[lit-ideas] Re: Five Years Ago
- From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:41:10 +0100
>Well, if Judy is any example, the assertion that I read only those
>who agree with me is morphing
d'you mean spreading?
> That seems to be her quaint way of saying that I don't accept everything I
> read,
it's my quaint way of saying you ignore the parts of their writing
with which you disagree
>The thing about Qutb and the suicide attacks is that he took
> the Jihad into new regions.
this doesn't really answer my
>Is the ideology influenced by Qutb a necessary condition for
>terrorism and in particular, suicide attacks?
>Is that ideology a sufficient condition?
which were aimed at your
LH>the "root causes of 9/11" which scholar after scholar (del) tell
LH>us is a virulent Jihadist ideology formulated by Sayyid Qutb.
if you don't want to answer the questions, how about defining
"root cause"?
LH>Perhaps all Islamist Muslims do not become Jihadists
no "perhaps" about it. So:
why do people adopt the beliefs they do?
why do they act upon them?
Judy Evans, Cardiff
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:37 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Five Years Ago
Well, if Judy is any example, the assertion that I read only those who agree
with me is morphing, and how could it not since I have on at least two
occasions listed the books I have read in the past couple of years and only a
small portion fit the Conservative pattern. But her qualification is that I
ignore the ones who say something different. That seems to be her quaint way
of saying that I don't accept everything I read, and I admit it; mea culpa. I
can read both Amis and Hitchens for example, while not agreeing with their
anti-Christian bias and having a severe problem with Hitchens believing he was
always right even though like Horowitz he has given up positions he once held.
Besides, I don't really know if someone like Amis has studied Islamism or
Sayyid Qutb more than I have. I didn't really read anything new in the Amis
article, but I like the way he writes.
The thing about Qutb and the suicide attacks is that he took the Jihad into
new regions. In the past there were only the greater and lesser jihads. The
greater was very like the Christian Ephesians 6 wrestling not against flesh and
blood but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of
this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly
realms. [NIV] The lesser Jihad was to be used in self-defense. As a result of
Qutb the focus of the jihad has been expanded to include infidels just because
they are infidels. They don't need to be attacking Muslims such that the
lesser Jihad can be legitimately employed. Defense is no longer a necessary
condition. It is okay to be offensive against them. Also, since
Fundamentalism is a condition of Islamism, Muslim leaders who don't embrace
Islamism are also to be treated as infidels. It is okay to assassinate them.
Beyond that, Qutb who got a bit mystical while writing In the Shadow of the
Koran while in an Egyptian prison saw the Jihad as the way to continue
Mohammad's advance. Who told Muslims they should stop where they were. Did
Mohammad stop before he was dead? Certainly not. And neither should we. We
should carry our Jihad into the land of the infidel and never stop until all
the world has been converted to Islam.
Perhaps all Islamist Muslims do not become Jihadists, but they ought to and
they know they ought to. It is incumbent upon them. In the Christian milieu I
grew up in, any one who wanted to be a really committed Christian considered
going into the ministry or becoming a missionary -- and the bravest or most
committed of the missionaries would go to "deepest darkest Africa." Today the
bravest might go to an Islamic nation where they regularly kill missionaries.
But at the same time we all knew we could be Christians in good standing
without going into the ministry or becoming missionaries. But the Muslim who
accepts the teachings of Sayyid Qutb, i.e., becomes an Islamist, if he is a
really committed Muslim will kill an infidel. Those who don't want to kill
infidels will feel they are second-class Muslims and hope Allah will accept
them into paradise despite their weakness. Before Qutb it wasn't that way.
In both Christianity and Islam there are traditions that honor martyrs. The
Christian has read Christ who said, "unless you confess me before men, I'll not
confess you before my heavenly father." Thus, a true Christian would not deny
Christ even if it meant the auto de fe. A modern day Islamists may
legitimately demonstrate the sincerity of his belief by killing an infidel, or
if asked by a mullah or someone with Islamic authority, he (or she) will gladly
accept martyrdom by becoming a suicide bomber.
Lawrence
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Judith Evans
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:21 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Five Years Ago
>Which, Mike tells us, is a dirty rotten shame because our neither
> our blood-lust nor our corporate greed is going to solve the problem,
>not the "root causes of 9/11" which scholar after scholar
>(Mike doesn't read scholars so I'll fill this in for him) tell us is a
> virulent Jihadist ideology formulated by Sayyid Qutb.
Mike is clearly better off not reading "scholars." Alternatively, you
read only one type or ignore the ones you read who say something
different.
Let me ask two questions.
Is the ideology influenced by Qutb a necessary condition for
terrorism and in particular, suicide attacks?
Is that ideology a sufficient condition?
Judy Evans, Cardiff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4/424 - Release Date: 21/08/2006
Other related posts: