/lit/ - Literature

That was fucking excellent. Silly demonic Fox News. Jesus will surely allow this saint through the Pearly Gates.

jesus....

Why do so many intellectuals sound gay? Should I work on feminizing my voice a bit?

>>3981656
>Reza
>Gay
>Implying he's not swimming in Persia Ninja pussy

i stopped watching at the minute mark

it was so painfully dumb i can't imagine it could get much worse

Drinking game: drink 1 full snifter of absinthe everytime Mr. Reza says he has a PhD.

damn

>>3981741
I said he SOUNDS gay, which implies that I know he's straight. It's that Ira Glass Jewish-woman-in-the-back-of-his-throat that does it.

>>3981346
She didn't get "owned", the dumb bitch was too vapid to even understand how stupid she was being; she reiterated the same fucking question 20 times despite him clearly rebutting it.

God, that was painful to watch.

sure fox news is retarded but that guy could not sound more self-impressed when explaining that he has a phDomgsobrilliant and is AN EXPERT.

>>3981346
That was pretty bad, but 'is this the most embarassing interview Fox News has ever done?'
No. It might be the most embarassing one it did that day. Or even that week, if it was a slow week.

>>3981840
Eh, he instantly spotted that she was going down a path marked Extreme Stupidity and was trying to head her off. Unfortunately all it said on her notepad was WHY MUSLIM WRITE ABOUT JESUS? IS MAYBE TERRORIST?
...so he had to keep trying.

>mfw a Muslim who wrote a book denying the divinity of Christ accepted an interview from a network he knew would be hostile because it represents the Zionist Christian wing of the Republican Party and the anchor was mean to him

What a fucking martyr.

Anyone who watches televised news, left or right, is an idiot.

So let me get this straight...

A trained historian...

Who claims that he is 100% non-biased and that his religious views in no way influence his work.

Where was this historian trained? The 1920s?

>>3981842
link a more embarassing one pls

>>3981867
where do you get your news from?

>>3981818
This. She was too daft to even realize that her argument was blindingly illogical. Good thing he was ready for her though.

>>3981871
>Who claims that he is 100% non-biased and that his religious views in no way influence his work
Does he claim that?

>>3981871
did he claim that?

>>3981896
>>3981898
claimmind

>>3981867
This

>>3981840
He just didnt want to be portrayed as someone who is spewing hate speech, but rather defending his right as a professor and intellectual to defend his book.

>>3981896
>>3981898
Yes. Repeatedly.

>>3981898
His reddit AMA is interesting, and while no one is without bias, he certainly tries very hard to walk the line

>>3981911
You got a quote for that? I'm 80% sure you're reading into it.

>>3981346
He shoulda just said "Well, I've been interested in Jesus for a long time, but I guess it really started when I noticed my name was Aslan."

>>3981346
I like how the Faux News reporter kept saying how other scholars disagreed with him-- as if the only thing scholars do all day is sit around agreeing with each other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E007Zu00a-Q

>>3981921
lul

>>3981917
No. I'm not going to watch it again and transcribe for you. You can watch it again yourself.

The guy's got an agenda just like every other historian and he refuses to admit it. That's what the entire interview is about. And you refuse to recognize what he's doing because you agree with his agenda or at least find it politically expedient.

>>3981922
>the only thing scholars do all day is sit around agreeing with each other

Actually yes they do. I've been a professor for 20 years. Academia is basically an echo chamber and has been since the 1970s. Whatever conflict there is comes from people tripping over each other to be the most orthodox. Political correctness is all that matters. If you say one wrong thing you'll lose everything.

>>3981926
If the interview wasn't retarded we would have seen more explanations of his actual views

>>3981952
That sounds like complete bullshit, professor. Considerations of political correctness barely enter into most academic arguments. What's your field, and what's the orthodoxy in it you think can't be challenged?

>>3981926
at 9:07 he seems to claim that all books are biased until he get interrupted... it seems you were just reading too much into what he said

>>3981959
Hey here's an idea. Why do you go to SRS and pretend to be a rightwing Christian and ask them to ask you anything they want? See how good of a nice friendly interview that allows you to get across your views that would be. The guy knew it would be a hostile interview and he accepted it and he was prepared for it. Don't throw your pearls before swine unless you can sell a lot of books doing it.

>>3981967
>Considerations of political correctness barely enter into most academic arguments.

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

Idiot.

>>3981967
>Considerations of political correctness barely enter into most academic arguments.
Wow.

>>3981911
>>3981871
He clearly said multiple times, multiple times, that scholars disagreed on this and that he knew he was a muslim writing about christ. He never said he was some perfect observer.

The fuck is with people having to be ashamed that theyre scholars?

>>3981952
I'm sure there's plenty of brown nosing and ass kissing, especially in the Ivy Leagues, but when it comes to matters of theology, like Aslan's book, you're bound to come across scholars to think X is metaphorical and others who say X is literal and some who say X was part of the original new testament and X was added by another writer long after the fact.

>>3981926
Looking again, he does say him being a Muslim has 'nothing to do with' what he's studying, so yeah, I see your point in >>3981871. But I think that's more to do with him trying to come down to the level of her questions. If you actually engaged with him at first-year undergrad level or higher I presume he wouldn't make that claim.

>>3981987
>>3981980
You going to answer my question here?

>>3981991
No, I'm just going to ridicule your abject ignorance. That course of action is more productive.

>>3981995
Good. Glad you're having fun.

>>3981995
Not who you were replying to prof., but honestly I expected better from a prof.

Why all the ego?

>Expecting Fox News to not go "M-Muslims? Talking about MY JESU? NO IS BAD"

>>3982001
That's what happens when you get tenure, you stop giving a fuck.

>>3981967
Oh hey do you want to read my essay detailing the history of the Aryans?

OH WAIT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT USES THE WORD ARYAN AND I GOT PUT ON ACADEMIC PROBATION AND FORCED TO ATTEND SENSITIVITY TRAINING FOR WRITING IT AND I GOT AN F ON IT EVEN THOUGH ALL MY OTHER PAPERS WERE AS AND JUST THE SAME QUALITY

Every time I write "Indo-European" I'll hope one of your cells turns cancerous.

>>3982005
I don't think anybody was expecting that, including the interviewee. His reaction was more 'wow, this is even more asinine that I anticipated'.

>>3982013
>Oh hey do you want to read my essay detailing the history of the Aryans? OH WAIT YOU CAN'T

Did the PC police make you delete it from your computer?

BS artist detected.

If he didn't want to offend anybody, he should have titled it something less offensive, like "The Satanic Verses 2: Ecumenic Bugaboo: The Ummah Strikes Back"

>>3982022
Your sensor got a ten minute delay there, Uhura?

>>3982013
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2009&q=allintitle:+aryan&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Also, >>3981952 appears to be talking about academia in general. What proportion of academic works, across all subjects, do you think would even be relevant to what you're talking about? It's not going to be high, is it?

He's cute

>>3982022
No. I wrote it on my school account. The Student Conduct Adviser revoked my computer privileges and Security was ordered to keep me out of the library so I couldn't go on the public terminals anymore.

>PC police
Who are they?

>>3982051
What was the title?

>>3982051
>on my school account
So, buddy. What do you think the consequences of just giving us your school's name or even your own name are?

Outside of, y'know, losing the mascarade.

>>3982042
Pretty much anything in the humanities. If you publish anything that can be interpreted as even vaguely "racist, sexist, classist, heteronormative, homophobic, transphobic, pro-Christian, etc. etc. etc." your career is over. But of course it wouldn't get published in the first place.

>>3982058
Gas the Kikes, Race War Now, 14/88 Sieg Heil

>>3982058
"My Struggle"

>>3982051
>The Student Conduct Adviser

but I thought you were a professor!

>revoked my computer privileges and Security was ordered to keep me out of the library

to prevent you from doing the research with the sources they approve to complete the course after being on academic probation? yeah, sure buddy.

>>3982086
There's more than two people in the world.

