[Studentus-anonymous]

(Original post by Suetonius)
51% to 49% defeat of Mubarak regime throwback, Ahmed Shafik.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18571580

Discuss...

Sucks for the Copts and Secular Egyptians to be fair.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Then why are you asking me? And regardless of what anyone thinks about them, Al Shabab have some hilarious people lol.

---

The US placed bounties on the heads of several top al-Shabab commanders last week, and the Somali militants were so impressed that they're now copying the tactic. Of course, their payouts aren't quite as impressive as the $3 million to $7 million the US is offering. "Whoever reveals the hideout of the idiot Obama will be rewarded with 10 camels," an al-Shabab official said Friday, "and whoever reveals the hideout of the old woman Hillary Clinton will be rewarded 10 chickens and 10 roosters."

http://www.newser.com/story/147849/a...10-camels.html

---

LOL.

Yes, side-splitting. So funny, I almost invalidated my wudu.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
And I did and I replied correctly. What part of Al Qaeda's ideology are you saying was "influenced by Sayid Qutb(ra)"?

Sayid Qutb manifested quite a comprehensive political ideology. While he didn't change anything in Islam or bring any new teachings, he brought prominence to certain teachings, and linked certain teachings across eachother to form a new way of looking at political Islam.

Specifically, he centred the struggle around the now popularised notion that most Muslims were living in a state of jahiliyyah (ignorance), and as such needed a new awakening through a combination of dawah (towards individuals) and violent jihad (against institutions). Specifically, the state of jahiliyyah that held some Muslims spellbound was so extreme, that in some instances, they had taken themselves out of Islam (takfir), and as such, it was permissible to kill them for the furtherance of Islamist goals.

He also brought Islamist struggle into a modern context, specifically the threat to Islamist thinking society from communism, nationalism and western imperialism.

Some of Qutb's students (those who were not imprisoned and executed by the Egyptian government) went on to form Al-Qaedaesque organisations, and one of his students, Ayman Zawahiri went on to become second in command of Al Qaeda.

Ultimately, the ideology of Sayid Qutb promoted force to achieve Islamic goals (establishing Shariah), a distinction of methods to be used in Muslim lands and non-Muslim lands, and overall, is the root of the paranoia, introspection and violence that characterises Al-Qaeda. He is very very much linked, and I doubt you didn't know what. If you didn't know that, then you are an incredibly misinformed individual.

I must say, Sayid Qutb is certainly one of the most eloquent of Islamist writers, and his book is actually very readible, and highly recommended. It is probably the book to read if you an interested in the dynamics and geo-politics of political Islam.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Meet the nominated Coptic vice president of Egypt;

---

Coptic writer, intellectual and professor, Dr. Rafiq Habib was nominated to serve as the vice president of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) representing the Muslim Brotherhood. In a recent interview with the Middle East Monitor, he highlighted that the founders of the party, which he described as the political expression of the MB which was formerly banned under the Mubarak regime, included 93 Copts and nearly 1000 women.

Coptic writer, intellectual and professor, Dr. Rafiq Habib was nominated to serve as the vice president of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) representing the Muslim Brotherhood. In a recent interview with the Middle East Monitor, he highlighted that the founders of the party, which he described as the political expression of the MB which was formerly banned under the Mubarak regime, included 93 Copts and nearly 1000 women.

According to Habib, the welcoming of Christians and women by the MB, serves to contrast the accusations of exclusion addressed to the Brotherhood by many groups. He maintained that the FJP is totally distinct from the MB and that the FJP, as an NGO, shall deal with social activities and offer aid to the community. Habib explained that the group and the party are independent, both financially and managerially. However, he added that they will assist one another when necessary, such as during elections.

Addressing peace issues, members of the FJP formerly asserted that the party will endorse all the international treaties concluded under the former regime, including the Camp David Peace Accords, on the condition that Israel does not breach any of its terms or clauses.

Habib added that he accepted the post of VP of the FJP despite Coptic rejection in an attempt to bridge the gap between Egyptian Muslims and Christians which occurred due to the former dictatorship regime. He assured that the party calls for a modern civil state based on Islamic references which guarantee.

http://ns2.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=100

---

Hmm, almost as funny as the Al Shabab camels joke you shared with us. Oh, but this isn't a joke, this is you being serious.

Anyway, these sort of guys remind me a bit of Rajinder Singh, that Sikh dude who is always standing up for and promoting the BNP. I guess there will always be useful idiots around, and naive idiots ready to lap up what they offer.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Sayid Qutb manifested quite a comprehensive political ideology. While he didn't change anything in Islam or bring any new teachings, he brought prominence to certain teachings, and linked certain teachings across eachother to form a new way of looking at political Islam.

Specifically, he centred the struggle around the now popularised notion that most Muslims were living in a state of jahiliyyah (ignorance), and as such needed a new awakening through a combination of dawah (towards individuals) and violent jihad (against institutions). Specifically, the state of jahiliyyah that held some Muslims spellbound was so extreme, that in some instances, they had taken themselves out of Islam (takfir), and as such, it was permissible to kill them for the furtherance of Islamist goals.

He also brought Islamist struggle into a modern context, specifically the threat to Islamist thinking society from communism, nationalism and western imperialism.

Some of Qutb's students (those who were not imprisoned and executed by the Egyptian government) went on to form Al-Qaedaesque organisations, and one of his students, Ayman Zawahiri went on to become second in command of Al Qaeda.

Ultimately, the ideology of Sayid Qutb promoted force to achieve Islamic goals (establishing Shariah), a distinction of methods to be used in Muslim lands and non-Muslim lands, and overall, is the root of the paranoia, introspection and violence that characterises Al-Qaeda. He is very very much linked, and I doubt you didn't know what. If you didn't know that, then you are an incredibly misinformed individual.

I must say, Sayid Qutb is certainly one of the most eloquent of Islamist writers, and his book is actually very readible, and highly recommended. It is probably the book to read if you an interested in the dynamics and geo-politics of political Islam.

Sorry, but I strongly doubt you have the intellectual capabilities of being able to comprehend a writer such as Sayid Qutb(ra). And this is not just a mere opinion, but based on some of the genetic falacies you've shown in comprehending many posts on this forum. As an Islamaphobe, you could not even dream to be able to understand someone like Qutb.

Many people are influenced by Sayid Qutb, just like anything else, you have those that take good influence and those that may take bad influence. Well, personally I don't think anyone actually took any bad influences from him, as his message was so clear.

He simply reminded people of an Islamic right that we got 1400 years ago, a right that democracy or secularism would never see; and that right is to revolt against an oppressive tyrant/ruler if they were to oppress against religion and to force people to do something the Shariah forbids.

This orientalist could not have said it better;

---

The Quran, for example, makes it clear that there is a duty of obedience: "Obey God, obey the Prophet, obey those who hold authority over you." And this is elaborated in a number of sayings attributed to Muhammad. But there are also sayings that put strict limits on the duty of obedience. Two dicta attributed to the Prophet and universally accepted as authentic are indicative. One says, "there is no obedience in sin"; in other words, if the ruler orders something contrary to the divine law, not only is there no duty of obedience, but there is a duty of disobedience. This is more than the right of revolution that appears in Western political thought. It is a duty of revolution, or at least of disobedience and opposition to authority. The other pronouncement, "do not obey a creature against his creator," again clearly limits the authority of the ruler, whatever form of ruler that may be. - Bernard Lewis, Freedom and Justice in the Middle East

---

The Arab spring is pretty much something Qutb would've always condoned and had he not been hanged by the Egyptian government at that time, who knows what would've happened.

With the above Quote in regards, the ghist of Qutb's talks are about Jihad in establishing an Islamic state, through the over throwing of the dictators and in his opinion Murtard rulers of the current Muslim world.

In this respect, there are many Muslims who wish to see the return of an Islamic state, and the end to corruption. However, most of these people influenced by Qutb, most of his readers, do not call for the killing of innocent civilians, which is something AQ do.

AQ at best are influenced by Qutb's notion of overthrowing current rulers and establishing an Islamic state. Stuff like 9/11 and the likes all comes as an influence from the acts of the USA. And this is based on the very western ideology of; "you kill our civilians, and we'll kill yours", as Japan found out and so did the Germans.

Otherwise Islam, from the consensus of all the Classical scholars is clear on retaliation killing;

---

Imam Al Qurtubi(ra) said:

"The fact that someone disbelieves [in Islam] does not prevent us from being just to him, and that our dealing with them (in a state of war) should only be restricted to fighting or capturing them if they deserve so. And it is not permissible for us to retaliate in the same manner, even if they kill our women and children and cause sorrow to befall us, it is not permissible for us to act likewise with the intention of making them feel grief and sorrow". (Tafsir Al Qurtubi 5/8)

---

And I'm sure Qutb(ra) was aware of this and understood this very well. Thus, if he had been alive today, he would not have endorsed AQ ideology, or atleast, their methods of carrying out their ideologies.

No doubt Qutb said some strange things that don't have much of an Islamic backing (of course he isn't perfect), but one thing he never said was that innocent civilians should be killed.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Sorry, but I strongly doubt you have the intellectual capabilities of being able to comprehend a writer such as Sayid Qutb(ra). And this is not just a mere opinion, but based on some of the genetic falacies you've shown in comprehending many posts on this forum. As an Islamaphobe, you could not even dream to be able to understand someone like Qutb.

You seem a bit rattled.

I find it interesting that you make this attempted smear of my "intellectual capabilities", when in fact, every time we interact, I refute everything you write, and we always leave it with me having the last word because you've run away from the debate (with the usual excuses that you bring to make up for your own sense of failure and helplessness)

You cite "genetic [sic] falacies [sic]" (not quite sure what these are, maybe you were trying to write "generic", but I'll let you clear that one up, and I presume you were hoping to write "fallacies"). You've talked about these so-called "falacies" [sic] before, but always in general terms, and never specifying what. If the fallacies exist, then most intellectually capable people would be able to identify what they are, and communicate them, but you seem to have failed in this respect on every occasion.

Whether you want to call me an Islamophobe or not, it is up to you. If it makes you feel better, than am all for improving your mental wellbeing. Somebody can not be Muslim, can see through the deficiencies of Islam, and identify its bad influences, and still be able to understand Sayid Qutb and discuss Islam objectively (in fact this is where you find the most objective views of Islam). But because you haven't yet been able to see through the deficiencies of Islam (or at least not admitted them to yourself) or acknowledged the bad influences of Islam (loved you recent defence of slavery, really entertaining), you are probably unable to see things from different perspectives. I say yet, because you are actually a sincere person at heart with good intention, it's just you've got yourself all wrapped up in this perfect, seemingly internally consistent ideology right now, and you've invested a lot of time in it. And the main problem is you've got a lot of pride and a lack of humility, and this will always be an obstacle to you admitting fault in your own ideas, your own beliefs, and your own decisions. But still I am optimistic about you.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Many people are influenced by Sayid Qutb, just like anything else, you have those that take good influence and those that may take bad influence. Well, personally I don't think anyone actually took any bad influences from him, as his message was so clear.

Just because his message was clear, doesn't mean it was free of bad influence. Bit of a fallacy there don't you agree.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
He simply reminded people of an Islamic right that we got 1400 years ago, a right that democracy or secularism would never see; and that right is to revolt against an oppressive tyrant/ruler if they were oppress against religion and to force people to do something the Shariah forbids.

Pretty much what I said regarding him not actually saying anything new, but more linking things in together, and popularising and making certain teachings more prominent.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
The Arab spring is pretty much something Qutb would've always condoned and had he not been hanged by the Egyptian government at that time, who knows what would've happened.

Actually, he would have been disappointed. Just as he was disappointed with the post-colonial governments within Muslim majority countries. In fact it was this disappointment that partially motivated him.
No doubt there will be a new Sayid Qutb that will emerge out of the optimism of the Arab Spring, when the Islamic utopia fails to materialise.

And Mr Qutb would certainly not have approved of the Tunisian revolutionaries, who was essentially rooted in socialist workers syndicates, and had little to do with Islam. Likewise with Egypt, where the revolution was spearheaded by liberal, urban, secular elite (who ironically are going to be the most disappointed of all when the dust around this mess in Egypt settles). At the end of the day, Sayid Qutb, like Lenin, was an idealist and an ideologue; he was therefore destined to dissatisfaction.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
With the above Quote in regards, Qutb talks about an Islamic state, an establishment of one through the over throwing of the dictators and in his opinion Murtard rulers of the current Muslim world.

Yeah, it's like Marxism but with different words. It's quite obvious Qutb was influenced by Marx. In fact, a lot of modern Islamist movements are heavily influenced by Marx, including your very own HuT.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
In this respect, there are many Muslims who wish to see the return of an Islamic state, and the end to corruption.

Actually, the desire to end corruption comes first. Some have been lead to believe that this will be achieved through the creation of an Islamic state.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
However, most of these people influenced by Qutb, most of his readers, do not call for the killing of innocent civilians, which is something AQ do.

Ah, "innocent", that weasel world wheeled out so often by Islamists.

For a start a murtad is not innocent, and Qutb expanded the the application of murtad through popularising takfir, or the objective labelling of somebody a murtad because of his alleged state jahiliyah (rather than the subjective labelling, when somebody self-identifies as somebody who has left Islam). So the number of innocent people suddenly got less.

And secondly, he centralised the necessity of violent jihad against institutions that sustained and perpetuated jahiliya. This is a much greyer area, because when you authorise war, you acknowledge casualties of innocent civilians. This part of Qutb's ideology is much less clear, and maybe would be clearer had not the Egyptian authorities executed him, cutting short his time to convey and develop his ideology fully and more clearly. This is probably the the origin of Al Qaeda's justification of September 11th, since they saw the American economic, military and political system as a sustainer and and perpetuator of jahiliya, and so launched an attack, primarily attacking it's symbolism, but also inflicting tangible damage. The civilian deaths were the necessary casualties of war.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
AQ at best are influenced by Qutb's notion of overthrowing current rulers and establishing an Islamic state.

Hardly radical, and hardly confined to the work of Qutb. Many modern Islamists before him and said the exact same thing.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Stuff like 9/11 and the likes all comes as an influence from the acts of the USA. And this is based on the very western ideology of; "you kill our civilians, and we'll kill yours", as Japan found out and so did the Germans.

No it's Qutb, and your failure to see it, and draw the parallels and conclusions indicates your own intellectual deficiencies to understand, interpret and apply Qutb's ideology.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Otherwise Islam, from the consensus of all the Classical scholars is clear on retaliation killing;

---

Imam Al Qurtubi(ra) said:

"The fact that someone disbelieves [in Islam] does not prevent us from being just to him, and that our dealing with them (in a state of war) should only be restricted to fighting or capturing them if they deserve so. And it is not permissible for us to retaliate in the same manner, even if they kill our women and children and cause sorrow to befall us, it is not permissible for us to act likewise with the intention of making them feel grief and sorrow". (Tafsir Al Qurtubi 5/8)

---

And I'm sure Qutb(ra) was aware of this and understood this very well. Thus, if he had been alive today, he would not have endorsed AQ ideology, or atleast, their methods of carrying out their ideologies.

I think you are failing to appreciate the fluid and dynamic nature of Al Qaeda today, and how things have evolved. Osama bin Laden was disapproving of some regional Al Qaeda plans and operations.

And the tafsir has so many possible meanings, mainly because of certain subjective words that create multiple understandings. The tafsir itself prohibits retaliation with the intention of causing grief and sorrow. However, few would say that Al Qaeda's actions are done with intention to cause grief and sorrow, at least not primarily. They have long term broad political goals, that have little to do with the civilians' grief and sorrow that might get in the way. While Al Qaeda's actions may seem retaliatory in the context of various geo-political events, as Sayid Qutb's ideology stands, the need and aim of establishing the Islamic state is organic and independent of the actions of non-Islamic world players, and so actions like September 11th are not retaliatory, but forming part of the overall necessary goal.

