to ask the MN hive mind what might make Islamist attacks less common?

[randomname27]

There are thousands of intelligent people on Mumsnet. MI5 don't recruit here for nothing. I need your help.

I know that if there were easy answers, they'd have been come up with already.

1. I need to know more about the Saudi Arabia connection. Why do we keep selling them arms? Is there a direct connection between our political relationship with that regime, and the Islamists running round killing random people? Would it make any difference if we extracted ourselves from being friendly with the Saudis? (I've picked up that the Saudi regime are "baddies" but am ready to be robustly corrected).

2. Is there anything we can do in terms of licensing mosques, imams, imam training, so that Islamists just can't come and preach/ teach here? Are the Islamists already the equivalent of some dodgy heretical vaguely-related-to-Christian sect that would be shut down pronto if the mainstream Muslims had the power to do so (I guess, like a really theologically-out-there CofE vicar could be defrocked)?

3. Is there anything that can be done about what happens when people voice concerns to the police (like with the Manchester loser), that will impede those on their way to Islamism without being a civil liberties shit storm? Like, if someone's mosque AND their family AND their employers AND their friends, or some combination of those different groups, have all expressed concerns, then it's time for some serious brainwashing until they become buddhists (I'm joking. I have no idea what should be done. That's why I've asked AIBU for help).

(MN regular, penis beaker, korean granny, blah blah, name changed because I don't normally do politics on here and would rather keep it separate from my normal bleatings)

none of this addresses the intrinsic requirement for Islam to seek and destroy unbelievers; it is not a religion that intends to co-exist peacefully with any other

Actually the history of Islam is full of peaceful co-existence. 800 years of Muslim rule in Spain, co-existing with the Jews and Christians, for example. You suffer from the same the ignorance as ISIS

From a visit to Northern Spain, I seem to recall that the leader who finally pushed the Muslims out was considered a hero. Or would you describe that as the victors re-writing history?

Throughout history, there have been cycles of extremism in most religions. Remember the Puritans?

Teaching men that they get more respect from being honest, kind and strong rather than picking on the vunerable.
And that there is a bigger picture. See rugby vs football. Playing the game well matters more than swearing and beating up the other team.

Butterfly it's interesting, isn't it? I have no time for Qatar given the fairly convincing links in terms of Qatari funding for ISIS (well, and other reasons too) but it's a very interesting situation developing, especially, as you say, because Qataris now own more of London than a) the Queen and b) the Duke of Westminster. And that's a relatively recent phenomenon too - only the last 4-5 years it's been happening on such a scale.

I just assumed they were hedging their bets generally, but now I wonder if there's more to it.

I like Oh's idea, actually, of encouraging the development further of Islamic scholarship in the UK. It was a huge "thing" when the current head of the MCB was appointed, as he was the first to be born in the UK.

Ramadan kareem to all the Muslims on this thread also - it's lovely to read about the various imams that people know, too. My best friend's brother is an imam - he's second generation British Asian, but considered a bit modern by some of his mosque committee. (Probably didn't help that he showed "Four Lions" at a youth club event either Have probably now outed myself too!)

It's difficult, though, and I can see that people don't like things done differently from how they've always been done. That said, whilst I'm a full on 1662 BCP Anglican, because that's what I've always known, and feel a faint sense of horror at guitars in Church/hymns on powerpoint/Jesus as a close personal friend, I can still recognise that these are important as they allow more people to connect with Christianity. And presumably, for many Muslims, even if a British based training system doesn't appeal to them, they could still see the value in it, in terms of promoting an Islam that they would recognise more than the Islam of the jihadis.

They do it in the name of Islam but a bit like tarring all Catholics with belonging in the IRA.

Perhaps the current Conservative government in the UK can stop supporting Saudi Arabia. That might help. A lot.

Enlightenment for all to realise religion is fiction

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/05/qatar-diplomatic-crisis-what-you-need-to-know

Perhaps somebody has asked the Middle Eastern intelligentsia (or Middle Eastern something) the opening question.

Yabbadabbo2 you are so right. It seems that we will not see this in our lifetime . The 20 year old in me would be indignant.

feel a faint sense of horror at guitars in Church/hymns on powerpoint
I share your pain.

Divesting completely from the Saudi economy.

Banning the arms trade and reinvesting in a peaceful industry.

Eh, do you really think that's a good idea Lumela Israeli soldiers are somewhat trigger happy. Not the best example to be citing.
@Toptrumps20, only just noticed this. It wasn't a suggestion - I was expanding on someone's earlier comment.

