Paul Vallely offers a reasoned assessment.

Independent, 4 October 2006

See also the leader in the same issue – “Beware loose talk about a clash of civilisations“.

“Any candid discussion of race, immigration and asylum that was not racist would not just acknowledge fear and prejudice but challenge them both. Since ministers are not able to do that about ethnic minorities, maybe they should start off with a subject with which they are more familiar. Let’s have an open and honest discussion about white people.

“Let’s start by talking about how they don’t want to integrate. The stubborn rump of around 10% of whites who, according to a 2002 Mori poll, are hostile to racial equality and antagonistic to the very existence of non-white people in this country. Given a percentage point either way, that is the consistent figure who believe that to be truly British you must be white and who do not believe it is important to respect the rights of minority groups.

“Let’s discuss their inability to choose moderate leaders and the propensity of the leaders they do choose to murder innocent civilians abroad by their thousands. Let’s analyse their vulnerability to extremists such as the British National party, not to mention elsewhere in Europe, where fascism is once again a mainstream ideology.

“Let’s talk about the religious intolerance that rages in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and can be found in the highest levels of the state, where only Protestants can marry into royalty. And let’s not forget the terrorists white people have been rearing at home for years, whether they are bombing Brick Lane, parliament or shopping centres in Manchester, and the no-go areas in housing estates, football terraces and boardrooms.

“Only then perhaps will it become sufficiently apparent for those with insufficient imagination just how crude and crass the framing of the debate about Muslims has been. Any group of people will rightly bristle at the demand to answer collectively for the acts of individuals with whom they share an identity but over whom they have no control.

“The tolerant, secular, liberal society into which Muslims are being asked to integrate lies somewhere between mythology and a work in progress and, the responsibility for transforming it into a lived reality lies with all of us.”

Gary Younge in the Guardian, 2 October 2006

The theory that Communism and fascism were twins was developed to justify the Cold War. Now the right needs a new enemy – and has discovered “Islamofascism”, writes Anindya Bhattacharyya.

Socialist Worker, 2 September 2006

A narrow majority of Christians say that the Pope should not have quoted a derogatory remark about the Prophet Muhammad that sparked protests by Muslims around the world. Just over half the people who took part in a Tablet survey felt that Pope Benedict was wrong in his Regensburg lecture to cite the fourteenth-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II, who said that Muhammad brought “only evil and inhuman things”.

The picture that emerges is one of Christians who are troubled by the effect Pope Benedict’s remarks will have on relations with Muslims at least in the short term. In spite of fears for the Pope’s safety, a big majority feel he should go ahead with his planned visit to Turkey at the end of November.

They also consider that dialogue between the two faiths is important even if only a quarter are themselves involved in such conversations. More than two-thirds believe that Christians and Muslims should pray together. This finding is striking in the light of Pope Benedict’s own disapproval of the practice. He recently let it be known that interfaith prayer brings with it the risk of relativism. “When we come together for prayer for peace, the prayer must unfold according to the distinct paths that pertain to the various religions,” he said earlier this month, on the twentieth  anniversary of the interfaith Assisi gathering arranged by John Paul II.

The most common reasons cited for supporting Christian-Muslim dialogue are that “dialogue is essential to promoting peaceful co-existence between different faiths” and the importance of finding “areas of agreement such as social justice and pro-life issues”. Half agree with the statement that “Muslims need to understand Western values”.

Those most critical of the Pope’s remarks and fearful of the repercussions live in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Around 63 per cent of these Christians say the Pope should not have used the controversial quotation.

Well over a quarter fear that it will do lasting damage to relations between Christians and Muslims and almost all say it is important for the two faiths to engage in dialogue. More than a third of these respondents are involved in dialogue primarily at their place of work or socially, or at an educational establishment such as school or university.

There is more support for the Pope from Christians in Britain. A narrow majority of these (52 per cent) think Pope Benedict was right to cite the controversial quotation about Muhammad. They feel Christian-Muslim relations will be damaged in the short term (82 per cent) but will recover. The British Christians are also a little less enthusiastic than the rest about praying with Muslims. Just under 59 per cent support the idea.

The Tablet, 30 September 2006