Re-interpreting Ramadhan

Ramadhan seems to mean being hungry by day, and laying tables full of fatty fried foods and high calorie treats by night. Have we completely missed the month of fasting's messages of moderation and spiritual liberation?

As the credit crunch takes us into its firm grip, you might be forgiven for thinking that Muslims would be particularly prepared for tightening their belts. I put forward this bold thesis, as we get ready to begin fasting in the month of Ramadhan, a month highlighted for physical restraint and a rejection of excess. With years of experience in control and temperance, Muslims should be well-prepared to exercise moderation and eschew extravagance, but is that really the case?

The Qur'an advises those who believe, that fasting is prescribed for them, as it was for those who came before them so that "...you become of those who are conscious of God." Physical restraint in all spiritual traditions - which includes but is not limited to Islam - is directly related to a blossoming of the spirit, and therefore a closer relationship to the Divine.

If you listen to any explanation of the spiritual and physical meaning of Ramadhan and why Muslims fast, one of the key reasons that features will undoubtedly be along the lines of... to remember those less fortunate than ourselves who have less to eat than we do. It makes perfect sense as an explanation: Muslims deny themselves food and drink (and other physical pleasures) during daylight hours, which create painful hunger pangs and a parched state of dehydration that offers a mild and temporary hint of the traumas and difficulties that people suffering food shortages, droughts and famines around the world must suffer. But this very weak and brief pain is tempered by the knowledge that within some hours- even if the number of those hours reach double digits - we will be tucking into food and drink again.

It is of no doubt that the hunger and thirst that we experience during Ramadhan is something we would never ordinarily feel. And in that sense it allows us a peek into the lives of those who are truly suffering and can have no respite from the shortages of food and comforts that we take for granted. Our experience is incomparable in magnitude and it would be arrogant and patronising to complain that we now 'know how it feels'. But it can soften our hearts and at least give us a glimpse of the suffering that others go through, within the parameters of our own lives.

However, whilst we may be living the physical experience - albeit briefly - have we really grasped the meaning and spiritual experience? As soon as the adhaan rings out at maghrib time as the sun sets, we all settle down to heaving tables of our favourite foods. Tables buckle under the weight of specialities made for each individual's palette. Every child is cooked their favourite, starters are multifarious and highly calorific and main courses include several varieties. Not to mention the many sugar-filled and fatty desserts which slip so easily and pleasurably past our lips. For those from the sub-continent, think samosas, bhaajis, halwa, kebabs, pakoras. It comes as no surprise that many people leave the month of Ramadhan heavier and more rotund than when they started.

This is not to mention the hours and hours that are ploughed into culinary production. You might imagine that the reduced number of meals, and the reduction in appetite might mean that less cooking needs to be done. Instead, the kitchen is on full alert for a greater stretch of the day - and night. It is usually the women who lead the culinary preparation and it is right that the cooks want their families to be well-taken care of. But if we started to look holistically at the purpose of Ramadhan - to free ourselves from our physical indulgences and open up possibilities of spiritual exploration that we otherwise deny ourselves - we might find that all that additional time spent cooking could actually be used to maximise our gains from Ramadhan. By not eating, and by having to cook less, Ramadhan suddenly offers a huge amount of extra time (at least three hours saved by avoiding breakfast and lunch and perhaps more if dinner was a light simple meal) which could be devoted to activities we all claim we do not have time for - lingering over prayers, reading Qur'an, community service, mediation and reflection. If you don't cook that extra plate of samosas will it really make that much difference to the iftar experience? But if you spent all that extra time to read a few pages of the Qur'an – especially in the month of Ramadhan when the value and merit is so much greater - imagine what impact that could have.

Eating and drinking in the hours of dark becomes a festival of indulgence at the polar opposite of the hunger and thirst we underwent for a few paltry hours. We acquire bipolar disorder - riding high in the daylight hours and then binging at night. What does that say about our understanding of the very meaning of hunger as empathy, hunger as freedom from the physical and release into the spiritual? We have followed the literal rules of Ramadhan, but what about the meaning? Instead of physical restraint and spiritual freedom, we have greater indulgence and have blinded ourselves to the spiritual opportunities. Ramadhan is not only about feeling the pain of those less fortunate, but about being able to distinguish and implement the very concepts of moderation rather than excess.

The Problem of the S-Word

Let the tabloids and politicians spend their time foaming at the mouth over words like Shar'iah, we should be spending our time pioneering services and solutions to meet our community needs

Shari'ah is once again big news. The Lord Chief Justice has said that, "There is no reason why Shari'ah principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution." His comments follow a speech earlier in the year by the Archbishop of Canterbury who had been discussing the role of faith in the public sphere and had used the issue of Shari'ah courts as an example of where this could be done. The Lord Chief Justice commented about that speech: "It was not very radical to advocate embracing Shari'ah law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the Archbishop's suggestion.

Predictably, the tabloids went berserk, and sadly some of our sound-bite simplistic politicians followed suit. What a furore! This was a simple discussion about civil arbitration, a provision that is rooted deep in English law. As Madeleine Bunting wrote in the Guardian, "Because of the provision for mediation by a third party in English civil law, there is already a degree of accommodation for Shari'ah law in our legal system." In fact, she argues, if we don't want Shari'ah we would have to remove the "fundamental option of mediation outside the legal system when agreed by both parties… [which]…will require a pretty radical reform which would stir up a lot of opposition."

Clearly then, our politicians and media are not concerned with the actual essence of what the mediation process will be, but more upset about the word 'Shari'ah' itself.

The Shari'ah courts were a solution that Muslims created to deal with life for their new communities in the UK. It is important that we are clear that it is absolutely right and proper that a community should be able to create structures and institutions to support its individuals and families to operate smoothly and according to its principles and values. Of course those structures should and do operate within the law of the land. However, their creation was based on models familiar to the communities from their countries of origin, where the decision-making role of the 'court' was its primary purpose. The courts in those countries would have been supported by more accessible and prevalent mosques and Imams, and a community that was most likely majority Muslim. Most of these support services - which acted as buffers to problems and disputes before the final limit of legal jurisdiction - are not easily available to us in Britain.

