Are you familiar with these deradicalization efforts with children in the UK?

[cooterhein]

I was curious to see what everyone here would think of this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ion-every-day/

There is a special deradicalization program for children ages 9 and under. Overall, there is a mandate for (a statutory duty) for certain child-related authorities to report signs of extremism and at least make sure it's looked at. This goes for everyone under the age of 18, but apparently there is a special program for the very young.

There are some exact numbers that are given- the referrals have skyrocketed as of this year, although that also coincides with these reports being mandatory rather than advised and recommended. Previously, perhaps there was some question in some people's minds as to whether they should report something and who they should report to. Now it's much more clear what to do and who to talk to, and it's also required. So that's probably why it's being done so much more. As to the exact numbers that are given, 70% of those referred have to do with Islamist extremism (despite Muslims being around 5% of the UK population and around 10% of UK's young-child population) and 15% of the remainder belongs to far-right extremism (which is the leader among types of extremism that we are not very well prepared to counter....but it's clearly not what the kids are talking about most, not by a long shot). I'm sort of curious why you suppose those numbers look that way. From the start of this year to June, there have been 2,311 referrals in the under-18 category, you do the math on how many Muslims that is, and 352 of those have been in the under-10 category. This program was set up after the 7/7 attacks in 2005 (and, ironically, one of those attacks happened in a public space right across from a statue of Ghandi....I wonder if that was intentional)....but now 11 years later the program is becoming more firmly ensconced in the UK educational milieu.

There is a bit of a lack of figures where I would have liked more specificity, but that's not available here. The full-on Channel program (that's what it's called) is voluntary, and since this involves kids below the age of majority it most likely requires that their parents act on information and go through with it if they agree it requires intervention. "Many" of the kids who get flagged do not wind up in the program, "some" are but "others" just get a brief talk and that is judged to be enough. All of this is rather non-specific, and I have to read between the lines here, but it seems to be a situation where a couple thousand children get reported on for parroting extremist ideology, an unspecified number simply need to be "checked" (in the sense of a mild rebuke or reprimand, and the kid says okay I understand what's expected of me) while others are more trenchant in their beliefs that requires further evaluation, and then the parents are presumably informed of how bad it is and advised of the program and what it entails. Which they would then (less presumably) make the final decision on, given that the source is calling it "voluntary."

Of course, it is one thing for me to sit here in the United States reading numbers and sometimes-vague facts. It is quite another for Muslim parents in the UK to experience and navigate the process. So I have a couple of main questions.

What's it been like for Muslim parents and Muslim kids since 2005, with this whole program? Has the experience of it changed dramatically as of this year?

Do you think it's likely to achieve its stated purpose? And from what you know of the Channel program, what do you think of that?

And finally, what do you think of the more-recent decision to mandate these reports and cause all of this to become a 75%-more-common occurrence? Going along with that- at what point did you become aware of this program? Did you know about it way back in 2005? Did you just become aware of it this year? Is this the first that you're hearing about it now? I suppose your ability to answer most of these questions depends heavily on previous knowledge of the thing.

[Born_Believer]

The fact that teachers have reported children for reading the Quran or talking about in school, tells you all you need to know. This is nothing more than McCarthism era propaganda and paranoia. We are becoming a nation that treats muslims like second class citizens and muslim children like criminals.

A 2008 MI5 reports concluded that individuals from conservative and practicing backgrounds were the least likeliest to be radicalised. Do you know what the most likely example of an individual who could be radicalised was? It's someone who drinks, takes drugs and has multiple sexual partners. The fact that these "snitching" programs that have started up profile individuals as terrorists if they go to a mosque, or read the Quran is in opposition to the facts. You can further see evidence for this in those involved in the terror attacks in France or the club shooting in the US. They weren't even practicing muslims, let alone extreme muslims.

So what I think should happen is that schools should be given extra funding not to create systems which encourage spying on muslim students but to create prayers rooms and to buy more Qurans, because that's the way to go if you want to decrease and eliminate negative indoctrination.

[noraina]

Perhaps this all began with sincere (?) intentions, but too often such policies are abused and mishandled. Muslim youth are growing up treated as a suspect community, there's a real problem this will have the reverse effect and only alienate them further.

And, ironically, as the brother above has pointed out, those from practising backgrounds and who have religious knowledge are the least likely to be radicalised - it is those who were separated from their Muslim identity and had little knowledge of the faith who were fooled or 'brainwashed' into some misinterpreted, twisted form of Islam.

The solution is staring everyone in the face - educate yourself and others about the true teachings of Islam!

[Serinity]

This is very very very very bad.

This won't solve anything.

All there is need for is education on Islam. It is usually ignorants that fall for terrorism, etc. Who the hell would think Islam promotes terrorism........ Seriously, all there is need for is education, from true scholars. Not the government! Not out of malice, but it is best that The scholars of Islam wake up and speak of these issues.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[cooterhein]

The fact that teachers have reported children for reading the Quran or talking about in school,

From what I've read, the things that teachers are required to report mainly involve sympathies for Daesh and parroting of terror-friendly ideology likely gleaned from the Internet and yes, as you say, not from going to mosque. But I did ask for input other than what I'm reading from the Telegraph, so please tell me, what is it that's led you to believe this is a fact? The fact that innocuous religious practice is being reported- what is it that's led you to this fact? Do you have personal knowledge of this, did you hear it from someone (both of which are valid), or is there a source? (Also valid).

I also want to point out that there is a distinction in how different kids are handled, with numbers that are as-yet-unspecified to my knowledge. A report is made, but then an evaluation is made and if the behavior being reported turns out to be innocuous or is very easily handled, then no further action is needed and none is taken. It's not as if a report results in a kid being put on an actual watch list, my understanding is that it's a means of discovering and checking potential problems with misinformation so that kids don't become confused and run into problems later. It's a preventive measure that stops bad things before they start, and to my knowledge it doesn't do anything to prevent the regular practice of Islam, unless you're able to describe something real to me. That's what I'm trying to get at. If you want to make a clear distinction and show me what it really is, also show me why the thing you're describing is real. I'm not necessarily asking for a source, just give me a little more substance, please.

[Born_Believer]

From what I've read, the things that teachers are required to report mainly involve sympathies for Daesh and parroting of terror-friendly ideology likely gleaned from the Internet and yes, as you say, not from going to mosque. But I did ask for input other than what I'm reading from the Telegraph, so please tell me, what is it that's led you to believe this is a fact? The fact that innocuous religious practice is being reported- what is it that's led you to this fact? Do you have personal knowledge of this, did you hear it from someone (both of which are valid), or is there a source? (Also valid).

This was reported about 12-18 months ago in one of the 3 newspapers I read (the guardian, the indy and the telegraph, can't remember which but likely the former 2) and in that same time frame, I have friends who have gone into teaching and they have also been "debriefed" on what to look out for, one of which is children who talk about their Islamic practices.

Now, my point is a very simple one. If you treat a community which has done nothing wrong, as criminals, you will create an environment of "us against them". We have seen this with the rise of fascism in Europe several times before, we are seeing it again now in the 21st century. The facts remain as I have already posted on here: those who are from practicing muslim backgrounds are the least likeliest to be radicalised yet it is mosques and madrasahs (Islamic schools) which have been most targeted by the British government. Now muslim children en masse are being targeted.

This brings me to another issue and that is the issue of ISIS and how much of a threat it supposedly is. We are told that 1500 people left Britain to join ISIS and that 800 supposedly made it to Syria. There are 2.7 million muslims in the UK. If I take the raw 1500 number, that equates to only 0.06% of the British Muslim population on the verge of joining ISIS.

Over 99% of the British population do not have such designs, or at the very least, do not feel strongly enough to leave Britain for it. This isn't just a minority, this is a minority, within a minority, baked inside a niche. Yet, for the sake of this minority, millions of pounds each year are being spent on so called de-radicalisation programs which target, abuse, mistreat and ciminalises a population which is largely peaceful, law abiding and increasingly well educated/well endowed with finances. Does that sound like the healthy or right thing to do?

