Islamism: why the west gets it wrong

"Islamism is widely misunderstood in the west. It has its roots in a reaction to the global politics of the 20th century"

Analysis of readers comments on the above Guardian Cif post by Roger Hardy 16 March 2010 - See full post here

Mr Hardy starts his article: "The west is ill at ease with Islam", a BBC colleague remarked, long before 9/11. .... Our mistake is to see Islam as monolithic. We think of the Saudi brand as the norm – as if cutting off hands, outlawing the building of churches and denying women the right to drive were the norm across the vast sweep of the Muslim world. After 30 years' experience travelling in the Muslim world – most of that time as a regional specialist with the BBC World Service – I'm still constantly startled by how many ways there are of being a Muslim in the modern world."

This view and where it leads is rejected overwhelmingly by Cif readers.

Analysis of first 50 comments
Type of comment	Votes	%
Highly critical of Mr Hardy	5423	87
Neutral/unclassifiable	655	10
Supportive of Mr Hardy	188	3
Total	6266	100

Justabloke – 272 votes
I am not sure that I understand what you wish to achieve with this article.

You say that without a surer grasp of Islamism and its discontents, the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims will be lost. How do you propose that this should be done?

Are you saying that withdrawal from Iraq, Afganistan and anywhere else that could be presented as the western interference in muslim affairs is a pre-requisite? What then, of the civilians who are currently glad of the protection they are receiving and who would be at the mercy of ideologues?

It seems to me that the separation of Islam from Islamism requires just as much effort from Islam as from the west, and that this effort has been, to date, woefully inadequate

Auric – 249
[Roger Hardy said] [Our mistake is to see Islam as monolithic. We think of the Saudi brand as the norm, as if cutting off hands, outlawing the building of churches and denying women the right to drive were the norm across the vast sweep of the Muslim world.]

…. But the point made by some other experts - who probably won`t be offered Beeb jobs - is that there has been and is still a rather succesful attempt to replace the nice friendly local Islams with an in-your-face global Saudi-style global brand.

Tzimisces – 264
…. let's not jump to the conclusion that the Islamists are right in perceiving muslims as being humiliated or that Islamism is purely defensive.

Islamists are highly aggressive in imposing their desires on other muslims and in attacking Westerners and Western ideas well outside the "islamic world".

…. They are aggressive imperialists who see no moral bounds in what they can destroy to achieve their own ends.

goldmine - 544
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that we in the West should want to understand Islam, even embrace it. We don't.

zounds – 188
It …. seems dangerously close to excusing Islamism as an 'anti-imperial' struggle, which is fundamentally is not. Islamism is another form of barbaric imperialism, something the European left (painting in broad strokes) has been worryingly slow to accept...

smellthecoffee – 312
[Roger Hardy said] ["Islamism: why the west gets it wrong"]

The west doesn't get it wrong. Islamism (the extreme kind) gets it wrong. Try insulting Mohammed and you'll be killed. Name a teddy bear after him and the same thing could happen.

In the west I can deny the existence of God, I can insult God, I can even make jokes about God, and nothing will happen (within reason.)

Then there's the role of women. They are not just mothers, cooks, and cleaners. They have fine minds which can be used in the workplace, to run businesses etc.

BTW: How about Islamism understanding us for a change.

MeinHerzBrent – 199
[Roger Hardy said][Much of the talk about winning Muslim "hearts and minds" is shallow and misguided]

Muslim 'hearts and minds' won't have a place in the west unless their views on women, apostates, gays, finance, animal slaughter and a myriad of other things move forward about fifteen centuries.

Plenty is talked about 'winning them over' as though it's the duty of the west. Why should we bother, and what do the more 'unwinnable' muslims have to contribute? Let them cross over to us when they're ready.

splat64 – 105
While lacking the degree of experince of the writer here I have travelled in Muslim countries and worked for many years in the Muslim 'community'

I would say the 'West' is right to be ill at ease with Islam as it should be ill at ease with violence of monocultural capitalism. The truth of these ideologies lies not in extremity but in the everyday versions.

The daily application of both reveals the inner truth of both. Sure both can be flexible, to a degree, and will present a different face to the world as circumstances or cultures dictate/allow. The problem for Islam is a little different as ultimately it is the 'unchangable ' word of god and whatever its manifestation it seeks theocratic control over peoples lives.

Heresiarch - 132
I don't think anyone does think of Islam as monolithic. What frightens people is the undoubted spread of hardline Saudi-style Wahhabism with Islamist political ambitions.

This may be alien to much Islamic tradition and history; but it's on the move today, it threatens to displace or bully what was previously the Muslim mainstream, it is growing where other, better types of Islam are receding.

You say that the West is "ill at ease with Islam" because we fail to understand it. But why not add that the West is ill at ease with Buddhism, or Confucianism, which are even more alien to the Occidental mind (Islam, after all, shares with Christianity the Judaic heritage)? The answer is that there are not Buddhists or Confucians who wish to blow up aeroplanes. It's nothing to do with not understanding Islam. What people are ill at ease with is the threat of terrorism. Can you blame them?

farga - 31
the mistake is to see this as a conflict between islam and the west....which is how the extremists see it...and even some in the west.

The reality is that this is a conflict within Islam itself.

The vast, vast majority of the victims of Islamist violence have been muslims - from Algeria to Iraq to Pakistan.

…. At stake, ultimately, is whether islam itself is willing to adapt and reform in the face of modern secularism (which is not just a western phenomenon) - much like the Catholic church has had to do, or whether it is going to retreat into primitive medievalism.

This is ultimately a struggle that muslims will need to wage amongst themselves ....

sarka - 48
I've noticed how one of the "memes" of most people writing Islamism articles is to start by saying that in some way or another people "don't understand" Islamism (and/or Islam) and then to proceed to give just another very generalising view of a kind that has been heard over and over again.

…. Yes Islamism is a reaction to the West (who would really say otherwise?), but it is rather more than that. For example, even if reactive (most political movements are reactive in some way), its character is bound up with the actual nature of the Muslim societies concerned and distinctive elements of their religious and social traditions and current conflicts, as well as interaction with certain Western ideas and inspirations...

Anyway, the author who I'm sure has much interesting expertise and experience, fails to explain the idea that by having some more precise understanding of Islamism we would necessarily be able to win Muslim "hearts and minds"...

To what extent, for example, would a better understanding of communism or fascism (both still the topic of endless controversy among historians), have enabled Western elites to head off the threats they posed or averted the damage they caused where they came to power? Please write on both sides of the paper, you have three hours starting NOW!

Waltz - 90
I don't know why you think Islamism is "misunderstood" in the West.

There's no original insight in your entire article. Your argument merely reiterates points and observations that have been made over and over by Western commenters. Islamism is understood perfectly well. The problem is somehow dealing with it within Western societies without resorting to pogroms. And on that front, you appear to offer no answers.

Anglophobia - 251
Stockholm syndrome combined with outdated cultural guilt, the spirit of appeasement, and even more outdated cultural arrogance doesn't make a pretty column.

"Islamism is, at root, a reaction to western power."

Even if true, so what? Nazism might at root have been a reaction to the unjust Treaty of Versailles, but that didn't make the positive and expansionist agenda of the Nazis less important to keep at bay.

…. By now, whatever its origins, Islamism is a power-seeking phenomenon with its own momentum, its own priorities, and its own indigenous concerns that have nothing to do with us. It's dangerous to conclude that if only we opened our arms, apologized simply for existing, and did all the things that Islamists want they would become Quakers, social democrats, feminists, and members of the Peter Tatchell fan club (of which I county myself a member).

…. It's culturally arrogant to think that it's all about us. It isn't.

And it's not our job to win Muslims' hearts and minds. They're not ours to win. Let them be as they wish to be as long as they don't abuse us. Instead of playing mind games and acting like amateur cultural psychologists, we should focus on OUR priorities. Let's ask ourselves in a clear-eyed manner, based on a blunt assessement of Islamists' confessed goals and ideology, if we want Islamists to have more power in our country. And if we don't, then let's unapologetically take steps to curb Islamism.

leeyinyin - 60
Definition of islamism is not just any "ideology", please dont try to neuter the overarching and explicit political goals the movement - in its various guises, peaceful or violent, moderate or extremist- aims to achieve. Islamists wish to re-establish theocracy, nothing less than that.

Modern incarnations of the movement like the MB or HuT have older 19th century roots in the Deobandi revival and that in turn was but yet another re-expresssion of something pretty intrinsic to Islam: Islam being a political and expansionist religion from the time of its founder. Many muslims see the religion's early military victories as vindication of its divine sanction - you'd find this idea expressed in thousands of contemporary books and talks.

So the present day Islamists' reaction against 'humiliation' by the west is easily essentialised as a return to divine favour by way of re-establishing political power once again. Very few muslims would accept severing the link between state and mosque even in theory as it would be akin to cutting the muscle, if not the heart itself out of the religion. There is no muslim majority country - apart from Turkey - where muslim civil laws have ever been abandoned by the state for example.

longlazydaysgoneby - 109
Yep Islamism is misunderstood by the west. especially by the left who seem to see it as some justified reaction to western imperialism.

They also misunderstand the fact that since Mohammed massacred the Jews in Arabia (historical fact, although the mods won't like it said), many forms of islamism have been about land conquest and subjegation of all those who will not convert.

DruidRevelation - 81
I like how the column starts by saying that the west is ill at ease with Islam, suggesting that we ought to become more familiar and comfortable with it.

Then it goes on to argue that Islamism began out of a hatred of the west and that we need to accept that.

So no need for Islamists to worry about being ill at ease with the west then, no need for Muslims in general to accept us as we are and stop trying to change us.

Good, that sounds really fair. Roger Hardy should take over the Foreign Office, and rename it the Office of Cultural Retreat.

goldmine - 129
I'm not so much interested in Islamism as I am deeply concerned. Concerned that this author like so many others on Cif continually attempt to dress up the clash of cultures we're seeing with the unchecked creep of Islam as something to be embraced.

The Emperors New Burqa.

crudfilter - 86
Please Please Please! Stop. Enough! Stop trying to sell Islam. Stop making excuses for it, stop apologising for it, have a little self respect and stop bending over for it. Regardless of the endless sales promotions, discounts, special offers and incentives offered by the Guardian, people dont like slavery.

They don't, nobody is buying into it. Realise that you cannot give it away. Your efforts to dress it in a nice frock, comb it's hair and have it pose for the audience are patronising at best and reak of blinkered desperation. Islam speaks for itself, It's message is loud, clear and writ large all over the free world. Your problem is not 'selling the message', your problem is that people are all too aware of the message.

