Apparently, from this article from Guardian titled, Right showing left the way on radical Islam, subtitled It's fascism by any other name and it's time that all political factions joined forces to fight it by Martin Bright (mentioned in Andrew Brown's article), British multicultural outreach has involved actually funding opportunities for fairly radical islam leaders to state their case (which has caused some schisming in the left ... )

link: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1833390,00.html

Meanwhile, the Foreign Office seems determined to press ahead with courting radical Islamists. Just this month, the British government paid for Yusuf al-Qaradawi to attend a conference in Turkey to discuss the future of European Islam. At home, it funded two Islamist youth organisations, the Federation of Islamic Student Societies and Young Muslim Organisation, to help run a roadshow of Muslim scholars to tour the country. Fosis and YMO, while condemning violence, are ideological allies of the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami. It is ironic that conservative thinkers categorise these organisations accurately as part of an Islamist extreme right, while many on the left continue, wrongly, to see them as part of some wider international Muslim liberation movement.

The comments at the bottom are also interesting ...

This isn't "free to be you and me" American "cultural" multiculturism ... this is genuine outreach to include "other voices" on same dais.

I missed the point of this article. Its title suggests it will explain something Americans don’t understand but then closes by saying no one understands what is going on.

Some points I understand... That the war in Iraq is the very definition of counter-productive, I get. Seems like most Americans these days understand the war in Iraq was the absolute wrong thing to do as well. So maybe the author means that American policy makers don’t “understand?” That torture and making martyrs is not the way, I get. It may not be a majority of Americans who get those two things yet but it’s hardly fair to ignore tens of millions of us who do and are affecting a change in the ranks of policy makers, thank you.

Maybe the author has a different definition of multiculturalism than I do but it’s an absurd notion to think governments can force everyone to assimilate to single social and religious standards. And the key example is religion. Denying someone the ability to practice their faith when it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s ability to do so is going to create the exact same anger and resentment that illegitimate occupations and the like do. I mean, what is the alternative to multiculturalism? Ask China in fifty years how well it’s worked to try stamping out or killing things like religious expression or anything else considered to be an influence on personal lives greater than or equal to government policy.

Probably because I’m a stupid, boorish American but this article didn’t clear anything up for me. It only leaves me feeling like there is no solution to any of this and if so, what’s the point of trying to understand? What a depressing and hopeless piece.

the same could be said about:

rapists and klansmen and gangbangers and killers and crack dealers and child pornographers and facists and racists and pedophiles and...

some folks are not worth understanding: the London bombers lose all right to dialog and empathy once they murder innocents for political gain - and until the left gets this, Bush and Blair and Olmert will continue to ridicule and beat you...

"Remember that wars go on for longer than seems remotely possible when you start them, and that the really dangerous enemies are not the young men trying to kill you today, but their unborn children, should they grow up to hate you, too."

I really enjoyed the all encompassing nature of this article. We do not exist in a bubble as many now seem to believe. Our actions will always cause reactions.

See, physics plays a part in society as well as nature, no matter what politicians would have us think about terrorism. You can't completely destroy something, only change it. And if we continue trying to eradicate all terrorist, we're just going to end up with "Jihadists II: The New Batch." Then, next time they will be able to morph into giant spiders and bats to attack. Puts "Liquids on a Plane" type fear to shame.

let's kill it now.

Cultural traditions and their accompanying religions belong in museums, not societies.

It's the 21st century. Promote rationalism- destroy tradition.

Multiculturalism implies tolerance and respect of differences. That is a value. That is not a value shared by everyone's culture, religion etc. Multiculturalism can't work if the groups we try to respect do not respect differences in everyone. In other words you cannot tolerate intolerance if you want it to work. So everyone can have their own values, customs, and beliefs but the core value shared by everyone must be respect and tolerance for differences without resorting to acts of judicial, physical, verbal, or political harm. Muslim extremists don't have such values (or extremist of any kind for that matter. The statement of "listening to the wrong kinds of muslims" makes sense. There is smart multiculturalism and naive multiculturism. Naive multiculturism is dead and smart multiculturism is necessary.

I have to take issue with your rather conclusory statement that if you would happily live under Sharia law you are therefore a terrorist sympathizer. If you are already living according to the law put down in the Koran you would have no reason to be unhappy if that is the law of the land. They did not say they wanted it to be imposed on all others, just that they themselves would be happy under that law.

The reason for the British government's dealing with ethnic groups in blocs has much to do with its evolution as a state with an officially supported religion, the Anglican Church, while also allowing some state support of smaller religions like Catholicism and Judaism. An example is in the school system. To refuse to extend the same deal to Muslims is to deny the ability of Islam to co-exist in a western liberal state. France deals only with people as individuals and does not support religious schools or deal with people as communities. I think you are possibly the only person to ever bring up France as a state to emulate with regard to Muslim relations.

It’s an interesting topic you bring up; I just wish you had actually done some, ah... research on the subject.