Talk:Tariq Ramadan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
Parts of the article read like OPed, especially the conclusion is clearly not NPOV. OneGuy 07:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the rules are regarding a "Books" section... The English books are books of which he is the author, but the French books is just a list of books slandering him, not the list of works he has published in French. Again, I don't know the conventions here... Can anybody enlighten me? Pedro.Gonnet 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revocation of Tariq Ramadan's visa:
For a discussion regarding why his visa was revoked at the last minute read:
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/content/view/96/62/
Pedro.Gonnet 16:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What a stunning sidgrace
Oh yes its those goddam "zionists" again smearing a true muslim reformer who only calls for gays to be stoned to death in muslim countrys rather that in the streets of Paris.
How is this allowed to stand?
jucifer 12:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- What are you taking about?! --Irishpunktom\talk 16:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I challenge this man to demonstrate beyond any doubt that Ramadan has ever called for the stoning of gays anywhere.
[edit] Use of phrase "Zionist proponents"
Rather than use this odd expression, why not identify the individuals to whom you refer? If, in fact, they are Zionists, and if their beliefs in this area are central to understanding who they are and why they oppose Mr. Ramadan, then bring out those points in your article. Otherwise, your odd phrase merely draws attention to your biases. Adam Holland 20:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality Disputed
I would like that this page has a The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page. message included, as to me this page apears to have some serious disputable points. As for example the point that mr. Ramadans opinion:
Other charges levelled against him in French media is that he is sexist, and a reactionary Islamist. More fundamentally, his attitude towards European legal and democratic institutions is dubious at best because of his insistence that Muslims should literally respect the Qur'an and sharia, and that there would be no incompatibility between those and the secular democratic society. This conflict is nevertheless quite explicitly recognised by the European Court of Human Rights, which said that "The Court concurs. . .that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy" (13/02/2003).
In my opinion the European Court of Human Rights is not the appointed authority to judge about Sharia law, as any Sharia court would not be the appointed authority to judge on European Laws. If both enitities would like to formulate any opinion on the other, they should do so in cooperation. Ameer™
-
- Plain rubbish: in a democracy, the universal human rights should be respected, and that means in practice that civil law MUST have priority over religious law! Therefore, in the public space within a democracy, it is right, and good that the universal rights and democratic principles are used as a criteroin to evaluate EVERYTHING's legality. --Rudi Dierick 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And as such, including a solitairy verdict of the European Court of Human Rights is inserting biased opinion within this article! It's funny though to see in the very next paragraph that there was a Hijab discussion in France, without mentioning anything about the limitation of freedom of religion or dressing in reference to the very same European Court of Human Rights! Ameer™
-
- Thanks for such a clear, political statement. In a secular democracy, EVERYone is to respect the civil laws aqs the highest laws. You clearly refuse that. That makes that you are positioning yourself outside democracy.
- In addition, Wikipedia as a project clearly wishes to remain within the limits of civil law. As such, you place yourself also outside the rules of Wikipedia. Regards, Lucas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.201.32.220 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 June 2006 - Please sign your posts!
Interesting is also that within this article there is critisim against mr Ramadan, but not against the people who are alledging him of many things, as for example having connections with al-Qeda. An accusation which can prevent you these days of being able to enter the USA. I am not aware of the reason why mr Ramadan was refused a visum, as the link is a dead link. I can however imagine that the accusation of the so called terrorist expert mr Piper is part of the reason.
To summarize my mainpoint, I would like to suggest this page get some clean-up and is in the meanwhile marked as biased! As well as this discussion page take another turn, I don't see any reason to include Zionism or anti-semitism in this discussion. Don't people know that Jews and Arabs both are semites? so anti-semitism would include both jewish and muslim people!
--Ameer™ 21:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Censorship
references ? anyone ? the references link nowhere ? is it vandalism ? Nobel prize 4 peace 22:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Very valid and legitimate links were removed by User:Juicifer. Please monitor this user concerning this article. Holon67 20:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, please see anonymous removal in this very discussion of earlier harsh statement by User:Juicifer. Holon67 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I reversed the attempt by an anonymous contributor to remove harsh comments made by User:Juicifer on this very discussion. Action should be taken I believe to monitor this user's actions for the good of wikipedia. Holon67 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Reported abuse to abuse@proxad.net after running whois on 82.239.173.81. Holon67 21:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
wasn't sure where to put this..the section mentions he's been called the islamic martin luther? wasnt it martin.l.king?ive read mlk a few times andy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.39.87 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 September 2006 - Please sign your posts!
Martin Luther was the guy responsible for the Reformation. You know "95 theses on the old wooden door..." Phyesalis 07:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crap advertisement
Someone put up an advertisement at the top of the discussion page. I don't think this is anywhere near acceptable. Killua 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terrorism Allegations by Jean-Charles Brisard
Jean-Charles Brisard's allegations tying Ramadan to terrorism are both very relevant and current. In addition, he has several articles at the Terror Finance Blog about Ramadan that are well-researched and current, and frequently referred to in other reports on Ramadan. Therefore I am including them in the article. If someone has detailed rebuttals of Brisard's well-researched allegations, then you are free to include information or a link to them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankroyce74 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 3 October 2006 - Please sign your posts!
[edit] Ramadan's Answer To Visa Affair
This article recently appeared on Ramadan's Website and other outlets: here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pedro.Gonnet (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 October 2006 - Please sign your posts!
[edit] Visa controversy
Most of the section about the U.S. decision to revoke his visa is arguments about whether the decision was correct or incorrect. These arguments focus on the POV that the decision was incorrect.
Can we provide more facts (so it can be called the "Visa affair")? And how about some balance, i.e. the POV that the revocation was justifiable? --Uncle Ed 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that the section is quite clear on this, first they accused him of terrorist associations, then when pressed in court, they switched tracks and excluded him on the basis of his financial contributions to two charities suspected as terrorist groups since 1995, even though the U.S. didn't ban the charities until 2003. But, if you would like some more info included, you're free to do so yourself. It might be that there is no additional info on this matter to be found. Maybe because there is none, maybe because the feds didn't want to release it. I don't know. Frankly, I don't see why this section is flagged. Can someone explain what the issues are with this? It seems pretty factual, NPOV, and referenced. Thanks. Phyesalis 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Views
I'm not sure the article represents his views accurately. Here is a quote:
- He argues for a large role for religion in Arab-Muslim states and an assertion of Muslim identity alongside citizenship in Western democracies. [1]
Diana West wrote:
- ... arguing for "a large role for religion in Arab-Muslim states" (sounds like Shariah to me) and "an assertion of Muslim identity alongside citizenship in the West" (ditto).
So is he saying U.S. Muslims should be governed by Islam's Sharia law, or by the U.S. Constitution? This reminds me of the Diane Ravitch's ideas about Multiculturalism: particularism vs. pluralism. --Uncle Ed 15:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
