i) America, its supporters and clients, are jahiliyya. (This is an ancient Muslim word which refers to the period before the Prophet – a period of gross immorality, perversity, poverty, etc.)
ii) America is run and controlled by the Jews.
iii) Americans are infidels.
iv) Americans are animals. (They are ‘arrogant’ animals and should be killed.)
v) Americans are proud and they promote promiscuity and other forms of moral despoliation.
vi) America and Americans want to ‘exterminate’ Islam and all Muslims. (Though this will not always be done by conquest or imperialism. American will also achieve this by setting an example.)
Definition i) above is (Islamically) true for the simple reason that the US is not an Islamic state and that most Americans are non-Muslims. This also means that - also by definition – the US and Americans must be immoral, corrupt, etc.
As for ‘the Jews’ in ii) above. One only needs to read the documents and broadcasts of Hamas to realise that this is thought by many Muslims. It is thought by very many Muslims. Take the Syrian president, Hafez al-Assad, writing in 1988:
‘The ambitions of racist Zionism are as clear as the sun… They do not want Palestine alone or a piece of land here or there. They do not want only another Arab country. They want… to impose their hegemony beyond that until it covers the entire world.’
One should also read the documents of the Respect Party (in the UK) as well as the far leftist Noam Chomsky to see such views expressed. Chomsky wrote:
‘Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population… privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue.’ (Variant, Scotland, 2002)
‘I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust.’ (Quadrant, Australia, October, 1981)
Do Americans want to ‘exterminate’ every Muslim (vi above)? I’m sure that some of them do. However, if many Muslims think that many Americans want to exterminate Islam, then attack is of course ‘the best form of defence’. But ‘it says in the Koran than only defensive aggression is acceptable’. The problem is that if most Americans do want to exterminate Islam, then any act of aggression carried out against any American in any pace could be seen – and has been seen – as a defensive move by many Muslims.
And yes, Qutb was right. America does not need to conquer or annex or enlarge its imperialist empire. All it needs to do is offer Muslims Hollywood, democracy, pornography, many faiths, tolerance, intolerance and the rest in order to entice the average Muslim. Perhaps America also enticed Qutb. In any case, he knew how enticing a very enticing country could be to those Muslims who lived in theocracies, military dictatorships, Islamic states and all the rest. The problem is that you can hardly criticise a country for setting - or enticing by - a good example.
What precisely turned Qutb off – or on – to America?
When he lived in America he attended a club dance in Greeley, Colorado. This is what he wrote about that dance:
‘The dance is inflamed by the notes of the gramophone, the dance hall becomes a whirl of heels and thighs, arms enfold hips, lips and breasts meet, and the air is full of lust.’
Actually, this dance was a dance for an alcohol-free Christian ‘club’. To say the least, the dancers would not have been drunk and there would have been no sexual contact. That was not enough to stop Qutb’s imagination from being ‘inflamed’, however. Indeed, some writers have translated it into ‘love’ not ‘lust’, which suggests that Qutb, being a good Muslim, was just as much against love as he was against lust. And considering the fact that this was a Christian non-drinking event, I wager that Qutb did indeed mean ‘love’, not ‘lust’. Ayatollah Khomeini himself said:
‘There can be no pleasure in what is serious.’
Sayyid Qutb was born in 1906 in Cairo, Egypt. Just like the contemporary Taliban, he found his own Cairo women ‘dishonourable’. He didn’t like ‘their current level of freedom’. (Does that sound familiar?) Thus he gave up on women. All women. He simply couldn’t find one that was ‘sufficiently clean’ for him. His standards were very high. Thus he became a full-time virgin.
Earlier, as a child, Qutb had memorised the entire Koran by the age of ten. Later he would go on to write a thirty-volume account and interpretation (?!) of it.
Despite Qutb’s hatred of pleasure, sex, women, etc., many commentators have remarked on the fact that the Islamic Paradise is, in some respects at least, very much like a bordello. Thus, although Qutb restrained himself big time here on earth, he could have still expected everything he had abstained from to be multiplied and given to him in Paradise (if that’s where he went). In Paradise Qutb would have found ‘virgins as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches’ as well as ‘gushing fountains’ of white wine (wine ‘that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason’). He could have also brought along with him (to Paradise) 72 of his relations to mingle with his 74 houris.
So Islamic logic – or at least Qutb’s logic – seems pretty simple now. Wine, women and song are bad things here on earth, but mightily good things in Paradise. Strange.