however, the rivalry between them may reach such a point that they can
no longer overcome it and settle matters except through military confrontation.
The consequences of such a confrontation will descend upon the peoples,
just as has occurred in previous imperialist wars.
The most recent result of this rivalry is the military aggression of the Soviet social-imperialists against Afghanistan, the occupation of that country through armed force by one of the imperialist superpowers. The fact is that what is now being done openly by the Soviets through their armed forces against the sovereignty of the Afghan people had long been prepared by the Soviet social-imperialist chauvinist politicians and military leaders and their Afghan agents. In order to arrive at the present situation, both the former and the latter exploited the overthrow, first of King Mohammed Zahir Shah in 1973 and, later, of Prince Daoud in 1978. They also exploited for their evil aims the desire of the Afghan people for social liberation from the oppression they suffered under the absolute monarchy and its f oreign friends, first of all, the Soviets, who financed the monarchy and kept it in power. So, irrespective of the -"alliance". which they had with the king of Afghanistan, the Soviet socialimperialists worked and acted for his overthrow. In order to disguise their imperialist aims, at first they brought their men, allegedly with more progressive sentiments, to power. Later, these, too, were changed one after the other, through
actions in which blood was shed, by means of putsches and tanks, and
Noor Mohammed Taraki and HafizUllah Amin were sent to the slaughter.
Nevertheless, no foreign occupier, however powerful and heavily armed, can keep the people, against whom aggression has been committed, subdued for ever. In every country which is invaded the people, apart from anti-national and anti-popular cliques of agents, receive the foreign aggressors with hatred and resistance, sporadic at first and later with more organized revolts which gradually turn into popular uprisings and liberation wars. We are seeing the proof of this in Afghanistan, where the people have risen and are fighting fiercely in the cities, villages and mountains against the Soviet army of occupation. This war of the Afghan people enjoys the support and sympathy of freedomloving peoples and revolutionary forces throughout the world. Our people, too, support it with all their might. The war of the Afghan people against the Soviet social-imperialists is a just war, and therefore it will triumph.
The current war of the Afghan people against the Soviet military aggression and the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist, anti-American uprising of the Iranian people must make us reflect somewhat more profoundly, from the political, theoretical and ideological aspects, about another major problem which, in the existing situation of complicated developments in the world, is
We Marxist-Leninists always understand clearly that
religion is opium for the people. In
no instance do we alter our view on this and we must not fall into the errors of "religious socialism", etc. The Moslem religion is no different in this regard. Nevertheless, we see that at present the broad masses of the Moslem peoples in the Arab and other countries have risen or are rising in struggle against imperialism and neo-colonialism for their national and social liberation. These peoples, who were deliberately left in ignorance in the past and remain backward in their world outlook to this day, are now becoming aware of the great oppression and savage exploitation
which were imposed on them by the old colonizers and which the new colonizers
and the internal feudal-bourgeois capitalist cliques continue to impose
on them. They are coming to understand the political-economic reasons for
their oppression and, irrespective that they are Moslems and have been
left in backwardness, they are displaying great vitality and making an
important contribution to the anti-imperialist bourgeois-democratic revolution
which opens the way to the proletarian revolution. Those who have adopted
and exploited the Moslem religion to exert social oppression over these
peoples and to exploit them in the most ferocious ways are the anti-popular
oppressive regimes and the reactionary clergy. They have protected and
continue to protect their blood-thirsty power through the weapons and support
which they have received from abroad, that is, from the imperialist powers,
the neo-colonialist robbers, as well as through inciting and developing
religious fanaticism. Thus, the development of events is more and more
confirming the Marxist-Leninist thesis that the internal enemies collaborate
closely with the external enemies to suppress their own peoples and that
they use religion as a weapon to oppress the peoples and keep them in darkness.
The events taking place before our eyes show that the Moslem Arab peoples are fighters. Their anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist and anti-feudal struggles and uprisings are accompanied with
In Algeria the people waged the national liberation
war against the French colonialists and, although it was not led by a Marxist-Leninist
party but by the national bourgeoisie, the war for national liberation
ended with the withdrawal of the foreign occupiers, but it was carried
In Tunisia the people seem to be asleep and very apathetic, are showing little sign of awakening, but they are not all that backward. Recently there was talk about a trade-union movement there and the general secretary of the trade-unions was arrested, but nothing more happened.
In 1952 there was a revolt in Egypt, too. The monarchy was overthrown without bloodshed. King Farouk was expelled from Egypt by a group of officers. Those who removed him from the throne accompanied him to Alexandria, gave him money, put him on board a ship and helped him to get away and save his neck. In other words, they told the monarch he had better leave of his own accord and save his skin, because he could no longer stay in the country, he no longer had any basis there. Thus, the group of officers, headed by Nasser, Naguib and Sadat, carried out what you might call a bloodless military coup against an utterly degenerate monarchy and seized power. What was this group of Egyptian officers that carried out the putsch and what did they represent? These officers were of the bourgeoisie, its representatives, they were
to present Libya as a "progressive", country and even called it "socialist",
but in reality the great oil wealth of the country is being exploited for
very dubious adventurous and sinister aims. Of course, for purposes of
demagogy and because the income from the sale of oil is truly colossal,
some changes have been made in the life of the people in the cities, while
the poverty-stricken nomads of the desert remain a grave social problem.
As we know, Qaddafi was a disciple of Nasser's in politics, ideology and
religious belief, as well as in his aims.
A somewhat more advanced and more revolutionary uprising against the monarchy took place in Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, in 1958. It ended with the killing of King Faisal and his prime minister, Nuri Said. The "communists" took power there together with General Kassem, a representative of the liberal officers. Only five years later, however, in 1963, there was a coup d'etat and Kassem was executed. He was replaced by another officer, Colonel Aref. In 1968 General Al-Bakr came to the head of the state and the "Baath" Party, a party of the reactionary feudal and compradore bourgeoisie, returned to power.
The events which are occurring in Iran and Afghanistan are a positive example for the peoples of neighbouring states, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Emirates of the Persian Gulf, Syria, Egypt and many others, but they also constitute a great danger to the ruling cliques
imperialists and social-imperialists are trying to present themselves
as supporters of these movements and win them over for their own aims.
At present, however, these movements are in their disfavour, are against
them. So true is this that the Soviet social-imperialists were obliged
to send their tank regiments and tens of thousands of Soviet soldiers into
Afghanistan, in other words, to commit an open fascist aggression against
an independent country, in order to place and keep in power their local
puppets who were incapable of retaining power without the aid of the bayonets
and tanks of the Soviet army, the armed forces of the Soviet Union.
Obviously, this event, this Soviet armed occupation of Afghanistan, was bound to have repercussions and cause concern in international public opinion, to arouse great anger and indignation among the freedom-loving peoples and progressive forces and, from the strategic standpoint, to provoke the anger of their rivals for hegemony, especially of the United States of America. In fact we see that these days the American president, Carter, seems to want to make a move, apparently to create difficulties for the Soviet Union and to strengthen his own positions which are growing steadily weaker, wants to take measures to prevent a possible Soviet invasion of Pakistan, or rather, to stop the Soviet social-imperialists from exploiting the anti-imperialist revolutionary sentiments of the Moslem people of Pakistan for their own ends.
The Pakistani people nurture sympathy for the anti-imperialist
movement of their Iranian neighbours, and what is occurring in Iran could
occur there, too. Precisely to forestall this eventuality, the United States
of America, through President Carter, has proposed to the Pakistani government
to dispatch 50,000 soldiers to Pakistan and to increase the supplies of
arms, allegedly to cope with the Soviet danger. The United States of America
sent its Secretary of Defence to China to concretize and activate the Sino-American
alliance. During this visit both sides expressed their concern over the
extension of the Soviet social-imperialist expansion in this region and,
in connection with this, their determination to defend their own and each
other's imperialist interests. The United States of America promised China
the most sophisticated modern armaments.
