Setting up the ground with simple sentences...
We agree on the following:
Islam + Capitalism are compatible within the religious restrictions.
Islam + Democracy are completely incompatible.
Not that it is important, but can we agree on: Pope was comparable with the Caliph but is not anymore.
We need to clarify better why
Islam + Communism are incompatible.
We need to open Christianity and Communism (this is complicated and to be addressed later)
Polytheistic religions are not necessary inferior from Monotheistic. Hinduism is one of the most advance religions (if not the most advance) and possibly the oldest thriving religion in the world (historians are not certain if Judaism or Hinduism is older). None of the religions I mentioned I would call it corrupt. All of them are pretty big religions (being in the 10 biggest).
To return to the topic in hand: Islam + Communism are incompatible.
Reason: by my personal opinion the problem is that normally Communism is the opposite of authoritarian (ignore the applications of it).
Normally in communism there are no rulers or special social classes.
Islam, Christianity and other religions have the: Clergy which by definition is a pyramid structured authoritarian system.
I believe this is the hidden reason why Communism cant work with most societies.
We should first abolish the authoritarian systems and society and only after that we can apply communism. (Personally, I'm in complete favor of removing authoritarian systems, but I'm still against on introducing communism but that is another discussion.)
To return to the main topic: Is communism good or bad?
I believe that Communism can only be applied on a society with 0 authoritarianism and where all are at equal ground. It is based on Utopian principles and Communism is bound to fail as would Anarchism. But in a small society (such as a family) communism is the ideal system to work with!
The small society develops better if they do not compete against them but instead collaborate; all are richer if everything is owned by everyone and not having individual wealth in a small society: This is also the basis of Nash Equilibrium which by all irony is used in Capitalism.
Simple example: When you where a kid, did your family owned a car? Was it your fathers? or your mothers? or maybe was it from/for both? Maybe, when you got a licence was it your car too... That is communism, everything is owned by everyone. We do not have individual properties... The idea is great just not applicable in large society.
What is it about Hinduism that makes you think it's advanced? The worship of rats, menses blood, phallic worship, ancestor worship, saint worship, feeding idols, worshipping cows as god, dancing around idols...? I grew up in a predominantly Hindu neighborhood, and I have been to Hindu and Buddhist temples, and I have a friend that left Hinduism and filled me in on some of their practices....so, what is advanced about any of this?
As for its age, it is irrelevant. The above mentioned is blatant corruption of understanding and sensibility. Regardles on what list was made by whoever to rank the worlds top religions. It doesn't matter. The Bhagavad Gita, which is the only book I recall reading regarding Hinduism, was definitely an interesting story, but that's as far as it goes.
We do not have clergy in Islam. Each masjid has an Imaam who leads the prayer and teaches the people (or is supposed to). In the house, the man is the imaam, the imaam is a leader of a congregation or a family. The Khalifah can be imaam or can follow an imaam. There is no clergy in Islam...again, it would make sense if you knew about Islam and understood it as it was understood by the Companions of the Prophet, otherwise you apply incompatible terminology which only confuses your understanding and prevents you from clear vision.
Also, by definition, clergy is not a pyramid structuredauthoritarian system. Clergy is defined as
the body of all people ordained for religious duties, especially in the Christian Church.
"all marriages were to be solemnized by the clergy"
This does not exist in Islam.
Getting rid of an authoritarian system will only plunge society in chaos. The hierarchy is needed otherwise you give power to the ignorant and foolish. Leadership is needed. Some people are leaders and some are followers, everyone is not fit or equipped for the role of leader, especially of men. This is why revolutions fail and spread corruption and chaos. Because they seek to overthrow the ruling party with the same pretext, and it's all pretext.
If you got rid of authority, you would instantly regret it when you realize that not everyone has honorable intentions, and the wolves come out to hunt freely. And if you are from among the followers, unable to protect yourself or your family, then you become prey. You would be plunged back into the age of nomads and pillagers.
And this is where the utopian fantasy of Communism comes into play. Until Ghengis Khan 10,0 and his technologically advance army come and murder and rape you all with no shred of remorse. Taking your system and burning it to the ground.
That little fantasy will not save you from the ravenous nature of a corrupted army of nomads. Sure, it sounds great if you deny your own nature. But imagine, if Communists and Capitalists become corrupt within their own systems, and those withing religious institutions also become corrupt and justify their crimes in the name of religion, what would happen without a system of authoritarianism?
Forget your little quaint family analogy, let's look at it like this:
We abolish Capitalism and authoritarian government (the legitimate ones because you can't control criminals), no more borders, munincipalities, police, army, right? Cool, now, ISIS begins to import itself into open territory while you are setting up your little commune hoping everyone is your friend. Then the MS-13 come in, and the Zetas, and the Paramilatary Militias, and the Right Wing Militias, and rapists and murderers, thieves and all sorts of vile scum begin to pollute youre sweet little vision of Communist Utopia because, "To hell with Authoritarianism".
You can never achieve that, ever, no ideology will save you from the savage nature of man. Look at the indigenous peoples of South America, lived in commune like settings until the Spanish came and what did they do? Slice of their noses and ears to make jewlery, regardless of their system, the point is the factor of human nature.
Everybody owns everything until the mightiest monopolizes it, builds a strong army of the wicked and the sheep are slaughtered for even looking the wrong way.
It's fun to be an idealist because it requires less work than to look at the world realistically. It's like a security blanket, I know,