Re. 2 Qutb 3 -- I think the contradiction is explained, or could be, by presuming some exposure on Qutb's part to Marxism-Leninism. Lenin introduced the concept of the "vanguard of the proletariat," justified on the grounds that the proletariat itself had insufficient "social consciousness" to fully grasp the nature of dialectical materialism, and so must submit to being led by the few who DO understand it. This simple, alluring concept readily transfers itself to other, radically different ideologies.
One of the many things I find perplexing about the many critics of Qutb and other Islamists is the suggestion that Marxism-Leninism iventend the idea of a vanguard -- or a small group leading the way in societal change.
I don't know the exact etymology of the term vanguard but Sayyid Qutb, who of course was writing in Arabic so he did not use that term, was familiar with the Qur'anic concept of sabiqoon. These are the forerunners, the people who work for a certain goal or movement when it is still unpopular as opposed to the bandwagon jumpers who just move with whatever is popular and widely accepted.
Indeed, throughout most of history, small groups of people have been highly influential in the direction that societies have moved. These could be aristocratic, clerical, intellectual or many other different king of small groups that advocate an idea and work to make it a reality even thought it is not favored by most of the people.
Almost all revolutions that I am aware of in human history have been led by such core groups and reactionary forces opposing those have as well.
I do not say that Qutb was not in any way influenced by Marxism. Obviously the environment he was in and the extent to which he argues against Communism show that he clearly was familiar with the ideology.
But to think that anyone who thinks that an influential people who sacrifice a great deal for a cause even when it is not generally popular are necessary as part of the process of large scale societal change is automatically a Marxist-Leninist is, to me, a silly proposition and argument.
And Allaah Knows Best.
Bill, I don't know what other readers gain from your work, but I think reading your indexes and reflecting it is probably time for me to bow out of any further discussion.
At times you have questioned the fact that I seem to defend Qutb on every point. It is clear that you believe Sayyid Qutb had nothing intelligent to say, nothing really interesting to say, had no inclinations in his heart except to spread evil and embraced every single negative characteristic that you can think of -- racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, etc. etc.
If you really think that someone like that would become popular on a widespread basis throughout the Muslim world, you must have an extremely low opinion of Muslims generally. As an alternative explanation, I have tried to show you that the way Muslims understand Qutb is different than the way you understand him. You have had none of that.
The summaries you have put on your posts indicate to all observers what you think about Qutb and the fact that you have basically made your mind up so there is little point of me trying to engage in any further discussion.
I ask God to bless and guide all of us. I also ask that He and you or anyone else who has read them forgive all my mistakes in my posts and any time in which people have felt personally offended or insulted by anything I have written.
Sayyid Qutb's reckoning is with his Creator. I know I am not qualified to defend Islaam and that God's religion is not in need of my or anyone else's defense. I have simply tried to share some things I have learned and thought with brother and sister humans. Where I have done that with any other motive than seeking the pleaure of our Lord, then I beg forgiveness for I am just one descended from Adam and Adam was made from dirt.
Peace to you Bill and your family. I hope that we can part company with some positive feelings between us.
I would like to throw out this thought and get some reponse.
I think that the great divergence in science between Europe and the rest of the world began with the invention of calculus by Newton and Leibnitz. This provided an extremely powerful tool for the analysis of the natural world, from describing planetary motion, optics, and so on.
Without calculus, you cannot really understand planetary motions, design columns, build complex machinery.
Without calculus we would have no Maxwell's equations, Einstein's work, quantum mechanics, space travel, among other developments.
With all due respect, how would you expect me to react to Qutb? Do you think I should say, "Well, he's a religious bigot, but a well read one," particularly when he is so obviously and atroctiously ignorant of and prejudiced against the West? Do you think I should applaud him when he suggests that as a non-Muslim, I am not fit to govern myself, and that Jihad against my country is perfectly legitimate and justified?
Should I applaud when Qutb argues that most Muslims are insufficiently Muslim?
You have fairly consistently said that Qutb has wide influence among most Muslims and that you are attempting to defend that Qutb. Frankly, you are the only Muslim I have ever encountered who has defended Qutb's thought, which can often be disgusting, small minded and hateful.
Do you think that valuing the products of cultures other than my own is an attitude foisted on me by World Jewry, for example? Aside from this contention being classically anti-Semitic, it's also, historically speaking, absolutely inaccurate. But I am supposed to concentrate on the good in Qutb, and ignore this?
I tend to think, unlike Qutb, that you can be Muslim and not believe that the Jews are the root of all evil in the world, and have been since the time of the Prophet. Maybe you would disagree with me, but if so, who is it who really has the low opinion of Muslims? Once again, you seem to be under the misimpression that there is no god but Qub, and that, by noting his failings, I am attacking not Qutb but all Muslims.
I also find it odd that you presume to speak for Muslims regarding Qutb. I don't pretend that my wife, for example, or any of the other Muslims I know can stand in for all Muslims or represent the view of all Muslims. I would point out that I am often asked by them why I'm wasting my time with this Qutbian rubbish when there are far more interesting and worthwhile things to read, whether it's H.P. Lovecraft's short stories or Tolkien or the economic writings of John Kenneth Galbraith. But my sample of Muslim opinion in this regard is statistically insignificant, as are you, only moreso. I'm surprised that you, a convert to Islam, believe you're so in synch with your co-religionists that you can speak for all of them.
But to return to your beloved Qutb, what good there is in his writing is not his, but rather its pilfered from Islam. To Islamic values, he adds his bitter narrow experience, his multiple hatreds of his fellow men whether they be American or African or European or Jew or Asian or Turk or Persian, his love for totalitarian regimes, his disgust for women and sex, his political, cultural, intellectual impotence and the prolonged rage that all these provoked in him...
What good should I find in him? That he opposed the corrupt dictatorship in Egypt? The same one that he enthusiastically welcomed, and only turned against when it became clear that his party, like others before it, would be excluded from power? That he favored nationalizing oil wealth? That's worked out well in every corrupt Middle Eastern autocracy, hasn't it? That he looked at women in offices or working as journalists or in embassies and saw nothing but whores? Do you honestly think these are attitudes I could find some good in? "In all fairness to Qutb, women who work really are nothing but tramps and sluts, and men like me who allow their wives to work are little more than pimps." That's what you expect from me?
So tell me what good there is in Qutb's political writings, beyond your insistence that he's the cat's meow in the Muslim world. Tell me how it is that saying that women who work are merely being exploited for sex is a useful thing. You can find a tremendous amount of serious reflections about the role of women, the family, the raising of children in the works of Alija Izetbegovic. There is nothing malicious or hateful in any of it. There are concrete ideas, worries, questions, suggestions, weighing of costs. Some women might disagree with Izetbegovic's preference for tradition, but few would argue that he is unable to put that aside in an honest attempt to wrestle with the challenges modernity poses to the family. Do you find anything of that sort in the piss poor excuse for a human being you so often identify with pure Islam?
So yes yes yes, Qutb has wonderful redeeming qualities -- he's only a third rate demagogue, for example. Sorry you don't care for my writing or me or my reaction to Qutb -- as I've said several times before, you're under no obligation to read a word I've written.
I've just run across a journal that--appallingly--I never before knew existed. Anyway, its most recent issue has an article that made me think of your Qutb work. The cite:
Wiktorowicz, Quintan. "A Geneaology of Radical Islam," Studies in Conflict & Terrorism; 28/2: 75-97
I think Routledge puts it out.