Despite its reasoned approach, I suspect this piece will become the Boaz camp-followers totemic target for a while.

Before they get their spittle flowing, though, I'd ask them to comment first on what I see as the core of Ms Güzeldeniz' article.

"The Muslim world is not homogenous at all. It is diverse and made up of different ethnic, national and sectarian groups and individuals with different worldviews, political opinions and lifestyles. In Muslim countries there are atheists (like myself, I am an atheist from a Muslim background from Turkey); agnostics; non-practicing Muslims; Muslims who are not aware that they are Muslims; Muslims who have never read Koran; practicing Muslims; conservative Muslims; very conservative Muslims; liberal Muslims; secular Muslims; “lefty” Muslims; socialist Muslims; capitalist Muslims; intellectual Muslims; working class Muslims; middle-class Muslims; poor and rich Muslims; young and old Muslims; peasant Muslims; provincial Muslims; urban Muslims; celebrity Muslims; Muslims with reality-show-addictions; Muslim housewives; Muslim career-women; Muslim single-mums; homosexual Muslims; arty Muslims; funky Muslims; environmentalist Muslims; feminist Muslims; sexually conservative Muslims; sexually liberal Muslims; Muslims who enjoys the company of the opposite sex; Muslims who prefers female/male segregation; Muslims who are legally obliged to live in a female/male segregated society in theocratic Islamic states; Muslims who drink alcohol; Muslims who never drink alcohol, and the list goes on."

Those who are determined to bundle Muslims all into the same package, regurgitate bloody surah bloody nine and then shout "danger, danger" from the rooftops, would do well to cut-out-and-keep the above paragraph.

And those who know and understand that terrorism, whatever flag of convenience it flies from time to time, is still terrorism, should be encouraged that the voice of reason does occasionally make itself heard.

Pericles,

I thought David Boaz would have been gone long enough now for you to have recovered from your apparent intolerance of him.

Islamophobia again? I hope not. It's passe and as boring as batshit. So is everything about Islam.

Look chaps. Where this gal says:

"It is therefore time to reflect on establishing a strong and just international legal system which will be equally binding for all states in the world, and which will encourage and enforce the use of diplomacy in conflict resolution. Also the marginalised minorities should be incorporated into the mainstream political system in every country and given the chance to express their demands and grievances through politics, thereby replacing violence with peaceful methods of negotiation."

it proves that the author came down in the last shower - has managed to avoid reading history from the League of Nations to the UN onwards - and can successfully regurgitate all of the other fine OLO essays on Mumbai we've been writing.

But in the end chaps, its the holiday season and Christ the author's pretty.

Pete

The core of Ms Guzeldeniz'article is to try and stifle any debate on Islam by labeling the rejection or aversion of Islam as "Islamophobia". As though there is something irrational about discussing Islam's doctrines of hatred and division. What we have now is that if anyone suggests that Islam has something to do with what motivates muslims, they are labeled "Islamophobic".

I'm just as intolerant of christian fanatics as I am of muslim fanatics, or any other group who are struggling to come to terms with modern thought and turn to violence. Mind you some of those do already use the legal system to get their own way and inflict their prejudices on society, see how many legal tools are available in Australia now, particularly Victoria for those who feel someone has insulted them racially or religiously - I believe the muslim community has already used those laws, as have other communities.

I don't agree we should have some international legal system to resolve all our troubles, it would just become a monster in itself abd leave people unhappy again.

Anyone who uses violence, regardless of the reason, should be stomped on hard - no recourse, no excuses, no hiding - if a country harbours such people, they should be stomped on hard. Retribution for victims should be immediate and extreme, then folks might think twice about doing it again or harbouring such extremists.

If the US had been stomped on for their support of the Irish troubles, they would have passed away years before they did - they only stopped their support for terrorism when they got hit on 9/11 and wanted the world to stop supporting terrorism - up till then, they did it as well. So it should be with other states, and if Pakistan or UK or US is found to be supporting or growing terrorism at home - stomp on them hard.

Yes, use extreme violence against violence, that's what these violent people will understand and the communities who harbour them, who are peaceful themselves supposedly, will stop supporting them. Have the UN put up a force that instantly punishes countries who harbour terrorists - watch them get hunted down overnight if they themselves could suffer from exporting or harbouring terrorism. (probably only in rpg's universe, but it would be a peaceful universe as far as terrorists and using violence to solve your problems - there would be no tolerence of intolerence)

The moth....flutters...to the candle......

Dear Pericles: let me offer a slightly different perspective on what the author wrote:

<These people “imagine” that there is a global homogenous Muslim community which acts together as one body and which should be held accountable for the actions of Muslim extremists.>

Then she says:

<So why do some people think that all these Muslims with diverse identities should feel related to the Indian Muslim terrorists and should feel responsible for their horrific violent actions just because these extremists happen to be Muslim as well?>

to which I respond:

The idea of "Islam" as presented in it's own foundation documents and in any 'Islam 101' text you care to look at... is that there is ONE 'Ummah' or community world wide.

Now..granted, some of those like the Shia, Sunni Ahmadiyah etc ...probably regard 'themselves' as the true manifestation of that Ummah, so we cannot neccessarily label Shia with Sunni or Sufi.

HOUSTON (Medina)..WE HAVE A PROBLEM! and that problem is....this:

Many groups such as Salafi and Wahabi and Hizb Ut Tahrir have a very aggressive and militant view of their faith. If I was going to ask "Which of the Muslim groups is closest to their scriptures, prophets and the rightly guided Caliphs" I would suggest those groups are.

THE PROBLEM is.. that when we the outsiders point out the potential for such groups to negatively effect our lives and societies, it is inevitably interpreted by some kind folk as "You are condemning/hating all Muslims"

THE OTHER PROBLEM.... is that in order to effectively criticize Hizb, Salafists and Wahabists, it is neccessary to examine what they themselves hold as their foundation. ie.... The 'Prophet', the Quran the Hadith and histories.

Perhaps we critics should use more labels? "Salafist/Wahabist Muslims are evil" but the trouble with that..is their behavior is soundly based on the documents mentioned. Which brings us full circle to saying "Islam" is evil..... but not ALLLLLL Muslims because they simply don't follow the fundamentals.