Tweets Dan McLauglin
About Reza Aslam who does very poorly in a mess of an interview. He returns a question innocent enough on it face to an assault on his credentials dominating the discussion then blaming the problem of the interview shifting from his book to his authoritah about writing the book, an inversion of observable evident sequence.
He is Muslim, writing about Christianity, claims to be historian, but his CV shows nothing like that. Degrees yes, but nothing like that. Doctorate yes, but in modern jihad, the opposite of history.
Pants not shown, they're on fire.
57 comments:
That's why I get freaked out by people that wear their rank or their collar online.
I personally do not like the idea of a Muslim writing about Christianity. Christianity came well before Islam and its adherents have been lunatics since it's inception. It's a religion of lunacy.
Actually the problem is--it is a religion of the Sword.
It actually needs to be counterbalanced a la Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
I could be full of it however--just an idea--tossing it out there.
Chip you are killing it today.
Great job man.
It is tough to smack this guy around because we all pretend to be experts when we post comments on the internet. We just don't use our academic credentials to shut down debate. Or at least most of us don't.
It is hilarious when you see someone who is an academic try to tell you that he knows more than someone who actually works in the field. That is ludicrous.
I get his point: He's just saying he's a scholar writing a book and he happens to be a Muslim, as opposed to a Muslim writing a book about a Jesus.
His book may or may not be accurate, but he's making a simple point, although it sounds pretty obnoxious the way he does it.
He also makes the point, which I think is fair, that his Muslim faith is tainting the interviewer's questions and approach, and probably will likewise overpower all the coverage of this author and his book.
It will still only help to sell more copies of his book. Any publicity is good publicity in the book business.
"...his authoritah..."
Good one. Like Trooper suggested, Chip...outta da pahk! A Muslim converts to Evangelical Christianity in high school, then back to an esoteric form of Islam in college graduate school, all while earning various divinity degrees and holding down a chair as a fiction writer for a while. Now lives in Los Angeles, California.
Nah, why would anyone question his expertise on Christianity? It isn't much more extensive than Obama's with Rev Wright's joint, IMO. That isn't a slam, even if it sounds like it...just a suggestion that these "experts" have less academic and practical knowledge of faith than several of the commenters on this board.
I wonder if I can find out how often he speaks to mosque and//or church congregations where I live. We have a couple Islamic folks here abouts [50K or so], and a few nasty Catholics as well....plus a plethora of protestant folks from Primative Baptist to Pentacostal.
I only watched the first four minutes. It seemed like he was expecting to be asked about his book and the ideas he presented rather than what his critics are saying about him.
It's kind of childish to think there's something unusual about a scholar who is a Muslim writing about Jesus, particularly as he seemed to be saying he was writing about Jesus the man rather than Jesus the Son of God.
Sounded more like a typical lazy teevee interviewer who didn't really read the book she was interviewing the author about.
Baoh20 said ...
...he happens to be a Muslim, as opposed to a Muslim writing a book about a Jesus.
Which is exactly the same as a Muslim writing a book about Jesus. How much credit would he give a Catholic scholar writing a book about Mohammad?
You are correct, it is about publicity, which is precisely why he brought it all up in the interview. It is a fairly common author interview stunt. Getting that victim-hood vibe going will sell books.
Follow the money. Always.
*Professor* Aslan apparently hasn't been to Dearborn, MI, to lecture since 2009, and then not in a mosque, church or academic hall, such as the University of Michigan-Dearborn campus here. Nope he spoke at Border's Book Store [now closed] next to Wall-Mart. No doubt the safest place for him here.
How much credit would he give a Catholic scholar writing a book about Mohammad?
With all due respect, scholars are assumed to be scholars first in the academic community - their religion, nationality, and ethnicity is assumed to be set aside while they study and analyze their subject matter in a dispassionate matter. That's what intellectual integrity is about.
That may not always happen but the onus is on the critic to demonstrate how the scholar's background has prejudiced his argument.
Otherwise we'd never make much progress in our studies would we? I mean if Russians are presumed to be incapable of writing about the Chinese, or black people can't write about white people or Christians can't write about Jews without a priori assumptions that they can't be objective or have something worthwhile to say, well, we're pretty much doomed.
Assuming that a person can't make valid academic arguments about a religion or religious persons outside their own faith is the ad hominem fallacy.
I'm sure I probably sound like a wise guy but I think it's worth saying.
From the "How Dast Thou?" school of Lefty avoidance.
Trooper York said...
It is tough to smack this guy around because we all pretend to be experts when we post comments on the internet. We just don't use our academic credentials to shut down debate. Or at least most of us don't.
