Contra “Islamofascism”

A fairly well known mainstream conservative writer had an article in which he used the word “Islamofascism” in the first sentence. I wrote him this:

Dear ____,

You’re not going to like this e-mail, but I have to tell you something very frankly for what it’s worth.

When I start to read an article about Islam or the war on terror, and I come across the phrase “Islamofascism,” I cease being able to take the writer seriously, and I stop reading the article.

You come across as a tough guy and a brave soul, yet you use this cringing dishonest, artificial phrase designed to avoid calling our adversaries what they are and what they call themselves: Muslims. Warriors for Allah. Jihad soldiers. If you don’t want to call them simply “Muslims,” because you don’t want to make all Muslims our enemies, fine, then call our enemies “radical Muslims,” “Islamic extremists,” “Islamic fundamentalists,” or something of that nature, which still conveys the truthful fact that these are Muslims, though Muslims who are pursuing the radical or extreme or fundamental version of Islam. But to call them Islamofascists is simply absurd. It’s an intellectual embarassment.

If you seriously believe that jihad war to conquer non-Muslims only came about because of some supposed joining together of 20th century European fascism with Islam, and that jihad war didn’t exist prior to the 20th century, then you are ignorant of basic facts about Islam and shouldn’t write about the subject until you’ve educated yourself.

Conservative writer replied:

Thanks. I understand your reasons. I have mine so no sale.

LA replied:

Ok. Mind telling me what they are?

Conservative writer:

Using “Islam” serves no useful and distinguishing purpose. “Islamofascism” does by connecting Islam and fascism in people’s minds, and uses the left’s term of ultimate political derision to do it. Plus it’s accurate: our enemies are Moslem fascists—and not all Moslems are either our enemies nor are fascists. Besides, it will do you no good to rail against it as the term is rapidly gaining currency.

LA replies:

For the purpose of getting a clearer understanding of your position, let me ask you some questions:

Is fascist Islam a new phenomenon, or has it always been a part of Islam?

How do you distinguish between fascist Muslims who are our enemies and the non-fascist Muslims who are not?

For example:

Are Musllms who believe that those who convert out of the faith must be killed, Muslim fascists? Or are they Muslims?

Are the 80 percent of Muslims in Detroit who believe in sharia Muslim fascists, or are they Muslims?

Are Muslims who believe that sharia law under Allah is the only just government for the planet earth, Muslim fascists? Or are they Muslims?

Are Muslims who believe that the commandment of Allah is to convert, subjugate, or kill all non-Muslims, Muslim fascists? Or are they Muslims?

Was Muhammad, who had his critics assassinated; who taught his followers that the ultimate path of submission to Allah and entry to paradise is killing infidels in war, a fascist? Or was he a Muslim?

Were the Muslim caliphs who conquered the Near East and destroyed the Christian and Jewish civilization there, Muslim fascists? Or were they Muslims?

Were the Muslim invaders of India, who killed scores of millions of Hindus over the course of a couple of centuries, Muslim fascists? Or were they Muslims?

Were the Muslim raiders of Europe who carried away literally millions of Europeans over the course of centuries and made them slaves, Muslim fascists? Or were they Muslims?

Was Sayyid Qutb, who based himself totally on the Koran and the Hadiths in arguing that Islam commands aggressive war against all infidels until the whole world is under Islamic government, a Muslim fascist? Or was he a Muslim?

Another question. You write:

“Besides, it will do you no good to rail against it as the term is rapidly gaining currency.”

Is it your position that if something seems to be gaining currency, and it is wrong, one should surrender to it?

Mark A., with whom I shared the correspondence, writes:

I admit to laughing while reading your last response. It brought up so many great points that I am sure he will ignore it to protect his ego. ____ ______ has bothered me for a long time. He’s very much a kool-aid drinker for the Bush administration.

I can’t stand the term Islamofascism for another reason—I believe it misuses the word fascism. Fascism is political art of uniting all elements of a state to serve the interests of the state. Corporations, the military, etc. all exist and operate with the sole purpose of promoting the interests of the state. The Muslims don’t have states! The few they do were put together under threat of death from British cannon fire. They have tribes. They have Islam. The Iraqis couldn’t be fascist anymore than they could grow wings and fly. Unite the corporations, military, and educational systems to promote the state? WHAT STATE???? What corporations?? What military???

We are engaged in a religious war and we are not fighting a state. People like ____ _______ think it is still 1945 and George Bush stands like Dwight Eisenhower in front of a global map with all of our enemy “nations” that we need to fight. _______ and Bush don’t understand that this is religious and tribal and has nothing to do with a state. This is why they don’t get the immigration issue. They think if Muslims come to Detroit, they are no longer “Iraqi” and are no longer an enemy. They are one of us! Of course, as you and VFR pur forth daily, the Muslims are not one of us and bring their religious hatred here.

_______ just doesn’t get it. Demographics are everything. A nation is only as good as the individuals who make up that nation. The Muslims, as individuals, will thus collectively ruin the country.

He probably lives on a 10 acre ranch in the Midwest. White people all around. No crime. You and I live in black cities. I think this is an even bigger reason why we get it. We understand that this is not about states. It is about religious persuasions and tribal loyalties.

- end of initial entry -

James N. writes:

I have nothing to add to Mark A’s wonderful exposition of why “Islamofascism” is a nonsense word.

However, there is something more to say—and that is that I’m sure that the word was cooked up by pollsters and spin doctors who were worried that the Bush policy was slipping, and were tasked to come up with a slogan that would make the People get back on board.

