Karen Armstrong in today's Guardian on how extremists in Islam, like those in other religions, are deliberately outside the mainstream of their religion and in fact have contempt for it:
Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), whose ideology is followed by most Sunni fundamentalists, had no love for the west, but his jihad was primarily directed against such Muslim rulers as Jamal Abdul Nasser. In order to replace secularist Fatah, Hamas began by attacking the PLO, and was initially funded by Israel in order to undermine Arafat. Osama bin Laden began by campaigning against the Saudi royal family and secularist rulers such as Saddam Hussein; later, when he discovered the extent of their support for these regimes, he declared war against the US. Even when fundamentalists are engaged in a struggle with an external enemy, this internal hostility remains a potent force.
It is unrealistic to hope that radical Islamists will be chastened by a rebuke from "moderate" imams; they have nothing but contempt for traditional Muslims, who they see as part of the problem. Nor are extremists likely to be dismayed when told that terrorism violates the religion of Islam. We often use the word "fundamentalist" wrongly, as a synonym for "orthodox". In fact, fundamentalists are unorthodox - even anti-orthodox. They may invoke the past, but these are innovative movements that promote entirely new doctrines.
For one thing, I find it irksome that people blame Qutb and Mawdudi for the terrorism we know of in the Muslim world today. Mawdudi in particular founded a political party, and his thinking is today mostly of interest to politically-minded rather than jihadist Muslims. The present day jihad of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts emerged out of the Saudi-Wahhabi jihad effort in Afghanistan of the 1980s, and they turned on the Saudis, and the west, when their offer to expel Saddam Hussain from Kuwait was rebuffed. Why Fahd did this - because he did not have faith in their ability to actually get the job done in the face of Saddam's forces, because of affection for the USA or because he specifically did not want OBL to gain power anywhere - I can't answer.
However, they certainly do not regard themselves as a fringe movement outside the mainstream of Islam; they are blind to the fact that they are the fringe of a small, but moneyed, sect. If the writings of Abu Hamza are anything to go by (I have two of his books at home), they regard their interpretations as being grounded in mainstream Islamic opinion, quoting classical imams (not just Ibn Taymiyya) and naming their contemporary authorities within the four madhhabs; Abdullah Azzam, for example, was named as a Shafi'i scholar, though whether Habib Omar bin Hafeez would recognise him as one I have no idea. In their own mind, they are the orthodox, and it's the rest of the Muslims who have gone astray.
Someone suggested to me that al-qaeda owes more to Muhamed Qutb (his brother) than Sayed Qutb. The former was a wahhabi by doctrine who studied in Saudi Arabia along with many other former brotherhood members who fled there.
The probelm with this statement by Armstrong is that it seems to whitewash Pan-Arabism, Communism,Baathism and the like; are any of those traditionaly Islamic?
I also agree with you that those who blame Qutb and Mawdudui for problems today do not understand either. Peter Beinhart in his book blamed Mawdudui for the Taliban but anyone who knows the work of Mawdudui knows he had a very different vision than the Taliban.
There is definitely room for discussion about the issue of Mawdudi and Qutub as mentioned above. But fundamentally Armstrong makes a strong case against the New-labour trend of blaming Muslims for the extremists of a few, by saying Moderate Muslims should do more to eradicate extremists. I think Armstrong hits the hammer on the nail by saying foreign policy is the cause and fuel for extremist anger. Would be nice if our sel-appointed Muslim leaders 'radically' understood this.
They may be "outside the mainstream", but that doesn't mean they see themselves as heretical. Nor does it mean they are heretical. Their view is that the mainstream- or streams- has been by corrupted and betrayed by its leaders and that islam needs to return to its original inspiration and roots. In short, they want a muslim Reformation. What is more, they are probably perfectly correct un their assessment of ordinary muslims and ordinary islam. Who more closely resembles the people who spread islam violently across the Levant and North Africa, the ordinary muslims who reluctantly accept they aren't allowed to kill homosexuals or apoststes or the people who blow themselves and anyone else around to bits because they disapprove of foreign policy or regard "slags" dancing as guilty of crimes deserving death?
Assalaamu alaikum,
Is she using, as examples of "moderate" or "meanstream" Muslims, people like Jamal Abdul Nasser, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and the Saudi royal family?
She might have good intentions, but I think she's way off... and I think that the "extremists" do sincerely believe that what they're doing is Islamically correct. They wouldn't be swayed by certain "moderate" scholars because they don't accept their views as being Islamically correct.
Assalaam,
Can anyone briefly outline the vision of Mawdudi? I've never read any of his works, but what I've heard about him is all very negative.
Thersite,
What rubbish.
"They may be "outside the mainstream", but that doesn't mean they see themselves as heretical."
Which isnt the point at all. 99.9% of Muslim would consider themselves mainstream and thier Islam being the most correct even the ones who believe the Kabah makes tawwaf around them because of their peity.
"Nor does it mean they are heretical."
What makes them authentic because they are violent? Does that mean violent people are authentically Islamic due to their violence. Muslims dont argue against violence per se. Muslims argue against the killing of men, women, and children, not associated with battles, the excommunication of Muslims due to minor sins, the rebellion against rulers in the Muslim world, etc. All of the above are actions taken by these Muslims you dont view as heretical.
"Their view is that the mainstream- or streams- has been by corrupted and betrayed by its leaders and that islam needs to return to its original inspiration and roots."
You mean Muslims need to return to thier "original roots." Exactly what steps have they taken to that end? These same accusations of corruption were hurled at Utham and ALi before they were slain. Are you going to argue that their killers were more authentic then them?
"In short, they want a muslim Reformation."
You reform Muslims by killing people? Dont be taken in by them.
"What is more, they are probably perfectly correct un their assessment of ordinary muslims and ordinary islam."
Making takfir of Muslims isnt a perfect assesment.
The Sharia doesnt give every Muslim the authority to make such proclaimations.
"Who more closely resembles the people who spread islam violently across the Levant and North Africa, the ordinary muslims who reluctantly accept they aren't allowed to kill homosexuals or apoststes or the people who blow themselves and anyone else around to bits because they disapprove of foreign policy or regard "slags" dancing as guilty of crimes deserving death?"
So bringing Muslims back to "...its original inspiration and roots..." includes spreading violence anywhere in the world? How can you associate suicide bombers with those Muslims who spread Islam violently through North Africa and the Levant? It seems as if the only thing they have in common is their violence. So as long as you are violent you are a Muslim who has reverted back to his inspirational roots? Well then I guess Ghengis Khan was a Muslim too right?
For you to reduce Islamic authenticity with violence is pretty shallow, much like heretical Muslims you call reformers. Interestingly enough, Prophet Muhammed in his description of these very people (I am having this same conversation again.) said that they would seem devout and authentic in comparison to other Muslims.
Get a clue, there is more to being Muslim then being violent, atleast for most Muslims that is.
There may be more to islam than being violent to most muslims now, but the muslim reformers think that there was more use of violence at the beginning than most muslims now do and want to restore that element of the good old days. Of course, it is only righteous violence, by the right people, they favour. In their eyes it is a sign of the weakness- both physical and moral- of contemporary islam that modern muslims don't bash unbelievers and blasphemers and sinners as they should be bashed and, even worse, that muslims don't recognise this.
Fighting those who invade and occupy your land is different from "bashing unbelievers and blasphemers and sinners" just because they're "unbelievers and blasphemers and sinners".
Being "unbelievers and blasphemers and sinners" was also a justification for fighting and occupying their land in the early days of islam.
whereas being 'heretics', 'infidels', and just not "going with the flow" was the justification with which non-muslims fought and occupied muslim land.
How do you want to argue this, Thersites? academically? [several muslims here have history degrees, and just quoting jihadwatch to us isn't convincing]
emotionally? [google provides a rich fount of Israeli propaganda and anti-muslim webpages, but arguing back with webpages you don't (or won't) read is tedious]
fairly? [but since when does those who slaughter muslims think 'fair & balanced' meant something other than a good sales slogan for FOX?]