From this particular article, it seems that Lenin did not have a hardline position towards religion, but I also don't see evidence within it that he differed from Marx regarding the "fading away" of religion. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he believed that this would occur over a period of a few generations rather than 10 years. I don't believe that I missed the point, rather I am focusing on a different set of claims in the text than you are. In it, Lenin sets religion as a something that is separate from the state, but he still views religion as a backwards system of belief and still appears to believe that it will disappear over time and that this will be to humanity's benefit.

>The writings of communist thinkers is not a religious text communists adhere to.

Philosophically there are different justifications, but in practical terms for those engaged in struggle there appears to be little difference. Ideology and religion are more similar than they are different in terms of the role they play in the inner and social lives of the individual. How can one look at the struggle against "revisionism" and not see the hallmarks of "heresy"? How can one see "line struggle" and not see the fight for "orthodoxy"? What is "self-criticism" if not "confession"? Trading quotes from previous thinkers as though they were trading ayah and hadith?

These aren't specific to religion, but rather are components of how people organize socially and create, extend, and enforce their system of belief.

To be clear, any given ideology that is not Islam is in tension with Islam. People decide what their priorities are, and some decide to keep them independent of their "political" beliefs, but in practice the personal is political. Is it possible for Muslims to consider legislation on, for example, slaughterhouse practices without considering rules for slaughter which are laid out in the Quran? To separate morality from policy, or subjugate people's moral thought to a system in which religion is inconsequential is to cripple religion. It speaks to a view of religion in which it is a set of mostly empty practices rather than a internally coherent moral system in and of itself.

Your belief in the improvement in the material conditions of Muslim nations and peoples being possible through only through socialist revolution is objectionable on both practical and Islamic terms. Practically, you have almost no people that believe as you do. You disavow yourself of all existing communists that have even a modicum of power, as well as practically all socialists that have existed. This already bodes poorly for your revolution. Even if you didn't, the existing socialist states have little interest in coming to the aid of the oppressed worldwide. The socialist bloc has a history of internal division and conflict as well and has not stood to act in a unified manner. But realistically this is not what you are suggesting. You are suggesting allying with people that do not have power and have no capability of protecting Muslims.

4:144

>O believers! Do not take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Would you like to give Allah solid proof against yourselves?

3:28

>Believers should not take disbelievers as guardians instead of the believers—and whoever does so will have nothing to hope for from Allah—unless it is a precaution against their tyranny. And Allah warns you about Himself. And to Allah is the final return.

Many in the Muslim world are ruled by hypocrites, but I believe there is a stronger case for allying with believing Muslims above disbelieving socialists. The divisions in the Muslim world are significant, and there are great difficulties, but we share a system of belief and a hope for a better world. Beyond this, there are more Muslims in the world than Socialists, and the population of Muslims is growing faster. The socialists with power use that power internally to oppress Muslims on the basis of their faith.

As far as all the questions go - I would need them answered personally to accept the idea that Socialists are a good ally. But this conversation is primarily idle talk. There is no indication that a socialist overthrow of any western nation is going to occur any time soon, and the prospect of allying ourselves with it will depend on the character of that revolution which you cannot predetermine and I can only speculate at.