So today, Muslims turn to bodies like Shari'ah courts as much for their Islamic decision-making status, as increasingly for their pastoral services. However, dealing with disputes requires counselling, therapy and support before a case can reach any final definitive verdict, all of which are an extension of a legal court's traditional role. Individuals who are trapped in a dispute - whether marital or of another personal nature - want both support and recognition for their distress, which today they find may not be available elsewhere. They wish to feel the supportive hand of guidance and authority in resolving their pain based on the same principles by which they try to govern their own lives. It is therefore exactly in this grey area between civic dispute and any mediation ruling that an arbitration service based on Islamic principles can add tremendous value to our community.

Those who participate in the existing Shari'ah courts give a great deal of their time and energies, but in order to achieve this goal they need more skills and resources, more focus, more participation from the community to meet the growing needs for pastoral care. We need more women, more counsellors and more youth workers to name but a few of the skills required.

Most importantly what they need - what Muslims need - is to give themselves the freedom to think more freely about the purpose and function of such resources within the community. We must not diminish the need and importance of such mediation and resolution centres. They are a vital component of Muslim community institutions. But thinking of them within the prism of decision-making only, carries so much history and expectation with them that sometimes it can become impossible to create new models of operation.

Will we ever find the freedom to dive into the very essence of our needs and pioneer new tools and methodologies to meet our changing times and circumstances? Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph says, "Do not bring up your children the way that you were brought up, because they live in different times." We live in a different time, and we need to pioneer new solutions.

Note: Cartoon is taken from Spirit21's own MagicMuslims superheroes, visit www.spirit21.co.uk/magicmuslims

The only 'proper' Muslim is a non-political one

Last week Hazel Blears has announced that the government would fund a "Theology board" for Muslims in the UK. In an interview with Radio 4, she said lots of nice - and true - things about Islam: that it is peaceful, that it is a religion of compassion, and then Kaboom! She claimed that this board will allow for a "proper interpretation" of Islam. I felt like I was stuck in the blurry screen waves of a bad 1970's sitcom which was transporting us back to the Middle Ages, to a time when the Government dictated to the public what is and isn't proper in religion. And this was indeed, about as funny as aforementioned sitcom.

The government has stated that it is doing its best to tackle Islamists who are the source of extremism. According to the government, Islamists are all without exception terribly violent and bloodthirsty. Islamists are apparently the cause of the world's problems - earthquakes in China, climate change, food shortages, the fuel crisis and poverty and malnutrition to name but a few. The only good Islamist is an ex-Islamist. The government has then used this premise to go on to define its entire policy about Muslims in the UK around the issue of security, ignoring issues of economics, society, education and deprivation.

The term 'Islamist' was once applied to anyone who used Islam as a political ideology. Muslims who do not have a political ideology of any sort are okay and need not be worried about being infected by Islamism. But the problem is that the term 'Islamism' has now been stretched to mean any Muslim who is political.

Blears insinuates that Muslims who are not politically active are the preferred kind of Muslim. She said in a speech to the Policy Exchange: "The fact remains that most British Muslims, like the wider community, are not politically active, do not sit on committees, and do not attend seminars and meetings. They are working hard, bringing up families, planning their holidays, and going about their business." Jack Straw was also quite clear about this two years ago: you can't be a Muslim woman in niqab and visit your MP to engage in the political process.

So if you are a poor confused brainwashed Muslim who cannot tell the difference between someone who is peddling violence and someone who is rocking their head with Britolerant chanting, then the government is going to help you decide your opinions, don't you worry, poor little Muslim.

The stance of the government takes the handful of criminals who have engaged in violent activity and states that this is a perverted interpretation of Islam, and needs to be exposed as such. Tony Blair said in a discussion with young Muslims "we have to accept that this is therefore a Muslim problem, and a problem with Islam." I reject this utterly.

This is a criminal issue, which needs to be exposed and rejected as such. The criminals are invoking the mantle of Islam as protection. The only way to get rid of them is for everyone together - including Muslims and the government - to isolate those horrible violent activities as outside the philosophy of Islam. There is no need for a 'proper' interpretation of Islam, because these activities are not to do with Islam. Rooting the problem falsely within Islam has created a hostile and prejudiced environment where the criminal activities cannot be properly attacked. The government doesn't like to hear this being said, but this is the only sensible right-minded way forward.

The recent refusal of ministers to attend IslamExpo is a case in point. Irrespective of their opinion of the organisers, it was a chance to engage with forty thousand Muslims who want to create and settle into a comfortable peaceful British Islam. It smacks of an increasing confusion on the part of the government who are now not only failing to engage with Muslims, but are actively disengaging with those Muslims who are working to a positive peaceful agenda. Blears is playing a dangerous and - in my opinion - futile game which can only backfire as it will leave the vast majority of peaceful Muslims feeling resentful at being singled out for undemocratic dictatorship of their religious views, something with which the government has no business.

My government - the one that I dutifully pay my taxes to, the one that I actively engage with through support and through criticism as part of my duties as subject and citizen, the one that I cast my vote for (or against), the one that I have represented abroad on official business, the one that I support through my labour resources and contribution to the economy - this government tells me that I cannot be a Muslim and engage in politics. Government you have failed to understand that it is I, and millions of others who engage in political activity, that have put you into a position of power. And this statement refers not just to the Labour party, but to any party in power, so Conservatives take note too. Your holding of the reins of power is at the behest of those who vote you in.

If our government makes a statement that a Muslim with a 'proper interpretation' of Islam is one that does not engage in political activity then our government does not have a 'proper interpretation' of its role and authority.

I wrote a piece a year ago stating "Five Things I love About Being a British Muslim Woman." In it I emphasised the importance as a Muslim of contributing to the nation that you are part of, and that part of being a contributing member is to be proud of what is good in that nation and to offer positive criticism to make the country a better place.

I continue to be committed to the people of Britain and to making our country a flourishing, forward-looking nation. In return the government has made a mockery of Muslims like me who want to engage in the political process by the rules of democracy, shared values and freedom of speech that the government claims underpin our shared vision of society. And the government is also making a mockery of the claims of democracy and freedom of speech by illegitimately excluding from political participation those whose opinions the government does not like. The government needs instead to think clearly for itself and avoid pandering to any which old voice which is popular in fear-mongering circles for their actions are undermining both the positive goals of social cohesion as well as the political process.

Blears said that "You can't win political arguments with the leaders of groups... who believe in the destruction of the very democratic process of debate and deliberation". By excluding the Muslim opinions that the government doesn't want to engage with through the devious method of saying that being a political Muslim is unpalatable, it is the government itself who is destroying the democratic process of debate.

The Global Ummah Needs to Start Local

Muslims are rightly proud of the diverse global ummah, but we should be more willing to embrace the diversity of the British Muslim communities, and channel it to drive forward new ideas

Outside of the period of hajj in Makkah, the UK is home to the most diverse Muslim community in the world. The extraordinary mix of ethnic origins and opinions from across the theological spectrum make it a unique moment in the history of the Muslim world, representing a microcosm of the diversity that Islam has always aspired to.

Islam and Muslims have travelled fluidly through history - across the Arabian Peninsula on horseback, by boat along the Eastern coasts of Africa and across to India and into the South Indian seas. It was often trade, by sea, or across the Silk Road, that flung Muslims eastward to China and Indonesia and west towards Morocco and Spain. In fact, records of the slave trade to the Americas suggested that Muslims had made it across the Atlantic long ago.

The re-drawing of national boundaries, wars, post-colonialism and the ease of travel and communication which have been the driving forces of the twentieth century, have once again shuffled Muslims around the world. Their movement has been mostly into Europe and North America, and nowhere has this redistribution and melting pot of Muslims been more apparent than in the UK.

In 2001, the British census estimated that there were 1.6 million Muslims in the UK, a number which is now forecast to be close to 2 million. This makes Muslims the second largest faith group in the country, and Muslims make up more than half of the non-Christian faith community. Almost three quarters of Muslims in the UK are from an Asian ethnic background. Those from Pakistan make up 43 per cent, from Bangladesh 16 per cent and Indians and other Asians make up 14 per cent. We probably could have guessed that. But did you know that 17 per cent consider themselves to be from a 'white' background, whether that is White British, Turkish, Cypriot, Arab or Eastern European? And did you know that 6 per cent of Muslims are of Black African origin, from North and West Africa, particularly Somalia.

We also know that all these figures are out of date, and show little of those of Middle Eastern origin who have joined us on this green and pleasant land in the last few years. If you haven't spotted your country on the list, then you make up that great overlooked fact of British Muslims - that they come from all the blessed corners of this God's great earth.

But so what?

First, it is important to take note of these astounding facts. We live in an historic time and place for Muslims. We have more ideas, cultures and perspectives in a concentrated space than ever before, to inspire, motivate and produce more than ever before. If ever we were to create something overwhelming, tumultuous and inspirational, then the time has never been more ripe. The great age of Muslim learning flowered because minds were open to new ideas, perspectives and cultures. Thinkers would wait eagerly for new books and learnings to travel across the ethnicities and languages of the Muslim world.

Islam is also about appreciating different people and knowing them. The Qur'an is quite clear about this, and Muslims love to quote that Allah created people into "tribes and nations" so that we may "know each other". We take positive pride in the diversity across the global Ummah. We claim that we love all our brothers and sisters, and that we feel their pain, wherever and whoever they are! Of course, this statement of bravado only lasts as long as we don't have to go to a mosque that 'belongs' to those of a different ethnicity. As long as we don't have to marry them. As long as we don't have to have children with them. As long as we don't have to work in communities together. There are exceptions, but they are relatively few.

We will protest vehemently for the Palestinian cause, and we may deplore the terrible situation in Iraq, but do we know any Palestinians or Iraqis here in the UK? It is easier to care for those thousands of miles away, then to look after those on our doorstep.

Nowhere in the world do we have more opportunity than in the UK, to put into action the ethos that the Prophet taught us - to treat all human beings as equal in worth, and to appreciate our variations and differences. At no time in history have we had the opportunity to infuse so much culture, so many ideas and so much vivacity into the future of Muslims.

History will judge us harshly if we remain enclosed in our ethnic and ideological bunkers. Our future generations will be even less forgiving if we fail to create the magic of cultural fusion and intellectual development that history has shown is in the DNA of the Muslim spirit.

This article was published in The Muslim News
Statistics quoted can be found in greater detail at the National Office of Statistics

The Muslim World is Larger Than We Think

The Muslim world is made up of more than just people from the Middle East and the Subcontinent, and drawing on our wider heritage and perspectives could help us address the pressing questions of Islam and modernity

It would probably come as a surprise to most people to know that the largest ethnic group within the world's billion or so Muslims, are not in fact, Arab. Nor are they Pakistani, or even Bangladeshi for that matter. Even the entire Muslim populations of Europe and America do not feature at the top of this list, and neither does China.

In Britain, our perceptions of Muslims - and thus of Islam - are shaped by the fact that the media shows us coverage of the Arab world as 'Islam' and also because the majority of Muslims in this country are of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin. The issues and challenges that raise themselves in the Muslim community, and which spill over into the national discourse about Muslims and Islam, therefore naturally stem from our Arabic and Sub-continental-shaped spectacles. Even within the Muslim communities the problems we see and the solutions we propose continually hark back to world-views and religious paradigms based in Arab and Sub-continental perspectives on history and modernity. British Islam tastes of korma curry with a side-serving of hummus. In the global political arena too, the Sub-continent and the Middle East (read 'Arab') are also front and centre when it comes to 'The Muslim World'.

With this restrictive bi-focal approach, we try to address the big questions facing Muslims today. We ask in this context, how do we get to a meaningful understanding of Islam and governance in the modern world order of nation-states? Should we choose to interact (or not) in democratic processes, and if so, what methods should we use? What should our identity and role be in this globalised world? Is there a dichotomy between nation and ummah, and if so, how do we reconcile them?

The biggest challenge out of all of these for Muslims, is to find meaningful proposals to create a framework for participation with positivity and integrity in this new world order. Muslims constantly hark back to a 'better time' of Islamic empires and Caliphates, which were the spiritual home of Muslims, and for the most part were their physical homes too. However, such an empire, or a universal 'home' state no longer exists. In many cases Muslims live as minorities within non-Muslim majority countries. There is no option - and in many cases no desire – to 'go home'. Muslims should already feel respected and at home, and should not be treated as aliens. In the context of such a relationship, it is timely for Muslims to construct a robust place within the national community that they are part of and establish very clearly the contribution that they will make.

This desperately needed enterprise is being subverted by a small minority who wish to hijack this process of development and change. Their desire is to return to a 'better time', and to 'Islamicise'. But they created these false notions through Arab-Sub-continental lenses. The neo-conservatives who have created their empty identities and standing in opposition to this so-called 'Islamist' political ideology also see the world in these two blinkered dimensions.