>>3981952
>Professor for 20 years
>On 4chan

I liked both, but >>3982080 beats >>3982077 through the power of subtlety.

>>3982076
>pro-Christian
Uh... a lot of works in theology are written by Christians.

>>3982093
>the only people on 4chan are NEETs in their teens and twenties

>>3982093

some of mine have been. Also, I remember a thread where a professor proved who he was.

and pinecone

>>3982097
Yeah, at redneck schools. At actual departments of theology in real schools, you have to be a Neopagan Two-Spirited Eskimo Lesbian Womyn writing about the absence of "the so-called Christian god" in the genocide of Native Americans to have a hope in hell of getting published or getting tenured.

>>3982099
Hey, some of those NEETs might eventually become (poor) professors.

>>3982112
Sorry, you're still bullshitting. Try looking at Oxford University. Two of the colleges are made up of actual goddamn monks.

Goddamn used figuratively, they're actually on pretty good terms with God.

>>3982121
Not if they don't get the fuck off 4chan they won't.

>>3982128
Let me guess. Liberation Theology, right? And they're member of the Gay Christian Network, too.

>>3982139
Nope, Benedictines and Dominicans. You could have googled that.

>>3981656
Her words really aren't that bad, they just don't go anywhere. I'm more surprised at how he's very quick to seem offended.
Terrible interview.

>>3981952
sounds utopian actually... everyone should be a professor

>>3982143
Oh well if they're Catholic they're definitely not PC!

>>3982144
Not sure why I quoted that post.

I see where he is coming from. But if it doesn't matter that he's muslim why does he call him himself one of the "few islamic religious scholars"? Why would that matter then?

>>3982150
if them being monks didn't tip you off to their Catholicism, I'm not sure what you're trying to contribute here

>>3982144
she also used "begging the question" wrong

>it still begs the question

Stopped watching right fucking there.

>>3982144
I think he's more agitated, as he has explained these very things in previous interviews that he has done for other right-wing news channels.

Imagine you spent your entire life studying the history of religions, and you made this fact clear through your books, and you go on an interview hoping for some intelligent conversation, but instead you get "hurr durr why muslim write book on christian" over, and over, and over again. How upset would you be?

>>3982195
>I think he's more agitated, as he has explained these very things in previous interviews that he has done for other right-wing news channels.
I'm with you there, definitely. He puts it a bit on himself, as >>3982159 said, but I understand if the comments become repetitive and annoying.

>>3982195
It's fucking Fox News.

He KNEW that.

They called him up and asked for an interview.

He accepted.

You can tell from his reaction to the first question that he knew what to expect.

I don't feel sorry for this guy at all.

>>3982190
Then you saved yourself a significant amount more stupidity.

The only reason most people will know about his book is because of this bad interview. Sure, maybe people saw him on the Daily Show, or heard him on NPR, but in most cases books from those sources are quickly forgotten unless they appeal to a preexisting interest.

The Fox interview was the best thing that could have happened to him as far as sales go.

>>3982231
maybe he just wanted to get what he wanted to say out there, to the masses

>>3982231

They called him.

How quaint. More like "His agent sent a presskit to a bunch of media and some contacted him for interviews."

JESUS IS NOT THE MESSIAH
DENY CHRIST
BY THE WAY IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT I'M MUSLIM LOL

Yeah great, but now you have a bunch of retarded leftists saying "hur dur fox y not waderbord hem?"
I'm glad the reporter got shut down, but it has just increased the retards who actually think CNN and MSNBC are any better or any less biased.

>>3982231
Exactly. Isn't it interesting that we're expected to think of these self-proclaimed intellectuals as doe-eyed lambs to the slaughter when any idiot could tell you exactly the kind of discourse you can expect appearing on Fox News? He saw an easy target and easy platform to promote his book from the outset.

>>3981656
>tfw have deep voice and always get told I sound like james earl jones

feels good

>>3982276

Well yeah, that's the general jist of it.

Dunno what you need the caps for, son.

>>3981926
His book goes against Islamic beliefs as well though.

>>3982368
The modernist higher-criticism liberal secular ant-Christian agenda is the worst agenda of all. Fundamentalist Islam is far more intellectually honest.

>mfw one of the "critics" she was citing is an opinion columnist on fox's website

>>3982385
>modernist higher-criticism liberal secular ant-Christian agenda

How is wanting to know the facts about Jesus' life any of that?

>>3981862
Link to Rushdie interview?
puuhhlleeezz

>>3982393
Ha!

>>3982395
>wanting to know facts about Jesus' life

Read the fucking Gospels, then.

Apostate heathens don't have a monopoly on facts just because they wrote a book.

>>3982417
>the gospels
>facts

Pick one. The authors of the Gospels didn't even fucking agree with each other.

>>3982420
>Implying that the Bible isn't the inerrant Word of God

That comment about the "bandits" gave me a linguisto-etymological hard-on.

>"ancient Palestine"

Holy fuck. This guy really is a Muslim, isn't he?

I think you mean "Iudaea" there, champ.

>>3982422
>you will never figure out a way to make a pun using the words inerrant and inherent

:(

>>3981874
There aren't any. Fox News is pretty much CNN with more McCafferty-style rants.

>>3982436
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina

>>3982455
Only about century after Christ died.

>>3981871
But he's not a historian let alone trained.

His BA was in religion
his MA is in theology
and his PhD was in sociology of religion

Which is probably why he feels so comfortable making large assumptions about a character who we only know about through secondary sources.

>>3981922
>as if the only thing scholars do all day is sit around agreeing with one another

To be fair the layman does really think academia is a singular voice.

>>3981952
>if you say one wrong thing you'll lose everything

Except for those people with tenure who do whatever the ell they want.

I love his little sing-songy way of explaining shit to her, like she's a half-retarded toddler.

>>3982277
CNN is actually much less biased than either FN or msnbc.

>>3982570
>they're closer to my bias
>therefore they are less biased

>>3981346
I read it over the weekend. Pretty interesting read, and offered up an opinion that most people probably wouldn't disagree with if you thought about it pretty hard and really researched.

The strangest part about the book is that I found Aslan wasn't a very good writer, and was surprised seeing that he had an MFA from Iowa.

His points on the history of Jesus were excellent, but the worst part was his writing.

>>3982575
>offered up an opinion that most people probably wouldn't disagree
Other than laughing at the interviewer, this was the main thing I noticed about the interview- when she asked what was new about his book, he didn't seem to have anything revolutionary.

>The strangest part about the book is that I found Aslan wasn't a very good writer
Academics with nice writing are the exception rather than the rule.

>>3982583
>he didn't seem to have anything revolutionary.
That jesus wasn't resurrected is pretty revolutionary to most christians.

>>3982595
>to most christians
They might not like it, I guess. But it's hardly a breathtaking new theological/historical argument, is it? People have been saying that since Jesus, uh, died.

>>3982600
It even mentions this argument in the Gospels, saying something like "that to this day the Jews claim that Jesus was never resurrected."

>>3982595
He does not weigh in on the resurrection in this book. I don't know how you made that assumption

>>3982613
He mentions it in the interview.

>>3982600
I think much of the academic debate regarding Jesus' life has been just that—academic. Writing an accessible book that summarizes current academic thinking could certainly be revolutionary. Though the ideas are not new, the form is, perhaps. But I highly doubt his book will spark a revolution.

In the average American's education, they are never even posited the mere theory that Jesus was not resurrected. Sure the heathens would have you believe he wasn't, but they also worship the devil. For this type of concept to be dispersed among the general public, you need books which are accessible to the public.

>>3982611
>11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
And later among Muslims, apparently.

>>3982616
That's weird that he would say that considering the book says it is a matter of faith whether it happened or not. Having read the book but only watching the first few minutes of the video it is hilarious that the interviewer is trying to create controversy when the book is tame to a fault.

>>3982628
People's true colors often shine forth in conversation rather than the printed page. This gentleman is a militant Muslim bent on the destruction of the Christian faith.

>>3981995

Troll detected, probably from /pol/

>>3982195
He was asking for it. Regardless of what he felt, he should've hold in his emotions and remain civil, especially on public tv.

