Full marks for trying, but I can't find the logic behind this essay.

All religious wars are imbued with poltical undertones, or overtones. The papal wars, Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Israeli-Palestaine conflict.....

Take religious belief out of the equation in each case and you have an altogether different cultural milleau.

There has been much debate recently as to whether religious or secular movements have caused more bloodshed and misery throughout human history.

The jury will never come home on that debate, because it is too difficult to do an accurate body count that everybody can agree with.

The extreme irony that religion (purporting love and peace) is so often an agent for hate and bloody warfare is a fascinating one. The fact that religion is in the running for top spot in the misery stakes is an indictment in itself, but it is not a productive debate. Better to focus on dogma per se.

Extreme dogmatists of any flavour, whether they be Muslim fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists or secular fundamentalists, I believe, are the greatest danger to world peace.

This debate is useful but there is no point in declaring war on either religion or secularism. Let's just call it human nature.

“One of the few places for a political voice is at the mosque and through religion. Religion provides the cloak for what is essentially politics.”

“The similarities of communism and Islam are considerable. Both are egalitarian and advocate radical and economic change. They both demand a domination of the public space and share a dogmatic, ideological view of the world.”

Enough said!

Tanweer,

Agree with some parts of the article regarding Egypt.
Although a minor correction: Arab socialism was advocate by Nasser and not Sadat. Sadat was a great supporter and implementer of modern Capitalism in Egypt.

Nice try - similarities yes - but social equality NO.

Islam is not egaliterian does not consider all as equal... as much as it likes to boast that it is.

Women are not equal to men for example.

Other religions are mistreated under an islamic regime.

Islam is a supremacist political movement desguised as a religion.

The crunch of the matter is as a nation we have succesfully dwarfed Marxism - but are we able to put a stop to the marching political army of Islam?

A wise piece.

It is often overlooked that, for all its protestations, communism shared most of the characteristics of organized religion.

A wise and venerated (or powerful and feared) leader.

A saturation of dogma.

A strong culture of "us and them" - you were either a comrade, or you were a capitalist lackey lickspittle running dog - that is reflected in every religion's fear of every other.

This has the power to stifle internal revolt for many decades. Fear is used to ensure that the citizenry are themselves the policy enforcers. China's experience with the Cultural Revolution and Germany's experiences with Nazism are classic examples of the power of a ruling dogma, where the individual is powerless - not just against the state, but against his fellow citizen's fear of the consequences of non-conformance.

The key point is, as the author rightly points out, that bombing the crap out of them solves nothing. Only the continued (relative) success of capitalist democracies can eventually neutralize the threat of the religiously-mobilized have-nots.

Just as communism eventually crumbled away as its citizens came to realise that the enemy was not "the West", but their own deluded leaders.

Unfortunately, common sense is increasingly irrelevant to the winning of elections.

Some interesting posts here.

Whilst finger-pointing Islam, Christians should not forget the brutal historical role of Christianity which, aligned with politics, subjugated indigenous cultures throughout the world.

The Conquistadors carried the crucifix aloft, missionaries everywhere helped pave the way for cultures to be subjugated, divided, dispossessed, broken down, demorialised and politically colonised. This history was as violent as any warfare.

This is not a triade against Christianity per se, just a call for history to be ackniowledged as it is, not rewritten in a pious competition for righteousness.

Understandably, Christians wish to present Christianity vis-a-vis the Muslim faith as morally superior. Again, the lesson to be learned from history are lost if banal finger pointing becomes the name of the game.

Religious devotees and secular movements all need to be aware of the potential for imbedded hard-core beliefs to become cancerous.

Hamas and Hezbollah can’t advertise themselves as secular if they exclude jews.

Our concern should not be piqued merely because the people of the Middle East wish to be governed by Islamists. But the governed in the Middle East should be concerned about their future once the black stuff runs out. What will sustain the welfare mentality that is being cultivated by Hamas and Hezbollah? Where are the Middle East aircraft and motor vehicle assembly plants? Where are the Middle East computer chip manufacturing plants? Hamas and Hezbollah might pause and ask: who generates that money for us to hand out? Is its source the Koran or is a commodity sold in order to generate money which is then handed out?

