35 votes

Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?


You're a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?" Fox News' Lauren Green demanded of religious scholar Reza Aslan, author of "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth," on Friday.

Aslan responded, "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."

The answer did not seem to satisfy Green, so Aslan added, "Because it's my job as an academic. I am a professor of religion, including the New Testament. That's what I do for a living, actually."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

this is like Obama calling

this is like Obama calling himself a Constitutional attorney. They know just enough to baffle people with bullshit and the masses are to dumb to know the prick is liar.

Don't give exposure

to the book. Let it die on the shelves. It will be in the bargain section at the Dollar Stores faster than you know it at, I am, I am, said Sam I am.

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

Aslan is no friend...

Aslan is a jerk. He continually denigrates his opponents.
Chronicles best summed up his new book:
Zealot is a fictional account of Jesus, heavy on the author’s own imagination, selective in its historical evidence, confident in confessing error as fact, and rooted in a long-line of liberal scholarship that dismisses the Christian faith as a fairytale. No wonder the media is salivating over it. How could they possibly pass up a popularly packaged, old school denial of the Christian faith? The answer is, they simply can’t.

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN

FOX begs to differ

thought she did a swell job (of pushing the agenda)

Why Ask Why?

What in the world difference does it make why an author writes a book? Why did Dr. Suess write The Cat In The Hat?
"Hey Doc, you're a dog lover, what gives you the right to write a book about a cat!"

"Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms."
Ron Paul

Another Liberal Bible Scholar Smokin Something

I have been a scholar of Biblical history for 20 years and have written a three volume work "Bible Believer's Archaeology - Historical Evidence That Proves the Bible" which is available for reading free at http://www.biblehistory.net

After listening and reading some of his excerpts from the book "Zealot", my opinion is that Reza Aslan is just another in a long list of liberal scholars that try to reinvent the Jesus of the Bible to fit their own imagination. For Example, he states: “Regardless, the gospels are not, nor were they ever meant to be, a historical documentation of Jesus’ life. These are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ words and deeds recorded by people who knew him."

Yet the Bible itself states differently in the Gospel of Luke 1 verse 1-4, which says that Luke wrote an orderly account of the events of Jesus which had been delivered to him from eyewitnesses of these events. So even though Aslan claims to be a Biblical scholar, I guess he just overlooked this passage to come up with a Jesus of his own imagination.

I agree

He keeps quoting his supposed credentials but he never really answered her question of "WHY" did he write this book. "I am a scholar" or "I am educated" does not actually answer her question. And even when she goes on to another question HE is the one who continues to spout his "credentials". Then she later relays a similar question that was asked by someone else and he gives the same evasive answers. I see nothing wrong with the interview. So the question still remains "why" did he feel the need to write a book that sought to debunk the Scriptural account of the life of "Jesus".

I do find many problems with what he says in this interview like how "Jesus" was an insurrectionist who threatened the government and was arrested. This is totally false. He was only a threat to the religious establishment and it was the religious leaders who had him arrested. The governing authority sought to have him released and finally washed his hands of the whole affair. The guy is obviously a moron.

I would never read his book for two glaring reasons. One is the picture on the cover that looks nothing like the Hebrew Messiah but more like the common Greek rendition that most people hang on their walls. That's bad enough for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable but the fact that he uses the erroneous name Jesus proves that he is a fraud and has no knowledge of what he claims.

It is apparent that he didn't write the book to set the record straight so he must have written it to get a rise out of people. That is the reason he wrote the book.

Equal with God

Yes, you're right, it was the religious leaders who sought to kill Jesus, not Rome. They killed him because they falsely accused Jesus of breaking their religious law, not the political laws they were under. But the main reason they killed Jesus was because Jesus claimed to be God. This is something Reza Aslan denies. But John 5:18 states clearly: " Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because He not only broke the Sabbath (their religious law), but also said God was His Father making Himself equal with God." So even though Aslan doesn't believe Jesus claimed to be God, the very people who sought to kill Him sure did.

Again I agree

Except perhaps the part where you say "(their religious law)". Are you saying that the Sabbath was "their" religious law or are you saying that He rejected their laws concerning the Sabbath?

The Lord's Sabbath is His Law not theirs and Messiah at no time "Broke" His Sabbath. He did however reject their traditions. "Wherefore you forsake the Laws of Yahweh for the traditions of men." That was the whole point of Messiahs existence, to free people from the man made laws and their perceived right to condemn others concerning His Law and return them to the Light of His Law so that through repentance we could receive forgiveness of "sin", (the transgression of the Law) and eternal salvation.

Anyway, I would go even further than what you pointed out because Yahshua said: "Before Abraham was, I AM." "I AM" fully indicated that He was GOD Himself and not merely a fleshly son." This is hard to understand without a better understanding of biblical Hebrew and the meaning that Hebrew words have. But that's another discussion.

