Talk:Qutbism

Qutbee/Qutbi

Shouldn't the correct spelling be Qutbi? --Yodakii 09:23:33, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

We need to find the origin of the English transliteration of this term. I'm not sure how widespread the Arabic label is, but I cannot recall seeing the English anywhere. It would be more English-friendly to simply use "Qutbian". --Vector4F 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Content

I removed this sentence from 42992624 [1], as someone contested it (and I can't prove it):

Some are rejected and some are accepted. Shaykh Abdul-Hakim Murad, a mainstream traditional Sunni scholar blames Qutbist thought for "Islamic terror" and the attacks of 9/11.

--Vector4F 19:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for more complete entry

Here are some changes I think will make this entry stronger. I am posting them here first for comments because the topic may be controversial, though I hope my changes are not.

The statement "that almost all of Islam was headed into the era" of jahiliyya, seems toned-down. Qutb was more emphatic, saying (in Milestones) that "The Muslim community has been extinct for a few centuries"
Tenents of Qutbism. Milestones spends only a page or so in his book Milestones (which is his manifesto) on the subject of science. Other issues -- Shariah, Jahiliyyah, freedom, vanguard -- get much more emphasis.
Qutb was never head of the MB but did hold a high position in the MB.

More to come.

Leroy65X 19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. --Vector4F 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed New Entry

Qutbism is the Islamic strain of thought and activism, or ideology, based on the thought and writings of Sayyid Qutb, a celebrated Islamist and former leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood who was executed in 1966. The term Qutbee or Qutbi is used as a name for followers of these ideals, but the term is more often used as a negative label by Wahhabis or other critics, people who disagree with the Muslim Brotherhood, or want to distance themselves from the activities of militant groups whose ideology and activism is based on Sayyid Qutb's writings. "Qutbees" (also "Qutbis") usually do not refer to themselves using this name.

The so called "Qutbis" do not refer to themselves as Qutbies at all! They call themselves Salafies. If the Saudi Royal Clerks think they dont have a right to call themselves Salafies, then I think the Salafies dont have a right to call themselves Sunnies. Why double standard? Hassanfarooqi 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraphs that were already included in the main article

Removed this para as it is part of the article itself Hassanfarooqi 18:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy of the Saudi Royal Family

During the cold war the clerics of Saudi Royal Family hailed Syed Qutub as a hero of Islam against the "Infidel" Nasser. His biggest fan Maudoodi was the recepient of King Faisal Award. With the end of cold war, the Royal Family is seeing the ideas of Syed Qutub as a threat to their throne and have now taken a U turn. Saudi Arab's royal cleric Bin Baz himself issued fatwas in favor of Syed Qutub appealing for efforts to save his life. Now Syed Qutub is demonized by the same people long after his death. What a bunch of hypocrats.

Syed Qutub was Wahhabi/Salafi, like it or not

The Wahhabi movement in Egypt was founded by Hassan Al-Banna. Syed Qutub was his student. Saudi Royal clerks would sometime react to the word Wahhabi and say it is a slur against them althought they had used it initially. They claim they are "Ahl Assunnah Wal Jama'h", a term used by traditional Sunnies. Though among themselves, they would refer to themselves as "Salafies". If Wahhabi is just a slur, why do they deny that Syed Qutub was a Wahhabi and refer to his works as Qutbism? If the Wahhabies dont like the term Wahhabi, then fine, dont refer to anyone as Qutubi as no one calls himself a Qutubi! What hypocrisy!

The reason for that is that Qutbism just as it did with Ibn Taymeyya, has hijacked Abdul Wahhab's teachings and twisted it to gain approval, yet everything in Abdul Wahhab's teachings stand AGAINST them. They do not like the term because Abdul Wahhab never used it, Abdul Wahhab merely revived Salafi thought (refering to Salaf or the companions of the prophet and their next two generations for guidance to islamic behaviour and rulings when consensus from direct documented Islamic Hadith cannot be found). His name was basically hijacked to create this sectarian school of thought that is closer to deplorable Khawarej rather than any proper muslims or Salafis. Wahhabism in short twisted what Mohammed Abdul Wahhab said, so it is an insult to Abdul Wahhab, while Qutbism is truly established like that straight from Syed Qutb.--Sampharo (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the word "Qutbee"

I'm the one who wrote (at least most of) this subsection

Following Qutb's death Qutbist ideas spread throughout Egypt and other parts of the Arab and Muslim world, prompting a backlash by more traditionalist and conservative Muslims, particularly Wahhabi/Salafi scholars. The word Qutbee is said to have first been used by Saudi Arabian Wahhabi Muslims to refer not only to explicit devotees of Qutb's ideas, but to Muslim Brotherhood members and their sympathizers in general (despite the fact that there is a range of opinion among Muslim Brethren on Qutb's ideas.) The word Qutbee is similar in its use (though not its meaning!) to the term Wahhabi, in that it is used not by the Qutbees and Wahhabis themselves but by their opponents.

The information comes from the authors Kepel and Roy. Since it is causing so much disagreement here I will try to find the time to find the pages where the info came from. --Leroy65X 15:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

POV tag was attached by an anon with no comment. I propose that without an explanation of what is allegedly POV, the tag be removed. OK with you Mezzmezzo? --Leroy65X 20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I propose this quote stay.

"Neofundamentalist refuse to express their views in modern terms borrowed from the West. They consider that indulging in politics, even for a good cause, will by definition lead to bid'a and shirk (the giving of priority to worldly considerations over religious values.)" ^[1] --Leroy65X 21:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds good for me, and thank you for enriching the article with your references. Arawiki 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine by me. Arawiki, however, is removing two pieces of sourced info and added one piece POV here claiming that it is "per talk", yet still hasn't removed the tag despite seeming to agree here. Why? MezzoMezzo 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment of Ibn Baz is not relevent as he was not talking about Qutb. --Arawiki 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was speaking about mocking Prophets, which is something Bin Baaz and other modern salafi scholars accused Qutb of doing. MezzoMezzo 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ibn Baz was speaking about mocking Prophets, but he never accused Qutb of doing. This is what you and your group are trying to claim. --Arawiki 17:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly incorrect. Bin Baaz was one of many scholars who did accuse him of that. MezzoMezzo 09:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a Jamee's lie. Ibn Baz was speaking about mocking Prophets, but he never accused Qutb of doing.--Arawiki 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is common knowledge that Bin Baaz made that statement about mockery of prophets being apostasy...when the statement of Qutb was brought to him. Please don't accuse me of lying. MezzoMezzo 03:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo and Arawiki, How about using the Mediation Cabal?

... To sort out your disagreements? I don't know much about it but it could be worth a try. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEDCAB --Leroy65X 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am willing for a that, Mezzo does not accept any Mediation solution. --Arawiki 16:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. Arawiki, can you for one second stop with the personal attacks even to discuss mediation? MezzoMezzo 16:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a blurb on it below, but it says: "We cannot judge who is right." This being the case maybe we need a good Islamic expert(s). Are there any editors in the WikiProject_Islam you both find worthy of arbitrating?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Members --Leroy65X 17:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aside from yourself, I have also generally had good experiences working with User:Merzbow and User:Itsmejudith. On the main Islam article and elsewhere, those two have both been fairly good ad verifying sources and kneading out POV from Islam-related articles. I think contacting them would be a good idea. MezzoMezzo 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to list a MedCab request

I.

Preconditions:

You must already be having a discussion. We cannot start a discussion for you. If participants are edit-warring without discussion we cannot help you. Consider asking for page protection. Once you have a discussion going we can help.
Mediation is purely voluntary. All interested parties must be willing to accept mediation. If any interested party does not accept mediation, we cannot help.
We cannot judge who is right (unless there is a clear policy violation). If you need outside opinions, you can ask for a third opinion, or appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert (for behavioral issues), or filing a Request for Comment
Be familiar with Wikipedia policy. Be sure to read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:EL.
All parties must be willing to assume good faith.

II.

Put the MedCab request tag on the talk page of the dispute.

Insert

{{subst:Medcab-request}}

at the top of the page.

Do not mark the edit as minor.
Save the page.

III.

Create the article's case page.

The resulting box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded case page".
Click that link to open the article's case page. A preloaded form and some instructions will appear. Fill out the form. Please be concise.
Save the page.

Cases are listed by a bot. Your case will be added to the list during the next scheduled update. Also, it may take up to several weeks for a MedCab mediator to take on your case. Please be patient.

Unreliable sources

This article has many unreliable sources and examples of violations of WP:NOR. I will provide a detail list when I have time. For now, however, I will remove the following:

[2] According to the front page of the site itself : "Who are you people anyway? [Author(s) of website answer(s):] Not telling." A website that doesn't reveal the author, much less the credentials of the author, can't be considered reliable at all. Infact its as good as a blog (worse probably because we know in many cases the author of the blog).Bless sins (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Who is the author? It doesn't say. But this person quotes Qutb so it can't be Qutb himself. Why is he/she a reliable source?Bless sins (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milestones

This book is obviously self-published. Wikipedia says "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

It also says, "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources;
the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source."

Thus we need to be careful when using Milestones. Any usage must satisfy all the above conditions.Bless sins (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some confusion here. Milestones is famous a book by Sayyid Qutb. The first website you are complaining about http://gemsofislamism.tripod.com/ has a page analyzing Milestones

The website is not a reliable source. A professor analyzing the book, would now be different altogethor. Secondly, to quote the book directly must satisfy all of the above conditions. These aren't mine, they are enshrined in WP.Bless sins (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why isn't there a section that defines and demonstrates the invalidity of Qutbism main tenets under proper Islamic rulings? e.g. impermissibility of suicide attacks, forbidding of killing women and children, strict conditions to Jihad and impermissibility to rebel against even unjust rulers.--Sampharo (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have a reliable source criticizing Qutbism and saying that. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

= POV Statement: needs to be made neutral and sources provided

This is the sentence: // The most controversial aspect of Qutbism is Qutb's idea that Islam is "extinct,"[...] // It says 'most controversial' which doesn't really add anything to the sentence - also , it needs a reference (or a quote?) to illustrate the Qutb's opinion / idea that 'Islam is extinct'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monowiki (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dale C. Eikmeier

What makes a strategic planner at the US Army War College a reliable source regarding the tenets of a religious ideology? 94.222.183.169 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Roy, Globalized Islam, (2004), p.247

[1] Roy, Globalized Islam, (2004), p.247

[1]