Episode 14 Sunday Morning Live

As a worldwide hunt is launched for a British Muslim woman with alleged

links to terrorism, and Sunday Morning Live we ask if British

Muslims are doing enough to prevent the radicalisation of young people.

Good morning. I am Samira Ahmed. Also wanted a's programme, weddings

may still be big business but they are in decline. Cohabiting couples

are on the increase. So, is marriage a thing of the past? If I had my

way, I probably would not get married, would just live together

and be happy. But my fiance, she felt that the marriage was something

she really wanted and was important to her. And we enter the world of

The Ottomans, the empire that lasted 600 years, as Rageh Omar tells us

about his new landmark EDC series. Wow, look at this. This is the view

that the Ottoman sultans would have seen. It simply takes your breath

away. Well, joining me this week for a special debate are Peter

Hitchens, author and former foreign correspondent. He is a columnist

from the Mail on Sunday. Yvonne Ridley is a journalist that was

captured by the Taliban in 2001. She converted to Islam after release and

has become a vocal supporter of Muslim causes. Peter Neumann is

Professor of Security studies at King's College London and is

director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation. And

Usama Hasan fought with the Mujahideen against Soviet forces,

before changing his views on jihad. He is now part of a counterterrorism

think tank, the Quilliam Foundation. You can join us through

Skype, and you can give your views through Twitter or on phone.

Now, British Muslims have taken part in foreign conflicts around the

world, including Afghanistan, Bosnia and Syria. Now it is claimed that

some young Muslims have also been recruited from the UK by Al-Shabab,

which exposes jihad, or holy war, and claims response ability for the

attack on the Westgate Mall in Kenya. One alleged British Muslim

convert with alleged links to terrorism has been put on

Interpol's watchlist. But why are some Muslims attracted by the idea

of jihad? The attack in Kenya by Al-Shabab,

taking place, as it did, in a shopping mall, Lord home once again

the true horror of terrorism. British Muslim convert some

Lewthwaite, dubbed the white widow, married to one of the London 7/7

suicide bombers has been linked with the planning of the attack. So far,

there is no concrete evidence to support this. However, she is sought

for questioning over another alleged terrorism offence, and Interpol has

circulated her details, describing her as dangerous. It has been

reported that there could be around 50 Britons involved with Al-Shabab.

Americans, too. Like other terrorist movements, the organisation uses the

internet to glamorise its activities. If you guys only knew

how much fun we have over here. This is the real Disneyland. Come here

how much fun we have over here. This and join us. I would like to take

this opportunity to invite all of the Muslims living in the lands of

disbelief to the land of jihad. It the Muslims living in the lands of

was the dead of night when he finally departed... There has been

action to limit the spread of radical teaching from the UK. Abu

Qatada has been deported to Jordan. radical teaching from the UK. Abu

Omar Bakri Mohammed is banned from Britain. But the killing of Drummer

Lee Rigby on a London street, the foiling of other plots and the

continuing resonance of the 7/7 bombings has left a shadow over the

Muslim community. Even though prominent leaders and imams in

Britain continually speak out against extremism, some critics say

that Muslims need to do more to tackle attempts to radicalise young

people. So, are Muslims doing enough to

prevent radicalisation? It is very difficult. The Muslim community is

prevent radicalisation? It is very being bashed in one direction for

not doing enough, it feels under fire. You go into mosques, where

political discussion is banned. Young people are not encouraged to

talk about Iraq, Afghanistan on political issues. And this is wrong.

We need more discussion in mosques, in the Muslim community. Before I

converted to Islam, I was a practising Christian. The church I

went to in St James's Park Piccadilly had a political sermon

every Sunday. The microphone was passed around and we discussed

things openly. The question for our text vote is that this morning.

Peter Hitchens, there is a sense that there is a lot of... A lot of

the news media only focus on the negative, and that a lot of coverage

in Britain about Muslims is negative. Could that be part of the

bigger picture, where young people feel alienated and potentially

radicalised? No, Muslims are coloured in this way because news

tends to be negative. News is when things go wrong, and that inevitably

means when you get covered by newspapers it is when you do things

that are wrong. When people do things or say things which are

generally considered by an awful lot of people to be outrageous, it is

not surprising that the media cover it. I think it is perfectly right

for the media to cover it. Islam, if you are a believer, is the core

belief of your life. If you are not, it is a philosophical and

political position, with which you can disagree. A lot of people do

disagree with it and they are quite right to criticise it. Usama, you

did take up arms in the name of jihad, against the Soviets. Can you

tell us why you did that? Fighting for God and the Muslim nation, I

felt very strongly that any cause involving Muslims abroad was my

cause. Also, a desire for martyrdom. It was also very exhilarating. It

was really cool, as a young man. I was only 19. It was cool to learn to

fire a gun and fired them in anger on the front lines, and these

spectacular antigens. It was really exhilarating, really inspiring and

something that stayed with me for the rest of my life. What made you

change your mind? What distinctions did you make about jihad? The Our

group sent a dozen fighters to Afghanistan and Bosnia in the 90s.

We saw that, jihad, where Muslims were facing ethnic cleansing. But

one wing of the movement became Al-Qaeda and started diversifying to

attacks on Western civilians and increasingly killing Muslims around

the world. I did a lot of soul-searching and realised there

was a big difference between ethical, jihad, and the subversion

of that where it was used for terrorism and indeterminate attacks

on civilians outside of the theatre terrorism and indeterminate attacks

of war. You said you found the idea terrorism and indeterminate attacks

of martyrdom attractive. Many people would be astounded by that and do

not understand the appeal. I think anybody with an ethical position in

life, it is perfectly logical to live and die, struggling for noble

causes. Better to stick to principles of truth, justice and

stand up for what is right. Briefly, where did you get recruited into

this group that send people to jihad? In college? At Boston

University and College. It is a core teaching of Islam to live a noble

life and offer your life to God. Martyrdom is a Greek word that is

also in Christian Scriptures. Peter Neumann, it's interesting that it

was University, these are still the areas where people worry about

radicalisation and why young people are being targeted and vulnerable to

it? I called them places of vulnerability. Often people go to

university and they feel quite lost. They are quite susceptible to people

approaching them, building networks around them and giving them a sense

that they belong. I think that is why universities are vulnerable

places for radicalisation. But also prisons. Over the last few years we

have seen some of that shifting. So there are not radical mosques any

more, in the same way that they used to be before 2001. A lot of this

happens online now, in addition to the actual places. Peter Hitchens,

it is interesting, if one was saying there has been a shutting down of

debate around politics in places like mosques. I wonder if, in a way,

it is counter-productive and makes it will feel that they go and

discuss it in private groups and that is how they get sucked into

radicalisation? It raises the issue about radicalisation, being excited

about that. Is Google A lot of young people are revolutionaries. I was

myself, I believed in the overthrow of the capitalist system by

violence. Look at me now. It doesn't necessarily mean you will do

violence. Look at me now. It doesn't anything. We don't judge people by

what they think or say, unless it is incitement to violence, we judge

what they think or say, unless it is them by what they do. I think there

is a lot of rubbish talked about radicalisation, trying to reach into

people's minds in this fashion. If people want to discuss these

things, the more openly they do it, the better. From a security point of

view, the more open the better, because then you know what they are.

If they do start doing things, you can do something about it. You say

you can't change the way people think, but the real concern was

about cults in the 70s and 80s, the idea that you had to do programme

people, that has been the targeting of people with learning

difficulties? You sympathise with the families, but the idea that you

can reach into people's minds with the authority of the state and

change the way that they think, it ought to be repellent to

change the way that they think, it person. It's not something you

should think of doing. People change their minds not because of being

made to, but because of the experience of life. Coming up

against things, finding out what they believed was wrong. They can

sometimes be made to change their minds by debate. The thing we are

concerned with in a free society is not what people think Tom at what

they do. Peter, do you want to take that one first? It is very

important, if you want to blow yourself up, you have to be 100%

certain that is the right thing to do. That is why I think that you

need to provide counter voices. Not to convince people that the point of

view is wrong, but maybe insert that 10% element of doubt that will

prevent you from blowing yourself up, because you need to be 100%

sure. That is why it is important to have this basis for discussion. Not

to have people convince each other of each other's point of view, but

because it inserts the element of doubt that prevents you from doing

so. There is a very important point I would like to get off my chest,

first and foremost, if we are arguing with the Muslim criticism of

Western society, we should stop arguing with it by measure of force.

