Hoyt Responds on Luttwak's Obama Apostasy Editorial

Let's just say that New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt wasn't charitable on dealing with Edward Luttwak's op-ed on Barack Obama and apostasy. He writes that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. That's a curious statement in and of itself given that the editorial page is absolutely rife with New York Times editorial stances that are unsupported by facts, outright lies, to say nothing of the op-eds by the likes of Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd who regularly chop up quotes, omit key statistics, or have their own set of facts that do not relate to reality.

Hoyt has regularly failed to deal with this week after week. Still, it is good that he is reviewing and questioning editorials, even if it is only occasionally and unevenly.

I find this curious:

Luttwak made several sweeping statements that the scholars I interviewed said were incorrect or highly debatable, including assertions that in Islam a father’s religion always determines a child’s, regardless of the facts of his upbringing; that Obama’s “conversion” to Christianity was apostasy; that apostasy is, with few exceptions, a capital crime; and that a Muslim could not be punished for killing an apostate.

Obama was born in Hawaii to a mother from Kansas with Chris

Highly debatable does not mean incorrect, and given that there are far more extreme interpretations than those consulted by Hoyt in trying to fact-check Luttwak's editorial, including by the jihadists like al Qaeda, it remains plausible that some terrorist group might act on that basis.

One would hope that Islam is evolving so that apostasy is not a death sentence, but facts suggest that there are parts of the world where death is still imposed on those who do leave Islam or do not practice it the way Islamists would deem appropriate. Luttwak's concern is legitimate.

My prior coverage on Luttwak's editorial is here.