Stephen Suleyman Schwartz misunderstands Paul Berman just as he seems to either misunderstand Islamicism or more probably doesn't want to face its murderous challenges to the secular world.

First, It isn't Berman who insists on not separating political Islam from religious Islam, it's the Islamicists themselves.

Schwartz seems to write about a Platonic kind of Islam which exists only in his mind.

Second, he also seems to misunderstand Isaiah Berlin's critique of Russian political history. He wasn't asking how could Lenin and Stalin come from Hertzen, rather he was postulating an alternate liberal tradition in Russian politics which tragically never took hold.

Third, Berman's critique in his article had has much to do with left liberals like Buruma who seem to feel more comfortable with Islamicists like Ramadan than with critics like Hirsi Ali.

btw: Schartz' own hatred of Hirsi Ali shows that he too is unable to tolerate a secular challenge to Islam from within.

It's also not true that her Hirsi Ali's only criticizes circumcision which Stephen calls a "narrow practice" within Islam. She criticizes the second class status of women within Islam. Besides female circumcision affects the lives of tens of millions of women and I wouldn't call it a narrow practice.

Finally, and most importantly while Schwartz is critical of Ramadan he doesn't offer a sustained critique of his work here. To say that he and members of the Muslim Brotherhood are not accepted within the traditional legal tradition of Islamic law doesn't answer the critique of a movement that has motivated millions to take up the cause of violent Jihad.

If Schwartz wishes to be taken seriously he needs to do more than just offer negative pot shots at Berman's brilliant and well documented article.