Is there really a Soviet threat to Pakistan? Yes, there is. However, in Pakistan the anger against Zia-ul-Haq, accompanied by sympathy for Khomeini, might erupt even without the intervention of the Soviets. In order to escape the Soviet pressure and the uprising of the Pakistani people, Zia-ul-Haq himself might link up with the Soviets and thus enable them to justify their intervention in Pakistan. That is why the United States of America is revising its military agreements with Pakistan.
For his part, Carter is trying to preserve the balance, because an intervention of the Soviet Union in Pakistan constitutes a threat to American
imperialism in that region of the world.Carter must have influence in
Pakistan, also, because that country has a "defence treaty" with the United
States of America. Apart from this, in the new situation which has been
created in these times in Central Asia, Carter also sees other dangers,
such as the return to power of Indira Gandhi who is pursuing her pro-Soviet
policy. If the Soviets are able to strengthen their position in India,
which is in conflict with Pakistan, the latter country might be more vulnerable
from the Soviet side, in other words, the penetration of Soviet influence
there would be made easier and would increase. That is why the American
imperialists want to forestall the eventuality of a military intervention
or the build-up, of the Soviet influence in Pakistan. On the other hand,
the United States of America is very concerned about the possibility of
Soviet pressure on Iran under the pretext of aid against the threats made
to that country by American imperialism.
It is clear that the peoples of this region are Moslems and when we say this we have in mind the fact that the majority of them are believers, but their belief is relative and does not predominate over politics. There are also progressive people there who believe in and respect the Koran and religion more as a custom and tradition. When we speak about the overwhelming majority, we have in mind that part of the people to whom the Moslem religion has been presented as
that at first sight they have a religious character or that believers
or non-believers take part in
them, because they are fighting against foreign imperialism and neo-colonialism or the local monarchies and oppressive feudalism. History gives us many positive examples in this direction when broad revolutionary movements of the popular masses have had a religious character outwardly. Among them. we can list the Babist movements in Iran 1848-1851; the Wahabi movement in India which preceded the great popular uprising against the British colonizers in the years 1857-1859; the peasant movements at the time of the Reformation in the 16th century which swept most of the countries of Europe and especially Germany. The Reformation itself, although dressed in a religious cloak, represented a broad socio-political movement against the feudal system and the Catholic Church which defended that system.
When the vital interests, the freedom and independence of a people are violated, they rise in struggle against any aggressor, even though that aggressor may be of the same religion. This is what occurred, for example, in North Yemen in 1962 when Nasser sent the Egyptian army allegedly to aid that country. Later he was compelled to remove the troops he had sent to Yemen, because a stern conflict began between the people of that country and the Egyptian army, irrespective that both sides professed the one religion.
fighting heroically for their national and social liberation against
imperialism of every hue.
Before Liberation there were people who professed the Moslem religion in Albania, but there was no fanaticism. In the Arab or Moslem countries of Central Asia, too, the classical fanaticism of the past cannot exist, especially today. Such fanaticism can exist neither among the Moslems nor among the Catholics, the Calvinists and other schisms of Christianity. We must not forget the epoch in which we are living. We cannot fail to bear in mind the great development ot science today, the growth and strengthening of the revolutionary proletariat and the spread of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Today the reactionary religious leaders, lackeys of the feudal order and oppressive monarchies linked with them, who want to keep the people in ignorance and bondage and to combat their liberation movements, incite fanaticism in its classical sense in those countries.
In regard to Khomeini, he is a religious leader, a dedicated believer and an idealist philosopher. He may even be a fanatic, but we see that, at the same time, he is in accord and united with the revolutionary spirit of the Iranian people. Khomeini has taken the side of the opponents of the monarchy. The imperialist bourgeoisie, the supporters of the Pahlavi monarchy and other reactionary f orces in the world say that he wants to become a monarch himself. Let them say this, but the fact is that the anti-imperialist,
different political currents in that movement. We know from experience
that in our country, too, the working class was not developed, nevertheless,
since the objective and subjective factors existed in the conditions of
the occupation and the National Liberation War, the Party led the people
to victory by basing itself on Marxism-Leninism, which means it put the
working class and its vanguard, in other words itself, in the leadership.
