Unman Khan and some light on the issue

I wouldn't give them a chance. Lock 'em all up and throw away the key.

I don't think that Mr Merritt can expect to have any influence over UK laws, present or future. Sad as the whole affair is, I think he would do better staying out of the politics of it.

Grannylyn's post was rather random. I couldn't get the gist of it. Sorry Grannylyn.

I thought it was reported on the news that Khan was considered a public security risk and that he should have not been allowed to travel without an escort, which is what happened a year ago.

The rules are in place but they were not applied.

can anyone here explain just what a deradicalization program would be?

I honestly don't believe it is possible without an invasive measure like meds or lobotamy.

How on earth can you talk a person out of such impassioned beliefs?

Apparently he refused to go on one when first in prison.

pinkquartz there are a nmber of extremists who have re-thought their beliefs. They are a resource the government should be using.

Again how can you make a person restructure their beliefs?
If an individual makes a choice to change that is totally different.
Though this person Khan claimed to have done so.....he lied.

So Trisher I don't understand how anyone can be deradicalized unless they change because they want to?

And also how could a person be a resource to use?
It doesn't make any sense......If you have seen these guys they really believe what they believe. How can anyone make them change?

Why does Corbyn refer to ‘terrorists’ but members of the IRA
who were sentenced for murder - ‘political prisoners

pinkquartz if as you suggest nothing can be done then the future is bleak. There is evidence that prisons have large numbers of prisoners radicalised during their stay so long prison sentences would only add to this.

The country with the most successful deradicalisation programme is Saudi Arabia. Their system is based on long discussions with highly scholarly Imams who know and understand Islam far better than any extremist, whose understanding of their religion is often very limited.

I am not naive, I am well aware of the human rights, or rather lack of human rights in Saudi and the brutality of the police and security services. But those who know their deradicalisation programme beleive it is on the right lines.

I do think that any deradicalisation programme needs to be built around the faith that these people profess and their understanding of it and this can only be addressed by learned members of that faith who can talk to them and educate them on the real meaning of Islam and the way of life it advocates.

We take a too secular approach to deradicalisation and the system is, I think, institutionally suspicious of any one with Islamic beliefs being involved in it. But I do not see how you can help these people unless you can understand the way that religion is their whole life and if they are to change it must be within the context of their faith.

I wouldn't beleive a word the Saudis said about deradicalisation. They are after all the peole who funded Isis. Perhaps what they do is ship out anyone who stays radical.

The Saudi deradicalisation programme has been visited by outside observers, and I do agree, trisher that they are vile.

But I do think they are on the right track, whether they practice what they preach or not. Deradicalisation is best addressed through their religious beliefs and Imams and others who can discuss the Koran and its teachings with them.

As I understand it deradicalisation in this country is much more secular in approach. We need to change how they think and this has to be done by accepting their religious beliefs, and then changing their mindset and this can only done by those who share their islamic faith, but are far more learned in it than they are.

Monica

I think that idea is dangerous in fact. (S.Arabian imams)
They might easily make the men feel even more strongly to repress women's rights as just one example.
Say we have to cover up and so on.
because that is what they believe in. How would that help a man living in Europe?

Wahibi religion is far stricter than most of Islam and they are very hardcore.

In what measure are they more successful in deradicalization?

because their knowledge of the Koran is respected and they can explain that attacking innocents is totally haram- and will not lead to paradise- but the opposite.

In the meantime, a real scandal is brewing about the decision, since 2017 (therefore clearly by the Tory Government) to release 10s of 1000s of violent and dangerous criminals, without putting any restrictions on them at all, to save money and due to overcrowding in prisons. Johnson and Patel are trying to keep a lit on it by... blaming corbyn of course- but it won't wash ...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50563533

More than 93,000 suspected violent criminals and sex offenders have been released without restrictions by police in England and Wales since 2017, figures obtained by BBC Newsnight show.

People suspected of offences including rape and murder have been among those "Released Under Investigation" (RUI).

Richard Miller of the Law Society said a "major scandal" was brewing over the way RUIs are being used.

Fantastic, grannylyn65. Well done.

Rehabilitation is not a simple matter.
I don't know the specifcs of the programme that was used in its case but it obviously can't be assessed (other than academically) until it's been used for a while.

Regarding security at the venue - this was a rehabilitation meeting of some sort. Why would that need more security than a political or religious meeting?

Finally, today I heard an ex-offender on the radio talking about how his mind was changed by education - getting to know his faith better through discussion with religious scholars. As I understand it, this is a cornerstone of the programme they were using here. Let's not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.... though I know some will "learn what to say", those who are genuinely changed are the programmes best advocates.

