When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Your instinct for a fair justice system is a good one. But in this case we have a radicalised religious movement which is dedicated to death and destruction. It is a death cult. It is not political in any real way, it has no realisable political aims or objectives, which even the IRA had and they were interned without trial.
They are effectively enemy soldiers who want to kill us. That is what makes it acceptable for them to be shot during their attacks and locked up until they can prove they are no longer a threat. That may be a very long time.
That would require people to completely denounce their beliefs, and that isn't going to happen as they'd then become apostates.
Someone remind me again what the punishment is for apostasy....
It's very hard to logic out something that wasn't logiced in as well! I can't even begin to understand how you would deradicalise a religious nut, but it would probably have to begin with more religion that was slightly less murderous.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Your instinct for a fair justice system is a good one. But in this case we have a radicalised religious movement which is dedicated to death and destruction. It is a death cult. It is not political in any real way, it has no realisable political aims or objectives, which even the IRA had and they were interned without trial.
They are effectively enemy soldiers who want to kill us. That is what makes it acceptable for them to be shot during their attacks and locked up until they can prove they are no longer a threat. That may be a very long time.
That would require people to completely denounce their beliefs, and that isn't going to happen as they'd then become apostates.
Someone remind me again what the punishment is for apostasy....
It's very hard to logic out something that wasn't logiced in as well! I can't even begin to understand how you would deradicalise a religious nut, but it would probably have to begin with more religion that was slightly less murderous.
There are deradicalised islamists who work in the community to stop indoctrination so it can be done. I saw one on the TV the other day and these people are good weapons to have in the war on terror as young impressionable kids can empathise with them.
There are deradicalised islamists who work in the community to stop indoctrination so it can be done. I saw one on the TV the other day and these people are good weapons to have in the war on terror as young impressionable kids can empathise with them.
Absolutely it can be done. However, that's on a very small scale.
I listen to Majid Nawaz on LBC very often and it's astounding how many religious people call in and set their stall out by claiming to be liberal, but then go on a defensive rant against Nawaz for daring to call out barbaric aspects of a religion. Aspects that directly feed in to the radicalisation process. I'm also not sure I've ever heard a straight answer to a question about lawful killings that are directed by a book. Everyone refuses to acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is a shame as it would certainly help debate move forward. Instead we have this walking on hot coals approach.
I think a few people here could benefit from actually reading the Quran. Have a look at what it says and remember that in Islam it is viewed as an instruction manual for the believer, and Muhammad is viewed as an unimpeachable being. Check out what he got up to, it may open your eyes.
Unlike the Old Testament, which reads much the same, it has not been superseded by the appearance of another prophet, leading to a new instruction manual for Christians i.e the New Testament. Jesus wasn't the murdering type, it's fair to say.
Of course, the majority of Muslims choose not to follow their faith by the book, but a significant number do. You can choose to ignore this, or we can have a grown up conversation about how we deal with a growing population at odds with modern, secular, liberal values.
Having seen the website and headline linked here, I had to dive in and read the full report. I'm not surprised that Policy Exchange were the instigators behind this study, though I'm glad that Khalid Mahmood (who I believe was the first Muslim MP in England) was one of the authors.
Having read the summary when it comes to Sharia law, I find it very - shall we say - interesting that the secularism.org.uk headline and opening sentence says "significant support for Sharia" without ALSO qualifying that - as the paper says - "the nature of that support is quite 'soft'".
I could be wrong, but I would surmise that a "significant proportion" of non-Muslim people, when asked what Sharia law is, would conjure up images of cutting hands off for stealing, or stoning adulterers to death et al. So I would be intrigued to find out whether there was any particular motive for the way this study was conducted, or what the beliefs of those funding/conducting it are.
Another very interesting thing in that study: It is clear that the more religious character and general social conservatism of British Muslim communities, does not detract from the essentially secular character of most Muslim lifestyles. In terms of their everyday concerns and priorities, British Muslims answer no differently from their non-Muslim neighbours.
I could be wrong, but maybe this contradicts @bigstemarra and his assertion that we have a "growing population at odds with modern, secular, liberal values". But then maybe I've not read things correctly.
So maybe certain news outlets choose to frame things in certain ways because - well, I don't think most people would do what I've just done, would they? (Though credit to a link to the study being provided in the first place.) Maybe there was an inherent bias behind this article and maybe there was not. But yeah. I think the way Islam is portrayed and thus perceived in the UK is wholly inaccurate so people can be scaremongered into thinking "lock them up and throw away the key". I'll give some thoughts on the actual Streatham incident later though, because I'm still concerned about how they were released and the nature of their surveillance for various reasons.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Too f*cking right.
Anyone considered a danger to the public should be removed from the society to which they present a danger. Call it prison if you like.
Firstly, a very thought provoking and well penned post.
The bit I'd like to pick your brains on is the bit where you've said:
"I think the way Islam is portrayed and thus perceived in the UK is wholly inaccurate so people can be scaremongered into thinking "lock them up and throw away the key"."
Would you agree that the best way to understand Islam in societies in general would be to look at all of the actual Islamic countries around the world and see how Islam works there? Genuine question as I know I'll get a sensible reply from you, without alluding to fishing or other such nonsense.
