A comparison between Marxism and Islamic State’s Salafi Jihadism
| Author | Hawre Hasan Hama |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2057891119888583 |
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Research articles |
Research article
A comparison between
Marxism and Islamic
State’s Salafi Jihadism
Hawre Hasan Hama
University of Sulaymaniyah Sulaymani, Iraq
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to compare and contrast Orthodox Marxist theory and Islamic State’s
Salafi ideology. The article’s examination of these two schools of thought reveals that they share
some commonalities and many differences. The most obvious similarities include: both doctrines
are pre-determined history, both divide society into different classes or blocs, both are revolu-
tionary in ambition, both reject the notion of international borders and the nation-state model of
world order, both need a minority to start their revolutions, and both do not believe in negotiation
or compromise to reach their goals. However, both thoughts differ in many ways, including: the
motivation for revolution, the status of religion post-revolution, the role of the state in their utopia
communities, and finally the aim of the revolution. Both thoughts are seen historically as violent,
totalitarian political theories. By comparing them, this article seeks to bring out what exactly gives
them this reputation and to assess whether one is more deserving of it than the other.
Keywords
Islamic State, Karl Marx, Marxism, Salafi Jihadi
Introduction
The initial response to any question concerning possible similarities between orthodox Marxism
and Islamic State’s (IS) Salafi Jihadism would mos t likely be an immediate and unequivocal
rejection of any such notion. Studies have more commonly looked for ideological similarities
between Salafism and other Islamist ideologies. For instance, previous studies have compared the
Salafi Jihadist ideology of IS with the ideologies of other Islamist factions such as Al-Qaeda and
similar groups active in the past three decades (Lia, 2015). Other comparative studies have con-
trasted the ideology of IS with other varieties of Islamism, such as that of Ayatollah Khomeini, the
Corresponding author:
Hawre Hasan Hama, University of Sulaymaniyah Sulaymani, Kurdistan Sulaymani 46001, Iraq.
Email: hawre.faraj@univsul.edu.iq
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
2021, Vol. 6(1) 45–61
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2057891119888583
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution (Rafizadeh, 2016). The narrowness of scope exhibited in this
tradition, however, has been ch allenged by Paul Berman in his boo k Terror and Liberalism.
Berman compared radical Islamism
1
with the Western ideologies of Communism and National
Socialism, and acknowledged th at the three ideologies share two main s imilarities: the same
adversary, which is the liberal order; and the shared belief that a group of people, “embodying
the good, is thwarted in its mission of realising the ideal life by a devilish and evil power”. Only
through an apocalyptic fight can evil be defeated (Berman 2001, cited in Hansen and Kainz, 2007).
Additionally, in a recent piece of research, William Sp ach (2018) compares the Nazi regime
and IS. He finds that, under close scrutiny, IS shares a number of striking similarities with the
Nazis. IS and fascist regimes lack any semblance of democracy, instead practicing a strict form of
authoritarianism. Socially, both ideologies opposed outsider groups (religious minorities in the
case of IS and ethnic groups in the case of fascism), and imposed strict conformity. Both romanti-
cized war, masculinity, and heroism as part of their ideologies. Economically, both rejected the
norms of the international financial system. Moreover, in terms of foreign affairs, both challenged
existing boundaries of states and the balance of power which resulted from the First World War
(Spach, 2018).
Scholars have so far paid no attention to the parallels between the ideologies of IS, which has
been at the forefront of the Jihadist movement over the last five years, and Marxism. The intention
of such a counterintuitive study, as well as bridging this gap in the academic literature, is to expose
the parts of the doctrines which share similarities with each other, which will in turn work to widen
our understanding of both ideologies. This article is an attempt at a comparison between a religious
and a secular ideology, with its central question inquiring as to what similarities exist between
Marxist philosophy and IS’s Salafi Jihadist ideology. The article is divided into two parts, the first
identifying the similarities between the ideologies and the second outlining the differences.
Salafism, Salafi Jihadism and waves of Jihadism
The term Salafism is derived from the Arab phrase “al-salaf al-salih” and refers to the pious
forefathers in general and the first three generations of Muslims who lived in the 7th century
specifically. Salafis believe that the norms and values of these first Muslims reflected Islam in a
“pure” way that should be emulated even in the 21st century. Sources about these forerunners of
modern Islam are contained within the Islamic traditions (Sunna) and the behavioral instruction is
the Qur’an, in particular a selection of specific verses which are followed to the letter. This results
in grotesque inferences, such as the justification of the enslave ment and murder of so-called
“infidels” (kuffar) by the terrorist organization IS (De Koning, 2012). According to Bin Ali
Mohamed, Salafism consists of many sub-cultures and orientations: from moderate to extreme,
from quietist to political activist to Jihadist (or violence-oriented).
Although most branches of Salafism are unanimous on issues of aqidah (theology), they are
divided in matters of jurisprudence and politics. For example, Tariq Abdel Haleem outlines eight
groups of modern Salafis. The first consists of establishment Salafis, who are official scholars of
Saudi Arabia appointed by Riyadh to serve as Muftis or Muslim legal experts empowered to give
rulings on religious matters. The second branch is Madkhali, who follow the religious teachings of
Sheikh Rab Al-Madkhali and Sheikh Muhammad Aman Ibn Ali Jami. The third group are Albani
Salafis, who are followers of an Albanian scholar from Syria. These three groups are generally
apolitical, insofar as they largely focus on the purification of the faith and education rather than
explicit political activity.
46 Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 6(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial