[lit-ideas] Re: Islamism and Creeping Sharia
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:29:23 -0400
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"No, no, no. You may have used the term 'Jihadis and Salafists,' but
those deriving from the teachings of Sayyid Qutb prefer 'Islamists'
and those deriving from Saudi Wahhab teachings prefer Salafist."
My attempt at nomenclature was not meant to label every fundamentalist
group but rather to distinguish those groups which strive to establish
an Islamic society, and with it a hierarchy of religious and political
authority, from those groups which strive to create the conditions
where Muslims can practice a pure Islamic faith, without interference
from authority, whether religious or political. Lawrence lumps the
Khomeini 'movement' with its principle of vilayat-e faqih, or the
guardianship of the jurist where both religious and political
authority is placed in the hands of a divinely appointed individual,
with Qutb and his rejection of the very idea of religious authority.
If the goal is to understand whether Sharia courts are a threat to
Western civilization, then confusing these two kinds of groups is
unhelpful. Whatever you want to call them, groups like al-Qaeda would
strongly object to Sharia courts since they presume that some Muslims
have authority over other Muslims, and that there is a need to use
reason to apply Sharia. For this and other reasons, members of
al-Qaeda have declared Shia Muslims as takfir, or heretics, and
deserving of death. Lawrence may object to the labels I assign to
these two different groups but that does not change the fact that
these are two different groups.
Lawrence continues:
"Bin Laden was raised a Wahhabi. While fighting against the USSR in
Afghanistan he formed "the base" aka Al Quaeda. He was influenced by
Sayyid Qutb, but then Sayyid Qutb was a member of the Egyptian Muslim
Brothers led by Hassan Al Banna who had been influenced by the
Wahhabis who later chose to call their Islamic sect, Salafism."
Yes, Qutb was at one point a member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood
but left the movement. The Muslim Brotherhood grew out of discontent
with the corruption and poverty of Egyptian society and aimed to
create an Islamic social organization that provided healthcare,
education, support for the poor. The aim was to create a truly Islamic
society, not necessarily an Islamic state. As far as I know, the
Brotherhood has never officially embraced violence and today
explicitly rejects violence and supports democracy. Qutb, and those
who follow him, have explicitly embraced violence as a means for
overthrowing any authority that threatens the purity of the Islamic
faith. For those who follow Qutb, there is no interest in establishing
a government or social organizations that would improve the living
conditions of Muslims. There is then an important difference between
those who follow Qutb, like many in al-Qaeda, and the Muslim
Brotherhood or even the official Wahhibism of Saudi Arabia. Again, if
the goal is to understand the role Sharia courts might play in the
West, it is important to understand these kinds of differences.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
