Islamist terrorists, by rejecting the force of British law, put themselves outside its protections

SIR – When I was a criminal defence lawyer, I defended hundreds, if not thousands, of thieves and robbers. I never met one who justified theft or robbery.

They admitted the validity of laws on theft and robbery; they simply denied, mendaciously for the most part, that they had broken them. They were thus entitled to the protection of our laws – in their case, presumption of innocence and trial by jury.

By contrast, Islamist terrorists, far from acknowledging our laws, deny their validity. Their “defence” is not that they have not committed acts of terror, but that they were entitled to do so. In making that assertion they exclude themselves from protections that would otherwise apply.

We can never “beat terrorism,” any more than we can “beat evil”. We can, however, recognise terrorism for what it is and act accordingly. Theresa May has understood that; Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron have not. Patrick Nicholls

Hemyock, Devon SIR – Dr Azeem Ibrahim (Comment, June 6) writes that “all British nationals owe allegiance to the Queen”. Faith is not mentioned.

In the Jewish faith, the rabbi leads prayers in the Sabbath service for the “welfare of the Royal family, the Government and counsellors.” Followers of the faith, British or not, participate in this expression of loyalty.

Should British Muslims encourage imams to deliver a similar message publicly to Muslim worshippers? Henry Carlton

London N14

SIR – Proponents of Islam never tire of telling us that it is a religion of peace; consequently acts of brutality perpetrated in its name are un-islamic.

But anyone who claims that Koranic texts were written symbolically and, over time, came to be read literally, inverts the truth. Only modern scholars such as Kecia Ali read them symbolically. And none are more gullible in believing them than secularists like Tom Holland (Comment, June 6).

Politicians show exaggerated deference to such apologists – a deference never offered, for example, to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

If Islam is truly a religion of peace, evidence should be sought not in verbal assurances but in the way Muslim-majority countries treat minorities, including apostates, and society’s sexual deviants. Are nonmuslim places of worship permitted and protected; do non-muslim citizens have equal rights under law; are homosexuals free from harassment? Certainly not. But until these happen, Muslim apologists cannot justifiably claim theirs to be a religion of peace.

I also take issue with Tom Holland’s reference to “liberal, secular democracy” as if no other society is liberal and democratic. These three words don’t necessarily go together. Secularism was responsible for forced sterilisation of “underclasses” in the Thirties and for the rises of Marxism and Nazism. In Britain today, Christians and Jews are pressurised by so-called British (actually secular) values that undermine parental authority in education.

True liberalism and democracy have their roots not in secularism but in religions where men and women, being made in the image of God, acquire inalienable rights. Ian Turner

Tonyrefail, Glamorgan

SIR – Much hatred of the British way of life is, of course, conveyed through the internet and we applaud attempts to control that. Yet evidence suggests that, at some mosques, instead of preaching love, tolerance, respect and peace, the message is of hate – and even violence.

As a Christian priest, I’d welcome a visitation by someone empowered to hear and judge my preaching. I would hope the same would be true of preachers in any temple, synagogue, mosque or church.

Rev Canon Charles Masheder

Bere Regis, Dorset