Reza Aslan apparently has no clue what he is talking about and for some reason he doesn't want to reveal his motivation for writing his book.

The great "I AM"

Ah yes, As God said to Moses " I AM the I AM" tell them "I AM" has sent thee. "I AM" is definitely who the Lord God is. And as you stated Jesus said: "Before Abraham was, I AM." So this statement is evidence indeed that Jesus claimed to be God, which Aslan rejects.

The apostle John also states in John 1:2 that Jesus was in the beginning with God. And John 1:10 says Jesus created all things. So the apostle John who was an eyewitness to Jesus statements knew that Jesus claimed to be God. Why can't the heretic Aslan accept this?

In regards to "Their religious law", it was "their religious law" that they accused Jesus of breaking. Because the Old Testament permitted acts of Mercy on the Sabbath, Yet the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath because he healed a man. But Jesus never broke God's Sabbath law as defined in the Old Testament as you have stated correctly, he broke "their law," the man made regulations and expectations that the religious leaders had tacked onto God's law. That's all that I was trying to say. People still do that today in regards to a strict interpretation of what is required on the Sabbath.

God Bless


I figured that is what you meant. The Sabbath is the day of rest period. All the man made restrictions and harshness that people put on His simple laws are what He freed us from.

Funny how people reject His Laws as being burdensome yet praise our supposed Christian nation that has thousands upon thousands of oppressive laws and more every day it seems. Go figure.

May Yahweh bless you too.

Clearly, the interviewer is

Clearly, the interviewer is out of her depth. Also, it is just as obvious that she herself has not bothered to read the book, she just read other people's comments about it. Me, if I ran a TV station I'd make it a requirement -- you can't interview an author about his book until you've read it.

As for Reza Aslan, he seems like an intelligent man who has spent far more time studying his subject of religion than I'd ever have time for. So I'm going to order his book and read it. I'm bound to learn something.

meekandmild's picture

Fox news- Isn't that a reality show?


We'll never know the true

We'll never know the true motivations behind the book. Perhaps he is simply genuinely interested in the subject and wishes to show everyone his findings, or perhaps he wants to convert people to Islam with his findings on Jesus along with his interest in the subject.

Either way this interview was simply a way to get a rise out of Christians and, as he said, she was more interested in dealing with the motivation behind the book than the more interesting piece about the book; the historicity of the widely accepted story of Jesus among Christians (and Muslims whom he said his findings also go against).


I am no fox news fan. I don't watch it at all really.

Both sides are out there in this interview. The author says his faith doesn't have anything to do with his writing or job as a historian.
That is a bit disingenuous. Faith that doesn't impact your life is kind of a waste really and the religion we ascribe to does change the way we think about everything really.

If a Christian were to write a book about Mohammed you can be damn sure that the media would just blow them off and say it was anti-muslim pro-christian propaganda.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

Oh, come on. There are many

Oh, come on. There are many Christians who have written books and articles on Islam/Mohammamed and the American media, at least, rarely blows them off. They might blow them off because of content, but not because "a Christian can't write about Islam".

I mean, Fox News itself has employed many Christians who have commented greatly on Islam...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a


Link me up with at least 3 interviews of a Christian writing a book in Islam or Muslims that have received mainstream media attention.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

I don't know about links, but

I don't know about links, but how about books by Robert Spencer, the Jewish Michael Savage, Bat Yeor, Matt Steyne, Steve Emerson, Nonie Darwish, Michelle Malkin, etc.

I am sure many of their books (best-sellers) got media attention.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a


Out of all of those listed the only person who claims to be a Christian is Nonie Darwish. I've yet to find any CNN interviews or national news on her.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

It's all silly.....

Just another mind-numbing device. Another "controversy" to keep people fighting. Another play by this wizard in the NWO clan. Remember, this is the guy that also supported killing little Muslim killing in Iraq.

No real "historian" would say that the crucifixion of Jeshua was a historical "fact". There is nearly zero evidence that the man even existed. Not saying he didn't, there is just no historical evidence of such. And if he did, apparently couldn't read or write.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain


You have to admit, not matter how many credentials he touts there is a conflict of interest. Not saying it was a good interview - far from it.

Now if he did that on purpose to create a reaction as seen above to get more books sold - that would be clever marketing.

That means if we are talking about it we just got involved in that marketing.

that means I just got invo... d'oh

Jesus man, you're asserting

Jesus man, you're asserting the exact same position the interviewer was. Do you not understand what scholarship is?

By what you're saying, only a Muslim can write a scholarship of Mohammed, only a Mormon of Joseph Smith, only a Jew of Moses. If anything, THAT would be a conflict of interest. This historian wrote a book about the historical MAN Jesus using the best evidences available. It's not a book on faith in Jesus the Christ.

