Talk:Sayyid Qutb/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Deletions

A big chunk of sourced material was deleted without explanation. I have restored it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

Protest over

I have to take issue with several deletions made recently

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sayyid_Qutb&diff=next&oldid=301094857

(edit summary: "True Islam would transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim. " This statement is completely fabricated, without any source.)

Well there are certainly sources in his book Milestones that support it.

Islam cannot accept or agree to a situation which is half-Islam and half-Jahiliyyah ... The mixing and co-existence of the truth and falsehood is impossible. [Milestones p.130]

The change from this Jayiliyya, which has encompassed the earth, to Islam is vast and far-reaching; the Islamic life is the opposite of all modes of jahili life, whether ancient or modern. [Milestones p.134]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sayyid_Qutb&diff=next&oldid=301398221

Whether he espoused dictatorship, or later rule by Sharia law with essentially no government at all, defensive jihad or later offensive jihad, (deleted with no edit summary)

see the article on his manifesto and its concept of freedom

to be continued --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sayyid_Qutb&diff=301429535&oldid=301426396

This was deleted: Qutb pointed out that the Shura chapter of the Qur'an was revealed during the Mekkan period, and therefore, it does not deal with the problem of government.<reff>Qutb, Sayyed, Fi Zilal Quran</reff> It makes no reference to elections and calls only for the ruler to consult some of the ruled, as a particular case of the general rule of Shura.<reff>Sivan, Radical Islam, 1985, p.73</reff> Qutb argued (at that time) a 'just dictatorship' would be more Islamic.<reff>al-Akhbar, August 8, 1952</reff>
edit summary: (No source (used Fi Zilal al Quran w/o specifity). Qutb couldn't have espoused that opinion since he viewed it as anarchy, which he considered worse than dictorship. (see Milestones Ch. 7 for context))

please do not delete sourced material. we have to take the judgement of a notable scholar like Sivan over that of a wikipedia editor (especially one with no talk page.) I'll get rid of "the Fi Zilal al Quran w/o specifity" but not the Sivan, Radical Islam, 1985, p.73

In any case it is a wild jump to say that the statement It makes no reference to elections and calls only for the ruler to consult some of the ruled, as a particular case of the general rule of Shura, is a reference to "anarchy." For most of the history of the Muslim world rulers have not been chosen by democratic elections, that doesn't mean Muslims have lived in "anarchy"! --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hello BL, I'm at work so I must do this freehand. In Reference to “True Islam would transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim”. I assume your contention was that everything non-Muslim needs to be transformed, but that was certainly not the position Qutb took. The quotes you used on p.’s 130 &134 don’t support that opinion either. Essentially, I think you’re confusing “Islam” with “non-Muslim”. Qutb statements, while perfectly logical from the Islamic point of view, are not in no way advocating that non-Muslim practices must be bad because they are non-Muslim. Their validity is based on the practice itself, not on who did it. Had that been the case, Qutb certainly would have supported his Prophet’s Sunnah of learning from non-Muslim whatever is useful. He wouldn’t even have moved to the West for an education. Morever, before anyone brings up a timeline stating that was before Milestones, I’d remind them that his view of education was not limited to Muslims Countries, especially since he’d had such a falling out with the educational system in Egypt after returning back from the US. Qutb’s felt strongly that humanity had lots to offer, which is why he said it needed protection from (what he considered was) human bondage.

• I leave room for the fact that you’re reading these works in english, and translation’s of Qutb’s works are in serious need of revision. Qutb was a poet, he wrote like a poet, an impression no english speaker would grasp (at no fault of their own). What this means is that his words should not be translated literally, but in the context of the arabic lexicon, especially that of the poets of his generation, who used artistic expression to fight things like communism as practiced at the east, and democracy, as practices at home (and the west).
• The other statement regarding “Whether he espoused dictatorship” has a major flaw. Qutb hated dictatorships more than he hated jahiliya. According to him, jahiliyah could be unlearned, but dictatorship had to be voiced against, which in his view required a sacrifice and came at a steep price. Don’t forget that he was hung by what he saw was a dictatorship, Nasser’s regime. I mean seriously, you did read Milestones right? Even superficial critics admit it reads like an activists manifesto against tyrany, and I don’t mean that in the useless-republican-say-anything-that-means-nothing way.
• Regarding the history of the Muslim world, I agree with you, but probably not the for same reasons. Historically, the muslim world was not ruled by Islam, with major exception being the first 4 Caliphs (the 4th up for contention since Uthman bin Affan’s murder complicated matters). A few decades later there was the descendant of Umar ibn al Khattab, who essentially was thrown into the Caliphite but didn’t want it. But nevertheless, he was elected via Shura. There might be a few others but that’s not relevant. My point is, the Shura is an established practice sanctioned by the Qur’an. However, the majority of Muslim leaders in Muslim history were not practitioners of Islamic creed, and did not implement mutual consultation. This fact goes against the commandment verses, it’s not supported by them. There’s isn’t enough fair information in this page. It’s too negative and doesn’t fit an encyclopedia.
• While you are free to do so, me thinks Emmanuel Sivan's source material was an error in education, regarding anything Qutb related. You might as well read jewish history from scholars who happen to be soft supremacists. jusayin. ~speakoutfreely (talk), 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BL Response

Hello speakoutfreely,

Please explain how your statement: Qutb statements, ... are not in no way advocating that non-Muslim practices must be bad because they are non-Muslim.

