UPDATE: In damage control mode, Reza Aslan tweeted this:
Dear @CNN. U misquoted me. I said Noah story barely 40 verses not 4. Pls fix. Costello: Is ‘Noah’ film sacred enough? http://t.co/UQ7wkFgqf6
— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) March 20, 2014
Wrong again: it’s not “barely 40 verses,” it’s 89. Poor Reza! He keeps getting “misquoted”! First it was his claim that Christianity teaches reincarnation, and now this! What’s the problem? Is he unable to speak plainly enough to avoid being misquoted? Why are there so many Misunderstanders of Reza Aslan out there?
Original post:
In today’s politically correct culture, the mainstream media lionizes people not because of their particular acumen, ability, talents or intelligence, but because they parrot the establishment line that the media wants the public to adopt: contempt for America, hatred for Israel, and endless justification for Islamic supremacists and jihadists.
A prime example of this is the Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan, a Board member of a lobbying group for the bloodthirsty and genocidally antisemitic Iranian regime. Reza Aslan is such an intellectually formidable scholar that he writes “than” for “then” and apparently thinks the Latin word “et” is an abbreviation. He writes “clown’s” for “clowns”; calls Turkey the second most populous Muslim country and refers to “the reincarnation, which Christianity talks about” — although he later claimed that one was a “typo.” He is less a “religious scholar,” in other words, than he is a marginally literate, unevenly educated charlatan with a talent for telling the mainstream media what it wants to hear.
In this case, he claims that the Biblical story of Noah is “barely four verses long,” and then challenges people to “open Genesis.” Okay, let’s do that. When we do, we find that the Biblical story of Noah and the flood is actually 89 verses long, spanning from Genesis 6:9 to 9:29. So Aslan was only 85 verses off. That’s what makes you a “religious scholar” in this debased age.
And why didn’t Carol Costello check the claims of the vaunted “religious scholar”? Does she not have a Bible?
“Is ‘Noah’ film sacred enough?,” by Carol Costello for CNN, March 20:
…Reza Aslan, a religious scholar who wrote the book-and-soon-to-be-movie, “Zealot: the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” says, “‘Son of God’ is a movie made by Christians for Christians. Non-Christians will not go see ‘Son of God’ — because it’s a terrible movie.”
Aslan is eager to see “Noah,” and, no, it doesn’t bother him in the least if Aronofsky takes liberties with his portrayal of Noah.
He says the story of Noah in the Bible is barely four verses long. “If you wanted to make a biblically based Noah story it would be 10 minutes long. …if you’re going to approach this topic, you have no choice but to expand on it, to make things up, to create a narrative out of it.”
The most interesting aspects of the Noah story, he says, come after the floodwaters recede. “Noah gets drunk and lies naked in front of his son. Go and check it out. Open Genesis.”…
John C. Barile says
Reza Aslan shills for Iran, for the Theocratic Republic of Is-lam-i-stan.
Defcon 4 says
“Reza Aslan shills for Iran” but strangely enough he appears to only want to admire it from afar.
eib says
Length is no indication of importance in the Bible.
The narrative determines everything.
The Koran has no narratives. Just commands.
bill says
EIB What about the Midnight Ride for one when MOH visits heaven and bargains with ‘god’? I always find that quite comical.
mortimer says
Reza Aslan? A snake-oil salesman, a foul-mouthed deceiver, con artist, windler, cheater, conman,fake, fraudster, imposter, mountebank, faker, phony, pretender, quack, sham, poseur, trimmer, rounder, counterfeiter, conspirator, Judas, fibster, story-teller, fabulist, angler, humbug, oleaginous front man, trickster, provocateur, manipulator,crafty fox, illusionist, fiddler, masquerader, turncoat, a sophomoric knave defending some of the worst violators in the world and getting paid for it.
robert4 says
This may or may not be the case, “mortimer” but this article has attributed a quote to Aslan with reference only to evidence of him NOT being the source of the quote, removing all doubt that Robert is a charlatan.
voegelinian says
Huh?
Steffen Larsen says
I think you should explain that one, “Robert4”.
robert4 says
Gladly, “Steffen Larsen”!
RS attributes a quote (“barely four verses long “) to RA. Then RS block-quoted the news article that clearly shows that RA did not say those words. Ergo, RS lied.
Is that what you were looking for?
voegelinian says
robert4’s aha! moment is lethally undercut by Spencer’s update, quoting Reza Aslan’s tweet to CNN, in which Aslan confirms that he did in fact say “barely __ verses long” by asking CNN to correct only the number (from “4” to “40” — still egregiously inaccurate, as Spencer points out) — clearly implying the attribution was correct.