>>3982613
He definitely does weigh in on the resurrection in the book.

>>3982613

>>3982613
2

>>3982583
>Academics with nice writing are the exception rather than the rule.

Agreed, but he is an academic that also got an MFA in Creative Writing from the preeminent program in the country.

>>3982436
For real. It was the Kingdom of Judah, and before that the land of Canaan.

>>3982688
>>3982690
I assume that by 'weigh in on' anon was referring to the subject of whether it happened or not.

>>3982013
'Aryan' and 'Indo-European' are not synonymous.

As far as we know, the Greeks, Hittites and Armenians split off from the original Indo-Europeans a millenia before the rest.

'Aryans' refers to those other branches of Indo-European, the horse-and-chariot people which seemed to have taken the long way around the Caspian Sea instead of going through Anatolia.

>>3982690
>Jesus's
This isn't how you put a possessive on a name that ends with an s.

>>3982714
It's one way.

>>3982698
He weighs in with the tone of the rest of the material presented without devoting pages and pages of material to it.

A nice little summary for the book would be this for me:

Jesus was a lowly Jewish zealot
He was one among many
Christianity is just a bastardized form of Judaism made palatable by Paul/Saul for the gentiles.
Jesus would not agree with Paul and would have stayed true to the law/was only focused on his people (Jews).

>>3982718
Yeah, a wrong way.

>>3982714
It is if you are Reza Aslan.

See>>3982693
and
>>3982575

>>3982574
>everything is equally biased

That's moronic and you know it.

>>3982721
I disagree with his opinions if that truly does summarize them.

>>3982732
It wasn't really presented as an opinion. Kind of all laid out as facts.

>>3982732
also, an addendum

Jesus was not born of a virgin
Jesus was illiterate
Jesus was possibly the product of rape and/or an unwed mother
Jesus had brothers and sisters
Jesus was not born in Bethlehem
Jesus might have had a wife
John The Baptist was the same as Jesus and Jesus player hated and stole his ideas from him.

>>3982723
>When it comes to possessives, last names are, again, like other nouns. We make names that don’t end in s possessive by adding ‘s—for example, Mr. Johnson’s hat, Ms. Smith’s umbrella. There are two schools of thought regarding singular nouns, including singular last names, ending in s. Some make these words possessive by adding ‘s (Mr. Jones’s house, Ms. Doss’s car), and some add only an apostrophe (Mr. Jones’ house, Ms. Doss’ car). Some English reference books recommend the former approach and some the latter, and some say both are acceptable. Purists tend to prefer the former, which is more traditional.

>>3982420
>The authors of the Gospels didn't even fucking agree with each other.
So? That's just proof that they're authentic texts written by real people, with little editing or spin.

>>3982417
>Read the fucking Gospels, then.
Gasp, no. That would soil my spiritual secular skeptic purity with Christian cooties.

>>3982743
10 points to Gryffindor if he used the phrase 'player hated'.

>>3982733
>Kind of all laid out as facts
>About a man who may not have even existed
Yeah, ok, tell me about all these "facts" we have from sources dated 70-80 years (at the earliest, so all of the original disciples would be dead) after his death.

He'll be reading at my work tomorrow. We're expecting an insane crowd. Looking forward to it.

>>3982731
No, it isn't. People have agendas. CNN is operated under the ideology of centrist reform liberalism. That ideology is no more "objective" than anarchism or Nazism. It's a collection of preconceived notions designed to perpetuate the domination of the current ruling class. Just because most people have swallowed it doesn't make it FACT. Not even science is free from bias. People 100 years from now will look back on the scientists of today as a bunch of pigheaded tools who refused to recognize undeniable truths because of willful ignorance.

>>3982743
If you've read the Bible, you'd know Jesus had at least two brothers. James and Jude.

>>3982763
When it gets to questions from the audience, put your hand up and ask with a completely straight face "You're a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?"

>>3982767
Who had been written off as cousins or half-siblings over the centuries.

>>3982761
>sources dated 70-80 years (at the earliest, so all of the original disciples would be dead) after his death.
For a person living in the first century A.D. that is pretty good and very solid evidence. In fact, it's much better than what we have for most Greek philosophers and Roman emperors.

>>3982767
And I think Aslan says he had at least four brothers in this text.

>>3982743
> [lol xtian trolling snipped]
Citation needed

>>3982746
HAHA where are you getting that? The latter is actually the traditional one. And it's the right one. Just because there's two schools doesn't mean one of the school's isn't full of shit.

>>3982771
Well, yeah, half-brothers considering the virgin birth. I use the term brother loosely like that because I have a half-brother who I just call my brother. I forget to separate the terms sometimes.

>>3982772
Agreed. I don't think there is anyone who can honestly claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. The man walked the earth, that much is true.

>>3982072
>mascarade

boy, you sure told him.

this next halloween, I think I'm going to dress my car up like a TIE-fighter

>>3982778
I meant full brothers and sisters.

>>3982763
Ask him "Yo, Aslan, if you're so great, how come the White Witch just stabbed you like that?"

>>3982776
Read the book. I can't go copy/paste all of those sections for you if you don't want to take my word. It is all in there.

>>3982772
>In fact, it's much better than what we have for most Greek philosophers and Roman emperors.
Which calls alot it into question. Why would Jesus' death warrant/record survive the sacking Rome? Why would it even exist if Pilate didn't give two shits about some uppity Jew? I don't think they had file cabinets for worthless, bureaucratic paperwork in the Iron Age.

>>3982782
Yeah, I realize that now.

>>3982787
It survived due to Peter and Paul joining the diaspora and spreading the word about Jesus. It isn't as if there is a death certificate for Alexander The Great.

>>3982787
*sacking of Rome*

>>3982761
Oral traditions are capable of passing down narratives relatively uncorrupted for thousands of years. There are Indian tribes in American with oral traditions that independently describe events that took place centuries and centuries ago that match up in every detail with written historical records. Shit, archeologists use this kind of information to look for sites all the time. The idea that oral traditions are incapable of recording knowledge is a frankly racist product of the Victorian era that goes back to Greek exceptionalism. It's entirely possible for a story to be passed down WITHIN A SINGLE LIFETIME and not be significantly changed in any way, especially in a culture with such well-developed mechanisms for doing so as classical-era Jewish culture. Whenever I hear this retarded argument it makes my blood boil.

>>3982793
The reason why I brought that point up is because Aslan goes on about how meticulous the Romans were with their execution bookkeeping in the interview linked in the OP.

>>3982787
Pilate didn't give two shits about Jesus. He only put Him to death because the Pharisees were stirring up the mob and threatening a riot in Jerusalem. And even when he did that he put a sign declaring Jesus King of the Jews just to spite them.

>>3982786
So your only evidence is a half-assed book written by a Muslim troll and spread virally on le athoest rebbit?

Come on, you can do better than this. Christian trolling is a venerable tradition dating back to the Babylonian Talmud. Don't stoop to bottom-feed on the plebeian mass-media trash.

>>3982803
I think if one were a Roman citizen, that would hold true. Jesus was a Jewish peasant.

>>3982800
see
>>3982803
I'm attacking a point he makes about the Romans. This is the reason we "know" he existed, at least according to Aslan.

>>3982806
No no. It isn't my evidence. It is the summary of the book that I was continuing from a prior post. I'm not Christian trolling at all, it is just what the book presents.

>>3982761
People were perfectly capable of living to be over 100 years old back then, too.

>>3982570
>CNN is actually much less biased than either FN or msnbc.

>CNN won a gold medal at the Special Olympics, whereas FN's silver and MSNBC's bronze make them much more retarded.

>>3982808
This is fair, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume Aslan doesn't claim this in his book (the Roman bit, not the peasant bit).

>>3982811
Of course, Methuselah lived to be 969.

>>3982815
In reference to crucifixion.

>>3982817
Most sholars put the gospels being written between 70 and 80 AD.

AD refers to after the BIRTH of Jesus, not after His death. He was crucified at 32.

