Are humans inherently good or evil?
This subject was discussed by religions, cultures, and philosophies
in detail, but they all agreed that both inclinations
exist in humans.
The evil inclination produces extremism, terrorism,
murder, and hatred.
It's present in many original texts and in many civilizations and nations.
Extremism has no religion.
A lot of religions, civilizations, and cultures
over their long history,
went through stages of wars, blood, killing, atrocities, and beheadings.
This isn't restricted to Muslims.
Many faiths and sects have gone through it.
Religious wars, murder because of identity,
and other signs of evil extremism and terrorism.
For example, in Christianity,
which today is known as the religion of love,
tolerance, and coexistence.
In the bible, the Book of Matthew,
it says "do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth."
"I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,"
"for I have come to turn a man against his father,"
"a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law "
"against her mother-in-law."
This example means
that the interpretative systems built on religious texts
are able to steer them either in the direction of love and tolerance,
or in the direction of extremism and hatred.
Extremists can always search in religious texts,
and find what they need
to build this system upon.
Extremism is different from terrorism;
Extremism is an ideological and emotional system
that exists in one's mind, heart, and beliefs.
Terrorists have the same belief system,
but they use it as a foundation for their intent, thought, and planning
of the terrorist act that harms others.
Unfortunately, Islam today
in the main suspect in the phenomenon of extremism and violence.
This is something that Muslims in particular must acknowledge,
because delivering humankind from the extremism
that's unfortunately spreading in the name of Islam
must begin with the admission of Muslims
that they're responsible nowadays for most of the extremism
and terrorism that exist in all nations.
It's true that the others went through this stage,
but they were able to overcome it
with different solutions and models evident in the East and the West.
Sadly, Muslims today haven't been able to create this solution
that could save them from extremism.
The responsibility lies with Muslims and those who belong to Islam
to find new solutions to eradicate extremism.
We've seen terrorist groups, political Islam groups,
and groups that create extremism.
We've seen how Islam, as a holy divine religion
that shows a lot of tolerance and love,
has been lined with explosives.
The Quran has been physically lined with explosives,
and it has been done before mentally
through twisting the ideas that are being attributed to Islam.
So, where did extremism come from?
What are the sources of extremism?
Briefly, the sources of this extremism...
There have been selective readings of the religious heritage
where evil ideas and ideas about violence and terrorism were extracted,
and then entire systems were built and promoted as Islam as a whole.
This is a known selective reading
that happens in many religions. There is also a system
that was created by the groups of political Islam,
and the discourse of the political Islam groups,
such as the Muslim Brotherhood. But let's take a step back now.
What were the main sources before that?
There are numerous sources on more than one level,
but there are three main sources;
The first is Sultan Abdul Hameed,
the known Ottoman caliph
who was fond of intelligence organizations
and building vast networks for them
in the region under the rule of the Ottoman caliphate.
There is another source in Indian Islam,
from which Abul Aala Al-Mawdudi, the famous Islamic thinker emerged,
and he was responsible for many contemporary radical principles.
He came up with notions and radical structures
that Sayyid Qutb was influenced by,
and so was Khomeini and others.
There was also Jamaluddin Al-Afghani
whose students from the Sunni and Shiite sects
created entire interpretative systems
that adopt extremism and push for it.
What's the main idea? About eight decades ago,
the Muslim Brotherhood organization was founded on a main idea
that was passed on to all the groups of political Islam
and religious violence.
This idea is bringing the Islamic caliphate back,
and rebuilding it.
The concept of the caliphate requires a long discussion,
but it refers to constructing an ideologized and organized group
that can bring the caliphate back by performing its role in the state.
This act exactly was done by the Muslim Brotherhood
that was founded around 1928
in Egypt, and then spread in the rest of the countries.
This also applies to the groups that came afterwards
and spread like wildfire.
This includes the organizations of religious violence in the seventies,
and the Arab-Afghans in Afghanistan,
and then Al-Qaeda and now ISIS,
and many names, parties, and groups that emerged in this area.
This discourse has created what we can call "agitated Islam",
meaning an angry, spiteful version of Islam and Muslims;
Muslims who feel a great deal of hatred, pain,
and offense that they think it's their duty to deal with them
and act upon them.
But this agitated Islam wasn't born naturally over time.
It was made in an organized and mastered way.
In brief, three things are made;
the first thing is resentment.
Resentment indicates deep and intense anger.
It means creating an angry person.
I didn't come up with this title.
Sayyid Qutb came up with it in an article he published in the forties
in Al-Resalah magazine where he wrote, and I quote;
"Personally, I will remain resentful and if I am given the power,
"I will build double the schools that the government builds,"
"to teach the people one thing, and that is resentment."
"Resentment is a sign of inherent liveliness", which is a paradox.
"Resentment is a sign of inherent liveliness, and if it is up to me,"
"I will build a school for resentment of this generation of politicians,"
"a school for resentment of those writers and journalists"
"who are described as thought leaders in the country,"
"and a school for resentment of those ministers."
So it's a general and comprehensive resentment that was man-made.
