Sorry that it has been a few days since I last posted. The flu hit me over the weekend, and I'm just starting to get my feet under me.
In recent news, the Muslim Brotherhood has won at least 20 percent of the seats in the Egyptian parliamentary elections that took place on Tuesday. Though still an illegal group, they are tolerated and appear to be the strongest rival party to the ruling regime.
But why is the Muslim Brotherhood important? You might remember several posts last month where I discussed Sayyid Qutb and his ideological descendents, including Osama bin Laden (who was mentored in college by Qutb's brother, Mohammed) and the founders of the Palestinian terror group, Islamic Jihad. Qutb was the chief propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood until his execution by Nasser in 1966, and one of the leading contributors to contemporary Islamist ideology.
Rooting his ideology in the monist monotheism of Islam, the singularity of God (tawhid) demands the singularity of the universe. In the examination of the ancient question of the one and the many, Qutb's answer is clear: one. There is no room for the individual in the Islamic universe. The primacy of the one (embodied in a universal Islamic state) outweighs any competing claims of legitimacy. Qutb is also responsible for several ideas that lay at the bedrock of Islamist terrorism:
1) In his book Milestones, he applies the Islamic idea of jahiliyya (pagan barbarism) to non-Islamic societies AND Islamic nations not governed by sharia. This gives justification for the Al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq to launch murderous suicide attacks in Jordan just last week. Since Jordan is not governed by sharia, it is just as guilty as the U.S., and subject to terrorist activity.
2) Drawing from Enlightenment revolutionary thought, the catalyst for social action to reinstitute God's sovereignty on earth is a revolutionary vanguard: "How must the Islamic resurrection begin? A vanguard must resolve to set it in motion in the midst of jahiliyya that now reigns over the earth. That vanguard must be able to decide when to withdraw from and when to seek contact with the jahiliyya that surrounds it." But who appoints this revolutionary vanguard? The vanguard itself. This is why Osama bin Laden can issue fatwas, religious legal opinions, to authorize terrorism against al Qaeda's enemies, even though OBL has no status as a religious authority and is no part of the ulema. As head of the vanguard, he is his own authority. An Islamic Robespierre.
3) As I noted in a previous post, Qutb draws on his idea of jahiliyya explictly from French Social Darwinist, Alexis Carrel, who he quotes more than any other author.
Even though the Muslim Brotherhood has not been as violent since when it was under Qutb's ideological leadership, it is becoming clear that it is the lightning rod for radicalism in Egypt. Expect it to get more radical as it gains power and is able to exercise its ideology more consistently. If you want more info on Qutb, read Paul Berman's lengthy New York Times Magazine article, The Philosopher of Islamic Terror.
5 comments:
No person can claim authority to dictate to any other person what God Wants.
Why?
No person can prove what God wants, thinks, says, commands, expects etc.
No person can nor should claim to know what God wants and then draw authority over others based on these claims when it can not be proved what God wants, says, thinks, commands or even that He is .
This single fact must be excepted by all faiths. All faiths must change the way the deal with all those who do not share their particulate views. All people must show humility in their faith and show respect for all others of a different mind. Humility is found in knowing that you can not prove your views of God and that you can not claim any authority to dictate or pass judgment on others because of this.
Respect for all others who differ in their views of what God wants from what you view is the most important thing above all else that the world must learn if this world is ever to find true peace and harmony.
http://authoritybasedongod.blogspot.com/
While I have no idea what this has to do with my post, you're unspoken assumption is that God doesn't speak. I would disagree with you there. What you are arguing here is exactly the same case that Neitzsche did. If "God is dead" in terms of authority and legitimacy, then we are left with only ourselves claiming divine authority to speak on our own behalf. We all become god. As Neitzsche said, then what ensues is a competition to see who can assume enough power to impose their will on others. The Ubermensch (Superman) then becomes god over us. This is the logical consequence of secular humanism, and we saw how well that project went in the 20th Century.
You think you solve the problem of individual freedom by dethroning God. The net result of what you're contending for is a loss of human freedom. Read C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man.
You failed to understand my whole point.
I did not say that God does not speak or that God does not exists. What I said is that no person can tell another person what God says because it is impossible for any person prove that there is a God let alone what God thinks says expects commands etc... As long as it is impossible to prove what God says etc... you can not claim to know what Gods says and assume power over others based on this improvable claim.
My point does not lead one to conclude that "We all become God", just the opposite. My point is that no person can justifiably claim any power over another person base on any claim of knowing anything about God or any claim of being God themselves.
With out proof, no one can justifiably claim anything concerning God. If you think you can, you are deluded.
Sorry, "A Word Correction"
You failed to understand my whole point.
I did not say that God does not speak or that God does not exists. What I said is that no person can tell another person what God says because it is impossible for any person prove that there is a God let alone what God thinks says expects commands etc... As long as it is impossible to prove what God says etc... you can not claim to know what Gods says and assume power over others based on this *improvable* claim.
Should Read: based on this unprovable claim.
Post a Comment