USA's Greater Middle East Project Imperialism and Political Islam*
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
 
Other articles
 

Starting from the end of the Cold War, two developments in political Islamic movements have captured attention. Firstly, in Lebanon and Palestine, Islamic organisations have developed war against the USA backed Israeli war tool. Secondly, after the 1991 Gulf War, Al-Qaida has carried out military activities against USA that turned some Islamic countries, which are governed by the puppets, into their military bases. And now, the political Islamic groups are among the main forces of armed resistance in the USA occupied Iraq.

Facing the increased domination of USA and imperialist hegemony in Muslim countries, almost all nationalist movements have chosen the line of compromising and collaboration. While a majority of Islamic movements had decided to compromise/-collaborate with the USA under the popular name of "moderate Islamist", a considerable group of Islamic organisations is going ahead in a radical way in relation to their activities against the USA. Especially in Iraq, radical Islamists are among the main movements of armed resistance against the US occupation. (Iraqui Communist Party, "Resistance in Iraq", in: Teoride Dogrultu -Direction in Theory-, vol. 16, p. 42).

All these put forward as an urgent task for the world's working class movement, revolutionary and communist movement to analyse political Islamic movements and develop political strategies.

In the Past, the Islamic Reactionary was Towed to the Western Imperialism

Although there existed some movements with Islamic ideology against imperialist occupations in the beginning of 20th century, these remained limited and temporary in the whole. Having played limited anti-imperialist role, the ones that were able to establish continuity either took part in the counterrevolutionary front, or compromised and collaborated with imperialism. For example, Serekat Islam in Indonesia was an anti-colonialist organisation in alliance with communists in the beginning of 20th century, but later on, transformed into a counterrevolutionary pact, and during 1960s became the criminal partner of the US imperialism and the fascist dictatorship of Suharto in carrying out bloody massacres against communists and the people. Having backed by Sheikhs, those political Islamic movements which existed as a result of Arab, Kurdish, Turkish and other Muslim peoples' nationalism in the beginning of the century against imperialism or Russian Tsarist regime and Ottoman Empire, later got into reconciliation and collaboration line with imperialism. Examples of these are Vahabis and Hashimis who struggled against Ottoman Empire, but collaborated with the leader of rival imperialist camp, the British imperialism during the 1st World War.

In India, during the struggle against colonialism in the beginning of the century there were anti-imperialist and communist Muslim clerics. (Bolshevik revolution had a great influence in India. During the first years of the revolution Maulana Obaid-u-llah Sindhi went to Soviet Union to see Lenin. In 1924, there was another Muslim apostle, Maulana Hasrat Mohane who later became secretary general of India Communist Party.) But after 1948, political Islamic movements played a role in the foundation of Pakistan in a pro-British line and represented the imperialist collaborative reactionary.

Apart from these, traditional Islamic institutions and political movements, the Islamic movements those who directly appeared as the political organisations, in general, were in collaboration or reconciliation with imperialism in the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.

As Samir Amin states, today's political Islamic movements existed with encouragement of British imperialism:

"Modern Political Islam was created by orientalists who serve British colonialism in India, and developed by Mawdudi in Pakistan" (Political Islam).

After the 2nd World War, Islamic movements were developed and used by the USA -who took the leadership of the imperialist world, as a tool for the Green Zone Strategy against socialist countries and peoples during the Cold War. The USA also used political Islamic movements against Arabic bourgeois nationalism in the Middle East that play an important role for its (USA's) hegemonic goals. Taking into consideration the difference in the circumstances, the USA used political Islam against Arab nationalism in the Middle East, and against the bourgeois democrat Sukarno (and certainly the communists) in Indonesia, similar to what the British did in India. Moreover, overthrowing Butto government with a military coup in Pakistan, the USA used political Islam at different levels, as an alliance to the fascist coup and as a civil fire-power.

During the whole period of the Cold War the USA, as the leader of imperialist world, used political Islam as a fire-power and water breaker in the Middle East and other Muslim countries against working class, labourer peoples' movement, communist and revolutionary movements. The reflection of this against the Soviet Union was the Green Zone Strategy.

In Arabic countries, in the Muslim countries of the USSR, in Turkey, in Afghanistan and in the Muslim countries of South Asia, the main forces that provide financial and organisational aid to all forms of political Islamic movements were the USA's regional puppet Saudi autocracy and the Arab-American oil monopolies. CIA and Saudi intelligence organisation with Pakistani intelligence organisation organised and developed Islamic reactionaries during the Cold War. They developed traditional Islamic sects and parties, and directly founded or supported Muslim Brothers and today's Islamic movements. The political Islam in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan also acted as a pro-USA fire-power and water breaker.

The USA pursued the same political strategy against social imperialist Soviet Union, which restored capitalism and competed against the USA for political and military hegemony with ups and downs in the world.

During this period, alongside pro-USA reactionary political Islamic movements, a minority of political Islamic leaders and organisations played an anti-imperialist role. Two examples of these are the People's Mujahidin in Iran and Moro National Liberation Front in the Philippines, although the latter ideologically has a kind of Islamic colour, it does not fundamentally demonstrate a political Islamic line.

The typical examples of the subject are Hezbollah, organised in Southern Lebanon, and Hamas of Palestine. These effectively existed in the 1980s and struggled against the USA-backed Zionist Israeli occupation and played an anti USA role in the region. These organisations objectively demonstrate a limited anti-imperialist progressive characteristic. Consequently, although they are ideologically anti-communist and religiously fundamentalist, they do not take aggressive attitude towards secular patriot revolutionary forces which are influenced by socialism.

Crossroad at the New International Conditions

In 1998, some of the pan-Islamist organisations, headed by Al-Qaida, have decided to act against USA forces in order to take hands off the USA from the Muslim countries. However, in the past, it is known that these organisations even did not take any action against the USA's occupation during the Golf War in 1991. Even, the US imperialism, through the Pakistan reactionaries, founded the Taliban government, which allowed these organisations to settle down in Afghanistan.

The pan-Islamic organisations, headed by Al-Qaida, in line with their so called ideology, claimed that the USA forces should be withdrawn from the Muslim countries, especially from the 'holly lands', and following this they announced Jihad against USA. Cer-tainly, the pan-Islamic organisation's reaction, their announcement of Jihad against the USA, shows that they became a force against the US imperialists and began to fight against the world superpower and are about striking the superpower.

After the announcement of Jihad, the mentioned pan-Islamic organisations evidently have carried out radical armed actions against the USA forces putting in the first place the army targets of USA in Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The 11 September 2001 attack on twin towers and Pentagon have become the turning point. Accompanied with its unlimited aggression strategy for the world hegemony, the USA imperialists -who formerly contended with attacks such as the bombing of medicine factory in Sudan, had tried to deter these organisations from actions against it and bring them to reconciliation- announced these pan-Islamist organisations as its main targets after the September 11.

The USA's policy change from Green Zone to Moderate Islam, the transformation of Al-Qaida and the follower organisations from USA collaboration to opposition are related, firstly, to new international conditions determined by the collapse of Soviet Union and the retreat of the world revolutionary movement to the bottom entering the 1990s. The USA was no more in need of radical Islamic reactionary. Secondly, some parts of the Islamic reactionary, acting in accordance with their ideological wordings, were de-manding withdrawal of USA troops from "holy lands". In these conditions, whilst the majority of political Islam chose to collaborate with the USA's world hegemony and marched towards "moderate Islam", small group of them were becoming the opposition.

This break up sharpened following the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. For instance, whilst the Islam Revolution Counsel of Iraq (the organisation led by El Hakim) -which was close to Iran mullahs and opposing the USA- with the incitement of Iranian Mullahs, has taken part in the puppet regime of USA after the victory of the USA invasion, the Islamic organisations associated with Sellefis have become the main force that raising armed resistance against the USA occupation. Again, while the Islamic reactionaries in Turkey, despite their anti-imperialist arguments, are contended with organising actions against the Alawi, intellectuals and attacking pubs, as can be seen from the bombings of British Consulate and HSBC there have some organisations appeared targeting the USA and British interests.[1]

Today, it is inevitable for political Islam to face a sharp crossroad in the region, where the majority of the peoples are of Muslim belief, due to the USA's strategy to keep imperialist world hegemony in its hands and strengthen it against the rivals and peoples, focusing on the energy resources of the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Central Asia, and increasing its military invasion in the region. Moreover, the political Islam would inevitably give birth to an anti-USA Islamic movement contrary to the USA collaborator Islamic reactionary. Practically, the formation of the anti-USA Islamic movements has been accomplished either through the transformation of the radical Islamic movements whose previous role ended, or through the impact of some organisations such as Al-Qaida. The direction of developments has led to anti-USA political Islamic movements despite their pan-Islamic reactionary ideology. As the resistance against the occupation of Iraq has proved, these movements are improving their strengths and relations with masses by attracting the anger of oppressed sections of the peoples from Muslim belief at the USA-British imperialist aggression. It seems that, in today's conditions, where the uprising of revolutionary wave in the world is facing difficulties and the revolutionary-communist movement is weak particularly in the Muslim countries, these movements will influence an important part of the people from Muslim belief. Through the process, the anti-USA line will split up due to the reaction to the functional liquidation, and the latter will be clearer.

Thus, whilst the majority of the Islamic movements will decide to be pro-USA (at the level of full collaboration with the USA), as seen in the example of the Turkish party AKP , some of them will decide to be anti-USA. This is evident right now.

Today, the objective conditions for the majority of the political Islam to take place in the pro-USA and imperialist collaboration with more determinacy are much more increased. The countries such as Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia are the new colonial countries whose capitalist development and integration with imperialism is in advanced level. And in these countries, not only the section, which are in the line of bourgeois secular, but also the Islamic sections are in the same process. The reason why the Islamic bourgeois sections are going towards the USA collaboration is not only because they were ideologically-politically pro-USA in the past but they have also grown as economically. Their economical growth and integration with capitalism is also forcing them to drop anchor to the line of "moderate Islam". In Turkey, the typical and remarkable example of this is the Ulker's, as a capital group with Islamic colours, financial support to the NATO's Istanbul summit.

In the Islamic capital groups and the political representatives, the changes in the position of those players, such as Mahatir Mohammed, from collaborating with the USA and imperialism in the past to demagogic opposition today is related to the destructive conditions led by economical crisis. In order to prevent social explosion under the conditions of crisis, a wing of the Islamic bourgeois - the Prime Minister Mahatir Mohammed- prevented an uprising similar to the one in Indonesia and diverted the anger, which could have led to a social explosion, by punishing his economy minister and his supporters pointing them out as scapegoats. Or, the USA's current statements, which threat the Saudi Kingdom with regime change, are not because of this USA puppet regime's conflict with imperialism but they happen because of the USA's anger at the regime that relies on the Muslim religious law being a soft bed for the development of the radical Islamic movements.

In addition to the reality that all political Islamic groups stand for capitalism, the majority of them also defend the neo- liberal economy politics. Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised about the fact that the majority of the Islamic groups are either pro-USA or the collaborator of imperialists.

As a consequence of several reasons, today, the majority of the political Islamic movements are more stable in collaboration with the USA. In Turkey AKP's loyalty to the USA, the USA's supporting attitude towards FIS in Algeria, allowing the Shiite Islamic leaders such as Sistani and Al Hakim to take part in the puppet regime in Iraq are living examples of this. Again, Washington did not refrain in bringing together the political Islamic movements and bourgeois secular parties in the imperialism collaborator regime after the overthrow of the pro-USA Sukharto clique by popular uprising in Indonesia. The USA is trying to stabilise the Islamic regime in Sudan in the borders drawn by her. In Iran, while one wing of the mullah regime collaborates with the EU imperialists and gives syndication to reconcile with the USA, the Hatemi wing decides on "moderate Islam".

Islamic Movements Giving Blow to the USA and Imperialism

Today, likewise Hamas of Palestine and Hezbollah of Lebanon, in Iraq or other countries where people in Muslim belief live, although the pan-Islamist movements, which target the USA and other imperialists, are ideologically reactionary and defending to go backward, they politically play limited anti-imperialist role.

In this sense, the attitude of being together in actions with these organisations in support of Palestinian people against the imperialist occupation and Zionism and the practice of objectively fighting together against the imperialist targets is not incorrect. The proletarian and labourer people's movement, communist and revolutionary movement must not avoid from this. Initially this is true for the Iraqi and Palestinian revolutionary movements. But when taking into consideration the changes in the circumstances it is also necessary for people in the region and our country, revolutionary and communist movement's struggle.

Today, the politics of "being against the two reactionaries" represented by some Trotskyite movements, such as the Communist Workers Party of Iraq, in reality, stem from being an intellectual movement out of touch with practice and doctrinarism. Furthermore, it is used as a cover for their avoidance from armed struggle against the US occupation. Today in Iraq, there is no other way than armed resistance to augment the struggle and mobilize the peoples against the imperialist US occupation. All the other types of struggle are dependent on this. Just as, proven by Ba'ath Nationalist and Radical Islamist Movements have overturned the straightforward military victory of USA to a Pyrrhic victory by their brave military actions. They have augmented the hope of struggle beginning with Iraqi Sunni people, Shiite Arab people and all other people in the region by showing that the USA can be defeated. And the leader of revisionist CPI, Hamit Majit, who is against the "the two reactionary" lines, has end-ed up taking part in the puppet regime of USA.

Or also in Turkey, the reformists and opportunists, who are following the line of being "against the both85", have shown whom they have towed to by protesting the radical Islamist attacks against the targets belong to British imperialism, by considering their first duty as "being very much against the violence" and by taking part in the protest demonstrations organised against the bombing of Synagogue, which we think was a wrong target, together with the pro- TUSIAD (Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association) people, the representatives of the fascist regime, AKP and all other reactionaries. The pragmatic TKP (Communist Party of Turkey), who -under the name of benefiting from the situation- supported the February 28 intervention which was a bitter reckoning between the Generals and the political Islam, is emphasising that under no circumstances an alliance with political Islam against the imperialism should be formed when drawing the perspective of "struggle against imperialism" during their conference in 2003.

"It is out of question for Communists to ally or collaborate with religious movement in struggle against imperialism:

(85) Anti-imperialist struggle, in general, integrates as a whole with socialist struggle. A group, which we have to be against in the socialist struggle with no concession, cannot be an ally in any kind in anti-imperialist struggle. This principle is a basis for the analysis of how far the religious movements are, in reality, anti-imperialist."

Undoubtedly, this is talked not only for Turkey and Northern Kurdistan but also for the region.

Being not able to take any great practical responsibilities in the anti-imperialist struggle is understandable weakness of TKP which avoids from the political leadership of a serious social movement in practice and tries to gain force by only chattering as propaganda group. But, in a time and a region where the USA occupation is a reality, stating that the socialists must not ally with any political Islamist currencies against imperialism is a true version of avoidance from anti-imperialist struggle. And grounding this on the reason that there should not be reconciliation in the socialist struggle is logically nonsense. Are bourgeoisie secular Kemalist the ones that can be loaned in the socialist struggle with whom you do not reject alliance against imperialism but reject alliance with Islamic reactionary who fight imperialism? In the past, the revisionist TIP (Workers Party of Turkey) was, in words, defending socialist revolution in order to reject anti-imperialist democratic revolution, but in practice, they were in every kind of alliance with Ecevit's CHP (Republican People's Party). This was a trick used to undercover their parliamentarian line and avoidance from daily revolutionary struggle. The mystery of incoherence of braggart TKP, the follower of TIP, stem from using the same reserves.

Self-Confidence at Independent Revolutionary Line

Having had the mission of leadership of proletarians the communist movement will target the USA and imperialist collaborator political Islam as the main enemies of revolution and struggle in the occupied countries, in our country with some differences, in the region and other countries where people in Muslim belief live. On the other hand, the communist movement will not avoid acting in temporary united-actions advancing the struggle with Islamic movements that objectively target not the people but the USA and other imperialists and are somewhat anti-imperialist.

The pan-Islamic ideology is historically expresses the long for going backward and it is reactionary. This is the ideology of pre-capitalist ruling classes, and is currently used by bourgeoisie to manipulate peoples in order to maintain capitalist hegemony. This is also relevant for the pan-Islamic parties. But, it is the fact that because of the USA's new international aggressive strategy and the weakness of revolutionary alternative, Muslim peoples incline religious and nationalist traditional ideologies. Therefore, it leads some bourgeois and petty bourgeois class originated movements to show reaction against the USA and imperialism, and moreover to struggle against occupations. Consequently, in conjuncture, anti-imperialist pan-Islamic and nationalist movements develop.

The communists primarily aim to organise proletariat, labourer and oppressed masses in the circles of the communist proletariat and revolutionary anti-imperialism, though they see the temporary and conditional unity in action possible with such movements. They also carry out the hegemony struggle against pan-Islamic movements that are likely to end the anti-imperialist struggle with counterrevolution. Although pan-Islamic movements temporarily join anti-imperialist struggle, the bourgeois and petty bourgeois characteristic of them may always lead them to collaborate with imperialism. Their inner characteristics and the reconciling manoeuvres of imperialism -as seen in the case of Muqtada Al-Sadr- cause these movements to lead the struggle into a counterrevolutionary end. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have several times stated that they are open to reconciliation if they are offered a share in the government through a reformist bourgeois solution in Palestine. Taliban, which do not possess an anti-imperialist characteristic, is being pulled through a reconciling line via a spiritual leader who has a significant influence among the Islamic movements in Pakistan. These kinds of manoeuvres have the potential to realise their aim though it might not be imminent and easy. The assurance of turning the Muslim peoples' struggle against imperialist occupations into anti-imperialist revolution and leading to social revolution is dependant on the communists and revolutionary vanguard's victory in the hegemonic struggle by the way of successful revolutionary leadership in the struggle against the USA's occupation and imperialism. This is true despite today the Islamic movements are carrying out armed resistances in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even in Palestine. Today, the anti-imperialist Islamic movements' armed resistance against the USA's and Israel's military occupations is indeed, in short-term, in favour of revolution. In this essence, the communist vanguards would not refrain in taking advantage of the opportunity. But, in long-term, they need to gain the hegemony of the struggle to lead the revolution to victory because of the same movements' potential of reconciling with the imperialism. The communists' practice of developing the revolution assures getting hegemony, the struggle for gaining hegemony develops the revolution and the accumulation of revolutionary forces.

Moreover, pan-Islamic movements are stra-tegically not anti-imperialist revolutionary, and the objective in company and unity in action should never gain a strategic form. This was sufficiently proved with the example of Iran revolution as it turned into a bloody Islamic counterrevolutionary end.

Furthermore, another factor to be taken into account by communist and revolutionary leadership is that the Islamic movements that play a limited progressive political role do not have a long lasting democratic characteristic when the communists organise workers and labourers independently. This makes the hegemony struggle a must and puts the task of victory in front of the vanguard.

In addition, although these movements, which have a limited anti-imperialist manner against the USA occupation, may not lead to any nationalist confrontation among the Muslim peoples because of the Muslim partisanship, but they are likely to develop reactionary massacres -due to ideological being- against certain sects such as Alawi, Durzi, Nusayri, etc. Similarly they develop the same enmity against non-Muslim peoples of the region and the world. In just the same way, they do not refrain in targeting civil people in their activities. This proves that they cannot unite peoples from different believes even in Iraq and people in the world against imperialism, but push peoples into reactionary strangles.

As a conclusion, these factors gi-ve the communist leadership the duty to turn the anti-imperialist struggle into revolution in occupied countries where na-tional liberation has come forefront, to get in temporary alliances with those political Islamic movements which play limited progressive role, but carry out the strategic hegemony struggle for the final victory of the revolution. (A similar form of the same strategy is also valid for the nationalist movements that struggle against occupation.) Just in the beginning of the century, Lenin and Comintern, for the struggle of colonial Muslim people, formulised this duty as follows:

"(...) in underdeveloped countries, it is required for the struggle against the apostles, influencing other reactionary factors and factors of the Middle Ages.

(...) My liberation movement against European and American imperialism is related to the fight against pan-Islamism which is in effort to unite its forces by increasing the power of khans, feudal landowners, mullahs, etc" (Vladimir I. Lenin, Draft of Thesis on the National Question and Colonies Question, June-July 1920).

Among the Islamic movements, no movement has existed seeking an ideological alternative and liberation to imperialist capitalist system. The possibility of the existence of such a prior movement -similar to the Christian liberation theology- certainly cannot be rejected. But, putting the past examples of people religion such as Karamati, Alawi, Bedrettinism, El God, in the near past there isn't such a movement apart from a limited number of religious leaders.[2]

The presence of some Islamic movements with limited anti-imperialist characteristics and their efforts of developing struggle lead to some conventional illusions for the political Islam and exaggerate their anti-imperialist role. The theory developed by the French revisionist Graudy in the past, is today being re-invented by the Venezuelan internationalist revolutionary I. Ramirez (known as Jackal), who fought for Palestinian people's revolutionary struggle, under the name of "revolutionary Islam". Having inspired by these theories and, in essence, because of the hopelessness of working class and peoples' revolution, some groups are falling into the same fallacy giving the "revolutionary role", "revolutionary destructivity" and the role of opening the way of the wave of world revolution to the Islamic movements. In the near past, some revolutionary groups such as Peoples and Freedom Front ( HOC ) have become the trivet of headscarf struggle under the name of gaining the support from Islamic believing labourers. Having different dimensions and contents, all these are playing a role in exaggerating the Islamic movements' anti-imperialist role and consequently weakening the hegemony struggle. From the other side, some reformist parties such as ODP (Freedom and Democracy Party) and EMEP (Labour Party), who lost their hopes for revolutionising of the worker and labourer masses, are, on one hand, coming together with fascist, liberal and imperialist reactionary in protesting against radical Islamists for synagogue incident, and on the other hand, organising meetings together with reactionary Welfare Party (SP) and pro-USA murderer Agar's party under the name of supporting Palestinian people, and towing to them. With some differences the same mistake is being made by the revolutionary wing of Iraq Communist Party (IKP) against Ba'ath nationalists and Islamists struggling against the occupation. While Hamid Mejit clique reconciled and collaborated with the USA, the Kadre wing took a revolutionary path and decided for an armed resistance, but cheered Saddam by considering his fight with the USA as a "correct attitude". The same group is trying to correlate the existence of the creator (God) with Marxism, and grounding this on the exaggeration of Salafi group's anti-imperialism that especially surprised USA through sacrificing actions.

However, the working class and peoples' revolutionary belief and self-confidence in developing anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle by insisting on vanguard will and coherent revolutionary politics is a principal. Insisting on this is the main criterion of revolutionary in today's circumstances in which it is vital to come together with masses at a revolutionary line. The Marxist Leninist Communists will highly value their belief and self-confidence in making masses revolutionary, proceed in an antagonist path with the enemies of peoples and socialism, and alongside, value the same principle against the temporary colleagues.

* Translation of an article taken from the journal Teoride Dogrultu (Direction in Theory), number 18, September/October 2004

1 Hezbollah, which functioned as the contra force, has also clashed with the police forces of the State. But their role is completely different from the organisations those who attacked the USA-British imperialists' targets. Hezbollah of which leader was killed by the State in order to be liquidated because its role ended. It later organised such actions as a reaction. Such actions of them were simultaneous reactions, and they do not have a programme and actions that target the imperialism and fascism.

2 Mahmoud Taha from Sudan was the only Islamic intellectual who was emphasising the element of freedom in his view of Islam. When he was sentenced to death by the authorities of Khartoum because of his thoughts, his execution was not protested even by a single "radical" or "moderate" Islamic group. Also he was not defended by any intellectual, who were naming themselves with the "Islamic Renaissance" or suggesting dialog with that kind of movements. The incident was not even published as news in the western media. (S. Amin, from the article on Political Islam)

 

 

Archive

 

2019
March
2018
November September
June March
2017
October
2008
December January
2007
January
2006
January
2005
April
2004
September

 

USA's Greater Middle East Project Imperialism and Political Islam*
fc Share on Twitter
 

Starting from the end of the Cold War, two developments in political Islamic movements have captured attention. Firstly, in Lebanon and Palestine, Islamic organisations have developed war against the USA backed Israeli war tool. Secondly, after the 1991 Gulf War, Al-Qaida has carried out military activities against USA that turned some Islamic countries, which are governed by the puppets, into their military bases. And now, the political Islamic groups are among the main forces of armed resistance in the USA occupied Iraq.

Facing the increased domination of USA and imperialist hegemony in Muslim countries, almost all nationalist movements have chosen the line of compromising and collaboration. While a majority of Islamic movements had decided to compromise/-collaborate with the USA under the popular name of "moderate Islamist", a considerable group of Islamic organisations is going ahead in a radical way in relation to their activities against the USA. Especially in Iraq, radical Islamists are among the main movements of armed resistance against the US occupation. (Iraqui Communist Party, "Resistance in Iraq", in: Teoride Dogrultu -Direction in Theory-, vol. 16, p. 42).

All these put forward as an urgent task for the world's working class movement, revolutionary and communist movement to analyse political Islamic movements and develop political strategies.

In the Past, the Islamic Reactionary was Towed to the Western Imperialism

Although there existed some movements with Islamic ideology against imperialist occupations in the beginning of 20th century, these remained limited and temporary in the whole. Having played limited anti-imperialist role, the ones that were able to establish continuity either took part in the counterrevolutionary front, or compromised and collaborated with imperialism. For example, Serekat Islam in Indonesia was an anti-colonialist organisation in alliance with communists in the beginning of 20th century, but later on, transformed into a counterrevolutionary pact, and during 1960s became the criminal partner of the US imperialism and the fascist dictatorship of Suharto in carrying out bloody massacres against communists and the people. Having backed by Sheikhs, those political Islamic movements which existed as a result of Arab, Kurdish, Turkish and other Muslim peoples' nationalism in the beginning of the century against imperialism or Russian Tsarist regime and Ottoman Empire, later got into reconciliation and collaboration line with imperialism. Examples of these are Vahabis and Hashimis who struggled against Ottoman Empire, but collaborated with the leader of rival imperialist camp, the British imperialism during the 1st World War.

In India, during the struggle against colonialism in the beginning of the century there were anti-imperialist and communist Muslim clerics. (Bolshevik revolution had a great influence in India. During the first years of the revolution Maulana Obaid-u-llah Sindhi went to Soviet Union to see Lenin. In 1924, there was another Muslim apostle, Maulana Hasrat Mohane who later became secretary general of India Communist Party.) But after 1948, political Islamic movements played a role in the foundation of Pakistan in a pro-British line and represented the imperialist collaborative reactionary.

Apart from these, traditional Islamic institutions and political movements, the Islamic movements those who directly appeared as the political organisations, in general, were in collaboration or reconciliation with imperialism in the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.

As Samir Amin states, today's political Islamic movements existed with encouragement of British imperialism:

"Modern Political Islam was created by orientalists who serve British colonialism in India, and developed by Mawdudi in Pakistan" (Political Islam).

After the 2nd World War, Islamic movements were developed and used by the USA -who took the leadership of the imperialist world, as a tool for the Green Zone Strategy against socialist countries and peoples during the Cold War. The USA also used political Islamic movements against Arabic bourgeois nationalism in the Middle East that play an important role for its (USA's) hegemonic goals. Taking into consideration the difference in the circumstances, the USA used political Islam against Arab nationalism in the Middle East, and against the bourgeois democrat Sukarno (and certainly the communists) in Indonesia, similar to what the British did in India. Moreover, overthrowing Butto government with a military coup in Pakistan, the USA used political Islam at different levels, as an alliance to the fascist coup and as a civil fire-power.

During the whole period of the Cold War the USA, as the leader of imperialist world, used political Islam as a fire-power and water breaker in the Middle East and other Muslim countries against working class, labourer peoples' movement, communist and revolutionary movements. The reflection of this against the Soviet Union was the Green Zone Strategy.

In Arabic countries, in the Muslim countries of the USSR, in Turkey, in Afghanistan and in the Muslim countries of South Asia, the main forces that provide financial and organisational aid to all forms of political Islamic movements were the USA's regional puppet Saudi autocracy and the Arab-American oil monopolies. CIA and Saudi intelligence organisation with Pakistani intelligence organisation organised and developed Islamic reactionaries during the Cold War. They developed traditional Islamic sects and parties, and directly founded or supported Muslim Brothers and today's Islamic movements. The political Islam in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan also acted as a pro-USA fire-power and water breaker.

The USA pursued the same political strategy against social imperialist Soviet Union, which restored capitalism and competed against the USA for political and military hegemony with ups and downs in the world.

During this period, alongside pro-USA reactionary political Islamic movements, a minority of political Islamic leaders and organisations played an anti-imperialist role. Two examples of these are the People's Mujahidin in Iran and Moro National Liberation Front in the Philippines, although the latter ideologically has a kind of Islamic colour, it does not fundamentally demonstrate a political Islamic line.

The typical examples of the subject are Hezbollah, organised in Southern Lebanon, and Hamas of Palestine. These effectively existed in the 1980s and struggled against the USA-backed Zionist Israeli occupation and played an anti USA role in the region. These organisations objectively demonstrate a limited anti-imperialist progressive characteristic. Consequently, although they are ideologically anti-communist and religiously fundamentalist, they do not take aggressive attitude towards secular patriot revolutionary forces which are influenced by socialism.

Crossroad at the New International Conditions

In 1998, some of the pan-Islamist organisations, headed by Al-Qaida, have decided to act against USA forces in order to take hands off the USA from the Muslim countries. However, in the past, it is known that these organisations even did not take any action against the USA's occupation during the Golf War in 1991. Even, the US imperialism, through the Pakistan reactionaries, founded the Taliban government, which allowed these organisations to settle down in Afghanistan.

The pan-Islamic organisations, headed by Al-Qaida, in line with their so called ideology, claimed that the USA forces should be withdrawn from the Muslim countries, especially from the 'holly lands', and following this they announced Jihad against USA. Cer-tainly, the pan-Islamic organisation's reaction, their announcement of Jihad against the USA, shows that they became a force against the US imperialists and began to fight against the world superpower and are about striking the superpower.

After the announcement of Jihad, the mentioned pan-Islamic organisations evidently have carried out radical armed actions against the USA forces putting in the first place the army targets of USA in Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The 11 September 2001 attack on twin towers and Pentagon have become the turning point. Accompanied with its unlimited aggression strategy for the world hegemony, the USA imperialists -who formerly contended with attacks such as the bombing of medicine factory in Sudan, had tried to deter these organisations from actions against it and bring them to reconciliation- announced these pan-Islamist organisations as its main targets after the September 11.

The USA's policy change from Green Zone to Moderate Islam, the transformation of Al-Qaida and the follower organisations from USA collaboration to opposition are related, firstly, to new international conditions determined by the collapse of Soviet Union and the retreat of the world revolutionary movement to the bottom entering the 1990s. The USA was no more in need of radical Islamic reactionary. Secondly, some parts of the Islamic reactionary, acting in accordance with their ideological wordings, were de-manding withdrawal of USA troops from "holy lands". In these conditions, whilst the majority of political Islam chose to collaborate with the USA's world hegemony and marched towards "moderate Islam", small group of them were becoming the opposition.

This break up sharpened following the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. For instance, whilst the Islam Revolution Counsel of Iraq (the organisation led by El Hakim) -which was close to Iran mullahs and opposing the USA- with the incitement of Iranian Mullahs, has taken part in the puppet regime of USA after the victory of the USA invasion, the Islamic organisations associated with Sellefis have become the main force that raising armed resistance against the USA occupation. Again, while the Islamic reactionaries in Turkey, despite their anti-imperialist arguments, are contended with organising actions against the Alawi, intellectuals and attacking pubs, as can be seen from the bombings of British Consulate and HSBC there have some organisations appeared targeting the USA and British interests.[1]

Today, it is inevitable for political Islam to face a sharp crossroad in the region, where the majority of the peoples are of Muslim belief, due to the USA's strategy to keep imperialist world hegemony in its hands and strengthen it against the rivals and peoples, focusing on the energy resources of the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Central Asia, and increasing its military invasion in the region. Moreover, the political Islam would inevitably give birth to an anti-USA Islamic movement contrary to the USA collaborator Islamic reactionary. Practically, the formation of the anti-USA Islamic movements has been accomplished either through the transformation of the radical Islamic movements whose previous role ended, or through the impact of some organisations such as Al-Qaida. The direction of developments has led to anti-USA political Islamic movements despite their pan-Islamic reactionary ideology. As the resistance against the occupation of Iraq has proved, these movements are improving their strengths and relations with masses by attracting the anger of oppressed sections of the peoples from Muslim belief at the USA-British imperialist aggression. It seems that, in today's conditions, where the uprising of revolutionary wave in the world is facing difficulties and the revolutionary-communist movement is weak particularly in the Muslim countries, these movements will influence an important part of the people from Muslim belief. Through the process, the anti-USA line will split up due to the reaction to the functional liquidation, and the latter will be clearer.

Thus, whilst the majority of the Islamic movements will decide to be pro-USA (at the level of full collaboration with the USA), as seen in the example of the Turkish party AKP , some of them will decide to be anti-USA. This is evident right now.

Today, the objective conditions for the majority of the political Islam to take place in the pro-USA and imperialist collaboration with more determinacy are much more increased. The countries such as Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia are the new colonial countries whose capitalist development and integration with imperialism is in advanced level. And in these countries, not only the section, which are in the line of bourgeois secular, but also the Islamic sections are in the same process. The reason why the Islamic bourgeois sections are going towards the USA collaboration is not only because they were ideologically-politically pro-USA in the past but they have also grown as economically. Their economical growth and integration with capitalism is also forcing them to drop anchor to the line of "moderate Islam". In Turkey, the typical and remarkable example of this is the Ulker's, as a capital group with Islamic colours, financial support to the NATO's Istanbul summit.

In the Islamic capital groups and the political representatives, the changes in the position of those players, such as Mahatir Mohammed, from collaborating with the USA and imperialism in the past to demagogic opposition today is related to the destructive conditions led by economical crisis. In order to prevent social explosion under the conditions of crisis, a wing of the Islamic bourgeois - the Prime Minister Mahatir Mohammed- prevented an uprising similar to the one in Indonesia and diverted the anger, which could have led to a social explosion, by punishing his economy minister and his supporters pointing them out as scapegoats. Or, the USA's current statements, which threat the Saudi Kingdom with regime change, are not because of this USA puppet regime's conflict with imperialism but they happen because of the USA's anger at the regime that relies on the Muslim religious law being a soft bed for the development of the radical Islamic movements.

In addition to the reality that all political Islamic groups stand for capitalism, the majority of them also defend the neo- liberal economy politics. Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised about the fact that the majority of the Islamic groups are either pro-USA or the collaborator of imperialists.

As a consequence of several reasons, today, the majority of the political Islamic movements are more stable in collaboration with the USA. In Turkey AKP's loyalty to the USA, the USA's supporting attitude towards FIS in Algeria, allowing the Shiite Islamic leaders such as Sistani and Al Hakim to take part in the puppet regime in Iraq are living examples of this. Again, Washington did not refrain in bringing together the political Islamic movements and bourgeois secular parties in the imperialism collaborator regime after the overthrow of the pro-USA Sukharto clique by popular uprising in Indonesia. The USA is trying to stabilise the Islamic regime in Sudan in the borders drawn by her. In Iran, while one wing of the mullah regime collaborates with the EU imperialists and gives syndication to reconcile with the USA, the Hatemi wing decides on "moderate Islam".

Islamic Movements Giving Blow to the USA and Imperialism

Today, likewise Hamas of Palestine and Hezbollah of Lebanon, in Iraq or other countries where people in Muslim belief live, although the pan-Islamist movements, which target the USA and other imperialists, are ideologically reactionary and defending to go backward, they politically play limited anti-imperialist role.

