74 Philosophical Frames
pure origin. Gramsci further observed the contemporary focus on origins
by many in the Muslim world, and he explained this trend as being com-
mon to widely diverging, if not opposite discourses such as Wahhabism
and Ataturkism/Turkish republicanism; together they constituted a record
of modern expression as developed as that of Catholicism.^30 In fact, if reli-
gion was politically central to the creation of the “historical bloc” that could
challenge bourgeois hegemony, Gramsci believed that “the absence of a
clear link that would serve as a trait d’union between theoretical Islam and
popular belief,” along with the “great space between the intellectuals and
the people,” would be a cause of the problematic modernization of Muslim
countries in a manner similar to the situation of the church in Italy. Thus
the “fanaticism” of some Muslim countries was in reality very similar to
Christian fanaticism in history and in the years before World War I.^31
onsidering his focus on the production of knowledge by intellectu-C
als, it is not surprising that Gramsci urged close study of the theological
importance of both the “clerical” structure and that of Islamic high educa-
tion in these processes. Given the similarities Gramsci believed existed
between Islam and Christianity in spite of all evident differences, we can
extrapolate Gramscian elements for approaching the question of the pub-
lic sphere in Muslim majority societies through his strategy vis-à-vis the
church, which was the subject of the vast majority of his writings. What is
important here is that Gramsci saw in the history of Christianity, particu-
larly the early church and the Protestant Reformation, seminal examples
of a cultural revolution of the masses that was also possible in the Muslim
world.^32
n this context we should recall Gramsci’s argument that in every I
country, including those of the Middle East, intellectuals are impacted by
the specific local dynamics of capitalist development. Gramsci’s analysis
calls upon us to explore the specific relationship between emerging lead-
ing classes and the “organic” intellectuals they interacted with, who them-
selves led various styles of reform movements in the region that were cru-
cial players in the political arenas as well as in the broader public spheres.
It is in this context that we can understand his perspective:
Implicitly Christianity is considered inherent to modern
civilization ... [but] why could Islam not do the same as
Christianity? It seems to us rather that the absence of massive