That means the gospels were written 30 to 60 years after his death, not 70 to 80.

Fuck, I played in a Seattle grunge band back in the '90s, and I'll still remember enough about Curt Cobain in 40 years to write a fucking book about the guy.

>>3982817
The Pentateuch explicitly states that the maximum limit for human lifespan is 120 years.

Ancient people could count and observe just as well as we can, bro.

>>3982766
>that ideology is no more objective than anarchism or nazism

Stopped reading there.

>>3982828
Genesis 5:21-27
(21) And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: (22) And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and Enoch begat sons and daughters: (23) And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: (24) And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him. (25) And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: (26) And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters: (27) And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

>>3982817
You should've mentioned Enoch. Dude's STILL alive.

>>3982822
That doesn't refute my counterclaim that these records of his death never existed.

>>3982832
All that shit's antediluvian. Doesn't apply to discussions of life span in the 1st century, dawg.

>>3982837
I'm genuinely curious now. Do you really believe people lived that long before Noah's flood?

>>3982839
Depends what you men by "believe" and "that long" and "before Noah's flood".

>>3982842
What the fuck do you think I mean?

>>3982842
The generations lists in Genesis are probably influenced by documents like the Babylonian kings lists. The names might refer to historical figures, or they might refer to dynasties or lineages or tribes. The numbers might have symbolic rather than literal meaning. There are other possibilities.

>>3982842
I laffed. Nicely played.

>“I’ll be perfectly honest — I’m thrilled at the response that people have had to the interview,” Mr. Aslan said. “You can’t buy this kind of publicity.”

>>3982846
Yeah, it's theoretically possible for a human being to live for thousands of years. Modern science is investigating medical techniques such as gene therapy to halt the aging process, effectively making us immortal. And in a population unaffected by diseases like cancer and whatnot, or that had treatments for such diseases, lifespans would skyrocket. If science could do it, God could do it. Is it possible that human beings once had lifespans in those ranges? We wouldn't be able to tell from archeological records because we'd have to base our age determinations on our modern understanding of human development. Who knows? I'd say that people in prehistoric times (hunter-gatherers) probably had life expectancies comparable to today's, and maybe even higher, and that those steadily decreased as the human population grew, then plummeted with the invention of civilization, then gradually climbed back up with the invention of modern medicine. I think passages like this are probably symbolic, but you never know.

>>3982858
>inb4 everybody rushes out to buy his book and Christianity collapses in the USA as millions are exposed for the first time to the shocking possibility that dead dudes stay dead

>>3982865
tl;dr
If human genetics and epidemiology were different in the past, or if they had access to now-unknown regenerative processes, people could have had essentially unlimited lifetimes. That probably wasn't the case, though, but it is possible.

Didn't Satan already try this one?

>>3982865
>possible for a human being to live for thousands of years. Modern science is investigating medical techniques such as gene therapy to halt the aging process, effectively making us immortal
lmao
>>>/x/

>>3982878
If other species can do it, we can too. The things that kill us are disease and aging. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you that with the right technology we could overcome both of those. This isn't even science fiction. Keep up with the literature and you'd find that out. Life expectancy is just going to keep going up and up.

>>3982865
>And in a population unaffected by diseases like cancer and whatnot, or that had treatments for such diseases, lifespans would skyrocket.

Science HAS done this. It's just that among many people it doesn't get a lot of credit. Where I live now the average age when dying was 34 just 100 years ago. Today it's 84.

>>3982839

I'm also curious to hear if he legit believes in Noah's flood.

>>3982895
>Where I live now the average age when dying was 34 just 100 years ago. Today it's 84.
'Life expectancy' is nothing like 'average age when dying', you fucking moron.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/muslim-author-reza-aslan-i-knew-what-i-was-getting-into-by-going-on-fox-news/

>>3982895
I mean completely unaffected (science has a long, long way to go). Okay, let's have a hypothetical scenario.

Let's say you're living in the Garden of Eden with God, who genetically engineered you to be immortal. Your body is uncorrupted by genetic mutation or disease (in fact no diseases even exist) and designed to live forever. You eat a meal every day from the Tree of Life. This special fruit basically heals whatever physical damage you suffer. And if you got hurt bad enough, God would just pull a miracle and fix you up. There's no way you're ever dying.

Then you get kicked out. Your body starts taking damage. You start catching diseases. You no longer have the fruit. God won't heal you. But your body and genes are still pretty good, and you live a healthy lifestyle. You'll live a long, long time, baring trauma. Eventually cosmic rays will mess up your DNA and cause cancer and whatnot. And you'll pass those mutations down to your children. With no selective pressure toward people living past their twenties, eventually the lifespan starts to shrink.

Then God comes in says you motherfuckers aren't living past 120 years.

That's basically the literalist interpretation, which I don't necessarily believe myself.

>>3982895
>Noah's flood

That's probably based on some old, old stories, like the Mesopotamian flood myth, which is probably based on a real flood, which might not have been worldwide. There isn't currently enough water on planet earth (atmosphere and icecaps included) to cover every square inch of landmass, and there might have at one point been a lot more water that somehow got removed, but that's highly unlikely. If there once had been a worldwide flood in the past, the geological record would probably be very different. There'd be a global strata showing flooding. So yeah, I'd probably say the story's symbolic, but based on a real catastrophic but regional flood. But who knows? I don't think these stories are all meant to be taken literally, just as long as they're taken.

>>3982822
I thought you were just assuming that he doesn't claim that a Roman citizen's crucifixion wouldn't be documented. What were you looking to be refuted?

A crucifixion of a jew (non-roman) wouldn't necessarily be taken down in the books per se, wouldn't you think?

>>3982916
>wouldn't you think?
Not the same anon, but the random assumptions of non-specialists on that subject seem pretty unproductive... you'd be better off going to google scholar with this, really.

>>3982093
During one of my professor's lectures, I saw a ponychan tab. He also repeatedly boasts about his trolling endeavors.

>>3982570
sigh, le lesters will always have their way, because of morons like you

>>3981637
What the fuck is this post?

>>3981346
I thought he was overly defensive right from the first answer, not that he didn't have a reason to be, as he said on Leddit he read some article before interview that suggested the tone of the interview... but frankly, if you write a book on this subject in this context and you accept to be interviewed at FoxNews, you might aswell not get all scared and start throwing his academy card right of the bat... I think both parts have some degree of guilt in the sad spectacle that took place...

That dude is based as fuck.

Fuck, this guy is articulate as fuck. So clear and crisp.

There's nothing sadder than a fallen Christian.

>its abouat a historical man who walked the earth 2000 years ago

dropped

whoever claims that jesus is a historical person is a hack

>>3982047
"My god, he's fucking handsome", you mean

and i'm a guy

>>3983292
biased* as fuck

>>3983346
>whoever claims that jesus was not a historical person is a hack
ftfy

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/29/scholarly-misrepresentation/

There is a bit of a hubbub in the interwebs about an interview conducted by Lauren Green, religion correspondent for Fox News Channel, with Reza Aslan, author of a new book on Jesus titled Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Our friend Joe Carter, over at GetReligion, has the basic story. Green launched the interview (available here in full) with a question about why a Muslim should want to write a book about Jesus. A reasonable question, and not a hostile one on its face–but by the end of the interview Green has returned to it in a somewhat more accusatory fashion. As Joe says, the interview is a mess. But as he also points out, Green’s critics are passing right by something far more interesting: that Aslan has misrepresented his scholarly credentials.

In fact, it is Aslan who immediately turns the interview into a cage match by reacting very defensively to Green’s first question. And here is where the misrepresentations begin. For roughly the first half of the interview Aslan dominates the exchange with assertions about himself that seem intended to delay the substance of the discussion:

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.

Later he complains that they are “debating the right of the scholar to write” the book rather than discussing the book. But the conversation took that turn thanks to Aslan, not Green! By the final minute he is saying of himself (and who really talks this way!?) that “I’m actually quite a prominent Muslim thinker in the United States.”

Aslan does have four degrees, as Joe Carter has noted: a 1995 B.A. in religion from Santa Clara University, where he was Phi Beta Kappa and wrote his senior thesis on “The Messianic Secret in the Gospel of Mark”; a 1999 Master of Theological Studies from Harvard; a 2002 Master of Fine Arts in Fiction from the University of Iowa; and a 2009 Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

>>3983592
None of these degrees is in history, so Aslan’s repeated claims that he has “a Ph.D. in the history of religions” and that he is “a historian” are false. Nor is “professor of religions” what he does “for a living.” He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing program at the University of California, Riverside, where his terminal MFA in fiction from Iowa is his relevant academic credential. It appears he has taught some courses on Islam in the past, and he may do so now, moonlighting from his creative writing duties at Riverside. Aslan has been a busy popular writer, and he is certainly a tireless self-promoter, but he is nowhere known in the academic world as a scholar of the history of religion. And a scholarly historian of early Christianity? Nope.

What about that Ph.D.? As already noted, it was in sociology. I have his dissertation in front of me. It is a 140-page work titled “Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework.” If Aslan’s Ph.D. is the basis of a claim to scholarly credentials, he could plausibly claim to be an expert on social movements in twentieth-century Islam. He cannot plausibly claim, as he did to Lauren Green, that he is a “historian,” or is a “professor of religions” “for a living.”

It may be that Aslan sensed a tougher interview from Lauren Green than he is accustomed to. Hence he immediately went into high-dudgeon mode, and made the ten minutes all about her alleged disrespect of him and his alleged scholarly credentials. But in order to change the subject he told a string of gratuitous falsehoods about himself. Perhaps that master’s in fiction writing came in handy.

Is Aslan’s book worth reading? I have no idea. But he has earned enough distrust from me that I haven’t any interest in finding out.

>>3981972

The obvious difference here being that Fox news INVITED Aslan to have an interview with them, while the right wing christian has not been invited to SRS

>>3982714
>>3982723
Is English your first language?

I agree that it's ugly, but it's completely correct.

>>3983292
>>3983367
You were right the first time.

>>3982812
>MSNBC
>more biased than Fox

>>3984631
Well MSNBC did edit that one black protester at that gun rally so you couldn't see his skin and then one of the panelists started talking about how racially charged this gun rally was because white people with guns were protesting a black president. Oh, and then there was the out and out slander committed against Zimmerman when they edited his 911 call.

>>3982743

this is what uneducated people actually believe.

From the Bukhari Hadith, regarded by Sunni Muslims (80% of Islam) as the most historical, authoritative record of Muhammad's life.

Actual quotes:

"Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

---

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years.

---

Narrated 'Aisha: I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

----

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me.

----

All from the Muslim operated website: http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari.html

Notice the big red disclaimer at the top of the website, urging people NOT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS unless you "possess high degree of knowledge."

----

>>3984649
Fox does a lot more shit like that, and they were even caught editing criticisms out of their Wikipedia article.

>>3984631
>MSNBC
>FOX
>both biased
>you like MSNBC because you are just as biased as they are

>>3984649
>fucking please

>>3984008
Yes, I'm a professional writer.

It's not correct.

Some people think it's correct, but they're wrong.

You're wrong.

And yes, it is ugly.

>>3984678
>being this upset that your preferred news-source is 90% lies and shit when the competition's only 50% lies and shit

How can someone take Islam seriously? Surah 33 in the Quran makes the whole religion, to me, seem like the sham of some perverted hustler.

http://quran.com/33

So, Muhammad says in this Surah that men can marry up to 4 wives. But WAIT. WHAT'S THIS? He is allowed to marry more than 4 wives.

Also, men must have sex with their wives in order. BUT WAIT. WHAT'S THIS? Muhammad is told by Allah that he may have sex with his wives in any order he wishes.

Also, men mustn't marry their daughter's in law for obvious reasons. BUT WAIT. WHAT'S THIS? Muhammad receives a revelation that his step son should divorce his wife so Muhammad can marry her.

It's just like Joseph Smith or David Koresh or any of the other "prophets" who liked having sex with lots of women.

And people believe this stuff.

>>3984686
Why is it wrong, "professional writer"-san?

>>3984693
Spencer pls go

>>3984669

I'll be waiting patiently for Aslan's book about the life of his precious prophet.

>>3984693

As a liberal, I believe that Islam is perfect in every way even though I know nothing about it.

I will defend it against anyone who criticizes it.

>>3984686
's for singular possessive. s' for plural possessive which ends in s (eg The Smiths' house).

Is this so uncommon a rule? It was taught to me as pretty straightforward and it makes sense. Unless we are talking about a collective of Spanish guys named Jesus then Jesus's is correct.

>>3984715
Oh boy is it American power hour already?

>>3984728
>implying Americans know what the term "liberal" means

>>3984721

>implying there aren't actually fuck tons of people with this mindset in American universities

>>3984695
The same reason why you don't pluralize goose as gooses. It sounds stupid and awkward.

"Oh look! The cats caught a bunch of mice! What should we do with the cats's mice?"

See how retarded that is once you start obeying your so-called rule for plural nouns?

And it sounds awful with singular nouns, too.

Imagine how ruined this song would be if Lou Reed sang "Jesus'S son".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skxi4NTqFlw

>>3984669
>implying any of this was uncommon in 7th century

>>3984713
Possessive apostrophe is like this:
add 's for singular nouns, or plural nouns not ending in s (like people => people's)

for words ending in s, you can simply add an apostrophe after the s. This covers most plurals, but also means singular nouns ending in s can be written with an ' or 's to show possession (i.e both Jesus' and Jesus's are valid, you either have to decide based on style sheets or improving clarity)

>>3984713
But that's wrong.

You don't need that extra s for singular possessives.

You simply don't need that extra 's! Why would you insert random letters into words that don't add anything to the meaning whatsoever?

Just cut the crap as much as possible.

>>3984731

Well, in the Confessions written by Augustine, if you've read that, you'll remember that his mother was pressuring him to marry a 12 year old, but he had to wait a year until she was 13, because that was the legal age a girl could marry in the Roman Empire.

(Augustine, of course, didn't marry her, but became the Bishop of Hippo).

Yea, they married younger back then, but the life expectancy was a lot shorter. Teenage girls could have babies, so they were married off.

But fucking a 9 year old prepubescent girl? No, that wasn't a super common, everyday thing, from anything that I've read.

>pic related, it's a random picture of a 9 year old

>>3984729
Hey, professional writer, nobody was talking about plural nouns. We're talking about names ending with 's'. You may write, but your reading needs work.
Also
>grammar is wrong because I don't like the sound of it
Sounds totally legit, professional writer!

>>3984713
The Chicago Manual of Style prefers 's with at least names. But it doesn't matter, there's no reason why 's can not be plural possessive when all it does is perform the function of the possessive (and it -will- be the standard in time).

>>3984729
>Imagine how ruined this song would be if Lou Reed sang "Jesus'S son".
I wouldn't start using songs as your definitive source for learning English. Saying "Jesus son" in day to day usage would make you sound more like a retard than Lou Reed. In fact, you'd pronounce Jesus' and Jesus's the same way.

>>3984747
>But fucking a 9 year old prepubescent girl?
He married 'Aisha and "consummated" with her after she began puberty. Every narration states this.

>implying anyway 'Aisha didn't exaggerate how young she was when she married to emphasize her purity in comparison to the other wives of the prophet

>>3984747
>because that was the legal age a girl could marry in the Roman Empire.

Except Muhammad wasn't a Roman.

Also sources disagree on how old she was when they were married, some sources say she was as old as ten, which would make her 13 when they consummated.

Even Byzantine emperors married girls that young as late as the 12th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_France,_Byzantine_Empress

>>3984753
My name ends in S. Whenever someone tries to throw on a possessive S as well, they always hesitate and sound like a stuttering retarded moron. Some people just glitch right the fuck out and start shaking their heads back and forth and biting their lips with this terrified look in their eyes. I once even saw someone fall to the ground and start writing around. It's just such an unnatural thing to do and sounds so awful.

>>3984754
Yeah let's celebrate the destruction of our language.

>>3984729
>The same reason why you don't pluralize goose as gooses. It sounds stupid and awkward.

>actually using an irregular noun as your example

>>3984766
I'll add that gooses is in fact a word, and so can't sound that stupid or awkward even if the act of goosing is both.

>>3984764

No they don't. The most authoritative source, the Bukhari Hadith, held by Sunni Muslims as the most historical, accurate source, plainly says she was 9 when he consummated the marriage with her.

>>3984765
>Yeah let's celebrate the destruction of our language.

Yeah let's celebrate being reactionary conservatives about illogical customs.
Yeah let's not accept that the English we're speaking is by your definition "destroyed" since it's not fucking Old English.

>>3984759
But you're wrong.

People didn't start tacking on that superfluous S until the 20th century, and they only did so out of ignorance. Enjoy perpetuating errors.

>>3984631
that wasn't my point, though I suppose I did mistakenly imply a strict ranking. the fact that MSNBC is biased at all is enough to taint them. although, anything run by humans will be biased or corrupt on some level. but come on. MSNBC is owned by Microsoft and noted military contractor General Electric.

>>3984763

It doesn't say that at all. What complete bullshit. It says he consummated the marriage when she was 9. It says nothing about "after puberty."

You're pulling bullshit completely out of thin air, contradicting the most ancient, historical record about Muhammad's life, because "muh islam bein criticized, muh islam so perfect."

>>3984777
's is an illogical custom. s' is THE LOGICAL ONE.

Fuck off you linguistic degenerate.

>>3984715
>Prediction
And, they've arrived:

>>3984764
>>3984763

>>3984774
see
>>3984763

Lesley Hazleton gives a pretty convincing account of this in her book After the Prophet.

>>3984690
Current was good when it started out but it doesn't have the same vibrancy it used to
programs like Vanguard are important and stuff but I wish they focused more on (unprofitable) user-submitted work

>>3984754
I like AP style the best for informal writing, though it's not mentioned here much. They use a no-s apostrophe for all names.
it's a matter of taste but a really annoying one on all sides

>>3984790

Anything to explain it away and make Muhammad look good.

Still doesn't account for Surah 33.

>>3984778
>People didn't start tacking on that superfluous S until the 20th century
Which way do you think you're travelling through time?

>>3984790

>White liberal tries her hardest to twist the ancient record about Muhammad to not look so bad

Sounds about right.

Go read threads about this on sunniforum. I respect the Muslims on there a lot more who just plainly say, "Yea, he married a 9 year old. He was God's Prophet. He can do what he wants." Instead of these apologists with their head in the sand, plugging their ears, refusing to believe anything bad about their precious prophet.

>>3984774
The compilers of the Hadith didn't worry about the authenticity of historical reports they included, since those were just considered academically interesting, as they did reports on teachings and laws.

The prominent Persian scholar al-Tabari from the 9th century, who was more meticulous with fact checking, recorded that she was ten when they were married.

>>3984798
Toward a bright and glorious future where people realize what a stupid mistake the superfluous S is and its use has been systematically annihilated and its proponents imprisoned.

>>3984804

Oh, okay, the guy 300 years later, was more accurate.

Well, you should tell the Sunni Muslims, because they think you Muslim apologist liberals are full of shit, and that the Bukhari Hadith is the most accurate, historical, trustworthy Hadith out there.

But I suppose white liberal Europeaners and Americans know more about the character of Muhammad than they do.

>>3984814
>9th century
>300 years later

Wow you are so retarded it actually hurts.

>>3984803
Jesus approved of slavery.

How come Jesus gets shit for sexually molesting 8 year olds, but Moho gets a free pass on raping a 9 year old?

>>3984804

it's just looking desperate now.

>>3984815

Red herring.

We're talking about Muhammad.

But you do show what is really behind the liberal's ignorant, desperate defense of Islam. They only care to defend Islam because they think it's a fellow enemy against Christianity.

im going to ask you a dumb question because Fox News
>OK
here is the question pretty dam stupid right?
>look I've bean doing interview like this for ever so im just going to wine about how great and open minded i am im even going to pull my wife and family in to this then im going to say that go my Phd and have studied this and meany other religions for years because clearly im to educated to defend my self with a simple sentience, one question at a time.
OK ass hole now you pissed me of and im a Fox News moron so im just going to keep berating you with the same question and attack you personally

you both fucked up guys

>>3984814
>>3984820
I like how instead of actually refuting my point you guys just go "lol stupid liberalzz lol".

The writers of the Hadiths were only meticulous when it came to religious laws and shit, anything they heard about Muhammad as a person was just included as an interesting curiosity rather than some infallible fact.

>>3984796
>>3984803
>/pol/ getting upset that reality doesn't play into their fantasies
>hur dur reading is fer fagits

Sounds exactly right.

>>3984815
That's because slavery was awesome before Jews took over the Atlantic slave trade over a millennium later and turned it into an industrialized, racist nightmare.

>>3984821

See this list here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutub_al-Sittah

It's the Hadiths that the Sunnis regard as authoritative. Is your precious "we believe it because it says Aisha was 10" Hadith in there?

>>3984835
The Greeks and Romans did plenty of vile things to their slaves, but your point has some validity.

More importantly, I'm pretty sure Jesus never addressed slavery. That was the apostles.

>>3984834

The people pretending that Muhammad didn't marry a 9 year old are the ones with the delusional, liberal fantasies.

Muslims themselves believe that he did. It's in the Hadiths. Go look on Muslim's own websites.

It's just the liberal Westerners who want to twist history to make Muhammad seem better than he was.

>>3984780
>he thinks he knows what he's talking about just because he read one fucking hadith on a website

Explain to me why Muhammad waited three years to marry her when they were betrothed when she was six (according to Aisha, since she narrates the ahadeeth saying it).

>>3984847

It's because her hair fell out and he was repulsed by it.

Go look it up, holmes.

>>3984846
>Historical evidence shows that the known source of this information may not have been stating the whole truth
>this is "pretending"
>/pol/faggots having hissy fits about nuance and historical studies and shoving their heads in the sand isn't "pretending"

Ok.

>>3984838
>the Hadiths are filled with infallible facts just because Sunni Muslims believe they are

Fuck off back to /pol/ you fucking retard, you still haven't even refuted my point.

The authors of the Hadiths were only meticulous when choosing what reports about teachings and laws and shit they were going to include. When it came to stuff about Muhammad's life in general they just included fucking anything anyone told them and didn't bother checking if it was true or not.

More reliable historians recorded her being around 9-10 when they were married.

>>3984852
>hurr go look it up
>can't produce the material

>>3984859

Again, you know more than all the Imams and the entire Sunni tradition, and dismiss the Bukhari Hadith simply because you don't like it.

Oh no, precious, sinless perfect Muhammad would never have sex with a 9 year old! Not him!!

No! Your liberal fantasies are crumbling!

It can't be true, it can't be true! Islam is perfect in every way, Muhammad was a great man, those Hadiths must be inaccurate, and the later ones that say he married her when she was 10, yea, those are the correct ones!

>>3984856
The Quaran says nothing about homosexuality.

>>3984867

Even Wikipedia sides with me, idiot.

"According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated.[15][15][17][18][19][20][21] However, al-Ṭabarī records that she was ten.[17] The sources do not offer much more information about Aisha's childhood years.[22][23]"


You obviously just googled it when you saw the thread, saw the majority of hadiths said she was nine, but saw one said she was ten, and decided "YEP, THAT'S THE BEST ONE, THAT'S THE ONE I BELIEVE."

>>3984852
>The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

Didn't you just throw a hissy fit about something not saying what was said? Funny that, in your case, that's an accurate accusation.

>>3984869
>"yur liberul fantsies"

This expression indicates an American's confusion and lack of understanding. When confronted with something he can not understand or respond to, Americans mumble, "yur librul fantsies". This is usually followed by clapping and stuffing their faces with burgers.

