informal alliance between Islamists and pluralists?
Reader comment on item: Tariq Ramadan Gives Up – Then Tries Again

Submitted by Peter Terry (United States), May 19, 2006 at 10:21

In reading through the case of Dr. Tariq Ramadan, with his links to Islamicists abroad and to pluralists here in the US, it occurs to me that there appears to be an informal alliance between these two parties which, on the surface, seem to disagree about everything. The pluralists appear to be so eager to permit "all voices" to be heard, and so convinced of their own mythology that truth is in the eye of the beholder that they will support a cause that wishes to eliminate pluralism altogether. And the Islamicists may have realized that they need an inside man, someone who will defend their cause while appearing to be critical of it at times, someone within the academy who can promote acceptance of Islamicism from a pluralist point of view.

Dr. Ramadan has called for a moratorium on the implementation of corporal punishment, stoning and execution by Islamic courts. And perhaps he is sincere in advocating this measure, but it is also possible that he has called for this in order to give the impression to unwary Westerners that he is against these punitive measures on principle. If he is sincerely opposed to these measures on principle, why has he not argued for the reformation of the shari'ah, or for a new interpretation of those Qur'anic texts that appear to be their basis? Is this call a smokescreen to obscure the real agenda of this intellectual? Is his real intention to make Islamicists acceptable to pluralists in the West and thereby to reach the minds and hearts of the leaders of thought and their students in our universities? I am not convinced yet that there is even an informal alliance between Islamicists and pluralists, but perhaps a reader of this weblog can elaborate, one way or another.

What I am certain of, based on the various news reports cited here, is that Dr. Ramadan has been less than straightforward in his statements to colleagues and to the press. It is hard to trust someone who can't get his story straight.

---

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.