... is in any way in harmony with Qutb's statements: Islam cannot accept or agree to a situation which is half-Islam and half-Jahiliyyah ... The mixing and co-existence of the truth and falsehood is impossible. [Milestones p.130]

The change from this Jayiliyya, which has encompassed the earth, to Islam is vast and far-reaching; the Islamic life is the opposite of all modes of jahili life, whether ancient or modern. [Milestones p.134]

is not falsehood bad? And if Jayiliyya is bad and has "encompassed the earth", does that not indicate Qutb thought all non-Islamic life/behavior/society/civilization/whatever is bad? Do you deny that Qutb saw human life as divided into two mutually exclusive states - Islam and ignorance (Jayiliyya)? That there is no middle ground? I mean if some non-Islamic life/behavior/society/civilization/whatver was OK, wouldn't he have said so?

As for the translation - bear in mind this is an english language encyclopedia and the translation of Qutb was not by any orientalists but by a supporter(s). --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your statement: “Whether he espoused dictatorship” has a major flaw. Qutb hated dictatorships more than he hated jahiliya.

No, he did not hate dictatorships. He hated unpious, unIslamic, or Jayiliyya dictatorships. By the time Milestones was written it seems he changed his mind and thought state enforcement of true sharia would be unnecessary, but his earlier call for a pious dictatorship has a notable, reliable source. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your statement:... the majority of Muslim leaders in Muslim history were not practitioners of Islamic creed, and did not implement mutual consultation.

Do you have any notable/reliable source that agrees with this statement??? They may not have been rightly guided, but "not practitioners of Islamic creed"??? In any case how does that disprove the deleted sentence: Shura chapter of the Qur'an ... makes no reference to elections and calls only for the ruler to consult some of the ruled, as a particular case of the general rule of Shura. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

SOF

Hey BL,

I’ll explain my statements momentarily, but first some caveats are in order. AFA language is concerned, a common fear is that many non-arabs lose the contextual understanding of Qutb’s work once they’ve been orphaned into another language. They aren't equipped with familiarity of Egyptian culture & politics, removing much of the vital nuance Qutb readers took for granted. For example, Qutb couldn't have possibly predicted Milestones would reach such heights of acceptance (and criticism). A major portion of the book devotes itself to the idea that jahiliyah is harmful and Islam is the solution. That's easy to see. But. What's misunderstood unfortunately is the view that all non-muslim traditions and practices are, from an Islamic point of view, bad. And absurd and invented retelling of Qutb's thoughts. This is totally foreign to what Qutb and his original audience understood. All actions are based on their intentions, that is the first rule in Islam for human relations (Sahih Bukhari). It would be ridiculous and contradictory (to basic Islamic teachings) to suggest that Islam must take over all other ways. Even a laymen muslim would have pointed out that logical fallacy and shown Islam could never have spread under such moronic (and destructive) requirements. It would have gone against the history of Muhammad, which Qutb was very fond of, and hence, Qutb would have never bothered to study abroad or cared enough to critique his own Government. Qutb was many things, but he was never daft in his approach. Even in his commentary regarding art and poetry, he was particular.

