The Mohammunist Manifesto—Rejection of Pluralist or Limited Government

Both Islamic and Marxist nations have “laws” and “rights,” but both are meaningless, as they are always subordinate to the all-controlling ideologies.

Milli Sands | August 16, 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, monopoly rule by the elites, controlling the totality of society, transitional-phase slaughter, and Trojan-horsing society’s institutions. Here we explore the explicit rejection of pluralist or limited government.

Islamic political systems and Marxist-Leninist communism do not merely fail to protect pluralism. Both have produced founding legal texts that enumerate individual rights in liberal-sounding language, then subordinate every right, in the same document, to a doctrinal standard interpreted by an unelected body. The rights are real as prose. They are void as law because the text that grants them also grants a single authority the power to decide, without appeal, when they do not apply.

That structure, not the mere absence of a multiparty system, is the precise mechanism by which both reject limited government while speaking its language.

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 is the clean communist case. Article 125 guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, and street demonstrations, but only “in conformity with the interests of the working people...to strengthen the socialist system.” Article 126 immediately supplies the body that decides what those interests require: the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, described as “the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state.” No independent court sits above this clause.

The qualifier is not bounded by emergency or reviewed by law. It is total and permanent, written into the same sentence granting the right. Nikolai Bukharin, who helped draft this constitution, was arrested in February 1937 and executed in March 1938, fifteen months after the document he wrote took effect. The clause he wrote consumed him.

Iran’s 1979 Constitution reproduces the same architecture through Islamic criteria. Article 24 grants freedom of the press “except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam,” while Article 26 grants freedom of association “provided they do not violate...the criteria of Islam.” Article 4 supplies the master clause governing both: “All civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative...and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria,” applying “absolutely and generally to all articles of the Constitution,” with the fuqaha (Islamic jurists qualified to rule on religious law) of the Guardian Council, six clerics selected by the Supreme Leader, as sole judges.

The Guardian Council is not a court bound by codified law. Rather, it is a body constituted specifically to enforce ideological conformity, structurally the same office Article 126 assigns to the Party. Article 24’s exception has been exercised to lethal effect: in 2014, Mohsen Amir-Aslani, convicted of heresy for teaching that the Quran’s Jonah narrative was allegorical, was executed after his case was revived on separate charges once that conviction alone proved insufficient for death.

Article 13 supplies a second instance of the same architecture, one step further back: it names only Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian Iranians as dhimmi. The Baha’i Faith, Iran’s largest non-Muslim minority, receives no........

© American Thinker