Talk:Sayyid Qutb/Archive 1

Early text

Can someone write his name in Arabic? Also I think the more common English transliteration of his first name is Sayyid. --csloat 20:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article moved

The article has now been moved to Sayyid Qutb. Sam [Spade] 19:57, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden ??

Toward the bottom of the article there is a claim that Osama Bin Laden went to hear Qutb lecture. Bin Laden was 9 years old when Qutb was executed and had been in jail for 10 years before that. This does not seem correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.195.2 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The article says that bin Laden attended lectures by Sayyid's brother Muhammad. Sreed888 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

spelling of his name?

why is the name spelled sayyid, when on the cover of milestones, it is spelled seyyid? this is not even mentioned in the discussion of alternate spellings.

Non-licenced pictures?

It seems there are copyright problems with both the pictures in this article. Could someone clarify this, and, if possible/neccessary, get another picture? Trondtr 11:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

The second picture is sourced. We could source the main picture from the same source as the second (BBC documentary), though that might break a policy.--Vector4F 10:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-contradiction?

The article says he was critical of the US for its racism, and then a paragraph later includes what would [today, anyway] amount to a racist quote from him. Perhaps someone got a little carried away with cleaning up Qutb's image?

New citation scheme

I am beginning to convert the article to a new citation system. Basically, I think it would be best to reference sources in text and provide exact page numbers where possible. For the mean time, I will keep the current references until everything is converted.

Serious POV

I am not in the least surprised that an article like this would contain POV. It is almost a natural thing for an article that describes a controversial figure. More specifically, I am not surprised that Qutb is being called a terrorist or is being linked to terrorism. I realize that some would be amazed that quite a number of people are fond of him, and that his actions are not considered actions of terrorism or propaganda for terrorism. Nevertheless, the definition of terrorism is subjective, and it should be left out unless one can present both sides to a story. It is not fair to Qutb to call him a terrorist or a founder of terrorism without mentioning who holds that belief that he is a terrorist. For example, an editor could mention that a government agency considers him a terrorist (if that is the case).

I have no plans of editing this article, because I don't believe it is worth it. I try to stay away from controversial topics, because most time would then be spent arguing. --Stiles 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in making a better article and would appreciate it if you could note the specific parts of the article you feel are biased.

I do not see where the article calls Qutb a terrorist. The article doesn't even say that Qutb is a founder of terrorism. It says he is a founder of modern, radical Salamis's. When Qutb is linked to "extremism" (some of his views were fairly extreme), the statement is specified as "a view", not a fact.

The only link to terrorism is via the fact that Qutb's brother, who was by all accounts committed to spreading Qutb's message, had an indirect influence on Al-Qaeda. The relationship is simply stated. No conclusion is made about it. In fact, this whole part is under the "criticisms" section. --Vector4F 07:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the word "terrorism" particularly. I meant the idea of him being radical, Islamist, or whatever you prefer. Whatever the case may be, all I suggest is that editors mention who believes he has ties to such and such. Such mention should also be complimented with other views of him. That keeps things factual and non-partisan, what an encyclopedia should be. Besides, what does "the founder of modern Islamism" mean any way? Such definition should also be provided, and the name of the person or government agency that called him "the founder of modern Islamism" should be mentioned. --Stiles 02:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for explaining. I think I will go ahead and start working on the citations I have neglected including. I think just about everything can be sourced from current scholarship. --Vector4F 19:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Qutb was open about his hatred of the United States. Read him in Arabic. "Dislike" does not cut it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Can someone look into this? Some of the comments are clearly biased.

Also, the article really lacks in details. Exactly what was he imprisoned for? --Beetle B. 22:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it is too sympathetic in terms of POV. For instance, mind reading and interpreting events. Instead of saying that he developed such and such a theory after imprisonment, the article makes a point of emphasizing how cruel the prison is, and that his extremist reaction is somehow excusable. Same with his trip to the US. The article mistakes Qutb's perception of sexual openness in the US for a fact, when it could be seen as paranoia. Naively believing his version of events is POV in my opinion.

Another aspect is that the article seems to minimize his links to terrorism. It mentions political Islam, but to what extent did his thought influence terrorist violence directly? Has Bin Laden or anyone directly cited him in committing acts of terror? This article reads like he is just a founder of "political Islam" instead of possibly founding global jihadi terrorism. Maybe this is false but that is how he is viewed in many academic circles, and possibly by the Jihadis themselves. This article seems to whitewash him. --Willowx 14:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. Global terrorism was founded years before by the anarchists, and the jihadist version of such could be traced back to the Hashishim or if you prefer something closer you can look at the juramentados at the turn of the 20th century in the Philippines, who were called "jihadis" and engaged in suicidal terrorist attacks. Qutb did not advocate such things. He was an intellectual inspiration to modern jihadis, but also to many other Islamic reformers who don't engage in suicide terrorism. His most direct influence on terrorism was through the Muslim Brotherhood, which of course no longer advocates violence (and certainly does not support suicidal attacks on civilians). Qutb's influence extends far beyond the bin Laden crowd. He wrote a 34-volume interpretation of the Quran which has been very influential. I have read the volumes that specifically discuss jihad -- the ones focused on Surahs 8 and 9 -- and while there is plenty about the evils of jahiliyya, it is hardly a manual for terrorism. --csloat 21:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've done some preliminary work on addressing these concerns. The fact that these things are not really clear in the article is a problem in itself, apart from any POV.

First, the connection to terrorism. It's problematic to retroactively associate individuals. For example, if bin Laden cited Qutb that would be a fact about bin Laden, not Qutb. Thus, this information would be better placed in the article on Qutbism, though perhaps a mention in the legacy section is called for. Also, its worth noting that many Western Islamic scholars place Qutb alongside al-Banna and Mawdudi, as intellectual influences and not jihadists. I don't believe this categorization is whitewashing, though if no distinction is explained the effect is the same.

Second, the underplaying of Qutb's extremism as "reactionary" to his situation and the implication that this is excusable. Certainly no one should be excused for their well formulated opinions. Qutb's time in prison did had the noticeable effect of radicalizing his writing. It also seems to have brought him closer to Islam. Thus we have an interesting mix of works like his reflective commentaries and his radical political writing.

Qutb's trip to the US is another issue. I gather from his account of the trip several things. First, Qutb has a horrible cross-cultural experience. Taboos in his society are small talk in America, for example. Second, Qutb is proud of his culture and - in my opinion - ignorant of American culture. He essentially takes an elitist position towards America. Third, Qutb was very conservative and social liberalities in America were disgusting to him. All of these positions still have a very strong undercurrent in Egyptian society, but most Egyptian writers who recounted American experiences were more liberal than Qutb (in fact, all of them that I have ever read). Thus, Qutb's reactions probably speak from the perspective of many Egyptians, though his conclusions and criticisms are another matter. "Paranoia" is far more correct than "misunderstanding".

I hope to shrink the article's section of Qutb's life, expand his philosophy, and perhaps add a section on Qutb's criticism of Western life. --Vector4F 07:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Some points

"This point is central to most modern Islamists, in their assertion that all forms of governance over Muslims are illegitimate except the Islamic state Khilafah."

That is a generalization... it's more than Khalifah by name (as we tend to understand it) it is the executor of God's law... and, the Caliphate is only legitimate when it is following God's law... I think it's an important distinction as to what power the Caliph has... when sometimes the concept is compared to a normal head of state... the Caliph to Qutb is nothing like that. --gren 19:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your comment is insightful and, I think, critical to understanding Qutb without crude classifications. I am not sure how to properly introduce the subtle distinction of exactly what one thinker means by a state vs. another. Islam has some particular fineries which are difficult to notice, let alone penetrate. In Western philosophy, Qutb's concept of state bear some similarities to Hegel's "Spirit in Time". The Caliph was state as a body, but post-Ataturk it seems to be more or less a spiritual shibboleth. To what, exactly, is an interesting question and this is, perhaps, the challenge of interpreting political Islam. I think the article could use a section on Qutb's symbolic thought, including the Khilafah, the Qur'an, etc. Perhaps the key to understanding Qutb are his Islamic constructions. --Vector4F 07:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Memorized Koran?

I read an essay claiming that Qutb memorized the entire Koran at a young age. I don't want to put this in unless someone else can verify it- can anyone?

He received some kind of degree at 12, as I recall, that involved memorizing the Qur'an. This isn't quite as amazing as it sounds. He wasn't the only 12 year old to do this and the Qur'an is largely designed to be comparatively easy to memorize. However it was an achievement and he was indeed a smart man. This makes him slightly enigmatic. He was clearly intelligent and cared about educating people. However he also favored the harshest interpretation of sharia, was a militant Anti-Semite, considered women dancing with men to be a sign of American evil, and considered Christians to be a schizophrenic culture best purged or marginalized from society. There is something strangely seductive about the way he could create an intellectually impressive framework to justify the worst kind of totalitarianism possible, but I hope this article avoids being too seduced by that. --T. Anthony 10:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Qutb indicates this in his autobiography. Full memorization was a mark of distinction (still is in rural areas), but rote memory of passages was most of the school curriculum. Shortly thereafter (sometime before 1920), the Qur'anic education was dropped and a new state apparatus took a proactive approach to rural education. Qutb eventually made an immediate choice to go to the modern school (his father disapproved for reasons of "saving face" with the teacher, but his mother was supportive). --Vector4F 06:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Luke Loboda cites some Berman, Paul from New York Times and states that Qutb memorized the Quran at the age of 10. I have no access to NYT archive, so cannot check what's the source of Berman's claim. --Magabund 09:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Qutb's racism

The article states he was appalled by the racism he found in America. This passage seems pretty racist:

"The American is primitive in his artistic tastes, whether in his judgment of art or his own artistic works. Jazz music is his music of choice. It is this music that the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires, and their desire for noise on the one hand, and the abundance of animal noises on the other. The American's enjoyment of jazz does not full begin until he couples it with singing like crude screaming. And the louder the noise of the voices and instruments, until it rings in the ears to an unbearable degree, the greater the appreciation of the listeners. The voices of appreciation are raised, and palms are raised in continuous clapping that could deafen ears."

--204.169.55.31 17:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah last time I read it the article was amazingly slanted in favor of a strongly Anti-Semitic fountainhead of Islamic terrorist thought. --T. Anthony 16:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read Qutb's article in an English translation. I would need to see the Arabic, but I would not assume this passage to be racist. Qutb is a writer and this appears to be the work of an Egyptian author. Consider: Qutb is using the motif of a primitive society (he continually stresses this through American thinking, appearance, and activity). "Bushmen" references ancient African tribes that are as primitive as Egyptians can think of. "Bushmen" is a stereotype of primitiveness (especially for their animism and ritual chorus dancing) which only happens to imply skin color. The fact that African Americans happened to be heavily involved in jazz as a musical phenomena probably reminded Qutb of this stereotypical image. It would seem this is the *image* he wants to communicate. An Egyptian would find the American sensitivity to skin color strange. Using skin color in imagery would, in Egypt, always be assumed as a tool of writing, not of polemic.

When Qutb references racism in the article he is not, as I understand, even speaking of African Americans but of American prejudice against Arabs. --Vector4F 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reading more on him I guess he's not racist per se. However it is fair to say he is strongly of the view that non-Islamic cultures are negative or outright evil. Hence his statement on "savage bushman" may indeed be a cultural rejection of non-Islamic or pre-Islamic Africans as heathenous barbarians rather than as racially inferior in any sense. He did consider "the Jews", both as a religion and as a culture, as people who are "nursing their wicked grudges and always resorting to treacherous schemes to undermine Islam." He also considered them advocates of "most evil theories which try to destroy all values and all that is sacred." However as his concerns were primarily theological I get the sense maybe he would accept people of varied origins if they solely adopted an Islamic identity in all facets of life. So his bigotries were more cultural and religious rather than racial.--T. Anthony 13:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

With this passage:

Jazz is his preferred music, and it is created by Negroes to satisfy their love of noise and to whet their sexual desires ...

I would say that Qutb was quite an ugly racist.A.V. 06:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These quotes are from the 1950's. His works and quotes should be judged against the common views of the time. Most Western dialogue from that period would be considered racist today, so to attempt to label his writings as racist don't stand up. His views of Americans (and possibly African Americans) were no different than American opinions of Egyptians (and African Americans). By today's standards Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln could be labeled as racists but I doubt you will see a debate about that in their discussions. 170.123.4.230 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Naw, I don't think that cuts it. You're making up excuses for him. As a person from a Third World (or recently decolonialized) country---especially one in Africa---he should have been more sympathetic/less judgemental, but he wasn't. Let's face it, he was a white Arab-Egyptian racist against blacks, Jews, and all Americans, who mixed his racial prejudice with moral judgementalism and religious totalitarianism. Hitler also did this and stereotyped all Americans as being either part black or Jewish (or both) and strongly hated jazz music. Qutb and Hitler both sought racial explanations to explain why different people didn't do what they expected (demanded) them to do morally, religiously, or politically ("to submit to and follow the One and Only One True Narrow Way/Master Race" [sic]); in other words, they sought ways to "explain" why the "race" or "essence" of a person caused him or her to fall "short" [of their preconceived, socially, personally, or Koranically mandated arbitrary preconceptions/ideals of how people should be/behave). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.196 (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A mistake in the article

Following two quotes from Mr. Qutb:

"Islam came into this world to establish God's rule on God's earth, to invite all people toward the worship of God, and to make a concrete reality of its message in the form of a Muslim community in which individuals are free from servitude to men and have gathered together under servitude to God and follow only the Shari'ah of God. This Islam has a right to remove all those obstacles which are in its path so that it may address human reason and intuition with no interference and opposition from political systems....It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions which limit man's freedom of choice. It does not force them to accept its beliefs; it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and which curtail human freedom.... According to the Islamic concept and in actuality, God's rule on earth can be established only through the Islamic system, as it is the only system ordained by God for all human beings..." Milestones, pp. 74-5

"There is no denying that, throughout its long history, Islam has advocated the use of force, not to impose its doctrines, but to guarantee certain objectives that are necessary for human prosperity... Another objective of jihad is to establish the Islamic social order and defend it.... That notwithstanding, Islam undertakes to respect and guarantee the individual religious and personal freedom of everyone under its jurisdiction, subject to its ethical principles and social norms and regulations." In the Shade of the Qur'an, volume 1, pp. 328-329

I would say the part about him advocating nobody be forced to Islam be removed. In fact, I'll go right ahead and do it now. Thanks.

I think a distinction should be drawn here. Qutb does not say that people would be forced to believe in the Koran. He is explicit about this in Social Justice in Islam especially in regards to the zakat. In short what he wants is altered behaviour rather than altered belief. I'll dig up a page number later tonight.Thesaltflats 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Grahm

So in other words, he was basically saying that it is technically "okay" if not everyone believes/thinks like a Muslim, so long as everyone is forced to act like one (no sex, no drugs, no pork, pray 5 times a day, etc.)? And I suppose by "everyone else", he REALLY means ONLY "other peoples of the Book" (Arbahamic monotheists), and that he would STILL advocate the death penalty for atheists, pagan polytheists, etc.? (Conversely, substitute Xianity for Islam and it is very similar or identical to how many US conservatives and even some "libertarians" say they want things right here in the U.S. of A.!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.196 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Another mistake in the article

The article states:

"Qutb enjoyed a close relationship with the Free Officers Movement in the time leading up to and following the coup of June 1952. However their early cooperation soon soured over such issues as the Free Officers' REFUSAL TO HOLD ELECTIONS, to ban alcohol, or to take a hard line against the British presence in Egypt. It became increasingly clear that the Islamic tenets of the Brotherhood were largely incompatible with the secular ideology of Nasserism." (capitalization added)

What evidence is there Qutb was the slightest bit disturbed by the lack of elections under the Free Officers' regime?

An "open letter" to General Naguib by Qutb was published two weeks after the July 1952 Revolution, (in al-Akhbar, August 8, 1952) where he (Qutb) "excoriated the constitution of the ancien regime as a vehicle of moral corruption;" and argued 'just dictatorship' that would "grant political liberties to the virtuous alone" to purge the government of its alleged corruption.

"He further elaborated upon these view in his commentary on the shura chapter of the Qur'an (sura 42), where he subjected the text to a rigorous analysis and established that shura embodies the duty of the ruler to consult with at least some of the ruled (usually the elite), within the general context of God-made laws that the ruler must execute. No reference is made, significantly enough, to election of the ruler by the ruled. This set of principles, claimed Qutb, is not related to any particular form of government." (Radical Islam : Medieval Theology and Modern Politics, 1985 by Emmanuel Sivan, p.73)

Then, of course, there's his dismissal of democracy in the West, in Milestones: (Introduction, p.7)

"Democracy in the West has become infertile to such an extent that it is borrowing from the systems of the Eastern bloc, especially in the economic system, under the name of socialism."

