our main stories — north korea's former spy chief has arrived in new york for talks with the us secretary of state. the talks are intended to smooth the way for a summit between kimjong un and donald trump in less than two weeks‘ time. ukraine has admitted staging the fake murder of russian journalist arkady babchenko in kiev. moscow has condemned the move as propaganda. and this story is trending on bbc.com... a report submitted to the international whaling commission says japanese hunters caught and killed more than 300 minke whales during their annual hunt in the southern ocean. most were pregnant females or had not reached maturity. that's all from me now. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news it's time for hardtalk. share welcome to hardtalk with me, zeinab badawi.

my guest believes the gulf between islam and the west is widening and that westerners see the religion as something to be feared, rather than understood. he's the british writer and commentator, ed husain, who spent several years as a member of the radical islamist group, hizb ut—tahrir. he then turned his back on jihadism and has written about his own personaljourney, as well as trying to explain why people join extremist groups. well, now he's calling on moderate muslims to reclaim their religion from the extremists, but is he oversimplifying a complex issue and playing into the hands of islamaphobes? ed husain, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you for having me, zeinab. why do you feel you have a mission to explain islam to a wider audience and tackle extremism? for two reasons. one that, as a muslim, there's a command in the koran that says "speak the truth, even if it's against your own self." and having gone through a journey in my life, ifeel it's obligatory on me to do so, and secondly, because i literally believe that the house of islam globally is currently on fire, and it's just right for us, those of us who are muslims and understand this space, to try to put the water out from both within the house, but encourage the global neighbourhood to help us put the water out — put the fire out, forgive me. that won't happen unless we explain the inner dynamics that are at play within islam. all right, you said personal reasons as well. let us pick up on that first then. the fact that you were a jihadist — you could say in the past, you became radicalised at about age 16 to 21 — how much is that

a motivator for you? that's a huge motivator. when i was at school, i grew up in a mainstream indian muslim household, of sunni hanafi background, it's as mainstream as it comes. but at school, secondary school in the united kingdom, i was given a book by — written by maududi from the indian subcontinent, the founder of the jamaat islami group. that interpretation of islam is a political ideology that must dominate the world, put me on a trajectory that made me end up in the circles of hamas and hizb ut—tahrir and elsewhere. now, 20 years, later, i see that same dynamic played out. yes, it's called isis now, and boko haram and taliban, but the same dynamic of young muslims being exposed to an interpretation that wants to confront the west, wants to dominate the rest of the world and impose its own extremist, literalist... was that you? did you want to confront the west? i mean did you, for instance, contemplate any violent acts yourself? personally, i didn't walk the violent pathway, but i remember raising funds for extremist organisations, for terrorists.

today, i look back and i wonder why was i in, for example, the east london mosque raising funds for hamas? because we saw that as the right thing to do. now, millions... hamas isn't quite equated though with the so—called islamic state, is it? i accept it's not the islamic state, but it is an extremist group with a terrorist agenda and it does want to bring an end to israel's existence, and we are supporting its martyrs, who are in fact murderers. it was an area that was blurred for many of us and it shouldn't be. my concern today is that many, many young muslims are exposed to those extremist visions of islam that are taking them away from leading a peaceful, normal, coexistence based, live and let live life. we won't talk about it, but there are of course many palestinians who support it because they see it as a legitimate voice in their struggle

for reclaiming their territory. you've changed your mind and decided that extremism wasn't for you, but the reason people turn to extremism, it is a very complex matter. the director of the centre for islamic radicalisation of the university college london says that radicalisation is caused by a multiplicity of factors, which are often inextricably interwined. this complexity is frequently lost in polarised public debates. he's right that it is very complex why people turn to extremism. and the debate can be polarised. the debate can be polarised and yes, he's right, but i put to you that every factor that academics and others who wish to add an excessive layer of nuance onto why people become extremists and, ultimately, confront their parents and the rest of society, and blow themselves up in the worst—case scenario, every factor, whether it's unemployment, whether it's displacement, whether it's youth angst, or whether it's the lack of a feeling of dignity, all of those factors apply to members of other communities. be they sikhs... is that so, really?