Until the next sales drive,

splat64 - 37
…. I had a great time working in Islamic communities, and experienced great kindness from individuals, but I remained the unbeliever to them. I was good enough to teach their kids but not good enough to shake their wives hands. I say good enough to teach their kids, thats except when I say spoke of equal rights for women and homosexuals, or when I proposed Darwinism, or suggested sex education or when I told girls that menstruation wasn't disgusting and that they had no need to stay off school for their period, or when I said to kids find out for yourselves and change if you want and so on and so on. thats when the complaints rolled in. It is precisely everyday normal Islam that disturbs people rather than dumb extremists.

CanWeNotKnockIt - 57
….. As for Muslim societies not being obsessed with sex, I can think of few societies more obsessed with it - right down to reporting a couple for kissing in a restaurant or arresting women for wearing the wrong clothing.

metalvendetta - 43
As someone who avoided King's Cross and Liverpool Street on 7/7 by virtue of treating myself to an arbitrary lie-in, I took it upon myself to find out more about Islam. I acquired an English translation of the Koran to read, and held many discussions on the subject with muslim colleagues, friends and people I know online.

As far as I can tell, it's an oppressive, sexist and violent anachronism (the number of calls in the Koran for "unbelievers" to be put to the sword or destroyed by fire really shocked me) and we'd be better off without it. See also: Christianity, Judaism, any of other big religions.

Ilikedthe80s - 44
…. Any liberal, any progressive, any believer in human rights, equal rights, and a non-theocratic political system ought to oppose Islam, not just Islamism but Islam itself with every fibre of their being. I am a leftwinger from before it became "left wing" especially on CIF to support repressive and reactionary theocrats, so maybe I am old fashioned. But I am sticking with my centre left progressive point of view that Islam stands for everything that progressive liberals don't. And that we'd be the first in any firing line should they ever have control of society.

There is no third way. It is a zero sum game. Every increase in power for Islam is a loss for progressive politics, Every success of progressive politics is a loss for Islam. People with such a poor understanding of liberalism that they think it simply represents a lack of all principle are not liberals.

shalone - 49
…. But basically, it has brought to our attention the real Islam and the % of Muslims who still believe in fundamentalism.

I have a Muslim background and know that majority of Muslims do not treat women as equal to men and are not disturbed that most of the women in most of Muslim countries are kept under 'house arrest' all their lives.

…. Many Mullahs add oil to the fire by preaching things which are not valid in 21st century. Yes, there are good souls around, but I have yet to meet a Muslim who would tolerate negative statements about Islam, although only few take laws in their own hands. I have opted out of the faith, because it is problematic to portray yourself as a liberal, when a muslim is supposed to follow everything without reforming anything.

Justabloke - 22
[Comment addressed to Shalone above] Thank you. Your experience seems to confirm a suspicion - that condemnation of islamism from islam is not forthcoming, because the two are closer than islam would like to admit

VolcanicComet - 37
[Roger Hardy said] [Without a surer grasp of Islamism and its discontents, the battle for Muslim hearts and minds will be lost.]

.....seems quite sensible. However I have yet to see an article on CIF that flips this sentiment around and asks what muslims need to do to win western hearts and minds.

[Roger Hardy said] ["Without a surer grasp of freedom of speech and without allowing free criticism of the Koran and Muhammed, the battle for western hearts and minds will be lost." ]

We are going to fumble along this destructive path until people start to address all the issues in the debate. Spineless, liberal appeasement will not make muslims change.

aboveusonlysky - 30
Painfully naive article:

If you define Islamism as 'Islam's interraction with the West', then yes, the West is a factor!

But Islamism affects the 50-something Muslim-majority countries far more seriously than it affects the West - not one Muslim country respects human rights to a decent degree. That's largely the fault of the ideological aspects of the religion preventing progress.

The author seems only to be able to see 'Islamism' as 'Al Qaeda plus a few nasty preachers'. I see it as 'all Muslims except those who have broken free and want modernity'.

Cifilis - 34
…. About this so called "diversity" you celebrate in the Muslim world, what of it? You don't really give any more examples than to say "We think of the Saudi brand as the norm ? as if cutting off hands, outlawing the building of churches and denying women the right to drive were the norm across the vast sweep of the Muslim world." How are things so much different in the rest of "the Muslim World?" They aren't quite as strict, please explain?

contrarian2 - 19
It's encouraging to see so many negative comments about this article.

It is certainly true that there are variations in Islam and that some observers may oversimplify, may conflate Islam with Islamism, may assume that the brand of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia exactly corresponds with the brand practiced in some other country. Nuances, local and regional variations, tribal or national variations, sophistication vs. primitivism...sure. But so what? The same is true of every religion.

What's more, there is no single "we" who can be defined as guilty of oversimplifying Islam. There are knowledgable sophisticated observers and ignorant observers. But again...so what? The same is true of other religions.

Islamism is an issue because it actively, aggressively seeks to inflict serious harm on others. It may be that its origins are relatively recent, and that its future is, hopefully, brief. Fair enough. But it is an urgent problem right now, and there is increasingly less appetite, in the West, for worrying about the heart and minds.

I think it's more important for Islam to worry about what the West thinks, than the other way around. Based on every accepted measurement of social progress, there is not an Islamic society on the planet that has anything to teach the west. The Islamic world should be convening urgent conferences on how to woo the West, not the other way around.

PeteK1959 - 23
…. As far understanding Islam a bit more? Does that include understanding the Arab slave trade in Africa, the Muslim invasions of India or the Devishirme in Europe to name but a few of the unacceptable events from Islam’s past that have absolutely nothing to do with the west? I am so glad the so called left is such a spent force. Because if it wasn?t the ?useful idiots? would have us living under Sharia law by now.

MorrisZap - 42
[Somebody said][Are Muslim societies obsessed with sex and money and pornography?]

… Are you having a laugh? There is no culture or religion on earth more obsessed with sex than Islam. That's why there is an obsesion with covering women up in shrouds, that why the free mixing of men and women is so, er, "frowned upon" (and leads to soft community punsihments like stoning and lashes).

MuzzydeMontfort - 27
.... It always comes back to concessions, either at home, or shaping foreign policy in a way that will go down well with the Muslims. It's clear from observing what Muslims protest about in the UK, and what they don't, that this means always taking the side of Muslims over non-Muslims, as the Qu'ran demands.

ShafeeAlZindig - 29
…. I am an ex-Muslim who has rejected Islam on rational grounds. I still have many Muslim family members and friends though, who all have a wide range of views from radical to moderate. It has always galled me to hear some of the obnoxious comments on homosexuality, evolution and menstruation espoused by some of them.

Fortunately the majority of them sincerely believe in live-and-let-live and that only God should judge. They do not have a problem with my apostasy and believe it is between me and God.

greymatter - 24
[Etoiles wrote]["Many Muslims would say - and I would tend to agree - that we are the backwards society. As Sayeed Qutb wrote :

" ... [the] family provides the environment under which human values and morals develop and grow in the new generation; these values and morals cannot exist apart from the family unit....."

If.....the division of work is not based on family responsibility and natural gifts..."

"if woman is freed from her basic responsibility of bringing up children...."

"....using her ability for material productivity rather than the training of human beings"]

One might expect a primitive bigot brought up in the traditions of the desert religion to have such a patronising, sexist attitude to the 'role' of women.

Shame on you for apparently being in such close agreement.

Watch out: democratic Muslims about

“The Islamic Forum Europe has been criticised for 'taking over' a London council. But the case against it doesn't stand up”

Analysis of readers comments on the above Guardian Cif post by Inayat Bunglawala 3 March 2010 - See full post here

Mr Bunglawala (deliberately?) misses the point. Nobody is complaining about Muslims taking part in politics. What people object to is the IFE (The Islamic Forum of Europe) not saying what it really stands for and vote fiddling.

The Andrew Gilligan and Dispatches programme produced ample evidence that the IFE is an Islamist party and stands for the imposition of Islamic ideas and the overthrow of secular democracy.

An analysis of the recommendations (votes) given to first 50 comments made on Mr Bunglawala's post is given below.

Analysis of first 50 comments
Type of comment	Votes For	%
Highly critical of Mr Bunglawala	1360	94
Neutral/unclassifiable	24	2
Supportive of Mr Bunglawala	66	4
Total	1450	100

There are 83 comments in total and the extracts below give a representative picture of the criticisms of what Mr Bunglawala had to say about the Dispatches programme.

A number of people pointed out that Dispatches has a very good reputation for objective investigation, and has produced programmes widely praised by Muslims, amongst others.

Jonu – 45 votes
…. there are 2 areas of real concern here:

1. Elected representatives not being honest about their real idealogical objectives when standing for office

2. The use of corrupt methods to achieve these aims when in office

I have close up experience of the situation in Tower Hamlets and I am sad to say that in my view these both apply

venerablejohn – 90 votes
[Inayat Bunglawala said][Ahmed argued that the IFE were intent on "imposing a medieval interpretation of Islamic law" on the rest of us. Gilligan appeared to accept this nonsense uncritically, but what actual evidence had he uncovered in support of this claim? Gilligan went to Tower Hamlets council and found - take a deep breath now - that there were prayer breaks held during some council meetings. …. Well, you could have knocked me down with a feather. The impertinence of these Muslims]

I watched the documentary, most of the criticisms came from fellow Muslims. Such as the lady who setup a Muslim dating agency and was clearly threatened by leading member of the IFE to pack in her activities because they were agains the will of God or else face the consequences.

The petition to get a locally elected Mayor was clearly an attempt to get an IFE man into a position of power in Tower Hamlets - pages of signitures were obviously forged and the undercover reporter caught that guy from the IFE who openly admitted they were going to get one of "their" brothers in as Mayor.

Why are you denying these things Inayat?

MoveAnyMountain – 75 votes
[IB said][The IFE must take some responsibility for events that are held in their flaghship centre and tell those who engage in such incendiary talk that they will no longer be welcome to hire their premises and should buzz off.]

Some responsibility? Really? I suspect that if the IFE invites hate preachers into their premises to give hate-filled speeches they are entirely responsible. Did they do so? Well, yes, it seems they did. Awlaki among them. Do we even need to ask why they are inviting such people to give talks in their premises? We all know of course.

Of course they should take responsibility. But we know they won't. They won't because Inayat is not really condemning them here. He is defending them.

Justabloke – 69 votes
More of Inayats half-truths and evasions again. We never get anything better from him

WindyTrench – 52 votes
[IB said][Finally, we were treated to the spectacle of Paul Richards, the former political advisor to the ex-communities secretary, Hazel Blears, claiming that the IFE was anti-democratic and that the government should not have anything to do with it.]

Well. The IFE wants to bring Sharia to the UK so that says that the IFE is anti democratic in the extreme.

PaulIsleOfDogs – 65 votes
Dear Inayat

I read through your article and thought you were talking about a completely different program to the one I saw. You are misrepresenting and downplaying the content of the program quite dramatically.

