Qutb and the Jahiliyyah concept

@Muslim I don’t see the point of your comment… Abu Muhammad is not a judge or mediator between Syed Qutb and Tariq Ramadan.

He does not have to make equal criticism or equal praise. Fairness is about giviing credit where due and criticising when needed.

And obviously the articles reveal a lot about the author. It says he agrees with Tariq Ramadan and disagrees with Syed Qutb. It’s not a crime you know. Obviously he is distancing himself afrom Qutb’s views – isn’t that obvious and the point?

It’s clear he is a fan of tariq Ramadan, maybe he doesn’t see any obvious problems with what tariq ramadan is saying? maybe that’s why he is not criticising him?

If you know of the problems with tariq ramadan – then it is you who should tell us what exactly those are! as previously one commentor corrected Abu Muhammad when he made wrong quotations from Milestones.

So please tell us some of the faults, mistakes and controversies surrounding tariq ramadan. What exactly has he said or written, or what views he holds that are against islam.

@Izzuddeen 1) As far as I can see noone has said Qutb’s views were not considered ‘ahlus sunnah’ – so I don’t see the point of these dramatic claims…

2) No-one has claimed that Qutb wasn’t a member of MB. as Abu Muhammad has already clarified.

I must advise you to be consistent and practise what you preach. You say “please argue on the points above and not on the personality of the author of this post or any other. Stick to the substance, for the sake of allaah.”

Yet at every opportunity on that comment alone you keep on making personal attacks and digs at Tariq Ramadan.

i) “Shame, it is a non ikhwani that endorses qutb and not the so called fan base in UK or HQ in Egypt”
ii) “Bring us the proofs and then we can discuss who is more blameworthy, qutb or Ramadan”
iii) “(different to ramadan’s vague style)”

I thought this post was about Qutb and his views? And not an opportunity to discover who is more blameworthy?

You say that “Many great ‘ulamaa of the past WERE seen to have held very strange and even rejected opinions”. (I’m assuming that you refer to Qutb). If that is correct, can you not see that you and doing exactly the same thing to Ramadan? Is it not possible that in the future people will look back and apprectiate Ramadan, and also say some people considered his views strange and even rejected his opinions? As you do now?

It is very true that scholars say – only when the scholar or writer has long been dead, that his work is truelly appreciated.

Since you want to compare Qutb and Ramadan – let’s do that. Both were Egyptian intellectuals and writers, who were learned in the deen but not called scholars (in the traditional sense). Qutb is never referred to as ‘Shaykh’ and Ramadan doesn’t call himself shaykh.

Qutb was a writer and intellectual. His text wasn’t that clear – hence some allege that his writings gave a license to takfiris, and others say he did no such things (vague). Ramadan similarly has been accused of vagueness.

Both are speaking not the masses, but making an intellectual argument – their audience are the educated classes. This is unlike al-banna and Maududi, who were charismatic leaders of men, and duat. Their writings (especially banna) was short precise and directed at their oridinary members. If you read the ‘meesages’ of albanna he writes as if he is actually speaking – he doesn’t write a theoretical or theological thesis.

So as you can see, Qutb and Ramadan have too much in common! The only difference is that the circumstances were different – and thus you see the difference in tone. Qutb was in prison in the context of an authoritarian regime and torture, so the tone of his work is sometimes hard and harsh. Ramadan lives in a liberal western society, so he is called a diluted Muslim.

Let’s not go around looking for dirt, but search for knowledge whereever it comes from.

You say Qutb like other writers have have contained errors. Correct. So why don’t we treat Ramadan in the same way. Not labelling him but, if we do come across errors, we should mention it.

@izzuddeen In reply to your comment, I will only address two points. The rest have already been covered elsewhere or are pointless/not relevant.

1) I said no-one claimed that Qutb wasn’t a member of MB. I still maintain that. Abu Muhammad quote “Shaykh Al-Qaradawi points out that Qutb was NOT BROUGHT UP AMONG THE GROUP’S MEMBERS NOR WAS HE RAISED TO FIGHT THEIR CAUSE. In fact his ‘presence’ among the Brotherhood’s members was short”

That quote means that according to Qardawi, Qutb was not like other members, who had been members for long time, was brought up in that framework etc. The phrase “his presence among the Brotherhood’s members was short”, means that his membership was short! What he means was that Qutb didn’t benefit from being around hasan al-banna and others.

