Prophet Muhammad’s Islamic and Marx’s Communist movements have inherent consonance and unity between them in fundamental and major issues. And the application of the two social systems has bore almost the same outcomes, too. Islam and Marxism are as if each other's "soul buddies" – almost.
[This essay is a translation from my Bangla article, ইসলাম ও মার্ক্সবাদঃ আত্মার আত্মীয়?]
 |
During my school, college and university days, I used to support Communist political movements in Bangladesh, still holding my religious belief that Islam was the best religion. But as horror stories of brutality committed by Marxist regimes started coming out after the fall of Communist governments in Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe, I ran into a phase of confusion because of the miserable failure of Communism and the unpardonable brutality under its application. Questions came to mind: How could such brutality be perpetrated by governments, guided by such a peerless blueprint of humanism? I thought leaders had made gross errors in application. Communism itself had no theoretical problems. Communism had fallen into that miserable plight solely due to the wrong people at its helm.
Thereafter start the phase of my transformation from Muslim Communist to agnostic or atheistic Communist and eventually to liberal atheist today. The seeding of doubts in religion and eventual my transformation into an atheist started with the reading Bertrand Russell’s book. Russell was initially fascinated by Marxism. Successful Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (1917) had elated him. He visited Russia at the invitation of its Communist government in 1920 hoping to drum up his support for the Bolsheviks. But he returned with his fascination toward Marxism shattered due to the brutality of the Bolsheviks, the lack of liberty under Communism and the religion-like fanaticism of Communists. Similar thing had happened to our very own Rabindranath Tagore, who, following his visit to Russia at Stalin’s invitation, became critical of the Communist repression of freedom of mind and expression, angering his inviter.
Russell wrote that Marxism has its foundation on the teachings of Jesus – that is, inspiration for the emergence of Marxism lies in Christian theology. At the time, I couldn't accept Russell’s claims, because,
- Firstly, Marxism is an atheistic social theory, which emerged out of its battle with the very Christian religion.
- Secondly, Marxists are extremely opposed to Christianity
One will find appreciation for Hinduism amongst many communists in the West. All over the world, especially in non-Islamic countries such as from India to the West, one will see almost universal sympathy or appreciation for Islam amongst Communists. But appreciation for Christianity is rare if not totally absent amongst Communists, whether from the West or India or Bangladesh. If the foundation of Communism lies in Christianity, how could there be such near-universal hatred for Christianity among Communists anywhere in the world? What is certain however is that if there is sympathy for any religion among Communists, that religion has to “Islam”.
Today, having studied the Bible carefully, I can’t deny Russell’s claim that the foundation of Marxism is contained in the teachings of Jesus. The most fundamental aspect of Communism is guaranteeing the subsistence for every individual in society. The responsibility for ensuring the livelihood of a person is placed on the shoulder of all others society. In the teachings of Jesus (i.e. Gospels), we see him feeding thousands of hungry people from a piece of bread in his possession. For example, in Mark 8:1-10, Jesus takes out a piece of bread from his bag and feeds 4,000 assembled men and women. Elsewhere, we see Jesus telling his prospective disciples to sell away their properties and riches, and distribute amongst the poor. For example, in Mark 10:21 Jesus tells a rich disciple of his:
…Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.
Therefore, feeding all peoples in society with ones riches, even distributing one’s wealth amongst the poor, is a fundamental teachings of Christianity (Whether or not Christians practice it is a different matter!). Similar is the most fundamental and important pillar of the Communist social system. Therefore, Russell’s claim was spot on.
The questions, therefore, arise that:
1) Why Marxists show such abhorrence toward Christianity, but sympathy toward Islam?
2) Is it because of the greater similarity between Islam and Communism?
My latest investigation, indeed, points to the same – that Communism has greater similarity with Islam than with Christianity. Let is see how.
- Establishment of Proletariat Rule: In the eyes of Marxist theory, the followers of Prophet Muhammad were basically the uneducated, poor and oppressed of the Arab society; they actually were the “Proletariat” of Communism. And feeding them and establishing their dominance in Arabia – that is, establishing the unilateral dictatorial governance of the Proletariat was the central aim of Prophet Muhammad’s Prophetic movement. It may not have received theoretical prominence in Muhammad’s preaching, but it was the central aim of his actions. On the other hands, Jesus had clear sympathy toward the Proletariat, but there is no emphasis for establishing their dominance in society or state, unlike in Prophet Muhammad’s movement.
