Lebanon has a history of Anarchist gnosticism as well. The Druze are the historic anarchists in this area originally coming out of an Ishmali sect.
You knew I would get the heretics in the Middle East eventually.

Druze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The religion developed out of Ismaili Islam, a philosophical movement based in the
Fatimid Caliphate, in the 10th century, a time of particular cultural wealth. The religion did not attempt to
reform mainstream Islam but aimed to create a whole new religious body influenced by Greek philosophy, Gnosticism and Christianity, among others. The main actors were Tariq al-Hakīm, also
known as al-Hakīm bi-Amr al-Lāh, the
Caliph who claimed to be God, and Hamza ibn-'Ali
ibn-Ahmad, the main architect of the movement. It was Hamza who first publicly proclaimed that Hakīm was God.
Hakīm was opposed by orthodox Muslims for what was considered apostasy. He was
resented for his extreme violence, and religious minorities (such as Christians) were persecuted under him—in 1010, Hakīm destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
Because the Druze considered Tariq al-Hakīm to be the incarnation of God, they were persecuted by orthodox Muslims, especially after Hakīm's death in 1021. The
Druze took up taqiyya ("dissimulation"), a practice whereby they conceal their true
beliefs and outwardly accept the religious beliefs of those amongst whom they live, even as they retained their true convictions
in secret. The Druze believe that Hakīm disappeared and will return in the end days.
The Druze have played major roles in the history of the Levant. They were mostly
scattered in Mount Lebanon, which was known as the Mountain of the
Druzes, and later the similarly-named Jabal al-Durūz (Mount of the
Druzes) in Syria.</p>

The Druze also played a major role in the War of Lebanon
(1975–1990). They organized a militia (probably the strongest militia in the
Lebanon war) under the leadership of Walid Jumblatt, (son of Kamal Jumblatt), mostly as a response to aggressions conducted by the Christians of Mount Lebanon. They were based in the Mount Lebanon area (especially the
Chouf).

THE OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAINS



Another Ishmali sect in this area centred around the Old Man of the Mountains, Hassan Ibn Saba, the leader of the Asassins of Middle Ages, they were originally an Ishmali sect.







He actually existed and ruled over the moutain fortress of Alamut.






Sayyidna Hasan Bin Sabbah By Shaykh Muhammad

The Old Man of the Mountains
From A History of Secret Societies by Arkon Daraul (Citadel Press 1961/1989)
NOTE: in some texts the form "Hassan-i-Sabbah" is mentioned instead of Hasan-bin-Sabah used here.

NOTE2: "One little-nit-picky-tiny detail though, I am pretty certain (according to Crowley, and Michael Prawdin's 'History of the Mongol Empire') that the quote from Hassan bin Sabbah is

'Nothing is Forbidden, Everything is Permitted'
not
'Nothing is Real, Everything is Permitted'

it is a subtle difference, but so much is based upon subtlety." - Terezakis.

The Assassins of Alamût

The Assassins (or Hashisham ) were a Persian Ismai'ili sect created
by Hassan i Sabbah in 1090. Like many Order and Secret Societies
throughout the ages, the actual history and practices have been blended
or bastardized by folk-lore and myth. The history of Alamût is no
exception to this.

Hassan i Sabbah was an Isma' ili da'i of
Persian origin. It has been rumoured that he attended school at the
University of Nishapur with Omar Khayyam and was given a position at
the same court where Omar Khayyam was the Court Astrologer, but was
forced to leave over a scandal perpetrated by a jealous rival. He
travelled to Egypt in 1086 and became active with the Fatimid branch of
the Isma'ili, under the expected successor to the Fatamid Caliphate,
Nizar Hassan i Sabbah returned to Persia where he continued to work and
support the Fatimid branch of the Isma'ili. When Nizar was imprisoned
and supplanted by his younger brother, Hassan i Sabbah broke with the
Fatimids and seized the fortress of Alamût (The Eagle's Nest) in 1090.
Alamût is located on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea in the
Elburz Mountain range. Here he was able to establish a power base among
the outer tribes and mountain people far from the centers of
established political and economic power.

At least in the
outer, the religious teaching emanating from Alamût appeared to be a
derivation of the Isma'ili faith, a gnostic dualistic form Islam
similar to Manicheism. for the Isma'ili, the Imam, or religious head
was the personal representative of God in the physical world and
salvation was only obtainable through the Imam ( a Western analogy
would be if the Pope were also seen as the Messiah). For years the
Isma'ili Imam had been the Fatamid Caliphate, but with the split,
Hassan i Sabbah took the role of Imam upon himself.

