Karl Marx had a remarkably clear understanding of Islamic ideology and governance, and the severe, subjugated status ‘nonbelievers,’ infidels, are required to accept.
The world, according to Islamic doctrine, is divided in two, explains Marx. There are those who follow Islam, and those who don’t.
Those who don’t are the enemy.
“The Infidel is “harby,” i.e. the enemy. Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever” explains Marx. “Christians” in a Muslim society he says “submit to be governed by the Mussulmans according to Mussulman law.”
It’s worth remembering Karl Marx wrote these words in 1854 for the New-York Herald Tribune.
You can read more here.
Written: on March 28, 1854;
First published: in the New-York Daily Tribune, April 15;
Signed: Karl Marx;
Transcribed: by Andy Blunden;
The Koran and the Mussulman legislation emanating from it reduce the geography and ethnography of the various people to the simple and convenient distinction of two nations and of two countries; those of the Faithful and of the Infidels. The Infidel is “harby,” i.e. the enemy. Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever. In that sense the corsair-ships of the Berber States were the holy fleet of Islam. How, then, is the existence of Christian subjects of the Porte to be reconciled with the Koran?
“If a town,” says the Mussulman legislation, “surrenders by capitulation, and its habitants consent to become rayahs, that is, subjects of a Mussulman prince without abandoning their creed, they have to pay the kharatch (capitation tax), when they obtain a truce with the faithful, and it is not permitted any more to confiscate their estates than to take away their houses…. In this case their old churches form part of their property, with permission to worship therein. But they are not allowed to erect new ones. They have only authority for repairing them, and to reconstruct their decayed portions. At certain epochs commissaries delegated by the provincial governors are to visit the churches and sanctuaries of the Christians, in order to ascertain that no new buildings have been added under pretext of repairs. If a town is conquered by force, the inhabitants retain their churches, but only as places of abode or refuge, without permission to worship.”
Constantinople having surrendered by capitulation, as in like manner has the greater portion of European Turkey, the Christians there enjoy the privilege of living as rayahs, under the Turkish Government. This privilege they have exclusively by virtue of their agreeing to accept the Mussulman protection. It is, therefore, owing to this circumstance alone, that the Christians submit to be governed by the Mussulmans according to Mussulman law, that the patriarch of Constantinople, their spiritual chief, is at the same time their political representative and their Chief Justice.[…]
It is evident from this exposé that this fabric of theocracy over the Greek Christians of Turkey, and the whole structure of their society, has its keystone in the subjection of the rayah under the Koran, which, in its turn, by treating them as infidels – i.e., as a nation only in a religious sense – sanctioned the combined spiritual and temporal power of their priests.[…]
Having described the relations between the Mussulman and his Christian subject, the question arises, what are the relations between the Mussulman and the unbelieving foreigner?
As the Koran treats all foreigners as foes, nobody will dare to present himself in a Mussulman country without having taken his precautions.
Readers may recall an earlier post here at Adara Press, “The Left’s Betrayal of the Left in the Muslim World”, warning readers, those in the Progressive, activist community of the global scope of this deadly repression they are helping to engender, that is now coming to pass with the ruthless execution of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists — an execution that took place, not in Saudi Arabia, not in Pakistan or Iran, but France.
The world is witnessing the rise of modern day brown shirts in medieval garb, groomed to violently suppress dissent and critical thought in any form: artistic, religious, political,…Hindu, Christian, Buddhist—and yes, Marxist, even as it is the Left in the West that is actively facilitating this effort.
…The burgeoning coffers of Qatar and Saudi Arabia among others, aided by the Obama White House, are financing the conscription of armies of unwitting foot soldiers, transnational executioners of global political repression, fanatically subscribing to an authoritarian, sadistic, stateless doctrine, that mandates absolute and unquestioning obedience and the relinquishment of all civil liberties.
Activists and scholars in the United States, Canada and Western Europe continue to turn a deaf ear to the urgent cries of their counterparts in the Muslim world in the face of this onslaught, colluding instead with prominent Muslim representatives almost exclusively tied to the Muslim Brotherhood or Iran, supposing an alliance that is at best a mirage, perpetuating a manufactured narrative of Muslim victim-hood, while vilifying those seeking to deconstruct and expose its artifice. Wittingly or otherwise, they are intellectually disarming activists, liberals, progressives and students, actively stifling critical analysis, engaging in stupefying disinformation, silencing not just dissent, but discussion. They have rendered the Left blind, deaf, and dumb—and proud of it.
Whose agenda is the Left actually serving? Certainly not the Marxists and moderates of the Muslim world whose warnings continue to go unheeded.”
Charlie Hebdo, is not right-wing, is not Christian, is not mainstream.
Charlie Hebdo is a Leftist publication.
The Left has signed its own Death Warrant, and is ready, it seems, to defend it with its dying breath