« Looking for Higgs | Main | The Alternative Argument »

May 29, 2007


Richard Dell

So, Ramadan is an enlightened westerner trying to bring Muslims into line with modernism (whatever that means, but presumably it includes the Golden Rule), or he is a Muslim fifth columnist preparing the way for the desmise of the West. He can, and does pose as both. Would this "double discourse" be, as he would have, necessary to woo the reluctant Muslim, or to decieve the useful idiots of the West? How can we tell? Fourest was most impressed by his tapes, designed for a Muslim audience. Hearing anti-western exhortations, she felt that anyone trying to westernise Muslims would not have said ssuch things. Have Buruma, and more to the point, Garton Ash listened to these tapes?

Ramadan can tell both sides that he is with them. I would apply the dictum: which is harder? If the West were to start to win (by, say provoking a secular revolution in Iran using less than scrupulous means), he could rant about Western duplicity and power with few consequences. If Britain were to get an Islamist government, would he rail against the consequent loss of freedoms without consequence? To stand up for freedom takes courage and clarity. I see neither in him. He may wish for a more moderate Islam, but if he had to take sides, it would not take much coercion for him to betray his latest compatriots. The man is not to be trusted, and his "philosophy" is empty if it does not drive his behaviour.

The comments to this entry are closed.