Basically, what you brought proves nothing.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
You seem a bit rattled.

I find it interesting that you make this attempted smear of my "intellectual capabilities", when in fact, every time we interact, I refute everything you write, and we always leave it with me having the last word because you've run away from the debate (with the usual excuses that you bring to make up for your own sense of failure and helplessness)

You cite "genetic [sic] falacies [sic]" (not quite sure what these are, maybe you were trying to write "generic", but I'll let you clear that one up, and I presume you were hoping to write "fallacies"). You've talked about these so-called "falacies" [sic] before, but always in general terms, and never specifying what. If the fallacies exist, then most intellectually capable people would be able to identify what they are, and communicate them, but you seem to have failed in this respect on every occasion.

Whether you want to call me an Islamophobe or not, it is up to you. If it makes you feel better, than am all for improving your mental wellbeing. Somebody can not be Muslim, can see through the deficiencies of Islam, and identify its bad influences, and still be able to understand Sayid Qutb and discuss Islam objectively (in fact this is where you find the most objective views of Islam). But because you haven't yet been able to see through the deficiencies of Islam (or at least not admitted them to yourself) or acknowledged the bad influences of Islam (loved you recent defence of slavery, really entertaining), you are probably unable to see things from different perspectives. I say yet, because you are actually a sincere person at heart with good intention, it's just you've got yourself all wrapped up in this perfect, seemingly internally consistent ideology right now, and you've invested a lot of time in it. And the main problem is you've got a lot of pride and a lack of humility, and this will always be an obstacle to you admitting fault in your own ideas, your own beliefs, and your own decisions. But still I am optimistic about you.

Well, this doesn't change you're an Islamaphobe (thus you twist/lie Islamic scripture/theology), your intellectually incompetent (in regards to debating) and you have this clear over-use of genetic fallacies, in trying to bring about interpretations that do not exist.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Just because his message was clear, doesn't mean it was free of bad influence. Bit of a fallacy there don't you agree.

Then in this respect, many things can have both good and bad influences. You can try to take most people's works and bring about some kind of negative influence from it.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Pretty much what I said regarding him not actually saying anything new, but more linking things in together, and popularising and making certain teachings more prominent.

Actually I was the first to say it here;

The only thing I can think of is where Qutb(ra) said that the Tyrant leaders of the Islamic world should be fought against. This could be why AQ concentrate in Muslim lands rather than Non-Muslim, and prefer to fight against governments in Muslim lands.

For example, currently they're in tense battles against the Yemeni Government.

You just pretty much repeated it with slight elaboration and a silly attempt to suggest the influence was stronger than that.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Actually, he would have been disappointed. Just as he was disappointed with the post-colonial governments within Muslim majority countries. In fact it was this disappointment that partially motivated him.
No doubt there will be a new Sayid Qutb that will emerge out of the optimism of the Arab Spring, when the Islamic utopia fails to materialise.

No, I'm sure he would've been happy that the Arabs rose up against tyrants who were oppressing religion, and in the end voted for people who would remove that oppression.

And like everyone else, would've been disappointed that the result wasn't an Islamic state, but still satisfied that atleast Muslims would no longer be oppressed for their beliefs/practices and that a future generation could potentially rise from this.

Qutb, like everyone else (most Muslims around the world), would not expect a people brainwashed and oppressed by secular extremism for so long to suddenly establish an Islamic state/Caliphate.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
And Mr Qutb would certainly not have approved of the Tunisian revolutionaries, who was essentially rooted in socialist workers syndicates, and had little to do with Islam. Likewise with Egypt, where the revolution was spearheaded by liberal, urban, secular elite (who ironically are going to be the most disappointed of all when the dust around this mess in Egypt settles). At the end of the day, Sayid Qutb, like Lenin, was an idealist and an ideologue; he was therefore destined to dissatisfaction.

You have salafists and MB winning the majority of the votes, and you think that this was because secularist/liberals wanted them to lead the nation instead of secular/liberal parties?

Again, showing how absolutely clueless you are, and why I tend to not waste my time with such a person who lacks basic understanding of what the debate is about.

A secularist/liberal march did happen, it attracted 1500 people.

When an Islamist march happened, it attracted 2 million people, and once the secularist saw the "Islamic banners" they went home, hardly affecting the numbers.

And this was the usual story and the whole western media hype about "worries of Islamists getting power".

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Yeah, it's like Marxism but with different words. It's quite obvious Qutb was influenced by Marx. In fact, a lot of modern Islamist movements are heavily influenced by Marx, including your very own HuT.

Who he was influenced by does not have anything to do with this discussion. We're talking about AQ and their influence of Qutb. Although it is true, that alot of his itjihad had a lot of western influence, rather than traditional Islamic thought.

There have been refutations to some of the thoughts Qutb had.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Ah, "innocent", that weasel world wheeled out so often by Islamists.

For a start a murtad is not innocent, and Qutb expanded the the application of murtad through popularising takfir, or the objective labelling of somebody a murtad because of his alleged state jahiliyah (rather than the subjective labelling, when somebody self-identifies as somebody who has left Islam). So the number of innocent people suddenly got less.

Right, the government and their supporters (Military). This is standard stuff, and whether you're fighting for secularism or democracy, your target will always be the government and their supporters in tyranny.

Again, showing your lack of understanding of basic Islamic theology.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
And secondly, he centralised the necessity of violent jihad against institutions that sustained and perpetuated jahiliya. This is a much greyer area, because when you authorise war, you acknowledge casualties of innocent civilians. This part of Qutb's ideology is much less clear, and maybe would be clearer had not the Egyptian authorities executed him, cutting short his time to convey and develop his ideology fully and more clearly. This is probably the the origin of Al Qaeda's justification of September 11th, since they saw the American economic, military and political system as a sustainer and and perpetuator of jahiliya, and so launched an attack, primarily attacking it's symbolism, but also inflicting tangible damage. The civilian deaths were the necessary casualties of war.

If it is "unclear" then why do you try to make the link? It's like me (and many others) who believe John Locke (father of "European tolerance") was influenced by Islamic theology. And we link it through his greatest influences (his teacher) who used to teach classes (which Locke went to) about Islamic thought.

Same about the founding fathers, there was a bbc documentary on this, about the constitution having Islamic based influences. Yet, you cannot ever say that any of this is true with surety, you cannot say "this person was influenced by this" without actual proof.

With Qutb it is even more vague than the above two examples.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
No it's Qutb, and your failure to see it, and draw the parallels and conclusions indicates your own intellectual deficiencies to understand, interpret and apply Qutb's ideology.

This is hilarious coming from you.

You won't ever in a million years provide me a single quote showing where Qutb allowed retaliation killing of innocent civilians, which AQ has pretty much made it's own name on.

What's even more obvious (in regards to your lack of understanding) is that you completly ignore that millions are influenced by Qutb, yet millions do not join or call for anything similar to AQ's ideology.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
I think you are failing to appreciate the fluid and dynamic nature of Al Qaeda today, and how things have evolved. Osama bin Laden was disapproving of some regional Al Qaeda plans and operations.

Bin Laden, indeed was a victim to AQ. Otherwise I have no doubts he questioned some of the things he was (according to US sources) known to condone.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
And the tafsir has so many possible meanings, mainly because of certain subjective words that create multiple understandings. The tafsir itself prohibits retaliation with the intention of causing grief and sorrow.

There's not a single classical scholar that said you can kill women and children based on anything, unless they are directly fighting you.

That's why there is a consensus, unless you can quote me ONE classical scholar who contradicts the above, I would stop talking about things you have no clue about.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
However, few would say that Al Qaeda's actions are done with intention to cause grief and sorrow, at least not primarily. They have long term broad political goals, that have little to do with the civilians' grief and sorrow that might get in the way. While Al Qaeda's actions may seem retaliatory in the context of various geo-political events, as Sayid Qutb's ideology stands, the need and aim of establishing the Islamic state is organic and independent of the actions of non-Islamic world players, and so actions like September 11th are not retaliatory, but forming part of the overall necessary goal.

We all know what AQ are trying to do, we all know what Qutb said. What you're in denial about is, where AQ and Qutb both go separate ways in, is in the method of achieving this same goal.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Basically, what you brought proves nothing.

Basically what you state has no basis, and is again, the use of typical genetic fallacies (finding meaning in something that does not exist).

You can disapprove me by;

- Providing Qutb quote promoting the killings of civilians to "establish an Islamic state".
- Provide a classical scholar who approved the killing of civilians in retaliation or any other manner.

or even providing AQ sources saying that their killing of civilians is directly influenced from Qutb.

[AU94]

(Original post by MrHayden)
I have to say, I think that was one of the best posts I've seen on this site before. Most enlightening!

Thank you a lot! I really appreciate it!

[levantine]

(Original post by Lord-Voldemort)
Well that's Egypt off the holiday list!

Oh, and who bets that this has accelerated the inevitable war between Israel and the Middle East?

Why?? because they have finally democratically elected a president. haters always seem to hate

[levantine]

I think that even coptic christians are better voting for the mursi guy instead of the shafik, because shafik is mubaraks in disguise and currently there is alot of persecution of coptics under mubarak so I would be happy with the results if I was coptic

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
You seem a bit rattled.

I find it interesting that you make this attempted smear of my "intellectual capabilities", when in fact, every time we interact, I refute everything you write, and we always leave it with me having the last word because you've run away from the debate (with the usual excuses that you bring to make up for your own sense of failure and helplessness)

You cite "genetic [sic] falacies [sic]" (not quite sure what these are, maybe you were trying to write "generic", but I'll let you clear that one up, and I presume you were hoping to write "fallacies"). You've talked about these so-called "falacies" [sic] before, but always in general terms, and never specifying what. If the fallacies exist, then most intellectually capable people would be able to identify what they are, and communicate them, but you seem to have failed in this respect on every occasion.

Whether you want to call me an Islamophobe or not, it is up to you. If it makes you feel better, than am all for improving your mental wellbeing. Somebody can not be Muslim, can see through the deficiencies of Islam, and identify its bad influences, and still be able to understand Sayid Qutb and discuss Islam objectively (in fact this is where you find the most objective views of Islam). But because you haven't yet been able to see through the deficiencies of Islam (or at least not admitted them to yourself) or acknowledged the bad influences of Islam (loved you recent defence of slavery, really entertaining), you are probably unable to see things from different perspectives. I say yet, because you are actually a sincere person at heart with good intention, it's just you've got yourself all wrapped up in this perfect, seemingly internally consistent ideology right now, and you've invested a lot of time in it. And the main problem is you've got a lot of pride and a lack of humility, and this will always be an obstacle to you admitting fault in your own ideas, your own beliefs, and your own decisions. But still I am optimistic about you.

Well, this doesn't change you're an Islamaphobe (thus you twist/lie Islamic scripture/theology), your intellectually incompetent (in regards to debating) and you have this clear over-use of genetic fallacies, in trying to bring about interpretations that do not exist.

Firstly, this Islamophobe label that so preoccupies you. As I've said before, I have no issue what you choose to label me with, because is doesn't change the substance of the debate at hand, and merely shows you feebly trying to deflect arguments of substance to that of superficial labels.

You call me an Islamophobe because;
-I have seen through Islam, and objectively determined it to be clearly man-made in origin, and not divine as claimed
-I identity bad influences from Islam

So basically I see Islam as both untrue containing bad influences, so you raise the Islamaphobia flag.

You on the other hand;
-Believe Islam to be of divine origin, and universal for all mankind
-Believe it to contain perfect teachings with overall positive influences.

So would it be correct to label you an "Islamophile"? And if so, does it change the substance of the debate? No, it doesn't. But you cling to the use of the labels because of your own poverty of thought, and your own failure at debating. And ironically, you accuse others of intellectual incapability and an inability to debate; I guess the insecure always project their own known failings onto others in a way of reassuring themselves, that that is another story.

And this "genetic fallacies" business. Can you please identify one of my arguments that you believe to be a genetic fallacy and explain why you believe it to be so. Just one, so we can put this to rest. Rather than this generalised accusation, that both you and I know, is totally baseless,

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Just because his message was clear, doesn't mean it was free of bad influence. Bit of a fallacy there don't you agree.

Then in this respect, many things can have both good and bad influences. You can try to take most people's works and bring about some kind of negative influence from it.

Of course things can have both good and bad influence. One of the positive influences of Sayid Qutb is his emphasis on self empowerment in the face of certain human oppression.

My point was, that you said his message was clear, and therefore people could not have taken bad influences from it. The fallacy here is that clarity of message does not equal benevolence of message. It's simple. And the ironic fact is you later going on to contradict yourself in your most recent post, regarding the so-called clarity of Sayid Qutb.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Pretty much what I said regarding him not actually saying anything new, but more linking things in together, and popularising and making certain teachings more prominent.

Actually I was the first to say it here;

"The only thing I can think of is where Qutb(ra) said that the Tyrant leaders of the Islamic world should be fought against. This could be why AQ concentrate in Muslim lands rather than Non-Muslim, and prefer to fight against governments in Muslim lands."

For example, currently they're in tense battles against the Yemeni Government.

You just pretty much repeated it with slight elaboration and a silly attempt to suggest the influence was stronger than that.

What you said is not at all what I said. I gave a general notion that Sayid Qutb didn't bring any new Islamic teachings, he just re-prioritised certain teachings, and linked together different teachings to put forward a manifesto for political Islam fit for the modern context. All you wrote was that his similarity with Al Qaeda is rooted in his and their opposition to tyrannical oppression not conforming with Shariah governance. If you cannot see the difference, then you have issues.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Actually, he would have been disappointed. Just as he was disappointed with the post-colonial governments within Muslim majority countries. In fact it was this disappointment that partially motivated him.
No doubt there will be a new Sayid Qutb that will emerge out of the optimism of the Arab Spring, when the Islamic utopia fails to materialise.

No, I'm sure he would've been happy that the Arabs rose up against tyrants who were oppressing religion, and in the end voted for people who would remove that oppression.

But they didn't in Tunisia. Majority of people voted for secular parties. Secular parties were an anathema to him. And those that spearheaded the revolution in Egypt (the liberal, middle class elite in urban centre) did so in the name of freedom and liberty, and not Islam. He may have been somewhat pleased with the results of the elections (not sure how he would view modern day Ikhwan, he wasn't a pragmatist, so he actually be scathing, but he would like the fact that a quarter of people voted for Al-Noor).

The compromises with SCAF by Ikhwan would greatly greatly have displeased him.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
And like everyone else, would've been disappointed that the result wasn't an Islamic state, but still satisfied that atleast Muslims would no longer be oppressed for their beliefs/practices and that a future generation could potentially rise from this.

I don't think he was as pragmatic as you are giving him credit for.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Qutb, like everyone else (most Muslims around the world), would not expect a people brainwashed and oppressed by secular extremism for so long to suddenly establish an Islamic state/Caliphate.

Again, you are underestimating how much of an ideologue this man was.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
And Mr Qutb would certainly not have approved of the Tunisian revolutionaries, who was essentially rooted in socialist workers syndicates, and had little to do with Islam. Likewise with Egypt, where the revolution was spearheaded by liberal, urban, secular elite (who ironically are going to be the most disappointed of all when the dust around this mess in Egypt settles). At the end of the day, Sayid Qutb, like Lenin, was an idealist and an ideologue; he was therefore destined to dissatisfaction.

You have salafists and MB winning the majority of the votes

In Egypt yes, I never said otherwise. What I said was that the revolution was spearheaded by secular liberal urban elite, and not devoted, pious, Islamic orientated section of society that "should" have.

In Tunisia no. Like Egypt, the revolution was not spearheaded by Islamists, and neither was the revolution carried out by anything remotely resembling Islamic organisation. And when Tunisians had an election, the majority rejection Islamic parties. This would all be see as a total utter failure by Sayid Qutb, and a symptom of the deep rooted jahiliyah within Tunisia.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
, and you think that this was because secularist/liberals wanted them to lead the nation instead of secular/liberal parties?

I didn't say or suggest anything of the sort.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Again, showing how absolutely clueless you are, and why I tend to not waste my time with such a person who lacks basic understanding of what the debate is about.

I think the problem lies in your inability to read and comprehend than any sort of misunderstanding on my part. Go back and read what I read before you write such silly things that just make you look a fool.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
A secularist/liberal march did happen, it attracted 1500 people.

When an Islamist march happened, it attracted 2 million people, and once the secularist saw the "Islamic banners" they went home, hardly affecting the numbers.

And this was the usual story and the whole western media hype about "worries of Islamists getting power".

I don't see how this is connected to anything that I have said.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Yeah, it's like Marxism but with different words. It's quite obvious Qutb was influenced by Marx. In fact, a lot of modern Islamist movements are heavily influenced by Marx, including your very own HuT.

Who he was influenced by does not have anything to do with this discussion.

Well it is related, because we are talking about Qutb's influence on Al-Qaeda, and Qutb's manifesto in general. Given the heavy influence of Marxism that is apparent in his work, is has relevance in the corresponding apparent influence (admitted or not) by modern violent and non-violent Islamist movements.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
We're talking about AQ and their influence of Qutb. Although it is true, that alot of his itjihad had a lot of western influence, rather than traditional Islamic thought.

Indeed.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
There have been refutations to some of the thoughts Qutb had.

There is not a singe Muslim thinker, contemporary or modern, who will not face "refutations" from another section of the ummah or ulema.

A lot of the "refutations" of Qutb relate to his incorporation of Marxist ideas, such as his assertion that slavery was now haram (which of course, he was not in a position to make), and his proposal for widespread wealth redistribution.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Ah, "innocent", that weasel world wheeled out so often by Islamists.

For a start a murtad is not innocent, and Qutb expanded the the application of murtad through popularising takfir, or the objective labelling of somebody a murtad because of his alleged state jahiliyah (rather than the subjective labelling, when somebody self-identifies as somebody who has left Islam). So the number of innocent people suddenly got less.

Right, the government and their supporters (Military). This is standard stuff, and whether you're fighting for secularism or democracy, your target will always be the government and their supporters in tyranny.

Again, showing your lack of understanding of basic Islamic theology.

Erm, you basically just agreed with what I wrote. So either we are both showing a lack of understanding of "basic Islamic theology", or you are just doing your usual posturing when you're faced with arguments and logical conclusions that you find uncomfortable.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
And secondly, he centralised the necessity of violent jihad against institutions that sustained and perpetuated jahiliya. This is a much greyer area, because when you authorise war, you acknowledge casualties of innocent civilians. This part of Qutb's ideology is much less clear, and maybe would be clearer had not the Egyptian authorities executed him, cutting short his time to convey and develop his ideology fully and more clearly. This is probably the the origin of Al Qaeda's justification of September 11th, since they saw the American economic, military and political system as a sustainer and and perpetuator of jahiliya, and so launched an attack, primarily attacking it's symbolism, but also inflicting tangible damage. The civilian deaths were the necessary casualties of war.

If it is "unclear" then why do you try to make the link? It's like me (and many others) who believe John Locke (father of "European tolerance") was influenced by Islamic theology. And we link it through his greatest influences (his teacher) who used to teach classes (which Locke went to) about Islamic thought.

I never said unclear, I said less clear. Generally Qutb wrote with fine clarity, but this issue has left open greater degrees of interpretation of his intention and meaning than others.

Does Locke ever cite Islamic theological sources throughout his manifestos? No

Does Al Qaeda cite Sayid Qutb in their written and broadcast material? Yes, regularly, and continuously. Just look at Ayman Zahawiri and Anwar al-Awlaki.

If you cannot see the link between Qutb's manifesto (both theoretical and applied) and the actions of Al-Qaeda, then you at least have the blatant reliance of Al Qaeda on Qutb as a reference in their written and broadcast media. This alone should be enough, even with your blindness with regard to the obvious logical conclusions of Qutb's manifesto.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Same about the founding fathers, there was a bbc documentary on this, about the constitution having Islamic based influences.

I thought the BBC was too biased to be used as a source. I mean, you roll your eyes anytime anyone uses it (even though you yourself use PressTV as a source, but consistency and avoidance of hypocrisy was never your strong point)

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Yet, you cannot ever say that any of this is true with surety, you cannot say "this person was influenced by this" without actual proof.

Course you can't, it's academic speculation. Am glad you can admit things like this. There's no direct link between Locke and the forefathers, and Islamic scripture, but there is a direct link between Al Qaeda's written and broadcast material, and the regular citations of Sayid Qutb to back up their stance.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
With Qutb it is even more vague than the above two examples.

How is it possibly vague by any measure? Are you saying Qutb's writings were vague, or that the influence on Al Qaeda by Qutb is vague. I just want you to clarify.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
No it's Qutb, and your failure to see it, and draw the parallels and conclusions indicates your own intellectual deficiencies to understand, interpret and apply Qutb's ideology.

