The Mohammunist Manifesto’s Wealth Redistribution Agenda

It’s not only violence that binds communism and Islam. It’s also the respective leaderships’ moral belief that certain people must be denied wealth.

Milli Sands | July 30, 2026

My previous essay examined the parallels between Communism/Socialism and Twelver Shia violence. But to be clear, violence is the currency of all Islam, full stop. Despite claims to the contrary, almost no one converts to Islam (or becomes Commie/Socialist) absent coercion of one form or another. The Twelvers were highlighted because of the current situation with Iran and the homicidal Blues Brothers rulers itching to get their grubby fingers on the nuclear button.1 2

Another feature of the Mohammunist Manifesto is wealth redistribution, i.e., the predatory taking of property from some and giving it to others.

In the seventh century, an Islamic system of taxation emerged that openly ranked human beings by faith, extracting wealth from the “dhimmi inferior” to sustain the “Muslim superior.” That system was jizya.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and again today under communism, socialism, and the Democratic Socialists of America, a parallel system ranks human beings by class and extracts wealth from the disfavored to redistribute to the favored. The mechanisms differ in language and ritual; the moral architecture is the same: the state designates a group as legitimate prey, cloaks the taking in the language of justice, and imposes it by force.

The doctrinal foundation of jizya is explicit. Quran 9:29 commands:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.3

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.3

Classical jurists read this as requiring not merely payment but public acknowledgment of subordinate status. Ibn Kathir’s tafsir records the requirement that the payer feel himself subdued. Al-Mawardi’s al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya, the standard Shafi’i manual of statecraft, is more specific still—the manner of payment itself was meant to enact the dhimmi’s subjugation, the Quranic term being ṣāghirūn, “made low.”4

Though religiously mandated, jizya was simultaneously a primary instrument of economic extraction, transferring wealth from a subjugated population to........

© American Thinker