By Abu Muhammad
Syed Qutb’s accomplishments are without doubt. He struggled for justice and freedom and gave his life for that cause. We ask Allah to accept him among the Shuhada (martyrs) and the righteous. However, this does not mean that he or anyone else for that matter is immune from mistakes and error. Only the prophets of Allah are saved from this.
We do not blindly follow individuals, only the Prophet deserves that treatment. In the case of everyone else we should question and, if needed, correct them.
In his call for immunity from mixed cultural sources, Syed Qutb (as highlighted in my previous posts) made a mistake in regarding the whole of society as Jahili (in ignorance of Islam). This seems to go against the Islamic perspective of history and the succession of civilisations.
If that was the case, then this would lead to a political philosophy and a programme of social change that is very close to the programme of radical uprooting and revolutionary upheaval. This, as indicted by some scholars, contradicts the methodology of the Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah. Qutb affirms in the chapter called ‘A unique Qur’anic generation’ of his book Milestones:
1. The presence of such a large number of Companions as those who followed the Prophet is a unique phenomenon. Although other similar charismatic individuals were known throughout history, a phenomenon of this nature has never been seen again.
2. The Companions were unique individuals for two reasons: (a) their source of inspiration was the Qur’an alone; and (b) by receiving their inspiration from that source alone, they completely severed themselves from Jahiliyyah and ‘underwent a rebirth to start an Islamic life as if from ‘point zero’.
3. After the generation of the Companions, other sources of knowledge were added to the original Qur’anic source, such as Greek philosophy and logic, Israelite argumentation, Christian theology, and Persian mythology. The resulting mixture was to affect the entire succeeding generations, none of which resembled that of the Companions.
4. Syed Qutb concludes that resorting to the pure source (Qur’an and Sunnah) that inspired those men is our only means to formulate correct values, style of government, politics, economics, and requirements of life.
Thus, it becomes essential to disconnect ourselves from ‘our’ Jahiliyyah, with all its good and bad components – though Qutb hardly sees any traces of good in Jahiliyyah. And instead resort to that original source with the desire to receive and obey, and not to study for mere enjoyment.
If the programme suggested by Qutb is a summary of his methodology – then (as clarified before) it does conflict with the Qur’anic understanding of culture and civilisation.
Syed Qutb’s programme for change does seem to be radical and revelutionary. As Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi indicates, he went to extremes on the issue of Jahiliyyah and Takfir (excommunication). Dr Qaradawi said that anyone contemplating the writings of Syed Qutb will undoubtedly affirm that Qutb had exaggerated on the issue of Takfir.
He states that Qutb’s method is not that of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Imam Al-Banna based his foundation on ‘the twenty principles’. 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 and as soon as he was imprisoned, the changes to his ideology appeared.
We do not follow individuals, we follow the Qur’an and Sunnah. People will always struggle and give their lives for Islam, however this does not make them infallible or free from criticism. These points and analysis are not mine but from scholars who have researched and carried out meticulous study of his works. I am only conveying it.
I am astounded at you br Abu Muhammad. Before we even move into the discussing the subject matter specifically, let’s analyse YOUR writings for a moment.
You have written 3 articles. 2 of them have been ‘against’ Syed Qutb, whereas 1 has been in favour of Tariq Ramadan.
Both are not members of the MB. Both are humans and are infallible. However, one is a martyr and great contributor to the Islamic cause and is heavily disliked by the enemies of Islam while the other is an ‘approved’ figure by enemies of Islam such as the RAND think-tank and others. You clearly show support for one over the other and your writings obvioulsy do not treat the figures equally.
You go out of your way to kicking up a storm over Syed Qutb’s so-called rejection of cultures (a huge issue which came about when you had a debate with your friend in Jordan) while it is something which has been clearly exposed as unfounded by readers in your previous article on Syed Qutb. You failed to provide one quote supporting your view (the above is not a quote from his book it appears) while readers have provided several quotes either rejecting your judgement on him or at the very least clarifying his stance. Yet you persist on making a non-issue such a big issue over two articles.
