Has there ever been a serious attempt at sharia socialism?

[Kukulofori]

Even if just in theory?

[Guerrilla22]

No two are not compatible. Sharia law is inherently reactionary as it is based on theology. It runs contrary to the idea of human emancipation that socialism is based on.

[ComradeOm]

It runs contrary to the idea of human emancipation that socialism is based on.More to the point, it runs entirely contrary to the Enlightenment ideals that underpin socialism

[Ismail]

The closest to an Islamic Socialist state (as in, publically declaring itself socialist) would probably be the Somali Democratic Republic under Siad Barre from 1969-1991. It didn't really have Sharia—Barre mostly just used Islam as a way of promoting unity in tribal Somalia—but it did claim to adhere to Islam as a positive force in society. Barre still claimed that the government adhered to scientific socialism though.

There's also the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab State of the Masses (or, if you prefer like myself, Libya) under Muammar el-Qadhafi, although Barre was more Marxist-Leninist whereas el-Qadhafi is more of an Arab (non-Marxist) Socialist. I think Libya is mostly ruled under Sharia, albeit a moderate form.

Neither of these states had much in the way of workers control over the means of production, although both were/are progressive. (Barre went much further than el-Qadhafi in establishing communal ways of living and such though)


More to the point, it runs entirely contrary to the Enlightenment ideals that underpin socialismThe Enlightenment produced utopian socialism and idealism, not scientific socialism and materialism (well, idealism predominated). It was the bourgeoisie engaging in battle with feudalism and the clergy, Marx and Engels simply learned from the Enlightenment in terms of class struggle, etc. and formulated proletarian class struggle along with historical materialism.

Of course, Sharia isn't progressive in of itself, at least not without something else backing it up and interpreted in a certain way (read: not like the Taliban or Iran), but it is theoretically possible to have a socialist state under certain forms of Sharia that stress the entire community upholding it rather than centralized religious or state authority. I doubt such a state is actually likely to come to pass, but it is still possible.

And of course, I'd prefer to not have Sharia.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I could believe some of the left groups in the Iranian revolution would've advocated it, but I'm not an expert.

[Ismail]

I could believe some of the left groups in the Iranian revolution would've advocated it, but I'm not an expert.There was the pro-Soviet Tudeh, the Hoxhaist Iranian Party of Labour, etc. Generally secular, but there was also the People's Mujahidin of Iran which combined Marxism with Islam. Tudeh is apparently impotent and constantly under government watch while the IPL and PMOI are banned/exiled.

[ComradeOm]

The Enlightenment produced utopian socialism and idealism, not scientific socialism and materialism (well, idealism predominated). It was the bourgeoisie engaging in battle with feudalism and the clergy, Marx and Engels simply learned from the Enlightenment in terms of class struggle, etc. and formulated proletarian class struggle along with historical materialismAll strains of socialism, including Marxism, are direct products of the Enlightenment. Indeed of the three broad influences typically assigned to have shaped Marx's thought - French socialism, British political economy, German philosophy - only the last can be said not to be a child of the Enlightenment. To quote Hobsbawm:

"[Champions of the Enlightenment] believed firmly (and correctly) that human history was an ascent, rather than a decline or undulating movement about a level trend. They could observe that man's scientific knowledge and technical control over nature increased daily. They believed that human society and individual man could be perfected by the same application of reason, and were destined to be so perfected by history. On these points bourgeois liberals and revolutionary proletarian socialists were at one

...

What distinguishes the various members of the ideological family descended from humanism and the Enlightenment - liberal, socialist, communist, or anarchist - is not the gentle anarchy which is the utopia of all of them but the methods of achieving it. At this point however socialism parted company with the classical liberal tradition"


Of course, Sharia isn't progressive in of itself, at least not without something else backing it up and interpreted in a certain way (read: not like the Taliban or Iran), but it is theoretically possible to have a socialist state under certain forms of Sharia that stress the entire community upholding it rather than centralized religious or state authority. I doubt such a state is actually likely to come to pass, but it is still possibleOne could make that argument for any number of absurd traditions but unless a measure can be reconciled with the fundamental tenets of the Enlightenment (with its emphasis on liberty, rationalism, individual rights, self-governance, etc) then I don't see how or why it could be adopted by a socialist community. As far as I'm concerned Sharia Law runs contrary to several of these. How can a society society uphold laws on blasphemy, homophobia, sexism, etc?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The usefulness of sharia law to workers is quite limited, as noted above.