So here is the surprise. Large swathes of Muslims are asking the above-mentioned first set of positive questions about this new globalised world that we live in. The groundswell is to participate and contribute, to explore traditional notions of Islamic governance and to advance new ideas of engagement and civic participation. By no means are they getting it all right but, as Confucius says, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

The most significant and flourishing example of this is Indonesia. This is a country of 221 million people, of which 88% are Muslim. This makes Indonesia the world's largest Muslim population, a fact unknown and overlooked by most people. The country stretches from Thailand to Australia, punctuated by lush rainforests and epic lively volcanoes. Its spirituality is understated but intricately and gently woven throughout the fabric of society. Mosques are plentiful (as are other places of worship), almost on every street corner, but they are softly tucked in, little oases in the hubbub of day to day life. Scattered liberally amongst the emerald green rice fields are small huts, used to protect workers from the tropical rain storms, and offer an accessible place for prayer.

The country is founded on five principles, the first of which is the 'belief in the one and only God.' For a country with an overwhelming Muslim majority, its political principles define it not as Islamic, but as theistic. There is concern to ensure that the huge variety of ethnicities that make up the nation, as well as its six official religions, share a sense of cohesion which is expressed in another of its founding principles: 'Unity in diversity'. It also envisions a just and civilised humanity, social justice for the whole of Indonesia and finally, and perhaps most significantly democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity arising out of deliberations amongst representatives. It is this fusion of democracy and faith that makes the physical, spiritual and social landscape of Indonesia so fascinating.

Ten years after the overthrow of a totalitarian government, the country is racing through a reformasi, and asking piercing questions about nationhood and faith. Whilst travelling there, I was constantly surprised by the strength of feeling amongst all the people I met about driving their country forward.

How did the fact that I am both British and Muslim manifest itself, and how did I relate to my nation, I was constantly asked. Instead of simplistic shock at the existence of Muslims in the UK, the Indonesians greeted my fusion of British Islam with thoughtfulness. They reflected on what they could learn from the experience of British Muslims, to create a cohesive nation state that could respect faith, benefit from it, and use it as a force to create unity - a slippery and elusive goal for a country of its huge geography, variation and population. They wanted to learn about how minorities were treated, and apply positive experiences to their own nation.

There was no possible question of not participating in political and civic processes. Faith - whether Muslim or otherwise - was a natural part of civic life. There was no need to make a headline fuss of it. It did not dictate the political agenda. Instead, it offered fresh perspectives on dealing with social, political and economic issues. None of this is to say that Indonesia is not dealing with pockets of extremist activity like we are in the UK. Indonesia has many human rights and security issues of its own to deal with. Despite the challenges it is facing, it was refreshing to be in a Muslim majority country, amongst politically and civically active Muslims, for whom Islam was not the only item on the agenda - if in fact it was on the agenda at all. Creating a society where faith is woven into nationhood, and exists happily under its banner were of greater concern to people on the street.

I came away thinking that as British Muslims we had many things we could learn from them. Indonesia sits very firmly as part of the Muslim world, and sees itself as a key player amongst Muslim nations. It is attempting to deal with some of the questions that face both Islam and faith in general in this new millennium. And like a child learning to sit up and survey the world around it, their experience can offer Muslims fresh eyes onto our modern day challenges. Muslims speak with pride about sharing the joy and pain of a global ummah. But sometimes we forget that the ummah stretches much further not only in geography, but also much further in culture, politics and creativity than we might think.

This article was published in The Muslim News

Bishop Nazir-Ali to speak at Interfaith forum about pluralism

Imagine my surprise when I came across a listing for a lecture being held this evening by the East London Three Faiths Forum: "FAITH IN A PLURAL COMMUNITY with Bishop Nazir Ali (Bishop of Rochester)". Surely an interfaith group should be worried about some of the comments he has made?

The Telegraph wrote: 'In an outspoken attack on the custom of Muslim women to cover their faces, the Pakistani-born bishop said that the Islamic community needed to make greater efforts to integrate into British society. "It is fine if they want to wear the veil in private, but there are occasions in public life when it is inappropriate for them to wear it," he said.'

[shelina's comment: if the Bishop knew anything about the veil, then he would know that the concept of wearing it in 'private' is comical - the veil is a public matter, not a private one]

In January 2008 Nazir-Ali wrote that Islamic extremism had turned "already separate communities into 'no-go' areas" and claimed that there had been attempts to "impose an 'Islamic' character on certain areas". When he was challenged to name such areas, by various leading figures including Hazel Blears, he has failed to provide such evidence. He has failed to actually back up such a divisive statement. For a man of faith, it seems a strange way to build up community links and inter-faith work.

I have sent some people along to attend the lecture, and will post up their comments once they are in.

"Conversations on Religion" book launch

Tomorrow is the launch of a new book entitled Conversations on Religion edited by Mick Gordon and Chris Wilkinson. "A stimulating collection of interviews on the subject of religion and belief, including high-profile names such as Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams and Jonathan Sacks." Here is the blurb:

Conversations On Religion addresses questions such as; How do we define religion? Can we define faith? Why in our twenty first century world are so many people religious? and What should our ambition for religion be?

Mick Gordon and Chris Wilkinson explore these questions together with 18 well-known religious thinkers and commentators, including: AC Grayling, Giles Fraser, Rowan Williams, Lewis and Matthew Wolpert, Don Cuppit, Muhammad Yusuf Al-Hussaini, Tariq Ramadan, John Gray, Alistair McGrath, Abdelwahab El Affendi, Richard Dawkins, Julia Neuberger, Fraser Watts, Azzam Tamimi, Ann Widdecombe, Karen Armstrong, Shelina Janmohamed, and Jonathan Sacks.

The result is a fascinating insight into human nature. We human beings are strange in our commitment to beliefs which we inherit, imbibe and choose. We find them difficult to let go. For better and for worse, this is our commonality. The task is to better understand and attempt to take responsibility for those different beliefs and positions which seem to mean so much to us. Conversations on Religion is an important part of that process.

Yes, well-spotted! There is a chapter with me amongst all the well-known names, reflecting on what faith and religion mean to me, and answering some of the questions that come up time and again about extremism, Muslim women and organised religion.

Tony Blair's faith, globalisation and poverty

Last week was a busy week. Apologies to readers who noticed a complete blank on the blog - I was out listening, learning, thinking and in a few rare moments, I was moved too.