The empire
that Hassan i Sabbah established was not a physical empire, but rather
a hidden political empire within the borders of other empires. And for
this reason it established and required an entirely new kind of warfare
and tactics. Hassan i Sabbah had complete control over his adepts who
were willing to sacrifice themselves for him.These adepts known as
Assassins, derived from Hashashin, consumer of Hashish, would
infiltrate Hassan i Sabbah's enemies' ranks, where they would often
rise to positions of prominence and trust, often posing as religious
teachers or dervishes. From this position it was easy for them to kill
their intended victim. The assassinations would usually be carried out
with a knife and the Assassin would not try and escape capture.
Instead, he would wait calmly prepared to die, having carried out his
objective. Sometimes an Assassin would be in the sevice of a Sultan for
years and years before being required to strike. This sort of political
assassination was new to most of the Kings and it was easier to give in
to the Old Man's demands, when a King could not be sure of even his
closest advisors or be sure when the dagger would come. The power to
assassinate an enemy was said to reach as far as India and Paris.

An
interesting glimpse into the inner ideology of the Assassins may be
seen in the works and teachings of Hassan, the grandson of Buzurg
Ummid, who held Alamût after the Old Man of the Mountain. Two years
after Hassan's accension to the the Imamate of Alamût, he assembled all
of the religious leaders of area that "to all jinn, Angels and Men",
that their salvation lay in following his commands and that the
religious law of Islam was abrogated. He then made two bows signifying
the premature end of Ramadan and celebrated by drinking and feasting
and holding a festival to mark the shattering of the sacred law. It is
also noted that written on the door of the library were the words "With
the aid of God, the ruler of the universe destroyed the fetters of the
law.

It is these and others stories from myth that have lead
modern writers and magicians, such as William S. Burroughs. Brion Gyson
and R. A. Wilson to spend consider interest in Alamût and attribute the
phrase "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted" to the the Old Man of
the Mountain. Since the writings of Marco Polo, tales of the Assassins
and the Mythical Garden have been circulating and discussed. Most of
the Western myth surrounding Alamût comes from the Travels of Marco
Polo. Marco Polo's tales of Alamut and the Assassins are supposedly
taken from his travels in the early 1270s, but unfortunately, the
Assassins and their strongholds were destroyed by Hulagu Khan and his
Mongol raiders in 1256. What Marco Polo tells us is not his first hand
experience but rather his telling of tales that he picked up from
story-tellers along his journey.

---

</span>The Earliest of the Ibn Saba Assassins



Hasan had the last name ibn Saba which derives from the leader of the
early Islamic dissident Abdullah ibn Saba who assassinated the the
chief of Medina and took the city causing a split to occur between Shia and Sunnis.



Like the old man of the mountains there are those who
claim that Abdullah Ibn Saba, is a myth. He was supposedly originally a
Jew who converted to Islam and  Shia writers assert that it is difficult to prove that he ever existed. While Sunni Muslims assert
that: "Abdullah Ibn Saba, a Jew from Yemen, under the garb of a Muslim,
took his sojourn at Madeenah. He had all the trappings of an expert
plotter and the Jewish genius at intrigues, an attribute of his clan."



What this shows however is that the Muslims blame the Jews for having
fomented revolt and in splitting the Caliphate into the divisions of
Sunni and Shia. Islamic Anti-Semitism begins with this tale.



From: Historical
Background of the religion of Shiism

"Simply, when the Jews were
convinced they are unable to halt the fast growing and spreading of Christianity
by means of force, they planed to destroy it from within. This mission
was successfully carried out by Rabbi Paul. When Islam came, likewise,
the Jews again attempted to abort this new religion. Their endeavors took
many forms and shapes, from attempts to assassinate the Apostle of Allah
[saw] to waging wars that ended in deporting most of them from al-Madinah
or executing those who betrayed the truce. Similarly, they were convinced
that the best way to destroy Islam and the Muslims' unity was to resort
to the plot they used with Christianity. A Yemenite Jew by the name of
Abdullah bin Saba' , as Paul did, pretended to have embraced Islam
to plant secretly the seeds of this new cult which he successfully performed.
He arrived from Yemen to al-Madinah during the era of Khalif Uthman bin
'Affaan (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala anhu) and started to plan and cook the plot,
waiting for the proper opportunity which he found in Sayyidina Ali (Radhi
Allahu Ta'ala anhu)."

In Commemoration of March 8

Islam, Political Islam and Women in the Middle East

Maryam Namazie

The situation of women living in Islam-stricken societies and under Islamic laws is the outrage of the 21st century. Burqa-clad and veiled women and girls, beheadings, stoning to death, floggings, child sexual abuse in the name of marriage and sexual apartheid are only the most brutal and visible aspects of women's rightlessness and third class citizen status in the Middle East.

This is Nothing but Islam

Apologists for Islam state that the situation of women in Iran and in Islam-stricken countries is human folly; they say that Islamic rules and laws practised in the Middle East are not following the true precepts of Islam. They state that we must separate Islam from the practice of Islamic governments and movements. In fact, however, the brutality and violence meted out against women and girls are nothing other than Islam itself. According to the Koran, for example, the fornicator must be flogged a hundred stripes (The Light: 24.2). Those who are guilty of an 'indecency' must be 'confined until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.' (The Women, 4.15). 'Men are the maintainers of women' and 'good' women are obedient. Those that men fear 'desertion', can be admonished, confined and beaten' (The Women, 4.34). Wives are a 'tilth' for men, which they can go into their 'tilth' when they like (The Cow, 2.223). Veiling is promoted in the Koran: 'O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments' (The Clans, 33.59).

Apologists for Islam say that these verses have been misinterpreted. They go so far as to claim that there is gender equity in Islam and Islam respects the rights of women. Regarding the verse in the Koran sanctioning violence against women, they say that Islam only permits violence after admonishment and confinement and as a last resort. They say, since men would beat their wives mercilessly at that time, this is a restriction on men to beat women more mercifully (Women Living Under Muslim Laws, For Ourselves Women Reading the Koran, 1997). In a Gender Equity in Islam Web Site, this verse is explained in this way: 'In extreme cases, and whenever greater harm, such as divorce, is a likely option, it allows for a husband to administer a gentle pat to his wife that causes no physical harm to the body nor leaves any sort of mark. It may serve, in some cases, to bring to the wife's attention the seriousness of her continued unreasonable behaviour.' On the verse that says women are men’s tilth, they say the Koran is encouraging sexuality, even though women are killed for expressing theirs (Women Living Under Muslim Laws, For Ourselves, Women Reading the Koran, 1997). Regarding the fact that women are not to judge or consult, one mullah from Qom using a female pseudonym says: “Or, Let’s suppose that in other planets, women are stronger and more learned than men, do we accept their custom or do we reject it totally?” (Zanan 4 and 5). On the Gender Equity in Islam Web Site it states that 'Islam regards women's role in society as a mother and a wife as her most sacred and essential one. This may explain why a married woman must secure her husband's consent if she wishes to work. However, there is no decree in Islam that forbids women from seeking employment whenever there is a necessity for it, especially in positions which fit her nature best and in which society needs her most.'

These 'Islamic feminist' interpretations are an insult to our intellect and cannot be taken seriously. Islam has wreaked more havoc, massacred more women, and committed more holocausts than can be denied, excused, re-interpreted, or covered up with such feeble defences. Misogyny cannot be interpreted to be pro-woman even if it is turned on its head just as fascism, Zionism and racial apartheid cannot be interpreted to be pro-human. These are mere justifications for people who want to legitimise their beliefs and religion or reactionary states and movements with a vested interest in maintaining Islamic rules and laws. They apologize because even they don't want to associate with the outrages committed by Islam throughout the world. Nothing can hide the fact that Islam, like other religions, is anti-woman and misogynist and antithetical to women's rights and autonomy.

Political Islam is a Contemporary Reactionary Movement

There are always those who say that we can't blame Islam for the status of women in Islam-stricken countries. Apologists like Jackie Ballard, an ex-MP from the UK says blaming religion for the denial of women's rights in countries like Iran 'disguised as concern for human rights' is tantamount to 'blaming Protestantism in Britain or Catholicism in Mexico for endemic domestic violence' and to seeing 'paedophilia as a symptom of a Christian or western culture'. This is nonsense. Islam is in political power in Iran and many countries of the Middle East and North Africa and cannot be compared to Protestantism in Britain. The Bible is not the law of the land in Britain, while the Koran is in Iran; it is not in the constitution and penal code nor enforced in the courts and by morality police in Britain, while it is in Iran.

And that is exactly why Islam, and not Christianity for example, is at the forefront of the debate on women's rights in the 21st century. Islam in political power, or as a movement targeting political power (political Islam), is as much a political ideology as it is a religion; it aims to establish Islamic states and rules and needs political power to do so. This political power has enabled it to maim, gag and kill women on a mass scale. Political Islam is a reactionary contemporary movement that was the Right's alternative during the Cold War and also the result of Arab nationalism's failure. In Iran, in particular, political Islam was brought to the fore of the 1979 revolution vis-à-vis the Left and as a Cold war tool and because of an anti 'westernisation' and Islam-ridden tradition dominant in a majority of the intellectual and cultural sections of society. It was in Iran that the Islamic movement became a notable political force vying for power. This meant that the misogyny in Islam was given a state, laws, courts, the military and herds of police, Pasdars, Baseej, sisters of Zeinab, and Hezbollahs at its disposal to carry out its laws. In Iran, women were slashed with razors and had acid thrown in their faces, many were killed and imprisoned until the Islamic regime in Iran was able to enforce compulsory veiling and establish its rule.

It is Racist not to Condemn Islam and Political Islam

This vile political Islam - which has sentenced women who have been raped to death for 'adultery', and has blamed mothers for not satisfying husbands as the cause of child sexual abuse - also has its defenders. Some of them say that women in England, like in Iran and Afghanistan, also face violence. Of course women face violence everywhere but surely the situation of women in Afghanistan and Iran are incomparable to situation of women living in France and England. And since when do we excuse violations because they happen elsewhere? When speaking of the status of women in Iran, they compare it with Afghanistan and state it is better. As if that's all those born in the region can expect. They even go so far as to state that women in Iran have freedoms denied to many in the West. According to these racist cultural relativists, it is as if women living in Iran cannot expect more freedoms or don't want them. They say Iran is an Islamic society and are incensed when we say it is not Islamic but Islam-stricken. They choose one of the many complex characteristics of a number of people living in Iran and label the entire society with it. Did they call it Islamic during the Shah's rule? They go on to say it's the people's culture and religion. They ignore the fact that Islam imposed its rule in Iran through violence and terror. They say Iran is Islamic so that they can more easily ignore the violations committed against women by implying it is people's choice to live the way they are forced to. In fact, there is an immense anti-Islamic backlash in Iran with people resisting Islam and its state despite the repression. They call Iran Islamic so they can prevent us from condemning Islam and political Islam by implying that any condemnation is an insult to people's beliefs. In fact, they call it Islamic in order to make it so. Though it’s untrue, even if every person living in Iran had reactionary beliefs, it still wouldn’t be acceptable. If everyone believes in the superiority of their race, must we respect and accept their beliefs? Respecting people's freedom of expression, belief and religion or atheism is one thing; that doesn't mean that we must respect any belief, however heinous. Of course human beings must be respected, but that doesn't mean that all beliefs must also be respected. Should we respect fascism, racism, nationalism, and ethnocentrism - they are all beliefs after all. And when we raise these realities, condemn Islam and political Islam and defend women's rights, they say we are racists and are promoting abuse against Muslims. Criticising beliefs is not racism. Is it racist to condemn fascism, nationalism, capitalism, sexism, religion? Does a critique of fascism, nationalism or racism promote abuse against fascists, nationalists, and racists? If we criticise child labour, does it mean we are promoting abuse against children who are forced to work? This is the pathetic whining of reactionaries who want to silence defenders of women's rights and frighten them into inactivity and submission. Racism, rooted in capitalism, exists in society and has nothing to do with a critique of Islam. Don't non-Muslims also face racism? These apologists go so far as to call it Islamophobia. This is nonsense. Xenophobia and homophobia, for example, are the hatred of people: foreigners and homosexuals. You cannot have a phobia against an idea. If we are opposed to racial or sexual apartheid, does that make us apartheid-phobic! If we are opposed to racism and fascism does that mean we are racist-phobic and fascism-phobic? Come on. Opposing violations of women's rights in Islam-stricken countries does not serve racism - just like opposing Zionism does not make one an anti-Semite. In fact, it is racist to assume that all those living or born in the Middle East are supporters of Islam and political Islam and that these vile governments and the Islamic movement represent women when in fact women are their first victims. Labelling women's rights activists as racists is a dim-witted ploy to justify and excuse women's status under Islam and political Islam, and deny women and people living in the Middle East and Iran universal rights and freedoms. Those who say these things do so because they want to maintain Islam. They want to justify it. Excuse it. They have an interest in safeguarding religion and political Islam. Or at best, they believe women in Iran and the Middle East are sub-humans who actually enjoy being segregated, veiled, stoned, flogged and dehumanised. Like Islam, political Islam is antithetical to women's rights. It is not just a matter of consciousness-raising and creating a renaissance that pushes religion out of the public sphere and eliminating its role in people's social lives, but also completely eliminating political Islam and Islamic states and its movement (as was done with Christianity). Well-meaning people assert that we need to separate Islam from political Islam in order to defend rights. In fact, to defend universal rights, we must have the courage to confront both. Any compromise with Islam is a compromise on women's rights. There can be no compromise on people's rights and dignity.

September 11: The True Face of Political Islam

On September 11, the world came to know political Islam as never before. What happened in New York is happening everyday to women and people living under the sword of Islam. On September 11, the monster created by Western governments moved beyond its control and the West is now moving to contain it. The USA and Western governments want to contain only aspects of it - those aspects of it that are moving outside of the region. It has no problem leaving it contained in the region to continue its reign of terror. That is where 'fundamentalism' comes into good use. It distinguished between the Islamists acceptable to the West and those which are not.

This is an important moment for those of us who have struggled against Islam and political Islam. For us, though, none is acceptable. Just as it not acceptable for women, men and children to be massacred in New York, it is unacceptable for them to be slaughtered in Iran, Afghanistan and Northern Iraq. Getting rid of political Islam is a precondition to any improvements in the status of women and people in the Middle East. The establishment of a Palestinian state and an end to sanctions against Iraq will get rid of the primary grounds for political Islam's recruitment. The overthrow of the Islamic regime in Iran will also weaken political Islam considerably. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a pillar of political Islam; its overthrow is being delayed by Western government support. Those who truly support women's rights must demand secular societies in the Middle East. The separation of religion from the state, education, and a citizen's identity, relegating religion to the private affair of people is not only realizable but a necessity after the experience in Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East. They must also defend the right to asylum for all women fleeing Islam-stricken societies. It is our task to move public opinion towards people's movements in Iran and the Middle East for secularism, freedom and equality and universal rights and away from both poles of USA and Islamic terrorism.

The 21st Century must be the century that rids itself of political Islam. This will begin in Iran.

The above is Maryam Namazie's speech at a March 8, 2002 conference entitled 'Islam, Secularism and Women in the Middle East' in London.

FOR MARX'S ESSAY ON THE NEED FOR REVOLUTIOANRY COMMUNISTS TO CHALLENGE RELIGION AND THEOLOGY  SEE MY EXCERPTS OF AND MY COMMENTS ON  FOR A RUTHLESS CRITICISM OF EVERYTHING EXISTING

'The basis of socialism is the human being… Socialism is the movement to restore human being's conscious will.'

Mansoor Hekmat,
the great Marxist thinker and leader of the
Worker-communist Party and Worker-communist movement of Iran and Iraq
1951-2002

* New archive for the Marxist Library: Mansoor Hekmat

* About the Crisis in the Middle East Interview with Mansoor Hekmat

* The World After September 11
by Mansoor Hekmat

Islam and De-Islamisation
Interview with Mansoor Hekmat

* Ensuring the People's Right to Determine the Future System of Government in Iran
Resolution adopted by The Worker-communist Party of Iran Political Bureau

* Call to opposition parties to pledge their commitment to
The Declaration of Political Freedoms

* Mansoor Hekmat's Biography by: Hamid Taghvaie

* Mansoor Hekmat Foundation

* The History of the Undefeated
A few words in ommemoration of the 1979 Revolution
by Mansoor Hekmat

* Against Sexual Apartheid in Iran Interview with Azar Majedi

* Federalism is a Reactionary Slogan
Interview with Mansoor Hekmat

* Iranian communists against attack on Iraq

* What is this war about?