Take anti-terror arrest numbers from Jan 2015-Sept 2015: 315 arrests were made, only half of those were charged by the police and only 34 were eventually prosecuted in court. Almost 10 times as many people are arrested on suspicion of terrorism (all of them Muslim btw) than have actually committed a crime. This is what happens when you target an entire community, paranoia seeps into very aspect of society, including the police force, the same force which is supposed to be upholding the law not using it out of irrational fear or an enemy that doesn't exist. These arrests probably also include paranoid citizens who phone in if they've seen a muslim acting suspiciously...maybe he grew his beard too long or something :facepalm:

[cooterhein]

This was reported about 12-18 months ago in one of the 3 newspapers I read (the guardian, the indy and the telegraph, can't remember which but likely the former 2) and in that same time frame, I have friends who have gone into teaching and they have also been "debriefed" on what to look out for, one of which is children who talk about their Islamic practices.

Okay, that certainly is a problem, if they're simply looking for Islam. That isn't supposed to be the thing to identify and counter.

Quick question. If they were more properly looking for extremism- with changes being made as necessary- can you see that working well, as long as the right things are being looked for?

Now, my point is a very simple one. If you treat a community which has done nothing wrong, as criminals, you will create an environment of "us against them". We have seen this with the rise of fascism in Europe several times before, we are seeing it again now in the 21st century. The facts remain as I have already posted on here: those who are from practicing muslim backgrounds are the least likeliest to be radicalised yet it is mosques and madrasahs (Islamic schools) which have been most targeted by the British government. Now muslim children en masse are being targeted.

The prison population in the UK does have strong Islamic representation though, although this is due to a complex series of factors. One- about one in eight incarcerated Muslims in the UK were not born in the UK. Two- quite a lot of prisoners are incarcerated as some other religion, then convert to Islam (and this is very often a weak form of Islam that doesn't translate into serious practice). Three, the UK Muslim population skews very much in a younger direction, a bit more in the poor direction, and very much in the unemployed direction where young males are concerned. A lot goes into this other than just religion, and it's worth pointing out that recidivism for Muslims is almost 10 points lower than it is for everyone else, which is a good thing- that means Muslim prisoners, once they get out of prison, are less likely to reoffend. So there's a lot going on here, it's complex, there is a large amount of Muslims in UK prisons but it's not entirely what it appears to be on the surface.

With that being said, there is one other figure that's a bit more straightforward. Although Muslims in the UK make up about 10% of the youth population, almost 20% of the 10-17 "secure youth estate" prison population is Muslim. It seems to me that in general, the aim of this youth program is to figure out how to talk to kids and set them on the right path before they do anything that would put them exactly there, in the secure youth estate. Yes it's clearly flagging Muslims a lot more than anyone else, but it seems like a preventive measure rather than something that would cause Muslim children to commit crimes (which they currently do at disproportionate rates in this age group, again for reasons that may have nothing to do with Islam but that is the outcome that's happening). And this is the outcome being seen in the 10-17 age group of a relatively very-young population group, it might be a good idea to at least try and nip this in the bud.

I suppose this is the main thing for me. I don't see how being flagged, and evaluated, and potentially talked Out Of extremism....leads to Muslim kids committing crimes. Do you really think this leads to more crimes being committed, even though it's supposed to prevent them? Or are you suggesting that it has absolutely no effect, aside from being a giant irritation for a community?

This is a source, by the way.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31794599

This brings me to another issue and that is the issue of ISIS and how much of a threat it supposedly is. We are told that 1500 people left Britain to join ISIS and that 800 supposedly made it to Syria. There are 2.7 million muslims in the UK. If I take the raw 1500 number, that equates to only 0.06% of the British Muslim population on the verge of joining ISIS.

Okay, couple of things. One- barely more than half of those who left the UK to join Daesh actually made it there. Why didn't all 1500 people make it there? The answer is quite simple. Lots of people are trying very hard to prevent this from happening. This is what happens in spite of every reasonable effort to stop it. Two- how many Christians left the UK in order to join a terror organization bent on global domination? Zero. That threat does not exist. And three- this was touched on in the initial source that I gave, but there has been a more recent trend in recruitment of younger kids, quite a bit younger than 18, more like the 12-16 range. This is a more recent trend, and granted kids that young are even less able to navigate international travel on their own, but this is an especially vulnerable age group that can be talked into some bad stuff a lot more easily than anyone else. Don't we want something in place that helps push back against a real threat that is increasingly specific to them? And by them, yes I mean Muslims, because Catholic and Anglican kids are not being targeted in this manner.

Over 99% of the British population do not have such designs, or at the very least, do not feel strongly enough to leave Britain for it. This isn't just a minority, this is a minority, within a minority, baked inside a niche. Yet, for the sake of this minority, millions of pounds each year are being spent on so called de-radicalisation programs which target, abuse, mistreat and ciminalises a population which is largely peaceful, law abiding and increasingly well educated/well endowed with finances. Does that sound like the healthy or right thing to do?

I'm not entirely sure if UK Muslims are more law abiding than anyone else, I very well know the unemployment situation is relatively bad and that two-thirds of UK Muslims occupy the lower one-third of the UK economic scale. But that could be improving, and it's not at all uncommon for a new immigrant population to be less well off at first, and it well could be that UK Muslims are coming along faster than some other people have been able to do. Again, it's a complex situation and it's difficult to boil it down to a single data point. With that being said....

How exactly does any of this kid-related stuff qualify as targeting, abusing, mistreating, and criminalizing? Targeting I get, it's mostly Muslim kids that are talked to. But what is it about the talking and the evaluation process that qualifies as abuse? What is abusive about it? From what I can understand, they're being told not to be extremists and evaluated in order to see if further measures should be taken....measures that don't involve any abuse or mistreatment as far as I know, and all of this seems to be a non-criminalized form of corrections that is meant to keep kids out of jail and keep them from getting any sort of record. To my knowledge, this is done by:

1) Talking to kids, about not being extremists.
2) Talking to kids in a more focused manner with parental consent and the assistance of mental health professionals, about not being extremists.
3) Kids stay out of jail and out of trouble. And if they were going to do that anyway, they still do that.

Do you really think there's a different chain of events, where this particular program is concerned, that will do the opposite of what's intended?

Take anti-terror arrest numbers from Jan 2015-Sept 2015: 315 arrests were made, only half of those were charged by the police and only 34 were eventually prosecuted in court. Almost 10 times as many people are arrested on suspicion of terrorism (all of them Muslim btw) than have actually committed a crime. This is what happens when you target an entire community, paranoia seeps into very aspect of society, including the police force, the same force which is supposed to be upholding the law not using it out of irrational fear or an enemy that doesn't exist. These arrests probably also include paranoid citizens who phone in if they've seen a muslim acting suspiciously...maybe he grew his beard too long or something

On one hand, ISIS is an actual terrorist organization that actually exists in the Muslim world, and in a way that terrorists organizations for other religions don't really exist in the West. On the other hand, that's a good point about Muslims being unfairly targeted, arrested on suspicion of a crime and never charged, feeling as if law enforcement and everyone else is suspicious of you at all times....because they actually are....

My question is, what happens as a result of this? What do Muslims do when everyone is overly suspicious of them, when they're quickly targeted for arrest and so forth?

My other question is this. Do you see the distinction between adults being arrested unfairly, and kids who are Not arrested at all, but instead questioned and talked to as if someday they Might be, in an effort to make sure they don't get arrested?

I guess that last part is really my whole thing with all of this. I see this kids program as an honest effort to prevent Muslim kids from every going to jail, and I think it has a good shot at doing what it's supposed to. My question is, what connection do you see between this particular program and an increase in Muslims being arrested? Is that the connection you see, kids get talked to at school and then later they get arrested? Because the connection I see is that kids get talked to a lot, sometimes for the wrong reasons but without any threat of arrest and always with the intent of preventing legal trouble later in life, and it can be expected to pretty much work that way. That's what I'm seeing. Why do you see it so differently?

[Zafran]

Draconian state policy - nothing new. Plenty of countries take absurd measures, the UK is no different.

[Karl]

The Liberals are crazy. Either deport all Muslims from the UK or leave them alone. This mass immigration multi cultural social engineering is madness and is only encouraging the situation to lead to civil war or revolution.

[kritikvernunft]

... a special deradicalization program for children ages 9 and under. Overall, there is a mandate for (a statutory duty) for certain child-related authorities to report signs of extremism ... Muslims being around 5% of the UK population and around 10% of UK's young-child population ...

