This is all well and good, (and very well written I might add) but the problem still remains, Qutb was correct.

For all one may blame him, lambast him, villify those who seemingly adhere to his opinions, he was and remains no more than a particularly sensitive weathervane of his times. He does not advocate violence against innocents, nor does he take part in the demonisation of the 'West' (a term which I personally loathe for its inaccuracy and concealment of the wide variety and scope of European and American thought, but I digress...) he simply states the facts, and in a clear concise way puts forward the case against allowing over a millenia of Islamic history and human advancement to be washed away by materialism and greed as embodied in colonialism.

The reason, if any, his works have been touted as the source of the alleged terrorism in recent years is that his works provide the single most identifiable dogmatic entity that seems to be something akin to a 'handbook of ideals' for people who are against the West today.

This is a classic 'Western' approach and ignores the fact that most, if not all Islamic fundamentalists have never even heard of Qutb, let alone are able to tell you about any of his texts. That the root causes of Islamic hatred of the West lie in European and American actions, and not in muslim misperceptions, or dogmatic adherence to outdated ideals is a bitter pill to swallow for most contemporary political thinkers, however it is necessary if real progress is to be made towards a harmonization between the two worldviews.

Let's be clear, most of the 'terrorist acts' labelled as such by the media are not. They are not intended to create fear in the general populace of the West, nor are they attempts to leverage political capital for the traditional 'terrorist' goals of hostage release, political recognition, or otherwise. They are part of an increasingly systematic war against a small group of organisations which are integral to the oligarchic control structures of Europe, America, and increasingly, the Far East. The muslims who are part of these war actions have little if any interest in engaging the local populace. Their purpose is simply to weaken the political infrastructure which is responsible for the foreign policy actions which kill muslims, or cripple Islamic countries until the natural conversion of people to Islam in the due process of time prevents these institutions from destroying Islamic societies in their entirety. Thus the profile of 'Islamic terrorism' and its rise should be viewed very differently from the viewpoint the nodetitle suggests ... and careful distinctions need to be drawn between the actions of people like Osama Bin Laden, who readily boast of attacks on American Military institutions in Islamic Countries, and those different set of people responsible for the horrific September 11th 2001 attacks on the innocent civilians in New York, and Washington who should most definitely be tracked down and brought to justice immediately.

There is no point in trying to find a causal connection between Islamic dogmatic tradition and so called 'Islamic' terrorism, as none exists. Islamic fundamentalists, while deeply resistant of western values in muslim societies welcome the freedom of the populations of the west to do as they wish within their own borders.

Thus the title of this node is quite misleading, as it presumes that terrorism of any sort can be Islamic, when quite clearly it cannot.

I have met many muslims who reject outright the notion that fear is a legitimate tool for effecting social or political change, and these are people who hold deep convictions and refer to themselves as Islamic fundamentalists, they also, incidentally have quite well developed senses of humour. Having spent several years in their company, and gaining knowledge of some of them as friends, I am inclined to believe them.