Mawdudi Islamic Theory and Communism

Mawdudi Islamic Theory and Communism

The comparison of Islam and Communism as political ideologies does indeed spur academic debate, and no one would be speaking out of turn to say that there indeed exist similarities between Islam and Communism as political governances. The trained mind of the academician could also probably find like similarities between Islam and Capitalism: a minority of the population is allowed to live in ostentatious wealth, while the majority of the population between comfortable and abject poverty. The subject of this essay, however, is the political similarities drawn between Islam and Communism as governances, because of late Islamists like Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdudi (1960) entered the ring of ancient and contemporary philosophers promoting Islam not as just a religious ideology, but as a political one. An eloquent and articulate speaker, an intellectual, and, inarguably, a philosopher; Mawdudi argues in favor of a theocracy, which Mowdudi philosophizes, and his proponents support, as a free state of living for people in a way that he claims would not be construed when considering the ideas of Karl Marx or Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

Like Marx and Lenin, Mawdudi rationalizes the use of jihad to bring about total saturation of Islamic ideology. When communist leaders ceased forcing their political ideology upon people under that ideological governance, it might be said that they abandoned communist jihad, and it disintegrated as a form of governance over the people.

This essay relies on the writings of these three men, Mawdudi, Marx, and Lenin in comparing and contrasting the meanings and theories of Islamic jihad and Communism. While Communism has failed, Islamic jihad facilitates the fastest growing religion, and, therefore, because Islam is imbedded in all aspects of social, political, legal and religious thinking and behavior of its followers, it is the fastest growing form of governance, in the world. It is important that the free world understands the extent to which Islam is imbedded in the life of its followers, and a comparison and contrast to the spread of Communism facilitates that process.

Defining Jihad

Since September 11, 2001, there has been endless discussion and debate on the philosophy, propaganda, and the violence that is, or is not, encompassed by the definition of the word "jihad." Gerrie Ter Haar and James Busuttil (2005) refer to jihad in terms of a spiritual idea on the material plane, but only under certain circumstances, most notably in defense of self (p 10). In the case of Islam, the defense of self is the defense of Islam, because the devout Muslim's life revolves around Islam and the presence of God in their daily lives. Professor Mahmoud Youssef Shawarbi describes God in the life of the Muslim this way:

"In summing up I should like to point out that Islam is a complete system of life of a Divine origin which has been very wisely formulated by the almighty God for the benefit of his creatures in this world and in the hereafter (Shawarbi, p 11 of 13)."

Reuven Firestone (1999) says that the concept of jihad as a holy war evolved in a way consistent with and linear to historical trends that impacted the life of Muhammad as a prophet in the 7th century Arabia (p vi).

"The prophetic sunna, in a quite unsystematic way, provides hierarchies of value for specific activities that may be considered religious acts or acts of devotion ('ib-d-t). Such hierarchies are found throughout the various collections of tradition literature, and they are inconsistent in their conclusions. The term jih-d finds a prominent place in many of these hierarchical statements, and this jihad invariably means fighting in the path of God. The opening h-ad1+?th of the chapter The Book of Jihad in the most highly respected collection of traditions, for example, starts off with a faithful follower of the Prophet asking, "What is the best deed (ayyul-'amal afd-al)?" Muh-ammad's answer here is, "Prayers at their proper times." The question is then asked, "And then what?" To which the reply is given, "filial piety." The third item is "jihh-d in the path of God (Firestone, p 100)."

Jihad, then, does not necessarily mean physical fighting; it can mean working without violence to convert others who have no faith, infidels, to Islam; and even people of other faiths, because Islam is the final Word of God. Mawdudi teaches a non-violent approach, employing propaganda, logic, and perhaps appealing to people who are disgruntled with the politics that defy their religious beliefs, like gay marriage, abortion, or other social issues they feel strongly about. Islam is appealing to all infidels, and people of other faiths to convert to the fourth and final Word of God that was delivered to the Prophet Muhammad.

To the extent non-violent conversion fails, however, jihad holds that a person who is not a Muslim is a threat to the security of Islam, and should be converted, or eliminated.

