Give the man a chance. He's walking a very tricky line in trying to promote better understanding between Muslim and non-Muslim societies. He's always going to be distrusted by hard-line Muslims and anti-Muslims because he won't unequivocally endorse their views. The fact that he's banned from both Saudi Arabia and the US gives us a clue on this one. Yes, he does sound a touch weasely on some points, but I think that's inevitable if he's to retain credibility with the people whose views he is trying to influence.

For example, he's been influential in getting a moratorium on the stoning of adulterers. We can all agree this is a barbaric practice, but at least we have the moratorium and hopefully this is the first step to abolishing it altogether. You could say that this is analogous to the death penalty in the US which is thought barbaric by some but its rejection by some states could prefigure its eventual abolition.

It's got to be the only way to change attitudes in the Muslim (and non-Muslim) worlds: gradually and with tolerance and understanding on all sides. The occupation of Iraq is a good example of how NOT to change attitudes. This has whipped up more hatred and intolerance between Muslim and non-Muslim, and made the world a more dangerous place because of it, than any event in recent times.

The hate-filled diatribes against Muslims in some of these letters is chilling.

What do you propose we (non-Muslims) should actually do in response to the bad things some Muslims do and the bad things going on in some Muslim-majority countries? Bomb a country or two? Treat all Muslims in 'our' countries as aliens to be watched closely? Bar 'them' from entering 'our' countries in the first place?

No. The answer's the same as it always is: treat people with understanding and respect and most of them will do the same for you. By all means carry a big stick for transgressors, but it's more soft talk and less big stick we need at the moment. And that applies to both Muslims and non-Muslims, and at both a personal and political level.

Judging by some of the comments, you'd think that Western Europe was about to be engulfed by the Islamic hordes. Not quite. But there are problems.

In the UK, Muslim immigrants, mainly from the former colonies of India and Pakistan, have gradually assimilated over time and we have generally all rubbed along OK, although not without occasional tensions along the way. Where there are large concentrations of Muslim, tensions can be higher, with Muslims feeling less pressure to integrate. A downside of this, in our crowded little island, is that they can become a target for disaffected non-Muslims who feel threatened.

But, up till recently, all this has been manageable, with occasional spikes of unrest. The process of accommodation between Muslim and non-Muslim continued.

What is in danger of blowing all this apart is Iraq and Britain's part in it. There IS more support among British Muslims now for Islamic fundamentalism and all that entails, and I'll tell you why:

British Muslims have always, understandably, been sympathetic to the plight of other Muslims, and when their fellow Muslims are being slaughtered in Palestine and, by the thousand in Iraq, they are not happy. They blame 'us' for this. This is not entirely fair but has a lot of truth in it.

Aspects of fundamentalist Islam are indefensible and I wouldn't even try to justify them, but part of the 'solution' is for us to stop trashing Muslim countries, stop demonising Islam, and start treating Muslims as fellow human beings and not as treacherous little brown men.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that most Americans don't really care that much about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition etc. They do seem irritated by the damage to America's reputation but seem to have little empathy towards their fellow human beings, many having done no wrong, who are locked up, abused, degraded and tortured.

A lot of Americans, though, obviously ARE horrified and it's up to them and media organizations like Salon not to let these issues fade away and the guilty parties escape.

Some of the foot soldiers have been punished but once the guiding hands behind the torture policy are identified they should be tried by the International Criminal Court. Shame that the US was one of the 7 countries (along with China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) not to ratify the ICC. Did they know something?

I think there are a few reasons for the British withdrawal.

As in the US, only more so, the Iraq war has vitually no support back home any more, with a lot of pressure to get the troops back. It's just been announced that they're going to send another 1000 troops to Afghanistan to bolster operations there, so the hope is that the news of troop reductions in Iraq will soften the blow.

Plus, Afghanistan is seen as maybe 'winnable' and Iraq is plainly not (although Blair pretends otherwise). And Blair is thinking about his 'legacy' when he goes in a few months time: some level af success in Afghanistan and a total mess in Iraq is better than no success in Afghanistan and a total mess in Iraq.

It might even be true that Iraqi troops are capable of holding the fort on their own but, as Juan Cole points out, this seems unlikely.