A British man believes his teenage son, who traveled to Syria to join a jihadist group, was radicalised by an imam from a UK mosque.
Rahim Kalantar, father of Ali, 18, told the BBC he believes his son is now fighting for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), an active jihadist group in Iraq and Syria. Kalantar claims that an imam sent him “down this road,” but the imam denied the allegations.
Ali would be one of about 500 Britons who have gone to the Middle East to fight in the conflict.
Kalantar says he worries about his son “every minute” and that his grief is “limitless.” He believes that his son was brainwashed by the imam while Ali was taking classes at a mosque after evening prayer.
Although the BBC contacted the mosque to speak with the imam, he refused an interview and denied all allegations.
Kalantar believes this imam radicalized his son, as well as another 18-year-old, Rashed Amani.
Family members of Amani had travelled to the Turkish-Syrian border to search for the boys, but Amani’s father said they came back “empty-handed” after looking for over two weeks. He also feared that his son had joined ISIS.
“Maybe somebody worked with him, I don’t know. Maybe somebody brainwashed him because he was not like that,” he said.
This report comes after two other young Britons, Nasser Muthana and Reyaad Khan, both 20, appeared in a recruitment video posted by ISIS. In this video the two men encouraged other British Muslims to join the fighting in Iraq and Syria.
Former independent reviewer of terrorism laws, Lord Carlile, informed the BBC that the Muslim community itself was in the best position to prevent jihadists from recruiting in the UK. He also said that the UK needed to “reintroduce” tougher measures to stop terrorism.
“Mothers, wives, sisters do not want their husbands, brothers, sons to become valid jihadists and run the risk of being killed in a civil war,” he told the programme.
He also said that the Government needs to “look at preventing violent extremism before people leave the country and also we need to look for further measures.” He suggested reintroducing “something like control orders.” These were replaced in 2011 with Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPims), which are less restrictive than control orders.
United States President Obama announced on 19 June that he will send 300 U.S. special operation forces to Iraq in order to repel the uprising of Muslim jihadist troops involved with ISIS.
Although the jihadists recruit mainly Muslims, these incidents are just another way that the increasing Muslim population in Britain is affecting British culture.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The imam can deny all allegations by invoking taquia.
forget about your £6 billion aircraft carrier what about the enemy within? Security services have already admitted they cant keep tabs on all the jihadist returnees. The money should have been spent on beefing up MI5 and our ground forces of the Army who will be needed if these dangerous pschopaths have a mind to start street fighting in the UK. Far fetched? Islam is a missionary religion and will achieve its aims by force or peaceful means.
The returnees should be striped of their UK citizenship and refused entry into the UK even if they were born here. But no doubt human rights will prevail!
If Al Qaeda, ISIS, Islamic terrorism (or whatever you want to call them) are public enemy No 1 then why did the British Government actively participate (whether covertly or overtly) in the destruction of the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Assad all of which secular governments were bulwarks against these fanatics?
And why did they follow this course of action knowing fully well that these 3 nations are artificial constructs likely to disintegrate into a state of long term civil war if the strong central authority was removed?
Surely the fault lies with the British government not the Imams?
If British foreign policy were based on commonsense British interests (and not the lies pushed by the Washington neocons) there is no knowing how much death and destruction we could have avoided.
why did the UK/US governments destroy working countries with authoritarian regimes? Failure to understand the culture. Having lived in the ME I can say people prefer a strong man at the top and things like jobs, water, electricity, medical, security etc etc rather than the PC, humanistic rubbish we have called democracy in the west
We have jobs, water, electricity, medical services and security in the west AS WELL as democracy and a respect for human values. I don’t think therefore you can call this “rubbish”. Would Davidw prefer to live under a dictator like Franco ?
But agreed, some countries just don’t seem to keep working properly without a strong man to keep them together. Another example was Yugoslavia, where Tito was certainly a harmless uncle compared to what followed him. Russia has always needed its tsar, no matter what you call him. Perhaps the Middle East does need a Caliph. In the reasonably successful Ottoman Empire, the Sultan also acted as Caliph.
Rox, it is an illusion to think we live in a democracy (i.e. have a form of Government that respects majority opinion).
If you go to the website of Paul Craig Roberts (a senior ex-US politician) he will tell you that the USA is effectively controlled by an oligarchy of 6 groups all of whose interests converge.
This oligarchy (not the American people) decides if America will go to war after which the target nation is DEMONIZED by the SKY-CNN-BBC-FOX matrix of lies with a view to drumming up public support. The rest of us then get dragged in behind America.
Because of the foreign policy of the US neocon (which is one of these 6 groups) there are 1-2m dead in the Middle East, 7m displaced persons, 4 nations in a state of permanent civil war and America bankrupt with a debt of US$4T.
This tragedy promotes NO American or European national interest, is opposed by the majority of people and yet is done in OUR name, with the lives and limbs of OUR soldiers and with OUR taxes. Some democracy!
And now in OUR name Russia stands targeted by the same oligarchy using the utterly impoverished people of Ukraine.
Can you name a democracy which was not an oligarchy ?
Ours certainly was in the 19th and 18th centuries.
The Republic of Venice was an oligarchy, and so were all similar republics before the 19th century.
Democracy was invented in Athens, where the slaves didn’t get a vote, and they didn’t in the newly independent United States either.
We aren’t doing too badly compared to others, but perhaps like true communism, true democracy isn’t possible.
Some small Swiss cantons have a show of hands on everything, but I bet there are vested interests at work there, and I bet they are over-ruled by the federal government on the important matters.
Michael.
Good question . Why did our rulers invade Iraq in 2003?
How about ‘because they were wicked, deluded and drunk with power’?
It should be remembered that as well as a huge protest march in London by people of all faiths and none, the main church leaders all spoke against the invasion. The Saudi foreign minister said the invasion would ‘Open the gates of hell.’ Events proved him right.
We need a form of government that prevents this ever happening again.
and, breaking news, the Pope’s a Catholic!!!
I was a nominal Christian before becoming radicalised at university. As a radicalised Christian I came to believe that I was a sinner in need of a Saviour, that the bible was true, that evolution was untrue and much else. I used my money and time to promote my faith. As a radicalised Christian I tried and do try to follow the precept and example of the religion’s founder, Jesus of Nazareth.
The similarly radicalised Muslim will also study his Quran and seek to follow the precept and example of the founder of Islam. Unhappily, Muhammed was a mass murdering intolerant hate filled tyrant who believed in world conquest and imposition of sharia law. Bit of a problem really.
I believe that our liberal left rulers blinded themselves to the true nature of Islam because of their hatred of Christianity. They believe all religions are the same. They thought Islam would integrate and become liberalised like our mostly watered down Christianity. But their calculations were badly wrong and now we have 3 million plus Muslims in UK of whom a significant number will be radicalised to a greater or lesser extent.
We must love and pray for our Muslim neighbours and live and preach the Gospel of our Saviour Jesus. But on a political level, the discussion about Muslim ‘radicalisation’ must move from the bogeyman spectre of the occasional ‘extremist’ imam and instead look at whatxthe Quran actually teaches.
It seems to me that ISIS represents a genuine revival of authentic Islam. We ought to challenge the ‘religion of peace’ propaganda and demand accurate representation of the teaching and example of Islam’s founder.
well said Stephen! our politicians are totally naive and blinded by their secular humanism, PC anti Christian world view. All things can be fixed with a law. Muslims believe it also: its called Sharia — the way.
There is a lot of truth in this, but I don’t think Muhammed believed in the imposition of Sharia law, because it didn’t exist until after his death. Similarly, Jesus has been described as a rabbi, no more a Christian than Charles Wesley was a Methodist. If one takes that view, then Christianity was mainly founded by St Paul .
If you had asked people in the first-century Holy Land to describe Jesus, they would indeed have said he was a travelling Pharisee, or a rabbi. But he did intend to found a church:
Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
We read a lot about Paul and the churches he founded from Acts and his Epistles, but other apostles were active too.
Yes, but I did say “mainly by St Paul”, and a lot of the early theology comes from him. As for Jesus, one wonder what word he used for “church” which meant to people then something distinctly Christian and not Jewish. Surely it had to be a word meaning “community” or “sect”. He was not trying to persuade people not to be Jewish, in fact it was only Paul who freed Christians of all kinds of Jewish rules.
the word ‘ekklesia’ can mean a synagogue or any kind of religious congregation. There is a sense of assembly and of calling out. Theology certainly developed as the apostles made sense, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of the ministry of Jesus and the direction of his message. The conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10) was instrumental in bringing Peter to see that the gentiles could be believers, and then Paul started to preach to the gentiles first in Athens (Acts 16) and then in Corinth (Acts 17).
And you are right, Paul was one of the first to realise that the sacrifice of Jesus had swept away the Jewish sacrificial law, the division between Jew and gentile and hence the Jewish ceremonial law, circumcision being the central part. That is the message of his Epistle to the Galatians. In that letter he shows how the sacrificial law was a ‘schoolmaster’ to bring people to place their faith in the sacrifice of Christ.
The disciples were well-schooled and intelligent men, but God used the intellect of Paul to great effect.
“Mothers, wives, sisters do not want their husbands, brothers, sons to become valid jihadists and run the risk of being killed in a civil war,
That’s keeping the Muslims sweet isn’t it?! So Lord Carlisle believes jihad can be valid and he is more concerned about the terrorists losing their lives than about the people they kill beforehand. And more concerned about the terrorists bereaved families than those of the victims.
Shame on him – dissembling worthy of a Muslim.
Hi All,
I believe it goes deeper than Islam itself. As we know Islam is simply a false religion, but one which God will use to discipline our apostate nation. Just like The Lord used the Philistines as a thorn in the flesh to the Israelites, I see it much the same here. We are simply seeing God’s judgement on a godless nation. We have legalised the sin of homosexuality, murdered loads of unborn children for so called convenience. Is it any wonder God has allowed the Muslims to come in and judge us? Worse will come, unless God has mercy on us,
I agree that the word “valid” is strange here. I think he must mean “active” jihadist, one who actually goes and fights or terrorises rather than discussing it on paper, as it were.
I don’t think the point here is what Lord Carlile thinks himself.. (Incidentally Robin is right, it is Carlile not Carlisle.). The point is what the mothers, wives and sisters think. He is trying to get them to stop the young men enlisting , simply that. It’s the opposite of a white feather campaign. If he succeeds, there will be fewer bereaved families on both sides, and that is part of the idea, as well as to protect all of us from the return of seasoned jihadists.
I don’t quite see how Lord Carlile could be expected to arrange for British terrorists to die but not their victims. Not judicially, because if they didn’t have any victims they wouldn’t be guilty.
It always jars a bit when people like Nasser Muthana and Reyaad Khan are described as “Britons”. Even Queen Victoria and Handel are seldom described as “Britons”, but it’s not a word used much for bona fide Englishmen anyway. It evokes the Ancient Britons, from whom we are not descended (or not mainly). I can’t imagine Nasser Muthana painted in woad defying the Romans.