The calculatedness of it all is disgusting.

LA replies:

Well, I’m not sure I agree with Mark. He may be referring to the fact that Muslims have little interest in the Western-style nation-state. But what they believe in is the Caliphate, which is certainly a state—a single all-ruling state over all Muslims, though not all-ruling in the totalistic, centralized manner of modern totalitarianism. Muhammad was not only the founder and leader of Islam but the founder of a state of which he was the political leader. The Caliphs who followed him were both the religious leader of Islam and the ruler of a political state. The Muslims lost the Islamic state with the deposition of the Caliph in Istanbul after World War I, and the main object of jihadists today such as Osama bin Laden is to recreate the Caliphate and ultimately a achieve a global Caliphate, which would be a world state ruling according to the sharia.

So an all-ruling state is certainly a part of the Islamic system. But since this state predates fascism by exactly 1,300 years—Muhammad became the ruler of Medina in 622, Mussolini took over Italy in 1923—it has nothing to do with fascism, though there are some similarities between fascism and Islam, for example the belief in war as the highest calling. The Islamic state is a uniquely Islamic institution. KS Lal has an entire book called Muslim State in India.

“Snouck Hurgronje” writes:

The fact that this “-fascism” has such appeal to conservatives reveals something about the USA. The population is entering a nostalgic phase. Longingly looking back to its glory days in the 1940s, when it was more at home with itself. The U.S. citizen and pundit typically pride themselves on being forward looking, especially compared to Europeans and Asians. That pride is not as justified as it used to.

Paul Nachman writes:

Regarding “fascism,” I’m with Orwell: “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’” [1946]

My own way of putting it: In the 1930s, in Italy, fascism was whatever Mussolini believed when he woke up on any given day.

LA replies:

It’s a mark of the utter intellectual degeneration of the pro-Bush right, that they take this hackneyed leftist smear word, a word that for decades has been best known for meaning nothing except that you don’t like somebody, and adopt it as their main phrase for their enemy, and are very proud of themselves for having done so.

A correspondent replies:

But it seems it would be a kind of victory if we could get the leaders to use it. Bush used it and then backed away from it because Karen Hughes said the Muslims were insulted. Instead of doing what they have to do to distance themselves from the extremes of their faith, they demand that we drop the term!

LA replies:

Gosh, what happened to “Islamic fundamentalism,” or “Islamic radicalism,” or “militant Islam”? Any of those would be better than acting as though our problem were “fascism”! (Which by the way feeds into the notion that all the bad things about Islam come from Europe—fascism, anti-Semitism, etc.)

“Islamofascism” is such a phony, false expression—with the decades of the use of “fascism” as an all-purpose invective by the left—that it destroys the ability to think of the people who use it. It’s a step to the cave below the Cave.*

The reader writes back:

I agree, but I just meant ANYTHING is better than nothing, just saying we’re facing the “enemies of freedom.” But my own preferred term is Islamic fundamentalism.

LA replies:

Point taken. If we accept your premise that the only alternative is “enemies of freedom,” then Islamofascism is an improvement as it at least gets Islam into the picture. Instead of being a step downward to the cave below the Cave, it’s a step upward from the cave below the Cave.

Mark A. writes:

I think we’re speaking past each other here. I don’t disagree with your theory at all. I probably should’ve been a little clearer with my exposition; it’s not that I think Muslims don’t believe in the state. My argument against the term Islamofascism is that we are not fighting a single Muslim state here as it is exists in the Western-tradition. We are fighting a religious war—not a war against “terror,” but rather a war against Islam. The term Islamofascism suggests that we are fighting a fascist state, such as Italy or Germany. Thus, Bush Inc. thinks that if you bring an “Iraqi” to the United States, he is no longer an enemy because he is no longer an “Iraqi”—he is now an “American.” Unfortunately, this is a mentality that dates back to the great nation-state wars of 1914-1919 and 1939-1945. Therefore, the term Islamofascism suggests that we are battling “states” in the Middle East when we are not: we are fighting Islam in the Middle East, whether Bush realizes this or not.

LA replies:

Got it. That’s an excellent insight.

Mark replies:

I think this is the root problem of Bush Inc. They think if you cut off the head—like Mussolini or Hitler—you will be friends with the locals. They forget that, despite all of their faults, the Italians and Germans were all white and mostly Christian. Of course, we can’t suggest that an Iraqi would be different from a German or Italian. That would be racist. :)

Alan Levine writes:

Forgot to comment on the Islamofascism tag: It fails simply because there is no similarity to fascism. The latter was a highly national, differentiated movement which was overwhelmingly secular and usually anti religious (with the one exception of the Romanian Iron Guard.) and only partially antimodern, and which accepted the superiority of the West without even thinking about it. What has this to do with a movement that (though undoubtedly riven by Arab, Iranian and other national sentiments) is theoretically purely religious, transcends national boundaries in appeal, is totally anti-Western, and totally anti-modern?

For that matter, although as a Jew I would have found it hard to believe I would say such a thing, even the German Nazis sound more sensible than these geeks….

They actually did not exult, in public, over mass murder and torture as these swine do. To compare the Islamists, Kutbists, jihadists to Italian Fascism is unfair, as the the Italians at least did not behave as badly as they do!

___________

* Plato’s Cave is the realm of distorted images of reality, where all of us reside. Discourse takes place there, but it’s confused. In the cave below Plato’s Cave, the illusions become thicker and there is no connection with reality at all.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 19, 2007 05:43 AM | Send