>>3984872
>All of this ad hominem
>All of this strawman

Are you done?

>>3984874

Wow it's true. He waited till her hair grew back then boned her. huh.

>>3984872
See >>3984859

The Hadiths aren't accurate records of Muhammad's life, nor were they intended to be.

>>3984829
>>look I've bean doing interview like this for ever so im just going to wine about how great and open minded i am im even going to pull my wife and family in to this then im going to say that go my Phd and have studied this and meany other religions for years because clearly im to educated to defend my self with a simple sentience, one question at a time.

It's a recurring theme in nearly all of his debates and tv appearances.

In a debate with Sam Harris, his opening statement begins with how his expertise makes him more qualified to speak on the topic at hand than his opponents. In his Daily Show interview, he repeats, word for word, most of what he said in the Fox interview (including how close he is to Christians and how just knowing that Jesus was crucified is by itself enough to know what kind of person he was). As someone who looks critically at any arguments that presented to me, he is just extremely weak at presenting his ideas. He relies too heavily on building an ethos, to the point with it actually hurts his ethos, sounds like a whiny asshole, and his premises are always debatable.

>>3984872
>Wikipedia
Furious

>>3984881

All of this pathetically arguing against the majority opinion of Islam and all the most reliable, respected historical records for some politically correct reason of pure ignorance.

>>3984872
>you're an idiot for obviously using Wikipedia
>Even Wikipedia agrees with me

There be some butthurt liberals in this thread, trying their damndest to do muslim damage control.

>>3984899

yep.

>>3984891
> the most reliable, respected historical records

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_Ahadith

>>3984891

>>3984899

> implying they're not muslims

>>3984906

yea, check the Bukhari Hadith. It is #1 according to the Sunni tradition.

>>3984883
Saddest samefag I've ever seen.

Religion of Peace, by the peaceful Prophet who would by no means ever molest a nine year old, despite what the hadiths say.

>>3984914

>be a liberal amerifat
>hate christianity
>defend Islam just because I see christians criticize it.
>know deep down inside, it's ten thousand times more evil
>dat feel when I'll keep defending it anyway

ITT: /pol/fag trying desperately to damage control (ie: being a /pol/friend)

>>3984921
Have you thought of not being a liberal anymore?

>>3984910
>Sunnis believe it's true so that means it must be historically accurate

Yeah that makes sense. I guess the world is also only 5000 years old then since that's what the Bible says.

>>3984926
Are you sure you Americans even know what the term "liberal" means?

>>3984922

You must mean because pol fags are neo nazis and hate the Jews and thus are allies with Islam, too.

>>3984933
/pol/ hates Muslims too.

>>3984921
It's true. I when to librul arts skool and exclusively eat a diet of McDonald's Big Macs, I H8 XRISTENS, I <3 everything XRISTENS h8, and I'm dishonestly defending something I hate, on an anonymous image board.

>>3984943
>I'm from /pol/ and I don't actually read books but I believe everything I read in a .jpg file

>>3984886
he should have just asked the interviewer how qualified she is rather than build his credibility i think writing the book and having the PhD is enough
he also should have defended his side as simple as possible and one question at a time
HE ALSO SHOULD HAVE TAKEN HIS PUBLIC SPEAKING CLASS MORE SERIOUSLY yo

>>3984933
>and thus are allies with Islam, too.

Stop trying to damage control.

>>3984947

What the fuck do you think damage control means?

It's the people in this thread pathetically trying to explain away the Hadiths that are accepted BY THE VAST FUCKING MAJORITY OF ALL ISLAM as being historical and authoritative who are doing damage control.

I guess it really doesn't matter, though, what some idiot American/European liberals think about Muhammad, since Muslims themselves believe the Bukhari Hadith, whether liberals like it or not.

>>3984956

What's important, though, I suppose isn't what Muslims believe but what liberals pretend that they believe.

>>3984956
>what followers of a religion believe is more important than the facts

Yeah, ok. I suppose evolution isn't a thing then since that's what most Christians/Jews/Muslims believe.

>>3984960
You do realize Muhammad was a historical figure right? And that it's not about what anybody "believes" but about what actually happened historically right?

Just because the majority of Muslims believe the Hadiths are "true" or whatever doesn't mean they're fucking historically accurate.

>>3984961

>Fact is whichever hadith I prefer to believe because it says Aisha is 10 instead of 9.

>A 54 year old fucking a 10 year old is better than him fucking a 9 year old.

>>3984956
>>3984960
No one can force you to read, to think, or to shut up, but I would strong suggest you try them all. regardless, you need to go back to where you came.

>>3984966

No, you're right. Only the hadiths that conform to modern politically correct Western ideas of Muhammad are "historically accurate."

>>3984972
I'm not citing any fucking Hadiths, I'm citing a historian renowned for being extremely meticulous.

>>3984969
>hurr durr I don't know how to read

If they got married at 10 then that means they didn't consummate until she was 13.

I think Reza is the one posting ITT. He is the one defending his book with the screenshots.

Go to bed Reza.

>>3984984

Right.

You prefer to believe some revisionist Western liberal against all of the Muslim scholars and and all of the history of Islam.

And why?

For no other reason than that you want to white wash Muhammad's history.

It's pathetic, really.

>>3984984

Where the fuck did you get 13 from?

>>3984984

The delusional damage control is strong with this one.

Jesus, /pol/ gets more pathetic every day.

>>3984994
> revisionist Western liberal

Holy shit how fucking retarded are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Jarir_al-Tabari

This is who I'm citing.

>>3985001
>Holy shit how fucking retarded are you?
Don't ask questions the answers to which you're not prepared to fathom. You've only scratched the iceberg, friend.

>>3985001

Tabari said she was 10 when it was consummated.

>>3985002
they didn't consummate their marriage until they'd been married for three years, you retard

>>3985006
>>3985001

One sad, samefagging liberal, trying desperately to do damage control for Islam.

"‘Aisha was 6 (or 7) years old when she was married, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old.’ Muhammad b. ‘Amr is one of the transmitters."

Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 129-131

>>3985009

‘My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.’
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131


‘The angel brought down my likeness; the Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine; he married me when I was a virgin, no other man having shared me with him; inspiration came to him when he and I were in a single blanket...’
Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 7


‘The Prophet married Aishah in Shawwal in the tenth year after the [beginning of his] prophethood, three years before Emigration. He consummated the marriage in Shawwal, eight months after Emigration. On the day he consummated the marriage with her she was nine years old.’
Al-Tabari, Vol. 39, pp. 171-173

>>3985012
>this projection

>>3985008
Where?

>>3985021
>>3985018

someone just got butt slammed

>>3985021
>>3985018

>tfw I should just admit defeat
>tfw I'm too proud and will find a way to explain it away
>tfw why am I defending a pedophile from the 7th century, anyway

>>3985021
>>3985018

/thread

>>3985008

He said it was nine.

>>3985033
i know you're better than this bro
you can stop
i believe in you

>>3985021
>taking passages out of context

Tabari informs in his treatise on Islamic history that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the pre Islamic period. The pre-Islamic period ended in 610 A.D, a fact that makes Ayesha to be at least 14 years of age at the time of her marriage around 623-624 A.D.
(Tarikhu'l-umam WA'l-mamlu'k, Al-Tabari, Vol 4, Pg 50, Arabic, Dara'l-fikr, Beirut, 1979).

Tabari reports that before migrating to Habashah, Abu Bakr planned to hand over his daughter, Ayesha to Mut'am's son to whom she was engaged. But fearing persecution by the Quraish, Mut'am refused and his son divorced Ayesha. The migration to Habashah happened 8 years before Hijra. Obviously, at the time she was ready to take on responsibilities as a wife (possibly 9 or 10 years of age). If she married Muhammad in the 2nd Hijrah (623-624 A.D), she could not be less than 19 years of age (a secondary reference for this argument is: Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat, Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, Urdu, Pg 38, Anjuman Uswa e hasanah, Karachi, Pakistan).

>>3985049

Blah, blah.