On Tuesday evening, Dr Eboo Patel of the Interfaith Youth Core, based out in Chicago, was speaking at the British Library on "In Martin Luther King's Footsteps", on the 40th anniversary of his death. Dr Patel is a remarkably eloquent presenter and wove a powerful narrative about the role of faith - and in particular interfaith - in addressing the issues of identity, division and extremism. He spoke of his own journey to be comfortable in living in the spaces of being Indian, Muslim and American and how he has reconciled the three, no longer feeling the need to hide or crush any aspect of his being. What shook him was when he realised that whilst he was busy struggling around ethnicity and nationhood for himself and his peers, the discourse he was part of paid scant or no attention to faith and religion as forming a sense of self and citizenship. Around the same time he also realised two further things about young people - that religious extremism seemed to be on the rise amongst - and appealed most strongly to - young people. He wondered why? He also noticed that young leaders - like Dr King - who play such an important role in our social consciousness as change-makers and peace instigators, rarely have their faith discussed. Dr King, he pointed out, is rarely spoken about as Reverend King. Where was the narrative about faith informing young leaders and the contributions they have made? How could these stories reach out to young people of faith to embrace them into a positive contribution by contributing their own faith stories?

Tony Blair later in the week also spoke about Faith and Globalisation at Westminster cathedral. Outside the stunning building were hordes of protesters who could be heard inside the hall throughout the lecture. "Murderer! Murderer!" they cried. Their placards said "BLIAR". Inside he spoke about how faith needs to be reclaimed from extremism, and how it can be a tool for good. He also spoke about how as the gravity of power moves from West to East as political and economic change happens, that faith can be one of the channels through which we can create conversation about shared values and 'purpose'. Given his record in political office, particularly with regards to war, I think there will be widespread scepticism about his new role and that of his foundation: The Tony Blair Faith Foundation. Great name - can it deliver what it promises? It seems to be we ask the same question whether Blair is a political or a religious leader.

However, much to my embarrassment, I have to confess that in a week of big ideas, I was most moved by the closing moments of Eastenders on Friday evening. Yes, sorry, I know I've just blown my credibility, but let me explain... Long-lost chav Bianca, with four children in tow, is thrown out of her home. She is too proud to ask for help, and too worried that the authorities will separate her from her children if she admits to her homeless penniless situation. After sleeping the night at the bus-stop, and trying to wash up in the park toilets, they have to face the police patrol who has been observing them and who now feels they need to step in. Fearing they will take her children, Bianca punches the officer, who then arrests her and bundles her into the police car and leaves the children in the park. It's not high-brow TV but it got me right under my skin and into my heart - the vulnerability of humanity. I'm hoping there are huge inaccuracies - why would they arrest her when her plight is obvious? Why would they leave the children unattended?

All this to one side, it was this that made me actually weep: the easy slip from comfort into poverty, criminal record and homelessness, the high level of child poverty. As someone blessed with comforts, the fact that 600,000 children in London alone live below the poverty line still holds me in shock, when we are in the top 5 richest nations on earth. With the London mayoral elections coming up, I checked the websites of the three candidates of the big parties, and I have to report that it is certainly not obvious what they are planning to do to alleviate this issue, this huge massive issue that faces what should be a world-class city, and a world-leading country.

I'm no expert about homelessness and poverty, but each day for a long time now, I have felt that this is an area I need to learn more about, and then get more strongly involved in. If you can help me learn about the issues, but more importantly about how to solve these issues medium-term, long-term - nay, forever, please help me learn. Even bloggers need those who can offer education and learning.

The Arts and Islam - exploration or provocation?

Chris Wilkinson on the Guardian Arts blog asks "Are artists afraid to approach radical Islam?" prompted by a piece by Peter Whittle who claims that "The arts are increasingly censoring themselves when it comes to Islam". Whittle argues that radical Islam is threatening and violent when it comes to criticism, and thus the arts are being frightened into silence and are unable to express their real opinions. Wilkinson rebuts him and points to a raft of artists that are indeed engaged in exploring Islam and Muslims but have not created the headline sensations that Whittle points to as proof of Islam's supposed barbarism.

What is the purpose of the arts? That is the question that underlies this debate. Whittle seems to think that the label of 'art' permits anyone to say anything at all, and elevates 'provocation' onto a pedestal when it is under the guise of art.

It seems perfectly reasonable that the arts should address Islam and Muslims, in fact the arts are often the channel by which new ideas and phenomenons are addressed in Europe and America. The issue is how and why. Exploration and critique? Bring it on. Gratuitous displays and offensiveness? I don't see the point. The authors need to at least have a basic understanding of what they are talking about, and a goal for their production. It also needs to be clear - is the aim of the 'attack' 'critique' 'exploration', whatever you call it, to criticise Islam, or to cause fear, misunderstanding and even hatred of Muslims. If it is a criticism of Islamic tenets, be my guest. It's not unique or groundbreaking, it's happened before. The faith can take it, after all it's been around for a while. If it is blindsighted hate, or ignorant provocation under the guise of free speech, then it devalues both its subject and the hallowed paradigm of freedom of expression.

When the Danish cartoon story broke there was much discussion in the media about the right to be offensive. Is that what we aspire to as a society? The right to be offensive? I find that demeaning to human beings that that is the best we can do. Surely we should yearn for politeness, etiquette and good behaviour on all sides? Criticism and difference of opinion have their etiquettes too, something we seem to have forgotten.

Muslims do tend to be over sensitive to the arts as a form of exploration and dialogue, partly because western arts appear to go out of their way to be offensive, and partly because there is no identical tradition in the Muslim world. Muslims have their own artistic traditions but they follow different formats.The Muslim world tends to engage in more spoken or written forms of discourse where books, poetry and didactic interchange are more traditional formats. Get a bunch of top scholars together and the levels of criticism and argument are likely to be high, but its not something we see often in the public domain.

However, death threats and violence from Muslims must stop. It's really no way to deal with those who have nothing valuable to say and are being provocative for provocation's sake. What Muslims need to learn is to channel the arts and use it as a means for expression.

Ban the Qur'an, says Dutch MP

We now have a theme developing, what with bombing Mecca... Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Freedom Party in the Netherlands, called for the ban of the Qur'an in a letter published in De Volkskrant newspaper. In his letter, Wilders compares the Muslim holy book to Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler's autobiography, and said the Qur'an has "no place in ourconstitutional state". He described the book as "fascist" adding that "there is no such thing as moderate Islam."

One has to wonder about the current state of the Netherlands. It prides itself on being a liberal democracy with relaxed laws, allowing for drugs, prostitution and pornography. And which also leads to the kind of ideas that allow Wilders to state: "I am fed up with Islam in the Netherlands: no more Muslim immigrants allowed. I am fed up with the worship of Allah and Muhammad in the Netherlands: no more mosques," his letter concluded. He admitted though that he thought his ideas would never make it through Parliament. However, his ideas will certainly foment further vilification of Muslims and Islam in a country where this seems to be turning into the national past time.

Hello Guardian readers!

Welcome to new readers who have read my article today in the Guardian. I invite you to keep reading below and check out the rest of the site. For my regular readers, my article that was published in The Guardian's Face to Faith column is here. You can leave comments here at spirit21 or on the Guardian site

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2067521,00.html

A Muslim By Any Other Name

"I have now publicly denounced God...I am an atheist at heart," says Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her writings about herself and her self-proclaimed struggle to reform Islam. "We Muslims must help each other," she elaborates.

Muslims reading these two statements side by side may be scratching their heads in confusion. In theological terms, a Muslim is one who states simply that "There is no diety but God, and that Muhammad is His (last) messenger." The public avowal of these words - of believing in God - is sufficient to be counted as Muslim. The strength of belief and practice that lie behind them is immaterial. To be a Muslim in this sense is black and white, you say that you believe and you are considered a Muslim, or you say that you don't, and you're not.

But Miss Hirsi Ali peppers her writings with the phrase "we Muslims". She insists that she speaks as a voice from within the Muslim community. As a matter of faith and religion, her position in Islamic terms is quite clear - it is not possible that she is a Muslim since she does not believe in God. But she defines herself as a Muslim by virtue of her culture, ethnicity and upbringing. This, she believes, makes her a Muslim, because the separation of culture and religion in her view is a false dichotomy.

Irrespective of the clarity of the Islamic criteria for being a Muslim, it seems that the wider community consider such individuals nevertheless as Muslim. More perplexingly these individuals also consider themselves to be Muslim. Perhaps ten or even twenty years ago, nationalism would have been the grounding for identity, and Hirsi Ali would have defined herself as Somalian. Today, she sees being Muslim as a cultural state, not one of religious belief.

Is being Muslim now a cultural identity? For practising Muslims the only definition of a Muslim is that of the shahadah, but all sorts of voices are now singing at this party and it seems the common denominators of a Muslim are now up for discussion.

Hirsi Ali, or even a character like Saira Khan of The Apprentice infamy, feel that being a Muslim is not a matter of faith, but rather of cultural heritage. Muslims may have influenced their upbringing, which is why they retain the Muslim nomenclature, but they themselves admit that practice is another matter.

I relate these examples not as finger-pointing, but to bring to life the fact that opinions on what it means to be a Muslim these days are multi-coloured and multi-faceted. Is it acceptance of the creed? Is it a certain level of declared belief, irrespective of practice, "I'd like to be more practising" or "I'm a lapsed Muslim" (if you can have a lapsed Catholic, then why not...?), or is it belief and a certain observable level of practice? Or is it none of the above? Is it to be a cultural Muslim (whatever that means)? Is it to be born to Muslim parents? Or is it enough just to declare oneself to be a Muslim, and no further questions asked?

Islam is broad and robust enough to accommodate a plethora of views and the tensions that brings, despite what people may say, and the shrill voices that beg to differ both inside and outside the Muslim community. But it is indeed important that we address ourselves to the issue of what does it mean to be a Muslim? Such a question has inherent theological and human value, but it is critical at this time for other more urgent reasons.

There is a push to "reform" Islam, in the same way that Christianity underwent a 'reformation'. And just as the Christian-tinged name suggests, Islam is expected to 'reform' in line with modern day Christian-European values. Hirsi Ali, in her role as Muslim-beyond-Islam, is quite open about the motives and loyalties of voices such as hers: "Present-day Islam is not compatible with the expectations of Western states...We will need the help of the liberal west whose interests are greatly served by a reform of Islam."

And so the question of "who is a Muslim?" becomes critical in driving the debate and development of any organic changes that come from within the Islamic fold, or more jarringly, any forced changes that are imposed on it. Who is to create change and direct it? Whose voices should be promoted (if any)?

Genieve Abdo writes thoughtfully in the Washington Post: "The secular Muslim agenda is promoted because these ideas reflect a Western vision for the future of Islam...Everyone from high-ranking officials in the Bush administration to the author Salman Rushdie has prescribed a preferred remedy for Islam: Reform the faith so it is imbued with Western values - the privatisation of religion, the flourishing of Western-style democracy - and rulers who are secular, not religious, Muslims."

And so it comes as no surprise when such views are promulgated victoriously in the political arena. The favoured Muslim voices selected by politicians will reflect their own views about which kind of Islam fits best. The politics of which Muslim voices are heard, which are favoured, changes with the wind. Yesterday, in the UK, the Muslim Council of Britain were having tea at Downing Street, today it's a different flavour of Muslim buttering the scones.

What does it mean to be a Muslim? It is a deceptively simple sounding question that is laden with complexity and pitfalls. Who should decide what a Muslim sounds like, looks like, what she says, what she eats, what she wears, what values she holds, what she believes?

Given the current discussions in the political and social spheres we need to ask ourselves these most incongruous of questions. This is not a drive to create an inflexible and exclusivist private members' club. Quite the opposite. There needs be a common baseline of affiliation and understanding. A little bit of definition and agreement is very liberating as it creates the possibility for shared vision and mutual benefit and understanding. I don't feel the need to agree with every Muslim out there, and the reality is that I won't. But as a collection of communities we need to be able to point to the very basics and say, "this is what holds us together, this is the essence of being a Muslim."

The clarity of the theological foundation of the shahadah once made the definition of a Muslim simple yet robust. It then freed everyone to have their own opinion. Before Islam and Muslims can engage in any kind of ideological or political evolution, we need to clarify these basics. The stability of the groundwork will then allow a myriad of voices to engage in lively, heated and fruitful debate. As a Muslim, I wouldn't have it any other way.

