Marxism and Islamism

Ideological Parallels, Historical Syntheses, and Contemporary Implications

Marxism and Islamism: Ideological Parallels, Historical Syntheses, and Contemporary Implications

Marxism and Islam, at first glance, appear as polar opposites: one a secular, materialist philosophy born in 19th-century Europe, the other a millennia-old monotheistic religion originating in the Arabian Peninsula. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels viewed religion as an “opiate of the masses,” a tool of ideological control that perpetuated class exploitation under capitalism. This is, of course, misleading, as Engels and Marx simply set aside the supernatural in favor of their god, The State. Still, to the untrained eye, how could an atheistic political movement be comparable to a dogmatic religion from half a world away? Despite this inherent antagonism—Marxism’s atheism clashing with Islam’s theocentric worldview—scholars, activists, and revolutionaries have long identified correlations between the two. These connections stem from shared emphases on social justice, anti-imperialism, economic equity, and resistance to oppression. In fact, in regions like the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, hybrid ideologies such as “Islamic Marxism” or “Islamic socialism” have emerged, blending Marxist critiques of capitalism with Islamic ethical principles.

This correlation is not merely theoretical but has manifested in historical movements. For instance, during the 20th century, Marxist ideas influenced anti-colonial struggles in Muslim-majority countries, where Islamic teachings on justice (adl) and community (ummah) resonated with Marxism’s call for proletarian solidarity. Thinkers like Ali Shariati in Iran and Maxime Rodinson in France explored how Marxism could inform understandings of Islamic history, arguing that early Islamic societies exhibited proto-socialist elements, such as wealth redistribution through zakat (obligatory almsgiving).

The appeal of Marxism to some Muslims lies in its analytical tools for critiquing imperialism and inequality, issues that align with Quranic injunctions against tyranny and exploitation. If this sounds familiar, that’s because these are tenets of postmodernism and Neo-Marxism. For their parts, Marx and Engels themselves commented sparingly on Islam, noting its role in resisting European colonialism, as in the Ottoman Empire’s conflicts with Russia. However, in this writing we will draw direct lines that lead not from Marxism to Islam, but from Islam to Marxism. In modern contexts, this correlation has fueled alliances between leftist groups and Islamist movements, particularly in anti-Western campaigns. In practice, tensions persist: Communist regimes in places like the Soviet Union suppressed Islamic practices, viewing them as backward, while some Islamic states persecuted Marxists as atheists. But in theory, the parallels are uncanny.

This article delves into key aspects of this correlation, focusing on the Islamic concepts of mustad’afin (the oppressed) and taghut (oppressors) as parallels to Marxist class struggle, the pro-Palestine movement as a lens for Marxist decolonization theory, and the neo-Marxist perspective on inevitable violence stemming from the unfulfilled promise of proletarian revolution. We will draw clear lines as well between Islam itself and the so-called “Islamists”, fundamentalists who have failed to modernize as all other religions have. In particular, it is Islamism, not simply Islam, that in the modern day exhibits these original viewpoints from Islam that are correlated to Marxism. By examining these elements, we uncover how ideological syntheses have shaped global politics, from the Iranian Revolution to contemporary solidarity movements.

Mustad’afin and Taghut: Islamic Parallels to Marxist Class Struggle

Central to the correlation between Marxism and Islamism are the Quranic concepts of mustad’afin and taghut, which frame social dynamics in terms of oppression and resistance, echoing Marxism’s core tenet of class struggle. Mustad’afin, derived from the Arabic root for “weakness,” refers to the oppressed, marginalized, or disenfranchised—those subjected to injustice, often economically or politically. The Quran portrays them as deserving of divine favor and human solidarity, as in Surah Al-Nisa (4:75), which calls for defending “the oppressed among men, women, and children.” This group includes the poor, slaves, and persecuted believers, embodying humility and reliance on God.

