기독교와 유대교를 반동적인 미신이라고 경멸하면서도 공산주의자들은 이슬람에 대해서는 다르게 접근한다. 레닌은 ....
Monday, May 23, 2011
What makes the creeping political
correctness on Islam so startling is its very newness. It wasn't so long
ago that the right and the left both agreed that as a religion and a
political movement, it was dangerously backward and violent.
From Winston ChurchillViewer
, "Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance" to Karl MarxViewer
"Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state
of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever",
leading figures on the right and the left held a realistic understanding
of Islam. They dismissed it as violent, barbaric, ignorant and
dangerous. The right saw Islam as a threat to the Western Christian
hegemony. The left viewed it as a reactionary movement of superstitious
fanatics. They might praise Arab generals or scientists, but not the
Where then did that lost consensus on Islam go? One answer can be found in the Soviet Union.
Unlike Western Europe, the Russian Empire had a large Muslim population.
While Western socialists focused on a mostly Christian population,
taking over the Russian Empire was nearly impossible without winning the
allegiance of its Eastern Muslims. That difference would shape the
socialist approach to Islam.
While the Communists disdained Christianity and Judaism as backward
superstitions, they took a different approach to Islam. Lenin promised
Muslims that their mosques would be protected under the revolution and
emphasized an approach of cultural sensitivity that respected Muslim
traditions. Female Communist activists donned veils or covered their
hair to work with the locals. Most shockingly, while the Communists were
dismantling the Orthodox Church and Jewish synagogues-- Sharia courts
of Islamic law were being administered under a Soviet Commissariat of
One of the more notable effects of the alliance was the Communist
attempt to find common ground by phrasing their doctrine in Islamic
terms. The Communists campaigned against religion as superstition, but
this was translated as Khurafat, a campaign to cleanse heretical forms
of magic. The difference was substantial and fundamental. While
Communists in the rest of the Soviet Union were outlawing religion,
Muslim Communists were rooting out heresies under the authority of the
revolution. The USSR had become the enforcer of Islam.
The translation of socialist ideas into the Islamic, created the
illusion of common ground. Both sides heard what they want to hear. But
the Communist and Muslim ideas of revolution were dramatically
different. While Moscow was talking about women's equality, the Muslim
Communists were filling their unwashed yurts with child wives. By the
time Soviet leaders in Moscow realized what was going on, they had a
civil war on their hands. The Communists won in the short term, but only
at the cost of accepting Muslim practices such as polygamy. And the
Muslims may have won the long war.
The awkward fusion of Islam and Communism did not last long, but it had
an enduring impact on the left's view of Islam. It transformed Islam in
the eyes of many Western socialists into a progressive movement. The
temporary legitimacy granted to the Pan-Islamic Jadids and the bulletins
trumpeting the progressive nature of the Koran and the brilliance of
Mohammed coming out of the motherland of socialism, altered the view of
many socialists and taught them to view Muslims as allies. It may have
even given some of them the idea that introducing large Muslim
populations into Europe would be the key to a successful revolution.
Slogans like, "Long live Soviet power, long live the sharia" echo today amongViewer
the left. The Soviet approach of viewing Islam as an immature form of
socialism colors most reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood. As it did on
the Ayatollah Khomeini during the Iranian revolution.
The Fourth Congress of the Communist International's Theses on the
Eastern Question treated Islam as part of the "great diversity of
national revolutionary movements against imperialism". But diversity
didn't mean equality. Diversity in the theses meant backwardness. Islam
was Communism for savages. The Koran was Das Kapital for primitive
people. "As the national liberation movements grow and mature", the
theses said, "the religious-political slogans of pan-Islamism will be
replaced by political demands."
was an intermediate stage on the road to Communism. Eventually its
religious baggage will fall away and it will become a fully political
anti-imperialist movement. These same ideas are widely held on the left
today. It is how they can justify allying with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Like the Jadids, the Brotherhood is on the left, but doesn't know it
yet. Muslims think that Moses and Jesus were Muslims but didn't know it.
The left believes that Mohammed was a progressive, but didn't know it.
The Theses distinguished between Muslim ruling classes and all others.
"Only among peoples like the nomads and semi-nomads, where the
feudal-patriarchal system has not yet disintegrated to the point where
the native aristocracy is completely split off from the masses, can
representatives of the elite come forward as active leaders in the
struggle against imperialist oppression (Mesopotamia, Morocco,
Mongolia)". Two of the three listed examples were Muslim. This
convoluted justification allowed them to include Muslim leaders and
maintain tribal and Islamic rule as integrated with the masses. An
unalloyed justification for maintaining the mini-caliphates that the
While the Communists of the twenties still distinguished between their
creed as the higher and Islam as the lower, these distinctions have been
eroded among the postmodern left to the point of non-existence. All
revolutionary movements are treated as equal so long as they are aimed
at Western imperialism. The Islamists are just part of that "great
diversity". Their approach to social justice is an aspect of their
culture. This perversity underpins the red-green alliance.
In 1920, the People's Congress of the Baku called for a "holy war", a
"ghazavat" against Britain. "The Peoples of the East, united with the
revolutionary proletariat of the West under the banner of the Communist
International... summon our peoples to a holy war."
Invoking both "the green banner of the Prophet" and "the red banner of
the Communist International", this "first real holy war" with the
sanction of the Ulemas, Islamic clerics, the red-green alliance was
built on a fault line. It was a fault line that Marx could have told
them about, had they been willing to listen.
Karl Marx had observed that, "The Koran and the Mussulman (Muslim)
legislation emanating from it reduce the geography and ethnography of
the various peoples to the simple and convenient distinction of two
nations and of two countries; those of the Faithful and of the
Infidels" And added, "The Infidel is the enemy."
The Communists, like their modern counterparts, had not understood this
simple and convenient distinction. They thought that they could blend
the red and green banners together. That Muslim armies would fight holy
wars for them and that Soviet secularism would eventually replace
Islamism. Their failure to understand what Islam is, to think that they
could ally and stand on the same side as the armies of the Faithful,
that they could call for a Holy War against "against imperialist
Britain" and have it "burn with unquenchable fire" and yet not get
burned themselves, has been repeated not only by the left, but by
America and Europe.
Soviet Union had tried to turn Muslim identity into a Communist
identity. And that effort failed badly. The Communists remained
infidels. Now we are trying to turn Muslim identity into a Democratic
identity, and failing just as miserably. Muslim identity will not
broaden to include us. Just as it did not broaden to include the
Communists. Our efforts to secularize Muslim identity into anything
broader will never reach beyond a small number of people who agree with
Islam is not a developing identity, but a divisive identity. An identity
that defines itself in its contrast with the infidel. And it needs the
infidel to provide that contrast. "The corsair ships of the Berber
States", Marx wrote, "were the holy fleet of Islam". Not because of any
specific religious function the corsairs were performing, but through
the mere fact that they were fighting infidels alone. That contrast is
the essence of Islam. Only by maintaining distinctions between himself
and the infidel-- can the Muslim know who he is.
Bertrand Russell identified political fanaticismViewer
as the common identity of both Muslims and Communists, writing that,
"Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual,
concerned to win the empire of this world." The obsession with winning
"the empire of the world" has led the left into an alliance with the
Islamists. The mutual irrationality of both sides, movements both marked
by the inability to take stock of their own failures, has pushed them
forward with brazen dreams of empire. The only thing they agree on is
their opposition to the current system. But their new Ghazadat will not
end in a better world, but in misery and failure for all.