This article was recently published in the Muslim News

The fight against the double whammy facing Muslims

Saddam's execution was by far one of the most shocking political events of my lifetime. He was a man that had without doubt exceeded the bounds of even the cruellest imagination, and had carried out unspeakable and revolting acts against an entire nation for decades. However, when he was about to meet justice, the moral ground which his victims occupied, for a split-second was shaky. Just a moment of wavering - of heat of the moment chants, and unsavoury mobile phone videos - detracted from the moral authority they held.

This is a people who have suffered immeasurably and what processes and values they upheld were to their credit. Their emotions and reactions were completely understandable. But the global community had hoped for more - had hoped to see a moral choice made by the Iraqi people to carry out justice with the ultimate dignity and etiquette. We wanted to see an exercise in moral intelligence in spite of the emotional pull to behave otherwise. We felt that despite their unimaginable suffering and position, they could have risen above the simplistic emotional and political pull. We willed them to show a higher level of discernment.

All human beings, including Muslims, even at the height of emotion and pressure are required to show courage that underpins moral intelligence in making the right choices. A Muslim is duty bound to uphold the right course of action no matter what voices whisper on either side, no matter who the voices are from or what they say, or of the emotions welling up inside.

Showing this discernment, exercising this moral intelligence is no easy matter. And it becomes ever more difficult with lines being drawn in black and white all around us. Bush's famous "you are either with us or with the terrorists" laid down the gauntlet. His opponents were equally stark. They created a face-off between them with no space in between. It is not a referee that is needed to prise these two playground bullies apart, but the wisdom of moral intelligence to create an alternative, to voice that alternative and to stand up and push it through.

It takes insight and courage to be able to create a voice that asks questions, that challenges and that uses moral judgement to discern what the truth is, what is the right course of action.

The rhetoric of the War or Terror grows ever more insidious. Terrorists and extremists are held up as representatives of the wider Muslim community. Dispatches on Channel 4 ran a programme entitled "Undercover Mosque". The theme was "a reporter attends mosques run by organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate…" but which then went onto 'expose' the extreme views of the Saudi backed, trained or inspired speakers. (How do you 'expose' something that has been prevalent for years and years and public domain knowledge?) By creating a context that these people claim to be moderates but in fact hold abhorrent and hate-filled opinions, all Muslims that claim to be moderate, or in fact any Muslims at all, immediately become suspect.

How should Muslims respond? The extreme views of those particular individuals shown on the programme – and most Muslims come across these views every day and disagree vehemently with them – these extreme views are clearly outside the parameters of Islam, contradicting it both in letter and in spirit. These are views that need to be roundly and forcefully rejected. But how to do this without supporting the devious subtext of the programme which tries to paint all Muslims with the same brush?

This is the dilemma that faces Muslims when responding to the constant onslaught from the media and from politics. The Muslim community needs to make changes and be critical of itself. But the extreme Muslim views have painted this into a black and white choice - support Muslims and be with the Muslim cause, or be against it. To criticise, to challenge is to find yourself (or so they have Muslims believe) attacking your own values. And when Muslims turn to look at Bush, Blair and their allies and counterparts, they only re-inforce the same message: you are with us or against us. If Muslims disagree with this view, they are forced into the extremist camp. The face-off is stark, and the trap is hard to navigate out of. Muslims are trapped in a double whammy, into the monochrome of black and white choice, and of a voice that has been usurped by people who leave no room in between for the shades of grey that constitute humanity.

The debate over the veil was the same. The irony of the whole debate was that most Muslims actually disagree with the veil. But by declaring war on the veil, there was an obvious subtext of a war on Muslims. Stuck in this double whammy of the black and white of the debate from both sides, Muslims were challenged to crystallise an alternative choice. They felt their hand was forced.

We needed to have the courage, and space to step back and use our moral intelligence to assess - in both cases - what was inherently right and what was inherently wrong. In the veil debate Jack Straw took away this space. But equally Muslims need to be firmer in resolve and discernment and not be goaded into making judgements and decisions by the parameters in which extremists from all sides have defined the world. Those who draw these lines include the Bush's and Blairs of this world, as well as the media, politicians and those Muslims who hold shocking and abhorrent views.

We have to stop letting people tell us what we are or what we are not, or what we should or should not do. Islam recognises that most of the space that human beings inhabit is to a backdrop of shades of grey. Muslims need to recognise that the limits that Islam lays out are only at the extreme edges, when all other social constructs break down. The basis for interaction amongst human beings is not the letter of the law, but the spirit of humanity - tolerance, respect, interaction, duty of care, exercise of justice, forgiveness and compassion. Interaction and determinations are based on these values rather than by partisan views.

Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammed gives this advice: "Do not look to the person to find the truth, find the truth first and then look to see who follows it." Exercising our judgement based on the spirit of Islam, the true spirit of Islam, not the Islam that the media has caricatured, needs to be done by assessing where truth lies. Locating the truth and then voicing it are the most important things.

We should not immediately recoil and reject the words from one side without careful analysis: we should not run to defend those who claim to hold the truth without exercising discernment. We must reclaim for ourselves the right to discern the truth and then identify who that is.

It may be that no-one is upholding the truth. We must uphold that truth, we must pursue it, we must voice it and champion it, even if it goes against received wisdom or ingrained rhetoric. This is the only way to exit the double whammy and create a long term path to a solution.

Muslims need to get out of the corner they are sadly painted into: where there appears to be a need to defend some untenable and frankly wrong position held by some Muslims, because those attacking have the subtext of denouncing and maligning all Muslims. But this is not a corner: there is a clear way out, but it is by no means easy. By showing dignity, justice, and self criticism alongside humanity, compassion and understanding and fairness, we will free ourselves of this double whammy and allow us to face down these sensationalist, vile and hate-filled attacks which masquerade under the guise of 'revealing' Muslims as 'evil' and 'anti- democracy'.

This does not mean being moderate, weak or watered down. Quite the opposite: it requires courage, voice and moral intelligence. These are the essence of what makes Islam as described in the Qur'an, the 'middle' path or the 'moderate' way. Those who claim that being the voice of the middle path means we are kow-towing are oh-so-wrong, so very wrong.

The middle path is the straight and reasoned path, the choice taken independent of outside pressure and influence. It is the self-made decision based on moral intelligence and self belief. It is not weak, it is strong, brave, courageous - to face up to extreme views on both sides and assert that the intelligent moral choice lies not in the screaming black and white extremes, but in the voice of the human compassion, conscience and reason. In these shades of grey, we can create meaningful voices and dialogue. When we move to the blackened extremes and the light fades, that is where we find ourselves blinded.

