What would Sayyid Qutb say today?

What would he say about the Muslims who've killed and maimed tens of thousands of Iraqis in the name of Islam? What would he say about the Muslims today who are so willing to murder Muslims in Mosques?

'Sayyid Qutb (Arabic: سيد قطب‎; October 9, 1906[1] – August 29, 1966) was an Egyptian author, educator, Islamist, poet, and the leading intellectual of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and '60s. Some Muslims even consider him a martyr (shahid) because of his execution by Nasser's government.

Author of 24 books, including novels, literary arts’ critique, works on education, he is best known in the Muslim world for his work on what he believed to be the social and political role of Islam, particularly in his books Social Justice and Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones). His magnum opus Fi Zilal al-Qur'an (In the shade of the Qur'an), is a 30 volume commentary on the Qur'an that has contributed significantly to modern perceptions of subjects such as jihad, and ummah.

Even though most of his observations and criticism were leveled at his own society and culture, Qutb is also known for his intense disapproval of the society and culture of the United States[2][3] which he saw as obsessed with materialism and violence, "animalistic desires," and "awful sins."[4] In his estimate, "Civilization should favor humanity, not act against it"[5].

There are widely varying opinions on Qutb. While his supporters normally see him as a great artist and intellectual who died for his principles[6][7], many Western observers say his writings helped shape terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda[8][9][10][11] or Islamists in general.[12] Today, his jihadist supporters are often identified as Qutbists[13] or "Qutbee", though they do not use the term to describe themselves.'

Sunni majority?

I would not mind if the election is postponed. The outcome of the election may not bring peace to Iraq, and I agree that deliberation is better than murder, but Iraq has a Sunni majority? Maybe it's a typo.

UPI: 'The Sunni majority, including Hashemi, could resort to "desperate measures" to gain power as the new election law under review provoked claims of Shiite dominance, she writes.'

PS: It was a typo, corrected by UPI I don't know at what time. From Rachel Schneller's brief: "The Sunni minority in Iraq, facing ever more desperate political and economic conditions in Iraq, is likely to resort to increasingly desperate measures to ensure survival as they face another round of elections where they could lose further seats in parliament."

Militant Salafism is the root of the problem

'The current situation in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region has been largely shaped by the Pakistani army's support of militant organizations over the past three decades. This ongoing support is rooted in the Pakistani identity and in Pakistan's perception of its role as an Islamic state ever since its creation in 1947.

For more than half of its 62 years, Pakistan was ruled by military officers. But even when it was ruled by civilians, in the debate over Pakistan's identity, secularists and liberal forces have always lost, while the military and the religious groups have always set the nation's agenda and defined its future course.[1] The way the Pakistani leaders view their identity defines their domestic policies and foreign relations. The shaping of the Pakistani identity on the Islamic path has over the years turned Pakistan into an expansionist state, which has translated into the military's policy of "strategic depth." In practical terms, this policy meant a constant concerted effort by the military-led Pakistani establishment to go beyond its borders into India (not only in Kashmir but also the mainland India) and in Afghanistan through the use of militant groups.

This self-perception of Pakistan's role, responsibility and identity is a genie that has been out of the bottle for decades now, and there is no way to get it back in. It has become the most decisive factor in the region's history and politics – so much so that when Pakistani military ruler General Pervez Musharraf tried after September 11 to reverse, though reluctantly, the policy of using the militant organizations as "strategic assets," he was not able to do so. In fact, this genie is so strong now that a number of young militant leaders who have emerged in recent years and are more ideologically driven are now beginning to launch attacks on the Pakistani security institutions, particularly since the military began cooperating with the U.S.'

PS: It's amazing how quickly a post ends up on Google. Just a few seconds after I posted the above I googled militant salafism and found this concise analysis:

"The militant Salafism that began in 1980s took the simple nature of Islam and added the notion of militancy from the Qutbi current (after Sayyid Qutb). The combining of Qutbism and Wahhabism took place in Afghanistan through Ayman al Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden, where the walaa and baraa equation met with Sayyid Qutb's theory of divine governance that denounced contemporary society as infidels.

The takfiri Qutbi current utilized the physical potentials of the scholastic Salafism and turned toward militancy."

Bill Clinton wanted to liberate Iraq too

'The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [3] and by unanimous consent in the Senate. [4] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." '

Lowest monthly death toll since 2003

The US relationship with Iraq has been stormy for the last three decades, but it appears that today America is determined to stabilize Iraq and make sure democracy takes hold in Baghdad. Although some journalists have tried to minimize America's role, it seems clear that the US strategy since 2006 has helped reduce the violence in Iraq. I'm glad America didn't cut and run, like we did in 1991.

'Fewer Iraqi civilians were killed in November as a result of war-related violence than in any other month since the U.S.-led invasion began nearly seven years ago, a CNN count of Iraqi government figures shows.

At least 88 Iraqi civilians were killed during the month, an Interior Ministry official said Tuesday -- a figure compiled from data from the ministries of Health, Defense and the Interior.

Sporadic spectacular attacks -- such as the suicide bombings targeting government buildings in August and October -- continue to claim hundreds of lives and shake confidence in the abilities of Iraq's security forces.

But violence has been steadily dropping across the country over the past two years, and the number reflects the hope that stability and peace are on the horizon in that nation.'

USA negligent in Iraqi deaths since 1980s

PS (Dec 2): If the 100,000 "excess deaths" in Iraq since 2003 can be blamed entirely on the US, so can deaths resulting from US support for Saddam during the 80s and the US failure in 1991 to help the Iraqi Shia who wanted very badly to see Saddam's murderous regime overthrown. UN sanctions, which Clinton continued to enforce, caused much suffering among ordinary Iraqis while Saddam built palaces.

I commented on a post entitled "Why they hate us (II): How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years?" on the Palestinian Pundit, and I think my comment is worth posting here:

'According to the UN, sanctions actually resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqis by 1998, and I remember Secretary of State Madeline Albright on 60 Minutes saying the price was worth it.'

Albright's 60 Minutes interview took place in 1996, not 1998:


My comment continued:

'I think it's also worth mentioning US support of Saddam's murderous regime in the 80s and the war between Iraq and Iran, which resulted in the deaths of a million Muslims. Turns out the US was supporting both sides.

Furthermore, the Shia rebellion in 1991 was brutally put down, and one of Saddam's guys admitted the regime killed 300,000 Shia (Muslims) in April, 1991 alone. They did this as US soldiers stood not far away - Bush apparently gave the order not to intervene, as his Saudi buddies did not want the Shia to take over Iraq. I consider the US to be partially negligent in the mass murders committed by Saddam's regime, and I think the real numbers are much larger.'

In a second comment I also posted a link to this video, which I've posted before and watched again today, only to be angered again:



I'm glad the US overthrew Saddam's murderous regime, but it shoulda happened in 1991.

No honor in killing women

"The statistics of the last ten years have shown that the Arab and the Islamic countries in the Middle East are in the frontline when it comes to the violation of the rights of women, using violence against them, and more dangerously and sadly murdering women on the pretext of combating the family’s and tribe’s honour. Some male members of some families are justifying this cowardly action and uncivilized crime against women by accusing them of being involved in an illegal sexual intercourse or love affair, which are considered as a great and intolerable taboo. Surprisingly, some narrow-minded men in these countries are even disrespecting and undermining the role of civil law and putting themselves in the position of judges and making a deadly judgment on the life of innocent women."