Patricia Suárez Fernández (Researcher University of Westminster)

I attend the meeting and I think it was good. And no, I did not feel intimidated at all. I even made good relation with the girl sit next to me.

I would say the idea of one non-muslim and one muslim person on the panel was very good. They both had a good comment on what it is to be British and what canbe the option for Muslims. However, I think the problem many times is that Muslims and non-Muslims British do not listen to each other. I mean that the 3rd way proposed by David was not so far from the other member of the panel ( I am sorry I am so bad with the names). And it was precisely with this one with who I talked later and he agree that a Muslim cannot say, as he previously comment, that he does not share common values at all with British. Of course, British society is becoming somehow where there is no space for Muslims. But this is just a part of the British society, while many other are showing their anxious for a concept of democracy and freedom which is much closer to the Muslim values. So, unless Muslims stop saying that they do what is only Muslim values, others will not recognise those as their values and will not be able to create an athmosphere of insiders not to integrate. That is basically the reaction I saw between the two ponents and I normally see between Muslims and non-Muslims. If I am non-Muslim, I will not participate on those ideas you are saying that are just Muslims. But if you explain me which are those ideas, then I will probably identificate with them and we can create a group of insiders in the community.

The girl I intimated with was Muslim but she said she does not know about Bible. This is something I cannot understand first, because most of the thing that are on the Bible are also in the Kuran and second because being a Christian means to know and believe all the history of the prophets and the facts of God until Jesus. Then if you say you are a Muslim but do not know what is on the Bible, then you just know about Mohammed's life and I do not think that means to be Muslim. Well, I am sure this girl knows about the other prophets but this is just an example of how a Muslim can say he/she does not share anything with us because they do not know they are. And majority of the population on this country say they are Christians. Probably they need you to remind them what that means, because then, if they insist on calling themselves Christians, they will have to share many values with Muslims.

Let's put the example of the Ramadhan. If you let others see it as many people tell me they see it: "why is this people not eating, it is ridicoulous and extreme...bla,bla,bla,bla,bla" They do not understand. If you explain it comes from Abraham and Christians call it Lent, and it is 40 days before Eastern and it is just different times because we have a different calendar, then they have normaly answe me: "Oh, yeah, but we forget to follow all those things as we should". You know what this means: British feel proud of Muslims and shame of themselves. Have you ever think about it this way?

Last thing I want to make a comment in is the fact of mistaking British values with western values. First of all, what does it mean to be British? I do not think you can reduce to prostitution,drug addiction and crime. There is much more. But if you define it like this and say this is western values, I am western, proud of it, and do not share any of those values. I am Spanish and Catholic, and proud of it, mainly after reading a report that says Ireland is the best country ot live in the world because of their wealthy and traditional values. And Spain, my country, is the number 10 and I think Italy was the 7th. even though we are much more poor than England or many other countries. You know why? Because we are western and want to advance, accept free trade and capitalism without forgetting are Christian values, as duties with our family and generally with everyone who need us.

So, probably you can convince an atheist or a protestant. But for us, it becomes almost impossible to understand what it means to be a Muslim and hear that they cannot integrate. I heard about the Irish on the debate and, first do not take example from them because they were at home and were invaded while you came to another country. But take example of other religious people living harmonously in England and of how Irish, Spanish and Italian become western without loosing their values that I hope they never ever loose.

Well, I hope you find it any interesting.

If you have any doubts, just let me know because probably what I am saying is difficult to understand without a proper discussion as the one I had to have with the Muslim member of the panel after the debate and we finaly agree.

AMPARO RODRIGUEZ (Researcher from University of Westminster (CSD))

I did not make any comment, but another CSD student, sitting next to me did. It was a very interesting and enjoyable seminar. Well organized, friendly atmosphere, and I could have carried on listening and learning for a little longer. Never mind my supper!

I am not very familiar with Islam or problems of integration, so I was just basically trying to figure out what have you being going through all those years. Sometimes I felt that the "clashes" between your values and ours were very similar to the ones between my dad's generation and mine (the drinking, the divorce, the way women want to be treated now...). And I also felt many times that the values you defend are the ones that any Christian, or just any sensible person would. Where is the problem then? It would help if we sat down and explain our postures, because I feel non-Muslims -and I am counting myself here- know very little about Islam and tend to stereotype a lot. I would have liked to find out more about the role of women, as I guess that point could have been a bit more controversial for me. And I would have loved to find out which of your traditions come from Islam, and which from your country of origin, because we tend to put both on the same basket, and we are probably wrong.

