Updated
Should a Muslim write a book about Christianity? Bethanie Blanchard discusses the case of Reza Aslan vs Fox News.
Can a person write a book about a school of thought they don’t, themselves, adhere to?
Can one write about a religion to which they do not belong? A pursuit they don’t personally practice?
Such seemingly rhetorical questions are what Fox News religion correspondent Lauren Green grappled with in a ten minute implosion on Friday that has since rippled across American media outlets.
Religious scholar and author Reza Aslan appeared as a guest on Fox News’ online-only religious program Spirited Debate to discuss his recently released non-fiction work Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, but was instead persistently questioned about his personal religious beliefs.
In an opening question that wouldn’t have been out of place on a Colbert Report script, Green asked: “You’re a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?”
“Well, to be clear, I am a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament, and fluency in biblical Greek, who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades, who also just happens to be a Muslim,” was Aslan’s rather shocked reply.
The breathtaking interview – in which Aslan is rarely allowed to stray from this central question for the entire duration – has become notorious in recent days, labelled by Slate and Buzzfeed as Fox’s “single most cringe-worthy” and “embarrassing” interview ever.
While it’s easy to dismiss the interview as just a further instance of Fox News delivering its particular brand of comforting xenophobia to a devoted audience, the interview raises broader questions about the relevance of an author’s private beliefs and personal experience to the work they produce.
When author Jonathan Franzen delivered the keynote address at the Melbourne Writers Festival a few years ago, he noted the four questions that plague author interviews: Who are your influences? What time of day do you write? Do your characters take over your writing? And, the most frequently asked: Is your fiction autobiographical?
Questions about whether a fictional work might be seen as evidence of its author’s psychoanalytic workings is the “price we writers pay for getting to appear in public”, Franzen quipped.
In the reception of non-fiction works too, biography is the obsessive focus, with interviewers searching for personal experience and interests that might colour the author’s work.
But does a writer have to have personally experienced what they are writing about in order for it to be valuable? This was something taken up in the Twitter #foxnewslitcrit reaction to the piece, with brilliantly imitative questions to authors of classic literature: “Mr Capote, what compelled you to write about this murder case? Have you personally ever been murdered?”
In defiance of what good old Roland Barthes advised all those years ago, popular literary criticism has indeed seen a renewed interest in authors’ personal backgrounds, to the detriment of analysis or engagement with the works themselves.
Such a focus was what the frustrated Aslan found himself having to deal with, (though there is no doubt that there were darker motives at play in Green’s interrogation) as he patiently says at one point: “I’m more than willing to talk about the arguments of the book itself, but I do think it’s perhaps a little bit strange that rather than debating the arguments of the book, we are debating the right of the scholar to actually write it.”
The implication in Green‘s line of questioning is that there is something inherently problematic with those of Islamic faith writing about Christianity. Or indeed, one would have to assume, any person writing about a faith that is not their own. For such a standard to be advanced by Fox News is highly hypocritical, as many have noted.
In a comprehensive analysis for Christian Science Monitor, Dan Murphy highlighted the manner in which Fox News routinely fills its air time with Christian and Jewish commentators explaining Islam to their audience, “In the past, it’s even had conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck give long expositions of the essence of Islamic law as he sees it”.
Indeed, Media Matters complied a list of eight examples of reports that Green herself, “by her flawed standard…shouldn’t have filed”.
If only those who practiced a religion were allowed to write about its history and origins, there would be serious doubts about the level of rigorous scrutiny any would undergo. Just as if academics had to personally experience everything they researched and published on, the corridors of universities would be far more lively.
Commentary following the interview has uniformly argued that Aslan’s private faith has no relevance at all to the reception of the book, with Mother Jones writing that Aslan’s personal religious beliefs and practices are “about as relevant as asking why Green doesn’t use the beginning of every Fox segment she hosts to disclose that she was once the third runner-up in the 1985 Miss America competition”.
I don’t believe it’s as irrelevant as that – though the allegations in the initial FoxNews.com piece that Aslan has attempted to conceal his faith, as the Jones article points out, are simply incorrect.
Disclosure of backgrounds are relevant, it’s the reason every article here on The Drum comes with a byline at the bottom; to disclose interests, expertise and anything else that might be relevant to the views espoused.
But they’re a footnote for a reason – Lauren Green made the author’s biography the entire story.
Since the interview Aslan’s work Zealot has hit the number one spot on Amazon’s bestseller list, knocking off even JK Rowling’s infamous new crime novel.
Fox News may not be a bastion of quality literary criticism, but their own form of zealotry sure does lift sales.
Bethanie Blanchard is a freelance writer and editor. View her full profile here.
Topics:
religion-and-beliefs,
islam,
christianity,
books-literature,
author,
journalism
First posted
Source Article from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-31/blanchard—rezaaslan/4856074
Comments (76)
Add your comment
Stirrer:
31 Jul 2013 3:31:05pm
The Fox News (and News Ltd) brand of fanaticism has no room for anything creative-unless its a creation of news and events which happen to suit its idealogy.
Reply
Alert moderator
the yank:
31 Jul 2013 5:30:44pm
Agreed, Murdoch is a thug that wants to control as much of the world as possible and he will use every tool he can buy to achieve his ends.
Australians should think about that in this country’s upcoming election.
Reply
Alert moderator
Ben:
31 Jul 2013 6:16:15pm
I’d be happy if they just thought.
Also they may want to consider the quality of their thought. So many thinking Australians, so little quality thought.
Reply
Alert moderator
the yank:
31 Jul 2013 7:31:29pm
Thinking is hard work it seems for most of us but an effort at least would be a nice change.
And I must say Australians are not alone in the lack of thought quality. One sees plenty of it across the world and yes I mean the USA as well.
Reply
Alert moderator
Jungle Boy:
31 Jul 2013 3:36:01pm
Great article, Bethany. It’s a superb expose of the hypocrisy and arrogance of Fox and its allies.
However I’m not sure that Ms Green’s past as a Miss America contestant is entirely irrelevant. It could (possibly) indicate that she was employed for her looks and not her brains, and/or that she was willing to be the tool of business magnates.
Reply
Alert moderator
Terry:
31 Jul 2013 3:46:45pm
Why shouldn’t a Muslim write a book about Christianity? Plenty of Christians have written books about Islam. In particular, Arthur Arberry’s translation of the Koran into English is widely respected by Muslim and secular academics.
Reply
Alert moderator
Dove:
31 Jul 2013 4:24:40pm
Indeed, Terry. There have many western Islamic scholars, some converts, most not. You can write about a theology or religious history without being an adherant. Mungo could even write a book on the liberal party is he chose to!
Reply
Alert moderator
Katkinkate:
31 Jul 2013 5:00:03pm
Exactly!! Don’t know what all the fuss is about.
Reply
Alert moderator
din:
31 Jul 2013 5:03:10pm
I agree. They can often supply a different slant on a story
Reply
Alert moderator
mike:
31 Jul 2013 5:22:14pm
As I understand it no one is arguing that he shouldn’t be allowed to write such a book. The issue is just where he is coming from, which may be relevant – imagine a tobacco lobbyist writing about the safety of smoking for example.
I didn’t see the interview BTW. And I find both religions completely and totally ludicrous in any case.
Reply
Alert moderator
the yank:
31 Jul 2013 6:16:43pm
And Christians write about believers and non-believers, just another point of view and we should take it or leave it but we should not nail someone to the cross for saying what they believe.
Reply
Alert moderator
mike:
31 Jul 2013 6:51:02pm
Who exactly is being nailed to a cross here?? What is wrong with knowing where a writer is coming from when they write about something as sensitive (and stupid) as religion?
Reply
Alert moderator
The Monkey Claw:
31 Jul 2013 3:52:52pm
Frank Herbert actually travelled through time, witnessed the Butlerian Jihad, and spent several years dodging sand worms as he wandered through the desert wastes of Arrakis before he was able to write ‘Dune’.
Reply
Alert moderator
almostretired:
31 Jul 2013 3:53:41pm
I watched the interview in full on youtube. Lauren Green the interviewer comes across as both dogmatic and dimwitted, which is not a mean feat. Using her logic it would be impossible for lets say a gun control advocate to write a book about the NRA because they would be biased. She doesn’t seem to understand the general principles of research , integrity and objectivity.
Reza Aslan on the other hand was calm and collected and held his own. The fact that the interview is boosting sales of his book is sweet indeed.
Reply
Alert moderator
Mike:
31 Jul 2013 5:04:34pm
She doesn’t seem to understand the general principles of research , integrity and objectivity.”
