My guest this week is Reza Aslan, a scholar of the sociology of religion and the author of many books, including, most recently, An American Martyr in Persia: The Epic Life and Tragic Death of Howard Baskerville. Like many of Reza’s books, this one is a page-turner. It tells the story of an American missionary and his role in supporting and then joining the struggle of Persian democratic revolutionaries in the early twentieth century. In this episode, Reza outlines Baskerville’s remarkable story, describes the politics of a nation moving toward democracy, and talks a bit about the origins and embattled position of present-day Iran.
It was a good choice to invite Reza Aslan on the show to talk about his book, which sounds fascinating. I was disappointed that Glenn didn't question several obviously false statements Aslan made, especially about the invention of the concept of an Islamic state in the 20th century and that Woodrow Wilson defeated fascism. I can't make much sense of them because they don't seem to support Aslan's main ideas.
I laughed out loud when Aslan said that the American government has defined itself in opposition to the Iranian government. I don't doubt that the Iranian government likes to think they're that important.
36:28 Aslan may be correct about mullahs in Iran supporting revolution in 1905. His assertion that the idea of an Islamic state didn't exist at that time is laughable and easily refuted. Muhammad was both a religious and political leader and his successors ruled caliphates starting in the year 632. It's hard to believe that Aslan is that ignorant of history, so I'm inclined to think he's simply lying. https://www.britannica.com/place/Caliphate
Aslan goes on to explain that Shiʿah Islam is more oriented toward a future perfect society than Sunni Islam. He doesn't mention that ʿAlī, the first imam of Shiʿism, was one of the earliest rulers of the Islamic state begun by Muhammad. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ali-Muslim-caliph
8:20 When did Woodrow Wilson defeat fascism? AFAICT, Wilson died in 1924 when fascism was taking off in Italy. Did Aslan confuse Wilson with FDR? Perhaps Aslan thinks the German empire was fascist in 1917. Was Aslan referring to the world post-1918, in which fascism, communism and nationalism were on the rise or the world post-1945, two decades after Wilson's death? In any case, his grasp on history is severely lacking.
I like the book part of the interview but the second half was, forgive me, atrocious.
I LOVE that you have guests on with view points that strongly disagree with you and your audience. I love it because you challenge people with bad and foolish ideas and either expose them or bring a new level of nuanced perspective to the conversation. HOWEVER, I feel lately some of your leftist guests have been given a platform to spread their asinine accusations about America and the world uncontested. I've seen you bring it - so I know you are capable. This episode and Sabrina Salvati are particular illustrations of what I mean to giving platform to people without giving them adequate push back. I understand your hesitation to push back hard as you are generally a non combative personality (I mean that as a compliment). I also would hesitate to unload on someone my spouse regarded highly (regarding Salvati).
I can only think of the description of watching a giant getting bested by a pipsqueak in the boxing ring to describe how frustrating it is to watch these crazy accusations fly with little retaliation coming from your end.
Just one example regarding this episode, and it has been mentioned in the comment section by someone else...
The obvious response to the reason why Israel needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent (MAD) is it is surrounded by countries who have a history of not only proclaiming their intent to wipe the country off the map but have often acted on that rhetoric.
In sum: diversity of viewpoints with clarification good. The platforming of bad viewpoints without adequate pushback bad. Again, I hope I didn't come off as rude, and I apologize if I did. I'm just letting you know my concern for how some of the shows have come out lately.
Keep up the good fight and thank you for your efforts and dedication in all that you do.
How does Reza square his support and praise of the 2015 JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) with the fact Iran cheated and lied the entire time? "The deal" did little to slow Iran's progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons and actually enhanced its ability to fund its terrorist tentacles. The U.S. only left the JCPOA in 2018 after Mossad managed to steal Iran's nuclear archives (tons of paper and computer drives) and expose proof to the world.
Yes, the U.S. acts in its self interest, but what has been the effect over time? Americans and most of the rest of the world are so much better off by almost any measure of human flourishing than ever before. America's self interest is to better the lives of it's people. Since Iran is a millenarian dictatorship, its (i.e. the supreme leader's) self interest is something else - to ready the world for the messiah.
The American self interest includes the Iranian people achieving a peaceful, prosperous, liberal, secular, democratic government.
While the JCPOA failed, I think it's possible that some kind diplomacy might prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. I don't think such a thing would be possible if the US didn't have nuclear weapons. The goal of ridding the world of atomic bombs sounds nice and it's a fantasy.
Yes, this is where he lost me. A fascinating story up to that point. I wonder how he squares his absolutist Plowshares sort of moral equivalency (the U.S. pursues its interests like all the others; Israel has nukes, Iran wants a nuke; we have terrorists, they have terrorists; etc.) with his description of the Iranian people's love of Americans. Why is it this tired old imperial nation of ours elicits that feeling from ordinary people laboring under the yokes of all those nations that, according to Reza, only do what we do?
In any case, of ALL the nations that have nuclear weapons, the nation with the MOST justification in having them is Israel. I understand the attraction of the Plowshares abolitionism with regard to nukes, but as Rashida Tlaib might say, it's "aspirational." She knows darn well how worthless that word is except in a pinch when your fakery is being called. The earth's evolutionary mechanisms have not yet attained such rarified idealism.
I had to chuckle, thinking this historical situation is one where the original expression, “to a MAN” would actually be more accurate. But using the more inclusive expression is not a bad habit to be in.
Yeah, "Wilson defeating fascism" was really bizzare. And (while I don't like Wilson) reducing him to "he was a racist" is pretty simplistic thinking. I'm sure none of the other world leaders in 1910 were racists.
At the same time, it's a really interesting perspective (if biased) about how Iran sees themselves.
I might agree with his claim that the US acts in it's own interest -- what else would it do? But, I'd claim that: "More so than many other countries -- more so than the average country -- supporting democracies and countries that respect human rights *is* in the US interest." And hence we do (occasionally) support free countries. Does he have any examples of free countries that Iran supports?
Wilson died in 1924 when fascism was getting started in Italy, so Aslan's statement is simply wrong. Is it possible that he confused Wilson with FDR? Also, Wilson was particularly racist for the time. He re-segregated parts of the Federal government.
Very disappointed to see Glenn give a platform to this well-known Iranian propagandist. And terrorist apologist. I wonder if this post will be censored like my last one?
I'm looking through your comments, and I don't see anything recent that has been taken down. Can you point me in the right direction so I can see what you're referring to?
I was the first to comment. The comment had a spelling error ( an "e" for a "t"). The comment identified Azlan as an Iranian propagadist, and pointed to his CNN appearances and Daily Beast columns as evidence. I posted it the normal way(same as always), but it never "made it" online.
Are you talking about a comment here at Substack or over on Youtube? Youtube does occasionally disappear comments or does something weirder where they're sometimes visible and other times not, with no human involved in this decision making.
I think I see yours. By default comments on the video page are sorted by "top comments." With that setting, I don't see any comments at all. But if I switch to "newest first," I see you talking about Reza's TDS, anti-Americanism, and pro-Iran propaganda; and another one from Colin Reese saying Reza is a bad person who ate human brains.
This has nothing to do with the show's staff, and I'm afraid there's no getting to a human to talk to about this at Youtube.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but Aslan’s characterization of Woodrow Wilson as having “defeated fascism” and the Shah’s regime around the turn of the 20th century as being “totalitarian” seem ahistorical and sloppy to me.
Anybody care to steelman that for me? (Or just tell me to quit splitting hairs haha)
There's no way to steelman a statement that is obviously wrong. Wilson died in 1924 when fascism was taking off in Italy. Is it possible Aslan confused Wilson with FDR?
I’ve heard him referred to as a “bad faith actor”, (in context of discussion of Islam with Sam Harris), but with that in mind, was interested in what he had to say about Iran.
It was a good choice to invite Reza Aslan on the show to talk about his book, which sounds fascinating. I was disappointed that Glenn didn't question several obviously false statements Aslan made, especially about the invention of the concept of an Islamic state in the 20th century and that Woodrow Wilson defeated fascism. I can't make much sense of them because they don't seem to support Aslan's main ideas.
