I say Wahhabi, you say Qutbee

[Walsingham]

I felt I had to point out a possible error I made. I have referred several times to the fact that many recent terrorist attacks have nothing to do with Islam. Which I stand by. Instead I suggested they had Wahhabi roots. However I was recently brought up short by infromation suggesting that this too may inaccurate. It seems that the real roots of Islamic extremism lie with Sayyd Qutb, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

It has been cogently argued that there is little in Wahhabism that is apparent in Al Qaeda's vision or strategy, and that it is far more akin to this Qutb fellow. The fact that Qutb seems to have been influenced by European philosophers is not just interesting, but may help to explain the marxist guerrilla tactics Al Qaeda uses.

 

I felt I had to make this clear since I may have done a grave injustice to perfectly peaceable Wahhabis. :"> And I know you all hang on my every word...

 

http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/qutb.htm

[Lucius]

And I know you all hang on my every word... 

http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/qutb.htm[/url]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't give them any bright ideas.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Well its sort of:

 

 

Qutf -> Al Zarahiwi -> Al Quaida

 

 

 

 

edit: Qutb is pronounced 'Koutt-oof' if Im not mistaken so spelling it Qutb makes no sense to me.

[metadigital]

Interesting reading, to be sure.

 

I always thought Yasser Arafat and the PLO, shady and alleged links to Black September and direct links with groups such as Hamas were the real instigators of modern, leaderless terrorism.

 

Then again, this is not an area that I am expert in.

 

PS: Fedayeen

[Walsingham]

Well, the PLO and Hamas do play a part, I am sure. But we have good ole Chairman Mao to thank for the notion of inducing utter abject chaos so that a replacement could be installed. It is Maoist doctrine that is being used in Iraq. Attacks on infrastructure , people, police, and so on are all intended to weaken faith in the establishment, and permit 'revolutionary cadres' to reeducate the people. In this case into being Qutf dingbats, rather than commie dingbats.

 

I'm not sure where to trace leaderless terrorism to.

[Cantousent]

I'm concerned more about their endings than their origins. :D Sorry, I have a strange sense of humor.

 

Anyhow, interesting read. I normally don't read these terrorist threads, but I read "wasabi" rather than "Wahhabi." Heh.

[metadigital]

Wasabi is good.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Wasabi is good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best used as toothpaste.

 

These leaderless terrorists with shadowy structures and ever-changing websites are going to be a nightmare for tomorrow's historians.

[Hildegard]

It seems that the real roots of Islamic extremism lie with Sayyd Qutb, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

that is old news. It's perfectly clear that the roots of Islamic extremism go way back from a Islamic cleric Al-Afghani to Muhamad Abduh who was preaching that the only way to 'fight' the western influence is by Islam and that all answers about everything lie in the Quran. Based on his teachings the 'Muslim Brotherhood' was formed in 1928 which later became a role model for every Islamic organization.

 

The Brotherhood was very active in the field of caritative and social issues which gave them a vital role as a modern civil part of the Arab world. They were preaching new and 'pure' Islam free of traditional attachments, by doing that they gained a great number of followers in millions across the entire muslim world. For Islamists to create an Islamic state they use various methods including caritative work, foundation of fundamentalistic political parties and finally terrorism against those they see as enemies.

 

Great role in all of this played a desire to gain their 'muslim' identity before the eyes of the world. You can say that Islamism ( as a system of goverment and a social system) is and was born out of deep economic, social and political crisis of Middle Eastern countries, it is not the cause but it's a result of incapable and inefficient regimes of those states.

[julianw]

It is Maoist doctrine that is being used in Iraq. Attacks on infrastructure , people, police, and so on are all intended to weaken faith in the establishment, and permit 'revolutionary cadres' to reeducate the people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mao did attack the infrastructure and police during the Communism Revolution in China, but the Nationalist Party at the time is quite corrupt.

Mao never preached attacking civilians to cause chaos, unless landlords who take peasants' wives and daughters are also considered civilians.

[Walsingham]

Thanks for the extra info, there Hildegarde. That does tie into what I knew.

 

Julianw, you may be right. But while I freely accept your point about the Nationalist govt. hardly being worth shedding tears over, you may be rather glossing over Mao's attitude to civilians. Maoist/Marxist thought sees every single person as bound up in the Great Struggle, and distinctions between combatants and non-combatants as 'bourgeois.' I am satisfied that civilians were deliberately purged to purify the communist state. It seems logical to suggest that they were targetted during the making of it. Although I am not an expert on Chinese history. It was also a definite part of Viet Minh/Viet Cong strategy in Vietnam.

[julianw]

Walsingham - All governments cover up their dirty laundries, so I wouldn't be surprised if what you suggest escaped my radar. During the Communism Revolution in China, however, Mao and his party defeated an army of tanks, airplanes and battleships, who also happened to outnumber them 3 to 1, with muskets and very little help from the Soviet Union. Mao's strategy was to gain the support of peasants and workers, and obviously he succeeded.

The Chinese Civil War was a struggle within one nation. I just can't see the connection to terrorism today.

[SteveThaiBinh]

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/biogra...1499341,00.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml...05/bocha105.xml

 

Sadly, I haven't found the time to read Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's biography of Mao, but the revews are quite instructive. Mao was a monster who slaughtered his own people without hesitation.

[julianw]

I was talking about the Communism Revolution, not the regime they founded.

 

As for books portraying the ugly side of Mao after he gained absolute power, there are many of them outside of China, and don't believe everything being said in them. The authors are the very persons prosecuted by Mao. How can they be objective in their books?

[Walsingham]

Julianw, I hope you do not feel personally under attack by all this. Nor is it my intention to cast China in a negative light. The point is simply that Chairman Mao, in his essays on revolutionary struggle described the precise ways and means in use by modern terrorists. I also am obliged by my knowledge of the facts to assert that Mao laid some of the groundwork for the modern terrorist's utter disregard for civilian casualties.

 

Having said that, my understanding of Mao was that he was not bloodthirsty in the way of say Stalin or (arguably) Al Qaeda's organisers. He saw education as the means to change, and fear as a means of keeping discipline. Stalin and Al Qaeda see fear as the optimal condition for the sheep they wish to drive along, not education.

[julianw]

No offense taken whatsoever; it's always nice to learn others' opinions.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The authors are the very persons prosecuted by Mao. How can they be objective in their books?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No-one can ever be wholly objective about anything, but the reviews of this biography suggest that they are very diligent in sourcing their work. If they can provide evidence for their interpretation, then I think it deserves consideration. But I don't want to argue this more, since I haven't read the biography yet and so am not in a very good position to defend it. :"> Plus it's off-topic.