Is the New York Times Too Nice to Islam?

No. But Leon Weiseltier thinks so.

How did The New York Times become the voice of moderate Islam in America? I am being mischievous, but not entirely. There was the Times Magazine's notorious (at least I hope it is: we did our best here to make it so) salute to Tariq Ramadan, which was later followed by the appearance in the Times Book Review of Ramadan's endless and unbelievably banal sermon about the Koran. "At the heart of every heart's striving lies the Koran. It holds out peace and initiates into liberty." "As the universe is in constant motion, rich in an infinite diversity of species, beings, civilizations, cultures, and societies, so too is the Koran." Which rabbi or priest would be given pages in the Book Review to deliver the same apologetic tripe about the OT or the N? And now there is this essay in praise of sharia as a "bold and noble" inspiration for contemporary constitutionalism.

You see this sort thing all the time. Any reader of any publication can pick a few examples of a particular viewpoint and use them to declare the publication to be biased. But an honest assessment requires a comparison with opposing viewpoints in the same publication.

For example, in the exact same Times Book Review Weiseltier quotes Ramadan from, we have Ayaan Hirsh Ali--no apologist for Islam--reviewing a book by conservative stalwart Lee Harris. We have Irshad Manji --another  target of Islamists worldwide-- reviewing a book on jihad. We have liberal hawk Jeffrey Goldberg favorably reviewing a book on the links between Nazism and Islamism. And we have neoconservative political scientist Fouad Ajami declaring that the clash of civilizations is very real and very important. Weiseltier must have gotten his paper delivered with only Ramadan's page from the book review section. He should contact his delivery guy about that.

UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman puts it well.