Earlier this week, three Muslim extremists attacked unsuspecting pedestrians on the London Bridge. They used a van and knives to kill seven people and injured dozens more. Unfortunately, many on the left refuse to speak honestly about radical Islamic terrorism. Instead, they try to blame everything but the religion. Thankfully, some more reasonable Muslims are starting to push back.

For example, following the recent terrorist attack in London, a Muslim apologist recently called into a Muslim radio show to try and shift blame away from Islam by claiming that the religion has nothing to do with violence. However, the host, a liberal reformist who used to be a terrorist but now works to combat radicalization, quickly shut him down. He made it clear that violence is absolutely inherent in Islam.

The exchange took place on Leading Britain’s Conversation (LBC) a London-based national radio station while Maajid Nawaz, a former extremist, and current counter-extremist, was on the air. A day after the London Bridge terror attack, a person by the name of Muhammad called to challenge comments made by the host and others earlier in the show suggesting that Islam is partly to blame for what happened. “I don’t believe Islam is the problem…Islam has nothing to do with violence. How can somebody say that Islam has anything to do with violence?” he argued.

Without hesitation, Nawaz, who founded Quilliam, a London-based liberal think-tank focused on combating radical Islamic terrorism, replied, “well it has something to do with it, doesn’t it Muhammad? Not everything, not everything, but something.” He added, “when the prophet Mohammed said: ‘I have been ordered to fight the people until they declare there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger’, that’s clearly got something to do with violence doesn’t it?”

Muhammad then tried to argue that context is important, but Nawaz brilliantly used his responses against him. Specifically, he replied: “Okay, so let’s agree that context is important [and] interpretation is important, but let’s not pretend it’s got nothing to do with violence because making the argument that we need context acknowledges that we’re having a discussion about violence and placing violence in its context within Islam. That’s different to saying violence has got nothing to do with Islam.”

Nawaz then made the case for why Muslims need to start speaking more honestly about violence in Islam. “This is so important because when listeners hear Muslims like yourself say it’s got nothing to do with it, they think that you’re trying to shirk responsibility and sidestep the very important task that faces all of us to challenge extremism within our mosques and our communities,” he explained, adding, “of course, that may not be what you intended, but it sounds like that to listeners who are not Muslims, it sounds like you’re making excuses so as to not go about doing the work that all of us have to do, which is to challenge extremism.” Those who fail to challenge violent extremism put everyone else’s lives in danger.

Still, Muhammad refused to believe that Islam had anything to do with the attacks in “this country,” referring to the UK. In response, Nawaz pointed out that three different attacks happened in just as many months, and all of the attacks used Islam to justify the violence. Because of this, he argued that “it’s incorrect to say it’s nothing to do with Islam. It’s as unhelpful as to say it is everything to do with Islam, because it is Islam,” adding, “I think let’s be realistic and acknowledge that there is a connection, it’s something to do with Islam. Not nothing, not everything, but something.”

Indignant, Muhammad argued that since Christianity isn’t blamed for violence done by members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Islam shouldn’t be blamed for violence done by extremists. Nawaz countered by saying he would blame Christianity if there was a widespread phenomenon of Christian people attacking others. When asked if Muhammad would also blame Christianity, he said no. When Nawaz pointed out how absurd his response was, Muhammad was largely oblivious. Unsurprisingly, the conversation did not last much longer after that.

Conservatives should support Maajid Nawaz’s attempt to combat radical Islamic extremism. He’s actively trying to stop people from getting radicalized, wants to keep Islam out of politics, and is not afraid to speak honestly about the problems of his religion. This makes him part of the solution, not part of the problem.