Saying, in response to what militant Muslims do, what violent Muslims do,

we will respond with violence and war is against terror. I always

remember, when George W Bush was denouncing, at some point, some

terrorist action, he said, date, the Muslims, hate our way of life. In

many ways, I hate our way of life as well. There is a lot about modern

Western society which is squalid and to generate, seen from a

straightforward Christian point of view. There is a critique there.

There is a much better answer to it an armed force and secret least

techniques and surveillance. That is to argue about what the solution is.

The trouble is, our society, having largely abandoned the Christian

faith, does not have much of an answer be on saying, we are better,

you are worse. People should be able to push out the globe and explore,

but they are being pushed out. We did come under the eye of the

security services. I think mosques should be places where people can

discuss politics. In some cases, should be places where people can

extremists have shut down the discourse. Anybody that

criticises... approaching them, building networks

around them and We discourse. Anybody that

criticises... Anybody supporting terrorism, which has happened in a

very small number of mosques, people have shutdown that debate.

Universities have to do more. It's not just Muslims that need to deal

with this problem. I have been called an extremist, I don't support

Al-Qaeda. Why would you write to a TV station, saying, don't use this

woman, she is an extremist? That was before my time, but I was called an

extremist. The whole issue of how Muslims are labelled, I would like

extremist. The whole issue of how to bring in another contributor from

our London studio. She is a journalist that has been writing for

many years over her concerns about radicalisation. You have heard the

debate so far. There is interest on whether debate is being shut down

debate so far. There is interest on and should be opened up again. Why

is there still such a problem with radicalisation? I agree with Usama.

It has to be a proper debate. Whenever I write anything, this

growing Conservative, with a small C, that has grown across the West,

this brand of Islam, if you raise anything they don't like, they shut

you down. In what sense? They threaten you. I have had severe

problems, for example with the veil. I wrote some columns about it. You

should see the correspondence. They are not open to debate. I think it

should see the correspondence. They is wrong to say what should Muslims

do about this? I think the question should be, what should we all do

about it? I understand their anger and I agree with Peter completely on

his analysis about these wars. But there is a problem which we never

had before. A slow kind of growth of the idea that you can never belong

to these societies in which you live. But this is going on in modern

Britain? There is this idea that there is only one way of being a

Muslim and you can't talk about it. Also, that we don't belong. You get

a lot of flak from other people, saying, you don't belong. When we

start saying, we don't want to belong, there is a kingdom somewhere

that we are now going to belong to an fight to, that is quite twisted.

Stay with us. I want to put that issue to an imam and fellow in

Islamic studies for the Westminster Institute. The concept of jihad, we

know, is conflict and difficult. At the idea of the brotherhood, which

could be a positive one, there is a danger that it is also a way of

saying that you are never going to be part of a country, you should not

have a national allegiance. Somehow the brotherhood of Muslims out there

is more important. The notion of a Muslim is standing in relation to

God, that is how the Scriptures have articulated it. I never bought a

membership card to be a member of the so-called Muslim community. Like

every other British citizen, I have multiple allegiances, a fiddle

player, a member of a family, a nation and culture. What I am

concerned about is a growing political correctness that erodes

the political freedom in which we can talk about questions about

things such as jihad. There is not a single one of my Jewish colleagues,

for example, who was and thoroughly embarrassed, or Christian

colleagues, who are not embarrassed about certain passages in the Bible

that promote violence, slavery, child marriage and stoning. In a

culture such as ours, which is one of intellectual freedom, we need to

have the ability to discuss these questions in relation to Islam and

to Muslims, and to what the Koran to say. We don't believe in aid desert

society of brutal vendettas and blood feuds. Our texts need to be

revisited and revised in connection to the societies in which we live, a

plural society with multiple belongings. I am worried that we

have an interfaith industry, taxpayer funded. We talk about

challenging extremism, but we get millions of pounds in taxpayer money

to organisations like the Interfaith Network For The United Kingdom on

whose membership includes groups like the Islamic foundation, the

Muslim Foundation Of Great Britain, and there is a report coming out

that outlines these things. I think we need to look at the

contradictions in these matters, about intellectual freedom and free

debate about core theological questions. What is your reaction? I

wish I could go and speak to him. He speaks for so many of us. One of

those awful things is that what he has had the courage to say, even I

sometimes find I don't have the courage to say. Let's look at all of

these things afresh. But there is this shut down. When Muslims

complain that debates are being shut down, they are right to complain.

