While much of this is correct, there are a few obvious errors. The Jewish population in the world is closer to 14 million, not 1.4 million. Also, the Jewish book that Muslims acknowledge is the Torah (Taurat), not the Talmud.
The author also makes the statement that early nomadic Arab (and I assume the early Muslim community) was matriarchal. Perhaps, it just an unfortunate selection of terms; but these societies were neither matriarchal, nor matrilineal. In many patriarchal societies, women have domestic authority (i.e. taking care of meals, children, and other domestic concerns). The political structure was still dominated by men.
To be perfectly honest, while O'Reilly's version of Jesus is skewed, it is also true that Christian Biblical scholars are from agreeing with Aslan's viewpoint.
Bennoune has written a book on this subject, Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here. It is full of stories of Muslims around the world fighting against fundamentalism. She also goes into more detail about her theoretical assumptions. She finds fundamentalism in all of its guises to be a problem and in opposition to truly human development.
I have some questions. Like many Arab and other less-developed states, Syria played a role in the Cold War. Saddam Hussein, a Baathist in Iraq became an American ally. Was Assad (the current president's father) a Soviet ally, an American ally, independent? Where does Syria get its weapons?
It seems to me that many of the problems that the USA encounters in the Middle East (and elsewhere) come from previous attempts to "fix" problems. Afghanistan and Iraq are two obvious examples. Does Syria fit into this pattern at all?
The 'essentialized' explanations are generally preferred, not because of lack of information, but because they are simple and easy. And they can explain so much, since they are so terribly general and based in myth-making. It's done all the time by people of every culture and religion all over the world. It's the basis of all racism, tribalism and religious bigotry. It can even be seen in American politics as conservative talk of the 'evil nature' of liberals; and liberals hunt for psychological explanations of why some people are conservative.
Of course, we never like these types of explanations to be said about ourselves, but they get used all the time about the Other.
While much of this is correct, there are a few obvious errors. The Jewish population in the world is closer to 14 million, not 1.4 million. Also, the Jewish book that Muslims acknowledge is the Torah (Taurat), not the Talmud.
The author also makes the statement that early nomadic Arab (and I assume the early Muslim community) was matriarchal. Perhaps, it just an unfortunate selection of terms; but these societies were neither matriarchal, nor matrilineal. In many patriarchal societies, women have domestic authority (i.e. taking care of meals, children, and other domestic concerns). The political structure was still dominated by men.
To be perfectly honest, while O'Reilly's version of Jesus is skewed, it is also true that Christian Biblical scholars are from agreeing with Aslan's viewpoint.
Bennoune has written a book on this subject, Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here. It is full of stories of Muslims around the world fighting against fundamentalism. She also goes into more detail about her theoretical assumptions. She finds fundamentalism in all of its guises to be a problem and in opposition to truly human development.
I have some questions. Like many Arab and other less-developed states, Syria played a role in the Cold War. Saddam Hussein, a Baathist in Iraq became an American ally. Was Assad (the current president's father) a Soviet ally, an American ally, independent? Where does Syria get its weapons?
It seems to me that many of the problems that the USA encounters in the Middle East (and elsewhere) come from previous attempts to "fix" problems. Afghanistan and Iraq are two obvious examples. Does Syria fit into this pattern at all?
Thank you for an insightful article.
The 'essentialized' explanations are generally preferred, not because of lack of information, but because they are simple and easy. And they can explain so much, since they are so terribly general and based in myth-making. It's done all the time by people of every culture and religion all over the world. It's the basis of all racism, tribalism and religious bigotry. It can even be seen in American politics as conservative talk of the 'evil nature' of liberals; and liberals hunt for psychological explanations of why some people are conservative.
Of course, we never like these types of explanations to be said about ourselves, but they get used all the time about the Other.