I lived in Saudi Arabia for 2 years and have seen the very best and (some of the worst)of the Islamic faith as well as being brought up in the perverse and twisted catholic doctrine myself; but my point being religion of all creeds oppress and narrow the mind and is used to artfully oppress the mind of others who therein defend it to the hilt in a perverse Stockholm syndrome style continuum.
Nothing against religious people of most "normal" faiths (ie scientologists can do one) and the vast majority of all creeds are good decent humans in the main of course but the whole specrtrum of abrahamic ideology and doctrines have no place in modern, progressive, liberal societies bar maintaining cultural traditions and adopting good values that are common across most of them.
But there needs desperately to be another enlightenment period. It is still used to placate the abused and oppressed in large parts of the world and used in the west to maintain discrimination, bigotry and inequality not to mention the indoctrination and physical mutilation of children in many historic and barbaric religious s and cultural practices.
Surely it is time now for progressive politicians to push that message to the forefront of the agenda. Although judging by how few American senates will declare anything but devout adoration for god and atheism appears (from afar) to be tantamount to communism in terms of appeal to the majority American electorate it surely won't happen this century unfortunately.
Muttley: I agree with your conclusions, but pointing out the religious slaughter in Europe in the middle ages is missing the central point and does not negate it. Following said slaughter, the peoples of Europe generally reached an agreement that we were no longer going to live in a society along the lines of religious bigotry.....hence 'the enlightenment'. Islam has not only had no superceding prophet preaching a more tolerant approach (as I pointed out), but it has also not had a philosophical revolution where people binned superstition and allowed science and the arts to flourish in order to achieve a better society. This has demonstrably not happened in Islam; hence most Islamic countries are backward in terms of human rights etc.
However, the main point is that you can't use the New Testament as an excuse for violence against non-believers. The Quran, on the other not only excuses violence; it actively outlines the duty of believers to do just that. That is what 'jihad' is.
You also said 'People who take these things literally or interpret them to their own ends are the issue and it is wrong to attack the religion IMO'. I disagree on a subtle point here. No religion or belief should be beyond criticism; that was the point of the enlightenment and the point of free speech. However, this has increasingly been worn down over the years, not least because prominent critics of Islam tend to end up dead.
Paddy: I made the point that it wasn't all Muslims. However, I picked one survey and there are many more. I worked for ten years in the most Islamic place in the UK (by % inhabitants) and it changed my opinion greatly. I don't want to go into all the horrors therein otherwise I would be here all night. We accept there is a sizeable minority of extremists. It is also true that the muslim population in the UK has and is growing rapidly (source: Wikepedia):
Put the two together and you have an increasing, not decreasing problem (it is the norm in many Muslim families to have large amounts of children as compared to the population in general, for instance). I see that you are looking for bias. I picked the first example I could find from a source that people wouldn't accuse of being the Daily Mail, but there are many others to choose from. In my own experience, I think that where the Muslims have emigrated from is significant in this. e.g Those from Turkey are unlikely to hold strict Islamic views and, indeed, be quite westernised, but those from Pakistan (particularly e.g Mirpur) are much more likely to; not least because they are highly likely to instigate a parallel religious education at madrassas (where extremist bigots, and frankly, nutters are not hard to find, given what those who have attended them have told me they have been taught) alongside their secular, state education.
At the end of the day, it will continue to happen, because we have allowed it to happen. The time to stand up against this hateful nonsense was the Salman Rushdie affair, but establishment cowardice and a general failure to defend the values of our secular liberal society has taken its toll and we are reaping the dividends of that. Too late now - the genie is out of the bottle.
Sorry to be so depressing...back to the football chat.
It is down to individuals at the end of the day. I recall my son asking me if I believed in God and I told him that I didn't yet because I haven't seen enough evidence, but that shouldn't influence his position. I told him to look at all the information he could and make his own decision. He later told me that he didn't and I told him to always look at the evidence and if you change your mind, that is fine. It is his choice to make, not mine. I feel strongly about that.
I can't see how a staunch believer is going to take a similar approach though. I hate the fact that there are faith schools and that I had to endure a religious assembly every day at my state Grammer School. What is telling is that if you are born in one country, you are more likely to belong to one religion and if you are born somewhere else another. This suggests that little or no reasoning goes into decisions to follow a religion and there is always an element of indoctrination.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Too f*cking right.
Anyone considered a danger to the public should be removed from the society to which they present a danger. Call it prison if you like.
So if someone, for example, posted on a public site that he'd like to have someone shot in the face, he should go to prison for the rest of his life?
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Too f*cking right.
Anyone considered a danger to the public should be removed from the society to which they present a danger. Call it prison if you like.
So if someone, for example, posted on a public site that he'd like to have someone shot in the face, he should go to prison for the rest of his life?
Straw man.
If someone attempted (or indeed succeeded) in shooting someone in the face and it was deemed he would still present a risk to society then YES.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Too f*cking right.
Anyone considered a danger to the public should be removed from the society to which they present a danger. Call it prison if you like.
So if someone, for example, posted on a public site that he'd like to have someone shot in the face, he should go to prison for the rest of his life?
Straw man.
If someone attempted (or indeed succeeded) in shooting someone in the face and it was deemed he would still present a risk to society then YES.
