based on the notion that he IS. So a muslim (or any religious person who denies that divinity) writing about the "real" Jesus is going to be a very big deal and make people stop and question the author on his motives. Especially considering that massive disagreement is at the hearts if hundreds of years worth of aggression. And the Moses comparison doesn't work because the religions don't disagree on the nature of Moses, nor do the religions worship him as their god.

I haven't read the book yet, so I can't comment on what it says, but I think it's safe to say that the reason anyone would have an issue with a Muslim writing a book about Jesus has NOTHING to do with the author being a Muslim in particular, but it's the simple fact that he is of a faith that believes Jesus was far less than what Christians believe he was, and they would naturally take offense to him using his authority as a scholar and author to try and push his belief of Jesus as nothing more than a simple man or prophet which is a very direct attack on an entire religion's belief (whether the author intends it to be such or not). THAT's why people are saying "hold up, what's this now?"

*Insert Picard facepalm here*

This reasoning of bias could work the other way just as well.

Christians are just too biased to write about the historicity of the Jesus figure, because Christians think Jesus was a divine being. Therefore, only non-christians should write about the history of Jesus.

See how that works?

 

[chamber-music]

I think Fox News dot com was just surprised that a Historian from with Muslim heritage would write a book about Christianity and NOT have an agenda...unlike the hordes of Anti-Muslim 'Historians" they allow on the show that clearly have one.

Most of the people on Fox view everything through a prism of politicisation. The idea of taking things at face value doesn't even enter their narrow minds.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

The mainstream media (not just FOX to be fair) is such a mess these days. 24 hours and everything has to be instant. So instead of fact-checking and thoughtful analysis, we get pure agenda-driven infotainment courtesy of blathering blowhards and air-headed eye candy. Can't wait until the days of 24 hour cable news are over and despite what they may think that day is coming.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Where did I say anything remotely like that?

That's his first reply to the thread, that was very likely his response to the Fox lady asking the scholar

 

[Teelie]

The interviewer was ridiculous and clearly thought she had a "gotcha" card or was just trying to force her agenda. It might as well have gone like this...

Author: “I have studied the great apes for 20 years, have 4 degrees in the study of primates, and even lived among them for a few months. I have written a book about my findings.”

Interviewer: “But you are a human.”

Author: “Yes, but I am also a researcher who has studied apes for the last two decades.”

[...]

Interviewer: “I want to get back to the fact that you are not an ape.”

So you're calling us all apes then?

Something needs to distract from the other ridiculous religious argument going on.

 

[NickNitro]

I think Fox News dot com was just surprised that a Historian from with Muslim heritage would write a book about Christianity and NOT have an agenda...unlike the hordes of Anti-Muslim 'Historians" they allow on the show that clearly have one.

This. "WHAT!? There are Muslims that actually study our religion with an unbiased eye! HERESY! Brun the witch! "

I think I figured out why the Fox News Reporter was soo confused. Because Fox news is constantly attacking everything that others believe in that they don't. So to have someone on "the other side" write about what THEY believe in, they just assume they're being attacked.

I heard that interview has blown up all over the TV. I hope Fox News slinks back into the dark hole they crawled out of.

 

[Teelie]

I don't think the dark hole wants them back. They got ejected for a reason.

 

[Manic]

The mainstream media (not just FOX to be fair) is such a mess these days. 24 hours and everything has to be instant. So instead of fact-checking and thoughtful analysis, we get pure agenda-driven infotainment courtesy of blathering blowhards and air-headed eye candy. Can't wait until the days of 24 hour cable news are over and despite what they may think that day is coming.

I think the biggest problem is the part about everything needing to be instant. The 24 hour thing isn't as big a factor as you'd think; if you've ever watched any news network in the middle of the night, you'd see that they just repeat the same handful of stories every hour until one of their "news commentary" shows comes on in the morning.

The rush to be the first to break a story is what's killing the fact checking aspect of modern journalism. And when the report turns out to be wrong, the networks give halfhearted apologies, stop covering the story altogether, and then proceed to deny any responsibility for the misinformation they previously gave.


In this particular incident, all somebody on Fox News' staff had to do was read the book and do a background check on Reza Aslan, then give the anchor notes on it before going through with the interview. It would've saved everyone involved the embarrassment.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I think the biggest problem is the part about everything needing to be instant. The 24 hour thing isn't as big a factor as you'd think; if you've ever watched any news network in the middle of the night, you'd see that they just repeat the same handful of stories every hour until one of their "news commentary" shows comes on in the morning.

The rush to be the first to break a story is what's killing the fact checking aspect of modern journalism. And when the report turns out to be wrong, the networks give halfhearted apologies, stop covering the story altogether, and then proceed to deny any responsibility for the misinformation they previously gave.


In this particular incident, all somebody on Fox News' staff had to do was read the book and do a background check on Reza Aslan, then give the anchor notes on it before going through with the interview. It would've saved everyone involved the embarrassment.

But the problem with the 24 hour cycle is during daylight hours they have to have a story to focus on and sometimes there just isn't, so they manufacture stories or sensationalize them into what they percieve to be interesting. Remember balloon-boy from a few years ago? Or the fact they spent about a week doing baby-watch for Kate Middleton? Cronkite is rolling in his grave.

 

[Manic]

Another huge factor to consider is that 24 hour news networks don't fill their timeslots with news. A lot of their programming is "news commentary." They're technically talk shows hosted by people who talk about the news, give their opinions, and bring in others to debate. The actual news wouldn't have something like a person's name as the title of the show.

But these commentary shows are formatted in a way that makes them indistinguishable from the actual news, so a lot of people get their information from biased commentary instead of regular reports. And if you're going through their websites instead of their broadcasts, it's impossible to know which one you're clicking on.

 

[Doctor Evo]

So you're calling us all apes then?

Well, technically we are.

 

[Teelie]

I think the joke flew by.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?

And you're right, I guess I don't get it.

 

[Teelie]

It's based on the joke that some people will take an allegory (in this case replacing religion with apes) and those who misundersand it think they are being insulted by the allegory even though it's meant to convey something else.

So basically he said anyone who's not Muslim/Human is an ape to the eyes of the insulted. And since many Christians do not believe man descended from apes (which is technically true, it's a descendent we share with apes that we came from), he's insulting them there too saying that Muslims are human, everyone else is an ape. It's not true of course but that was the joke.