“His solicitor, Vajahat Sharif, has told the BBC that Khan repeatedly asked him for help in finding someone. Mr Sharif said he wanted a very specific jihadist ideology expert to work with his client because he feared Khan’s hate was so deeply-rooted. So while he may have received some help, his lawyer, for one, thinks it was not enough.”
So once again, as always, jihad violence is the Infidel’s fault. If only the British authorities had gotten the poor lamb the help he was crying out for, all would have been well. But it’s interesting that Vajahat Sharif says Khan wanted a “specific jihadist ideology expert.” The whole premise of “deradicalization” is that Islam is a religion of peace that jihadis misunderstand, twist, and hijack. Since that is a false premise, and warfare against unbelievers is actually taught in the Qur’an and Sunnah, “deradicalization” focuses on other issues, as this article shows: “The scheme aims to address many of the triggers that lead someone to turn against society – from a personal identity crisis and chronic self-esteem problems, through to personal grievances and immersion in extremist ideology.”
But since none of that changes what the Qur’an and Sunnah say about warfare against unbelievers, it doesn’t “deradicalize” the jihadi at all. The only kind of “specific jihadist ideology expert” that the British authorities would have sent to Usman Khan would have either have been stupid or dishonest in maintaining that if only Usman understood Islam correctly, he would be a loyal, peaceful British citizen, and would have accomplished nothing.
“London Bridge: Why was the attacker, Usman Khan, out of prison?,” by Dominic Casciani, BBC, December 1, 2019:
London Bridge attacker Usman Khan came to the attention of counter-terrorism investigators because he was involved in a highly active cell around Stoke-on-Trent, part of a wider network of radicals then headed by the preacher Anjem Choudary.
MI5 and the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit had intelligence that a group of nine men from London, Cardiff and Stoke, including Khan, wanted to bomb the London Stock Exchange. The plot was supremely incompetent and amateur.
Khan also wanted to set up a terrorism training “madrassah”, or school, in Kashmir to train a new generation of British militants to either fight out there or bring their skills home.
Khan and the others were convicted and jailed in 2012 – and the ultimate dilemma for the authorities was whether the men were simply fantasists who, hopefully, would grow up….
Meanwhile, Khan had also been asking to join a deradicalisation programme – including sending a letter in October 2012 asking for the Home Office to provide someone to work with him.
His solicitor, Vajahat Sharif, has told the BBC that Khan repeatedly asked him for help in finding someone.
Mr Sharif said he wanted a very specific jihadist ideology expert to work with his client because he feared Khan’s hate was so deeply-rooted.
So while he may have received some help, his lawyer, for one, thinks it was not enough.
When Khan was released on licence, he was subject to a variety of forms of management in the community, as is largely standard for terrorism offenders:
DDP is now a key part of the counter-terrorism strategy and involves tailored counselling and psychological intervention in the lives of terrorism convicts leaving jail.
More than 100 individuals went through the course between the beginning of its trial in October 2016 and September 2018. There is now funding in place to accommodate up to 230 individuals a year.
The scheme aims to address many of the triggers that lead someone to turn against society – from a personal identity crisis and chronic self-esteem problems, through to personal grievances and immersion in extremist ideology….

DHazard says
One man’s “Jihadist ideology expert” is another man’s “imam”.
gravenimage says
+1
terry sullivan says
the police, for once, gave him the correct therapy
Conrad says
Although they were a tad too frugal with the lead injections.
Michael Copeland says
Presumably Vajahat Sharif, who speaks Urdu, has acted for many a muslim, and leads a team that includes Islamic experts, is himself a muslim.
https://www.tuckerssolicitors.com/staff/vajahat-sharif/
mortimer says
MC has a good point. Lawyer Lawyer Vajahat Sharif is in the business of persuading people. Surely, a Muslim lawyer should be able to understand the arguments and persuade a jihadist how he is getting it wrong. But Sharif thinks there is ‘an expert’ out there somewhere who can do this. He doesn’t want to get involved himself … bad for business to be thought of as an apostate!
I have read some of the arguments and rationalizations that are used to ‘MODERNIZE’ jihad into a political, legal battle, rather than a militant battle. They are unconvincing, because Mohammed, the caliphs and 50 generations of Muslims have understood jihad as a militant fighting to defeat the kufaar MILITARILY, thus removing their ability to defend their non-Islamic independence and resist the imposition of Sharia law against their will.
The whole purpose of jihad is to impose Sharia law AGAINST THE WILL of the dirty kufaar.
Michael Copeland says
“DDP is now a key part of the counter-terrorism strategy and involves tailored counselling and psychological intervention in the lives of terrorism convicts leaving jail.”
DDP is the government’s “Desistance and Disengagement Programme”.
This is yet another device for pouring taxpayer funds into mosques. Who do we think is being paid to manage the “disengagement”? It will not be kaffirs: jihadis will not listen to kaffirs.
Ominously for the taxpayer “There is now funding in place to accommodate up to 230 individuals a year”.
As Robert Spencer points out, the whole thing is wrong-headed.
Michael Copeland says
“designed to tackle the drivers of radicalisation”
Here is the official blurb:
In the government’s official counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, it describes the DDP: “Through the DDP [desistance and disengagement programme], we provide a range of intensive, tailored interventions and practical support, designed to tackle the drivers of radicalisation around universal needs for identity, self-esteem, meaning and purpose; as well as to address personal grievances that the extremist narrative has exacerbated.
Support could include mentoring, psychological support, theological and ideological advice.”
Notice the deflection – personal grievances, …need for self esteem… and so on.
No doubt this whole programme has been devised by muslims. No counter-jihadist will have been involved.
Jayell says
And how much do these ‘deradicalisation’ programmes – designed for muslims by muslim ‘experts’ – cost? It seems to me that we’ve got a situation here a bit like they had in Austtalia where anyone wanting their goods and services saleable to local muslim consumers had to have them ‘halal certified’ which involved paying a lot of money to some local two-a-penny ‘quack’ imam to knock up sometbing on a bit of A4 paper, and nothing else. In other words, a cheap back-street protection-racket scam. They might as well sell these ‘certificates’ on Ebay. Well, if we have to go to all this trouble and expense to render muslims compatible with Western societies then they’re clearly insuitable material. So we need to get shot of them, like all ontaminating or otherwise useless junk.
mortimer says
The cost of years of deradicalization programs will be LESS than ONE DAY of a war against the Taliban or ISIS.
The cost of deradicalization is a pittance in comparison and a GREAT BARGAIN. BUT NO GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY PERSUADING MUSLIMS that JIHAD is a concept invented for the emolument of the caliphs.
gravenimage says
We see how well this “deradicalization” works, I’m afraid–not worth the money at any price.
Michael Copeland says
Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs correspondent and author of this article, has a learning curve to climb.
https://gatesofvienna.net/2019/10/islam-the-learning-curve/
Marine Corps Veteran (@BigSarge049) says
Jihadist ideology expert is terrorist code for radical imam. Khan should have never been let out of prison. He should have NEVER been released.
LR says
Exactly. And why the British are being so darn doofey, and not keeping these violent Jihadi’s in jail, beats me.
Unfortunately, many in the West need to be given a anti-wimp pill. I never thought I’d see such wimpy headed laws for the downright murderous minded.
Christopher Watson says
I have a very good deradicalization expert. Works every time. Its called a baseball bat.
Leon Degney says
The Pommie cops had better ones, they’re called rifles and/or pistols.
elee says
It is so sadly common to read that the latest jihadist criminal was the son or daughter of Muslim parents who seemed to have assimilated successfully. Statistics seem to show that the largedst groupings of these criminals are (1) children of assimilated immigrants and (2) non-immigrant recent converts. As so many times before, every Muslim is a sleeper. Does the Islam itself channel and trigger existing latent psychopathologies, or is it just that Islam is such a perfect magnet and vector for evil?
Donovan Nuera says
Please showcase the actions of Khan’s lawyer, Joel Bennathan, who just LOVES to defend these notorious terror criminals. He actually BOASTS of getting Usman Khan out on parole after only 7 years on his firm’s website (Doughty Street). Sure, John Adams defended the redcoats from the Boston Massacre …but he did not make a point of defending EVERY notorious defendant. Maybe we can ask Bennathan if he wants to demonstrate why his “First-rate silk” awards trump the lives of Jack and Saskia at their funerals next week. May he can explain why is “cleverness in the courtroom” is so AWESOME??? Or will he just show up to Khan’s funeral and comfort their secretly-proud parents??
b.a. freeman says
one would think that part of the design of any de-radicalization protocol would be examination of the scriptures of the religion in question to see what parts could be presented to the poor misguided terrorist proving that he was on the wrong path. maybe they’re still looking, or maybe they just think that because it’s just another stupid religion, there’s no point in looking at the religion. could it be that Those Who Know actually believe that a brown people’s religion isn’t worth examining *because* it’s a religion of brown people?
Leon Degney says
Isn’t it a religion of peace and as a consequence is not at fault.
Joe1 says
They don’t allow anti-jihad people in the country.
David Ashton says
Well said.
True to form the liberal “Guardian” today (December 3) turns reality on its head, with a front-page plea by the chief victim’s equally liberal father not to “use his death to further an agenda of hate”. So just as Jo Cox became an iconic martyr to “Tory racism” (i.e. Brexit) so Jack Merritt becomes an ironic martyr to “Tory cuts” (i.e. underfunded “prison rehabilitation”). This is a perfect case study of liberal gullibility in face of crime and terrorism – re-read James Burnham’s prophetic analysis of this ideology, “Suicide of the West”. The UK Prime Minister was expected to make a statement on this latest perfect example of liberal folly and yet his measured response was predictably denounced as “exploiting” the horror as “election propaganda”.
LR says
Today, on Dennis Prager’s show he brought up this statement by the father of the deceased young man. Absolutely astounding. And here I thought the parents would be furious, and would be beating the doors down to stop !the idiocy of criminal law to let such madmen out.
jca reid says
This is simply a pathetic excuse. Westerners ought to read the Koran & see for what it is. It ORDERS Muslims to KILL, RAPE & ENSLAVE non-Muslims. It is an extortionate, Fascistic Death Cult! FACT!! The only way to “cure” this murderer is to give him a lobotomy & remove big chunks of his brain! Then again, a simple hollow point bullet would suffice.
WPM says
If his solicitor Vajahat Sharif had the opinion his client Mr. Khan was a danger to himself or general public at large he should have recommended confinement to a mental hospital .If in Mr. Sharif opinion his client was violently “mental ill” and he did not bring this point to the authorities is he failing to protect his client from hurting himself? I am not a lawyer or know anything about English law ,but if according to this solicitor his client was a threat to himself or society what did he do to protect his client letting him roam the streets like a rabid dog looking to attack someone? If someone non-Moslem talks about killing other people openly ,makes plans that are foiled by the authorities that including bombing ,stabbing,ect ,would he be confined to a mental hospital locked up, or to jail and or even closely watched? Why is the bar set so high any confinement for “mental ill” repeat violent Jihadist in mental hospitals or jails?? Is following Islam to the letter of the law in their Holy Books a form of mental illness in itself??
mortimer says
Lawyer Vajahat Sharif highlights the problem: no Western government has produced a serious, rigorous deprogramming protocol for jihadists. It will involve weaking and perhaps destroying their faith in Islam’s FOUNDATIONAL TEXTS by showing they are of HUMAN ORIGIN.
Once the ‘halo’ is removed from the Koran and hadiths, Muslims often leave Islam instantaneously, but the deprogramming can be lengthy … several months.
Giacomo Latta says
Why is it the public’s responsibility to deradicalize anybody? If muslims don’t want to spend their life in jail due to their murderous instincts then let them open their own wallets and seek deradicalization.
gravenimage says
London Bridge jihadi’s solicitor says “deradicalization” help he got “not enough,” needed “jihadist ideology expert”
……………………..
That sounds like an orthodox Imam to me. Let us know how that works out…