Regarding Qutb’s hatred of dictatorships as opposed limiting said hatred to Jahiliha dictatorships; according to Qutb, a dictatorship is in itelf unIslamic, and among the worst consequences of a jahiliyah society, most likely because there was no way of establishing justice. Whether a tyrant is muslim or not makes no difference, it is morally repulsive and ignorant to rule in such fashion (a sly insult to Nasser at the time, one which Nasser took personally). In fact, such regimes were sometimes born out of ignorant and unmindful societies. Qutb’s major objections were with the arab culture, much more than the american counterpart - this is proven by that fact that his harshest lines were usually aimed at the arabs directly. The most common understanding of Qutb’s works is that only the education and the will of the people can truly suffice in rallying against dictators, especially those in the Muslims World. Like Egypt. Which calls itself a democracy but is really a one party dictatorship (currently helmed by Mubarak). Qutb was jailed (and eventually hanged) not too long after Milestones made the rounds in Egypt, he never got into the details of “how” the Muslims should do this. And if you allow me to deviate for a moment, I’ll just state that the extremists used Qutb ‘s Milestones precisely because it didn’t have details and could be easily manipulated. There are other muslim extremists who want the same thing like Al Qaeda but they actually hate Qutb because they think him too passive, talking about human rights and all that jazz. In any case, this happened (and feel free to disagree with me) almost by accident. What I mean is, since these extremists failed at overthrowing their governments back home, and had infact, unwittingly incurred the hatred of the arabs, they decided turn their attention and attack the United States for what they saw was crimes by the West. They’d actually hoped to gain some kind sympthathy, a la David & Golliath way. This is the same mentality used by petty criminals in the early 30’s, (Ma Baker, Bonnie & Clyde, etc.). Just like them, we get a bunch of no-names rising to infamy because of an alarmist culture. What ended up happening of course is that we decided to wipe them out completely and anyone that supported them, even though it hasn't worked yet. The truth is people like Al Qaeda justify their means because of an end. And end that in my opinion is totally unsustainable and not even desirable (except to Al Qaeda). The whole thing is absolutely deplorable.

On the other hand you have Qutb's works being manipulated into preposterous schemes. Qutb did not like violence for the sake of violence. Not only was it a terrible means, but he'd just got done chastising the Americans for loving violence in sport. Not to mention that he simply was not convinced that such methods work in eliminating ignorance. I mean, the guy was a historian. See Fi Dhalal il Qur’an, Chap. 7 (among other chapters), where Qutb cites examples detailing his conclusions (start at verse 103). See his comments on the Pharaoh who slaughtered the Children of Israel during the time of Moses. In Milestones, Qutb comments warns against extreme steps in removing jahiliyah and implementing Islam,

"This cannot come about by going along a few steps with Jahiliyyah, nor by now severing relations with it and removing ourselves to a separate corner; never. The correct procedure is to mix with discretion, give and take with dignity, speak the truth with love, and show the superiority of the Faith with humility."- last paragraph of Chapter 10, Milestones.

Pages 130 & 134 that you quoted are theologically sound, but emphasis on theology. This does not, nor has it ever, meant that Islam is limited by anything non-muslim. Not one Madhhad expresses such an opinion (the 4 major schools of thought in Islam, or any other for that matter). What Islam is limited by are those vices as determined by its teachings. Don’t forget that the pagan arabs had serious vices, but fortunately for them, they were a people deemed so worthless that not even the Romans & Persian bothered to invade them.

Islam contains, especially in Sharia, acceptability of non-Islamic realities. I believe that was how Qutb formed his opinions. There is an entire jurisprudence based on Muslim minorities living in non-Muslims countries, as well as one for non-Muslims living in Muslim countries (the latter sanctifies the rights of non-Muslims, all based on Qur'an & Sunnah). More importantly, when non-Muslims have something of value to offer, which they undoubtedly do, Muslims are greatly encourage to learn from them. There are many ahadith (sayings of Muhammad) and ayat (lit. signs, but aka verses from the Qur'an) relating the superiority of seeking knowledge, and that a knowledgable person is much better off and one dedicates himself to simple worship. According to Qutb, seeking knowledge was in itself part of worship. As far as protecting rights of non-Muslims, aside from the Qur'an, one of the more famous ahadith comes from Sahih Muslim collection (and by al-Nisai collection), with which Qutb was undoubtedly familiar,

“ Whoever harms a Dhimmi will not enter Paradise”

Just for clarity, I judge Qutb's works keeping in mind the stage he was in when he wrote them, I feel comfortable enough to be able to filter and see patterns, or evolution of thought.

That's my take.~speakoutfreely (talk), 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have some notable scholar complaining about the loss in translation of Qutb to English we can make mention in the Qutb article that the scholar says that a book by him has translation problems. But personal opinion that a book or books was was mistranslated aint allowed in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mate, did youread the post? I have no problem with the translation, I merely pointed out that lack of context can easily lead to confusion, misinterpretation. Much of the Qutb page is riddled with juvenile address. Qutb is being painted as some kind of disgruntled terrorist godfather engaged in religious cultural warfare. This is not the way most people view him, the read is laughable (and sad). I'm not trying to convince you or change your mind, I don't care to. I'm only interested in objectivity, which can't be achieved if only one (imo ridiculously unrealistic) side is mostly shown, while the other (imo more valid) side is masked. That, afaik, is also not allowed in wikipedia.~speakoutfreely (talk), 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.55.67 (talk)