Nobody at Fox News does.
Reply
Alert moderator
Dean:
31 Jul 2013 7:00:28pm
From a book I’m reading which some may recognise,
‘It is neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never ask questions’
(From Memory)
Reply
Alert moderator
mike:
31 Jul 2013 5:23:10pm
But can someone with a strong belief in the supernatural really be objective here? That is the point.
Reply
Alert moderator
Dean:
31 Jul 2013 7:01:18pm
They all have a strong belief in the supernatural, they’re theologians, it’s what they study! It doesn’t matter which theology they choose.
Reply
Alert moderator
Sue B:
31 Jul 2013 8:16:05pm
Massively incorrect bedrock assumption, there. Many writers and scholars in the fields of religion and theology belong to/identify with no religion or supernatural belief whatsoever. One characteristic of virtually the entirety of what is commonly referred to as “modern” Jesus scholarship, for example, is a pronounced lack of belief in any sort of divinity in the person of Jesus whatsoever.
Many modern Jesus scholars are primarily interested in teasing out the nature of the historical Jesus, by trying to separate the strands of his authentic teachings from the various accretions of Christology that he has gradually been wrapped up in over the last couple of millenia. It is just a field of ancient history, like any other.
There are some things that people think they know all about despite never having read, studied or even thought about them for a minute of their lives. Theology is one of them.
Reply
Alert moderator
A happy little debunker:
31 Jul 2013 3:56:00pm
Amazing.
A news organisation, with a bias to the right, asks questions directly to Muslim over his beliefs, rather than the substance of his writings.
A news organisation, with a bias to the left, offers an opinion that includes criticism of the ‘xenophobic’ right wing news organisation.
A Muslim author writes a book about Christians and gets a few questions about the validity of his work.
Another Muslim author writes a book about Muslims and gets death threats, assasinations attempts are made, his book is banned and burned throughout many religiously aligned countrys and Fatwa’s are pronounced.
Looks like Reza Aslan has had some pretty easy ‘zealotry’!
Reply
Alert moderator
Tropical:
31 Jul 2013 3:57:08pm
I much prefer John S Dickersons review of Azlan and his book Zealot.
Instead the ABC give us some drivel that is nothing more than Murdoch/Fox bashing impersonating comment.
By the way the book is #2 on Amazon not #1.
Reply
Alert moderator
Alpo:
31 Jul 2013 6:52:36pm
“that is nothing more than Murdoch/Fox bashing”… any opportunity for some good old Murdoch/Fox bashing is extremely welcome, Tropical… and refreshing. Don’t you feel the rejuvenating freshness of being able to fight back?
Reply
Alert moderator
Fred:
31 Jul 2013 3:57:51pm
So what if a Muslim writes a book about Jesus?
The fact of the matter is that Reza Aslan should be dragged across the coals for basically lying about his scholarly credentials and re-hashing the thoroughly discredited views of Hermann Samuel Reimarus. No New Testament scholar takes his views seriously any more!
He stated on Foxnews that “I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions . . . I am a professor of religions, including the New Testament”. The fact is that none of that is true. His PhD was in sociology, not history of religions. And he has never been a Professor of Religion, rather an Associate Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California.
Just like some of Aslan’s statements in the media, his latest book should also be taken as fiction and not serious scholarship.
Reply
Alert moderator
Mycal:
31 Jul 2013 6:05:09pm
“rather an Associate Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California.”
Well I guess that explains Aslans dodgy credentials then!
But what it doesn’t explain is how that got past Fox News, surely they wouldn’t miss a chance to lambaste a moslem that had the temeirty to write a book about christianity? I guess that when you are that deep into bigotry and bias the more obvious faults pass you by
Reply
Alert moderator
timothyh:
31 Jul 2013 6:15:12pm
You have ‘done a Fox News’, Fred, and mischievously misrepresented the ‘facts of the matter’.
1. Reza Aslan IS “(v)isiting Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Iowa, becoming the first full-time professor of Islam in the history of the state.”
2. He has also “received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology of Religion from the University of California, Santa Barbara.” So Reza is a PhD in Sociology AND Religion.
Nice selective quoting there, Fred. Keep up the good work and Fox News will def be wanting you as a researcher. Don’t like your chances of an academic career, though. You could, I guess, make a reasonable fist of pastry-making, with all that egg on your face.
REFERENCE: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan
Reply
Alert moderator
Fred:
31 Jul 2013 7:04:00pm
You missed my point. Reza Aslan is NOT a Professor of New Testament or Religious history – he simply doesn’t have credentials to claim to be an authority on Jesus. Since when did Sociology of Religion and Islamic Studies equate to the above?
Sure Reza is free to write a book about Jesus, but no one should be deceived into thinking he is being ground-breaking and bringing reliable scholarship on this subject.
Reply
Alert moderator
struck dumb:
31 Jul 2013 6:20:20pm
It would appear that not only has the author the degrees he claims, he at one stage converted to Christianity, before reverting to Islam. So he is more than adequately qualified to write a biography of Jesus of Nazareth. Its quite likely Azlan is in a much better position to cut through the poppycock and mythology that has arisen over the last couple of millennia than anyone brought up in one of the many different churches and sects that Christianity has spawned.
Given this is the 21st century and not the Middle Ages, should we not forget the Inquisition and stop lighting bonfires and allow Azlan the same freedoms that we expect to enjoy ourselves, the right to express his opinion. And there is no compulsion on any of us to buy the book.
Its a storm in a teacup.
Reply
Alert moderator
JohnMenz:
31 Jul 2013 4:14:51pm
Jesus of Nazareth is recognised as a prophet in the Muslim faith. Why shouldn’t a Muslim be able to write about him without the need to feel they are writing about Christianity? You’ve asked a stupid question, and provided an even stupider answer.
Reply
Alert moderator
Jesper:
31 Jul 2013 4:20:13pm
Interestingly living in other part of the world – Reza Aslan’s book: No God But God – The origins, evolution and future of islam – has been rejected by Muslims – exactly because it was not written by a “proper Muslim”! In my view this discussion actually shows, that the fundamentalist of today always claims that nobody, but themselves has access to the “real truth” – It doesn’t matter if we are talking about radical Muslims or Tea Party Christian’s, they are always right, regardless of evidence. All of this means that the rest of us – who actually read more than one book – are increasingly considered as ideologist, because we do not follow the right belief (ohh sorry religion).
Reply
Alert moderator
Alpo:
31 Jul 2013 6:58:04pm
Hi Jesper,
Your post brought back my memory of Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose”…. there is nothing better to confront religious totalitarianism, than good old humour… preferably in its sarcastic version.
Reply
Alert moderator
DrFriendless:
31 Jul 2013 4:20:23pm
Has ABC’s The Drum stopped beating its wife?
I never heard a Christian author disclose that they were a Christian when writing religion-related stories in the newspaper. Although the Syrian civil war is largely religion based I do not see disclaimers saying “the author goes to Church of England services when his mother makes him”. The only time I see an author confess their religion is when they’re writing religious opinion pieces. The author of this book is a scholar who is not writing opinion.
Bethanie, you have not disclosed your religious persuasion despite writing this article… if it’s not relevant in this case, I guess you’ve answered your own question. My conclusion must be that your leading question is pretty trashy journalism not worthy of being posted on the ABC.
Reply
Alert moderator
mandas:
31 Jul 2013 4:22:14pm
“….Fox’s “single most cringe-worthy” and “embarrassing” interview ever…..”
Given the competition, it would have to be a doozy to reach those dizzy heights.
Reply
Alert moderator
MJLC:
31 Jul 2013 4:22:58pm
Two quick points;
(1) No normal person worries about, or is even aware of, Fox News content. Unless Ms Blanchard is the type of person who wishes to understand and empathise with the ravings of a drunk standing on a street corner at two in the morning yelling at cars, then I wouldn’t be devoting this much energy to RupertWorld’s mad uncle if I were her.
(2) People writing and talking about things outside their orbit is hardly new *** IRONY ALERT *** – the Priesthood can keep you amused for hours with their opinions and knowledge on homosexuality, and (or so I’m led to believe) this is something which they’ve only ever read about.
Reply
Alert moderator
hph:
31 Jul 2013 6:04:07pm
“No normal person worries about, or is even aware of, Fox News content. Unless Ms Blanchard is the type of person who wishes to understand and empathise with the ravings of a drunk standing on a street corner at two in the morning yelling at cars, then I wouldn’t be devoting this much energy to RupertWorld’s mad uncle if I were her.”
Hahaha …I like this, and I agree with you, MJLC
Reply
Alert moderator
tgs:
31 Jul 2013 4:23:06pm
How is the sensationalist treatment of an author by a US infotainment cable ‘news’ channel relevant to Australians?
Reply
Alert moderator
Mycal:
31 Jul 2013 6:10:09pm
We get Fox News in Australia, some of us actually watch it. (but honest, it’s only occassional and I don’t inhale when I’m doing it!)
Reply
Alert moderator
Dean:
31 Jul 2013 7:07:39pm
I used to watch it before going to the gym to get my blood riled up.
As Crazy as Glenn Beck is, he could keep it up for an hour on the trot every day of the week. He’s been honing his craziness and it shows.
Even Bolt can’t keep his moderate craze going for more than half an hour. Small Fish.
Reply
Alert moderator
Ataraxia:
31 Jul 2013 4:28:16pm
Many atheists write a lot of poppycock about religion and, hell, I defend their right to do so. But when a leading atheist, Dawkins, questions a newspaper employing a Muslim journalist because of his beliefs I would put that atheist in the same league as Fox News.
Reply
Alert moderator
mike:
31 Jul 2013 5:26:12pm
Dawkins should be applauded for pointing out that the ideology of the journalist is highly likely to have coloured his reporting in such a case. And indeed it appears to have been so. How credible is someone who believes in winged horses and talking snakes anyhow?
Reply
Alert moderator
Ataraxia:
31 Jul 2013 5:44:19pm
Then surely ditto for Fox News? We all have an ideology – even Dawkins.
Reply
Alert moderator
mike:
31 Jul 2013 6:52:35pm
Dawkins’ ideology is well known. Likewise for Fox News. Which is exactly the point. Everyone happy now?
Reply
Alert moderator
Mitor the Bold:
31 Jul 2013 7:12:31pm
Who we are is part of what we think – that’s unavoidable. If Dawkins rejects a Muslim’s criticism of, say, evolution then this is legitimate. Ideally, we should be unable to infer an author’s religion from their work – but if someone writes that evolution is wrong for reasons that are well-known religious obfuscations, and we then discover that they’re a Muslim then of course Dawkins would be right to dismiss its validity and their suitability for the role.
However, one deluded person commenting on another’s virtually identical delusion? Where’s the harm in that?
Reply
Alert moderator
Monty B:
31 Jul 2013 5:32:18pm
Why would religious belief qualify one as a journalist?
Dawkins is a threat to believers precisely because his work is not poppycock. Any examples of errors in his arguments welcome.
Reply
Alert moderator
Ataraxia:
31 Jul 2013 5:51:18pm
The threat Dawkins posed is to a man’s livelihood simply because he has a different worldview. Historically belief systems seem to be strengthened not diminished by threats.
Reply
Alert moderator
Born this way:
31 Jul 2013 6:30:21pm
The thing that irritates me about Dawkins us that he is a science zealot and therefore either a hypocrite or bigot.
We increasingly are finding genetic patterns in those who have faith, a genetic predisposition
So its something some people have and others don’t kind of like blue eyes or musical ability.
So either he doesn’t believe his own science or is a bigot like someone who doesn’t like people of a certain racial group or of a certain genetic behavioural disposition lets use sexuality as the obvious example or even just sex drive.
So if a person has faith it is inborn and no amount of criticism will make them change instead as it is often associated with a primal urge it just creates more bigotry and fear.
I get the point that those wedded to a particular ideology often censor and attack others unable to cope with a conflictung view point but that is kind of how Dawkins is behaving.
So a persons faith is innate what obviously isn’t is the nature and structure of that faith as it is basically cultural, born into a certain religion you are likely to remain within that religion. Therefore it is the structure of religion that needs to be addressed not whether a person believes or not.
We also need to decouple ethics, morality and faith. There is probably some link between faith and ethics as religions were our initial codes if ethics formalised, but it is not total and more a generality then a truth.
Science without ethics leads to rather horrid iif somewhat successful outcomes which is why the concentration camps of Japan and Germany led to so many scientific breakthroughs and the USA developed the atomic bomb.
Lets be tolerant of each other confront wilfully ignorance or dogmatism by all means but don’t insult a persons faith when you do so you are just being a hypocritical bigot who believes in convienent science the same way that a Christian of a certain stripe might only use convenient scripture.
Reply
Alert moderator
Monty B:
31 Jul 2013 6:56:03pm
-We increasingly are finding genetic patterns in those who have faith, a genetic predisposition-
Yes, and if you read Dawkins work you will find he deals with this absolutely. For example, cargo cults illustrate how people are indeed predisposed towards belief, however baseless or farfetched, which says more about human beings than the likelihood of a God.
It is unclear to me why you would use the condemnation of a genetic characteristic as evidence that Dawkins is a bigot. The treatment of homosexuals by religions everywhere takes genetic bigotry to a high art form.
Reply
Alert moderator
stephen:
31 Jul 2013 6:49:50pm
Dawkins’s argument assumes that God exists and then begs a refutation of an object which the Clergy – or good one’s at least – say that, really, ‘I believe, therefore he exists’.
Dawkins takes a rattle and turns it into a sword ; purposefully, I would say, he uses terms incorrectly.
Reply
Alert moderator
GJA:
31 Jul 2013 6:43:33pm
I think it’s actually the other way around. Lots of religious people write poppycock about secular and scientific matters. I’d rather they didn’t, because they inflame the ignorant, but I can’t and won’t stop them.
Reply
Alert moderator
Rattyvalder:
31 Jul 2013 4:33:31pm
On an amusing note , surely the Fox news interviewer as a women is not able to effectively discuss the male Jesus ?
Reply
Alert moderator
Geraldine:
31 Jul 2013 4:34:15pm
sex is the obsessive focus of priests, who are supposed to know nothing about it, they write about it preach about and do everything but (supposedly) “know” about it.
If only the Christians wrote about Christianity imagine the plethora of lies and rubbish would be written.
Reply
Alert moderator
GraemeF:
31 Jul 2013 4:38:19pm
Fox News in the US like the other Murdoch outlets in Australia exist to push an agenda. They are not there to report intelligently as their output proves. The exist entirely to push a narrow right wing agenda that supports rich white Christian men. The fact that they also manage to appeal to the poor and bigoted is secondary.
Reply
Alert moderator
leafygreen:
31 Jul 2013 4:39:00pm
“Well, to be clear, I am a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament, and fluency in biblical Greek, who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades, who also just happens to be a Muslim”
Sounds like good qualifications for writing about Jesus. Lot more credible than most professed ‘christians’
Predictable outcome from going on Fox, but I suppose the publicity is HUGE…
And in the Narnia Chronicles, Aslan (the lion) was the metaphor for Jesus..
Reply
Alert moderator
OUB :
31 Jul 2013 5:58:14pm
I thought Lewis’s Calormen were proxies for Muslims but that has apparently been argued about.
I checked one thing though. Fox does not appear to have had anything to do with the TV miniseries “The Biible”. Such a controversy might have been handy cross-promotion otherwise. Apparently Glen Beck did see a passing resemblance to Obama in the actor who played Satan though. I can’t tell whether that was before or after dinner though.
Reply
Alert moderator
KiwiInOz:
31 Jul 2013 4:51:55pm
Two things that are anathema to Faux News – Muslims and intellectuals. No wonder she imploded.
Reply
Alert moderator
Lee of Brisbane:
31 Jul 2013 4:52:40pm
Free opinion and a free press is fundamental to our democratic system. Unfortunately Fox is just a right wing propaganda machine and is probably the biggest threat to true democracy in recent years, even more so than Al-Qaeda.
Fox promotes xenophobia and war because there are huge profits to be made from such follies. It would be interesting to see who their faceless backers are other those liars and criminal enablers, the Murdochs.
Reply
Alert moderator
OUB :
31 Jul 2013 4:52:50pm
I’m not sure why you write this piece Bethanie. Fox News is hardly a dividing point for the Australian nation. I’m sure they put up some terrible material and probably some worthwhile material but I’ve never bothered to find out.
I can’t see why Muslims shouldn’t write books on Christianity and vice versa. If they are inflammatory that may be a different issue but censorship is fairly loose here. Probably some middle America viewers of Fox might prefer to insulate themselves from alternative views but why would that bother you or me?
From my limited exposure to them scholars specialising in religion come over as learned and quite accommodating of other viewpoints. Perhaps that’s just the ones that make it to television though.
Reply
Alert moderator
Rex:
31 Jul 2013 5:01:16pm
What a lot of hoo-ha about nothing: but that’s what one expects with invisible gods and old belief systems!
