In this piece in today's FrontPage, I discuss a particularly egregious article about Sayyid Qutb and the causes of jihad: "Terror's Greatest Recruitment Tool" by Naomi Klein, which appeared in The Nation.
The Left has for quite some time indulged its fantasy that jihad terrorism is somehow all the fault of the United States, but the blame is usually placed upon Iraq, or Abu Ghraib, or Israel, or (for those with more esoteric tastes) the toppling of Mossadegh by the CIA in Iran in 1953, or some other alleged foreign policy enormity. Now, however, Naomi Klein has done something new, something bold, something downright innovative: she has suggested in The Nation that what drives today’s global jihad is not so much rage at American and British foreign, but domestic policies. Specifically, she grounds the whole jihad imperative in that ever-handy bogeyman, American racism.It all started, you see, with Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood theorist whose writings are so popular among jihadists today that some (principally Wahhabis trying to take the heat off their own jihadist movement) have even labeled Osama bin Laden a “Qutbist.” According to Klein, “by coincidence, Qutb arrived in the United States in 1948, the year of the creation of the State of Israel. He witnessed an America blind to the thousands of Palestinians being made permanent refugees by the Zionist project. For Qutb, it wasn’t politics, it was an assault on his identity: Clearly Americans believed that Arab lives were worth far less than those of European Jews. According to Yvonne Haddad, a professor of history at Georgetown University, this experience ‘left Qutb with a bitterness he was never able to shake.’”
Klein makes no mention of the role that the Arab states around Israel played in the artificial and politically motivated perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem – and indeed, that craven maneuver doesn’t seem to have troubled Qutb himself. She does recount that Qutb had bad experiences in Colorado in the late 1940s and, later, back home in Egypt; and these, she posits, are the cause of the modern-day international jihad movement: “So-called Islamist terrorism,” she claims, “was ‘home grown’ in the West long before the July 7 attacks--from its inception it was the quintessentially modern progeny of Colorado’s casual racism and Cairo’s concentration camps.” How Cairo rates as part of the West Klein does not bother to explain, but in any case her focus is on Colorado: as far as she is concerned, it’s really all about racism: “The twin sparks that ignited Qutb’s world-changing rage are currently being doused with gasoline: Arabs and Muslims are being debased in torture chambers around the world and their deaths are being discounted in simultaneous colonial wars, at the same time that graphic digital evidence of these losses and humiliations is available to anyone with a computer. And once again, this lethal cocktail of racism and torture is burning through the veins of angry young men.”
“Qutb’s world-changing rage?” Is that rage really Qutb’s? Can modern-day Islamic terrorism really be attributed to him, and to his experience of racism in Colorado? One would expect that if that were so, there would be no evidence of political or violent Islam dating from before 1948. But in fact the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Qutb was part, was founded not in 1948 but in 1928, and not by Qutb, but by Hasan Al-Banna. It was Al-Banna, not Qutb, who wrote: “In [Muslim] Tradition, there is a clear indication of the obligation to fight the People of the Book [that is, Jews and Christians], and of the fact that God doubles the reward of those who fight them. Jihad is not against polytheists alone, but against all who do not embrace Islam.” Does he mean a military jihad? Most certainly: “Know then that death is inevitable, and that it can only happen once. If you suffer it in the way of God, it will be your profit in this world, and your reward in the next.”[1] Al-Banna is not on record saying that Islamic Tradition mandated warfare against Jews and Christians as a response to American racism — or, for that matter, as a response to any alleged enormities of American foreign policy. Fourteen years before Israel was founded and Qutb arrived in Colorado, Al-Banna wrote: “It is a duty incumbent on every Muslim to struggle towards the aim of making every people Muslim and the whole world Islamic, so that the banner of Islam can flutter over the earth and the call of the Muezzin can resound in all the corners of the world: God is greatest [Allahu akbar]!”[2]
According to Brynjar Lia, the historian of the Muslim Brotherhood movement: “Quoting the Qur’anic verse ‘And fight them till sedition is no more, and the faith is God’s’ [2:193], the Muslim Brothers urged their fellow Muslims to restore the bygone greatness of Islam and to re-establish an Islamic empire. Sometimes they even called for the restoration of ‘former Islamic colonies’ in Andalus (Spain), southern Italy, Sicily, the Balkans and the Mediterranean islands.”[3] Why? Was racism rampant in Spain, southern Italy, Sicily, the Balkans and the Mediterranean islands? Whether it was or not, it is absurd to see this as a reaction to anything — anything — that the West had done. Al-Banna was extrapolating from deeply rooted Islamic traditions, going all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad. The founder of Islam was quite clear that Muslims must offer non-Muslims only conversion to Islam, subjugation as inferiors under Islamic rule, or war:Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)Islamic tradition does not record, as the possible cause of these instructions, any complaints by the Prophet against Western racism.
Klein is also wrong about Qutb himself. He certainly did write venomously about his experiences in Colorado, but he was not radicalized there: he arrived in the United States already fully convinced that Muslims must wage the jihad against non-Muslims of which Al-Banna spoke. Before his trip to America, he wrote in Social Justice in Islam that “Islam represents the eternal system for the world throughout the future of the human race.”[4] How is that system to be established in the world? Islam, he says, “prescribes fighting in the way of Allah as a responsibility incumbent on every one who is able for it.”[5] But at the same time did he nourish a secret admiration for American democracy, only to have it disappointed by Colorado racists? Again, no. Social Justice in Islam contains critiques of democracy (as well as Communism) from an Islamic standpoint, and Qutb maintains that Islam needs no such extraneous elements to thrive: “Islam is a comprehensive philosophy and an homogeneous unity, and to introduce into it any foreign element would mean ruining it. It is like a delicate and perfect piece of machinery that may be completely ruined by the presence of an alien component.”[6]
Klein, on the other hand, has no such taste for homogeneity. “The real problem,” she concludes, “is not too much multiculturalism but too little. If the diversity now ghettoized on the margins of Western societies--geographically and psychologically--were truly allowed to migrate to the centers, it might infuse public life in the West with a powerful new humanism. If we had deeply multi-ethnic societies, rather than shallow multicultural ones, it would be much more difficult for politicians to sign deportation orders sending Algerian asylum-seekers to torture, or to wage wars in which only the invaders’ dead are counted. A society that truly lived its values of equality and human rights, at home and abroad, would have another benefit too. It would rob terrorists of what has always been their greatest recruitment tool: our racism.”
It is ironic that she can see a “powerful new humanism” evidenced by increasing the influence of Muslims in the West. After all, there would certainly be, among those who would take advantage of the new platforms and power Klein would like to see offered to Muslims, some who would be intent on pressing forward the political program of Al-Banna and Qutb – with its ultimate goal of imposing Islamic law over Western societies, and denying equality of rights to non-Muslims and women. In that event the Western notions of “equality and human rights” -- on the basis of which Klein is advocating this -- would be wounded more definitively than they have ever been by Tony Blair or George Bush.
It would be interesting, if the warriors of jihad continue to take advantage of Western multiculturalism and actually succeed in the West, to revisit Naomi Klein (who would by that time be swathed in mandatory hijab and have to obtain permission from a male guardian before venturing outside) and see if she still thinks it was all about racism.
Notes
[1] Hasan al-Banna, “On Jihad,” in Five Tracts of Hasan al-Banna, translated by Charles Wendell, Berkeley, 1978, pp. 142, 150, 154.
[2] Brynjar Lia, The Society of the Muslim Brothers in Egypt, Ithaca Press, 1998. P. 79.
[3] Lia, p. 80.
[4] Sayyid Qutb, Social Justice in Islam, John Hardie, translator, Hamid Algar, translator of revised edition, Islamic Publications International, 2000. P. 117.
[5] Qutb, Social Justice in Islam, p. 110.
[6] Qutb, Social Justice in Islam, p. 117.
Naomi Klein would do well to note what Qutb hated most about American society:
"The American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs -- and she shows all this and does not hide it."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1253796
Of course, he's not drooling here. LOL.
Apparently a drunken American woman tried to seduce him on the boat to America.
Who, exactly, is perpetuating the 'overvaluing' of American and European lives? It's the left that is callously using the deaths of American soldiers to bash the president, while ignoring the struggle and loss of lives among the Iraqis who are facing -- and fighting -- the ongoing insurgency. These jihadist savages are slaughtering Muslim men, women, and children by the thousands. But what matters far more is the life of one soldier and his crackpot, anti-semitic mother. There is a point at which the left's moral relativism becomes a pathetic, tragicomic charicature of serious political discourse. The fact that this is proffered by people so pretensiously convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority makes the irony more delicious -- and sad.
Silvester:
Great link. What a reflection on what Qutb's real problems probably were:
"As for Qutb's revulsion over American sexuality, Fandy says there is no evidence that Qutb ever had a sexual relationship in his life."
Are there any corroborating witnesses to Qutb's claim of unwanted sexual advances? Perhaps he was really annoyed that his advances were rejected.
I am so glad Spencer wrote this piece. Naomi Klein writes such drivel that it's incredible that she gets paid for it. If the Globe & Mail picks up her piece, I will fire Spencer's off to the editors.
Klein, as clueless as ever, takes the self-loathing leftist point of view. If people hate us, it is because we are hateful. If they want to kill us, it's to redress some wrong that we have done to them.
If Klein would remove her head from her anal corridor long enough, she might notice that jihadis hate us because of jihad; that they want to kill us because we are not them; that it's not about some slight suffered by a true believer during a brief sojourn in infidel territory, it's about the religious precept which commands him to conquer, subjugate and dominate the non-Muslim.
Even if Qutb had never visited the U.S., and never experienced the supposedly wounding rebuke, he would still hate the U.S. and everything it stood--and still stands--for. Just like all the other jihadis who have never been to America, but who hate it for standing in the way of their victory--the victory guaranteed to them by their God and their Prophet.
Waterdragon
I think the unwanted sexual advances were made on him! I can't corroborate it with a well-sourced link, unfortunately, which is why I said 'apparently'. I know I read it on the web some time ago, but I can never find these things when I need them!
Another excellent analysis by Mr. Spencer! My first instinct, after reading blather like the one written by Naomi Klein, is to want to ask her why she doesn't spend some quality and quantity time in such lovely places as Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Iran? But, then I recall people like Naomi that I know personally. These people, living so comfortably off the benefits of the West, hate the West. Even if Naomi did spend a month or so in Iran, she would spend it looking for rainbows. She would never admit, not even to herself, that the Islam that she defends and wants to see more of in the West, results in societies that thrive on fear, hatred, violence and self-destruction.
I wonder how Ms. Klein explains away almost 1400 years of Islamic violence and “So-called Islamist terrorism” when the peaceful Muslims were slaughtering Jews and Christians before Qutb then?
My undersatdning is that Qut's comment on the sexuality of American women was written after watching a dance. Ironically, it was a church dance in a very conservative Colorado town which at the time was "dry."
Blue State Conservative:
Yes, I think that's correct. Sorry, I didn't mean the quote and the comment about the attempted seduction to be linked.
No.
The Koran and the terrorist scum and the supporters of the terrorist scum caused jihad.
http://foundingforefathers.com/_wsn/page2.html
No.
The Koran and the terrorist scum and the supporters of the terrorist scum caused jihad.
http://foundingforefathers.com/_wsn/page2.html
That woman is nuts. One really wonders how long this amazing denial of easily available facts will be going on. There is a certain pattern here, exactly the same "arguments" can be read in many languages around the world - are they're copying each other or is it some kind of a virus, paralyzing mental activity, obscuring the sense of reality? Want to write a piece about Islamist terrorism? Here's some instructions:
- deny that there is such a thing as "Islamist terrorism": call it "so-called", put it in quotation marks to hint that it really doesn't exist, or claim it is some hype "constructed" by the media;
- if you have to admit it exists, say it's a product of Western "racism";
- hail Islam, ignore all the violence done in its name to Muslims as well as non-Muslims, pretend it's a peaceful legitimate political movement that will make the bad Western world a little bit better if it's given enough space and power;
- cry for the "human rights" of Islamic terrorists and preachers of hate, present them as innocent victims, like poor little "Algerian asylum seekers"; blame Blair (or whoever else dares to suggest repatriating extremists) for sending them to torture chambers, forget that it's only about people who really endorse terrorism and incite violence, forget that perhaps those "Algerian asylum seekers" have no natural need to preach such violence if they really want to stay and live peacefully in the West;
- dramatize the numbers of "hate crimes" against Muslims, which include "verbal assaults" and perhaps unfriendly glances; but never mention the attacks by Muslims that actually kill and wound their victims.
And you've got your column, politically correct, guaranteed to be published. Anyone, wanna try?
Mr. Spencer's reply is brilliant though. One hopes ms. Klein will have a chance to read it.
Naomi Klein is nothing less than a quisling. As other commentators have noted, the Left's inability to see reality is legendary. As well, the hatred she has for her own people and civilization is mystifying. Does she really think that women under Sharia law are better off, that it would be better for Muslim woman in the West to be subject to Sharia law, that it would be better for Muslims in general to be subject to the sharia laws regarding blasphemy and apostasy which is the goal, for instance, of Muslim intellectuals in Canada? Below is what Multi-culturalism will really mean in Canada if people like Klein and Syed Mumtaz Ali get their way:
http://www.beautifulislam.net/articles/apostacy_blasphemy_islam_p.html#basic
Snip:
So I understood, Silvester. What I meant, is that in not atypical behaviour, Qutb only claimed to be the victim, but was only engaging in projection -- transposing his own thoughts on someone else. That's why I wondered if there was an independent source who could verify that he really was solicited... ...or if the woman was actually only mocking him, which is also entirely possible.
...as for Nauseating Naomi, terror's greatest recruiting tool these days are tools like her with their ridiculous social theories.
Somewhere, Klein's grandfather-in-law, David Lewis, must be spinning in his grave.
Mentat:
In Ontario religious norms already take precedence over human rights. I was recently told this by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. My flabbergasted first response was to ask where I could read this with my own eyes -- I'm still waiting for this information.
I haven't yet picked up my jaw from the floor, but when I do ...
The manner in which single-minded lefties attempt to remodel global affairs to fit their petty domestic agendas amuses me. It's only so long before someone claims that global warming is caused by eating meat, or that the 9/11 terrorists were motivated by the injustices suffered by lesbian mothers.
Let's say I buy Naomi's claim that American/western racism is the cause of Islamic jihad.
Then what am I to understand is the cause of jihad in Thailand, for example?
Klein practices that wonderful act of kite-flying so popular as a metaphor in parts of the Islamic world:
-take something as light and tissue-like as possible, attach it loosely to reality and let it soar into the ether to be admired.
Truth, optional.
As shame she didn't do your research first, Mr. S.
But, then, her ilk never seems to be able to find those elusive sites like Google, etc. on their computers to fact-check before printing their articles.
Maybe she's still using an Apple IIc linked to the ARPANET?
One problem is the lack of knowledge of Western history on the part of many Muslims; 1948 was just a few years removed from the end of the Holocaust, of which many in the Islamic world were unaware or unable to understand how it impacted the collective psyche of the U.S. and much of western Europe. (We all know how Jews are regarded by Islam.) It should really have come as no surprise that the U.S. would support the new nation of Israel.
A while back I read another article on Qutb and besides noting the usual Islamic misogyny which pervaded his recollections of his brief time in the U.S., I was quite puzzled by his sneering assertion that Americans were "spiritually bereft," meaning that spiritual systems other than Islam were somehow invisible to him. Clearly, this guy had all kinds of issues!
We have heard this "up close and personal" from our contrarian poster, ia_ _ _ (I forget his numbers). Our "white supremacist" government is the cause for everything wrong in the world. We have poisoned the environment, we still keep slaves, and on and on. According to ia, islam is the hero here. Talk about Bizarro world.
Mentat:
oh yes, that fantastic piece of demagogy that proves that the rights to equality and freedom of religion somehow mean that Muslim "community leaders" have the right to eliminate those rights from Canadian Muslims. Well he convinced Marion Boyd!
Returning to mr. Spencer's article above, there's an interesting quote from Sayyid Qutb: “Islam is a comprehensive philosophy and an homogeneous unity, and to introduce into it any foreign element would mean ruining it. It is like a delicate and perfect piece of machinery that may be completely ruined by the presence of an alien component."
That explains the extremity of Islamic paranoia and its refusal to open up to any Infidel influences. Remove a little detail and the whole "perfect" house of cards will collapse. Actually, it sounds quite promising. I'd be happy to agree with mr. Qutb on this one!
scaramouche writes:
This self-blame game seems to be a universal phenomena (with the notable exception of Islamic society). I find exactly the same type of self-loathing bile from Indian leftists when trying to explain away terrorist acts committed by Muslims in India. While self-introspection is healthy, self-loathing definitely isn't.
Apparently a drunken American woman tried to seduce him on the boat to America.
Looking at that picture of him, I would say the woman had to be well past drunk. Whew
St. Dunny: global warning was blamed back in the 1980s on the consumption of meat and dairy products via the flatulent gases emitted by livestock.
Carolyn2: ...or just drunk enough to feel free to make fun of his looks
It's a sad state of affairs that Naomi Klein's mal-pense about jihadism and its supposed origins in Western "racism" requires a whole essay to rebut, and cannot simply be passed over for the ignorant drivel it obviously is. Robert's rebuttal is enough to convince anyone with a half-open mind; unfortunately, most readers of The Nation, The New York Times, or The Guardian don't have even that. They're left-wing fantasists, so wedded to their multi-cultural and politically correct dogmas that when the abject failure of these policies is demonstrated they must retreat from reality into a world of their own making, where the failures of multi-culturalism become failures of not enough multi-culturalism.
But most people don't live in Klein's priveledged demimonde, they live in the real world and are awakening to the truth, as even she is starting to sense:
One would think that if Klein had a functioning brain stem, a few discomforting thoughts would begin to stir at this quote. Like what does it mean that British-born Pakistanis should so naturally identify with Arab Muslims half-way around the world rather than the British fellow-citizens they so callously slaughtered? What does this imply about the prospects of the the multi-culturalist project? And, more importantly, what would be a rational alteration of Western immigration policy given this "new" (about as new as the 7th Century) knowledge?
" He witnessed an America blind to the thousands of Palestinians being made permanent refugees by the Zionist project."
How does one cope with this:
"Why Palestinians Still Live in Refugee Camps"
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960
"What is perhaps surprising is that the United Nations also opposed the program, and passed harsh resolutions demanding that Israel remove the Palestinians from their new homes and return them to the squalid camps. For example, UN General Assembly Resolution 31/15 of Nov. 23, 1976:
Calls once more upon Israel:
(a) To take effective steps immediately for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation;
(b) To desist from further removal of refuges and destruction of their shelters.
Similarly, UNGA Resolution 34/52 of November 23, 1979 declared that:
measures to resettle Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip away from their homes and property from which they were displaced constitute a violation of their inalienable right to return;
1. Calls once more upon Israel to desist from removal and resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip and from destruction of their shelters;
Perhaps thanks to this support from the UN, the PLO began threatening to kill any refugee who would move out of the camps. After a few such attacks, the build-your-own-home program died, and that is why there are still Palestinians refugee camps in Gaza."
Ignorance is such bliss! There is no lack of ignorant pundits to blame America or Israel because of their lack of ability to research and analyse.
Nauseous Naomi's piece of crap was printed in "Now" ( pretty sure it was Now ) a weekly newspapermag aimed at the 15 to 25 year olds in Toronto, and owned, i believe, by the number one major source of vicious anti american propaganda in Canada, and ever supporter of islam/muslims in any and every dispute, The Toronto Star.
I didn't realize that Naomi's grandad was David Lewis, a leftist who earned respect round the whole political spectrum. As someone wrote, he must be turning in his grave......
waterdragon52
Maybe he was resisted by an American woman. That would have raised his ire.
More in keeping with Muslim males in the ME is that their desires be fullfilled.
dby:
Now isn't owned by TorStar. Now's competitor " arts & entertainment" weekly Eye is. One of Now's publishers, or at least founding publisher, had the surname Klein. May or may not be a family connection to Naomi, who I believe is the offspring of a Viet Nam draft dodger who made Montreal home back in the '60s. Now, of course, is very Palestinianized, but not because of the Star, which, of course has Haroon Siddiqui as editor.
T'was me who mentioned the David Lewis connection. Avi Lewis, Naomi's husband, is son of David Lewis and Michelle Landsberg.
Mentat, thanks for your link to "beautifulislam". At first I thought the article comparing Canadian laws and multiculturalism with Islamic law was a parody... it just sounds so hilarious a concept... till I realized that these guys are dead serious. One of the points mentioned was:
Maybe what the Canadians should do is to 'up the ante' and tell the muslims that they will be granted the same rights they grant to non-muslims as per Islamic law. As an example, charge them the jizya tax. I'd love to see their reaction to that!
"the left has indulged its fantasy that jihad terror is all the fault of the usa" - another piece of nonsensical hyperbole from the right wing funny farm. the stuff i read i think you would say is all left wing or leftish at least. usa is not getting the blame for everything. the causes of the terror have been looked at from a number of angles, including placing the responsiblity on the shoulders of those muslims who are saying "oh these terrorists are not really muslims" etc. and of course the murderers themselves. ziauddin sardar in the new statesman of july 18th blames wahhabist trends in islam, which now apparently dominate saudi arabia, a country which allows no churches, puts visitors bibles into shredders in front of them as they enter the country, does not allow women to drive, and, as i read elsewhere, is now considered to be americas best friend in the region
Razdan--Along with the jizya, maybe we should make them wear those funny pointy-toed dhimmi shoes.
Hatred is a valuable tool employed by Muslims in jihadist warfare against non-muslim societies. This hatred is obvious in diatribes by Qutb and other Muslims like him, and does not exist in a vacuum as Klein appears to believe (even when applied to the American society she relentlessly denigrates for reasons unclear to us). Islamic hatred is a calculated strategy employed by Muslim leaders to energize Islamic masses into obliterating a given kafir culture targeted for destruction. That hatred is manifested in slanderous propaganda--of which Qutb's diatribes against America are perfect examples. Those ugly riots and bloody skirmishes seen in places like Sudan, Ambon, and the Balkans are powered by Islamic hate propaganda fed to the masses.
Islam, encase Klein does not know, has destroyed numerous civilizations across the globe over the past 14 centuries. The Egyptian, the Syrian, the Byzantine, the Buddhist civilization of Central Asia (to name but a few) have all fallen prey the sword of the prophet and are no more. There can be little doubt that, judging from the example the hardcore Islamist Taliban regime gave in its destruction of the great Buddhist statues of Afghanistan it destroyed several years ago, the hate Americans have experienced at the hands of Muslims has been lavished on other cultures Islam has targeted also. Look at southern Sudan's Christian community or Egypt's Coptic Christians, they are actively hated, persecuted, and slaughtered. This is Islamic hate in action. Hate built through propaganda penned by such Muslims as Qutb or al-Banna.
The only reason Islamic leaders require for targeting a given culture for destruction is that they are non-Muslim--'infidel.' Anyone who has read the Qur'an even haphazardly would know this. Klein, and other anti-American (and opportunistic) lefties like her, clearly hasn't the slightest idea of what she's talking about. As Robert Spencer has hinted at, Klein is her own worst enemy (besides being America's).
Last October I carefully explained here at Jihadwatch the real reason for Qutb's distaste for the Americans:
"Sayyid Qutb, spiritual father of so many now running around in Fallujah and Afghanistan not to mention London, Paris, and Rome, wrote his “Signposts Along the Way” (Ma-alim fi al-tariq), partly prompted by his disgust with the West that was the result of two years he spent in the United States in the late 1940s. How decadent it all was, how thoroughly un-Islamic. And do you remember what it was that offended him the most? It was the horrifying spectacle of a church social, and a square dance sponsored by the church where American girls and boys could swing their partners and do-si-do, and try not to step on your neighbor's toe -- now promenade. The horror, the sheer horror of it!"
Posted by: Hugh at October 9, 2004 03:46 PM
But I now have a concluding artistic postscript. I recently came across in a dusty bookstore, the kind where you find in the backroom a certain forgotten book that, once you have understood its contents, you are ineluctably led on a frightening journey into the deep dark past, or perhaps you are forced to live to live in fear for your life, as others, worried about what you have discovered in that old book , begin to chase you down (whichever scenario you choose, I guarantee that it is Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture). No, I am not speaking of the Qur'an -- though some will no doubt attribute Qutb's behavior to his fervent belief in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
The book I have in mind, is "Honor Your Partner," a copy of which I recently bought. The subtitle adds that the book contains "Eighty-one American Square, Circle and Contra Dances, with Complete Insturctions for Doing Them," compiled by Ed Durlacher, musical arrangments by Ken MacDonalad, and photography by Dr. Ira Zasloff. It was published by Devin-Adair in 1949, while Qutb was in the United States, taking in the spectacle of that fiendish and insensate whirl of boy and girl. It was a sight he would never forget.
Check out the book yourself. You will not believe the things you find therein. I would like to draw your attention, in particular, to "A Word to the Caller," and the "rules to all dancers for a successful evening":
(1) When instructions are being given DO be quiet so that all may hear and understand.
(2) Each person will be dancing with three or more others. One person can spoil the dance for everyone by being a "showoff" or ill-mannered.
(3) Have a GOOD time.
That last -- "Have a GOOD time" -- is particularly disturbing. What would Bin Laden, what would Ayatollah Khomeini, what would al-Qaradawi, what would Hassan al-Banna, what would al-Ghazzali, what would the earliest caliphs, say about that -- "Have a GOOD Time"?
No wonder Qutb went home, intent on preaching Jihad. Don't, Ms. Kelin, blame American "racism." . Blame those square-dance fiends. Blame all those who preach "Have a GOOD time." Blame Ed Durlacher.
Hugh--Isn't the whole point of "submission" and all the sharia laws attached to it to ensure that most people DO NOT have a good time. Or at least, the only people who get to have any fun are the designated few who have all the power? And THEIR fun usually consists of killing lowlier sorts who dare step out of bounds, perhaps in search of fun.
I haven't had a chance to search through the book in it's entirely, but I'm fairly certain that the word "fun" never once appears in the many verses of the Koran. Or, for that matter, that the word was ever employed by Muslim Brotherhood wet blanket, Sayyid Qutb.
It would be venturing out on an exceedingly short limb to say that "fun" as we understand it is unIslamic.