"Radicalization" and a fortiori "deradicalization" cannot be defined. Any goal that is phrased in terms of undefinabilities is a lost cause. You can most likely and trivially derive that result from Tarski's Undefinability Theorem. Therefore, I believe in letting the problem fester. Just let the laws of nature have their way. Furthermore, the interests of the State and my own interests are almost never the same. I only take care of my own interests, and with total disregard of what would suite the State instead. Seriously, why would anybody lift a finger? Only the singular God, our Beloved Master, can count for eternity on our willing support!

[cooterhein]

The Liberals are crazy. Either deport all Muslims from the UK or leave them alone. This mass immigration multi cultural social engineering is madness and is only encouraging the situation to lead to civil war or revolution.

When all of the encouragement is being done in the interest of preventing violence, preventing civil war, and preventing revolution, how exactly does that lead to civil war and revolution?

[cooterhein]

Draconian state policy - nothing new. Plenty of countries take absurd measures, the UK is no different.

I take it you don't see violent extremism as an actual problem which needs a solution?

[Mustafa16]

I take it you don't see violent extremism as an actual problem which needs a solution?

violent extremism is a problem that needs a solution, but punishing children for talking about their religion or practicing their religion doesn't solve anything.....

[cooterhein]

violent extremism is a problem that needs a solution, but punishing children for talking about their religion or practicing their religion doesn't solve anything.....

Okay, so there may be some inappropriate focus on innocuous religious conversation, but there is a filtering process, there is an assessment of what's been flagged, and then further action is taken if it's deemed necessary. So, while acknowledging that there is some innocuous stuff that's being flagged, it should and probably is only the truly dangerous stuff that gets further attention. Can we talk about that stuff at all, and why would you go out of your way to not talk about the very thing that's the entire stated point of this program? Can we talk about the rhetoric that's actually problematic and assess how effective this is in addressing that?

[Muhammad]

and why would you go out of your way to not talk about the very thing that's the entire stated point of this program?

You've clearly missed the point if you still think such a program is effective in achieving the 'stated point'. Prevent is a failed policy. It has been derided by academics, teaching unions, students, police officers and teachers. The strategy clearly discriminates against Muslims and Islam, and very much sees the Muslim community as the enemy within. Case studies and victim statements strongly suggest these approaches are counter-productive, and are starting to erode community cohesion and damage relationships with the communities they serve. There are more than sufficient laws to allow the police and security services to detect, investigate and prosecute individuals involved in actual terrorism plots.

[Serinity]

It is all becoming Nazi like imo. We are treated like the Jews back in the days. Always suspected for whatever.

Perhaps we can learn something from the Jews, or not. Idk.

Take Hitler. Hitler is the "government". The "jews" are the Muslims... (in terms of situation)

we all know ISIS is a terror organisation who has done nothing but Defame Islam etc.

So what do we do?? What took the Jews out of this situation??
And Allah :swt: knows best.

[muslim brother]

violent extremism is a problem that needs a solution, but punishing children for talking about their religion or practicing their religion doesn't solve anything.....

as i have said in my bbc interview,blog and elsewhere..normative mainstream islam is actually part of the solution to violent extremism..i dont like the term"moderate"

the problem is takfiris and khawarij..who would even consider me as a legitimate target

[kritikvernunft]

I take it you don't see violent extremism as an actual problem which needs a solution?

Before looking for a solution, it is better to ask yourself if the problem really needs to get solved? If yes, why? Usually, it is better not to solve the problem, and to just let it fester. Doing nothing at all is almost always the most propitious approach. Hence, I am not in favour of doing anything at all. We should harness the power of their natural inclination to laziness, to convince people to do absolutely nothing, and possibly even less than that.

[cooterhein]

You've clearly missed the point if you still think such a program is effective in achieving the 'stated point'. Prevent is a failed policy. It has been derided by academics, teaching unions, students,police officers and teachers.

I haven't heard about any of these statements of derision before. Are there any sources I can look at?

The strategy clearly discriminates against Muslims and Islam, and very much sees the Muslim community as the enemy within. Case studies and victim statements strongly suggest these approaches are counter-productive, and are starting to erode community cohesion and damage relationships with the communities they serve. There are more than sufficient laws to allow the police and security services to detect, investigate and prosecute individuals involved in actual terrorism plots.

One of the stated reasons for focusing on kids more, is that Daesh is focusing on reaching kids more as a bit of a change in strategy. Is that incorrect?

[Zafran]

I take it you don't see violent extremism as an actual problem which needs a solution?

Oh I do but taking 9 year olds seriously is like taking teenagers seriously - a lot of teens do and say crazy things but we dont deal with them the same draconian way.
Furthermore this leaves out the non religious terrorist attacks - be it the dude who ran people over in France (nice) or the homosexual Orlando shooter - or the German afghan refugee who didnt even fast etc etc.

[Zafran]

I haven't heard about any of these statements of derision before. Are there any sources I can look at?

The labour party is a good place to start or the LIb dems.

[kritikvernunft]

There is no definition for radicalization. There isn't one for extremism either. These terms are not even meant to describe any particular belief, but only the intensity of such belief. Since when has intensity of belief actually become an objective and measurable quantity? It would first require a quantitative theory of belief along with a belief arithmetic and algebra. If belief is a quantifiable value, we must be able to express an order relation in which for two beliefs, we can assess if belief1 <= belief2. How do you do that? Can we also add up beliefs? Is the concept of belief1 + belief2 really meaningful? What about the scalar multiplication a x belief ? Is belief1 + belief1 = 2 x belief1 ?

One social worker from east London told The Telegraph that she was now regularly having to involve the police as rebellious and often troubled teens parroted Islamist ideas they had seen on the internet.

This mostly means that you cannot trust your children with social workers, who may denounce them for otherwise nondescript ideas that these social workers do not like. Why would these children keep communicating with these social workers? In order to stay out of trouble, and since they could be accused of behaviour for which there is no definition -- and no definition even possible -- parents will have no other choice than to instruct their children not to talk to these social workers. Will these social workers also denounce to the police, children who show no interest in communicating with them? Furthermore, these social workers are obviously happily busy destroying the security context of their own jobs. If these social workers go on like that, there is absolutely nobody who will be able to keep guaranteeing their safety. Who exactly will keep protecting them from the inevitable reprisals? I would personally not lift a finger. I am telling you, let all these problems just fester. We are not doing anything at all, and even less than that, because we are just too lazy to get off our chair and actually do something! ;-)

[Karl]

When all of the encouragement is being done in the interest of preventing violence, preventing civil war, and preventing revolution, how exactly does that lead to civil war and revolution?

Well, the liberals foment violence by being totally incompatible with Islam to begin with, and the only way a Muslim (or a Hindu or Buddhist for that matter) can live as a liberal is to give up their religion and become a liberal. The liberals invite Muslims into the country and then prohibit them from practising various things that are halal in Islam (e.g. the wearing of burqas, marriage under the age of 16 years of age, polygamy etc). Furthermore, the continuing mass immigration from Asia and Africa only increasingly incites the relatively silenced right wing nationalist elements as well as leading to their increase in numbers as more and more indigenous Europeans realise what is going on in their countries. Right wing nationalists are suppressed, and just like a pressure cooker they are likely to one day explode into an onslaught of fury, massacring immigrants as well as the treasonous liberals who let them into Europe in the first place.

[kritikvernunft]

... then prohibit them from practising various things that are halal in Islam (e.g. the wearing of burqas, marriage under the age of 16 years of age, polygamy etc).

I don't think that they would listen, anyway. I suspect that they mostly ignore all these "prohibitions", most of which are unenforceable anyway.

... they are likely to one day explode into an onslaught of fury, massacring immigrants as well as the treasonous liberals who let them into Europe in the first place.

Have you ever talked with any one of these castratos? They are indeed loud, but in reality, they would never be willing to risk their lives or die for what they believe in. Hence, their beliefs are utterly unimportant. The feminist State is contradictory. If you arm the men to fight in order to provide protection for the women, these men will rule over the women again. The feminist State does not want that at all. Therefore, the feminist State will insist on disarming the men. That means, however, that they are not in a position to defend themselves, or to do so something like "massacring immigrants". Feminism and the use of force by men, are utterly incompatible. In that sense, preventing the males from dominating, cannot go together with arming the males for the purpose of dominating. They can impossibly overcome this contradiction. Islam protects the Muslims from subscribing to this contradiction. That is also why the feminist State does not like Islam, but at the same time the feminist ideology also prevents them from doing anything about it. In other words, the castratos are just running around in vicious circles. Just watch them, while having a good laugh!

