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?