The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been interpreted by some to defend minority rights and promote a progressive view of society. Other Canadians view the Charter as a threat to traditional values and see it as enabling a left wing, secular agenda.

As I understand the Charter, it is less about group solidarity or a litmus test of what it means to be Canadian, and more about the importance of individuality as it relates to the greater question of nationhood. The chief architect of the Charter, Pierre Trudeau, made it very clear that freedom of the individual was integral to the sense of nationhood ...

"National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one's own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions."

Every democracy worth its salt has to allow for diversity. Not merely diversity of the group, but also diversity among individuals.

There is a large Muslim community in Canada, and many of its number are engaged in a struggle to reconcile traditional Islamic customs and values with the pluralistic society that is modern day Canada. We hear a lot about global jihad - the struggle of Muslim militants to defend traditional priorities based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qu'ran. We hear less about the internal struggle that goes on in the hearts and minds of Muslims living in the West.

The Arabic term "ijtihad" comes from the same root as jihad. Both terms derive from "jahada" meaning "struggle". In the case of ijtihad the emphasis is less upon a struggle against an outward enemy, and more about an internal struggle with self. It is also about critical thinking, and the exercise of interpreting Islamic law.

Some conservative imams argue that a Muslim must have requisite legal training in Islamic law before presuming to perform ijtihad. More liberal minded Muslims disagree and argue that any Muslim can perform ijtihad since unlike the Roman Catholic church for example, there is no overarching hierarchy of clerical authority in Islam that is recognized by all Muslims.

Some conservatives also argue that Sunni Islam officially banned the exercise of ijtihad in the tenth century, and closed down schools that practiced it. There is some truth in this since during this period the caliphate was under great political and military pressure. As a result there was a reversion to more dogmatic and conservative thinking. However it is incorrect to assert that ijtihad was completely eliminated - in fact a number of schools and scholars continued to work within this tradition.

The right to ijtihad was asserted by many Islamic authors who claimed that the gates of ijtihad, cannot and should not be closed. Among their number are such notable scholars as Muhammad Abduh and Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. One of the most interesting writers on ijtihad is Muhammad ibn Ali al-Sanusi (1787-1859), a North African scholar, whose writings went on to influence reformers.

In Canada, the writer and activist, Irshad Manji, started a "Project Ijtihad" in an effort to promote reform within Islam. She describes it as an attempt to challenge authoritarianism in order to initiate a spirit of critical inquiry. Manji's reformist vision also influences how she views the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She challenges the solidarity crowd with her defense of individuality - both within the context of the Charter and her more progressive vision of Islam.

She makes the assertion that the fact of being a member of a group, does not and should not diminish one's individuality. Taking it further, she makes the critically important point that "the universality of human rights is premised on the dignity of the individual, not the sanctity of culture".

The danger with sanctifying culture is that it becomes a sacred cow and has the effect of silencing diversity of thought and opinion. Secular and "progressive" groups are as guilty of this tendency as Islamists. In both cases individuals are sacrificed on the alter of group priorities, if the individual in question veers from the communal doctrine. In some cases this gets close to a form of cultural fascism and should never be allowed to take precedence over individual rights.

Manji also offers the following insight ... "we must lose the false -- and dangerous -- assumption that just because human beings are born equal, cultures are too. Cultures aren't born. They're constructed".

The very essence of what it means to be civilized, has to do with respecting the individuality and uniqueness of the other. When group priorities of any sort result in individuals being stigmatized, oppressed and even killed for the offense of diverging from group consensus, then the integrity of such a culture has to be called into question.

The social complexity of our societies makes working together a challenge, but it is one that is well worth taking on.