Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

November 1, 2014

M. Junaid Alam: presente!

Filed under: obituary — louisproyect @ 6:28 pm

M. Junaid Alam

On April 26th of this year M. Junaid Alam informed his Facebook friends that he had just learned that he had stage four cancer. Two days ago I got email from Joshua Frank letting me know that Junaid had died. He was 31 years old.

Although I have not had much contact with Junaid in recent years, there was a time when I used to meet with him and his good friend Derek Seidman from time to time about a decade ago. Yesterday I spent about a half-hour talking with Derek, trying to pull together some personal information about Junaid that would be of interest to those who knew him. While Derek spent a lot more time with him than I ever did, our conversation did not reveal any telling anecdotes about his friend. As he put it, Junaid was not that interested in talking about himself, nor in small talk for that matter. His all-consuming focus was on global politics and his role in moving the struggle forward. Junaid lived to write and it is a terrible tragedy that this gifted—even prodigious—writer is no longer with us.

Junaid was the son of M. Shahid Alam, an economics professor at Northeastern University originally from Pakistan who was a contributor to CounterPunch, as was his son. He showed up on Marxmail on November 9th 2001 with this announcement:

Hello Comrades,

My name is M. Junaid Alam. I’m 18, college student in MA, USA. I work largely with the CMI [Ted Grant’s tendency post 1984] and am an ISO branch-committee member. Wanted to bring to your attention the PTUDC, www.ptudc.org.

Additionally, in the Boston area there’s a big anti-war conference this weekend, organized by the Northeast section of the 4 regional coalitions in the country. Nader will be speaking in conjunction with it.

Take care,

Alam

The next day he clarified his name:

For the record, I am “Mohammad Junaid Alam”; my CP articles [obviously a reference to CounterPunch rather than the CPUSA] appear under “M. Junaid Alam”. Gone by “Junaid” since birth, since everyone on my father’s side of the family has that first name, but since this is an e-mail discussion list I didn’t really care who calls me Mohammad and who calls me Junaid, or who calls me M., etc.

I am not sure to what extent his dad was an influence on him but in one of our meetings at my place he told me that he did not share his father’s Muslim faith. Later on Junaid moved toward a reconciliation with Islam, something I will get to in a bit.

Sometime in 2003 Derek and Junaid met with me in NY to exchange ideas about creating a website that could serve as a pole of attraction for young leftists trying to regroup the movement around a non-sectarian approach. By this point, Derek had quit Socialist Action just as Junaid had quit the ISO. They had been reading my critique of “Leninism” on Marxmail and had come to the conclusion that it made sense. To make sure there is no misunderstanding, none of the ideas I had been promoting were mine originally. They were all plagiarized from Peter Camejo. Frankly, if I had not read his “Against Sectarianism”  in 1983, I probably would have remained in a deep funk. The only value I added to his original analysis was looking into the whole question of “Zinovievism” and redeeming the American Socialist project of Bert Cochran and Harry Braverman.

Derek and Junaid decided to launch a zine called Left Hook. I would surmise that it was a nod in the pugilistic direction of CounterPunch. This is a screen shot of the first issue dated February 4th, 2004 courtesy of the indispensable Wayback Machine. Just look for issues between 2004 and 2006. Anything after that was junk that spammers posted after they hijacked the domain. The art work was all Junaid’s. He had artistic as well as political skills.

Screen shot 2014-11-02 at 3.53.05 PM

It had been a productive enterprise but was probably a bit ahead of its time. With the crisis of “Leninism” deepening, there have been relatively viable initiatives to create something in the spirit of Lefthook, mostly in Britain as a result of the crisis in the SWP. I suspect that even if the Leninist left in the USA never shoots itself in the foot as badly as the SWP leadership did, there will be a continuing discussion about how to move the left forward—spearheaded in part by ex-ISO members who left or were expelled over the past year or so.

After graduating Northeastern, Junaid came to New York where he began writing for a number of different outlets.

After getting married, he adopted a name that incorporated his mate’s: M. Junaid Levesque-Alam. His page at Alternet states: “M. Junaid Levesque-Alam, a Foreign Policy In Focus contributor, writes about Islam and America at his blog, Crossing the Crescent. He has been published in several outlets, including Altmuslim.com, Antiwar.com, Colorlines, and The Nation’s website.”

Like Lefthook, Crossing the Crescent is archived on the Wayback Machine. Anything after 2012 has been hijacked, just as was the case with Lefthook. I found it reassuring to see Junaid taking a nuanced approach to Libya in 2012. I regret that by this point we had not been in touch since I would have looked forward to seeing how someone focused on Muslim culture and politics was able to see the dialectical contradictions of an aspect of the Arab Spring that so many on the left disavowed.