"Steffen Larsen" says
I was looking for a clarification, “Robert4”.
Are you saying that “barely four verses long” was not said by Reza Aslan? That he was misquoted (4 instead of 40) or he said it wrongly? It agrees very well with Mr. Aslan’s statement that “If you wanted to make a biblically based Noah story it would be 10 minutes long”, ie four verses worth of it.
robert4 says
Wrong, “voegelinian” – Robert quoted Aslan saying “4”. The original article did not put that number (or phrase) in quotes, but Robert was happy to fabricate some quotation marks to fit his agenda.
Yes, Aslan made a quantitative error while speaking. Robert made an error of attribution while writing, i.e., in a medium that gives us more time to choose our words.
You, “voegelinian” make a similar quantitative error in arguing that “barely 4 verses” is the same as “barely 40 verses”
robert4 says
Hi “Steffen Larsen” thank you for the comment. I will try to clarify further.
I am saying that Are you saying that “barely four verses long” was not said by Reza Aslan?
First, it is not included in quotation marks (i.e., a direct quote) in the CNN report, but Robert fabricated it as a direct quote from Aslan.
Second, Robert’s update indicates that Aslan spoke of 40 verses, which is wrong, but understandable given the medium of a sit-down interview, as opposed to a blog post. (Like this blog post, in which Robert dishonestly fabricated a direct quote.)
To your other point, 10 minutes of film can cover hundreds of biblical verses or a few. Certainly Genesis 9:21–24 could be covered in 10 minutes. This is the story that Aslan said he found most interesting. To quote CNN’s article:
“The most interesting aspects of the Noah story, he says, come after the floodwaters recede. “Noah gets drunk and lies naked in front of his son. Go and check it out. Open Genesis.””
Steffen Larsen says
Robert 4,
“barely four verses long” is a direct quote from the article. The article claims that Mr. Aslan said it. I really cannot see why you make so much of this. Mr. Aslan admits that he said it, or something similar except he got the numbers wrong.
XXX says that this or that is true. Folllowed by a direct quote in quotation marks. This is how writers and journalists often let a man say his piece. The first part of it – without quotation marks – is not invalidated, the second part explains the first part and elaborates.
That Mr. Aslan only sees a 10 minute film in the biblical Noah story only reinforces the impression that he remembers it as being short and of little significance. Which is highly strange, considering the impact of it on three major religions.
voegelinian says
robert4’s reply to me shows that he cannot reason well. When an inability to reason well is combined with a dogged persistence and hostility, it’s on a fast track to “sound and fury signifiying nothing”.
robert4 says
To “Steffen Larsen” – Yes, “barely four verses long” is a direct quote from the article, but Robert isn’t attributing that quote to the author of the article, he’s attributing it to Aslan. Yes, the article claims Aslan said it, but what that article does not do is QUOTE Aslan saying it. In fact, because it doesn’t use Aslan’s words to make that point, we can be fairly sure that Aslan most certainly did not say what Robert represents as a direct quote.
Yes, Aslan admits that he said something similar, except with different numbers. This is kind of an important distinction.
Here’s a thought experiment: Suppose a reporter reported that Robert said something that Robert strenuously denies (ex post facto and in his public persona, at least…). Something along the lines of this blog (before its ex post irato correction):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/new-york-times-attempting-to-exonerate-malaysian-pilot-lies-about-robert-spencer/
&
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/pilot-of-missing-jet-expressed-interest-in-democracy-and-atheism-on-social-networks
In which Mackey paraphrased Robert’s argument and linked to his blog – i.e., directly quoted him. The first part of it – without quotation marks – is not invalidated (Robert indeed suggested such a scenario, if indirectly) and Robert’s own blog explains the first part and elaborates.
Now, would you be content if I rendered this exchange as:
Robert Spencer says “Zahrie might have plotted a suicide bombing.”
Indeed not. I would be quoting Mackey’s contested paraphrasing of Robert’s blog post, but attributing it to Robert himself. Doing so is a grave transgression of scholarly rigor and scholarly ethics. In fact, if Robert doesn’t think that this kind of duplicitous demonstration of others’ ideas ISN’T lying … he should abandon JW’s “scholarly analysis” charade — and concomitant 501c(3) tax status — immediately.
robert4 says
“voegelinian’s” above dismissal of my reasoning skills betrays his or her very limited grasp of mathematical reasoning.
Steffen Larsen says
Robert4,
Mr. Spencer does not write “Reza Aslan says that …”
Mr. Spenver is quoting Mr. Aslan’s claim that the story of Noah is “barely four verses long”. You are belaboring this point far beyond what is reasonable.
