On 12/27/06, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/27/06, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Political Islam should be thought of as neither inherently an enemy of imperialism nor inherently a servant of it. Each Islamic movement's role really depends on the nature of an Islamic state or movement, Washington's strategy, and other factors. Its malleability is just like socialism, nationalism, pan-Arabism, and other political ideologies.
<<<<<>>>>>
Origins of contemporary militancy are in the late 20s/early 30s founding of *Moslem Brotherhood* in Egypt. Brotherhood emerged out of period in which Eygpt initially gained nominal independence and later had its sovereignty *officially* recognized. Of course, Britain retained significant economic and military presence in the country. Brotherhood leader Hassan al Baan had twin aims - revitalize what he believed to be the corrupted Islamic faith *and* create an Islamic political organization. Political appeal of Islam was that it had been neither inherited from nor did it borrow from the west. Desire for independence was understood to involve a process of spiritual purification in which colonized peoples regained self-respect by ridding themselves of western ideas and influences. Doesn't seem a coincidence that the Moslem Brothehood formed in Ismailiya which was where Suez Canal Company was headquartered and where a sizeable number of British troops were based. Also doesn't seem to be a coincidence that the Brotherhood spread into countries under British or French control: Jordan, Sudan, Syria. Organizational strategy for accomplishing its objectives included significant effort to train young people physically and militarily. Michael Hoover
