Harry’s Place

“re-enforce”? Are you on drugs? It’s “REINFORCE”, and it has nothing to do with either enforcing or repeating.
Apart from that, not a bad post.

Ha ha. Whoops.

This news does mean that Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a supporter of female suicide bombers, could be defined as a moderate feminist thinker from a certain perspective (i.e. A cave in North West Pakistan).

Incidentally, it’s Red Army Fraction, not Faction. Anyone schooled in the minutiae of far-left politics will appreciate that the difference is significant.

A lot of people claim to see irony, when all they see is merely unfortunate or paradoxical. This, however, is exceptionally ironic, I just wish I could find it funny.

Al-Qaeda is a Sunni-originated group with its roots in the Saudi Wahabi interpretation of radical Islam with its world jihadist goals. Hamas draws its origins from the rather different Egyptian-oriented Muslim Brotherhood which is much more rooted in lslamising secular Muslims and clearing out secular regimes from Muslim countries; its operation in countries like the UK to “evangelise” UK Muslims is a much more recent development; Hezbollah is a Shia movement which draws its politics from the revolutionary Shia Islam of Khomeini and his heirs. In the latter,women were actively recruited and seen as playing a central role,not as front line fighters, but certainly in organizing on the streets, taking political roles and policing. So they have provided quite a lot of activist role models for women, including potential martyrdom roles. Qaradawi has supported women who want to choose jihadi terrorism. Hamas and Al Qaeda are ideological and practical enemies in Gaza ( though there are occasions when the two groups claim to have done things in concert). It’s hardly surprising they don’t agree on the role of women. It’s a bit like Catholics and Protestants on birth control and abortion– they’re both Christian groups, but their beliefs and practice can be miles apart where women are concerned.

Sick!

Judy - Ayman al-Zawahiri was a member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, on some interpretations it could be said that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood merged with OBL’s Afghan Arabs to form Al Queda. So I think your fine distinctions are too fine and misleading.

Whilst it is true Hamas and Al Queda are not the same organisation, doesn’t mean they are not part of the same movement with the same kind of objectives and modus operandi. A good comparison would be the Provisional IRA and the INLA (at least in the 70s and 80s). Although they had murderous feuds they were essentially part of the same movement, shared tactics and strategy and were fighting for the same thing: a united Ireland with a socialist, republican character linked with other so called liberation movements around the world.

We shouldn’t be over-subtle about these things. Militant Islam is a beast with many heads but a single body - the aggressive, cultist dogma of Islam.

Has anyone tried to work out the proportion of the captured Wahabi-based terrorists are gay? Could terrorism just be displacement activity due to an underlying socialital problem, their inability to fit in with their societies and the treatment of women does indicate they are a problem with the fairer sex.

simonh:
you may well be “schooled in the minutiae of far-left politics” but you are obviously not in possession of a German-English pocket dictionary, “Fraktion”, as in “Rote Armee Fraktion”, being German for, in political terms either “faction” or “parliamentary party”, the latter obviously not applying here. In mathematics, “fraction” would be the correct translation, but then only.

It’s Red Army Faction according to Michael Burleigh. If it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for me.

Of course, silly. The Feminist Critique only applies to Western societies and political movements.

Who’s liberated? She, the Jihadist? Or me, her potential Infidel victim?

I know whose side I’m on:

“The Female Face of Jihad”

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/15060

“It’s Red Army Faction according to Michael Burleigh.”

And it’s Red Army Fraction according to Paul Berman. He actually devotes a page or so in his “Power and the Idealists” to explaining why “fraction” represents the better translation.

Oh, and I think it has something to do with “fraction” better connoting the cell structure of terrorist units.

Field, i think your analysis needs sharpening, particularly since you conclude that all Islam is aggressive and cultist. If it had been so, we would not have had the vast periods of history (including most of the first three quarters of the twentieth century when Islam (apart from the struggle that created Pakistan) was not seen as a major political factor, and the rise of socialism/marxism and ultra right nationalism drove Arab and most middle and far eastern political radicalism.

The point about Zawahiri is that he ended up rejecting the Muslim Brotherhood (and to some extent it rejected him), and he took off to Afghanistan and joined forces with Bin Laden to found Al Qaeda.