If you have some notable scholar complaining the lack of context in translations of his work that can easily lead to confusion, misinterpretation ... we can make mention in the Qutb article --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you know that 95% of the material include in the Qutb page is not by scholars. I see neocons and anti-intellectuals as majority of sources (mho). So why the double standard? - speakoutfreely (talk), 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well disputing the context of a translation sound like a scholarly activity, but yes, most of the sources on the article look more like journalists then scholars, so if you have a journalist who argues something like "Qutb's works [are] being manipulated into preposterous schemes," it can be in the article. You just can't delete anything that says he wanted a pious dictatorship, based on "I feel Qutb must have hated dictatorship". --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Uhh, this is getting repetitive mate....and calling some of them journalists is a bit of a strech, no? All the mistakes in the articles can be proved wrong simply by using Qutb's writtings. Had people actually read his work before recounting what they heard from someone else, they'd know he spoke against dictatorships in specifity and in general, and more importantly, that he never viewed them in subcategories. Qutb said piety does not mix with such elements, it wouldn't even be allowed to! So the idea of a "pious dictatorship", besides being an oxymoron, and somewhat funny, goes against basic Islamic principles in the Qur'an. You can see this in Vol. 6 of Fi Dhilal al-Qur'an. I know most people are too lazy to see it for themselves (a sad state), so I'm forced to give an excerpt, where he recounts the victimization of jews as his finale, p154, "Tyrants are always ready to commit any crime, without hesitation, in order to retain power....That is tyranny: ignorant and stupid, but at the same time arrogant and conceited.". And on p159, "The Children of Israel suffered persecution on a similar scale by Pharaoh and his clique, as stated in Sūrah 28, The Story, in which we read: “Pharaoh made himself a tyrant in the land. He divided his people into casts, one group of which he persecuted, putting their sons to death and sparing only their daughters. Truly, he was an evildoer.” (28: 4). This is characteristic of tyranny everywhere, in all periods of history. It still resorts today to the same methods it employed centuries ago."- speakoutfreely (talk), 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. "he spoke against dictatorships in specifity." Where?

Your quotes are about "tyranny". I don't see the word "dictatorship". Apparently when Qutb wrote the quoted letter he did not believe that dictatorships were by nature tyranical or unvirtuous.

You cannot delete sourced material, certainly not sourced material from a scholar, based on your interpretation ("basic Islamic principles in the Qur'an", "pious dictatorship" is an oxymoron) that Qutb was against any kind of dictatorship. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion in lead

Have restored the phrase
has been described as "the man whose ideas would shape Al Qaeda." (from the Guardian article).
The WP:LEAD of a wikipedia article should be about what is notable about the subject of the article. While a great many people believe "Civilization should favor humanity and not act against it". and say things like that, very few can be said have shaped al Qaeda. That's why the first quote is in the lead and not the second. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My edits were reverted by Haberstr so I went back and checked the citations.
I found the pious bromide "Civilization should favor humanity, not act against it", has five citations
<reff>PBS program America at the crossroads "Qutb, founder [sic, he was an official but not a founder] of the Muslim Brotherhood, visits America in 1948" </ref>
<reff>The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis</ref>
<reff name="Irwin">Robert Irwin, "Is this the man who inspired Bin Laden?" The Guardian (November 1, 2001).</ref>
<reff>Paul Berman, "The Philosopher of Islamic Terror", New York Times Magazine (March 23, 2003).</ref>
<reff> name="A Lesson In Hate">David Von Drehle, A Lesson In Hate Smithsonian Magazine</ref>
Not one of them mentions that quote! The citations do NOT back up that quote.

The idea that Qutb has anything to do with al Qaeda is singled out with to one guy: According to writer William Cran, Qutb is also "the man whose ideas would shape Al Qaeda." no ciation given. Funny thing is ALL of the citations alleging to support "Civilization should favor humanity ..." have something to say about Qutb's connection to al Qaeda. They were moved from accurately backing up "Qutb has been called `the man whose ideas would shape Al Qaeda.`" to supporting something they don't: "Civilization should favor humanity, not act against it".

IOW the lead had been rewritten in the last couple of months to make it sound like (only) one person thinks there is a connection between Qutb and bin Laden, and giving prominence to a pious banality (for which there is no proof Qutb ever uttered it. A Google search shows it apearing only in this article), and totally messing up the citations in the process.