be it the russians who lost their empire, be it the germans who were demolished in two world wars, or be it the hindu indians who've come here, or be it the poor mauritanians and bangladeshis, who are excessively poor if you want to talk about poverty. why is it that they are not becoming suicide bombers in large number? i was putting a different point to you, though. why is it happening in tunisia, egypt, or in qatar or kuwait, or indeed, here in the west? but i was putting a different point to you, which is how do you account for the fact that you might have a white muslim convert who joins the so—called islamic state, a muslim born a muslim, who comes from an affluent background, everything to live for, university, has got a great future ahead of them, joins so—called is? you've got those who are marginalised, the misfits. i mean peoplejoin for different reasons, that's the point. they may not necessarily feel that they are marginalised. i completely agree that there is no one route into it, but my point is that people arrive at the so—called islamic state argument through various routes, and be it a sense of politics,

wanting to belong, group dynamics, or wanting to confront modernity, a whole range of factors but ultimately... but are you not oversimplifying it, ultimately? no but, ultimately, they want to impose their reading out on the society and that is the problem, that there is an ideology at play, and just as communism had multiple routes, stalin was different to trotsky, was different to lenin, ultimately they wanted... they all end up with the same cause is your point, whatever the reasons for joining that cause in the first place. and for us, for those of us opposing them, it's incumbent on us to understand that and demolish the arguments for that cause. one reason is a cause for extremism, you say in your new book the house of islam, is this desire to establish a caliphate. that happened when we saw is establish its territory in syria and iraq but look, now, may 2018, that they do not hold any territory.

98% of the territory they had has been reclaimed by the syrians, by the iraqis, so your argument does not necessarily hold water. on the contrary, they are today stronger because their territory's been demolished. when they had their territory, they were defending a narrow land mass. now, we have over 35,000 fighters that have been widespread throughout the world, and they will and they can strike us anywhere and everywhere. secondly, they now have a grievance. previously, they had territory and they had to govern, for all their flaws. now they have a grievance, which is the west and its allies destroyed our caliphate and it's incumbent upon us to hit back against our enemies and recreate another caliphate. by the way, this obsession... so you think that they will try to get a resurrection of a geographical, physical space that they will call a caliphate? absolutely. they've done that on three occasions in the last 60 years. one was the creation of saudi arabia, second was the creation of the taliban

in the emirates, third was isis. i don't think you can say that saudi arabia was established by a terrorist group, but anyway... a terrorist group controlled them, the founder of saudi arabia controlled them. he was in alliance with the wahhabi. they wanted to overtake kuwait and qatar. they were reined in by the founder of saudi arabia, that's just historical fact. ok, is has lost its headquarters in raqqa in syria. you believe that they will go and reformulate a caliphate somewhere physically, geographically, again? if not that abu bakr al—baghdadi led entity, whether it is boko haram or the taliban, the impetus, the desire, the craving, the madness to create a so—called islamic state is alive and well in large numbers of islamists and their violentjihadist cousins across the middle east, across the muslim world. unless we confront that idea,

the belief that it is a religious obligation — by the way, it is not and muslim scholars have repeatedly said it is not — unless we move that idea from under theirfeet, they will continue to attack and yes, there will be another caliphate declared in due course. right, so you make it quite clear and most would agree with you that you need to uproot this objective that the extremists have and try to get rid of the cause. is it only through a confrontational path you can do that, because there are those who say look, we should talk? i'll give you an example. jonathan powell, who was tony blair's — the former prime minister's chief of staff, who says yes, bombing isis is one thing but it is not enough, you have to talk to them. we have seen president ashraf ghani of afghanistan now saying he is to have no preconditions set for talking with the taliban, and that would have been

inconceivable to many people a few years ago. is there that more conciliatory path? i agree you need both of those running concurrently. jonathan does brilliant work, but that would not appeal to the extremists and the terrorists had there not been the more military solution at play at the same time. so yes, there ought to be a military response, but my point is a military response is not enough and it never has been enough. you do need the heart and minds battle at play and you do need the theological response. but talks, even talks, would you advocate... well, i can't imagine us talking with isis, i mean which of the demands are we going to accede to? not with the leadership necessarily, but with footsoldiers, those who can be reclaimed. i mean when you look at the approach that some european government had to returnees, the danish government and so on, they are saying look, let's try and see if we can reintegrate these people into the mainstream. yes, in principle,

i am fully behind that. i am behind that for the two reasons. one, because i have seen tens of my friends leave extremist groups and they are now the strongest advocates against extremism. i've seen that play out and we should let that happen, but at the same time, i hearfrom friends in governments in egypt, in turkey, and in other places, where extremists have been brought back in, put into prison for a period of time but not necessarily punished per se, but exposed to pluralist muslim conversations that then lead to them changing their minds. that is what it is, it is essentially a battle for the interpretive soul of islam and if you get that right, you move away from the extremist battle of islam. i'm all for bringing people in and having a dialogue with them to change their minds. you can't imply that mainstream muslims, moderate muslims, do not do enough to reclaim the language of islam from the extremists. but i put it to you that they do it constantly.

the muslim council of britain, whenever there is any kind of terrorist attack, speak out and say not in our name. the organisation of islamic conference, the pan islamic organisation. says not in our name, they do constantly. yeah, i honestly wish i could agree with you and say you're absolutely right, zeinab, but i know from my own involvement with those organisations, and what i would say — for example the muslim council of britain, for years, it refused to attend holocaust memorial day. after the seventh ofjuly 2005 attacks in london on the metro, they said yes, we condemn, but it is british presence in iraq and afghanistan that led to that. see, with terrorism, there is ifs use and there are no buts, see, with terrorism, there is ifs and there are no buts, you have to condemn outright. that's the main problem with these so—called mainstream organisations to me.

by the way, i do not think they are necessarily mainstream, i think they are more activists. the real issue is this, that they will not condemn, nor criticise, nor reject the so—called obligation or idea on the ordinary muslim to create an islamic state, and from the muslim brotherhood on one extreme and the isis on the other extreme, that is really... the oyc has just launched an action plan to provide mechanisms on countering terrorism, but let me put this to you... but do they mention the rejection of an islamic state? not the entity of the islamic state, but an islamic state being an obligation of most muslims? they condemned the tactic, you see, that is the problem. (crosstalk). i'm not saying he does, but there's an overall sort of silence towards the objective which is to create an islamic state to confront the world. they have been blown out of iraq by the iraqi military, they have been thrown out of iraq by the iraqi military,

the armed forces, and so on, but let me put this to you. you know that most figures for extremist islam, it is a tiny proportion, 0.0006%, a tiny, tiny minority. and yet, this is what this american student said last year. she can hold a huge list of muslims condemning terror attacks and she says "i want to show people how weak the argument is that muslims don't care about terrorism. we are held to a different standard from other minorities. i don't view the kkk, the ku klux klan, or the lord's resistance army as an accurate replication of christianity. i know they are on the fringe. she is talking about the manifestation, the expression of a much deeper problem. that problem is to create an islamic state, a sharia—based one. the caliphate did not emerge by accident. they refused to condemn the ideology that drives it. unless you condemn the objective,

you will have various manifestations and tactical occurrences which... by the way, when were muslims held to such a low bar that they have to condemn murder and terrorism? i am making the point about how you get rid of these objectives. she is saying this tiny minority are hijacking a religion and everyone is being tarred with the same brush. so, a disorganised majority being taken over by an organised minority. that is what they are. but they play mood music to which others dance, and that is the issue. are you putting too much emphasis on that? it is largely a problem with the media. there was a study by a lexisnexis

academic that looked at television coverage between 2006 and 2016. muslim attacks received 357% more coverage than other attacks. i accept there is a disproportionate number. take the recent incident with the man called mamoudou gassama in paris, who came to save a young boy hanging off a fourth floor balcony. by all accounts, he was a muslim man and talked about god, but none of his godliness or faith played any part in the french media coverage. had he done something wrong, god forbid... you would agree there is a need to normalise the perception of muslims rather than just normalise muslims, which is what you are saying, you know, normalise muslim conversation and say extremism

is not the majority. it is not a problem with muslims. not with the vast majority. that's right, i would not say that for a moment. my new book talks about the fact the vast majority of the world's muslims are peaceful and are the birth givers to a new type of culture. but the house of islam is on fire and we have to identify the arsonists, like the muslim brotherhood and a whole range of organisations. iranians would say they are a sovereign state and do not... ask the saudi allies... one of your solutions to trying to douse the flames of the house of islam, which you say is on fire, is to set up a middle east union, a bit like

the european union, the meu. how realistic is that? getting iran, turkey, the middle eastern countries in one union? in the 1930s, and there were those in the 1930s here in europe who called for a european union and people mocked them and said "really? the germans and the french around the table with the austrians and the poles and brits? are you out of your mind?" and look where we are. almost every single arab and muslim leader in the middle east talks about making unity over and... talk is one thing. but you cannot even get unity among smaller groups, with qatar and saudi arabia... what is the greatest fault line between turkey and qatar... the sunni and shia divide. i would say it is islamist ideology

causing that divide. the way you solve that is... you talked about the emirates. the founder of the emirates wanted to bring them together. it is called the "united arab emirates" for a reason. you think it can be done and you can overcome these differences? if we and the allies in the middle east do not walk towards this, you will identify islamic state being both iraqi and syrian, but look at the muslim brotherhood... the territory they have... they want to demolish borders. they are talking about another project, unifying the region. if we do not get behind it, others will lead in that direction and we will wonder how did we miss that? the middle east union would have to reclaim and get rid of the extremists? you think that could happen?