At the same time, you staunchly defend Tariq Ramadan without mention to a single of his faults and controversies- despite claiming ‘everyone is human’. Rather your writings are full of blind defense or rather ‘blind following’ of the Islamic thinker, accusing your critics of saying ‘the same as the kuffar’ while you spout the same for S Qutb. Comparing the issue of ‘rejecting cultres’ to the issue of Tariq Ramadan’s call for the suspension of hudood; which is more deserving of clarification?
You may not have realised this but your choice of writing and thinking is revealing more than you would like. It reveals that you are attempting to distance yourself from Syed Qutb – the ‘opponent’ according to the enemies of Islam – while drawing close to Tariq Ramadan, the ‘ally’ according to the very same enemies of Islam.
It is in this light – while saddened at the reality it shows – I thank you for writing your articles. It has revealed trends amongst our thinkers and writers and raises questions of trust and integrity. There is a bigger picture here, one that you have failed to grasp, and you have unfortunately been a pawn in it unwittingly.
Apologies for sounding harsh, but I cannot hold back my feelings when seeing this ‘blind’ and biased Qutb-bashing that dances to the tune of those who wish ill for us.. unknowingly of course.
@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.
It becomes difficult to discuss issues when emotions are the basis upon which we base our comments. I understand we are human but I hope that we do not become sentimental and lose scope and perspective.
My comments made in the other posts and the apparent correction that was made by a person seems to have been misunderstood. If readers go back to that post and the subsequent remarks I made in response to Br Zafar, it will become clear as for the reason why I highlighted that particular issue.
The issues of considering the whole society jahili and the other issues about material progress are two different issues.
I am not defending Dr Ramadan specifically, nor am I criticising Syed Qutb per se. I am trying to understand and clarify concepts and principles. We all love Tariq Ramadan and Syed Qutb, are faith encourages it.
I don’t see the problem in my article. As I have stated. These are not my concerns only – these were made by great scholars in our Ummah today, the likes of Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Sh Uthaymeen (If I’m not mistaken), Sh Salih Munajjid, Sheikh bin Baaz and others, they pointed out his mistake on that issue.
@Abu Muhammad. How many books by Sayyid Qutb have you read?
I have read many of his books especially Milestones, where the controversy lies. I am only highlighting what great scholars have said about him. I have not gone to forums and blogs to read what non specialists have got to say but scholars who studied his life and works.
Thank you for asking.
I also am aware of the intellectual giant Syed Qutb. His writings were on a high level which has the propensity to be misunderstood. This is what some people have said, such as an MB leader Mahmoud Ezzat, and others. This is why I always try to employ cautionary language in my posts.
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
Now, on shaheed qutb…
1. We need to see evidence that qutb was a takfeeri, suffered from takfeer or that his views were not considered ahlussunnah wal jamaa’ah. Please see link here with SPECIAL/CLOSE attention to the late ibn jibreen’s quote and letter of late bakr abu zaid, both of the permanent committee of iftaa in Saudi Arabia (al-lajnah addaaimah). Shame, it is a non ikhwani that endorses qutb and not the so called fan base in UK or HQ in Egypt.
Some amazing stuff.
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3382210
(no funny comments on the above forum or its users. Their views are their own and consequently irrelevant to our discussion)
2. Qutb is and has always been a more quality example of a member of the MB than Ramadan is, who by his own admission is not even a member! Please explain how qutb isn’t a member? Qaradawi’s vague quote isn’t enough.
3. From your article’s four points abu Muhammad, i see only exemplary examples of qutb’s work. How can you even disagree with any one of those points that you summarised. i.e. what’s your objection? Mixing cultures? You were clearly wrong about that one on another article of yours.
4. What is your definition of jahilliyyah? What is qutb’s definition? What aspect of it do you object to?
5. This isn’t a question of hizbiyyah, rather it is trying to create a non issue again. This is because everyone here agrees that Qutb wasn’t an ‘allaamah but a prolific da’ee. His writings like any writer’s greater than him may have contained errors in his bid to use a clear, distinctively convincing literary style. (different to ramadan’s vague style) Many great ‘ulamaa of the past were seen to have held very strange and even rejected opinions. Bring us the proofs and then we can discuss who is more blameworthy, qutb or Ramadan.
6. You quote munajjid, uthaymeen and others on their views on Ramadan? Please give references/quotes. Surely you hold them in high regard. If these ulamaa DO have these views on qutb, what on earth is their view of controversial Ramadan and the muslim brotherhood? And what of their opinions regarding qaradawi, joining groups, music, freemixing, niqaab, demonstrations and boycotting? You get my drift. (and yes abdullaah, they are rhetorical questions)
LASTLY – 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.
Please excuse my frustration as my patience is as weak today as the british economy. I seek forgiveness if i have disrespected any of the ‘ulamaa. Wa laa nuzakkee ‘alaallaahi ahadan min ‘ibaadih.
Wassalaam.
For queries about moderation policies and procedures, please always refer to the User Guidelines in the first instance.
Comments containing URL links are always withheld automatically for an editor to moderate. This is a spam-protection feature of wordpress.
Please do not leave the same comment in multiple posts, it will be considered spam and deleted. Comments must be relevant to the specific post, othwerwise it may be deleted.
This is a voluntary blog and all editors are unpaid. We thank you for your patience if comments are not moderated immediately.
As I have mentioned before it becomes difficult to discuss when emotions are the basis upon which we base our comments. We should not allow our emotions over take us.
I don’t see why people are trying to compare my articles on Qutb and the other one on Ramadan. They are two separate posts aiming to clarify different concepts. I hope people perceive the goal behind them. I am not comparing Qutb and Ramadan here.
Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi mentions Qutb takfeeri inclinations in his book ‘Priorities of the Islamic Movement’: ‘’We have to admit that the past period, especially the 1950’s and 1960’s, was a rich breeding ground for a certain type of dark ideas that proliferated in the Islamic fore, to the extent that the predominant way of thinking was one that advocated rejection of everything, pessimism and suspicion and accusation of others regardless of their beliefs and tendencies, including Muslims. Yes! The idea of judging others as sinners and heretics, even unbelievers, found a very rich breeding ground, and was helped to grow and proliferate by the oppressive environment in which the Islamic Movement and its advocates lived at that time.
In that period, the advocates of the Islamic movement were hanged in public, tortured to death in secret or subjected to all kinds of persecution, while the doors were opened wide to communists, secularists and enemies of Islam from every color. It was in that period that the books of Sayyed Qutb, which reflected the last phase in his thought, were published. They were full of ideas that advocated branding society as an unbelieving society, advised the postponement of calling for an Islamic system, made fun of the idea of renewing and developing Islamic jurisprudence and reviving ijtihad, advocated isolation from society as a whole, called for launching an offensive jihad against all people in general, and made light of the advocates of tolerance and flexibility, branding them with naively and psychological defeat in the face of Western civilization.
This trend in Sayyed Qutb’s thinking is most evident in his interpretation of the Holy Quran entitled, ‘In The Shade Of The Quran [lit.]” in its second edition, as well as in his book “Signs Along The Road”, most of which was taken from the former book, and “Islam And The Problems of Civilization”, and other books that had great positive effects but also had negative effects.’’ (p.110)
Please read the following links regarding what some scholars have said about Syed Qutb: http://www.al-yemen.org/vb/archive/index.php/t-336092.html
http://www.sahab.net/forums/showthread.php?t=371509
It really doesn’t matter what these or other scholars have said about MB or anything else. Lers listen to what they have said.
Shekh al-Qaradawi did not say Syed Qutb wasn’t a member of the MB. ‘’In fact his presence among the Brotherhood’s members was short and as soon as he was imprisoned, the changes to his ideology appeared.’’
Thank you for the beautiful Arabic phrase – yes you are right la nuzakki ‘ala Allahi ahadan. I pray your learning is going well and you will benefit the Ummah once your finished.
Thank you
Salaam,
Br Abu Muhammad who are you? how did you become a guest contributor?
Wa ‘alaykumussalam br Nasir.
It doesnt matter who I am. How did I become a guest contributor? Well, I e-mailed the blof admin and they saw my artiles to be fit to be published on the blog. If you or anyone else wish to write, why dont you e-mail the blog editor (see contact info on about us page), and if they see fit they may publish your writing.
Thank you
Assalamalaikum br abu muhammad,
Would you kindly comment on what ustadh sayyid qutb regarded as a ‘jahili’ society. In a previous post i mentioned that a ‘jahili’ society was simply a society that did not implement the shari’ah nor used it as its basis for legislation and ruling. This seems to be what the ustadh was meaning in his writings. If that is the case, would you not agree that every society/nation on earth that does not rule according to shari’ah is a ‘jahili’ society?
comment-2607″>@Abu Muhammad
jazak’allah kahrien
ws salaam
Sayyid Qutb’s definition of Jahiliyya [as mentioned in Milestones]: “Any nation whose life is governed by people and not by Allah.”
Sayyid Qutb doesn’t ask us to throw away humanity’s science and civilizations, he talks about how the West is so much more superior to the East in science and technology. So what do you mean when you say Qutb’s idea is against the Quran?
I, however, don’t agree with Sayyid Qutb’s view on jihad, and his brother, Muhammad Qutb corrected the mistaken ideas in his book, “How do we call people to 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.
@Abdalla
you are persistently avoiding the questions, abdullah. You have not responded to any of my points save one and a half.
You said
“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…”
it is quoted “Dr qaradawi thinks that
“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…”. (ikhwanweb)
You clearly weren’t following this discussion one article ago… Please do not be so hasty once again, abdullah! Otherwise the only one who will feel sheepish is you.
And once again!… look here, YOU say,
“No-one has claimed that Qutb wasn’t a member of MB. as Abu Muhammad has already clarified”.
a muhammad clarified? It was a muhammad who wrote this in his article in the first place which i have already read from ikhwanweb before he posted this article…
“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” (a muhammad, ikhwanweb)
So brother abdullaah, please, if you haven’t read the article patiently and checked my posts properly, do not rush into baseless accusations. Besides, these accusations are again not relevant to the discussion and points that br abu muhammad raised. I pleaded to your decency to refrain from sidetracking the discussion before yet you insist.
You keep saying
“Yet at every opportunity on that comment alone you keep on making personal attacks and digs at Tariq Ramadan.”
Let’s be clear, not in any example that you have produced is a personal attack on ramadan. they were legitimate criticisms and very valid indeed! More importantly, there were two articles written by br abu muhammad about qutb and ramadan, both raised questions about their integrity (surely, you DID read them didn’t you?). Therefore, my post was in relevance to these two articles and this very point of credibility. In fact, admin will have you told that my original post included more than an entire half which they cut and pasted into the blog on ramadan (as they felt it was more RELEVANT there!)
THIS IS THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN… I RAISED 10 POINTS ON WHAT SO MANY PEOPLES’ OBJECTIONS OF RAMADAN ARE IN RESPONSE TO YUOR BASELESS REQUESTS. YOU HAVE NOT REPLIED TO ANY OF THEM!
btw, i (and miqdaad i believe) HAD previously mentioned the views of Ramadan, yet you persistently claimed that no one presented any reason why they thought ramadan was controversial. In being like so, you may appear to be trying to deliberately waste everyone’s time here on this blog. Please,, and with respect brother, just ‘cease and desist’.
You said
“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?”
I made sure that the first point i raised was that if you are to say that such and such person is takfeeri or has views not considered to be ahlussunnah, then produce the evidences. If it is established that you are right, then we will say like we did with the views of great ulamaa of the past that they were rare mistakes. As of yet, I am waiting to see those evidences that substantiate the claim that he made takfeer on all the muslims or that his views are not ahlussunnah. I am ready to accept that i am wrong. It isn’t about my ego. My mind, unlike many others, is wide open and not narrow.
You also say (!)
“So as you can see, Qutb and Ramadan have too much in common! The ONLY difference is that the circumstances were different”.
You first argue that we mustn’t talk about ramadan or qutb together, yet you even go as far as to compare them to be almost identical. What nonsense. Any one who opens a book by qutb and one by ramadan will see that they were very different writers, especially on the point of vagueness/so called sophisticated language (or as ramadan would put it, pedagogy). Furthermore, anyone who studies the life of both these men will see huge/immense differences and that they were worlds apart. You really dissapoint me with this above assertion of yours. Beside, besides, what’s your point? We aren’t discussing how similar or different the two individuals are but discussing their merits and or their weaknesses.
Finally, you say
“You (izzuddeen) say Qutb like other writers have have contained errors. (i.e. takfeer, views outside ahlussunnah, cultural mixing) Correct. So why don’t we treat Ramadan in the same way.”
This last paragraph of yours draws a line under the point i made earlier. You don’t read well my brother and you are far too hasty. Naseehatun lee wa lak inshaa allaah. I OBVIOUSLY DON’T AGREE THAT QUTB WAS A TAKFEERI OR OUTSIDE AHLUSSUNNAH MINDSET… that’s WHY i wrote my entire post. btw, are you admitting and agreeing that the ten points that i raised earlier on Ramadan ARE his controversial views? Ahsant! that’s all you had to say habeebi.
Shukran wa jazaakumullaahu khair
Assalaamu’alaikum
Abdullaah? Abdullaah? Clearly you are on the blog and yet you haven’t responded brother… Were you wasting our valuable time?
I and many others are awaiting your response. So do not disappear. Atleast, be honorable and acknowledge that you have been innumerably wrong.
@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.
abdullah, as you have not taken back ridiculous accusations on me and as you continue to cover your mistakes by squirming through hypothetical meanings of your words (’nuances/subtlty’) like a slippery fish caught in your own net of fabrications – i strongly advise that you do not return or visit this blog. Just my advice…
You are being exposed as one who is insincere and possibly even slightly dishonest. wallaahua’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.
@Abdalla
br abdallah, if you do agree with ustadh sayyid qutbs understanding of ‘jahili’ society (ie a society in which the ruling and legislation is NOT derived from Qur’an) then can we agree with the author of this blog post when he says:
- “Syed Qutb (as highlighted in my previous posts) made a mistake in regarding the whole of society as Jahili (in ignorance of Islam). This seems to go against the Islamic perspective of history and the succession of civilisations.”
- “…As Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi indicates, he went to extremes on the issue of Jahiliyyah and Takfir”
It seems that this is clearly not what Sayyid Qutb was trying to explain. Please comment
Its about text and context!
The principle is correct but the application is often faulty. The quote from abdallah is similar:
“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 different. In any case, maybe Qutb isn’t even relevant for MB now in Egypt.”
Yes, the situation of the Muslims living as minorities in liberal democracies is very different to Egypt and other muslim majority countries being ruled by dictatorships. But there are aspects of Islam that are timeless and universal, unchanging. There are other aspects, the application of which, may change with time and place. Can we agree that Sayyid Qutb was declaring a society to be jahili only when that society did not organise its affairs and derive its legislation from the Qur’an and Sunnah? In that sense, any society from beginning until the Last Day that fits this description can be described as jahili…?
a brother forwarded this link to me. If anyone knows arabic please translate it for us.
سيد يُكَفِّرْ المجتمعات الإسلامية قاطبةً !
قال:ـ ( إنه ليس على وجه الأرض اليوم دولة مسلمة، ولا مجتمع مسلم قاعدة التعامل فيه هي شريعة الله والفقه الإسلامي. [ الظلال 4/ 2122]. ( فقد ارتدت البشرية إلى عبادة العباد وإلى جور الأديان، ونكصت عن لا إله إلا الله، وإن ظل فريق منها يردد على المآذن لا إله إلا الله دون أن يدرك مدلولها ودون أن يعني هذا المدلول وهو يرددها) وقال: ( البشرية بجملتها بما فيها أولئك الذين يرددون على المآذن في مشارق الأرض ومغاربها كلمات لا إله إلا الله بلا مدلول، ولا واقع، وهؤلاء أثقل إثماً وأشد عذاباً يوم القيامة، لأنهم ارتدوا إلى عبادة العباد من بعد ما تبين لهم الهدى، ومن بعد أن كانوا في دين الله ). [ الظلال 2/1057].
