Big news: Hamas and Fatah have agreed to form a new interim government as part of a process of “reconciliation” and a “unity deal”. Yes, not only is Hamas going to join Fatah in a unity government, that government will be lead by, who else, Abbas!
When I read that this morning I though “Hamas leaders have gone totally insane!”. Think about it:
Who is Abbas? He is exactly *nobody*. He is not the “elected President of the Palestinian authority” simply because his term is over and his band of thugs never allowed any other elections to take place. Until this deal with Hamas was made his legitimacy was exactly *zero*.
What is Fatah? It’s the utterly discredited and unmasked (thanks Wikileaks!) local combined franchise of the Shin Bet and the CIA. Hamas might as well sign a “reconciliation” deal with the Shin Bet and join a “unity” cabinet under the leadership of Yuval Diskin (or Yoram Cohen)!
What about the timing?
The timing could not be worse. Not only are there all the signs that a new, huge, Freedom Flotilla will attempt to break the Gaza siege this summer, but the new Egyptian Foreign Minister, Nabil al-Arabi, has even told Al-Jazeera that Egypt is making preparations to permanently open the Gaza border!
So at a time when Abbas and his band of traitors are totally discredited and despised by all, at a time when Hamas’ stance in Gaza was about to be vindicated, the Hamas leadership finds nothing better to do than give the local Shabak/CIA franchise manager a new legitimacy!
Sadly, Hamas as a record of brilliant tactics followed by total strategic incompetence (just remember how it totally failed to exploit the bringing down of the Wall between Gaza and Egypt). But this latest decision goes beyond mere incompetence – it smacks of outright treason.
All of which is made even worse by the reaction rather crazy reactions in the rest of the world. Israel and the USA are opposing it, I don’t know if they do that because they are really stupid or because really really smart, while Iran and Hezbollah approve of it – probably because criticizing the entire Palestinian leadership is impossible for them. It’s a crazy world!
Whatever may be the case, and since I am not trying to be popular with anybody, I will clearly say that this is a disaster for all the Palestinian people. Against Israel nothing of any value has ever been obtained by compromise and/or negotiations – only by resolve and active resistance. Sadly, in the entire Middle-East only Hezbollah has really understood this and acted accordingly.
I never had much hope for Hamas as a movement which, after all, was initially created by the Shin Bet to be a counterweight to Fatah, but now I can only conclude that until a Hezbollah-like resistance organization crystallizes in reaction to the constant compromises and betrayals of the Palestinian leaders (Hezbollah was created as a reaction against the compromises and betrayals of Amal leaders) – little real progress will be achieved in Palestine.
The Saker
Hamas is the stronger party… the PA has all but conceded defeat. A Palestinian government will simply be a fig leaf for Hamas even if it has Fatah ministers. There is going to be no question as to who is calling the shots – and the cumulative impact of yesterday’s development will be to push the Palestinian Arabs in a more radical direction.
Disagreement Saker. This reunites Palestinian politics structurally. Yes under a horribly compromised super-structure, but there hasn’t been any other in 30 years. Coupled with the ending of the Ghaza siege by Egypt, this will likely lead to improved living conditions for Palestinians in Ghaza and on the West Bank. That’s a GOOD thing. People’s lives DO matter. People are more than pawns in some chess game. Besides, strategically, in terms of the struggle for the liberation of all of Palestine, this is almost meaningless. I say: let there be more compromised Palestinian governments, too weak to sign away anything fundamental. Meanwhile life will go on in Palestine and the surrounding Middle East will continue to evolve unfavorably for Israel.
Also, calling Hamas a “creation” of Shin Bet crosses the line into political paranoïa. Hamas favored initially by Israeli political manipulation, yes. Creation, no.
Blogger has some problems today and Ishamid has asked me to post this for him:
——–
Hi V,
IMHO you are being way, waayy, waaayyy too hard on Hamas. There is much more to this, and you can be sure that both Hezbullah and Iran were
involved in hammering out the current deal. It’s all a strategy.
Also, Hamas was not “created” by Shin Bet. Shaykh Ahmad Yassin the founder was a person of the utmost integrity and grew into a beautiful human being. There is plenty to criticize with Hamas as with any liberation movement but they are not the hapless idiots you seem to think of them :-)
I wish I had to time to write more on this …
Peace
——–
@Atlanta Roofing:
@Guthman:
@Ishamid:
Ok, I am clearly in the minority here and I should probably listen to your words of wisdom. In fact, ALL the observers I know of seem to agree with you, so chances are that I am wrong. And yet, I hope that you will be patient with me and forgive me for for stubbornly persisting in my position.
But first, yes, I do have a strong anti-Hamas bias. I find that, quite unlike Hezbollah, Hamas as rather consistently been unable to articulate a strategic vision and act on it. Tactically, Hamas can be brilliant. It acted swiftly and very correctly when it pre-empted a Fatah/CIA coup in Gaza. The blowing up of a large segment of the Wall along the Egyptian border was also a brilliant move. But I cannot ignore the fact that Hamas completely failed to exploit these tactical successes and turn them into a strategic victory. I don’t think that I ever called Hamas a bunch of “hapless idiots” (there is a consensus among military analysts that in WWII, the Germans were consistently tactically superior to the Soviets, yet they always lost to them in Operational Art which, in turn, lead them to an inevitable defeat. But nobody ever called the Germans “hapless idiots”)
Furthermore, there are, in my opinion, all sorts of dubious, shall we say “neo-Wahabi” elements gravititing around, and sometimes inside, Hamas. Furthermore, Sheikh Yassin might have been a “beautiful human being”, but his support for suicide bombings only helped the Israelis. Again, while the Intifada was a brilliant move, the turn to suicide bombings was a major strategic miscalculation. Can you imagine Hezbollah blowing up a Pizza parlour? Of course not!
Dear friends, I hope that you are right and that I am wrong but it is going to take some solid arguments to convince me that negotiating with Fatah is a smart move. The way I see it, Fatah is a key part of the problem and the solution must come through a comprehensive dismantlement of Fatah and the entire Ramallah plutocracy and the thug gangs supporting it.
Fatah has become little more than a colonial police force, and Hamas has the political sophistication of a classroom full of kindergarteners. Sending kids out to blow themselves up on buses was not only barbaric, but a stupid tactic guaranteed to alienate support for the Palestinian cause as well as enable the Israelis to paint themselves as the victims. Ditto for the bottle rocket campaign, which served no military or political purpose other than to provide Israel with a convenient excuse for its aggression.
The Fatah as enforcers/Hamas as justifiers of Israel’s oppression has worked out great for Israel so far. Hamas wasn’t created by Israel, but if it didn’t exist, they would have had to create it, much as the US created “Al Qaeda.” Maybe what the Palestinians need at this time is to sideline these organizations and develop a new resistance on the Hezbollah model.
Just a thought.
Dear Saker,
You are quite right as usual with your strategic assessment of the situation of the Palestinians, who always seem to be their own worst enemies, despite a Just Cause Celebre for decades…
YES, Hamas was created, nurtured and more by MOSSAD/Shin-bet initially, because the aim was to weaken the PLO, divide and conquer for Decades, in order to grab more land in the process and create facts on the ground….and it worked beautifully….until the Egyptian Revolution came along…But there again a HAMAS created by MOSSAD can grow in its own wily ways with time of course…
IMO, the BIGGEST Palestinian Blunder was committed Sep 27th 2000, when the Butcher Ariel Sharon walked up to the esplanade of the AQSA Mosque surrounded by about 1000 Israeli policemen, in order to PURPOSELY PROVOKE the Palestinians into an emotional reaction leading up to a stupid Intifada that served absolutely no purpose at all, except to give Ariel Sharon the reasons for his despicable policies with the NEW GWB administration and their Satanic moves on and after the inside Job of 9/11… and the policies that ensued….
The Palestinians stupidly fell for the Sharon Provocation. They should have had the smarts to just let him walk up to the Mosque and leave without paying any attention to his provocation.
That’s History now…but they made many more mistakes starting with Oslo and much more….
Will things change between now and Sep. 2011 at the UN….?
Time will tell, I don’t have a crystal ball, the situation is much too fluid now….