The complex history of all that is set out very interestingly here:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_wright
You can easily find political statements by the MB and its offshoots and AQ which declare their hatred of each other with as much vehemence and violence as they use towards Jews, the US and the west in general.

Schmuel: use a dictionary. Learn German. Ok.

Perhaps Al-Qaeda sees the big picture: give women the right to bomb themselves and next they’ll want a seat at the decision-making table. Either that, or the men that run the show think it a sin a woman would want the reward of 75 virgins in paradise. Afterall, isn’t homosexuality against the Qur’an???

I like Qaradawi’s bit about as well as wives being allowed to go out and blow up things without hubby’s permission, slaves also are allowed to do the same without massa’s permission. So liberated! No wonder, he’s so well liked.

Somehow I don’t see “Salima the suicide bomber” making the same sort of contribution to gender equality that “Rosie the riveter’ did.

Doc -

Reckon you’re right there. Mohammed Atta looked as gay as they come and he had a pathological fear of contact with women we learn from his diary notes.

Judy -

I don’t think the Muslim Brotherhood is like a paid up party in the West. I believe it has had many manifestations and several people who could claim to lead it. I think Zawahiri brought with him a large number of people. I’ll look into that some more. It’s certainly wrong for you to claim Al Queda did not have roots in the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Hamas.

You indulge in the old game of trying to imply that critics of Islam think all Muslims are fully committed to its dogma and that the whole of Islamic history has been Jihadist.

You state:

“We would not have had the vast periods of history (including most of the first three quarters of the twentieth century when Islam (apart from the struggle that created Pakistan) was not seen as a major political factor,”

Not seen by whom? Of course for most of this period you refer to the territory of Islam was colonised by the Western powers who had a clear technological edge over Islamic societies in terms of weaponry. There is NO evidence that during this period Islamic dogma changed in any significant sense. Where Islamic societies modernised, they did so at the behest of secularisers like Attaturk and the Ba’athists. But even in this period many commentators including Winston Churchill were fully aware of the threat that Islam posed to the wider world.

With colonialism dead and oil money in their pockets, we have again seen Islam adopt an aggressive approach to the outside world - have a listen to the statements of the political leaders of that so called Islamic showcase state, Malaysia. We have seen the cultural offensive launched by the Saudi Wahaabists around the world. We have seen the war that humbled the Soviets and the terrorist attack on the pre-eminent cities of the Western Hemisphere.

Not all Muslims - persons born into Islam - are sincere Muslims i.e. believe truly in the dogma. But the essential content of Islamic dogma is clear: Mohammed is the perfect exemplar; Islam will eventually rule the whole planet and Shariah will be the global legal system; only Judaism and Christianity are tolerated as alternative religions, and then only if Jews and Christians show due humility; violent conquest of non-Islamic countries is justified; women and non-Muslims are to be treated as second class citizens under Shariah. You won’t find many Muslim clerics who dissent from any of those propositions.

Islam is a vast body of different religions so be careful about tarring all Muslims with the same brush. For most of Islam’s history and areas of influence Muslims have generally followed an orthodox school (Sunni or Shii) side by side one with a Sufi order. Sufism is a pretty vague term too, but on the whole its followers payed lip service to the more authoritarian and repressive rules of the orthodox Islam they outwardly professed. The point about Islamic fundamentalism - of which the Wahhabis, the Taliban, the Islamic Brotherhood and al-Qaeda are all forms - is that it totally rejects Sufism and most of mainstream Islam’s traditions. Official Islam in Iran is not fundamentalist, by the way, for all the repugnant and repressive committed in its name by the mad-mullah government. Fundamentalist Islam is even worse, believe me. Iran’s alliance with Hamas will end in tears for Iran; fundies see Shiism as polytheism and even advocate jihad against and butchery of Shiites. What an awful mess the Islamic world is in and bringing to the rest of the world… What better advocate for secularism than what we see in the Dar al-Islam?

