What does the value of this work consist in for us, Russian proletarians?
This work confirms that Islamism which is the revival of original Islam as applied to new age, is the development of Marxism-Leninism (especially since early Islam, as Roy correctly noticed, had latent abilities for great development), even if formally it isn’t based on writings of Marx and Lenin. I wrote about it time and again (see my works “The review of works of James Blaut” and “Double standards or taking into account concrete historical particularities?”). My opponent Aleksey Trofimov answered to my arguments with a stream of abuse, repeating old stereotyped phrases that “Islam is religion”; that Caliphate, which is advocated by Islamists, is “feudal theocratic state”; that Marxism must be based on writings of Marx and Lenin (as if Marx and Lenin are gods – we see that Trofimov breaks with materialist principles of Marxism here, with the principle that “social being determines consciousness”). Unfortunately, Trofimov’s prejudices are shared by even honest Marxists, and it is necessary to arm with patience in order to expose them.
This work exposes the ignorance of Trofimov and the like, who think that Muslims did nothing except for “sitting and praying” during centuries. It also exposes the lie of official Muslim clerics, representatives of “KGB-Islam”, any tajuddins and gaynutdins who oppose Islamic revolutionaries under the pretext that Islam is translated as “religion of peace”. Roy writes that Islam is really translated as “religion of peace”, but the achievement of peace was possible only through the revolutionary war, through demolition of decayed empires, which were the source of internecine wars. Of course, ancient empires and modern imperialist powers are two different things; however, modern imperialist powers are the same obstacle in the way of social progress as ancient empires were, and therefore the call of “true Islam” is topical today too. The necessary condition of the victory of proletariat in Russia and in rich nations in general is the establishment of Caliphate near south borders of Russia, the integration of poor nations into Caliphate.
Roy also correctly writes that strict monotheism of Mohammed (“the god is only one”) was the great progress in comparison with idolatry which dominated in that time, including idolatry of those religions which were quasi monotheist (as Christianity was). Roy correctly notices that strict monotheism undermines religious faith in general, and, moving the god away far into the sky, is the step toward materialism. These words are topical today too, when “Marxists” are wallowed in idolatry, idealizing Marx and Lenin; when “Marxism” is degenerated into the religion with mausoleum, placing wreaths to Lenin’s monuments and on a grave of “unknown warrior”; into Lenin’s busts (today – Orthodox icons and Medvedev’s portraits), which number is greater than the number of Russians; when leaders of “civilized” nations pray openly to the cross, that is mere piece of wood; when cults of personalities of different bourgeois dictators from Stalin to Medvedev prevail etc. Incidentally, when Kyrgyz authorities which are in fact the puppets of Russia, became to represent World War II from the side of USSR as “jihad”, playing on emotions of Kyrgyz people, local Islamists condemned the worship of “eternal fire” namely as idolatry which contradicts Islam. Another example is Islamic ideologist Sayyid Qutb which in his work “Milestones” used Mohammed’s slogan “the god is only one” as call to disobedience to any oppressor regime, as call to the revolution of the poor against the rich and to classless society.
Above-mentioned comrade NKVD, criticizing me, cites the rhyme of some Syrian poet of 14th century which derides Muslims for worship of the stone; NKVD writes: Muslim peoples must follow the example of this poet. NKVD doesn’t understand, that in 14th century official Islam, which was rightly derided by that poet, was already not revolutionary; that the revival of not this Islam is advocated by Islamists; that the position of Islamists is the same materialist as that poet’s one, but much deeper, and to hold that poet up as an example in comparison with Nabhani, for instance, is absurdly. If we look at the position of even such ideologist of modern Islamism (obviously not the best) as Nabhani, we would see that he, demanding rational and empirical proof of any assertion, and also recognizing that not everything in Quran must be understood literally, that there are allegorical phrases too, in fact comes closely to denial the god’s existence, though subjectively he believed in god (see my review of his work “Thought”).
The early Islamic criticism of the “pure” theorizing and “logical” (rather sophistical) constructs, which are not confirmed by experience, is also topical today. Indeed, above-mentioned Nabhani correctly writes that “Marxist” (rather opportunist) thesis about “revolutionary character” of “proletariat” (rather labor aristocracy) is such hypothesis which is not confirmed by experience (ibid.). Indeed, when the old proletariat of advanced capitalist countries and USSR has degenerated to a considerable extent into labor aristocracy, Stalinist-Brezhnevist opportunists continued to harp obstinately on its “revolutionary role”, based not on facts but on logics of Marxism of pre-imperialist stage, which was applied out of place (just as one Greek sage argued through pure logical way, ignoring the experience, that the runner would never overtake the tortoise). Really, above-mentioned Maoist was right: “there is more reality to “Allah is coming” than “the working class is coming”.
Philosophers of early Islam, which demanded strict mathematical proof, were superior to such “Marxists” as Aleksey Trofimov, who ignores the level of economic development and alleged that I support the struggle of Kosovo’s Albanians against Serbian oppression because they are Muslims.
Of course, among Islamists there is petty-bourgeois wing too, which is represented today in Internet by many sites. They idealize Prophet Mohammed, always write “Peace be upon him” after his name, although, as Roy gives evidence, early Muslims didn’t deify Mohammed, considering this as the deviation from monotheism; they considered Mohammed as a “mere mortal”.
Then, Roy writes that early Muslims preserved for mankind and multiplied the heritage of Greek culture. It is right, but it is only the half of true. Both American mathematician and historian of mathematics Morris Kline and Nabhani acknowledge, that Muslims, unfortunately, adopted Greek science and philosophy non-critically, without separating merits from demerits (ibid).
In the times of Mohammed Islam came from Arabian Desert. Today the revival of its early revolutionary principles comes rather from Central Asia to all appearance – from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan. Incidentally, bourgeois analysts acknowledge, that leaders of Islamist movements in post-Soviet Central Asian republics are mainly the representatives of technical intelligentsia, i.e. of exact sciences, the holders of rationalist approach – the approach which was inherent just to early Islam, which led to flourishing of mathematics, astronomy, medicine etc. Let’s recollect Engels’ words that leaders of bourgeois revolutions were lawyers mainly (in Russia in 1991, we add, the leader of bourgeois revolution was artistic intelligentsia, which revolutionary character based on emotions, not on cold scientific reason), but the leaders of proletarian revolution will be the representatives of natural-scientific intelligentsia – chemists, biologists etc.
Let’s return to Roy. Later, after writing of this work, he made serious errors – in 1940 he refused Marxian determinism, then, during World War II, he advocated, along with Stalinists, the alliance with Britain against Germany (all progressive Indian public condemned him for the latter). But these facts don’t detract from the merit of this work.
Let’s say a few words about Roy’s refusal of Marxian determinism. Probably, it was the rash protest against Stalinist “economistic” vulgarization of Leninism, against belittling the role of revolutionary vanguard. The time interval between writing this work by Roy (1939) and this refusal (1940) is rather small. Did this his error adversely affect this work?
Yes, partly. Indeed, Roy writes, that until Indian people understand the role of original Islam, it wouldn’t gain the independence. But this is utopian dream. Until capitalism overthrown, masses of people will be unconscious, wild etc., and they will not raise their consciousness to the high level, because few of them have the conditions for this. Another matter is the vanguard consisted of professional revolutionaries. Here indeed the high level of consciousness is necessary. Little group of revolutionaries which is separated from opportunism, which elaborated the theory, would spread it among thousands agitators, and they would set out this theory, even if in simplified form, to millions of proletarians, advancing to the poorest masses the slogans which are extremely simple and understandable, but very close to masses.
Of course, the poverty alone doesn’t make firm revolutionary of proletarian, and it is wrong to understand Marxian determinism in such manner. But it is also wrong to think that until proletarians one and all become revolutionary theorists, revolution is impossible. No, the vanguard of revolutionaries, which would lead the poorest masses, is necessary. This is Lenin’s idea, which was concealed by Stalinist opportunism for decades, but at the same time was taken up by ideologists of Islamism – Sayyid Qutb, Taqiuddin an Nabhani etc.
I wrote in my previous works about succession between Lenin and us; I wrote that “the intermediates” between him and us are to a greater or lesser extent early Mao and Enver Hoxha. But both of them were not free of Stalinist opportunism. Today, having familiarized ourselves with writings of those who were concealed by “the priests of Marxian parish”, we can say with certainty: “the intermediates” between Lenin and us are Tan Malaka, Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev and Manabendra Nath Roy.
November 8th, 2010
By efes from Pixabay