In contrast, taghut denotes oppressors or tyrannical forces that transgress divine limits, including idols, corrupt rulers, or exploitative systems. Rooted in the idea of rebellion against God, taghut is exemplified by figures like Pharaoh, symbolizing arrogant power that exploits the weak. The Quran urges rejection of taghut (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256), linking it to tawhid (monotheism), as submission to false authorities undermines faith.

Similarly, the mustad’afin-taghut dynamic implies a moral imperative for resistance, with Islamism mandating justice through mechanisms like zakat and jihad (struggle against injustice). Ali Shariati, a pivotal figure in Islamic socialism, explicitly drew this parallel during the lead-up to Iran’s 1979 Revolution. He reinterpreted mustad’afin as a revolutionary class, akin to the proletariat, fighting taghut—embodied by the Shah’s regime and Western imperialism. Shariati argued that Islamism’s ethical framework complemented Marxism’s material analysis, transforming spiritual resistance into socio-political action.

This synthesis was not unique to Iran. In Pakistan, mystical traditions intertwined with Marxism, where Sufi notions of communal equality paralleled socialist ideals, framing rural peasants as mustad’afin against feudal taghut. In Central Asia under Soviet influence, Muslim communists adapted these concepts to justify collectivization, viewing colonial powers as taghut and local masses as mustad’afin. Even in Indonesia, thinkers like Murtadha Mutahhari critiqued Marxism while borrowing its dialectical tools to analyze Islamic history, seeing contradictions between oppressors and oppressed as drivers of progress. In deed, they were natural allies.

However, the parallel is not apparently seamless. Marxism’s materialism reduces oppression to economic relations, predicting resolution through classless communism. Islamism’s framework is theistic: oppression is a sin against God’s order, and liberation involves spiritual as well as material dimensions. But this ignores the fact that, to the Marxist, the Revolution is their metaphysical cause. It is something that exists in the ether, not just the social battlefield, and the State is their god. Seeing Marxism as anything but a religion in 2025 is more than I can personally manage.

And despite these differences, the mustad’afin-taghut lens has empowered hybrid movements. In the Iranian Revolution, it mobilized masses against perceived imperial taghut, blending Marxist rhetoric with Islamic revivalism. This correlation underscores how Islamism’s social teachings can be radicalized through Marxist interpretations, fostering alliances in anti-oppression struggles worldwide.

These terms create a binary opposition akin to Marxism’s proletariat (exploited workers) versus bourgeoisie (capitalist owners). In Marxism, class struggle arises from economic contradictions under capitalism, leading to inevitable revolution. This is unique to Islamism, as it pertains to religion. Certainly, Judaism is the story of a people with a complicated relationship with their god. But there is no admonition for Jews to establish a global temple. Judaism’s oppressor-oppressed dynamic is less about a cosmic battle between good and evil and more about covenantal fidelity amidst adversity. The focus is on enduring oppression through adherence to the Torah and trust in God’s ultimate justice. Unlike Marxism’s binary class struggle, Judaism’s motif is often less about overthrowing oppressors and more about survival, moral integrity, and eventual divine redemption (e.g., messianic hopes).

The Pro-Palestine Movement as a Marxist Decolonization Issue

The pro-Palestine movement is gaining traction globally, uniting Marxist and Islamic ideologies under the banner of decolonization. Both frameworks view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a stark example of settler-colonialism, with Israel, backed by Western powers, displacing indigenous Palestinians in a manner reminiscent of historical colonial projects like French Algeria or apartheid South Africa. This convergence, rooted in shared narratives of resisting oppression, positions Palestine as a focal point in the broader fight against imperialism, blending Marxist critiques of capitalism with Islamic calls for justice.

