Islam e Mohammadi
Jun 22nd, 2008 by admin
One of the distinct failures of leftists has been a disdain for religious values, and in our present day context, a disdain for an Islam that, true to its origin, is comprehensive – i.e. Islam e Mohammadi.
Many leftists, while supportive of Muslims, regard the umma to be nothing more than an ethnicity. Through this reduction, they project a meaning on the word “Muslim” that strips it off its comprehensiveness: surrender towards the will of Allah – that is inclusive of both an individual and social spiritual journey whose primary purpose is to re-member (dhikr).
The compartmentalization of the human being, especially in the present day Capitalist order, is not only a source of alienation from what is produced, but also results in a shattered psyche whose healing requires a re-joining.
In a book review, Justin Podur says:
I do not believe that Islam has a monopoly over the failure to separate religion and politics. I believe that all religions are systems of authority, based on irrational belief, that mostly cannot meet the burden of proof for the demands they make of their believers.
Both the “western” left and right aim to make Islam into an individual and private spirituality. Imam Khomeni directly addressed this concern in his last will and testament:
We all witnessed that whoever spoke of Islamic rule or of politics, which is the major role of Islam and its Prophet (SAW), or of the Quran and Islamic traditions, was regarded as one who had committed grave sins. The term akhund-a-siasi, which means a political clergyman, came to denote a profane canonist. These circumstances are still extant.
“… foes of Islam who entertain more vicious plots claim that religion and politics are not compatible and cannot be combined. These ignorant individuals must realize that the Holy Quran and the traditions of the Prophet of Islam contain more lessons, decrees and commands on the rule of government and politics than they do on any other issue. Indeed a good many Islamic laws concerning worship have political aspects as well. Neglecting such aspects has often resulted in catastrophes. The prophet of Islam founded a government just like any other except that it seeks to promote social justice and equity. The early caliphs of Islam enjoyed extensive rule. The sovereign rule of Hazrat Ali (AS) with the same objective, but on a much wider scale and dimension, is all too well known in history. However, after Ali (AS) gradually the rule of Islam became nominal. Even today there are many governments which claim to be Islamic but rarely pay Islam even a lip service.
The role of Imam Hussein (AS) and that of Sayyida Zainab (AS) are obviously political. Imam Hussein specifically discusses the failures of the scholars of Islam to take a political stand:
“If you (the scholars) tolerated the harm and bore the burdens for Allah’s sake, all the affairs of Allah would arrive at your hands, emanate from you, and devolve upon you. But you have made the oppressive rulers occupy your positions, and handed over the affairs of Allah to them. They (the oppressive rulers) are now acting suspiciously, and pursuing their passions. (Imam Hussein (AS) Tuhaf Al-Uqoul, trans. Qum, 2004, p. 279)”
Sayyida Zainab (AS) directly addressed Yazid (la) in a clearly political context:
“O Yazid! Do you think that we have become humble and despicable owing to the martyrdom of our people and our own captivity?
As you have blocked all the paths for us, and we have been made captives and are being taken from one place to another, do you think that Allah has taken away his blessings from us?”
Sayyida Fatima Zahra’s (AS) stand and sorrow after Prophet Muhammed (peace and blessings on his family) – had a political context:
We have missed you , the way a parched land misses the rainfall, your people are in total disarray, see how they have reneged. (Sayyida Fatima Al Zahra (AS) , narrated in Al Amali, ch. 5, #8)
Urdu speakers should also listen to a lecture by Allama Jawad Naqwi on the Seerah of Fatima Zahra (AS) — click and listen to talk #4 (parts A and B).
It is a sign of the profound strength of Islam that, after repeated attacks, both ideological, and physical, Muslims have continued to maintain and insist on recognizing the deep relationship of religion and politics.
Should jihad be discarded, and hijab recognized as an arbitrary cultural convention and not a religious requirement? Yes, in the same way that all doctrines should be subjected to tests of ethics and reason and discarded if they fail those tests. The same is true for using the distant past, described in Part 2 of CM, as a political guide for the future. If some political idea, from history or elsewhere, will have good effects from a perspective of universal human values, then it should be used. If not, it should be rejected.
The above paragraph is interesting, because it clarifies the limitations of western leftists’ solidarity with Muslims – because while defending the right of Muslim women to wear the hijaab, they would not hesitate to strip it off its social/religious meaning. They would distort the meaning to fit their narrow and limited world views, where there is only “arbitrary culture” and no “religion.” Infact, according to this view, for the left, there are no Muslims, only people who live a certain “culture” who happen to call themselves “Muslims.”
I think this kind of distorted thinking is a direct result of a failure to appreciate the value of an integrated human being, and an integrated society. These leftists have arrogantly set themselves up as the judge and jury on defining “universal values” – without access to, or even considering that which has deep universal appeal for the vast vast majority of human beings on this planet. Podur does not even bother to consider the deeper meanings of Jihad, and hijaab, and akin to reactionary right wingers – dismisses them outright.
It is interesting that many leftists, including Podur, have a certain romanticization of indigenous people’s culture and struggles. But rarely do they lash out at the fact that, especially for indigenous peoples’ of North America, their spiritual tradition was and is deeply connected to their social and individual lives. Perhaps it is because the numbers are so few, and they are now of little or no threat to the established secular order, this important and critical aspect of being indigenous is romanticized as being mere cultural artifacts. But back then, when Native Americans were perceived as a threat, one of the most detrimental slogans used against them was: “Tradition is the enemy of Progress.” It was on this basis of this slogan that Native American children were shipped off to boarding schools, to be “educated” away from “tradition” – and land was usurped by those who considered themselves to be proponents of “progress.” The liberals of that time were not all that different in their disdain for Native spiritual traditions, from how they view Islam and Muslims in the present day context.
In his prologue to The World We Used To Live In, Vine Deloria Jr says:
“The secularity of society in which we live must share considerable blame in the erosion of spiritual powers of all traditions, since our society has become a parody of social interactions lacking, even an aspect of civility. Believing in nothing, we have preempted the role of higher spiritual forces by acknowledging no greater good than what we can feel and touch. The change of living conditions experienced by Indian people in the last century also has a great deal to do with the erosion of our spiritual powers.”
As salaam alaikum
The only thing I think I find objectionable, and I think this is only for lack of a better term on even my part, is saying religion should have a role in politics. I see politics as being the sort of social game people play where they willingly compromise their ethical principles in order to fill some sort of desire. I think Barack Obama is a perfect example, how he threw his pastor under the bus because Rev Wright said alot of things that are so true it hurts Americans to hear it… and then his whole AIPAC speech. Islam deals in justice, and Truth… and I don’t think politics has any room for al-Haqq. It might be more appropriate to say that Islam has a role to play in government… as THE role to play in government. It is for this reason that some imperceptive people might suggest that Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali(as) was a political “failure.” He wasn’t dealing in politics, he was dealing in Truth. You know what I’m saying?
I see what you are saying – the word politics has of-course taken on a much more negative meaning. However, Islam’s role is wider than government, it is *also* about how Muslims interact with each other, with the rest of the world, oppressive conditions etc., I still think the best word to describe this presence of Islam in that arena is politics. On the other hand, the issue is not really about terms, but the meaning – and if a better term can be found to have a similar meaning all the better.
Asalaamu Alaykum Admin,
I think this is a particularly interesting entry (actually I really love it)– as one who works with many ‘leftist’ I agree with what you’ve written. I feel like you were really able to articulate a lot of my own sentiment, in a way I never have. Especially when you said, ‘Both the “western” left and right aim to make Islam into an individual and private spirituality.’ And I think you hit in on the head when you said, ‘I think this kind of distorted thinking is a direct result of a failure to appreciate the value of an integrated human being, and an integrated society.’
So—perhaps we start off from different premises. (1)‘We’ (Religious/Spiritual peoples) think of humans as integrated, including an invaluable spiritual component and many in the ‘Left’ do not. Further, (2) perhaps ‘Muslims thought’ includes both the Collective and Individual, often times emphasizing the Collective, whereas much of Western philosophy deals with the Individual.
It seems that the majority in the ‘Left’, interpret the writings that help to form the ideology and that they base their programs on to understand that (1) there is no need/room for spirituality and that (2)there is especially no room for a collective practice or institutionalization thereof. As that the latter would threaten (sorry to get all Samuel Huntington-esque on you) their place to determine universal values.
On another point:
‘It is interesting that many leftists, including Podur, have a certain romanticization of indigenous people’s culture and struggles.’ Need I remind you that many ‘leftist’ are Orientalist too.
But rarely do they lash out at the fact that, especially for indigenous peoples’ of North America, their spiritual tradition was and is deeply connected to their social and individual lives.’ Because this would require critical thought and actual understanding of different cultures—and Orientalist don’t do that.
All this being said, I do think the ‘leftist’ are a valuable ally and I can’t emphasize this point enough. Also, I do not think that the ‘Left’ is static. Many in the ‘Left’ are constantly reworking and striving to be more inclusive in their ideology and political lines, which affect their programs, campaigns, work in general, as well as making ‘the private political’ into a reality and as they strive to put ideology into action in their personal lives. (For example on a state level: the movie Fresa y Chocolate, which I see as a ‘leftist’ states recognition of the problem of exclusion of certain peoples and their effort to remedy this, by taking the first important step of recognition of ones shortcomings in a valuable exercise of self-criticism. Or just on a personal level, dealing with many ‘leftist’ who are recognizing institutions of privilege and oppression which they are apart of and struggling to deconstruct them in their own lives)
I also think that Muslim participation in ‘leftist’ efforts and true solidarity work can drastically affect the effect of having to work with different premises. Effective solidarity, at least in my mind, is not merely about collaborating to put on an event– it also includes developing a familiarity with the ideological underpinnings of a group, perhaps through workshops, classes, discussion and mutual study. Because like many things—problems stem from ignorance about others paired with arrogance and self-righteousness about our own way. Sharing why and how we value and love the notion of the integrated human being and society provides a most valuable service. Where perhaps we may not be able to change someone’s working premise—we can certainly inform it.
Anyways… thanks for writing this and please pardon the disarray of my thoughts.
Sincerely, (*
salaam alaikum,
thank you for your insightful comments, i agree with you Muslims do need to work with leftists – but with a critical perspective about who and what ideology we are working with… And yes I do agree that the “left” is not static – and the internal critique leads to changes.
However, broadly speaking, I find that this is one area where there is far more resistance when it comes to self-criticism amongst the left… And sure, there are a variety of reasons for that… Even where there is self-criticism, it is more of a self re-assurance that Muslims are not really religious…
I’ve seen some attempts of having events/panels on Islamophobia, and these are all well and good, but rarely do we hear from those who are directly involved in Islamic movements. And this is really the issue, because it is all well and good to invite the local sheikh/imam to a panel to talk about Islam – as a personal religion, and post 9/11, in the US that is what they mostly do… But this is really presenting only a one dimensional view of Islam, and ignores Islamic movements, that the left does need to engage with at some level.
Something I’ve mentioned elsewhere, is that there does exist a very good economic critique of neo-liberalism, capitalism, markets, and documentation of how global-privatization has severely hurt people the world over… This is an area that Muslims are weak in our knowledge, and it would be worthwhile for the left to put aside their prejudices and engage at this level – — BUT with no expectations, or even attempting to change the religious-ideological nature of Islamic movements. Because then they’ll end up alienating the very people they’re supposed to be in solidarity with…
[...] Following up to an earlier post: Islam e Mohammadi [...]