05.12.2002
United with muslims
Martyn Hudson's article, 'Betrayal of progressives', while it professes to be opposed to islamophobia, takes a correct position of our organisation - refusing to engage in alliances with those forces in the muslim communities that seek to impose the norms of islamic law by methods of violence and terror - and extends it way beyond (Weekly Worker November 28). In fact he extends it to the whole of that body of muslims - probably the majority today - who adhere to religious teachings that are basic to islam itself, even those avowing that such a society should be brought about by peaceful persuasion. This in my view is impermissible, and I find it a little disturbing that he apparently only advocates such a position in relation to muslims, and not other religions. In my view, islam itself is no better and no worse than other religions, and its adherents should be judged by the same criteria - ie, not religious belief per se, but rather by their attitude in the here and now to basic questions of democratic rights. Those that seek concretely to use violence to suppress the democratic rights of the working class and the left, or those who engage in or support acts of barbarism, by their very nature exclude themselves from a united front with the left. Those, such as the MAB, who clearly state their opposition to such methods, provide a welcome opportunity for the left to work with their followers and influence them, even if they are not completely unanimous in such sentiments (you would hardly expect such a movement, with real roots in such a section of society that is at the sharp end of these questions, to be so unanimous). So what is the theoretical basis of Martyn's argument? The core of it is the following: "Since the 1960s "¦ the world has witnessed the ascendancy of one particular form of islam - a political islam which presents a civilisational alternative to that of both communism and capitalism and which seeks to eliminate secularism, liberty and any vestiges of enlightenment thought. Its explicit task is the reformation of the worldwide community of muslims, the Umma, and the construction of a global islamist state, the Khilafah. It is totally incompatible with our vision of social progress and, no matter how much it constructs itself as an alternative to a barbarous imperialism, it is a backward, reactionary, clerico-fascist attempt to build a militaristic theocracy on the corpses of the working class, women and youth." And Martyn goes on elaborate a nightmarish vision of the consequences of this: "This radical programme of the islamists entails firstly a conception that a total war - sometimes open, sometimes hidden - exists between the muslim Umma and the 'west' and its ideologies. Secondly, its programme entails the compulsion for muslims to construct an islamic state as a divine imperative. Thirdly, that the holy struggle against the enemies of islam is both a collective duty and one imposed upon individual muslims by god and their earthly representatives, the islamists. Finally, a central element of contemporary political islam is the withdrawal of tolerance from christians, jews and secularists. This is profoundly different from the programme of traditionalist islam and, of course, many muslims who are attracted to secularism and humanising assimilation from below. As Ernest Gellner once pointed out, this programme, stands for an 'irreversible reformation' across the world with unparalleled effects." As a Marxist, and therefore a materialist, I can only laugh at the latter proposition. The very idea that under modern, globalised capitalism, in which, as many have pointed out, the invading elements of a future socialist society are becoming more and more evident, there is the slightest possibility of an "irreversible reformation" across the world with "unparalleled effects" - ie, the conversion of the bulk of the population of the non-muslim world (some four-fifths of humanity, at a rough guess, who do not even have any nominal adherence to islam as a religion) to Taliban-style, extremist islam - is utterly fantastic. Indeed, under the present world order, it is simply materially impossible, whatever its proponents may think. The only circumstances in which I can envisage the world ascendancy of forces of this ilk, in which such a theocracy might even theoretically find an opportunity to come into being, is in the aftermath of a thermonuclear holocaust or some other kind of equally catastrophic world event that wiped out the bulk of the population and productive forces of the advanced countries, and left a relatively small number of human survivors to rebuild on the basis of a reversion to semi-barbarism in terms of the resultant cultural and productive level. And even then, this is not a likely scenario: more likely would be various localised set-ups of differing character that would engage in a probably centuries-long process of differentiation, conflict and rebuilding in conditions we can hardly imagine today (and hopefully, will never have to). Furthermore, the idea that these kinds of ideas are somehow a new or modernist development is misplaced. They are fundamental to the belief system of the islamic religion itself: The concept of islamic law, which implies theocracy by its very nature, is a fundamental part of islamic doctrine, uncontradicted by any authoritative body or individual within the islamic tradition, whether of Sunni or Shia persuasion. One can, of course, point out that in practice, even under the medieval caliphates themselves, as well as under various admixtures of islam and secularism in the early 20th century, many quite liberal and enlightened practices often prevailed in islamic societies. In the post-colonial world these were symptoms of the capitulation of various strands of secular nationalism to the deep roots of islam in their respective societies. In the case of the medieval Arab empires, on the other hand, these were analogous to European phenomena such as highly tolerant early medieval states like the kingdom of Poland-Lithuania - their liberal and enlightened features flowed from the progressive social role that such states played in their time. The doctrine was refined in practice. But to say that the abstract, doctrinal views of today's political islamists constitute some new view of the ideal islamic society is false. What is new is not their doctrine of law, but rather their political programme in the real world: the use of bloody, terrorist methods in a necessarily vain and hopeless, but - as long as it continues - hugely damaging attempt to force these norms by terrorist methods on humanity. In my view, Taliban/Khomeini-type islamic fundamentalism is not a world-historic competitor to communism for the fate of the world. The growth of such ultra-religious forms of politics is rather a morbid and reactionary excrescence, one manifestation of a punishment for the failure of the left to defeat capitalism and thereby put an end to the ruination of the peoples of the underdeveloped countries by world capitalism. And of course, these elements hammer on grievances that are fundamental to the aims and objectives of our communist movement. This leads to a quite broad spectrum of permutations of the way that oppression is channelled into such reactionary movements - and indeed, to a number of different permutations of such kinds of politics. Programme - in terms of what a given movement concretely advocates, and not abstract religious doctrine - is what should be decisive for Marxists in determining who we can bloc with in a principled fashion. And, in terms of programme, the likes of the MAB, who, as I have already pointed out, have been more forthright in condemning the recent spate of terrorist crimes of political islamists than even some on the left, are not a clerical-fascist tendency, notwithstanding their conservative muslim views. We will not strengthen the progressive, secular elements in the muslim and Arab communities by boycotting united actions with such elements and thereby refusing to 'contaminate' their followers with progressive, socialist literature and speech, nor by denying their followers the experience of coming to see the left as the most determined fighters against the oppressions that drive such sections of the immigrant communities in such conservative religious directions in the first place. On the contrary, boycotts that appear to be - and due to their misguided premises in my view actually are - based on distaste for religious beliefs, as opposed to antipathy for a terrorist/fascistic programme, only help drive the oppressed further into the arms of the most conservative clerical elements. This is no way to undermine the hold of reaction. Ian Donovan
Worker