Steffen Larsen says
oh my …
Read “Spencer” for “Spenver”. Which brings up another point: I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that “4 verses” is a typo for “40 verses”.
robert4 says
You’re correct, of course. Robert did not write “Reza Aslan says that …” But Robert did write this:
>>>>
In this case, he claims that the Biblical story of Noah is “barely four verses long,” and then challenges people to “open Genesis.”
<<<<<
How is Robert distinguishing the sources of these direct quotes? He is not. And this is central to my critique. In his previous post, Robert demanded absolute textual fealty from NYT reporter Mackey, who committed the ghastly crime of saying that Robert "claimed" something that he implied, approvingly disseminated, and/or dog-whistled in the blog post Mackey linked to.
But heaven forbid that someone holds Robert to the more understandable standard of placing direct quotes in quotation marks and clearly indicating whose words are being quoted.
Did Robert do this in the block quote above?
robert4 says
To “Steffen Larsen” – thank you, sincerely, for your statement that typos exist. It is an admission that marks a person’s intellectual generosity and goodwill … and an all-too-rare sentiment here at JW.
israelftw says
Incredible how you keep ignoring the fact the Aslan tweeted (check out the quotation marks!):
“Dear @CNN. U misquoted me. I said Noah story barely 40 verses not 4.”.
See that “misquoted”? That means they quoted him wrong. He said it, and they quoted. So this is a quote. His. You are not fooling anyone with your pseudo intellectual drivel (but it is very polite, I will grant you that), except yourself (if that). It is apparent to anyone with half a brain that you are just trying to wrap your BS in 20 layers to stifle the smell, but guess what, it still stinks.
robert4 says
No. It’s not a direct quote. Direct quotes are between quotation marks. You learn that in elementary school.
gravenimage says
“robert4” wrote:
This may or may not be the case, “mortimer” but this article has attributed a quote to Aslan with reference only to evidence of him NOT being the source of the quote, removing all doubt that Robert is a charlatan.
……………………………..
What utter rot. Firstly, CNN is a reputable news outlet, and it is unlikely that they misquoted Aslan.
Moreover, Aslan’s own “correction” Tweet still has him off base on the number of verses by more than half.
So how does “robert4” believe that Spencer got anything wrong here?
Chances are he does not; but just believes that if he shows up here with a snarky tone and enough insinuations, that he will cast doubt on the whole issue.
Unfortunately for this troll, those at Jihad Watch readers tend to be close readers.
Surprise Endings says
I love Muslims regardless of Islam’s Globalization efforts. Muslims need our prayers. Not our stupid bigotry.
They are the first victims of this alluring Satanic Brotherhood.
Please remember—In order to combat this Global Death Cult, we also need to stop Western Imperialism’s expansionist policies perpetuated by the 1%.
mariam rove says
What? Western Imperialism? Sounds very familiar. This what Jihadists use to kill non muslims. M
Islamisdeath says
Nothing stops the blood thirsty horde of islam. What imperialist expansion is the west up to now pray tell?
Best I can tell the west is sucking islams dirty behind. Imam obama is doing every dirty trick in the book to eradicate free speech including internet use. Possibly you think we should sacrifice our first born at the altar of demon allah?
Surprise Endings says
I don’t blame you for being angry. Obviously you and some of the others here are blind to US corporate expansionist policies around the world.
Muslims are being taught that (Corporate) America is the Great Satan.
When the Corporate Elites interfere with elections and prop up dictators and so on, this stuff feeds into an already brainwashed hate-filled Islamic narrative.
Indeed Obama is blind.
But he does not hold the levers of power.
Wake up.
Jay Boo says
Mohammad is the Serpent of Satan and his vile deeds are well known.
Islam is such a hateful bigoted blasphemy.
citycat says
Satan, like God, exists in only the mind.
thomas_h says
“Moslems need our prayers”? Where did you get the idea?
I haven’t met a single moslem who says he needs our prayers.
However they expressed lively interest in our money, our medicine, our welfare, our children, our women, our welfare, our homes, our lands and,of course, our traitors – like yourself.
Please love and pray for moslems somewhere else. Pukistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia…comes to mind, but there are many other moslem shit-holes where you can “combat this Global Death Cult” with your sainthood schtick. I promise I will pray for them and you when I hear they have chopped your head off. If they don’t it will be a clear indication you haven’t prayed earnestly enough.
Now get lost, traitor.
Surprise Endings says
That’s the kind of childish, vitriolic stuff that feeds Islam. I’m not saying that Muslims seek our prayers.
