Introduction
Sacred texts have always been drawn into the orbit of politics. In the Muslim world, the Qur’ān has often been invoked as both a source of legitimacy and a tool of mobilization. In mid-20th-century Egypt, first under Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arab Socialism and later during the intellectual turbulence of the 1980s, the Qur’ān was rhetorically appropriated to justify socialist and even Marxist ideals. Verses were deployed selectively to sanctify economic equality, condemn elites, and frame Islam as inherently anti-capitalist. But this episode also reveals a broader pattern: whenever the Qur’ān is reduced to political rhetoric, its ontological depth — its vision of existence, man, and God — is obscured. The result is division, alienation, and ideological weaponization. The only safeguard lies in approaching the Qur’ān ontologically, as a philosophy of being and becoming, rather than as a collection of slogans.
Qur’ānic Socialism in Egypt
Nasser’s Arab Socialism (1950s–70s)
Nasser’s government explicitly sought to reconcile socialism with Islam. Qur’ānic verses condemning wealth-hoarding were cited to legitimate state redistribution: “And in their wealth there is a rightful share for the beggar and the deprived” (Q 51:19). “Woe to those who heap up wealth and do not spend it in the way of God” (Q 9:34). State propaganda emphasized Islam’s “social justice” dimension to unify Egyptians under Arab socialism. The Qur’ān thus became a rhetorical banner for political policy rather than an ontological framework for existence. Sayyid Qutb’s Reinterpretations While initially a supporter of Nasser, Sayyid Qutb later broke with him, yet Qutb too framed the Qur’ān in socio-political terms. In Social Justice in Islam (1949), Qutb argued that the Qur’ān demands an egalitarian social order. His emphasis on Islam as a total system (niẓām) — political, economic, and social — further entrenched the rhetorical use of scripture in ideological battles. Qur’ānic Communism in the 1980s By the 1980s, Marxist intellectuals in Egypt were explicitly appealing to the Qur’ān to show communism was not foreign but harmonious with Islam. They emphasized Qur’ānic calls for justice (ʿadl), solidarity (taʿāwun), and the condemnation of exploitation (ẓulm), portraying Marxism as the “true spirit” of Islam. This was less an ontological engagement with revelation than a selective alignment of scripture with ideology.
The Dangers of Rhetorical Appropriation
These Egyptian cases illustrate the perennial danger of rhetorical deployment:
Fragmentation of Meaning:
The Qur’ān’s holistic ontology is reduced to isolated economic slogans.
Instrumentalization:
Revelation becomes a tool of legitimation rather than a transformative vision.
Factionalism:
Competing groups cite verses against each other, creating rifts rather than unity. This mirrors Nietzsche’s critique of religion in Europe: when reduced to fixed dogma or slogans, religion loses vitality and degenerates into power struggles.
Ontology over Rhetoric: Iqbal’s Vision
In contrast, Muḥammad Iqbal argued that the Qur’ān must be engaged ontologically, not rhetorically. In The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, he insisted: The Qur’ān presents a vision of existence: man as khalīfa (vicegerent), history as dynamic becoming, reality as process. Each generation must reconstruct its understanding as knowledge unfolds. To freeze the Qur’ān in dogma or reduce it to slogans is to betray its vitality. Iqbal’s point directly addresses Egypt’s experience: the Qur’ān does speak about justice and equality, but always within a larger ontology of divine transcendence, human responsibility, and ethical becoming. To read it only as a manifesto of class struggle is to misrepresent its nature.
Dialogue through Ontology
Beyond Egypt, the same lesson applies to dawah (inviting to Islam). If Muslims approach non-Muslims with rhetorical proof-texts (“the Qur’ān already refutes your worldview”), they alienate rather than attract. An ontological approach instead seeks: Common Ground: “Come to a word common between us and you” (Q 3:64). Recognition of Partial Truths: Marxist critiques of exploitation or Christian emphases on love can be acknowledged as fragments of truth within a broader Qur’ānic horizon. Unifying Vision: Ontology transcends ideology, inviting all into a shared search for truth.
Conclusion
The Egyptian attempt to spread socialism and even communism through Qur’ānic rhetoric in the mid-20th century is a striking example of how scripture can be bent into ideological slogans. While it mobilized people temporarily, it ultimately fragmented meaning and deepened political rifts. The Qur’ān’s true power lies not in rhetorical appropriation but in its ontological vision: man as God’s vicegerent, existence as dynamic becoming, history as moral striving. This vision cannot be monopolized by any ideology — capitalist, socialist, or communist. Only when Muslims approach the Qur’ān ontologically, and share it as a unifying horizon of truth, will it fulfill its role as guidance for humanity. Rhetoric divides; ontology unites.