Graham Fuller: That’s a very probing question. First of all I’m glad you asked it because and I do mention in the book specifically my role or goal is not to suggest that all religion is used instrumentally or is designed to cover up political actions. One of the most, the most important role of religion in life is to provide inspiration a meaning, importance to our lives on this world and to try to understand the future and afterlife all of these things and certain values that society requires. So I’m vividly aware of this very important role of all religions and certainly including Islam in its personal aspect of faith and inspiration and all of these things that [indeed] [Sufism] or the [Glen] Organization itself is attempting to emphasize. But the book is about the political use of religion. And not even just… because the beginning part talks about the political use of Christianity in the early period and then how this was not unusual for it then to become part of an Islamic tradition as well. I think that’s the first real question that you pose here is whether I distinguish between political Islam and Islam purely as a religion? And yes I do and I’m not talking about Islam purely as a religion. Secondly on the question of state borders that’s a very interesting question. I mean I think you could argue that almost no religion maybe with the possible exception of Judaism. Almost no religion would say that it’s meant to be within specific borders. Hinduism is an unusual factor because it sort of is although even the Hindus have spread. But in essence, I think most religions are bigger than borders but as, as a student of western European history after so many conflicts at some point, they had to agree that religions would be limited to the states within which they were found and based. And that people would try to get along with each other as separate states.

I think Islam is still working on this and frankly I don’t see why you cannot be both. Islam of course is greater than ethnicity, its greater than any single state, so is Christianity. And so I think one can believe in that faith and its universality and the desire to see that spread the belief in that faith spread on a universal basis. But does that mean that it’s practical or desirable to dismantle existing states in the name of a great of a universal Islamic or Christian empire? I think in the days of the Ottoman Empire the ambassador or [IB] even those were limited to certain geographical areas. But it was in an era when religion was accepted as being perhaps the organizing principle for the I mean judging by the Eastern Orthodox which is the model for the Ottoman Empire in many ways it was religion was the organizing principle for that. So yeah, I think you can have it both ways but today as a practical issue you can’t really dissolve existing states but certainly increase cooperation on religious basis you can have. I’m also struck by this business of the [IB] faith because by now this is, that’s another Arabic word that everybody now knows. This word is used again sort of like Godzilla or some sort of terrifying thing that oh my God they want to [IB] what the worse thing could be said? Obviously the Muslim world had and felt the need for the office of [IB] from the beginning rose and fell as you know at different times. But it was a very significant institution at least the [IB] in various places including Istanbul spoke in the name, at least officially in the name as the highest Sunni authority. And when Turkey abolished the [IB] and I’ve gotten into trouble with Turks on saying this. When [IB] abolished the [IB] it may or may not have been good for Turkey but did he have a right to abolish an institution that affected every single Sunni Muslim in the world? And I likened this to the pope, excuse me to Salvador Berlusconi whatever his first name is getting up some morning and deciding that he is tired of the papacy and says that’s the end of the papacy and shuts it down.