The publications section of Quilliam's website here displays booklets that seek variously to explore the aspirations of Muslim women, strengthen the governance of mosques in Britain, and expose the BNP.
And I see from its media section here that the think-tank also challenged Geert Wilders to public debate, and opposed Israel's incursion into Gaza last year.
So why did Tariq Ramadan say during yesterday evening's Rethinking Islamic Reform conference that (according to my note) he disagrees with 90 per cent of what Quilliam says, and agrees with 10 per cent?
Does Professor Ramadan really differ from the think-tank's opposition to the BNP or support for Muslim women? Or - as is surely the case - was the "90 per cent" a reference to at least some of Quilliam's usually expert and invariably brave campaigning against extremism claimed in the name of Islam?
I enjoyed the event very much. It gave me the chance to hear live for the first time (and to learn from) Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, one of the western world's leading traditional, classical Islamic scholars - as well as Professor Ramadan.
The latter is an immensely controversial figure. I've refrained from taking a view about him to date - because I hesitate to leap in where angels fear to tread. And I liked his biography of Mohammed (though it's not a patch on Martin Lings').
But if he is, as his admirers claim, a force for moderation, I don't understand what he's got against Quilliam, and think we should be told.
I'm sorry to tax readers' patience on this subject, and will now refrain for a while.
But it's important enough - as is Quilliam's role in public life, and indeed Professor Ramadan's - to bring me to my keyboard two days running.
Paul Goodman
