On Friday, November 15, 2002, at 04:24 AM, James Heartfield wrote:
>
> From an admittedly suspect source
>
> "In a brilliantly illuminating and arrestingly readable analysis,
> Ruthven demonstrates the close affinities between radical Islamist
> thought and the vanguard of modernist and postmodern thinking in the
> West. The inspiration for Qutb's thought is not so much the Koran, but
> the current of western philosophy embodied in thinkers such as
> Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Heidegger. Qutb's thought -- the blueprint
> for all subsequent radical Islamist political theology -- is as much a
> response to 20th-century Europe's experience of "the death of God" as
> to anything in the Islamic tradition. Qutbism is in no way
> traditional. Like all fundamentalist ideology, it is unmistakeably
> modern."
>
> A Fury For God: The Islamist Attack on America by Malise Ruthven,
> Granta, £15, 315pp, reviewed by John Gray, Independent, 27 July 2002
> http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/story.jsp?story=318696
>
certainly fundamentalism as we know it is a thoroughly modern, some would say postmodern, phenomenon. i don't think that's in dispute.
there seems, however, to be this odd (western, i might add) application of a standard of purity that rejects qutbism as essentially a dishonest form of islamic theology for its reliance on or incorporation of external thought or traditions. not only is the application of such a standard problematic in itself, it completely ignores a strong tradition [sic] of incorporation of non-muslim/non-islamic thought into islamic philosophy and theology: al-farabi, ibn-rushd, ibn-sina, and the like were incorporating aristotle and neoplatonism into philosophy and theology so effectively that scholastics took a cue from these muslim trailblazers and relied heavily upon them. so to say that "qutbism is in no way traditional" is at best an ignorant oversimplification, at worst an outright lie, and in any case, completely irrelevant. that many of those who engage in this kind of thing are trying to insulate some ideal "true" islam/qur'an from association with terrorism is no excuse for such sloppy thought.
what i'm really struggling with, though, is what the upshot of all this is. is it that new social movements are guilty by some association with qutbism by way of nietzsche? what's the point of that? isn't there already enough actually substantively problematic about new social movements that it's unnecessary to resort to the right-wing tactic of comparing everything we don't like to terrorists?
j