But Muslims are also shutting down the kind of debate we need to have.

Usama, the column foundation, which you now work for, it very much works

on counterterrorism and helping people with a background in

radicalisation. Is there something about converts that makes them more

vulnerable to extremist ideology? We talked a lot about problems in eight

within Muslim debate. But conversion is part of the issue, isn't it? Not

necessarily. But some comrades got into terrorism very quickly. The

shoe bomber, one of the 7/7 bombers, the Woolwich suspect in

Bristol, or attempted bombings at least. One of the problem is that

the Muslim unity has to deal with is making the mosques more welcome for

converts. Many, many converts, plain that mosques are unlike Pakistani or

Bangladeshi clubs, if you like, there is a strong cultural element

where Western converts do not really feel welcome. If they are going to

marginalised, they might be more vulnerable to extremist groups,

especially as they don't know much about Islam. What are your thoughts

about the discussion we have just heard? One can often encounter

intelligent, liberal minded Muslims living in the West, who take this

sort of attitude towards their faith. But the problem is, how much

sort of attitude towards their do they speak for the religion as a

whole? I travelled to wear one of the great Muslim universities is in

India, Durban, and I spoke to one of the teachers. This thought that the

Koran can be changed, you can go to the Reformation like the Christian

one, is that possible? They said, absolutely not, it is the unmediated

Word of God, it is not possible to change it. One has to turn to

Muslims and say, this is what you believe, you are, in a way, stuck

with it. If you want to debate about what religious precepts people

should follow, then I would say the what religious precepts people

great debate that has to be had in this country, and ought to be before

it is too late, is whether we should accept Islam as being the

predominant religion in the world, which is possible in the next

century, or if we should rediscover Christian roots, argue for them and

say to our Muslim brothers and sisters that this is a Christian

country and that is the rule that we have decided on. The basis of our

civilisation. You have to accept that as well. I just want to put

that to the doctor, there is a fundamental non-negotiation about

the status of Islamic belief. That is the biggest problem we have got?

I don't think that is a tall true. is the biggest problem we have got?

We have a practice of engagement by scholars from the Jewish, Christian

and Islamic traditions, looking deep into our text, deep into the

vastness and contradictory nature of our traditions. We're not actually

vastness and contradictory nature of that different. Text 's contain

traditions that are profoundly uplifting. The Abraham extraditions

promoted worship of one God, ethical codes, the basis for behaviours for

promoted worship of one God, ethical people that have been deeply

disturbing, however, as well. They have promoted violence and genocide.

It can be looked at together in a shared, scriptural conversation.

That is exactly the kind of work we are doing. I am concerned about the

interfaith industry of saying nice things we don't really mean about

people we don't really like. It's promoting certain Muslim groups like

the MCB. In reality, they don't represent them. Only 6% of Muslims

survey to felt that the MCB represented them in any way, shape

or form. There is a silent majority of Muslims. I want to bring in Peter

Newman. It's not just about the content of the Islamic faith. What

draws people into radical extremism and terrorist groups, it is the

sense of brotherhood people get. The idea rock belonging to something.

It's important to have that discussion about the content of

faith. A 17-year-old is not an expert. We don't have somebody from

the Muslim Council of Britain on to defend their ideology. I will let

you back in on this. There is an issue, if there is a politically

correct attempt to shut down discussion, is there also an issue

where Muslims portray themselves as victims? In Syria, where they want

Western intervention, war in Iraq, victims? In Syria, where they want

where they should not have intervened? People always portray

themselves as victims if they want intervened? People always portray

to get help. I'm not saying he is insincere in what he says about

Islam. And we do face this problem. It is most strongly shown in the

treatment of women in Islam. Their legal position, the way in which

treatment of women in Islam. Their they are increasingly pressured, as

Yasmin correctly said, to take the veil. It is not going away, it is

getting stronger. And you cannot believe the Islamic faith, it is an

absolute offence. There is no expert. A fundamental thing which

does not change. The issue that Yasmin was making, to some extent,

is that there is a growing conservatism in the public voice of

is love. Muslims who leave the faith say that they have to keep a secret.