The pompous invective spouted in HPs is hilarious. You lot really need to educate yourself about Islam - not the islam of al Qaida or Hizb’Allah or Hamas, or Martin Bright, Ed Hussain et al - but Islam without frills.
Once you’ve got the foundation you can then look into the various factions, their roots and origins instead of giving ill-founded opinions which are a great source of amusement to some of us simple Muslims.
Thank you for another entertaining evening at Harrys.
ps: I still prefer the original HP

The pompous invective spouted in HPs is hilarious. You lot really need to educate yourself about Islam - not the islam of al Qaida or Hizb’Allah or Hamas, or Martin Bright, Ed Hussain et al - but Islam without frills.
Once you’ve got the foundation you can then look into the various factions, their roots and origins instead of giving ill-founded opinions which are a great source of amusement to some of us simple Muslims.
Thank you for another entertaining evening at Harrys.
ps: I still prefer the original HP

Yvonne, what’s your view on Hizbullah?

As a journalist will you condemn their (and their allies) attack on destruction of Future TV’s studios?

Surely you cannot support or justify that action.

pardon, the bad grammar.

What I meant was - As a journalist will you condemn their (and their allies) attack on and destruction of Future TV’s studios?

A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham.

A police community support officer (PCSO) interrupted the conversation and began questioning the ministers about their beliefs.

They said when the officer realised they were American, although both have lived in Britain for many years, he launched a tirade against President Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Cunningham said: “I told him that this had nothing to do with the gospel we were preaching but he became very aggressive.

“He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message.He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station.”

The preacher refused to give the PCSO his address because he felt the officer’s manner was “threatening and intimidating”.

The ministers claim he also advised them not to return to the area. As he walked away, the PCSO said: “You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned”.

West Midlands Police, who refused to apologise, said the incident had been “fully investigated” and the officer would be given training in understanding hate crime and communication.

Yvonne,

Thanks for dropping by. Can I ask if you will be writing to Ayman al-Zawahiri to complain about the gender discrimination, and do your business cards still have that Qutb quote about blood on them?

Yvonne, darling, it must be an awful struggle for you to stay on the waggon, for all the support your latest new identity and faith are allegedly giving you. But if you must project, please do it in your own Mullah-paved backyard. Incidentally, just because you’ve donned the veil and recently read Colonel Ahmed Edgar O’Flannigan’s 1835 English translation of the Koran doesn’t really mean you have any serious knowledge of or insight into Islam, its many forms, its history or even its political manifestations. All that takes serious study, intelligence and intellectual honesty, qualities no one has ever accused you of.

As the bold Ken told Qaradawi that there’ll always be a welcome for the Sheikh on his on his mayoral patch, I hope the Mayor of Birmingham will have the guts to to tell the two American evangelists that there’ll always be a welcome for them on his mayoral patch, as well as hint to the Birmingham coppers that they’e not quite ready yet to take on the role of the Saudi morality enforcement force.

Some info from Wikipedia on connections between Muslim Brotherhood.
EIJ (a very significant part of Al Queda) are no different from Hamas in having their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood and I think it is misleading to suggest otherwise:-

“The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Arabic: الجهاد الإسلامي المصري ‎) (EIJ), formerly called simply Islamic Jihad ( الجهاد الإسلامي ) originally referred to as “al-Jihad,” and then “the Jihad Group”, or “the Jihad Organization”,[1] is an Egyptian Islamist group active since the late 1970s with origins in the Muslim Brotherhood. It is under worldwide embargo by the United Nations as an affiliate of al-Qaeda.[2] It is also banned by several individual governments including that of The Russian Federation.[3] Since 1991 it has been led by Ayman al-Zawahiri.”

As for the general points made about Islam, yes, Sufism is to be welcomed as a generally more moderate version of Islam. However, there has never been a Sufist challenge to orthodox Islam. Sufism is not an alternative ideology to Koranic literalism, Jihad, strict Shariah, the Mohammed cult and all the other elements of orthodox Islam.

As with any religion you have to look at its origins, its general character, its history, its dogma(s) (both original and as developed over time), and its current practice.

With Islam:

1. Its origins lie in the alleged revelations of one man and one man only. (Only Buddhism I would say has a similar starting point.)

2. Its general character is strict monotheism, cultic elevation of the Prophet, legalistic, aggression to non-believers and totalitarian practice.

3. Its history is one of continual conflict on its borders as it sort to expand its area of control except for the period of European colonialism
when it was subdued.

4. Its dogmas have remained relatively stable over time, owing no doubt in part to its late arrival on the scene - by which time the idea of codifying belief and laws was well established - and also its origin in the beliefs of one man. They can be summed up as Koranic literalism, Jihad, strict Shariah, and the Mohammed cult.

5. Everywhere that Islam is in the majority the attitude to other religions is aggressive and uncompromising. Generally around the world full commitment to orthodox Islam has been somewhat watered down by materialism, modern democracy and so on and the quietist approach encouraged by the colonial period. However in all the main training institutions of Islam only orthodox beliefs are taught.

Field, there is no evidence Muhammad was an historical figure. Islam took several centuries to evolve into the body of different religions we now recognise as Islamic. The Koran itself, which contains very few Islamic laws, was very probably written by several people, rather than “Muhammad”, over two or three generations.

What do you understand by “orthodox” Islam? Koranic literalism was always on the sidelines. Sufism, like Islam itself, is a very large collection of different religious groups. Some were definitely militant and jihadist. Most weren’t, however, and they certainly did challenge the “orthodox” establishment in many ways, from religious practice to scholarly discourse. What do you understand by “strict Shariah”? Each Islamic group has its own concept of “shariah”, which it attempts to access via “fiqh”. “Orthodox” doesn’t really mean much in Islam - which has no single central authority or credal statement (but lots of pretenders to those). Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood and all other fascist manifestations of Islam are fundamentalist and therefore anything but orthodox, as orthodoxy is based on traditions. Fundamentalists attempt to get to the so-called original (pre-traditional) Islam, although in practice they have to rely on (weirdo, non-mainstream) traditions to locate the pristine image of Islam they want to clean up. To put it simply, fundies are merely frustrated individuals sublimating their anal repression into puerile but violent political action. I’m sure a few years of Freudian psycho-analysis would really help them. If any are reading now, go look up the Tavistock Centre in north London. Yvonne, I know now why you’ve been projecting so much…

You lot really need to educate yourself about Islam - not the islam of al Qaida or Hizb’Allah or Hamas, or Martin Bright, Ed Hussain et al - but Islam without frills.

Two words: Magdi Allam

Educate yourself.

Two other words: “honour Killings”

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/

When one is ‘Maid Marian’ to the Taliban’s merry men, knowledge, education and reason have abdicated.

Entrapped and then swallowed whole, as you were, by your own arrogance.

Judy has it spot on. If there is any take-home message from the original post, it is that we shouldn’t conflate Hamas with al-Qaeda.

On the organisational make-up/development of the MB, see:

El-Ghobashy, Mona: ‘The Metamorphosis of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Volume 37 (2005)

The conclusion of the article is that the MB has increasingly moved away from tight, kinship-based groups led by doctrinal intellectuals (like Qutb or al-Banna) to modern, urban-based professionals. Indeed, in a lot of ways, the MB is very like western political parties, i.e. subject to the same institutional constraints (like how Egypt’s high-threshold PR system predisposes coalition building) and the same political entrepreneurship (i.e. compromise/acceptance of political pluralism).

Morogoth’s post @7:28pm is deeply disturbing and, if true(and I have no reason to believe otherwise as it seems in keeping with the current trends) is another marker sadly indicative of the West’s naively suicidal slouch toward total dhimmitude. And while I haven’t kept up with every single faction/fraction in the Muslim world as well as others commenting here, and my first-hand experience is limited to time spent in Turkey and Libya in 68-71, so is in a way very much ancient history, let me put a tentative oar in the water. (Building on my theme of renaming HP “the Oar House”, reflecting the plethora of personal oars freely and drippingly dipped in the H2O here–as in with copious sarcasm and personal invective–God help me I love it so![the British style of debate that is, I need to take lessons from Mounsey over at Devil’s Kitchen] P.S. The Oar House was also the name of a bar I used to drink at in Santa Monica, CA in the mid 70’s, so I’ll confess I’m not THAT original in the use of the double entendre)

At any rate, reflecting on the line pursued by Field and Albert, I would tend more to agree with Field, although Albert makes some valid points. In support of Albert, someone once said of the brand of Islam followed in SEA that Islam is an ascetic religion better suited to desert realms rather than lush tropical paradises with lots of water and fish and fruit freely abounding as if manna from heaven. In this view it is no accident, I would hold, that many Jews (cousins to the Muslims in the ascetic sense)in New Orleans partake of the exotic local cuisine quite in flagrant disregard of many Talmudic admonishments concerning food. (the mind is willing, but the flesh is weak, etc…..)

