In this presentation, my aim is to reach three goals.

First, I would like to talk about Sayyid Qutb’s book, Islam and Universal Peace and review how he connects Islam with the concept of peace.

Second, I want to talk about how Murad Idris compares and contrasts Qutb’s notion of universal peace with Kant’s ideas of perpetual peace that we just discuss last week.

And finally, I would like to raise some questions that we can discuss in class today.

So, let’s start with Qutb’s book, Islam and Universal Peace.

In this book, Qutb makes it clear that he wants to complete two goals. First, he wants to show what the concept of peace in Islam is. And second, he wants to show the solutions that Islam provides for the question of world peace.

To understand the connection between Islam and peace, I think we have to understand 5 concepts that Qutb discusses in his book. Those concepts are human nature, Islam, peace, successive stages of peace, and finally war and western civilization.

Let’s start with Qutb’s thoughts on Human Nature.

For Qutb, a man by nature has a capacity to connect himself with God or the eternal source of power, to comprehend the universe, and to harmonize himself with it. So, Qutb argues that to connect to God, to comprehend the universe, and to harmonize himself with it, a man needs a belief or an ideology. In this sense, while Kant believes in human reason to understand the world, Qutb promotes that a man needs an ideology to comprehensively understand himself, the world, and the universe.

But, what is the belief or the ideology that can fulfill human nature that Qutb’s talking about?

The answer is Islam. According to Qutb, Islam is the comprehensive religion that covers all aspects of life. He even claims that Islam is the final religion because it is more comprehensive than other religions and combines every doctrine of other religions.

For Qutb, Islam is comprehensive because it is the religion of unity.  It is the unity of all elements, from the individual life to society, and from the world to the universe. In Islam, everything is in harmony under the Oneness of God. In this sense, if we understand Islam as a comprehensive religion that covers all aspects of life, it becomes so essay for us to understand the concept of peace in Islam.

As Qutb argues, peace in Islam covers all every aspects of life. Namely, peace in Islam is a harmony of the relationship between a man and God, between a man’s body and his mind, a human being and other human beings, between one society and other societies, between a state and other states in the global level.

So, for Qutb, if we want to understand the concept of peace in Islam, we have to understand it comprehensibly, from the micro level to the macro level. And as Qutb shows in his book, there are 4 successive stages of peace in Islam.

The first stage is Peace of Conscience

According to Islam, there will be no peace in the world unless the individual is at peace with himself. So, as Qutb argues, it is very important for a man to have peace in his mind. This peace can be reached by using God’s guidance to create a harmony of desire, ambition, feeling, instinct.

The second stage is Peace at Home

After a man is at peace with himself, the next step is to have peace in his family. As Qutb reveals, there are many codes of conduct in Islam that aim to create harmony in family. Namely, there are norms about women dressing, marriage, sexual mixing, divorce, and polygamy. There are also prohibitions on alcohol, drugs, and social allurement. In Islam, if members in a family follow these norms strictly, peace at home can surly exists.

The third stage of peace that Qutb explains is Peace in Society.

For Qutb, an Islamic society is a peaceful society because Islam teaches people to be friendly, compassionate and cooperative for mutual security and peace. Moreover, the Islamic law which is the law that follows the Divine Law of God provides social welfare and guarantee social rights to every people. Namely, in Islamic law, there is the guarantee of welfare, the circulation of wealth, the nationalization of public utilities, and the prohibition of extravagances, usury, and the monopolization of business. Therefore, there is no social conflict and class struggle in the Muslim society. Last but not least, there is no conflict between the ruler and the subjects in the Islamic state. The ruler is not different from the subjects since he has to follow the Law of God. He can rule the state as long as he obeys God and applies God’s laws.

The last stage of peace in Islam is peace in the global level.

As Qutb reveals, Islam promotes the unity of all humanity, the unity of all religions, and the unity of all believers. Islam integrates racial and class differences and encourages mutual tolerance, friendliness, and compassion among human beings in the world. Islam aims to avoid conflicts caused by discrimination, power struggles, and material exploitation. It is a religion that aims to help people and the humanitarian spirit is the core principle of Islam.

However, to create world peace, Qutb does not hesitate to show that sometimes war is necessary.

As we can see, it seems that there is no reason for Muslims to make war. They behave so well in their everyday life, they have no conflict in their society, and they promote peace in the world. However, Qutb argues that war is justified if it is a humanitarian war to set people free from the oppression, corruption, and injustice. For Muslims, it is necessary to give men a chance to emancipate themselves from their oppressor and to restore their human rights granted by God to all mankind. This kind of mission can be called Jihad.

But what’s kind of society that are so corrupted and unjust that Qutb’s talking about?

Where are the injustice, corruption, and oppression in the world?

It seems to me that Qutb is talking about the Western civilization. As we can see from his biography, after studying in the US and traveling in the western countries, Qutb has very negative views about the West. Materialism, racism, imperialism, class conflict, economic exploitation, sexual obsession, for Qutb, lead to moral problems and moral decay in the West. As a result, it seems to me that what Qutb wants to say ultimately is that to escape from the corrupted conditions of the Western civilization, Islam is the final solution for humankind.

Now, I would like to go on and talk about the Idris’s article which he compares and contrasts Qutb’s universal peace with Kant’s perpetual peace.

In my view, the good thing about Idris’s article is that he discusses about other works of Qutb. And he also includes the last chapter of Islam and Universal Peace which we can find in the original edition but it does not appear in the new edition of this book that we read this week. So, I think Idris’s article can really provides a broader picture of Qutb’s thoughts to us.

This is a long article and it has many arguments and ideas. So I would like to draw your attention to only three crucial points.

The first one is the main goals of this essay.

What Idris wants to do in his essay is that he wants to challenge the conventional view that people have when they compare Kant’s perpetual peace with Qutb’s Islamic peace. Namely, people tend to think that Qutb’s idea of peace is the reaction against the concept of modernity, reason, and enlightenment that Kant strongly promotes. However, for Idris, we should understand Qutb’s idea of peace as the continuation of enlightenment tradition. As Idris says, “Qutb is a child of enlightenment.” Therefore, rather than being different, Kant and Qutb’s ideas reflect and mirror each other and share similar aspects of empire, colonialism, hostility, war, and peace.

However, before I examine the similarities between Qutb and Kant, I want to mention the differences between these two thinkers.

As Idris shows, there are two main differences.

The first one is the different views on the Assurance of Peace.

For Kant, commerce and trade are the assurance of peace in the world. But for Qutb, commerce and trade can lead to materialism and capitalism. Rather than guaranteeing peace, materialism, for Qutb, is the cause of moral decay, social conflict, and eventually war between states.

The second one is the different views on morality

For Kant, world peace does not start from morality in each individual. As he says, “A good constitution is not to be expected from morality, but, conversely, a good moral condition of people is to be expected only under a good constitution” But for Qutb, world peace cannot be created if each individual do not have personal morality. As he shows, peace in conscience is the first step in successive stages of peace.

Now I want to talk about the similarities between Qutb and Kant’s plan of peace

Even though Kant and Qutb have some different views, Idris shows that Qutb’s ideas of peace are very similar to Kant’s since he uses the same kind of enlightenment terms and language.

There are five aspects that we can similarly find in both Kant and Qutb’s texts.

First, it is the concept of “The Unjust Enemy”

For Kant, the unjust enemy is the one who perpetuates the State of Nature or the one who makes any condition of peace among nations impossible Idris argues that we can find the unjust enemy in Qutb’s thoughts too. And it is the West, especially the U.S. The UK, and France, which are the unjust enemies for the world peace.

Second, both Kant and Qutb provide a justification of war in the world

For Kant, war is one of the Driving Engines to Peace. As Idris mentions, “Kant’s morality of peace does not condemn war as evil or celebrate it as just, but affirms it as necessary and inevitable because it ultimately brings about peace.”Similarly, for Qutb, the “Pure War” is necessary to fight against Subordination, Inequality, Injustice, and Deceptions. It is not a war for a nation or a class but it is for human rights of the world.

Third, both Kant and Qutb believe in a nation-state as an instrument that can lead to world peace. The only difference is that they believe in a different form of state. While Kant believes in The Republican State, Qutb promotes that The Islamic State can bring peace to the earth.

Fourth, both Kant and Qutb believe in the formation of the Federation of Nations. For them, this kind of federation can unite different nations and guarantee peace. The only difference is that Kant and Qutb provide different forms of federation. While Kant asks for the leagues of nations, Qutb believes in the Islamic bloc.

Last, both Kant and Qutb criticize colonialism and its violence. Living in the era of European colonialism, Kant criticizes the way the European savages enslave indigenous people they conquer. Meanwhile, living in the era of post colonialism, Qutb criticizes the way people today are corrupted by materialism, neo-imperialism, and capitalism. For Qutb, these people are ignorant savages who lack the divine guidance of God.

Now I would like to conclude this presentation by raising some questions for discussion.

I have five set of questions. The first three sets of questions relate to Qutb’s book and Idris’s article while the last two sets of questions relate to the article written by Abdulrahman al-Salimi.

Let’s start with the first one

1. War and Peace

Do we need war as a driving force to universal peace? Can peace be established without the presence of war? Do you believe in “the war to end all wars”? Which one is more important; domestic peace or international peace?

2. Transcendence and Violence

What is the cost that we have to pay in order to reach the transcendental stage of peace? How does the absolute power of God lead to violence against women, immigrants, and minority groups? Does the concept of transcendence include all people? Or does it actually exclude some people out off its absolute claim?

3. Secularity and Peace

Can we establish peace in the world without referring to God? Can we, as an agent, resist against God’s secret plan or God’s Divine Law in order to create a different version of peace? What are differences between religious peace and secular peace?

4. Islam and the Modern State

Can the Islamic doctrines coexist with the modern/western/ secular concepts of the state, civil constitution, liberal democracy, and capitalism? Is it the case that Islamic parties and Islamic movements are the main problems of democratization in the Arab countries? If it is the case that we have to reform the Islamic society, which area should be the first one; politics, economy, culture, or the intellectual?

5. Islam and the Future

Does the Islamic state have the future? Are Muslims “the lagging others” who cannot catch up with the train of modernity and civilization? -What are political choices for Islamic states? Do they have to be only secularized, modernized, and democratized like the West? What is the future relationship between Islamic countries and the West?

Please feel free to share your opinion and I’m sorry that this presentation is pretty long

Thank you