Do you accept there is a problem that you cannot leave the faith

without it being dangerous? They have been told there is. You

don't think there is a problem? Ask a conservative, they don't represent

the majority. You may not be aware of this but the Reformation has been

going on for a century and a half. It was repealed by the Ottomans. We

will hear about the Ottomans later. Britain in the 21st-century, what

did you want to say? I would like to pick on several things that have

been said. Interfaith, talking about excluding groups, he mentioned a

couple of Muslim groups, a Hindu group. That is when you are heading

down. We have got growing concerns about British Muslim terrorists in

instances abroad. There are two separate issues. The fact religions

have become more conservative is not only true for Islam, it is true for

Jewish Orthodox, evangelicals. It has been a worldwide trend, there

are reasons for that. That is a problem for society. A separate

problem which is about terrorism. The two things don't always are not

necessarily connected. I would like to bring in, I would like to move

the discussion on two solutions if we are looking for a way out. We can

speak to the author of Islam without Extremes. You have been discussing

how radicalisation is making summary take up the jihad. Is there a

difference between people going to places like Syria and joining groups

like Al-Shabab, is a difference between them?

There is a difference, I don't live in the UK, I live in Turkey and

there is a difference between a Muslim minority in a non-Muslim

society and the communal tensions created by that might lead to Morag

-- radicalisation. I hear some voices in the UK that are parallel

in Turkey. I agree that apostasy is a problem in mainstream tradition.

As for jihad, the concept should not be demonised, we should actually

criticise groups like Al-Shabab and Al-Qaeda for violating the rules of

jihad. Article Islamist. During in the middle a test -- during the

middle ages, there was a big difference between combatants and

noncombatants. Noncombatants were considered literal, legitimate

targets. They are violating the rules of jihad.

Can I bring Yasmin back in? I cannot help feeling I have heard this

argument about Al-Qaeda are not actually good Muslims, but it is not

necessarily helping in terms of young people getting radicalised.

What is the solution? It is a very clever trick. Whenever

Muslims do anything wrong, let's face it, many Moslems do a lot of

bad things -- Muslims. When I talk about them people say they are not

bad things -- Muslims. When I talk real Muslims. Once you have started

saying they are not real Muslims you have disengaged with a problem. It

is a difficult problem but I come from a community which is ostracised

everywhere by Muslims, we are not considered part of the real Islam,

these schisms. Nowadays there is this terrible problem, what happens

is the surest -- these purists deny this terrible problem, what happens

all responsibility for the bad things that are done.

I want the panel to respond on solutions to radicalisation. What

works? Muslims need to recapture the spirit about faith in God. What do

you do that is helping young people turn their back on it? We are

challenging the narratives. Misusing scripted to do that. We want to

point out the diversity of thought right from the beginning and

encourage people to have a debate. By closing down debate in

universities. That is not true. You need to open up the universities to

a real, full debate and bring in so-called extremists. University

students are not idiots. If somebody is standing up spouting nonsense

they are not going to be sucked in. We have to give our young people

more credit and explore all the avenues. One tried to blow up a

plane. One example, you go on about avenues. One tried to blow up a

converts to Islam, there are more than 100,000 converts to Islam in

Britain since 9/11. The majority of females are not going out to blow

ourselves up yet that is the way the perception has. How do you tell

Al-Qaeda they don't represent Muslims? There is no leader. How do

you do this thing that is supposed to change everything? My argument

is, they are real Muslims, they are fanatic Muslims. That is the

problem. They don't represent the majority of Muslims. The Internet

that a and of Islam has been detached even from tradition. In

particular they also believe in a certain vision of the world in which

every conflict in the modern world they believe is a conspiracy by the

West. I am afraid we have to leave it there, we don't have much time.

They will say the same about him, that is the trouble. Neither of them

can agree. Solutions? The man who tried to blow up the plane, open and

free debate is the best way to deal with things in modern society. Can

we stop using Islamophobia. Finally, if our society is to defend

ourselves against this, the rediscovery of the beauty and force

of the Christian religion might be a good start. Challenging the

narrative should happen not only in universities and prisons, but also

online. A lot of experienced voices are not counted. Traditional groups

are not online and doing the work where young people are. Thanks to

you all for this considered discussion. The question is, are

Muslims doing enough to prevent radicalisation of young people? You

can only vote once. You have around 20 minutes before

the vote closes. There are 18 million families in the

UK, but only 12 million married couples. Weddings have almost halved

since the 1980s whilst the number of cohabiting couples has doubled. The

government has just signalled its support for tying the knot by

announcing tax breaks for couples, with the Prime Minister describing

marriage as the commitment which binds families. Does the decline of

marriage mean it is a thing of the past?