In support of Field I have long regarded “moderate” Muslims to be much like American Catholics, i.e., they basically IGNORE those central tennents inconvenient to their lifestyles. (You know, the Chinese restaurant menu approach–one from column A, two from
column B, etc.) The Jihadists, on the other hand, are the ones correctly reading and truly adhering to the actual verbiage of the Koran–which means that the task before the West is not simply one of showing a few malcontents the error of their ways
in “misconstruing” the “message of peace.” (A staunch pre- Vatican II conservative Catholic friend of mine in New Orleans used to patiently listen to typical “progressive” air-head college co-eds expound on their liberal pick-and-choose approach to Catholicism at the end of which, he would reach out, shake their hand, and say: “Congratulations, you’re now a Protestant!”) Like my friend’s feelings about post Vatican II Catholics, I view “moderate” Muslims to no more be true Muslims than “progressive” American Catholics are, in the main, true Catholics.

There’s a lot of gnat-straining going on in this thread!

Have I denied that the Muslim Brotherhood has developed and changed since its origins in the 1920s, after the collapse of the Caliphate? No.
It would be very strange if any human organisation, however formal or informal, did not change over time. But one of the defining features of religions is their ability to maintain their internal cultures over centuries and even millennia - far more than other human institutions. This is a tribute to the seriousness with which they are treated by their adherents and the effectiveness of their indoctrination (cf meme theory - only those that are effective with their indoctrination survive).

I’m not inclined to take lectures on Islam from Albert who denies that Mohammed was a historical figure who started the religion - in contradiction of all reputable scholars of Islam that I have ever read of. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence for Mohammed’s existence: the attested Hadith, the surnames of people, the historical accuracy of the traditions, the internal coherence of the Koran etc. It would be tedious to try and prove what all scholars of significance accept on this occasion. I have a feeling Aisha, his child bride, lived to a ripe old age, by which time Islamic society was much advanced with a full complement of scribes etc, so her evidence for the existence of Mohammed would to my mind be very persuasive.

I particularly reject Albert’s assertion that “orthodoxy is based on traditions”. Orthodoxy is based on an understanding of the genuine original belief system of the religion. This is why the Catholic Church for example accepts various rites that are not in accord with their own tradition, but are considered acceptable because they are assessed to be sufficiently close in their dogmatic beliefs to those of the Papacy. The problem for Islam that is always very easy for people to identify what the original belief system was because it is stated quite clearly in the Koran and in the Hadith and because it is known there was no break in the development of interpretation and law. If someone were to say: “Mohammed preached peace between all religions, respect for polytheism, and equality for women and abjured violence against those of other beliefs.” it would very easy to prove them false.

Back to the gnat straining -

No one seems able to deny the Wikipedia statement that the EIJ grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood. In other words - they are no different from Hamas in that respect.

I am not pretending Islam is a monolith. There never has been a monolith in religion, in politics or in any field of human activity. But there is a strong pattern of ideology that runs through nearly all expressions of Islam and especially among the clerics who are the guardian of the religion.

Svejk says:

“Indeed, in a lot of ways, the MB is very like western political parties, i.e. subject to the same institutional constraints (like how Egypt’s high-threshold PR system predisposes coalition building) and the same political entrepreneurship (i.e. compromise/acceptance of political pluralism).”

Er…what are you saying? - that the MB don’t believe in Shariah, in the global domination of the planet by Islam, in treating non-Muslims and women as second class citizens? Whatever they do for temporary advantage is irrelevant and only another blast of Taqiyya. Where is the evidence that MB have significantly modified their message from the days of Qutb? Wherever they or their successors - like Hamas - get power, we see them implementing the MB vision: women are forced to don Islamic dress and Christians are persecuted unless they show due deference; gays are murdered or driven out; and Shariah is implemented progressively.

Yvonne darling, could you explain to me simpleton Muslim that if the exalted Prophet Mohammad (S.A.W.), the assassin rapist and slave owner, had fornicated a dog, would it be hallal to kill the dog as like any other dog, or the holy fornicated dog would be allowed to live as it is blessed with the parts of the only perfect human being?

As a true Muslim, this theoretical conundrum has caused me sleepless nights.

I am so prowd to see a sister in hejab, and a 2nd class citizen like you, so valiantly fighting the great unholy colonial west, as Allah has so undoubtedly instructed us. BTW, did hubby give you permission to post here?

va Allaho va’l azam

Yvonne, what’s your view on Hizbullah?

As a journalist will you condemn their (and their allies) attack on and destruction of Future TV’s studios?

Surely you cannot support or justify that action.

Still waiting for a reply.

Also as a journalist are you not ashamed to work for a company Press TV who’s backers - the Iranian govt. - fund and support the groups who attacked Future TV with AK47’s and RPG’s?

It’s not a difficult question.

field: what I am saying is that increasingly the MB, at least in Egypt, and in many ways Jordon, are becoming secularised and localised. This is, as you like to point out, the party that gave us Hamas and other various offshoots. Yet we see a rapid demobilisation of transnationalist aspirations in the 1980s-90s. This is what Olivier Roy likes to call, ‘the failure of political Islam’. His point: that when Islam looks to the state to spread the message, the result is a subordination of Islam to the state.

The payoff from this: that MB is exemplar of an Islamist party that increasingly shares propinquity with Western-style, Christian. Democrats. In terms of evidence of change in ‘message’, well if you read the article (if you don’t have an Athens account, my apologies) you see that the MB increasingly has to look to non-Islamic sources for answers in how to run a modern state; the Qu’ran not saying very much about modern sewage treatment. And again, if you read the article you’ll see plenty of evidence of the MB forming broad political fronts with trade union movements/secular movements to lobby for political reform. Taken together: if you’ve read ‘Milestones’ you’ll realise quite how different the present MB is from Qutb’s vision.

And in terms of Shariah: this is a straw man. Yes, to many extents they still have an, ostensibly, Islamist agenda. But they are not terrorists, which was the original point. Indeed, they very famously denounced al-Jama’a (the group that committed the Luxor attacks) and have consistently re-asserted their commitment to democratic reform.

Of course, an irony of your unconscious (or ignorant) conflation of the MB/Hamas/al-Qaeda is that this is the very conflation the Egyptian government have used for decades to slow down political liberalisation at home…

Field, I’m no expert on Catholicism but I know enough about it to see that you cannot compare Islam with it.

Islam is made up of many religions, most of which have no central authority. There is no single credal statement as Catholics have. The so-called Hadith or sunna of the Prophet, on which 95% of Islamic law is based, are a huge collection of anecdotes written centuries after Muhammad’s purported existence and while ascribed to him there is absolutely no way to prove they derive from him (and many are also clearly anachronistic). There are no historical documents or relics for the first century of Islam to prove any of the famous historical figures existed, not even the child bride Aisha (out of “respect” for whom the Prophet waited until she was 8 years old before consumating his marriage with her - according to the Islamic traditions, that is). Many scholars have indeed challenged the view that Muhammad existed, such as Warnsborough in his extremely influential work, Quranic Studies. Similar ideas have been discussed in lots of more recent works - read Slaves on Horses by P. Crone. All we have are stories set down on paper centuries after the supposed events. It’s faith that makes people believe these stories, the same faith that makes people believe Jesus and Moses performed miracles. The Hadith forms the bulk of the many traditions followed by the various religions called Islam. Orthodoxy doesn’t mean anything in the Islamic world because there is no one single Islamic group that can be said to represent true Islam. All we can talk about is so-called “normal practice” within the major Islamic groups, but even then there has rarely been that. Since the 11th century AD, normal religious practice in the Islamic world has been Sufi orientated, which in itself is extremely fragmented and diverse. Most Muslims didn’t know the ins and outs of their faith, and religious practice was heavily influenced by various competing forms of local Sufism. Among the very few who could read and write and had formally studied Islamic theology, jurisprudence, Koranic interpretation etc., most were devout Sufis too, whether they called themselves Sunnis or Shiites.

Fundamentalism, which is a very fast growing phenomenon in the Islamic world and its diaspora, is a reaction to and dead against Sufism. Fundamentalism has always been there in Islam, but until recent times it had relatively few followers. It is also against Sunnism and Shiism because of many of their followed traditions, including those derived from Sufi beliefs and practices. Wahhabism, a form of fundamentalism, is not Sunnism, even if it originally derives from one of its schools (Hanbalism). The fact is, no serious scholar really knows what Islam was for the first century of its existence. All we have are later traditions alleging what it was, and these traditions contradict each other depending on the form of Islam practiced by their authors.

Yvonne,

I know you’re reading this.

Svejk -

I don’t doubt that there are some pressures on Islamists to descale their ambitions and operate more like Christian Democrats. If that happens I will be the first to applaud it. We might be seeing something like that in Turkey but the jury is still out I would say - very much so.

As for “Indeed, they very famously denounced al-Jama’a (the group that committed the Luxor attacks) and have consistently re-asserted their commitment to democratic reform.”

We’ve heard many denunciations over the years. But I am always struck how often your hear from the spokespeople for Islam that they condemn “the killing of innocents” not “I condemn this particular attack here”. So I woudl like to see the wording before I accept what you say. Also, it is easy for a group like MB to condemn a rival group without specifically condemning the terrorism i.e they can condemn the group from the point of view of tactics.

Looking at the way HuT operate in the UK, it is clear that while they don’t use violence, they don’t condemn Jihadist violence. I think they are simply operating on a broad front, just as Communists used to operate on a broad front taking in peacable trade union activity and social work through to full scale guerilla warfare and - where they had control - outright murder and gulags for millions.

Albert - I don’t accept your premise that there are many “religions”
under Islam. They show greater doctrinal unity than do Christians and I wouldn’t personally say that mainstream Protestants and Catholics beleived in different “religions” (although they might think they do!).

Can you please point to some fundamental doctrinal differences between these “religions”? I mean - what are the real doctrinal differences between Shiah, Sunni and Sufis say? I myself see nothing very fundamental beyond how you select the leader and what that leader is capable of.

field: but the MB in Egypt (the point of discussion, at least from my perspective) is not HuT. And this is an important point and it’s one that comes up in the literature: Islamist movements do not present a coherent, ‘internationalist’ (to use your Communism analogy) framework. That is why the transnational Islamist project, which we could say the MB was in the ‘vanguard’ of, has failed. Instead, Islamists, like the various branches of the MB have turned to national liberation projects; indeed, I would recommend you read Lybarger, Loren D.: Identity and Religion in Palestine: The Struggle between Islamism and Secularism in the Occupied Territories (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2007). It’s an ethnographic account of Islamist movements and how they articulate their political claims in Palestinian refugee camps. It basically argues that Hamas could only get legitimacy once it took on the role of a national liberation struggle.

The picture Lybarger builds is one of heterogeneity, contestation and compromise, of reconciling utopian ideals, with hard realities. This is the story of modern Islamist movements. And it is an important one because whilst Islamism projects a reified picture of Islam, they are in fact subject to the same changes as any ideology.

Albert: “The term ‘fundamentalism’ has been in use since the 1920s, originating as a description of Protestant sects opposed to ‘modernism’ within Christianity, and in particular to Darwinian theories of evolution.” The Politics of ‘Islam’ - A Second Look Fred Halliday, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 3. (Jul., 1995), p.339

A delicious irony in view of your point.

Svejk -

The “transnational” Islamist project existed for some 1300 of Islam’s 1400 years. It existed quite successfully - certainly more successfully than most transnational projects e.g. the Soviet Union. The idea that it woudl be impossible to resurrect this transnational project is ridiculous. There is nothing inherently implausible in there being a collection of Islamic republics or emirates that then elect, perhaps through some sort of electoral college, a transnational Caliph. The Caliph would produce the overarching Shariah law - a bit like EU law - that would have to be followed by the emirate republics.

The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood have given up on the idea of restoring the Caliphate which is essential to delivering Islam on a global scaleis to my mind fanciful.

Unless you can point to some MB ideologues admitting clearly that they have given up on the Caliphate, I don’t see why I should believe you.

When you say that Islamists have to “[reconcile] utopian ideals with hard realities” you are saying very, very little. All utopians have to do that or their movement dies with them. Communists were completely utopian in their ideology but have barely been surpassed in their cynical bargain with “hard realities”.

The Girls just want to be suicide bombers!
See “Women Fight for Right to Join Al Qaeda” at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/31/world/main4142514.shtml