The second thing that's made is frustration.
Making frustration means attacking everything made by governments;
any developmental project, any improvement plan,
any future vision or attempt to build a modern state
is always under organized and constant attack
from these organizations that adopt this discourse
with the aim of undermining the legitimacy of the existing states,
and creating their own legitimacy.
Hasan Al-Banna describes the Arab states
as being afflicted psychologically with fatal desperation,
deadly laziness, shameful cowardice, despicable humiliation,"
and excuse me for saying this, "prevalent emasculation."
Do you think there is anything more frustrating than this?
This is what his students are still creating now.
The third thing is making violence
which depends on military education and rangers,
and establishing soldiery as was mentioned by Hasan Al-Banna
the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, all the way to the secret society
which killed many prime ministers of Egypt.
They killed judge Khazindar and carried out several bombings,
and murdered some men of religion who disagreed with them.
It continued and was renewed by Sayyid Qutb
and the religious terrorism organizations
in the seventies, the eighties, and the nineties
up until ISIS and Al-Qaeda now.
That's because Hasan Al-Banna didn't recognize homelands.
He didn't recognize the modern national borders.
Instead, he believed the borders were those of geography.
He had conflicting stands towards political issues and so on,
and he participated, through his brother in law Abdul Hakim Abdin
and Fodil El-Ouartilani
in the Yemeni revolution in 1948.
Hasan Al-Banna talked a lot about his admiration for Hitler, Mussolini,
and the Communist organizations and their principles.
Even some concepts that are being used by Islamists
like apostasy and commitment
were created by the parties taken by Hasan Al-Banna and his followers
into the Islamic space.
To save time, let's talk briefly about the predisposition for violence.
There are concepts upon which the predisposition for violence is built
such as Jahiliyyah,
which is accusing the Muslim communities of apostasy,
and Hakimiyyah which accuses the Muslim governments of apostasy.
There are concepts like loyalty and disavowal, accusations of apostasy,
and Jihad, although that's an Islamic concept, but was twisted
and environmentalized to suit the modern discourse.
There are social concepts like emotional isolation.
They create young people who live in a community,
and go to schools and markets,
but they're emotionally imprisoned by the group.
They only receive instructions and information from it.
The incrimination of a community is a simple idea.
They can tell everyone that if they commit an act
that they thought was allowed in Islam, then they're infidels,
and if they commit an act but admit that it's forbidden,
then they're negligent Muslims.
Why? So people will always feel deficient and weak before them.
The hypocrite discourse is also present in direct principles of combat
like preparation, enablement, and shielding, which is a dangerous idea
because it means killing a number of Muslims
in order to spite a direct enemy,
This has been practiced widely,
and it includes suicide missions as well.
The debate of religion and politics appeared in many civilizations
and this serious debate still exists.
Muslims have to find their own solution for this debate.
This is just a comparison; Hasan Al-Banna says in his book
"The teachings of Islam say nothing"
"about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
which is supposed to happen.
Religion and politics should have separate roles.
However, a Salafi scholar named Mohammad Shaqra
who was the student of Al-Albani says...
"I believe giving Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's"
"is a wise thought that fits our times."
This means that the doctrinal discourse when it's intended to be made
has the ability to find modern civil trends.
In addition, there is the globalization of extremism,
which means utilizing all modern products
in technology, communication,
and mobile devices
to serve extremism and terrorism and execute operations.
As we said, the comprehensive ideology of political Islam
originated from the parties that were spread in Europe at the time.
The flotation of terrorism means that some Islamic groups
or Islamic figures that defend or want to defend terrorist movements
offer an explanation, or rather a justification
of these group's acts.
Terrorism's main theme is ideology.
When other things are given precedence over it
like political, economic, psychological, or social explanations,
these are all correct explanations. No phenomenon can be studied
based on one factor. several factors must be addressed
in order to understand it, but the theme of extremism and terrorism is ideology.
It's time for the question that sums up everything we talked about.
Unfortunately, our time was short.
What can governments do today?
Sadly, the problem is serious and it will continue to exist for a long time,
but this shouldn't make us lose hope.
There is hope to find solutions that will yield results.
The first of which is building a comprehensive strategy
to improve the religious discourse
that creates extremism, but there isn't a single model for that.
Each model depends on the priorities of each government,
and on the state itself, its issues,
and the nature of the religious discourse in it.
For instance, a model that works for Pakistan won't work for Morocco,
and so on and so forth.
The second solution is building a legislative body
that is new, advanced,
and capable of keeping up with the development of events
regarding political crises, religious messages and so on.
The third solution is cutting off the financing,
which is extremely important.
This spread of extremism depended on uncontrolled financial support.
In conclusion, our fight with terrorism will be long,
but we have great hopes, with God's help.
To conclude the story I told you about that secluded restaurant in Riyadh,
in 2004, the Saudi forces,
after Abdul Aziz Al-Migrin killed Bob Marshall Johnson,
pulled off a security operation in Al-Malaz area in Riyadh,
and succeeded in killing Abdul Aziz Al-Migrin and ending his evil.
Thank you very much.