Buddah man

Seriously dude, never said he wasn't a scholar. A scholarship doesn't mean you are "touched by god" or "a holy man of knowledge so therefore no one should question your judgment". All it is is a bunch of people teaching other people in a house called a university of what they believe to be true with current knowledge. The same universities that tout Keynesian economics. They slap a funny hat on you at the end and give you a scroll/certificate/degree and you make you feel smart.

I'm not saying that anyone can't write anything. In fact you have the right to write whatever, just don't think you won't be questioned about it.

What I am saying is there is a direct conflict of interest.

If I was republican, then wrote a book criticizing the democrats then said because I have all this "book knowledge" and I was an "expert" you shouldn't question me - you would still say I don't have a conflict of interest?

The knowledge doesn't negate that. It's a simple little thing which could or could not mean something.

You seem to be implying that

You seem to be implying that this book is somehow a critique of Jesus. The fact is that we haven't a single word written by the hand of Jesus in the historical record. All we have is the written word of witnesses. That's it. So, any scholarship of the man Jesus, has to not only look at the Gospels (all of which were written many years after the death of Jesus), but look at the entire historical record.

As the man repeatedly stated, many of the evidences he chronicles fly in the face of ISLAMIC beliefs as well, namely, that Jesus was not crucified. I really don't understand your assertion that the man refused to have his credentials questioned. He stated over and over again that he's simply presenting a scholarship of the man Jesus and the historical origins of Christianity, and that there are other scholars who agree with some of his conclusions, while other equally qualified scholars disagree. I don't get why the idea of scholarship is still so difficult for you to grasp. The whole point is to present arguments and attempt, to the best of your ability, to back them with cited pieces of evidence.

Pat Buchanan wrote a brilliant book on the origins of World War II and called it an "unnecessary war." In his argument he meticulously cited what he felt was compelling evidence to bolster that claim. He was roundly attacked by the court historians out there who cling to the traditional narrative. The point is, it's scholarship. It's subject to debate and discussion. The test is whether or not your scholarship stands up to scrutiny by being sufficiently researched and evidence of your claims sufficiently laid out.

This woman wasn't the least bit interested in discussing the arguments. She was out to discredit him by calling his MOTIVE and personal background into question. Murray Rothbard was an atheist. Does that mean his ethical arguments are tainted? His telling of history?

I'm certain that Fox News

I'm certain that Fox News would be happy to interview a Republican who wrote a book critical of Democrats and they wouldn't accuse him of a conflict of interest. And MSNBC would be happy to interview a Democrat who wrote a book critical of Republicans and they wouldn't accuse him of a conflict of interest.

Actually you don't

Actually you don't understand, with all due respect. This guy is not a historian. He misrepresented his credentials. His PhD is not in History of Religion, but sociology.

Yes he has the right to write any book he wants, but an interviewer has the right to question his motives. I wonder if anyone here commenting has actually read the book. I have read 2/3 of it, and can say his motives are to present the Muslim view of Jesus as historical fact. Again, he has the right to do it, but let's not put our heads in the sand and pretend this is some objective scholarly new evidence about Jesus the Savior. This book is nothing more than a very well educated Muslim restating the long held Muslim view of Jesus, but also trying to present that opinion as historical fact.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

while yall slobber at the chance to hate on FNC...

Read actual rebuttals to the claims Aslan made. It must be nice for atheists to have someone that they can latch onto now that Hitchens is dead and no one cares about the other loudmouths.




I disagree with the attempt to downplay Aslan's ability to publish these works based on his Islam background, but I do believe that he should not over state his own credentials then bask in the liberal atheist slobbering support that he then receives.


if he's not a scholar, what is he?

If this were true, there'd be more scholarly backlash against him. He has a BA in religion, a masters in theology from Harvard Divinity and a PhD in the philosophy of religion. And a masters in fine arts but he's not qualified to write a book on the New Testament?

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

that's not my point

he's over emphasizing his credentials, and the criticism of his book from The American Conservative blogger is that these are not new criticisms of the New Testament, and that several claims he makes are unverifiable.

propping up his related degrees reminds me of this: http://youtu.be/ERj3QeGw9Ok


Over emphasized his credentials?

Heck after reading his degrees I'm even more impressed.

Lets be honest here. I think most of the people bashing this guy on this thread are actually Christians....right?

Definition of hypocrisy - "Bashing a scholar with 3 degrees in religion from incredibly reputable schools because he is a Muslim who wrote about Christianity...while said basher probably has no degrees in any religion but believes in Christianity and has let their personal bias dictate their outward opposition to the scholar."

Take into account that I say this being a Christian. I'm not bashing Muslims or Christians....I just find the hypocrisy kind of funny. We should have an open mind reviewing any information....even if it rocks our lifelong beliefs.