They need our prayers — because they have been blinded by the darkness that’s Islam.
They are bound by demonic forces. By Darkness. They have effectively won over Canada’s liberal leader who may be our next PM.
God help us!
cranky.white.woman says
I agree. They are under satanic influence and need our prayers. Every now and then, I remember to ask The Lord to open the eyes and hearts of Muslims to the truth.
thomas_h says
“That’s the kind of childish, vitriolic stuff that feeds Islam.”
No, you ninny.
Islam feeds on stuff provided by Koran, by horrific crimes of its pig-prophet Muhammed enumerated in Hadiths, by sick perverted laws of Sharia. It has been feeding on that stuff for the past 1450 years and “the stuff” has been nutritious enough for it to thrive by murdering whole nations and destroying civilizations long before anyone wrote anything “vitriolic” about that disease.
“I’m not saying that Muslims seek our prayers. They need our prayers ”
If they need your prayers why don’t they seek them? You sound as ridiculous as those Moslems who are telling us they pray to Allah for our conversion and opening our eyes to the truth that is islam.
No1 says
I didn’t care for that comment either. Why be so nasty to one another? I think we can agree that wars like the one in Iraq has pushed Muslims more against us, even if we can also agree that Islam itself is horrible. Eisenhower warned us against war profiteers and I’m inclined to listen to him. John F. Kennedy was well in their thrall and America hasn’t escaped it since.
gravenimage says
“Surprise Endings” wrote:
Please remember—In order to combat this Global Death Cult, we also need to stop Western Imperialism’s expansionist policies perpetuated by the 1%.
…………………………..
What *absolute rot*. This is typical “blame the victim” rhetoric—that the only reason we are being targeted by Jihad is because of “imperialism”.
Actually, there is no Western imperialism today.
Moreover, Islam is violently targeting many places—Thailand, The Philippines, China, Russia, India, Kenya, The Central African Republic, Uganda, Nigeria—that are in no way part of the West.
If the main problem were “Western imperialism”, why would this be the case?
More:
Muslims are being taught that (Corporate) America is the Great Satan.
…………………………..
More bs. No Muslims are making this distinction.
More:
When the Corporate Elites interfere with elections and prop up dictators and so on, this stuff feeds into an already brainwashed hate-filled Islamic narrative.
…………………………..
More crap. Moreover, this is even less plausible than that same rhetoric pre “Arab Spring”. We actually (foolishly) helped Jihadists topple Gaddafi in Libya and considered doing the same with Assad in Syria—this didn’t cause any lessening of Muslim hatred of America.
More, in reply to Thomas H:
That’s the kind of childish, vitriolic stuff that feeds Islam.
…………………………..
More rot. If pretending the threat of Islam didn’t exist were apt to neutralize the Jihad threat, then everything would be rosy *now*.
Daring to speak out against the threat of Islam is not the problem—just the opposite.
gravenimage says
The rather aptly self-styled “No.1” wrote:
I think we can agree that wars like the one in Iraq has pushed Muslims more against us, even if we can also agree that Islam itself is horrible.
…………………………
As if 9/11 hadn’t happened *before* we ever went into Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is more of the usual—the claim that what causes Jihad is any resistance to it.
Surprise Endings says
Gravenimage , you made some really excellent points. Thank you.
Islam is evil personified.
God help us.
voegelinian says
I was wondering whatever happened to Eric Allen Bell… 🙂
jewdog says
Last I googled, Eric had a website for spirituality – kind of a Hindu look to it. I was disappointed to see that he didn’t seem to pursue the counter-jihad very much. Bright guy, nice guy.
voegelinian says
Eric Allen Bell’s brightness and niceness is severely marred by his New Agey mental disease.
livingengine says
For a better understanding of Eric Allen Bell read the comments here.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/eric-allen-bell/american-infidel/#disqus_thread
You can also Google “eric allen bell jews”, or “eric allen bell Christians”.
Defcon 4 says
@jewdog
Can you blame EAB? He had to go into hiding because of the slew of credible islam0nazi death threats he received. He was ostracized by the scum at Daily Kos for peacefully criticising pisslam, then ignored by them when muslimes began threatening to kill him.
billreitzes says
Now you sound like a Palestinian negotiator.
Let’s do this, but on condition of doing something else first.
To defeat Islam is going to take more smarts than we have ever had, or the worst war ever.
revg says
Heza Asshat….what else would you expect.
robert4 says
The onus on Spencer, who reveals himself, again, to be a mendacious hack. Certainly if Aslan’s typos disqualify his scholar, what does it say when our Bob either doesn’t understand or blithely ignores how quotations work?
thomas_h says
Your pathetic barking show you need love and prayer from “Surprise Endings”.
