Andrew Bostom, editor of the essential reference works The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, had this interesting exchange with the egregious pseudo-journalist Michael Kruse of the St. Petersburg Times, who has been doing his level best to obscure the case for the convert from Islam Rifqa Bary, denigrate her defenders, and ensure that she is delivered back to the father who threatened to kill her.
The exchange begins with Andy asking Kruse why he took my quoting of CAIR cofounder Omar Ahmad's notorious statement about Islam becoming dominant in America and reported it as if I had made a flat assertion that "Islam was here to take over America."
- Bostom to Kruse:
Gosh Mike, What was this about?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2009/09/027459print.html - Kruse to Bostom:
Rob Spencer posted something on his blog.
- Bostom to Kruse:
Obviously...But why on earth would you misrepresent what he said and its clear context so egregiously?
- Kruse to Bostom:
I'm just listening to both sides.
- Bostom to Kruse:
You were right next to him and then misrepresented what he said. Look at the videotape at 0:47...Isn't that you???
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2009/09/027473print.html - Kruse to Bostom:
It's my job to listen to everybody. It's not my job to assign everybody equal credibility. When it comes to Robert Spencer scholars of Islamic studies outright dismiss him and his body of work. They call him an unreliable ideologue at best and a divisive bigot at worst. I can't do that, though, can't just ignore him like that, because he, and Pam Geller, too, are so much a part of this story, and certainly reasons it's turned into what it's turned into. Judging from his e-mails and how he talks in person, Rob strikes me as a pretty smart guy, but he's a pretty smart guy with a very specific worldview. Everything he writes or says gets filtered through that static narrowness. Here is a relatively new dynamic: The other day in Orlando, Rob and Pam were speakers at a news conference, advocates for one "side" of this whole thing, and THEN they covered it as members of the press. They're covering a story they've helped create, or at the very least stoke. The front row of the courtroom was for media, and there was the AP, some newspaper reporters, some TV reporters, some radio reporters, and there was Pam, a woman who last fall wrote a story on her blog saying Barack Obama was the illegitimate son of Malcom X. All of it is an interesting piece of the sprawling Rifqa Bary story, worth watching and considering now, and during the next story like it, and the next one after that.
- Bostom to Kruse:
I deal with your non-sequiturs about Robert and Pamela, below. But first, you deliberately and grossly misrepresented what Robert said and the very specific context in which he made his statement--despite standing right next to him, as one can see in the videotape. That reflects very poorly on your own credibility and your ability to judge anyone else's for that matter.
Do you not see that? Do you not see your own transparent--certainly to me-- "static narrowness?"
As for scholarship, who are you to judge? What do you know about Islamic doctrine and history??
I asked you to contact Ibn Warraq via e-mail--He says he never heard from you, and judging from your responses to my repeated questioning you never obtained his definitive scholarly assessment of apostasy, "Leaving Islam"--so clearly real scholarship on the subject matter at hand---apostasy from Islam--does not even appeal to you.
Have you attempted to contact another high profile apostate from Islam, Nonie Darwish, who recently published "Cruel and Usual Punishment," and wrote about a high profile apostasy case ongoing NOW in her native Egypt, in early August??
I have compiled, edited, and introduced two critically acclaimed scholarly compendia--one on the jihad, the other on Islamic Antisemitism. I have also read and on several occasions reviewed Robert's books, and they easily exceed most of what passes for "scholarship" on Islam in today's academy--despite targeting, deliberately, the larger lay audience. Regardless, they are solid works in their own right that are meticulously documented. Have you read them and found identifiable flaws in any of them??
As for Pamela, excuse me, but from my where I sit, she is doing the basic shoe leather investigative reporting those like yourself have thus far refused to do.
How many of Rifqa's friends have you interviewed, starting for example with the now publicly identified Jamal Jivangee? What sort of of financial investigation of Mr. and Mrs. Bary's businesses have you conducted??
I think you are being very disingenuous, and your pretense of "objectivity" is simply ludicrous.
- Kruse to Bostom:
I should stop, I know this, but I just have to ask: We've talked on the phone, we've e-mailed, and you seem like an intelligent person, so how can you possibly take Pam Geller seriously?
- Bostom to Kruse:
Excuse me, but just as you have calumniated Spencer--with a live video record to debunk you and prove your deliberate misrepresentation---you've now done the same with Geller.
From here:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html
"The 'Atlas says that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child' charge has gone viral among leftards and lizards. The only problem with it is that it is false. I am not the author of this post, and I posted it because the writer did a spectacular job documenting Obama's many connections with the Far Left. The Malcolm X claim is one minor part of this story, and was of interest to me principally as part of the writer's documentation that Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been where the Obama camp says she was at various times. I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child, and never did -- but there remain many, many unanswered questions about his early life and upbringing."As a scrupulously honest, painstakingly objective journalist you must know that Pamela has written "I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child, and never did"? Would you even care if you did know?
We know the answer to that, as your calumny against Spencer makes plain.
When it comes to Robert Spencer scholars of Islamic studies outright dismiss him and his body of work. They call him an unreliable ideologue at best and a divisive bigot at worst.
I wonder if Kruse would care to present a list of these 'scholars'...I bet the names would be familiar...And I bet he has never 'studied' their works either...
This guy is a know nothing with a big mouth...and an even bigger ego...He see's nothing wrong with gambling with Rifqa's life...'unreliable ideologue at best and a divisive bigot at worst'...fits Kruse much better than Spencer...
A truly fascinating exchange. Mr. Kruse relies on insults and derision, while Mr. Bostom patiently lays out the case. Reminds me of the old saying about dueling with an unarmed man.
Mr. Kruse seems to be comfortable with an apparently narrow-minded worldview and unable to conceive of any type of belief outside of his preconceived notions.
How sad that a journalist, upon whom the public depends for information, should be so unwilling to examine all sides of a story before reporting.
"static narrowness" - sorry, Robert, but you really need beady eyes to fill that description.
If Kruse is a true journalist, then I'm Prestor John, the Lost Dauphin and Jimmy Hoffa.
"when it comes to Robert Spencer scholars of Islamic studies outright dismiss him and his body of work." [from an email by sportswriter Michael E. Kruse, who devoted a book to 16.8 apparently rivetting seconds of basketball]
Which "scholars of Islamic studies" are those?
Could any of them be among those on this list, or among those who are members of MESA Nostra, a collective not yet entirely overrun -- but close -- with Muslim and non-Muslim apologists for Islam?
Could any of them hold well-upholstewed chairs, or be members of departments, or of academic centers, so deliberately, carefully, lavishly funded by the Saudis, or the Emiratis, or the Kuwaitis, or any of the other Arabs and Muslims who are helping American and other Western "educators" to spread the glad news about Islam?
John Esposito: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010526.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013173.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021358.php
Mark LaVine: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004273.php
Karen Armstrong: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005849.php
Khaled Abou El Fadl: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005615.php
Juan Cole: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011177.php
Reza Aslan: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013492.php
Noah Feldman: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022948.php
Omid Safi: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/016819.php
Carl Ernst: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012952.php
Tariq Ramadan: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004430.php
Ambaddsor Edward Walker: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010888.php
And, collectively:
MESA Nostra: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004791.php
A Brief MESA Nostra Taxonomy:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008479.php
MESA Nostra Contest: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004827.php
What a magnificent demolition job!
It is amazing that one who calls himself a reporter deliberately shuts out sources of information that could shed light on his story. Any reporter worth his salt would want to follow-up on Pamela's "basic shoe leather investigative reporting," if only to discover whether there was anything to it, but not Mike. He had his mind made up, and wanted to present a "very specific worldview" without examining the evidence.
I know there are good reporters out there. Mike Kruse is not one of them.
Kruse is a scribe without a brain.
But don't forget those 16.8 seconds -- or is it 18.6 seconds -- of basketball he immortalized. That's what Michael E. Kruse told an interviewer is what he does, and what he does best: "Report."
The more Kruse says, the more he reveals his bias and his errors. Note how he continues to avoid the issue of his misquotation of Robert. Why hasn't Kruse or his newspaper printed the retraction and correction?
Kruse (in the article in question) didn't bother to quote what Robert said about Islamic apostasy law.
Kruse also does not cite, in his email exchange above with Bostom, what those Islamic scholars said about the apostasy penalties and Muslims' views on them. Did Kruse ask them about apostasy? Did Kruse only ask them their opinions Robert Spencer?
Kruse claims "When it comes to Robert Spencer scholars of Islamic studies outright dismiss him and his body of work. They call him an unreliable ideologue at best and a divisive bigot at worst."
Quoting others' ad hominem remarks? Is this all Kruse has to offer? Why doesn't he quote these scholars' statements about (a) the apostasy laws and (b) Muslims opinions and attitudes toward apostasy? Why is it that Kruse provides no information relevant to the central issue in this case, namely the degree of risk faced by Rifqa for publicly declaring her apostasy?
Correction: Did Kruse only ask them their opinions about Robert Spencer?
See, Kruse? Making a correction is easy...isn't it?
Kruse has a problem with correct attribution.
He misattributed Robert's quote and then in trying vainly to justify himself, committed the same sin against Pamela.
To borrow his phrase, how can we possibly take Kruse seriously?
Dear Hugh,
Michael Kruse would better stick with baseball, I haven't got a clue how much he knows about the game, but about the danger that enraged Muslims pose to our Western society, he hasn't got the faintest idea. He's acting totally irresponsibly, playing with Rifqas life, denying Robert's and Pamela's assertions.
No, not baseball, the National Pastime. Basketball.
"Note how he continues to avoid the issue of his misquotation of Robert. "
Kruse employs essentially the same tactics as our Abdullah Mikail and other apologists.
Who from the Orlando Sentinel sent Kruse to report on this story in the first place? Does the newspaper's editor & chief recognize how sensitive the situation for Rifqa Bary is? Would you send someone to fix your car that had no knowledge of the vehicle? of course not, and yet that is what exactly happened here. Kruse should have at least some working knowledge of the Islamic History of honor killings, and sharia law practices regarding apostasy and that should be a prerequisite for reporting on the Rifqa Bary case.
It is transparently clear that Kruse had no working knowledge and even had the temerity to show a bias in his reporting. His ignorance of Islam makes him a ripe candidate for the master of taquiya and kitman.
Is it possible that Mr. Kruse can be incouraged to look a little closer at the Qu'ran and the hadiths and sharia practices? Maybe? before he be comes another dhimmiwriter like so many others in the media.
Kruse clearly showed his ignorance to Andrew Boston in regards to Robert Spencer who has written around 9 books on Islam, has studied Islam for almost 30 years, has spoken to Universities, given seminars on Islam and jihad, to the United States Central Command, United States Army Command, and General Staff College, a Department of Homeland Security task force, the FBI, branches of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community, he has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry.He has written articles that have appeared in every major newspaper in the country as well as Europe.
Point in fact his resume reads to a staggering list of accomplishments that is repected by numerous scholars as well as former Muslims branded as apostates.
And yet this 3rd rate reporter dismisses him in one fell swoop.
This entire battle, or should I say campaign, to push back and clear out the lies and mental toxins being spread in the cause of JSC (Jihad/Sharia/Caliphate) demands an exceeding amount of persistence and discipline.
And my hat is off to them what can muster the spirit to stick to it.
I guess it partakes somewhat of the "just roll up your sleeves, pick up the shovel and get to it" spirit that my uncle, a dairy farmer, inevitably displayed when confronted with manure (and which he tried to instill in us). There being, of course, no permanent end to manure -- no elegant comprehensive "solution".
Evil and lies stink far worse than manure, but are no less daily and permanent.
I think my uncle would have liked Andrew and Robert and their brothers and sisters in the front line of the resistance.
I think that Michael Kruse actually believes the lie that someone has to be a Moslem to be a true scholar of Islam........
That is certainly not the case, but many Moslems would disagree with that....... A Moslem will always lie to a non-believer, its their duty and obligation as Moslems.
I think there are certain reporters that only get their information from Moslems only. Thats where the trouble, and the misinformation and Taqiyya (deception) begins........
But it also sounds to me like Michael Kruse's mind is already made up. He feels threatened that Robert and Pam do a much better job at reporting than he does. Mainstream Newspaper reporters hate bloggers........
Kruse writes "When it comes to Robert Spencer scholars of Islamic studies outright dismiss him and his body of work. They call him an unreliable ideologue at best and a divisive bigot at worst."
Could those be the "scholars" who would also similarly dismiss Bernard Lewis, Patricia Crone, David Cook, Rudolph Peters, Efraim Karsh, et al.?
