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.