- Armed Revolution: The primary aim of the Communist movement is to smash the existing social system with governance or dominance of the privileged and the rich. In so doing, the rich were to be subjugated under the Proletariat or exterminated them completely through mass-murder, and their wealth and riches were to be confiscated for feeding the poor or redistributing among them.
Prophet Muhammad’s movement was nearly the same. In the Quran, we see Prophet Muhammad condemning the rich, and when his mainly poor and deprived followers became powerful in head-counts and forces of arms, Muhammad started attacking and exterminating or exiling the rich communities of Arabia, and distributing the looted wealth of those communities amongst his Proletariat supporters (although he kept a bigger share, one-fifth, for himself). Allah has even revealed an entire chapter in the Quran on the matter of looted properties, name Surah Al-Anfal or Spoil of War (Surah 8).
We therefore see that on the question of armed revolution, Prophet Muhammad’s Islamic movement and the Communist movement stand on the same line. But it is absent in Jesus’ movement. Instead, we see Jesus sucking up to the powerful imperial Roman rulers, wherein he advised the Palestinian Jews to show subservience and duly pay taxes to the Romans.
Therefore, it becomes evident that in matters of both feeding and providing for the poor and armed revolution, Islamic and Communist movements stand on the same line. And in both matters, Islam was the pioneer for the Communist movement. Whether or not did it happen in reality, Islam certainly gets a place as a priori example for Communism to emulate.
Indeed, in the letters exchanged between Frederick Angels (d. 1895) and Karl Marx (d. 1883), the founding fathers of Communism, we see that they deemed Prophet Muhammad’s Islamic movement as a kind of economic struggle between the rich and the poor like in Communism, in which the poor Bedouins were on one side and the settled or city-dwellers, engaged in the profession of commerce and industry, on the other. So, wrote Angels in a letter to Marx:
“Islam is a religion adapted to Orientals, especially Arabs, i.e. as on one hand to townsmen engaged in trade and industry and on the other nomadic Bedouins – their lives, however, a periodically recurring collision. The townspeople grow rich, luxurious and lax in the observation of the ‘law.’ The Bedouins, poor and hence of strict morals, contemplate with envy and covetousness these riches and pleasures. Then they unite under a prophet, a Mahdi, to chastise the apostates and restore the observation of the ritual and the true faith and to appropriate in recompense the treasures of the renegades.”[1]
Thus, in the eyes of Angels, Prophet Muhammad’s armed Islamic movement was a struggle of the poor (Proletariat) against the rich (exploiters/oppressors) for establishing parity in power and wealth. And Marx expressed agreement with Angels in his reply. Elsewhere Marx wrote:
"Muhammad was the man who rose with an iron will among people who worship idles. He invited them to monotheism and plant the immortality of psych in their souls. So not only he has to be included among the prominent men of the history, but also we have to confess by all of our hearts that he has been God's prophet.”[2]
Therefore, we need not be surprised that well-known Irish socialist thinker Thomas Carlyle, is his book "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History", gave Muhammad a distinguished place, declaring “his admiration with a passionate championship of Muhammad as a Hegelian agent of reform, insisting on his sincerity and commenting 'how one man single-handedly, could weld warring tribes and wandering Bedouins into a most powerful and civilized nation in less than two decades.’”[3] To be noted that Hegel (d. 1831) was the pioneering philosopher of the Communist movement.
Therefore, Islam, like Communist revolution, was not only a materialist struggle between the rich and the poor, but both Angels and Marx, the founding fathers of Communism, also saw Prophet Muhammad’s revolution as a prior prototype of sorts for their own movement.
There are, therefore, compelling reasons behind the fact that Christianity and Judaism became the object of Karl Marx’s harshest criticisms, but Islam was spared of the same.
Differences between Islam and Marxism
Despite the fundamental similarity and unity between the Islamic and Marxist movements, there are apparently some fundamental differences between the two. For example, Muhammad’s Proletariats were only those, who would accept his leadership and faith; the rest constituted oppressor and exploiter class, and hence the object of extermination and plunder. In the Communist movement, although all of the poor and deprived were theoretically the Proletariat, in the real application of Communism, the same happened as in Muhammad’s case. For example, in the Soviet Russia assisted successful Hungarian Communist revolution under the leadership of Béla Kun in 1919, peasants had overwhelmingly supported the revolution. But after the revolution, when the Béla Kun government wanted to nationalize all personal property, the same peasants refused to give up their lands. As a result, the peasants, who were key to the success of the Communist revolution in Hungary, became the target of oppression and brutality of the Communist government they had steered to power.
