Thursday's Read: Myth and Reality in the Contemporary Islamist Movement

Zakaria, Fouad. Myth and Reality in the Contemporary Islamist Movement. Pluto Press (April 20, 2005, reprint of 1978 edition)


Marxists in the Arab world were not universally opposed to Islam. Hasan Hanafi, for example, is well-known for his work as formulator and advocate of the idea of an “Islamic left,” combining the richness of Islamic tradition with socialist, egalitarian principles. Hanafi, combined Western phenomenological thought with Islamic jurisprudential and traditional training, garnering strident criticism because of his advocacy of a rereading of Islamic tradition according to leftist principles. Indeed, his critics, including prolific Egyptian philosopher and ardent secularist Fouad Zakariyya (1927-2010), accuse him of haphazardly rereading Islamic history and tradition in order to further his own ends in an intellectually irresponsible manner.[1] Zakariyya, in his Myth and Reality in the Contemporary Islamist Movement (original edition 1982), devotes nearly a third of his three-part volume -the entirety of part two - to a sustained criticism of Hanafi’s thought.

Myth was written in the aftermath of Anwar Sadat’s assassination and is a probing, self-critical reflection on Islamism in Arab society. Zakariyya argues that religion is a vital part of the Arab public sphere, accorded social sanction. Yet, despite its many virtues, religion has been exploited by both Arab states and Islamist groups to further their own interests, whether political or economic. This is in part because, post colonization, no nationalist ideology or program has been able to successfully overcome the problems of “economic dependence and political stagnation”[2]; democracy has not flourished, and, Zakariyya argues, in order to succeed, democracy must be an indigenous rather than imported movement. In the absence of a strong and successful national or political ideology, religion has gained strength through its ability to offer solace and hope. Yet the state and Islamism are not allies, particularly because of the authoritarianism of Arab regimes; ironically, it is precisely this state repression and dysfunction that leads people to look to religion for another solution to societal ills. Although Islamist movements each have their own ideologies, they are united in a call for the implementation of Shariah through an ideal state that combines religion and politics; this is universally agreed by Islamists to be the true Islam. This is impracticable, Zakariyya emphasizes; the entirety of Shariah law would need to undergo a thorough rational critique before anyone could hope to implement it on the state level. Finally, Zakariyya compares these contemporary Islamist goals with the far more practical and workable Islamic reform advocated by al-Afghani and Muhammad ‘Abduh, emphasizing the gulf between them; in this sense, Zakariyya’s critique of Islamism is also a critique of what he perceives to be its anti-intellectualism. He moreover cautions that religion should be depoliticized in contemporary Arab societies or it will be exploited.

Though Zakariyya is a proponent of the ethical foundations of Islam, he is persuaded that religion must be separated from politics. It is for this reason that he engages Hanafi’s “leftist Islam” at such length, and that he speaks so scathingly of what he dubs the retrograde “Petro-Islam” of Saudi and the Gulf States.

[1] See Zakariyya. Myth and Reality in the Contemporary Islamist Movement. (Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2005). Zakariyya devotes the second part of the book to a critique of Hanafi’s work, starting on page 63.
[2] See viii-ix.