Tony, I just saw your article about Britain 'sleepwalking into decadence' - http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2007/12/tony-makara-a-n.html. Much of what you are saying is what I am saying. So how is it that when you say it, it's right, and when I say it, it's 'fear-mongering pessimism'?

Tony, that is truly ridiculous. Firstly, I didn't say I had 'no agenda', I said I did not have and never have had and never will have an 'anti-Muslim agenda'. Nor do I have a 'fear mongering' agenda. Yes of course there was a purpose (I prefer 'purpose' to 'agenda', because there is nothing hidden behind what I write), and the purpose was to raise issues of concern, say that we have some challenges as a society which we ought to think about, float some possible solutions (drawing, incidentally, on the work of Muslims such as Maajid Nawaaz of the Quilliam Foundation - so are you saying he is 'anti-Muslim'?), and get people to think. I think that is better than your naive ostrich-like head-in-sand approach.

You sound like a Labour activist - thinking in terms of legislation as the first response! But we can't legislate attitudes. It's about changing attitudes, not legislation. So in answer to your question - more of the Big Society, at various levels. Maajid Nawaz's proposals which I referred to are worth studying in terms of countering extremism with a co-ordinated grassroots globalised pro-democracy social action network. And for here at home, more Big Society ventures. In terms of leadership, we need Cameron and other politicians to give more hope, inspiration and empathy, and to make the Big Society concrete.

Tony, Once again it seems you have decided to comment on an article you clearly have not read. In this article, I talked about extremism in all its forms, and I talked about our own failings in ourselves. I have never had an "anti-Muslim agenda" nor have I ever propagated "fear". There is, as I have written many times before, a clear difference between Islam, the region, which has a wide range of interpretations and applications, and radical Islamism, which is political. I work very closely with many good Muslim friends in places like Burma and Indonesia, and have championed their plight as vigorously as I have anyone else's. Ask the Rohingyas from Burma or the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. Anyone who knows me knows that I have never been anti-Muslim, or said or written anything anti-Muslim, so please stop making these totally false, baseless accusations. You are totally free to disagree with my views, but to attribute an agenda that is simply not mine is wrong. If you cannot differentiate between Islam and Islamism, between Muslims and the political ideology of radical Islamism, then you are actually doing yourself, Muslim people and wider society a grave disservice. Finally, this is not about fear - it's about recognising where we have gone wrong as a society, and putting it right, in the interests of all communities.

Denis, I am very aware of the Ahmadi situation and indeed the escalation in violence against Christians in Indonesia, especially West Java. I work on Indonesia and have travelled there several times. Indonesia's proud tradition of pluralism and religious harmony, enshrined in its state philosophy, the Pancasila, is indeed under threat from radical Islamism. But it is societal extremist elements, not the State, that is doing this, and Indonesia has come a long way in establishing itself as a democracy since the Suharto era. It is proof that a Muslim majority nation can be a democracy. It does have many problems and challenges still, a long way to go, and extremism is trying to undermine it. We need to side with the many moderate Muslim civil society groups in Indonesia, such as the Wahid Institute, to combat extremism and defend pluralism and democracy.

Dear Toby, You obviously haven't read the article. I stated clearly that: "actually, these items of clothing are cultural and not Quranic, and have little in reality to do with religion: but that is for the Islamic scholars and theologicans to debate" ... and I made several arguments for the circumstances where the face needs to be seen, for security or communication purposes. What I am opposed to is an outright, blanket ban. Read the whole article.

Andrew, you really are being incredibly naive. As I have said already, and as several others have said, we know the context in which Jihad is being used here. But also, it isn't just about acts of violence, it's about the ideology which endorses, encourages and is complicit with violence.

Precisely - so why are you so defensive of the jihadis? As a gay atheist, why are you getting so hot under the collar in support of people who would hang you, flog you or stone you on both counts? I defend your right to be both gay and atheist, and abhorr those who'd stone you or execute you - yet you side with them. It leaves me scratching my head in bemusement.

Andrew, what's this "withdraw it or back it up" language? Are you joining the jihad? Well, I do back it up - read my various posts and comments, over some years. Or read Michael Gove's Celsius 7/7. But don't make stupid threats like this. You're an elected politician.

Andrew, for goodness sake, what on earth has got into you? I haven't slandered you. You sound just like Galloway. Of course I stand by what I wrote, and actually, I have just received several messages from Muslim friends of mine telling me "You are a good thinker..! thx for your steadfast efforts for our country & for our peoples...!" and "i really love what u mention...! as a muslim i know what my religion is...! there are several muslim leaders & scholars issued the fattawa against terrorist & suicide bombers. not only certain peoples or nation targeted by them but muslims were also. we should not allow those hypocrits to brain wash young boys ! it is spreading like a cancer in islam by traitors. in such case, we all human being from all religion should cooperate with each other...! especially, like Mr.Benedict Rogers, who has broad minded & deep understanding on such sensible matters, should come forward & to cooperate with muslim communities, who want to proof that their religion is a peaceful religion...! God Bless You...!" That is the reaction of several Muslims to my articles. I of course responded saying I am already working together with Muslims, and will redouble my efforts. Andrew, perhaps you ought to listen more to Muslims who are campaigning against Islamism, against Sharia, and against terrorism, and who want an integrated, peaceful, pluralistic society. I don't quite know why you feel slandered by my suggesting you learn more about Abdurrahman Wahid? Have some coffee, Andrew, and wake up. Don't you realise that you'd be the first person the Islamists would execute, so surely we should work together for liberal democracy?

