The Mohammunist Manifesto’s Inequality Before the Law

While one is religious and one aggressively secular, Islamic and communist governance both require group inequality as a condition of governance.

Milli Sands | August 4, 2026

In revealing the commonalities of the Reds and the Greens in the Red-Green Axis, past essays have elucidated their shared goals of violence and wealth redistribution. Here we explore their legalization of inequality.

Both classical Islamic political jurisprudence and Marxist-Leninist communism reject a fundamental constitutional premise of the United States: that individuals possess equal legal rights because they are persons, not because they belong to a favored religious, political, or social category. Instead, both systems construct political order by dividing society into privileged insiders and subordinate outsiders.

Membership in the preferred category—not equal personhood—determines legal rights, political authority, and social standing. Rights are therefore derivative. They flow from status rather than equal personhood and are embedded in the foundational texts and institutions of both systems. Although one defines membership by religion and the other by class, both organize political authority through the same mechanism: differential rights based upon categorical belonging rather than equal legal personhood.

In the Islamic political order, the distinction begins in the Qur’an itself. Qur’an 9:29 commands Muslims to fight those “who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day” until they pay the jizyah “while they are humbled.” The verse establishes a permanent legal category of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule who retain life and property only through submission, payment, and acknowledged inferiority.

Classical jurists transformed this principle into the institution of the dhimmi. The protected non-Muslim receives aman—security of life and property—but not equal legal standing. His juridical personality differs from that of the Muslim. Testimony may carry less weight, public religious expression is restricted, political and military authority remain reserved to Muslims, and the Pact of Umar tradition further prescribes legal and social disabilities, including restrictions on places of worship, bearing arms, and public equality.

These rules are not exceptional wartime expedients. They define the ordinary legal condition of the outsider within the Dar al-Islam. Full juridical standing belongs to the Muslim. The non-Muslim exists within a graded legal order whose purpose is to preserve the supremacy of the insider community.

Marxist-Leninist communism constructs an analogous hierarchy, substituting class for religion while preserving the same logic. The Communist Manifesto declares that history is fundamentally the history of class struggle and identifies the bourgeoisie as the class whose domination must be destroyed.

Lenin makes the constitutional implications explicit in The State and Revolution, arguing that the dictatorship of the proletariat exists to “crush the resistance of the exploiters.” Political equality therefore does not survive the revolution. Instead, the proletariat,........

© American Thinker