The allegations made by Dispatches against the IFE are extremely serious, given what is happening in the borough. It was very alarming, for instance, to hear that the Tower Hamlets Labour Group was in such trouble with its own party.

It was also very revealing to hear the local Labour leaders responses to some very troubling questions and the nature of the IFE's beliefs.

WindyTrench – 42 votes
[IB said][To refuse point blank to engage with those structures is to ensure their detachment and marginalisation, creating a vacuum in which - as we have seen elsewhere - rejectionist ideologies flourish.]

Careful Inayat. You are reverting back to the doublespeak threats of old.

Adamastor – 22 votes
I.F.E has strong connexions with Jamaat-e-islami, a decidedly undemocratic Bangladeshi party with very different political views to the Labour Party, new or old. Add personation, questionable members from dubious addresses, inventing well-paid jobs for friends, and intimidation of opponents, them yes, it looks as if Tower Hamlets Labour Party and Council need to be very closely examined.

JayReilly – 56 votes
[IB said]["For a number of years now, British Muslims have been told that they must all eschew terrorism and instead seek to influence policy through the process of democratic engagement. In Tower Hamlets we have seen young people, particularly following the deeply unpopular war against Iraq, seeking to do just that and join the local political parties including George Galloway's Respect party. And instead of being commended for this they get smeared as being "entryists" by people like Fitzpatrick.]

Inayat, i think this may well be the most dishonest article you have ever written. This is disingenuous in the extreme. No one is criticising democratic political involvement (as you well know), what is being criticised is the wholly undemocratic, ugly goings on at Tower Hamlets council (only a fraction of which was covered in that program).

What a thoroughly dishonest piece.

Doncha – 29 votes
How on earth can anybody say the IFE is a democratic organisation, when it makes it plain that it is an ISLAMIC political party, and since when is Islam compatible with democracy?

…. Didn't you think we'd notice that part of IFE's agenda is Dawa, the spreading of Islam and convincing infidels to convert? No? It's as plain as the nose on your face on the front page of their website.

Islam's role in an ethical society

“Muslim teachings have a lot to offer when it comes to bringing personal values into public life and how best to live together”

Analysis of readers comments on the above Guardian Cif post by Tariq Ramadan 23 February 2010 - See full post here

Mr Ramadan has created a record. He has achieved the highest level of disagreement with a Cif post that we have ever found.

4225 votes out of 4359 (97 percent) say he is talking nonsense (and some even suggest he is "opaque and oblique and doesn't say anything straight out").

An analysis of the recommendations (votes) given to first 50 comments made on Mr Ramadan’s post is given below.

Analysis of first 50 comments
Type of comment	Votes	%
Highly critical of Mr Ramadan	4225	97
Neutral/unclassifiable	31	1
Supportive of Mr Ramadan	103	2
Total	4359	100

There are over 281 comments in total and the extracts below give a representative picture of the criticisms of Mr Ramadan’s views.

A popular criticism is words to the effect "if Islam is so wonderful why it so obviously failing in Muslim countries"

A number of comments criticise not only Mr Ramadan’s views but also his style and motives. These are grouped here.

There are also two comments, from a Muslim and an ex-Muslim, that are noteworthy. See here. They have low votes but came well towards the end of the commenting where the votes tend to fall off. Cif readers coming late to the post probably only scroll the early comments and vote on those.

liamnsw - 232 votes
I am at a loss where to start here.

[Tariq Ramadan said][Islam should be seen as a gift] Really? Why? Most major religions ask of its followers integrity & ethics, this is not exclusive to Islam.

[TR][For while we agree that no one has the right to impose their beliefs on another] Well many Islamists would disagree with you.

MiskatonicUniversity - 224 votes
[Tariq Ramadan said][Islam is perceived as a "problem", never as a gift in our quest for a rich and stimulating diversity. And that's a mistake. Islam has much to offer - not least when considering how individuals in politics and business have recently been behaving, within the limits of the law, but with a clear lack of ethics. Individual responsiblity, political intrgrity]

…. The evidence is that countries where Islam is the dominant religion generally have a woeful record on democracy, human rights, social development, and even literacy!

Now that might not all be the fault of Islam - but Islam sure hasn't helped, has it?

As for the rest of your article, you know yourself that laws are themselves the product of culture - there is no neutral space where all "cultures" can gather as that space has to be created by a dominant culture.

That is why sharia is rejected and why you had such a bad time of it in France.

There is simply no way in which "lapidation" of women can be accomodated by a "common ethical framework" in the modern age.

Pairubu - 229 votes
[TR][Islam should be seen as a gift]

I hope someone kept the receipt.

RudiGunn - 190 votes
Islam does have some positive values, but also some very negative ones.

Islam has no monopoly on its positive values and offers us nothing we cant get eslewhere and with less baggage.

Im sorry, but I want nothing from Islam and I want no greater role for Islam in the life of my coutry than it already has.

MonikerLewinski - 121 votes
[TR][not least when considering how individuals in politics and business have recently been behaving, within the limits of the law, but with a clear lack of ethics.Individual responsiblity, political intrgrity.]

Don't get me wrong, I was as irritated about the expense scandal as the next man, but are you really trying to suggest that Islamic polities are preferable or less corrupt.

I defy you to name one, and then I defy you to explain why millions of Muslims are desperate to leave their own countries to come and live in the West.

liamnsw - 163 votes
[TR][Islam has much to offer, not least when considering how individuals in politics and business have recently been behaving, within the limits of the law, but with a clear lack of ethics.Individual responsiblity, political intrgrity]

I lived for a while in Jakarta, and I can assure you, in this, the most populous Muslim country in the world, there is more corruption than you can point a stick at.

…. And how tolerant is Indonesia? There are 10 religions in the constitution that are allowed to be practised. Judaism is absent. Over Xmas we went to mass in the cathedral and it was protected by armed guards all around its perimiter, felt very Xmassey, not.

They also have Morality Enforcement Police, can you guess what they're for?

So before you go extolling the seemingly endless virtues of Islam, please show me where it actually works. If the only answer you have is Turkey then that says it all really.

ThorHammer - 46 votes
…. All very well talking about tolerance in the largely tolerant west. In the west we can all speak up and Muslims are afforded free political space. This however this is not apparent in "muslim" Lands.

Does Mr Ramadan support freedons for All in OIC countrys does he decry the lack of religious rights of Non Muslims in Iran and Saudi. Does he decry the lack of freedom in Muslim law to leave your religion.

When I have read Mr Ramadam on these subjects there is always a degree of obfuscation.

bluejewel - 110 votes
[TR][…. Islam has much to offer]

Give us an example of what good things have been achieved in other societies where its 'offer' has been accepted.

[TR][..not least when considering how individuals in politics and business have recently been behaving, within the limits of the law, but with a clear lack of ethics. Individual responsiblity, political intrgrity]

You make it sound that this is not an issue within UK society already - that it is not clear already that there may be a failure judged by the ethical standards we have. Ridiculous.

.... We have eyes and brains Tariq. We see the conditions that Islam has created in other countries. We don't want any of it here.

MonikerLewinski - 108 votes
[TR][That future cannot be shaped by superficial discussions of national identity, values or Britishness]

…. you are asking …. the rest of us to give up our birthright in order to satisfy the cultural needs and emotional requirements of a minority of muslims. Take your special pleading, and shove it.

RudiGunn - 104 votes
[Someone said][Tariq Ramadan is not referring to the practices of so-called Islamic countries but Islam itself. Not Islamists, not Osama bin Laden, not the Saudi royal family, not Hosni Mubarak. Islam. There's a very big difference there people. Please take note.]

You seem to be saying that we cant judge the Muslim faith by the actions of Muslims or the actuality of Muslim countries.

What then do we judge it by?

Numbers - 8 votes
[TR][To agree on the rule of law, equality and democratic transparency is surely not enough]

That's the weasel phrase. What are you proposing to add?

JayReilly - 84 votes
A gift is something freely offered and freely received. I dont recall the offer and the reception has been far from free.

We have paid for it with a surge in sectarianism, the appearance of fully veiled women gliding solemnly around our streets, anonymously. We have paid for it with a state funded state school teaching that Jews and Christians are monkeys and pigs, not to mention the state funded faith schools in general.

We have barred entry to the country to an elected EU politician after a warning that the "community" would react strongly. We have seen cartoons cause global riots, murders, and the creeping self censorship this creates. We have had new hate speech laws drawn up to appease the "community leaders", trampling roughshod over principles of free speech. We have seen the emergence of honour killings and forced marriage. We have seen preachers in mainstream mosques spouting the most appalling bile. We then saw Channel 4 pursued by the police for exposing it; community relations had been troubled.

Neither Muslims or Islam are homogenous entities and nor are they without positives, but this talk of being a "gift" is just a little much to bear. The emergence of 7th century cultural elements and overt religious aggression has caused some serious problems. Calling them "gifts" doesnt actually solve them.

justice4beginners - 25 votes
oh please. loads of religious gumph is a good idea - 'don't kill people, don't pinch their stuff' - love it. some religious stuff is less helpful - 'being gay is bad, women can be slaves and that's ok' - see, not great.

islam is no different to christianity in the amount crap it manages to squeeze between any good stuff.

what's great about a lack of religion is that you can develop ethics which reflect what you think is right rather than rely on some ancient book to indoctrinate you.

robofluffer - 65 votes
Islam, the gift that keeps on taking.

goldmine - 42 votes
[TR][That future cannot be shaped by superficial discussions of national identity, values or Britishness]

There's an awful lot of British people that would disagree with this statement.

MiskatonicUniversity - 54 votes
[Someone said][(1) sharia is more than just the punishment aspects (2) other countries have compensation systems, this isn't a sharia concept]

On (1), I'd agree, but what Tariq is arguing is that corporal (flogging, amputating) and capital (beheading) punishments ARE an integral part of Islamic notions of justice - but that the WHOLE system needs to be implemented for it to work. The more starry-eyed among the Islamists imagine that in their ideal state no-one will get drunk, have an affair or draw a cartoon.

(2) My point wasn't that Saudia Arabia has a compensation system devised and approved by the leading Islamic scholars of that kingdom, but that it is a compensation system rooted in foul sectarian and misyognistic attitudes.

Poor Tariq. In recommending democracy, civic responsibility, equality and justice to the west, he's in the position of a sun-dial salesmen* in a digital culture.

(*although, actually he doesn't have much choice. Islam has a very thorough-going system of scholarship where you need to spend years at the feet of the leading scholars of the age. Tariq is a Western philosophy graduate and never served his apprenticeship. This is why we have to read about his idea of Islam, rather than, say, the scholars of Arabia. His sundial credentials simply aren't in order)

Gangastaista - 64 votes
A telling example of any ethical system is how it deals with apostates.

