[lit-ideas] Re: Five Years Ago

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:37:01 -0700

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.  





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



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

Other related posts: