[lit-ideas] Re: Amis Antithesis
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:29:01 -0700
Why is it? It is because there aren't just 10,000. The Qutb ideology is
extremely widespread. Fundamentalist Islam may be the majority religious
viewpoint in the Middle East nowadays.
You are the ones who assume I read things based on an author's political
position, but I don't generally even know that. What is Gilles Kepel for
example? Maybe you know, but I don't. In his book The War for Muslim
Minds, he credits Ayman al-Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden's second in command)
with the propaganda coup that advanced Al Quaeda's cause and denigrated,
even more than the Western Leftists, America's cause (which ought to be the
West's cause, but that's another subject). His book, Knights under the
Prophet's Banner became very widely known. Long extracts were published in
the London-based Saudi newspaper Al-Aharq al-Awsat (The Middle East) . . .
"First, Zawahiri presents a worldview comparable -- but in reverse -- to
Samuel Huntington's famous clash of civilizations. According to this
perspective, 'the battle is universal' and 'the Western forces hostile to
Islam have clearly identified their enemy -- which they call 'Islamic
fundamentalism.' Their former enemy, Russia, has joined them.' They have
at their disposal six main instruments to combat Islam: the United Nations;
humanitarian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); the corrupt leaders of
the Muslim peoples; transnational corporations; data exchange and
communications systems; and finally press agencies and satellite television
channels. Of the items on Zawahiri's list, the jihadists efficiently turned
at least three against their enemies: the Islamic humanitarian NGOs, the
Internet, and to a certain extent Arab television networks that broadcast
from the Gulf."
"A deep fear of isolation runs through Zawahiri's text. The jihadist
vanguard carries out military actions, but operations must take on exemplary
value and be easily decipherable by targeted populations capable of
identifying with them. Once those two pieces were in play -- vanguard
operations and support from the masses -- some unspecified process would
lead to the collapse of 'apostate' regimes and the creation of Islamic
states. These states would form he core of an Islamic caliphate what would
eventually rule the planet. Anticipation of such a glorious future would
bring on board not only believers but also other parties who were nostalgic
for a dictatorship of the proletariat. (In a tragicomic illustration of
this possibility, Carlos, the Marxist-Leninist terrorist, would convert to
Islam and declare himself a disciple of 'Sheikh Osama.')"
Now do you really think a reaction to Bush is going to cause Muslims to
become suicide bombers? Or is it more likely that the large numbers steeped
in Qutb ideology has prepared them for that. Zawahiri's text is based upon
Qutb, and it is going to help prepare minds to react and take offense in
accordance with what Qutb and people like Zawahiri have prepared them for?
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:44 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Amis Antithesis
I always find Lawrence's responses interesting and indicative. The latter
mostly. If he comes across a centrist or rightwing analysis he considers it,
dedicates a few hundred words of rhetoric and gives his considered opinion.
If it's in anyway from the left we just hear him laughing. At best he
scoffs. He's heard it before.
Here's Lawrence's argument. Muslim terrorists are motivated by ideology.
That's it. There's no chance, no chance at all that they've moved from one
stance to another via a process that involves their experience with or
perception of western civilisation or the US in particular. It's all about
ideology and the whole edifice seems to rest on it. It's why Lawrence is
insistent that the US is safer now that it was (for argument's sake) on 10th
September 2001, safer because since that time a good few thousands
ideologues have been killed and since, as we must surely know, that process
won't have motivated any more people into becoming terrorists, then there
must be less now than there was then. Simple!
It's why it's all (or mostly) the fault of this guy called Qutb. It's his
fault because it's all about ideology and nothing to do with experience and
perception.
Now if that's the case, why is it that Muslims are prone to get angry when,
for example, The Pope get stupid and includes a quote that would have been
better left out? Why do they get angry when Israel bombs the shit out of
Lebanon? Why do they get angry when the US invades Iraq? Why do they get
angry about what the west does when it's got nothing to do with experience
and perception and everything to do with ideology? Is there any chance, any
remote chance that this anger will make young Muslims sit up and listen to
the rhetoric spouted by their local Imam? Is there any chance that there are
now more muslim fundamentalists, more of which would be willing to use
violence, than there were before 9/11.
Of course not. Stupid idea. Because if there were, the Bush administration
wouldn't have the licence to march around the globe as they like.
'Intellectuals' wouldn't have the licence to imagine scanrios where they
'push the fundamentalists deeper into Africa'. Never mind about those
Africans of course, doesn't really matter about them, so long as the
Americans are safe. Secretaries of State can talk about 'the birth pangs of
a new Middle East', while innocents get blown up. And of course, Bush and
Rumsfeld can talk about 'The Long War', can talk about how every American
family is threatened (even Matt Lauer's), can talk about being safer (but
don't forget you're not that safe and that's really important because
there's a guy in a cave somewhere...).
Lawrence, just so you know, you're not wearing any clothes!
Simon
PS I posted a link to the Judt article on 13th September
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 12:28 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Amis Antithesis
Well, Simon, I read per your request this article by the young Indian
novelist Pankaj Mishra, but I suspect I wasn't as impressed as you were.
The thrust of his article is to blame the West for causing the Islamic
militantism that is plaguing it at present. He invokes that Leftist Holy of
Holies, the Vietnam war, in the way the Leftist love, i.e., that this is
the ultimate definition of Western war. So here the U.S. is doing it again.
When will it ever learn? He is scathing against Amis supposed ignorance
about the true nature of the Muslims who are engaged in Militantism, but
perhaps because of his journeying back and forth between London and India he
hasn't had time to delve into their ideological beliefs. They don't seem to
be self-motivated. They have no volition of their own. They are merely
reacting, Vietnam-wise, against the corrupt, greedy, imperial, evil USA and
its poodle, Britain.
Pretty silly Simon -- in keeping with what James Bowman would call the
"Infantile Left." [IMHO]
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:57 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Amis Antithesis
Following Amis' essay (link provided in a previous post), this week Pankaj
Mishra provides a counterthrust. And I can confidently say that this won't
appeal much to Lawrence and Eric, but that doesn't mean to say they
shouldn't read it.
Extract:
"It is as if the rage, fear and contempt that have overwhelmed many people
in the non-Western world have also overwhelmed some of the brightest people
in the West, distorting their vision to the point where some extraordinarily
crude fantasies - insulting Islam into a Reformation, boosting an American
Empire, bombing entire societies into democracy - appear to them as
practical solutions to the problems of living in an overcrowded world with
people who are not and, perhaps, do not wish to be like them."
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0
,,1874132,00.html#article_continue
Simon
Other related posts:
