[lit-ideas] Re: Omar's Islamism
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:48:04 -0500
Oh, Lawrence is all right. He really is a nice person, it's obvious. One has
to admire his persistence and single minded determination, and the below are
good questions. It's still early enough in the century that maybe we can set a
precedent and solve something diplomatically instead of violently. It would
really push civilization forward if that happened, a real first for mankind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2/15/2006 8:26:25 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Omar's Islamism
Omar,
You?ve called yourself Islamist, but I wonder if you fit any definition I?ve
run across. I mentioned reading Raymond William Baker?s Islam Without Fear,
Egypt and the New Islamists. The Islamists Baker is fond of are intellectuals
of some note. They diverge from the Old Islamists in that they are not
advocates of violence and while they believe in adhering to the Koran much as
those who invoke the Sharia, they don?t hold to the Salafist interpretations of
the Koran and Haddiths and so don?t embrace such troubling doctrines as Qutb?s
view on the Jihad.
The New Islamists share the Old Islamists view on Palestine and Israel. They
would probably like to see the Jews out of there, but would settle for a
divided state. Here they would eventually diverge from the Old Islamists who
would never settle for a divided state. Sunni Islamists following Qutb believe
that no land conquered by Mohammad and his followers can ever be accepted as
belonging to infidels. This applies not only to Israel but also Andalusia.
And beyond that, it is the duty of Islamists to engage in Jihad as necessary to
conquer the entire world for Allah. Where do you stand on these matters, Omar?
In regard to conquering the world for Allah, there is a parallel with Christian
Postmillennialism. That view of eschatology (which the majority of Christians
don?t hold to, but some do) holds that the entire world will eventually be
converted (through the work of evangelism and the Holy Spirit) to Christianity.
I would be content if the followers of Qutb would content themselves with
accomplishing their eschaton by the same peaceful means, but they advocate a
Holy War and prescribe violence as a legitimate means for accomplishing their
goal.
And where do you stand on Pluralism? I would be quite content to have you be
an Islamist as long as you would be content for me to be whatever I like. The
Islamists I?m familiar with are not pluralists. I must be a Muslim and adhere
to the Sharia else I am an infidel and deserve to be killed. Nay, more than
that, I ought to be killed. If you were to hold to that Islamist position, you
will pardon me if I don?t want you living next door to me.
Do you believe suicide bombers are martyrs and will go to heaven?
Attaturk insisted that Turkey be pluralistic, and so it is ? sort of. Though
Turkey is officially pluralistic there has been a hankering after the Islamist
view of the Sharia such that the military has needed to step in and bring the
country back to Attaturk?s standards from time to time.
Then there is the matter of economics. Mohammad?s economic system doesn?t
compete well with modern Western economies. Thus Islamic nations which do want
to get along with modern economies have needed to find ways around Mohammad?s
strictness, and have. Strict Islamist Mullahs criticize such deviations, but
it seems clear that a strict adherence to the Sharia by a nation will prevent
it from competing with modern Western nations. Do you believe in such a strict
adherence?
There is also the matter of women?s rights under the Sharia. Do you believe
they should have rights equal to men? Should they be able to compete with men
in the work force on an equal basis?
Do you believe Salman Rushdie and Orhan Pamuk should be subject to legal action
for their writings?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