And his angry denunciation of 'Islamic Democracy' as too accommodating to non-Muslims: (in Chapter 10, p.134)

"Islam looked at [non-Muslims] from a height, as this is its true position, ... [Islam] did not propose similarities with their system or manners to please them, as some do today when they present Islam to the people under the names of 'Islamic Democracy' or 'Islamic Socialism', or sometimes by saying that the current economic or political or legal systems in the world need not be changed except a little to be acceptable Islamically. The purpose of all this rationalization is to appease people's desires!"

.... Bear in mind that these are the only two mentions of democracy in Milestones.

Can anyone give me a reason why the phrase "refusal to hold elections" should not be removed? --Elmer Swensen 23.3.2006 http://gemsofislamism.tripod.com

I clarified Qutb's position in the article. --Vector4F 21:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Related articles

I think these need to be trimmed. Firstly, The Power of Nightmares seems basically like an advertisement for the BBC and a more liberal view of Qutb. It's really not related enough to him. Also linking vague subjects like Hadith serves little purpose... Islamism makes sense though I suppose. Comments? --gren グレン 20:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it's clearly a laundry list right now. 5-7 seems like a much better number. Here's the new list I propose, with reference to what has been removed and added (by me):

Keep

• Islamism
• Jahiliyyah
• Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi

Add

• Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq
• Qutbism

Remove

• Shari'a
• Note on Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi at Salafi
• Hadith
• Abdullah Yusuf Azzam
• Khurshid Ahmad
• Hasan al-Banna
• Yusuf al-Qaradawi
• List of Islamic scholars
• The Power of Nightmares (BBC documentary)
• Qur'an
• Egyptian Islamic Jihad

The four I have left/added seem to be the most relevant. Perhaps we can make further additions from here? --Vector4F 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Some notes on the list above: I see no point in keeping Shari'a since the inclusion of Islamism would take care of that. I'd also consider keeping Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. It is widely accepted that Maududi has had a great influence on Qutb, but I'd guess that this fact should be better noted somewhere on the article itself. And what about adding Qutbism? --Alwiqi 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I changed the above list and modified the article.

Also, Mawdudi does need mention in the article. More generally, there needs to be a section that explains Qutb's stated motivations (social justice, for example) and who/what influenced him. He can be a difficult character to penetrate, so I am thinking of summarizing and relating these points in one section. --Vector4F 18:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Legacy section

I removed the following paragraph because it needs work and doesn't seem to have a place in the article (yet). I like the idea of Qutb "answering" Western philosophy and the summary of Qutb's work as "fusing" ideology, but it needs to be shorter and clearer. Anyway, I will get back to it.

There is anecdotal evidence that Qutb and Shaykh Taqi-ud-deen an-Nabhani, founder of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, influenced each other. According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, "[i]n a century in which some of the most important writing came out of prisons, Qutb, for better or for worse, is the Islamic world's answer to Solzhenitsyn, Sartre, and Havel, and he easily ranks with all of them in influence. It was Sayyid Qutb who fused together the core elements of modern Islamism . . . . Qutb concluded that the unity of God and His sovereignty meant that human rule – government legislates its own behavior – is illegitimate. Muslims must answer to God alone." [Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, The Age of Sacred Terror: Radical Islam's War Against America (New York: Random House, 2002) p. 62] ISBN 0812969847. This point is central to most modern Islamists, in their assertion that all forms of governance over Muslims are illegitimate except the Islamic state (Khilafah).

--Vector4F 22:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Another removed paragraph. I've addressed its theme elsewhere, but left out the story about the prison murders. Incidentally, does anybody have a source for that story?

The conditions he experienced in prison, it has been argued, pushed Qutb to the conclusion that the Egyptian state was totally illegitimate. The political prisoners of Nasser's regime were arbitrarily arrested and abused. Sometimes this abuse took the form of torture, but it once climaxed in the murder of twenty-three Muslim Brothers and the wounding of forty-six after a protest in which they refused to perform hard labor. This incident, according to some, transformed Qutb’s view of the Nasser government, which he considered to be unparalleled in its cruelty. His radicalization culminated in a little book published in 1964 which was based on the ideas he had written in notes and letters during his time in prison. This is the famous Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq.

--68.166.64.179 02:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I found that the above story is mentioned in the introduction to A Child From The Village by Sayyid Qutb, J. Calvert & W. Shepard (Trans). --Vector4F 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Connection to Carrel

This connection to Carrel is overstated - greatly. Consider this line in the current version of the article: "Tariq Ali, Youssef Choueiri, Abu-Rabi, and Aziz Al-Azmeh, as well as other scholars of Islamism, see the French eugenicist Alexis Carrel as a primary (if unwitting) influence on Sayyid Qutb [1]."

I've read all these sources (which aren't actually cited, just the authors) and not one considers Carrel a primary influence on Qutb. Influence? Yes. Primary? No. That's simply an unfounded statement. I can provide all the relevant sections of text where these authors mention this. Rudolf Walther's article in Die Zeit is the only source which explicates this connection as "primary" or "vital", i.e. in any strong way. I don't know who Walther's is and I've never seen any of his other work (or his credentials), but this is an article in a periodical which has no proper citations for the claims it makes. Not acceptable. None of these references provides evidence or argument for this "connection" to be anything other than one intellectual citing another to prove his point.

Qutb cites Carrel - that I know of - in only one book (The Battle of Islam and Capitalism), because Carrel speaks to the contemporary materialism in Europe. I am currently acquiring this hard-to-find text via a Turkish translation, but I seriously doubt this is going to confirm an incredible connection. If anyone wants to beat me to it, feel free. Otherwise, don't speculate.

The paragraph about the similarities between Qutb and Carrel's conceptions of human nature is superfluous, uncited, and speculatory. It's not even very clear. It's also contradictory, as Carrel's position is essentially naturalistic and Qutb's is very much not. You can't just hack comparative philosophies together like this.

Apparently the author of this text understands neither Qutb or Carrel. Carrel was widely read in the Western world for his time (he won a Nobel prize) and Qutb was looking to him to substantiate some of his own suspicions about the West.

Finally, this has no place in the criticism section. The sources which Qutb uses are not worthy of "criticism" in this instance, because Carrel was a prominent intellectual. (Nietzsche cited the Bible - doesn't mean we should criticize him for it.) Merely citing someone does not a criticism make. (A new section on Qutb's sources or something would be better.) The only reason this present text could be here is to insinuate something. Therefore, I'm removing it. --Vector4F 05:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I simply moved this text from Alexis Carrel because it was more relevant here than in Carrel, but haven't edited it. Lapaz 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Your Carrel article edit makes an abundant amount of sense, as does the analysis of Vector4F. Citing the Islamists connection to Carrel is kind of like calling the radical Muslims "Nazis" because they happen to share the anti-Semitic views of that German party. It's a ludicrous comparison. Of course, you have to understand putting this inaccurate, exaggerated information in the Carrel article was simply an attempt by someone with an anti-fascist fetish to defame a brilliant man who, like MANY in that era, was misguided on some issues, such as the value and morality of eugenics. Such a belief simply needs a mention in an NPOV article (and certainly shouldn't be covered up) but the intent instead was to tie him somehow to Bin Laden, because that would permanently defame Carrel with a modern twist. Thanks again for your common sense edit. Be ready to revert it back at least once, since this other guy is on a jihad against Carrel. - Nhprman 22:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

New Paragraph on Personal Life

The new paragraph interupts the chronological order of "Life and public career" to some extent, but I thought it good to put in something about the man besides the usual education, career, beliefs and political rumble. (Being unable to marry may be no big deal to certain people in the West but it is to Muslims.)

Qutb's personal life was not always happy. Though Islam gave him much peace and contentment he suffered from respiratory and other health problems throughout his life, and was known for "his introvertedness, isolation, depression and concern." In appearance he was "pale with sleepy eyes."[1] Qutb never married, in part because of his steadfast religious convictions. While the urban Egyptian society he lived in was becoming more Westernized, Qutb believed the Quran (Surat al-Nina, 4:32) taught women that `Men are the managers of women's affairs ...' [2] Qutb lamented to his readers that he was never able to find a woman of sufficient "moral purity and discretion" and had to reconcile himself to bachelorhood. [3]

P.S. I understand Vector4F is working on a revised version of this article. I also am working on one, as well as new and revised text for Ma'lam fi-l-Tariq and Qutbism. --Leroy65X 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Reworded Paragraph on Personal Life

Hoped to make some of Qutb's complaints about America a little more concise, but also let Qutb express what he felt in his own words. --Leroy65X 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing titles of article sections

Reasons for changing 'political views' to 'political philosophy': I thought this a good change since

A. there's some overlap between the political views and philosophy/jahiliyya headings.

B. Qutb's philosophy of jahiliyya is directly related to his political call for action

C. To quote either Kepel or Sivan (I forget which), Qutb was "not a leader of men" or a politician, he was an idea man. It was his writings and ideas that influenced Muslims, not his political activism and leadership (like al-Banna)

"Jahiliyya" changed to "Jahiliyya v. Freedom" as I think it is a better summary of what Qutb believed the struggle to be: Jahiliyya must be replaced with "complete freedom" of Islam. Leroy65X 23:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing in Criticisms and Legacy sections

I attempted to consolidate and organized the criticism section. The newish anon paragraph on Qutb's unorthodox opinions has been trimmed down a little but there is an expanded version of it in Qutbism. I'm going put the paragraph on Muhammad Qutb in Legacy as connections between Qutb and al qaeda are more of a legacy than a criticism. --Leroy65X 19:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

nonstandard pronunciation information

I'm responsible for the "nonstandard pronunciation information." I know some people have trouble pronouncing his name so I added it. I checked the help section for standard pronounciation but it is not very intuitive and I don't have time to teach myself how it works. My apologies. I hope someone more knowlegable than I can fix it. --Leroy65X 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Location of death

Where was Qutb executed? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never read any mention of the location (although its very likely to have been in cairo)--Leroy65X 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Where was he buried? 62.31.73.182 07:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

POV Check

"A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page."

So what seems POV? Where's the "Discussion of this nomination"? What did we do wrong? --Leroy65X 02:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's under the heading "NPOV" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.133.201 (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality rating

"It has been rated - on the quality scale."

OK, I give up. What's it rated as. --Leroy65X 19:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been rated as anything yet, it would seem. --Gwern (contribs) 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Real pronuncation of name?

Can someone who knows something about Arabic phonology verify the IPA? I seriously doubt a name that is transcribed with "Q" has that sound pronounced as [k] and not [q]. (That is, it's probably a voiceless uvular plosive). –Andyluciano 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 24.215.194.228

24.215.194.228 has made several edits. Deleted "individual freedom, its economic system" from the list of what Qutb didn't like about america, added "refused to hold elections", to what he disliked about Nasser regime, as well as changing "based their [Nasser regime's] legitimacy on human authority or consent" to "based their legitimacy on corrupt human beings."

I've reverted several of these. There is no doubt Qutb despised "individual freedom" and the economic systems of the U.S. and other western, as he condemned

... capitalism with its monopolies, its usury and whatever else is unjust in it; at this individual freedom, devoid of human sympathy and responsibility for relatives [Milestones, p.139]

He also made it clear it was human (as opposed to divine) authority that was unacceptable, not just corrupt human authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alim_fi-l-Tariq#Freedom This being one of the unique and most important features of his thought.

Does anyone have any evidence Qutb was disappointed Nasser did not hold elections? Judging from some of the old discussion he wanted dictatorship not elections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sayyid_Qutb#Another_mistake_in_the_article

How about sources backing up the statement that Qutb was "slathered with raw meat and then locked in a dark room with attack dogs"? --Leroy65X 22:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Best known for

I removed the sentence "He is best known as "the man whose ideas would shape Al Qaeda". This sentence is inherently POV, debatable and sounds like "linked to al-Qaeda". For some parts of the world George W. Bush is best known as "the man who murdered hundreds of thousands Iraqis", but you probably would not put it into first paragraph in WP article about him. --Magabund 09:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a sourced quote, and there is more than one source linking the two. --Leroy65X 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Added some further information on the connections between Al Qaeda leadership and Qutb. Hope this helps. --Leroy65X 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Another written work?

Did he wright something called "Fiqh al-Da’wah"? I asked because it is used as a reference here: http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=43087&ln=eng&txt=islam%20means%20peace right at the bottom of the page. Robert C Prenic 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Qutb was a poet.

It’s inappropriate to read Qutb literally. The man was poetic in his all his writings and those who know Arabic can differentiate between his style of writing and the style of, for example, Qardawi. For instance, when Qardawi, the jurist scholar, talks about “riddah”, he literally refers to ‘apostasy’, but Qutb, the author, would refer to a social state where a person abandons their principles.

The West is reading Qutb the same way jihadists did.

Is this true? Qutb wrote a number of prose books and numerous newspaper commentary. Milestones (Ma'alim fi al-Tariq) is described as a "manifesto". Language like

This movement uses ... physical power and Jihaad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the jahili system which prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs but forces them to obey their erroneous ways [i.e. what they want to do] and make them serve human lords instead of the Almighty Lord. (Milestones p.55)

doesn't sound very poetic! --Leroy65X 17:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, he was unable to get laid by his own admission and took it out on the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.24.149 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Qutb in egyptian prison.jpg

Image:Qutb in egyptian prison.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Julius Evola

Was Julius Evola chummy with this guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.105.183 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism from Orthodox Islam

A long section entitled Criticism from Orthodox Islam has been deleted by Bilalmask1e (no user page) without explanation.

I have not restored it because the section is quite problematic. There are an abundance of unexplained, untranslated arabic Islamic terminology (e.g.: "Tawheed ul-Hakimiyyah as Hakimiyyah is a part of Uloohiyah. Also, the terminology was never used by the Ijma of the Ahl us-Sunnah[47].") It appears to include Original Research as the citations are from Qutb's work and not from some orthodox Islamic critic. It may also give undue weight to some salafi sources who are actually criticizing Qutb.

Any ideas what we should about this? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I restored the section before I saw this comment, but I think the best approach is a piece-meal approach. It's hard to distinguish between bad OR and stuff which follows from the sources and field of study but which a particular editor isn't familiar with. --Gwern (contribs) 20:36 22 May 2008 (GMT)

I believe the title of this section is misleading, as "Orthodox Islam" is regarded as the teachings of Islam that are separate and distinct from the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab (Wahhabism/Salafism) M2k41 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I thinking this section should be removed or selectively merged with the preceding section - it is clearly Wahabite views and npov claiming them to be from orthodox islam Jk54 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias and absence of balance tags

This article reads as an anti Qutb attack page. In the world (worldwide perspective needed), Qutb is largely unknown in the West except to the very few who are focused on the failings of Islam-related political movements, but he is respected by and popular among many Muslims. I get none of this sense from the article, instead I mainly just get the very extended case against him. A disinterested encyclopedia reader wants a balanced perspective, and would be taken aback by the hatred for Qutb that seems literally to rise from this biography's pages.Haberstr (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism from Orthodox Islam and reply

I propose deleting these two sections. They are huge and violate all kinds of wikipedia regulations.

As stated above (by me) the Criticism_from_Orthodox_Islam has `an abundance of unexplained, untranslated arabic Islamic terminology (e.g.: "Tawheed ul-Hakimiyyah as Hakimiyyah is a part of Uloohiyah. Also, the terminology was never used by the Ijma of the Ahl us-Sunnah[47].") It appears to include Original Research as the citations are from Qutb's work and not from some orthodox Islamic critic. It may also give undue weight to some salafi sources who are actually criticizing Qutb.`

The section has been there since May 2008 and has not been translated or trimmed.

The Replies to Criticism section is almost all quotes and also has lots of untranslated arabic Islamic terminology. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Along with everything else, the citations (when there are cites) in these sections are not good. al-I'tidāl Fī Sayyid Qutb 1st Rabī' al-Awwal 1414AH and Cassette: "Sharh Kitaab Masaa’il ul-Jaahiliyyah", 2nd cassette, 2nd side. and Baraa’ah Ulamaa il-Ummah of Isaam bin Sinaanee (a compilation of the sayings of the scholars on the deviations of Sayyid Qutb). Who published them? Where? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Have deleted the two sections while adding short summary information to the criticism section. If there is significant objection to this (and no one has said anything yet), I purpose forking off to a Criticism of Sayyid Qutb article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)