The Red Mujtahid: Hussein Muruwwa’s Synthesis of Islamic Heritage and Revolutionary Marxism

Double-blind peer reviewed article; winner of the first place of our Best Paper Award
Abstract:
Hussein Muruwwa (1908-1987) developed a materialist hermeneutics that challenged the false choice between cultural authenticity and revolutionary transformation facing postcolonial Arab intellectuals. His monumental work al-Nazʿat al-Madiyya demonstrates that historical materialism can unlock revolutionary potential within Islamic heritage by treating turath as a dynamic historical product rather than a static spiritual legacy. Against both Orientalist dismissals that portrayed Islam as inherently backward and Salafist idealizations that romanticized an ahistorical golden age, Muruwwa’s dialectical analysis revealed indigenous rationalist and progressive tendencies within Arab-Islamic philosophy. His synthesis proves that postcolonial revolutionaries need not abandon their cultural foundations to pursue radical social change, offering crucial insights into how traditional knowledge systems can serve rather than impede liberation struggles.
Keywords: Hussein Muruwwa, Arab-Islamic philosophy, historical materialism, turath, postcolonial thought, Marxism, Islamic modernism, Lebanese intellectual history, materialist hermeneutics.
Can revolutionary social transformation draw legitimacy from traditional cultural heritage, or must radical change necessarily break with the past? This dilemma has haunted postcolonial intellectuals throughout the formerly colonized world, but nowhere has it been more acute than in Arab societies, where the weight of Islamic tradition collides with demands for fundamental social restructuring.1 Secular modernists have insisted that genuine progress requires wholesale rejection of religious heritage, while conservative traditionalists have argued that authentic identity depends on preserving Islamic values against Western contamination. Both positions trap Arab intellectuals in a seemingly impossible choice between cultural authenticity and revolutionary transformation.
Hussein Muruwwa (1908-1987) spent six decades developing a sophisticated answer to this dilemma. His monumental work al-Nazʿat al-Madiyya fi al-Falsafa al-ʿArabiyya al-Islamiyya (The Materialist Tendencies in Arab-Islamic Philosophy) demonstrates that historical materialism can unlock revolutionary potential within Islamic heritage (turath) by treating it as a dynamic historical product rather than a static spiritual legacy. Against both Orientalist dismissals and Salafist idealizations, Muruwwa’s materialist hermeneutics reveals how Arab-Islamic philosophy contains indigenous rationalist and progressive tendencies that can authentically ground contemporary liberation struggles. His synthesis proves that the choice between cultural authenticity and revolutionary transformation is false—turath can serve radical change when properly understood through dialectical analysis.
Muruwwa’s intellectual trajectory and legacy have been extensively examined through multiple scholarly lenses that illuminate different dimensions of his integrative project. Steve Tamari’s foundational work establishes how Muruwwa rejected the post-1967 “cultural browbeating” that called for abandoning Arab turath, instead arguing that “the past must be relevant to the present but we must overthrow the power of the present over the past.”2 This early articulation of historical materialism as a tool for cultural reclamation directly prefigures his later materialist reading of Islamic philosophy. Yoav Di-Capua’s analysis of Muruwwa’s “integrative quest for authenticity” reveals how the intellectual synthesized apparently incompatible traditions—from his early engagement with nahda reformism through Najaf’s religious scholarship to his mature Marxist analysis—creating what Di-Capua terms a “relentless quest for cultural authenticity in times of modern rupture.”3 Rather than experiencing his trajectory as a simple rupture or conversion, Muruwwa achieved what Di-Capua calls an “integration” of these intellectual influences into a coherent “project of a lifetime.” Maya Issam Kesrouany’s analysis extends this framework by demonstrating how Muruwwa’s concept of naqd (critique) functioned as both literary criticism and broader political engagement, establishing “critique as a social practice” rooted in collective education.4 Her work reveals the pedagogical dimensions of Muruwwa’s project—how he sought to equip readers with historical consciousness to imagine socialist futures. Samer Frangie’s examination of Muruwwa’s autobiography and its “afterlives” in subsequent generations complicates this narrative of integration, showing how the promise of resolution that Marxism offered to Muruwwa’s generation became unavailable to his successors, who faced “stunted conversion” and political defeat.5 Together, these studies establish that Muruwwa’s synthesis of Islamic scholarship and Marxist analysis was not merely an intellectual achievement but a response to specific historical moments and generational crises—one that offered a model of cultural authenticity grounded precisely in historical transformation rather than static tradition.