[Snel]

There is no definition for radicalization. There isn't one for extremism either. These terms are not even meant to describe any particular belief, but only the intensity of such belief. Since when has intensity of belief actually become an objective and measurable quantity? It would first require a quantitative theory of belief along with a belief arithmetic and algebra. If belief is a quantifiable value, we must be able to express an order relation in which for two beliefs, we can assess if belief1 <= belief2. How do you do that? Can we also add up beliefs? Is the concept of belief1 + belief2 really meaningful? What about the scalar multiplication a x belief ? Is belief1 + belief1 = 2 x belief1 ?

One social worker from east London told The Telegraph that she was now regularly having to involve the police as rebellious and often troubled teens parroted Islamist ideas they had seen on the internet.

This mostly means that you cannot trust your children with social workers, who may denounce them for otherwise nondescript ideas that these social workers do not like. Why would these children keep communicating with these social workers? In order to stay out of trouble, and since they could be accused of behaviour for which there is no definition -- and no definition even possible -- parents will have no other choice than to instruct their children not to talk to these social workers. Will these social workers also denounce to the police, children who show no interest in communicating with them? Furthermore, these social workers are obviously happily busy destroying the security context of their own jobs. If these social workers go on like that, there is absolutely nobody who will be able to keep guaranteeing their safety. Who exactly will keep protecting them from the inevitable reprisals? I would personally not lift a finger. I am telling you, let all these problems just fester. We are not doing anything at all, and even less than that, because we are just too lazy to get off our chair and actually do something! ;-)

Very interesting observations. There are more questions we should ask. I'm thinking about these people, like the social workers you were mentioning, why are they trying to solve undefined problems? The motivation is undoubtedly a perceived benefit. Because the problem is undefined, they get to individually define it the way they see fit to morally justify their actions against this "problem". They create a personal definition that will serve their personal interests with the help of this obscurity. If the problem was well defined then this obscurity wouldn't be there to help them. It would therefore be easier to globally challenge the idea that this really is a problem. Thereby you risk causing a large portion of the public to judge it as a non-issue. Consequently this will lead to judging the (sometimes violent) actions taken in the name of combating it as unjustifiable.
This might undermine whatever triggered this effort in the first place. The same power that was able to cause almost the entire world to join this effort will most likely be a great obstacle in the way of getting a solid definition.

These obscurities can serve as a protection for a power-structure that holds an incorrect world-view. It's also very likely that someone who thinks he benefits from an incorrect world-view would make an effort to protect it by avoiding intellectual confrontation.

Basically, what you are asking for is likely to be very hard to get.

[kritikvernunft]

Basically, what you are asking for is likely to be very hard to get.

That is fantastic! That means that we are on to something! Intractabilities are the mainstay of cryptography. For example, it it considered pretty much impossible to reverse a hash:

$ echo "hello" | sha256sum
5891b5b522d5df086d0ff0b110fbd9d21bb4fc7163af34d082 86a2e846f6be03 -

The following problem is considered intractable:

$ echo "5891b5b522d5df086d0ff0b110fbd9d21bb4fc7163af3 4d08 286a2e846f6be03" | reverse_sha256sum
hello <---- cannot be done

For all practical purposes, the very fact that it cannot be done is also the reason why it will be very useful. The impossibility to achieve a particular goal, is very valuable. If the problem is truly intractable, there must be a way to monetize it, and in that way, to prove our point, i.e. the intractability of the problem. Seriously, the best way to prove your point, is by making money from it. Nobody will deny it any longer after you show them the cash. So, let us elaborate what exactly is intractable and how we will monetize the corresponding proof.

[cooterhein]

Well, the liberals foment violence by being totally incompatible with Islam to begin with,

I hate to do this, I prefer to handle responses in larger chunks and not go line by line, but there's a lot going on here immediately. First, being from the US I am aware that in US identity politics we completely misuse the term "liberal" and that can muddy the waters. I assume you're using the term "liberal" in its actual sense, the way it's used in the UK and the rest of Europe, in the sense that pretty much all of Western civilization has been brought on board with secular liberalism with few exceptions and just some subtle wrinkles. At least when it comes to religious freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the absence of religious coercion. So even though I'm from the US, I'm attempting to think of this in a more European way (even though I don't have much practice at it) because I do know that the US version of liberal is not at all helpful. I'm thinking of John Stuart Mill and the dramatic changes that he visited upon Victorian England, while suggesting that these sorts of changes are no more incompatible with Christianity than they are with Islam, and any religious milieu would be better for its application (without really doing anything to sacred texts or core doctrines of course, and yes this is doable).

Oh, one other thing. I can't help but take issue with just a bit of this immediate phrasing, and maybe you didn't mean to do it quite this way so I won't go at it too hard. You suggest that a group of people is inciting violence and fomenting something or other, first and foremost, by "being" a certain way. That's some wrongheaded thinking if you completely meant to put it just so, people don't do these horrible things just by being a certain way. You don't "be" horrible things into existence. When this does happen, and right here I'm not even arguing against the basic premise of whose fault it is, a series of bad decisions, bad moves, and bad actions lead to a bad result. Sure there's philosophical underpinnings and modes of thought that contribute to these things being done, but in terms of immediate causality, people do certain things and that is what immediately leads to certain outcomes. It's far more helpful to identify specific bad actions, then evaluate whether a different course of action would be compatible with the existing framework of thought. If so, change some of what's being done and it's fairly easy to do. If not, then maybe certain aspects of the prevailing mode of thought....philosophy of the time....value system or what have you, maybe some of that needs to change. You're immediately jumping to the conclusion that wholesale change is needed and that secular liberalism is the whole entire problem, it just needs to be brought up by the root and disposed of, and you're just going to need a mountain of facts and evidence and arguments in order to bring people to that conclusion. If that's exactly where you wanted to go with it, I mean. I just want to point out how many changes in actual actions and in real policies can be made without seriously harming the way in which UK citizens think about themselves, the world, and how they should relate to each other. And there's some potential changes to their way of thinking that doesn't involve wholesale change. In order to argue for that as an absolute necessity, I'm going to make you work for that. If that's what you really want to do.

Moving on. Apologies for the immediate jump-cut.

and the only way a Muslim (or a Hindu or Buddhist for that matter) can live as a liberal is to give up their religion and become a liberal.

Again, I hate to do it again so soon, but this is a clear and distinct truth-claim. Secular liberalism is not a religion, it is not competing with Islam as a religious rival, and nobody has to give up their religion in order to live in peace as a secular liberal. At a bare minimum, it is pretty simple. Obey the law. Use common sense. Do not become violent for religious reasons, and if you're not employed by the state to do so, don't become violent at all. With rare exceptions like self-defense or if you happen to compete in combat sports, otherwise don't initiate violence or attempt to force some version of your religion on people who don't follow your religion. That's pretty much it. Do you stop being a Muslim when you do those things? No you do not. And you also get to live in peace, and continue living period. And so do the rest of us, we enjoy that as well.

The liberals invite Muslims into the country and then prohibit them from practising various things that are halal in Islam (e.g. the wearing of burqas, marriage under the age of 16 years of age, polygamy etc). Furthermore, the continuing mass immigration from Asia and Africa only increasingly incites the relatively silenced right wing nationalist elements as well as leading to their increase in numbers as more and more indigenous Europeans realise what is going on in their countries. Right wing nationalists are suppressed, and just like a pressure cooker they are likely to one day explode into an onslaught of fury, massacring immigrants as well as the treasonous liberals who let them into Europe in the first place.

That's a bigger chunk, I'm feeling quite a bit better about this. I wasn't aware that burqa banning had gone into effect in the UK, I do know about France but I thought the UK was just talking about it and so far not doing too much. The UK and France are both secular, as you know, but these are secular places that comport themselves toward religion in general in ways that are very different. France is far more hostile to religion in the public square, the UK not so much. Are you talking about situations where Muslim women need to identify themselves, like if law enforcement is detaining them or if their picture is being taken for identification purposes? If that's all you're talking about, Islam is flexible enough to handle that, and with a bit of time and effort I could locate the fatwahs to demonstrate that. But I'm not even sure if that's the specific thing you're talking about, and you probably knew that already.

Marriage under the age of 16, I wasn't aware of that but honestly it's a slight discrepancy in the boundaries of what is permissible, getting married past the age of 16 does not force anyone to violate Islam and it does make good common sense. Hey there it is again, use common sense.

Polygamy? Really? That only makes a tiny bit of sense when men are at war, they are killing all these other men, and all these women and children look an awful lot like unclaimed property to the conquering warriors. In a stable society with very little violence and conquering, this is a terrible idea. Let me break this down for you, it's really just math. Considering the disparity of wealth as it exists among Muslims in the UK, you can pretty much expect that the wealthiest 20% of Muslims will average 3 wives or so. Maybe 2 and a fraction, but for the sake of round numbers let's say 3. So the top 20% of men have, as wives, 60% of the women. More or less, maybe it's more like 50. Whatever. The next 40% of Muslim men in terms of wealth stratification do not have what it takes to support 3 wives per man on average, but they will probably average significantly more than 1. Let's say they can do between 1 and 2 on average, 1.5 more or less. That works out to about 60% of the Muslim women being claimed by the middle and upper-middle class of Muslim men. That leaves the bottom 40% of Muslim men with nobody. And a lot of these men are going to be younger, they're going to be unemployed or under-employed, they're doing the best they can but they aren't in a position to own a house and start a family until they're almost 30 usually. And at the same time, all the Muslim women their age (and especially the most attractive ones) are becoming the wives of older and/or wealthier men, because why not, why wait, in this scenario they can. No wonder this sort of thing goes hand in hand with pushing the age of marriage downward, your 30 year old men are going to be scouring a desperately scarce courtship scenario for the next barely-pubescent girl just as soon as she has her first menstruation. Or they're looking for other workarounds like finding someone from outside the UK, the point is there is no real workaround for this kind of scarcity, not when it's obviously going to reach this level of absurdity. Then you've got a bunch of young men struggling to find work and with no real prospect of finding a wife and starting a family, what do you think this exact sort of man is going to do? This is not any sort of a plan under present circumstances, so please remember to obey the law and use common sense.

And by the way, you might be using the word "incitement" in a rather loose way. Just because someone somewhere in the UK has beliefs that a right-wing person disagrees with, that does not constitute incitement. In order to really be incitement, it must be something that is directed at the person of the hearer. Granted, when people reside in the UK and a right wing person is also in the UK, that makes it possible for proper incitement to happen. If polygamy is in play in a big way, it makes it awfully likely that incitement will happen, and this will lead to a whole lot of dead Muslims. So please use common sense. With that being said, I don't acknowledge incitement as real incitement unless directed at the person of the hearer. Simply hearing about something is called "news" or perhaps "masochism" if you deliberately seek out upsetting things on the Internet, and knowing that something distasteful is out there is called "preoccupation" or perhaps "obsession." Incitement is done to a person, directly to that person and most likely by the person who is doing the inciting.

Is that it? Yeah, I suppose that's it for now.

[cooterhein]

Very interesting observations. There are more questions we should ask. I'm thinking about these people, like the social workers you were mentioning, why are they trying to solve undefined problems? The motivation is undoubtedly a perceived benefit. Because the problem is undefined, they get to individually define it the way they see fit to morally justify their actions against this "problem". They create a personal definition that will serve their personal interests with the help of this obscurity.

I'm pretty sure the problem is fairly well defined, at least where Muslim children are concerned. The problem is that some of them think it would be a good idea to leave their family and their country of origin in order to, as one example, go be a jihadi bride. The problem is that charismatic young men with good marketing skills are making a point of reaching a generation of very young children that are frequently able to do things online that their parents don't see, and they're reasonably careful about saying certain things around their parents, so if anyone else hears anything they should have an effective plan in place to check that. But...I guess I'm the only one who wants to talk about the stated plan and purpose for this program. Everyone else is determined to ignore the most obvious things about its premise and straw-man it to death. This is incredibly foolish, you know, to say nothing of intellectual dishonesty.

[kritikvernunft]

... if you're not employed by the state to do so, don't become violent at all ...

Violence is never a goal in itself. Violence could at best be a -- rather crude -- tool to achieve another goal. With Islam being on its way to achieve its goal, just by demographic means, you will find that many Muslims advocate against the use of force. I mostly agree with the mostly tactical consideration that if a problem can be solved without resorting to the use of force, it is preferable to solve it without. However, the idea that you could trust people employed by the state not to abuse their power, is impossibly naive and gullible and in total disregard for the facts. The solution to the problem of violence can impossibly be to give the State a monopoly on violence. As you know, the American police had developed an absolutely obnoxious habit of targeting black men and even unceremoniously killing them. The idea was that black men would not shoot back anyway ... until they spectacularly did, of course. The future will tell us, if this has solved the problem, or at least, reduced it. One thing is for sure, however, "not becoming violent when you are not employed by the state to do so" was never going to do anything to solve the problem. The entire "black lives matter" story has always been a joke. Respect ultimately always rests on the fear for reprisals. The State is not your friend. The State does not have your best interest at heart. The State is certainly not something that you can trust. On the contrary, it is, and it has always been an absolute requirement to totally distrust the State and its employees. In the singular God we trust, and in nothing else.

[Muhammad]

I haven't heard about any of these statements of derision before. Are there any sources I can look at?

Yes, you can read the following links:

http://www.preventwatch.org/joint-statement-on-prevent/ [360 leading Professors, Academics, professionals in Terrorism and community leaders called for an end to Prevent]
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ation-scrapped
http://5pillarsuk.com/2015/09/07/nus...rorism-agenda/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31792238

One of the stated reasons for focusing on kids more, is that Daesh is focusing on reaching kids more as a bit of a change in strategy. Is that incorrect?

Focusing on kids more should not mean incriminating them for mispronouncing the word 'cucumber' or wearing the wrong T-shirt. Moreover, it should not mean distributing ‘counter-extremism’ questionnaires to children as young as nine. With the age of criminal responsibility at ten years of age in England and Wales, this arrangement sees children being monitored before they can even be held criminally accountable for their own actions. And yet, some have suggested children as young as five need to be watched for signs of extremism.

Whilst programs like Prevent may be pushed by citing favourable outcomes, they are simply new powers to intervene and control the Muslim community based on a rationale of automatic suspicion. They rely on the faulty premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, such programs will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory. It is therefore of little surprise that concerns about Prevent have been highlighted in several reports by the Home Affairs Select Committee as well as numerous reports by NGOs. What is needed is an approach that targets actual terrorism without stigmatising or stereotyping those affected.

[Karl]

@cooterhein "Western civilization has been brought on board with secular liberalism" Yes and is very far left. All your "common sense" arguments are from a Liberal point of view which is simply not compatible with Islam (or Christianity for that matter). Bottom line what people do in their private lives is not the state's business. As a hard line parental sovereigntist my position is that all matters to do with offspring including polygamy, age of marriage, and age of having sexual interaction etc is solely down to the prerogative of the father, NOT a government or collective.

You can ramble on rationalizing "common sense" arguments against various activities until the cows come home. Nonetheless, to do so is simply IMMATERIAL in terms of what I have been trying to point out. A secular state prohibiting and persecuting various practices which are entirely permissible under a religion is NOT conducive to peaceful interaction across different social groups! It instead leads to conflict and even hate. Do you see what I mean? Let's say for example if I was to practice polygamy or marry a wife under 16, while those things are completely acceptable and permissible under Islam, they would nonetheless definitely lead to my persecution and prosecution under the secular laws of the atheistic collectivists. I can't possibly see how that situation could ever be deemed harmonious interaction!

[kritikvernunft]

As a hard line parental sovereigntist my position is that all matters to do with offspring including polygamy, age of marriage, and age of having sexual interaction etc is solely down to the prerogative of the father, NOT a government or collective.

Yes, agreed.

No matter how many idiots vote for how many other idiots, such voting circus can never extend, alter, or abrogate Divine Law.
Long live Donald Trump and Hillary put-her-in-jail Clinton!

[cooterhein]

Yes, you can read the following links:

http://www.preventwatch.org/joint-statement-on-prevent/ [360 leading Professors, Academics, professionals in Terrorism and community leaders called for an end to Prevent]
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ation-scrapped
http://5pillarsuk.com/2015/09/07/nus...rorism-agenda/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31792238

I did read through these rather carefully, in particular the one signed by 360 leading professors and so forth (which appears to be about half Muslim and half non-Muslim). There were several things it specified that Muslims should absolutely not be singled out on account of, and one of them was this. "Mixing with those who believe Islam has a comprehensive political philosophy." Point of clarification, if I may- is this basically a rewording of Islamism? The idea that some form of Islam should be imposed on society at large- also known as Political Islam, a set of ideologies holding that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life- is that the same sort of thing? Did all these people sign off on something that basically says Islamism is not a problem for anybody, and Islamists should not be singled out? It seems that way to me, I'm wondering if it seems that way to you.

Focusing on kids more should not mean incriminating them for mispronouncing the word 'cucumber' or wearing the wrong T-shirt.

Of course not. Even Quilliam has been somewhat critical of its implementation, in certain respects.

Moreover, it should not mean distributing ‘counter-extremism’ questionnaires to children as young as nine. With the age of criminal responsibility at ten years of age in England and Wales, this arrangement sees children being monitored before they can even be held criminally accountable for their own actions. And yet, some have suggested children as young as five need to be watched for signs of extremism.

That seems fairly reasonable.

Whilst programs like Prevent may be pushed by citing favourable outcomes, they are simply new powers to intervene and control the Muslim community based on a rationale of automatic suspicion.

That does not seem quite as reasonable.

They rely on the faulty premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam,

Terrorism and extremism, not inherently connected with Islam? According to every Islamist terror group ever, they have a deeply held core belief in their inherent connection to Islam. Daesh just recently published the reasons for why they hate the West. Why We Hate You, and Why We Fight You, is what it's called. Among those stated reasons, you will find this.

"6. We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim.

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

What’s equally if not more important to understand is that we fight you, not simply to punish and deter you, but to bring you true freedom in this life and salvation in the Hereafter, freedom from being enslaved to your whims and desires as well as those of your clergy and legislatures, and salvation by worshiping your Creator alone and following His messenger. We fight you in order to bring you out from the darkness of disbelief and into the light of Islam, and to liberate you from the constraints of living for the sake of the worldly life alone so that you may enjoy both the blessings of the worldly life and the bliss of the Hereafter."

By the way, reason number one- and clearly ordered that way as a top priority- is that they hate the West because we are disbelievers. Reason two is that we permit what is haram in Islam, and we disallow some of the things that are halal. Daesh is being extremely clear about their reasoning and their intentions, and when they state their core beliefs this clearly, I take them at face value. I take it you do something different?

Now, I do want to be fair to you, I think I see what you're doing with the word "inherent." Right upfront, I will say it's pretty clear to me that Daesh and AQ and Boko Haram and so forth have quite a lot to do with Islam. These people are Muslims, and their (clearly) stated goal is to force Islam on others. They have something to do with Islam, quite a lot actually. And all of this is a serious problem that has to do with Islam. But even I would not argue that terrorism and extremism is inherent to Islam, in the sense that it is permanent, essential, or characteristic to Islam. With the right strategies, it can be checked, managed, and eradicated. All of this has quite a lot to do with Islam though, and in order to address this terrorism and extremism, rather large numbers of Muslims will have to change some things about themselves so that terrorism and extremism within the religion can be demonstrably temporary and not permanent, rather than theoretically non-characteristic.

What is needed is an approach that targets actual terrorism without stigmatising or stereotyping those affected.

Does this mean Islamism ought to be a protected ideology, held absolutely harmless as if it has no relation to terrorism at all? Targeting actual terrorism sounds great, I definitely support that. The thing is, there is also the stated goal of countering extremism, which I would argue is nearly synonymous with Islamism, and counter-extremism ought to be separate from counter-terrorism at a strategic and delivery level. So yes, we're looking at two separate issues, the question is do you wish to nix the entire counter-extremist concept? If so, is that in any way motivated by the idea that you might reasonably be considered an Islamist?

[cooterhein]

@cooterhein "Western civilization has been brought on board with secular liberalism" Yes and is very far left.

Left is a good place, in this particular sense of the word. Secular liberalism has led to a more well-developed civilization that is actually, demonstrably, materially better than it used to be. Western civilization is far from perfect, but overall it is currently the best thing going by any reasonable measure.

All your "common sense" arguments are from a Liberal point of view which is simply not compatible with Islam (or Christianity for that matter).

It can be for Islam, and it obviously is for Christianity and has been for quite some time. What would make you think it's not compatible with Christianity, the pre-Reformation statements and practices of the Catholic Church? I'm a Christian, of the Protestant variety, a descendant of English Protestantism more so than Germanic and more distinctly American than anything else. Why would my particular strand of Christianity be incompatible with secular liberalism? Even with Islam, at best you could say that Hanafi Islam (as one example) in its present form, that's so important to say in its present form, is incompatible with secular liberalism. But who says a Muslim must necessarily align with a certain school of jurisprudence in order to be properly acknowledged as a Muslim?

Actually, now that I think about it, there probably are some people who say that. The point is, they're wrong, and there are plenty of Muslims who aren't tied to anything more specific than that which also happens to explicitly oppose secular liberalism. And when it comes to those more-specific things that do such a thing, it's possible for such things to change.

Bottom line what people do in their private lives is not the state's business.

A state like Afghanistan, or Iran, or KSA, or Egypt, or Indonesia, or....just the UK? Only the West?

As a hard line parental sovereigntist my position is that all matters to do with offspring including polygamy, age of marriage, and age of having sexual interaction etc is solely down to the prerogative of the father, NOT a government or collective.

I would argue that religious freedom ought to be guaranteed by the state, but that the state also has responsibilities when it comes to the health and safety of its citizens, and to some extent their morality.

A secular state prohibiting and persecuting various practices which are entirely permissible under a religion is NOT conducive to peaceful interaction across different social groups! It instead leads to conflict and even hate.

I can point to examples of religious sectarianism under Islamist rule so easily it's basically pointless. Kindly point me in the direction of actual, real-world examples where secular liberalism has clearly led to conflict and hate between religious groups, and please indicate how I can be sure secular liberalism is the reason why these very bad things happened.

Do you see what I mean?

Not yet, not at all. Not whatsoever, not even a little bit.

Let's say for example if I was to practice polygamy or marry a wife under 16, while those things are completely acceptable and permissible under Islam,

Still? Really? You're serious. Not all of Islam, I hope. Under which school of jurisprudence are all of these things considered acceptable? All four of the Sunni and both of the Shia?

they would nonetheless definitely lead to my persecution and prosecution under the secular laws of the atheistic collectivists.

Well, you can't expect to ignore the law and just get away with it. Oh, and these are not atheistic collectives. That's only a little bit accurate in France.

I can't possibly see how that situation could ever be deemed harmonious interaction!

I'm curious, are you living among the unbelievers? If so, some of them might be able to help you figure it out.

[Muhammad]

Greetings cooterhein,

I did read through these rather carefully, in particular the one signed by 360 leading professors and so forth (which appears to be about half Muslim and half non-Muslim). There were several things it specified that Muslims should absolutely not be singled out on account of, and one of them was this. "Mixing with those who believe Islam has a comprehensive political philosophy." Point of clarification, if I may- is this basically a rewording of Islamism? The idea that some form of Islam should be imposed on society at large- also known as Political Islam, a set of ideologies holding that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life- is that the same sort of thing? Did all these people sign off on something that basically says Islamism is not a problem for anybody, and Islamists should not be singled out? It seems that way to me, I'm wondering if it seems that way to you.

I don't know; I was simply providing you with the links you asked for. For further information on what these 360 people believe, it is better you ask them.

Terrorism and extremism, not inherently connected with Islam? According to every Islamist terror group ever, they have a deeply held core belief in their inherent connection to Islam.

MI5's behavioural science unit would apparently disagree with you. In their research, they have found that, 'far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.'

Daesh is being extremely clear about their reasoning and their intentions, and when they state their core beliefs this clearly, I take them at face value. I take it you do something different?

I don't think taking a face-value approach to the issue of extremism or terrorism will do anyone any favours. In the statement signed by 360 academics and public research, it was clearly stated that, 'academic research suggests that social, economic and political factors, as well as social exclusion, play a more central role in driving political violence than ideology. Indeed, ideology only becomes appealing when social, economic and political grievances give it legitimacy. Therefore, addressing these issues would lessen the appeal of ideology.'

Right upfront, I will say it's pretty clear to me that Daesh and AQ and Boko Haram and so forth have quite a lot to do with Islam. These people are Muslims, and their (clearly) stated goal is to force Islam on others. They have something to do with Islam, quite a lot actually. And all of this is a serious problem that has to do with Islam.

I don't understand the conclusion here. ISIS is neither about the tenets of Islam nor helping Muslims. That much should be obvious when an overwhelming number of Muslim scholars and religious leaders have been warning their communities against ISIS’ ideology for some time now, and considering that a significant number if not majority of victims have been Muslims themselves. It is clear that rather than diverting all resources on the stated justifications of such groups, we need to look at the root causes behind their emergence.

I note that a very similar discussion has already preceded in some of your other threads such as:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...xtremists.html
Some of the members have written very detailed and informative posts there; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for your responses to them. I won't be getting into the same discussion with you here.

[greenhill]

That is a lot of replies.

It has occurred to me that there is deliberate move by the powers that be to give children the rights to make their decision and strip parents of their authority.

And the real purpose behind all that is precisely to root out Islam, despite what they say. It is our responsibility to guide our children to the path of Allah. No child really wants to hear of restrictions when their friends have none.

It gets even harder for parents :exhausted


:peace:

[Serinity]

How I dislike it when the Government tries to meddle in how Muslim parents should raise their child. As Muslims, we believe in Islam, we know Islam is truth, so we raise them up to be Muslims. That is their right upon the parents. All of mankind are born Muslim, technically.

For the authorities to take the children, just because of them reading Qur'aan - is stupid. I as a child read Qur'aan.

It is a duty upon Muslim Parents to teach their children Islam, and instill love for Islam, with the help of Allah.

we can not have disbelievers take our children, and taking them away from Islam. I call this "deradicalization" a hoax! There is nothing radical about anything in Islam. The solution is to have children being taught the Quraan, and what exactly do these programs do, except to make the children paranoid of being Muslims?

[kritikvernunft]

... what exactly do these programs do, except to make the children paranoid of being Muslims?

My intuition says that they will get what they have asked for, and this will probably be exactly the opposite of what they want.

It always works like that. Everybody always ends up getting what they asked for. Seriously, if you consistently ask for something, that is exactly what you will be getting, and when you are dealing with living adversaries, it is always the worst possible outcome that will materialize. This is a consequence of Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

Imagine that you build a wall around a city, and that you intend to defend it. It is one meter wide everywhere, except in one place where it is only 10 centimeters wide. Where do you think that the enemy will attack? Yes, indeed, and this is just Murphy's Law. Hence, just one single inconsistency in what they are doing, guarantees that they will be toast. We all know that what the State does, is always full of inconsistencies. Therefore, just wait, and see, and laugh! ;-)

[Serinity]

My intuition says that they will get what they have asked for, and this will probably be exactly the opposite of what they want.

It always works like that. Everybody always ends up getting what they asked for. Seriously, if you consistently ask for something, that is exactly what you will be getting, and when you are dealing with living adversaries, it is always the worst possible outcome that will materialize. This is a consequence of Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

Imagine that you build a wall around a city, and that you intend to defend it. It is one meter wide everywhere, except in one place where it is only 10 centimeters wide. Where do you think that the enemy will attack? Yes, indeed, and this is just Murphy's Law. Hence, just one single inconsistency in what they are doing, guarantees that they will be toast. We all know that what the State does, is always full of inconsistencies. Therefore, just wait, and see, and laugh! ;-)

I hope their tactics backfires and they get what they asked for.

Prevent, contrary to what many believe, actually reinforces ISIS' and actually works in favour of ISIS! Tell me what ISIS does? Those who thinks of joining ISIS will be even more convinced when they see Prevent trying to hunt Muslims.

This targetting of children is wrong. It only works in favour of ISIS.

ISIS may use prevent to say "hey see, the kuffar hate you all, join us and lets us fight them! kill them all! look at how they try to take our children and bring them to disbelief."

Wallah, I am against the Government taking our children - it is OUR children.

The Disbelievers who support prevent only reinforces ISIS and "legitimises" ISIS. Imo.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Source

Nursery staff to be forced to report toddlers at risk of becoming terrorists

Nursery school employees will have a duty to report young children who are at-risk of becoming terrorists under proposed new legislation

By BEN TUFFT
Sunday 04 January 2015

Nursery staff will be forced to report toddlers at risk of becoming terrorists under plans drawn up by the Home Office.

It is part of the department’s consultation over ways to enhance its anti-terrorism strategy, Prevent.

Critics have dismissed the proposals as being unnecessarily draconian and turning staff, who are meant to be caring for youngsters, into spies.

The consultation document on the Prevent Strategy states: “Senior management and governors are expected to assess the risk of pupils being drawn into terrorism, including support for the extremist ideas that are part of terrorist ideology.”

It continues, staff are expected to “identify children at risk of being drawn into terrorism” and “challenge extremist ideas which can be used to legitimise terrorism”.

The Home Office said it would not expect the hypothetical situation of a young child being taught that non-Muslims are wicked to be ignored. Equally, anti-Semitic comments made in front of nursery workers should be reported, the department added.

But opponents of the plans are unsure how they will work in practice.

“It is hard to see how this can be implemented. It is unworkable. I have to say I cannot understand what they [nursery staff] are expected to do,” Davis Davis, the Conservative MP and former shadow home secretary, told the Telegraph.

“Are they supposed to report some toddler who comes in praising a preacher deemed to be extreme?

“I don’t think so. It is heavy-handed,” he added.

Childcare providers are just one of the sectors that will be affected by the new rules. Schools, colleges, universities, prisons and hospitals will all be subject to the stringent rules “to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.

The plans are in a document submitted with the Government’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which is going through Parliament.

A Government spokesperson told The Independent: “Schools, including nurseries, have a duty of care to their pupils and staff. The new duty in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism will be seen in a similar way to their existing safeguarding responsibilities.

"We are not expecting teachers and nursery workers to carry out unnecessary intrusion into family life but we do expect them to take action when they observe behaviour of concern. It is important that children are taught fundamental British values in an age-appropriate way.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is an actual news story.

My personal opinion on the news story: Yes, let's worry about terrorist toddlers, because THAT's the real problem! Let's prevent (pun intended!). Personally, I don't like toddlers throwing tantrums, but you never know...especially if the toddler is a Muslim toddler toddling along prattling gibberish, *shrugs* (ominous music playing in the background), maybe, could be, should be a sign of a future terrorist. (Ominous music keeps playing in the background and finishes with a high-pitched scream, the scream of murdered egalitarianism.)

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Source

August 4, 2016
Prevent gives people permission to hate Muslims – it has no place in schools
Fahid Qurashi
Teachers are right to reject a counter-radicalisation strategy that frames terrorism as a Muslim problem and demonises an entire communi
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) has recently backed a motion to reject the government’s counter-radicalisation Prevent strategy at its annual conference. This motion follows the National Union of Students (NUS) motion to boycott the Prevent strategy and its subsequent activism under the banner of “students not suspects”.

The NUT claims that the Prevent strategy is targeting Muslim students, and indeed, the available referral data disclosed under freedom of information shows that between 2007 and 2010 67% of the referrals involved Muslims, and between 2012 and 2013, that figure was 57.4%. This is despite the fact that, according to the 2011 national census, Muslims made up only 5% of the national population.

When one reads the Prevent strategy and the broader UK counter-terrorism strategy (Contest), the gross disproportionality starts to make sense. While the government claims that its counter-terrorism strategies target all forms of extremism, and do not target specific individuals or groups, it is clear that the Prevent strategy centres on Muslims in the way that it frames the threat of extremism and terrorism. Added to this, the allocation of Prevent funding, which was based on the number of Muslims in a local authority. This explicit targeting demonstrates that Islamophobia is central in shaping how the government (and wider society) define and construct extremism and terrorism as solely Islamic problems.

The definition becomes instrumental in targeting specific groups and communities. For example, if as a lawmaker I understand and define crime as a white problem, then I shouldn’t be surprised if most of the suspects in police custody are white. Since the Prevent duty came into force in the education sector in 2015, the guidance offered to those working in schools, colleges, and universities has in many cases served to reinforce the relationship between being Muslim and vulnerability to extremism and terrorism.

This kind of treatment sends a strong signal to wider society about the nature of Muslims in Britain

Given this, the NUT is right to suggest that the Prevent strategy makes Muslim students more vulnerable to being attacked. Already, there have been numerous cases of Islamophobic attacks against Muslims on the streets of Britain, including those who have been murdered. The academic research suggests that attacks such as these, often called hate crimes, flourish in environments where they are enabled. The practices, policies and rhetoric of the state question the loyalty of Muslims to Britain, cast them as an ever-present security threat, and treat whole Muslim communities as suspect and suspicious. This not only institutionalises, legitimises and reinforces Islamophobia, but also provides the framework in which Islamophobia emerges.

This kind of treatment sends a strong signal to wider society about the nature of Muslims in Britain, and is influential in shaping people’s assumptions about Muslims and Islam– forming the basis of Islamophobia. It sets the tone for how ordinary people interact with Muslims and can be seen to provide permission to hate. The dogwhistle nature of politics also means that politicians disseminate messages that tap into the basest fears, insecurities, and stereotypes to attract new voters – finally, think about the message that the disproportionate levels ofstop and search of Muslims sends to wider society about guilt by association and racial and religious profiling.

Right now, the Prevent strategy is securitising and criminalising the most banal of behaviours and ideas, and encouraging an environment of vigilance in ever wider areas of society. In this environment, mainstream Islamic ideas and practices, legitimate political discussions and dissent have been the basis for many Prevent interventions and referrals.

Although in many cases there have been no further actions taken, we cannot underestimate the mental health implications for young students who will have their views affected on the purpose of education, the nature of their relationship with their teachers and lecturers, and about the school and campus space as arenas for open and free discussions.

Prevent is an exercise in Islamophobia that continues to undermine democracy, equality, and justice. The state is complicit in undermining “British values” rather than upholding them.

[kritikvernunft]

Critics have dismissed the proposals as being unnecessarily draconian and turning staff, who are meant to be caring for youngsters, into spies.

Trust us and tell us everything that is on your mind because we are your educators. Oh no, do not trust us and do not tell us what is on your mind, because we may denounce you to the police.

Fantastic. Miraculous. A beautiful contradiction. Ex falso quodlibet. That situation is trivialist. Every possible statement is now true, and its opposite too. From there on, we can use it to prove anything. We can use it to prove that Santa Claus exists, but also, that Santa Claus does not exist. This is an open invitation for Murphy's Law to kick in and to take care of things!

Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

[Karl]

Left is a good place, in this particular sense of the word. Secular liberalism has led to a more well-developed civilization that is actually, demonstrably, materially better than it used to be. Western civilization is far from perfect, but overall it is currently the best thing going by any reasonable measure.

That is merely a matter of opinion, and clearly yours, but most certainly it is not mine. Give me a time machine to go back in history any day! Secular liberals are my sworn enemy and I despise them with every fibre of my being.

It can be for Islam, and it obviously is for Christianity and has been for quite some time. What would make you think it's not compatible with Christianity, the pre-Reformation statements and practices of the Catholic Church? I'm a Christian, of the Protestant variety, a descendant of English Protestantism more so than Germanic and more distinctly American than anything else..

I have actually met various English Protestants who have had religious and political discussions with me. All of them expressed a dislike for liberalism and secularism. No offence, but if you had not have told me that you were a Christian and I was asked to guess I could have easily mistaken you for a progressivist left winger rather than a Christian.

Why would my particular strand of Christianity be incompatible with secular liberalism?

I am unaware what your own particular strand of Christianity is, but I am sure that you are well aware that various Christian strands/sects are at conflict with atheistic/secular mentality. As an American you will no doubt be well aware of the persecution the Mormons of Utah have been put through by their godless oppressors in Washington.

Even with Islam, at best you could say that Hanafi Islam (as one example) in its present form, that's so important to say in its present form, is incompatible with secular liberalism. But who says a Muslim must necessarily align with a certain school of jurisprudence in order to be properly acknowledged as a Muslim?

Agreed, so long as they don't actually defy or attempt to "reform" any passages stated in the Quran, and they do not aid and abet any oppressors who through the enactment of laws would forbid practices not explicitly condemned in the Quran.

Actually, now that I think about it, there probably are some people who say that. The point is, they're wrong, and there are plenty of Muslims who aren't tied to anything more specific than that which also happens to explicitly oppose secular liberalism. And when it comes to those more-specific things that do such a thing, it's possible for such things to change.

A state like Afghanistan, or Iran, or KSA, or Egypt, or Indonesia, or....just the UK? Only the West?

Nothing specific. Unfortunately most governments these days don't have any respect for this old principle including even most Muslim countries due to them being no more than puppet governments either influenced or directly set up by the West by means of arm twisting, bribes, invasion etc.

So I'm just asserting this principle as something that I myself would be willing to fiercely defend, to the death if necessary. No outsider has any inherent right to meddle in my domestic affairs, period. I will say to anyone wishing to challenge me on that not to bother arguing with me on the internet because I am simply not going to listen. They ARE however most welcome to trespass on my private property and lecture me in my face that I am "wrong"...but they won't of course leave alive!

I would argue that religious freedom ought to be guaranteed by the state, but that the state also has responsibilities when it comes to the health and safety of its citizens, and to some extent their morality.

Again that's your opinion, not mine. As far as I'M concerned, no government or any outsider whatsoever has any "responsibilities" to "protect" my health and safety, nor to "protect" my morality. Not only do they have no inherent right, I don't even ask them for that. They shall keep AWAY from me OR ELSE.

I can point to examples of religious sectarianism under Islamist rule so easily it's basically pointless. Kindly point me in the direction of actual, real-world examples where secular liberalism has clearly led to conflict and hate between religious groups, and please indicate how I can be sure secular liberalism is the reason why these very bad things happened.

Not so much between different religious groups, but more so between various religious groups and secular liberals themselves. Secular liberalism, not so much in the UK in particular but more broadly throughout Europe has lead to friction with various religious groups, most notably Muslims (e.g. the arrogant banning of burquas, persecuting polygamists and husbands of women brides under 16, trying to shove feminism (which is really nothing more than carefully disguised female supremacy) down everyone's throats, etc). The West's matriarchalist fanaticism of foisting these mentalities upon immigrants (and most especially Muslims) has resulted in various terrorist acts in Europe. No reasonable person could possibly deny this.

Still? Really? You're serious. Not all of Islam, I hope. Under which school of jurisprudence are all of these things considered acceptable? All four of the Sunni and both of the Shia?

Yes, really, under both Sunni and Shia. Islam permits everything which is not explicitly prohibited in the Quran. I've read the Quran and the Hadiths and have not on one occasion encountered proscriptions of those practices you "hope" are not permitted. The only "forms" of "Islam" that might prohibit any of these things that you yourself detest are merely adulterated modern forms which if you peel away the many layers lies the Western and Jewish instigators at the core. I believe they refer to it as "reformed Islam". There is of course no such thing to a true Muslim. You either have genuine Islam in it's pure uncorrupted form, or it is not Islam at all.

Well, you can't expect to ignore the law and just get away with it. Oh, and these are not atheistic collectives. That's only a little bit accurate in France.

Not really true. The modern western world in general is dominated by atheistic mind-set and atheistic left-dominated legal systems -- legal systems which largely are dominated by the United Nations -- a globalist organization whose pioneers included many communist Jews. Christianity has been quickly going down the gurgler for quite a long time now. These days it exists merely as a subsumed relic from the past, and in a century will probably become nothing more than an obscure religion with extremely few adherents. Not all perhaps, but already there are certainly large portions of atheistic liberals/progressives/Marxists who share mutual animosity with Christians. This will most certainly be something that you will see right there in the United States, demographically the progressivist atheistic minded being predominantly to the north and the Christian-inclined towards the south in the bible belt. One doesn't need to spend long observing internet discussions between these two groups that tension, friction and even outright animosity is something commonly seen.

[Snel]

... straw-man ... intellectual dishonesty.

I was discussing a broader issue, I have yet to give an answer regarding this topic specifically. But as I am a little late with my reply; I can now notice that you've got some very good answers, that are specifically related to this topic.

[Serinity]

Perhaps making teaching Islam to EVERYONE obligatory in schools and universities, would dispel a lot of doubts? Having a knowledgable scholar disseminate knowledge in school?