Andrew, You need to spend a bit less time with Inayat Bunglawala and George Galloway, and look to people such as those who follow the wonderful example of former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid, who sadly died last year. He was an inspiring Muslim voice of pluralism, religious freedom and tolerance. His Wahid Institute is worth following http://www.wahidinstitute.org/?lang=en

In contrast to the preachers of hate, the wonderful example of former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid, who sadly died last year, is one we should all look to. He was an inspiring Muslim voice of pluralism, religious freedom and tolerance. His Wahid Institute is worth following http://www.wahidinstitute.org/?lang=en

Here are two more to throw into the mix. I don't necessarily agree with Daniel Pipes on everything, but: http://www.jihadwatch.org/ http://www.danielpipes.org/990/what-is-jihad

Andrew, has working in the London Assembly and running for London Mayor infected you with Ken Livingston-itis?

Andrew, come on, pull yourself together. You know perfectly well the context in which I was using it, and the context that the Islamists themselves use it in. Yes, I know that 'jihad' has various meanings, including a spiritual struggle, but you know full well what I was referring to, and what Hassan al-Banna, Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb are referring to. The Islamists talk of jihad as a real war, and we have to wake up to that, not sit around in council chambers and armchairs debating semantics. It's up to peaceful-minded Muslims to recapture and redefine the term 'jihad' - but in the meantime, when we talk about 'jihadis', most educated, thinking people know precisely what we're referring to.

Thanks for responding so graciously. Please do read my next post, "A Brief History of Islamism".

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/01/a-brief-history-of-islamism.html

My dear Francis, No, I don't. You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick completely. All I would like is for the law to be applied. Is that so very controversial?

Andrea, Firstly, it has nothing whatsoever to do with race, so the charge of racism is as misplaced as it is illogical. My criticisms of Islamism (not, repeat not, the religion of Islam, but a particular ideological brand), are criticisms of ideas and ideology, not of races. The colour of a person's skin in this debate is as irrelevant to me as it would be in any other subject of discussion. But in answer to your question, if you had been reading the newspapers over the past few years, you would have seen that David Cameron has taken up this very issue multiple times, particularly in regard to Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Pauline Neville-Jones and Paul Goodman have been particularly active as well. If we ignore the issue and refuse to address it robustly but responsibly, then a) we put our security and our way of life, including our freedoms, in jeopardy, and b) we risk handing the issue over to the far right, the likes of the BNP and indeed UKIP, who will not address it in a remotely sensitive, sensible, appropriate way, and that would be far far worse.

Jack, I have some sympathy with that view in principle, and contrary to what some readers who have got the wrong end of the stick completely seem to think, I am profoundly in favour of freedom of speech (indeed, my daily work is defending freedom of speech, and freedom of religion). However, there is a line to be drawn when that speech is actively promoting violence, and recruiting people to jihad. There are already limits, and incitement to violence is one.

Francis - can you clarify? When have I ever said dissident Republicans are motivated by bin Laden? ???

I completely agree. We should! That's why I have written elsewhere about the work of groups like the Quilliam Foundation and Irfan al-Alawi, and about my Rohingya Muslim friends from Burma with whom I work. It's also why I quoted Iqbal Wahhab, a Muslim businessman, who is warning us of the issues of radicalisation.

Actually Denis, I would. In India, there is Hindutva, an extreme Hindu nationalism which has much in common with radical, political Islamism and fascism. It is championed by extremist parties such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Bajrang Dal, and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Some of these are guilty of severe violence against Christians and Muslims in India. Similarly, I have written widely about Burma's military regime and its use of Buddhist-isation - the political distortion, perversion and misuse of Buddhism which has nothing in common with the main teachings of Buddhism. One could make a similar distinction between Judaism and Zionism, and even between Christianity and the political overtones of Christendom in the days of the Holy Roman Empire.

Iain, when did I show "contempt" for indigenous culture? Are you unable to read? I spoke up for our culture and traditions, arguing that we need to defend them against the onslaught of the politically correct, the extremist Islamists, the far right and the EU-fanatics ... I am scratching my head in bemusement at your inability to read, and your quite remarkable ability to turn what I have said on its head and make it mean the opposite. Don't you realise I am, broadly, on the same side as you.

Totally agree. No one has been a bigger critic of the use of "cultural" reasons to justify gross human rights abuses than me. I have spoken regularly, for example, of the absurd "Asian values" language promoted by Lee Kuan-yew to justify Asian dictatorships.