This concluding remark is unworthy of Mssrs. Buruma and Ash. It attempts to diminish Bruckner's critique by Appealing to ridicule, a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, instead of engaging with it.

They say "Neither of us ever proposed that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a fanatic on human rights issues."

One of these two authors, I forget who, named Hirsi Ali "an enlightenment fundamentalist", "an absolutist". And it was not done to flatter her.

According to American Heritage Dictionary, "fundamentalism is "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

Intolerance is definitely a human rights issue. So the authors may not have explicitly "proposed that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a fanatic on human rights issues", they clearly implied it by choosing to label her a "fundamentalist". And they didn't mean it appreciatively.

These two worthy liberal-minded intellectuals seem to promote the notion that we should tolerate the intolerable and intolerant, when they say that though "his [Ramadan's] ideas may be neither secular, nor liberal, we should still engage with him,".

In other words, Buruma and Ash re-write the definition of liberalism by urging us to tolerate illeberal ideas and religious fanaticism. Fair enough. But shouldn't they make absolutely clear that illeberal ideas should remain strictly individual choices that do not affect any other human being who does not wish to share them, or is in no personal position to resist them? That means that a father cannot impose his will on his daughter, and a husband must not interfere with his wife's choices. Persuasion, yes. Intimidation and violence, no.

I believe this is what Hirsi Ali is aiming for. Why, then, call her a "fundamentalist"? Why cosset Ramadan's ideas as engageable while belittling Hirsi Ali's project, of exposing Islamic practices and values in conflict with the ethics and praxis of a liberal society?

Garton Ash : "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now a brave, outspoken, slightly simplistic Enlightenment fundamentalist."

I had to re-read this statement a few times in order to believe that I was reading it correctly. One can almost hear the disdainful drawl, in the elegant attempt to shrivel her into her right place. As though marveling at her audacity in getting Voltaire's words to explain her position.

So it appears that the rhetorical tactic of diminishing by condescension and ridiculing is not an accidental slip, by the authors of the piece I'm responding to. Or at least one of them.

The appeal to ridicule is listed as a rhetorical fallacy. I wonder why there was a need to resort to a rhetorical fallacy in responding to Bruckner's articles.