'Taking Stock' refers to a political initiative of the Tory government of the day. As is the way of so much politics, that crucial topic of the day, what it was about, and whether it made any difference or not, has vanished into the mists of history in a very few short years.

It seems it is still a time for taking stock, assessing the things which unite us and those which divide, what we mean by statehood, who rules and who is ruled, who leads and who is led. Is it possible for one man to be objective in assessing the views of others? What questions does he ask of whom, and can he understand the answers?

Our understanding depends on our view of history, for example. Is it the story of workers or kings. Is it culturally bound? Do we always assign the greatest importance to what is closest to home? How big is the world we include in our boundaries, and do we really consider the opinions of our neighbours when forming our opinion of ourselves?

Our view of history depends on our world view, our understanding of mankind, and our place in the Universe. As a muslim, my view is quite possibly very different from yours, but I wonder if you see its strangeness as something that makes it more or less useful to our society.

Nowadays, one hears much talk of muslim states, but muslim history is not of states but of a religious attitude which expresses itself in the culture of the community. A community which muslims understand to have existed since Adam, and following the teaching of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, not just the community that followed Muhammad.

What non-muslims think of as the Muslim Empire is often compared to the Roman Empire though they have almost nothing in common. Roman civilisation wasn't based on universal moral values, Roman justice was only justice for the romans. Their culture was based on a search for comfort and material wealth, indulgence of individual desires and passions, and a will to Power for it's own sake. It was also a racist society, thinking of all outside its borders as barbarians.

It took 1,000 years to grow to apparent strength and then collapsed in less than 100 years, the way of all unjust societies. The Muslim Empire, however, in quite the opposite fashion, spread from Spain to China in 80 years and then lasted for centuries. How could a civilisation grow so rapidly and remain stable? It can't be done by coercion. You can't control an unwilling populace with overstretched military resources.

As a muslim I understand the motives behind that rapid expansion to have been quite different. That early muslim empire was based on a religious ideal, armies were not allowed to capture and own land, the fight was for justice for all, the establishment of moral values in society, and freedom of worship. The quest was for knowledge and communication of truth. With their thirst for knowledge, science flourished, and yet strangely enough the things that have objective truth can't be proved and require faith. God exists. Death is not the end of life.

Unfortunately, as in ancient times, so in history and today, the message can sometimes be hard to see in the community that calls itself muslim. Still, when taking stock, do you think the culture that rules you is more Roman or more Islamic, and can you understand why I say that the latter is the one that I would prefer?