This is a Misleading Post about Tariq Ramadan

Submitted by D.O. (United States), Mar 19, 2009 at 14:37

Somewhat new to the controversy surrounding Tariq Ramadan, I was surprised at the tone of this article. Nonetheless, I appreciated that Mr. Pipes took a stand. It was unfortunately very misleading.

1. On Ramadan denying the Bin Laden attacks. The article in which Ramadan questioned the attacks was written a few weeks after September 11, 2001. Bin Laden did not admit to the attacks until 2004. Ramadan called for caution. He was joined by Noam Chomsky, among others. ....

2. Ramadan's views are actually well reasoned. He calls for restraint on the part of the Muslim community and categorically condemns violence from the Muslim community. However, he questions the value of deliberately incendiary texts, such as Reddeker's. Hardly an extremist.

3. Amazing how quickly Mr. Pipes referred to the withholding of DHS' evidence against Mr. Ramadan for withholding his visa. Don't you think the public should be privy to such info?

.... Mr. Ramadan's case will be heard in the next few weeks. Let's hope it receives a more reasoned response than Mr. Pipes.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".