Defcon 4 says
The laughable fact about your trivial objection is that if Aslan said/wrote 4 or 40 verses he’s still wrong, despite his assumed religious scholarly charade. It doesn’t matter if you’re closer to being correct if you’re still wrong.
robert4 says
Indeed, a literal reading of either number is wrong.
However, that does not change the fact that Robert lied and fabricated a quote.
Lisa England says
Muslim rapper targets Geert Wilders: Watch “Hozny – Geertje” on YouTube
G179 says
” 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” — Reza Aslan
What a joke.
Aslan’s only agenda is to put a negative spin on Judaism and Christianity, and a positive one on Islam and Jihad, putting facts and logical thinking aside.
His Ph.D thesis title is:
“Global Jihadism as a transnational social movement: A theoretical framework”
You can’t make this shit up.
thomas_h says
His Ph.D thesis title is:
“Global Jihadism as a transnational social movement: A theoretical framework”
You can’t make this shit up.
Unless you’re a muhammedan.
Reza Alan is a Zero That Hates.
enwhitenment says
All Reza Aslan needs now is a real education
It must be hard to sort fact from fiction with four degrees in fortune cookies
Islamisdeath says
I have come to the conclusion that all of these trolls are muli as sitting home in front of their computers posting between scrubbing toilets and preparing beef for dinner from cruelly murdered cows
Erik Bink says
I suspect, Reza Aslan doesn’t know the difference between “chapter” and “verse” in the Bible. I think, he considered chapter 6 up to 9 in Genesis as four …. ‘verses’. Still, those four ‘verses’ provide an abundance of material for an
able scriptwriter or novelist to produce a film or a voluminous novel.
Islamisdeath says
Should read mulimas mot muli
Islamisdeath says
Make that muslimas not multi as
Champ ✿ says
Reza Aslan proves–once again–that it’s impossible to regard him as a reliable or truthful *scholar* …and lets all laugh-out-loud at that absurd notion 😀
Jerry says
He is as logical and as credible as the Plunderer for Profit (P… Be Upon Him)
who proclaimed himself a Prophet in order to justify his plundering of caravans, murdering, raping and paedophillia let alone his closet latent homosecuality
Champ ✿ says
Exactly, Jerry!
MBR says
The much touted distinction between the so-called lesser jihad and the greater jihad is contained in how many Koranic verses, Reza?
None, but solely in some piss-weak obscure hadith.
Pathetic.
Alan says
Slightly of topic comment but to comment on the sarcastic “intellectually formidable scholar” indicating he is not an intelligent/intellectual person due to bad grammar spelling. This maths always gets to me “Can’t spell = dumb”. I have been cursed by not been able to spell or right the Oxford type of English all my life, spell checkers are a blessing, except for the wrong words inserted, boy to ‘s get to me bight time. Am I challenged/dumb just because of this? My many years in computers then must have been a good cover up.
Reza born Iran? English 2nd language? Sure the guy seems to not fully get what he studied in religion by his misrepresentation of Islam and Christianity, but that is a different topic to his spelling and grammar making him unintellectual = dumb
robert4 says
Yes, it seems odd that Robert preemptively dismisses Aslan based on Twitter typos (Twitter, for G-d’s sake!) and then goes on to indicate that he cannot master the fundamentals of quotation and attribution. All the more odd because Robert’s figleaf against charges of Islamophobia is that he is simply quoting Islamic sources…
Defcon 4 says
Your trivial, grammatical objections have been noted, unfortunately they don’t rebut Spencer’s points. Nice try, but no virgin rewards points this time Ahmed.
robert4 says
To “Defcon 4”
The trivial grammatical objections are Robert’s not mine.
shrugger says
There is no Reza but Reza and Reza is his Prophet.
eib says
+1
Monk Theodore says
Oh dear, are they really going to make a movie out of this guy’s propaganda book?
Mr Aslan is so lucky that Christians ceased (thank God) to behave towards apostates the way his current ideology does.
Kepha says
I guess I’m with those who will [charitably] guess that Reza Aslan can’t tell the difference between a chapter and a verse when he reads the Bible. But, Robert, where do you end the Noah narrative? Conceivably, it may also include the opening of Genesis 10, in which Noah is mentioned as the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth at the beginning of the Table of Nations.