Marxists argue that Zionism is not an anomaly but a manifestation of capitalist imperialism, extracting resources and labor while perpetuating divisions among workers along ethnic lines. This analysis draws on Karl Marx’s own writings on nationalism in colonial contexts—for instance, his support for Irish independence as a means to undermine British capitalism. Joseph Daher’s seminal work, Palestine and Marxism, illustrates how early communists in Palestine sought to foster Arab-Jewish unity against the British mandate and Zionist settlement, navigating the complex interplay of class and national struggles.

Decolonization, as a concept, is central to this discourse. Marxist-influenced thinkers like Frantz Fanon argued that colonial oppression dehumanizes, and resistance—sometimes violent—serves as a necessary response to reclaim agency. In the Palestinian context, this is evident in the alliances between Marxist-Leninist groups, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and Islamist organizations like Hamas. Despite ideological divergences, these groups unite against Israeli occupation, viewing it as a shared enemy. For Marxists, true liberation transcends mere statehood; it necessitates dismantling the capitalist structures—such as U.S. military aid and the global arms trade—that sustain Zionism.

Islamic narratives complement this framework. The Quran’s injunctions against oppression (zulm) and its calls for justice resonate deeply with Marxist anti-imperialism. Within Islamic discourse, Palestinian resistance is frequently framed as jihad against taghut—a term denoting tyrannical systems, here applied to the Israeli state and its allies. This theological framing aligns with Marxist calls for proletarian revolution, creating a synergy between the two. The global pro-Palestine movement, exemplified by initiatives like the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign, draws inspiration from anti-apartheid strategies, blending Islamic solidarity with Marxist internationalism to challenge global capitalist hegemony.

Historically, the Palestine Communist Party (PCP) in the 1920s and 1930s grappled with the challenges of Zionist immigration, initially opposing it as a colonial project but later fracturing over Arab-Jewish tensions. These early struggles foreshadow contemporary debates within Marxist circles, where some left-communists critique bourgeois nationalism and advocate for binational socialist solutions to transcend ethnic divisions. Today, the ongoing crisis in Gaza has galvanized global protests, with Marxists viewing the conflict as a stark exposure of capitalism’s contradictions, linking Palestine to broader decolonization struggles in regions such as Kashmir and Western Sahara.

Beyond the direct, historical proofs, there is no greater evidence that the pro-Palestine movement is wrapped in Marxism than its odd alliance with the Western “queer” movement. The queer movement in the US and the pro-Palestine movement have become conjoined through an intersectional framework of solidarity against imperialism and colonialism, where LGBTQ+ activists view the Palestinian struggle as intertwined with broader fights for liberation, arguing that true queer freedom cannot exist under systems of occupation and apartheid. Despite stark differences—such as the harsh realities of persecution faced by so-called “queer” individuals in many Palestinian territories under groups like Hamas—this alliance persists because activists prioritize resisting Israel’s “pinkwashing,” a strategy that promotes its LGBTQ+-friendly image to obscure human rights abuses against Palestinians, thereby framing support for Palestine as a rejection of colonial tactics rather than an endorsement of local social conservatism. This convergence is rooted in leftist ideologies that emphasize collective liberation, with “queer” organizers drawing parallels between historical oppressions like racism, heteronormativity, and settler-colonialism, believing that dismantling Israeli occupation will pave the way for inclusive reforms in Palestinian society, much as anti-apartheid struggles in South Africa eventually advanced LGBTQ+ rights.

The pro-Palestine movement illustrates a profound correlation between Marxism and Islamism, united by a shared commitment to resisting imperialist oppression. Marxism provides an analytical framework, dissecting the material conditions of occupation, while Islamic principles offer a moral and spiritual imperative to confront injustice. Together, they position Palestine as a critical battleground in the global struggle against imperialism, a cause that resonates across ideological and cultural boundaries.

