Response to Dr. Pipes comment

Submitted by Clay Landon (United States), Jan 7, 2006 at 16:39

In response to my lengthy refutation of his article, 'Muhammad Ali's "Beautiful Soul"', Daniel Pipes responded with the following:

"This reader seems not to have noted that, with the exception of the first question, they all deal with statements I only quoted, but did not write. He and others interested in more information should read the Cashill book from which this summary comes."

To which I reply: Mr. Pipes seems not to be aware that when you quote statements supporting a conclusion that Muhammad Ali is not suitable for presidential honor, you are responsible for the accuracy of those statements, particularly since you "seem" to wholeheartedly agree with them. If not, I welcome your denunciation of Cashill's remarkably ill-informed and at times wholly (willfully?) ignorant statements but that doesn't let you off the hook for the first question.

The evidence shows Muhammad Ali as someone who is honest in the way he addresses his own history and how he affected others, charitable to those less fortunate than himself and candid in his retrospection. In short, he learns from and takes responsibility for his mistakes. In that respect, you are right about one thing: he is certainly not suited to be honored by President Bush.

---

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".