« Quiz: what's the most shocking thing... | Main | Abu Risha: Power to the Iraqi Awakening »

November 27, 2007

Comments

Chuck

Call in and check out our interview tonight at 8PM EST with Dr. Paul L. Williams, author of The Day of Islam at thirdrailradio.com

arabist

I think it's also worth mentioning (from my cursory reading) that the document remains highly intolerant (towards non-Muslims including people of the book) and full of ambiguity about the use of violence, notably advocating strategies of deception and dissimulation when faced with a powerful enemy. In other words, it is racist intolerant tripe, even if it implements changes the egyptian government wanted, i.e. advocating non-violence even against an unjust "sultan". There is some worry here in Egypt that the regime is considering playing with fire and promoting some of these Salafist types against the Ikhwan, although I think the more responsible people in the Egyptian establishmet will not follow that path, which previously led to Sadat's assassination.

aardvark

Issandr - good points both - to me, one of the most bizarre things has been that the regime has simultaneously cracked down on the MB while cozying up to the "reformed" Gamaa and Islamic Jihad figures.

jr786

This comment is priceless:

notably advocating strategies of deception and dissimulation when faced with a powerful enemy. In other words, it is racist intolerant tripe.

The correct strategy for Muslims facing Israeli or American tanks is to be flattened like gentleman, not be troublesome brown people who refuse to denounce violence when confronting its most able practitioners. He did get the racist tripe part right, however; he spewed it.

alle

to me, one of the most bizarre things has been that the regime has simultaneously cracked down on the MB while cozying up to the "reformed" Gamaa and Islamic Jihad figures.

Not so bizarre at all. It makes fine sense from their point of view. The MB poses a real threat on the political level, and seem way to big to swallow up, plus, they can be attacked with impunity since all important allies (US, Arabs) agree that they should be cut down to size. The ex-Jihadists, on the other hand, pose no political threat whatsoever, so it is completely affordable to deal with them to help diminish the terrorist nuisance posed by people on that fringe -- and if it turns out youngsters will ignore them, at least the older generation has been safely defanged. Win/win, in the short to middle term. Remove ethics and principles from the equation and look at their self-interest, then tell me you wouldn't do the same if you wanted the continuation of Mubarakist cleptocracy.

anon

What i think this paper by Dr. Fadl is indicative of is not so much the debate within Islam, but the sense of the threat posed by the USA and other imperialist forces. It seems to me that splits between different Islamic factions are all varying degrees of attempts to deal with the American threat. So different factions of Islamists are taking different lines in order to find a balance between addressing the challenge of the Americans v. being able to gain popular acceptance.

In this respect, I tend to agree with Lynch in that this particular paper is opportunistic, but not necessarily personally so.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad
Analytics