Two really important questions arise from this. The first is whether the fundamentalists are right about the nature of Islam. The answer is surely that it doesn’t matter. What matters is to persuade Muslims, and those who hate them, that the fundamentalists are wrong. Clearly the state does have a legitimate preference among different interpretations of the Qur’an, just as it has in other religious questions – should children be exorcised or genitally mutilated; should widows be burned on their husbands’ pyres.

Durie points out the dangers with this approach: “Is a secular state really in a position to make an announcement that one particular form of Islam is ‘correct’ over others? And if the state does canonise a “theologically correct” view on Islam, would it really be persuasive … or would it just incite suspicion, and detract from the credibility of voices of moderation within the Muslim community? Also where does combating radicalism start and promoting Islam start?”

All these, though, are necessary ambiguities arising from the fact that this is a political process. Nothing is going to dissuade all potential jihadis, especially towards the fanatical end of the spectrum. Respectable theological argument would not have changed the minds of the men who killed Lee Rigby. But politics is the art of the possible. Some people will have their minds changed by argument and we should support attempts to change them.