Liberal Islam, Radical Islam and American Foreign Policy

M. A. Muqtedar Khan
This article was published under the title Radical Islam, Liberal Islam, Current History, Vol. 102, No: 668 (December, 2003), pp. 417-421. An earlier version was also presented at the annual convention of the Middle Eastern Studies Association in Anchorage, Alaska (November, 2003).

Currently American foreign policy faces a critical threat from the Muslim World in the form of a deeply embedded and rapidly growing anti-Americanism in the Muslim World. This anti-Americanism has already resulted in a catastrophic attack on America on September 11th 2001 leading to thousands of deaths, two wars, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of economic losses and additional expenses and a significant compromise of American democracy. It is of utmost importance to national security and interests that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is addressed, reduced and even reversed. There are two principal causes for Muslim anti-Americanism; they are the manifestly unjust consequences of current and past American foreign policies towards the Muslim World and the use of America as the designated other in Islamist discourses seeking to reconstruct an Islamic identity and create a global Islamic political power. The Islamist discourse has constructed the idea of

an Islamic civilization in direct opposition to a caricaturized West. Islamists first define the contemporary realities of the West as imperial, morally decadent, unGodly (secular) and Western power and values as cause of all Muslim problems. They then imagine a revived Islamic civilization as just, moral and godcentered or essential an anti-thesis of their imagined west. Thus the defeat of the West and rejection of Western values (as depicted by Islamists) is necessary for the revival of Islam.

Rogue Islamists and Anti-Americanism Political, military, economic and intellectual independence from the West has always been the overriding goal of political Islam. However, the failure of Islamists to achieve these goals in nearly a century, in combination with real and perceived injustices committed by America and its allies against Muslims has engendered an extremely vitriolic hatred of America in the hearts of some

Islamists giving birth to radical Islam. I like to call these radicals as rogue Islamists, who are willing to do anything, absolutely anything to destroy America and its power and will to prevent the realization of Islamist goals. Rogue Islamists and their hateful discourses are globalizing anti-Americanism and in the process undermining the moral fabric of the Muslim World and corrupting the Islams message of justice, mercy, submission, compassion and enlightenment, not of war, hatred and killing. Rogue Islamists are a threat to both America and Islam. Their discourses are corrupting Islam and generating hatred against the west, modernity and America. Their most powerful weapon is their ideas and their ability to convince Muslims to even give up their lives in order to hurt America, Americans and American interests. While America seeks security from the attacks by rogue Muslims and needs to reduce anti-Americanism, moderate Muslims who do not subscribe to the Islamists discourse seek to rescue Islam and innocent Muslims from the corrupting influence of rogue Islamist. A response to rogue Islamists requires a complex strategy that above all must counter and delegitimize the Islamists worldview and discourses and expose their fallacies and the devastating consequences they could bring to

Muslims and the world by triggering a long and bloody global conflict between America and the Muslim World. It is my contention that the best anti-dote to radical Islam is liberal Islam. Liberal Islam can not only challenge radical Islamist worldview using Islam as the foundational idiom and also provide an alternate interpretation of Muslim reality and a more positive vision of the future. Liberal Islam and its Strategic Merits Liberal Islam is that interpretation of Islam that is sensitive to liberal values such as religious tolerance, freedoms of conscience and speech, civil liberties, social justice, public welfare, and educational development. Islam is essentially a set of revealed values designed to help prod humanity and on the path of enlightenment virtue. Many liberal

concerns have been protected in the heydays of liberal Islam in Islamic Spain, under Emperor Akber in Mughal India and under the Abbasid caliphate in the heartlands of Islam. Under these liberal Islamic regimes religious tolerance was comparable to the best of times in America, educational and scientific fervor was at its peak and pluralism was both a state as well as a social value practiced widely. Most societies when militarily and economically strong experience some form of liberal resurgence and so did the Islamic world. In

contemporary liberal Islam.

times,

the

term

moderate

and to establish social justice. The highest form of Jihad, Jihad-e-Akbar (The superior Jihad) is struggle against the self to improve and excel in moral and spiritual realm. The lowest form of Jihad is the military Jihad that is essentially defensive and constrained by strict ethics of engagement. They correctly point out that terrorism, or Hirabah (war against society), is strictly forbidden by Islamic scholars. They however do maintain that Muslims can and must struggle for justice and freedom while strictly obeying Islamic and international norms of just warfare. For Muslim moderates Islam is a religion of peace without being pacifist. Moderate Muslims are critical of American foreign policy in the Muslim World. They are also critical of the prejudiced view of Islam in the West and in particularly among the policy elite who are also quite ignorant about Islam and the Muslim world. But Muslim moderates do not blame the US or the West or modernity for all the problems in the Muslim World. They recognize that the decline of the Islamic civilization preceded colonialism. They are aware that the decay of free and creative thinking in the Muslim world was not caused by western powers but came about as a result of internal dynamics. Moderate Muslims are critical of the polemics against the West, the rising anti-Semitism and the tendency to blame

Muslims is best used for the practitioners of Often the term Moderate or Liberal when used as an adjective before Muslim is interpreted as lukewarm. This is misleading and demeaning. Many moderate Muslims are highly motivated and passionate about the values that they stand for. Today Moderate Muslims can be best understood as Muslim intellectuals who have achieved a negotiated peace with modernity. They recognize that modernity is the existential condition of our time and they also submit to the message of Islam. They however understand the distinction between historical Islam and Islamic principles. By focusing on Islamic principles and advocating Ijtihad,1 moderate Muslims are able to bridge the gap between text and context through rational interpretation. Moderate Muslims believe in peace, underscore that Islam (the word is a conjugation of the Arabic term for peace salam) is a religion of peace, mercy and toleration. democracy, Moderate religious Muslims tolerance, advocate interfaith

relations, peaceful co-existence and education. Moderates Muslims have a very idealistic view of the Islamic duty of Jihad. They argue, based on a tradition of Prophet Muhammad, that Jihad is essentially a struggle to purify the self

Israel for everything problematic in the Muslim World and the growing intolerance, sectarianism and authoritarianism in Muslim societies. Above all they lament the intellectual decline of the Muslim World. Moderate Muslims are also engaged in what is now referred to as the battle for the soul of Islam. They argue that Islam is a message of compassion and peace sent by God in order to civilize humanity and give human existence a transcendent and divine purpose. They are aghast and reject the use of Islam to incite terror, to justify bigotry and to discriminate on the basis of faith, or gender or ethnicity. They recognize that Islam has been appropriated by political and extremist groups who are using Islam as an ideology to pursue a counter hegemonic agenda both with the Muslim World and against the rest, especially against the US. Moderate Muslims acknowledge the global problem created by rogue Islamists. They insist that the false interpretations of Islam by the Jihadis and their crusades are not only creating a global fitna (crisis) but are also corrupting the essence of Islam World.2 It is in the battle for the soul of Islam that America and Liberal Islam share a common strategic goal and that is the systematic and worsening the socio-political, economic and cultural crisis in the Muslim

dismantling

and

delegitimization

of

the

discourse coming from rogue Islamists that projects America as an anti-Islam crusader power and Islam as an ideology of hate and violence. It is in the arena interpretation and reinterpretation of global political realities and religious texts and their contemporaneous meanings that the war on terror will be won or lost. It is also in this contested realm that the hearts and minds of Muslims can be won or lost. So far while moderate Muslims are beginning to have an impact in this battle in America, they are not even an important player in the Muslim world. American policy makers must recognize the strategic value of liberal Islam and promote and protect it. The interpretive battle the Liberal Islam wages is in three arenas: 1. Providing an alternative understanding of world political and global realities in order to prevent the perception that the war on terror is a war on Islam. 2. Advance a liberal understanding of Islam within the Islamic idiom that explains the compatibility of Islam and liberal values such as tolerance, democracy and pluralism.3 3. Deconstruct the Jihadi discourse to expose the extremist tendencies behind their interpretation of Islam and underscore the

more

compassionate

and

rational

worldwide. Syed Qutb has written widely on Islamic issues ranging from an exegesis of the Quran titled In the Shade of the Quran, to philosophical book on Social Justice in Islam.4 He is also seen by some as a major polemicist against the west and against secularism and liberalism. A Radical Reading of Syed Qutb Any discussion with Islamists about America and modernity brings out familiar themes; America is secular and un-Godly, materialist and immoral, corrupt and decadent, anti-Islamic and unIslamic. Even though an empirical study of contemporary American society will reveal that it is less corrupt that many Muslim nations, is far less militant about radical secularism than many Muslim nations like Iraq under Saddam, Syria and Turkey, and most importantly is neither un-Islamic nor antiIslamic. There are over six million Muslim in America who thrive both economically and are free to practice their religion. Most Islamist images of the America systematically eschew discussions about Western achievements of relative religious and ethnic harmony, economic prosperity, work ethics, appreciation for knowledge and scientific developments. This caricaturized construction of America by many anti-Western Muslims is essentially attributed to Syed Qutbs revulsion for the

dimensions of Islam. This particular essay seeks to demonstrate the first and the third point. By arguing that there is common interests and grounds for a strategic alliance between America and liberal Islam I have already established that liberal Muslims do not see the war on terror as a war against Islam or all Muslims. Liberal Islamic view of global politics disagrees fundamentally with the Jihadi, and the Bernard Lewis and Sam Huntington view that this is a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. I shall also provide a rereading of the most important ideologue of rogue Islamists as a case of how to disarm and destabilize radical discourse through re-interpretation. The quest to explain the global Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism in a way that places fault entirely with Islam or certain Islamic fundamentalists -- and absolves US foreign policy of any culpability, is zeroing on key Islamic thinkers such as Syed Qutb. Syed Qutb is easily one of the major architects and strategists of contemporary Islamic revival. Along with Maulana Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, the revivalist movement in South Asia, and Imam Khoemeni, the leader of Iran's Islamic revolution, he gave shape to the ideas and the worldview that has mobilized and motivated millions of Muslims

West after spending two years in Colorado in 1950s. Islamists, both moderate and radical, use an imaginary West/America as a foil against which the Islamic identity is constructed. Islam is the opposite of the West, it is moral, it is just, it is not secular and it is virtuous. This image of the West in the minds of many Islamists, particularly among those of Arab origin, is in many ways a consequence of a radical reading of Syed Qutb. Syed Qutbs diatribes against secularism, modernity and were more directed towards the regime and society of the then Egyptian supreme J. A. Nasser. Rogue Islamists now transfers his criticism of the Nasserite Egypt to America. What Qutb said about Nassers Egypt is exactly what Jihadis say about America.5 But Islamists are not alone in the misrepresentation of Syed Qutb. Berman in a recent article in the New York Times6 sketched a very humane profile of Qutb, but nevertheless argued that it was Qutbs philosophy and understanding of Islam that was underpinning the ideological basis of Al Qaeda and their affiliates. The hatred of liberalism and the desire to defend Islam from the cultural impact of modern secularism combined with a desire to become martyrs in the cause of Islam, Berman argues, are the corner stones of Qutbs ideology. He also insists that while Qutb is indeed critical of the US and its hypocritical

foreign policy and its support for Israel, he does not focus upon it. Qutb, according to Bremer, and in my opinion correctly, is more concerned with ideas, values and norms that shape society than geopolitical conflicts. Berman also argues that it is not American foreign policy but the challenge of liberalism, particularly its morality that vexes Qutb. The strategic consequences of this reading of Qutb suggests that the US can change its foreign policy but those who are motivated by a fear of liberalism will continue to seek the destruction of the West as long as its culture continues to influence the world, the Muslim World in particular. Bermans reading not only absolves US foreign policy from being an important cause for inciting rebellion and resistance from Islamic militants, but also suggests that this is indeed a clash of civilizations Islam versus liberalism. I understand that a selective reading of Syed Qutb can lead us to the above conclusion, especially if we approach him with the explicit purpose of indicting him as a philosopher of intolerance. Such a reading merely creates more ground for the possibility of a clash of civilization becoming a reality rather than creating an opening for intercultural understanding and dialogue that underscores the common humanity of all by recognizing the parallels within societies. It is therefore

necessary to advance a liberal Muslim reading of such important Muslim philosophers to emphasize the common themes in liberalism and in the most strident of Muslim narratives.7 As a liberal Muslim I see themes in the works of Qutb which are not too far from those that adorn enlightenment thinking, but are also influenced by the political context in which the author found himself. Liberal readings of philosophers like Qutb, can have the effect of disarming extremists. By questioning their reading of their ideologues, one can create opportunities for a de-radicalizing dialogue between reading moderates is not and entirely extremists. prompted This by

In his most controversial book Milestones, Qutb repeatedly argues that Islams ultimate objective is to liberate, enlighten and elevate humanity.9 He writes passionately: Islams ultimate aim is to awaken the humanity of man, (p. 40). His theme Islam as freedom and liberation runs through the book and even in the chapter on Jihad, he writes: If we insist on calling Islamic jihad a defensive movement, then we must change the meaning of the word defense and mean by it the defense of man against all those forces that limit his freedom.10 Syed Qutb means many things to many people. For some he is the key ideologue of Islamic militancy, and for some he is the key intellectual of Islamic reform and revival. For the Muslim Brotherhood, the most important Islamic movement in the Arab world and Arab diaspora, he is the beacon of light who has explained with clarity why and how Islam can and should play a central role in Muslim societies and polities. For many he has kept the hope alive that Muslim and Arab world would become free from internal and external occupation. As a liberal Muslim seeking reform, the quality that most appeals to me is Syed Qutbs use of Ijtihad. Ijtihad is an Islamic juristic tool that is employed to articulate Islamic legal positions on a specific issue using independent

contemporary political realities. In 1998, in an article titled, First Islamic Society, then Islamic State, but Democracy Now, I argued that Syed Qutb and his theoretical mentor, Maulana Maududi of Pakistan, could be read as advocates of Islamic democracy and gradual and peaceful Islamization.8 A Liberal Muslim Reading of Syed Qutb The key to understanding the philosophical ideas of philosophers who are also politically engaged is to separate their polemics and their discursive strategies and try to understand their normative goals. What do these thinkers really want? In the case of Syed Qutb I feel that he, above all, wanted freedom for Muslims -freedom from the tyranny of authoritarianism.

reasoning when traditional Islamic sources are silent on it. Today, liberal and progressive Muslims argue that ijtihad should be employed as a rethinking tool to bridge the gap between Islamic texts and our contemporary context. For me, Ijtihad is a philosophy of renewal that allows me to drink from the reservoir of Islamic wisdom in guiding my life in the here and the now. If Islam must take its rightful place in the world today, then Muslims will have to embrace Ijtihad. It is the ticket to the renewal of Islamic civilization and the Muslim community. Syed Qutb as John Locke of Islam Syed Qutbs key Ijtihad redefined the Islamic ideal of jihad. The traditional understanding of the Islamic principles of Jihad (struggle) in its military sense was that it was a war of defense against non-believers. Syed Qutb argued that not only was Jihad an offensive war but that it was could also be waged against internal enemies including the state if it had lost its legitimacy. His call for jihad against illegitimate rulers was contrary to traditional Islamic legal thought that preferred to privilege stability and order over justice and legitimacy and expressed strong disapproval of rebellions and armed opposition to state authority. His emphasis on freedom and the legitimacy of government remind me of the

works of John Locke, the seventeenth century English thinker whose imprint is manifestly clear on American democracy. On the topics of freedom, government and its legitimacy and on rebellion both Qutb and Locke have similar ideas. Freedom Both Locke and Qutb imagined freedom in the same absolutist terms. The human individual was, by virtue of his divine creation, subordinate to God and God alone and therefore was a free agent. Locke starts the chapter on Slavery with the following comment: The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authoritative of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule11. For Locke freedom was a God given attribute prior to civil society and was inalienable. Qutb, who argues that Islam is freedom from human authority, echoes Lockes ideas about natural rights as God given and prior to civil society and government. For Qutb, Islam is freedom and Islamic society is the civil society, which is prior to government (Islamic State). He writes: This Din (faith) is a universal declaration of the freedom of man from slavery to other men

and his desires, which is also a form of human.12 Its purpose is to free those people who wish to be freed from enslavement to men so that they may serve Allah alone.13 It should not be surprising that after suffer incarceration and harassment by the state, Qutb came to value freedom as necessary even for the practice of faith. He was living in an authoritarian state that imprisoned him and then eventually hanged him for his ideas. Legitimacy Both Locke and Qutb are deeply concerned about the legitimacy of government. They recognize that governments will necessarily compromise the absolute freedom that individuals enjoy in the state of nature and therefore they focus on the issue of legitimacy. For Locke continued consent is the key to legitimacy. Government, which does not rule by consent, loses its authority to govern. Locke saw government as a product of a social contract that would identify the objectives and limits of governmental authority. If governments, whatever their form, transgressed their limits or failed to fulfill the designated objectives then they became illegitimate and can be dissolved. Qutb divides societies into two kinds, Islamic and ignorant. Ignorant societies are bereft of

Islamic principles, values and the Islamic way and hence illegitimate. The Islamic rhetoric aside, political Qutb is essentially He seeking a this correspondence between social norms and norms. identifies correspondence between social and political ethics as the key to Islamic legitimacy. Thus in a rather laborious manner he does assert that rulers must govern by the values of those governed in order to be legitimate rulers. When governments do not reflect and defend the values of society, then they lose legitimacy and can be dissolved or replaced. Revolution John Locke developed a careful case to identify the origins of government and its legitimacy and in the process developed the rationale for revolution. Governments must rule by consent and work only to realize their mandate. When they exceed their limits, they become tyrannical and must be dissolved. If they resort to force then they must be dealt with force. John Lockes justification for the use of force to dissolve illegitimate governments is simple and straightforward. Systematic, not occasional, violation of the social contract merits dissolution, and if dissolution is not possible peacefully, it must be done by force. Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or

to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from further obedience and are left to the common refuge which God has provided for all men against force and violence.14 Unlike John Locke who saw the role of government essentially as the defender of property and freedom, Qutb argued that the role of the state was to free individuals to pursue their moral values. He lived in the age of socialist authoritarianism and he desperately sought the freedom to practice his faith. Syed Qutb believed that tyranny could only be undermined through activism and the use of force and he therefore argued that: When they have no such freedom, then it becomes incumbent upon Muslims to launch a struggle through individual preaching as well as by initiating an activist movement to restore their freedom, and to strike hard at all those political powers, that force people to bow to their will and authority, defying the

Locke has laid the foundations for the contemporary understanding of liberal ideas about tolerance and property, he has not fully explored the issue of social justice. Often those who focus on individual rights overlook societal aspects dealing with collective rights and responsibilities. Syed Qutb wrote an entire book on the importance of social justice, its Islamic philosophical roots and its centrality to his imagined Islamic republic. In, Social Justice in Islam,16 Qutb establishes his credentials as a contemporary Islamic philosopher, seeking to understand the moral and political implications of his time for his people. Here he clearly demonstrates that he is not a philosopher of terror, but rather a philosopher of justice. Qutb advances a very interesting basis for the idea of social justice within the Islamic framework. He maintains that social justice in Islam is based on three principles:17 1. Absolute freedom of conscience. 2. The complete equality of all people. 3. The firm mutual responsibility of society. Once again one is confronted with the extent to

commandments of God, and denying people the freedom to listen to the message of Islam, and to accept it even when they wish to do so.15 Social Justice There is one area social justice -in which Qutbs contributions exceed those of John Lockes. While there is no doubt that

which Qutb advocated the idea of freedom. Freedom, equality and responsibility, these are the three pillars around which he dreamed of establishing an Islamic Republic that would be

10

dedicated to the values of social justice. His idea of freedom and freedom of conscience was very complex. In an interesting paragraph he links social justice with freedom of conscience and in the process provides a more fundamental understanding of Islam as a religion of freedom and justice: Thus Islam approaches the question of freedom from every angle and from all points of view; it undertakes a complete emancipation of the conscience. It does not deal only with spiritual values or only with economic values, but with both together. It recognizes the practical reality of life and equally the capacities of the soul; it attempts to awaken in human nature the highest desires and to evoke the loftiest abilities, thus bringing that nature to complete freedom of conscience. Without such complete freedom, human nature cannot prevail against the force of humiliation and submissiveness and servility, nor can it lay claim to its rightful share in social justice, nor can it sustain the responsibilities of such a justice when it has achieved it. This freedom is therefore one of the cornerstones for the building of social justice in Islam. More: it is the principle cornerstone on which all the others must rest18. Syed Qutb could not have stated the importance of freedom of conscience to social justice or to Islam itself in more forceful terms. He subsequently underscores the importance of

balancing material and moral needs of society and demonstrates through a rigorous analysis of Islams fundamental sources, Quran and Sunnah, the Islamic basis for freedom, equality and responsibility. The outstanding aspect of Qutbs approach is his attempt to emphasize collective harmony and collective identity while simultaneously safeguarding the importance of individual rights and freedoms. Qutbs idea of social justice in Islam is an intricate attempt to balance materiality with morality, Final Word Surely this is a liberal reading of Qutb, but this is also a liberal reading of Locke. There are moments when Qutb shows sparks of intolerance and even totalitarian proclivities, but then so does Plato. Unlike Locke who only focuses on his own society, Qutb also includes a polemic against the West. I am sure if Locke had seen his own society colonized and ravaged by the West, as was the Muslim World by European colonialism, he too would have some tough words for the colonizers. Locke, more than anything else believed in the absolute right of private property and would certainly not have any kind words for those who robbed other civilizations of their freedom and their resources, through use of force. collective responsibility with individuality

11

While advancing the notion that there can be an alternate reading of Muslim ideologues, I am also suggesting that discourses are what we make of them. Ideas have impact on reality, but reality too has an impact on the formation of ideas and on how ideas are apprehended. Some Muslims read Qutb and are motivated to use violence against their regimes and the West whom they perceive as tyrannical. But then some Muslims read him as an advocate of freedom, social justice and responsible governance. The different readings of Syed Qutb underscore the diversity within Islam and Muslims. Profiles of Islam and Muslims cannot be painted with broad brushes. As far as American policy makers are concerned, they must realize that if America is to remain deeply engaged with the Muslim world, then they and indeed most Americans will have to remain deeply engaged with Islamic thought and with how Muslims understand and interpret their faith and their intellectuals. There are no short cuts to empire building. There are also no quick, single variable explanations to why Muslims are angry with the US. Muslim realities, like Muslim thought, are complex, diverse and challenging. As policy makers in Washington rethink the Muslim World, it must

remember that ethnocentric interpretations and sweeping judgments will only enhance misunderstanding and lead to bad policy. Bad things happen because of bad policy. A liberal reading of Qutb reveals him as philosopher of freedom and justice and not a philosopher of terror. Similarly a sympathetic view of the Muslim World will reveal a thirst for freedom and justice and not a penchant for violence or hate. The American policy makers do recognize the significance and potential of liberal Islam and the strategic value of supporting moderate Muslims. However they have so far shown interest in only in using moderates to give legitimacy to some of US policies in the Muslim World. American policy makers have not really included moderate Muslim input in actually shaping its post September 11 policies nor have they sought their assistance in moderating the governments rhetoric and messages to the Muslim World. But then the administration of George W. Bush has so far proven to be secretive, closed, and insular and has excluded even moderate conservatives from policy making. It would be unrealistic to expect this administration to include diverse opinions. The potential of moderate Muslims thus remains untapped.

12

Dr. Muqtedar Khan, the director of international studies at Adrian College. He is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom and Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Politics. Muqtedar Khan is also the President of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists and a member of the Shura Council of the Islamic Society of North America.

13

1 E

END NOTES

Ijtihad is an Islamic tradition that enables the reinterpretation of religious texts. Ijtihad is the most important tool for intellectual revival and social reform within the Islamic context. See Al-Haj Moinuddin Ahmed, The Urgency of Ijtihad (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 1992). Imran A. K. Nyazee, Theories of Islamic Law: Methodology of Ijtihad (Kuala Lumpur: The other Press, 1994). See all http://www.ijtihad.org. See Farish Noor, The Evolution of 'Jihad' in Islamist Political Discourse: How a Plastic Concept Became Harder, Social Science Research Council, http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/noor.htm
2

See Khalid Abou El Fadl, The Place of Tolerance in Islam (Boston: Beacon Press, 2002). Abdulaziz Sachedina, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
3

For a review of Syed Qutbs ideas see Ibrahim Abu Rabi, Intellectual Origins of Islamic Resurgence in the Modern Arab World (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996). See Yvonne Haddad, Syed Qutb: Ideologue of Islamic Revival, in John L. Esposito (Ed), Voices of Resurgent Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983). Pp. 67-98.
5 6

Paul Berman, The Philosopher of Islamic Terror, The New York Times Magazine, p. 24.

For an understanding of what liberal Islam is all about see, Charles Kurzman (ed.), Liberal Islam: A Source Book (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). Also see M. A. Muqtedar Khan, Who are Moderate Muslims, http://www.ijtihad.org/moderatemuslims.htm and also see M. A. Muqtedar Khan, American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 2002).
7

M. A. Muqtedar Khan, First Islamic Society, then Islamic State, but Democracy Now, The Diplomat, 2, (Nov, 1997), pp. 48-51.
8 9

Syed Qutb, Milestones (Indianapolis: ATP, 1993). Syed Qutb, Milestones, p. 50. John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1952), p. 15.

10

11

1 12

Syed Qutb, Milestones, p. 47.

1 13

Syed Qutb, Milestones, p. 45.

14

John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, p. 124. Syed Qutb, Milestones, p. 49.

15

Syed Qutb, Social Justice in Islam, Trans. John B. Hardie (Oneonta, NY: Islamic Publications, 200). This is a translation of Al-adalah al-ijtimaiyah fil Islam.
16 17

See Qutb, Social Justice in Islam, p. 52.

18

See Qutb, Social Justice in Islam, pp. 67-68.