Scientists deal with apostates with criticism. Atheists deal with apostates with sadness, or sarcasm. Religious Jews and Christians deal with apostates with derision.

The state-based punishment for apostasy against Islam in Muslim nations is either death (or threat of it), jailing, or fines. At the local level, murders of apostates are recorded, in recent times, in Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Nigeria, Indonesia, Somalia, and Kenya.

It is not difficult to see why the disparity.

Every major branch of Sharia law, every single one of them without exception, states the penalty for a a male, sane, apostate is death. Variance between the branches of Sharia law occur on which form of execution, how to deal with the mentally ill, and how to deal with women.

aboveusonlysky - 63 votes
…. Can anyone think of ANY society in the world which is made more ethical by Islam?

Thought not.

AntonyIndia - 48 votes
[TR][Let us agree on this: we live in pluralistic societies and pluralism is an unavoidable fact]

This "we" goes only for those living in India, Europe and the US.

Most North African and Middle East countries are not and do not want to be pluralistic (=multicultural), they are Islamic states. They want to be strictly mono-cultural, Like Pakistan, which weeded out its "minorities" over the last decennia: that's an unavoidable fact as well!

Clusty - 40 votes
[Quotation][Sarkozy accused Ramadan of defending the stoning of adulterers, a punishment stipulated in the section of the Islamic penal code known as huddud. Ramadan replied that he favored “a moratorium” on such practices but refused to condemn the law outright. Many people, including Sarkozy, were outraged. When I talked with Ramadan in London, the mere mention of the word ?stoning? set him off on a long explanation.

“Personally,” he said, “I’m against capital punishment, not only in Muslim countries, but also in the U.S. But when you want to be heard in Muslim countries, when you are addressing religious issues, you can?t just say it has to stop. I think it has to stop. But you have to discuss it within the religious context. There are texts involved.”]

I'm quite happy that the UK can decide that stoning is wrong without first running it by the words of a deceased 1st century warlord. So I'll have to politely decline your gift.

PS. Stoning is a shade more than capital punishment. Again, keep it.

Clusty - 23 votes
And the sleight of hand to create an equivalence between lethal injection for murderers in the US, and pummelling someone to death with rocks for shagging around. Tu quoque rhetoric in the Soviet brand. Ugh, what a vile man.

pengadil - 28 votes
[TR][Superficial discussions of national identity, values and Britishness]

Why are these superficial? They are the bedrock of our society and have been so and developed over many hundreds of years. They are not perfect but meet more of our needs as a society than any current construct of Islam.

I have lived in a Muslim country and know at first hand how restrictive Islam can be. It is not tolerant of other religions and attempts to impose its "laws" on non-Muslims.We need to be secure in our history and traditions not soft and weak in always attempting to accommodate those who seek to take over our "Britishness"

MiskatonicUniversity - 24 votes
[Someone said][…. a (Muslim) group who had a stall where they were distributing literature. Some of it was a critique of Christianity and I pointed out that it was attributing beliefs to Christianity eg that Christians believe in three gods, which form no part of orthodox Christianity.]

…. the misconceptions/misrepresentations go a long way back - all the way back in fact to the Quran. Mohammed never got the idea of the trinity and especially objected to the idea of the son of god.

But he thought it was such a good stick to beat the Christians with he also applied it to the Jews (who he could have been expected to know something about) in the Quran 9:30: "The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!"

It apparently makes a good rhyme in Arabic, which Mohammed evidently considered to be more important than accuracy:

"Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi
waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi"

MiskatonicUniversity - 37 votes
[Someone said][You can legislate away for everything, but the Quran is actually surprisingly light on the regulations]

Agreed, the Quran fact it is quite light on Islam too, much of which was invented later (the confession of faith and other "five pillars" for instance), hence the need for the hadith where these additions are contained. Tariq is an orthodox believer in that he accepts the authority of the hadith - he is not a new-fangled Quran only Muslim.

[Someone said][On the Diyya system - it's the Saudis enforcing their beliefs which are more cultural than Islamic through a medium of Islam. Again you tend to skip past current historical example of our own western society and go straight for saudi example.]

Well my society isn't an example of sharia concepts of justice - Arabia, font of Islam, and home to hundreds of very learned Islamic scholars, is. In fact, Islamic groups bring over these Saudi Arabian scholars to lecture here, their knowledge and practice of Islam is considered to be so good.

[Someone said][My problem with what you tend to posit is that - you don't give any impression of that debate taking place. You make Ramadan look like he's acting lie a fifth columnist and he still accepts all the laws that exist in places like Saudi.]

There isn't much of a debate taking place. Vishanti has Tariq bang to rights - Tariq knows the moment he gets into points of detail with a Western audience he will be sunk. Better to keep the tax-payer funded biscuits coming and never make a concrete statement or engage in an argument.

And never, ever, come out from behind the curtain and post below the line. I'm sure Tariq has seen The Wizard of Oz and doesn't intend to make the same mistake.

I don't think Tariq is a fifth-columnist, but I do think he is a propagandist for an out-moded, illiberal, and fundamentally unequal conception of human relations.

He's a sun-dial salesman. The problem is he's not just trying to sell us sun-dials as nice ornaments for our gardens, he's proposing to install them on the flight decks of aeroplanes.

greymatter - 28 votes
[TR][More broadly, the Muslim presence should be perceived as positive, too. It is not undermining the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian ethical and cultural roots of Europe]

Piffle. There is absolutely NOTHING that is decent in Islam that isn't already encompassed in the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian ethical and cultural roots of Europe.

However, what Islam adds to the equation is a dogmatic adherence to a collection of primitive Bedouin Arab traditions which were granted bogus 'divine' authority by the charlatan founder of this religion, and are still part of its founding principles today.

No Thank You, Mr Ramadan.

GarryG - 23 votes
[TR][Muslim teachings have a lot to offer when it comes to bringing personal values into public life and how best to live together]

So show me an Islamic society that actually puts these wonderful Islamic teachings into practice. Iran? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Let's face it, Islamic countries in general lag far behind the West in terms of personal liberty, tolerance and diversity, democracy, gender equality, religious equality, education and even general health and standard of living.

I see no evidence that Muslim teachings lead to better or more prosperous societies, quite the contrary in fact.

Anglophobia - 22 votes
Islam brings nothing good to public debate that indigenous traditions don't already provide, and it brings with it serious problems, including antagonism to our established ways, a dangerous blurring of the public and private, challenges to state sovereignty, and a systemic lack of appreciation for the path that western democracies have followed in purging the conservative and reactionary excesses of our own religious traditions. The growth of Islam simultaneously pushes us backwards and pushes us aside.

MiskatonicUniversity - 24 votes
[Someone said][We have learned from the ancient Greeks, this knowledge survived because Muslim scholars and scientists during the Golden Era preserved this knowledge and expanded on it, in turn we've also learnt how to make paper etc from the Chinese.]

…. Greek knowledge was never lost to humanity, there was Greek culture right around the Mediterranean.

Europe lost its Greek connection due to the imperial expansion of the Arabs and later the Ottomans. Their colonial policies meant the extinction of the Greek language in many of the countries it used to be spoken.

The impetus for the rediscovery of Greek knowledge in Europe came from the Ottoman conquest of Byzantium - presented by the Ottomans as a clash of cultures - followed by the destruction of that country and Greek refugees fleeing to Italy.

Greece and the other Balkan states were finally decolonised in the early 20th Century.

StGallen - 16 votes
I have been trying to understand the relevance of this article. The only conclusion I can draw is that it is a plea to the western societies to make a success of Islam its own followers have failed to realise.

The problems Ramadan mentions that will be magically cured by Islam are eclipsed by far bigger and more appalling issues prevalent in Islam-majority countries that do indeed follow Islam to the law.

EJTS - 20 votes
You really don't seem to understand the futility of telling us how wonderful Islam while we have the capability to see, hear, read and perceive for ourself tells us otherwise (look anywhere from existing Islamic regimes to the Quran and Hadiths for examples of 'equality' and respect for alternate beliefs), or take any notice of the fact that you have repeatedly been told that it is neither wanted nor needed in 21st century, largely secular Europe (before someone jumps down my throat, I refer to the Islamic ideology, not Muslims themselves!).

Muslims are more than welcome to live in Europe, provided they are prepared to integrate with the host society, as would be expected anywhere in the world (especially Islamic countries, ironically enough). This does not automatically mean sacrificing their private belief system nor their personal values; it means showing respect for the existing social, political and legal system, not to mention its customs and traditions, whilst practicing religion in the personal sphere. That is simply good manners.

The rest of us neither want nor need to have Islam forced upon us in order for integration to function properly, as has been demonstrated perfectly well with all other communities of Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, etc. That is because these communities call themselves people first and by religious denomination second, instead of segregating themselves and telling the world that it must better understand and/or adopt their religious principles for integration to function properly.

The same peaceful, respectful coexistence between the aforementioned communities has not been the case with Islam in many instances across Europe (again, refer to any number of recent news articles).

Why should it be the responsibility of the host culture to adapt to Islam, and not the other way around?

EJTS - 32 votes
[TR][the Muslim presence can play a critical role in thinking about our future and shaping a new common narrative. It can help recall and revive some of the fundamental principles upon which the cultures of Europe are based.]

Has it ever occurred to you that Europe is quite happy with its common narrative and fundamental principles - namely secularism, gender and sexual equality, freedom of speech, and respect for individual beliefs - without needing reform by those entering it?

The sheer arrogance.

jennyanydots - 6 votes
As I was reading this article I couldn't help thinking that once again Mr Ramadan is presenting …. an intellectualized version of Islam. Then I read the comments and came across this from OopsItsMe :

"Tariq Ramadan is not referring to the practices of so-called Islamic countries but Islam itself. Not Islamists, not Osama bin Laden, not the Saudi royal family, not Hosni Mubarak. Islam. There's a very big difference there people. Please take note."

If "Islam itself" is so different from what is practiced by all of the above named, what good is it except as a set of beliefs that should be confined to the private and personal sphere? Because, from what I'm reading, it seems that as a religious/philosophical system it is useless as the underpinning of any political/social/ethical structure.

Therefore, this is what I see as Mr Ramadan's big failure--his refusal to grapple with the problems inherent in Islam while at the same time presenting it as something wholly desirable that should be embraced or accepted in its entirety.

Mr Ramadan is presenting Islam as the basis of an ethical structure that is completely divorced from reality.

Without any sense of irony he and his followers seem to be saying "Listen to us rather than believe what you observe happening in Islamic countries". I have no doubt that most Muslims are genuine believers and followers of their faith, but I would hazard a guess that those are the ones whose beliefs are private and who do not wish them to impinge on the public sphere.

So I think that Mr Ramadan should turn his attention to solving the problem of why Islam has failed as a political system before trying to convert the West to his vision of Islam as an ethical force, bar none, which should have a greater role in political discourse and structure.