Have rewritten the lead to cleanup this travesty. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely Ludicrous Lead Summary

I don't what what you guys are fighting over, but Head Summary is unfitting for the article. Your biases are clear and your censorship of each other is deplorable. This needs to be heavily revised, most specifically towards the end, where you've clearly made up your mind about what the public can only see of Mr. Qutb. Madesinasia (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Madesinasia

Another revert of lead, `Civilization` quote

... This time by Dontkillmeimanoob an editor with no user page. Please take your concerns to the talk page. Dontkillmeimanoob, the lead you've edited now gives the quote on civilization two sources that do not support it, and gives only one person (William Cran) identifying his role as inspiration for al-qaeeda while there are many. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have edited it to try and satisfy both sides, but the line: he saw was an obsession with materialism and violence.[2][3] In his estimate "Civilization should favor humanity, not act against it".[citation needed] is very problematic. There is no source for the quote and in any case it does not do justice to his concerns about the US which go way beyond "materialism and violence". --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is sad, coz Dontkillmenoob was right. You've twice removed that source, and claim there is no citation, and that this is "very problematic". Had you actually wached the video that you yourself use to state Qutb's ideas influence Al Qaeda, you'd see that in the section called "Qutb, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, visits America in 1948", at interval 2:21 exactly, Qutb is quoted as saying those exact words about Civilization when writing to one of his students. This is evidence that people cherry pick bits and pieces from sources w/o bothering to examine them. Also, on a side note, further proof that those who think that Qutb influenced Al Qaeda are so misinformed that they also call him the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. I actually feel for people who come here looking to learn, only to be subjected to juvenile based research and misinformation. Speakoutfreely (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: edit edit summary: "Stop removing citation and stating "Citation Needed". The Citation is the video titled "Qutb, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood" specifically at interval 2:21, I quoted him verbatim."

That's news to me. Why don't you put that in the citation? As I said, the text of the quote is found nowhere on Google. The citation takes you to a page with introductory text and links to three videos clips. How is anyone supposed to know its on `"Qutb, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood" specifically at interval 2:21,` or even that it's on one of the videos?

But there's a second problem. "I quoted him verbatim." Yes, you quoted the student/disciple being interviewed verbatim. But he was describing what he got from Qutb. That student does not say "Sayyad Qutb said: `Civilization should favor humanity, not act against it.`" The context does not sound like a quote of Qutb at all.

.... which may well explain why the quote is found nowhere else. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"is evidence that people cherry pick bits and pieces from sources w/o bothering to examine them ... "

I put it to you that this civilization quote is cherrypicking. There is no evidence Qutb actually said it, and it doesn't give a hint of what made him unique and remembered. 99% of the world's population is in favor of Civilization favoring humanity. What made Qutb unique are ideas such as are found in his manifesto Milestones. Thousands, probably hundreds of thousand of Muslims, read these. Here are a few:

Look at this capitalism with its monopolies, its usury and whatever else is unjust in it; at this individual freedom, devoid of human sympathy and responsibility for relatives except under the force of law; at this materialistic attitude which deadens the spirit; at this behavior, like animals, which you call `free mixing of the sexes;` at this vulgarity which you call `emancipation of women;` at these unfair and cumbersome laws of marriage and divorce, which are contrary to the demands of practical life; and at Islam, with its logic, beauty, humanity and happiness ... these facts, when seen in the light of Islam made the American people blush. Yet there are people -- exponent of Islam -- who are defeated before this filth ... they search for resemblances to Islam among this rubbish heap of the West ... [Milestones, p.139]

The Islamic society is, by its very nature, the only civilized society, and the jahili societies, in all their various forms, are backward societies. It is necessary to elucidate this great truth. [Milestones, p.94]

... the Western world realizes that Western civilization is unable to present any healthy values for the guidance of mankind. It knows that it does not possess anything which will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence. [Milestones, p.7]

--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Those quotes have nothing to with our current discussion, but if you like, I can explain them to you in another topic. Let's get back on track please. You wrote,

• "the text of the quote is found nowhere on Google".

I'm not sure if you're serious here, but are you rejecting evidence because it was hard to Google? Maybe you're kidding, I can't tell. Let me condense what just happened. Some people watched the PBS documentary you originally cited, and in order to accurately reflect Qutbs thoughts, used a quote from a letter written by Qutb himself. You claimed the quote wasn't there. So it was pointed it out you. You then claimed you didn't actually watch the documentary. I thought at first you were misinformed, which is why I tried to explain Qutb's surroundings and the aftermath of daft extremists like Al Qaeda. But now I'm like....What! Don't you bother to check out your own source before editing Wikipedia articles?

You then wrote,

• "The context does not sound like a quote of Qutb at all".

And what do you know really know of Qutb. You've so far confused Islamic theology with muslim practice (and malpractice), don't understand the culture of muslims artists (both of which made Qutb's persona) and judging by this talk, aren't familiar w/ egyptian history & politics. There something else you should know about Qutb. He didn't like lazy intellectuals. Speakoutfreely (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to reply

Those quotes have nothing to with our current discussion, I guess the relevance I think they have is they express the beliefs of Qutb that are more distinctive then the "Civilization should favor humanity" quote in the lead, and would explain the inspiration of Qutbists like bin Laden.

"the text of the quote is found nowhere on Google". I'm not sure if you're serious here .... Here's the search . Actually I have to correct myself, it is found on google .... but just in this article and a duplicate of the article. Yes, the quote is in the documentary, but it's not on the webpage for the documentary that link leads you to.

