Qutb and Hitler

When reading Qutb’s tirade on jihad, I realized that he was the kind of closed-minded individual that causes the largest problems in the world today. I found his writing particularly offensive because he seems to believe that he is the perfect person and has the right answers for everything. Normally this would not peeve me so much, but he claims that he has his rights because of the God he believes in. At that point, I lost faith in a logical argument coming from his writings. When Hitler persuaded his armies to kill people as they did, he used what the Nazis believed were sound arguments based on somewhat factual observations. Being scientifically minded, it can be hard to refute them with anything but, “its just wrong.” However, in Qutb’s piece he claims to receive permission to kill people from God. This claim is ridiculous. There is some amount of religious violence I can understand. I recently read an article were a missionary had gone to Africa to “spread the word of God” and they were killed for their beliefs early on. While I do not condone it, I can understand a person killing to protect themselves from what they believe is religious treachery. However, Qutb claims that a person does not have to even try to force their views upon you for violence to occur. Qutb believes that it is the right of muslims to be able to kill anyone who does not believe the same things that they do. The part that makes me angry with Qutb is that he does not base his argument in anything solid. He believes that God told him killing was okay and that he wanted every non-muslim dead. At least Hitler attempted to hide and deceive people with vague scientific and economic data.

Qutb

I find this whole idea of fighting for God very interesting. It just seems so different from any views that I have of God. Here in America we are always told that God loves us all and that he’d never really want us to kill any other individual. But in this reading Qutb talks about how the Quran seems to be encouraging it. If someone doesn’t believe the same thing as you, you shouldn’t feel like you have to force them to convert to your views, and then if they don’t accept to go to war with them. I would think that God wouldn’t really want war. Why God want to kill those who could be good people morally, just disagree with your religious views. It is as if Qutb is attempting to force everyone in the entire world to convert to Islam, or risk death. These views that Qutb holds are very dangerous in today’s world. I know that not all Muslims hold these same interpretations of the Quran because I’ve asked my Muslim friend, and it seems when certain Muslims start to interpret the Quran this way there are not many positive outcomes. Clearly it is under these circumstances that things like terrorist attacks occur. I do not think that it would make sense for God take away the lives of innocent people. Even if someone argued that these people were not innocent because they are “non-believers,” it still does not seem just, when these people being attacked are morally good.

One passage Sayyed Qutb wrote reminded me of our discussion we had in class over political cartoons the Muslim’s deemed “offensive” in a Danish newspaper. Qutb explained that a fourth aspect of Islam is that it “provides a legal basis for the relationship of the Muslim community with other groups” (131). Qutb stated, “This legal formulation is based on the principle that Islam- that is, submission to God- is a universal Message which the whole of mankind should accept or make peace with.” Therefore, I believe Qutb would have been one of the Muslim’s that would have taken direct offense to the cartoons. The main reason Qutb would take offense is because he believes the whole of mankind should come to peace with their religion. He is not inflicting every person to be a Muslim, I believe he would have the same belief as Ramadan and think that the Muslim religion just deserves respect. However, I am not sure if Qutb would have had an extremely severe reaction to the cartoons or not. In his article, he stated, “It is not the intention of Islam to force its beliefs on people, but Islam is not merely a belief” (133). By that statement, I believe his reaction could have been very severe because he said that Islam is not merely a belief. I think Qutb would think that the cartoonist was not insulting his religion and his way of life. However, I don’t know if he would have had a light reaction because he does belief that it is not Muslim’s intention to force their beliefs on others; others have a right to view things other ways.

Wait, but I thought you said....

“Thus, wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience.” In this quotation, Qutb asserts that usurping a political authority is fine in the name of allowing people have the right to choose what they believe and what they don’t believe. However, Qutb also states throughout his piece that it is acceptable in some cases to shed blood and to use force against those who are Islam’s aggressors and those who are polytheists. However, is this not contradictory to assert that Islam’s central goal is abolishing “the oppressive political systems under which people are prevented from expressing their freedom to choose whatever beliefs they want, and after that it gives them complete freedom to decide whether they will accept Islam or not.” It is clear that those who were polytheists, who chose to not accept Islam, were persecuted for the beliefs Islam claims to be fighting for. In addition, if those that have ‘the God-given right’ take over political authority, are they not now an organization/authority that Qutb preached so vehemently against? He stated that, “This movement [of Islam] uses the methods of preaching and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs; and it uses physical power and Jihaad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system which prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs but forces them to obey their erroneous ways and make them serve human lords instead of the Almighty Lord.” Again, this statement seems to contradict previous claims made concerning the formation of an organization, and the right of people to hold their own beliefs. Who decides how one should live within Islam? Qutb claims there is no Muslim clergy; so then does each individual decide how one should live through the reading of Muslim texts? This also doesn’t seem practical, as there are an infinite number of interpretations one can get from reading one text. Also, if this was how things should be done, why would it be necessary to persecute those who are Islam’s aggressors? Perhaps those said aggressors read the same text and got a completely different meaning out of them. In addition, why would it be necessary to usurp political authority?

I think there is something admirable in Q. The author of this passage makes pretty bold declarations. My other classmates think this is extremely narrow-minded, based on my impression of their blogs. I think this quality deserves applause, however. The author continually refers to the Islamic faith as the True Faith, the True Religion. His view of the world is thus: there is only one possible explanation of the origin of the universe, of the origin of mankind, and of mankind’s purpose in life. In short, there is only one truth. There is one creed, and the others are false. Now, I am not Muslim, but I like this way of thinking. In Liberal society today, especially in Ursinus College, Pluralism runs rampant. Most people would say that Islam is good for some, Christianity is good for others, and Buddhism is good for some others, etc, BUT there is no religion that has any superiority over another. I refuse to accept this ideology. Q made it pretty clear that there is one religion that is superior to the others, and it happens to be Islam. People can accept it or not, but it is still the only religion that originates from God. As the class has talked before, there was controversy over whether the United States truly uses religion as a guide, or whether we are “running off the fumes of a Judeo-Christian heritage.” If this is true, if we embrace Pluralism and deny our heritage, the Muslim countries have one up on us. Religion is the backbone of most Islamic countries, and this gives them their strength. Now, Islam is becoming the largest religion in the world. Q’s view of religion is part of a very strong foundation for the Islamic nations. Sometimes I wonder if our society will degenerate and fall because we lack this quality. As far as Jihad is concerned, I like this quality as well. If one group of people feels very strongly that what they believe is the Truth, then they would try as hard as possible to make sure that the Truth is available to everyone. I know that in the Christian tradition, when one is confirmed, the person is referred as a “soldier of Christ.” This title means that we should fight for good, for the Truth, and be prepared to spread this Truth for others. For the longest time, Christianity had its own “jihad” of sorts. Now, many Christians have lost the motivation to “fight the good fight.” Religion is not, in my view, simply personal. For many, and for many Muslims, it applies to all people.

One thing I found interesting in Sayyid Qutb’s “Milestones” was the passage about man’s rule on earth. He stated that, “To establish God’s rule means that His laws be enforced and that the final decision in all affairs be according to these laws” (132). He pretty much says that man should not have any dominion on earth and that all humans should abide by the laws of God, and only by God. It makes sense that we should listen to the laws that God gave us, but I disagree with the fact that he thinks humans shouldn’t have any kind of rule on earth. If God had intended the world to only listen to his laws, he probably would have mentioned that bit of information at some point. He claims that the Muslim world has relapsed into “Jahiliyyah”, saying that the Muslims have failed to abide by the laws of God. But really, there’s only so much humans can do by only following God’s laws; it is unlikely that it is even possible to live in a world with zero government. It’s a nice thought, if the world was peaceful and didn’t even need government- I guess this is what Qutb is striving for. But in all seriousness and in reality, that’s not going to happen. Humans have an innate tendency to not get along well with everyone, and that is not going to change overnight. I think Qutb needs to open his eyes and get rational about life.

Qutb points out in his piece that Islam "gives [people] complete freedom to accept or not to accept it beliefs. However, this freedom does not mean that they can make their desires their gods, or that they can choose to remain in the servitude of other human beings, making some men lords over others" (133). Qutb explains that in the religion of Islam, there is only one God to worship. Who's to say that there even is a God and if so that there is only one? Qutb disregards the fact that other people believe different things. He believes that there is only his God and that everyone should worship him. Qutb also writes, "obedience to laws and judgement is a sort of worship, and anyone who does this is considered out of this religion" (133). Isn't Qutb in a way judging those who do not believe in his God and only his God. This can be seen as hypocritical of Qutb. I also find it interesting that he mentions in the beginning of the chapter the uses of violence towards those who did not believe in the religion. He writes, "It was also explained that war should be declared against those from among the 'People of the Book' (Christians and Jews) who declare open enmity, until they agree to pay Jizyah or accept Islam" (130). How does this fact give people complete freedom to accept or not accept the beliefs of Islam? Knowing that violent measures will be taken towards a person who does not accept Islam will definitely sway a person into accepting Islam. Qutb says that it is a person's choice to accept or disregard Islam, but really it is not.