A Muslim and an ex-Muslim

chilledoutbeardie - 6 votes
After a great deal of thought, I am convinced that Tariq Ramadan and many other Muslim intellectuals are wrong on this issue. I have followed th Cif blogs on Islam-related topics and it is perfectly clear that there is a huge amount of negative thinking regarding Islam and Muslims in this country.

This cannot be counteracted by well-meaning articles or special pleading. For the regrettably large number of Cif bloggers with closed minds regarding Islam, I fear that nothing can be done to change their views. In order to convince those with open minds that Muslims can be (and are) as good Britons as anyone else, it is incumbent on us to do 3 things:

(1) Condemn forcefully all extremist ideology and terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam.

(2) Provide information, when we are sure of its veracity, to the police on potential terrorist threats of which we become aware.

(3) Finally, and perhaps most important, we must endeavour to lead productive, honest and decent lives.

These practical steps, in contrast to ineffectual intellectualising, will, in time, convince the rest of society of the truth; Muslims are just normal human beings and not the demonised fifth column beloved of the BNP and their supporters.

MMughal - 5 votes
Hello brother tariq ramadan, salaam.

As for me, if you whole heartedly accept five pillars of humanity you are welcome and as an exmuslim I have nothing against you. The five pillars are freedom, secularism, democracy, human rights and separation between religion and state. I take them seriously because without these pillars being accepted as foundation of humanity we cannot coexist in peace and harmony therefore cannot cooperate effectively for making progress towards prosperity of mankind.

If you are true to these fundamentals for humanity then I expect you to do all you can to promote them through out the world including the muslim countries. I expect you to be at least as concerned about these principles as you are for your religious beliefs if not more to be accept in the free society. One cannot be accepted in free scoiety if one tries to destroy it from within.

You can help by setting up discussion venues in muslim educational institutions in muslim states. In these discussions you should be able to help involve all sorts of religious and nonreligious scholars so that we could help educate people about each other openly and fairly. This is the real way forwards, not fighting for muslim acceptance while muslims reject apostates of islam and other nonmuslims in muslim societies and countries treating them as dirt.

There are colleges and universities in muslim countries wherein open debates can be arranged by people like you if you really do want to help change things for the better. So Please think about these ideas seriously and you can find me on website of council of exmuslim in britain, cemb for short to discuss further.

I hope you are a sincere man and would give some thought to my proposals because otherwise clashes between people cannot be avoided because that is where spread of islamic fundamentalism would lead us to. Islam and muslims cannot be reformed by giving in to them rather it is time we brought about reformation of islam and muslims from within by telling our fellow muslims where they are wrong and making them accept a role that they must start playing in the wider society.

regards and all the best. Mughal.

Criticism of Mr Ramadan’s style and motives

PeterJackson - 57 votes
As ever with Mr Ramadan, this argument is opaque and oblique rather than saying anything straight out.

But in so far as I can understand it, he is saying that everyday ethics - the way we interact in society, in business and socially - should be influenced by Islamic traditions.

Well, OK. Islam is not alone in recommending to its adherents that they act with honesty, integrity, humility, and so on, while blurring over the religion's more negative implications. Christianity says the same, as does Hinduism and every other recognised religion apart from the most solipsistic ones.

And Muslims fail in these areas just as much as everyone else, given the numbers of them appearing in the dock for benefit fraud, burglary, and the other crimes that those with other religions and none also commit.

So what special role does Mr Ramadan envisage Islam playing in the development of society? As I see it, Muslims should act as any other citizens do; arguing their points alongside the rest of us, with no special privileges or preferential access to power structures. If that's what he's saying, then it's unexceptional. If it isn't, then I don't know what it is.

Could we have a translation of this piece?

LDAW - 22 votes
This is a pretty sloppy article, because it lacks any specific examples/suggestions. Of course, Muslims like anyone else take part in political debates and have opinions on a range of issues, based on their values. In that sense, Islamic cultural/religious values are already 'part of the debate', along with every other ethical/cultural framework in Britain.

Is that all the author is trying to say? If so, then it's hard to criticise it. However, if the author is suggesting that Muslim (or indeed, Christian or Jewish) organisations should be involved in policy-making, then I strongly reject that. We are a secular country, and hence religious practice should be a private manner.

MorrisZap - 46 votes
Tariq, I am trying to work out if you deliberately made your arguments opaque through the medium of pretentious pseudo academic twaddle, or if you couldn't help it. I suspect the former.

I'm still not certain quite which ethics you want to "share" with ignorant kufirs like me. You start by saying, "Let us agree on this: we live in pluralistic societies and pluralism is an unavoidable fact." Well, the day a Christian can worship openly in Saudi Arabia, is the day I'll start believing that Islam and pluralism can go together like bread and butter. I'm not holding my breath...

When apologists like you stop defending the second class status of women, stop defending medieval punishments, and denounce the profound anti semitism, anti gay, anti intellectual mindset that makes almost every Muslim country in the world economically backward, corrupt dictatorships, then I might think you have something to say.

I'm not holding my breath on this one either...

Vishanti - 56 votes
This article is actually terribly instructive. Anyone wishing to join the multi-cultural conference bandwagon ( good buffet lunches, usually a coffee break with biscuits, nice laminated lanyards with your name on it, and all fully paid for by you and me) then this is a text book example of how to do bollox-speak.

Mr Ramadan has managed to fill an entire column, hence earning his fee (admittedly small in the Guardian , but it keeps the brand alive for the next conference booking) without actually saying anything at all.

He gives no examples of how we might benefit from the 'gift of Islam' because then he'd have to work really hard, compare and contrast, argue and conclude. Given the many incisive and brilliant posts above, it seems he'd have a rather hard time.

The multicultural conference junkie never gives examples. He uses a cross between theology and the social work vocabularly much loved in the 70's to fill time and space without presenting a point that can be contested.

Bravo. Genius. From start to finish.

peterNW1 - 33 votes
As Ramadan's critics point out, he has a stern and realistic message for his Muslim audience, and a soothing and emollient message for the non-Muslim audience.

In other words, he has mastered 'Taqiyya' ...

Gove's unprincipled mosque stand

"Michael Gove's decision to oppose the building of a new mosque in his constituency is an attempt to silence political opponents."

Analysis of readers comments on the above Guardian Cif post by Alan Hiliar 15 February 2010 - See full post here

The great majority of Guardian Cif readers don't agree with Mr Hiliar. They overwhelmingly (73%) support Mr Gove. An analysis of the recommendations (votes) given to first 50 comments made on Mr Hiliar's post is given below. Mr Hiliar is the LibDem prospective parliamentary candidate for Surrey Heath.

Analysis of first 50 comments
Type of comment	Votes	%
For Michael Gove - doubtful or against the mosque	1217	73
Neutral/unclassifiable	93	5
For Alan Hiliar - for the mosque	364	22
Total	1674	100

The single biggest category of vote winning comments are those that say in so many words:

... the issue is largely to do with planning and local objections to the destruction of a bulding of some historical interest and its replacement with something totally out of character with the area.

A lesser number refer to:

.... the nature of Islam and the fact that you can't build a church in Saudi Arabia, and in many Islamic majority countries other religions are hindered or supressed. These are often prompted by comments supporting Mr Hiliar claiming that the objection to the mosque is all to do with islamophobia.

There are over 200 comments in total and the extracts below are representative of those supporting Mr Gove.

maleEdale – 219 votes
[Alan Hiliar said][First, he seems to want to placate those whose opposition stems from a deep antipathy to Muslims generally.]

What evidence can you provide for this assertion? Perhaps Gove and the majority of residents want to maintain the character of their area. It is concievable that they simply do not want their environment to represent Tower Hamlets, though I'd imagine Multi-culturalists have a problem understanding this ("It must be Islamophobia"!)

Peason1 – 167 votes
[Alan Hiliar said]['Surely a key test of an MP should be that he or she does not bend in the wind and shows some principle when it comes to dealing with controversial issues?']

Surely a key test of an MP is that he or she does what his or her constituents want.

ThorHammer – 95 votes
what facts do you have to back up your claim that Gove's stand is unprincipled. Just becuase you do not agree does not mean it is unprincipled, It is like …. saying anything that does not go "muslims" way is "inslamophobic"

Anglophobia – 99 votes
[PaulMetcalf01 said]["What next ....will Gove request Muslims to leave the country for social cohesion?"]

It would be unfortunate if he did, but I do hope he changes immigration policy and dismantles the apparatus of multiculturalism to help with social cohesion.

Anglophobia – 96 votes
…. It may have escaped his notice that we do allow mosques, that they are growing in number, and that the building in question already IS a mosque in all but appearance.

It may have escaped his notice that Copts are badly persecuted in Egypt …., that many Islamic countries do not allow churches, ban proselytizing on pain of death, kill people who convert away from Islam (a policy supported by one-third of young British Muslims, according to a poll), and have massively oppressive blasphemy laws.

Novelist – 115 votes
When the Saudis permit non-Muslims to build their own places of worship in Saudi Arabia should be the time to allow Muslims to build mosques in the UK. Non-muslims are not even permitted to follow their own faith in Saudi Arabia, let alone build a temple or church.

Mr. Gove, you have got it right, sir, and I salute you.

Anglophobia – 107 votes
[Limone said][“They're asking to build a place of worship for local citizens. Nothing more.”]

They already have a place of worship: the building as it is. Why should their desire to knock the building down be treated with kid gloves? Why should their architectural tastes trump the desire of other locals to keep a lovely old building? As you can see from above, people would oppose tearing down the building if a Tescos were going up. Why should a traditional Victorian building be doomed because it's a request for a mosque rather than a Tescos?

maleEdale – 32 votes
….. Political Islam is an energized (saudi funded) aggressively expansive political ideology . It poses a threat to secular values that flakey Anglicanism and inward-directed Judaism do not. That it is so is reflected in the rise of secular Muslim groups (more power to them!) and the volte-face of former fatwa-supporter Inyat Bungalawala (who's now so moderate and tolerent he could be an Anglican minister;), who are, bravely and correctly, trying to regain ground claimed by the anti-integrational, Wahabbi politicized movement.

Matthelliwell – 23 votes
[cheveguara said][Moslems have been living in this country for centuries and if they want to build a mosque in their community why shouldn't they?]

Because building it involves knocking down a locally listed building and building something out of keeping with the surroundings in a conservation area. And yes I would object if it was Tescos, a block of flats or something else. In 2002 they already had planning permission to extend behind the school so the foot print would be as large as the new plans. They even got as far as laying the footings. Everyone was happy enough with this plan. Its only when it was proposed knocking down the school that people started to object.

Despite the implications in the article it is possible to object to the application without being a racist.

