SHAMIMA Begum left her London home at 15 years of age to become an ISIS bride and now, 19 years old, and about to give birth, wants to return home.

She was one of three young women from Bethnal Green Academy who decided to leave their country to support fighters in Syria. There she married an English-speaking Dutch national who fought with ISIS but later surrendered. She also gave birth to two children that did not survive the ravages of war.

She says at first she found her life quite normal and, where most of us would have found it disturbing, was not fazed by severed heads she found in the bin – enemies of Islam who had to be killed.

Now in a refugee camp, abandoned by her husband, and ISIS no more than a rag-tag of failed idealists, she wants to return to her home in London, expecting to be welcomed and not to confront the consequences of her own actions.

However, her prospective homecoming is underscored with some uncertainty. The Home Office has strict rules for citizens who return after travelling to ISIS territory. UK Security Minister Ben Wallace, while unwilling to be drawn into commenting on this particular case, said that UK nationals choosing to come back to the UK after travelling to ISIS territory should expect to be “prepared to be questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted for committed terrorist offences”. He concluded by saying that “actions have consequences”.

One question that we can also ask is would she still be keen to come back to the UK had ISIS succeeded in their war?

ISIS, also known as “Islamic State”, was clearly not a benevolent organisation performing any humanitarian work. They were, and possibly still are, heavily armed mercenaries who took no prisoners. Begum and many like her who gave themselves to be the brides of these warriors subscribed to the same evil ideology that their spouses fought for. They claimed this was in the name of Islam and that they were forging an Islamic State, the Khalifat. But nothing could be further from truth.

This is because the idea of an ISIS or Taliban style Khalifat or an Islamic State is not in the Quran – neither is a sultanate or a republic. These are innovations and not referred to in the Quran. Muslim leaders after Muhammad created their political structures based on the principles of Permanent Values and Absolute Laws; ethics, rights, obligations, justice and truth as defined in the Quran. Therefore, the ideal is NOT an Islamic State but the state of Islam, that is a state of harmony resulting in peace and security.

The word jihad is also wrongly described as “holy war” when its meaning is nothing close to it. The Quran encourages believers to “jihad” with the Quran; that is to strive with Quranic values which forbid aggression of any description. So to say that it means taking up arms is a gross misrepresentation of this principle that really means to strive with good conduct.

Radicalisation is another term that has been wrongly applied to Islam by many politicians and some sections of the media. While it is true that concepts in the Quran are thorough and far reaching because they seek strict, disciplinary measures to overturn corrupt and unjust ideas, it is wrong to say without evidence that they are cruel and oppressive. Radicalisation itself is not necessarily negative but when applied to Islam it is often with the intention of demonising it.

The Quran does instruct people to initiate sweeping changes, and these may indeed be radical in the sense that they are profound. However, these challenges are there to improve humankind’s situation and move it forward to a better future.

Shamima Begum, her friends who went with her and those they joined, were delusional to think that anything they did aligned with Quranic values. For example, where in the Quran does it decree gratuitous violence and the killing of innocent people? The oppression, cruelty and corruption that Begum observed is certainly not about upholding Quranic values.

The truth, justice and helping the vulnerable that enriches people with Quranic values certainly did not grace the ISIS image. Had this been the case, yes, we should have welcomed back Shamima Begum. But the fact is that she was a traitor to her country and perhaps now a danger to its citizens, if she returns.

The Quran says that we are responsible for ourselves and accountability is paramount. As Security Minister Ben Wallace said, “actions have consequences”. So if Begum wants to return, let her. But she must then face the penalty for her actions. That would be justice.