Syed Qutb and M. Maududi
Please read this article on Syed Qutb and then comment on it and the two essays that you read by Maududi and Qutb.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
About Me
- Name: Muqtedar Khan
- Location: United States
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Director of the Islamic Studies Program. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
- Politics of Veiling
- Review of The Girl in the Tangerine Scarf
- Islam in the West
- Muslim While Flying
- Have you tried dating a Muslim?
- Clash of Civilizations?
12 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
I'm always dismayed at the average, corn-fed American's kneejerk reaction to the word "jihad."
That single word, in any context, neutralizes any debate, drives politicians and American citizens in a frenzy, and makes it impossible to even talk about the subject.
Nevermind that we refer to crusades (which were never even presumed to be defensive as was jihad) in a positive light -- It's perfectly okay for a candidate to "crusade for women's rights", but never okay for a muslim to engage in, say, "intellectual jihad."
America does not contextualize and certain media outlets and politicians -- I don't think I need to name any -- make a career out of oversimplification.
Then again, how many Americans have read Locke? How many of them even know who he is? How many even know what he contributed to western philosophy and the American notion of democratic government?
I will take Dr. Kahn's statement a step further -- a lack of good will leads to bad policy, which leads to bad things happening.
What we see here is yet another example of American politics and lobby groups nurturing the distain for nuance and intellectualism of hillbillies and garden-variety idiots. The sad thing is this is being done by smart people who probably know better.
I'm always dismayed at the average, cornfed American's kneejerk reaction to the word "jihad."
Nevermind that we refer to crusades (which were never even presumed to be defensive as was jihad) in a positive light -- It's perfectly okay for a candidate to "crusade for women's rights."
America does not contextualize and certain media outlets and politicians -- I don't think I really need to name any -- make a career out of oversimplification.
Then again, how many American's have read Locke? How many of them even know who he is? How many even know what he contributed to western philosophy and the American notion of democratic government?
I will take Dr. Kahn's statement a step further -- bad education leads to bad policy, which leads to bad things happening.
What we see here is yet another example of American conservatives nurturing the distain for nuance and intellectualism of hillbillies. The sad thing is this is being done by smart people who probably know better.
That was an interesting comparision; however, I have never really been too impressed with Syed Qutb. He basically sounds like 2 of the salaf that come to mind... but in a very repetitive sort of way. I don't really see where he said anything new. I haven't read Locke in a long time, so its hard for me to provide any particular insight on him. ..
After reading the clip that professor Khan gave us, I actually think Qutb sounds a lot like Emile Durkheim in regard to the place of hudood laws to enforce norms. Durkheim talked very similarly about using public punishment as means of determent of disorderly behavior and crimes among citizens. Other than that, I just feel like Qutb could really say the same things he does in about 1/5 the space. I respect his fight for social justice, but I think given the level of academia availabe in Egypt during Qutb's time..that's what probably made him seem so amazing or original.
Louis, contrary to your post I think it's not fair to say jihad in any context drives Americans into a frenzy. The context in which jihad has repeatedly been displayed to westerners has repeatedly been one of violence, crime and terror. It is one that connotes the horrors of 9/11, the bombing of the world trade center, the suicide bombings in Israel-Palestine and the hijacking of planes.
Jihad is invoked primarily by those who engage in these terrible acts, it is fair to say that this word has two meanings. One is merely the arabic for struggle and the other for sadistic wanton violence inflicted by political radicals.
You bring up the crusades and argue that they were never presumed as defensive. You fail to recall the crusades purpose were indeed defensive. The initial call for the crusades was by the Byzantine Emperor who had required aid in repulsing the expansion of the Seljuk Turks whose invasion had ended the Christian rule in Palestine. The Crusades were viewed as a defense of Christian lands from an alien culture.
Most Americans are exposed to Locke during their high school years. It is probably safe to say that most Americans have read Locke at least in some form during their education, be it private or public. Most college educated Americans have likely studied Locke extensively as American liberal educations include cursory studies in political science. Political science itself can not be understood completely without a brief overview of Locke and his contemporaries works.
Dr. Kahn is indeed correct and you are correct in stating that a lack of good will leads to bad policy, which leads to bad things happening. It is, however, naive to assume that only American politicians lack good will, it is important to note that this statement holds true to all political actors.
What you argue is the result of American lobbyists, presumably neo-conservative think tanks, nurturing ill will towards other cultures is short sighted as well. It is likely more prudent to argue that these American lobbying groups are a result of the actions of political radicals in the 50s, 60s and 70s. It is only now that these groups have matured and evolved in powerful actors in the political system.
It would also be naive of me to state that political radicals engaging in acts of terror fifty years ago did so for no reason, so it is probably better to say the current situation of mistrust and mutual dislike is the result of an constantly evolving situation in which both Americans and Muslims around the world have simply had little experience in trusting one another and reason to see one another as potential brothers rather than anything more than aliens with the intent to destroy one anothers cultures.
I think the best point made in Professor Khans article from July 28 2003, comparing Syed Qutb to John Locke, was made regarding diversity. Diversity exists today in the Muslim World and most of the time U.S. policy forgets this mere detail in legislating and enforcing its “bad policy”.
Though Qutb could be analyzed as a “philosopher of terror” or responsible for “underpinning the ideological basis of al Qaeda and its affiliates” it is true, as Professor Khan has said, that he could be read in a more liberal and progressive standpoint. Through this point of view, Qutb really does compare to Locke since his ideas appears revolutionary to traditional Islamic thought and he values freedom as a God-given right.
If Qutb’s major point has to do with the government claiming the power to rule according to the legitimacy of the people, this does not make him sound too radical. His opinions say that war could be conducted against an enemy (like the West, which could be considered a threat) or the state (if they misuse their power). This idea would force governments to govern effectively, to rule fairly rather than arbitrary, and not become corrupt. Having the power to impeach the president in the U.S. is based on the same idea.
Since according to Professor Khan, traditional Islamic legal thought would refuse rebellions against state authority, this idea seems to be pretty innovative. He is valuing freedom and liberty above safety and order, something unheard of in Hobbes, and strikingly similar to Locke’s theory.
Qutb’s ideas are probably based on his own experience of being persecuted by the Egyptian government. He probably felt that even in a secure environment he would not be happy unless he was free to practice his religion and ideas. Many European Enlightenment Philosophers felt the same way like Locke, Rousseau, and others.
Unfortunately though Qutb did not survive the authoritarian state in Egypt, his ideas have and that is why we are analyzing them today. I agree with Professor Khan that Muslims should read Qutb’s idea from a more “sympathetic” perspective rather than one of preaching violence. In this light Qutb’s ideas are for freedom and will force governments to act in the best interest of the people they are representing.
I thought Dr. Khan's comparison was insightful, especially because I thoroughly agree that the west is moving closer towards Islamic values.
I would'nt necessarily say in the United States, but in Latin America we see the Left is winning the majority of elections in a short time period this is occuring because the administration is lacking legitimacy.
This legitimacy was talked about when Dr. Khan said that "Qutb was essentially seeking a connection between social norms and political norms and identified this connection between social and political ethics as the key to Islamic legitimacy."
Not only does this reflect how common society views an effective administration but if the government does not hold legitimacy then it can be replaced, Qutb said this about the matter of legitimacy "he must govern by the values of those governed in order to be legitimate rulers. When governments, which are formed to reflect and defend the values of society failed to do so, then they lost legitimacy�and could be dissolved or replaced"
We are going to see this in the up-coming elections where Barack Obama will become the next president. Not only Islam becoming more progressive, but the minds of Americans as well. I really enjoyed what Dr. Khan says at the end of the article, which sums up my beliefs on American Values
"The most compelling irony of the tensions between Islam and the West is not how different the two are, but indeed how similar the two civilizations really are."
It is only time when ordinary people answer to Islam, political strife will constantly bombard religiosity and cause this facade of fear, but time will ultimately lead to the truth.
Dr. Khan's analysis of Syed Qutb's work served as a refreshing perspective. What was most interesting to me was that the similarities between Qutb and Locke can be extrapolated and applied to the Islamic and Western societies.
