The Mohammunist Manifesto—Public Or Private, Nothing Is Beyond Our Control

Whether the government is Islamic or communist, the leaders can reach into every sphere of life and can truly make the rules up as they go along.

Milli Sands | August 9, 2026

In revealing the commonalities of the Reds and the Greens in the Red-Green Axis, we have elucidated their shared goals of violence, wealth redistribution, inequality before the law, a binary world, and monopoly rule by the elites. Here we explore their intent to reshape the totality of society.

Islamic political systems and Marxist-Leninist communism both claim more than the right to regulate what is currently unsettled. Each claims the standing authority to redraw, at will, the line between what the system controls and what it leaves alone. A domain currently left to private choice is never permanently protected from the system; it is simply not yet a priority.

The distinction between public and private in both systems is not a fixed boundary the directing authority respects. It is a boundary the directing authority draws and can erase.

Classical Islamic jurisprudence sorts every human act into one of five categories: obligatory, recommended, neutral, disliked, or forbidden. Nothing is unclassifiable; even silence in the texts produces a ruling—neutral—rather than an absence of one. That alone establishes comprehensive jurisdiction.

The more consequential mechanism is sadd al-dhara’i’ or “blocking the means”: a jurist may rule an otherwise neutral act forbidden if he (He!) judges it likely to lead to something the law prohibits, without any text naming the act itself. The reclassification runs on the jurist’s own judgment of consequence, and it is not permanent in the other direction, either; the same doctrine can move a forbidden act toward permission if avoiding a greater harm requires it.

Tobacco is the clean historical case. When it reached Muslim lands in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, some jurists ruled it neutral, comparing it to coffee; others called it merely disliked. Neither judgment rested on new revelation; no text named tobacco.

As medical understanding of its harm accumulated over the following centuries, the ruling moved, and today many scholars and institutions, including al-Azhar, classify it as forbidden. The object never changed. The classification did, twice, because the authority to classify was never tied to the object in the first place. It was tied to the ruling body’s judgment of consequence, which is revisable at any time.

The ruler holds an independent version of the same lever: siyasa shar’iyya or discretionary governmental authority to regulate whatever public welfare requires, even where no jurist has ruled, and no text speaks. Between the jurist’s power to reclassify and........

© American Thinker