The point I was making (which I should have made clearer in my earlier post) was that there is a significant amount of nuance around the word "considered".
Who does the considering? On what criteria?
You could argue that someone threatening to shoot someone in the face poses a threat and therefore (under such a policy) should be imprisoned for life. (I disagree, for what it's worth).
Or you could argue that someone committing a violent crime (in the way you describe) should be detained while they continue to pose a threat. (I would agree).
However - and here's how it pertains to the situations this month and in November - I think the first example is too onerous and the second would not have made a difference in these cases. They didn't commit violent crimes before being imprisoned; but did so later. And therefore wouldn't meet the criterion you set out.
If someone is a risk to the public, then they should not be free. But permanent, unending, extra-judicial detainment can't be on the basis that someone like you or I consider that they might be a threat.
Bad cases make bad law. It's important that there's a carefully thought out, sustainable and legal means to help prevent incidents like yesterday and in November.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Too f*cking right.
Anyone considered a danger to the public should be removed from the society to which they present a danger. Call it prison if you like.
So if someone, for example, posted on a public site that he'd like to have someone shot in the face, he should go to prison for the rest of his life?
Straw man.
If someone attempted (or indeed succeeded) in shooting someone in the face and it was deemed he would still present a risk to society then YES.
The point I was making (which I should have made clearer in my earlier post) was that there is a significant amount of nuance around the word "considered".
Who does the considering? On what criteria?
You could argue that someone threatening to shoot someone in the face poses a threat and therefore (under such a policy) should be imprisoned for life. (I disagree, for what it's worth).
Or you could argue that someone committing a violent crime (in the way you describe) should be detained while they continue to pose a threat. (I would agree).
However - and here's how it pertains to the situations this month and in November - I think the first example is too onerous and the second would not have made a difference in these cases. They didn't commit violent crimes before being imprisoned; but did so later. And therefore wouldn't meet the criterion you set out.
If someone is a risk to the public, then they should not be free. But permanent, unending, extra-judicial detainment can't be on the basis that someone like you or I consider that they might be a threat.
Bad cases make bad law. It's important that there's a carefully thought out, sustainable and legal means to help prevent incidents like yesterday and in November.
With yesterday's incident it was clear that on release he continued to pose a risk, hence he was under surveillance. It would have been easy to monitor his activity if you were looking through iron bars.
Still, he got what he deserved - one less evil scum stealing decent peoples' oxygen.
the attacker was being followed everywhere by an armed undercover police team .. this after only a few months in prison .. how many other dangerous actual and potential terrorists are being followed everywhere 24/365 by highly trained, probably elite policemen. How many cops nationwide are dedicated to following these bums around at great expense in cash and resources .. anyone convicted of terrorism is a traitor and after a long term in prison should be stripped of their British nationality, if they have it and then deported. I don't care if they were born here and their family has been living here since 3000 BC, there are plenty of desert islands needing repopulating, Australia is a good example
It is down to individuals at the end of the day. I recall my son asking me if I believed in God and I told him that I didn't yet because I haven't seen enough evidence, but that shouldn't influence his position. I told him to look at all the information he could and make his own decision. He later told me that he didn't and I told him to always look at the evidence and if you change your mind, that is fine. It is his choice to make, not mine. I feel strongly about that.
I can't see how a staunch believer is going to take a similar approach though. I hate the fact that there are faith schools and that I had to endure a religious assembly every day at my state Grammer School. What is telling is that if you are born in one country, you are more likely to belong to one religion and if you are born somewhere else another. This suggests that little or no reasoning goes into decisions to follow a religion and there is always an element of indoctrination.
Absolutely agree. Either we are serious about integration, or we aren't. Separating children on the basis of their (parents') religion belongs in a previous century IMHO. Look at efforts to integrate the Catholic and Protestant communities in NI by introducing 'mixed' schools; it has led to definite progress in growing the peace there.
And what you are displaying here, Muttley, is tolerance of others' choices in life. The trouble with religious bigots is that they are simply not able to do so because it contradicts their holy book of choice, which is infallible in their eyes. Now I have no problem with anyone's faith as long as they do not seek to impose it on others....each to their own and all that. However, when they demand that other people live by their rules, then you have a problem and when they are prepared to use violence to achieve that end, then you have a very big problem.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
Surely they were following him because he was acting suspiciously.
There are deradicalised islamists who work in the community to stop indoctrination so it can be done. I saw one on the TV the other day and these people are good weapons to have in the war on terror as young impressionable kids can empathise with them.
The problem is you only know if they have been deradicalised once they are dead and not re-offended
Someone who acts fine for years on release and then goes on a stabbing spree after being a sleeper would probably have been thought a successful proponent of the system up until he re-offended.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
Surely they were following him because he was acting suspiciously.
Just had a read through. Chizz supporting terrorists over the poor people who were stabbed. Well to be fair he hasn't done it since the last atrocity.
I don't think he's done that at all. I think in answering a previous question as to whether the perpetrator's release was justified, he said yes, as it was in line with the law.
Is the law a flawed one? I think Chizz would likely agree that it is (after all, the Tories drew it up...! ) and that this was a despicable act carried out by a total wrong'un. But I don't think he's supporting terrorists. That is an unfair and mudslinging comparison. (And I say this as someone who certainly has differences with Chizz, as the cricket threads might show.)