This convergence, however, is more accurately a symptom of Islamism—a political ideology seeking to implement Islamic principles through radical anti-Western activism—rather than Islam as a whole. Mainstream Muslim-majority states like Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, which prioritize capitalist economies and geopolitical stability, do not align with Marxist anti-imperialism and have historically distanced themselves from radical Palestinian factions. For instance, Jordan expelled the PLO in 1971 after the Black September conflict, fearing destabilization, while the UAE and Bahrain, through the Abraham Accords, normalized relations with Israel, limiting Palestinian integration to avoid Islamist unrest. Saudi Arabia, while offering rhetorical support for Palestinians, has restricted their citizenship and expelled some to safeguard regime security. These actions highlight that the Red-Green Alliance, blending Marxist and Islamist narratives, thrives in radical circles rather than in the broader Islamic world, where pragmatic governance often supersedes ideological solidarity with Palestine’s Marxist-influenced resistance.

Neo-Marxists and the Inevitability of Violence: Responding to the Absent Revolution

Finally, the correlation between Marxism and Islamism firmly intersects with neo-Marxist strategies, particularly regarding violence as an inevitable response to the unfulfilled proletarian revolution predicted by Marx. Marx envisioned capitalism’s internal contradictions leading to spontaneous worker uprisings, culminating in communism. However, in advanced capitalist societies, this “inevitable” revolution never materialized, prompting neo-Marxists—thinkers like Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, and the Frankfurt School—to shift focus from economic determinism to cultural hegemony.

Upset by the absence of mass revolt, neo-Marxists argued that capitalism stabilizes through ideological control, co-opting workers via consumerism and the media. To counter this, they advocated “long marches through institutions,” infiltrating education, culture, and politics to erode bourgeois norms. Some might call that guerrilla warfare. Inevitably, most Neo-Marxist strands emphasize violence as necessary when peaceful change fails, viewing it as a dialectical tool to accelerate contradictions.

In Islamic contexts, this resonates with jihad against taghut, where violence is framed as defensive or liberatory. Anything done in defense of the faith is justified, regardless of its evil nature, including denying the faith to infiltrate the “enemy.” Neo-Marxist influences in movements like Iran’s Revolution or Palestinian resistance portray violence as inevitable against entrenched oppression, adapting Marx’s predictions to cultural and colonial struggles. To the Neo-Marxist, this legitimizes coercion, as seen in cultural Marxism’s alleged promotion of identity-based conflicts. The oppressor is literally trying to kill you. It’s one emotional blackmail after another. The Republicans are destroying the planet. The right is a threat to democracy. Would you rather have a trans kid or a dead kid? Nonsense, all nonsense, and it is the operating position of the pro-Palestine movement as well.

Many times over, peaceful solutions were available, most recently when Hamas took control of Gazan government in 2006. Israel withdrew its forces, even kicked Israeli settlers and farmers out of their spaces, and the international community funded Gaza via Hamas so they could build their own country. Instead, they built war tunnels and bought weapons. In Marxism, the issue is never the issue. The issue is ALWAYS the revolution.

In sum, while Marxism and Islamism correlate in justice-oriented frameworks, while the neo-Marxist and Islamist turn to inevitable violence reflects frustration over delayed revolution, influencing hybrid resistance strategies in oppressed regions.

The correlation between Marxism and Islamism reveals profound overlaps in combating perceived injustice, from mustad’afin-taghut parallels to decolonization in Palestine, culminating in neo-Marxist views on violence as a strategic necessity. It is no shock to the informed that this new Islamic movement has wrapped itself in Neo-Marxism because Islamism’s views regarding oppressor and oppressed align directly with Marxism, and its tendency towards violent overthrow of the West (taghut) is mirrored in the Neo-Marxist frustration with its ideologies own failures.

So if you’re wondering about the odd bedfellows such as “queers for Palestine”, wonder no longer. This isn’t just a coordinated effort, it’s a match made in hell, obvious to anyone who’s bothered to look at the two ideologies side-by-side. And, as such, they should be rejected by any reasonable, sensible people, certainly those who believe in freedom - of speech, of religion, of discourse - and other foundational Western human rights.

---