Please read
this thread of mine from 2016. It is an article by Nadeem Paracha and speaks about Muslim participation and collaboration between progressive Muslims and socialist / communist non-Muslims from early 1900s onward. And also the socialist / communist activism among Muslims from Africa to South Asia to Southeast Asia to West Asia.
Yes, it's true that historically the previous generation of Muslims were heavily influenced by Marxism and other far leftist ideas. But those days are gone, now it's the 21st century. The days of Nasser, Gaddafi, Arafat, Bhutto and others is over. There is no more leftist pan-Arabism, no more Communism in the Muslim world, no more leftism. The Muslims have by and large opted for capitalism and free market economy. In the 1960s, Muslims were not as religiously conscious as they are today. They were just emerging from colonialism and were inspired by Soviet Union and Marxist ideas. I've read Nadeem Paracha extensively, most of his pieces are about interesting tidbits relating to history. But that's the point - history. Things have changed since then. Muslims have realized that the Soviet Union wasn't their friend after what they did to Afghanistan and Central Asia. They totally stripped Central Asia of their Muslim heritage. Now they are beginning to rediscover their roots but slowly and gradually. Likewise, Muslims realized that America won the Cold War because American ideas were superior.
The leftover elitist leftist and communist academics in the Muslim world are today bitter old men who resent how America and CIA empowered right-wing Islamic forces to undermine the Leftist influence in the Muslim world. Some of them are so bitter and angry that they have flipped sides and become out and out Islamophobic bigots, like Tarek Fatah, who used to be a hardcore Marxist perhaps he still is although now he has embraced Indian nationalism. That is why separatist movements in the Muslim world are radical leftists like the Kurdish separatists and the Baluch separatists. But these separatist movements are waning.
Pakistan is inherently an anti-leftist country, because it was created by very conservative and pro-West leaders like Qaid-e-Azam, Liaqat Ali Khan, and the Muslim League Nawabs, and their supporters among Punjab Pirs, Muslim feudalists and industrialists. Plus Pakistan's identity is intimately connected to Religion, so that is another anti-leftist antidote.
Communism seeks to erase class boundaries.
By decimating the so-called Bourgeoisie, basically, wealthy upper class, aristocrats, feudalists, industrialists, corporations. There is no way to do that without class warfare rhetoric which Communists are infamous for.
Our Religion preaches charity and altruism, but not wealth redistribution and seizing the means of production from private ownership. These ideas are too radical and unethical
But what if land is made a public resource, with the economic-political system managing it on behalf of the citizens ? Land becoming a commons with no private ownership. In my quoted context of India no land / estate dispute would have existed in the first place.
Privately owned land is inviolable. That's basic human morality. What you are calling for is theft
Communism calls for the eventual abolition of the State. You can read that in my signature. If you quote example of USSR as having been authoritarian and statist, yes the USSR should have developed the system of direct democracy i.e. people ruling themselves. Unfortunately in the years after the 1917 revolution the Party didn't dissolve but became the ruler, the power, instead of people being their own rulers.
The State is a necessary evil. A stateless society cannot work at this level of human civilization. We are no longer nomads or hunter/gatherer societies. The State is a necessary institution for law and order, public welfare, defense, government, and many other functions that cannot effective be discharged in a stateless society. Technology has advanced so radically that it is impossible for people to live in a stateless society without it descending into the rule of the jungle and absolute misery for the weak.
In practice we have seen that socialist states never move toward stateless societies, on the contrary, they become more pervasive, more authoritarian, more omnipresent, and eventually transform into complete police states where everyone is under constant surveillance, like China, North Korea and the Soviet Union before it collapsed.
However in Libya after the 1969 revolution of Gaddafi there developed a system of direct democracy socialism which was called jamahiriya. This system is also known as Third Universal Theory and as the name says can be applied anywhere. You should read the theory
here.
And we all know how Libya turned out under the autocrat and terrorist Gaddafi. I judge a tree by its fruit
The burqa has nothing to do with Islam.
It is purely Islamic. The Quran teaches that Believing women must veil themselves completely, and the Sunnah explains that Muslim ladies are meant to conceal their entire bodies. So the burqa, or chador, was used by Muslim ladies from generation to generation going back to the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم himself. Only recently with the rise of the modernist movement has the traditional Islamic veil been questioned, it was never question for centuries going back to the origin of Islam
Music has been a connecting element between and within cultures for probably as long as humans became reasonably developed.
What about the pyramids of Egypt ?
There are different kinds of music. I'm sure you would agree that pop music of today is totally immoral, lewd, pornographic, and disgusting. And the celebrity culture it promotes is equally immoral. Commercialized music is nothing but destructive.
Regarding the Pyramids, they are not idols that are or were worshiped, but simply structures. So I don't know why they should be compared to the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
