'Islamofascism'

WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | 20 Aug 06

[rellimpank]

BY ROGER SCRUTON Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

The term "Islamofascism" was introduced by the French writer Maxine Rodinson (1915-2004) to describe the Iranian Revolution of 1978. Rodinson was a Marxist, who described as "fascist" any movement of which he disapproved. But we should be grateful to him for coining a word that enables people on the left to denounce our common enemy. After all, other French leftists--Michel Foucault, for example--had welcomed the revolution as an amusing threat to Western interests. It is only now that people on the left can acknowledge that they are just as much a target as the rest of us, in a war that has global chaos as its goal.

[Gordongekko909]

Rodinson was a Marxist, who described as "fascist" any movement of which he disapproved.

Heh. Sound familiar?

[Billthedrill]

The author strikes at the key of the debate, and one reason that Islam in the United States is yet to develop this exigent nature (although it is certainly beginning) - it must be made clear to immigrants that there is one and only one law of the land and it is incorporated in the Constitution, and that anyone else's "Law Of God" is a matter of private opinion. The penalty for establishing and enforcing any other code of behavior, at least in public, is and ought to be banishment for aliens and imprisonment for citizens.

This does not exclude voluntary submission to any code of behavior the individual might prefer but it absolutely does exclude him or her from imposing it on others. The latter is nothing less than deliberate subversion and the state has a right to deal with it as such.

[Kakaze]

" This readiness to take offense is not yet terrorism--but it is a sign of the deep-down insecurity of the Muslim psyche in the modern world. In the presence of Islam, we all feel, you have to tread carefully, as though humoring a dangerous animal. The Koran must never be questioned; Islam must be described as a religion of peace--isn't that the meaning of the word?--"

Deep-down insecurity that results in the "believer" becoming unstable.

Unstable because somewhere deep down he himself doubts his own faith and convictions.

Nothing is more dangerous then a religious zealot with self doubt. In his quest to prove his own faith, he consumes not only himself but those around him.

[hsalaw]

Excellent article, and you had a very insightful comment in response to it. We ARE a nation of law, and even though our religious beliefs guide us as individuals, our conduct must still be within the law.

[popdonnelly]

"It is only now that people on the left can acknowledge that they are just as much a target as the rest of us"

But the left does not acknowledge the threat. They say it is exaggerated, or that it would go away if we stopped importing oil or abandoned Israel.

[samtheman]

It's a decent article but it leaves out any mention of the Religion of Leftism, which has swept so much of Europe and so many important sectors of America.

The article compares Christianity and Islam, which is a good thing to do, but leaves out any mention of how the Religion of Leftism paves the way for the Religion of Peace, even as the followers of the Religion of Peace sharpen their swords to cut of the heads of all infidels, including their useful idiot allies, the followers of the Religion of Leftism.

Lacking any mention of Leftism, this article is sadly one-dimensional.

[LiberalBassTurds]

Interesting read and good data points for debating. Here's one point I'd like to call attention to and try to debunk...

This readiness to take offense is not yet terrorism--but it is a sign of the deep-down insecurity of the Muslim psyche in the modern world.

This is a concept oft repeated by media people. It's IMHO frankly wrong and the reverse of the actual issue. It is a superiority complex, not inferiority, that drive Muslim outrage. When one analyzes the Quoran, Muslim history, and the concept of Dhimitude then overlays that data on current events you'll see that the outrage is driven by the deep-seated Muslim belief that they are the highest form of humanity and all non-believers are inferior.

As an inferior infidel, who is to be dominated by Muslims, "how dare you" consider critiquing or analyzing your betters? You are to keep your head down and speak when spoken to. There are many examples, the Mohammad picture controversy being the most visible and recent. The Muslim concept of "tolerance" of non_Muslim ends as soon as you put them or their beliefs under the microscope.

I fear that this constant use of the "inferiority" concept only feeds the lefties. If Muslims have an inferiority complex then that's an issue that can be dealt with via dialog or counseling of some sort. If it's a "superiority complex" the left will have no solutions and all their foolish approaches to the problem are exposed as useless.

LBT
-=-=-

[samtheman]

The penalty for establishing and enforcing any other code of behavior, at least in public, is and ought to be banishment for aliens and imprisonment for citizens.

The penalty for establishing and enforcing any other code of behavior, at least in public, is and ought to be banishment for all (citizen and non-citizen) who fail to understand this concept.

[Dallas59]

yuck

[rellimpank]

--I believe you are completely correct--

[LiberalBassTurds]

Thank you for the feedback rellimpank. Much appreciated.

LBT
-=-=-

[GeronL]

whatever happened to your fishies?

[Thombo2]

The writer certianly makes some salient points,however the last paragraph leads me to believe the author still doesn't quite get it."Maybe,one day,the rigid face of some puritanical mullah will crack open in a hesitant smile,and negotiations can begin."Some advice-don't hold your breath waiting for that day.

[Billthedrill]

I'd agree except that there really isn't anyplace to which we can banish a citizen other than prison, at least at present. Robert Heinlein postulated such a place in his Coventry and I've often wondered if he wasn't on to something. Any citizen (and not just Islamists) who is chronically disaffected, incorrigably and violently revolutionary, and intent on overthrowing the existing rule of law really ought not to be able to force that citizen's society to nurture him or her while he or she is in the process of destroying it.

[plangent]

Readiness to take offense.

Almost describes the ACLU.

[LiberalBassTurds]

whatever happened to your fishies?

Wow GeronL, you have a very good memory. :-) Thanks for asking. I don't know why I stopped using the old Bass.

Here's one for old time's sake. :-)

LBT
-=-=-

[GeronL]

LOL... even in Iran, you can't avoid the Bass

[LiberalBassTurds]

Hehe, yeah...he liked eating that little monkey. :-)

LBT
-=-=-