"Another tradition slightly further along in the same collection raises the status of fighting to the top of the list: "A man came to God's messenger and said: 'Show me an act equal to jihad' [Muh-ammad] replied: 'I cannot find one.'" 2 In other traditions, raiding or jihad is considered "better than the world and all that is in it." 3 Ascribing exceptional merit to engaging in raids or war on behalf of the Umma may be found throughout h-ad1+?th literature. 4 The large number of traditions ascribing great merit for engaging in warring acts on behalf of the community has virtually no dissenting traditions to temper it. It seems to reflect a view that had become universal by the time that the oral traditions were committed to writing (Firestone p 100)."

Jihad has rewards for the faithful, and, as was seen on September 11, 2001, there is no greater conscience for Muslims than Islam. They take their commitment more seriously than perhaps any other religion in history and as a part of their commitment is the responsibility to convert or to eliminate the unfaithful (to Islam). Jihad empowers all Muslims to take action, and to utilize violence to eliminate threats to Islam. There are no geographical borders within which Islam is to be contained, and we can see from the writings of Mawdudi that he is appealing to those individuals who are in some form disgruntled with their own societies, lives, and religions.

Jihad came under debate within the Muslim community, and Mowdudi knew that unless the violence of jihad could be rationalized, then Islam would be at risk of being held as an excuse for unfounded violence.

Communist Jihad

Howard Selsam, David Goldway, and Harry Martel (1970) describe Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (who was the literary mind of the pair) as 19th century philosophers and revolutionaries (p 19). That men who think in terms of imposing their own designer ideologies upon others of a state, against the will of some, and not of others, as philosophers and revolutionaries might be perceived by many today as a stretch of the imagination. In fact, as we understand the spread of communism in Russia and in the Eastern European states following World War II, many people might equate the actions of those philosophical revolutionaries with the modern day terrorism, or jihad, that we are now seeing proponents of Islam imposing upon nation states not capable of resisting that philosophy.

A commonality in thinking between Mawdudi and Marx is found in a letter cited by Selsam, Goldway, and Martel (p 71). In a letter written by Marx to the editor of Otyecestvenniye Zapisky (Notes on the Fatherland) (end of 1877), Selected Correspondence, (pp 353-355) Marx writes:

"[My critic] feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale [general path] imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labor, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honoring and shaming me too much.) Let us take an example (ed. Selsam et al. 1970 p 70)."

We can find, likewise, the thoughts of Mawdudi where he writes that Islam is, as Marx saw socialism, which is cited in a Friday, August 26, 2005, online discussion surrounding the British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC) Panorama presentation on Islamic fundamentalism, which focused on Mawdudi's Islamic philosophies (MCB Watch 2005). Taken from Mawdudi's Islamic Law and Constitution, MCB Watch blogger quotes from Mawdudi's book:

"Individual liberty is not suppressed under it (the Islamic state) nor is there any trace of dictatorship in it. It presents the middle course and embodies the best that the human society has ever evolved (Mawdudi, cited on MCB Watch 2005)."

Note here that both Marx and Mawdudi perceive their own philosophies as the manifestation of the highest form or level of human evolution. Brij Mohan (1993) describes the trend to impose political ideologies on a population whose inclination towards governance might be of a different philosophy than that of the aggressor as new tribalism (p 1). Mohan describes this concept this way:

"A new tribalism seems to mark the post-modern evolution of the contemporary society in which the ominous forces of oppression are decivilizing people. Paradoxes of existence fracture the essence of life (p 1)."

Paradoxes of existence describe those people who have been subdued by the aggressive forces of a greater political power (Tucker 1990 p 1). This was evidenced when Stalin drove the communist revolution to its power place between 1929 and 1941. During that period of imposing communism on Russians, Stalin murdered, or eliminated anyone whom he believed might raise a public awareness of what was happening in Russia -- and that elimination knew no class or political distinction (p 275). Stalin is cited by Tucker (1990) as saying to H.G. Wells, "The new state power creates a new legality, a new order which is a revolutionary order (p *)." Professor Mahmoud Youssef Shawarbi concurs, remarking:

"In communism, the legislator is free to put forward any laws he believes - according to his own mentality - that will lead to the material progress of the communist society without any regard to any moral or religious obligations. As a matter of fact, in communism all legislations are anti-religion (Shawarbi, unknown, p 11 of 13)."