I laughed out loud when Aslan said that the American government has defined itself in opposition to the Iranian government. I don't doubt that the Iranian government likes to think they're that important.
36:28 Aslan may be correct about mullahs in Iran supporting revolution in 1905. His assertion that the idea of an Islamic state didn't exist at that time is laughable and easily refuted. Muhammad was both a religious and political leader and his successors ruled caliphates starting in the year 632. It's hard to believe that Aslan is that ignorant of history, so I'm inclined to think he's simply lying. https://www.britannica.com/place/Caliphate
Aslan goes on to explain that Shiʿah Islam is more oriented toward a future perfect society than Sunni Islam. He doesn't mention that ʿAlī, the first imam of Shiʿism, was one of the earliest rulers of the Islamic state begun by Muhammad. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ali-Muslim-caliph
8:20 When did Woodrow Wilson defeat fascism? AFAICT, Wilson died in 1924 when fascism was taking off in Italy. Did Aslan confuse Wilson with FDR? Perhaps Aslan thinks the German empire was fascist in 1917. Was Aslan referring to the world post-1918, in which fascism, communism and nationalism were on the rise or the world post-1945, two decades after Wilson's death? In any case, his grasp on history is severely lacking.
My apologies in advance Dr. Loury,
I like the book part of the interview but the second half was, forgive me, atrocious.
I LOVE that you have guests on with view points that strongly disagree with you and your audience. I love it because you challenge people with bad and foolish ideas and either expose them or bring a new level of nuanced perspective to the conversation. HOWEVER, I feel lately some of your leftist guests have been given a platform to spread their asinine accusations about America and the world uncontested. I've seen you bring it - so I know you are capable. This episode and Sabrina Salvati are particular illustrations of what I mean to giving platform to people without giving them adequate push back. I understand your hesitation to push back hard as you are generally a non combative personality (I mean that as a compliment). I also would hesitate to unload on someone my spouse regarded highly (regarding Salvati).
I can only think of the description of watching a giant getting bested by a pipsqueak in the boxing ring to describe how frustrating it is to watch these crazy accusations fly with little retaliation coming from your end.
Just one example regarding this episode, and it has been mentioned in the comment section by someone else...
The obvious response to the reason why Israel needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent (MAD) is it is surrounded by countries who have a history of not only proclaiming their intent to wipe the country off the map but have often acted on that rhetoric.
In sum: diversity of viewpoints with clarification good. The platforming of bad viewpoints without adequate pushback bad. Again, I hope I didn't come off as rude, and I apologize if I did. I'm just letting you know my concern for how some of the shows have come out lately.
Keep up the good fight and thank you for your efforts and dedication in all that you do.
All the best,
- Michoel
Great episode, Glenn. I like your recent focus on foreign policy.
I wish Glenn had asked him your question. Would he question the veracity of info obtained by Mossad, or how else explain the untruth of his claim?
Interesting convo, but I would have appreciated more info about the book and the man it is apparently about.
How does Reza square his support and praise of the 2015 JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) with the fact Iran cheated and lied the entire time? "The deal" did little to slow Iran's progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons and actually enhanced its ability to fund its terrorist tentacles. The U.S. only left the JCPOA in 2018 after Mossad managed to steal Iran's nuclear archives (tons of paper and computer drives) and expose proof to the world.
Yes, the U.S. acts in its self interest, but what has been the effect over time? Americans and most of the rest of the world are so much better off by almost any measure of human flourishing than ever before. America's self interest is to better the lives of it's people. Since Iran is a millenarian dictatorship, its (i.e. the supreme leader's) self interest is something else - to ready the world for the messiah.
The American self interest includes the Iranian people achieving a peaceful, prosperous, liberal, secular, democratic government.
While the JCPOA failed, I think it's possible that some kind diplomacy might prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. I don't think such a thing would be possible if the US didn't have nuclear weapons. The goal of ridding the world of atomic bombs sounds nice and it's a fantasy.
Yes, this is where he lost me. A fascinating story up to that point. I wonder how he squares his absolutist Plowshares sort of moral equivalency (the U.S. pursues its interests like all the others; Israel has nukes, Iran wants a nuke; we have terrorists, they have terrorists; etc.) with his description of the Iranian people's love of Americans. Why is it this tired old imperial nation of ours elicits that feeling from ordinary people laboring under the yokes of all those nations that, according to Reza, only do what we do?
In any case, of ALL the nations that have nuclear weapons, the nation with the MOST justification in having them is Israel. I understand the attraction of the Plowshares abolitionism with regard to nukes, but as Rashida Tlaib might say, it's "aspirational." She knows darn well how worthless that word is except in a pinch when your fakery is being called. The earth's evolutionary mechanisms have not yet attained such rarified idealism.
“The Mullahs were, to a PERSON, progressives...”
I had to chuckle, thinking this historical situation is one where the original expression, “to a MAN” would actually be more accurate. But using the more inclusive expression is not a bad habit to be in.
Yeah, "Wilson defeating fascism" was really bizzare. And (while I don't like Wilson) reducing him to "he was a racist" is pretty simplistic thinking. I'm sure none of the other world leaders in 1910 were racists.
At the same time, it's a really interesting perspective (if biased) about how Iran sees themselves.
I might agree with his claim that the US acts in it's own interest -- what else would it do? But, I'd claim that: "More so than many other countries -- more so than the average country -- supporting democracies and countries that respect human rights *is* in the US interest." And hence we do (occasionally) support free countries. Does he have any examples of free countries that Iran supports?
Wilson died in 1924 when fascism was getting started in Italy, so Aslan's statement is simply wrong. Is it possible that he confused Wilson with FDR? Also, Wilson was particularly racist for the time. He re-segregated parts of the Federal government.
It's interesting that Baskerville was killed on Patriots Day (April 19).
Glenn, you should ask Sam Harris his opinion of Reza Aslan.
Very disappointed to see Glenn give a platform to this well-known Iranian propagandist. And terrorist apologist. I wonder if this post will be censored like my last one?
I'm looking through your comments, and I don't see anything recent that has been taken down. Can you point me in the right direction so I can see what you're referring to?
I was the first to comment. The comment had a spelling error ( an "e" for a "t"). The comment identified Azlan as an Iranian propagadist, and pointed to his CNN appearances and Daily Beast columns as evidence. I posted it the normal way(same as always), but it never "made it" online.
Are you talking about a comment here at Substack or over on Youtube? Youtube does occasionally disappear comments or does something weirder where they're sometimes visible and other times not, with no human involved in this decision making.
I think I see yours. By default comments on the video page are sorted by "top comments." With that setting, I don't see any comments at all. But if I switch to "newest first," I see you talking about Reza's TDS, anti-Americanism, and pro-Iran propaganda; and another one from Colin Reese saying Reza is a bad person who ate human brains.
This has nothing to do with the show's staff, and I'm afraid there's no getting to a human to talk to about this at Youtube.
Not sure, Nikita, but thank you for looking into it. I think it's a truism now that nothing is as transparent as it may first appear.
Huh, that is weird. I didn't delete it, and I'm pretty sure neither Glenn nor Nikita did either. Has this happened before? I hope not.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but Aslan’s characterization of Woodrow Wilson as having “defeated fascism” and the Shah’s regime around the turn of the 20th century as being “totalitarian” seem ahistorical and sloppy to me.
Anybody care to steelman that for me? (Or just tell me to quit splitting hairs haha)
There's no way to steelman a statement that is obviously wrong. Wilson died in 1924 when fascism was taking off in Italy. Is it possible Aslan confused Wilson with FDR?
You're right, Chris. Mr. Azlan is quite frequently dishonest for the sake of his "higher cause".
I’ve heard him referred to as a “bad faith actor”, (in context of discussion of Islam with Sam Harris), but with that in mind, was interested in what he had to say about Iran.