Letter to Channel 4 Dispatches

I don't normally cut and paste stuff verbatim onto my blog, but I felt strongly that this letter written to Channel 4 deserves a wider airing. I think it brings out the subtext of the programme and what lay beneath it's seemingly self-righteous tone. The more I reflected on the programme, the more cross I felt. It was yet another example of how maligning Muslims is the newest bloodsport in this country. And no, that's not hyperbolae.

*******************************************
Dear Sir

I am greatly dismayed and saddened at the way your programme deliberately misportrayed Islam and muslims, casting them wholesale as intolerant and as the 'other'. The documentary does a great injustice to the reputation of your programme and television channel as it does not - despite attempts to the contrary - provide dispassionate and objectively coherent analysis. It was clearly designed to speak to an agenda to malign the faith and its adherents.

A very large proporation of the examples used to support the programme's assertions were decontextualised - similar assertions could easily be made by such analyses of other mainstream monotheistic faiths.
For example (and as you should have known), commentary about homosexuals - even if you disagree with it- of the same sort is found in Christianity and Judaism. The Pope does not agree with homosexuality, yet he is not targetted for journalistic assassination. There are also extremists in Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and it would be possible to construct the same programme about any religion if that were the intent. There has never been similar portrayal of Irish Catholics on the basis of IRA terrorism, or Orthodox Judaism despite it's many similarities in creed to Islam. Yet common decency, common sense and restraint is afforded to other belief systems in a way which is not equitably applied to Islam. Sweeping generalisation is not an ingredient befitting a quality dispatch.

Your actions do not accurately or responsibly add to societal debate / discourse, but are in fact wrecklessly irresponsible and inflammatory. The implication that mainstream Islam and its followers are essentially evil / outside the pale and so forth would be laughable if it were not also at the same time so deeply wrong and damaging. The subtext that all muslims are as you have chosen to represent them is also statistically highly unlikely and paranoid - over 1 billion people?

You should really offer a sincere apology for the hatchet job that your aired programme was, and resolve to be objective, balanced, constructive and dignified to try and regain your credibility.even if your viewing figures may initially suffer. Quality will always prevail over a cheap thrill. Unless of course sensationalism is your driving principle and you aim to emulate the tabloid press.

Please convey this complaint to your wider organisation

Deeply disappointed.

Yours

Channel 4's Dispatches - Undercover Mosque

I'm beginning to wonder two things about today's Dispatches which was yet another programme about Muslims - have they been taken over by the Daily Mail, and did someone forget to tell them that we're no longer in the mid-eighties or nineties but in the mid-noughties?

The programme on tonight was called "Undercover Mosque" which was based around some undercover reporting in two mosques (out of about 1600 that currently exist in the UK, which is less than one tenth of one per cent of all mosques) that shockingly revealed extremist views amongst a select band of preachers who all had in common a connection with Saudi Arabia. The programme's raison d'etre was "how a message of hatred and segregation is being spread throughout the UK and examines how it is influenced by the religious establishment of Saudi Arabia".

This is not news. The Saudis have been exporting this brand of Islam for decades, under the ever watchful eye of its 'allies'. The Wahabbi flavour of Islam is well known to Saudi Arabia's politcal allies and has actually been used as a form of social control in less pliant Muslim countries. It has been bubbling angrily throughout the Muslim community in the UK for years and years. I have grown up with it. And I have grown up with the Muslim community's efforts to counter it and bring shades of compassion and humanity to its stark and uncompromising message.

This is not new and therefore this is not news. I say it again. And the programme's tabloid-esque approach to flashing up statements from a few individuals, and then placing them in the context of mainstream organisations, and then self-righteously stating the responses from the organisations to make it look like they were defensively denying something that was true is gutter journalism at its worst. You don't need an undercover reporter to tell you what was 'uncovered'. It's all apparent and public domain information.

It was hard to feel angry at the specific point the programme was making - about the harsh message of the Saudi funded message. The Muslim community in the UK, and round the world, has grown up with it in the latter years of the last century. It's true, Wahabbi Islam is puritanical and tough. We already knew this. But what did make me very cross were the subtle and not so subtle messages that somehow the whole muslim community is tainted by it, that extremism is widespread, that Islam and Muslims are evil and full of hate and duplicitous. Why does Channel 4 choose to stir up these messages to create hatred? Is it OK to cast a whole community in this light?

Dispatches has an awful lot to answer for, and I'm frustrated and disappointed that a programme that being broadcast on a mainstream and once respected TV channel has resorted to such a simplistic portrayal of a complex and sensitive issue that is of such high impact and profile.

Navigating our way through the current political and social issues that involve Islam and Muslims requires intelligence and understanding on all parts. This comic book approach only serves to perpetuate and entrench ignorance amongst those who are not Muslims, and to frustrate, anger and dishearten those Muslims who truly are dedicated to a balanced, tolerant and fruitful social dialogue.

FINALLY!!!!!
I wonder why Dispatches didn't do an 'undercover' investigation of Channel 4's Shariah TV programme. You'll find that one of the guests on the panel was none other than a scholar from the very same Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, and General Secretary of the conservative Muslim organisation Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith (based at the mosque) which was the mosque which formed the heart of the programme.
One sided hate-stirring sensationalism perhaps?

The Myth of the Sword and the Veil

Terror and the Veil are two recurrent symbols that appear in Western discourse about Islam and Muslims. But these were just myths created to serve one political view. Why do these potent historical symbols still haunt us today?

The Occidental view of Islam has been characterised by two vivid symbols - the sword and the veil. The West built up an image of an Islam that was "spread by the sword", that forced violent conversion on non-Muslims as the Muslim dominion spread outwards from its origins in Mecca and Medina. The Muslim empire grew quickly geographically and politically as its armies spread both east and westward. Instead of using the sword, the faith of Islam grew more organically, through marriage and trade.

The West's Myth of the Sword crystallised into its definition of the Muslim world, and it was hailed as the rallying cry against what was demonised as a violent and barbaric religion. The myth was nothing but political smoke and mirrors, as early as the time of the Crusades.

The Church and the kingdoms of Europe cleverly counterpoised the newly created idea of the 'sword' against the "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek" proclaimed ethos of Christianity, failing to n