In this sense, the attitude of being together in actions with these organisations in support of Palestinian people against the imperialist occupation and Zionism and the practice of objectively fighting together against the imperialist targets is not incorrect. The proletarian and labourer people's movement, communist and revolutionary movement must not avoid from this. Initially this is true for the Iraqi and Palestinian revolutionary movements. But when taking into consideration the changes in the circumstances it is also necessary for people in the region and our country, revolutionary and communist movement's struggle.

Today, the politics of "being against the two reactionaries" represented by some Trotskyite movements, such as the Communist Workers Party of Iraq, in reality, stem from being an intellectual movement out of touch with practice and doctrinarism. Furthermore, it is used as a cover for their avoidance from armed struggle against the US occupation. Today in Iraq, there is no other way than armed resistance to augment the struggle and mobilize the peoples against the imperialist US occupation. All the other types of struggle are dependent on this. Just as, proven by Ba'ath Nationalist and Radical Islamist Movements have overturned the straightforward military victory of USA to a Pyrrhic victory by their brave military actions. They have augmented the hope of struggle beginning with Iraqi Sunni people, Shiite Arab people and all other people in the region by showing that the USA can be defeated. And the leader of revisionist CPI, Hamit Majit, who is against the "the two reactionary" lines, has end-ed up taking part in the puppet regime of USA.

Or also in Turkey, the reformists and opportunists, who are following the line of being "against the both85", have shown whom they have towed to by protesting the radical Islamist attacks against the targets belong to British imperialism, by considering their first duty as "being very much against the violence" and by taking part in the protest demonstrations organised against the bombing of Synagogue, which we think was a wrong target, together with the pro- TUSIAD (Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association) people, the representatives of the fascist regime, AKP and all other reactionaries. The pragmatic TKP (Communist Party of Turkey), who -under the name of benefiting from the situation- supported the February 28 intervention which was a bitter reckoning between the Generals and the political Islam, is emphasising that under no circumstances an alliance with political Islam against the imperialism should be formed when drawing the perspective of "struggle against imperialism" during their conference in 2003.

"It is out of question for Communists to ally or collaborate with religious movement in struggle against imperialism:

(85) Anti-imperialist struggle, in general, integrates as a whole with socialist struggle. A group, which we have to be against in the socialist struggle with no concession, cannot be an ally in any kind in anti-imperialist struggle. This principle is a basis for the analysis of how far the religious movements are, in reality, anti-imperialist."

Undoubtedly, this is talked not only for Turkey and Northern Kurdistan but also for the region.

Being not able to take any great practical responsibilities in the anti-imperialist struggle is understandable weakness of TKP which avoids from the political leadership of a serious social movement in practice and tries to gain force by only chattering as propaganda group. But, in a time and a region where the USA occupation is a reality, stating that the socialists must not ally with any political Islamist currencies against imperialism is a true version of avoidance from anti-imperialist struggle. And grounding this on the reason that there should not be reconciliation in the socialist struggle is logically nonsense. Are bourgeoisie secular Kemalist the ones that can be loaned in the socialist struggle with whom you do not reject alliance against imperialism but reject alliance with Islamic reactionary who fight imperialism? In the past, the revisionist TIP (Workers Party of Turkey) was, in words, defending socialist revolution in order to reject anti-imperialist democratic revolution, but in practice, they were in every kind of alliance with Ecevit's CHP (Republican People's Party). This was a trick used to undercover their parliamentarian line and avoidance from daily revolutionary struggle. The mystery of incoherence of braggart TKP, the follower of TIP, stem from using the same reserves.

Self-Confidence at Independent Revolutionary Line

Having had the mission of leadership of proletarians the communist movement will target the USA and imperialist collaborator political Islam as the main enemies of revolution and struggle in the occupied countries, in our country with some differences, in the region and other countries where people in Muslim belief live. On the other hand, the communist movement will not avoid acting in temporary united-actions advancing the struggle with Islamic movements that objectively target not the people but the USA and other imperialists and are somewhat anti-imperialist.

The pan-Islamic ideology is historically expresses the long for going backward and it is reactionary. This is the ideology of pre-capitalist ruling classes, and is currently used by bourgeoisie to manipulate peoples in order to maintain capitalist hegemony. This is also relevant for the pan-Islamic parties. But, it is the fact that because of the USA's new international aggressive strategy and the weakness of revolutionary alternative, Muslim peoples incline religious and nationalist traditional ideologies. Therefore, it leads some bourgeois and petty bourgeois class originated movements to show reaction against the USA and imperialism, and moreover to struggle against occupations. Consequently, in conjuncture, anti-imperialist pan-Islamic and nationalist movements develop.

The communists primarily aim to organise proletariat, labourer and oppressed masses in the circles of the communist proletariat and revolutionary anti-imperialism, though they see the temporary and conditional unity in action possible with such movements. They also carry out the hegemony struggle against pan-Islamic movements that are likely to end the anti-imperialist struggle with counterrevolution. Although pan-Islamic movements temporarily join anti-imperialist struggle, the bourgeois and petty bourgeois characteristic of them may always lead them to collaborate with imperialism. Their inner characteristics and the reconciling manoeuvres of imperialism -as seen in the case of Muqtada Al-Sadr- cause these movements to lead the struggle into a counterrevolutionary end. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have several times stated that they are open to reconciliation if they are offered a share in the government through a reformist bourgeois solution in Palestine. Taliban, which do not possess an anti-imperialist characteristic, is being pulled through a reconciling line via a spiritual leader who has a significant influence among the Islamic movements in Pakistan. These kinds of manoeuvres have the potential to realise their aim though it might not be imminent and easy. The assurance of turning the Muslim peoples' struggle against imperialist occupations into anti-imperialist revolution and leading to social revolution is dependant on the communists and revolutionary vanguard's victory in the hegemonic struggle by the way of successful revolutionary leadership in the struggle against the USA's occupation and imperialism. This is true despite today the Islamic movements are carrying out armed resistances in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even in Palestine. Today, the anti-imperialist Islamic movements' armed resistance against the USA's and Israel's military occupations is indeed, in short-term, in favour of revolution. In this essence, the communist vanguards would not refrain in taking advantage of the opportunity. But, in long-term, they need to gain the hegemony of the struggle to lead the revolution to victory because of the same movements' potential of reconciling with the imperialism. The communists' practice of developing the revolution assures getting hegemony, the struggle for gaining hegemony develops the revolution and the accumulation of revolutionary forces.