This is hilarious coming from you.

You won't ever in a million years provide me a single quote showing where Qutb allowed retaliation killing of innocent civilians, which AQ has pretty much made it's own name on.

Al Qaeda have never said their actions are in the main, retaliatory. Their actions are about advancing the Islamic cause, and bringing forward the the Caliphate. When retaliatory language is used, it is with the aim of building deterrence and awe of the ummah's power. But retaliation as a means to a end has never been Al Qaeda's objective. This is fully in line with Sayid Qutb.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
What's even more obvious (in regards to your lack of understanding) is that you completly ignore that millions are influenced by Qutb, yet millions do not join or call for anything similar to AQ's ideology.

I don't ignore at all. Of course there are people who draw inspiration from Qutb, but don't support Al Qaeda. Qutb was an ideologue, and a theorist. Al Qaeda is an organisation and activist, and therefore have to make decisions, sometimes with pragmatism, that while supported by Qutb's theory and manifesto, would make some Muslim supporters of Qutb uncomfortable.

If anybody is doing ignoring, it is you, who ignores the millions influenced heavily by Qutb, and they support for Al Qaeda's ideology.

Is this a clarity issue on Qutb's part?

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
I think you are failing to appreciate the fluid and dynamic nature of Al Qaeda today, and how things have evolved. Osama bin Laden was disapproving of some regional Al Qaeda plans and operations.

Bin Laden, indeed was a victim to AQ. Otherwise I have no doubts he questioned some of the things he was (according to US sources) known to condone.

Indeed.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
And the tafsir has so many possible meanings, mainly because of certain subjective words that create multiple understandings. The tafsir itself prohibits retaliation with the intention of causing grief and sorrow.

There's not a single classical scholar that said you can kill women and children based on anything, unless they are directly fighting you.

That's why there is a consensus, unless you can quote me ONE classical scholar who contradicts the above, I would stop talking about things you have no clue about.

If you do think that you cannot kill a non combatant woman or child in any circumstance, then you are basically ruling out any form of modern warfare, and therefore, any form of effective warfare in the modern context. Because all forms of warfare will lead to collateral civilian casualties of women and children.

Al Qaeda are pragmatic in the context of their limitations of the means at the disposal to avoid collateral damage, but still motivated to engage in warfare against the machinations of jahiliyah. That is why they have the blood of women and children on their hands. They don't intend to (and I believe classsical Islamic scholars rule out the killing of women and children with the sole intention being to have them killed), but they know it is the collateral damage of the necessity of war in their case. This is an application of Qutb's message of violent warfare to advance the Islamic cause, and Qutb would have recognised the inevitability of casualties.

So do you rule out modern warfare? Is the prohibition of an action that causes death to non combatant women and children flexible or rigid?

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
However, few would say that Al Qaeda's actions are done with intention to cause grief and sorrow, at least not primarily. They have long term broad political goals, that have little to do with the civilians' grief and sorrow that might get in the way. While Al Qaeda's actions may seem retaliatory in the context of various geo-political events, as Sayid Qutb's ideology stands, the need and aim of establishing the Islamic state is organic and independent of the actions of non-Islamic world players, and so actions like September 11th are not retaliatory, but forming part of the overall necessary goal.

We all know what AQ are trying to do, we all know what Qutb said. What you're in denial about is, where AQ and Qutb both go separate ways in, is in the method of achieving this same goal.

Qutb died an ideologue not really seeing the fruits of his ideology. Much like Marx. It's always easy to say actual communist governments went their separate ways from Marx, because of the reality of government that communist governments faced compared to the luxury of armchair theorising that Marx (and Qutb had). It would be totally dishonest to say that modern communist governments were not influenced by Marx, just because Marx never said to do the x, y and z that many communist governments did. But this is what you are doing with Qutb (the theorist) and Al Qaeda (the practical application), and it either shows your dishonesty, naivety, or sheer incomprehension of the subject (or "intellectual incompetance" as you like to say).

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Basically, what you brought proves nothing.

Basically what you state has no basis, and is again, the use of typical genetic fallacies (finding meaning in something that does not exist).

There is no genetic fallacy at all here.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
You can disapprove me by;

- Providing Qutb quote promoting the killings of civilians to "establish an Islamic state".
- Provide a classical scholar who approved the killing of civilians in retaliation or any other manner.

or even providing AQ sources saying that their killing of civilians is directly influenced from Qutb.

You are just being silly.

Qutb expanded the idea of guilt with his modern application of the notion of jahiliyah, and the takfir that went hand in hand with it, and thus opening up the range of people permissible to kill. As I have said "innocent" is a weasel word when discussing with many Muslims, because their interpretation and understanding of what is "innocent" varies widely, and does not conform with many established ideas of what innocence actually is.

As I said before, if you are going to have a blanket ban on any action that will or may lead to the death of "innocent" civilians (even by the narrowed definition of innocence that many Islamists hold), then you have to have a blanket ban on all forms of modern warfare, which basically makes any form of struggle against jahiliyah impossible. Do you accept that?

If you can honestly write with a straight face that Al Qaeda are not influenced by Sayid Qutb, then you have serious issues. You read enough Al Qaeda propaganda, so this can only be put down to dishonesty on your part

[AntisthenesDogger]

It hardly matters at this point considering the Military junta has declared sweeping powers for any general to essentially control the state even IF they relinquish poster control the new President.