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.
Fascism would be tremendous leap forward for most Islamic nations.
Did I say Huns? I meant ... er ... Mums. Yeah, that's the ticket.
We have been fighting violent Moslems since this country was founded (Barbary Pirates - Thomas Jefferson). So if we are not fighting Islam, then what is it about Islam that breeds so many "Islamofascists".
The term "Islamofascists" implies that most muslims are moderate and do not support the Islamofascists. It is my impression that this is not the case.
If we are fighting a religion, then how do we reconcile that with "freedom of religion"? Maybe freedom of religion has limits, like treason or support of our enemies.
That is not why I consider moslems mohammed-worshippers. Actually, I think pbuh is a rather gracious and even endearing mannerism. It is not to my taste, because it is repetitive, but I understand the sense of true respect and honor behind it. I have no problem with it.
What I have a problem with is the regard of mohammed as The Perfect Man, an absurdity carried to violent and mindless extremes. What difference is there between bowing down five times a day, and rioting and murdering because of pictures? The intensity of feeling and thinking is impossible to distinguish, in terms of adoration.
LOL!
The jihadis are extremely decentralized.
stringent socioeconomic controls,
The jihadis lack the economic structure that is the hallmark of fascistic societies.
typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
The Jihadi is internationalist in nature not nationalistic. They operate and thrive in London just as well as Tehran.
The Bush Adminstration's biggest problem is its complete inability to articulate the purpose of our actions in the Middle East. Or to define our enemy in this war. Anyone who thinks we are fighting fascists is ignorant of both history and the English language.
From a tactical standpoint, we are extremely well positioned in the Middle East. I sure as hell hope the purpose of our presence is not as advertised, i.e. to give Islamists the opportunity to vote themselves a government of Islamic fundamentalists.
True. But my point is, can't we get more specific, in fact can't we be accurate, in addressing who our enemy is? Why do we need to drag fascism into this?
Isn't calling the thing itself, adequate and to the point?
Precisely.
Can't agree with you on any of your points. Islamofascism is the perfect description.
Ah ... so true. Of that I am only too aware. But it never hurts to be reminded, and I thank you.
In fact, most of the Paks (including those of predominantly Arab origin) like to differentiate themselves from the Arabs (including Mo) by noting that some things are clearly cultural, e.g. plural marriage, frequent divorce, the burqa, and so forth.
I say we compromise and call it a good rant. Like a good Opus without the "leaving" part.
I'd go down each point, but suffice it to say that the Islamofascist "ideal" is the Islamic Caliphate, with its own version of "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer".
You are correct.... OTOH, you are dealing with a society which is generally "ignorant of both history and the English language", so maybe best to feed them regurgitated pablum..
Maybe we should call the Islamo-Commies.. We know Commies and we beat them before, so maybe we can do it again..;)
My point was that the term was appropriate, but ineffectual, especially in comparison to using the words which actually describe the circumstances, instead of unnecessary historical metaphors.
Nor can you articulate why.
BTW, Mohammad never existed, or at least not as he is portrayed in the Koran and the Hadiths. He's a fiction invented in Damascus
Ya went there, didn't ya? In my previous post about fascism, I articulated why. You know, the post you responded to? Hello, you there?
Could you give me some GPS co-ordinates on the Caliphate?
Their ideal has very little to do with their current structure.
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.