Stalin used assassination and murder as a means to bring about his own law and revolutionary order (p *). Following Stalin's attempt to assassinate Lenin, the period known as the Red Terror ensued, wherein countless Russians were murdered (p 275).

The Marxist ideal of freedom arises out of Lenin's perception that freedom is a manifestation of social development, and is omnipotent because that social development, or evolution, is its own truth (Mohan 1993). Lenin's work in forcing the development in the direction of communism was subsequently furthered by Stalin's own interpretation of freedom in his new order as it existed within the parameters of law that forced the ideology structure within which people had to build and lead their lives.

The Marxist concept, then, is not a natural evolution of humanity. It is, rather, a forced state of ideology upon a population that is being bent against their natural inclination into a structure of philosophical ideology, and because of that the fit does not work for everyone and what follows is the loss of the natural human characteristics of spontaneity, individualism, and, Mohan says, elitism (p 11). Elitism, however, is debatable, because regardless of the philosophical doctrine by which communism forced people to bend to, the power elites existed within that structure, and exercised a greater freedom, and one that was afforded them greater luxury and comfort as individuals by virtue of their power status.

The Marxist negative view of bourgeois freedom is perceived from the communist pedestal of empowered elitism as it would hold meaning in the lives of the masses (Mohan p 11). It will perhaps as no surprise to some who find similarities between the forced (jihad) ideals of communism and Islamic jihad that Marx spoke with expressions of admiration for what he observed as the functional, simple, and approvingly lacking ostentation lifestyle of the Egyptian masses (Ed. Selsman et al. p 267). Marx is cited by Selsman et al. As reflecting on Egyptian society this way:

"The fewer the number of natural wants imperatively calling for satisfaction, and the greater the natural fertility of the soil and the favorableness of the climate, so much less is the labor time necessary for the maintenance and reproduction of the producer. So much greater therefore can be the excess of his labor for others over his labor for himself. Diodorus long ago remarked this in relation to the ancient Egyptians. "It is altogether incredible how little trouble and expense the bringing up of their children causes them. They cook for them the first simple food at hand; they also give them the lower part of the papyrus stem to eat, so far as it can be roasted in the fire, and the roots and stalks of marsh plants, some raw, some boiled and roasted. Most of the children go without shoes and unclothed, for the air is mild. Hence a child, until he is grown up, costs his parents not more, on the whole, than 20 drachmas. It is this, chiefly, which explains why the population of Egypt is so numerous, and, therefore, why so many great works can be undertaken." Nevertheless the grand structures of ancient Egypt are less due to the extent of its population than to the large proportion of it that was freely disposable. Just as the individual laborer can do more surplus labor in proportion as his necessary labor time is less, so with regard to the working population. The smaller the part of it which is required for the production of the necessary means of subsistence, so much the greater is the part that can be set to do other work (Ed Selsman et al. pp 267-268)."

We can see how observing Middle Eastern societies that were predominantly subsistent and on an individual or small scale met their needs with the fruit of their labors appealed to Marx. Never mind that this made little sense as might pertain to an industrialized society, but we can nonetheless observe how this concept translated itself into the ideology of Marx. In turn, these ideas derived from observing subsistent third world societies were incorporated into an ideology that was then imposed upon a people first by Lenin, then by Stalin, and others as it spread across Eastern Europe and Communist Asia. The elements of peasantry are reflected in Marx's philosophy; but it goes unmentioned that there will be an elite ruling class -- living differently from tsarist rule only in that the socialism was a new political body as opposed to an inherited royalty. Even as Marx makes his observations about the Egyptians, he notices, and identifies them accordingly in his remarks as the working population. This suggests that there is a non-working population, perhaps the governing population, which will ostensibly -- and as we know did happen -- live differently, better, than the working class and subsistent rural people.

The Analysis

It is interesting to note that even while Dr. Mahmoud Youssef Shawarbi describes his rationale as to why Islam is a natural barrier or roadblock to Communism, he is all the while listing the very similarities of the two philosophies. When we consider Islam in terms of a theocracy, one that is at the center of people's daily lives, and one that carries strict punishments for failure to adhere to the faith as prescribed not just by the state, but by the prelates to the faith whom are imbedded in the daily processes of the state; then Islam surrenders its religiosity to political and social governance. If a people are governed in their daily lives by their religious ideologies, which foregoes that distinction between church and state, then it becomes unclear where that which is intended for them by God, salvation; and that which is intended for them by civil governance, order and justice. Under the governance of Islamic states, salvation is forced upon the people, who are then deprived of that which God also instilled in us: free will.

Communism, like Islam, forces governance upon the people under its political system of order and justice. When Islam obscures the concept of Allah in the minds of the faithful by combining it with civil law and civil behavior and needs; then Allah is reduced to a non-meditative cleansing of the soul in the name of Allah, and becomes a perfunctory behavior under social law. The deep personal relationship between mankind and Allah is broken, or non-existent, as is the goal under Communism as concerns religion, because the state, not the salvation, becomes of the focus in the life of the citizens.

Communism, like Islam, obliterates the image of God, and eradicates the personal relationship between a person and God by laws that make illegal religion and religious practices. While Professor Mahmoud Youssef Shawarbi's argument in favor of a distinction between faith and state in the Islamic state is weak, Sayyed Vali Reza Nasr (1996) cites Mawdudi on the state and faith, saying that Islam could not be understood through meditation alone (p 80).

"Mawdudi began by interpreting Islam in political terms. Islam, argued Mawdudi, could not be understood through mere contemplation; it could only find meaning when implemented by what he termed 'amali shahadat (testimony of faith through practice). Religious truth was predicated on social action, which was also the supreme expression of piety.3 Reiterating his stock argument in favor of revivalism, Mawdudi time and again asserted that Islam recognized no boundaries between the spiritual and the mundane, between faith and politics: "The chief characteristic of Islam is that it makes no distinction between the spiritual and the secular life (p 80)."

If, as Mawdudi points out, Islam knows no boundaries, then Islam, like Communism, saturates the existence of the people under its governance, and if Islam knows no boundaries, then, just as Communism does as concerns religion, the religious becomes obscured by the mundane because it becomes a part of the mundane and loses its special significance as that which should be held on high as it operates on the low, or in the mundane. Religious truth, Mawdudi says is predicated on social action, but when the religion has to be bent to accommodate the social action, it is distorting the religion regardless of the predication. Social action, governed by a distorted religion bent to accommodate the sociology over the religion, then, the people cease to strive to the spirituality and become overwhelmed by the mundane it begins to represent. We saw this happen in Communism when it fell in Europe, and in Russia.

Communism recognized that religion would, even post revolution, represent to the masses something greater than Communism, because it would be above the law of the masses, while communism would operate on a lateral level with the masses, and that the laws created by the Marxist ideology, which was new, as Marx himself pointed out; then, communism and the state would not be the highest ideal held by the people. That could ostensibly serve the people in assessing communism and assigning to it a sort of responsibility for the lack of social choices, which would occur to them because of the higher ideal of God and faith.

The communist jihad, against religion, then, eradicated the influence of moral choice, leaving in its wake only the mundane, which in turn devolved the communist society to a strictly mundane mentality and behavior. That was manifested in the behavior in a mass lethargy that in turn impacted the working masses as a lack of commitment and productivity to their economic output. The failure to thrive economically was, in the end, the demise of the communist state. This is why we see a pseudo communism in China, because China has adjusted communism by putting economic gain in the place where religion was once held as on high. In this way, Communist China thrives economically, and the state can enforce its communist law over the people. China made the concession not to religion, but to individual economic gain.

Nasr says that for Mawdudi, the ethical concerns emanating from the heart of Islam were superior to worldly concerns, and that therefore superseded the worldly concerns in shaping mankind's social life (p 81). If, however, Islam operates on the mundane level, it ceases to be superior, because there then remains nothing that is superior. By incorporating Allah into the mundane, in much the same way that communism eradicated the superiority of God in the life of the masses, then Islam has become communism by a different name, because the superiority of Allah no longer exists in the life of the masses. Jihad in Islam is accomplishing the eradication of Allah in the lives of the masses by creating Islamic laws, in the same fashion that Marx referred to new revolutionary laws, which govern the masses without distinction between secular and non-secular. Allah no longer has a position of superiority, because he now is parallel to the masses, instead of above them.