|
|
 Re: عفواً، عزيزي الخاتم عدلان، ألم نتواطأ جميعاً مع قوى الهوس الديني ونعرات تكويننا العنصري؟ (Re: Haydar Badawi Sadig)
|
Thanks Hassan,
Your response was generous, my dear friend, in both messages. I didn't mean
to invoke your sense of guilt in emotional terms, as I meant to invoke it in
intellectual terms. I just wanted to let you know how grave an oversight it
was to marginalize Ustaz Mahmoud in the public discourse in the so called
"progressive" circles. This, in my judgment, is complacency of the first
order, unconsciously committed as it may be.
I don't know if you know that Abdel-Khalig Mahjoub was a very good friend of
Ustaz Mahmoud. he visited him frequently, especially in the late sixties,
as he sought solace and comfort, not only in his intellect but also in his
ability to instill peace in his surroundings. In one account, circulated
among Republicans, Abdel-Khalig even confided the imminence of the 1971 coup
to Ustaz Mahmoud. This tells you the depth of their relationship, which far
surpassed the depth of Abdel-Khalig's relationships with his closest
"comrades" in his own party. As I understand it, even some leaders in the
SCP were surprised when the coup took place, which tells you about the
degree of trust -a high human value- between Ustaz Mahomud and Abdel-Khalig.
This relationship was nourished with their commitment to our values as
Sudanese, as well as universal values that elevate intellect in the highest
echelons of real meaning and existence in life. Hence, came their
sacrifices for our people.
Having said this, I beg to differ with you when you paint Abdel-Khalig, who
I love and respect so deeply, as a thinker. Abdel-Khalig was not, by any
measure, in my humble judgment, an original thinker, in spite of his
attempts to Sudanize Marxism. In fact, I think, had he lived to witness the
fall of Marxism, he would have admitted what Ustaz Mahmoud had been
publicizing all along that Marxism will not stand the test of time. And
that its fall -as represented in the Soviet Bloc -is only a matter of time.
Having been of a high moral character Abdel-Khalig, in my view, would have
also admitted the clarity of vision of Ustaz Mahmoud as regards the imminent
rise to power of Islamic fanaticism. In fact, he was beginning to
appreciate the ideas of Ustaz Mahmoud in the regard after the strong stance
of the Republicans in opposing the expulsion of the Sudanese Communist Party
from the parliament in 1965.
As Khatim did, in acknowledging his past failings and his blurry ideological
vision, so would have Abdel-Khalig, for he was a man of high moral character
. Yes, he genuinely thought Communism was the answer to our problems most
of his adult life, but he was beginning to search for other possible answers
to our problems -at least to compliment, and not replace Marxism. Because
of his honesty, I think he would not have hesitated in admitting the failure
of Marxism as an answer to our problems, and his own failings in not seeing
things as clearly as Al-Ustaz saw them. He was wrong in his seeing poverty
and dictatorship as the more immediate threats to our society than
ignorance, which perpetuates both, if left unattended to. Since both
religious and intellectual fanaticisms -i.e. Marxism- were agents for
ignorance, and since ignorance was the main enemy that brings about poverty,
dictatorships, and all sorts of socio-political ills, Ustaz Mahmoud advised
that we needed to confront it first.
As a result of how things unraveled, Abdel-Khalig would have publicly
admitted the shortcomings of Marxism, and his failing to see Islamic
fanaticism as the most immediate danger to be combated -as did some of his
smartest prodigies of late. However, all these all failings of an activist
not a thinker! If you ask anyone, today, including Communists -past and
present- of any original idea that was not thought of before Abel Khalig -a
true measure of a thinker- I don't think you would get any concrete answer.
As for Abdel-Khalig's attempts to Sudanize Communism, scores of Third World
leaders have tried it in their respective cultures. Thus, the idea was not
unique to him.
Ustaz Mahmoud's ideas, from wherever you look at them, were widely seen -not
just by Republicans- as very original in spite of their connections with
some experiences and thoughts of the Islamic past. This allows me to
conclude that Ustaz Mahmoud is an ordinal thinker, whereas Adel-Khalig was
not. I am using "is" and "was" in the sentence deliberately, for thought
transcends the limits of the past to the present and beyond, while political
activism doesn't -as compared to creative new thought. I don't need
reminding here that even political activism of the past can inspire present
generations, and possibly future ones, but its impact is far less
consequential than a comprehensive new system of thought. What I am trying
to convey here is that Ustaz Mahmoud was a great thinker, while Abdel-Khalig
was a great political activist, whose positive role in Sudan's historical
development would only be belittled by a fool.
