"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?" React to what Lawrence? Take offense to what? If it's all ideology, if the west is so evil, what is there to react against. This isn't a quibble, it is, if I can use the word, fundamental. If young muslims see the west behaving in accordance with the teachings of their Imam, who are they going to believe. If, on the other hand, the west goes out and fixes problems in the world without recourse to force, will the Imams have the same audience. Don't you think the Zawahiri's of this world rejoiced when the US invaded Iraq? Simon ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 8:29 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Amis Antithesis 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 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