Mawdudi, Marx, and Lenin: comparing Islamic jihad with 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.

Conclusion

Jihad in communism was the eradication of religion, faith, and superiority of God in the lives of the masses. Jihad in Islam is the eradication of the infidel, those who believe in other than Islam, regardless of the significance that their own beliefs hold for them, the personal relationship they have with God, which causes them to embrace the sense of humility that stems from that personal relationship. Communism and Islam have ostensibly waged the same jihad.

"Mawdudi's position over the years consolidated into a distinct notion that political power was the logical objective of faith. Faith in turn became an active and dynamic process of becoming, and the struggle for religious salvation became manifest in a quest for a virtuous order whereby the ummah, community of the faithful, would be converted into the hizbu'llah, party of God. 27 The din thus found clear political connotations because it was defined in overtly political terms: as the "organization" of the true faith. "Ours is not a party of the enlightened or the religious missionaries. It is a party of God's soldiers. This party therefore, has no option but to take control of political power (Nasr, p 83)."

Politics is not religion, it is not faith, but it is conducive to the human tendencies towards that which is not divine, and, therefore, can compel the individual to contemplate the divine and to repent that which is the human tendency and defies faith and God. Then, in a full circle, mankind can return to the divine, and find salvation. There is a need for a distinction between God and man, and God cannot exist parallel with man, but only above man, in a superior place above man. Mawdudi, Nasr says, was not put off by the role of Islam in state economics (p 104). Mawdudi reconciled the problem of economics parallel with faith by explaining it as a transient phenomena. He believed would diminish with time (p 104).

"Islam's teachings on economics, he once said, were tantamount to a "bill of social rights" and the basis for a "social contract (Nasr, p 104)."

Communism also was a social contract, and Islam, as it pursues the path of jihad the same way that communism pursued expansionism, does not take advantage of hindsight. It does not look to the parallel relationship that communism created between the masses and faith, and allowing the authority of the state to reign high superior to faith. The communist jihad failed; and the question remains as when the Islamic jihad will fail too.