----
In a more recent article, Kruse directs his scrutiny (or has it directed by his editors) to the evangelists who supported Rifqa
http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/runaway-teen-rifqa-bary-and-evangelicals-connect-on-facebook/1034396
Having studied under Professor Crone, I am sure she would be insulted that you would put her in the same category as Spencer.
Looking at all the articles written by Michael Kruse in the St.Petersburg Times shows that he was predominately a sports writer and I was unable to unearth a single article written that dealt with any subject about Islam prior to the Rifqa Bary case.
Stick to sports Michael Kruse it may serve you better.
And Bostom should stick to the medical field instead of putting out shoddy polemics that the greats like Lewis, Crone and Cook wouldn't touch with a mile-long stick.
Mr Kruse must be rabidly Multicultural. The disingenuous smear of Mr. Spencers work and character says it all.
Islam is the hammer that by itself proves just how weak the foundation of Multiculturalism really is.
And yet this 3rd rate reporter dismisses him in one fell swoop.
Posted by: Mackie [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 10, 2009 10:04 AM
Kruse's lack of objectivity is appalling. Mr. Spencer could have become another conventional islamic scholar, one of those respected academics who casually dismiss him yet will not debate him and cannot refute one word he has ever written or spoken. But he chose to be an educator, not an apologist, because he knew the only way he could educate people about islam was to disassociate himself with the politically correct establishment.
Mr. Spencer is worth more than all of the left-wing, multicultural, politically correct apologists and so-called scholars of islam combined. As for the muslim islamic "scholars" out there, they are a pack of lying, deceitful propagandists and promoters of islamic supremacy and jihad. Pamela Geller has done the work of ten lousy journalists like Kruse in exposing the threats to Rifqa Bary. Kruse is angry because Mr. Spencer and Pamela dared to defy the unwritten laws of political correctness by exposing some unpleasant truths about islam, the Bary family, and their radical mosque in Ohio. But I suppose it is more important to defend islam than to save a muslim girl from certain death at the hands of either her own family or radical muslims.
Here's hoping Mr. Kruse will some day get it, but I won't hold my breath.
DustanH,
You claim: "Having studied under Professor Crone, I am sure she would be insulted that you would put her in the same category as Spencer."
I doubt that you have studied under Crone, but that is irrelevant to the point. All of the scholars I mentioned would agree with Robert's observation that the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence call for harsh penalties for apostasy, up to and including death. They would also agree with Robert's observation that the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence call for jihad against non-Muslims to bring them under Islamic rule.
At least in these respects, they are in the same category.
Having read Crone's book "God's Rule" (2004), it does seem to me you are what Crone would call an "apologete for Islam."
Tell me, do you agree with the following statements?
"Though neither the dhimmi nor the slave had been faced with a choice between Islam and death, it would be absurd to deny that force played a major role in the conversion. Nor do medieval jurists generally attempt to deny it."
"But 2:256 was commonly held to prohibit forced conversion of dhimmis, not the warfare whereby dhimmi status was imposed on them, and some said that both this and the other verses enjoining toleration had been abrogated when holy war was prescribed in Medina."
"The infidels were 'dragged to paradise in chains,' as Hadith so graphically puts it."
DustanH,
Ibn Warraq makes the same observations about Islam's apostasy penalties as does Robert Spencer.
"To his admirers in the West and in the Muslim world, Warraq is a latter-day Voltaire who may herald an Islamic enlightenment. ``He wants to open it up for people who are born into a religion they can't leave,'' says Patricia Crone, a scholar of Islam at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University."
"To his critics, Warraq is an intolerant pseudo-scholar whose bitter polemics set back the very possibility of modernizing the faith. ``If you already know what Islamophobes and Orientalists believe, this author has nothing original to add,'' says Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at UCLA and the author most recently of ``The Place of Tolerance in Islam'' (2002). ``It's good propaganda, but not good scholarship.''"
http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/lhisregl8.html
I suggest, DustanH, that your views are much closer to those of Khaled Abou El Fadl than to those of Patricia Crone.
