Bostom (left) and Spencer (right) - one of these men is a childish ass and a traitorAndrew Bostom's two currently published works of scholarship, The Legacy of Jihad and the The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, are brilliant, meticulously researched additions to the vast library of Islamo-critical literature. I do not exaggerate when I say that they are two of the most precious resources on the subject that I own.
On the other hand, Bostom himself has always seemed to me to be a pompous ass, and he has demonstrated this recently in blog posts accusing another stalwart champion of freedom, Robert Spencer, of plagiarising his work.
The controversy follows on from Spencer's post here discussing the flawed argumentation of a professor that the "roots" of Islamic antisemitism come from Hitler. Spencer's article does, admittedly, lean heavily on the arguments and sources used in Bostom's work, but that does NOT make plagiarism. Bostom, in his self-righteous arrogance, seems to be ignoring the fact that the entire purpose of his book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism is to serve as a reference work for other writers, as well as the fact that other notable writers have also "plagiarised" his work. For example, Ibn Warraq's book Defending the West contains a whole section on Islamic antisemitism, the entirety of which is based upon argumentation and sources derived from Bostom. Warraq even quotes some of Bostom's unique primary sources, without attributing them to Bostom himself. Why does Bostom not accuse him of plagiarism? Perhaps Bostom learned all this from Warraq, but this is unlikely given that none of the material about antisemitism was reference in Warraq's previous book, Why I am Not a Muslim, and in in case, this would then make Bostom the plagiarist. Elsewhere, the books of both Bostom and Bat Ye'or contain identical sections on the myth of the "Andalusian Golden Age" which use the exact same wording and facts. One of them must have plagiarised the other, and yet neither have made any kind of complaint up to now.
Bostom's definition of plagiarism is simply unreasonable and illogical. If using the same sources or making the same arguments as someone else equals plagiarism, then Bostom himself is a plagiarist, since his work is full of approving quotations of other scholars' arguments, without offering his own "take" on those arguments. Moreover, Bostom is being inconsistent and hypocritical. On numerous occasions, he has taken debate opponents to task for failing to make references to certain sources and information that are referenced in his own books. For example, during a debate on the roots of jihad and antisemitism with Matthias Kuntzel, Bostom maintained that Kuntzel "ignores copious doctrinal and historical evidence...summarized in the discussion that follows."Over the course of two rounds of debate, Bostom accused Kuntzel (correctly, I must add) around fifteen times of "ignoring" important information. And yet, what if Kuntzel had made reference to the information and sources cited by Bostom? Would Bostom have accused him of plagiarism? To do so would be absolutely absurd, and Bostom undoubtedly knew that then, so why he has chosen now to launch vicious , outright nasty attacks on Spencer for merely telling the truth is unfathomable.
This is not going well. First, Charles Johnson decided to betray all his friends and allies in an unconscionable display of mental retardation. Now Bostom has done the same, for reasons unknown to the rational mind. If those who oppose jihad and Islamic infidel-hatred can't learn to unify despite disagreements, what is to become of the free world?
"Bostom, in his self-righteous arrogance, seems to be ignoring the fact that the entire purpose of his book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism is to serve as a reference work for other writers..."
ReplyDeleteMy impression is that Bostom intemperately used the charge of "plagiarism" when what really irked him was Spencer completely ignoring him and not even mentioning his name in a post on Jihad Watch about the one subject -- Islamic antisemitism -- which Bostom has spent so much time and labor on. While Spencer is not necessarily obliged to mention Bostom in that context, it struck me as odd that he didn't, only because in the past, Spencer has so often mentioned Bostom in glowing terms on the pages of Jihad Watch and frequently called his readers' attention to various articles by Bostom. However, in recent months, mention of Bostom by Spencer in Jihad Watch has dwindled down to near nothing.
I have noticed a similar case, where in years past, Spencer on Jihad Watch mentioned Diana West frequently, often devoting articles on Jihad Watch to pointing out her articles on her blog, and always mentioning her in glowing terms of high praise -- then over the past year or so, suddenly all mention of Diana West disappeared from the pages of Jihad Watch. This stark contrast became significant over the past year, because Diana West on her blog took, and intelligently argued, a position diametrically different from Spencer's on one particular subject -- the Iranian demonstrations (she arguing for a healthy skepticism about a few million Muslims being really reformist, Spencer tending to side with the romantic idealists like Pam Geller whose hearts swooned at the sight of all these Iranian People demonstrating against the regime).
"...as well as the fact that other notable writers have also "plagiarised" his work. For example, Ibn Warraq's book Defending the West contains a whole section on Islamic antisemitism, the entirety of which is based upon argumentation and sources derived from Bostom. Warraq even quotes some of Bostom's unique primary sources, without attributing them to Bostom himself."
The difference here is that Ibn Warraq did not formerly praise Bostom and feature Bostom regularly on his blog, and then at a certain point suddenly stop mentioning Bostom.
It seems evident that there has been a rift preceding the few visible signs to which we civilians in the anti-Islam movement are privy. What that rift was about, and why two grown men would allow it to affect that movement of which they are such prominent participants (if not indeed movers), we shabby civilians may never know. But I think we deserve to know, if it pertained to or involved matters relevant to that movement.