I was supposed to be in Berlin to attend a discussion of a book written by my colleagues, Mohammad Abu Rumman and Hassan Abu Hanieh. The book, entitled “Islamic State Organisation; the Sunni Crisis and Struggle of Global Jihadism”, was published in English by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung of Germany. However, due to mistakes in booking the flight, it took me to Amsterdam where the Sunni crisis and their battle with the term of “Salafi” caught my attention in Amsterdam.

I spent my time reading a wonderful study of Dr. Abu Rumman’s entitled “I am Salafi”, which was also translated by the same publishing house that is now specialised in Political Islam. Abu Rumman tried to explain the term “Salafi” using a narrative style and quotations, pointing out that the term is not commonly understood by all, or specific, and the meaning is not agreed on. Everyone claims he is Salafi, and the Salafists accuse each other, and this is the fact that everyone familiar with the political Islamic movements knows.

It is difficult for European security personnel to understand such differences, because they do not like to go into the details of the differences of Islamic movements, but the Arab intelligence agencies know these differences and they are used to them, while some of the Arab intellectuals refuse to acknowledge the variations. Perhaps the story of US president Ronald Reagan is a good example to explain this. Reagan, when he took office, sat listening to the Chief of Intelligence who was trying to explain to him the structure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), but the details about its components was boring to him and he finally said: “so PLO and its components are all of them terrorists!” and he ended the meeting.

In Amsterdam I asked a taxi driver, originally from Morocco, how he describe himself as a religious man, and he said, “I am Salafist”. I had hoped his answer would be “I am Muslim”. Convincing such migrants to say, “I am Muslim”, instead of ‘Salafist’ or ‘Brotherhood’ or ‘Tahriri’ should be one of the goals in our fight against extremism, and this will help to solve the Sunni crisis which has been addressed by the above authors in their book.

The image of Salafis is very complicated. When you look at Fuad Bulkassim, the leader of Al Sharia group of Belgium, who has been condemned for supporting terrorism and whose group was banned, and compare him with the Salafist leader in Egypt- Mohammed Hassan, who always was against violence and supported all regimes, and both of them look like Saudi preachers, then you can ask who is the real Salafi?

Even in a country like Saudi Arabia, described by many analysts as a source of Salafism, there are differences. There are Muftis and Senior Scholars who support the government in its war against extremism and who provide religious justifications for their severe punishments. There are also some of the Salafists who believe they are busy bringing us towards political and social reforms, and yet another group of extremists who are very similar to Belgian Salafist Fuad- who has been sentenced 12 years in jail. Similar punishments and fates have faced many Saudi Salafists.

As in Europe, a discussion about the role of Salafism in terrorism is taking place in Saudi Arabia. As Salafism had a relationship with the foundation of the Saudi state 300 years ago, it is trying to bring Salafism to its natural norm as a movement of modernisation, and renovation, not a movement of extremism and intolerance.

King Abdul-Aziz’s Salafism which attracted Arab intellectuals at that time, has nothing to do with today’s Salafists who are fighting against each other, and this has made the term bear many different connotations.

Personally I see in Salafism a meaning of freedom, getting rid of one religious man’s domination. For some also it means to stick to the opinions of ancestors without making a comparison to current developments. This group are called “literalists”- who are not unique to Islam, but there are similar groups in Christianity and other faiths.

In the past, more than a century ago, Islamic jurist and religious scholar Muhammad Abdu (died 1905) could describe himself as Salafi. But after the current extremism of a Salafi movement which has divided into several groups, it has become impossible to call Abdu a Salafi likewise.

Salafi people at this time describe him as an unobligated modern man, despite the fact that he presented the best description of himself through his statement that “he understood the religion through the path of the predecessors of the nation, before the emergence of differences, and referred to them to gain the knowledge of the scholars of early period.

For sure, youths like Salah Abdussalam or Abdul Hamid Bu Ubaid, who led the foolish, fatal terrorist operations with others in Paris and Brussels, never attended sessions of discussions on Islam and multiple definitions of Salafisim. They shifted quickly from the underworld to Jihadi Salafism because of semi-scholars like Bulqasim.

The problem is that this fatal Salafism was not manufactured in Saudi Arabia. Yes there was some root there, and Saudi Arabia itself has been suffering since 1980 when a group of Salafists attacked the Grand Mosque in Mecca and carried out bloodshed. It is strange that the Salafists formed through prophecies revealed in dreams, and clashes were repeated several times in different forms, and were more fatal than what happened in Europe recently.

Most of its ideologies grew up in the mosques of poor neighbourhoods of European cities, in Peshawar in the later part of the Afghan war against the Soviets, and in the prisons of Arab countries. So its fierce activities reached Egypt at the beginning of the 90s, and then Libya and Algeria. The motivating factors were the anger in jails, political failure and tyranny.

We should admit that the jinn or genie has come out from the bottle, and it can never return through the mere reforming of educational curriculums that need to be revised and corrected, or by renewing Islamic discourses. Moderate Islamic ideology is available even for those interested in politics. However, those extremist people do not want moderate Islam. They are angry and believe that changes cannot be made through democracy or moderate ideology. They have had doubts about democracy from the beginning and some of them tried to give it an opportunity in Algeria in the 90s, and during the big hope for peaceful changes of the Arab Spring in 2011. But in both cases they often returned to military power and tyranny, led to massacre of peaceful protestors, or the overthrow of elected government. So they began shouting in the Arab world, in Europe and America saying: “we told you that they will never allow you even to be ruled by the infidel democracy, so there is no solution except by using force”.

We should admit that Jihadi Salafism, extremism and takfir are a virus that has hit the Islamic world and Muslims. It might remain small. Extremism should be dealt with through law and strict punishments, so long as they do not revolt against the regimes and are ready to ready to coexist like the neo Nazis and extremists in Europe. But this small blot would scatter in the situation of chaos and collapse of the states that is happening now due to failure of peaceful transition plans. So the focus should be on the main reason for spreading this black spot.

After that we could think about how to handle the ideology. We are doing this in Saudi Arabia, but we need the help of the international community in this regard. The first step is to stop blaming the ideology of Saudi Salafism. The Salafism that attacked Europe and created Daesh in in the Arab world is not our Salafism.

The writer is a Saudi Arabian journalist, columnist, author and the General Manager and Editor-in-Chief of Al Arab News Channel.