There's been a lot of content in this week's lecture. So I want to take this opportunity to just sum up and identify, what are the key elements of the Al-Qaeda ideology? How do we refer to people who follow this ideology? And why are people attracted to these ideas, and what are some of their fundamental weaknesses? Well let's get started with the question of, how do we refer to people who follow the Al-Qaeda ideology? Some say that they are Islamic terrorists, or that this is a form of Islamic terrorism. And I think that that is both inaccurate and unfair. It's inaccurate, because Bin Laden's ideas contradict many of the core principles of Islam. Indeed, it's an inherently un-Islamic set of principles. And, so, I also think it's unfair, because, throughout history, there have been many people engaged in political violence. And we don't often refer to them, if they were Christians, as Christian terrorists, or if they were Jews, as Jewish terrorists. There's no doubt that these were Muslims, but I think to taint a religion of 1 to 1.5 billion people with the actions of so few. And calling this form of terrorism to be Islamic, I think, is unfair to so many people around the world who revere this faith. And then, there are often people who refer to these groups as Islamists, or that they are Islamist extremists. Now what does Islamism mean? Islamism means, I think the fundamental idea that people would like more Islamic principles built into the laws in which they are governed by. And what I want to get cross here is that Islamism can range all the way from totally non-violent normal political parties, all the way to the rejectionist extremists of Bin Laden. And, I just don't want us to get confused to believe that if we're saying that Bin Laden is an Islamist. Because, indeed, he does want a form of Sharia law to be the governing law over a large swath of territory. Just because he believes in that element of Islamism, doesn't believe that all other Islamists agree with bin Laden, or endorse violence or many of his other ideas. Let's just quickly review that. So there are many nonviolent Islamist political parties, the Justice and Development Party in Turkey, for example, that has been in power for a number of years has brought more Islamic practices to Turkey. The Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt run by Mohammed Morsi. There's lots of issues arround this party and what's happened in Egypt. But it was, it came to power in a free election, they're engaging in politics, they had constitution, a legislative process. You might think it was totally unfair, but still, it was a nonviolent, normal political party in this very difficult transition in Egypt, certainly contrary to Bin Laden. And likewise with Turkey, Turkey rejects these parties, the violent extremist groups. And, indeed, has been attacked by many of them. So he has no linkages to Bin Laden, just because they're both Islamists. Things like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Hezbollah, they are political movements that have both violent and nonviolent elements. The Muslim Brotherhood's a movement, a global movement. And it has different sects, some of which do try to bring about Islamic principles into law via violence, but also via politics. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but it is also a party in Lebanon. There are people in that party who hold seats in the Parliament. So they differ, these groups differ from Bin Laden in one very important respect. Bin Laden and, remember, Kutib said that we can't have man made law. We shouldn't abide by a political system that leads to laws that have to govern us. That we can only be governed by the direct word of God, laws that are God-made, not man-made. That's what Bin Laden and groups like Al Shabab and other like-minded groups. And indeed, Bin Laden criticised parties like Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in politics, and engaging in elections. So are all of these are Islamists, but they have varying degrees and we need to be sensitive to that. For those that argue that all Islamism is ultimately, inherently violent. Or starts to be political and pretends, later on to move towards violence and domination, I would say take a quick look at the Iraqi Constitution. This is the constitution that the United States helped to draft, that president Bush vigorously encouraged all Iraqis to vote for in 2005. And, indeed, many soldiers from the United States and elsewhere, died or were injured trying to protect the elections in which this Constitution was ratified. Article 2 says Islam is the official religion of the state and is a foundation source of legislation. This is the core idea of Islamism. Says no law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam. So if Islamism is inherently violent, inherently contrary to Western, American interest. Why would the United States Government have supported the adoption of this constitution which inculcates Islamist principles. So you can have different forms of Islamism. Some are totally acceptable and peaceful, others are totally unacceptable and inherently violent. Wonderful scholar Marc Sageman had a different way to characterize the people who follow the Al-Qaeda ideology. And he said in his book Understanding Terror Networks, the present wave of terrorism directed at the far enemy is an intentional strategy of a Muslim revivalist social movement. So that's what he called these groups, a Muslim revivalist social movement. Yes, certainly they are Muslims, they're revivalist, because they're trying to revive the glories of the past. They want to return to the practices of Islam at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. And he calls it a social movement, because he recognizes that it's not simply religious. But it's a mixture, a combination of religious ideas, history, politics, economics, and that's why he calls it a social movement. So there's no consensus on this issue, but I wanted to get these ideas out there as we go forward.
