i’m writing an essay on the development of radical islamist ideology. i have as my starting place the writings of sayyid qutb (milestones and politcal justice in islam). i want to trace how this thought has developed through today. who has contributed, since then, to qutb’s ideas and what are the names of their works? who are the leaders in published islamist thought?
also, i’m looking for arguments against radicalism by muslims. much of the material that i find is from a secular perspective and i want to get a feel for what the conversations are that occur within islam.
Arabs for Israel might be good start. Spencer is totally against Islam, but was Muslim. He may shed some insight. Then there is Daniel Pipes, a person who many call racist, but he does hold valid credentials in history. You might want to peruse the Qur’an. USC has three valid translations, and note that initially Islam was about peace, justice, etc., then shifted when Mohammed took a more militant stance.
Chuckle, you may want to go to Apostates of Islam for insight regarding how ex Muslim think.
Check out Ibn Warraq. He has accurate history of Islam and why the jihadists are coming out of the woodwork:
“Why I am not Muslim” (like spencer he is also a ex-muslim)
Historically speaking, the US didn’t do enough in the middle east to quell radical Islam when it started rising out of Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Listen to Brigette Gabriel, (you can find her through google) about what happened in Lebanon during the early 70’s. It took Israel to step in to save what was left of the christians and moderate muslims in the late 70’s… by then the PLO had already established itself. It was around this time that Carter also bungled middle east policy when he didn’t back up the Shah of Iran to stay in power. (or a suitable replacement.) when the Shah was thrown out, radical Sharia and radical Islam was instilled in it’s place. Since this time the radical (could it be reffered more as a “re-awakening”?) wing of Islam has grown substantially, and spread to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabi and even Egypt and Turkey.
To bring this up to modern day… before we took out Saddham, regardless of how he helped the terrorists, he was the ONE stabilizing anti-radical force in the middle east. That’s gone now, to be replaced by Bush’s pipe dream of a democracy.
“it’s not a democracy we want, but an Allahcracy!”
This is a speech by the prime minister of malaysia who was installed after a muslim revolt. There was also one installed in Thailand, where he was telling the Buddhist majority that they should appease the violent muslims in the south and install a “small” degree of sharia law.
And this is why the European and American liberal parties are FOOLS to side with these people. Like the recently elected muslim who was backed by CAIR in America… a group with known terrorist ties. Or John Conyers posting arabic versions of his website for his constituents to tell him how he can be a “better” democrat.
And what does John want to do? The same thing Pelosi wants… To make it illegal to even LOOK at a muslim suspiciously in an airport or other security enforced area.
You really want to see the future of america check out England where protestors, protesting the violence of Islam are arrested, while muslims holding signs saying “death to the infidels”, “behead them all”, “death to america”, etc are allowed to gather freely.
Or in France where the “youths” daily attack police officers and burn public and private transportation.
Radical Islam is spreading like a weed.
good luck seeing arguments against radical islam from within the beast. Didn’t you hear about the reporter in Sudan (who was muslim) who was beheaded for criticizing the radical muslims within Sudan that are daily killing native africans, that are muslim or christian or pagan? Any nation that has a majority of radicalization is not going to speak out against the radical wing. Look again at thailand where the radical muslims don’t even make up 5 - 10% of the population and the leadership is calling for the criticisms of Islam to stop.
I have been following how the Western law agencies are handling religious fanatics. It is sad when we complain regarding this behavior we are called racist, a term which doesn’t apply. Our media never mentions the current violence in France, and the placards calling for violence against the West. Musn’t cause a panic. Geez.
You fogot to mention the 6 imams pulled off the plane and interrogated after loudly voicing anti-American claims, sitting in various places on the plane, and asking for seat belt extensions, and putting these extension under their seats, not attaching them to their seat belts. CAIR, and the various other civil liberties groups are filing suits regarding these 6 being inconvenienced, no suit regarding how all the other passengers were inconvenienced for 5 hours as well.
The fact remains that there are many millions who wish us harm, and we refuse to face this fact.
I heard about the 6 imams, and I think it was a test of the airport security… now they’ll use it to give the US a taste of anarchotyrantism like the Europeans are facing… they make rules against us stricter and stricter while allowing the radicals do what they do best… cause havoc and destruction.
I think it’s too late… the dems won. We (western civilization) loses because the ideals of marxism have not died. Don’t see the connection? The dems are a marxist party that aims to “equalize” us by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. They aim to “equalize” us by stealing rights from citizens and giving MORE rights to illegals whether radical muslim or radical mexican.
Marxism is once again going to prove how well it fails. Only to be replaced by another extremist idealogy… Islam.
the idea of marxism, helping the poor is a noble one. You cannot achieve that ends by taxing the working class and the rich though… the rich will still have enough to get by,
Marxism is self-destructive… Kill god and pretend to help man, while dragging man into the quagmire of cutlural suicide.
GREAT, sign me up.
I hope the dems show their true colors, and limit the patriot act and then several terrorist acts happen to show what useful idiots they are…
The keys to help you understand Islam would most certainly be the Qu’ran. After that may I recommend “The History of the Arabic People” to understand the background of not just Muslims as they may be the majority but many others have influenced them. Sadly, in the West far too often religion has been corrupted by man. Focus on the religion first, then the people as without the first your essay will be hollow by comparison. Because at its core there is indeed something beautiful.
I want to say thank you so much for the pointers. Six months later, after much, much study I have a pretty solid analysis put together.
Radical Islam is essentially a reaction to European, and now U.S. colonialism. If you follow the development of thought from al-Afghani to Abduh to Rida to Qutb, you can see it slowly radicalizing. Every step of the way, it’s in response to increasingly oppressive regimes, all of them tightly controlled by the West.
aspacia, you’re really off the mark. it’s a huge mistake to take the muslim world as monolithic. most of the people in the muslim world do not wish us harm. however, it’s hard to tell because of the news sources we are bathed in. i would recommend reading, daily, mideast newspapers. not only will you find their side of the story, but often a much more informed assessment of the conflict between the east and west.
before i embarked on this journey of study, i was convinced that one day there was going to be an epic showdown between east and west. now, i am absolutely certain that much of this buildup is hype and that sane people can take practical steps to assuage the problem.
the plo was in lebanon because palestinians who had been forced from there homes were in lebanon as refugees. because of the particularly bad treatment of palestinians by lebanese, it made the refugee camps there particularly fertile recruitment grounds for the plo. israel went in to destroy the plo, not to save the christians and the muslims. they committed some crazy atrocities in the process.
the shah, although a major US ally, was put in place by a CIA orchestrated coup in 1953. ironically, the government they overthrew to bring him back to power was one of the most progressive in the middle east. the shah was a extreme dictator whose oppressive ways turned his own people against him.
why was the shah put back in power? well, back then the cold war was everything, and the US was worried that the government of Iran was sympathetic to the Russians.
there is no way that carter could have propped up the shah’s government to avert the backlash, because it wasn’t just a Muslim revolution. there were many groups working together against the shah. it was the Muslims who ended up with the power, though.
true, the success of the iranian revolution inspired others across the middle east, but not solely because of it. the islamist movement in afghanistan was funded by the u.s. to oust the soviet union. egypt was already at the forefront of islamist thought. all the major radical islamic philosophers came out of egypt. the saud family in saudi arabia has always gotten it’s legitimacy from the wahabbi sect of islam.
what really happened, though, is that after years of resistance by the united states, arab nationalism finally failed. the 7 day war marked it’s death. what came in to fill the gap? islamism.
i think this depends on your definition of anti-radical. if you mean secular, yes. the baathist party was a secular party. however, most of the gulf states are much more stable than iraq was. granted, they are very wealthy compared to other mideast countries and wealth bring comfort and stability.
i want to debate more of your post, but i don’t have the time right at this moment. all i have to say is this:
a lot of the islamist rhetoric you hear from militant leaders represents a very small portion of the the population. the rhetoric that you hear from politicians doesn’t actually represent the feelings of all the people. think about the christian right of the united states. think about the rhetoric coming from our leaders.
here’s another interesting fact that i found out in my studies. when we threaten countries and religions, whether with word or action, it actually makes them more fanatical. it gives radicals an excuse to undermine those with a more moderate thought - even if those people are the majority of a population. george bush called iran the “axis of evil” long before the current president took office. what is the old president doing now? he does focus groups between palestinian and israeli groups in switzerland. the guy is actually really great. but we saw him and “evil”. now, there is a much more provincial, radical leader in Iran, partly because people feel threatened and his fighting words fit the current climate.