Best,
Joe
@V
===============
I don’t think that I ever called Hamas a bunch of “hapless idiots”
===============
No, but you did file this note under “stupidity” and “betrayal”.
================
Again, while the Intifada was a brilliant move, the turn to suicide bombings was a major strategic miscalculation. Can you imagine Hezbollah blowing up a Pizza parlour? Of course not!
================
I think you are comparing apples and oranges; each group was operating in a different strategic environment with different cards. And the so-called “suicide” bombings etc. — whatever one thinks of them as a tactic (Hizbullaah used them as well at some point) — did have an effect bringing Israel to the table at Oslo. Sure, the Israelis turned Oslo to their advantage, but that was because the PLO sold out, not because of Hamas.
In any case, Hamas has grown and is now very much on the Hizbullaah model already; I think that Sean — along with many others — does not appreciate exactly what Hamas has been up against. He and others adopt the usual Western frame with regards to its tactics of the past and its authentic roots in Palestinian society; and comparing it with al-Qaeda is grossly unfair. And they did WIN the last elections, remember, despite all the levers of power against it at home and abroad. This alone indicates much more than a “kindergarten” degree of sophistication. And keep in mind that the existence of Hizbullaah is also used as a justification of Israeli oppression. Resistance will always be framed as a justification, independent of tactics. This does NOT justify every tactic, or every instantiation of a given tactic.
And if you were to ask Hizbullaah about Hamas I am sure they would say the same thing:-) Believe me, you are not going to get a better Palestinian Hizbullaah than Hamas. As for “dubious elements”, to the degee that they exist within Hamas it is better to have them under Hamas’s control than running wild.
Peace
@ishamid:the so-called “suicide” bombings etc. — whatever one thinks of them as a tactic (Hizbullaah used them as well at some point)
My issue is not with suicide bombings which, indeed, Hezbollah used with great success against MILITARY targets occupying Lebanon. My beef is with suicide bombing in PIZZA PARLORS full of civilians which are not part of an military occupation force. They are a civilian component of the occupation of Palestine, true, but that does not justify what is by at that point and by definition a indiscriminate attack in which non-combatants, women, children, tourists, even fellow Palestinians are blown into pieces, maimed, burned and disfigured.
@Ishamid:I think you are comparing apples and oranges; each group was operating in a different strategic environment with different cards (…) I think that Sean — along with many others — does not appreciate exactly what Hamas has been up against.
I disagree. Hezbollah and Hamas were both born during an Israeli military occupation of their land. Hezbollah and Hamas were also both created as a reaction against the collaborationist policies of their respective official national leaders (Amal in one case, the PLO in the other). Both Hezbollah and Hamas had to, from day one, fight on two fronts: an external Israeli front and an internal (anti-Islamic, putatively “nationalist”, Western-infiltrated) front. Both organizations had their leaders murdered and went through a “generational” change). How is that apples and oranges?
I see two big HUGE difference indeed. The first one is that in its entire history Hezbollah never committed what could be described as a “terrorist” act (I don’t like that expression very much, but ok, we know what that means). The second, and even bigger, difference is that in its entire history Hezbollah never suffered a setback. That is amazing, but true. The Hezbollah leadership succeeded in turning every single development into an opportunity to strengthen its position and make Israel (or the various traitorous movements inside Lebanon) weaker. To put it mildly, Hamas seems very good at setbacks and at NOT turning each opportunity into a victory.
Hamas has grown and is now very much on the Hizbullaah model already
Again, I disagree. If you look at the internal structure of Hezbollah you will see that there is no equivalent to the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades which at times act as a part of Hamas and at times independently. Hamas in its structure is far more similar to the Sinn Fein-IRA “conglomerate”. Lastly, Hamas has placed itself in a position of dependence on the Syrian regime whereas even if Hezbollah has placed itself under the spiritual guidance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (and not Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah) it has always remained an independent, fully sovereign, and equal partner (as opposed to subject) of Iran. Another sign of great wisdom, IMHO.
Yes, Hamas would love to become the “Palestinian Hezbollah”, but I don’t think that they have the wisdom and ability to do so.
“The first one is that in its entire history Hezbollah never committed what could be described as a “terrorist” act”
I don’t want to play Devil’s advocate here, but what about the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut? Yes, there were some military relevant targets, like a few marines and some CIA officials, but it killed mostly unarmed civilians, including passers-by who didn’t work or haven’t even been in the embassy.
@Carlo:I don’t want to play Devil’s advocate here, but what about the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut?
Good point. A couple of things here:
1) the bombings in Beirut were not a Hezbollah action but one of the so-called Islamic Jihad Organization. If I remember correctly, Hezbollah was created after these events.
2) the bombings in Beirut were attacks on the official representations of foreign occupying powers. Yes, they DID result in civilian casualties, but the laws of war and international humanitarian law do not ban “collateral damage”. What they ban is a) DELIBERATE targeting of non-combatants and b) DISPROPORTIONAL use of force. In this case, the attacks resulted in a withdrawal of the occupying power which clearly proves that this attack was proportional in the sense of the law of war and international humanitarian law.
Some say that the Islamic Jihad Organization was kind of a proto-Hezbollah and it is true that some elements of the shadowy Islamic Jihad Organization did then join Hezbollah. But so what? After WWII some ex-Nazis did join the new German government, that hardly means that the new German government can be held accountable for Nazi actions.
My personal opinion is that Islamic Jihad Organization was a proxy for the Iranians who, in these early years following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, did, indeed, commit a string of terrorist actions while in Iran itself the newly installed regime did kill A LOT of innocent and, sometimes, not so innocent people. The early eighties were a period of excesses in Iran and in Lebanon (such as the kidnapping of western hostages).
But was any of that the result of Hezbollah actions? Nope, I don’t think so.
Am I making sense?
@V:
=======================
I disagree.
:
How is that apples and oranges?
=======================
Because the dynamic of occupation in Palestine and that in Lebanon have as many contrasts as similarities. Hezbullaah has access to outside help and assistance to a degree orders of magnitudes greater than Hamas. Palestine has been under continuous occupation for decades in a way Lebanon has not. Hamas has not simply never had as many cards as Hizbullaah in Lebanon. Their tactics reflect that simple reality and a study of their history, growth, and current status has to take that into consideration.
===========
Hamas has grown and is now very much on the Hizbullaah model already
Again, I disagree.
:
===========
You are only looking for the contrasts, which of course are there. But you are missing the similarities e.g.
1) A progressive Islamic ideology — much the same as Hizbullah’s. This is something I think you generally miss :-) Note that Hizbullaah’s ideology has integrated much of the liberation theology of Sayyid Qutb (and Sayyid Khamenei was a translator of Sayyid Qutb into Farsi). Sayyid Qutb, of course, provides the ideological foundation for Hamas.
This ideological foundation brings Hamas much closer to the Shīʿī spirit of liberation. Thus Hizbullaah and Hamas are about as close as ideological partners across the Shīʿī–Sunni divide as you could ever hope for. This is one reasons that the Wahhabis — including their paid agents like Qaradawi — have tried very hard to delegitimize Sayyid Qutb; Qardawi even claims he is not even Sunni!
So in our analyses I think it’s important to look for the water in the cup here;
2) Emphasis on battling moral and economic corruption. The difference between Hizbullaah and Hamas on one side, and Fatah, Hariri et. al. on the other could not be more stark.
3) Providing independent social services and networking that reflect the values of the community (something Fatah has worked hard to destroy in the case of Hamas)
and so forth.
Again, Hamas has always had a weaker hand than their Lebanese allies; that’s the barebone fact of the matter. But they are certainly no mere a pawn of Syria anymore than Hizbullaah is is a pawn of Iran. If anything, Hamas benefits from a toppling of Assad more than Hizbullaah, because of the former’s roots in the Brotherhood.
In the final analysis, Hamas IS the Hizbullaah of Palestine. They just face a different set of challenges and resources. For sure they do not match Hizbullaah in many ways but I hope you will consider looking at the cup as half-full and not half-empty.
Peace
@Ishamid: dear friend, we are on very unequal terms here: I judge from the outside whereas you see these things from within so I am not in a position offer anything more here that what are necessarily superficially informed opinions and guesses. However, with this major caveat, I would like to share the following:
Sayyid Qutb: while I would see that his social and political views could have played an influential role in Shia Islam, the person of Qutb makes me feel very uneasy. It’s no the writings of Qutb which make me nervous. But “if every tree is known by his own fruit” (Luke 6:44) then there are quite a few really poisonous fruits on the Qutb tree, beginning by Osama Bin-Laden himself. And let us for a second consider on what tree the Qutb fruit has grown? Is that tree not the tree of Ibn Taymiyyah who, if I am not mistaken, considered the Shia as “disbelievers”. So I see very bad things both downstream and upstream of Qutb and even though it has been over 20 years since I read any of Qutb’s works, no amout of otherwise socially progressive views will reassure me about Qutb or his followers, including Hamas or the MB. I realize that you might very much disagree with me and that I might be wrong when I say this, but I came to the conclusion that all forms of Sunni “fundamentalism” (bad word, but you know what I mean) have at least a potential, if not inclination to end up in Salafism/Wahabism/Takfirism/Deobandism or whatever other “ism” one might issue to describe what I usually simply call the “crazies”.
Hamas: yes, they are not corrupt like Fatah and yes, they have social services like Hezbollah. I don’t doubt their sincerely, piety and commitment. What I doubt is their wisdom. When you write that “Hamas is the Hezbollah of Palestine” it does look to me that this is like comparing a kindergartner to a PhD working on a postdoc. One day the kindergartner might get his own degree, but for the time being he is still unable to read properly, nevermind write a thesis.
Is my Hamas cup half-empty: yes, it is. In fact, I don’t see it as even that much full. I have a deep seated suspicion of anything connected to Sunni Islamism (bad word again, but you know what I mean): I have seen too many gross miscalculations from this movement and too many instances when they ended up being their worst enemies.
But I hope for the sake of the Palestinian people that I am wrong and you are right and that Hamas will prove to be the exception to the rule.
Peace to you too,
The Saker
Dear V:
The connection between Sayyid Qutb and al-Qaeda is one of the biggest myths of modern geopolitics. The imaginary connection serves the desire of imperialists to discredit genuine progressive Islamic movements. This is one area I know intimately well from a number of different angles. I utterly reject the propaganda that claims al-Qaeda to be a fruit of a poisonous tree of Qutb. That’s almost akin to blaming the excesses of the Inquisition on Christ.
I sincerely hope that you will relook at Qutb, one of the most genuine human beings that Egypt produced in the 20th century, especially his Social Justice in Islam.
Some of what you have said would seem to confirm what I have suspected for some time: a strong distaste for Sunni ideological movements, if not Sunni Islam itself. That appears to color your assessment of Hamas in a veneer that borders on prejudice if I may be so bold. But I can guarantee you that Qutb was neither Wahhabi nor “fundamentalist” and was about as antithetical to Wahhabism as you can imagine.
Ibn Taymiyyah would have excoriated Qutb. The same goes for certain Deobandis like Maulana Maududi. Both Qutb and Maududi were very progressive thinkers who tried to take Sunni Islam out of a reactionary box. We have to be careful about painting with too broad a brush. The distinction is not between deobandis or brelvis, etc., but between progressive liberation thinkers and backwards reactionaries. You can find, e.g., “deonbandis” on both sides of this issue.
http://www.themadkhalis.com/md/articles/oyama-hasan-al-banna-sayyid-qutb-abu-ala-mawdudi-the-rafidah-and-the-iranian-revolution.cfm
is one very reactionary example of what I’m talking about.
Peace
@Ishamid:Some of what you have said would seem to confirm what I have suspected for some time: a strong distaste for Sunni ideological movements
Guilty as charged.
if not Sunni Islam itself
I plead non-guilty. Sunni Islam is a huge “house” with many “rooms” and with many of them (say, like the Sunni Sufi) I have no issue at all.
The connection between Sayyid Qutb and al-Qaeda is one of the biggest myths of modern geopolitics.
Did Ayman al-Zawahiri not strive to “”to put Qutb’s vision into action.” Was Ayman al-Zawahiri not a spiritual model for OBL? Was al-Zawahiri’s uncle, Mafouz Azzam, not the link between Qutb and al-Zawahiri? Was OBL not a personal friend of Qutb’s brother, Muhammad Qutb? How about the idea of Jahiliyyah – does that not remind of of ibn Taymiyyah’s and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s critique of what they saw as corrupted Islam bordering on being apostates, polytheists, pagans or non-believers?
=====================
many of them (say, like the Sunni Sufi) I have no issue at all.
=====================
Well, everyone likes the Sufis because they tend to be either apolitical or easily coopted by the powers-that-be. (I teach mysticism btw and it’s one of my major areas of research). This does not apply to you, but I get weary of people talking about how much they like non-ideological “Sufi” Islam.
======================
Did Ayman al-Zawahiri not strive to “”to put Qutb’s vision into action.”
======================
No, he did not. He strove to put his own warped vision into action. Some right-wing militias in the US — in the name of the Constitution — claim to put the vision of the “Founding Fathers” into action with nonsense at which those same fathers would be appalled. Zawahiri using a few phrases from Qutb is irrelevant.
======================
Was Ayman al-Zawahiri not a spiritual model for OBL?
======================
More like an ideologue in the latter’s service than a model.
======================
Was al-Zawahiri’s uncle, Mafouz Azzam, not the link between Qutb and al-Zawahiri?
======================
Maybe, but so what? In Egyptian intellectual life it was relatively easy to cross from one circle into another; these were all Egyptians. Everyone is only one or two links separated from everyone else. Qutb was also a member of of the more liberal Wafd party at an early point in his life.
=====================
Was OBL not a personal friend of Qutb’s brother, Muhammad Qutb?
=====================
Muhammad Qutb lived a quiet in Jiddah and had countless people attend his lectures. I have students whose names I have long since forgotten. If one of them claims inspiration from something I said in class, so what? Have you read any of Muhammad Qutb’s books? Definitely NOT a model for OBL.
=====================
How about the idea of Jahiliyyah – does that not remind of of ibn Taymiyyah’s and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s critique of what they saw as corrupted Islam bordering on being apostates, polytheists, pagans or non-believers?
=====================
Ah, there’s the rub! Jahiliyyah is a Quranic/Islamic concept. Sayyid Qutb claimed that Muslim socio-politico-economic institutions had degenerated into Jahiliyyah, in part as a consequence of Imperialism and in part as a consequence of mistakes made in early Islamic history. And he was right! And it approaches the Shīʿī analysis! But the consistent mistake people make is confusing Qutb’s analysis of Jahiliyyah with declaring people apostates, something Qutb _never_ claimed.
Conflating this with Wahhabi takfirism — which emphatically rejects any critique of early Muslim socio-politico–economic history — is just a straw man. Ibn Taymiyyah was a literalist in matters of religion and a reactionary in politics, much like most born-again fundamentalist Christians here. Abdul-Wahhab was much more narrow-minded than Ibn Taymiyyah, and declared everyone who did not agree with him to be an apostate whom one could go to war against for material gain. Qutb had nothing to do with that nonsense, but rather held to the fundamental principle of freedom of conscience and socio-economic justice. The Jahiliyyah he spoke of, and of which the Qur’an speaks, is not one of creed but of socio-politico-economic injustice. That’s a huge distinction.
[contd]
[contd]
Your consistent condemnation of secular-nationalism and its imposition on religious peoples and communities is exactly what Sayyid Qutb is talking about when he speaks of a return to Jahiliyyah. It is the same thing Christ condemns the Pharisees of his time for, the reason God sent messenger after messenger. It is the same thing Dr. Ali Shariati of Iran talks about when he speaks of “religion versus religion”. It’s what Imam Khumayni confronted with the Shah, what Hizbullah confronts with the Hariri alliance, it’s what all genuine Islamic movements confront with Saudi obscurantism, sectarianism, and takfirism. It’s why the Saudis have fought against Qutb from day one.
