New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt addressed factual challenges to an op-ed column by Edward N. Luttwak that claimed that a President Barack Obama would face problems visiting Muslim countries because he would be viewed as an apostate. (Obama's father was a Muslim, but Obama is a Christian.)

The results of Hoyt's investigation:

I interviewed five Islamic scholars, at five American universities, recommended by a variety of sources as experts in the field. All of them said that Luttwak’s interpretation of Islamic law was wrong.

I'm not going to defend Luttwak. These Islamic scholars may be right -- but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. These same Islamic scholars may also belive that Islam is a religion of peace and that jihad is a struggle for personal betterment. Because these scholars believe one thing doesn't mean that some zealots in a cave in Afghanistan don't believe different.

What most interested me was Hoyt's conclusion:

Shipley, the Op-Ed editor, said he regretted not urging Luttwak to soften his language about possible assassination, given how sensitive the subject is. But he said he did not think the Op-Ed page was under any obligation to present an alternative view, beyond some letters to the editor.

I do not agree. With a subject this charged, readers would have been far better served with more than a single, extreme point of view. When writers purport to educate readers about complex matters, and they are arguably wrong, I think The Times cannot label it opinion and let it go at that.

If that's what Hoyt truly believes, then I look forward to his analysis of Frank Rich's column on the Rev. John Hagee in light of this expose by Joel Mowbray.

I won't be holding my breath, however.