Reza Aslan and Fox News

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Overall hilarious interview. Loved the Ronald Reagan analogy.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

How is it more rational?

Besides the fact that it doesn't call the man God?

 

[outhouse]

Namaste,

He pretty much wasted 20 years of his life, then, eh?
.

Did I state that? Don't falsely rad into my statement please.

I stated I liked him

He handled himself wonderfully. The approach by the interviewer was disgusting.

I agree

 

[Poeticus]

Did I state that? Don't falsely rad into my statement please.

Namaste,

That wasn't my intention.

M.V.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well FOX hates Muslims which is obvious and they also hate anyone or anything that makes common sense. This is not remotely surprising

 

[Bismillah]

Islamic view of Jesus is that he was born of a virgin, a prophet, but wasn't a god nor crucified.

He wasn't speaking from an Islamic point of view but rather from the academic point of view. Also the Islamic point of view is that he wasn't crucified but that Allah raised Jesus to heaven replacing his physical body. That latter part is essentially impossible to prove using a historical record and does not contradict the historical record either. So when Aslan says that Jesus was crucified, from the academic point of view he was, from his point of view for all intents and purposes Jesus appeared to be crucified but wasn't. But Aslan doesn't have the time or the need to explain such unrelated minutia to his academic work.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Aslan also saved Narnia.

 

[Sleeppy]

Besides the fact that it doesn't call the man God?

It really only calls His Spirit, God. Not the man.. And really only calls Him the Son, which was recognised by His limited knowledge, limited focus of power, and His acknowledgement of the Father. The Father is the Most High; the One before all gods/powers/energies/mass/existence. The Son is His will being done. Which is why angels visit, never the Father. The Father doesn't move from His throne in heaven. The Son is the literal action/result of God. The Father has all power. The Son receives as/when He does God's will. Jesus began as a limited power, of Adam, but above Adam in power. So, when He was twelve, He knew what He was saying. The truth was naturally acquired, to Him. He was far advanced in learning than any other man, before He reached manhood. A genius. His Spirit however was still being added to, until His ascension. The gospels mention His baptism resulting in Spirit being set onto Him. And after His fast and temptation, angels came and ministered yet more Spirit to Him. They also mention His Spirit being dispersed into other mediums, such as the bleeding woman.. And they mention His physical death resulting in the departure of His Spirit, until His resurrection. He told His disciples that He needed to return to the Father, the everlasting Source, so that He could send more Spirit to them. And from there, Spirit is poured out.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

It really only calls His Spirit, God. Not the man.. And really only calls Him the Son, which was recognised by His limited knowledge, limited focus of power, and His acknowledgement of the Father. The Father is the Most High; the One before all gods/powers/energies/mass/existence. The Son is His will being done. Which is why angels visit, never the Father. The Father doesn't move from His throne in heaven. The Son is the literal action/result of God. The Father has all power. The Son receives as/when He does God's will. Jesus began as a limited power, of Adam, but above Adam in power. So, when He was twelve, He knew what He was saying. The truth was naturally acquired, to Him. He was far advanced in learning than any other man, before He reached manhood. A genius. His Spirit however was still being added to, until His ascension. The gospels mention His baptism resulting in Spirit being set onto Him. And after His fast and temptation, angels came and ministered yet more Spirit to Him. They also mention His Spirit being dispersed into other mediums, such as the bleeding woman.. And they mention His physical death resulting in the departure of His Spirit, until His resurrection. He told His disciples that He needed to return to the Father, the everlasting Source, so that He could send more Spirit to them. And from there, Spirit is poured out.

Millions of other Christians would disagree with you.

 

[Sleeppy]

Millions of other Christians would disagree with you.

They might think they should disagree. But, if they believe the basic events in the Gospels and His words, then they are not allowed to disagree. This is accurately summarised.

Most Christians rightly call Jesus, God. He is our God, but only according to the Father's will, that He should have His Spirit, and act accordingly. He is more accurately called the Son of God; the only begotten of the Father. Because He is the First and Highest Spirit of God. The Word of God, which must then fulfill Himself by works.

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps they might give him time of day because he's spent considerable time and effort to learn his subject, and they have some respect for that learnedness, regardless of whether or not they agree with him in all respects.

Funnily enough, he's not saying anything my Christian Dad didn't explain when he gave me the Bible he used throughout his studies in seminary. His exact words were "Jesus was a **** disturber". He felt it was important to understand the Bible in that context. The ideology of the early Christians was radical. Heck it's still radical. Look at all the **** the new pope is disturbing by making a half ***** effort to apply it.

 

[Vouthon]

Funnily enough, he's not saying anything my Christian Dad didn't explain when he gave me the Bible he used throughout his studies in seminary. His exact words were "Jesus was a **** disturber". He felt it was important to understand the Bible in that context. The ideology of the early Christians was radical. Heck it's still radical. Look at all the **** the new pope is disturbing by making a half ***** effort to apply it.

What I find particularly interesting about Early Christianity was their church-run economic system:

(Acts 4: 32-35) "The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need."

(Acts 2.44-45) “And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.”

This seems very utopian and idealistic. Some would describe it as "communistic", even though it antedates Marxism by 2,000 years and has none of its obvious negatives or the totalitariamism that developed in the 20th century Communist regimes. I would prefer to call it "social egalitarianism". The 20th century regimes were state ideologies, whereas the Christian economic model above is not so much a political idea as it is a practice and way of life.

I am reminded of something interesting that I read from the Baha'i Faith and which gave me pause for thought:

(Compilations, Baha'i Scriptures, p. 340) Perfect communism and equality are an impossibility because they would upset the affairs and the order of the world. But there is a fair method which will not leave the poor in such need, nor the rich in such wealth

Nor does there appear to be any greater justice in the charges of socialism, communism and immorality that have so freely been levelled at the youthful persuasion ...The only communism known to and recommended by Him (the Bab) was that of the New Testament and the early Christian Church

(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 204)

The chief idols in the desecrated temple of mankind are none other than the triple gods of Nationalism, Racialism and Communism, at whose altars governments and peoples, whether democratic or totalitarian, at peace or at war, of the East or of the West, Christian or Islamic, are, in various forms and in different degrees, now worshiping.

(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 113)

Jesus preached social equality, upheld the rights of women, tried to remove outward and legalistic shows of religion. His early church tolerated and indeed promoted unity in diversity (we get this phrase from the Church Father Saint Gregory of Nyssa), called for complete freedom of religion and liberty as a fundamental right (Lactantius & Tertullian), preached against war and violence (Jesus, numerous Fathers), encouraged pacifism and non-violence (Jesus, numerous Fathers) and taught that there was divinely inspired truths in other philosophies and religions and that whatever truth there was anywhere was Christian truth (St. Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexandria).

It all looked so promising at the beginning, huh?

 

[Caladan]

I'm pretty sure Aslan knew exactly what he was doing when he went on the interview. A dumb fox host focusing on his Islamic heritage, while giving him the chance to flash his credentials, all this time showing the world how stupid and petty she is, thus giving him great publicity as an intelligent academic. Well played Aslan.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

How is it more rational?

To put it simply, because it does away with most of the superstition and mythology surrounding him as found in Christianity.

 

[Alceste]

I'm pretty sure Aslan knew exactly what he was doing when he went on the interview. A dumb fox host focusing on his Islamic heritage, while giving him the chance to flash his credentials, all this time showing the world how stupid and petty she is, thus giving him great publicity as an intelligent academic. Well played Aslan.

Yup, his book is a best seller now. No need to be cynical though. When you're hustling a book, any media coverage is good coverage. I doubt he specifically targeted Fox. His publicist would have been setting up any kind of media access s/he could.

 

[Levite]

I don't always agree with Aslan, but that was just painfully ignorant on the part of Fox News. And I will give Aslan major props for handling it with infinitely more grace than it deserved.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm pretty sure Aslan knew exactly what he was doing when he went on the interview. A dumb fox host focusing on his Islamic heritage, while giving him the chance to flash his credentials, all this time showing the world how stupid and petty she is, thus giving him great publicity as an intelligent academic. Well played Aslan.

I'd say that is the best analysis in the thread. Well done, Dan.

 

[Alceste]

I don't always agree with Aslan, but that was just painfully ignorant on the part of Fox News. And I will give Aslan major props for handling it with infinitely more grace than it deserved.

Yeah, he did handle it well. It ended up looking like she just didn't understand the concept of scholarship at all and he was very patiently explaining it to her.

 

[Vouthon]

To put it simply, because it does away with most of the superstition and mythology surrounding him as found in Christianity.

Although the Islamic Jesus still did miracles (even ones not in the New Testament such as talking as a baby, making live birds out of clay by breathing life into them, making a table full of food come down from heaven), he ascended into heaven and will return at the end of days as the Messiah again. The only thing the Islamic Jesus isn't is the incarnation of God, nor did he rise from the dead.

Also the single most historically plausible part of Jesus' life, his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, is rejected in traditional Islam. The crucifixion is basically, apart from his baptism by John the Baptist and the hypothetical Q document, the only thing that scholars universally agree is historical about Jesus' life - and yet Islam rejects it.

So in terms of plausibility I think that Christianity and Islam, from a secular perspective, are eachy-peachey. Neither seems more plausible than the other if one approaches it purely from a secular perspective.

On Aslan, however, he conducted himself very well in the circumstances - it certainly was an own goal for Fox News.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm pretty sure Aslan knew exactly what he was doing when he went on the interview. A dumb fox host focusing on his Islamic heritage, while giving him the chance to flash his credentials, all this time showing the world how stupid and petty she is, thus giving him great publicity as an intelligent academic. Well played Aslan.

One can hardly fault Aslan for being prepared to deal with an interviewer, though. Nor for being aware of typical Fox behavior, or for playing within the established parameters to get publicity for his book.

I mean, it is not like he had any duty to avoid such publicity, or misled anyone into believing he was not seeking publicity.