I know.

I know.

It's Fox News.

Nothing they do should surprise anyone anymore.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/28/video_fox_news_lauren_green_asks_reza_aslan_why_muslim_would_be_interested.html?wpisrc=most_viral

http://youtu.be/YY92TV4_Wc0

Fox once again failing to remember it is meant to report the news, not create the news

WOW, A news organization got something wrong. That is AMAZING.

Much ado about nothing, but at least it was an interesting interview.

Interesting? It was shocking. Did the interviewer even know how stupid she was or is it all an act to pander to their ignorant audience?

She did not doctor interviews to make people appear to be saying things that they did not mean - like the media on the left. Now THAT would be worth starting a thread about.

http://youtu.be/YY92TV4_Wc0

An air-head presenter asking scripted questions of a specialist academic? Faux News indeed.

Bur where can I find a copy of his book? I tried Amazon UK, Waterstones and other sites, but cannot find it listed.

Yeah the bright side is that this obviously brilliant man is getting great publicity for his book.

Interesting? It was shocking. Did the interviewer even know how stupid she was or is it all an act to pander to their ignorant audience?

While the "interviewer" is obviously a total dufus, do you think she was working off a script? She obviously had not read the book (perhaps any book), but I get the feeling that the anti-islamic angle must have been scripted for her.

Interestingly enough I just read a rather different review of this book (from the "left-leaning" (to those right of Attila maybe)) Economist):

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21582239-perhaps-jesus-was-no-pacifist-no-angel

But the author must be so grateful to Murdoch's high brow TV channel for generating such great publicity, he will be laughing all the way to his bank, but of course Muslims (not even those with PhDs and 20 years of academic research) don't do banks do they...?

Move along, nothing to see here........

I remember watching an Italian black and white ( subtitled ) movie that portrayed Jesus as a communist. It was compelling stuff. So what's this guy sating? he was a political revolutionary who challenged Roman rule and was crucified for his people? and this is news?

Much ado about nothing.

Whilst I take your point to a point I have the following observations. First, this is hardly newsworthy in it's own right as oppose to the recent block resignation of 22 Al-Jazeera staff for it's biased pro-Muslim brotherhood stance. Second, I agree with your use of the word ignorant, but Islamophobia is a silly made up term designed to portray the rational as irrational. Finally had a Christian decided to write a book about Mohammad you can imagine what would ensue if so much as a single sentence caused offense to any Imam.

Whilst I take your point to a point I have the following observations. First, this is hardly newsworthy in it's own right as oppose to the recent block resignation of 22 Al-Jazeera staff for it's biased pro-Muslim brotherhood stance. Second, I agree with your use of the word ignorant, but Islamophobia is a silly made up term designed to portray the rational as irrational. Finally had a Christian decided to write a book about Mohammad you can imagine what would ensue if so much as a single sentence caused offense to any Imam.

My knowledge of Islam is to a large extent derived from the work of 'christian' scholars. My knowledge of Mars is largely derived from residents of the Earth, and my understanding of lunacy is largely derived from people who share my opinion on what constitutes sanity.

SC

Interesting? It was shocking. Did the interviewer even know how stupid she was or is it all an act to pander to their ignorant audience?

While the "interviewer" is obviously a total dufus, do you think she was working off a script? She obviously had not read the book (perhaps any book), but I get the feeling that the anti-islamic angle must have been scripted for her.

Interestingly enough I just read a rather different review of this book (from the "left-leaning" (to those right of Attila maybe)) Economist):

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21582239-perhaps-jesus-was-no-pacifist-no-angel

But the author must be so grateful to Murdoch's high brow TV channel for generating such great publicity, he will be laughing all the way to his bank, but of course Muslims (not even those with PhDs and 20 years of academic research) don't do banks do they...?

You ought to be careful, down here amongst the bottom-feeders, because we find ignorance hard to distinguish from sarcasm.

What I think most Westerners fail to realise is that jihadism is not about them, it is about muslim peasants, and the ability to control them by directing their resentment towards the West, rather than getting trapped in a downward spiral of education, independence and freedom.

Of course, there is no reason to believe that Westerners understand what is going on any more than Afghanis, and until we start fighting the war on two fronts, we will always be losing ground to the idiots

SC

This academic book is now on bestseller lists.

Thanks to Fox News idiocy.

Well done!

This academic book is now on bestseller lists.

Thanks to Fox News idiocy.

Well done!

Another stunning display of ignorance and foot- shooting akin to the brouhaha in 2008 when Obama was photographed holding a book authored by a Muslim about the decline of America.....and similar. See below for an email that did the rounds.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/image5.png

Sadly for the muppet brigade Fareed Zakaria is a phenomenally bright guy and accomplished writer who happens to be a Muslim, and his book did not revel in the downfall of the USA, but of course that would have required these morons to actually read the book (way too big a task obviously)!

Here's an interview with Reza Aslan about his book. Apologies that it's 30 minutes long (a bit attention stretching for Fauxers) and that's it's on the Huff...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/27/reza-aslan-fox-zealot_n_3665211.html

This academic book is now on bestseller lists.

Thanks to Fox News idiocy.

Well done!

I think that's a good thing.

I was a bit put off by the interview as it appeared that she was trying to get into some sort of heated debate then I realized that is the name of the segment "heated debate" at which point I felt sorry for the interviewer as there was nothing to debate. The author is brilliant and is very interesting to listen to. I putty the left wing nuts that look for shame at every turn.

Here is Robert Spencer's take on Reza Azlan's book, Azlan has incidentally ducked every invitation to debate with Spencer, perhaps he has something to hide.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/07/the-problem-with-reza-aslans-book-is-not-that-he-is-a-muslim-the-problem-with-it-is-that-he-is-disho.html

Now THAT is interesting. Too bad Fox had Lauren Green do the interview. She is a C grade reporter on Fox and does not usually delve into hard talk. Bill O'Reilly would have gotten to the bottom of the controversy concerning this guy's book.

But anyway, it doesn't matter: there are plenty of fools with degrees, and plenty of geniuses without them. My work, and Aslan's, stands or falls on its merits, not on the number of degrees we have. Aslan's pulling rank on Lauren Green and starting to reel off (inaccurately) his degrees was a sign of insecurity: it implied that he didn't think his book could stand on its merits, and had to be accepted because he had a lot of degrees. And in fact, his book doesn't stand on its merits. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/07/the-problem-with-reza-aslans-book-is-not-that-he-is-a-muslim-the-problem-with-it-is-that-he-is-disho.html

You would be hard pressed to find any news outlet which does not attempt to spin a story to at least some degree. A nip here and a tuck there even to the point where it can only be considered knowingly misleading. Fox News does this to the highest standard but even they are sometimes stumped and so resort to out and out lies. Stories which Fox finds it can not spin or manipulate often end up with Bill O'Reilly and his 'no spin zone' where additional material is inserted out of thin air (made up), in order that the story is able to be spun.

Anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3524tTVAcY

I doubt if you can find many examples of Bill O'Reilly "making up" material - even though it is fashionable to claim that he does so - but the Young Turks are always a great example of left wing spin merchants, so thank for the link.

This Robert Spencer character from Jihad Watch.com - does he know what he's talking about?

He links Reza Aslan with the Shia leaders of Iran and the Sunni leaders of Al Qaeda in the same sentence.

I would discount anything he says, unless it's to do with extreme Islamophobia.

I doubt if you can find many examples of Bill O'Reilly "making up" material - even though it is fashionable to claim that he does so - but the Young Turks are always a great example of left wing spin merchants, so thank for the link.

After the infamous 'tide goes in' episode...

He stated that the planet Mars does not have a moon...

http://youtu.be/UyHzhtARf8M?t=24s

This is a knowledge claim and since Mars does have a moon (2) it can only be a lie. O'Reilly worms his way out of constant proof that he lies by claiming his programs are opinion pieces rather than news pieces.

Are you kidding with this nonsense? This is the kind of dishonest stuff that left-wing blogs love to spread which is always easy to disprove if one bothers to do research. So much for O'Reilly "making up" stuff.

The tide does go in and out.

O'Reilly says there is no LIFE on other planets. He is not talking about moons and why would he lie about it anyway? It would not have proven anything one way or the other. If he had said it, it would have just been an honest error.

He also said that Obama was NOT spending 200 million a day on his NO SPIN show. He actually said that "the figure is nuts". http://www.fairvaluesforamerica.net/mmtv/201011050051

That woman in your clip used the word "reportedly" which is not definitive and there was an erroneous report in India that made that claim.

Are you kidding with this nonsense? This is the kind of dishonest stuff that left-wing blogs love to spread which is always easy to disprove if one bothers to do research. So much for O'Reilly "making up" stuff.

The tide does go in and out.

O'Reilly says there is no LIFE on other planets. He is not talking about moons and why would he lie about it anyway? It would not have proven anything one way or the other. If he had said it, it would have just been an honest error.

He also said that Obama was NOT spending 200 million a day on his NO SPIN show. He actually said that "the figure is nuts". http://www.fairvaluesforamerica.net/mmtv/201011050051

That woman in your clip used the word "reportedly" which is not definitive and there was an erroneous report in India that made that claim.

So why does the tide go in and out?

Is the tidal range evidence of divine intervention and existence?

That is as good a guess as any, but, no one really knows.

That is as good a guess as any, but, no one really knows.

You are kidding, are you not?

Tides as a result of gravitational pull was worked out by Isaac Newton in 1687.

Just in case you missed the lesson...

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/tides/tides02_cause.html

Are you serious? Please explain how that rules out divine intervention to create the laws of the universe in the first place. Oh yeah, you can't - which was Bill O'Reilly's point. .

Are you kidding with this nonsense? This is the kind of dishonest stuff that left-wing blogs love to spread which is always easy to disprove if one bothers to do research. So much for O'Reilly "making up" stuff.

The tide does go in and out.

The tide does indeed go in and out but unlike O'Reilly claim that it cannot be explained, it can. It could be argued and has been argued that he was not talking about moons but rather about tides but that leads nowhere because we have not found liquid on Mars. That would leave O'Reilly asserting that we don't know why there are no tides on Mars which would be untrue. There are no tides because there is no liquid.

O'Reilly says there is no LIFE on other planets. He is not talking about moons and why would he lie about it anyway? It would not have proven anything one way or the other. If he had said it, it would have just been an honest error.

He did say it and the full interview, unedited and nothing to do with left-wing blogs can be found here.

To suggest he was talking about life on other planets is sophistry but let us run with that for a moment. How does he know there is no life on other planets and how does mentioning tides and moons add something to the argument/ belief? And, if life were found on other planets then what? Would it prove anything one way or the other? Would his god evaporate or would his belief be shaken to the core with such information?

The full interview above cannot be subjective nor can it be accused of left-wing bias. The Fox interview as per the OP also cannot be subjective/ accused of left-wing bias since it contains only the author and what emanates from the Fox News lower digestive tract.