The heart of this anti-interventionist argument—“you are a hypocrite”—is a moral one: but it is a heart that does not beat.

For while it is deplorable that policymakers apply their moral outrage selectively (in accordance with perceived national interests), that does not mean we should abandon the moral impulse altogether for the sake of consistency.

Consider, for instance, a scenario where ten innocent men are lined up to be shot. A bystander intervenes and saves the life of one or two men, but, for whatever selfish reason, leaves the rest to die. Now consider a parallel scenario, wherein the only difference is that the bystander does absolutely nothing and leaves all ten men to their demise.

Which is the better choice: consistency or hypocrisy?

Some arguments against intervention deserve serious consideration. The “hypocrisy” mantra, however, is not one of them.

One of the more intriguing items that is still extant was written for MRZine in 2009. Titled “Muslim in America: Identity and Isolation”, it likely reflected the sorts of issues explored in Crossing the Crescent. Since it is such a perfect jewel of an essay, I will reproduce it in full as the best way of remembering our comrade:

Muslim in America: Identity and Isolation

by M. Junaid Levesque-Alam

An early morning flight to D.C., day-long conference and empty cityscape drained me of energy.

Exhausted, I stepped out of my nondescript hotel into the street and felt a heavy air pregnant with moisture. Heading down the sidewalk to find dinner, I came across the shadow of a man who had the unmistakable gait of a beggar.

The homeless in D.C. are different from the homeless back home in New York City, where amid a shifting and seamless mass of indifferent women and men they are frequently seated — if cold concrete can be called a seat — with despair dampening their eyes and quarters rattling in their cups. Here, the homeless seem to move with the crowd but are not of the crowd. They zigzag aimlessly, hands often outstretched — and equally often, empty — amid professionals in pressed suits who stride by with confidence and turn at square angles.

Tonight, however, there were no crowds. As the man in the street stumbled toward me, he asked with some urgency whether I knew where the nearest mosque was. I hadn’t gone to a mosque in years aside from Eid functions, never mind one in the capital. I responded flatly: “No.”

But his question was actually an introduction. The man came closer and began to relate his story; gesticulating with a hand two fingers short, he claimed that he had a wife and child but lost his job, and asked me politely and pleadingly for any spare change I might have.

I paused for a moment, nodding my head understandingly but not reaching for my wallet. As I contemplated what to do, the sky cracked loudly with thunder and a rumble tore through the air as raindrops tapped the pavement, as if on cue in a cliché movie scene. I took this as a sign that I should help this man in some small way, so I unfolded my wallet and handed him a five-dollar bill.

In the Qur’an, after all, God constantly and insistently speaks to Muslims about His signs as expressed through nature; each “verse” in Islam’s holy book is called an ayah, or Arabic for “sign.”

“Verily, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for those who are endowed with insight” (3:190).

Taking the bill from my hand, the man smiled at me broadly and thanked me profusely. He reached slowly for my face and, with a laugh, tugged gently at the end of my beard, saying, “I knew you were a Muslim because this” — meaning the beard — “is Sunnah,” or a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad.

I returned his smile — even a smile is charity, Muhammad had said, although I suspect the money might be more helpful — and laughed appreciatively. I said nothing else as he thanked me yet again and went on his way. I did not bother to tell the beggar that my beard, which was neither close-cropped nor particularly long, wasn’t an example of Sunnah but apathy: I had simply not bothered to shave it amid the stress of the past few days.

Jogging back to the hotel to wait out the rain, I felt refreshed. In truth, I didn’t know whether this man had a child, a wife, or a need to find a mosque, but none of this really concerned me. What I was reasonably certain of already assured me: He was a Muslim, he was in need, and I felt a higher power had prompted me to brush aside the curtains of irritability and exhaustion and crack open a small window of kindness.

Meeting the poor man in the street reminded me of my own poverty in Muslim companionship. I realized that this was the first time I had even met another Muslim spontaneously in a long while. I had spoken to Muslims for articles, columns, and interviews, but this random, fleeting incident was the first time I had approached — or been approached by — a complete stranger because of a shared Muslim identity.

Despite my conscious attempt to learn, read, and write about the history, politics, and ethos of Islam, my personal lived experience with Islam in America was, I realized, impoverished.

My own neighborhood is only a mile away from significant Pakistani and Arab populations, where I frequently see women in gowns and headscarves and men in shalwar-kameez and prayer caps. Yet I had almost never introduced myself to any Muslims.

I often walk by a mosque and think about entering. But then I think again: Will they understand me? Are they “old uncles” with no experience of growing up as a Muslim in America? What is expected of me by others? Are there FBI informants here, those a little too eager to befriend and quiz newcomers? This barrage of questions has served as a barrier between me and a fuller realization of Muslim identity.