That last sentence is the killer.
I love when a Lefty (and it always seems to be a Lefty) is backed into a corner and they always fall back on the other guy's poor "reading comprehension" to explain why their point is getting hammered.
Well, since the Islam's penalty for apostasy is death...yeah, I dunno if I would put a lot of stock in a reverted Muslim's take on Christianity or Jesus the Man.
Just off the bat.
My impression is that most academic historians would accept as valuable and somewhat authoritative what is granted by scholarly study of the history of a certain phenomenon - whether it's the history of a religion, the history of a country's economic development, the history of a country's political system, etc. The way you put it, it would be like saying biochemistry is a fraudulent field or biophysics or neurobiology are fraudulent fields, depending on which larger department housed them. The most important findings actually come about by combining two formerly separate fields of study.
Anyway, there's a bunch of "real" and politically diverse historians at this site who could probably debate that sort of thing further, but I've got a good hunch you won't get a strong consensus there on the idea that he's fraudulently misrepresenting his training.
Btw, Chip, I enjoy your writing.
"Pants not shown"
Hahaha.
Is "Matthew J Franck" trained as a historian, seeing as how he's so sure of what does and does not constitute one?
Just figured I'd throw that one out there.
Anyway, if you want a good writer who might know something of contemporary Iran, Hooman Majd might be worth reading.
phx said...
Assuming that a person can't make valid academic arguments about a religion or religious persons outside their own faith is the ad hominem fallacy. ... I'm sure I probably sound like a wise guy but I think it's worth saying.
I know you know I don't think that way ... So ... No argument from me. Academic rigor is dispassionate in most cases. My point, which I suspect you didn't absorb, is that Reza Aslan is not dispassionate. He proved it.
80% of all conversations I have daily here are with Muslims, ordinary folks and some scholar types now and then, and no one questions who is what faith saying what about who. Actually most of the observant ordinary Muslims [nothing to promote, or sell] are very interested in open discussion ... among the most substantially talkative people I have ever lived around. I'd compare them favorably to Koreans, who are among my favorite people...even the "Bad Park You" crowd :-) Insular until you open up and then they open up.
The fact this guy made it an issue reveals his bias. If he was really half sharp as a scholar he'd have handed the interviewer his own bias, if there, back to him on a platter. What he did was the equivalent of "pound the table" in law.
Aslan stated on-air: I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament . . . I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions . . . I am a professor of religions, including the New Testament–that’s what I do for a living, actually . . . To be clear, I want to emphasize one more time, I am a historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religions.
Only 2 things are accurate in the above statements, that he has 4 degrees and that one of them, his B.A. from Santa Clara U (1995) is in religion, focused on the NT as that's what his senior thesis was about.
He also has a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School; 2 articles he wrote for the HDS Bulletin appear to involve Islam. In addition, he received a Master of Fine Arts in Fiction from the University of Iowa; and a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
What he does for a living, actuallly, is teach fiction-writing in the Creative Writing program at the University of California as an asst. professor.
The comments at First Things actually give a fair amount of cogent push-back to the charge as presented.
Aslan appeared on several Bloggingheads in the 2008 time frame. He could definitely get wound up and snitty at times, but he's okay.
What he does for a living, actuallly, is teach fiction-writing in the Creative Writing program at the University of California as an asst. professor.
Clearly he also writes academic works, including books about Jesus, for a living.
R & B said ...
... biochemistry is a ...
Mildly OT
...a course of study, whose labs assured I was almost dateless for for two semesters in college.
It's not cool when your * eau* is *du vomit*...e.g., Butyric acid and sundry esters.
The fact this guy made it an issue reveals his bias. If he was really half sharp as a scholar he'd have handed the interviewer his own bias, if there, back to him on a platter. What he did was the equivalent of "pound the table" in law.
But without viewing it, (First Things links but doesn't embed a video), it's hard to say how aggressively and/or distracting a line of questioning the interviewer pursued. Again, there are comments at the article that address this, also.
I suppose I'll have to actually watch it now. Damn!
"I am a professor of religions, including the New Testament–that’s what I do for a living, actually . . ." VS the fact of teaching creative writing as an asst. professor.
Push back against that all you want. That there is a lie.
...a course of study, whose labs assured I was almost dateless for for two semesters in college.
It's not cool when your * eau* is *du vomit*...e.g., Butyric acid and sundry esters.
From what I remember, butyric acid is an acrid fermentation product and esters are associated with all sorts of pleasant natural scents (ask Palladian for details).
But yeah, I majored in something similar but forewent grad school when I'd see those labs occupied (or at least their lights on) all the way up until 2 or 3 AM on a weekend. Suckers!
(No offense to Chickie, of course ;-))
Does he only have one job, Basta? A lot of academics (especially fame-seeking ones who get a lot of interviews) have multiple posts.
But if so, then you're right. He's either getting sloppy or willfully misrepresenting.
It's kind of childish to think there's something unusual about a scholar who is a Muslim writing about Jesus...
phx: The "First Things" post addresses your point:
Aslan's book should not be dismissed because it was written by a Muslim. But in making untrue claims about his credentials he raises questions about his credibility.
The issue is not whether Aslan is Christian, Muslim or Hottentot. As a writer he can write about Jesus if he pleases, but if he is going to speak with a scholar's authority about Jesus, he had better have the degree for that and he had better be clear about that degree.
His Ph.D is in sociology, not history and not the history of religions. Nor is he professor of religions. He is lying.
(I see Basta! got here first.)
deborah said...
Aslan appeared on several Bloggingheads in the 2008 time frame. He could definitely get wound up and snitty at times, but he's okay.
As I said, the "pound the table" technique. That's [snitty?] never okay in academy if it is serious and sincere.
But his wife is an avid surfer and has an MBA. Can't he weasel off the hook of the conservative media that way? ;-)
The only thing he mentioned as "what he does for a living" is the non-existent professorship of religions. Could he teach a single course here or there, I suppose so, but that wouldn't give him a professorship --- if he did this, he'd be a visiting lecturer, that is, the bottom of the academic barrel. Well, maybe a half-step above a grad student teaching :)
To people outside academia this might seem like meh, but to academics it's a BFD. Appointments that can lead to tenure are rarer and rarer, and signal appreciation of other scholars in the same field for your work, prestige, etc.
I think he overreacted under pressure, felt he was under attack, and responded by puffing up his credentials, which was stupid of him. But it doesn't seem to be hurting him. Most of the coverage I've seen is all about what a moron the interviewer was.
I've encountered Aslan in the past. He is a go-to guy for liberals who want to be reassured that Islam is just another religion and is undergoing a reformation, and everything will be hunky-dory if Islamophobic conservatives would stop making things worse.
Curious though that he has the name of C.S. Lewis's Lion-Christ in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" books.
Actually, I don't even see the point of interviewing him in the first place. How does his book say anything new anyway?
In any event, the interviewer seems to already think that anyway.
The only thing he mentioned as "what he does for a living" is the non-existent professorship of religions.
He has a Ph.D. in the sociology of religion. And I understand he teaches part-time.
I don't defend the man's thesis, I haven't read the book and I'm not going to. But the anti-intellectualism on display here, starting with the teeveee personality (watching her makes me think "moron" is not too strong of a word here) who interviewed him, is pretty unfortunate.
"on display here" doesn't refer to exclusively to this comment thread - it's intended to refer to brouhaha across the right-wing sphere of the internet.
He is a go-to guy for liberals who want to be reassured that Islam is just another religion and is undergoing a reformation,
Which is precisely the problem with comparative religion and its study. I find Karen Armstrong's works, unfortunately, similarly uninteresting - despite the fact that my Dad loved her stuff. And here, I'm actually starting to agree more with Chip et al. Getting into the historical details for their own sake is much more telling and conclusive then looking at it from the angle of his Divinity degree (or whatever it was). You want someone as dispassionate and historically-minded as possible in going over this stuff, not someone who looks at from the mealy-mouthed angle of religion for religion's sake. That is better understood as a personal thing, IMO.
...and everything will be hunky-dory if Islamophobic conservatives would stop making things worse.
No, conservatives are right that there's problems over there that won't get better just by Western behavior or attitudes. You can address that both socially, politically or theologically. I think it's fine that there's a strong voice in America that doesn't have a problem doing it from any one of those angles. That's a good thing. Unfortunately the rest of the world is usually too weak to address issues like that through perspectives that aren't overly diplomatic or ecumenical, and that does no one any favors.
Personally I prefer historians who make shit up like Doris Kearns Goodwin or Stephen Ambrose.
They are always entertaining.
I particular enjoyed Doris latest best seller: Lincoln's Cabinet: Team of Vampire Killers.
They made it into a cool movie and everything.
Ok, so compared to Bernard Lewis (and maybe, depending on your "flavor" of criticism, Daniel Pipes), this guy sucks (yes, I just watched the interview). Can we just agree on that?
Shit! Troop reminds me that I missed my promise to Chip Silicon and forgot to download Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer when last perusing my iTunes options and what would be worth viewing next.