You really need to try and understand subtle language and nuances. If Qardawi wanted to say Qutb was never a member, there are ways of saying it. Qardawi wouldn’t say that because he and we all know Qutb WAS a member of MB.

Qardawi was also right that Qutb became a MB very late, and his membership was short – the rest of the time he was in prison and then shaheed.

2) On this point, I think YOU ARE RIGHT. From the quote you gave,

“The line of thought of Sayed Qutb was written during the last phase of his life affirming the somewhat deviation from the right path of the followers of Al Sunnah and Al Jama’ah,… Sayyed Qutb had missed the right path of Al Sunnah and Al Jama’ah followers where he refers to several reasons”

It does seem that Qardawi does say that Qutbs views were not in line with that of Ahl as Sunnah. BUT no-one here quoted that before (I don’t think) and so I didn’t see it. That’s why I said “as far as i can see non-one is claiming that’.

And even if Qardawi said that, it doesn’t mean that he think Qutb went out of ahl as sunnah. It just means qardawi thinks that Qutb went a bit too far away from mainstream thought on issue of takfeer. He has a right to his view. And you can reject that analysis if you wish.

Also, let’s not jump to conclusions about my view on Qutb, my comments were just observations of what Abu Muhammad said. I shall reply about Qutb later.

Yusuf :Perhaps Ustadh Sayyid Qutb was describing a society as ‘jahili’ due it not being organised according to Islam. That is, the ruling and authority in a ‘jahili’ society is not derived from the Qur’an/Sunnah. In other words a society is not necessarily termed ‘jahili’ due to the practices of its population, but it referred to as ‘jahili’ if the authority and ruling in that society does not belong to Allah (awj).
In this way, Ustadh Sayyid Qutb reminded the Ummah of what scholars throughout the centuries have explained in the books of fiqh but at times used alternative terminologies eg dar al-islam, dar al-kufr etc He highlighted the importance of applying ‘la ilaha illallah’ in a complete and comprehensive manner, not just on the individual level but also organising societies affairs according to this kalimah. He also advocated that a organised group needs to be formed that works hard within a ‘jahili’ society in order to change it and make it into a truly Islamic society – ie until the Deen is established and the Word of Allah is highest. Therefore, many of us may be misunderstanding the intent of what Ustadh Sayyid Qutb was trying to clarify. He was not saying that everything from the days before Islam are evil, nor was he saying that a Muslim can not benefit anything from another non-Muslim. His main argument was that a society that is founded on based on a non-Islamic system can not be called Islamic even if every individual of that society prays and fasts. What is important is to make sure the legislation and ruling only belongs to Allah (awj) alone.
wallahu a’lam

I agree with Yusuf’s analysis. Qutb was a product of his time and situation. yes the tone of his writings were sometimes very harsh – but do you blame him? During that time people were routinely imprisoned and tortured. Allah blessed him with shahada (martyrdom) and saved him from the test that others failed.

[MB members like Shukri Mustafa, were tortured in prison, and as a direct result of that formed Takfir wal Hirja, a Khawarij like group. They could not believe that Muslims could ever torture people the way they were tortured.]

It is well known that Qutb’s tafseer, in the shade of the quran was revised in prison, and the second draft was more stronger language. Again look at his circumstances when we judge the man.

It is true that ‘some’ have used his ideas and thoughts to promote takfeer, but I don’t think Qutb can be blamed for that. Just as we cannot blame Islam for people misusing verses to commit terrorism.

Qutb was a product of his time, and a great man – who rejected offers of ministerial office and choose prison instead!

Whether some of his thoughts and ideas are relevant for us as minorities in liberal democracies, that’s a different question. I’d say not – our time and context is very differnt. In any case, maybe Qutb isn’t even relevant for MB now in Egypt.

The context has changed. That doesn’t mean MB don’t honour the man. Qardawi’s criticism is an academic discussion, which is useful and needed. Just as people criticise some of what Maudidi said, which doesn’t mean they don’t still consider him highly.

@izzuddeen Oh please. I don’t want to respond to your comment. Let’s let the readers decide on who is right, who is making fair criticism and who is engaged in a emotional rant.

I have no time for schoolboy type points going around and around in circles.