I have no time for Qatar given the fairly convincing links in terms of Qatari funding for ISIS (well, and other reasons too) but it's a very interesting situation developing, especially, as you say, because Qataris now own more of London than a) the Queen and b) the Duke of Westminster. And that's a relatively recent phenomenon too - only the last 4-5 years it's been happening on such a scale.

^^ YY I am extremely worried about that too.

To pick up and carry on with no press coverage, and as if nothing has happened. If there were absolutely no press coverage, no outward show of fear, and no change to our behaviour, the attacks would have no purchase.

I know this is not going to happen, and I know it is not practical nor does it take into account our human nature and our emotions. But I think it would work.

I would like some form of press restriction on extra news broadcasts. When there are dedicated news channels I'd like to see restrictions on programming variations for sensationalsing. No restrictions or sensorship/ edditing on the news, but restricting the amount of time would hopefully stop the endless loop of no new news.

I don't think banning religion in schools would work, I think we need to ensure that all schools (even faith) have a distinct 'World RE' curriculum which would help pupils learn about other religions, which would encourage a culture of openness and tolerance. Ignorance is fear.

I also think pushing religion underground would make it a lot easier for the extremists to groom, and a lot more difficult for people to spot if grooming is occurring.

And Qatar won the World Cup despite funding terrorist networks?

It is all so fucked up.

Sett Blatter was in charge of world football then. He set new records for corruption!

Qatar may be supporting Muslim Brotherhood (which is a democratically non-violent political party) but there is no evidence that it supports ISIS or Al Qaeda. I think it is utter nonsense from Saudi because of a few reasons:
-Qatari press Al Jazeera is reporting facts on Saudi's massacre of Yemenis, and Saudi doesn't like that. Saudi basically wants to shut down free press.
-Qatar is not supporting their war in Yemen
-People are now accusing Saudi of funding terror (incl. Corbyn), so they have decided to twist it on someone else.

• The Gulf countries are very very worried about democracy and are very anti-democracy. They are worried that if there would be democractic elections, then they would be removed out of power, like what happened in Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood were democratically elected; and then violently removed by Sisi, with full backing of CIA).

So it is not as simple as Saudis are making out. They've got their hidden agendas, and it is the average person who sadly suffers.

Sun I don't think there's any question that it's Qatar who fund what-was-al-Nusra in Syria. The interesting bit is the timing - and the solidarity. Regular jihadi nutters, no bother, but support for Iran?!

And whilst the MB aren't all violent by any means, it's undeniable that a number of violent organisations have their roots in the MB, whether literally, like Hamas and Al Qaeda or spiritually, in terms of scholarship, like Boko Haram. And of course, it was a Ikhwan member who assassinated Sadat.

Plus, people have accused the Saudis of funding terror for 20 years (just because it's become a major rallying cry for the Labour Party this week doesn't mean it's a new phenomenon, and I seriously doubt Saudi are concerned about that). I think also that Qatar was originally part of the Saudi coalition in Yemen?

I could see them disliking coverage of Yemen though (btw Al Jazeera is not really a "free press" any more than "Russia Today" is) - but I still think it must be support for the Shi'a that's been the final straw here.

@Hefzi your posts are so informative and interesting, thank you.

Just to confirm your thought - yes, Qatar was fighting with the Saudi coalition in Yemen but as of yesterday their support was withdrawn.

I agree we need to properly fund the police, to allow them to properly investigate those who have been reported to them. The tories have slashed police funding and numbers.

Also allowing police to all at least have tasers. One of the police officers who was seriously injured while trying to stop the 3 terrorists took them all on with only an asp. He should never have been put in that position, and if he had been armed then further deaths could have been prevented.

Ah, thanks, Butterfly

The Qatar thing seems to keep on giving, though...

hibble Harris specifically said that police numbers in London were not an issue, and Cressida Dick has said there's no issue with resources. That said, do you know what the situation is with tasers? Do some police have them routinely, or do they need to be signed out specially or something? I remember there being an outcry about them a while ago, when there'd been some cases of police using them accidentally on unarmed people, so I'm guessing it's something well regulated. I think they're incredibly brave to confront people with machetes (not just terrorists) and swords just armed with a baton. I grew up with armed police, so it doesn't bother me in the way it does some MNetters, but it seems horrendous to leave police to face violence with only a glorified truncheon.