Look, Yoshie pointed to two religious mullahs as her hope for this Islamic Revolution. Both of them, Al-Sadr and Nasrallah - BOTH - believe in Khomeini's interpretation of Vilayat e Faqih. The elder Al-Sadr also differed with Ali al-Sistani and believed in the Khomeini interpretation of Vilayat e Faqih. Both Nasrallah and Al-Sadr are Islamists, in that they are revolutionaries trying to install a program based on Vilayat e Faqih. They are not subtle or inconsistent about this. They believe that, to govern Shiite Muslims legitimately, governments MUST consult the clergy and the clergy's interpretation of Sharia is the supreme law. It's no accident that in India there is a separate body of civil law for Muslims, based on Sharia. Neither is it an accident that the Khomeini brand of clergy-empowering Shiite Islam and the fundamenalist Sunni Salafism which idealizes an uncorrupted bygone religious community (both the Wahabi right and the Al-Azhar left) are the movements which inform Islamism. All three seek to "purify" Islam and thus claim greater LEGITIMACY because they are closer to the true Sharia. This is a logical and reasonable reaction to the Ulema's losing power to the secular state. Sharia has always acted and is meant to act as a limit on the power of Muslim governments of all kinds. After all, what was Mohammed's political project but to limit the power of Sheikhs and bring them under a unified ethical system? When George Bush says that human rights come from God, you take it as a threat, as well you should. You know that the statement is seeking to impose the idea of a juridical authority ABOVE the Constitution. Fortunately, because we separate Church and state and we are a multi-religious society, George Bush cannot consult God on matters of rights through any generally accepted authority. Of course there is the realpolitik that when George Bush says this he is saying it to a nation that has a large, fairly unified evangelical sector, but there is no *authority* and that is crucial. For textual reasons, Islam is a bit easier to interpret politically than other religions. Therefore Islamism - the idea that the Word is the highest JURIDICAL AUTHORITY is essentially an unbroken stream of thought from the time of the Prophet (PBUH) until today. There is no insult in this. This is not to say that Islam is somehow backwards compared to other religions. I think it is a textual reality to some extent, but I'm an atheist so what do I know? Islam is as good as any other religion and Islam can certainly be a positive ethical force in a secular society But as Marxists we must necessarily embrace the idea of a secular state. Marxist revolution bases its legitimacy on recapturing the right of workers to that which they produce because the society itself is the product and property of workers and the workers are the only legitimate authority. Thus we deny any prior claim or the legitimacy of any other basis of a claim on society. Islamism says that the legitimate authority to rule comes from God through the revelations to Mohammad of the Quran, which includes much of Sharia in it. Islamism says that all human rights come from God, as his will is revealed in the Quran. There is, in Islam, a fairly coherent legal document which can be consulted and placed ABOVE any other constitutional document and the AUTHORITY for this document is believed to be the ultimate law-giver and creator of the Universe. As with all religions, there are some ethical ideas in Islam with which a Marxist can identify. However, Marxists and Muslims, Jews, and Christians all come to a bit of an impasse at the question of Authority - the WHY of government. I'm not saying that there is not an economically pluralistic interpretation of religion that is not only possible but positive. However, when you base a government's AUTHORITY TO GOVERN on it godliness and adherence to religious text, you are asserting an authority that Marxists really can't accept - if they are honest. Khomeini, Al-Sadr, Nasrallah, and the various Salafi movements may, indeed, state that they are supportive of democracy (although it's usually among Muslims only), but if you ask them WHY their movements should be the legitimate rulers, they will point you to a book - the Quran - and sections of that book which form Sharia. The Ulema were able to keep governments in the Muslim world to some ethical standards for many centuries, but I don't think that working people should be turning to them now, unless the Ulema are specifically saying that God and the Quran direct them that supreme juridical authority comes ONLY from a mandate from the masses. So far, I think ALL of the Islamists Yoshie has praised here would and do place Sharia ABOVE a mandate from the masses as the basis for supreme juridical authority. boddi