Such isolation may seem odd in America. Freedom of religion is a guaranteed and enshrined right. But the law does not preclude the existence of a chilling effect. Indeed, the very presence of law forces discriminatory groups to seek avenues more inventive than outright, crude repression. Consider, for instance, the vilifying smears, lies, and stereotypes paraded before the public in the run-up to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A naive observer may assume that such propaganda produces an impact only upon those predisposed to prejudice, leaving everyone else magically untouched. A more judicious observer, however, understands that the rhetoric of demonization ricochets and resonates: it creates a clanging noise that rings loudly in the ears of the target, and it desensitizes others such that the loud shouts of hatred gradually fail to register as even a whisper worth notice. How else to explain the relative ease with which reality has been stood on its head the past few years?

A monumental upset of reason has allowed forces once — and still — deemed “extreme” and “crazy” to implement deadly agendas with scant and scattered opposition: an invasion spun as liberation in Iraq, ethnic cleansing and occupation defended as justifiable security measures in Israel, a program of perpetual war hailed as part of the presumed path to peace, among other absurdities.

A complementary cavalcade of jargon, doublespeak, and coded terminology still marches triumphantly out of pundits’ mouths and across the newspapers, trampling plain language and clear thinking, which are conspicuous only by their absence.

What prominent national figures have spoken out in the last nine years not in the name of rubberstamped strategies, buzzwords, or mantras, but in the name of ordinary Muslims — the supposed beneficiaries of this gigantic war effort? Our television screens splash our retinas with images of young American soldiers killed in combat, and now, Iranian protesters brandishing a slain woman’s picture. Where on these screens are the images and names of the tens of thousands of ordinary women and children slain by our own bombs and bullets in the Middle East?

It is in this searing political context that I consider myself connected to Islam. I feel an inseparable link to those abroad, whose names I do not even know, who have suffered the impact of modern weapons unleashed on ancient pretexts. I insist on this connection precisely because the full weight of national propaganda is aimed at erasing, ignoring, and discarding the memory of these victims, these invisibles.

The cost of this remembrance, however, is alienation from Muslims around me. Just as an Islamophobe’s mind may produce menacing images when he encounters a Muslim, I see Muslims through the lenses of war, occupation, invasion, and torture.

If I see a woman in a hijab, my mind races to a recent surreal murder or questions about whether it reflects, for this particular person, a conscious choice of modesty, the inertia of tradition, or the weight of oppression. If I see a man in chapals and shalwar-kameez, I immediately begin to speculate about his politics, what grievances occupy and animate his mind and his degree of reconciliation with modern life.

In this politicized projection, the actual human being at the other end of one’s tinted lenses never comes into focus. The Muslim greeting assalam-alaykum, “peace be upon you,” is shorn of meaning because peace is neither in me nor bestowed upon most Muslims in these times; a few have violently rejected the concept altogether and have instead embraced a mindless nihilism.

The inversion of rational thinking that lies behind this absence of peace leaves me drained, tired and deflated. And it will, I think, take more than a chance encounter in the streets and a clap in the clouds to change it.

5 Comments »

  1. I have been able to access Left Hook via the Wayback Machine. For example, try:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20040615000000*/http://lefthook.org

    Comment by Jim Farmelant — November 1, 2014 @ 11:33 pm

  2. Huge thanks, Jim. I thought that the people who hijacked the domain would clobber the original but it is there! I will fix my post first chance I get.

    Comment by louisproyect — November 1, 2014 @ 11:37 pm

  3. Thanks for this memorial to Junaid, Louis. I well remember him from the antiwar days of 2003-4. He was a cool guy.

    I have one other comment, about Alexander Cockburn. Above you mention the pugilistic reference in the name “Counterpunch”. But maybe there’s more to it than that. In the early days of printing letters were formed by punches that would carve the outline of the letter to be “punched”. But there was a special punch, called the counterpunch, that was used to punch out the middle of letters like “o”, “d” and “p”. The hole punched was called the “counter”. The counterpunch had to be made of harder material than the punch, and this fact leads me to believe Alex was running at least a two-way joke.

    Comment by davidbyrnemcdonaldiii — November 2, 2014 @ 4:10 am

  4. M. Junaid Alam’s father, M. Shahid Alam, is an economics professor at Northeastern University, who is also a longtime contributor to CounterPunch.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Shahid_Alam

    Comment by Jim Farmelant — November 2, 2014 @ 11:44 pm

  5. Louis — The latest attack on academic freedom; http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/02/did-revolutionary-communist-professor-inspire-blood-bucket-challenge/

    You should really weigh in!

    Comment by Thomas W — November 3, 2014 @ 9:29 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: