Abu Noor raises some critical issues concerning the life and work of Sayyid Qutb in a comment below. He claims I don't understand Islam, which is a valid claim, because it's open-ended. I'm not sure I understand Christianity, either. And what I've read of Islam, in the writings of Bernard Lewis and Max Weber, mainly, will never make the Islamic canon. Nor will Weber's version of the Protestant Reformation ever be quite kosher with "traditional Christianity." But I still maintain that Qutbism isn't quite Islam, although Abu may have a point that it's a consistent extension of traditional Islam. If so, however, that's hardly comforting.
Sayyid Qutb neither killed anyone in his life nor did he commit suicide.
I'm fairly sure you could say that about a number of notoriously evil men, including Adolph Hitler, prior to his ascendancy. (Discounting what Hitler may have done during WWI, which was mainly sitting in a trench firing occasionally at the enemy lines and making blind charges through poison gas.) I certainly would not be surprised to learn that he never killed anyone "in person," as it were. And I'm certain that Karl Marx was never involved in anything more serious than a pub fight. To make the claim that this has any serious relevance to the implications of the totalitarian ideology he espoused strikes me as not very distant from the "big lie."
Show me one passage where Qutb called for anyone to commit suicide.
Well, that's an interesting challenge because it involves interpreting the intentions of a man who wrote under the close physical scrutiny and control of his mortal enemies. It is doubtful that, under these circumstances, anyone would promote such a strategic methodology in so many words without being hanged on the spot. Nor, as I recall, was it ever quite clear what Hitler meant by a "final solution" until it became all too clear. Plausible deniability is the name of the game for prison authors. And I'm fairly certain Qutb would not have used the term "suicide" anyway (which is probably proscribed in Islam), choosing instead a word like "martyrdom." However the rapid emergence of the strategy all over the Middle East suddenly in the 20th Century, and promoted by many groups claiming inspiration from Qutb, suggests that someone was sure talking about it, filling in the gaps that Qutb left to preserve a necessary appearance. Hitler didn't mention it either, in Mein Kampf, nor did Lenin explicitly. Instead what they did was what we political sociologist types tend to call "legitimating a behavior." They opened the door to it, with a wink and a nod.
And he did this not necessarily by exhorting people to kill and die in every passage, but by inexorably linking martyrdom and truth. Indeed, as Paul Berman points out:
You are meant to suppose that a true reader of Sayyid Qutb is someone who, in the degree that he properly digests Qutb's message, will act on what has been digested; and action may well bring on a martyr's death. To read is to glide forward toward death; and gliding toward death means you have understood what you are reading. [Many derived similar inspiration from the "harsh angel," Che Guevara. They were pied pipers of death.]"The Koran points to another contemptible characteristic of the Jews: their craven desire to live, no matter at what price and regardless of quality, honor and dignity."
The implied message runs throughout his writings, that to live an ordinarily productive life is to fail the standard, and that one must die for the truth in order that one's life have meaning and permanence. This is, with some irony, precisely the opposite of the belief that emerged through radical Protestantism, after Cromwell at least. Ironic because both systems believed in predestination, a concept that is rather odd-sounding to modern ears. Islam always had this characteristic, having never adopted the Calvinist doctrine of the terrible "double decree." A Calvinist who died without having produced, through the arc of his life and manifested in a lifework or "calling," evidence of his elect status in the afterlife, provided evidence that he was damned. And this was a powerful "legitimation" of acquisition and material success, not for its own sake, but to produce "the sign."
Puritanical Islam, as Max Weber points out, never came to this conclusion. Instead, it tended to produce warrior cults of various kinds, and a common and popular fatalism (kismet). But it never produced the sort of exultation in despair that one finds in Islamism today, because it never linked up with the totalitarian notions from the European Counter-Enlightenment (chiefly the notion of alienation that runs throughout Qutb's work, and fairly rings off of every page: what he calls the "hideous schizophrenia of modern life").
Perhaps you're right that Qutbism is an extension of an Islam that never resolved the dilemmas that emerged during the Enlightenment and the run up to the Industrial Revolution. It seems there were only two ways one could go, to follow either the French model, or the American. And as you know most of the Islamic world (as well as most of the world) was far more fascinated with the French Revolution and with Napoleon than they ever were with the American Revolution and the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It isn't surprising that the ideas crept imperceptibly into Islam, is it? So perhaps Qutbism isn't such a radical departure, and you're correct. But it's hardly reassuring that Islam has found its "totalitarian Muslim voice" after its flirtation with a second-rate secular imitation of European Fascism/Marxism, cribbed by the Christian, Michael Aflaq.
In one sense Qutb gave lip service to moderation, repeating the words of the First Caliph to spare children and the elderly. But on a far more grave level he had his own version of the totalitarian Ur-myth:
What could it possibly mean to treat the entire Muslim population of the world, apart from the followers of his own movement, as jahili barbarians who were bringing about the extermination of Islam?"[Those] who claim to be Muslims but perpetrate corruption, who oppose the implementation of God's law [the "vanguard of true Muslims," in other words], are seriously lacking in faith and loyalty to God and Islam. They shall have no protection whatsoever against God's punishment, which is bound to come, keen as they may be to avoid it.
And though he couldn't specify that punishment precisely, since he wrote those words while in a prison cell, it's not difficult to see that he wasn't talking about a sudden bolt of lightning from the blue. He had in mind a revolution that, like the revolution of Marx, sped up the rightful evolution of mankind toward that adolescently naive promised land of perfect freedom/submission. And the fact that it's an impossible concept means simply that what we get is the consolation prize: death on a massive scale. Well, at least it's something, right?
In his commentary on Surah 2 Qutb gives us a pretty strong hint about how he intends to make an "end run" around the First Caliph's constraining "rules of Jihadic engagement:"
"The Surah tells the Muslims that, in the fight to uphold God's universal Truth, lives will have to be sacrificed. Those who risk their lives and go out to fight, and who are prepared to lay down their lives for the cause of God are honorable people, pure of heart and blessed of soul. But the great surprise is that those among them who are killed in the struggle must not be considered or described as dead. They continue to live, as God Himself clearly states.To all intents and purposes, those people may very well appear lifeless, but life and death are not judged by superficial physical means alone. Life is chiefly characterized by activity, growth, and persistence, while death is a state of total loss of function, of complete inertia and lifelessness. But the death of those who are killed for the cause of God [note, not in the cause of God] gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood. Their influence on those they leave behind also grows and spreads. Thus after their death they remain an active force in shaping the life of their community and giving it direction. It is in this sense that such people, having sacrificed their lives for the sake of God, retain their active existence in everyday life...."
He can probably maintain plausible deniability with his jailors, in spite of the fact that this notion is just completely crazy, by claiming that he's talking about those who die in battle or are executed, but within the totality of his work the use of such a concept merely to comfort the widows and orphans left behind by the martyrs would be a terrible waste of such noble rhetoric. Something tells me it has already been used to greater purpose, justifying self-execution and murder on the grounds that, in the eyes of Truth, no one has really died. Wanna bet?
Posted by Demosophist at February 3, 2004 04:06 PM | TrackBackScott,
First let me say I had written a well thought out longer comment to your earlier thread which I lost through some kind of computer error when I tried to post it. While I'm sure there was a good reason this happened, it did contain some things I think would be helpful in terms of clarifying what I was trying to ask you and trying to put the discussion on more friendly grounds.
Anyways, this posting by you is a positive development for my understanding of the discussion because you have become more specific about what in Qutb you object to and how your big theory of totalitarianism fits in to what you see as the purpose of Qutb's writings.
It is saddening, however, for me to see that you come to your understanding of Islaam through the works of Max Weber and Bernard Lewis. I truly believe that this will give you a skewed and distorted picture of Islaam.
I certainly would hope you would see the problematic nature of someone whose only knowledge of Chrisianity was from Muslim authors claiming that, as far as he could tell, Martin Luther King or even Gerry Adams was an apostate from Christianity. Such a claim would immediately call into question the claimant's knowledge of Christianity.
Perhaps you are not really interested in Islaam as Muslims see it, but to me that is what is relevant to our discussion.
Let me say that I think your view of Qutb is not correct. You seem to suggest that were it not for government censorship Qutb would have come right out and told Muslims that they should commit suicide and kill everyone else in the world. I don't know what your basis for this is.
Let me also ask you this. Do your views differ in any way from Paul Berman or are you simply basing your views of Qutb on him? I am not accusing you -- just wondering. Have you read Qutb, or have you just read the quotes picked out by your fellow critics?
You have to realize that Sayyid Qutb is read by millions of Muslims throughout the world in many different languages. If it is true that some of those who read his works have engaged in terrorist acts, it is of course also true that 99.9 some percent of people who read and admired his work have not engaged in terrorist acts nor do they think his work advocates them.
What are you quoting from when you quote Qutb? (And whose note is that about the difference between in and for?). Indeed I see what whoever made this comment thinks they are pointing out in terms of the difference that could be assumed in English, but I don't know whether it is at all relevant to the Arabic of Qutb's tafseer or God's words in the Qur'aan.
If your argument is that anyone who talks of martyrdom or of removing unjust governments is just using codewords for suicide, random murder and totalitarianism, then I don't really know how to respond.
Is one who thinks that the early Christians who were killed by the Romans were martyrs to Christianity and admirable because of that or those who think Martin Luther King or Bobby Sands were martyrs and admirable or one who thinks that the U.S. soldiers killed in WWII or Iraq were fighting for a noble cause and are now in heaven automatically part of a totalitarian suicide murder cult?
So Qutb could talk openly in his writings about the need to overthrow the government of his country but couldn't mention suicide, although he wanted to, because of government censors?
And we are supposed to just assume, without the slightest shred of evidence presented that Qutb was instructing his followers to kill themselves and everyone else, but he just couldn't say it in print?
And all of the millions and millions of Muslims who know the book he is talking about, know the history he is talking about, and believe in the faith he believes in missed the message Qutb was trying to communicate to them except for a few hundred terrorists in the world. (And how many of these terrorists even say that they got their ideas from Qutb?)
Exactly what strategy emerged all over the middle East in the mid 20th century? Suicide bombing?
What Islaamic group practiced suicide bombing before the 1980s? Maybe I'm just ignorant of it.
The Qur'aanic worldview does value life, as does Qutb. It also values truth more than just life, and recognizes a hereafter which is more important than this world. Therefore it does place a high value on sacrifice in this world, of one's time, one's wealth, one's talents and yes even one's life.
When Abraham was willing to kill his son because God told him to or when (according to Christians) Jesus "died" for the sins of mankind was this the promotion of a suicide death cult? (If I understand Christianity, he could have of course stopped this execution at any point) Do you even think of the claims you make? Do you really think Sayyid Qutb or some other totalitarian monster invented the idea of martyrdom?
I am not saying there might not be a point in your writing, but you're all over the map and you are stretching vague generalizations to fit into your theory and make Qutb responsible for everything in the Muslim world today. Of course that is not true. So one does have to look at the man's writing, that is the only fair way to judge what he really said or did not say. To assume something is between the lines and hold him responsible is unfair.
Peace,
Abu Noor al-Irlandee
"A man who won't die for something is not fit to live"
Martin Luther King, Jr. (another in the long line of suicide cult totalitarians, maybe he got this from Qutb too-- or was he just a communist like old J.Edgar always thought.)
Posted by: Abu Noor al-Irlandee at February 3, 2004 07:34 PMI certainly would hope you would see the problematic nature of someone whose only knowledge of Chrisianity was from Muslim authors claiming that, as far as he could tell, Martin Luther King or even Gerry Adams was an apostate from Christianity. Such a claim would immediately call into question the claimant's knowledge of Christianity.
Those are not, of course, my only influences (which also include Ernest Gellner), but very little of my knowledge of Islam comes directly from Muslims. It includes only a few, such as Clovis Maksoud, but they tell me that there's a liberal potential within Islam and a willingness to ask "what went wrong" with a greater readiness to accept uncomfortable answers.
Moreover, whatever unwillingness you may find in the West to learn about Islam pales in comparison to the ignorance Islam has about the West, especially the US. The monumental error in judgment that it takes to attack us, assuming we lack the resolve for a long and potentially bloody fight, knows nothing at all of our history. We transform from a friendly Athens into a combative Sparta when the need arises. And Islamism was awakend the latter tendancy in us, after much prodding.
More to the point, having broken the taboo against "total war" those of us who are liberal fear for the Islamic world, because the mere fact that we have deigned to follow suit by targetting the civilians that appear to support our enemies, at least in spirit if not in deed, doesn't mean that we won't. Democracies once awakened to threat can be more ferocious than any totalitarian movement. Ironically, Japan made that same mistake... but the potential now is much much more dire.
Let me say that I think your view of Qutb is not correct. You seem to suggest that were it not for government censorship Qutb would have come right out and told Muslims that they should commit suicide and kill everyone else in the world. I don't know what your basis for this is.
Oh I don't know. Possibly not. Politics can be complicated, especially in the Middle East, and showing one's hand against autocrats may be foolish. But there is'n much doubt that western counter-enlightenment philosophy fairly drips from his pages, though I know you're not inclined to see that.
Let me also ask you this. Do your views differ in any way from Paul Berman or are you simply basing your views of Qutb on him? I am not accusing you -- just wondering. Have you read Qutb, or have you just read the quotes picked out by your fellow critics?
I haven't yet read Qutb. I've been waiting until In the Shade of the Koran comes out in English translation, but I have encountered reconfigured Marxism in the strangest places, with every single concept renamed and reissued so that the result resembles the original very little. It seems that there's only a few ways one can formulate an anti-Liberal agenda. People used to say Marx was Hegel turned on his head, so perhaps it predates Marx. But what I say certainly lacks some credibility in the sense that I have not yet read him myself.
If your argument is that anyone who talks of martyrdom or of removing unjust governments is just using codewords for suicide, random murder and totalitarianism, then I don't really know how to respond.
Understand that we in the West are witnessing what appears to be a tidal wave growing in the Middle East. The odds that I'm wrong about Qutb, and that he's not a kind of amalgam of liberation philosophy and Islamic believes is, frankly, not very great. No matter where I turn I see people making the same comments, and for some strange reason the strategy of suicide/terrorism has taken root it Islamic thought. If Islamists are not to blame, you'd best have a civilization wide search for the source. Because in adopting that strategy there radicals have opened a door on a future that they can not win. My fear is not for America, but (mostly) for the people of the Arab world. And we have yet to see any significant hand or voice raised against the Islamic terrorists that would convince is that this 99.9% you talk about are in control of anything much. They have demured in the fight, it seems to me. And I need know very little about Islam itself to understand that particular human dynamic. It's my field to understand that.
Is one who thinks that the early Christians who were killed by the Romans were martyrs to Christianity and admirable because of that or those who think Martin Luther King or Bobby Sands were martyrs and admirable or one who thinks that the U.S. soldiers killed in WWII or Iraq were fighting for a noble cause and are now in heaven automatically part of a totalitarian suicide murder cult?
The fact that you can even say this tells me you don't "get it." The Christian martyrs won through pacifism, a completely different order of matyrdom that marked the beginnings of the faith, the genuine opposite of the kind of murderous martyrdom that marks the latter days of Islam. There is definitely something in common, however, with Bobby Sands. You have that right. And if you want to understand Bin Laden in a larger context you should look at Che's life, and the people he seduced into sacrificing their lives for what he assured them was a noble cause. Noble, it was not.
Nor is there the slightest comparison with the men in WWII, or now in Iraq, who fought totalitarianism not merely to preserve their own nation, but the lives and fortunes of frequently ungrateful strangers. They weren't martyrs, and no one calls them that. They fought to preserve your options to read whomever you like, and if you choose to build your life into one monumental mistake. If you think suicide warriors will prevail against them you have no idea the danger your civilization is in, as it resists our little mission to save a sibling.
So Qutb could talk openly in his writings about the need to overthrow the government of his country but couldn't mention suicide, although he wanted to, because of government censors?
Well, I suppose the details are important. Andre Amalrik could title his book "Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?" because the watchers in the Kremlin viewed the question and the timing as preposterous. They jailed him, of course, but didn't kill him. Autocracies and totalitarian regimes are spectacularly incompetent, as we're beginning to discover.
When Abraham was willing to kill his son because God told him to or when (according to Christians) Jesus "died" for the sins of mankind was this the promotion of a suicide death cult?
The act of sacrifice by Jesus was what I call "strategic pacifism" and the fact that you can't perceive the difference between that and the sort of martyrdom that characterizes modern Islam tells me the former concept found no place in your civilization (except, perhaps, in Sufism). The next time you ask yourself "what went wrong" you might consider looking there, for a hint.
"A man who won't die for something is not fit to live"
And a man who martyrs himself to deliberately and with malice (not as some sort of collateral damage) kill 3,000 innocent souls (or even one), what does he deserve? If you visit here I'll take you to see the "Bloody Angle" so you can see firsthand the price we're willing to pay for freedom. We are not afraid to die for a cause. But we don't love death. Indeed, we don't even like it.
Posted by: Scott (to Abu) at February 3, 2004 10:30 PMScott,
I see you conveniently ignored addressing or clarifying the factual errors that underpin your analysis such as the claim that suicide bombing became widespread in the Middle East in the mid 20th century.
The whole "for vs. in the cause of God" gem (Did it come from Berman) which bears no relevance to the actual Arabic text and probably came from someone who doesn't even read Arabic yet weighs in on the grammatical niceties of a translation they read.
While my respect for your intelligence has not lessened in this discussion Scott, my respect for your intellectual honesty or sincerity certainly has.
Your stubborn belief that you know what is going on in the Muslim world and in Muslim thought and how it all ties into Qutb based on the work of a few orientalists and one person who read Qutb is surprising to me.
Qutb never called for or condoned the killing of innocent civilians. It does not matter how many times you repeat this lie against a man whom you have not even read, nor how many times you try to compare him to people you do know more about assuming this will somehow implicate him in what they may have believed in, nor how many times you try to read between the lines of something you have not read the lines of -- he will still never have called for that. Your attempt to blame him for that will be no more just, accurate, or helpful by mere repetition.
No one here has supported the attacks on the WTC towers, or attempted to justify them and they are not justified in the writings of Sayyid Qutb.
As for the significant hand or voice raised against the Islamic terrorists I have no idea what you are talking about. The killing of innocents is opposed and condemned by Muslims until we're blue in the face. Of course, we reserve the right not to call the opposing of invasion and occupation of our lands terrorism. And we don't buy for one second the BS of with us or against us. We are against the terrorists, whether they are Muslim or whether they are Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
I guess now you can get back to figuring out whether I should be deported because I read Sayyid Qutb. Or you can figure out which country to launch your total war on. I have to say my prayers, read some Qur'aan and go to sleep.
May God open all of our hearts to the truth.
Peace,
Abu Noor al-Irlandee
(The first 8 volumes of In The Shade of The Qur'an are published in English translation)
Posted by: Abu Noor al-Irlandee at February 4, 2004 12:00 AMAbu:
Tell me something, have you read either Bernard Lewis, Ernest Gellner, or Max Weber? More importantly, perhaps, you probably need to read a critical analysis of Marxism by the likes of someone like Thelma Z. Lavine. It would be utterly tedious, and probably wasteful, for you to spend your time actually reading Marx because there's really a difficult-to-access structure to his writing (which is probably deliberate) and you could waste your entire life attempting to figure out something that has been general knowledge for decades. I know plenty of Marxists who have no coherent sense at all of what Marx was saying. And I expect something of the sort may be going on with Qutb.
And let me say something else. I get the impression, which simply reinforces what must be an unhealthy stereotype, that Islam regards itself as a "land apart." It sees itself as occupying a world of its own, and it's been so uninterested in knowing anything much about the West that it simply referred to us collectively as "The House of War" for centuries (and it still may, for all I know). It's sort of like starting a conversation by opening with the words: "Greetings, dog!" And this form of speech and thought has become so cultivated and ingrained that it's now rather easy to parody. (See Allahpundit.)
I'm sure the parody misses the richness of your culture, but it also captures something that is not very funny at all. We have known more about your culture, than you about ours, for generations. And I realize that isn't saying much, at all.
Posted by: Scott (to Abu) at February 4, 2004 12:04 AMAbu:
I see you conveniently ignored addressing or clarifying the factual errors that underpin your analysis such as the claim that suicide bombing became widespread in the Middle East in the mid 20th century.
And I see you've utterly neglected to address the all-important difference between murder-martyrdom and pacifist-martyrdom. And that, sir, is intellectual dishonesty. Understand that, to us, it's more than a matter of outrage. It is also license to practice a similar concept, that of "total war." We have not yet practiced it, because we don't perceive the need, and because it's morally reprehensible until it's the only option left on the table. But your destiny is determined now by those apostate followers of Sayyid Qutb (by your own reckoning, not mine) who deliberately, and with malice, kill children, the aged, noncombatants, and other Muslims, in their apostate (by you own reckoning) war against the liberal West.
As for suicide bombing, it has been practiced throughout the 20th Century by various totalitarian movements, and was "reinvented" by Yasir Arafat in the latter part of this century, though I'm sure part of the credit must go to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Are you saying this is incorrect? If so, I have to say you don't know what you're talking about.
Your stubborn belief that you know what is going on in the Muslim world and in Muslim thought and how it all ties into Qutb based on the work of a few orientalists and one person who read Qutb is surprising to me.
Well, for the record I know more than one person who has read Qutb. But that's beside the point. Do you really think this phenomenon is so unique? So utterly refined and phenomenal? Have you asked yourself why a rather obscure version of Islam has suddenly come to dominate virtually all political discourse in the Middle East? Perhaps, as you say, Qutb isn't the sole cause. That region of the world has been experimenting with totalitarianism for some time, and the serialization and popularization of The Protocols is supposed to convince me that I'm just not sufficiently nuanced about the finer details of what's going on in the Middle East? The cavalry is on its way, is it? Are you trying to convince me there's no forest, because of the large variety of trees? Indeed, you have very little respect for my intelligence, or my common sense. A detailed knowledge of Qutbism isn't the essence of this case. I think he's one of the main culprits, but I could be wrong.
Qutb never called for or condoned the killing of innocent civilians.
Well I'm glad to hear it. So you're prepared to hunt down, humiliate, and execute the nefarious scum who are condoning and urging such things in the name of Allah? Welcome, brother! When can we see the first installment? When does Stage I begin?
The killing of innocents is opposed and condemned by Muslims until we're blue in the face.
I wish to see more of these blue-faced Muslims, putting more than ceremonial pressure on the likes of Arafat and Hezbollah. Every day on every channel.
And, indeed, if you really understood the stakes rather than that fantasy you live under in which George Bush is a "terrorist" you'd be racing against the clock. We raise up and cast off leaders as though they're so much worn out clothing. Who in the world do you think he is? In fact, there's a "sell-by" date on their foreheads. I won't even dignify that assertion with a direct response, except to say that if you think stating that nonsense makes you safe, you're dreaming. Demonstrating to the US a conviction to hunt down and root out the terrorists, to repudiate every vile thing they say, as well as a conviction to responsible representative government and a liberal (if usually poorly informed) press would be a start. And you might throw in a few repudiations of that Czarist manure The Protocols, instead of using it to exploit the uneducated and gullible, building a foundation for hate. That would help too, courageous fellow that you are. If there were only a few more like you.
Posted by: Scott (to Abu) at February 4, 2004 01:02 AMScott has raised what my biggest concern is in all this as well. Although I have little sympathy for any of the three religions of the book, I certainly don't want to see the US reduce Islam from the second most populous religion on Earth to number 20 or so in a spasm of rage over some future attack by people who claim they did it because of their understanding of Islam, no matter how warped that understanding may be.
Posted by: Oscar at February 4, 2004 07:40 PMOscar:
I certainly don't want to see the US reduce Islam from the second most populous religion on Earth to number 20 or so in a spasm of rage over some future attack by people who claim they did it because of their understanding of Islam, no matter how warped that understanding may be.
Check out the latest installment in Tarek Heggy's The Future of the Moslem Mind, about the origins of Wahhabism.
Posted by: Scott (to Oscar) at February 5, 2004 09:14 AMThanks for the citation, it looks good. The sources on all sides of Islamic religious disputes which are available on the web and in English is huge, I have been finding a number of insightful articles and even books on the subject.
Posted by: Oscar at February 5, 2004 10:52 AM