Happier times, Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer
Wow. How the mighty have fallen. It might be too early to call it the end but it looks like ex-booze buddies Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer are at each others throats. Bostom is accusing Spencer of plagiarism, and Spencer is replying that he is “miffed” by the accusation.
The sorry fact is that both of them plagiarize from Orientalists who have made the same arguments and presented the same research centuries ago.
Spencer wrote on his blog yesterday in reference to Bostom,
Department of Corrections: No plagiarism
It is a shame that this kind of thing has to be done, but occasionally it must.
A certain writer claims that I plagiarized his work. He presents no direct evidence (i.e., textual comparison) to support his claim, and that is because he cannot do so: I have not plagiarized his work, or anyone else’s.
The above is a reply to Bostom’s withering attack on Spencer’s theft of his work. Bostom refers to Spencer as the “little king,” and “swine.”
This fine morning, what did I see?
A Little King Plagiarist, running behind, desperately…to plagiarize me.
From here (mostly), here, here, etc., etc. , etc.
Update: The Little King Doth Protest My Original Posting
According to Webster, there is no doubt The Little King “plagiarized,” and therefore is a “plagiarist.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
transitive verb: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
The plagiarism, and accompanying complete lack of attribution are so obvious one need go no further than review Jihad Watch postings by The Little King himself, from 2007 and 2008
The Little King posted my review/essay on “Jihad and Jew Hatred,” and subsequent debate with Matthias Kuntzel—the earliest and most definitive debunking of the bizarre, ahistorical “Nazi-origins” of Islamic Antisemitism (and modern jihad) theory, in December, 2007
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/kuntzel-vs-bostom-on-islamic-antisemitism-print.html
One can also simply go to Jihad Watch and see the following extensive material on the Antisemtic motifs in the Koran, hadith, and sira drawn from the opening survey of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism from two essays posted there by The Little King in 2008:
Update 2. Oy vey, this is tedious and obnoxious! Some important clarification is required to jog the Little King’s apparently lapsed memories. Here gentle reader you will find it edifying to go online and read a copy of The Little King’s “Religion of Peace,” published in 2007. On pp. 125-126, he uses a block quote from Lawrence Wright’s, The Looming Tower, that has also appeared in some of my essays, and in “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.” But who does the Little King himself cite as his source for this Wright quote? Proceed to the citation for the reference (ref. 80) to this quote on p. 232 of “The Religion of Peace” and you will see this: “Quoted in Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, 2007” Now my Islamic Antisemitism book was delayed in publication till 2008, but Little King was given an advance copy manuscript that he read, and it provided him with the Wright quote and six other sources for that chapter, including primary sources, which are cited on pp. 232-233 of his 2007 book.
Apparently Little King is now claiming I got the Wright quote from him!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/department-of-corrections.html#comment-664221
“My (i.e., Little King’s) April 21 article is a chapter from my 2007 book “Religion of Peace?”. If Bostom used the quote from “Looming Tower” in a 2009 piece, he got it from me (i.e., Little King).”
At least as egregious, is this unattributed material which comes from The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, (pp. 259-260):
Notably, Maimonides directed that Jews could teach rabbinic law to Christians, but not to Muslims. For Muslims, he said, will interpret what they are taught “according to their erroneous principles and they will oppress us. [F]or this reason … they hate all [non-Muslims] who live among them.” But the Christians, he said, “admit that the text of the Torah, such as we have it, is intact”–as opposed to the Islamic view that the Jews and Christians have corrupted their scriptures. Christians, continued Maimonides,” do not find in their religious law any contradiction with ours.”
Indeed, Spencer quotes and paraphrases without attribution from, specifically, footnote 222 of a magisterial 70 pp. 1937 essay by Georges Vajda on the Antisemitic motifs in the hadith. My first time English translation of Vajda’s unique, seminal work required both French and Hebrew text translations of contents within this single, complex footnote.
And I will cast no more pearls before such “royal” swine.
Meeker
My April 21 article is a chapter from my 2007 book “Religion of Peace?”. If Bostom used the quote from “Looming Tower” in a 2009 piece, he got it from me.
The April 21 piece has no footnotes. I don’t generally footnote blog entries. There is material sourced from Bostom in the original chapter from “Religion of Peace?,” and lo and behold, it is footnoted to Bostom. In fact, he knows this, as he and I discussed this material at the time.
Which fact makes his current attack all the more gratuitous and libelous.
Cordially
Robert SpencerFrank Hesp:
Your continued insistence that personal disputes between individuals must be aired out in public is to me inexplicable and unseemly. I have a public presence in regard to the jihad, and that’s it. I don’t have any obligation to you or to anyone else to make any aspect of my private life public. I have responded to Bostom’s substantive charge with a substantive reply. No other details, should any exist, are anyone’s business but Bostom’s and mine.
Cordially
Robert SpencerFrank Hesp — one other thing:
You should look up the term “plagiarism” in a dictionary. It is a verbal dependence. There is no verbal dependence anywhere in my work on any part of Bostom’s work.
In my book “Religion of Peace?,” the source for my April 21 post, Bostom is footnoted where appropriate. But he apparently believes that if he discovered, or thinks he discovered, salient quotes from this or that Islamic authority or anyone else, that they belong to him forever, and anyone who ever cites the same quote has to also mention Bostom. That is not the case according to any standard of academic usage that has ever prevailed in any part of the globe at any time in history. It is a form of academic megalomania that has no justification, and no warrant, and I am not going to be cowed by it.
Cordially
Robert SpencerMeeker:
One other thing. I cited Richard Fletcher in my 2003 book “Onward Muslim Soldiers,” long before Bostom wrote his “Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.” I know Bostom read “Onward Muslim Soldiers.” For all I know he got the Fletcher material from me. Should I then indict him for plagiarism because he doesn’t mention me in his citation?
The very idea is absurd. And it shows up the absurdity of Bostom’s charge against me.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Well folks, sit back with a bag of popcorn and enjoy the fireworks. Who knows maybe Barack Obama can bring the two back together over some beers on the White House lawn.
April 30th, 2010 at 2:21 am
fu*k robert spencer
April 30th, 2010 at 3:32 am
The truth is that these anti-Islam people are vile, so it’s only natural that they would be vile with each other when times get rough.
April 30th, 2010 at 5:08 am
It continues….LOL!!
“Moe
It would have been private. Bostom chose to make it public. That was his decision: to give fuel to the Islamic supremacists and their enablers. Thus he has become one of the latter.
Cordially
Robert Spencer”
April 30th, 2010 at 11:47 am
But, but… I thought Bostom And Spencer were courageous people fighting for the survival of western civilazation against the jihad, putting their own life in danger in the process. So why does it matter if someone plagizarized someone? Is the most important thing not that the ‘truth’ gets out?
Could it be that they’re simply charlatans who saw a lucrative market they could make some money off?
April 30th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
O O O am I an ‘enabler’ ?
wow now that is a turn up for the book. Not one of Roberts books of cource as there are all so top secret and scarey .( top secret as he sells so few and they are understood by even fewer people scarey as they are from some alturmative
lack of reality.)
If that’s the worst he can come up with then he must really scare his down town homeys ( have I got that gangster rap stuff correct yet?)
April 30th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
May 20th has been declared to be draw Muhammad day, and this event has been set up on Facebook. So in response Sami Zaatari has created a counter Facebook group and campaign ‘Honour The Prophet Muhammad’, and this will also lead to May 20th. So please join the Facebook group, and do your part, on May 20th we shall be releasing a high quality production video that shall compile some of the greatest examples of the prophet Muhammad. The group can be found on the following link:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122422947769479&ref=ts
Spread the group around and get as many people to join.
April 30th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
The relationship between Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer reminds me of the Weatern Movies I used to love watching when I was a teenager,especially in the movies when the bad guys got the gold after robbing a train or after they got the money after robbing a bank. The bad guys had always always always shooted out among themselves because everyone of them wanted the whole loot or at least the lion share of it. The end result had always been slaughtering one another and the gold or the money ended up in the Shefif’s hands or other good guy’s hands.
Similar cicumstances do exist between the two bad-intentioned Spencer and Bostom,but for different reasons and different time.
The houses of ill repute always crumble from within,because their core foundation like the houses that were built on sands. So is the relatioship between Bostom and Spencer-BOGUS.
And no kidding,indeed.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Hilarious! I’m dying. Too funny!
I can’t wait for the final round of the blog wars: Pammy cakes and Spencer ripping each other to shreds!
When it finally happens – and it will – it’ll have been worth the wait.
May 1st, 2010 at 6:14 am
These people are all roaches hiding in a dark and damp spot. When the limited pot of feces from which they feed is threatened by one of them getting too big, they attack one another. It’s already happened with Schlussel and Scamela, now it’s time for the supposed males to eat one another. At least one good will come out of this: we will no longer be subjected to photos of these two men drunkly embracing one another. The vision of those two is quite a grotesque scene that pains my eyes.
May 1st, 2010 at 4:19 pm
LMFAO!
Jesus, what a couple of losers.
Whatever happened to that hilarious photo of Spencer wandering around some basement mosque in a sweaty sweatshirt with drool on the belly?
Please please republish for the next Spencer post, Loonwatch. I beg you.
May 1st, 2010 at 5:09 pm
By the way, this demonic bigot also died that Douglas Story, the Virginia truck driver whose license plate – 14CV88 – was recalled following claims by the Council on American-Islamic Relations that that it contained a coded message expressing neo-Nazi views was a Nazi.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/hamas-linked-cair-smears-anti-jihad-virginia-driver-as-neo-nazi.html
Well, again Spencer is exposed. Douglas is a confirmed Nazi and white supremacist
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/5/1/virginia-truck-drivers-neo-nazi-links-exposed.html
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0429/exposed-hate-plates-driver-denying-antisemitism-believes-jewrun-media-invented-holohoax/
May 1st, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Awwww…it couldn’t happen to nicer people!
But seriously, Danios nailed it squarely on the head: these are vile people, so the fact that they are also vile to each other is not surprising when it is finally revealed. After all, Spencer and Geller were quick to throw Martin Mawyer under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so.
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@ Abdullah:
nice. I just looked up the significance of the numbers 14 and 88 and I got
chills; that is creepily sophisticated. Danios or others, u shud use abdullahs comment an make an article about it
May 2nd, 2010 at 5:53 pm
LW, blog post about Abdullah’s tip above!
May 3rd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
I would be interested to see a closer examination of Bostom and his work. I want to see his views and alliances exposed in the same way as you have exposed Spencer’s.
May 4th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Spencer has read the Quran. I wonder if he finds some poetic justice in the fact that Quranic truth is playing out in front of his eyes.
I recall reading something in the Quran about how the ‘hearts of the enemies of God are disunited.’ I am paraphrasing, but it is hilarious to see.
This is all ego on the parts of these loons.
May 5th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
@Ustadh Yeah mankind can learn a thing or two about being united in struggle from the Muslims.
May 6th, 2010 at 2:01 am
Any updates?
May 6th, 2010 at 11:04 am
durendal. Put up or shut up
August 11th, 2010 at 7:26 am
They are only united in their hate against Islam, and not because of any ideology that they share.
July 2nd, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Wait, wait wait, let me get this straight. The two of them are fighting over whose bigoted book is more original? XD
@jeffallan: censorship fail! lol