This is not the case in Iran. In that country there is a Marxist-Leninist
party, the Workers and Peasants' Communist Party of Iran, a young party
which, has just been formed, but it is still small, untempered, not linked
with the working class and the masses, etc., while the revisionist "Tudeh"
Party has existed legally and illegally, is now legal again, but is a tool
of the Soviet Union. Hiding behind Marxist-Leninist slogans, this party
is sabotaging the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the Iranian
people and trying to bring Iran into the sphere of influence and under
the thraldom of the Soviet Union. That is why the Moslem people of Iran,
who have risen in revolution, are not acquainted with Marxism-Leninism
either as a theory or a revolutionary practice. The students who are studying
at Iran's Moslem universities with great traditions and of the Shia Moslem
sect, are both believers and non-believers in religion. In regard to the
secular progressive elements there are those who believe in and are fighting
for a liberal bourgeois-democratic
state, those who believe in a "progressive" capitalist but anti-communist
society, and those who still think that the Soviet Union is a socialist
country which represents and applies Leninism. This is one of the reasons
that genuine Marxism-Leninism has still not won acceptance in Iran, therefore
the people there are fighting for liberation from the yoke of American
imperialism and from Soviet influence, but under the banner of Islam. This
means that the Shia Moslem clergy are in the leadership, in the vanguard
of the uprising, but we have no illusions and know that they are for a
bourgeois capitalist regime with religious predominance, hence, a theocratic
regime. As to what course the movement against American imperialism and
the barbarous compradore monarchy of the Pahlavis will take in the future,
this depends mainly on the seething internal forces.
What general definition can be made of these forces?
In the present world situation and at the existing stage of the movement of the peoples for their national and social liberation, the popular revolution in Iran represents a new stage. Regardless of what others do or say, we must document this stage more carefully and make a critical Marxist-Leninist analysis of it.
Iran is a country very rich in oil, hence, has a working class comprised of oil workers and other industrial workers, but also has artisans. Of Iran's 33 million inhabitants about 17 million
are in the countryside and work the land. They are poverty-stricken,
oppressed and exploited to the limit by the mullahs, the religious institutions,
the big-landed bourgeoisie in the service of the Pahlavis, by the wealthy
mercantile and money-lending bourgeoisie linked with the monarchy. Of the
total population of Iran 99 per cent are of the Moslem religion and the
majority of the Shia sect.
The Pahlavi regime was one of the most barbarous, the most bloodthirsty, the most exploiting, the most corrupt of the modern world. It employed bloodshed and terror to suppress any progressive movement, any even mildly liberal demonstration, any protest or strike of workers or students, and any attempt to develop a small-scale, auxiliary subsistance economy. The savage dictatorship of the Pahlavis was based on the big feudal landowners, the wealthy property-owners that the regime created, the reactionary army and the officer caste which ran it, and on SAVAK, the secret police, which the Shah himself described as "a state within a state".. The Pahlavis ruled by means of terror, robbed the people, enriched themselves in scandalous ways, were the personification of moral and political degeneration, were partners with and sold out to British and American and other imperialisms. The Pahlavis had become the most heavily armed gendarmes of the Persian Gulf under the orders of the CIA.
Iran was oppressed, but the people were
seething with revolt, although wholesale executions were carried out
every day. The ayatollahs who were discontented with the regime began to
move. In 1951, Mossadeq, a representative of the bourgeoisie, supported
by the mullahs opposed to the Shah, and by the "Tudeh" Party, seized power.
In 1953 the Shah was driven out, but his overthrow and departure were not
final, because the CIA organized a putsch, overthrew Mossadeq, brought
the Shah back to Iran and restored him to the throne. Thus, Iran became
the property of the Americans and the Shah and its oil became their powerful
It is characteristic of the revolt of the Iranian people that, despite the great terror, it was not quelled, but continued spasmodically, in different forms and in different intensities. This revolutionary process steadily built up in quality and overcame the stage of fear of suppression.
Despite the great terror, in 1977 the opposition to the Shah began to be displayed more forcibly, became more open and active. If we follow these trends opposed to the Shah and his regime separately we shall see that they are to some extent autonomous, but have a common strategy. Thus, we see the opposition of Mossadeq's supporters, the resistance of the religious forces, the actions and demonstrations of the students., the stands of intellectuals, officials, writers, poets and artists against the regime expressed at rallies, in the universities and in other public places, etc., and together with all
these currents we also see the self-defence and resistance of the working
class and the whole oppressed and exploited people. SAVAK attacked mercilessly,
but the suppression and execution& only added to the anger of the masses.
This resistance turned into a permanent activity.
In the same period we see the re-awakening of the political opposition of Mossadeq's supporters in the National Front. One of the elements of this current was Shapour Bakhtiar, who became prime minister on the eve of the overthrow of Shah Pahlavi. This was the last shot of the Shah and the American imperialists against the Iranian anti-imperialist revolution and Khomeini.
In the course of the development of this political opposition, the "Movement for the Liberation of Iran", the "Iran Party", and the "Socialist League of the National Movement of Iran", broke away. The "Movement for the Liberation of Iran", which was headed by Bazargan, who became prime minister after the departure of the Shah, was closer to Khomeini and the other imams.
We must always bear in mind that neither this political opposition, nor the religious opposition to the Pahlavis was united. Some of those who comprised this opposition were against the so-called agrarian reform, against the right of women to vote, etc. This section, which comprised conservative clergy, was steadily losing its influence amongst the masses, who were
unity of the uprising against American imperialism and the Shah and,
to some extent, also against Soviet social-imperialism, and, at the same
time, we also see increased vigilance and opposition towards all other
capitalist states, though not so open and active as against the Americans.
This situation will certainly undergo evolution. We see that the universities
in Iran have become centres of fiery manifestations with both political
and religious tendencies, and likewise see that the religious opposition
and the political opposition are uniting. Thus, despite the contradictions
which exist between them, it seems that the supporters of Mossadeq and
those of Khomeini are moving closer together. In Tabriz, which has an important
working class, apart from the oil workers, we can say that this unity has
been brought about. Similar things are taking place at Abadan and the other
regions where there are oil-fields and refineries.
The Iranian Marxist-Leninists must, in particular, submit the strength and orientations of the working class to a Marxist-Leninist analysis and then their party must base its activity on this analysis, go among the working class, educate it and clarify it politically and ideologically, while tempering itself together with the working class in this revolutionary class struggle which, far from being ended, has only begun and will certainly assume diverse aspects. The revolutionary activity of the working class and the Marxist-Leninist ideology alone must become the
revolution. The Iranian Marxist-Leninists and working class must play
a major role in those revolutionary movements, having a clear understanding
of the moments they are going through; they must not let the revolution
die down. The working class and its true Marxist-Leninist vanguard should
have no illusions about the "deep-going" bourgeois-democratic measures
and reforms which the Shia clergy or the anti-Shah elements of the old
and new national bourgeoisie might carry out. Certainly, if the working
class, the poor peasantry and the progressive students, whether believers
or non-believers, allow the impetus of the revolution to ebb away, which
means that they do not proceed with determination and maturity towards
alliances and activities conducive to successive political and socio-economic
reforms, then the revolution will stop halfway, the masses will be disillusioned
and the exploitation of them will continue in other forms by pseudo-democratic
people linked in new alliances with the different imperialists.
These special new revolutionary situations which are developing among the peoples of Islamic religious beliefs must be studied, conclusions must be drawn from them and new forms of struggle, action and alliances must be found. These revolutionary situations are much more advanced than those in Europe and Asia and, to some degree, even Latin America, where the revolutionary movements have assumed a petrified form, linked with and led by reformist and
counter-revolutionary social-democracy and modern revisionism.
For instance, we do not see such revolts of a marked revolutionary political spirit occur in Europe where there is a big and powerful proletariat. For what reasons? For all those reasons which are known and have to do with the grave counter-revolutionary influence and sabotage of social-democracy and modern revisionism. The question is not that there is no exploitation an our continent, and therefore there are no movements. No, here, too, there is exploitation and there are movements, but they are of another nature. They are not "very deep-going, Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movements", which are waiting "for the situation to ripen", etc., as the social-democrats, revisionists and other lackeys of the capitalist bourgeoisie describe them. No, the capitalist bourgeoisie itself and its lackeys do not permit such situations to ripen, do not permit such occurrences as are going on at present in the Arab-Moslem countries, where the revolutionary masses rise in struggle and create difficult situations for imperialism, feudalism and the cosmopolitan capitalist bourgeoisie.
Some claim that the Arab peoples and the peoples of the other Moslem countries are moving, because they are "poor"! Indeed, they are poor. But those who say this must admit that they themselves have become bourgeois and that is why they do not rise against oppression and exploitation, while the truth is that capitalism
barbarously oppresses and exploits the people everywhere, without exception.
It is claimed, also, that in the countries of Islamic religion, the "masses are backward", therefore, they are easily set in motion. This means that those who support this reasoning have degenerated and are not for revolution, because at a time when capitalism is in decay, honest people must be revolutionary and rise in struggle against capitalism, aiming the weapons they possess against it. Here, in Europe, however, we do not see such a thing. On the contrary, we see the "theory" of adaptation to the existing situation being preached.
Political debates are organized all over the capitalist countries. It has become fashionable for the social-democrats, the Christian-democrats, the revisionists and all sorts of other people in these countries to talk about "revolution" and allegedly revolutionary actions, and each of them tries in his own way to confuse and mislead the working masses with these slogans. The "leftists" scream for "revolutionary measures", but immediately set the limits, "explaining" that "revolutionary measures must not be undertaken everywhere and in all fields", but that only "certain changes must be made", that is, a few crumbs must be thrown to the masses, who are demanding radical revolutionary changes, in order to, deceive them and to hinder and sabotage the revolutionary drive of the masses.
We must analyse these situations and phenomena
in theoretical articles or in other forms and with other means of our
propaganda on the Marxist-Leninist course, with the aim of explaining the
essence of the revolt and uprisings of peoples against imperialism, neo-colonialism
and local rulers, of explaining the question of the survival of old religious
traditions, etc. This does not rule out our support for liberation movements,
because such movements occurred even before the time of Marx, as mentioned
above. To wait until religion is first eliminated and carry out the revolution
only after this, is not in favour of the revolution or the peoples.
In the situation today, the people who have risen in revolt and believe in religion are no longer at the stage of consciousness of Spartacus, who rose against the Roman Empire, against the slave-owners, but they are seething with revolt against the barbarous oppression and exploitation and policy of imperialism and social-imperialism. The slaves' revolt led by Spartacus, as Marx and Engels explain, was progressive, as were the beginnings of Christianity.
In these very important situations we see that the other peoples of Africa have risen, too, but not with the force and revolutionary drive of the Arab peoples, the Iranians, etc. This is another problem which must be examined in order to find the reasons why they, too, do not rise and why they are not inspired to the same level as the peoples that I mentioned. It is true that the African peoples are oppressed, too, indeed,
much more oppressed than the Arab peoples, the Iranians and others.
Likewise, Marxism has still not spread to the proper extent in Africa,
and then there is also the influence of religion, although not on the same
scale as in the Moslem countries. Work must be done in Africa to disseminate
the Marxist-Leninist theory more extensively and deeply. That is even more
virgin terrain, with oppressed peoples, amongst whom the sense of religion
is still in an infantile stage. There are peoples in Africa who still believe
in the heavenly powers of the sun, the moon, magic, etc., they have pagan
beliefs which have not crystallized into an ideology and a concrete theology
such as the Moslem religion, let alone the Christian or Buddhist religions
and their sects. Although there is savage oppression and exploitation in
Africa, the movement in this region of the world is developing more slowly.