Yet existing scholarship, while illuminating Muruwwa’s integrative achievement and critique’s pedagogical dimensions, has not fully addressed the methodological rigor through which he accomplished this synthesis. These studies establish that Muruwwa integrated Islamic scholarship with Marxist thought and developed critique as a collective practice, but they do not adequately examine how his application of historical materialism to the Islamic heritage functioned as a solution to the very interpretive impasses that structured twentieth-century Arab intellectual life.
This article examines how Muruwwa’s application of historical materialism to Islamic intellectual history offers a crucial alternative to three dominant but fundamentally flawed interpretive frameworks: Orientalist scholarship that justifies colonial domination by portraying Islam as inherently backward; liberal nationalist historiography that promotes ahistorical modernization serving bourgeois interests; and Salafist traditionalism that romanticizes an imagined golden age while ignoring material conditions. By demonstrating that turath’s progressive potential becomes accessible only through rigorous historical analysis that neither romanticizes nor rejects Islamic traditions, Muruwwa provides a methodological framework for postcolonial intellectuals to engage their cultural heritage as a revolutionary resource.
The Colonial Crisis: Disrupted Knowledge and False Binaries
To understand the stakes of Muruwwa’s intellectual project requires recognizing how European colonialism fundamentally disrupted traditional knowledge systems throughout the Arab world, creating the very dilemma his work addresses. The late Ottoman period and subsequent colonial mandates did not simply impose new political structures—they fractured the epistemological foundations that had sustained Islamic civilization for centuries, forcing entirely new articulations of the relationship between religious authority, secular power, and intellectual production.
In Jabal ʿAmil (southern Lebanon), where Muruwwa was raised, these transformations were particularly acute.6 The region’s position as a center of Shiʿi learning meant that its scholarly families found themselves navigating an increasingly complex terrain between maintaining traditional religious authority and engaging with emerging forms of secular nationalism and modern educational systems. This navigation required sophisticated intellectual strategies that could preserve religious legitimacy while adapting to changing political and social circumstances.
Colonial rule forced clear and often painful disjunctions between secular public life and Islamic-based educational and social structures. European administrators and local collaborators promoted secular education and legal systems while simultaneously attempting to co-opt traditional religious institutions for purposes of social control. Religious scholars responded by asserting the continued primacy of spiritual-moral foundations and defending the unique role of the ʿulamaʾ in maintaining social cohesion. Meanwhile, proto-nationalist movements increasingly tied regional and Arab identity to projects of religious modernism, expressing the material interests of notable families deeply involved in provincial administration, trade, and emerging forms of capitalist economic activity.
This colonial disruption produced what appeared to be an insurmountable binary: either embrace Western secular modernity and abandon Islamic tradition, or preserve Islamic authenticity by rejecting modern social transformation. Arab intellectuals found themselves trapped between these apparently exclusive alternatives, unable to envision how cultural heritage might inform rather than obstruct revolutionary change. The intellectual environment of Najaf’s hawza7 during the 1920s and 1930s—where traditional Islamic scholarship encountered modern ideological currents—created hybrid forms of knowledge that attempted to navigate this terrain but rarely succeeded in transcending the fundamental binary.8
Three Failed Frameworks: Orientalism, Nationalism, and Traditionalism
Muruwwa’s central theoretical intervention targets three dominant approaches to Islamic intellectual history, each of which fails to recognize turath’s revolutionary potential for fundamentally different but interconnected reasons.9 Understanding why these frameworks fail is essential to grasping what makes Muruwwa’s materialist hermeneutics distinctive and powerful.
First, Western Orientalist scholarship produces what Muruwwa characterizes as racist interpretations specifically designed to justify European conquest and continued domination. Orientalist historiography portrays Islamic civilization as inherently irrational, stagnant, and incapable of producing genuine philosophical or scientific knowledge. By treating Islam as a monolithic, ahistorical entity defined by religious dogmatism rather than as a complex intellectual tradition shaped by material conditions and social struggles, Orientalism systematically obscures precisely those rationalist and materialist tendencies within Arab-Islamic philosophy that might challenge colonial narratives of Western superiority. The Orientalist framework serves colonial interests by making Arab societies appear to require European tutelage for modernization, thereby legitimizing imperial domination as a civilizing mission.10
Second, bourgeois nationalist historiography promotes what Muruwwa terms ahistorical idealism, particularly characteristic of the Salafiyya movement and various Arab socialist projects.11 This approach romanticizes Islamic heritage by treating it as a timeless repository of spiritual wisdom capable of solving contemporary problems without requiring fundamental social transformation. Liberal nationalists emphasize achieving congruence between past and present through focus on metaphysical and spiritual sources while ignoring the material conditions and class contradictions that actually shaped Islamic civilization’s development. Their discussions of ʿasrana (modernization of turath) represent merely conservative traditionalism superficially colored by modern terminology. Projects promoting “Arab socialism” and “Islamic socialism” appeal to supposedly eternal Islamic values to avoid the radical restructuring that genuine liberation requires, thereby serving bourgeois class interests by maintaining existing property relations and power structures under the guise of cultural authenticity.
Third, Salafist traditionalism treats Islamic heritage as a perfect golden age to be recovered through literal return to early Islamic practice. This approach produces static, ahistorical accounts that treat Islamic intellectual contributions as independent from their historical context.12 By refusing to acknowledge how Islamic ideas developed in response to specific material conditions and social contradictions, Salafism makes it impossible to identify which elements of the tradition retain progressive potential for contemporary struggles. The Salafist framework ossifies heritage into eternal truths rather than recognizing it as the dynamic product of historical development, thereby preventing proper understanding of Islam’s revolutionary dimensions.
All three frameworks, despite their apparent opposition, share a fundamental flaw: they mystify Islamic history by severing ideas from their material foundations. Orientalism does this to portray Islam as backward; nationalist modernizers do it to avoid radical change; Salafists do it to deny historical development. Each approach serves particular class interests—colonial domination, bourgeois legitimation, or conservative reaction—while preventing recognition of turath’s capacity to inform contemporary liberation movements.
Muruwwa’s Intellectual Journey: Mastering Tradition to Transform It
Muruwwa’s biography reveals how his revolutionary synthesis emerged from deep engagement with both Islamic scholarship and Marxist theory rather than superficial eclecticism.13 Born into a prominent clerical family in Jabal ʿAmil, he was expected to follow his father ʿAli Muruwwa’s path as a respected mujtahid.14 In 1924, following family expectations, he traveled to Najaf (Iraq) to begin formal religious education at the prestigious hawza. However, his intellectual development quickly diverged from conventional patterns.
His revolutionary stances and sharp criticisms of the hawza’s traditional educational structure led to expulsion in 1928, revealing both his intellectual independence and commitment to reform.15 Despite this setback, Muruwwa strategically returned to Najaf in 1934 to complete his religious education, successfully graduating as a mujtahid in 1938. This achievement represented not capitulation but rather a deliberate decision to master traditional Islamic scholarship from within before developing his comprehensive critique. His mastery of traditional methods provided the intellectual credentials necessary to challenge Islamic orthodoxy with authority and legitimacy.
Even before completing his religious education, Muruwwa organized with colleagues in the “al-Shabiba al-ʿAmiliyya al-Najafiyya” (Young ʿAmilis of Najaf) group, which included prominent future thinkers such as Muhammad Sharara, Mohsen Sharara, ʿAli al-Zayn, Muhammad Salih Bahr al-ʿUlum, and Hashim al-Amin. The group directed sustained criticism at the ḥawza’s conservative methods and “reactionary” clerics through the influential ʿIrfan periodical.
During the 1930s, Muruwwa developed a remarkable practice of living simultaneously in two intellectual worlds—the traditional seminary environment of Najaf and the cosmopolitan urban culture of Baghdad. His ritual of removing his religious garb and turban when entering Baghdad, only to don them again upon returning to Najaf, became a powerful symbol of his refusal to accept rigid boundaries between religious and secular knowledge.16 This dual existence exposed the profound tensions inherent in his intellectual development while demonstrating his commitment to bridging seemingly incompatible worldviews.
The pivotal moment came during the massive 1948 uprising against the British mandate in Iraq and the Portsmouth Treaty.17 His public support for Iraqi Communists represented a definitive break with conventional clerical political behavior, marking his transition from religious reformer to revolutionary intellectual. Government crackdown forced his departure to Lebanon in 1949, effectively ending his direct involvement with traditional religious institutions. The Lebanese Communist Party’s invitation to contribute to their periodical al-Tariq opened new intellectual possibilities, marking his formal entry into communist political circles where he remained active until his assassination in 1987.