there should be a common defence policy with a common military response. the egyptians and saudis have been talking about it. we do not have the architecture and understanding in the west to talk about it. you recently said this about islamophobia. it is a terrible oxymoron, which allows muslims to wallow in unwarranted victimhood. is that so? we look at things like one figure, islamophobic hate crimes soared in london by 40% in the past year. i defend what i said. i do not think ordinary brits, and i say that in the context of a 500—year relationship between the british and many muslim governments, my point is there seems to be a mass feeling out there that the west is against islam and their religion. muslim governments.

projects have been launched against islamophobia in the west. there is anti—muslim sentiment and yes, there is a rise of these feelings against muslims because of what we islamophobia, muslims being seen as terrorists, and islamic state talked about getting rid of the grey zone. with populations turning against muslims, the answer is to get rid of terrorism. it has gone beyond that. that tiny number... you have the home secretary in the uk who is muslim, you have sajid javid, nadia hussein... ordinary people... they have been supported and voted for. the mayor of london. they were voted for by whites. in the us, we have seen

terrible and random attacks by muslims because... well, the president was barack obama, his middle name was hussein. you have people shot, attacks, clothes set on fire... anti—muslim sentiment. business owners with signs saying "muslim—free zone". you cannot say islamophobia is an oxymoron. anti—muslim sentiment exists, yes. too many activists in muslim committees have used islamophobia to shut down debate. any criticism of them and their activities is seen as islamophobic. that is a problem, using that to shut down debate,

for me as a muslim, i believe how can you have a phobia against something like that? there is a perception in the west the only good muslim is liberal, someone who does not wear a headscarf, who is not homophobic. ordinary people do not have a problem with ordinary muslims. they just do not. hijab—wearers are free and abound in europe. it is the terrorists that bring on that phobia against ordinary muslims, and we have to put out the fire in the house of islam and get rid of the terrorists in our midst. ed husain, thank you for coming on hardtalk.

thank you for having me. thank you for coming on. hello there. the weather, once again looks in turbulence mood through the day ahead because while there will be some spells of warm sunshine, there will also be some vicious thunderstorms, torrential downpours which could lead to localised flooding and certainly the risk of some travel disruption, especially across central and southern parts of the uk. the earlier satellite pictures show the showers and storms have been gathering across continental europe. they are drifting north

at the moment and these showers will start to show their hand during the first part of thursday. not a bad start for many, but with the last of mist and murk and low cloud, a few showers up towards the north—west. but it is these heavy downpours towards the south—east that we will be keeping a very close eye on. it is hard to predict where the worst of the weather will be, but right across the south—east, east anglia and then eventually into the midlands, wales and the south—west, there is the risk of some really intense, thundery downpours which could give enough rain to cause some flash flooding. across northern england, here we could see one or two showers breaking out through the day and once the cloud breaks from the morning across northern ireland and scotland and the sun comes out again, there is the potential for one or two isolated showers but the heaviest downpours always likely to be found across southern areas.

a very warm and muggy day as well, 21 degrees in edinburgh, 21 in belfast and perhaps 23 in london if you get some sunshine. now some of the showers continue to rumble through the evening and overnight as they drift westwards, but they will tend, we suspect, to fizzle away to some extent. a lot of cloud, some mist and murk around and those temperatures not dropping very far, 12 to 15 degrees. quite muggy start to friday. quite a muggy start to friday. friday will start off with a lot of cloud, misty, murky conditions in places. we'll see some sunshine developing but also a scattering of showers and thunderstorms again across western parts of the uk this time. a few parts of wales, northern ireland, north—west england and scotland for the most part. very slow—moving, heavy downpours which could cause some issues with flooding. there'll still be some showers and perhaps some thunderstorms across north—western areas on saturday. but a change across england and wales. here, fewer showers, more in the way of sunshine. the weather turning quite a bit quieter across the southern areas as we go into the start of the weekend. still warm, up into the 20s and as we look ahead to sunday and monday, things do look generally quieter, not as many showers and more in the way of sunshine and still generally, feeling warm.

i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines... a close aide of the north korean leader arrives in new york for talks about the trump—kim summit. it was fake news — the russian journalist reportedly murdered in ukraine, is alive and well after all. sorry you had to experience it but there was no other way. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme... what lies behind the disappearance of dozens of shia men in pakistan? we have a special report. the country un—friending facebook — why papua new guinea is planning a month—long ban of the social network.