Posted on 08/15/2006 5:19:13 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
With most of the Western world in denial, ignorance or some degree of acquiesence before the dream of islamic hegemony, it is at least encouraging that all of a sudden a discussion has arisen among those westerners not so afflicted, whether we should identify the ideology of our enemies as fascist.
It is encouraging because it might, perhaps, signal a sense that it is becoming more commonly acceptable in our societies to think of our enemies as not nice people. Maybe our reluctance to give offense is giving way, to some degree, to the foreboding that horrible suffering and death might actually await many of us, by those not nice people who daily threaten to inflict horrible suffering and death on us, and do inflict it on as many of us as they are currently capable of reaching.
The question remains whether "fascism" is really the word we ought to use, when we use it in the phrase "War on Islamo-fascism." There is no question that fascism and islam share a strikingly similar world view, and as much is assumed in the following words. Islam shares a striking world view with nazism, perhaps moreso than with fascism, and yet would it sound right to refer to "islamo-nazism"? Our enemies are true barbarians: should we call this war, the The War on Barbarism?
The problem with calling our enemy ideology "islamo-fascism" is that it is not fascism, it is islam. While there may be fascist equivalents of words such as dhimmi, hudna, taqqiyah and jihad, or fascist literature the equivalent of the koran, the hadith and the sira, that does not make islam, fascism. Each has a distinctive time and place in the history of mankind, and each a different cultural and philosophical context.
Adding fascism to "islamo" does not have the ring of truth to it. It sounds somewhat childish, like calling a police officer a "fascist pig." The use of the word "fascist" has a very sorry recent history of being used as a totally baseless pejorative, and it does not gain resonance regardless of how more accurately it might be applied to our enemy than to a cop.
And even the prefix "islamo" has that absurd ring of an awkward neologism, as with islamism. They sound like pipsqueak pejoratives, they do not quite ring true. They have the sound of phoniness and reaching too far. Does the word "homophobia" still grate on your ears? That's because it has the psuedo-serious echo of a nagging, hectoring made up verbal sledgehammer.
But the worst aspect of this leaden coinage is, it does not call the thing by what it calls itself and how it is known.
It is understood: there is a major difficulty involved. Even those who attribute the "root cause" of our enemy's barbarism to islam itself, are loathe to be so blunt, if only for prudential reasons. There remains the so far unrealized hope that some adherents will take a stand against the purported extremism of their co-religionists, that there might be a reformation of islam, if only we avoid at all costs the impression that we are trying to destroy their religion.
The problem is, you cannot fight this war without knowing about the love of death, the hatred of humanity, and the worship of mohammed, which comprises islam. The details of islam are critical, because the details lead to the understanding of motives and tactics. The knowledge of fascism is beside the point, or at least a distraction. Islam is quite big enough without trying to view it through the prism of what in comparison is a trivial historic era.
This has been a long war, between islam and humanity. The significance of the current phase, is that barbarism has just intersected with modern technology and the happenstance of vast oil wealth. The world has literally never faced anything like this before.
We are not fighting fascism. We are fighting jihad, the islamic war against humanity. The first battle in the current phase of islam's dedication to the destruction of us, is the struggle to get modern Westerners to grasp what they are facing. Jihad is doing its best to spin their war in such a way, as to keep most Westerners clueless. And it has not been a difficult job for them, given the predilections of most Westerners.
The first job in resisting jihad is to get the attention of Westerners, and the second is to focus them on exactly what they are facing. The first job is being done by jihad itself. Only jihad can do it apparently, sadly. The second job has to be done by Westerners who already know what we face.
That job is one of speaking clearly and with conviction, not obfuscating or using obscure historical metaphors.
This is a war on jihad, if we are willing to make war. It is a war of ideas, freedom, civilization and humanity, versus a religious belief that all shall die, and die horribly, who do not submit. Jihad is that religious belief. And the war on jihad ought to be the resolve of free men.
I like the Islamobarbarism line. It is fitting.
Your personal ranting are not News.
You're never going to be able to sell "War on Jihad", any more than you would be able to sell "War on Islam". Jihad is too integral to Islam, it would be like trying to differentiate between "Christ" and "Repentance".
We can target the aggressive aspect of Islam, and teach it to stay within the lines of the law, but trying to attack the concept of jihad (since jihad actually means more than suicide bombing) will be clearly seen as an attack on all of Islam.
Let's just be happy with Islamofascism. It suitably explains the problem.
Any Moslem who came out and said something about "the correct way to worship Mohammad", for example, would probably be murdered where he stood.
They don't worship Mohammad.
On the other hand, Islamofascism is a very good word for the Moslem Reformation that's been underway for the last 100 years.
Little did scholars in the field anticipate that Moslems would end up thinking fullblown fascism, sans the Nazi cross and so forth, would be a good idea.
The Falangists in Lebanon are probably doing cartwheels these days ~ savoring their success in convincing their Moslem brothers that they, the Christians, in Falange, were correct all along.
This is probably going to get a whole big bunch of these guys dead in the long run.
The irrelevance is powerful in you.
fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Islamofascism works for me.
So true. No one has the nerve to call this what it is in this PC world we live in.
It's a war against islam, and those that believe in it. It's been done before. Will be done again.
Yeah, I think the term is appropriate.
Splitting hairs on definitions seems like a silly academic exercise at this point in the game. Nothing is identical to something similar used to describe it unless they are the same thing.
It is a good post not a rant.
On one hand there is total control through the state, e.g. now a war lord in Afganistan or a Supreme Caliphate plan as planned by Osama.
The alternative was no government as in anarchy.
Drove the libs nuts when the bottom line was what difference does it make when you get shot in the forehead or the back of the head?
Good post.
an excellent article on fascism:
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm
Islamic terrorism is precisely fascism. It is not consistent with the long history of Islam but is a very recent (since the mid 1930's) development of the relationship of Shiite fanaticism and Nazism. Taliban, for example, is not a return to the Caliphate. It is a grisly distortion born of early 20 century fascism.
Why are the bulk of the forces fighting, and dying, on OUR side in the War on Jihadism, Muslim Afghanis, Pakistanis and Iraqis? Bother to notice the Kurds are Muslims?
Is it not sad how rude factual reality so explodes the shrieking hysterics of the "We are at War With Islam" Know Nothings?
Neither do liberals!
It's a match made in heaven.
So sad, so true.
Yeah, what he said!
It allows more fence-sitters and nancy-boys to support the WOT.
We can still destroy the fascists to the last Islamo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.