C'mon, Hugh/scaramouoche, are you saying that blowing oneself up in planes, trains and buses; lopping off infidel heads while shouting Allah-u-Akbar; and good old looting/pillaging doesn't fall under the category of 'having a GOOD time'? In any case, who needs a GOOD time on Earth, when one can have everlasting fun with 72 houris in the here-after?
Razdan-- yes, you are absolutely right. How silly of us to overlook the good (bad) time that can be had by all, all Muslims that is, as they take Edessa, or Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Fustat (Cairo), or Constantinople -- that looting, that pillage, that get-acquainted why-can't-we-be-friends rape.
Thank goodness Qutb didn't come to the U.S. in the 1970's during the disco craze. The tight polyester clothes, the poofy hair, the bell-bottom pants. KC and Sunshine Band's "Get Down Tonight" and "(Shake Shake Shake) Shake Your Booty". Not only was it against the will of Allah, it was against good taste. If he had been given that much motivation, I have no doubt that the jihadists would have come up with the Islamic nuclear bomb by now, and of course it would have been all our own fault.
Klein's story is just the latest example of how everyone is responsible for the jihadists behavior, except for the jihadists themselves. It's the decadence of Western culture, no wait, it's the Crusades, no wait, it's the U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, no, it's the existence of Israel, no, it's the poverty of the jihadists, no wait, it's racism in the U.S., no wait...
I have to admit that Hugh's post is his best yet. What we need is a novelist with the touch of a Thomas Mann to dramatize that whole Clash of Civilizations, where the courteous and highly elaborate ritual of a square dance reaches the eyes of the visiting Egyptian alien as a veritable assault...
Mohammed probably knew how to have a good time. When taking a break from conquest, pillage and paedophilia he probably had a few 'laughs' with his companions.
That is, he told 'jokes' and his companions had to laugh. Woe betide those who laughed before the punchline, for Allah loves not a heckler. He'd slice off their fingertips and crucify them pour encourager les autres.
Or perhaps they would have to amuse him, like the courtiers did Louis XVI by saying something 'spirituel' - witty rather than 'funny'. (The difference was a matter of life and death if that film 'Ridicule' is to be believed.)
Meanwhile, his wives were probably pissing themselves laughing at Mo's sonorous, declamatory pillow talk and his poor performance. Well you know what they say about men who like big cars, and presumably the same is true of men who like big empires.
Mentat said "Below is what Multi-culturalism will really mean in Canada if people like Klein and Syed Mumtaz Ali get their way:"
Here is a quote from that article:
"Obviously, then, when dealing with Islam or Muslims, one has to take into consideration the sensibilities of the whole Muslim 'Community'/ 'nation'/ 'Ummat' and their need for protection against harm, say for instance, through their rules of Blasphemy , which are framed on the basis of their own philosophy of life depicted through their own perception and sensibilities with regard to sacrilege, desecration, defamation, slander, libel and so on."
I was wondering how these kind and open-minded dhimmis would feel about the Salman Rushdie death sentence for blasphemy. Lo and behold, they mentioned that specifically:
"Ayatullah Khomeni had condemned Salman Rushdie because his book was considered blasphemous; the Pope condemned Madonna for her provocative songs. As head of his respective religious structure, each did what was expected of him by his followers. Any Muslim cleric would have reacted to this book in the same manner as the Ayatullah; any Catholic priest would have found Madonna's songs distasteful."
So, in the interest of having an open society, obviously we non-Muslims have to accept living under a brutal theocracy. After all, "any Muslim cleric" would have given the same death sentence. And obviously the Pope finding Madonna "distasteful" is equivalent to calling for the murder of an author. It's just different cultural contexts, doncha' see?
From today's Dutch newspaper Trouw:
Anti-Discrimination Committee to stamp out radical Islam
Minister of Justice Donner and Minister of Integration Verdonk think that an Anti-Discrimination Committee will help put and end to the radicalization of young Muslims. The committee should make it easier for members of the public to file a complaint. “We can’t have people insulting one group of people while hiding behind freedom of speech but when the other group insults them suddenly they don’t consider it free speech anymore. People who feel offended should be able to go somewhere without directly going to court.”
This is the first time that discrimination on the work floor and door policies are so explicitly linked to radicalization of Muslims.
My two cents: as we all know, Theo van Gogh’s killer did what he did because Van Gogh referred to radical Muslims as ‘goat fuckers’. His friends Redouan and Mohammed dream of a Sharia state because they weren’t allowed into the Rotary Club. Dutch convert Abdul Jabbar van de Ven wished a severe case of cancer on Geert Wilders because some artist made a demeaning cartoon of him and put it on the internet. Samir Azzouz became an extremist because the judge didn’t take his plans to blow up parliament very seriously. Dutch convert Simone van den Oever collected funds for terrorists because nobody liked her headscarf.
waterdragon52:
That would be Stephen Lewis and Michelle Landsberg (parents-in-law of Naomi Klein).
_________________
But Stephen Lewis is a respected ex-politician here in Canada and Michelle Landsberg, a writer, usually calls a spade a spade. As far as I know, neither one has ever lacked in courage. I've always admired both of them for their personal integrity - although I may not have entirely agreed with them. So what's happening here?
What really has happened to the next generation?
Do they have a blinkered view of current events? If so, why? I believe they have been blinded by their early training in being raised by extremely liberal parents. Here's an example:
Klein says, "Arabs and Muslims are being debased in torture chambers around the world" - this may or may not be true, but if it's true, I'd bet that the torturers are in the majority of cases fellow Muslims. Actually, I have no doubt about that. What does Klein say about that? She can't address it - it doesn't fit into her world scenario. They are good, remember? It is we who are bad!
The hideous state of Muslim human rights means that abuses are perpetrated every day - but by whom, Naomi, by whom?
Naomi needs a wake-up call. She's been blinded by the do-good philosophy of the previous generation (such as her in-laws). The state of affairs has been presented to her too simply: there's us - and then there's them. We are bad - they are good. West bad - rest of world, good.
Too much conscience, too much soul-searching, too much angst - all lead to a skewed view of the world. The reality is that evil knows no borders.
I can't explain it any other way.
(Sahih Muslim 4294)
Robert at August 19, 2005 06:53 AM
The above Tradition is not authentic. God willing, we hope to provide the analysis soon.
The founder of Islam was quite clear that Muslims must offer non-Muslims only conversion to Islam, subjugation as inferiors under Islamic rule, or war:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)
Islamic tradition does not record, as the possible cause of these instructions, any complaints by the Prophet against Western racism.
Robert at August 19, 2005 06:53 AM
Robert had quoted Sahih Muslim 4294 partially. From
http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=fight+migrate&translator=2&search=1&book=&start=0&search_word=all&records_display=10
we find the full text of Sahih Muslim 4294 as below:
===
(1) It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajirs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them. (Book #019, Hadith #4294)
===
We highlighted those portions of Sahih Muslim 4294 left out by Robert. The full Tradition has contradictions, and is inconsistent with Islam.
The part that has contradiction is:
===
When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajirs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers).
===
Where is the ‘land of Muhajirs’? Where was migration? Migration was from Mecca to Medina. Medina is not the land of Muhajir; it is the land of Islam. There is no land of Muhajir. Thus, the Tradition is factually wrong.
The following Tradition gives the status of migration.
===
Tradition numbered 598 in Volume 5 of Sahih Al-Bukhari.
Narrated Majashi
I took my brother to the Prophet after the Conquest (of Mecca) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have come to you with my brother so that you may take a pledge of allegiance from him for migration." The Prophet said, The people of migration (i.e. those who migrated to Medina before the Conquest) enjoyed the privileges of migration (i.e. there is no need for migration anymore)." I said to the Prophet, "For what will you take his pledge of allegiance?" The Prophet said, "I will take his pledge of allegiance for Islam, Belief, and for Jihad (i.e. fighting in Allah's Cause)."
===
Migration is from Mecca to Medina only. There is no migration afterwards. Thus, the migration of Muslims from India to Pakistan in 1947 is also against Islam. In our opinion, the partition of the Indian sub continent into India and Pakistan was done by the war mongers to ensure that there would be tension and war in that part of the world also.
The Jihad referred to in Sahih Muslim 4298 might be before the Conquest of Mecca or after. If it was before the Conquest of Mecca, it is indeed stupid to conquer some land away from Medina and ask people to move to Medina losing the protection to Medina afforded by a friendly territory near Medina. If it was after the Conquest of Mecca, there is no migration at all.
The only conclusion we could arrive at is that the Tradition based on which Robert had been claiming that Islam is a religion of violence is no Tradition at all. (If there are other quotes from Islam on the basis of which Robert concludes that Islam is a religion of violence, we would be very happy to consider them.)
Incidentally, at the time of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, the USA was not there; how can there be a complaint against western racism?
On the topic of racism, the fifth pillar of Islam, the Hajj, specifically ensures that every male performing Hajj has the same dress and thus there is no distinction on the basis of nation or race or wealth. Islam strives to eliminate discrimination of all kinds except on the basis of piety.