The media, as well as some of our political leaders, seem to try to persuade us that we, as westerners, are completely different than citizens of the Muslim World and that these differences are too huge to justify an attempt to achieve understanding. Khan's liberal readings of Locke and Qutb, however, completely contradict this myth. Despite tensions between the two societies, we are more similiar than some would like to admit.
Perhaps if this similarity can be better accepted by both Western and Middle Eastern leaders, we can move closer to achieving more sustainable relations and resolutions between the two societies.
I found the comparison between John Locke and Syed Qutb to be very interesting. I agree with Dr. Khan’s analysis of the two that both are making similar arguments for different goals- Locke’s being freedom and the protection of property and Qutb for social justice.
A problem I had with reading Qutb and Maududi were that both made statements in their arguments about Islam that were said in a way that they were presented as fact without a logical argument behind them. I realize that both men are very into their religious beliefs and that to them what they presented as fact may be fact to them, but to me I would like to see more logical steps and arguments before I accept something as fact.
Syed Qutb’s notion of Jahileeah as something that can be applicable to an entire nation is rather insightful. Practices of governments like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and etc. in terms of their disregard for non-Arab human rights qualifies those nations as being in a state of ignorance; thus, de-authenticating those nations as “Muslim” states. True, they are ruled by supposed Muslims, but the act of the state and the juridical implementation of selective laws are contrary to the nature of Islam.
Qutb wrote Milestones while in an Egyptian prison, so it is understandable he is disgruntled of the West and its neo-colonial rule of the Muslim World; additionally, I do not entirely agree with Qutb’s sense of ignorance of a nation. The fundamental edicts of Islam rely upon self responsibility and his reliance upon the West as a mechanism for moral decadence is not entirely accurate. Yes, the West does have values that are antithetical to Islam, but there were practices in the Muslim world before European colonialism that conflicted with authentic Islam. Moreover, it seems as if the individual is entirely responsible for his/her actions regardless of governmental interference because the aforementioned moral desiccation is simply a moral obstacle for the Muslim. The faux Muslim state might promote ignorance, but it is the realization of moral truths that compromise religiosity.
I found Maududi's article to be depressing. He spends a lot of time pointing out differences between his theoretical “theo-democracy” and other systems of government, such as secular democracy and communism. However, I think Maududi seemed to miss the very important lesson that history seems to keep teaching us: theory and practice do not always match. He rails secular democracy as being contradictory and communism as being violent. In regards to secular democracy he says, “[...] legislation must correspond to the mood and temper of their opinion.” Of communism he says, “ Islam does not impose his social principles on others by force, nor does it confiscate their properties or unleash a reign of terror by mass executions [...].” However, secular democracy and communism both were founded on noble and justifiable principles, just like those that Maududi uses to make his claim of Islam as a superior system of government. However, he is too certain that God will eliminate the human factor that goes into legislation. He seems to believe that his own points about the nature of man in power will not apply to his own vision of a leader. I think that his assumptions about the power of Islam over the natural state of man are unrealistic. I believe Maududi would be disappointed to see his theoretical state in practice.
After reading the articles I have several thoughts on Syed Qutb. First of all I agree with Dr. Khan that the basic premise of his argument is essentially an Islamic version of Locke, however the logical extension and supporting rhetoric for his thesis differs fairly starkly from Locke.
Syed Qutb is significantly more aggresive in his interpretation of Jihad than Locke was with his comparable "Contract". Locke also believed that by living within a certain government you tacitly endorsed it and had no justification to oppose it unless it became tyrannical and a threat to the majority of the population. Qutb n the otherhand takes a somewhat more moralitic approach and seems to argue that even slight censorships of the faith of Muslims is enough justification for an offensive attack. This is much more of an anarchical view than Locke who rooted most of his philosophy in stability and order. Locke basically wanted the government to keep law and order and protect property whereas Qutb seems to want an Islamic version of the Nanny-state. All in all they have similar roots, but the fruit falls fairly far from the tree.
Post a Comment
<< Home