This leads me to suggest that marginalizing -actually ignoring- Ustaz
Mahmoud, even in the context of discussing Abdullahi Ali Ibrahim and
Abdel-Khalig, is a grave oversight. I may have understood that oversight
had you not discussed the issue at the mega analysis level of Sudanese
intellectualism (in which case your analysis would have been very
shallow -which it wasn't, because the likes of you would never be shallow).
Your mega analysis even discussed Islamic fanatic intellectuals, like Mahdi
Ibrahim, for God's sake!
I am sure you understand that I am not trying to condemn you here, as I am
trying to condemn all of us, including the Republicans, who really didn't
understand the gravity of their loss up to this moment. I am trying to say
that what Al-Ustaz represented was derailed by all of us, because we were
all complacent in overlooking his genius example, by seeing it as a suspect
religious experience. (Here I must say that even though the Republicans
didn't see religion as suspect, but they have failed to see the thinker in
Ustaz Mahmoud as much as they saw a religious figure, which masked the man,
and his real contribution. This itself was a form of unconscious
complacency.) Religion was acutely suspect in the days of Abdel-Khalig in
"progressive" circles. But, interestingly, Abdel-Khalig himself was not
suspect of religion, as most of his "comrades" and his prodigies were. (I
even heard that he was a practicing Muslim, and stand to be corrected on
this.) This may explain his, then, unbreakable bond with Ustaz Mahmoud, for
he realized the significance of what Ustaz Mahmoud represents, especially
when Abdel-Khalig, and a limited minority of intellectuals, realized
belatedly how dangerously effective Islamic fanatics have become in the late
1960s.
Before I close, I would also like to point out another major difference
between Ustaz Mahmoud and Abdel-Khalig, namely in the manner in which they
sacrificed their lives. I already told you that Abdel-Khalig confided to
Ustaz Mahmoud that his party was planning a coup -whether Abdel-Khalig was
in agreement with the decision of the party is another matter to be sorted
out by historians. Al-Ustaz, however, strongly advised him against it,
giving him many reasons. Abdel-Khalig didn't heed the advise, and didn't
make any effort to prevent the coup. This may been because he gave in to the
strong opinions of his "comrades" for the execution of the coup, or due to
his own ambitions for power, and his perceived role as a positive force in
Sudanese politics -depending on how the decision was made in the circles of
the SCP. Whatever the case might have been, Abdel-Khalig did believe that
"violence" against a corrupt "imperialist regime" was justified. And he
acted upon this belief, which was highly engrained in Marxist ideology
itself. As a result, his party -if not he himself- was violent, the
consequence of which was more violence from allies of the very near past,
Nimeiri and his clique. His death, therefore, was, in a sense, of his own
making, in the very sense that violence breads violence. This is not to
diminish his brave stand as he faced death, when it became clear to him that
there was no way out - in fact, the junta at that time didn't even offer him
a way out.
In the case of Ustaz Mahmoud, however, "violence" was not even an option.
Ustaz Mahmoud stayed his course, enduring the scorn of low weight
"progressive" intellectuals, including most Communists, on the one hand,
and fighting the lowly Islamic fanatic thugs, who were constantly seeking
ways to conspire against his life, on the other. He knew and endured all
this, because of his deep conviction that, ultimately, what he stands for
will, one day, be appreciated. And he gave his life for it, willingly,
contrary to what happened in Abdel-Khalig's case, where an unexpected turn
of events resulted in his unsought and unwanted martyrdom. You know well
that Ustaz Mahmoud was offered a way out -which was the possibility of
saving his life if he recanted his ideas- and he steadfastly refused it,
opting for death instead.
Abdel-Khalig, therefore -great as he was, and he definitely was- fails to
stand in comparison with Ustaz Mahmoud in the same moral platform, which is
only reserved in human history for pacifists and true thinkers.
I hope I have made myself clear enough to be understood. And I hope what I
said would not be dispelled as irrational thinking of someone who just
"believes" in Ustaz Mahmoud in religious terms only. This will, in my
judgment, be a continuation of a pattern of complacency and prejudice
against anything borne of religion. This sort of complacency is as grave as
the Islamic fanaticism in its consequences, for it, in fact, resulted in the
perpetuation of the latter, which in turn have long crippled our historical
development in the Sudan. I am particularly trying to say in this last
sentence that so called "progressives" have, quite consciously at times,
thought of the Republican experience in the same manner in which they
thought of other religious groups. This made those "progressives,"
knowingly or unknowingly, complacent in crippling creative thinking and
experiences in the Sudan, especially creative Islamic thought of Ustaz
Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, which Abdel-Khalig himself so deeply appreciated, but
too late!
Please share what we are discussing here with others. I will also put up
for public discussion, hopefully soon.
Chow for now!
Your faithfully,
Haydar
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
Haydar Badawi Sadig
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست