Mfw this guy was 90 years ahead of his time

But that implies said community did not abolish the reason for the creation of surplus value.

Iran is heretical but they still follow some very basic Islamic socialist aka Islamic principles regarding economics. Gaddafi's Libya is a much better example tho.

Neither did the Soviets or anarchist Spain.

Any proofs? Not being a smart ass genuinely interested.

I know UAE has de facto slaves but that not really due to Islam is it

Wasn't he a Turanist Proto Nazbol?

Islam was never okay with slavery. Muslims took slaves either as captives of war or our of mercy, i.e. women who had been widowed in war were given opportunities to stay out of poverty by serving Muslims. But generally Islam sees all people as equal and you are never supposed to prop up social hierarchies or hierarchical systems.

Ah yes but there are plenty who don't interpret it at all like this

How? Proof?

They aren't real Muslims.

I'd say they probably tried harder with that collectivization and stuff.

you can say the same for any of the big religions. which is why they all need to go

The Abbasid period was the closest the world has ever come to full communism. There were Islamic leaders who literally abolished poverty. The Soviets and anarchists can't say the same.

Him trying to marry ultranationalism with communism was a big part of why he ended up getting purged.

Sultan-Galiyev said the nationalism of Islamic nations would be de facto communist, because Islam has always been a religion of the oppressed and thus a religion whose doctrine is based entirely around equality and justice (including sharing all property and wealth), and because the world's Muslims have always lived in a kind of communalism whereby sharing property and wealth is simply a part of life.

In his view, Europeans could never be real socialists because they always lived according to hierarchical relations of production and thus hierarchical and repressive culture. European identities were rooted entirely in slavery, colonialism and then imperialism, and their entire culture revolved around living off the suffering of others, so communism picked up by Europeans would ultimately fail. And it did.

lmao

Tell that to everyone involved in the Arab Slave Trade and the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire never developed an aristocracy the way European empires did and was never a feudal economy.

Slavery is generally not looked at nicely in Islam. Historically slaves were only taken as captives of war.

Wow, how nice of them.

So what were they supposed to have done? Left those women to starve?

Take them to your community without making them slaves, it's not rocket science

reddit.com/r/islam/comments/36caj8/slavery_in_islam/

islam truly is the religion of the proletariat, a shame that so many of them are fucking stupid though.

Absolutely. The left needs to do more for Muslims and incorporate Islam into historical materialism, especially since histmat is already eurocentric enough as it is.

We'll let anyone who wants to join our cause do so, but we won't isolate non-muslims from it. The most important thing to be doing is making the criticism of capitalism mainstream, and permanent. Incorporating muslims to the left is something that islamic socialists should be tasked with.

Islamic teachings are the perfect basis for socialism because Islam is a great equalizer. Walk into a masjid and you'll see people of all backgrounds together worshiping the same god. Socialism can't do that and if history shows us anything it's socialism was never able to solve issues of factionalism. Look at Slovakia for example: their government just passed a resolution banning Islam and yet many Slovaks are highly nostalgic for the Soviet Czechoslovakian days.

That's why it's fucking bad though

Religion is a tool of class collaboration. Loads of Muslims served with the Bosnian and Croat SS in WW2.

Balkan "Islam" is heretical. They incorporate loads of pagan elements and butcher and/or water down real Islamic teachings.

Islam is not class-collaborationist.

I guess we're just going to ignore the whole "who was Muhammad's legitimate successor" controversy in Islam, huh

Muhammad never wanted a successor. He never wanted Islam to become a state.

Also most Sunnis and Shias were on good terms before colonialism.

as opposed to middle eastern nations injecting their own wholly unrelated cultural elements which doesn't count for some reason

and wahhabism basically being heresy

Wahhabi isn't a "heresy." It's straight-up not Islam. It's like calling Christianity Islam because both faiths love Jesus.

Zakat is just a tax. If I define "the community" as porkies plus everybody else, I can say that " all surplus value is put back into the community" about any system.

Today slavery still exists in some Islamic regions. So, go and be a slave.

rer

...

lul

lmao

heh

If Islam is socialist-friendly then why did USA use Islam against socialism in Muslim countries?

How do you know those "Islamist" groups were real Muslims or following real Islam?

Why did you leave?

...

...

Islam is AGAINST racial superiority and Prophet Muhammad made it clear no race is superior to another.

Say something one more time fag, I dare you

He IS right though, oddly enough, if only about this one thing.

Islam says all people are inherently equal in the eyes of Allah. Having wealth or being the "right" race won't matter at all in Allah's judgment.

Allah's cause is none of mynconcern, his cause is a purely egoistical one, he cares about his cause and his cause only

How do you know what Allah's cause is?

What his cause is is none of my concern, as it is his cause

The only cause I know is my cause, so i defend my cause only

There were many more Muslims in communist and socialist parties than in anti-socialist ones back in the 60s.

...

Nice to know your feelings got hurt, spookcuck

His critique of white people is absolutely useful today.

Yeah no thanks

Qur'an gives women more civil liberties than the Bible.

Women in Islamic nations had more rights than they did in western nations up until the west began funding reactionary regimes like the Taliban. Women in Kabul used to be more liberated than women in New York or Paris.

this is why stirnecucks need gassing

I've read the Al-Qur'an enough to know that's bullshit

really? any good source?

Wonder what it has to say.

I summed it up here:

Explain. Where in the Qur'an does it say men are rulers of women?

Kill Whitey