A very revealing encounter. Kruse exposes his lack of journalistic standards. Instead of directly addressing the statement of Omar Ahmad, and his false ascription of this statement to Robert Spencer (who was clearly only quoting it), he goes off on Pamela Geller and Malcolm X. Which raises the obvious question, even if Geller had claimed that Barack Obama was the secret love child of Malcolm X (which she didn't), what does that have to do with Kruse's covering for a CAIR official? (Though I find it interesting that Kruse, like his friends from CAIR before him, is seemingly getting talking points from Charles Johnson.)
Kinana, you make little sense. For me to be like Fadl, I would have to be a Muslim, I am not, I am an athiest - and for the record, I never was a Muslim.
Further, Ibn Warraq and Spencer are completely different animals, and you cannot assume what Crone would say about Spencer based on what she says about Ibn Warraq. Using your logic, one can guess person X's position on Pamela Geller based how person X feels about Spencer.
DustanH,
You write: "For me to be like Fadl, I would have to be a Muslim, I am not, I am an athiest - and for the record, I never was a Muslim."
I was suggesting you are more like Fadl in regards to your apparent attitude about criticism of Islam. Whether you are a Muslim or an atheist is not relevant.
You write: "Further, Ibn Warraq and Spencer are completely different animals,"
Not completely. My main point is that they say the same things about the apostasy law and penalties.
"...and you cannot assume what Crone would say about Spencer based on what she says about Ibn Warraq."
That's not what I'm assuming. You're making this about Spencer personally instead of his statements about apostasy. I'm referring to the statements about the issue at hand. Crone acknowledges the penalties for apostasy and obviously approves of what Warraq says about it. What Warraq says about apostasy is the same as what Spencer says about it. Whether or not Crone approves of Spencer personally is not relevant.
"Using your logic, one can guess person X's position on Pamela Geller based how person X feels about Spencer."
No, I'm drawing inferences about the statements they'd accept. Spencer, Warraq, and Crone make the essentially the same statements about apostasy.
In any case, if you or Michale Kruse can point to any inaccuracies in Spencer's statements about apostasy, please do.
P.S. I still don't believe you were ever a student of Patricia Crone. Given that what she says about major aspects of Islam such as jihad, the dhimma, apostasy, etc., are so similar in substance to what Spencer says, I don't see why you call her great and yet have such a negative attitude toward Spencer.
I'll tell you something I respect about Spencer: He is out there putting his life at risk to defend a Muslim's right to change religions and for anyone to express criticism of Islam publicly. Don't you respect Spencer for doing this?
What do you have when you multiply Mr. Kruse by one million?...........The MSM.
I don't get it. Can Mr. Kruse really hate Christianity (or conservatives or whatever) so deeply that he's willing to sacrifice this girl's life in order to strike a blow against his opponents? Are not liberals the same ones who think that underage girls should be able to have sex with adults and obtain abortion on demand? Why would he wish for this 17 year old girl to be sent back home against her will? What about the standard assumption in cases of alleged abuse: Women and children rarely lie about abuse (this isn't entirely accurate, but as a former counselor who worked with kids, the was considered orthodoxy among the [liberal] establishment)?
And amidst his obvious lies and efforts to kill this young girl (which revolts me - all who refuse to protect children revolt me), it ticks me off that he would refer to Robert as "Rob." He doesn't deserve to be in the same room with Robert Spencer.
Somehow I believe God (and Robert and Hugh and Marisol and Pamela et al) have a different view of protecting children than Mr. Kruse. May God have mercy on him and grant him repentance before he accomplishes something monstrous.
Cyril Lucar: Amen to your post. Andrew Bostom, good for you! Mr. Kruse, if Rifqa Bary gets sent home and becomes an honor killing statistic, you are an accomplice to first degree murder.
You see, Cyril and Andrew, I'm a teacher. In my job, feeling a little protective towards the frightened young (even if they're teens or young adults)ought to come with the territory, even when someone might be lying to you. And, it is striking that Rifqa Bary seems safer with relative strangers than with her own family.
I read somewhere of a Falastin Arab immigrant family in which both the father and an older teenaged son were independently drawn to Christianity, and unbeknownst to each other, got baptized and joined different churches. But both had been raised to know the fate of apostates in Islamic cultures, and went some time before a Bible left outside its hiding place at home brought the son's conversion into the open; whereupon the father also admitted his. If males living in the USA can feel this way and get themselves into such a situation, what must a relatively more vulnerable young girl feel?