Mini-Analysis of Marxist vs Non-Marxist Theosophy

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Mar 20, 2014 at 18:22

In reading this observation to Dr. Pipes' inadvertent patterns of Islam, that there is an inversion of Marxist 'ideology' in the religious practices of Muslims which have an imprint in the sociological settings of their communities, is intriguing. However, this is not limited to Islam's influences any more than the imperial influences of empires in general. In a modern day example, one might conclude such influences could be attributed towards agricultural development in the Steppes of Eurasia or the American plains of Kansas and the like. Sheep versus cow was central to the contested development of parts of the American Midwest; and there were other places in which over farming contributed to the soil storms of the depression. This cannot be the central debate of Islamic influences on the world scene.

The purported inversion of Marxist thinking as its tries to explain the difference of religious thought in relation to materialism can in one way be explained like this: Marx found he could not reconcile whatever remnant religious beliefs he held with the rampant explosion of materialism the newly emerging industrial age of scientific advances brought. It is an ages old conflict of humanities that is succinctly described in the words of Jesus Christ: "you cannot serve both mammon and God." Marx chose to distance himself from the religion and embrace his own form of humanist secularism. Science plays along.

It might be thought that Islam attempted to embrace its own explanation of the ethereal realm from the temporal realm, there being plenty of evidences that Islam absorbed the scientific philosophies of the conquest areas and formed their own scientific perceptions based upon the extant sciences during Islam's first emergence. Much has been said about Islam holding to ages' old scientific observations that may have been overrun by the newer scientific advances in other societies; but in the ensuing conflicts of thought, science formed more evidence in the material realm and Islam focused in the ethereal. It is still so today.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".