• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Deep into marxism


Legendary Member
politically @Manifesto and you have the similar weight ... each one can vote ..
if i will be abe to get manifesto trust and influence his voting decision and make him shift from voting amal-hizballa...that i will consider a success for me ;)
Shu ya @Manifesto. SAVO is making a proposal for you.
دعواتي لكم بالهناء والسعادة


Soviet Orientalist studies in Islam are academic discourses by Soviet Marxist theoreticians about Islam, its origins and development based on historical materialism and Muslims. The central question of this discourse was how Muslim society would fit into the general development of human history. Prominent Soviet orientalists include Mikhail A. Reisner, Evgenii Beliaev, Liutsian I. Klimovich, Mikhail L. Tomara, V. Ditiakin and Sandzhar D. Asfendiarov

Trade capitalism theory

Mikhail A. Reisner (Michael von Reusner, 1868–1928), ethnic German historian of law and publicist produced a detailed Marxist analysis of the Koran from the perspective of social studies. His interpretation of Islam can be found in two articles on “The Koran and Its Social Ideology”, published in 1926 in a Soviet literary journal.[6] In these studies Reisner maintained that Islam was the religion of the Arab merchants of Mecca. He distinguished between the big merchants, that is, the rich families of Mecca, and the less affluent and poor merchant families. Due to the disunion of the Arab tribes, trade caravans were constantly running the risk of being raided by nomads. These caravans were organized as joint ventures of rich and less affluent trade families of the Quraysh tribe, but the poorer merchants invested, and therefore risked, a higher percentage of their capital than the rich families. For this reason the idea of a union of the Arab tribes under one monotheistic religion was developed by the poorer families of the Quraysh, for only such a union would eliminate the raids. Their speaker became Muhammad, who himself hailed from one of the less privileged Quraysh clans.

Reisner maintains that the Koran portrayed Allah as "a rich, powerful and smart capitalist". In Medina, Muhammad acted not so much as a prophet and preacher but as a skillful organizer. He was successful not because people were eager to join a new religion but because they longed for a law that would unite them. The Koran, Reisner continues, only guarantees the right to property and creates a “World Trade Company of Believers” (mirovaia torgovaia kompaniia veruiushchikh) under God's own leadership. Many elements in the Koran reflect a merchant's position: the prayers and rituals are not very complex and do not require “spiritual contortions”; the pilgrimage to Mecca (ḥajj) is linked to a trade fair; tithes (zakāt) is restricted to a moderate level, and believers are exhorted not to squander their money; while usury is forbidden, Muslims are encouraged to make moderate profits; and, of course, the Koran emphasizes the importance of oaths, correct measurements, and the faithful return of the deposit.

Reisner explains that mystical elements, which tended to supersede the clear class distinctions, were to enter Islam only much later, mainly stemming from the Persian tradition.

Reisner's interpretation turned out to be very influential among Soviet scholars of the late 1920s.

Beliaev’s modification of trade capitalism theory
Evgenii Beliaev (1895–1964) was the only professional trained in Oriental languages among all participants in the early Soviet discourse on Islam. In his contribution to the 1930 special issue of Ateist on the origins of Islam, Beliaev argued that Islam emerged from the merchant environment of Mecca.[12] The pagan religion served the purpose of trade, and the authority of the gods in the kaaba grew with the wealth of the merchants. Islam emerged in the late 6th century as a movement of the less wealthy, “intermediary and lower Meccan bourgeoisie” against this “‘aristocracy’ of avaricious traders and pitiless usurers.”

In contrast to Reisner, however, Beliaev did not see anything progressive, liberating, or even revolutionary in this initial Islam: for instance, Islam did not stand up against slavery. Beliaev compared the image of God in the Koran to that of a despot and slave owner.

According to Beliav, a similar struggle was taking place in Medina, where some clans became dependant upon others, and especially upon the Jewish clans, whose wealth was based on “usury capital” (rostovshchicheskii kapital). The gradual dissolution of the ancient tribal and clan structures in Muslim Medina must not be ascribed to the religion of Islam but rather to the development of Meccan trade capital, and in general to the transition to private property in slaves, cattle, and other possessions. “With an eagerness and love for detail that is characteristic for the petty bourgeoisie, the boring, depressing and dull Suras of the Medinan period lay down the regulations for property and inheritance as well as buying and selling”. In Medina Muhammad changed the prayer direction from Jerusalem to Mecca; “praying to the Muslim God, they bow down before the only god that they respect, namely capital.” When the “medium wealthy” traders finally took over Mecca, they reached their goal: together with the rich “Quraysh of the Center” they found themselves at the helm of the “trade capitalist organization of the Hijaz” which eventually united the tribes of Arabia. The nomads, by contrast, did not play an active role in Beliaev's scenario; after Muhammad's death they easily committed apostasy and had to be forced back to Islam by the first caliph, Abu Bakr.

Bedouin theory.
Another interpretation of the role of the Bedouins was brought forward by the Kazakh communist and historian Sandzhar D. Asfendiarov (1889–1938). In 1928, during his brief directorate of the Moscow Oriental Institute, Asfendiarov published his first booklet on the “Reasons for the Emergence of Islam”.

Asfendiarov regarded Islam as the product not of the merchants of Mecca, as Reisner did, but of the Arab nomads. To him, the Islamic expansion was a huge emigration wave of about one million nomads from the Hijaz and Najd regions of Arabia to the outside world. Asfendiarov maintained that Islam emerged as the last huge expansion of Semite tribes from Arabia. However, Asfendiarov insisted that this expansion resulted from changes in the nomadic economy, not from climate change.

According to him, the Arabs were beyond the formation of “primitive patriarchal nomadism”; rather, they possessed a “developed”, modified cattle breeding economy. By the 7th century, Arabia suffered from a scarcity in land for cattle breeding. The Byzantine and Persian empires in the North, and the Persian and Ethiopian interventions in Yemen, resulted in an isolation of Central Arabia, as well as in a heightened competition for the available pastures.Due to this scarcity and competition, Arab tribes now occupied the oases and towns of the Hijaz, like Mecca and Medina, which had hitherto been inhabited mainly by Jews and other settled populations. The Arabic tribes that conquered these settlements took over the agricultural and merchant activities that had been in place. Some Bedouin tribes, like the Quraysh, therefore turned into trading tribes. Due to the increased mutual raiding and warfare among cattle-breeders, more and more Arab nomads lost their livestock, settled around these settlements as pauperized and dependant clans, and took on agricultural work to make a living.

For all of these reasons, the tribal economy of 7th-century Arabia constituted more than just a primitive patriarchal society, for the majority of transhumant cattle-breeders was supplemented by Arab traders and Arab agriculturalists (or “semi-agriculturalists”, as Asfendiarov had it, for they still had connections to the nomadic way of life). Taken together, these three social groups still made up one single economic formation, one that was characterized by a certain amount of economic specialization with all ensuing social contradictions, especially a marked distinction between rich and poor. What they all had in common was their tribal organization, which did not evolve into a community- or neighborhood-based social organization. The tribal organization, according to Asfendiarov, was not simply a “residue” (perezhitok) of the past that was doomed to vanish, but rather a very functional element necessary for survival in all three economic environments. He concluded that the Orient was characterized not by a historical sequence of primitive-patriarchal, feudal, and capitalist society, as in the West, but by one tribal formation that combined elements from all three formations. According to Asfendiarov, this tribal formation was retained at least until the 16th century.

Islam, in Asfendiarov's mind, was nothing but the event that triggered off the social expansion of the Arab tribes, uniting the tribes to break the isolation of Arabia. It was an “unconscious impulse”, an “almost secondary reason” for the movement of the tribes. Islam should therefore be understood as an economic movement of the tribes. Accordingly, Asfendiarov strongly criticized Reisner's view that Islam embodied the interests of the Meccan traders

Peasant theory
A completely new interpretation of the rise of Islam was brought forward by the economist Mikhail L. Tomara. Tomara's article in the Ateist special issue of 1930, entitled “The Origin of Islam and Its Class Basis”, points at the role of peasants and agriculture in 7th-century Arabia. Tomara listed up a vast number of witnesses, taken partly from al-Ṭabarī (d. 923), but mostly from European travellers like Niebuhr, Burton and Palgrave, and especially from Aloys Sprenger's Das Leben und Werk des Mohammed (1861–1865), showing that Arabia's agricultural and horticultural population vastly exceeded its Bedouin population, not to speak of the merchants.

In Tomara's mind, agriculture was mainly taken up by impoverished Bedouins; under the general climate change in Arabia, Bedouins whose pastures dried up would either emigrate or, when the emigration was blocked as was the case before Islam, dig wells and settle down to pursue agriculture with the help of artificial irrigation. The continuous transformation of pasture land into fields led to an intensified struggle between the Bedouins and the peasant population. Tomara assumed that the agriculturalists consisted mainly of clients (mawālī, sing. mawla) of powerful clans, manumitted slaves and other dislocated people. Poor agriculturalists would become dependent on usurers and often lose their house, land, and cattle, thus being forced to work as hired pastors (Russ. batraki) for rich neighbors. Tomara thus distinguished three “classes”: nomads, well-to-do peasants, and impoverished peasants who lived a semi-transhumant or even transhumant life (obviously, while herding the Bedouins’ cattle).Incidentally, he provided no source for his assumption that impoverished peasants sold their labor as pastors.

Tomara further maintained that trade was only slightly developed in 7th-century Arabia, and therefore Islam cannot be credited to it: “Islam was born in the trade city of Mecca, but only as an expression of the dissatisfaction of the poor strata of the city; and it turned out to be unsuccessful there. Trade capital, as a fierce opponent of Islam, defeated Islam and drove it out of Mecca”

Subsequently, Islam found a solid class basis in Medina, an exclusively agricultural town. The Koran's endorsement of charity, so Tomara, the use of alms to support the poor, to manumit slaves, and to relieve debtors from their financial burdens, shows clearly that Islam emerged as the religion of the urban poor. The poor emigrants (muhājirūn) from Mecca joined the urban poor of Medina and broke the power of the rich Medinan landowners who had opposed Muhammad at several occasions. As indicated in Koran 59:7, Muhammad allotted agricultural lands in and around Medina to his poor supporters as well as to people who flocked to him from other agricultural communities in Arabia. The increasing need to reward peasant supporters led to the expulsion, and later annihilation, of the Jewish clans of Medina, for they held the best arable land in and around the oasis. By contrast, Muhammad did not invest much energy into the fight against the Quraysh, for there was no peasant land to gain from dry Mecca; the few famous battles like Badr (in 624) were mere skirmishes, and the later battle at Uhud and the Meccan siege of Medina show that Muhammad was clearly on the defensive against his hometown. Tomara found support for his “peasant theory” in the Koran; its ban of interest, in his mind, expressed the interests of agriculturalists who suffered from exploitation by usurers. Also, he suggested that the Koranic inheritance laws reflect the ongoing splitting-up of agricultural land in Medina.

The nomads, by contrast, did not play an active role in Tomara's scenario; they were unreliable as warriors,75 and they accepted Islam only superficially. Also, “if Islam was the religion of the nomadic cattle-breeders, then Paradise would have been depicted [in the Koran] as infinite steppes of high grass, similar to the way how American Indians imagined their reward in the Hereafter as hunting grounds in prairies with plenty of bisons and other wild animals.”

Accordingly, in the War of Apostasy (ridda) after Muhammad's death the Bedouin tribes tried to reclaim the pasture lands they had lost to the poor Medinans and to agriculture. But this rebellion was crushed by Abū Bakr, and the nomads found themselves forced to emigrate. As both the Sassanid and the Byzantine empire were now in political and economical disarray, the Bedouins found an easy outlet by emigration to Persia, Syria, and Egypt. In result, and somewhat surprisingly, the Islamic expansion under the first caliphs was mainly undertaken by nomads driven out of their territories by Islam itself. Thus, in its beginnings Islam was the ideology of the peasants, and only later, under the Abbasids after 750, did Islam become “the ideology of trade capital in the form of Mu’tazilism, and the ideology of the feudal classes of Persia in the form of Shi’ism.”

Tomara's interpretation thus does not ignore the role of nomadic Bedouins and urban traders, and even assigns them meaningful roles in the emergence and spread of Islam. Their functions, however, were mainly defined in the negative. Because Tomara pointed out the crucial role of the poor agriculturalists in and around the towns, his concept would be regarded by his opponents as a mere “peasant theory”.