Just had a read through. Chizz supporting terrorists over the poor people who were stabbed. Well to be fair he hasn't done it since the last atrocity.
I don't think he's done that at all. I think in answering a previous question as to whether the perpetrator's release was justified, he said yes, as it was in line with the law.
Is the law a flawed one? I think Chizz would likely agree that it is (after all, the Tories drew it up...! ) and that this was a despicable act carried out by a total wrong'un. But I don't think he's supporting terrorists. That is an unfair and mudslinging comparison. (And I say this as someone who certainly has differences with Chizz, as the cricket threads might show.)
The majority worked out his game a long time ago, even if you haven't.
Firstly, a very thought provoking and well penned post.
The bit I'd like to pick your brains on is the bit where you've said:
"I think the way Islam is portrayed and thus perceived in the UK is wholly inaccurate so people can be scaremongered into thinking "lock them up and throw away the key"."
Would you agree that the best way to understand Islam in societies in general would be to look at all of the actual Islamic countries around the world and see how Islam works there? Genuine question as I know I'll get a sensible reply from you, without alluding to fishing or other such nonsense.
Cheers BBW. Yeah, that's probably the main thing I've said that's potentially controversial especially as it's my own opinion.
I think your question has a flaw in using the phrase in general - not that it's an unfair thing to try and do, moreso that Saudi Arabia will be very different to Malaysia, or even Bahrain is different to Kuwait. I think that in trying to view religion through this sort of overview will lead to "but in Saudi Arabia, X happens" with the potential for the unsaid half a sentence to be "so that's how I perceive Islam when used as a basis for law/societal norms".
I also think that seeing Islam solely as a "majority" culture (and I use that word deliberately, much as a few hundred years ago going to church was a crucial component of culture in the UK, similar to how sharia law works) takes away from how, certainly in the West, the religion/believers adapt to a largely secular day-to-day life. So the study above, which I will read in more depth when I have time, is likely in many ways a good thing (even if one could potentially question its motives or any inherent bias in questions etc).
That said, I think it is very useful to go back to the Quran itself as a text, and how fundamentalist Muslims (as I would say all these perpetrators are) view it. There's a really, REALLY good Reddit post which I've copied and pasted below. The whole thing is incredibly important and well worth reading - because I think this probably touches upon another flaw in both what I've said and what you continue (i.e. referring to "Islam" as one singular thing):
I study Islam academically and I think I can answer this for you. As a preface, I'm one of the people who is disgusted at the anti-Muslim rhetoric out there. I can't go on /r/worldnews anymore because it's full of idiots who know nothing about the religion and nothing about Islamic politics. I could talk all day about why they're wrong, but this is not the place.
It is wrong to say "ISIS are not Muslims" and it is extremely unhelpful to separate them from the religion. My tutor actually has spoken on national TV and written articles about this exact topic. He is a Shi'a Muslim and an academic, and he argues - quite correctly I think - that if you ignore the religious roots of the group then you cannot possible grasp the problem. Because their ideology, their beliefs and their objectives, are entirely religious. They fit within a framework that is Islamic (albeit a distinct brand of fundamental Islam) and their justifications are entirely theological.
If you disassociate them from Islam, then you have to explain their motives and actions by completely different terms. This is something you hear a lot: 'They just don't know how great Western culture is'. 'They are poor and marginalised so turn to violence.' 'They are responding to the US occupation of Iraq.' 'They are responding to European colonialism.' 'It is all about oil'. So on and so forth.
Some of those things have elements of truth - marginalisation, poverty and retribution certainly are causes as well. Yet the biggest cause, above anything else, is their religious belief. If you are an atheist like me, you can only truly understand this by imagining how you would see the world if you were a fundamentalist Muslim.
Once you do that, (and it requires a basic understanding of fundamental Islam that I don't have time to write here), then it all makes sense. It works the same for if you imagine you were a fundamental Christian - this might be easier to imagine.
If I believed that the world was going to end and I had to obey the law of the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity in order to reach eternal paradise, I'd do whatever the hell was needed to get on his good side. If that means killing people, why wouldn't I? This world is just a temporary, physical one. It's worth it for infinity in paradise. And they are non-believers anyway, they know nothing.
If that is how you see the world and that is how you understand it, then these acts of violence make sense. The whole Islamic State makes sense.
Where it gets extremely tricky and sensitive is how non-fundamentalist Muslims fit into the picture. The same for non-fundamentalist Christians, or Jews. Because the fundamentalists would argue, and in a way I agree with them, that the beliefs of these people are so far removed from the original message and meaning of the religion that they are not truly Muslims, or Christians or Jews. In order to achieve a form of Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism that is acceptable to 'Western society', you have to reshape and twist the doctrine of that religion SO MUCH that it can start to not make sense at all.
Christianity is the perfect example. I live in Britain, which is a former Christian, now secular country. The majority of people are atheist - the Church has lost most of its power and influence. I think that this happened because the Church in this country was forced to adapt to the new ideals that came out of the Enlightenment. By doing so, over a long period of time, the doctrine of Christianity became so divorced from its scripture that it stopped making sense. As a schoolchild, I was made to go to church twice a week. The priest would tell us that Christianity preaches equality, freedom and love for everybody, including people from other faiths. But then we would go and read the Bible, and it didn't have that message at all. It told us to commit genocide on people of other faiths. It was violent, and brutal, and had so many historical problems with it that it was hard to believe. The religion didn't make logical sense any more. The result of this was a generation of people turning away from Christianity, and now you have a secular Britain.
To a much more limited extent, the same is happening to Muslims in Western countries. Many of my friends are Muslim. Yet they don't pray 5 times a day. They don't have multiple wives. They follow our legal system, not shari'a (there are a lot of misconceptions about shari'a, but that's another story). Why? Because this is how they had to adapt their religion in order for it to fit within a Western framework.
So many of them would read the Qur'an and the Hadith collections and realise how far removed they were from the fundamentals of the religion. Western Islam has to reinterpret and abstract the scripture so much in order to remodel the religion as acceptable to post-Enlightenment ideals, that it no longer makes sense to a lot of Muslims. Many turn away from religion entirely and become atheist. But many go the other way, and begin to follow the scripture fundamentally. These are the ones who, in the west, turn to groups like ISIS. are more likely to turn to extremism and violence (although this not always the case).
That is why it is unhelpful to say these terrorists are not Muslim. If you do so, you cannot discover any of what I have just said. You limit your understanding, and you actually make it easier for the discourse to become 'us vs. them', rather than peaceful and loving as it should be.
I hope that helps, I don't normally write these sorts of things on Reddit because nobody on /r/worldnews is intelligent enough to grasp concepts beyond "us and them", "Muslims r bad". I would truly suggest learning about Islam - we in the West are disgustingly under-educated. I don't know everything, but having learned the theological and political history of Islam and the Middle East, I am constantly frustrated at how little people know and how uneducated their opinions are. It has a beautiful and rich history, and there are misunderstandings and misconceptions around every corner.
TL;DR: Those who disassociate ISIS from Islam and say they are not Muslims are wrong, and this argument makes it impossible to truly understand their motives and objectives. However, the other side, which argues that all Muslims share these motives and objectives, are also wrong. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Fundamental Islam IS incompatible with Western-style liberal democratic society. But so is fundamental Christianity - that is why much of Europe has turned away from the Church and towards secularism. It is not just Islam. It is all of these religions, with severely outdated doctrines and dogmas, that are incompatible.
--------------------
I'm sorry for the absolutely massive post, but it's thoroughly interesting and I really recommend everyone read it for a true insight into why terrorist acts can take place. It's also crucial to remember that terrorists by and large all follow - as said above - a distinct brand of fundamental Islam, and that these acts aren't representative of Islam as a whole.
Muttley: I agree with your conclusions, but pointing out the religious slaughter in Europe in the middle ages is missing the central point and does not negate it. Following said slaughter, the peoples of Europe generally reached an agreement that we were no longer going to live in a society along the lines of religious bigotry.....hence 'the enlightenment'. Islam has not only had no superceding prophet preaching a more tolerant approach (as I pointed out), but it has also not had a philosophical revolution where people binned superstition and allowed science and the arts to flourish in order to achieve a better society. This has demonstrably not happened in Islam; hence most Islamic countries are backward in terms of human rights etc.
However, the main point is that you can't use the New Testament as an excuse for violence against non-believers. The Quran, on the other not only excuses violence; it actively outlines the duty of believers to do just that. That is what 'jihad' is.
You also said 'People who take these things literally or interpret them to their own ends are the issue and it is wrong to attack the religion IMO'. I disagree on a subtle point here. No religion or belief should be beyond criticism; that was the point of the enlightenment and the point of free speech. However, this has increasingly been worn down over the years, not least because prominent critics of Islam tend to end up dead.
Paddy: I made the point that it wasn't all Muslims. However, I picked one survey and there are many more. I worked for ten years in the most Islamic place in the UK (by % inhabitants) and it changed my opinion greatly. I don't want to go into all the horrors therein otherwise I would be here all night. We accept there is a sizeable minority of extremists. It is also true that the muslim population in the UK has and is growing rapidly (source: Wikepedia):
Put the two together and you have an increasing, not decreasing problem (it is the norm in many Muslim families to have large amounts of children as compared to the population in general, for instance). I see that you are looking for bias. I picked the first example I could find from a source that people wouldn't accuse of being the Daily Mail, but there are many others to choose from. In my own experience, I think that where the Muslims have emigrated from is significant in this. e.g Those from Turkey are unlikely to hold strict Islamic views and, indeed, be quite westernised, but those from Pakistan (particularly e.g Mirpur) are much more likely to; not least because they are highly likely to instigate a parallel religious education at madrassas (where extremist bigots, and frankly, nutters are not hard to find, given what those who have attended them have told me they have been taught) alongside their secular, state education.
At the end of the day, it will continue to happen, because we have allowed it to happen. The time to stand up against this hateful nonsense was the Salman Rushdie affair, but establishment cowardice and a general failure to defend the values of our secular liberal society has taken its toll and we are reaping the dividends of that. Too late now - the genie is out of the bottle.
Sorry to be so depressing...back to the football chat.
Thanks for your reply mate. It's very, very interesting. My first thought on your initial post was why offer an article that implies far wider support for sharia, while also acknowledging it wasn't all Muslims? I also didn't want to make it seem like you were saying it was, because you definitely weren't.
I don't think I disagree too much with what you have said: it's empirically true that we have a growing Muslim population, and therefore it's a completely reasonable assumption that this also means a growing number of extremists (though I have no idea on a figure or anything). Again, I'd also agree that country of origin is highly influential - just as I think you can't generalise Islam as a whole, you also have to acknowledge which countries might have emigrants more in line with stricter/fundamentalist interpretations of the religion.
That said, I'm not sure on whether I agree our society is necessarily secular: after all, the head of state is also the head of the church, and bishops sit in government by virtue of their position, for instance. Though I don't disagree that we've failed to act accordingly at many a turn.
But I suppose my main point is that studies and their interpretations often fuel polarising thinking (on all matters, not just religion/Islam), and we have to tread very cautiously and see how our views might be being coloured.
I really enjoyed your response though - thought-provoking and completely justified, if a little doom-and-gloom for me!
Just had a read through. Chizz supporting terrorists over the poor people who were stabbed. Well to be fair he hasn't done it since the last atrocity.
I don't think he's done that at all. I think in answering a previous question as to whether the perpetrator's release was justified, he said yes, as it was in line with the law.
Is the law a flawed one? I think Chizz would likely agree that it is (after all, the Tories drew it up...! ) and that this was a despicable act carried out by a total wrong'un. But I don't think he's supporting terrorists. That is an unfair and mudslinging comparison. (And I say this as someone who certainly has differences with Chizz, as the cricket threads might show.)
The majority worked out his game a long time ago, even if you haven't.
You are spot on covered, and supports the travelling community who go round beating up and stealing from old men and women...
Comments
I listen to Majid Nawaz on LBC very often and it's astounding how many religious people call in and set their stall out by claiming to be liberal, but then go on a defensive rant against Nawaz for daring to call out barbaric aspects of a religion. Aspects that directly feed in to the radicalisation process. I'm also not sure I've ever heard a straight answer to a question about lawful killings that are directed by a book. Everyone refuses to acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is a shame as it would certainly help debate move forward. Instead we have this walking on hot coals approach.
Having read the summary when it comes to Sharia law, I find it very - shall we say - interesting that the secularism.org.uk headline and opening sentence says "significant support for Sharia" without ALSO qualifying that - as the paper says - "the nature of that support is quite 'soft'".
The study can be found here: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/PEXJ5037_Muslim_Communities_FINAL.pdf
Another very interesting thing in that study: It is clear that the more religious character and general social conservatism of British Muslim communities, does not detract from the essentially secular character of most Muslim lifestyles. In terms of their everyday concerns and priorities, British Muslims answer no differently from their non-Muslim neighbours.
I could be wrong, but maybe this contradicts @bigstemarra and his assertion that we have a "growing population at odds with modern, secular, liberal values". But then maybe I've not read things correctly.
So maybe certain news outlets choose to frame things in certain ways because - well, I don't think most people would do what I've just done, would they? (Though credit to a link to the study being provided in the first place.) Maybe there was an inherent bias behind this article and maybe there was not.
But yeah. I think the way Islam is portrayed and thus perceived in the UK is wholly inaccurate so people can be scaremongered into thinking "lock them up and throw away the key".
I'll give some thoughts on the actual Streatham incident later though, because I'm still concerned about how they were released and the nature of their surveillance for various reasons.
Firstly, a very thought provoking and well penned post.
The bit I'd like to pick your brains on is the bit where you've said:
"I think the way Islam is portrayed and thus perceived in the UK is wholly inaccurate so people can be scaremongered into thinking "lock them up and throw away the key"."
Would you agree that the best way to understand Islam in societies in general would be to look at all of the actual Islamic countries around the world and see how Islam works there? Genuine question as I know I'll get a sensible reply from you, without alluding to fishing or other such nonsense.
Nothing against religious people of most "normal" faiths (ie scientologists can do one) and the vast majority of all creeds are good decent humans in the main of course but the whole specrtrum of abrahamic ideology and doctrines have no place in modern, progressive, liberal societies bar maintaining cultural traditions and adopting good values that are common across most of them.
But there needs desperately to be another enlightenment period. It is still used to placate the abused and oppressed in large parts of the world and used in the west to maintain discrimination, bigotry and inequality not to mention the indoctrination and physical mutilation of children in many historic and barbaric religious
s and cultural practices.
Surely it is time now for progressive politicians to push that message to the forefront of the agenda. Although judging by how few American senates will declare anything but devout adoration for god and atheism appears (from afar) to be tantamount to communism in terms of appeal to the majority American electorate it surely won't happen this century unfortunately.
Muttley: I agree with your conclusions, but pointing out the religious slaughter in Europe in the middle ages is missing the central point and does not negate it. Following said slaughter, the peoples of Europe generally reached an agreement that we were no longer going to live in a society along the lines of religious bigotry.....hence 'the enlightenment'. Islam has not only had no superceding prophet preaching a more tolerant approach (as I pointed out), but it has also not had a philosophical revolution where people binned superstition and allowed science and the arts to flourish in order to achieve a better society. This has demonstrably not happened in Islam; hence most Islamic countries are backward in terms of human rights etc.
However, the main point is that you can't use the New Testament as an excuse for violence against non-believers. The Quran, on the other not only excuses violence; it actively outlines the duty of believers to do just that. That is what 'jihad' is.
You also said 'People who take these things literally or interpret them to their own ends are the issue and it is wrong to attack the religion IMO'. I disagree on a subtle point here. No religion or belief should be beyond criticism; that was the point of the enlightenment and the point of free speech. However, this has increasingly been worn down over the years, not least because prominent critics of Islam tend to end up dead.
Paddy: I made the point that it wasn't all Muslims. However, I picked one survey and there are many more. I worked for ten years in the most Islamic place in the UK (by % inhabitants) and it changed my opinion greatly. I don't want to go into all the horrors therein otherwise I would be here all night. We accept there is a sizeable minority of extremists. It is also true that the muslim population in the UK has and is growing rapidly (source: Wikepedia):
of Muslims
England and Wales
(% of population)
mosques
per mosque
At the end of the day, it will continue to happen, because we have allowed it to happen. The time to stand up against this hateful nonsense was the Salman Rushdie affair, but establishment cowardice and a general failure to defend the values of our secular liberal society has taken its toll and we are reaping the dividends of that. Too late now - the genie is out of the bottle.
Sorry to be so depressing...back to the football chat.
I can't see how a staunch believer is going to take a similar approach though. I hate the fact that there are faith schools and that I had to endure a religious assembly every day at my state Grammer School. What is telling is that if you are born in one country, you are more likely to belong to one religion and if you are born somewhere else another. This suggests that little or no reasoning goes into decisions to follow a religion and there is always an element of indoctrination.
Who does the considering? On what criteria?
You could argue that someone threatening to shoot someone in the face poses a threat and therefore (under such a policy) should be imprisoned for life. (I disagree, for what it's worth).
Or you could argue that someone committing a violent crime (in the way you describe) should be detained while they continue to pose a threat. (I would agree).
However - and here's how it pertains to the situations this month and in November - I think the first example is too onerous and the second would not have made a difference in these cases. They didn't commit violent crimes before being imprisoned; but did so later. And therefore wouldn't meet the criterion you set out.
If someone is a risk to the public, then they should not be free. But permanent, unending, extra-judicial detainment can't be on the basis that someone like you or I consider that they might be a threat.
Bad cases make bad law. It's important that there's a carefully thought out, sustainable and legal means to help prevent incidents like yesterday and in November.
anyone convicted of terrorism is a traitor and after a long term in prison should be stripped of their British nationality, if they have it and then deported. I don't care if they were born here and their family has been living here since 3000 BC, there are plenty of desert islands needing repopulating, Australia is a good example
And what you are displaying here, Muttley, is tolerance of others' choices in life. The trouble with religious bigots is that they are simply not able to do so because it contradicts their holy book of choice, which is infallible in their eyes. Now I have no problem with anyone's faith as long as they do not seek to impose it on others....each to their own and all that. However, when they demand that other people live by their rules, then you have a problem and when they are prepared to use violence to achieve that end, then you have a very big problem.
The problem is you only know if they have been deradicalised once they are dead and not re-offended
Chizz supporting terrorists over the poor people who were stabbed.
Well to be fair he hasn't done it since the last atrocity.
Is the law a flawed one? I think Chizz would likely agree that it is (after all, the Tories drew it up...!
I think your question has a flaw in using the phrase in general - not that it's an unfair thing to try and do, moreso that Saudi Arabia will be very different to Malaysia, or even Bahrain is different to Kuwait. I think that in trying to view religion through this sort of overview will lead to "but in Saudi Arabia, X happens" with the potential for the unsaid half a sentence to be "so that's how I perceive Islam when used as a basis for law/societal norms".
That said, I think it is very useful to go back to the Quran itself as a text, and how fundamentalist Muslims (as I would say all these perpetrators are) view it. There's a really, REALLY good Reddit post which I've copied and pasted below. The whole thing is incredibly important and well worth reading - because I think this probably touches upon another flaw in both what I've said and what you continue (i.e. referring to "Islam" as one singular thing):
https://np.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/4bgorq/sky_sports_news_breaking_belgium_national_team/d190y5k
I study Islam academically and I think I can answer this for you. As a preface, I'm one of the people who is disgusted at the anti-Muslim rhetoric out there. I can't go on /r/worldnews anymore because it's full of idiots who know nothing about the religion and nothing about Islamic politics. I could talk all day about why they're wrong, but this is not the place.
It is wrong to say "ISIS are not Muslims" and it is extremely unhelpful to separate them from the religion. My tutor actually has spoken on national TV and written articles about this exact topic. He is a Shi'a Muslim and an academic, and he argues - quite correctly I think - that if you ignore the religious roots of the group then you cannot possible grasp the problem. Because their ideology, their beliefs and their objectives, are entirely religious. They fit within a framework that is Islamic (albeit a distinct brand of fundamental Islam) and their justifications are entirely theological.
If you disassociate them from Islam, then you have to explain their motives and actions by completely different terms. This is something you hear a lot: 'They just don't know how great Western culture is'. 'They are poor and marginalised so turn to violence.' 'They are responding to the US occupation of Iraq.' 'They are responding to European colonialism.' 'It is all about oil'. So on and so forth.