Communists placed in power through successful Marxist revolutions in the 20th century, such as in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cambodia and elsewhere, have caused the death of tens of millions of people (85 to 100 million in all)[4]. A considerable part of them died of famine, particularly in China, but the majority of them were killed by the Communists. And the majority of those died at the hands of the Communists in those countries were ordinary people of the society. Extermination of such a large number people in such a short time is rare in history. And because they had differences of opinion with the Communist authority or that they opposed the certain policies of the Communists, they had been killed in such large numbers despite belonging to the Proletariat class.
Prophet Muhammad, too, applied a similar protocol. He attacked those individuals and communities of Arabia, who refused to embrace his movement, mass-slaughtered or exiled them without caring whether or not they were rich or poor, and captured their homes, farms and wealth. The looted properties were distributed amongst his own followers, himself keeping one-fifth share of it. He also tried his best to exterminate those, who, after embracing his movement, left it – namely the apostates of Islam. The reason for Prophet Muhammad’s attack of the infidels has been outlined by Allah in verses 59:3-4 of the Quran:
“And if not that Allah had decreed for them evacuation, He would have punished them in [this] world, and for them in the Hereafter is the punishment of the Fire. That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah – then indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.”
In other words, a rejection of the Islamic movement of Allah/Muhammad was sufficient justification for attacking the rejecters for their extermination or mass exile, and confiscating their wealth. Prophet Muhammad applied exactly the same protocol – he attacked those communities, who refused to embrace his movement and leadership. And in the process, he had exiled the Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadir tribes from Medina, while exterminated, by mass slaughter, the Banu Quraiza, Banu Mustaliq and the Banu Nadir Jews of Khaybar, earlier exiled from Medina. (see Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p. 363, 437, 461, 490, 510)।
The Islamic and Marxist Utopia (Heaven)
We see that except for some secondary matters, such as belief God and afterlife, Islam and Marxism show strong unity or consonance between them. Still, Marxism has its own alternative to Islam’s belief in the afterlife or passage to Heaven therein. Marxism dreams of a Heaven but on the earth itself in the form of a “Utopia” or “Perfect Society”. Islam and similar religions, on the other hand, dream of a heaven both in this world and the imaginary life to come next, particularly in the latter. And Islam and Marxism undertake the same modus operandi, namely violence or armed revolution, for the creation of their respective earthly Utopia. The command for armed revolution for creating its own ideal society on earth is absent in Christianity.
What is interesting is the fact that there is fundamental similarity between Islam’s afterlife Heaven and Marxism’s earthly Utopia, although it may not have been clearly spelt out. The Islamic Utopia or Heaven would be such a society, where all needs and wishes of its blessed residents would be fulfilled automatically. Whether one craves to drink wine or eat certain fruits, it will be in his/her mouth as soon as the thought comes to mind. They don’t have to do any work for that. As a result, the only thing the residents of the Islamic Heaven would busy themselves with is pleasure and unceasing sex with heavenly virgins.
Marx, too, dreamt of a similar Utopia in effect. According to Marx, work and efforts for meeting the daily necessities of life deprives us of the opportunity for our personal and intellectual development, which should be the primary objectives of the thinking human species. Therefore, there is a promise for liberating humans from the production machinery or labor-force as much as possible in the ultimate Marxist society (Utopia). In that ultimate Marxist society, the production system would be highest, possible completely, mechanized. In this respect, Marx wrote:[5]
“Freedom in this field (i.e. from labor) can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom only with this realm of necessity as its basis. Shortening the working-day is its basic prerequisite.”
It means that in Marx’s Utopia, efforts for production will be aimed at sufficiently feeding the stomach, not more. In other words, human beings, at the height of their true freedom, would be detached from the production machinery as much as possible. With the blessing of science, machines would be sufficient for producing enough to take care of our stomachs. Therefore, human beings, as per Marx’s dreams and wishes, would dedicate themselves to do whatever they like for their personal and intellectual development.
It’s obvious that Marx’s desired “ultimate Utopia” would be nothing but a factory of idle minds (people). And in that a society, as per Marx’s expectations, human beings, in line with human nature and out of their own free will, will busy themselves in activities for a so-called personal and intellectual development, purely aimed at self-satisfaction of the individual. What would or could those activities be?
Undoubtedly a very few individuals at best would engage themselves in intellectual investigations and development, while the overwhelming majority would busy themselves in pleasure and entertainment – wine, marijuana, music and sex. In such a society, only these activities would be in consonance with human nature. Therefore, Marx’s Utopia is hardly different from the Islamic Paradise. They are nearly reflections of each others.
In sum, it is doubtless that Prophet Muhammad’s Islamic and Marx’s Communist movements have inherent consonance and unity between them in fundamental and major issues. And the application of the two social systems has bore almost the same outcomes, too. Islam and Marxism are as if each other’s “soul buddies” – almost.
[1] Engels, On the History of Early Christianity, 1894.
[2] Quoted from the book, ‘Muhammad among Western Scholars’ (p. 10), in Prophet Muhammad in Western Thinkers' Viewpoint; http://www.ido.ir/en/en-a.aspx?a=1390050401
[3] Heroes and Hero Worship, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Carlyle#Heroes_and_Hero_Worship
[4] Mass killings under Communist regimes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
[5] Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 3, p. 85; New York, 1967
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by continuum , October 15, 2012
But appreciation for Christianity is rare if not totally absent amongst Communists, whether from the West or India or Bangladesh. If the foundation of Communism lies in Christianity, how could there be such near-universal hatred for Christianity among Communists anywhere in the world?
This is not true...the fact is Indian communists do consider Christianity as favorable, although may not be as favorable as Islam and have utter contempt for Hinduism. Communist naxalites (terrorists) in India even take arms for Christianity/Christians.
The way I see it, since communists believe in causing revolution (radical change) in any society, the only way they achieve it is by destroying the majority culture...
Their hatred for Christianity in West and in general can be due to inordinate power christian countries wield at global level. In order to make changes globally, the Christian majority (by virtue of power) must be destroyed. Its similarity with Islam does not explain hatred for Christianity, just as similarity with Christianity does not explain communists fondness for islam..
written by Worldpeace , October 15, 2012
But you miss one difference; Islam is both a religion and a political ideology.
written by Jimat Khorasan , October 15, 2012
Islam was conjured up by greedy and a crazed group of desert dwellers to brow beat by force a cult; that exit to this day! Marx mostly wrote about the failings of Capitalism and its consequent class divisions based on wealth. The drudgery of peasant lives and the militarism brought about by the Imperial ruling classes in Europe were fertile grounds for Communism. China was similarly 'converted' but Vietnam's communism was more nationalistic. One needs only to look at the present Chinese & Vietnamese versions of communism to see their lost causes.
I also disagree with the author's use of such terms as Palestinian Jews; in Jesus' period of time!! Is it deemed to imply that such an entity called Palestine was in existence in the 1st century AD? Similarly, during Hegel's time, Islam as we know it today was not available. Communism tried creating a workers' Paradise.....; far different to the Islamic Paradise promised by Allah. While the author acknowledges this; one must not overlook that Communism came late in the 19th century and had little care for religions; mostly converting mosques and churches into warehouses or destroying them outright!
Soviet Union effectively kept all religions at bay; similarly the Chinese communist had scant respect for culture and religion eg during their Cultural Revolution.
Islam and Communism are not the same and communist had scant respect for religions including Islam.
Developed countries with an industrial military capacity; be they Christian, Communist or Jewish are able to dictate terms to lesser developed and poorer nations. From the time of history, economic and trade policies favour the rich to keep the poor from becoming rich.....and one could include amongst this select group the capital markets, the Bourses, the dominance of currencies, World Trade Organisations, the Security Council, OPEC, the Colonial imperialist, the economic imperialist, Saudi royals and Islam (which confines intelligence and education within a bin called Quran).
written by This is Rami Rustom , October 16, 2012
That area was called Palestine by the Roman Empire. I think it was called Palestine even before that. Lets see wikipedia:
> The term Peleset (transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t) is found in numerous Egyptian documents referring to a neighboring people or land starting from c.1150 BCE during the Twentieth dynasty of Egypt. The first mention is thought to be in texts of the temple at Medinet Habu which record a people called the Peleset among the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in Ramesses III's reign.[11] The Assyrians called the same region Palashtu or Pilistu, beginning with Adad-nirari III in the Nimrud Slab in c.800 BCE through to emperor Sargon II in his Annals approximately a century later.[1][12][13] Neither the Egyptian or Assyrian sources provided clear regional boundaries for the term.
>
> The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece.[14]
written by Malem , October 16, 2012
written by Worldpeace , October 16, 2012
written by Montegue , October 16, 2012
written by Rationalist , October 16, 2012
One will find appreciation for Hinduism amongst many communists in the West. All over the world, especially in non-Islamic countries such as from India to the West, one will see almost universal sympathy or appreciation for Islam amongst Communists. But appreciation for Christianity is rare if not totally absent amongst Communists, whether from the West or India or Bangladesh.