Qutb's Assumptions and Interpretations

Qutb states that “this religion (Islam) is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all worlds” (131-132). First off, Qutb automatically assumes that there is a God, and that we should all worship the same God, specifically his. He allows for no variations in religion and definitely rules out the possibility of someone not believing in God at all. Qutb wants to remove all oppressive governments so that everyone can follow his God’s rule. Yet, how would they be sure that God’s word was followed without some sort of government? Moreover, that particular government that enforces the rule of God would be oppressive in some ways as well. So ultimately, people will be oppressed in some way or another. Of course, there is the possibility of not having any government, but that is neither plausible nor practicable. It does not make sense to me why each individual cannot choose to worship whatever he wants. Why is Qutb’s god the best god? Qutb makes some outrageous statements such as “Islam that is the submission to God-is a universal message which the whole of mankind should accept or make peace with” (131). Later Qutb even goes as far to say, “If someone does this, then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission” (131). Qutb recognizes that the Quran says you should be peaceful but he automatically dismisses that claim. His basic response to those, who respond to him with statements from the Quran, is that they are in a sorry state of the present Muslim generation. Ultimately, he says those who are peaceful toward others and are not Islamic will be defeated. Instead of Qutb recognizing that other cultures have different beliefs, he simply rejects them. He assumes that his beliefs are true, not even taking into consideration others from his own religion that do believe and live by his God’s rule.

QutbbtuQ

As I was reading I found it interesting that Qutb states, "This legal formulation is based on the principle that Islam--that is, submission to God--is a universal Message which the whole of mankind should accept or make peace with"(131). He defines Islam as the submission to God and he claims that we should only follow the rule of God. He also says that "every individual [should be] free to accept or reject [Islam]"(131). Qutb follows that statement by saying that it is "the duty of Islam" to enact violence against anyone who does not accept or tries to prevent people from accepting Islam. Qutb says that Islam wants peace but in order to get peace they must use violence and Jihaad. How can there really be peace if people are forced to a religion? The ideal of Islam (according to Qutb) is that God is the only ruler, but what Qutb fails to see is that there will need to be some form of interpreters of God's word. Any form of law be it God's or man's cannot be enforced without some ruling power. These interpreters will naturally gain power and will be able to enforce God's word however they please.
I do understand that sometimes with violence comes peace, but when the violence is imposing beliefs onto people peace does not often occur. The whole concept of God's laws being enforced without anyone to enforce them just does not make sense to me. It is not clear how someone can think that everyone will interpret the laws the same without someone telling them how to interpret God's word.

On Islam

In this article, Qutb seems to be justifying the act of Jihaad, or striving to be a good Islamic follower. Qutb seems to be troubled by the current image Islamic Jihaad has. He acknowledges that today that image is a violent one; that those who seek Jihaad are violent and hostile. But Qutb argues the opposite: Jihaad and the Islamic religion is one that promotes freedom and respect for all beliefs, so long as all believe in God. Any Islamic fighting, according to Qutb, should be in the pursuit of freedom from any oppressive force. Men who claim to be authorities that we follow stay us from religion; stray us from God. So God must be instated as the supreme ruler, so all other forms of power must be done away with. Jihaad is not just a movement of belief, but one of action, says Qutb. Qutb thinks its practical to remove all forms of government to instate God as ruler. But is this really practical? It is hard to determine, because for those who believe in God, it is really hard to see how much he actually influences our world, and those who don't will not agree to letting something that doesn't exist take control. Also, our governments today really do a lot to protect us from harm, so is it practical to remove such a valuable resource? The best way to look at it is this way: what would happen if tomorrow, all government in our world was done away with? I'm sure the outcome would be pretty bad. The problem is a lot of people don't believe in God or Islam, and would not simply abide to Jihaad. But Qutb does show that the idea of total freedom is a nice one. The one thing he does by showing that Jihaad is freedom-loving is show that Jihaad is not a bad thing. In a sense, Jihaad embraces liberalism, and the idea of equality of beliefs should be defended. But Qutb falls short by thinking total eradication of government is where we should head next.