Reply
Alert moderator
Greg:
31 Jul 2013 5:04:47pm
“Good old Roland Barthes”? Puh-leeze! Don’t condescend to your elders and betters. Barthes did indeed argue that we shouldn’t reduce a text — music and painting included — to the expression of its author’s nature and nothing else, the American New Critics had by then been saying much the same thing for 20 years, albeit for different reasons. It’s only common sense.
Reply
Alert moderator
Damian:
31 Jul 2013 5:23:14pm
If the premise is that you have to adhere to a belief system to be able to criticise, it follows that if you support a particular ideology or party, your criticism of differing views should be irrelevant as you cannot subscribe to that world view.
Fox News take note.
Reply
Alert moderator
ant:
31 Jul 2013 5:28:14pm
Mohammed accepted Jesus as a prophet sent from God but of course this so called journalist on Fox wouldn’t know that or anything else about Islam and probably has no idea that Jesus was a radical preacher – probably just about as radical as you can get. Fox News is an embarrassing mess and so are most of the people who work there, so this debacle is not entirely unexpected.
Reply
Alert moderator
that man:
31 Jul 2013 5:37:20pm
Oh, for pete’s sake!
Anyone can write about anything, and there’s no law requiring them to state their beliefs. Nobody has the right to tell them any different.
The author’s position will be clear from the content, or it will be irrelevant.
Reply
Alert moderator
Mycal:
31 Jul 2013 5:58:42pm
“Can a person write … about a school of thought they don’t, themselves, adhere to?”
Well if posts to this site are anything to go by (mine included) I’d say the answer has to be a resounding yes.
But here’s the thing, Fox News is not news, it’s entertainment and it’s market is opinion for the masses. It’s a great source of useful information about what the looney and extreme right are on about, but that’s about it.
The real question for Reza Aslan is “why the hell did you ever go for an interview on Fox News?” But then the answer is also obvious “Since the interview Aslan’s work Zealot has hit the number one spot on Amazon’s bestseller list”
My question for you Bethanie is, knowing all this, why did you bother to write the article? I can only surmise that freelance for the drum must be especially lucrative or you need the pocket money?
Reply
Alert moderator
Monty B:
31 Jul 2013 6:05:57pm
If the fellow has a degree in the New Testament like he said, he should have quoted Timothy 2:12.
?I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.?
-And that was God, not just Murdoch.
Reply
Alert moderator
Mitor the Bold:
31 Jul 2013 6:37:47pm
“And that was God, not just Murdoch.”
In the world of media there is no such distinction. There is no Murdoch but Murdoch.
Reply
Alert moderator
Ross:
31 Jul 2013 6:23:26pm
There are always going to be zealots and bigots wherever there is religion or politics involved. Just ask The Yank about Tony Abbott and he will tell you he hates him.
Reply
Alert moderator
Young Whippersnapper:
31 Jul 2013 6:25:16pm
To answer very simply: Yes, of course.
To provide a more complex answer, I feel that some people seem to be confusing why a particular claim is false with the reasons why some might believe those claims in the first place. To provide an example, let’s hypothetically assume that Aslan’s claims are inaccurate. His Islamic background might imply a bias towards certain inaccurate claims, however this is not what makes the claims themselves wrong. What makes them wrong is the fact that they do not conform to reality, or at least, the best conception of reality we can possibly conceive.
In conclusion: Judge the book’s content based on its factual merit rather than the author’s background.
Reply
Alert moderator
Matilda:
31 Jul 2013 6:29:10pm
Is Fox news always so bad? At least they could have gotten an interviewer who was educated on the issues at hand. I haven’t read Aslan’s book and might not agree with it as I am a Christian who does believe in Jesus’ resurrection, but to slam him down as if he has now right to comment simply because he’s a Muslim is not only dumb it’s also discriminatory.
Reply
Alert moderator
Noel Conway:
31 Jul 2013 6:45:20pm
The really excruciating part of this interview seems to be that the interviewer fails to understand that Islam recognises Jesus as a saint and prophet, in the same way as they recognise Moses and Mohammed. It is the failure of Christianity that he does not likewise recognise and respect the prophets and saints of other religious faiths.
Reply
Alert moderator
Alpo:
31 Jul 2013 6:47:50pm
Lauren Green’s stance is just a typical example of Fox News’ idiocy, but such questions may be worth asking:
Can an atheist write about religion?
Can a religious person write about atheism?
Can a poet write about science?
Can a scientist write about literature?
The answer to those questions is always the same: Yes!
Whether what they write is sensible, meaningful, creative, useful… or the subject of serious criticism is a different matter. But that’s how knowledge advances….
Reply
Alert moderator
stephen:
31 Jul 2013 6:57:48pm
The third in line to the Ms. World Crown may have read the book – wouldn’t be the first time a beauty had read something, I’d hope – so perhaps she’d got wind of his qualifications as being not quite truthful, and then went straight to credibility as to honesty. Nothing wrong with that, even if the scholar was not under official cross-examination.
She’s a journalist, (or employed as such) so why can’t she determine for us all another angle of the writer’s intentions, something which might not come out of the text ?
Reply
Alert moderator
Semantic Sam:
31 Jul 2013 7:07:47pm
Why has nobody mentioned the title Zealot?
That’s the real problem it is designed to be provocative
It’s as if a Christian had written a book about Muhammed and called it fanatic, or pedophile or war monger or unbalanced.
In English Zealot is a very loaded word, even if it accurately describes his thesis it is an insulting way of putting it.
I know that originally Zealot meant a Jewish revolutionary that fought against Rome and was often associated with religious groups in Judah in the first century C.E. and it’s not a huge stretch to believe that the followers of Jesus had an overlap with this movement or even the possibility that Jesus was a member of this group.
But even more than the word misogynist the word has evolved to mean religious bigot or religious terrorist.
It was designed to shock, get a knee jerk reaction.
It’s not that he wrote about Jesus its that he used that word its culturally insensitive. Imagine if he had used the words revolutionary, freedom fighter or believer all of which could be synonyms unless his writings are that Jesus was a member of the zealot movement which given that actual historical data about an illterate Jewish carpenter is actually pretty unlikely and early Christianity seems to be less militant , there is a reason why so many where martyred.
I mean even the guys birthday is plus or minus four years and we based our conception of relative time on it.
I don’t care what his religion is the problem is that he used that word as the title and even then I have the context so I am willing to entertain the idea that Jesus was a member of the zealot movement. It’s just that this argument belongs on the inside the book.
If a Christian wrote a book about Muhammed and titled it Sexist and then tried to publish it in Turkey or Egypt imagine the reaction but if he called it Muhammed and Women the title might provoke interest but not insult even if it contained exactly the same argument.
This is insult as marketing ploy it looks like it worked.
Reply
Alert moderator
Filz:
31 Jul 2013 7:14:40pm
From the “if only” department –
Perhaps if the answer Mr Aslan gave to the interviewer was something like: “You could write a book about prostitution, but you’re not a prostitute. Are you?” then the interview might have been a lot shorter.
Reply
Alert moderator
Waterloo Sunset. 2014:
31 Jul 2013 7:16:53pm
It’s a shame that Christopher Hitchens isn’t here to debate Aslan’s work. I note that he has referenced him in regard to Jesus.
Anyone is entitled to write about anything of course, however writing about Invisible Supernatural deities and a make believe son, seems a fraudulent way to make a living.
Reply
Alert moderator
Coogera:
31 Jul 2013 7:20:08pm
There is no real issue over a persons beliefs in undertaking an analysis of any religion. All that is required is that the person has the skills to undertake the analysis and that they use these skills to achieve the analysis. Of course, people should state their background because all backgrounds have a level of subjectivity.
Reply
Alert moderator
Sarah:
31 Jul 2013 7:20:50pm
If disclosing one’s religion is so significant, why has Bethanie Blanchard failed to do so in her by-line? Surely the question of her religion is as significant to her writing this article as it was to Aslan’s writing his book?
Can I point out that the book is a work of historical scholarship, about a historical figure, whom historians tend to agree existed, even if they don’t believe he was the son of God. What is sad and embarrassing about the Fox interviewer’s line of questioning wasn’t just the obvious zenophobia, but the total misunderstanding of the nature of professional scholarship.
Reply
Alert moderator
Monty B:
31 Jul 2013 7:53:58pm
-Can a person write a book about a school of thought they don’t, themselves, adhere to?
Priests have had more to say about sex, homosexuality and the otherwise behaviour inside peoples bedrooms than Masters and Johnson ever did.
Reply
Alert moderator
Add your comment