National Catholic Register has a review of Aslan's book, from which:
In keeping with Aslan’s creative writing background (see below), much of it is written in a casual, narrative style that does not stop to cite sources, mount arguments, or consider alternative viewpoints.
It reads rather a lot like historical fiction, with Aslan inviting us to imagine the colors of the curtain of the Jerusalem temple, how scene at the temple would have sounded, and even how it would have smelled (rather putrid, according to Aslan).
Turns out we don't have to imagine the colors of the curtain of the Jerusalem temple, for Josephus gave a detailed description: It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its mystical interpretation, but was a kind of image of the universe; for by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea…. This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the twelve signs of the Zodiac, representing living creatures." (War 5.5.4 211-214.)
Conclusion: this guy's no scholar of NT (which perforce includes Second Temple Judaism). Looks like he did minimal research.
Looks like he did minimal research.
Lol, no doubt.
But hey, he said that Jesus was a rabble rouser! That's new, interesting and completely uncovered ground! Lol.
I think the purpose of his book (at least unstated) was to tell other Muslims, "Look! Jesus wasn't such a bad guy! What he did was more rebellious and meaningful than Jihad!"
Oh well. At least having to go to BuzzFeed to find the clip brought me to this piece.
R & B...ROFLMAO on that piece.
And now the crappy book from some third tier "scholar" is number 1.
Gross.
and tits.
But he's hot. Definitely doable.
And the Muslim world gives exactly how much credance to books about Islam written by Christians?
Regardless of their geniuine credentials.
If he converted from Islam to Christianity, shouldn't he have beheaded himself at some point?
If you haven't read any of Robert Spencer's excellent books about Islam and Christianity, this would be a good place to begin.
I saw him on Bill Maher's show. He observed that he was for many years an illegal immigrant here and that the racism in this country had made his life very difficult. The Maher audience ate this up and no doubt rushed out to buy his book.......He's from Iran. People from Iran have much to teach us about tolerance and godly ways.
I saw him on Bill Maher's show. He observed that he was for many years an illegal immigrant here and that the racism in this country had made his life very difficult. The Maher audience ate this up and no doubt rushed out to buy his book.......He's from Iran. People from Iran have much to teach us about tolerance and godly ways.
The comments in the First Things article provide some interesting pushback, making a good case. Though, I think he was clearly trying to intimidate. His is not a scholarly book nor intended as such, as far as I know. And I do know that throwing out credentials is a way of loosely establishing authority on matters unrelated to the actual core research.
That's why people always have to listen to me on any topic I decide to talk about. I have a PhD and that makes me an expert on everything!!
"had made his life very difficult."
I wish I could have the sort of difficulty that would allow me to sell so many books and be considered an expert on whatever I want to write about.
The oppressor has kept him in a position of significant influence and wealth!
"particularly as he seemed to be saying he was writing about Jesus the man rather than Jesus the Son of God."
Which is a statement specifically intended to sound really good to people who don't know anything about the field.
From what you're saying Reza is a First Quester (maybe 2nd given what I hear about his criteria) in an age where we're well past that.
50+ year old or more academic trends do sell books, however. Especially if people are impressed by credentials alone.
he can write about Jesus if he pleases
Yes, that is true. And people who might read his book also have the right to know his perspective so that they can gauge how trustworthy it is or whether he is engaged in scandal and heresy (false teachings).
From what I've heard so far, he does not sound very knowledgeable about Jesus or Christianity. I'm not saying that he is as bad as Hitler writing a book about the history of the Jews, but he does sound as reliable as Dan Brown.
Moreover, just because one has a bunch of degrees does not mean that he is some kind of expert. Especially coming from today's universities, which are monuments to ignorance with respect to Jesus Christ. An example known to us all was some law professor from Wisconsin implying that because she taught a law and religion class that she was knowledgeable about Christianity when, in fact, she routinely exposed not only her ignorance on the subject, but her hostile bias and contempt.
There are enough books out there which lead people away from a true understanding of Jesus Christ -- and have been throughout history -- rather than helping them to have a more accurate one. Potential readers of his works have the right to know if what he is peddling is ignorant nonsense.
phx said...
It's kind of childish to think there's something unusual about a scholar who is a Muslim writing about Jesus, particularly as he seemed to be saying he was writing about Jesus the man rather than Jesus the Son of God.
I don't think it's childish at all. In fact it strikes at the very heart of the differences of our respective beliefs. Muslims see only prophets, not saviors. They regard Christ as a savior yet have zero issue killing or banning his adherents. Why? Because the Prophet Molester may he rot in eternal hell is the premier prophet because he was a Meccan and an arab, the other ones? Meh, they were just jews, so they don't count.
Post a Comment