Some of those things have elements of truth - marginalisation, poverty and retribution certainly are causes as well. Yet the biggest cause, above anything else, is their religious belief. If you are an atheist like me, you can only truly understand this by imagining how you would see the world if you were a fundamentalist Muslim.
Once you do that, (and it requires a basic understanding of fundamental Islam that I don't have time to write here), then it all makes sense. It works the same for if you imagine you were a fundamental Christian - this might be easier to imagine.
If I believed that the world was going to end and I had to obey the law of the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity in order to reach eternal paradise, I'd do whatever the hell was needed to get on his good side. If that means killing people, why wouldn't I? This world is just a temporary, physical one. It's worth it for infinity in paradise. And they are non-believers anyway, they know nothing.
If that is how you see the world and that is how you understand it, then these acts of violence make sense. The whole Islamic State makes sense.
Where it gets extremely tricky and sensitive is how non-fundamentalist Muslims fit into the picture. The same for non-fundamentalist Christians, or Jews. Because the fundamentalists would argue, and in a way I agree with them, that the beliefs of these people are so far removed from the original message and meaning of the religion that they are not truly Muslims, or Christians or Jews. In order to achieve a form of Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism that is acceptable to 'Western society', you have to reshape and twist the doctrine of that religion SO MUCH that it can start to not make sense at all.
Christianity is the perfect example. I live in Britain, which is a former Christian, now secular country. The majority of people are atheist - the Church has lost most of its power and influence. I think that this happened because the Church in this country was forced to adapt to the new ideals that came out of the Enlightenment. By doing so, over a long period of time, the doctrine of Christianity became so divorced from its scripture that it stopped making sense. As a schoolchild, I was made to go to church twice a week. The priest would tell us that Christianity preaches equality, freedom and love for everybody, including people from other faiths. But then we would go and read the Bible, and it didn't have that message at all. It told us to commit genocide on people of other faiths. It was violent, and brutal, and had so many historical problems with it that it was hard to believe. The religion didn't make logical sense any more. The result of this was a generation of people turning away from Christianity, and now you have a secular Britain.
To a much more limited extent, the same is happening to Muslims in Western countries. Many of my friends are Muslim. Yet they don't pray 5 times a day. They don't have multiple wives. They follow our legal system, not shari'a (there are a lot of misconceptions about shari'a, but that's another story). Why? Because this is how they had to adapt their religion in order for it to fit within a Western framework.
So many of them would read the Qur'an and the Hadith collections and realise how far removed they were from the fundamentals of the religion. Western Islam has to reinterpret and abstract the scripture so much in order to remodel the religion as acceptable to post-Enlightenment ideals, that it no longer makes sense to a lot of Muslims. Many turn away from religion entirely and become atheist. But many go the other way, and begin to follow the scripture fundamentally. These are the ones who, in the west, turn to groups like ISIS. are more likely to turn to extremism and violence (although this not always the case).
That is why it is unhelpful to say these terrorists are not Muslim. If you do so, you cannot discover any of what I have just said. You limit your understanding, and you actually make it easier for the discourse to become 'us vs. them', rather than peaceful and loving as it should be.
I hope that helps, I don't normally write these sorts of things on Reddit because nobody on /r/worldnews is intelligent enough to grasp concepts beyond "us and them", "Muslims r bad". I would truly suggest learning about Islam - we in the West are disgustingly under-educated. I don't know everything, but having learned the theological and political history of Islam and the Middle East, I am constantly frustrated at how little people know and how uneducated their opinions are. It has a beautiful and rich history, and there are misunderstandings and misconceptions around every corner.
TL;DR: Those who disassociate ISIS from Islam and say they are not Muslims are wrong, and this argument makes it impossible to truly understand their motives and objectives. However, the other side, which argues that all Muslims share these motives and objectives, are also wrong. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Fundamental Islam IS incompatible with Western-style liberal democratic society. But so is fundamental Christianity - that is why much of Europe has turned away from the Church and towards secularism. It is not just Islam. It is all of these religions, with severely outdated doctrines and dogmas, that are incompatible.
--------------------
I'm sorry for the absolutely massive post, but it's thoroughly interesting and I really recommend everyone read it for a true insight into why terrorist acts can take place. It's also crucial to remember that terrorists by and large all follow - as said above - a distinct brand of fundamental Islam, and that these acts aren't representative of Islam as a whole.
I don't think I disagree too much with what you have said: it's empirically true that we have a growing Muslim population, and therefore it's a completely reasonable assumption that this also means a growing number of extremists (though I have no idea on a figure or anything). Again, I'd also agree that country of origin is highly influential - just as I think you can't generalise Islam as a whole, you also have to acknowledge which countries might have emigrants more in line with stricter/fundamentalist interpretations of the religion.
That said, I'm not sure on whether I agree our society is necessarily secular: after all, the head of state is also the head of the church, and bishops sit in government by virtue of their position, for instance. Though I don't disagree that we've failed to act accordingly at many a turn.
But I suppose my main point is that studies and their interpretations often fuel polarising thinking (on all matters, not just religion/Islam), and we have to tread very cautiously and see how our views might be being coloured.
I really enjoyed your response though - thought-provoking and completely justified, if a little doom-and-gloom for me!