Islam Readings

This articles discuss the ideas of jihaad.  After the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, that word was throw around a lot in everyday conversation.  As a sixth grader, I could only go off of short, crude explanations of what a jihaad was: a suicide that involved political/social/religious/moral reasons and if successful, the person would go to heaven because of their brave actions.  This article describes something a little different.  Saying that a jihaad is a "defensive war" that has nothing to do with modern day warfare, the main idea behind jihaad type actions is heavily associated with freedom.  There are several reasons the readings give for performing a jihaad: "to establish God's authority in the earth, to arrange human affairs according to the true guidance provided by God, to abolish all the Satanic forces and Satanic systems of life, to end the lordship of one man over others" (138).  I'm sure the attackers and planners involved in 9/11 could easily say that some if not all of these reasons were involved in their actions.  But maybe I'm misunderstanding the readings.  The point of a jihaad is to fight for freedom.  If this fight involves the mass murder of innocent people that are not in the military and are not directly involved in the oppression, then how can we justify their killings?  It's quite possible that I'm looking through Islamic glass with American eyes, but I'm failing to understand the extent of their actions in association with the readings.  What freedom came about after the "jihaad of 9/11"?  I would argue none; if anything, more oppression came in the aftermath of 9/11.  To me, jihaad seems to be a more sacred and values task than those performs on September 11th (and I have to say that my middle school explanation of jihaad makes more sense in this situation that Qutb's definition).  I do not think that jihaad is an acceptable, reasonable and logical explanation for what happened a few years ago.  By putting aside this silly excuse, we might be able to recognize that this has nothing to do with Islamic and Christian differences.  Being scared of Muslims on the streets because some newspaper claimed that 9/11 was a massive jihaad is nonsensical.  It all seems ridiculous, but then again, I'm just an American trying to figure out the Muslim world.

hmmmmmmm..........

I found Milestones to be almost confusing as it tried to justify Jihaad. Qutb repeatedly writes that “Islam is a declaration of freedom of men from the servitude of other men,” for which Jihaad is condoned by God to create this freedom (133). Islam’s goal is to rid the earth of all governments that oppress the practice of Islam; the religion that is to be followed by the whole world. First, what confuses me is that Islam wants to get rid of all other governments to establish another government that derives its laws from only God. However, wouldn’t this government need people to take an authority position to make sure God’s laws are adhered to? And if that is so, then there would still be men in an authority position over other men. Furthermore, Qutb says that under a government run by Islam that people would be free to choose whether or not they want to follow Islam. Yet, if it is a government run by Islam, with laws established that are directly from the Islamic god; doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the freedom Islam is working toward? Islam would then be creating a government that is oppressing a different religion to follow the laws of their religion, removing that freedom of choice. Now, I understand the Muslims believe that Islam is the only correct religion in the world, like most religions, but they would still be violating the spiritual freedom they think is so important. And if this freedom is only the freedom to try the practice of Islam, then it is not truly freedom at all. Lastly, I was in no way convinced that Jihaad is acceptable, even as I tried to read this article objectively. I understand that God gave Muslims steps to follow in order to spread the word of Islam, and that war and violence was a part of these steps (side note: I also feel that these step sounded more like the strategy created by a man on how to take religious control, not God, who should only want those whole heartedly believe to worship him and not those who are forced). However, I personally do not think a war for religion is appropriate, as it usually contradicts the religion’s teachings. I have never been able to understand why we can’t just let people worship they way they wish to. Why is one way correct? Why must other people believe what we do? And why is it ever worth killing another human over?

Really?

