Is Islamic Marxism an Oxymoron? — by Musa Malik

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]hroughout the millennia, as human societies have developed and evolved, we humans have found ways to know more about the invisible forces that govern our day to day lives as living, breathing human beings. With the passage of time, we have given these invisible forces, their structures of control and the “institutions” that produce certain names. Religion, culture, economics and other such social systems and domains of society have been identified through various academic disciplines. For example, religion, culture and economic can be considered sociocultural domains within the field of anthropology, while in sociology we recognize them primarily as social institutions and in political economy such systems are termed structural force, and finally, in cultural studies, we can approach them as discursive formations. And if we look at these systems and their institutions, we—very quickly—find out that there is a link and more often than not, these systems and institutions are bound to overlap at some point. Here, we find the connections between two very important superstructures and institutions, the socio-economic and the religious.

We now take a look at a relatively new phenomenon where socio-economics and religion overlap and create a new entity and with it, a new thought process—Islamic Marxism. The crux of this political, social, economic philosophy intersects the ideals of Marxism and Socialism with the inherent political undercurrents found in Islam since its inception. And as many of the Islamic Socialists put forward, the concepts that are rooted within Islam are inherently Socialist (read anti-bourgeoisie)  and anti-imperialist. Particular to this case, the idea of Zakaat, which is a mandatory act and the third pillar of Islam, wherein when a person reaches a certain amount of monetary wealth, 1/40th or 2.5% of their income has to be donated annually, to charity. In addition to this, the welfare state of Medina, where the first Caliph of Islam, Abu Bakr, guaranteed to the residents of the Caliphate a minimum standard of income (giving men, women 10 dirhams annually) while guaranteeing a minimum standard of living.

Islamic Socialists derive their ideology from Abu Dharr al-Ghifarri, whom they consider to be the first Islamic Socialist and a companion of the Prophet of Islam. Al-Ghifarri vehemently protested against the economic advantages of the ruling classes while dissenting against the accumulation of wealth resting in the hands of a few. One of the most, if not the most important source from which Islamic Socialists like al-Ghifarri argue their ideology is through the Quran itself, quoting certain verses. Among these is "Man is entitled only to what is due to his effort" as one of the foremost verses used in favour of this ism as well as “All of the land belongs to Allah.”

While some might argue the strong reference to these verses is not contextual, the Islamic Socialists have been sure to use them as a source of support for their arguments. However, if we delve deeper into this subject, or rather, engage in a critical study, we find many nuances and contradictions within the two supported arguments given by Islamic Marxists and Islamic Socialists—the first one being Zakaat. There multiple reasons as to why it is such an important part of the faith to give annual alms to the poor. At first glance, we find that the reasons for Zakaat are quite different from what Islamic Marxists designate it to be. The alms are meant to address economic inequality for certain. However, the main reason this charity is the third pillar of Islam is purification.

In Islam, the concepts of halaal (permissible) and haraam (impermissible) are quite prevalent and governs most, if not all, things Muslims do. And it also transcends in this case, to the wealth acquired by the people. The main purpose, in conjunction with the others mentioned previously, is to purify the money that a person has acquired throughout that one year of work and earning and through this alms giving, it makes the person’s wealth halaal. And even though haraam wealth exists, it cannot be ‘made’ halaal through paying alms out of that accumulated wealth. What is now found, is that the concept of Zakaat, while being Socialist in nature, does not hold its value only to redistribute wealth, rather, it is a religious duty for Muslims to purify wealth rather than a political or solely economic act of solidarity, charity and altruism.

Another contradiction we find in the arguments of the Islamic Marxists is the fact that they believe the accumulation of wealth is discouraged in Islam. When further researched, that accumulation of wealth is not discouraged in Islam, however, and this is a big however, the only caveat is that if the wealth is accumulated through usury or by exploiting the weaker sections of society, then only God is displeased by such unjust gains. An important point to note in this is that, whether that wealth is monetarily significant or minute, exploitation of the weaker and poorer sections of society would still lead to the displeasure of God.

Now we come to one of the most important aspects of Islamic Marxism that focuses on the inclusion of Marxism within Islam as a contradiction in of itself. A brief reading of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx tells me that he wasn’t very fond of religion. In his words, it is the "opium of the masses", meaning that religion was founded to control people and make them subservient without questioning nor argumentation. Marxists are, more often than not, atheists and vehemently against organised religion, stating that religion is an institution "made to exploit the poorer classes by the rich." In contrast, Islam is not just meant to be a religion, according to Islamic texts, but an ideal way of life. Such a tenet requires every Muslim to follow the doctrine of Islam in anything they do or say and faith and religion (which in this case govern all other social institutions) maintain a primary place in the lives of Muslim.

This is where the arguments of the Islamic Marxists and Islamic Socialists become subject to a number of contradictions. First, how can one conjoin two concepts when the genesis of one is to rid  society of the other because one believes that the other is what oppresses people? This essential question made me ponder about this paradox for quite a long time until it became clear to me that instead of qualifying Islam in terms of having ovelaps with Marxist or Socialist principles, why not understand it through a different facade? Why not address the fact that Socialism and Marxism themselves are characterised by Islamic principles of standing against the exploitation of the weak by the rich and powerful sections of society. In this context, Zakaat can also be used as an argument for distribution of wealth since it is Marxism that bases itself on one such Islamic principle.

A natural conclusion forms when one arrives at the idea that Islam is not inherently Socialist or Marxist, rather, both of these are characterised by ideals of Islamic societal governance and economic administration and "Islamic Marxism” as a hybrid ideology is an oxymoron that contains inherent contradictions. However, the emergence of “Islamic Marxism” gives greater validity to the tenets of Islam that focus on its revolutionary message centered on anti-oppression, social justice, moral community, anti-imperialism. All such ideals share the common vision of Islam’s political philosophy dedicated to the eradication of inequality, the end to poverty, exploitation, with the taghut (oppressors, those who transgress limits) and the mustazafin (oppressed, those deprived) echoing—in broader terms—the binary of bourgeoisie and proletariat in Marxist thought. It is no wonder that Islamic Marxism finds its origins in the intersection between anti-colonial struggle, the desire for religious reform and the leftist revolutionary ideology of the mid-20th century that define it.