A simple test to see if Hezbollah is morally superior to the West might be how it reacts to anti-Hezbollah demonstrations. If the people welcome hospitals but do not welcome rockets and arms being stored in those hospitals would the people be free to hold an anti-Hezbollah or anti-Hamas demonstration? Would Hamas and Hezbollah welcome a challenge to their morality? Would they employ smiling tolerance perhaps?

If the Middle East is to be recast as essentially Rousseauist all that will achieve is to replace one yoke with another yoke. Wearing that yoke is not likely to produce individuals who want to step out into the sunshine. That might be a salient lesson for both Hezbollah and Hamas; if the population is cowed entrepreneurs, critical thinkers, innovators and the like will be hard to find. Notwithstanding the odd Stakhanovite such a society produces, getting about clutching the Koran is hardly a paradigmatic leap.

If Islam is to replace communism I suggest that citizens of the Middle East tour North Korea before it’s too late.

In terms of secularism, I was fascinated by the argument earlier this week from the counsel representing the Islamic Council of Victoria.

It's the appeal on the case where the Council claimed 2 mad Christian preachers were vilifying them and their religion - the case in which it turned out (according to the judge) that Victorian legislation means that the fact that criticism is objectively truthful or honest or subjectively sincerely believed is not a defence.

Anyway, the senior counsel argued, on behalf of her Islamic clients, that you can't criticise Islam as a religion without criticising Muslims as people because the two are inseperable.

Where's the room for secularism there?

Kevin

An EXTREMELY important article.

We would all do well to study this, not just read it. Well done Tanveer !

"But the old Marxists are now rearing their influence in many of the Islamic political parties which are rapidly rising in popularity"

There are 2 things needing to be noted here.

1/ Yes.. REAL "Marxists" are seeking to influence and control Islamic grievances for their own political reasons.

LOCAL EVIDENCE. Last saturday, I attended a demonstration in Melbourne run by the Socialist Alliance and the Palestine Solidarity Network. Atheists and Believers.. I'm guessing that each is trying to use the other.

2/ Not All "Islamist movements" are being driven by Marxists. Hamas and Hezbollah are about as "Islamist" as you could get.

Fatah/PLO is closer to Socialist/Marxist doctrine, in an Islamic cloak, as per Tanveers Article.

Hence there are 2 very real dangers for our society. Firstly the mutual 'using' of each other locally, in an attempt to have more political/social clout than each entity would have individually.
Secondly the out and out "Islamist" groups who regard suicide Jihad as a noble expression of faith.

Dear GECKO
again, I need to point out that you are both right and wrong. Right in your mention of 'Christian History' and atrocities/oppression etc, but wrong in that you fail to distinguish between Islamic oppression and the direct connection to the fundamentals of that faith, and the LACK of connection between so called 'Christian' oppression/atrocities/wars and Christ and the early Church.

I will labor this point till I run out of fingers, but its CRUCIAL.
Gecko, you realllly need to study the New Testament, from which 'Christians' come, and notice this. You will not find any reference to 'fight them in the name of Allah' kind of thing.
You will find "The weapons of our warfare are NOT carnal (human)"

I can trace Islamic conquest back to Mohammed. But NOT Christian 'conquest' back to Christ. (except the willing surrender of the heart to the Gospel) Rome fell to the Gospel up to 300AD, the world fell to Constantine's armies from AD300 onward.

Nice try.
Marx as we have all found out by now (except North Korea and Cuba) was wrong.
He failed to see into the future unlike Christianity,Islam and Jewish faith.
All three religions believe in one supreme being.
Two believe the Messiah has landed on earth.
Marx belived that we would all live happy ever after if we forgot religions,he was sadly wrong.
All religions have blood on their hands and even sixty years of Communism under Stalin,they had blood on his hands and face.
It would be nice to live in utopia where all of us live in harmony.
Even in Australia where there has been no battles on our land for more than a century.This is to take into consideration the fact that the Europeans took away the lands of the Aboriginal landholders,we have a situation developing where it is quite possible that future battles will start.
The average person in Australia once owned Telstra,Water and Electricity supplies,Railways,Highways and many other assets.
Now we find that these assets have been stolen by the Lib-Lab governments both State and Federal.
The reason so many in our community are turning toward Islam is that it preaches.
Respect for the poor,No interest on money,No womens issues against the common good.Such as Family Courts which turn family against family,Respect for the person,so Aboriginals are treated like Europeans,and not as they are presently treated under our present legal system,as inferior.
Islam has grown in strengh in this country, that today every corner of our country now has followers of the Koran.
This is dispite attempts by the Christian right that only they will enter Heaven.
Now our government that is run for the profit of the few against the masses is now attempting to steal more of our country.

Islam is not more moral than the West, despite appearances. Islam is built on a base of male domination and male gratification. That is not moral.
Communism was based on "equality" but of course, some [the top echelon] were more equal that others. The top skimmed the cream , the rest were left with the dregs.
The West has many,many defects but there is more a chance of equality, even a fool can become President.
All isms have their day, but none will endure because they are built on quicksand.

A hatchet job cloaked in populist sentiment.

"Marx...advocating radical change...successor to communism...cloaked in God" - no mention of Satan yet but other posters are invited to toss in their two bob's worth.

All the muslims I know are particularly family-oriented. None of them are running for parliament.

Your last paragraph pretty much sums it up Tanveer.

to question the validity of your essay seems futile if applying that your opinion is as good as someone elses.

yet, i would like to ask you, whether Marxism and Islamism similarities should be the topic to discuss, or whether, we should be discussing if the values -solidarity, community interests and concern for others, etc.- these two "ideologies" promote, are reflected in the action of those professing its usage.

i mean, what difference does it make having Marxism or Islamism, and discuss about it, if at the end, all we have in practice are totalitarian ideas highly opposed to the original norms.

finally, i would say that maybe what you call Marxism and refer to as Islam, do not reflect a honest analysis and understanding of what the term really mean.

Marxism was never similar to Islam. Marx himself wrote that religion is the opiate of the masses. This is why in the Soviet Union and other eastern European countries, used to oppress Islam under the soviet block.

Communism, in a way, is the opposite to Islam. Communism has a principle in practicle society to have everyone on an equal level, without religion, superstition or fetishist capitalism.

In pure Marxism, only ever seen in a short period of time in Spain, minority groups were enshrined as part of the communist decree. This was before the fascist General Franco sabotaged the dream by violent terrorism, leading up to WWII.

Islam has more in common with US Republicanism than pure Marxism. It insists on their right to dominate religion, their right for a religious homogeneous society and some rights and responsibilities for citizens in civilization. Islam does not preach equality nor does it tolerate minority groups like lesbians and gay men or transsexuals. It does not tolerate other religions that it renders a threat like Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism, or Christianity.

Admitedly, in past, communism in a less corrupted form, never tollerated any religion at all. One religion was not given special treatment over the other. They were all cast out.

Communism is a system on Government that insists on seperating government from religion. Islam is a religion that insists on taking Government.

Mix the two, and you are contradicting yourself. All religion and all Government must be seperate, or there will be more wars and blood-shed.

These are stupid examples of quasi Islamic nations that "cherry picked" bits of communism that suited their cultures: not worthy of the title "communist". If you believe that, then you have to admit that Iran is more democratic than the US.

This article is a red herring.

I suspect that a number of posters here would benefit from a short course entitled "Make Irony your friend".

The very fact that Marxism was anti-religion while Islam is pro-religion is at the heart of this piece. So there is little point putting the two philosophies side-by-side and comparing their prima facie aims and objectives.

The characteristics they share are in relation to their impact on their followers, not in their stated objectives, whether religious or secular.

The results of the broad application of communism over substantial populations turned out to be in stark contrast to its original intent, which is the key take-away from this article. While at the micro level, there is a great deal of attraction in the Islamic message - which is aimed, as was communism, at folks with an economic grievance - the lesson of communism is that such a movement has no independent staying-power.

It might possibly be easier to understand this if we forget the religious trappings of Islam, and simply consider its political implications.

But we should also bear in mind the fate of the dozens of European countries that were conquered in the name of communism before that doctrine ran out of steam. They were conscripted into communism through being defeated in conventional warfare. Today, there is no such parallel, since the weapon of choice is terrorism

Of course, terrorist attacks can cause significant damage to buildings, and can kill innocent bystanders while doing so. But it cannot achieve the same ends as, for example, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, which was the installation of a communist government by military force.

Saintfletcher thanks for the insights brought about by your taking in this matter -usefull and worth takig into concideration.

with the same token, i would like to extend my gratitude to Pericles who also brough interesting points to be considered.

obviously you both appear to be seating at two different sides of the "spectrum", making this an interesting situation which undouptly would enrich our understanding of the other.

Pericles, could you please make clear to me where did you find the connection between Islam and terrorism?

i find my self alittle lost reading your responce because on the one hand, it seems to me that you made the connection between Islam and terrorism by forgetting what you call religious "trappings" -which is the very thing that makes Islamism an idea- and so, decide focussing on the "political implications" of Islamism, which seems very convenient for the argument you thereafter put forth -that of terrorism.

i mean, if we treat Islam as a political entity, all we end up with is an array of little islamic political parties (wahabism, sufism, sunnis, shiitsm, etc) of which there are like 80 or so of them. Worht concidering then, that it is not Islam the precursor of terror, but some of its political branches -very few of them i may add.

in addition, please do not forget that if a political party has decided to use force -what you call terror- as the means to ends type of tool, we should not be leveling its actions as terror because most if not all political parties of the world, have attained recognition and power by using violence aganinst opposing groups.

in this light, it would be more appropiate then to distinguish among the original question i posed that of values VS usage. as it is less press to acomodative responces

please be carefull when generalysing.

finaly, communist violence, religious violence, capitalist violence, or any other vilent entity, shouold be laveled as terror! dont you think

Fair point cisco.

I forgot for a moment my own favourite maxim: "all generalizations are false. Including this one"

>>could you please make clear to me where did you find the connection between Islam and terrorism?<<

It is not a connection that I made in a general sense, but as a result of observing the stated motives behind recent terrorist attacks in major cities. All the evidence that I have seen points to a motivation that stems from their religious beliefs, in these cases Islam.

Notes left behind explaining their motives:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21082006/325/bomb-plot-suspects-charged.html

Tacit acceptance by community leaders that terrorism is a problem:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1844421,00.html

So the connection comes from the "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks" school of thought. If Muslims say this is the result of a small minority waving their Islamist tendencies around in the form of a war-banner, then I reluctantly have to accept their view.

By no means do I associate every Muslim, from whatever group or flavour, with violence or terrorism. Which, if you read my contribution again, is why I believe this is simply a painful, occasionally deadly but fundamentally random, phase we are going through.

A billion Islamic people, there are lots of different cultures, ethnicities and many different Ideologies. It's like saying all Christians are Capitalists, it just isn't true. There are many different cultures over South-East Asia, The Arab World and Sub Saharan Africa and I think there would definately be some groups who are reminiscent of some Marxist groups, there aren't many however.

Muslim countrys are generally split down the middle when it comes to Ideology, they either Practise Shariah Law (with different levels of strictness and even different interpretations) and the other are relatively secular in their politics (though not always the case) Some Extremists groups, like Hamas for instance, an arguement could be made for wether they have Marxist influences or not, they set up many social services that Israel or the Palestinian authority did not(or could not), same with Hezbollah and Lebanon.

But I think it's a pretty outrageous theory to be honest. I believe Islam to be going through a similar period to what Europe went through in the Middle Ages, 100 years Islamic countrys were not nearly as strict as they are these days, especially in the Arab and Persian world, they were very rich in culture and they were religious but not as hardcore as they are now.

I post this from research done by Salt.

Hitler, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and Islamic Fascism
I’ve read about the alliance between Adolf Hitler and Muslim Arab leaders in World War II, and seen still photographs, but this is the first time I’ve seen actual video of Hitler meeting with the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini—Yasser Arafat’s alleged uncle. From a German TV documentary, with English subtitles. (Hat tip: Justify This, who also created the Azzam Tamimi “shrieking jihad” video.)
On Little Green Footballs website.

Click here then click on the 'screen' to play the 5 minute video.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22137_Hitler_the_Mufti_of_Jerusalem_and_Islamic_Fascism&only

CodyB,
"I believe Islam to be going through a similar period to what Europe went through in the Middle Ages, 100 years Islamic countrys were not nearly as strict as they are these days,"
A good point -something I've pondered myself.
But factor in this. Given that a good number of Islamic countries have their current lifestyles subsidised by oil revenue (& they are experiencing/encouraging rapid population growth).What happens when oil runs out? Do they continue down the same path, maybe accelerate down the same path.
Or will they, frustrated & bitter revert to extreme forms of Islam & blame the rest of the world for their woes-even more than they do now.

All,
A good read, & eye opener, if you have access to it is “Onward Muslim Soldiers by Robert Spencer”

Horus,
Oil money may have kept their dream alive now and in the past, but in the future they will no longer live in the Middle East as they will take up the new technoligies like natural gas, ethanol, biodeisel, hydrogen power in the countries they once supplied with oil. That is the reason for their present transmigration into Western Countries. They will own the sourses of power and all will have to buy from them.

thanks to all who have contrubuted with ideas regarding this topic!
all the insights have been really usefull.

Pericles, i have read your posting again and think makes more sense now that i know were you comming from... thanks for the explanation.

i would like to ask you all a quetion of supreme importance for my and the children ill be teaching political and legal studies and history in the years to come.

It is evident that we all have special interests when talking about historical happenings. and in concequence, i am trying working out a resource file that contains balanced instructional material that precent as many views as pocible -this, obviously in order to avoid the difucion of rasism, intolerance, and ethnocentrism; problems that as at today, have aflicted our lives and threatens our very existence.

So, i was wondering if some of you are interested in contributing to this couse by making sugestions, providing reliable web links, books titles, video sources, work sheets, pocible lesson materials and or even schoolarly talks that ultimatelly would contribute to better teaching practice and a better world. please concider that my "subjects " are high school children and so material has to be less complex than the one we are used to digesting.

Have you ever thought of making a contribution to the world? this is a good start!

thanks every one.
my e-mail adress : soloestudy@gmail.com

Jean Jacques Rousseau expressed the view that the political ideals of a people evolve according to their experience. I seem to also recall his commenting that the Russian people were not ready for democracy.

I think that, in terms of common experience and hegemonic values, there are a lot of similarities between post-Czarist Russia and the environment in which Islam is flourishing now. And it also seems very true to say that these communities are not ready for democracy.

Perhaps people need to develop theories of common good before they can move out of an age of totalitarian rule. That would make sense - because until you form a social contract based on the principles of common good, any attempt at the establishment of the principles of individual rights which democracies such as ours espouse which will be viewed as an offer of 'license' - with a subsequent return to the 'survival of the fittest' and totalitarian rule, instead of 'freedom' (as Rousseau described it).

DizzyLizzy, et.al.,

Islam is ready for change but not to democracy. There is no such understanding in (true) Islam. Theocracy under dictatorship is the order of the day.

The west may wish that democracy will happen one day and open up the way to meaningful dialogue - but the obvious movement of Islam is backward and not forward. "They" want to get back to 7th century tribal nomadic fundamentalism. This is were Islam started and therefore will have to stay - they claim.

Islam cannot change nor adapt to other ideologies. It's rules are supposed to be dictated by Allah - their god - and his prophet . And "only Allah knows better" they exclaim.

To compare Islam to Marxism is to give it more political and sociological merit that it really deserves. Islam is just a tribal concept that is growing with the sole objective of total domination. Social justice is not its priority - since they regard women as inferior to men - under the rule of Allah - and the blessing of Mohammad.