Two Who Contributed to the Birth of Modern Islamic Fundamentalism

[syzygy]

there must have been somone who fomented a politcally conscious and agitated state in the minds of young, impressionable,
and frustrated muslims in the years and decades before 9/11. unbeknownst to many in the west, sayyid qutb and maulana
a'la maududi are among the most popular islamic thinkers and writers over the past half century.

sayyid qutb, especially, was embraced by the disenfranchised young to act, to lead, and overturn corrupt secular regimes. he
gave a modern grounding to the traditional islamic concepts like jihad, particularly the overt, worldly variety of jihad. sayyid
qutb glorified (for tactical reasons) only one form of jihad, and advocated the conflict be taken to the aggressors.

sayyid qutb was executed by nasser in 1966 for his seditious writings.

sayyid qutb article

Those who saythat Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'home land of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life and consider it less important than their 'homeland'.

maulana a'la maududi is another critical writer who analyzed the
relationship between the islamic world and the west. his rise and influence had direct bearing on the politics of south
asia (india's partition, birth of pakistan and bangladesh), but the essence of his message achieved wide acclaim for
some of the same reasons qutb's writings earned their mettle.

maududi also advocated the establishment of a 'true' islamic state and developed a methodology to achieve this grand
objective by partly taking the seedier aspects of jihad to their logical conclusion. like qutb, he too was sentenced to death
for his seditious writings by autocratic governmental authorities who feared his militant appeals. but unlike qutb, maududi lucked into a weak-kneed judiciary that spared his life.

maududi - the quranic path

". . . no person can understand the legal injuctions, the moral teachings, and the political and economic directives of the Quran, unless and until he puts them into practice. Neither the individual who lives independently of the Quran nor thenation which runs its institutions in violation of its guidance can discover the spirit of the Quran."

 

[MichaelD]

Your point is what, please? If you are looking for pro-Islamic sympathizers, you're better off at www.jihadcankissmyamericanass.com OK?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Your point is what, please? If you are looking for pro-Islamic sympathizers, you're better off at www.jihadcankissmyamericanass.com OK?

No, you're not.

This is interesting information, dude. I'd rather learn about the Islamic religion and understand it than just say "fvck them, let's bomb them all."

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Your point is what, please? If you are looking for pro-Islamic sympathizers, you're better off at www.jihadcankissmyamericanass.com OK?

No, you're not.

This is interesting information, dude. I'd rather learn about the Islamic religion and understand it than just say "fvck them, let's bomb them all."

They want to learn about you too. And your family. Where you live, where you shop, what you buy, how you pay for it. They are very interested in the American way of life. The easiest way to break something is to find out exactly what holds it together.

Try walking thru a primarily Arabic neighborhood in NYC (if your anything but Arabic decent that is) see how long you last.

 

[syzygy]

.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: syzygy
i did this morning in fact, walk through an arab neighborhood, in jackson heights (queens, n.y.), where there is a huge arab and south asian muslim
presence and i survived unscathed. so by the idiotic standard of your own test, surprise, surprise, you look the fool and now you can return to stroking
your paranoias.

You speak like that one-eyed blind cleric...you in training or something? I grew up in NYC and did not have the good luck that you allegedly had today. I will be paranoid, closed-minded and closed-doored if I want to be. I'll also not be to blame when your friends kill more innocent Americans. I'm out of this thread.

 

[CJZ]

As a wise muppet once said, "Fear is the path of the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"

I thought this thread needed a little levity.

 

[fluxquantum]

Originally posted by: CJZ
As a wise muppet once said, "Fear is the path of the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"

I thought this thread needed a little levity.

LOL

 

[bsd]

I did a degree in arabic, and i havent a clue really. jamal ad-din al-afghani was a real trouble to the british in egypt in the late 1800's due to his reformism islamist views.

in terms of anti-westernism, well the muslim brotherhood was pretty anti-british.

fundamentalism in the modern sence is recent and a reaction to the all prevading influence of (now) western powers in the region, amongst other things, to the detriment of many of the local inhabitants, or formerly the soviets as well - as everyone knows.

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Your point is what, please? If you are looking for pro-Islamic sympathizers, you're better off at www.jihadcankissmyamericanass.com OK?

why the touchy responce, did alqaida have you dick on the anvil sometime, and yes I did read that you 'grew up' in NYC?

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Your point is what, please? If you are looking for pro-Islamic sympathizers, you're better off at www.jihadcankissmyamericanass.com OK?

woah there, texmaster2.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: bsd
I did a degree in arabic, and i havent a clue really. jamal ad-din al-afghani was a real trouble to the british in egypt in the late 1800's due to his reformism islamist views.

in terms of anti-westernism, well the muslim brotherhood was pretty anti-british.

fundamentalism in the modern sence is recent and a reaction to the all prevading influence of (now) western powers in the region, amongst other things, to the detriment of many of the local inhabitants, or formerly the soviets as well - as everyone knows.

Could you explain this further?
And, no, I am not being facetious.

 

[bsd]

you find this stuff easily if you look, you can even read it in alqaida statements, they have to stand for something correct afterall, otherwise they would have no general support.

in about 1450 the ottoman empire was the most advanced and powerfull empire on earth, it even beseiged vienna in austria!

after that the euro got ahead and basically were richer and more competetive, the arabs borrowed to finance the military etc and by 1700-1800 most of the gov's were paying out in some cases 85% of federal revenue to euro bankers, que the caplitualtions, where we had a say in gov policy. that led to our eventual carving up of the region by the first world war, then out installation of local fiendly regimes, usually monarchic and elitist, and control over their policy see lord .

by the post 40-50's era either there had been a revolution or a consolidation. the palestinians had been screwed, and at this time most arabs saw themselves as just arabs, but with local affiliations, so there was nationstatehood, but not like in europe or the jews sense of nationhood, so they didnt like it.

in the pre ww2 period the only war ahead for the poor and disenfranchised was the army, so in egypt you had the free officers, most of whom were below colonel stage a socialist revolution in 52, and the bathists take control of iraq and syria, both parties were contolled by ethnic minorities - sunnies, and alawite shiites.

they were socialists, socialism doesnt work, by the late 70's or 80's they were dictatorships aacross the mid east. they were secular, military and elitist and after the cold war ended. you had economic reforms in many countries, but basically it didnt do that much, just look at the gdp figures, and unemployment stats, the americans feared a islamist takeover and just let the militaries keep in control, for israel, oil, and strategic and establish business investments.

of course america caused many of the revolutions in the 50's by forcing local regimes to be too friendly, esp with oil, and state jobs, elites owning all the valuable assets - the agri land etc, that just pissed the poor off no end and became a symbol of legitimacy for the officers to act and take over, I mean you cant just say, lets get together and then do a revolution, people need some glue for these movements if they are going to be secret. its also why saudi wont flip, every one who can do it, is already rich. thats why hussein is pretending to be islamist, he needs a reason to be in power, not the reality, which is he kills anyone who gets in his way.

of course it doesnt take too much imagination to see that the arabs could resent america for sustaining regimes and self serving elites, icing out places like iran to great economic cost, only acting when they have to for other people, and supporting israel, whilst using centre-ground words.

so alqaida is the old soviet jihadies who went home aounr 1990 to find regimes that were supported and impregnable, and bosnian muslims being persecuted and a sub-statelet for the palestinians being proposed. naturally when the talebs started fuighting and alqaida rose with a credible resistance idealogy, a lot of them joined, the rest are dead or in prison, or retired.