Copy pasted crap from Muslim apologists trying to explain it away.

See:
>>3985021
>>3985018

She was nine.

You're just being desperate at this point.

>>3985066
Please actually refute what I posted.

>>3985049
>b-b-but muh librual fantasys ;___________;

>>3985049


>even I don't believe this.

>>3985072
>alleged quotes
>more accurate than dates and facts

yeah ok

>>3985066
>>3985067
>put sage in name field
>didn't take it out when he samefagged
>absolutely refuse to address the point that was made

Perfect /pol/ling

>>3985066
>>3985084

AHAHAHAHAHAAHA

>>3985076

Your random quotes from a random website are "facts" now, while the ancient hadiths regarded as authoritative are "alleged quotes."

You know, wikipedia is usually right, especially on controversial topics where editing is blocked and the consensus is voted on.

She was 9 when he consummated the marriage.

You know.
I know it.
Everyone in here knows it.

It's just sad to see you try to pretend otherwise.

>>3985076
Give it up same/pol/

>>3985088
>>3985084

>implying this isn't the same person too.

I hope you guys realize there are only about four of us in here.

>>3985092
>>3985088
>>3985084

All the same person.

>>3985088
>>3985090

>>3985094
>>3985090

same person, too

>>3985090
>random quotes

Those aren't quotes you retard, they're conclusions drawn from recorded historical facts.

The things you posted were quotes that are attributed to Aisha and are of questionable authenticity.

>>3985094
He was pretending to be someone else, that's not the same thing as posting more than once.

Keep trying tho :)

>>3985094
i know that's why my post have not bean contributing to this farce
really im just waiting to see it get deleted

>>3985094
>>3985095
>>3985097
btw

>>3985088
:)

>>3985094
>>implying this isn't the same person too.
That wasn't actually implied.

You got caught, it's okay. Just admit you're trolling and go back home.

>>3985088
blunder of the century

>>3985104

>implying wikipedia isn't more reliable than whatever random site you pulled those quotes from.

>>3985117
>>3985109
>>3985106

You're the same person.

>Trying to avoid addressing a point that destroys your argument and geting caught samefagging on top of that

Ouch.

>>3985121

>>3985118
>"according to traditional sources"

Also again, those aren't "quotes" they're conclusions drawn from recorded facts, with citations to back them up. What you posted were literal quotes attributed to Aisha.

>>3985129

The quotes came from the Bukhari and Tabari Hadiths, you moron.

>>3985118
>random site
>it's a cited source
>still has nothing to say to counter it

How much longer can this go?!

>>3985131
Which I've already said aren't reliable historical sources.

Try again, /pol/tard.

>>3985131
>>3985088

>>3985139
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

bukhari hadith not reliable!

tell that to the Sunni Muslims.

>>3985139

How stupid are you?

"Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and Muwatta Imam Malik."

"Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and Muwatta Imam Malik."

"Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and Muwatta Imam Malik."

"Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and Muwatta Imam Malik."

Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and Muwatta Imam Malik."

>>3985144
Again, just because the Sunni Muslims believe it's true doesn't mean it is.

Most of them also believe the Earth is only about 5000 years old but that doesn't mean they're correct.

>For girls, puberty is generally considered to be too early if it begins at age seven or eight. African-American and Hispanic girls tend to start puberty slightly earlier than Caucasian girls.

>The average age of pubertal onset in girls is 10-and-a-half years old, but it ranges from seven to 13 years old. The average age of menarche is 12-and-a-half to 13 years of age. The whole process of puberty should take three to four years.

>Rapidly progressing puberty -- start to finish in less than two years -- can be a concern as well because it can be due to an endocrine disorder.

http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/advice_from_doctors/your_childs_health/when-is-puberty-too-early

>>3985151
see >>3985152

I'm trying to talk about facts here, not what Muslims believe.

>>3985152

The amount of dumbfuckery damage control coming from you is astounding. Fuck what a moron.

What a seriously delusional moron you are.

>>3985154

Tell me why the Bukhari Hadith isn't reliable then.

>>3985144
>>3985088

>>3985155
dem ad hominems

Ibn al-Salah said: "The first to author a Sahih was Bukhari, Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Ju’fee, followed by Aboo al-Husain Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naisaabooree al-Qushairee, who was his student, sharing many of the same teachers. These two books are the most authentic books after the Quran. As for the statement of Al-Shafi‘i, who said "I do not know of a book containing knowledge more correct than Malik’s book," – others mentioned it with a different wording – he said this before the books of Bukhari and Muslim. The book of Bukhari is the more authentic of the two and more useful."[3]

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani quoted Aboo Ja’far al-‘Uqailee as saying, "After Bukhari had written the Sahih, he read it to Ali ibn al-Madini, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Ma'in as well as others. They considered it a good effort and testified to its authenticity with the exception of four hadith. Al-‘Uqailee then said that Bukhari was actually correct regarding those four hadith." Ibn Hajar then concluded, "And they are, in fact, authentic."[10]

>>3985157
>>3985049

>>3985166

>>3985165
>>3985162

>>3985162
>>3985165

clearly the winner.

>>3985157
I've already told you like five times in this thread.

>>3985160

You've given no good reason not to believe the Bukhari hadith beyond some vague quote you took from a website.

The consensus is that it is a reliable, authentic, historical record of Muhammad.

The majority of hadiths say she was 10.

You lose.

>Clueless amerifats that don't know hadith collections weren't based on how factual they are but on their supposed attestations
>Not knowing that ahadeeth are merely for extra consultation

>>3985160

You're obviously mad.

>>3985172
>>3985173
>samefagging again

You've already been caught once. It's kind of sad really that you go on an anonymous imageboard and declare yourself the "winner" of an online argument.

>>3985162
>>3985165
>>3985172
>>3985173
You're STILL samefagging?

>>3985189
>>3985187

You are the same person.

Aisha was 9. That's what the majority of historians believe. It's what Wikipedia says.

If the thesis that she was 19 had any historical credibility or any consensus among historians, it'd be on Wikipedia. But it doesn't, so it's not.

She was 9.

/thread.

>>3985182
>Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
>It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.
>Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)
>Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302)
>According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
>According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

>>3985192
>time-stamp

>>3985203
>>3985204

Aisha was 9. That's what the majority of historians believe. It's what Wikipedia says.

If the thesis that she was 19 had any historical credibility or any consensus among historians, it'd be on Wikipedia. But it doesn't, so it's not.

She was 9.

/thread.

>>3985192
>gets caught samefagging
>retaliates by calling the people calling him out on it as samefags
>fails

what a loser

>>3985216
>>3985204

Same person.

Also:
>>3985210

Aisha was 9. That's what the majority of historians believe. It's what Wikipedia says.

If the thesis that she was 19 had any historical credibility or any consensus among historians, it'd be on Wikipedia. But it doesn't, so it's not.

She was 9.

/thread.

>>3985210
>loses argument on anonymous imageboard
>"muh wikipedia"

thank god American power hour is almost over

>>3985182
The worst part of this is that you've spent all this time defending a faulty document you don't even begin to understand, and for a point that's dead on arrival.

>>3985153
As you saw earlier in the thread
>>3984874
Muhammad waited three years for her to be a marriageable age (which is traditional when puberty begins). Just admit it man.

>>3985222
>>3985216

samefag.

Also:
>>3985221

>>3985221
you're pretty bad at this, you should probably stop trying

>>3985192
Holy Fuck, you're furious

>>3985223
>>3985222

Samefag samefagging.

Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9, as the hadiths say and as the majority of historians say.

>>3985230
>>3985227
>>3985223
>>3985222

Samefag.

>>3985231

>>3985231
I don't think I've ever seen a person on /lit/ this buttmad before.

>>3985234
Come on, man.

>>3985239
>>3985230
>>3985227

Same person. Look at the picture titles.

>>3985244
>>3985241
>>3985239

>projecting this hard.

>>3985234
>gets called out on being a samefag
>proceeds to pick random posts in the thread in the hopes that someone else is samefagging too so that he can save face and protect his ego
>fails every time

my sides