Replies

Attempts to define the enemy beyond Islam only blurs the picture.

That is true. Obviously, Bush is only adding the "fascist" bit for public consumption and because to Americans it is unthinkable that anything that calls itself a religion could be utterly and entirely bad. But in many ways, fascism does not apply to Islam, which has as its ideal a theocratic, transnational government in which the religious and civil spheres are one and the same. This is not true of fascism, which, as the author himself said, is based on extreme nationalism. The author is right in that Islam is a "Mass Movement" in the sense he defines it, that is, something that takes away individual responsibility, fosters hatred of those on the outside, etc. But this is because Islam is essentially a cult, which differs from a religion in that it is focused on creating a closed, all-encompassing world that answers all the follower's questions, relieves him of all responsibilities for deciding on right and wrong, imposes its own set of behavioral rules that are arbitrary and have no ethical roots, and is controlled entirely by the leader or his appointed followers. Mohammed was an Arab, so Arabs have preeminence in this group (remember, being a cleric who is a descendant of Mohammed is ultra-super-special), but it cannot simply be defined as an Arab nationalist movement.

The Arab nations have always had a particular hatred of Jews, probably because of their proximity to Israel, or, before its existence, to territory that they knew to have belonged to the Jews. This anti-semitism pervades their scriptures and hence has been adopted by Muslims everywhere. But I think their main attraction to Hitler and his movement was their shared anti-semitism, because, as you say, fascism is no more a government the Muslims could apply than is democracy.

Oddly enough, I think Islam could function with a Communist government, because Communism has some of the same features (transnational, etc.) and also exercises a great deal of control over its citizens, who have virtually no individual existence. The left is very authoritarian and "mass think" oriented, and I think that's one of the reasons many leftists really admire Islam, which as "religions" go has a concept of an impersonal, arbitrary god who does not will or desire human freedom or any response, other than fear and submission. Also, of course, as dysfunctional Muslim economies have shown time and again, Mohammed and Marx would get along just fine with each other in the area of economic structure, too!

But as you say, no further definition is necessary: Islam in itself is the enemy.

Our thoughts are much alike.

When we think of theocracy, we most often reach back in history to the Holy Roman Empire, the Vatican and the Catholic Church. We could also list the early American colonies founded by one Christian denomination or another. In these instances the religion was paramount to government, so indeed was the authoritative institution in those societies. They also had a clear and present head, much like a monarchy. Islam has no such head.

The history of Islam is riddled with strife. When not externally with a non-muslim nation, internally amongst themselves. This is due to the absence of a single head. Islamic clerics issue opposing interpretations of Islamic law with no authoritative overview, and thus no accountability.

If the terrorists attacks and conflicts of these past few decades had been carried out by Roman Catholics our response would be targeted at the Vatican because we recognize it as the head, or base of Catholicism. Islam lacks such a singular head or base. I purposely used the Roman Catholic Church in this example as it has a comparable worldwide population to Islam, but is differentiated in that it cannot pursue a planned course of world domination by violent conquest without suffering the possible loss of its head or base.

Lacking a true head or base, and because Islam can easily find justification for violence based on the edicts of its clerics for any cause, it is the whole of Islam that is at fault.

In WWII, our enemies were primarily Germany, Japan and Italy. Our military was unleashed to defeat these entire nations, not just the leadership or their military. We can have no lesser goal in fighting Islam. Islam is at war with every people and nation they come in touch with, be it the USA, India, Thailand, Israel, Russia, the Philippines, Europe, and numerous African nations. Those Islamic nations not in direct conflict with neighbors have ongoing internal strife brought about from edicts issued by clerics opposing whatever form of government exists within those nations presently. The death and barbarism can never end because there is no single authoritative head.

A side note about communism and Islam, actually two side notes. The invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR gave birth to al-Qaeda because communism was so hated by Islam for being a godless form of government. Islamic nations that found reason to embrace relations with the USSR never embraced communism, but did so out of necessity to acquire military support.

Lastly, during the Cold War our enemy was most commonly defined as communism, not Russian communist, Chinese communists, Polish communists, or German communists. The enemy was communism itself, just as our enemy today is Islam itself.