This applies also to Iran when it was governed by the Shah, to Egypt when it was a kingdom. The problem is Islam, wherever it is applied, it destroys culture and civilization

partially agree about the islam part.
but i would never take the part in defence of iran shah .. the guy was a criminal regime with criminal savak apparatus..
later the revolution against him was leaded by comunist and khomeinist before that khomeinist betray iranian people will anf exterminate the todeh party members and other leftist groups..
there is an interesting book about that ( an entire chapter in it ) titled : the great war for civilisation . the conquest of the middle east ( robert fisk) i think its a must read.

while regarding afghanistan and the role of CIA , pakistan , saudi, egypt the book titled "the unholly war " ( john cooley)

both are a good read ;)..



السيد حسن نصرالله بخطاب بافطار الهيئات النسائية قال " في الآونة الأخير جاؤوا لكي يوسعوا دائرة الاتهام ويربطوا العمليات ببعضها البعض وصولاً إلى عملية اغتيال قائد في المقاومة هو الشهيد جورج حاوي، وهذه النقطة بدلاً من أن تكون قرينة على اتهام إسرائيل جاءت عملية الاغتيال هذه لتضم ويوجه بها الاتهام إلى مظلومين أبرياء، في الوقت الذي كلنا يعلم فيه أن المستفيد الأول وصاحب المصلحة الأولى وصاحب الثأر التاريخي مع جورج حاوي هو إسرائيل، نتيجة موقع هذا الرجل وحزبه في المقاومة." جميل يا سيد حسن أن تتواضع بعد كل هذه السنوات وترد الحق لأصحابه وتعترف بحقيقة من أطلق المقاومة، وأرجوا بناء عليه ايقاف برنامج الغالبون الذي يبث على تلفزيون المنار، ويزور التاريخ العريق للمقاومة الوطنية التي كان الحزب الشيوعي ومقاتلوه في طليعتها ومن مؤسسيها وعلى رأسهم الشهيد جورج حاوي الذي كان أول من اطلق نداء المقاومة وتلا بيانها الاول من بيروت المحاصرة في العام 1982.


killed by amal milithia

سامي شحيد – ألكسي

سامي شحيد – ألكسي

مواليد مرجعيون
انتسب إلى الحزب الشيوعي اللبناني عام 1979
انتسب إلى جبهة المقاومة الوطنية اللبنانية عام 1985
استشهد بتاريخ 12 أيار 1999
اغتيل غدراً في وادي الليطاني بين زوطر الشرقية ويحمر الشقيف قضاء النبطية، حيث تعرّضت مجموعتة لكمين من قبل عملاء جبناء أعمت الظلامية عيونهم وعقولهم وأطلقوا عليه رصاصات الغدر والخيانة فأردوه شهيداً فوق أرض الجنوب التي أحب، وذلك لصالح جهات إقليمية بغية تصفية وإنهاء جبهة المقاومة الوطنية اللبنانية “جمّول” ومنعها من أداء واجبها الوطني بعدما جرى اغتيال نخبة من قادتها ومفكريها ومثقفيها وكوادرها ومناضليها ومقاوميها وبعدما جرى أيضاً تطييف ومذهبة المقاومة وحصرها بجهة واحدة للإمساك بها وبالقرار السياسي وبعد الهيمنة على الأرض والإرتهان لجهات إقليمية ضد المصلحة الوطنية اللبنانية.



بيار أبو جودة

بيار أبو جودة 1970 ـ 1998

مواليد عام 1970
انتسب إلى الحزب الشيوعي اللبناني عام 1985
استشهد بتاريخ 16 آب 1998 في عملية قتالية ضد العدو الإسرائيلي في منطقة البياضة – حاصبيا في حين تم أسر الرفيق غسان سعيد



إنعام حمزة

إنعام سليم حمزة 1965 ـ 1990

مواليد عبيه قضاء عاليه ـ جبل لبنان عام 1965
استشهدت بتاريخ 20 تشرين الأول 1990 في العملية البطولية ضد قوات الاحتلال الإسرائيلية وعملائها في منطقة شبعا – تلة السدانة.
شاركت في العديد من العمليات وخاصة تلك التي نفذت بمناسبة الذكرى الثامنة لإنطلاقة جبهة المقاومة الوطنية اللبنانية.