Syed Qutb - John Locke of the Islamic World

[شمله ور خراساني]

War in defence or for freedom struggle is justifiable in any culture or society. Freedom struggle must be tried to be carried out in a peaceful way and we have many examples like the division of india and the whole subcontinent got freedom without violence.

If a war has to be launched then it must be in an organized way by a state not an individual or groups like talidban or Alqaida. Wars must be fought by army under a leader and after declaration and proper preparation. Muhammad also fought wars but once he established a state in Madina. we dont see any violent activities of Muslims when they were in Makkah which wa stheir formative phase.

Terrorism is neither war nor Jihad. Its not carried out by an army, by a state, without declaring the war and innocent people are the most frequent targets not another state or enemy.

Afghanistan should follow the example of Japan when it was destroyed in WW2. It resorted to reconstruction and development with the help of the same enemy who destroyed it. Once the state of Afghanistan is strong enough then being a state it can fight wars.

Well, Taliban control 80% of Afghanistan, and they were the official governemnt of Afghanistan in the late 90s. They are not some individual group.

As usual, you make statements that are full of holes like swiss cheese.

haha

[Roshina]

Oh God, no! Comparing Qutb to Locke? No way for me.

Has anyone read his Milestones or any other of his works? The guy wanted to kill all people he could get his hands on! C'mon, now. He supported jihad and the killing of non-Muslims and all those Muslims who disagreed with his political views, and, like Mawdudi, he wanted an Islamic state that he believed would only be possible if he disseminated those violent views of his.

Perhaps his intention wasn't too bad, and his critics exaggerate ... but the Muslim Brotherhood today is evidence that the critics aren't wrong at all.

So, yeah, Osho, you're completely correct there that Qutub's

concept is dangrious to bring political or other changes by Jihad or violent means.

I'm not pro-violence of ANY forms, but I must say ... I wasn't devastated to hear that he was executed by the Egyptian government.

[Maiwand]

Oh God, no! Comparing Qutb to Locke? No way for me.

Has anyone read his Milestones or any other of his works? The guy wanted to kill all people he could get his hands on! C'mon, now. He supported jihad and the killing of non-Muslims and all those Muslims who disagreed with his political views, and, like Mawdudi, he wanted an Islamic state that he believed would only be possible if he disseminated those violent views of his.

Perhaps his intention wasn't too bad, and his critics exaggerate ... but the Muslim Brotherhood today is evidence that the critics aren't wrong at all.

So, yeah, Osho, you're completely correct there that Qutub's


I'm not pro-violence of ANY forms, but I must say ... I wasn't devastated to hear that he was executed by the Egyptian government.

I must honestly say that what you say is not correct. If you had really read Milestones as you say, then you would know that he never calls for indiscriminate killing of anyone. I think that your opinion in this regard is in greater extent formed by the western media's perception of "radical Islam" and their depiction of "Islamic terrorists" than the reality. The Muslim Brotherhood is now like just an ordinary political (opposition) party in Egypt, they have renounced all forms of violence, but still is the Egyptican regime of Mubarak cracking down on them and arresting lots of their members with every election campaign or mobilization of its members.

It is true that in the past some mistakes have been made by some Jihadi groups, like assassinating Anwar Sadat and killing some tourists here and there, but it is no way like the western media likes to portray it and depict the Jihadi's as some kind of bloodthirsty maniacs who love to kill people. Actualy it is the other way around, the security agencies are killing and torturing everyone they suspect of being a radical or Jihadi.

Furthermore if you really read the works of Sayed Qutb, Hassan al Banna and others, you will realise that they only want to bring Islam back to the society and politics, they want to establish an Islamic state. But the despotics and tyrannical regimes of the Middle-East don't allow them to peacefully achieve their aimes, so that's why those people become desperate after having been tortured in the secret jails and some of them executed without a trial.

[Roshina]

I must honestly say that what you say is not correct. If you had really read Milestones as you say, then you would know that he never calls for indiscriminate killing of anyone.

Oh, no, no, wrora, it's a lot more than just the Milestones. I was required to read some of his articles and Milestones for a class, and I managed to survive it. Of course, his views provoked a very stimulating class discussion, but I was just disgusted with what I was reading. (The feeling is exactly the same when I read Mawdudi, though. But that's besides the point.)
So, no, don't think that I'm being influenced by someone else, especially the media.

I think that your opinion in this regard is in greater extent formed by the western media's perception of "radical Islam" and their depiction of "Islamic terrorists" than the reality.

No, that's untrue. I don't care what the media says about anyone, as I've stated in many other threads. I have my own mind to use, thankfully. I must say, however, that my view of Qutb was further strengthened by Ed Hussain, who constantly talks about Qutb and Mawdudi in his book The Islamist: Why I Became an Islamic Fundamentalist, What I Saw Inside, and Why I Left.A very interesting and worth-reading book that I think all should read.

Nor, I'm aware of what the Muslim Brotherhood does, what it claims to do, what it does in reality, what it's allowed to do, and so on. But my bringing them up was only to say that Syed Qutb was its founder/first leader.

Furthermore if you really read the works of Sayed Qutb, Hassan al Banna and others, you will realise that they only want to bring Islam back to the society and politics, they want to establish an Islamic state.

Yep, that's correct, Maiwand wrora. The only problem is, they don't seem to know how to achieve their goal of an Islamic state, and what's worse is that they are up for imposing their own interpretation of an Islamic state on all Muslims, and THAT is what I'm strongly against.

But the despotics and tyrannical regimes of the Middle-East don't allow them to peacefully achieve their aimes, so that's why those people become desperate after having been tortured in the secret jails and some of them executed without a trial.

They use violence because the Middle east compels them to? C'mon, mara. you can't be saying that someone uses violence because they're compelled to by so-and-so. We can support the Taliban on a similar note, then, can't we? I mean, think about it ... the Taliban wouldn't be so violent if everyone just listened to them -- i.e., men grew long beards, women started covering their faces (as if they don't already in the parts the Taliban have flattened already), women stop going to school, and so on.

There's always a peaceful way to achieve our goals, and if we have to DO something violent in order to reach a peaceful society, we're not being Islamic at all. We should be and are perfectly capable of using peaceful means to get what we want; if we're not, that means something is wrong with our ultimate goal. And that's exactly the case with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, and other violent groups.

Oh, and, yes, I've read Qutb and Hassan al-Banna -- and Tariq Ramadan as well. I know exactly whose views I support, whose views I reject, and whose views I'm indifferent to, and then I also know why.

Manana for your reply, wrora.

[Maiwand]

Oh, no, no, wrora, it's a lot more than just the Milestones. I was required to read some of his articles and Milestones for a class, and I managed to survive it. Of course, his views provoked a very stimulating class discussion, but I was just disgusted with what I was reading. (The feeling is exactly the same when I read Mawdudi, though. But that's besides the point.)
So, no, don't think that I'm being influenced by someone else, especially the media.

No, that's untrue. I don't care what the media says about anyone, as I've stated in many other threads. I have my own mind to use, thankfully. I must say, however, that my view of Qutb was further strengthened by Ed Hussain, who constantly talks about Qutb and Mawdudi in his book The Islamist: Why I Became an Islamic Fundamentalist, What I Saw Inside, and Why I Left.A very interesting and worth-reading book that I think all should read.

Nor, I'm aware of what the Muslim Brotherhood does, what it claims to do, what it does in reality, what it's allowed to do, and so on. But my bringing them up was only to say that Syed Qutb was its founder/first leader.


Yep, that's correct, Maiwand wrora. The only problem is, they don't seem to know how to achieve their goal of an Islamic state, and what's worse is that they are up for imposing their own interpretation of an Islamic state on all Muslims, and THAT is what I'm strongly against.



They use violence because the Middle east compels them to? C'mon, mara. you can't be saying that someone uses violence because they're compelled to by so-and-so. We can support the Taliban on a similar note, then, can't we? I mean, think about it ... the Taliban wouldn't be so violent if everyone just listened to them -- i.e., men grew long beards, women started covering their faces (as if they don't already in the parts the Taliban have flattened already), women stop going to school, and so on.

There's always a peaceful way to achieve our goals, and if we have to DO something violent in order to reach a peaceful society, we're not being Islamic at all. We should be and are perfectly capable of using peaceful means to get what we want; if we're not, that means something is wrong with our ultimate goal. And that's exactly the case with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, and other violent groups.

Oh, and, yes, I've read Qutb and Hassan al-Banna -- and Tariq Ramadan as well. I know exactly whose views I support, whose views I reject, and whose views I'm indifferent to, and then I also know why.

Manana for your reply, wrora.

Well I don't think the American would end the occupation of Afghanistan if the Taliban just asked them that, the only way to liberate Afghanistan from occupation, like we have done it for centuries, is to fight for it. There is no other way to achieve ones liberty and independence. Of course the end goal of the Taliban and other groups is to have an islamic state, but now the only thing they want is to liberate Afghanistan from foreign occupation and that won't work through talking or "peaceful means".