"because their knowledge of the Koran is respected and they can explain that attacking innocents is totally haram- and will not lead to paradise- but the opposite."

If this is true then why wasn't this being used on Khan?
If it works then why not use? He was on a rehabilitation course when he carried out the violence and murder. he lied.
This worries me.
It sounds simple to correct their knowledge via learned scholar imams. It should be done then.

I think the problem is that this method is being used in Saudi Arabia, a country with a very poor human rights record. The people in Saudi are then released into Saudi society, which is a country which espouses a very conservative form of Islam that is easier for them to conform to.

The other reason is that this terrorism arises from religious extremism. It also arises from the dislocation of many young men, often refugees, or from refugee families caught between two cultures, the home (family or national) culture and the wider societal culture found in Western Europe and the USA. I think there is a natural fear that if studying their religion, albeit a distorted version, turned them terrorist, a education in the true meaning might just conversely deepen their faith and their radicalism.

The other thing is that they then need to live in a society that is so radically different from one lived in a country where Islam is the religion and culture. The aspects of our society that we see as freedom - they see as license.

By that I mean things like the freedom of women to make their own lives and careers away from their family. The control they have over their own bodies, the secular nature of our society.

There is no simple answer to this complex problem. But I think in this country we cannot rehabilitate Islamic terrorists (terrorists for other causes will have different motivations) without doing it within an Islamic context, brought to them by people who they can relate to and can also help them, as Muslims, to be able to live their religion in this society, that is so different to much that they are used to, either within their family or geographic background.

"The other thing is that they then need to live in a society that is so radically different from one lived in a country where Islam is the religion and culture. The aspects of our society that we see as freedom - they see as license.:

yes and this is the other reason why I think it will never be possible to deradicalize.

I put in a post above that S Arabia has the Wahibi version of Islam which is super and hard core. It must be much easier to live there if you are a Muslim because your belief system is supported by the culture.

We don't want to change our society so what is the answer?

I don't think there is a solution. Religion is so dangerous.
And Islam doesn't even allow discussion.

If however the individual wanted to change then it can happen.

I am curious to know what other Muslims believe about this....but I have not seen it discussed anywhere.

pinkquartz, many, possibly the majority of Muslims do not share the very strict version of Islam promulgated by Saudi Arabia. Like any religion there are a wide range of approaches to it and there are extremists and liberals. Many Muslims would be prosecuted in Saudi Arabia because they do not share that countries conservative interpretation of Islam.

I also think you are wrong to say that Islam doesn't allow discussion, of course it does, otherwise why does it have all its different groups and beliefs?

Every religion has many versions. I am a catholic brought up in England and I can remember reading about all the rules and edicts coming out of Irish bishops when I was much younger. The Irish church was to catholicism what the Wahabi clerics in Saudi, are to Islam, but a bit more right wing, and I use to be so thankful that my Irish grandparents had had the sense to emmigrate to England where the Hierarchy were, as a whole to the left of the irish church. Other religions - Jews, Hindus all have these wide diverging wings from left to right.

Monica

The wars in the ME are possibly proof of the lack of discussion....IMO
plus your own words " Many Muslims would be prosecuted in Saudi Arabia because they do not share that countries conservative interpretation of Islam."

They have different outlooks, cultures and beliefs in the same way that Buddhism changed with each country that adopted it.
Zen in Japan was nothing like Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet.

Wasn't a lot of the trouble in different ME countries because of differences between Kurds, Shi'ite and Sunni.? I expect there are more than that. All Muslims but still fighting each other.

I am not meaning to argue just explore what the Govt might be doing for de-radicalisation.
It is important that the issues are faced and that we don't have more people killed while trying to help with rehabilitation.

I am worried that the Govt isn't really doing anything positive.

Also when I mention discussion I also meant that debating is a formal part of some religions but many of the Muslims are taught Islam in Madressa's where the children and young are repeating extracts of the Koran over and over. I think it is a robotic way of learning that drives the info deep, rather like the way we were taught times tables.

I do hope that there are some people involved in helping these people to be de-radicalised.

pinkquartz I would respectfully point out that the Kurds are not a branch of Islam, they are a separate ethnic group, their territory is divided up between Turkey, Iran and Iraq and their fight is for national independence, not for any set of specific religious beliefs.

I am confused. You said And Islam doesn't even allow discussion. But it does, how else were these different branches of Islam developed if there hadn't been discussion followed by disagreement?

Are you suggesting that if two countries go to war and happen to share a similar religious background it is because their religion discourages discussion. How would you explain the two world wars where the main countries involved were all Christian?