* Gory dawn of the New World Order

* Neither USA/NATO Terrorism, nor Islamic Terrorism

* Let's turn a dark scenario into a bright future A look at the Iraqi situation
By: Azar Majedi

I have taken a quote from
Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Karl Marx in Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, February, 1844

And simply replaced German and Germany with Islam........maybe this will make the point.....that so many post-modernist/post-Marxists don't get about the bankruptcy of interpreting identity politics as anti-capitalist because they are apparently anti-imperialist, they are in effect inter-imperialist rivalries between the remnants of feudalism; patriarchal religion. I am using Islam in this case to refer not to the religion but the Muslim World all those countries which the proletariat is still chained to the Muslim religion.

"Where, then, is the positive possibility of a Islamic emancipation?

Answer: In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.

The proletariat is beginning to appear in Islam as a result of the rising industrial movement. For, it is not the naturally arising poor but the artificially impoverished, not the human masses mechanically oppressed by the gravity of society, but the masses resulting from the drastic dissolution of society, mainly of the middle estate, that form the proletariat, although, as is easily understood, the naturally arising poor and the Christian-Islamicic serfs gradually join its ranks.

By heralding the dissolution of the hereto existing world order, the proletariat merely proclaims the secret of its own existence, for it is the factual dissolution of that world order. By demanding the negation of private property, the proletariat merely raises to the rank of a principle of society what society has raised to the rank of its principle, what is already incorporated in it as the negative result of society without its own participation. The proletarian then finds himself possessing the same right in regard to the world which is coming into being as the Islamic king in regard to the world which has come into being when he calls the people hispeople, as he calls the horse his horse. By declaring the people his private property, the king merely proclaims that the private owner is king.

As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy. And once the lightning of thought has squarely struck this ingenuous soil of the people, the emancipation of the Islamics into men will be accomplished.

Let us sum up the result:

The only liberation of Islam which is practically possible is liberation from the point of view of that theory which declares man to be the supreme being for man. Islam can emancipate itself from the Middle Ages only if it emancipates itself at the same time from the partial victories over the Middle Ages. In Islam, no form of bondage can be broken without breaking all forms of bondage. Islam, which is renowned for its thoroughness, cannot make a revolution unless it is a thorough one. The emancipation of the Muslims is the emancipation of man. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart the proletariat. Philosophy cannot realize itself without the transcendence [Aufhebung] of the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot transcend itself without the realization [Verwirklichung] of philosophy."

ISTANBUL - A low-priced, new paperback version of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf has become one of Turkey's best-selling books. The Finance Ministry of the German state of Bavaria administers the copyright to the notorious work, filled with Hitler's anti-Semitic tirades and plans for world domination. The ministry requested Friday that Germany's Foreign Ministry instruct its diplomats in Turkey to investigate possible lawsuits against the publishers, who did not have permission to reprint the book. A copy of Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' (or 'Kavgam' in Turkish) displayed in an Istanbul book store. Low-priced, new paperback versions released in the past few months have made it a top seller in Turkey. (AP Photo) "The book Mein Kampf should not be reprinted," Bavarian Finance Minister Kurt Faltlhauser said in a statement. "The state of Bavaria administers the copyright very restrictively to prevent an increase of Nazi ideas." Various reports say that 50,000 copies of the book have been sold in Turkey in the past few months, since the release of two new paperback versions. However, no one is absolutely sure why 80 years after its publication, Mein Kampf – which many critics have called badly written – is climbing the best seller lists of Turkish book chains. Some point to growing anger in the predominantly Muslim country over violence between Israel and Palestine, while others cite frustration with U.S. foreign policy in neighbouring Iraq. Still others believe it's simply a case of readers satisfying a long-held curiosity with the book, which is selling for as little as $5.50. The book's recent popularity is troubling, said Silvyo Ovadya, a leader in Turkey's Jewish community. Ovadya is "astonished a 500-page book that sows the seeds of racism and anti-Semitism can sell at such a low price," he told Agence France-Presse. Over the past few years, there have also been several film adaptations of Hitler's life, including Max, about a Jewish art teacher's relationship with his young art student Adolf Hitler; TV movie Hitler: The Rise of Evil; and German film Downfall, which received a best foreign film nomination at this year's Oscars and opens in select Canadian cities Friday. RELATED FEATURE: Meeting Evil: A German film explores Hitler Germany itself has banned the sale of Mein Kampf (My Struggle) and only offers it in libraries for research purposes.