I get extremely frustrated when reading Qutb’s rant on aggressive jihad and his ‘offensive’ justification. But to begin, his entire argument rests on the claim that God exists, that he is the ruler of all things and that he deserves to be worshipped and praised even if he does exist. Qutb makes the fatal mistake of treating this as a descriptive claim, while there is no evidence for this claim presented whatsoever. He treats this conditional claim, a mere possibility, as if this is how the world is truly run. Going off this, he believes he should be allowed to maim and kill people for no other reason than that they not only do not follow this belief, but even those who follow it incorrectly. To go to such extremes over a theory, one which has relatively no evidence in these times, is inhumane, disgusting and just plain wrong. It goes against every gift this god would have given us: logic, reason, the ability to communicate. And let’s grant that god does exist and he is this amazing being who deserves to be praised as Qutb describes, how does forcefully killing or converting respect god? Did god not give man free will? And since he gave man the freedom to choose what he believes, should not other men be obliged to respect these choices, as it is simply an exercise of god’s gift? Not to mention that the Prophet Muhammad, who spoke directly with God according to Islam, never says anything about harming those who do not believe the Muslim way. In fact, Muhammad was extremely respectful to all other religious sects and merely wished for people who held the same beliefs as himself were not persecuted. So, even when looking upon the life of Muhammad, the model to the most pious human being, with all these presumptions, would never advocate such a blatant and unfounded aggressive behavior.

More Problems than Solutions....

     This piece, written by Qutb, reminds me of Mein Kampf.  Throughout Qutb’s piece, he makes many generalizations and normative claims without evidence substantial evidence from the Qur’an.  It seems as though Qutb is reading the Qur’an and providing quotes that he can manipulate in his favor.  When he discusses worshipping God, he emphasizes the power of God and says that one should only worship God and listen to his commands.  Qutb is also preaching violence which directly conflicts with a lot of Muhammad’s teachings.   He talks about over throwing governments that do not follow the basic principles he describes.  Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Qutb’s Milestones is very narrow minded.  He leaves a lot of holes in his arguments such as Hitler did.  He attempts to make Islam look superior to all other religions by saying that it is God’s religion for the whole world.  It seems a bit contradictory that he constantly says that men are free but then he also says that men are subservient to God; this does not strike me as “free.”  He tries to talk up a Jihaad and make it look very attractive.  He states that it is the objective of Islamic worshippers to “establish the Divine system on earth.”  If God it is God’s will for everyone to worship him, then why doesn’t Qutb and his followers need to do anything about it? Shouldn’t God be able to take care of it himself?  If it hasn’t already happened, maybe God’s will is to let people have a free choice between worship and non worship.  If God forced them to worship him, it would be considered unmeaningful worship and therefore people would not take it seriously.  Instead of being apathetic to God they would hate God; this is even further away from where Qutb desired.  In the end, Qutb may be making more problems for himself and God than he intended.    

Blog Assn #20: Qutb

Please post to the blog by Sunday, April 19th, 8:00 PM, on Qutb chapter 4.

The topic is open.

In Tariq Ramadan’s At the crossroad of Islam, the West I agree with his claim about how citizens should exercise their right to freedom of expression responsibly and take into account the diverse sensitivities that compose societies today. I have never seen the political cartoon Ramadan is referring to however, from what I can tell the Muslim’s have a right to feel disrespected. A political cartoon is made to draw attention to a current political or social issue. A political cartoon should not be derogatory or disrespectful in any way. Using a cartoon to insult or offend a culture, race, or society is an improper use of freedom of expression. It is okay for a person to express their feelings on a pressing issue in government or politics; every person is entitled to their own opinion in that aspect. I understand a person may argue that every person has their own feelings about a race, society, etc. However, using a political cartoon to demean a group of people is inconsiderate and disrespectful. A person cannot be held accountable for their race, religion, or culture. Therefore, demeaning or disrespecting a person’s race religion or cultural is unacceptable because there are numerous beliefs throughout the world

Ramadan

I agree and disagree with the arguments that Ramadan is making in these readings. I agree that Muslims can indeed try to ease the tensions between that ethnic group and western cultures. I also agree that Muslims can coexist with western society. However, there are certain things that I disagree with from Ramadan’s writings. Throughout his writings, at least to me, it seems that he is making it seem as if it is Muslims who need to try and find a way to change who they are so that can integrate into western society. However, shouldn’t our western society in particular the United States be much more accepting of these people, and all people in general. Especially since our country and society was all created of immigrants who were all new to this country. Why can’t we as Americans be more accepting of a different group of people, our whole society boasts that we are the land of the free, and we accept everyone no matter where they come from. But clearly this is not as true as everyone seems to claim it is, or else Ramadan wouldn’t even have to write as much about these types of issues. Muslims of our society shouldn’t feel like they need to change anything about who they are so that we as Americans will appreciate them more or become more existing of them. Both cultures have an influence on each other and more people need to realize this. However, we come off as hypocrites by not accepting these people.