This is because the level of social development in Africa is lower.
If we take these questions and examine them in unity, we shall see that at the present stage of development, Islam as a whole is playing an active role in the anti-imperialist liberation struggles of the Moslem peoples, while in the European countries and some other countries where the Catholic religion operates, preaching the submissive Christian philosophy of "turn the other cheek", its leaders take a reactionary stand and try to hinder the movement, the
revolt, the uprising of the masses for national and social liberation.
Of course, in those countries the oppressive power of the bourgeoisie and
capitalism, social-democracy and modern revisionism is greater, but the
Catholic religion, too, serves to suppress the revolutionary spirit of
the masses in order to keep the situation in stagnation.
From the stand-point of economic development the Moslem peoples have been held back; as a consequence of colonialist occupation and colonialist and neo-colonialist exploitation in past decades the Moslem religion in those countries was suppressed by the Catholic or Protestant religions which were represented by the foreign invaders, a thing which has not passed without consequences and without resistance, and herein we might find a political and ideological-religious reason for the anti-imperialist revolution of the Moslem peoples.
The question presents itself that we should look at the present stage of development of the Moslem religion as compared with past centuries. The development of human society has exerted an influence that has made the Moslem religious belief less and less functional. That is, it has been infiltrated by a certain liberalism which is apparent in the fact that, while the Moslem believer truly believes in the Islamic religion, today he is no longer like the believer of the Middle Ages or the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
Today the veiled women in the Moslem countries have
those same feelings which our veiled women had before Liberation, as for
example in Kavaja, [town in Central
Albania] although, of course, not completely those of women
as progressive as ours were. Nevertheless, the feelings of revolt exist
deep in their hearts, and are expressed to the extent that public opinion
permits. Today the Iranian women are involved in the broad movement of
the Iranian people against the Shah and imperialism.
Hence, we see that religious oppression exists in the countries with Moslem populations, too, but the religion itself has undergone a certain evolution, especially in its outward manifestations. Let me make this quite clear, religion has not disappeared in those countries, but a time has come in which the spirit of revolt, on the one hand, and the liberalization of the religion, on the other, are impelling people who believe in the Islamic dogmas to rise against those who call themselves religious and want to exercise the former norms of the religion in order to suppress the peoples and keep them in poverty. Their struggle against imperialists, whom they continue to call infidels, that is, their enemies, enemies of their religion, is linked precisely with this. These peoples understand that the foreign occupiers are people of Catholic or Protestant beliefs who want to oppress both countries and religions. The
westerners call this religious antagonism, which also contains the class
antagonism against foreign occupiers, simply a religious struggle, or apply
other incorrect denigrating epithets to it. This is how they are treating
the liberation struggles of the Moslem peoples of Arab and non-Arab countries
in Asia and Africa today and even the liberation struggle of the Irish
people, most of whom are Catholics, against the British occupiers who are
Protestants. At the same time, we see incorrect manifestations also among
the Moslem peoples who have risen in revolt. They, too, say: "The Giaours,
unscrupulous people who are against our religion, are oppressing us", etc.
In this way they link the question of national liberation with the religious
question, that is, they see the social and economic oppression which is
imposed on them by imperialism as religious oppression. In the future the
other Moslem peoples will certainly reach that stage of development which
the people of Algeria, Syria and some other countries have reached on these
These struggles lead not only to increased sympathy for the peoples who rise in revolt, but also to unity with them, because they are all Moslems. If a people rise against imperialism and the reactionary chiefs ruling their country, who use religion as a means of oppression, this uprising destroys the sense of religion even among those who believe in it at the moment. When a people rise in insurrection against oppression,
then the revolutionary sentiment is extended and deepened and people
reach the stage which makes them think somewhat more clearly about the
question of religion. Until yesterday the poor peasant in Iran said only
"inshallah!" and comforted himself with this, but now he understands, that
nothing can be gained through "inshailah!". In the past all these peoples
said, "Thus it has been decreed", but now the masses of believers have
risen united and come out in the streets, arms in hand, to demand their
rights and freedom. And certainly, when they demand to take the land, the
peasants in those countries will undoubtedly have to do battle for the
great possessions of the religious institutions, that is, with the clergy.
That is why the sinister forces of reaction are making such a great fuss
about the fanatical aspect, about the question of putting the women back
under the veil, etc., etc., because they are trying to discredit the Iranian
revolution, because imperialism and world capitalism have a colossal support
in religion. This is how matters stand with the Vatican, too, with the
policy of that great centre of the most reactionary world obscurantism,
with the mentality and outlook of Catholics. But the revolution disperses
the religious fog. This will certainly occur with the Arab peoples, with
the other Moslem peoples, who are rising in insurrection, and with the
peoples of other faiths, that is, there will be progress towards the
disappearance, the elimination of religious beliefs and the religious
leadership. This is a major problem.
Here we are talking about whole peoples who are rising in revolt in the Moslem countries, whether Arab or otherwise. There are no such movements in Europe. On this continent social-democratic reformist parties and forces operate. The number of Marxist-Leninist parties here is still small, while there are big revisionist parties, which operate contrary to people's interests and sentiments, have lost credibility among the masses, and support capitalism, imperialism and social-imperialism. The Moslem peoples of the Arab and non-Arab countries trust neither the American imperialists nor the Soviet social-imperialists, because they represent great powers which are struggling to oppress and plunder the Moslem peoples; also, as Moslems they put no trust in the religious beliefs of those powers.
As a result, the uprising which is developing in Iran and Afghanistan is bound to have consequences throughout the Moslem world. Hence, if the Marxist-Leninist groups, our comrades in these and other countries of this region properly understand the problems emerging from the events in Iran, Afghanistan and other Moslem countries, then all the possibilities exist for them to do much work. However, they must work cautiously there. In those countries religion cannot be eliminated with directives, extremist slogans or erroneous analyses. In order to find the truth we must analyse the activity of those
forces in the actual circumstances, because many things, true and false,
are being said about them, as is occurring with Ayatollah Khomeini, too.
True, he is religious, but regardless of this, analysis must be made of
his anti-imperialist attitudes and actions, which, willy-nilly, bring grist
to the mill of the revolution.
This whole development of events is very interesting. Here the question of religion is entangled with political issues, in the sympathy and solidarity between peoples. What I mean is that if the leadership of a certain country were to rise against the revolt of the Iranian people, then it would lose its political positions within the country and the people would rise in opposition, accuse the government of links with the United States of America, with the "giaours", because they are against Islam. This is because these peoples see Islam as progressive, while the United States represents that f orce which oppresses them, not only from the social aspect but also from the spiritual aspect. That is why we see that none of these countries is coming out openly to condemn the events in Iran.
Another obstacle which reaction is using to sabotage the revolution of the Iranian people is that of inciting feuds and raising the question of national minorities. Reaction is inciting the national sentiments in Azerbaijan, inciting the Kurds, etc., etc., in order to weaken this great anti-imperialist and "pro-Moslem" uprising of
the Iranian people. The incitement of national sentiments has been and
is a weapon in the hands of imperialism and social-imperialism and all
reaction to sabotage the anti-imperialist and national liberation wars.
Therefore, the thesis of our Party that the question of settling the problems
of national minorities is not a major problem at present, is correct. Now
the Kurds, the Tadjiks, the Azerbaijanis and others ought to rise in struggle
against imperialism and its lackeys and, if possible, rise according to
the teachings and inspiration of Marxism-Leninism. The Kurds, the Tadjiks
and the Azerbaijanis who live in the Soviet Union and are oppressed and
enslaved today, must rise, first of all, against Russian social-imperialism.
In broad outline this is how the situation in these regions presents itself and these are some of the problems which emerge. The events will certainly develop further. Our task is to analyse these situations and events which are taking place in the Moslem world, using the Marxist-Leninist theory as the basis, and to define our stands so that they assist a correct understanding of these events, and thus, make our contribution to the successful development of the people's revolutionary movement.