Fewer people may be getting married than ever before, but it still

remains a multi-billion pound industry in the UK. At a wedding

show in Belfast this weekend, there were plenty of things to splash out

on. Many couples were planning for their big day, and not surprisingly,

few felt marriage was a vanishing institution. I would not consider

marriage a thing of the past, because when you find your true

love, you want to spend your life with them. I believe in it, and it

is arranging everything, and having a day out with your friends and

family is amazing. I am a Christian, so marriage is the next

step. If I had my way, I probably wouldn't get married, just live

together and get happy. But my fiance felt it was important to her.

I love her and I want to be with her. That is why we are getting

married. Cohabitation is now the fastest growing family type in

Britain. However, it may not be the happiest, according to a recent

study by the Marriage Foundation, which found couples with children

study by the Marriage Foundation, who are cohabiting are more likely

to split up than those that are married. I do feel more people are

living together first, having families and then deciding to tie

the knot and get married. The tax breaks planned by the government

the knot and get married. The tax were welcomed, but most people did

the knot and get married. The tax not see them as an incentive to get

married. In terms of tax breaks, when was the last time you got

involved in something where you thought, let's get the government

involved in this? I don't think the government needs to be involved.

They shouldn't be any incentive to get married, if you love each other

and want to get married, that should be sufficient. I never wanted any

and want to get married, that should incentive to get married. The reason

is I loved her. Right answer. A fascinating insight from couples in

Belfast. Does marriage still serve a purpose or has it become an

expensive piece of paper that is no longer relevant. You can take part

in the debate by webcam. I am joined by Tess Finch Lees. A lot of people

are concerned the idea of marriage is declining. Historically, people

got married because they thought it was better if they were going to

have children. Outcomes are better the children in married households.

That is not because of the marriage themselves, but it is because they

have higher incomes. Poverty is a great determinant of children's

outcome with 3 million children living in poverty in the UK and 2.5

million in fuel poverty. I think that is more prevalent debate on a

piece of paper. Marriage is just an irrelevance to raising families?

What we had in the 1960s was an eruption of adult selfishness.

People saying, I want to live the life the way I want to live it. Some

dubbed by that awful song, Please Release Me, Let Me Go. The whole

idea was that adults from then on could indulge their own wishes. If

they felt they were constrained by an unhappy marriage, go and get a

divorce because the 1969 Are Forced Law Reform Act made it easier to get

divorced. It transformed our society from being a basically Protestants,

self-denying society to a self indulgent society. Everybody had a

lot of fun. The only people who suffered with children first of all

from the divorce of their parents, and now increasingly from having

fatherless families where they don't have the benefits of having two

parents chew -- throughout their childhood. I think children are more

resilient than we give them credit for. Coming out of the Second World

War, there were vast numbers of single mothers because they were

widowed, who brought up families the single mothers because they were

best way they could. But having said that, as a Muslim, half of my

religion is based on getting married. I was going to ask.

strong family values. In an ideal, perfect world, the family is all

important. It does say marriage is the bedrock of the family and

cohabitation is not an option? Not among practising or observing

Muslims. Do you think it is right? Do you think marriage in modern

Britain is obsolete or unnecessary. Or it is not how you need to define

a successful family? I don't think marriage is obsolete. It is still

very important in all religious communities. But I don't then the

whole fabric of society would suddenly collapse if some... I

cannot speak for the Muslim community, but if other

communities, if marriage was not such a requirement. The fabric of

society gradually crumbles. That is what we have been watching the last

society gradually crumbles. That is 50 years. But the thought that

marriage is a piece of paper and holds them together so therefore be

happy is ludicrous. I grew up in a country where divorce was not legal

happy is ludicrous. I grew up in a until 15 years ago. Domestic

violence, child abuse, people were miserable and living in war zones.

Why now should we say marriage is irrelevant if it has all the

safeguards. People say cohabitation has all the disadvantages of

marriage, and not the advantages. Quite the opposite will stop we know

marriage in itself is no panacea for happiness. And it is not. The idea

we judge people 's choices and people who are co-inhabiting a less

superior than those who are married. The contract that is important is

not a legal contract, it is the psychological contract. That is

true, and that is why referring to marriage as a piece of paper is a

nonsense. It is a promise. It is a personal promise and an oath in the

Christian concept to stay married for life. It is about intent. This

stuff we always get about domestic violence and child abuse. Does

anybody believe there is no domestic violence and child abuse in

unmarried households? On the contrary. Children are more at risk

in a household where there are serial boyfriends. The point is,

marriage itself is a panacea... It is better than the alternative. I

want to bring in a Reverend who is an Anglican priest. Do you think it

is an irrelevance? People know the cost of them has gone up and that is

what people talk about. They are very expensive will stop it is an

extraordinary amount of money. I would like to bring back the

romantic idea of marriage into this discussion. Whatever the implication

is, this is someone committing to their life. You cannot put a price

tag on that commitment to someone who will care for you when you are

sick and dying, you will be by your bedside. Not just when it is fun and

convenience, but for the rest of your life. That is an amazing thing

to promise to you whether it is through marriage or civil

partnership. You will have heard that it can be stigmatising. If you

look at this legislation, what it is doing is benefiting at partner who

stay at home with their children or stay at home because they are

working part-time. It allows women to make a choice as to whether they

go out to work or stay at home and looked after children. What is

important in society is we value everyone, especially mums who stay

at home and debate -- give their lives to cooking, cleaning and

looking at the young children. It may sound it is only £3 85 a week,

but it is an important statement society is making. This is the tax

break you are talking about. I would like to bring in a campaign from

Don't Judge My Family. I am interested in this idea there should

be no link made between marriage and success, yet we know all of the

evidence shows the more educated you are the more likely you are to get

married. Children tend to want it, don't they? I know Alastair Campbell

says his children wishes he would get married. The government is

planning to spend £700 million on just a few couples. Single parents,

widows, it is ruminate against cohabiting couples, it also describe

innate against many marriages, including those were both couples go

out to work, even on minimum wage. Lots of proponents of this openly

admit they think it would encourage people to marry, that it will

encourage them to stay married. Of the married couple that get it, only

one in four of them have children. I'm sorry, we have to leave it

there, because the quality of the line is bad. So there is concern

that if it actually makes a difference. It is the Tory party

shoring up their vote, of course. Is your view Rosie Thomas to -- a rosy

domestic ideal? My ideal is the partners making a commitment to

behave in equal ways. It is clear it is a marriage of equal human beings.

It is the constitution, as far as I am concerned, of private life. There

is no reason to assume that marriage is some kind of tyranny. What you

have to do in return is pretty considerable, I have to tell you. I

think we have to agree to disagree on this one, as to whether it is a

thing of the past. I don't think anyone is saying it is a thing of

the past. But it is a matter of choice. If you are talking about

romance, turning it into cost analysis undermines it completely.

Can I read some viewer comments? You and, I comest to love, honour and

bake until death parts is, I've been married for 50 years and I am

looking after my wife now. Another says that it is a religious concept,

making a commitment does not need paperwork, nor should it cost. You

have been voting on the question we set at the start of the programme.

Our Muslims doing enough to prevent the radicalisation of young people?

-- our Muslims. We will bring you the results at the end of the show.

Tonight sees the start of a landmark series on BBC Two, The Ottomans:

Britain's Muslim Emperors. Across three programmes, Rageh Omar

describes how they dominated one of the world was not the biggest

empires, which survived for 600 years. The impact still has

important resonance today. Today he gives us a flavour of what is to

come in his new series. From here in Istanbul, the glories

of the Ottoman Empire came to match those of ancient Rome. Wow, look at

this. This is the view that the Ottoman sultans would have seen. And

it simply takes your breath away. The Ottomans ruled over a

multi-faith Empire. There were Christians, Jews, Muslims. And yet,

the rulers themselves, The Ottomans, Christians, Jews, Muslims. And yet,

it was not that important to them as rulers. What they cared about was

power and maintaining their empire. Therefore, they were able to treat

each religion with a sense of tolerance in April two order to keep

the Empire together. Suleiman the Magnificent was perhaps the greatest

of all the Ottoman sultans. In the 19th century, he was arguably the

most powerful man in the world. But that was not only the reason why he

was so important. He expressed his power in some of the most

breathtaking architecture you are ever likely to see. The capture of

two cities unlocked a vast lands. Defeating the man look Empire gave

them lands extending to the ancient city of Jerusalem. Taking Cairo gave

them territory as far as the holiest sites of Islam, Mecca and Medina.

They were sultans, but they also gave themselves an additional

title. In doing so, they made themselves not just the political

leaders of the Muslim world, but the themselves not just the political

spiritual leaders as well. But were they, themselves, avowedly

practising Muslims? No. None of the they, themselves, avowedly

Ottoman sultans, in 600 years of they, themselves, avowedly

history, ever made the pilgrimage to Mecca, save one towards the end.

Most of them drank alcohol. They presided over Koreans, hareems, to

provide heirs to the sultans. They did not live a very Islamic life.

Constantinople was the last Christian stronghold facing a Muslim

world. It was set to become the scene of a great clash of religions.

world. It was set to become the In the West, the defeat of

Constantinople is known as the fall. Here, it is the conquest. It

was more than a strategic game. The taking of this city would be

remembered for centuries as the moment of Muslim triumph. In the

remembered for centuries as the Christian world, it was a calamity.

The great collapse. It was seen as being the ending of this ancient

Christian city. The purging, if you like, of the great symbol of

Orthodox Christianity in what was Constantinople. Its conversion into

a mosque, Friday prayers being held there, the whole building being

stripped of all its icon on... Iconography. It is almost a clash of

civilisations. There are two central factors for me that explain the

implosion of the Ottoman Empire that lasted for 600 years. One is that

they failed to keep pace with technological development is in the

West. They were no longer a modern power. Secondly, the rise of the

idea of nationalism. Here was the Ottoman Empire, multiethnic,

multi-faith, suddenly, all of their subjects wanted to be bold variant,

Arabic or Romanian. Suddenly, you found all of these rebellions

spreading in the Empire, were once people were willing to live the

multi-faith life. If you look around the world, where are the global

hotspots? Israel and Palestine, Syria, Egypt. Other countries in

North Africa. The Balkans, Bosnia, Serbia. These were all in the

Ottoman Empire. The way that the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the nature

in which it was done, if left lasting political scars that are

still being felt to this day. It is another reason why learning about

it, finding out about it, is so important to our world today.

Here is an empire that started in medieval times, in the 1300 Best. It

lived for 600 years. By the time the rule of The Ottomans came to an

end, we were in the industrial age. Here is this empire that spans the

industrial age and ends at a time when there are aeroplanes, steam

engines and the modern world. That is an amazing period of history for

one dynasty to rule. The Ottomans: Europe's Muslim

Emperors is on BBC Two. We can bring you the result of the viewer vote.

We asked if Muslims are doing enough to prevent the radicalisation of

young people. 96% said no. It is always just a snapshot. There is a

big image problem? It is mainly an image problem. But it is a problem

for wider society as well, not just Muslims. Muslims can deal with the

religious aspect. But a question like that puts Muslims apart from

the rest of western society, which is not writing itself. We are all

part of British society and it is for all of society to deal with

this. Can you ever really do enough to prevent the horrible things that

have been done in the name of Islam? I think you can't. Obviously more

can and should be done. Whether it should take the form of suppression

of freedom of speech is another matter. Your focus would be on what?

I think we have to argue for our own society and for its virtues, to

remember what they are. They are fundamentally Christian. Until we do

that, we haven't got much of an argument against Islam. Again, it is

down to discussion, opening up the discussion and remembering that

universities are places where there should be all sorts of discourse.

Not trying to control freedom of speech, trying to push one

narrative. Bring everyone in for a full discussion. I might be able to

narrative. Bring everyone in for a get in one or two of your comments.

Nick says, radicals hate mainstream muslins are as much as anybody else.

What are mainstream muslins supposed to do? Daniel says that British

Muslims are segregating themselves to do? Daniel says that British

from society, they believe non-believers are wrong in their

leave. Another, they are doing every thing they can, but the root causes

of radicalisation, Western governments, is beyond control.

Another says, we don't hear what they are doing to prevent

radicalisation so it seems they are not. Thanks for everybody who took

part through webcam, and thanks to my guests in the studio. Do not text

or call any more, the lines are closed. But you can continue the

conversation online. There are links on the website. That is it for this

week. Goodbye.