From my little experience, having lived for a few months with an adorable Muslim couple, I didn't give integration much thought. It seemed easy. I just saw two brilliant and hardworking professionals, like the ones who attended the lecture, who took whatever they thought it was good from this society and ignored the rest, and I never thought they are less Muslim than the the ones who kept themselves apart.

I hope all this gibbering makes sense (it does in my mind...).
Thank you very much for inviting me along, and please, feel free to email me, should you organize any other conference.

Josie (Jouranalist Spiked-On Line)

I thought the event was very good; much more lively and engaged than other discussions I've been to on the subject. It could have gone on for another hour at least. And obviously coming at the issue from a completely different angle, being a predominantly young Muslim audience. I didn't feel out of place - though I found the sexual segregation a bit off-putting - and the atmosphere was friendly and cordial, even when the heckling started at the end. Both speakers were strong, and played nicely off each other.

Andrew Otchie

I thought the event was very good.I was not intimidated by the atmosphere, but I admitt that others might be.

I would also like to tell you that I am a practising Christian and very much enjoy talking about Religion and Politics. I belong to the Christian Peoples Alliance (political party) and would like to take part in further debates with you in future as we get nearer to election time.

Thank you for your invitation.

Menaka (DEMOS Think tank)

Thank you for hosting last evening's event. The audience was certainly a lively and engaged, and the panel members and chair are obviously experts in their respective fields.

However, the "debate" and discussion seemed less focused on answering questions regarding British identity and Muslim integration, and more about pitting two values systems against one another, without resulting in a fruitful outcome. The two threads of dialogue seemed to be at total cross-purposes, and the subject, in my eyes, devolved into the pitting of Western secular values and practices, vilified as immoral and aggressive, against Muslim beliefs, ignoring the common ground the two actually share. Mr. Goodhart took pains to avoid caricaturing Muslims as extremists and terrorists, yet Mr. Fombo provided only negative examples of Westerners and highlighted Islam as the most viable method to leading a good life. This is not to say he that his arguments were invalid; both speakers had very good points, but at times the two appeared to be on the offensive and speaking about different matters entirely. The topic was not "Us vs. Them" or "the West vs. Islam," but that is the binary that emerged.

When the audience became involved, the discussion veered off-course and moved further from a solution-finding forum towards a head-on confrontation between two ways of life. Though audience participation is the key to such an event, and the participants were well-informed and brought a wealth of experiences to the discussion, people seemed more interested in defending Islam, which was not being attacked, than in finding common ground. This did nothing to deal with the questions at hand, and only served to polarise the audience between two dichotomies, when, as I believe Mr. Goodhart said, it was the grey areas that needed to be explored. Perhaps with more structure and a more narrow constraint on the subject at hand, a more useful dialogue could have been fostered. Instead, the event seemed to exacerbate the problems of Muslims in Britain, when instead the meeting of so many keen minds could potentially have been used to forge solutions instead of opposition.

I hope this is constructive criticism and will help you plan your next forum. I have no intention of being offensive, but I think that with such valuable people as a resource and such stimulating topics to be explored, a more productive outcome is possible. Thank you again for inviting me.

Dr Eric Kaufmann (Nations and Nationality Lecturer of Birbeck University)

It was a good location and plenty of enthusiastic participation. I thought some of the questions were interesting and it was my first exposure to an Islamic event. My own sense is that there was some engagement with the question of Muslim integration in Britain, but also I felt that the two speakers spoke to slightly different issues.

Goodhart was expecting more of a challenge to his 'nationalist' arguments on secular grounds: like the need for 'multiculturalism' and diversity. Taji was speaking more of the message of Islam vis a vis liberalism.

Perhaps a panel of 3 including a left-wing secular 'liberal', a Christian and a Muslim would be interesting!

Otherwise, I felt people were cordial and enthusiastic though questions could have been shorter and 'comments' kept to shorter length.

Jon Minton (DEMOS Think tank)

I don't think it's ever possible to be truly 'unbiased', but I'll try as best as I can.

I found the event interesting and lively. However, I'm not sure it qualified as a 'debate', as I would understand the term, for the following reason:

As I understand it, in order for there to be a debate about a particular issue, there generally needs to be some prior consensus about a lot of background issues, which frame the ideas, aims and objectives of the current issue being debated. Debates are generally about people disagreeing on how best to achieve a particular outcome (like how to get more 'morality', more 'equality', less crime and so on). This means that people having the debate have to first agree on what they want outcome they want achieved. They need to have broadly similar concerns and intents.

I got the feeling there wasn't enough similarity between these intents - the 'whats' - between Mr Goodhart and Mr Fombo in order for them to have a constructive debate on what needs to be done to make things better - as both Goodhart and Fombo had different ideas about what 'making things better' means.

For example, Goodhart seemed to be considering the idea of Muslim integration as a kind of 'social engineering problem'. Goodhart's idea of a 'good society' seemed to mean something like 'a society with a big administered welfare state, which gives money and services to poor people who need it most.' This was his 'intent', the outcome he wants to aim for.

'How do one get a big administered welfare state?', Goodhart seemed to have asked himself. He assumed that the answer to this is to have a society where most people support the idea of a welfare state.

Then he seems to have asked himself, 'How does one get most people to support a welfare state?' His answer here seems to have been that this depends on having lots of people who think money that goes towards helping people who are 'like us'.

For Goodhart, I thought, it really doesn't seem to matter what culture people adopt (as long as they accept basic principles of administered welfare) as long as most people, administered by the same government, have the same cultural value.

Therefore, for Goodhart, having a 'good society', meaning a society with a lot of welfare to help the poor, needs having a more culturally homogeneous population, where more people can feel that their money's going to causes they believe in.

I think Mr Fombo disagreed with almost all of these prior assumptions and intentions.

I got the impression Fombo, like most Muslims, believes that a big administered welfare system isn't a very high priority - Goodhart's first assumption - because Muslims are good, caring people who help the poor and give to charity directly, and only people from more selfish (and less 'moral') cultures need the government to help the poor on their behalf.

Then, Mr Fombo disagreed with Goodhart's assumption that it doesn't matter much what peoples values are, as long as most people in a culture have similar values, because, from an Islamic point of view there is one set of values that is better - more moral, just and fair - than all others: Islam. Furthermore, possibly because Fombo was used to moral values being framed as 'good and bad', 'superior and inferior', he seemed to assume that Goodhart was saying that, because Goodhart suggested that some parts of Islamic values are not fully compatible with Western liberal values, Islamic values are therefore 'worse' than Western values. I don't think Goodhart was trying to suggest this at all, even though this seemed to be what most people assumed.

Finally, Mr Fombo seemed to disagree with Goodhart's assumption that 'earthly' values and concerns, those of people living with a particular nation state, are more important than 'higher' values and concerns, those of loving one's God and doing one's duties to Him.

Without Mr Goodhart and Mr Fombo sharing any of these background assumptions - the need for an administered welfare state; the belief that there's not a one, 'true' set of values, just sets of values that are more and less like each other; and the assumption that 'earthy' concerns are much more important than 'spiritual' concerns - I don't think they had enough in common in order to have a 'higher level' debate about whether Muslim integration is a 'good' or 'bad' idea, and so didn't seem constructive in this respect. Perhaps the event could have been made into more of a debate if it were more carefully structured, and more careful questions were asked about what people's basic beliefs are: what 'justice', 'freedom', 'good' and so on all mean. Then one could work out which beliefs debaters hold in common, which beliefs are very similar but not quite the same, and which beliefs are completely different.

Only in areas where people share a lot of basic assumptions, I think, can they have constructive debate. I think looking for these areas of consensus, of largely shared agreement where people 'almost but don't quite' agree about something is really important. I think these are areas that one can have debates about; otherwise one just ends up with arguments and name-calling.

I hope this helps think through the broader issues surrounding the event last night, and provides some ideas on what kinds of issues might make good debates in the future - perhaps something more specific, like crime or gender relations, could be more fruitful a source of debate.