The Arabist blog makes some interesting observations about jihadist groups in North Africa and elsewhere who have recently been persuaded to renounce violence. It comments: "Even if they eschew violence, the ideology of these groups remains extremely radical, intolerant, bigoted ..."

I made a similar point in my book, What's Really Wrong with the Middle East (which should be in the shops very soon):

Distinguishing between “violent” and “non-violent” Islamists, between “terrorists” and “non-terrorists” is an obvious concern of governments and security forces but it can easily give the impression that Islamists who engage peacefully in electoral politics are not a problem. While this may be true from a security point of view, the preoccupation with combating terrorism tends to obscure a much bigger issue at the core of Islamist ideology: the relationship between religion and the state.

One of the basic requirements for freedom in politics is that sovereignty belongs to the people. Power may be delegated to representatives but the people should remain the ultimate arbiters. Islamists, no matter how they try to dress up their ideology, do not accept this key point ...

Although some visions of an Islamic state do allow more space for freedom and democracy than others, the underlying problem is still the same: an anti-libertarian assumption that linking the state with religion is both legitimate and necessary. Not only that, but religion claims the right, at least in some circumstances, to over-ride the will of the people.