Dateline, Moscow, 1917-1930: Did you ever wonder where this otherwise quite intellectually unoriginal and primitive Left ensconced inside every Western country has gotten its ideas about the social policies towards the people of Islam? Nazism sought to exploit Islam for military purposes, having no original intellectual approach to the Question of Islam. Lenin and his Bolsheviks, on the other hand, did have an original approach to Islam which has been adopted by the LEFT in the West. This Muslim journalist Bilal Ahmed (who is a Muslim with an atheist outlook) praises Lenin and Communism for its treatment of Muslims in Soviet Asia – quite ironically (because the LEFT today wishes to distance itself from the Soviet experience). Ahmed’s sympathy for Leninism and the bloody Bolshevik Revolution (which destroyed millions of people, who were not Muslim, of course) reveals to us why the World of Islam was mostly allied with or sympathetic to the Soviet Communism (during the Cold War). Had there been evils done to Muslims of the sort that happened to non-Muslims in Czarist Russia and its successor – the Soviet Union, little Muslims like Ahmed would not be singing the praises of Lenin, naturally. People like him and his Western liberal counterparts possess no intellectual gravitas with which to approach any subject with the objectivity required for a proper analysis, let alone a subject that confirms their inherent bias. Nonetheless, we can learn from Ahmed’s insightful article about the policies of Communism why the LEFT is firmly an ally of the Rise of Islam. Journalist Bilal Ahmed is a perfect example of a secularist Muslim who still lends a helping hand to Islam in spite of his seemingly more enlightened position. This example speaks poorly about the prospects of integration or assimilation of Muslims, even those willing to take a distant look at their own roots while using the crutch of atheist Western social prescriptions. Whether the outdated doctrine of Communism deliberately wished to resurrect global Islamic jihad or not is quite irrelevant – what matters is that this negative political movement that acts like cancer on the West has aided the ideology of Islam on the path of that militant tendency of its followers.
Here are the clear lines of aid and abatement of Muslims and their lifestyle-driven faith’s agenda that the murdering Soviet Communists have produced for them:
As far back as 1909, Lenin was opposed to the emphasis on an attack on religion as part of the initial Marxist programme of revolution (which he was quite wise to do because he recognized the unnecessary complication resulting from religious issues at a time when the LEFT needed all the help it can get to conquer office and steal the seat of power). He thought that it was political suicide to ask deeply religious people to abandon their faith as a condition for joining his revolutionary organization. This was a pragmatic but intellectually dishonest approach, the kind we find today on the LEFT. This later translated into a Soviet policy on all religions, including Islam. The Bolsheviks understood that Islam functioned as a national identity for all countryside Muslims without formal education and that this granted political freedom – which they would owe to the Soviet authorities of the LEFT – was necessary for their right to self-determination AND FOR THEIR LOYALTY TO THE REGIME OF THE LEFT — which means that Lenin supported JIHAD because jihad is the most basic expression of what can only be described as “Muslim right to self-determination” or “self-expression.” This reliance on the concept of “self-determination” also makes Lenin at one with America’s big contemporary Democrat — President Woodrow Wilson — who framed his disastrous post-war European policy prescription on the same catchphrase! Self-determination meant the fragmentation of the roots of the RIGHT and the parceling out of the Western cultural real estate that once spanned the world in a straight line from San Francisco to Vladivostok.
Meanwhile, in the early Soviet Union of Lenin and his immediate successors (1917-1927) as the Christian monuments and Slavic historical traditions were being trampled on the Muslim sacred monuments were being built or restored (by an enforced government policy) in areas where they once stood defeated at the hands of the Christian counter-attack that overthrew the great Moslem dictatorships of the steppes which used to routinely humiliate and enslave the Christian settlements. National autonomy for Muslim regions was declared, monuments to the Moslem religion and its mythic heroes were returned, and Friday was declared the legal day of observance or idleness throughout Central Asia (Friday is to Moslems what Sunday is to Christians and Saturday is to the Jews). And all this, of course, to the sound of murderous shots ringing all around signaling the mass killings of eminent European gentlemen who stood in the way of the victory of the LEFT in Russia. Are we going to witness in America some day a revolution of this sort? After all, we are living in a time of slow-motion regression into Communism. Perhaps, America will run out of gentlemen by the time the LEFT is through.
Lenin’s Bolsheviks even took measures to meet local demands (by Islamic imams of the patriarchal villages in the country) for a SHARIAH court system. As the Russian Civil War drew to a close in 1922, Islamic courts were opened and operated alongside Soviet legal institutions. The Soviet Legal Commissariat came to include a Shariah Commission to supervise the dual system, and a number of smaller commissions were also set up to figure out how to make Shariah work alongside the atheist Soviet codes. Extreme sentences of the hardline old Middle Eastern Semitic system of punishments (like the removal of limbs for theft) were suspended to conform with the progressivist agenda of Lenin’s henchmen – although the harsh Soviet punishments by hanging, by gulag exile and by firing squad were not subject to challenge – although alcohol consumption was for the Shariah courts to rule on. Soviet authorities encouraged the consumption of alcohol to keep the Christian leftovers drugged up and downright stupid. However, the Bolsheviks got the core idea right: Muslims would have the option of a more relevant and culturally acceptable religious legal system, so long as it adapted to the Communist state’s core principles. Islam did because it was pragmatic too. After all, the Bolsheviks were willing to share the hefty spoils of victory over Russian Christianity with Islam, its other deadly enemy. Similar policies of compromise with Islam were made in the public education area under the control of the Soviet LEFT. The core message of grievance against the “oppressive West” of White heterosexual male capitalists continued to be pounded into heads in the school classrooms to serve as a kind of message that Islam would have no problem with. In fact, Islam itself has remained loyal to this basic Soviet message and to this day relentlessly keeps pounding away this sort of message in all its public communique’s – from the most abstract small time Lebanese coffee corner discussions to the most official messages issued by the Taliban, ISIS and the Saudi Arabian legal authority: Muslims are victims (read: “the proletariat of the world” in terms of Lenin) and Christians are killers and enslavers (read: “capitalists” are oppressors of the world). Islam promises Allah’s abode of Paradise and the LEFT promises a stress-free world of corruption of morals for the sake of the masses and free money on the table as eternal payback for a perceived wrong from the past. Both Islam and the LEFT are mass movements, supporting mob tastes. Moreover, Islam, as well as the LEFT (Anglo-Soviet Communism) both rely on the enforcement of rules because they defy nature. “Diversity” and “inclusion” are political directives and not natural ideas. If they were natural they would not require a political enforcement. Everyone wants success but not everyone can be successful. Islam and the LEFT recognize no law greater than themselves. For that reason, they both must resort to murder to keep their fixation alive.
It is very significant to note that even a total state ideology of the Soviet LEFT that hated all faith in God (since no authority can ever be greater than that of the LEFT seeking total power in all domains! – which is another point of unity between Nazism and the Anglo-American LEFT as well as Leninism and Maoism) still sought to make an exception with Islam – which is a paradox that the RIGHT observers notice today in the West. After all, aren’t they rivals at some point? This modern paradox of an atheist doctrine lending an unfair hand to an extreme theist doctrine existed 100 years ago already in the Soviet Union. The reason? The enemy of my enemy has to be my friend. “Apres moi le deluge” – declared a French king. The LEFT today is of the same frame of mind. Hitler was of that opinion, too. They don’t care about what happens to the world outside their realm after they are gone.
Lenin and the Muslims
Most leftists have no idea what to do with Muslims. Should we be empowered as a disenfranchised minority? Should we be forced to adopt “European values”? It’s complicated, but interestingly, the early Soviet Union was remarkably intelligent about this. Just after the Bolshevik revolution, the state used innovative policies to approach the Russian Empire’s brutally oppressed Muslim minorities. Dave Crouch’s The Bolsheviks and Islam is an excellent primer for understanding Moscow’s “Muslim policy” before the rise of Stalin. For all of Lenin’s failings, he appears to have gotten this right.
Rather than acting like Islam needed to be crushed, the Bolsheviks recognized the social and economic realities affecting Muslims, and attempted to tailor socialist policy towards those realities. As far back as 1909, Lenin was opposed to separating any member of the working-class from their religion, calling leftists who called for such an abolition “infant school materialists.” He personally thought that it was political suicide to ask deeply religious people to abandon those beliefs before joining a revolutionary organization such as his own. This later translated into Soviet policy. The Bolsheviks understood that Islam functioned as a national identity for many Soviet Muslims, and that as a result, it was worthy of its right to self-determination.
National autonomy was declared, sacred monuments were returned, and Friday was declared the legal day of rest throughout Central Asia. Amazingly, the Bolsheviks even took measures to meet local demands for a Shariah court system. As the Russian Civil War drew to a close in 1922, Islamic courts were opened, and operated alongside Soviet legal institutions. The Soviet Legal Commissariat came to include a Shariah Commission to supervise the dual system, and a number of smaller commissions were also set up to figure out how to make Shariah work alongside the Soviet codes. The balance was uneasy, owing to historical context. Extreme sentences like the removal of limbs were cut out, and “vices” such as alcohol consumption were a bit of a grey area at times. However, the Bolsheviks got the core idea right: Muslims would have the option of a more relevant and culturally accessible legal system, so long as it adapted to the state’s core principles. Similar policies were implemented when it came to education.
These experiments basically ended with Stalin. Stalinists began vicious campaigns against Islam, targeting “crimes against custom,” and veiling in particular. Forced unveiling began at mass meetings starting in the late 1920s, and Islam was attacked as a barrier to progressive transformation. The Bolsheviks’ earlier policies became a memory. Crouch’s work on this should be read critically, since he clearly wishes to redeem Lenin when it comes to religious freedom. There was still much to be desired, and it is entirely possible that Lenin was simply biding his time until the state was strong enough to move against Islam outright.
The case study is still worth noting, though. Whatever the context, the early Soviet Union approached Islam as a state that was non-religious, not anti-religious. It sought to expand itself to accommodate Muslim citizens, rather than demanding that they swear fealty to European progressiveness and cosmopolitanism. The result was an attempted balance, which can be done today if countries like Britain undertake reforms such as allowing the option of Shariah courts when it comes to civil matters like marriage and small contracts. There is no reason that the liberal rule of law can’t be deepened to include Islamic justice, especially if the mixture is constantly being supervised and evaluated. Similar reforms are possible to allow for cultural studies programs, or even optional alternative schools for students of certain minority groups. Recalling Lenin here may not actually be that far-fetched. It would actually push a society that is more inclusive for everyone, Muslims included.
The prayer-transfixed Muslims ignoring everything for the sake of Allah, even as their patron Lenin looks on at his most faithful supporters.