أرأيت ـ أخي الحبيب ـ كيف يتجرأ سيد قطب على تكفير أمة قائمة مصلية صائمة مزكية موحدة لله مجتنبة للشرك، والرسول – صلى الله عليه وسلم – يقول: ( إذا قال الرجل لأخيه يا كافر فقد باء بها أحدهما ) [ متفق عليه ]. ألا ما أعظم الضلال الذي يجر بصاحبه إلى هوة عميقة سحيقة، ومما يزيدك يقينا على أن سيد يكفر المجتمعات إنكار محبيه عليه ذلك، فهذا ( يوسف القرضاوي) ـ وهو من المعجبين بسيد ـ يقول :ـ (فحديثي… حول ما يتعلق بالشهيد العظيم سيد قطب، وأفكاره، وقضية المنهج عنده خاصة في كتاب ( المعالم ) والحقيقة أن الأمر ليس أمر كتاب ( المعالم ) فما المعالم إلا قبسات من (الظلال) … ولكن المسألة هنا تتعلق باتجاهات، وهذا اتجاه، والرجل صاحب اتجاه وصاحب مدرسة، وهذا الاتجاه يجب أن يقوم ولا تستطيع أن تهمش إلا إذا كانت المسألة جزئية .. الأمة الإسلامية انقطعت من الوجود .. وهو له رأيه المتطرف في مسألة بني أمية وعثمان وغيره. ورد عليه الأستاذ محمود شاكر من قديم في مسألة الصحابة ولا تسبوا أصحابي، ورأيه في المجتمع الإسلامي على طوال التاريخ، ورأيه في المجتمع الحاضر، وأنه لايوجد على وجه الأرض مجتمع مسلم قط في أي بلد من البلدان، حتى المجتمع الذي يعلن ارتباطه بلإسلام، ويقول إن المجتمع جاهلي، وكنت أظن أن كلمة مجتمع جاهلي، تعني مثلاً:ـ جاهلية التبرج ، أو جاهلية الحمية لا كما يقول الشرك والكفر، وهذا في الظلال في عشرات المواضع، ودعونا نتكلم بصراحة وأن من حق الأجيال المسلمة أن تعرف هذا الأمر على حقيقته .. ـ إلى أن قال ـ وسيد قطب في هذه الكتب مرحلة أخرى، ولذلك حكى بعض الناس أنه لو استقبل من أمره ما استدبر ما كتب كتبه القديمة، وأن أحدهم قال:ـ إذاً فأنت كالشافعي لك مذهبان جديد وقديم، قال:ـ نعم، ولكن الشافعي غير في الفروع وأنا غيرت في الأصول، أصول التفكير.
لأنه بدأ يفكر أن المجتمع الآن غير مسلم مجتمع جاهلي، والناس غير مسلمين، ولذلك يقول:ـ ( وإن كانوا يدعون أنفسهم مسلمين أو يسمون أنفسهم مسلمين، أو ما يسمونه العالم الإسلامي).
فمثل هذه التعبيرات موجودة ومنتشرة في كتبه التي كتبت في تلك المرحلة، وراح الذي تتلمذوا عليه يرددون التعبيرات نفسها). [راجع ندوة اتجاهات الفكر الإسلامي المعاصر ص 557 وما بعدها].
وقال أيضاً:ـ ( يجب أن تعرف أن الفترة الماضية ـ وخصوصاً في الخمسينات والستينات كانت مجالاً خصباً لانتشار نوع من الأفكار السوداء في الساحة الإسلامية، فقد غلب الفكر الذي ينزع إلى الرفض، والتشاؤم، والاتهام، وسوء الظن بالآخرين … أجل راجت فكرة التفسيق والتبديع بل التكفير .. وفي هذه المرحلة ظهرت كتب الشهيد سيد قطب التي تمثل المرحلة الأخيرة من تفكيره، والتي تنضح بتكفير المتجمعات، وتأجيل الدعوة إلى النظام الإسلامي ….) [انظر:ـ أولويان الحركة الإسلامية ص 110].
وخذ شاهداً آخر وهو:ـ جعفر شيخ إدريس ـ أحد المعجبين بسيد قطب ـ يقول:ـ ( أما مسألة المجتمع الإسلامي (فسيد قطب) يعتقد أن الشيء المثالي هو الذي يذكره القرآن، وأنه هو الصورة الوحيدة وكل ما نقص عنها فليس بإسلام، وهو بذلك علق الشباب بصورة مثالية، لا يستطيعون أن يصلوا إليها، وأعطاهم صورة للمجتمع الإسلامي، أو نظام الحكم الإسلامي لا زالت مؤثرة في كثير من الناس، وكل شيء ينقص عنها فهو ليس إسلامياً، وبذلك لا توجد حكومات إسلامية ولا مجتمع إسلامي منذ عهد الخلفاء الراشدين كما يرى كثير من الناس.
وأقول:ـ إن هذا ضار من ناحية المنهج، لأن سؤالاً ميئساً وملحاً سيظل يسأله الإنسان لنفسه، من أنت؟ ومن هؤلاء الذين يستطيعون أن يحققوا في القرآن الخامس عشر مالم تستطع أن تحققه كل أجيال المسلمين طوال هذه المدة مع كل ما تعرف فيها من قمم شامخة في العلم والسلوك؟
وأظن أن الذي نهتم به ينبغي أن لا يكون تبرئة سيد قطب مما قال. مع أني لا أدري ما ذا كان يعني بالضبط، ولكن كلماته إذا أخذناها على ظاهرها تدل على ما قلت، وأهم من ذلك أن الناس فهموا من هذه الكلمات هذه المعاني التي ننتقدها. وفهموها على غير تواطؤ بينهم. فقامت عندنا جماعات في السودان في الستينات تقول مثلما قالت جماعات في مصر وفي اليمن من غير اتصال بينهم، ولا تعارف، وكان الجامع بينهم هو هذا الكتاب ـ أي معالم على الطريق ـ أما مسألة (معابد الجاهلية) فأذكر أن بعض هؤلاء الذين كانوا يأتونني، كانت أهم قضية يتحدثون معي فيها، هي اعتزال معابد الجاهلية يعني (المساجد).
فقلت لهم:ـ والله إنكم شياطين. فأرجى عمل عندي هو أن أذهب إلى المسجد. وأنتم لا تقولون لي:ـ أترك الجامعة أو أترك السوق وإنما تقولون:ـ أترك المسجد باعتباره من معابد الجاهلية، فتلك ظاهرة فهمها الناس من فكر سيد قطب وتهمنا في تصحيح مسار الحركة الإسلامية ـ ثم قال ـ فسيد قطب لا يقول فقط إن المجتمع الذي يستحل ما حرم الله كافرٌ لأن هذه مسألة معروفة وما كانت تثير جدلاً ولكنه يقول كلاماً خطيراً خاصة إذا أخذنا كلماته بظاهرها. [انظر ندوة اتجاهات الفكر الإسلامي المعاصر ص 557 وما بعدها].
وهذه شواهد على أن سيد يكفر المجتمعات الإسلام لتصور في رأسه، وهذا مفهوم يدركه من قراء كتب سيد قطب بدليل ظهور تلك الجماعات التي تكفر ليس بينها رابط إلا كتاب المعالم كما قال شيخ إدريس وهذا ما نسمع فحيحه هذه الأيام من تكفير لولاة الأمر المسلمين بل وتكفير العلماء الذين ينصحون الناس بالالتفاف حول ولاة الأمر، فإن لم يستطيعوا ذلك سعوا إلى تنفير الناس عنهم بتهم يلصقونها بهم من وحي الشيطان:ـ ” أنهم عملا” لا يفقهون الواقع !!
Heres what Wikipedia has to say on the matter… Not very scholarly though…
Conservative/puritan criticism went further, condemning Qutb\’s Islamist/reformist ideas — such as social justice and redistributive economics,[56][57][58] banning of slavery, — as \”western\” and bid\’ah or innovative (innovations to Islam being forbidden ipso facto). They have accused Qutb of amateur scholarship, overuse of ijtihad, innovation in Ijma (which Qutb felt should not be limited to scholars, but should be conducted by all Muslims[59]), declaring unlawful what Allah has made lawful,[60][61] assorted mistakes in aqeedah (belief) and manhaj (methodology)[62], and of lack of respect for Islamic traditions, for prophets and for early Muslims.
A bit harsh some might say…
a bit boring i say… more like fitnah stirring