Yes, there is a problem in dealing with groups that use violence. But the need to have civil institutions as part of a nation’s continuous development is quite another matter. They have nothing to do with each other.

Khalid Al-Juhani and his group were arrested in Riyadh while planning to kill people. It is difficult to imagine that they were planning indiscriminate murder because they were not allowed to vote or express their opinion.

There is no relation between the terrorists and desire for such liberties. On the contrary, they are totally against such freedoms. The agenda of most of the terrorist movements that have existed in the Arab and Islamic world for over 20 years now is destructive, not reformist. Leaders of such movements continue to make that clear. They consider civil institutions un-Islamic and unacceptable. It is not lack of freedom that is the reason for the existence of such groups. If that were so, how would one explain their appearance in open Western societies, where voting and political diversity are allowed and where they have total freedom of expression? The fact is that they have chosen to use weapons against such societies because they are against them.

As we all know, civil reformers are the last people who use, or call for the use of, violence. The people who advocate violence do it because they love violence. Leaders of terrorist cells are against elections, the freedom of opinion and political diversity. Those who disagree with this analysis should explain their logic. What is the basis for their arguing that these terrorists support freedoms? What do they know about them that we have not known in the last 20 years? These terrorist groups consider civil institutions alien to our society. We know that. Do the others know differently?

The effort to project the activities of these people, such as their recent crime, as a movement for civil liberties distorts the truth. These people declare everything they see as un-Islamic. If they had lived in the Omayyad or Abassid periods of Islamic rule, they would have declared them also as un-Islamic and called the rulers apostates — in the same manner that the Khawarij declared the holy companions of the Prophet as apostates.

These people are products of the sick ideas that first appeared during the Afghanistan jihad. After the end of that war, they were scattered around the world, carrying with them not only explosives but also dangerous and destructive ideas that they spread through mosques, schools and public places. With their destructive mindset, they believe that they can “reform” Muslims — the whole one billion of them — whom they consider as having strayed from the true path and need to be guided and saved.

These people do not respect civil institutions and do not recognize the opinions of others. They do not tolerate disagreement, however politely expressed. They do not want to coexist with people who are different from them. They are waging a war against Muslims and they consider killing them part of their jihad. Knowing all these facts, how can some of us give them a reformist cover?

It is our first duty to reform these people. In fact, in view of the seriousness of the danger they pose, it must be considered an emergency operation. We have seen how dangerous they can be. It goes beyond differences, disputes, skirmishes or even anarchy. They consider the life of others, Muslims including, legitimate targets and their slaughtering as sacrifices that will endear them to God.

Reforming them, in my opinion, is not going to be easy.