>> Communists support group or religion in minority so that they can pit one class against another. Their Utopian theory is that as a result of class struggle a classless society can be created where everyone is equal. Well, Commies in the West support Buddhism or Hinduism or even Islam because Christians are in majority. Shift to India now: Hindus are in majority. Commies support Muslims and Christians. They were at the forefront of the protest rallies against Danish cartoons and Dan Brown's movies. However, they praised and even honored MF Hussain for drawing nude pictures of Hindu gods and goddesses.
If the foundation of Communism lies in Christianity, how could there be such near-universal hatred for Christianity among Communists anywhere in the world?
>> Communism was born to oppose the heinous crimes perpetrated by the church. In fact commies oppose anything that is in majority. In India, they oppose Hindus; in the west they oppose Christianity. However, they stay in bed with Muslims because they know the consequence of opposing Islam. Therefore, they are best mates on and off the field!
What is certain however is that if there is sympathy for any religion among Communists, that religion has to “Islam”.
>> This is true irrespective of where Commies live.
You are a Bengali; so you must be aware of the dirty commies of West Bengal. Do they support Hinduism?
written by Jye , October 16, 2012
written by Alamgir Hussain , October 16, 2012
About my comment on some Communists' appreciation of Hinduism, and complete lack of appreciation for Christianity:
(1) Rationalist, I didn't say Indian commies appreciate Hinduism, instead some of them in the West.
(2) Continuum, it seems my study of Indian communists' appreciation of Christianity was not thorough. What I noticed in Bangladesh is that Communists there don't like Islam, but they will never criticise it, although they might oppose it. For them, Mullahs are problem, Islam not so much. Some of them, especially Hindu ones glorify Islam. In India, I only have some idea about Kolkata communists and some Marxists writers, such as MN Roy, and R Thapor. They often glorify Islam. But I haven't really encountered any writing or speech of an Indian communist that glorifies Christianity as a religion. It's possible that such renditions by some Indian communists might be there, but didn't come to my attention. I think I should have made my point keeping my likely ignorance in perspectives.
Of course, electoral alliance with Christians is possible, but that doesn't mean appreciating their religion.
Nonetheless, thanks for the input, which covers for the weakness of the main article.
written by Malem , October 16, 2012
written by continuum , October 16, 2012
written by Malem , October 16, 2012
written by This is Rami Rustom , October 16, 2012
Unexplained assertion, and its false. Islam is more than a religion. Its a socio-political system with a component of religion. All other religions don't have the socio-political component.
> This could be prepare for Hinduism or Christianity or Judiasm...but guess what, its garbage. The author should have used less words, especially when he was trying his best to make the FALSE case that Marxism was developed because of its dislike of Christianity,
Another unexplained assertion. Alamgir did not claim that Marxism was developed because of its dislike of Christianity. Why did you think he did claim that? Please quote the relevant text that says that.
> This guy should have actually attended the classes at college versus staying home all day and watching the telly.
How do you know what Alamgir does with his time?
written by This is Rami Rustom , October 16, 2012
False. All the Quranic verses about divorce explain to men how and why they can divorce women. None of them explain to women the hows and whys they are to divorce men.
> Or how Hiduism points out that women without a son are worthless, or that women are dumb
The Quran says women are dumb (Quran 2.282). So what? Just because Hinduism sucks doesn't mean Islam doesn't suck.
> Women have much more rights in Islam. The woman has the same right as the Muslim man in all matters, including divorce.
False. Its not equal. Women don't have the right to beat their husbands while husbands have the right to beat their wives. Women are ordered to obey their husbands while husbands are not ordered to obey their wives.
> They can have property and inheritance rights.
True. But the inheritance to women is half that of men (Quran 4:176). Do you consider this equal? 1 does not equal 0.5.
> They can run there own separate business. they can marry any Muslim of her choice. If her parents choose a man for her, her consent has to be taken.A Muslim widow is encouraged to remarry, and her remarriage is the responsibility of the Muslim society.
Which Quranic verse says those things? Are you saying that a women doesn't have the right to be single?
If you disagree with any of my assertions, quote the relevant Quranic verses that you think contradict my assertions and explain why you think they contradict my assertions.
Before you try to evade my criticism, remember that you said you are willing to address honest criticism. I think its clear my criticism is honest. So if you evade, then you were not telling the truth before.
written by continuum , October 16, 2012
written by Malem , October 16, 2012
Unexplained assertion and false. There are other religions such as Sikhism which has a distinct socio-political component and has for many years. Both Judaism and Christianity have had socio-political components going back to the days of the Romans and their influences on both movements. So to state ALL other religions dont have a socio-political component is laughable at best.
>Alamgir did not claim that Marxism was developed because of its dislike of Christianity. Why did you think he did claim that? Please quote the relevant text that says that.
I based it on his own remarks like "fact that Christianity and Judaism became the object of Karl Marx’s harshest criticisms" "Marxism is an atheistic social theory, which emerged out of its battle with the very Christian religion."
>How do you know what Alamgir does with his time?
Assertion is false and misleading. I never claimed to know what the author did with his time, yet you state that I did, another false statement lad.
Your turn lad
written by Dwito , October 16, 2012
Infidelism? How can a derogatory term that Muslims use against non-Muslims be an ideology to warrant an "ism"?
Dear Jye, Pl. remember, when we come here, we should have our own rational sense of independent judgement ability. Our thinking process must not be dependent on what Muslims think, and carried away by that.
What if Muslims think infidel-ism is bad? What if Muslims use it as a derogatory term to non-believers? Is what Muslims think are good?
list the category, you will find whatever Muslims think good are evil and negative to us, non-Muslims, and vise verse.
Now let's see what the very word actually means:-
Cambridge UP - Someone who does not have the same religious beliefs as the person speaking.
So according to Muslims and their sponsor book, it must be bad. Do you subscribe to this notion? I don't. Otherwise it is not that Islam we oppose and denigrate for. Hope I'm clear now.Pl. carry what you are here for. Your presence within this short term is awfully good. I'm jealous to you. Thank you.
written by Alamgir Hussain , October 16, 2012
It's collision with Christianity is somewhat akin to the prior collision of Liberalism with Christianity. Liberalism stopped at emasculating Christianity politically. Communism's collision with Christianity was rather more radical, because of its refusal to coexist with any supernatural belief systems.
written by Malem , October 17, 2012
written by This is Rami Rustom , October 17, 2012
A question is not an assertion. I asked a question. You're saying I made an assertion.
> I never claimed to know what the author did with his time, yet you state that I did, another false statement lad.
I'll quote you:
> This guy should have actually attended the classes at college versus staying home all day and watching the telly.
Is that not a claim about what the author did with his time?
written by This is Rami Rustom , October 17, 2012
Judaism and Christianity do not have anything in their holy books that explain any sociopolitical component. What you're talking about is that people after the holy book used the religion for political gain. The difference is that with Islam, it was created for the purpose of political gain.
written by This is Rami Rustom , October 17, 2012
- Marxism is an atheistic social theory, which emerged out of its battle with the very Christian religion.
is equivalent to this idea by you...
- Marxism was developed because of its dislike of Christianity,
You've misunderstood the author. "Emerged out of" does not mean "developed because of".
Misunderstanding is very easy. This is why we should not jump to conclusions. Instead, we should doubt whether we've understood people's statements and then ask if what we've understood is correct. If you asked the author, he could have answered you, or I could have, or anybody else could have.
Oh and look, the author did explain this part that you misunderstood. Read his comment titled: Marxism was not developed as a reaction to Christianity.
written by Jay , October 17, 2012
written by malem , October 17, 2012
As for the author, I recognized him for his clarification, you are slow aren't you rami.maybe you need to spend more time on the internet! Hahaha
written by Rationalist , October 17, 2012
written by Jye , October 17, 2012
written by Kafirwala , October 17, 2012
written by Alamgir Hussain , October 17, 2012
written by Kafirwala , October 17, 2012
Having said that both communism and Islam are cults and are detrimental to the progress and growth of mankind, I must add this much. Though communism had its peak and was reigning supreme most part of the twentieth century, eventually it was consigned to the dust bin of history. Next is the turn of the uglier cult Islam. I hope before long this scourge on the body politic of mankind also will be thrown into the gutters of world history, its rightful place.
written by This is Rami Rustom , October 17, 2012
Right. I don't know *all* other religions anyway. Its easy to make false statements when one makes absolute statements.
> As for the author, I recognized him for his clarification, you are slow aren't you rami.maybe you need to spend more time on the internet! Hahaha
So, because I spend my time in many places and not just islam-watch, which resulted in my missing some comments (by the way, I don't read all comments/articles), you think that means I'm slow? That is a non-sequitur. That means false logic.
Do you mean like mentally slow? Like dumb? If so, consider this.
Premise: Rami is smarter than Malem.
Premise: Rami is (mentally) slow.
Conclusion: Malem is (mentally) slower than Rami.
written by Malem , October 17, 2012
written by kafir-infidel , October 17, 2012
written by Dwito , October 17, 2012
I really don't understand what you're trying to say. For my part, I mean that simply not being a Muslim does not make a people an ideology.
Well, this is bilateral. Could you pl. explain how to make a people an ideology?
written by Jye , October 17, 2012
noun, plural i·de·ol·o·gies.
1.
the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
According to dictionary.com this is the meaning of ideology. So, now tell me, how does the entire planet's populations of non Muslims all fit into a single ideology that would be known as "Ifidelism"? Because they have the common denominator of not being a Muslim does not make them a movement or political doctrine etc. Only Muslims place non Muslims in one single category.
written by Jye , October 17, 2012
written by This is Rami Rustom , October 17, 2012
You have never claimed that I selectively interpret the Quran. This is your first time. And you're not explaining your assertion. So how could I know if you are right or not? So to move forward on this, explain your assertion. Quote me, point out my (selective) interpretation, and explain how its selective.
Premise: You said you are willing to consider honest criticism.
Premise: I've tried to start a discussion with you about specific Quranic verses and you didn't reply.
Conclusion: You lied!
Why did you lie? What are you trying to protect? Why are you evading?
written by Kaser (Little Kaser) , October 17, 2012
"You can interpret as you want, sort of like how you selectively interpret the Koran lad. Cheers"
Don't we all Malem, don't we all...
written by Angry Ant , October 18, 2012
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/78-sujit/1175-psychological-aspects-of-the-muslim-slave-mentality.html
written by Admin. , October 18, 2012
If it's more than 500 words, split it into two and post again.
If it still doesn't work, send it to us and we will try post it on you behalf.
written by kafir-infidel , October 18, 2012
written by Dwito , October 19, 2012
I would much rather use the term anti-islamism, anti-jihadism etc
Anti-jihad-ism is a narrow sense. It is a part of broader Islam-ism. When you call anti-jihadism, you specify yourself only to the visible violent part of the major problem. Anti-islamism is rather a right term.
Only Muslims place non Muslims in one single category.
No. All organized groups call other as non-etc. Its a common mental character of all human being. Suppose communists against non-communists, they may be many more like capitalist....religious fundamentalist..........nationalist......bigotist............ideotist.........uneducationist.........and what not.
Hindu to non-hindu such as Jabon, Bidhormi and so on.
the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
So, now tell me, how does the entire planet's populations of non Muslims all fit into a single ideology that would be known as "Ifidelism"? Because they have the common denominator of not being a Muslim does not make them a movement or political doctrine etc.
Pl. tell how will you like to call the ideology, named humanism in this context?
written by Jye , October 19, 2012
Pl. tell how will you like to call the ideology, named humanism in this context?
We ARE human, but an infidel is subjective and a matter of opinion.
written by Kafirwala , October 20, 2012
I have no grouse that any of my comments/ responses have been kept in abeyance pending a review by the admin in the near past. In fact, only a few times I have offered my comments and without any delay it appeared in the site too. Therefore, I wish to clarify that the clarification above given by admin does not pertain to me. However, thanks for the clarification as it will serve as a guidance to all the readers who take part in the discussions in these columns.
written by Dwito , October 20, 2012
We ARE human, but an infidel is subjective and a matter of opinion.
Right. Every ideology is a subject of opinion.
written by Jye , October 20, 2012
written by Archpagan , October 20, 2012
In my humble view, Communism is the logical culmination of Abrahamic Monotheism. From Judaism to Communism, there has been progressive denigration of God. Jews entrapped God into a covenant. Christians appointed a sole clearing agent called Christ to gain the mercy of God. Muslims sealed the mouth of the poor guy after extracting his ‘final message’. Communism just dispensed with God making Karl Marx the sole authority for spiritual and temporal needs of human being. So, in a sense Communists are the real monotheist. They had one God named Karl Marx, but no super-god like Jesus Christ or Muhammad.
written by Dwito , October 20, 2012
That's why I wouldn't classify myself as apart of "infidelism".
That's fine. Freedom of self determination should always to put at prime position. Thanks for engaging in a friendly session.
written by Gnostic , October 21, 2012
There may be some similarities between islam and marxism which are both looking proletarian and very politic. However, there are striking differences. Marxism rejects the belief in a life beyond death and claims that anybody should fight for the secular being. I would even consider that there can be no more gap between Marxism and Islam because islam is the worst fatalistic religion imaginable, making people only believing in praying for a better life.
And there were other religions much more similar to marxism such as the ancient Mazdakites from Iran or many chinese socio-religous movements such as White Lotus or the Taiping movement which were fighting for equality, nationalization of all assetes to be shared by alls and so on.
In contrast islam does not claim to distribute anything equally except the taxes for the poor but this dioes not change the society.
Some islamic societies may look somewhat socialistic though; but for different reasons. The private sector is underdeveloped because of the lack of a modern industries, lack of a moidern banking system (interest forbidden), lack of an educated and skilled middle class and the dominance of nationalized sector such as oil and gas, subsidies for bread and even for gasoline.
written by Gnostic , October 21, 2012
There may be some similarities between islam and marxism which are both looking proletarian and very politic. However, there are striking differences. Marxism rejects the belief in a life beyond death and claims that anybody should fight for the secular being. I would even consider that there can be no more gap between Marxism and Islam because islam is the worst fatalistic religion imaginable, making people only believing in praying for a better life.
And there were other religions much more similar to marxism such as the ancient Mazdakites from Iran or many chinese socio-religous movements such as White Lotus or the Taiping movement which were fighting for equality, nationalization of all assetes to be shared by alls and so on.
In contrast islam does not claim to distribute anything equally except the taxes for the poor but this dioes not change the society.
Some islamic societies may look somewhat socialistic though; but for different reasons. The private sector is underdeveloped because of the lack of a modern industries, lack of a moidern banking system (interest forbidden), lack of an educated and skilled middle class and the dominance of nationalized sector such as oil and gas, subsidies for bread and even for gasoline.
written by Gnostic , October 21, 2012
There may be some similarities between islam and marxism which are both looking proletarian and very politic. However, there are striking differences. Marxism rejects the belief in a life beyond death and claims that anybody should fight for the secular being. I would even consider that there can be no more gap between Marxism and Islam because islam is the worst fatalistic religion imaginable, making people only believing in praying for a better life.
And there were other religions much more similar to marxism such as the ancient Mazdakites from Iran or many chinese socio-religous movements such as White Lotus or the Taiping movement which were fighting for equality, nationalization of all assetes to be shared by alls and so on.
In contrast islam does not claim to distribute anything equally except the taxes for the poor but this dioes not change the society.
Some islamic societies may look somewhat socialistic though; but for different reasons. The private sector is underdeveloped because of the lack of a modern industries, lack of a moidern banking system (interest forbidden), lack of an educated and skilled middle class and the dominance of nationalized sector such as oil and gas, subsidies for bread and even for gasoline.
written by Gnostic , October 21, 2012
There may be some similarities between islam and marxism which are both looking proletarian and very politic. However, there are striking differences. Marxism rejects the belief in a life beyond death and claims that anybody should fight for the secular being. I would even consider that there can be no more gap between Marxism and Islam because islam is the worst fatalistic religion imaginable, making people only believing in praying for a better life.
And there were other religions much more similar to marxism such as the ancient Mazdakites from Iran or many chinese socio-religous movements such as White Lotus or the Taiping movement which were fighting for equality, nationalization of all assetes to be shared by alls and so on.
In contrast islam does not claim to distribute anything equally except the taxes for the poor but this dioes not change the society.
Some islamic societies may look somewhat socialistic though; but for different reasons. The private sector is underdeveloped because of the lack of a modern industries, lack of a moidern banking system (interest forbidden), lack of an educated and skilled middle class and the dominance of nationalized sector such as oil and gas, subsidies for bread and even for gasoline.
written by Gnostic , October 21, 2012
There may be some similarities between islam and marxism which are both looking proletarian and very politic. However, there are striking differences. Marxism rejects the belief in a life beyond death and claims that anybody should fight for the secular being. I would even consider that there can be no more gap between Marxism and Islam because islam is the worst fatalistic religion imaginable, making people only believing in praying for a better life.
And there were other religions much more similar to marxism such as the ancient Mazdakites from Iran or many chinese socio-religous movements such as White Lotus or the Taiping movement which were fighting for equality, nationalization of all assetes to be shared by alls and so on.
In contrast islam does not claim to distribute anything equally except the taxes for the poor but this dioes not change the society.
Some islamic societies may look somewhat socialistic though; but for different reasons. The private sector is underdeveloped because of the lack of a modern industries, lack of a moidern banking system (interest forbidden), lack of an educated and skilled middle class and the dominance of nationalized sector such as oil and gas, subsidies for bread and even for gasoline. Some rulers like Gaddafi might have shownn some socialistic tendencies but I think not because of islam.