You claimed the quote wasn't there. So it was pointed it out you. You then claimed you didn't actually watch the documentary. I thought at first you were misinformed ...
Don't accuse me of lying. I'm not going to watch three different video clips to verify a citation, and I doubt many other people are either.

As a token of goodwill and because I think you made an honest mistake thinking I was not being honest, I'm going to change the ciation to add the information telling where to find the quote but I think it should be replaced with one that is more representative of his views. (For example, I did watch that video a few years ago on TV, but I sure didn't have any memory of that quote. It didn't match the rest of his views.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the quote (assuming it is a direct quote from Qutb and not a paraphrasing of him by a disciple for the benefit of a Western audience) is that's it's cherry picked. It does not reflect Qutb's views in general.

"Whenever Islam stood up with the universal declaration that God's Lordship should be established over the entire earth ... the usurpers of God's authority on earth have struck out against it fiercely and have never tolerated it. It became incumbent upon Islam to strike back and release man throughout the earth from the grip of these usurpers. [Milestones, p.65]

[The Islamic movement to reestablish Islam] uses ... physical power and Jihaad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the jahili system which prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs but forces them to obey their erroneous ways and make them serve human lords [non-Islamic government] instead of the Almighty Lord. (Milestones, p.55) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Authors talking about the connection between al Qaeda and Qutb

• Is this the man who inspired Bin Laden? Robert Irwin on Sayyid Qutb, the father of modern Islamist fundamentalism. The Guardian, Thursday 1 November 2001 [This is the title and lead for a post-9-11 newspaper article]
• The Philosopher of Islamic Terror By PAUL BERMAN New York Times, Sunday, March 23, 2003 [From the article:] "... And at the heart of that single school of thought stood, until his execution in 1966, a philosopher named Sayyid Qutb -- the intellectual hero of every one of the groups that eventually went into Al Qaeda, ..... "

• A Lesson In Hate by David Von Drehle, Smithsonian Magazine [First sentence of article:] "Before Sayyid Qutb became a leading theorist of violent jihad, he was a little-known Egyptian writer sojourning in the United States,..." --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Out of the Shadows: GETTING AHEAD OF PRISONER RADICALIZATION [From page one of document, section on "Background Information":] "Prisons have long been places where extremist ideology and calls to violence could find willing recruits. Recently, the spiritual philosopher of al Qaeda, Sayyid Qutb, wrote the radical Islamist manifesto Ma'alim fi al-Tariq (Milestones along the Road) while in an Egyptian prison." --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Evolution of Al-Qaeda: Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi [Perpectives on CUrrent History and World Events. section on `Sayyid Qutb's "Milestones"`] "The al-Qaeda paradigm can be traced back to an earlier model normally associated with Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb. In his last book, Milestones on the Road (1965), ...."

• The Osama Bin Laden I Know By Peter L. Bergen

Dispute on deletion of `just dictatorship`

[Pasted from Haberstr talk page]

Please respond to my question. Why did you feel the need to delete it was necessary to purge the `moral corruption` of the overthrown monarchy with a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone from the Qutb article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What is on the page should be a consensual compromise between your point of view and that of the person with whom you have been having a very very long and detailed disagreement with on the talk page. Your rendition of Qutb's point of view makes it seems as if he contends that in all times and contexts he supports instituting "a 'just dictatorship' that would 'grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.'" That doesn't seem supported by the facts, but that he would support or would've supported a dictatorship in some contexts seems accurate to me, and perhaps roughly halfway between the two points of view taking up most of the talkpage.Haberstr (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article section:

"Whether he espoused dictatorship[17], or later rule by Sharia law with essentially no government at all,[5].... Qutb argued (at that time) that it was necessary to purge the `moral corruption` of the overthrown monarchy with a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.`[21]" (italics added)

... i.e. the wording clearly does not "makes it seems as if he contends that in all times and contexts he supports instituting "a 'just dictatorship' that would 'grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.'" --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your revision leads the reader to think that, at that time, Qutb advocated dictatorship as his general preference, rather than as what he something he compared positively to one or more of the options he felt were available at that historic moment in Egypt. Also, wouldn't anyone with a brain state that a just dictatorship is better (okay, and more Islamic) than a tyrannous dictatorship? That's not an important enough 'insight' into Qutb's thinking to warrant placement in a limited or even large encyclopedia space. So, your 'dictatorship' sentence about Qutb seems pointless unless it implies something to you that doesn't seem to be there on its face.Haberstr (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If I have time I am going to get some conflict resolution as I do not think you are making any sense at all. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think (not certain), he's saying you're taking Qutb's ideas out of context, possibly as a result of seeing something in them that either isn't there; or, that wouldn't occur to the average reasonable reader. My contention would be different, in that your censorship in editing the Qutb article results from being intentionally unaware of the sources you cite, which you admitted to in our discussion above. This is further evidenced by the fact that you cannot find a single or writing from Qutb that "espouses a just dictatorship". You can't even find those two words together in all his works (I actually looked for it). Qutb wrote quite a bit, but never this. Image the equivalent. Someone says, "Whether Bush was transvestite pseudo-nazi or simply an overzealous crusader is arguable!"........ No. It's not. There is no proof of the former at all. To state so is woefully misleading. Speakoutfreely (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please abide by wikipedia guidlines of WP:Civil and WP:Talk and do not accuse others of bad faith.

