Questions of confronting extremism

From this perspective, the terrorist attack that targeted the village of Hamoud in Karak Governorate has implications, as it is an assault on citizens and their right to security and tranquility, which creates a duty to reconsider the methods we adopt to confront extremist ideology.

The directives of His Majesty King Abdullah II, while chairing the National Security Council meeting in the presence of His Royal Highness the Crown Prince, to review the approach to combating extremist ideology and intensify efforts to dry up its sources within an integrated systematic plan, confirm that the confrontation must not remain confined to the limits of security measures.

Security services can pursue crime, and the law can hold its perpetrators accountable, but confronting the ideas that provide violence with its justifications requires broader work that begins with education, the family, and religious and cultural institutions, and does not end at the borders of official institutions.

The problem is that extremist groups do not stop at targeting their victims, but seek to impose their perception of society, religion, and the relationship between its members. When they raise religious slogans to justify violence, they place society before the responsibility of distinguishing between a religion based on mercy and justice, and a discourse that employs texts to serve its goals.

The Islam that our societies have known for long centuries was not a call to exclude the other, but a framework for the values that regulate a person's relationship with others and preserve their dignity and right to life.

Therefore, renewing religious discourse is not a linguistic matter or a temporary measure, but a necessity related to the ability of religious institutions to address new generations in a language that understands their questions and discusses their fears. Young people who find themselves facing a torrent of contradictory ideas need solid knowledge, serious dialogue, and institutions that give them confidence and the ability to distinguish.

It is not enough to demand that they reject extremism; rather, we must provide them with the intellectual tools that enable them to understand its causes and uncover its contradictions. The Amman Message, launched by His Majesty King Abdullah II, emphasized moderation and centrism and the rejection of takfir (excommunication) and extremism, and sought to present an image of Islam based on tolerance and respect for human beings.

The importance of these principles increases at a time when political conflicts overlap with hardline religious discourses, and religious identity sometimes turns into a tool for mobilization and division.

As for Jordan, which lives in a turbulent regional environment, it realizes that its stability is inseparable from the strength of its internal front. This strength is not achieved by security measures alone, but also by mutual trust between citizens, respect for diversity, and the consolidation of citizenship that does not discriminate between one Jordanian and another because of their religion or belief.

What the current phase requires is a transition from condemning extremism after a crime occurs to building intellectual and social immunity that prevents its expansion. True security is not just the absence of danger, but the existence of a society that knows how to confront it without losing its values or allowing fear to affect its unity.

Here lies the importance of the royal directives in turning the incident into a serious review, working to address the sources of extremism, strengthening the role of science, thought, and religious institutions, and consolidating moderate Islam. For the Jordan that protects its children is the Jordan that protects, at the same time, the meaning that unites them.