One area where it might prove useful for education, agitation, and organization is the question of combating interest/usury. Of course, the various popular fronts with token Islamists have failed to address this and have instead resorted to cheap identity politics.

[h0m0revolutionary]

There was the pro-Soviet Tudeh, the Hoxhaist Iranian Party of Labour, etc. Generally secular, but there was also the People's Mujahidin of Iran which combined Marxism with Islam. Tudeh is apparently impotent and constantly under government watch while the IPL and PMOI are banned/exiled.

Yeah the Mujahedin were the closest with regards to Iran, although both the WPI (Hekmatists) and Peykar had Islamic quasi-socilaists as members. Although I can't imagine this is the case anymore with WPI who have taken a very, very strong anti-islam stance (calling for a banning of the veil and suchlike!)

Although the Tudeh capitaluted to political islam, they didn't do so for any other reason than their staunch opportunistic Stalinism :/.

[Ismail]

All strains of socialism, including Marxism, are direct products of the Enlightenment. Indeed of the three broad influences typically assigned to have shaped Marx's thought - French socialism, British political economy, German philosophy - only the last can be said not to be a child of the Enlightenment. To quote Hobsbawm:

"[Champions of the Enlightenment] believed firmly (and correctly) that human history was an ascent, rather than a decline or undulating movement about a level trend. They could observe that man's scientific knowledge and technical control over nature increased daily. They believed that human society and individual man could be perfected by the same application of reason, and were destined to be so perfected by history. On these points bourgeois liberals and revolutionary proletarian socialists were at oneIt is obviously true that yes, Marx and Engels were influenced by the enlightenment and its various thinkers and offspring (Hegel, anyone? Also, Adam Smith). I would say underpin is a bit strong of a word, though.


One could make that argument for any number of absurd traditions but unless a measure can be reconciled with the fundamental tenets of the Enlightenment (with its emphasis on liberty, rationalism, individual rights, self-governance, etc) then I don't see how or why it could be adopted by a socialist community. As far as I'm concerned Sharia Law runs contrary to several of these. How can a society society uphold laws on blasphemy, homophobia, sexism, etc?Well we know that liberty is not a word easily defined. Rationalism (I assume you mean learning independently of the church and using science, instead of the philosophy Kant tore down) is easier to define and is obviously vital. Individual rights, yes, also important though like liberty it cannot be defined very well (the bourgeoisie argued that both "liberty" and "individual rights" included the "right" to own property), and self-governance is... vague.

The Enlightenment was obviously a progressive period in history and coincided for the most part with the time the bourgeoisie as a whole were progressive against feudalism. I wouldn't exactly call the Enlightenment "underpinning" Marxism though, so much as the socialist movement taking logical things from it and being allowed more room to maneuver than in states where it was condemned. When I think of things that underpin Marxism, I think of economic concepts like surplus-value, the concept of class struggle, the liberation of the proletariat, etc.

As for Sharia, obviously homophobia and sexism would be much reduced or Sharia law on this subject being ignored (we're talking about Marxist Muslims making a socialist state), blasphemy and such of course pose obvious problems. Any 'progressive' application of Sharia law would have to be done on a community and not theocratic basis. (Since theocracy implies the existence of a clergy above workers) Obviously there are going to be conflicts between Islamic Communists and Socialism, just like there are conflicts between Christian Communists and Socialism. I think that a Socialist state in, say, the Middle East would have, at least initially, a moderate form of Sharia with general stuff like "Do not charge interest" or whatever since in most areas they'd be leading 90%+ Muslim populations who would want to identify Islam with the state they're taking an active part being in.

It's obviously up to the Communists in those areas, though. If they can lead without having to invoke Sharia law, so much the better.

[Plagueround]

All strains of socialism, including Marxism, are direct products of the Enlightenment.

Ah the enlightenment! When Europeans decided to start using "reason" instead of religion as their means for conquering, genocide, subjugation, and taking credit for the combined efforts of humanity! Whatever would we have done without them?!

(In all seriousness, I'm not disregarding the entire enlightenment period, just venting... ;) )

[Kukulofori]

Ah the enlightenment! When Europeans decided to start using "reason" instead of religion as their means for conquering, genocide, subjugation, and taking credit for the combined efforts of humanity! Whatever would we have done without them?!

(In all seriousness, I'm not disregarding the entire enlightenment period, just venting... ;) )

Oh, you mean that thing after Byzantium fell and allowed the Islamic world to share things with Europe? Then they were total bastards, took credit for it, and used it to enslave everyone including the Islamic world and forced them to Europeanise their societies and take away rights such as female property ownership that had previously been ensured by Sharia?

Yeah, good times.

[scarletghoul]

To answer the question, it depends what you mean by sharia. There are a few countries that are/were islamic and socialist, but they dont have the taliban style sharia which is obvioulsy incompatible with socialism

[Kukulofori]

Taliban is to sharia as Kim Jong Il is to communism.

[ComradeOm]

It is obviously true that yes, Marx and Engels were influenced by the enlightenment and its various thinkers and offspring (Hegel, anyone? Also, Adam Smith). I would say underpin is a bit strong of a word, thoughWell that's obviously a matter of opinion, ie something impossible to fully quantify. Personally I feel that neither socialism or Marxism could exist without the fundamental Enlightenment optimism regarding man's ability to better himself and build a better world. In a way everything that Marx wrote was building on that basic tenet


As for Sharia, obviously homophobia and sexism would be much reduced or Sharia law on this subject being ignored (we're talking about Marxist Muslims making a socialist state), blasphemy and such of course pose obvious problems. Any 'progressive' application of Sharia law would have to be done on a community and not theocratic basisHere you're into the realm of creating an artificial distinction between 'good' and 'bad' Sharia law. Frankly I'd consider this to be an artificial distinction. You can't simply strip out all the parts you disagree with and consider the remainder to be Sharia. Or rather you can but its merely a theoretical construct


I think that a Socialist state in, say, the Middle East would have, at least initially, a moderate form of Sharia with general stuff like "Do not charge interest" or whatever since in most areas they'd be leading 90%+ Muslim populations who would want to identify Islam with the state they're taking an active part being inI disagree. Any socialist state in the Islamic world would be, by definition, revolutionary. This means that it has swept about the old economic, political, and social relations that once shackled society. Including outmoded religious intrusions on the state. You can't simply appropriate pre-revolutionary ideals (in this case a medieval system of justice!) and tack them on to a revolutionary programme. A socialist state need not be antagonistically atheist but its must be firmly secular in its outlook and operations


It's obviously up to the Communists in those areas, though. If they can lead without having to invoke Sharia law, so much the better.If Sharia law is necessary to attract the support of the working class then said class has not yet reached a sufficiant level of revolutionary class conciousness


Ah the enlightenment! When Europeans decided to start using "reason" instead of religion as their means for conquering, genocide, subjugation, and taking credit for the combined efforts of humanity! Whatever would we have done without them?!Too true. We need a good old fashioned Holy War to keep today's kids busy and up to their elbows in blood! ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I disagree. Any socialist state in the Islamic world would be, by definition, revolutionary. This means that it has swept about the old economic, political, and social relations that once shackled society. Including outmoded religious intrusions on the state. You can't simply appropriate pre-revolutionary ideals (in this case a medieval system of justice!) and tack them on to a revolutionary programme. A socialist state need not be antagonistically atheist but its must be firmly secular in its outlook and operations

If Sharia law is necessary to attract the support of the working class then said class has not yet reached a sufficiant level of revolutionary class conciousness

The Renaissance, while leading to the bourgeoisie's ascent (and that of capitalism), is still a feudal phenomenon, though. :confused: We're comparing feudal ideology with an ideology within the Asiatic mode of production.

Re. your last paragraph: the dictatorship of the proletariat (the real minimum program) is different and separate from the communist mode of production (the real maximum program).

Of course I don't like the idea of wholesale sharia ("good" and "bad"), but Muslim workers as a class can be revolutionary even while appropriating some Asiatic concepts of "justice" (such as re. usury). Contrary to Trotskyist mantra, there is a firm separation between the revolutionary minimum program and the communist maximum program, and the Asiatic appropriations highlight this separation.

[ComradeOm]

The Renaissance, while leading to the bourgeoisie's ascent (and that of capitalism), is still a feudal phenomenon, though. :confused:And the French Revolution, which created the archetypical bourgeois state, was firmly secular