What do you mean I `cannot find a single or writing from Qutb that "espouses a just dictatorship"`?

Qutb's opinion that it it was necessary to purge the `moral corruption` of the overthrown monarchy with a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone,` comes from a letter to al-Akhbar (a newspaper) dated, August 8, 1952, quoted in the book Radical Islam by Sivan, 1985, p.73. It was in the deleted text I'm protesting. Did you not see it? Were you unaware of it? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally suspected you didn't have the actual statement! Some selected words from an alarming book called Radical Islam (shivers). Difference is, the quotes I used are in complete agreement with Qutb's writings, not contrary to them. Israeli academics are not exactly trustworthy sources when it comes to covering Muslims & Politics. Would you go to a Nazi to learn about Jewish History? Speakoutfreely (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So you saw the citation but you thought it was a lie? Why didn't you say so instead of claiming I couldn't `find a single or writing from Qutb that "espouses a just dictatorship"`?

And are you claiming the source is not legitimate because the author is Jewish?

For the benefit of "lazy intellectuals" who don't want to check the book with the quote, or who think the author is lying, I'd like to point out that democracy was not always so popular in the Arab, Muslim or Third world. Anyone who's read Midaq Alley by Naguib Mafouz may remember the sleezy campaigning politician who tries to get the endorsment of the morally corrupt cafe owner. At the time of the Nasser Coup many thought constitutional democracy was a product of imperialism and a bygone era, and dictatorship would be a more effecient, vigorous, patriotic form of government.

In the words of Qutb: "Democracy in the West has become infertile to such an extent that it is borrowing from the systems of the Eastern bloc, especially in the economic system, under the name of socialism. [Milestones, p.7] --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I claimed it because the concept is nowhere to be found. And when I pressed for it, you cite it not from Qutb, but from ES's book, Radical Islam. Neither the words nor the concept of a "pious dictatorship" is in any of the twenty four books Qutb wrote. It's not in any of his articles. It can't be found in any of his letters. Moreover, all the writings I've just mentioned point to the opposite, that all dictatorships are wrong, that only the arrogant use such methods and that they are stupid to implement, since they never end well for the dictator. So the answer is an emphatic yes. I doubt it very much when an Israeli agent like Emmanuel S. writes an alarmist book while having a visible and vested interest in propagating the Israeli occuptation (warring with its critics) and uses a quote that cannot be found anywhere else in the world, from a State sponsered newspaper that isn't exactly well known to keep such records, with a quote by Qutb that contraditcs all his other works, before and after 1952..... How ironic, perhaps if Nasser had read that very article ES pastes selectively in his book, the whole matter would have been attributed to a simple misunderstanding and both those guys would have realized they're on the same side. ~ Speakoutfreely (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, given the choice between taking your word for it that you have read all of Qutb's books and letters, and this that contradicts all his other works on the one hand, and the word of a published scholar (Emmanuel Sivan) on the other, I think the wikipedia definition of a reliable source WP:RS is a bit closer to Sivan. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW "Democracy in the West has become infertile to such an extent that it is borrowing from the systems of the Eastern bloc, especially in the economic system, under the name of socialism." [Milestones, p.7] doesn't sound like the words of a hater of dictatorship.

And what evidence do you have that Emmanuel S. is an "Israeli agent" or has a "vested interest in propagating the Israeli occuptation"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed my head tilting to the right coz the rebuttal paragraphs are shifting that way. Anyway, this quote you've pasted and deconstructed is exactly what a straw man argument is. How in the world does that quote mean he advocated dictatorship? As to Mr. Sivan, this is my opinion based on his work and position in Israel. And since when was dissension a bad thing? By that measure, even american who finds faults in democracies is also secretly seeking dictatorship! Would you consider Socrates as such, even though he lived in a corrupt democracy, warned of its dangers and died because of them (sound familiar?) as an advocate of dictatorships?? ~ Speakoutfreely (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well he didn't say "democracy must be invigorate," he was saying it was "infertile." Does that not sound like he meant it had no future?? As the article says he later advocated no government at all, since Shariah law there being no need for humans to create or enforce laws, but the point of my quote is that this is not inconsistant with the view of someone who might like dictatorship since at the time all this was written the two competing forms of governance found in the world were democracy and dictatorship. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record the full quote where the dictatorship remark came from is:

While [Abul Ala] Maudoodi exerted himself to prove that Islam is democratic as evidenced by the institution of shura... Sayyid Qutb was skeptical of that approach already in the early 1950s. In an `open letter` to General [Muhammad] Naguib published two weeks after the July 1952 Revolution, he excoriated the constitution of the ancien regime as a vehicle of moral corruption; no purge was possible, he argued, without a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.` (Source: letter in al-Akhbar, August 8, 1952.) <reff>Sivan, Radical Islam, 1985, p.73</reff>

Restoring more text

Restored a big deletion --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The deleter, Dontkillmeimanoob, claims fyi, some references listed aren't accurate, infact they can't be matched to the content.

Here is more about some of the references:
"From his early life, Qutb was plagued with poor health that dictated many limitations on his work. He lived in Halwan because of lung troubles and needed dry, sunny weather. He looked pale with sleepy eyes. His illness was one of the reasons for his introvertedness, isolation, depression and concern." (source: Hamudah, Sayyid Qutb p.60-61 quoted in (Radical Islamic Fundamentalism: the Ideological and Political Discourse of Sayyid Qutb by Ahmad S. Moussalli, American University of Beirut, 1992 p.35) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"In Al-¨adaÅ la al-ijtimaÅ ¨iyya fÅõ al-islaÅ m [Social Justice in Islam], for example, Qutb quotes approvingly the verse in Suraat al-Nisa ’ (4:32) which states, among other things, that `Men are the managers of women’s affairs’" (SHEPARD, William (1996) Sayyid Qutb and Islamic Activism: a translation and critical analysis of Social Justice in Islam (Leiden, E.J. Brill)., p.62).(quoted in Calvert, John (2000), "`The World is an Undutiful Boy!`: Sayyid Qutb's American Experience," Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Vol. II, No.1, pp.87-103:98.

"He [Qutb] explains that he paid a personal price for the transformation in middle-class Cairene society of male/female relations. Unwilling to choose a bride from among the `dishonorable’ women with whom he made contact in the public sphere of the work place, and unable, for lack of the necessary family connections, to meet a woman of sufficient moral purity and discretion, Qutb reconciled himself to a life of bachelorhood; he never married (Qutb 1940a, 45± 46).). (quoted in Calvert, John (2000), "`The World is an Undutiful Boy!`: Sayyid Qutb's American Experience," Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Vol. II, No.1, pp.87-103:98. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"He [Qutb] seethed at the brutishness of the people around him [in Greeley, Colorado]: the way they salted their watermelon and drank their tea unsweetened and watered their lawns. He found the muscular football players appalling and despaired of finding a barber who could give a proper haircut. As for the music: “The American’s enjoyment of jazz does not fully begin until he couples it with singing like crude screaming,” Qutb wrote when he returned to Egypt. “It is this music that the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires.”

"`Jazz,’ he says, `is the favorite music [of America]. It is a type of music invented by [American] Blacks to please their primitive tendencies and desire for noise.’ High culture, Qut½b says, must be imported from Europe, and it is only America’ s great wealth which makes this possible. (quoted in Calvert, John (2000), "`The World is an Undutiful Boy!`: Sayyid Qutb's American Experience," Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Vol. II, No.1, pp.87-103:98.

"`The American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity,` he wrote. `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.` These curvy jezebels pursued boys with `wide, strapping chest[s]` and `ox muscles,` Qutb added with disgust." David Von Drehle, A Lesson In Hate Smithsonian Magazine --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, I reasoned that your links were inaccurate was because you dubbed Sayyid Qutb with a title that only the PBS doc used. None of the other ones stated anything similar. I don't know why you keep pasting the same quotes and the same links in different place, as if that would strengthen the merits of your point. Dontkillmeimanoob (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you deny these sources support the section that you deleted? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Sir, absolutely. In fact, I advance further and say that these brief passages have nothing to do with the title of a PBS doc. They are drenched in logical fallacy, in so much that all the materials that gave context to these statements have been removed, and what's left is really, for lack of a better term, a straw man argument, a total misrepresentation of Sayyid Qutb and his ideas. Dontkillmeimanoob (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting delusional. The quotes can all be found in the sources. There is no "straw man" or misplaced "context" --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, like that purported quote from Qutb that can be found anywhere else and doesn't parallel anything Qutb wrote. In any case, everyone has bias of some sort, I just wanted all sides to be exposed, and that's been accomplished, so I'm cool with it. - Dontkillmeimanoob (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)