Even so, when I read the reviews and discussion of Aslan’s work on Jesus-as-Zealot, I figured he was just dusting off S.G.F Brandon and a few others of the Silly ‘Sixties and Sillier ‘Seventies, stroking what this New-Left-Redivivus era wants to hear, and figured he’s another media event masquerading as scholarship.
Along these same lines, I think it’s sad that the Bible is no longer part of the stock of the Western mind; and that even people who ought to know better about it are misled by the slam-bang-hoopla surrounding every new piece of folly. I have a colleague who had a very thorough RC education, and heard her going all excited about how Mary Magdalene was “framed” as a prostitute, when she was actually Jesus’ wife, and the pair may still have descendants running around. Hmmm. I’m a God-bless-King-Billy Protestant myself, but I suspect a traditional Catholic education would probably present Mary Magdalene as an example of God’s grace in Christ saving even someone once possessed of seven devils. I fear my poor colleague was deceived into thinking that just because History Channel airs it with a narrator with a Conkrite-esque voice, it has to be true.
Anyhow, time was when even a non-believer would be able to correct Aslan’s faux-pas readily enough.
@Ismail: You once disparaged us traditional believers as “scientifically illiterate”. I guess the media stature of Reza Aslan convinces me that this “scientific” age is, in fact, a pretty credulous one that is easily manipulated by the right kind of image or voice.
gravenimage says
Kepha wrote:
Even so, when I read the reviews and discussion of Aslan’s work on Jesus-as-Zealot, I figured he was just dusting off S.G.F Brandon and a few others of the Silly ‘Sixties and Sillier ‘Seventies, stroking what this New-Left-Redivivus era wants to hear
………………………….
I believe it’s worse than that, Kepha—it seems Aslan is, essentially, presenting Jesus (Isa) as a model of a “Palestinian” Jihad terrorist.
Many on the Left in the ’60s and ’70s wanted to see Jesus as a sort of peace-and-love proto-hippie.
Silly and ahistorical, perhaps, but nothing like Aslan’s ugliness.
robert4 says
They don’t call old Bob anymore, do they?
PGuud says
To be sure, Reza Aslan is a pseudointellectual slimeball. Unfortunately, he managed to dupe an evangelical dolt into marrying him. He never truly held the Christian faith. His “conversion” was a ploy to make inroads–and he succeeded, obviously.
If an evangelical Christian has no qualms about marrying (or remaining married to) a Muslim, the world is upside down and anything is possible.
Reza Aslan–the man with the plan. He was, is, and will always be a Muslim–the enemy of freedom.
Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.
Champ ✿ says
Reza is such a clown!! …hilarious that even his *correction* is wrong, lol!
voegelinian says
Another troll on Jihad Watch comments — this time, “robert4”.
One of the primary marks of a troll — they fixate on less important minutiae, generate faux controversy and contention about that minutiae, and hope others will be drawn in to that, helping to magnify the obfuscatory smoke they are spewing.
Meanwhile, notice how robert4 ignores the more important points of Reza Aslan’s Islamopologist mediocrity — adduced both in the article by Spencer, and by a few JW commenters. Thus like most troll, robert4 hopes to create a diversion and distraction from the important substance.
These trolls are getting more numerous these past few months.
thomas_h says
“One of the primary marks of a troll — they fixate on less important minutiae, generate faux controversy and contention about that minutiae, and hope others will be drawn in to that, helping to magnify the obfuscatory smoke they are spewing.”
Full of Strawmen, RedHerrings, Smoke and Mirrors – signifying Nothing.
thomas_h says
“These trolls are getting more numerous these past few months.”
The trolls are restless tonight, Carruthers.
robert4 says
Good point, wrong target. Robert (Spencer) wrong a longwinded blog about a counting error, an inaccurate presentation of a spoken conversation, and several common typos. By your definition, this is a troll blog.
And you’re defending it. What does that make you?
gravenimage says
All very true, Voegelinian.
And yes—we’ve been suffering a veritable plague of trolls for the past few weeks here at JW.
Tim says
Reza Aslan is a closet case. I have nothing against gay men but let’s admit that some of them can be pretty bitchy and pre-menstrual. Aslan is in automated mode to defend Islam without any sense of realism. But fact is that he would be hanging high from a crane somewhere in Teheran should he exercise his sexual liberties in his home country.
robert4 says
It appears that you do have something against gay men. You and Robert offer shining examples of the islamophobe-homophobe alliance.
thomas_h says
Loathing and condemning a hideous cult invented by a murderous degenerate pig muhammad is Islamophobia???
If that is the definition of islamophobia than there is something terribly wrong, mentally or morally, with someone who is not islamophobic.
