learning · Arabic — bilingual opening

الفرق بين "كافر" و"عميل" وما جرى لليسار العربي

The essay argues that the Arab left’s subordination to political Islam, or flight into the arms of authoritarian power, stems not only from historical defeat but from a shift in the charge used against dissenters: from religious excommunication to political treason.

Raseef22 · By عامر بدران · 11 July 2026 · read the original in Arabic →

ثمّة سؤال يراود كل من يشتغل في الحقل العام سواء كان هذا الحقل سياسياً أو ثقافياً، وهو لماذا أصبح اليسار العربي بهذه الحالة البائسة من انعدام البرامج، وضبابية الرؤى، ولم يعد يستطيع أن يقدّم مشروعاً سياسياً أو فكرياً خاصاً به، وأن يجذب حول هذا المشروع بعض قطاعات المجتمع أو حتى الأفراد؟

There is a question that haunts everyone who works in the public sphere, whether that sphere is political or cultural: why has the Arab left fallen into this wretched state of having no programs, of clouded visions, of no longer being able to put forward a political or intellectual project of its own, or to attract around that project certain sectors of society, or even individuals?

أي لماذا لم نعد نرى فصيلاً يسارياً واضح المعالم، يستطيع القول علناً إنه يملك رؤية تختلف عن رؤية السلطة، السلطة بالعموم، وتختلف عن رؤية جماعة "الإخوان المسلمين" ومشتقاتها من حركات الإسلام السياسي في كل بلد؟ ولماذا لا يوجد لدينا إلا يسار متحالف مع السلطات يستجديها لترضى عنه، أو يسار يهتف خلف الأحزاب والحركات الدينية ويبرّر لها كل ما تقوم به.

That is, why do we no longer see a leftist faction with clear contours, able to say openly that it has a vision different from that of power, power in general, and different from the vision of the Muslim Brotherhood and its derivatives among the movements of political Islam in each country? And why do we have nothing but a left allied with the authorities, begging for their approval, or a left that chants behind religious parties and movements and justifies everything they do?

The accusation leveled at the dissenter changed, becoming “agent,” “Zionized,” “infiltrator.” And after October 7, 2023, new charges entered the lexicon, such as “Avichay’s brigade” and “repeating Netanyahu’s narrative,” and many others you probably already know.

Much has been written about the collapse of the Soviet Union and its effects, about the failure of Arab nationalist projects and political Islam’s benefit from that failure, and about Wahhabism and the money and support it lavished on these movements to strengthen them at the expense of the parties of the left.

All of this explains the left’s retreat and weakness, but it never explains why this left has been made subordinate to others, indeed why it enjoys this subordination, as though it undertakes it out of full conviction and with a willing heart. For this reason, I try in this article to propose a different angle for explaining this phenomenon. I do not claim its certain correctness; it is merely an attempt at explanation, one that may be right or wrong.

Since the late 1970s, the star of the Islamic movements began to rise as a force that could not be denied, and as a component of considerable weight within many Arab societies. As a result of this strength, they began to compete seriously for power, not merely for the representation of society.

What I mean is that, before this period, the concern of the Islamic movements was focused on changing societies “for the better,” on the assumption that such change would ultimately lead to changing power. True, they demonized and excommunicated the authorities, using Sayyid Qutb’s ideas about “sovereignty” and others, but this demonization was meant to pave the way toward the ultimate goal of change; it was not a political and programmatic language practiced in the arena of power and through its institutions.

The Muslim individual first; he would lead to the formation of a Muslim family; that family, together with other families, would form the Muslim society; and the Muslim society would produce a Muslim government, thereby making the state itself Islamic, or in the grip of the Islamists.

This gradualism was no longer the appropriate instrument, especially after the success of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The method of operation of these movements was therefore radically overturned, and they came to understand that it is the state that makes society, not the reverse, particularly after 50 years of attempts to change society without being able to reach power, or even to come close to it.

The center of gravity shifted from the human being to the political system, and such a shift cannot bear fruit, or is meaningless, unless it is paralleled or accompanied by radical changes in the language of discourse. But it must be stressed that these changes did not occur overnight. The Islamic movements do not possess that intelligence or quickness of wit some might imagine. Rather, they occurred slowly, and were reinforced by later events such as the two Palestinian intifadas, the Arab Spring revolutions, the coronavirus pandemic, and many factors of external support or obstruction.

