:rolleyes:
The only place Qutb comes into discussion is Western media by paid pundits. How well Western media and pundits keep an eye on the ball can be measured by the fact that NO ONE predicted the wave of popular uprising in ME.
Hello!? NO ONE!
Yet, people still go these “sources” for more. And they get cited and discussed and used as a reference. Even though it has been proved that their value is nil.
Incredible.
Ah, my bad and my apologies, that was the wrong link. I wasn’t being funny but apparently didn’t cut the right link (that one was from a YouTube thread).
This is how it should have read:
In other words, if you’re “not interested at all” because “Digging stuff out from the dustbin of history and making a bogey man out of dead people is not something worth my while. It simply is not relevant.”, then why ask for a cite when you
1- Didn’t think it was relevant to begin with
2- Weren’t going to look it up anyway
3- Didn’t really care
Oh, yes, the prickly game of “I posted a cite, therefore I must be right!”
Well, I was asking for a cite re: Advocates of violent revolution and fierce retribution for non compliers with Islam
Cite posted in no way demonstrates that. In fact, common understanding is that leadership of MB in Egypt clearly distanced itself from Qutb and his ideas. When you come back with a cite that demonstrates your claim, then, my interest might rise a notch.
[QUOTE=newcomer]
Cite posted in no way demonstrates that. In fact, common understanding is that leadership of MB in Egypt clearly distanced itself from Qutb and his ideas. When you come back with a cite that demonstrates your claim, then, my interest might rise a notch.
[/QUOTE]
It also didn’t address the role of Mormon missionaries in the colonization of Hawaii, because that’s not what you asked for a cite about. You asked a cite that Qutb proposed violent revolution which is pretty much any remotely reliable source there is about Qutb.
The quote you asked for a cite on was specifically about Qutb.
You have to understand that Newcomer is a very, very stupid person. I mean, the fact that he’s a 9/11 Truther who thinks that the Mossad was involved should tell you enough, but still. If you provide someone giving an analysis of history that he can’t factually refute, he’ll call them a pundit and say that they shouldn’t be listened to. If you provide cites and facts showing that his claim are wrong? Well, then he’ll demand pundits:
Is it your claim that MB=Qutb?
I did say that at the time of Qutb writings MB leadership distnced itself from his ideas. Thus, irrelevant.
So, what are we discussing now - Qutb or MB?
Careful… I’m about to provide actual facts and thereby… activate the pseudocomplexity machine!!!
First off, this is simply either profound ignorance or dishonesty. Qutb was not only a leader in the MB, he was in charge of writing its propaganda.
Things are also nowhere near as simple (or “pseudosimple” if you prefer) as newcomer paints them, today.
[
](Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
No you didn’t. You asked for a cite regarding Qutb. THen someone gave you one and then you said Qutb was irrelevant. Which caused Sampiro to ask why you bothered requesting the cite in the first place.
What a stickler… and I explained why.
Since you didn’t even know who Qutb was, what makes you claim that the current leadership of the MB does?
That’s certainly news to the leaders.
Please present evidence of a prominent member of the MB denouncing Qutb.
Your ignorance closely matches the one you so eagerly defend around here.
As for your humble request may I point to your previously disclosed information and tell you that someone so knowledgeable should know that already.
For those wondering: yes, newcomer really is this stupid, it is not an act.
You could do it for the benefit of us less-knowledgeable onlookers, especially those who might interpret your demurral as “weaseling”…
Nothing in that suggests the Muslim Brotherhood is attempting to distance itself from Qutb.
In fact, just the opposite, they’re embracing him.
Okay, I’m not feeling any less ill-informed by that. Thank you for the attempt, though. Still, the two links that lead to the Muslim Brotherhood site reveal articles that (at first glance, at least) appear to be rehabilitating, rather than denouncing Qutb. Would you be good enough to post quotes from those articles, which have the denouncing language you appear to think I should be finding? That is what you were asked to present in post #52, after all.
The first link, to the wikipedia article on the MB is kinda weak sauce too. Far from quoting a prominent MB member denouncing Qutb, it cites Osama bin Laden criticizing the MB for, as far as I can tell, being insufficiently doctrinaire wrt Qutb’s ideals.
I don’t find that to be evidence of a prominent member of MB denouncing Qutb. If Newt Gingrich were to announce that he had filed his federal income tax return and Grover Norquist were to blast him for “betraying the ideals of Ronald Reagan,” would you cite that as an example of Gingrich “denouncing” Reagan?
You DID understand what Ibn Warraq was asking you to cite, didn’t you?
Perhaps it’s just me. Walk me though them, would you, please?
Incidentally, here is the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader giving his opinion of Adolph Hitler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HStliOnVl6Q
Perhaps Newcomer would like to explain how those are the words of a moderate.
For the record, Qaradawi is generally considered one of the more moderate leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood so that should give people an idea what the real radicals of the Muslim Brotherhood are like.
Maybe it is…