And where did you detect Robert and Tim being hostile to homosexuals? You are quite desperate for arguments if you must resort to such absurd fantasies. That often happens to the non-islamophobes.
robert4 says
Tim’s homophobia is evidenced by his claim that gay men “can be pretty bitchy and pre-menstrual” – i.e., gay men are women, not real men. It’s a longstanding homophobic smear.
As for Robert, check out his homophobic attacks on human rights / religious freedom activist Chris D Stedman on Twitter.
thomas_h says
@Robert4
“Tim’s homophobia is evidenced by his claim that gay men “can be pretty bitchy and pre-menstrual” – i.e., gay men are women, not real men. It’s a longstanding homophobic smear.”
Tim is right. He is not the only one who has noticed that about homosexuals. Bit that makes him as homophobic as denying it makes you a homosexual.
<"As for Robert, check out his homophobic attacks on human rights / religious freedom activist Chris D Stedman on Twitter.”
It takes a lot of malice, nastiness and ill will to find anything homophobic there. But you are full of these, so it must have been a cinch for you.
…as said before, you are desperate.
robert4 says
“thomas_h” —
No, “Tim” is wrong and basic biology confirms it. Men do not have menses, ergo, men cannot be pre-menstrual.
You’re welcome.
thomas_h says
@robert4
“No, “Tim” is wrong and basic biology confirms it. Men do not have menses, ergo, men cannot be pre-menstrual.”
It is not about biology, it is about behaviour.
Men cannot be premenstrual biologically, but can behave as if they are. Especially when they are homosexual.
Men can be “chicken” even if they don’t lay eggs. Haven’t you heard of metaphor?
gravenimage says
“robert4” wrote:
You and Robert offer shining examples of the islamophobe-homophobe alliance.
……………………….
What *absolute crap*.
Robert Spencer regularly points out *Islamic* oppression of and violence towards gays—including calls for their murder.
He has many times featured stories showing that gay people are regularly killed in the Muslim world.
The idea that a poster here making flippant comments about gays is not merely the same as, say, Iran hanging gay people, but *more* homophobic is utterly witless.
The idea that there is an “Islamophobe-homophobe” alliance is completely false.
It is Islam that presents a threat to gay people, not those who bravely oppose its brutality.
Sam says
Talking about Mr. Reza Aslan is a great waste of time. OOPS that is just what I did.
fair_dinkum says
all talk and no substance
even from here, he’s a bozo.
Popo says
http://www.viewzone.com/noah.story.html
Stephen David says
I think you are actually giving Aslan too much credit here, Robert. He said “the Noah story” not “the Flood story” and he even refers in the quote to an episode (Noah’s nakedness) that occurs outside of the Flood story.
So even though it is true that the Flood story is 89 verses long, the “Noah story” he refers to takes up the entirety of Chapters 6 – 9, which are 93 verses long.
I am guessing he just cooked up the “40 verses” correction because it sounds plausible as a misquote of “4 verses.” If he was a true Biblical Scholar, he would at least have “opened Genesis” himself and responded with an accurate count.
The mark of a true scholar is diligence and objectivity in investigating and reporting facts accompanied by conclusions which may be held personally (and not always necessarily generally accepted) but are based on the objective facts.
The true marks of a non-scholar such as Aslan are sloppiness and laziness in investigating and reporting facts and conclusions.
thomas_h says
Dear Robert Spencer,
In view of the recently strongly intensified trolling operations on your website I wonder if you would consider to let your technical team to install a “Currently Trolling” window displaying a name of a troll, or trolls, busy with sabotaging the work of the site at the moment. The advantage offered by such indicator would be to notify the unwary commenter, especially a new one, that he would be, beside wasting his time and your bandwidth, feeding the troll thus participating in troll’s effort to damage the website.
One, of course, needs to decide who is a troll. I think the simplest way would be for a commenter to suggest a candidate who has displayed the “marks of the troll” as listed by Voegelinian on March 21, 2014 at 2:54 am. If the candidature is backed by say, 8 or more of bona fide commenters the candidate will have his name displayed in the “Currently Trolling” window for a long as needed.
This is only a broadly sketched idea, of course, which can be modified and, I hope, expanded. Similarly the practical details are only tentative suggestions open to alteration and improvement.
Kind regards,
Thomas H.
voegelinian says
That’s a great suggestion, and as far as I know, unprecedented for a website.
robert4 says
But a great idea and really gets at the heart of this blog.
Hell, Robert can change the title to “Trolling Muslims”.
awake says
I am interested to see who will be backing Aslan’s film.
voegelinian says
Zealot, the edge-of-your-chariot-seat action thriller based upon the book by Comparative Religions Scholar and world-famous Huffington Post Columnist Reza Aslan, starring Mark Wahlberg as Jesus packing heat and freedom-fighting his way to a reincarnation against the evil White Roman Imperialists, with the help of his A-Team of Twelve Disciples — including :
Vin Diesel as Peter;
Will Ferrel as John the Baptist;
Colin Ferrell as Matthew;
Greg Kinnear as Mark;
Ewan McGregor as Luke;
Dwayne (“The Rock”) Johnson as Paul;
Ben Kingsley as Pilate;
Winona Ryder as Mary;
Woody Allen as Joseph;
Angelina Jolie as Mary Magdalen.
Special Guest Stars:
Harvey Keitel as Emperor Tiberius
Jamie Foxx as Judas
Samuel L. Jackson as Lazarus.
Cameo Roles:
Billy Zane as High Priest of the Sanhedrin
Rainn Wilson, Johnny Knoxville, and Billy Bob Thornton as Roman soldiers attending the Crucifixion
Director: Judd Apatow
Screenwriter: Quentin Tarantino
gravenimage says
Hilarious!
Not sure Mark Wahlberg would have quite the right vibe, though—I’m thinking more someone like Oscar Isaac or Wentworth Miller.
gematrioid says
parashat noach ends with the death of terah and contains 153 verses. not 89. not 4. not 40. sure you could pick some other way to count it, and you could also argue that the notion of a verse is completely foreign to the original and therefore meaningless.
Some people use numbers descriptively. In this case ‘barely 4 verses’ indicates the intentional use of an inexact number to denote brevity. Aslan could make the same point about any number of religious stories — they’re short, filled with ambiguity, and challenge the reader to fill in the blanks: a special challenge for a filmmaker.
Aslan may well be a fake scholar, but picking out a detail like this as the basis for an assault (or retribution?) is sophomoric, petty and self-defeating.
robert4 says
Very good post, “gematrioid”
thomas_h says
“Very good post, “gematrioid””
Congratulating yourself, robert4?
thomas_h says
I think “talking to yourself”, rather than “congratulating yourself” would be better.
But you know what I mean.
thomas_h says
“Aslan may well be a fake scholar, but picking out a detail like this as the basis for an assault (or retribution?) is sophomoric, petty and self-defeating.”
Aslan may well be a fake scholar? Do you mean he may well NOT be a fake scholar?
If so, your comment can not be taken seriously. Had you shared the perception that Aslan IS in fact a fake scholar and a despicably dishonest debater you wouldn’t yourself be “picking out a detail” about R. Spencer’s “picking out a detail”. Your call for “fairness” and “restrain” is as fake as Aslam’s scholarly credits.
Defcon 4 says
I’m sorry, but aslan sets himself up as a religious scholar and is quoted as such therefore this goes to deflate his empty ego and authority. If you don’t like it —-> there’s the door, use it.
voegelinian says
Bottom line: “robert4” doesn’t seem to get the basic common sense that if Reza Aslan in his corrective tweet to CNN wanted to object to the characterization of his opinion as “He says the story of Noah in the Bible is barely four verses long” he would have objected to the whole sentence — but all he wanted to correct was the number “4”. This means he found no other part of the characterization objectionable as a faithful representation of his opinion. Spencer’s only fault was in failing to specify that he was adverting to CNN’s characterization of Aslan’s opinion — but this is technically not incorrect, since Spencer nowhere said “Aslan said” it — he only rightly quoted the article in its characterization of Aslan’s opinion — to which, again, Aslan did not object when, in his tweet to CNN, he took the trouble to correct the report.
Liam1304 says
Aslan is in New Zealand at the moment as guest of honour at a national writers guild.
He was interviewed by the goverment leftie radio station the other day. (As Robert Spencer notes, he is exactly the kind of trendy psuedo academic popular with our intellectual betters & moral superiors in the media).
I could only hear the first few minutes – enough for him to point out an extremely elementary bit of New Testament Greek as if it was some profound insight. The fawning, and I mean fawning, grovelling & obsequious, interviewer worried to him that perhaps those poor dear simple people of Faith might’nt wish to know all that hard, nasty Greek that would obviously destroy their tissue paper thin faith. Why confuse the poor dears with facts and frighten them with your imposing intellect Dr Aslan???
It was at this point that I turned off the car radio & slammed the door harder than I think I have possibly ever slammed it.
A level of exegesis regularly exceeded by everyone I know who teaches preschoolers on a Sunday is profundity. Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln. The blind really are leading the blnd…