And here, precisely, in the language used by the Islamists and in the changes that overtook that language, we can identify some of the most prominent reasons that turned the Arab leftist parties, and a large portion of former and current Arab Marxists, into mere decorative appendages of political Islam: saying what it says, endorsing what it does, and strengthening its legitimacy at the expense of their societies’ interests and causes. These are the same reasons that made some others, very few in number, flee into the embrace of the authorities and political regimes to seek protection there, practicing the same act of annexation, albeit in another place.

In the past, the attribute directed at anyone who differed with the movements of political Islam was “infidel,” “apostate,” “heretic,” or some similar word. In other words, the accusation came from the religious field, or more broadly from the cultural and social fields. This had many reasons, the most important of which was that these movements drew their basic source of legitimacy from religion itself; consequently, religion was the first criterion by which persons were judged, negatively or positively, and it was by its terms and concepts that those persons were assessed.

The Marxist, or the member of any of the leftist parties in that period, and even some today, knew that these accusations, in their general meaning, applied to him, or at least did not diminish him as a person who had chosen this path. Accordingly, these accusations played a confirmatory role in his intellectual definition of himself.

For what does it mean to accuse someone of unbelief or heresy when he himself says that religion is the opium of the peoples? Thus the accusation that aimed to expel the person from the community and strip him of legitimacy had no value for someone who believed he was outside that community to begin with, or at least did not adopt its thinking and traditions. All these accusations did was keep others away from belonging to Marxist parties; and here, it must be admitted, they succeeded.

Meanwhile, the contradictory programs of the two sides cannot be underestimated: the pursuit of a civil state versus an Islamic state, sharia versus positive law, freedom versus faith, women’s rights versus “honoring” women, and a great many other concepts that set the left against political Islam and made the accusations directed at it a kind of unfunny joke. But what happened to make these contradictions disappear, or to make their importance recede? Was it the position on resistance? Certainly not. Rather, it was fear of the accusation that had changed from religious to political.

We said that a change in the objective must be accompanied by a change in discourse. Thus the accusation leveled at the dissenter changed, becoming “agent,” “Zionized,” “infiltrator.” And after October 7, 2023, new charges entered the lexicon, such as “Avichay’s brigade” and “repeating Netanyahu’s narrative,” and many others you probably already know.

In addition to the move from religious legitimacy to political legitimacy after the success of Khomeini’s revolution, the reasons for this change can be summed up in social media and the change it brought about in the structure of public debate, making rapid accusatory argument more widespread and more acceptable; and also in the Arab Spring and the division and polarization that followed it, which in some way made the adversary an existential threat.

Is it reasonable, after all these favorable junctures, for an Islamic movement to accuse a leftist or a Marxist of being an “infidel”? To whom would that even matter? And what would it gain?

There was also the period of the coronavirus pandemic, and the patterns of suspicion and mistrust it entrenched, along with the idea that there is a hidden player managing the conspiracy. As for the fourth reason, it is Israel’s war of extermination against Gaza, and specifically the emotionally charged environment it created at the expense of any objective discussion.

Is it reasonable, after all these favorable junctures, for an Islamic movement to accuse a leftist or a Marxist of being an “infidel”? “Who would even care,” as the saying goes. And what would it gain from that? Such an accusation aims to expel him from the religious community, from which he already stands outside, if only theoretically. But the accusation of being an “agent,” or being “against the resistance,” expels him from the national community to whose defense he has devoted his life.

And because the weak will not risk such an accusation, and by weakness I mean a small audience and the inability to carry an independent political program, not cowardice, the safer course for him is to redefine the national community, even if as an appendage to it. Others, also weak, and here I mean those who fear their own opinion amid the tumult, fled into the arms of political authority to seek protection in it and in its definition of the national community. Few are those who preserved their leftism and were able to endure political accusations as they once endured religious ones.

Raseef22 is a nonprofit organization. The money we raise from the people of Raseef, and from institutional funding, goes directly to supporting our journalistic work. We do not receive funding from large corporations or political funding, and we do not publish paid content.

To support our journalism, concerned first with public affairs, and to keep our pages available to all readers, click here.

Add to Alif · 8 words to learn
Y done · S save · G great · B bad · N not for me