I strongly suspect Zawahiri was a government agent, like many of the founders of al-Qaedah including OBL himself. Part of a Frankenstein monster that got out of control. But he in no way represents Sayyid Qutb. Gifted with some intelligence he became an ideologue. But he no more represents Qutb than Marx represents Hegel. In integrating takfirism into the al-Qaeda brand of anarchism Zawahiri turns Qutb on his head just as Marx turns Hegel on his head. Hegel would have abhorred and fought communism. Qutb would have abhorred and fought al-Qaeda. Christ would have abhorred and fought the Inquisition.
Every genuine tradition faces three challenges: fanaticism (eg Wahhabism, literalist Christian fundamentalism [eg KKK]), tyranny, and socio-economic injustice (eg marriage of Christianity to big business in the US; Sunni/Shīʿī clerics amalgamating wealth). In the case of Islam in recent times, Imperialism has breeded an anthrax of fanaticism with Saudi money to generate the corruption or destruction of nearly every genuine expression of the Islamic spirit in the past 50 years. That’s where Zawahiri and OBL come from, NOT from Sayyid Qutb. Otherwise the kind of nonsense they spew is simply unsustainable in any Muslim society when left on its own.
Moral: Never throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Peace
@Ishamid: your latest answer must be one of the most interesting comments I ever had on this blog!!
Thanks A LOT for taking the time to try to explain all this to me.
Let me take some time think about all this and I might come back to you on this topic.
One thing I can say already: I am truly blessed to have somebody like you commenting on a topic on which, alas, very few people have in-depth knowledge.
Kind regards,
The Saker
@Ishamid: I strongly suspect Zawahiri was a government agent, like many of the founders of al-Qaedah including OBL himself. Part of a Frankenstein monster that got out of control. But he in no way represents Sayyid Qutb. Gifted with some intelligence he became an ideologue. But he no more represents Qutb than Marx represents Hegel.
What a powerful and thought-provoking parallel!!
@Ishamid: OK. I will re-read Qutb last time I read him was in college for a course on Sharia law, 20 years ago, and I am not even sure that we were given his most interesting books.
Of all of this books, which one would you most recommend I read?
Thanks!!
============
Of all of this books, which one would you most recommend I read?
============
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Justice-Islam-Sayyid-Qutb/dp/1889999113/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304219801&sr=8-1
Hamid Algar’s introduction is very good. He’s a Shīʿī scholar who also translated into English the most useful available collection of Imam Khumayni’s revolutionary and spiritual writings and lectures. Algar’s essay on Wahhabism is also one of the wittiest and amusing exposes I’ve read on that topic.
I do _not_ claim that Sayyid Qutb is correct or consistent in everything he says. Like Shariati, he is a passionate visionary with a powerful pen. But there is a spirit that flows in his writings — he was one of the great masters of Arabic literary writing of 20th century Egypt — that is bigger than any ideological precision. His historical and Islamic criticism of the hitherto irreproachable “heroes” of early Sunni Islam represents a revolution of consciousness that the Saudis and others have spent untold effort to drown out ever since. His resurrecting the clarion call of Abu Dharr — one of the heroes of Shīʿī Islam — to economic justice is nothing short of electrifying.
In fact, there was a period from about 1930 till about 1975 where Egypt truly flowered in a self-reflective and progressive critique with a view to resurrecting the Islamic spirit. Alas, that has been nearly stamped out entirely in the succeeding generation by tyranny in Egypt and fanaticism cultivated by the Saudis.
Happy reading and
Peace
@Ishamid: thanks a lot for the recommendation. I will get the book even if I have to get it in paper (I already found “Milestones” online, so its in my ebook reader).
Good night, many thanks, and peace to you!
@Ishamid: found it!!
@Everybody else:
Here is the link to the book:
http://www.4shared.com/document/f7dBfS-a/Social_Justice_in_Islam.html
Long live the Internet and free information sharing!
@Everybody: grrrrrrr (angry growling of frustration)
The link above only has 25 pages: just the introduction to Sayyed Qutb’s “Social Justice”…
I will keep looking though.
(Milestones can be found here: majalla.org/books/2005/qutb-nilestone.pdf)
Both sides (Israel and Palestinian) countries should have peace talks then this issue will be solved otherwise this issue will continue for a long time and neighbouring countries will suffer along with these countries and also this conflict will be one of the reason for world war so we have to solve this problem immediately United Nations should negotiate with these countries.