Moreover, pan-Islamic movements are stra-tegically not anti-imperialist revolutionary, and the objective in company and unity in action should never gain a strategic form. This was sufficiently proved with the example of Iran revolution as it turned into a bloody Islamic counterrevolutionary end.

Furthermore, another factor to be taken into account by communist and revolutionary leadership is that the Islamic movements that play a limited progressive political role do not have a long lasting democratic characteristic when the communists organise workers and labourers independently. This makes the hegemony struggle a must and puts the task of victory in front of the vanguard.

In addition, although these movements, which have a limited anti-imperialist manner against the USA occupation, may not lead to any nationalist confrontation among the Muslim peoples because of the Muslim partisanship, but they are likely to develop reactionary massacres -due to ideological being- against certain sects such as Alawi, Durzi, Nusayri, etc. Similarly they develop the same enmity against non-Muslim peoples of the region and the world. In just the same way, they do not refrain in targeting civil people in their activities. This proves that they cannot unite peoples from different believes even in Iraq and people in the world against imperialism, but push peoples into reactionary strangles.

As a conclusion, these factors gi-ve the communist leadership the duty to turn the anti-imperialist struggle into revolution in occupied countries where na-tional liberation has come forefront, to get in temporary alliances with those political Islamic movements which play limited progressive role, but carry out the strategic hegemony struggle for the final victory of the revolution. (A similar form of the same strategy is also valid for the nationalist movements that struggle against occupation.) Just in the beginning of the century, Lenin and Comintern, for the struggle of colonial Muslim people, formulised this duty as follows:

"(...) in underdeveloped countries, it is required for the struggle against the apostles, influencing other reactionary factors and factors of the Middle Ages.

(...) My liberation movement against European and American imperialism is related to the fight against pan-Islamism which is in effort to unite its forces by increasing the power of khans, feudal landowners, mullahs, etc" (Vladimir I. Lenin, Draft of Thesis on the National Question and Colonies Question, June-July 1920).

Among the Islamic movements, no movement has existed seeking an ideological alternative and liberation to imperialist capitalist system. The possibility of the existence of such a prior movement -similar to the Christian liberation theology- certainly cannot be rejected. But, putting the past examples of people religion such as Karamati, Alawi, Bedrettinism, El God, in the near past there isn't such a movement apart from a limited number of religious leaders.[2]

The presence of some Islamic movements with limited anti-imperialist characteristics and their efforts of developing struggle lead to some conventional illusions for the political Islam and exaggerate their anti-imperialist role. The theory developed by the French revisionist Graudy in the past, is today being re-invented by the Venezuelan internationalist revolutionary I. Ramirez (known as Jackal), who fought for Palestinian people's revolutionary struggle, under the name of "revolutionary Islam". Having inspired by these theories and, in essence, because of the hopelessness of working class and peoples' revolution, some groups are falling into the same fallacy giving the "revolutionary role", "revolutionary destructivity" and the role of opening the way of the wave of world revolution to the Islamic movements. In the near past, some revolutionary groups such as Peoples and Freedom Front ( HOC ) have become the trivet of headscarf struggle under the name of gaining the support from Islamic believing labourers. Having different dimensions and contents, all these are playing a role in exaggerating the Islamic movements' anti-imperialist role and consequently weakening the hegemony struggle. From the other side, some reformist parties such as ODP (Freedom and Democracy Party) and EMEP (Labour Party), who lost their hopes for revolutionising of the worker and labourer masses, are, on one hand, coming together with fascist, liberal and imperialist reactionary in protesting against radical Islamists for synagogue incident, and on the other hand, organising meetings together with reactionary Welfare Party (SP) and pro-USA murderer Agar's party under the name of supporting Palestinian people, and towing to them. With some differences the same mistake is being made by the revolutionary wing of Iraq Communist Party (IKP) against Ba'ath nationalists and Islamists struggling against the occupation. While Hamid Mejit clique reconciled and collaborated with the USA, the Kadre wing took a revolutionary path and decided for an armed resistance, but cheered Saddam by considering his fight with the USA as a "correct attitude". The same group is trying to correlate the existence of the creator (God) with Marxism, and grounding this on the exaggeration of Salafi group's anti-imperialism that especially surprised USA through sacrificing actions.

However, the working class and peoples' revolutionary belief and self-confidence in developing anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle by insisting on vanguard will and coherent revolutionary politics is a principal. Insisting on this is the main criterion of revolutionary in today's circumstances in which it is vital to come together with masses at a revolutionary line. The Marxist Leninist Communists will highly value their belief and self-confidence in making masses revolutionary, proceed in an antagonist path with the enemies of peoples and socialism, and alongside, value the same principle against the temporary colleagues.

* Translation of an article taken from the journal Teoride Dogrultu (Direction in Theory), number 18, September/October 2004

1 Hezbollah, which functioned as the contra force, has also clashed with the police forces of the State. But their role is completely different from the organisations those who attacked the USA-British imperialists' targets. Hezbollah of which leader was killed by the State in order to be liquidated because its role ended. It later organised such actions as a reaction. Such actions of them were simultaneous reactions, and they do not have a programme and actions that target the imperialism and fascism.

2 Mahmoud Taha from Sudan was the only Islamic intellectual who was emphasising the element of freedom in his view of Islam. When he was sentenced to death by the authorities of Khartoum because of his thoughts, his execution was not protested even by a single "radical" or "moderate" Islamic group. Also he was not defended by any intellectual, who were naming themselves with the "Islamic Renaissance" or suggesting dialog with that kind of movements. The incident was not even published as news in the western media. (S. Amin, from the article on Political Islam)