This biographical trajectory was not a personal idiosyncrasy but a strategic intellectual preparation. Muruwwa’s deep training in traditional Islamic scholarship provided him with authoritative knowledge of classical texts and interpretive methods, while his communist political engagement equipped him with historical materialist analytical tools. Only someone with both credentials could convincingly demonstrate that materialist tendencies already existed within Islamic tradition rather than being imposed from outside.
Dialectical Materialism as Hermeneutic Method
Al-Nazʿat al-Madiyya, developed over ten intensive years from Muruwwa’s doctoral thesis completed in Moscow, represents a comprehensive attempt to rewrite Islamic intellectual history through rigorous application of historical materialist methodology. The work’s profound significance lies in its extraordinarily ambitious project of uncovering how turath, when properly understood as a dynamic historical enterprise shaped by material conditions, reveals progressive and rationalist elements that colonial and conservative interpretations systematically obscure.
Muruwwa’s central methodological insight holds that all interpretations of history are inevitably governed by what he terms class “partisanship” (al-hizbiyya al-tabaqiyya)—historical interpretation always serves particular class interests, whether consciously acknowledged or not.18 This recognition grounds his critique of the three failed frameworks while establishing the necessity of conscious revolutionary partisanship that openly acknowledges serving the interests of oppressed classes rather than mystifying its political commitments.
The materialist historical method provides the analytical framework for understanding turath in its constant dynamic movement, acknowledging its relative rather than absolute value while preserving its authentic character.19 This approach reveals complex dialectical relationships between material conditions and intellectual production throughout Islamic history, uncovering previously hidden connections between democratic elements within individual national traditions and broader international democratic currents.
Central to Muruwwa’s framework is his argument that all ideas, regardless of their apparent abstraction or spirituality, are ultimately grounded in social-material substrates that shape their development and determine their historical significance.20 Even the most abstract philosophical concepts and spiritual teachings, which may appear on the surface to transcend their material foundations, remain fundamentally shaped by the material conditions and social relationships within which they emerge. This materialist understanding leads to recognition that history operates through dialectical principles possessing scientific validity.
Material reality and forms of thought exist in constant tension and opposition within the fundamental unity of historical movement. Contradictions operate within what Muruwwa terms “differentiated unity”—opposing forces exist within unified historical processes rather than as external antagonisms.21 These contradictions generate discontinuous movement involving both progression and regression, creating evolutionary development that follows spiral rather than linear patterns. This complex dialectical process ultimately produces qualitative historical changes that become recognizable as fundamentally new forms of theology, technology, social organization, or ritual practice.
This dialectical methodology enables Muruwwa to demonstrate that Islamic heritage contains both progressive elements that can contribute to contemporary revolutionary transformation and reactionary elements that serve to maintain existing systems of oppression. The task of revolutionary intellectuals is to distinguish between these elements through rigorous historical analysis rather than either wholesale acceptance or rejection of tradition.
Uncovering Revolutionary Potential in Islamic Heritage
For Muruwwa, the fundamental purpose of serious turath study lies in uncovering indigenous sources of radicalism and revolutionary potential, thereby enabling Arab liberation movements to root themselves more firmly and authentically within their own cultural context. Understanding Arab-Islamic tradition through historical materialism reveals both the extraordinary breadth and dynamic character of Islamic intellectual tradition, particularly what Muruwwa characterizes as its inherent “power to change and develop.”
This methodological approach achieves two closely intertwined analytical goals. First, it uncovers complex connections between Islamic heritage and its specific historical contexts, demonstrating how Islamic ideas developed in response to particular material conditions and social contradictions. Second, it identifies objective historical relationships between contemporary Arab liberation movements and revolutionary aspects of medieval Arab history, showing how current struggles continue and develop themes present in earlier periods of Islamic civilization.
Muruwwa develops what amounts to a universal theory of the complex relationships between social resistance movements and the development of rationalist and materialist forms of thought. His analysis demonstrates how oppressed social groups throughout history have developed intellectual frameworks that challenge dominant ideologies and provide theoretical foundations for revolutionary social transformation. Within Islamic civilization, various marginalized groups produced rationalist critiques of religious orthodoxy and materialist analyses of social conditions that served their resistance to exploitation.
When confronted by critics such as Sadiq Jalal al-ʿAzm22 and Jurj Tarabishi23, who argued that Arab-Islamic cultural heritage constituted a fundamental impediment to genuine progress and that true revolutionaries must focus exclusively on future transformation, Muruwwa offered a sophisticated dialectical response. He argued that “the future is in revolution, but the future springs from life and life is made of a long sequence of trials and errors. It is made of the past, present, and future. To split the past from the present is to chop up life itself.”24 This splitting necessarily contradicts basic understanding of human civilization and prevents proper comprehension of how revolutionary transformation actually occurs through engagement with existing cultural resources.
Muruwwa strongly affirmed the crucial vanguard role of revolutionary intellectuals in social transformation processes while simultaneously insisting that authentic revolutionary intellectuals must maintain constant connection with popular masses and dedicate themselves to raising both revolutionary consciousness and class consciousness. This approach requires establishing fundamental unity between theoretical ideas and practical engagement with social struggles, avoiding both ivory tower intellectualism and anti-intellectual populism. Revolutionary engagement with turath serves this function precisely—it enables intellectuals to speak in cultural idioms that resonate with popular experience while directing that experience toward revolutionary transformation.
Beyond the Arab Context: Postcolonial Intellectual Strategy
Muruwwa’s fundamental conviction that genuine revolutionary change requires comprehensive transformation not only of economic structures but also of cultural and intellectual frameworks as vital domains for both colonial hegemony and anti-colonial resistance extends well beyond the Arab context. Colonial systems systematically promote idealist attitudes that exaggerate the importance of individual achievement and educated elite leadership while obscuring the collective basis of social transformation and the central role of popular masses in revolutionary change.
These idealist ideologies serve to impede genuine progress of nascent postcolonial nations throughout formerly colonized regions by damaging essential connections between individual freedom and collective social freedom within broader processes of global transformation. Colonial cultural hegemony operates precisely by preventing recognition of these connections and promoting individualistic solutions to fundamentally collective problems.
Through his extensive theoretical and political work, Muruwwa attempted to develop and authorize forms of secular modernism that could serve progressive social transformation while directing intellectual development away from its dominant Western colonial manifestations. Simultaneously, he emphasized the crucial importance of fitting modernist intellectual frameworks to Islamic discursive traditions and popular cultural forms, thereby challenging both mechanistic materialism that ignores cultural specificity and cultural nationalism that rejects universal progressive principles.
His comprehensive project sought to reestablish Arab-Islamic turath as an integral component of historical development within its proper material context rather than as an abstract spiritual legacy disconnected from social conditions. This recontextualization enables recognition that contemporary intellectual and political crisis in Arab societies lies not in the Islamic tradition itself, which contains substantial progressive potential, but rather in current Arab thought’s polarization between uncritical Salafist traditionalism and equally uncritical acceptance of Orientalist frameworks.
Conclusion: Heritage as Revolutionary Resource
Muruwwa’s materialist hermeneutics demonstrates that the dilemma facing postcolonial intellectuals—the apparent choice between cultural authenticity and revolutionary transformation—rests on false premises. Islamic heritage need not be either wholesale rejected as an obstacle to progress or uncritically embraced as a timeless truth. When understood through historical materialism as a dynamic product of material conditions and social struggles, turath reveals indigenous rationalist and progressive tendencies that can authentically ground contemporary liberation movements.
His synthesis succeeds where Orientalist, nationalist, and Salafist frameworks fail precisely because dialectical analysis enables recognition of heritage’s contradictory character—containing both progressive elements that served historical resistance to oppression and reactionary elements that legitimized exploitation. Revolutionary intellectuals can distinguish between these elements through rigorous historical analysis, recovering those aspects of tradition that retain emancipatory potential while rejecting those that serve domination.
Muruwwa’s tragic assassination, by fundamentalist Islamists, in his Beirut home in 1987, ended a remarkable six-decade intellectual journey, but his theoretical and political legacy continues to offer valuable insights into postcolonial intellectual strategies for engaging cultural heritage as a revolutionary resource. His model demonstrates how traditional cultural resources can inform contemporary liberation struggles without constraining their transformative potential, providing a sophisticated alternative to both cultural imperialism that demands wholesale Westernization and cultural nationalism that romanticizes tradition.
The stakes of Muruwwa’s project extend far beyond Arab societies. Postcolonial intellectuals throughout formerly colonized regions face similar dilemmas about the relationship between cultural authenticity and radical social change. His materialist hermeneutics offers a methodological framework applicable to diverse contexts—showing how rigorous historical analysis can uncover progressive potential within any cultural tradition shaped by popular resistance to oppression, while avoiding both the arrogance of assuming one’s own tradition has nothing valuable to contribute and the conservatism of treating tradition as immune to critical examination.
Most fundamentally, Muruwwa’s work challenges the assumption that revolutionary transformation requires cultural rupture. By demonstrating that materialist and rationalist tendencies already exist within Islamic intellectual history, he proves that postcolonial revolutionaries need not choose between their heritage and their politics. Authentic cultural foundations can ground radical transformation when properly understood—not as static legacies to be preserved unchanged, but as dynamic historical products containing resources for ongoing struggles against exploitation and oppression.
- William L. Cleveland, A History of the Modern Middle East (Boulder: Westview Press, 2004), 169-173. ↩︎
- Steve Tamari, “Reclaiming the Islamic Heritage: Marxism and Islam in the Thought of Husayn Muruwah,” Arab Studies Journal 3, no. 1 (1995): 122. ↩︎
- Yoav Di-Capua, “Homeward Bound: Ḥusayn Muruwwah’s Integrative Quest for Authenticity,” Journal of Arabic Literature 44 (2013): 24–25. ↩︎
- Maya Issam Kesrouany, “Critical Hope: Critique in the Works of Husayn Muruwwa and His Grandson Rabih Mroué,” Critical Times 6, no. 1 (2023): 87. ↩︎
- Samer Frangie, “The Afterlives of Husayn Muruwwa: The Killing of an Intellectual, 1987,” in The Arab Lefts: Histories and Legacies, 1950s–1970s, ed. Laure Guirguis (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020), 250-253. ↩︎
- Max Weiss, In the Shadow of Sectarianism: Law, Shi’ism, and the Making of Modern Lebanon (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). ↩︎
- A traditional Islamic seminary or center of Shiite theological learning. ↩︎
- Meir Litvak, Shi’i Scholars of Nineteenth-Century Iraq: The ‘Ulama’ of Najaf and Karbala’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 167-189. ↩︎
- Muruwwa, Hussein. al-Nazaʿat al-Madiyya fi al-Falsafa al-ʿArabiyya al-Islamiyya, (Beirut: Dar al-Farabi, 1988[1978]), 5-12. ↩︎
- Rula Jurdi Abisaab, “Deconstructing the Modular and the Authentic: Husayn Muroeh’s Early Islamic History,” Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies 17, no. 3 (2008): 239-259. ↩︎
- Muruwwa. al-Nazaʿat, 30-32. ↩︎
- Ibid., 157. ↩︎
- Hussein Muruwwa, Wulidtu Shaykhan wa Amutu Tiflan, (Beirut: Dar al-Farabi, 1990). ↩︎
- A mujtahid is a senior Islamic scholar qualified to engage in ijtihad—the independent interpretation and application of Islamic law. ↩︎
- Di-Capua 2013, 30. ↩︎
- Tom Charles, “Remembering Husayn Muruwwah, the ‘Red Mujtahid’,” Jadaliyya, February 17, 2017, https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/34028. ↩︎
- Peter Sluglett, Britain in Iraq: Contriving King and Country (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 213. ↩︎
- Hussein Muruwwa, Sirat Husayn Muruwwa kama aradaha an tuktab: Wulidtu rajulan… wa-amut tiflan, ed. Ahmad Hussein Muruwwa (Beirut: Dar al-Farabi, 2018), 313-315. ↩︎
- Muruwwa. al-Nazaʿāt, 30-32. ↩︎
- Ibid., 157. ↩︎
- Ibid., 22-24. ↩︎
- Sadiq Jalal al-ʿAzm, Naqd al-Fikr al-Dini (Beirut: Dar al-Tali’ah, 1968). ↩︎
- Jurj Tarabishi, Madbahat al-turath fi al-thaqafa al-ʿarabiyya al-muʿasira (Beirut: Dar al-Saqi, 2012 [1993]). ↩︎
- Hussein Muruwwa, quoted in Steve Tamari, “Reclaiming the Islamic Heritage: Marxism and Islam in the Thought of Husayn Muruwah,” Arab Studies Journal 3, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 123. ↩︎
OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Abed Kanaaneh (1. Februar 2026). The Red Mujtahid: Hussein Muruwwa’s Synthesis of Islamic Heritage and Revolutionary Marxism. Krit:Arab. Abgerufen am 7. Februar 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/15llb
