Toward a Marxists-Muslims Dialog - Part IIb

Religion as many of us saw - and many still continue to see - as the defender of the status quo and tradition. It is often against change, while peacefully co-existing or ardently defending the deep-rooted and widespread injustice and exploitation in society. During the past century, Marxism (or generally, leftist ideology) was at the forefront of the voices for change and justice - and against rotten traditions and injustice/exploitation. Even within the context of Islamic history, one can't but avoid the fact that the religion itself has been (ab)used by the ruling and the powerful for narrow group/individual interest. And, then religion itself has been used to keep the Muslim mass from rising against the wrongs and injustices.

Anyway, seeing the opium-like role of Islam during a good part of historical time-table, many socially conscious people were unavoidably and somewhat justifiably attracted to Marxism. Even many Muslim icons of the last century were originally inspired a great deal by Marxist ideas. Although examples abound, one can't help but mention names such as Dr. Ali Shariati of Iran. He is regarded by many as the primary figure contributing toward the awakening of the  intellectually-oriented segment of the pre-revolution Iranian society. He left an indelible mark on the modern-educated segment of the society - detaching them from Marxism and attaching to Islam as ideology. One does not have to agree with either Islam or the present Iran (and not necessarily, Islam and the present Iran are adequately convergent), but not to try to understand and appreciate the MASS movement that propelled the Iranian society toward the turbulent path of revolution is to miss the underpinnings of one of the most important mass revolutions in modern history.

This story particularly in reference to Dr. Ali Shariati is particularly relevant in a Marxists-Muslims dialog because the regime and the system under Shah of Iran fell due to struggle that originally brought Islamic and Marxist forces together as one united front. [Note: The outcome of the revolution as crystallized in the contemporary Iran is a different story. I am emphasizing the nature and characteristics of the mass movement behind the revolution.]

Whatever happened in Iran (once again, discussion of post-revolution Iran is a separate issue) is a clear indication that Islam did not play a role of "opium" in Iran. Rather, it LED the process of change and galvanized the mass against the capitalist-autocratic-monarchic rule of the Shah.

This reminds me a story that most of you already know in one form or another. An orphaned baby tiger was left by its dead mother tiger. The baby was picked up by a herd of sheep, which for reasons of safety, wanted to rear the baby as a sheep, rather than as a tiger. So the tiger as he grew up, learnt to do "ba ba", instead of its natural "roar." The sheeps thought that they could simply keep the tiger as one of them by taming as a sheep. Most of you know that story:  a tiger is a tiger, though it can be tamed, at least for some time as a sheep. But that does not make it a sheep.

That Islam has been turned into a tool for the defense of actually unislamic, status quo does not mean that it is really a tool of the status quo - it's only until people, the mass, realize that its role is just the opposite, then one can see completely different result. Even politically-passive religions, such as Christianity, found powerful anti-establishment expression in new ideological hybrids, such as Liberation Theology.

Aronowitz writes: "The rise of the Catholic and Protestant left defies time-honored images and conceptions of religion among Marxists. Although Marx himself comprehended religion as the sigh of the oppressed, Marxism has focused almost exclusively on its institutional manifestation, finding - often correctly - that organized religion was allied to established regimes, a faithful retainer of the status quo. In consequence, and with few exceptions, Marxism has been unable to grapple with the new currents within the world's religions without the handy tool of class analysis. Thus, on the whole, Marxism remains uncomprehending of Islam, of new currents in Catholic doctrine and of the partial eclipse of political conservatism among world protestants. ...

[from various contemporary events] We have learnt that Islam means to exercise power on a global scale and that religious ideas are not merely superstructural phenomenon. ... Modernists seem completely baffled by the resurgence  of theocratic politics because they have accepted the evolutionist proposition according to which secularization is an inevitable victor in the war against superstition, that science and technology constitute a value system antithetical to Deism. Clearly, these hasty modernist conclusions have proven to be seriously flawed." [p. 31]

Although Aronowitz's observations are noteworthy, there is a fundamental lapse in Marx-Engel's thought and contribution that is not often recognized, as is the case with Aronowitz. It is interesting to note that non-Muslims (not with any Islamic-Muslim connection in terms of affiliation or funds whatsoever) in ranking the most influential people in human history finds that at the top of top 100 Most Influential Men in History is Muhammad. (Note: The ranking is not without controversy; also it does not prove a particular ranking one way or another. I am trying to make a different point in this context.)

Whether a particular ranking places Muhammad (s) at the top of such ranking or in the top ten, top fifty or in top one-hundred, one would hardly give any credibility to such work, where Muhammad (s) does not appear at all. Interestingly, Marx-Engels both have been quite thorough in terms of sifting through the vast canvas of human history to formulate the formidable edifice of  their theory and analysis. Most painstakingly, they have studied human history where Judaism and Christianity have not escaped their radar. However, for whatever reason, in the entire works of Marx, there is ABSOLUTELY NO reference whatsoever to Islam, Muhammad or the impact they had on history or the society/ideology that emerged in that line.

From my personal reading of Marx, I was aware of the complete absence of Islam and/or Muhammad from their works. Recently, discovering the vast and most comprehensive online Marxist Archive containing almost all the major and pertinent works of Marx (and Engels), I decided to contact the archive-director about this matter. My earlier impression was once again confirmed, as I received the response from the archives CD-Rom project director (1/16/2000): "Dr. Farooq, Unfortunately, I 've not been able to find any other references of even minor interest in the works of Marx and Engels that are transcribed for the MIA." Actually, in their entire
works, there is absolutely nothing about Islam/Muhammad as far as Marx is concerned. In the
works of Engels, there is ONE footnote in which there is a mention about the Mohammedans, after reading which, one can conclude for himself whether that really reflects any meaningful knowledge or understanding about Islam or not. The footnote (#1) occurs in Engels'  "On the history of early Christianity" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894chri/index.htm). (Note: Any information to the contrary is most welcome as the purpose of this writing is
education and dialog.)

What might explain the absence of any reference to Islam/Muhammad in the works of Marx and virtual absence in the works of Engels? That has to constitute a separate work. However, there  are at least three plausible reasons. First, Marx-Engels did not know anything about  Islam/Muhammad. Second, they did not know substantively enough to make any reference. Third, they knew but found it to be irrelevant to their works. Fourthly, they knew and knew well but could not integrate into their schema of "dialectical-historical materialism" that unfolds through the process of "class struggle." Take your pick! But, a better understanding of the pertinent issues and problems might be particularly revolving around the fourth option.

That Islam is a force, indeed powerful force, for change, justice, and non-dominance of any particular class or race, and that it is for a constitutional, accountable, and participatory system of governance, might be the starting point to develop a better understanding from the Marxists side about the pertinent issues in regard to Islam. If injustice and exploitation are among the foremost concerns of Marxism, then there should be a mutual respect and understanding between Marxists and Muslims, even though they may fundamentally differ about various metaphysical aspects of their respective ideologies.

Incidentally, one of the most freedom-loving, valiant, change-seeking, rebellious icon known to all of us as the REBEL poet is Kazi Nazrul Islam. Whatever others think about the source/inspiration of that Rebel's rebellion, has anyone taken an interest to learn about the Rebel's own perspective on this? While people have written thesis, dissertations, and treatises on the Rebel of the poem "Rebel", whose explanation should be more relevant here than the Rebel himself? If interested, please read my article "Toward Understanding Nazrul: The Rebel and more" at
http://www.globalfront.com/nazrul/works_on_naz/articles/the_rebel.htm .


References:

Stanley Aronowitz, The Crisis in Historical Materialism: Class, Politics and Culture in Marxist Theory (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1991, 2nd ed.)

Marx-Engels Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1837-pre/1835-ref.htm )

Ali Shariati, Marxism and Other Western Fallacies: An Islamic Critique (Berkeley, CA: Mizan Press, 1980)

Robert Tucker, The Marx-Engels Reader (Norton, 2nd Edition, 1978).

[... continued in Part III]