Monnie – 25 votes
[cheveguara said][Moslems have been living in this country for centuries and if they want to build a mosque in their community why shouldn't they?]

Because it isn't their community. It's a shared community.

CrowBlack – 30 votes
Mr Hiliar declares himself to be "content to let the local council make the decision on planning grounds alone", in which case it is inexplicable that he should choose to castigate Michael Gove, but have no harsh words for the Councillors, who without offering one single planning argument, decided to overturn the recommendation of the professional planning officers to refuse consent on grounds of local, area and national planning policy.

Is it really so impossible for Mr Hiliar to comprehend that far from being goaded into a response by UKIP, he is in fact, finally responding to the majority of his constituents who do not want to lose another much-loved local building that reflects the history of our town and lends itself perfectly to the other buildings within the conservation area.

Any controversy is only about the building and the inexplicable decision taken by the Planning Applications Committee to ignore the Planning Officer's detailed report which set out extremely robust reasons for refusing the application. I am still shocked that the Councillors did not offer a single reason in planning terms for their extraordinary action.

Whilst declaring that Mr Gove's sudden intervention is an attempt to pander to his anti-Euro constituents, Mr Hiliar has proved himself to be deaf to the majority of residents of Surrey Heath, and blind to the facts of this matter.

PrejudicedSlur – 5 votes
…. However it is also true that the Muslims, who are applying for this planning permission, have a clear objective in their mind, which is to create a demonstration effect by erecting domes and/or minarets etc.

Interestingly, to the best of my knowledge, Islam does not support any sort of iconoclism (which should include domes and/or minarates). Had the planning officers sought proper advice in this regard, they could have easily rejected this application considering it an unnecessary symbolic practice, which has nothing to do with the practice of this particular religion.

Gain trust to stop terrorism

"Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father warned authorities about him. It's a good reminder of the best way to prevent terrorism"

Analysis of readers comments on the above Guardian Cif post by Inayat Bunglawala 21 January 2010 - See full post here

Guardian Cif readers think Mr Bunglawala's suggestions for preventing terrorism by actual or former UK students fall short of what is required. 53% of commenters were critical of him and they got over 80% of Cif readers’ votes.

This is based on the first 50 of a total of 202 comments. The table below gives more details.

	Readers Comments		Votes for Comments
	Number	%	Number	%
Strongly Support	11	21.6	116	5.9
Support	2	3.9	25	1.3
Neutral	11	21.6	226	11.6
Critical	4	7.8	186	9.6
Strongly Critical	23	45.1	1390	71.5
Totals	51	100.0	1943	100.0

What people had to say is represented by the following extracts from a few of the most popular comments.

smellthecoffee - 105 votes
[Inayat Bunglawala said] [Rather than trying to demonise student Islamic societies for their supposed radicalism, our counter-terrorism efforts will surely bear greater fruit if they focused more on building genuine partnerships with local communities and gaining their trust.]

Trust is a two way process. Isn't it about time that local communities (I assume you mean muslim communities) built partnerships with the greater population and tried to gain their trust?

StudRockman - 70 votes
[Inayat Bunglawala quoted] [All of Bristol should be grateful and recognise the contribution of the Muslim community to the investigation ? without a doubt they saved people from serious injuries if not worse, ..]

Indeed...but why do the actions of an individual compel us to thank an entire community? This whole "community" schtick is just sooo noughties...let it go Inayat...as long as you keep up this convenient myth about fictional communities, said communities are likely to be equally demonised when an individual does something rather less public spirited....

Waltz - 90 votes
[Inayat Bunglawala said] [What on earth is "radicalisation" supposed to mean in this context?]

Presumably it means exactly the same it does as when "the Muslim community" expresses concern about a particular individual - and you claim to approve of the latter so ...

Sabraguy - 104 votes
[Inayat Bunglawala said] [The Telegraph mentions that the Islamic society at University College London ...organised a series of lectures in 2007 on the "War on Terror". Can you imagine that? Students organising lectures that are critical of US and UK foreign policy. Goodness, who would have thought it?]

Bungalawala is hiding his head in the sand again. They also invited extremists like Abdur Raheem ("Muslims and Westerners cannot live together") Green, and Abu ("Kill gays") Usmah of Undercover Mosque fame to speak.

Abdulmutallab is the fourth president of a London student Islamic society to face terrorist charges in three years. Even the NUS is worried.

Scriptor – 94 votes
…. You know as well as I, Bunglawala, that Islamist terrorist recruiters operate in UK universities and are well-trained to spot those most likely to be easily manipulated and groomed. To admit that is not to demonise Muslim students as a body so why not admit it and tell us what you would want done about that?

ColinMaddison - 77 votes
Inayat, the theme of your article appears to be that the Police, the government, all of us non-muslims need to engender trust between us and your 'community'. Trust is a two-way thing.

Where is the bridge building from the 'community' outwards to us infidels? It does seem to me the 'community' only wants trust on its terms. How can the community not expect a little suspicion with the events over the last 10 years? Most ordinary people are only too willing to try and trust, but it is getting more and more difficult with every new bomb plot uncovered in the name of Islam.

StephenHero - 72 votes
[Inayat Bunglawala said] [Rather than trying to demonise student Islamic societies for their supposed radicalism, our counter-terrorism efforts will surely bear greater fruit if they focused more on building genuine partnerships with local communities and gaining their trust.]

Translation; more funding for so-called community representatives, and grand scale denial of the massive problem of islamist terrorism.

1830 - 55 votes
Even by Mr Bungawala's standards, this is an exceptionally poor apiece. Most of the article is padding. The one conclusion of note - that is it a good thing when friends and relatives inform on friends and associates when they are believed to be involved in terrorist operations - is so obvious that no rational person could possibly deny it. Its simply stating the obvious.

StephenHero – 30 votes
[BeautifulBurnout said][Why should all Muslims be vilified because of the actions of a comparative handful of lunatics?]

They most certainly should not; Most Muslims, like most people, are simply trying to get on with their lives, and I've met quite a few who deeply resent the likes of the MCB being presented as their "representatives".

Buckenheimer - 47 votes
Too bad the "Muslim Community" didn`t bother to alert the proper authorities about Maj. Hasan -- and others -- before he slaughtered 13 men, women and children and wounded over 30 more before the coward was gunned down by a courageous police women.

Needless to say, I think your essay is utterly ridiculous.

VforVintage - 17 votes
…. Religions, especially were they are in a minority have a tendency to retreat fome society. Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses and Scientologists encourage their 'flock' to abstain from society, usually on the basis that the rest of us are the devils children.

It has the dual effect of making the believers feel superior as well as under threat and stops them having their beliefs challenged. Muslims have put themselves in a similar position, yet expect us to 'trust' them, when the evidence available is contrary to what we are being asked to do.

Gargoil – 18 votes
Good on the parents of Isa Irfan for informing on the police. I think it's instructive, though, that the only other example you can find of British Muslims informing the police of suspicious behaviour was a recent convert with no strong ties to other Muslims.

My perception of Muslims, with honourable exceptions, is that they're only interested in looking after themselves.

The Swiss Minaret Ban – The Yawning Gap between Politicians and People

The result of the Swiss referendum banning the building of minarets was quickly followed by headlines and articles denouncing the Swiss. 57 percent of Swiss voters voted for the ban, against the predictions of the polls and the experts.

Leaders, politicians and commentators from all over Europe said it was a bad thing, the Swiss would regret it, the decision would be overturned when reason and human rights finally prevailed.

So was this reaction the real voice of Europe?

On 30 November, two days following the vote, TimesOnline published an article entitled Europe unites to deplore Swiss ban on minarets by Charles Bremner in Paris. It generated 484 online comments. The tone of these comments is well represented by the comment with the most reader recommendations.

A Connor wrote: Europe unites to deplore Swiss ban on minarets??? I must be living on a different planet. The comments by readers to this story on various European media sites, including this one, appear at least to be 90% in favour of the Swiss vote. (618 recommendations)

Or as another put it even more elegantly

Hilton Gray wrote: Europe unites to deplore Swiss ban?... Charles Bremner you're smoking your socks! The only people deploring this are you lefty multi-culti idiots. The rest of us are cheering - Well done to the Swiss!!! (67 recommendations)

And:

Nick B wrote: Surely the headline should be "European politicians unite to ignore the views of the majority, and continue to give ever greater concessions to political Islam"? (52 recommendations)

Well, that is just the start because if you look at the top 100 reader recommended comments on this article they are all, every single one, in favour of the Swiss. These top 100 comments got 12,544 reader recommendations in total, and even allowing for readers to vote for several comments it could easily represent a sample of several thousand TimesOnline readers.

The comments and the various points made in them can be categorised. All of them fit surprisingly well into one of the following. Those that:

(1) Say simply “well done the Swiss”!

(2) Criticize Islam, Muslims and multi-culturalism: Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion, Muslims do not integrate, they demand too much, multi-culturalism does’t work.

(3) Say it’s “democracy in action”. It’s a good thing. There should be more of it especially to counter the growing undemocratic power of the EU. If we could vote you would get the same result!

(4) Point out the ban is only on building minarets. Muslims are completely free to practice their religion so what is the fuss about!

(5) Contrast religious freedom in Europe with the difficulties Christians face in Muslim countries including the bans in Saudi Arabia and the problems of the Copts in Egypt.

	Recommendations Supporting Point
Well done the Swiss	3522
Islam is intolerant and aggressive. Multi-culturalism doesn’t work	5895
It’s democracy in action. Europe needs more democracy	4996
Banning only minarets, not the religion	1197
Little or no religious freedom in Muslim countries	2478

The same day Oliver Kamm, the respected Times leader writer, blogged a piece entitled Swiss minaret ban fits pattern of populist protest in Western Europe saying “Parties of the Right have campaigned vigorously against the supposedly alien influence spread by Muslim populations” and ending with the view that “The Danish Government valiantly upheld freedom of expression against attempts to stifle it. The Swiss electorate has, by contrast, struck a blow against freedom of association and conscience. It should be speedily overturned.”

30 people commented on this blog; two comments couldn’t be classified, two had some sympathy with Mr Kamm, 26 were against and supported the Swiss. The one that got the most reader recommendations said: “Personally. I think that it's about time that we had a similar referendum here in the UK….”

Further proof, if such is needed, of a yawning gap between what European leaders, politicians and commentators proclaim concerning Islam and what people really think can be found at the Guardian’s “Comment is free” (Cif) website, which one might tentatively think of as a fount of liberal political correctness. It continually gives platforms to Islamic propagandists. See article below.

My compatriots' vote to ban minarets is fuelled by fear

“The Swiss have voted not against towers, but Muslims. Across Europe, we must stand up to the flame-fanning populists”

Analysis of readers comments on the above Guardian Cif post by Tariq Ramadan 29 November 2009 - See full post here

878 people made comments on this post, a very large number for a Cif post indicating the keen and widespread interest in this issue.

Very large numbers also voted on these comments, and without a doubt they overwhelmingly support the Swiss and criticise strongly Mr Ramadan’s views, in many cases, with considerable contempt.

If any European politicians are reading this they should be paying careful attention!

We give below an analysis of the votes (nearly 14,000) given to the top 100 vote scoring comments.



The voting is also shown in this table.

	Votes for Comments
	Number	%
For the Swiss, against Mr Ramadan	11,664	85.8
Neutral, unclassifiable	1159	8.5
In support of Mr Ramadan	777	5.7
Totals	13,600	100.0

Extracts from typical top scoring comments are given below.

wotever – 425 votes
Maybe it's not fear. ... perhaps it's a reasonably considered vote against Islam and what it appears, to many Swiss people, to stand for?

DougallTheDog - 664
[Ramadan said][Over the last two decades Islam has become connected to so many controversial debates - violence, extremism, freedom of speech, gender discrimination, forced marriage, to name a few - it is difficult for ordinary citizens to embrace this new Muslim presence as a positive factor.]

I know. You think people would be queuing up wouldn't you.

You forgot the violent homophobia and the death threats to apostates, cartoonists, authors and film makers.

DrBrianStephens - 457
Jolly good show to the swiss!

corrocamino – 191
…. The minarets represent change. Non-assimilation. …. It's in everybody's face. If everyone practised their personal rituals, if any, at home, in private, and took pains otherwise to fit in with the everyday secular world in which they wish to prosecute a peaceful, cooperative life, this wouldn't be the big problem that it is.

amibothered – 392
…. Why is it right that relative newcomers and the elite ride rough-shod over the indigenous people's worries?

selfpreservation – 520
The Swiss did the right thing …. Saudi Arabia doesn't allow churches or non Muslims into Mecca, yet no one has touched on that one.....Good one Swiss....The only ones in the EU/UK who have balls.

zombus – 486
Does an amplified call to prayer issue from Swiss minarets so many times a day? If so, I wouldn't want to live across from one. I dare say a lot of Swiss would be of the same opinion.

monnraker – 173
Maybe TR doesn't see that nobody wants to know about the "new visibility of European Muslims". Most people in western societies don't give a damn about their friends', colleagues', neighbours', or anybody else's religion.

So we really don't like Muslims to be "positively visible", we want them to be as invisible as EVERYBODY ELSE ….

…. it's about violence, extremism, gender discrimination, forced marriage, honour killings, halal meat, separate schools, Sharia law, changes in benefit rules so that one man can have two wives claiming benefits, special allowances regarding mortgage interest, and so on.

TR says that "Islam is a Swiss and a European religion and that Muslim citizens are largely 'integrated'". It doesn't look like it in my town, they prefer to keep themselves apart and don't really integrate at all.

physiocrat – 178
…. Many countries, like the Scandinavian ones, accepted that they had a duty to accept refugees from troubled countries. Most of these refugees assimilated perfectly well, such as the Vietnamese, Greeks and South Americans. Muslims seem not to have done nearly so well.

Places with concentrations of Muslims, such as the town Landskrona the suburb of Rosengård in Malmö have become notorious trouble spots, which has not helped to create the feeling that Muslims are good neighbours.

Of course this vote is not a verdict on the aesthetics of minarets - it is an expression of concern about the spread of Islam. Is it so surprising that people should react in this way? I don't know about Switzerland, but in Sweden, immigrants other than Muslims have integrated themselves and been well accepted, so this reaction cannot be dismissed as racism.

Welloilbeefhooked - 267
Mr Ramadan in keeping with the deep rooted sense of victimhood that his religion clings to under estimates what has truly happened in Switzerland. Millions of decent native Europeans have valid concerns about Islamic values and beliefs.

They can no longer be silenced by the ubiquitous cries of "Racist!", "Islamophobe!", "Bigot!" etc that are used only to shut down any legitimate criticism of Islam.

…. With this important victory in Switzerland I only hope the rest of Europe demands of its own politicians the right to vote on other vital issues as Sharia Courts, the wearing of Burqas, and the public funding of Islamic schools and institutions

HarryFlashman - 144
[Ramadan said] [Every European country has its specific symbols or topics through which European Muslims are targeted. In France it is the headscarf or burka; in Germany, mosques; in Britain, violence; cartoons in Denmark; homosexuality in the Netherlands - and so on]

Can anyone please explain to me what this brain warping piece of garbage actually means?

Who exactly was "targeted" by violence in Britain? The Muslims? Or were they not the ones doing the targeting?

WahineAoteoroa – 158
…. I don't think the Swiss supported the ban because they dislike Muslims. I think they supported the ban because they fear the ideology of Islam and the aggressive tactics modern Islam uses to assert its tenets of religious supremacy over non-Muslims.

…. Because Islam has never modernised and still lives in the thinking of past centuries which it seeks to impose on the modern world I think that we are right to fear it, and to contain it, before it overtakes us and we lose all the human rights democratic countries fought so hard for.

peitha – 166
[Ramadan said][Over the last two decades Islam has become connected to so many controversial debates - violence, extremism, freedom of speech, gender discrimination, forced marriage, to name a few - it is difficult for ordinary citizens to embrace this new Muslim presence as a positive factor.]

I wonder how that has happened, don't you Mr. Ramadan?

D'you suppose it could be something to do with bombs on buses, trains and aircraft, aircraft being flown into buildings, book burnings, riots and people being killed over a few cartoons, stonings to death in Islamic countries and other, to Western eyes, barbaric practices and so on?

…. There is no ban on mosques, no ban on the practice of Islam, no ban on Muslims just a decision to ban a particular style of architecture - which is cultural not religious ….

FrankX – 139
Well done to the Swiss for asserting their will. …. The Muslims there are still free to practise their religion - this is just a matter of symbolism.

I used to life in Finsbury Park and found the presence of the mosque there detestable- a symbol of violence in my neighbourhood in London, and a place wither Muslims taught each other to loathe [my culture].

Justthefactsman – 90
…. I see nothing wrong with building minarets in Switzerland just as long as Christian churches and Jewish Temples can be built in Mecca.

Until the day that …. Muslim countries allow unrestricted access to proselytisers for other faiths, then Muslims should not expect "tolerance" from anybody else ….

isotope 100
[TR][They fail to assert that Islam is by now a Swiss and a European religion and that Muslim citizens are largely "integrated".]

They probably don't assert this because it has no basis in fact. Islam has not had any significant presence in large swathes of Europe …. As for integration, I can't speak for Switzerland, but a visit to Bradford, Malmo or Rotterdam will demonstrate what utopian nonsense that is.

phco – 172
You are exactly right Tariq - it is a vote against Islam - and it is a sign of the backlash gaining ground across Europe ….

You still don't quite get the reason for all this, which is simple: In European society you keep your religion private and do not bring it into public discussion or to resolve political debates.

And that is what people sense that many Muslims do …. Islam means and demands submission, and that is what frightens ordinary people – it’s not bigotry and its getting more serious.

Welloilbeefhooked – 123***
By reading through the hundreds of comments posted concerning this article and noting the majority opposition to Mr Ramadan's viewpoint it strikes me that the Guardian is rapidly loosing touch with it's readership.

The majority opinion that emerges is that Islamization needs to be put in check and measures introduced to safeguard our traditions and cultural values and belief system.

Now if only the Guardian could find one of it's writer's to put forth this viewpoint in an article.... Of course this would mean backtracking on it's pro -multicultural, pro Islam, open immigration, politically correct vision for Britain that it has forced down the public's throat, whether they like it or not.

unusedusername - 53
…. Andreas Gross, the hard left socialist president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, called the ban a "slap in the face to everyone who has an idea of the human rights."

He said: "This is clearly the result of a lack of information and political education in Switzerland. As a result the voters have been misdirected by their emotions. The foundations of Switzerland's direct democracy have failed."

Nonsense! The majority have spoken - in other words its true democracy in action. …. What's he want to do, ban referenda in Switzerland because it upsets the EU who - as we all know - love the people to have a voice?

[@29numbers said] [Soon they are going to ban mosques outright and then start deporting and killing Muslims, just as they did to Jews.]

What utter tripe. Anyway the Swiss never deported Jews

JudeK – 69
I see many comments on here …. stating that the Swiss people's decision was wrong because it infringes on the Muslim's human rights.

…. in most Muslim countries …. human rights legislation either does not exist, or has been fundamentally altered to remove some we consider inalienable (e.g.: the freedom to choose one's religion, clearly due to Islam's view on apostasy).
And let us forget that even liberal Muslim countries such as Turkey are incredibly cavalier when it comes to human rights.

So... Should we in Europe / the western world extend human rights to those representatives of a religion (or religious political movement, which Islam increasingly is becoming) living within our borders who do not believe in them, except when it suits them?

I think not.

SantaMoniker - 59
…. isn't it time for people like Tariq Ramadan to step back and ask themselves: "What does this say about me and what I and people like me represent to these Swiss and what do I need to change to create acceptance?"

isotope – 91
…. mosques are not banned, nor is the practice of Islam. The Swiss are reasserting secularism in the face of a religiosity which they find uncomfortably overbearing. Those who subscribe to the Guardian's liberal enlightenment values should be cheering the Swiss people.

Waltz – 124***
1. Europeans are not afraid of Islam. Don't flatter yourself. Many Europeans simply dislike and despise it - some are prepared to tolerate it and some are not. Some Europeans are afraid of what Europe will end up doing to Muslims if it can't find am acceptable way of living with them. ….

2. Islam is not "a European religion". Just because 20 million or so Muslims now live in Europe doesn't make their religion "European" any more than the presence of Buddhists and Hindus makes Buddhism and Hinduism "European".

3. Muslims have not been denied the right to worship. They've just been denied the right to build minarets. As any number of mosques appear to survive perfectly well without minarets, a minaret certainly is not a religious requirement. ….

Gipserio - 62
[Ramadan said] [Every European country has its specific symbols or topics through which European Muslims are targeted. In France it is the headscarf or burka; in Germany, mosques; in Britain, violence; cartoons in Denmark; homosexuality in the Netherlands - and so on]

So we're WRONG when we draw cartoons or defend homosexuals too, are we? No, not expansionist or pushy at all! Je-sus!

harrytheaardvark – 126
…. I have spent several years of my working life in and around Muslim countries in the Middle East. And as much as I like the people and the region with the exception of Saudi, I too reject Islamic values.

I don't hate Muslims, I have many Muslim friends. But I don't like their religion (mind you I don't like any religion in particular) and I dislike the manifestation of Islamic values in countries which have a majority Muslim population.

Censorship is rife, misogyny is pervasive, the death penalty and corporal punishment is near mandatory. I reject all these things.

I don't actually care what you believe, but Islam is trying to push its beliefs in the West and to our detriment. Note that after "9/11", and the London tube bombings, Islamic organisations did not rush to condemn the horrors of these actions but rather ran out to cry "don't blame the Muslim community."

…. The ridiculously over publicised Danish cartoons (of which the worst were in fact neither Danish nor published) were an exercise in free speech. Don't like free speech? Don't come to Europe, that's part of our culture. ….

…. The Swiss people probably don't really care much about minarets, but they almost certainly do care about the bigger issue. It might be nice for governments in the West to see this for the warning shot across the bough that this is, and start engaging their own communities to work for integration that is acceptable to them, not just the Muslim one.

stevehill – 81
…. So is there any religious obligation to have a minaret, basically an oriental architectural style which may be incongruous in the Swiss alps?

In my village I can't build a house in English red brick. The planners (reasonably) will insist on Cotswold stone.

The planners are appointed by (or are) democratically elected councillors. I doubt a minaret would be favoured, any more than would my "right" to build some vast overbearing Mormon temple here.

What's the difference?

Surfersaiyan – 81
…. there is no need for this kind of extravagant (and rather arrogant) religious display. Respect is a two way street, Mr Ramadan. The Swiss have graciously allowed you in, and even more graciously allowed you to continue to practice your religion unhindered, some countries would not. The least you can do is afford them a little respect.

isotope - 56***
[@harrytheaardvark said] [It might be nice for governments in the West to see this for the warning shot across the bough that this is, and start engaging their own communities to work for integration that is acceptable to them, not just the Muslim one.]

This is the sort of comment that needs to be noted by every government in Western Europe. Well said sir

WatsonsWater – 79
…. If only the UK had the balls to follow the Swiss. In my area, 1,500 people signed a petition against the building of a Mosque. They had nothing against Islam, they felt the Mosque would cause traffic issues (which it has done to this day), they felt that such a building (big dome, minarets) would look out of place in a quaint English Town (it sticks out like a sore thumb), and they were sceptical about the promises of those behind the Mosque who said there would be no call to prayer (there is one, a very loud one which breaches health and safety laws, starts to broadcast at 7 am, with the last one at 10 30 pm, despite laws against this). Coming soon to an area near you!

DougallTheDog – 60
[Berchmans said][This is a worrying thread …. you can see which posts are supporting the measure by the huge number of recommendations. I cant tell if its disgusting or depressing that fixated Islamophobes are attracted here. I'll work it out on my journey to work. Minarets are pretty .. the skyline in Istanbul is wonderful. Ah well.]

In Istanbul, yes. If I want to see a skyline full of Minarets, that is where I will go.

[AetheismSucks said] [The spiteful racist on these boards cheer the results of the vote which will affect the many Balkan Muslims now living in Switzerland because of the merciless persecution that they suffered at the hands of the Serbs.]

For the 1,000th time, ISLAM IS NOT A RACE! THIS IS NOT RACIST!

Sisong – 85
I am delighted that the Swiss have exercised their democratic right.
Its their country, they live in it, I guess they can decide how it should be run.

Tariq Ramadan: Have you made any process on that moratorium that you suggested? You know, the one that was going to consider whether or not it is right to stone women to death? Any updates on that?

Sabraguy – 83
A very good decision by the Swiss people which will hopefully give Muslims like Tariq Ramadan pause for thought, and serve as a beacon for the rest of Europe.

Freedom of religion is not under attack in Switzerland. There is no ban on mosques. What the Swiss have rightly voted against is the arrogant triumphalism of the minaret.

The Prime Minister of Turkey boasted 'Minarets are our bayonets'. The Swiss have told him where he can stick his minarets.

ajac - 74
[Ramadan said] [Every European country has its specific symbols or topics through which European Muslims are targeted. In France it is the headscarf or burka; in Germany, mosques; in Britain, violence;]

…. Has he forgotten the suicide bombings in London in 2005, carried out by British Muslims, in which 56 people died and 700 were injured? Does he regard this as primarily symbolic? If we British, Muslim and non Muslim alike, find this mayhem troublesome, is that because we're prejudiced?

And further, does Mr Ramadan really think the biggest problem for Muslims today is the lack of minarets in Switzerland? Surely Muslims killing other Muslims in great numbers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Darfur, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere are a problem he might find more worthy of his attention.

Pairubu - 53
…. the skyline in Istanbul is wonderful. Ah yes, happy memories of being woken at 5.30 by every dog in Istanbul barking at the muezzin's (taped) call. Perhaps, as a gesture of good intent, the Turks could turn Hagia Sofia back into a church?

physiocrat – 67
[@islamophobiasucks said] [The reason why Non- Muslim places of worship are not built in The Hejaz is the same reason as to why there are no Non- Christian places of worship in The Vatican, because these places are regarded as sacrosanct. ….]

Area of Vatican City 44 ha, Population 900: Area of Saudi Arabia 2,240,000 sq km. Population 20 million.

That is a hell of a large sacrosanct area.

This kind of spurious reasoning makes one wonder if studying the Koran can damage the brain's logic circuitry, which may also explain the fact that the majority of victims of Muslim terrorism are Muslims.

endofdays - 59
[Ramadan said][Over the last two decades Islam has become connected to so many controversial debates - violence, extremism, freedom of speech, gender discrimination, forced marriage, to name a few - it is difficult for ordinary citizens to embrace this new Muslim presence as a positive factor.]

What are the positive factors of Islam?

I think that Europeans are finally waking up to the constant demands of Islam while at the same time seeing that in Islamic countries, non-Muslims are discriminated against by the state and in many cases forbidden to practice their own religion. Saudi Arabia doesn't allow non-Muslims to enter Mecca or any other religion to be practiced on its soil.

haldir – 64
…. If you strongly object to democracy there's plenty of undemocratic countries out there which you could emigrate to, and where the religious climate is closer to your comfort zone.

On the other hand, instead of complaining in a British newspaper about the Swiss, you could try winning some hearts and minds back in the cantons.

Did it ever occur to you that people just dislike Islam, and there's nothing wrong with that?

FreddyMzungu – 43***
…. It all smacks a bit of The Satanic Verses furore which would have been best just ignored. OK, no minarets? Then build a mosque without one - no problem.

…. A famous Arab proverb is: "beware the wrath of the generous host". Western cultures generally have been very good to incoming Muslims and have by general consensus more freedom than many Muslims living in Muslim-majority states. Having the right to a minaret isn't going to make people like Muslims whereas generosity and ethical behaviour is. Muslims should learn to duck and carry on and not create hoo-hahs. And I say this as a Muslim.

Anglophobia - 70
[Ramadan said][Over the last two decades Islam has become connected to so many controversial debates - violence, extremism, freedom of speech, gender discrimination, forced marriage, to name a few - it is difficult for ordinary citizens to embrace this new Muslim presence as a positive factor.]

Exactly. And the connections weren't made out of bigotry. They were made by noticing Muslims' actions and words inside and outside Europe. What do you expect? We don't like what we've seen so far, and we don't want more of it.

Pairubu - 49
[Somebody said] ["people just dislike Islam, and there's nothing wrong with that". The gas chambers are this way.]

A particularly stupid and vicious post. Disliking something does not necessarily mean you want it destroyed. I dislike, among other things, rhubarb, U2 and the skin on custard. I also recognise that others don't feel my disgust and, consequently, am quite happy for them to exist in the world.

Disliking a religion does not mean hating the people who chose to practice it, at least not among grown ups.

Anglophobia - 75***
[Ramadan said] [At the very moment Europeans find themselves asking, in a globalising, migratory world, "What are our roots?", "Who are we?", "What will our future look like?", they see around them new citizens, new skin colours, new symbols to which they are unaccustomed.]

The conceit behind this paragraph is that the world is going global, that there's migration everywhere, a demographic, cultural, and religious mixing around the globe, and that Europeans need to adjust, accommodate, and make room for the global inevitable, to diversity.

But is this globalization really global? What exact parallels does he have in mind elsewhere. Where's the massive white Christian influx to Egypt? Where's the Hispanic rush to Pakistan? In what decade will Swedes become the majority in Riyadh?

Are ancient Christian communities fleeing from or flooding to Iraq?
The truth is that, aside from marginal exceptions …. Muslims are spreading into Christian/liberal-secular lands while the reverse is not happening. In fact, Islamic lands are becoming more militantly Islamic.

…. In other words, whenever Ramadan talks about the need to adjust to globalization, what he means in practice is adjusting to the advance of Islam.

iamsterman – 53
It’s interesting that Ramadan finds the civil rights of homosexuals in the Netherlands to be anti-muslim. I remember a imam saying he felt his freedom of religion some ten years back being infringed upon because he couldn’t say gays should thrown off of buildings to their death.

It shows what people are afraid of, I think. That Muslims will use the freedoms of western democracy to impose their religious philosophy on the majority.

sydk – 34
[Ramadan said] [I have been repeating for years to Muslim people that they have to be positively visible, active and proactive within their respective Western societies]

It all depends how you define the word "positive" - they certainly have been "visible" and "active". That is probably the reason why 58 percent (a surprisingly low number under the circumstances) voted against the minarets.

The 'Danish cartoons' riots around Europe and the Middle East and the placards carried by the extremist Islamists was enough for Europeans to finally realise that they had a serious problem that needed to be urgently addressed.

brissy – 41
There is something a bit sleazy and conniving about the writer.
It must be distressing for him to see that his 'victimhood'' doublespeak cant even gain traction with the Guardian crowd these days.

…. It's tough gig these days for the Islamist to flog his wares in Europe. People are awake to the 'all take - no give" attitude of people like Mr Ramadan.

He writes - ''The claim was made that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Swiss values.'' yes Mr Ramadan - a good number of Swiss happen to feel this way... in fact a massive number of Europeans feel this way and you sound surprised??

People are struggling hard to find benefits amongst all of the women being treated as chattel - bombs going off... lunatics calling for Sharia... off with cartoonists heads etc etc. The list is endless and grows daily.

DolleDolf - 45
Hurrah for the Swiss. A clear signal that we have had enough. I write this as an educated left voting (until recently) atheist Dutchman. We have had enough of our hard won secular societies (against stifling Christianity) being held justice by the sensitivities of the adherents to the most intolerant of all religions.

…. We don't want sharia law. We don't want entire neighbourhoods, towns and cities populated by people who with their dress and attitude permanently declare a disaffection, dislike, and even hatred of our secular values and view nonbelievers and followers of other religions as unclean animals.

Who when given the choice would roll back the separation of religion and state and have our countries run along the lines of Saudi Arabia or Iran. And people are slowly waking up to this reality.

I woke up more than 25 years ago when I wanted to eat my lunch and was told to go and have it outside in consideration of the Muslim contingent of factory workers fasting because of Ramadan ….