It’s remarkable how much time so many half-bright self-proclaimed policy experts and pundits have spent denying that there’s such a thing as “Islamo-fascism.” So much earnest pontificating about the differences between radical annihilationist Islam and fascism and Nazism. Well of course there are differences. As they say in the think tanks–Duh.
But what’s more important is what radical fundamentalist Islam and fascism share: a belief in police state enforcement of their political theologies with the use of torture and murder of political opponents; a virulent hostility to freedom of expression, to the rights of women and gays; an annihilationist hatred of Jews and liberal democracy.
That should be enough, you would think, to make the case that the commonality expressed in “Islamo-fascism” has some basis despite the differences. And now we have a Holocaust Denier (translation: Holocaust Lover) “scholars’ conference” in Iran. Let’s see: a Nazi loving gathering sponsored by a radical fundamentalist Islamic regime. A police state regime that expresses Nazi-like annihilationist threats against Jews. Will the super-subtle, profoundly sophisticated thinkers who make such a big point of rejecting “Islamo-fascism” now concede there is some merit to the phrase? Or will they remain dead-end Islamo-fascism deniers?
And if they still resist “Islamo-facism”, here’s a suggestion for another phrase: “Islamo-annihilationism”. That’s what unites Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, the Holocaust denying cultures of Saudi Arabia and Syria: their genocidal ambitions and the fascist police state culture of political assassination and repression of human rights they represent. I hope those who resist this phrase have read the Hamas charter in which genocide is enshrined as a legitimate goal of a Hamas led Islamist state. Those who have not yet read the Hamas charter are, frankly, not qualified to enter this dispute.
Okay, anybody want to deny the existence of “Islamo-annihilationism”? Speak up policy wonks. Analysts may differ on the implications of “Islamo-annihilationism”, but let’s hope they have learned a lesson from that conference in Tehran: a lesson about the consequences of denial.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
BUY The Shakespeare Wars
BUY Explaining Hitler
BUY The Secret Parts of Fortune
3 Comments
Gennady Kolker:Mr. Ronsenbaum,
Perhaps much of the criticism (denial) of the term “islamofacism” to describe fundametalist elements of Islam may be due to the juxtaposition of the terms “islam,” and “facism.” The two, in fact, have nothing in common at least in principle. It seems to be one of those terms that attempts to generalize a point that we must be careful about. There is no denying the facist tendencies of rogue elements of Islam, but Islam itself should not be the subject of such bold and careless characterizations.
Yes, we must be careful, that’s why I was careful not to ascribe fascist characteristics to “Islam itself”, as a careful reader might have noticed. It refers to a variety of fascism, a variety of Islamism–the variety I described as “radical, fundamentalist” Islamic regimes that use police state tactics and torture and promote terror. There are Islamic regimes that don’t meet these fascist critieria, but not many in the Middle East. The commenter needs to brush up, as I suggested, on the Hamas charter, prime example of Islamo-fascism.–R.R.
Dec 18, 2006 - 2:32 pm David Nicholas:One of my hobby horses the last few years (I’ve been riding it perpetually, it seems) is the concept of our knowledge of the Muslim world, and their knowledge of ours. Every expert on the region and the religion is downright eager to tell everyone who will listen how ignorant the United States (only, especially, and definitely not Europe) is about the Muslim world, Middle East, and Arabs. No one ever mentions that compared with their knowledge of *us*, we’re frankly encyclopedic by comparison when trying to understand them. Ahmed-whatever (I’m to the point I can say his name, but don’t expect me to spell it) expects the *non*-Muslim world to take his Holocaust Denial conference seriously, because he invited David Duke, of all people. He thinks we’re influenced by things that have no serious meaning to us.
The one area where the Muslim world is superior to us, in understanding anyway, is in the comprehension of intentions. They at least have an inkling of what we want to do to them, but we on the other hand seem blind to their intentions with regards to us. Most of our leaders seem to think that talking to these people will have some sort of effect, because all reasonable people can be persuaded to adopt non-violent paths to happiness. Unfortunately, it’s clear (to me anyway) that the Iranians in particular are merely stalling for time, and desparately hoping that bilateral talks with the U.S. will prop up their extremist regime. And yes, Islamo-Fascist is appropriate as a designation, though the results of the current elections appear to be showing that the government isn’t as totalitarian (yet) as the ones in other fascist regimes (Spain, Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy). Trust me, just because they’re not totally in control doesn’t mean they don’t want to be.
Dec 18, 2006 - 4:36 pm Øyvind, Mechelen:Ron:
I agree that Islamofascism exists, and have also written about that on my own blog: http://www.oyvindstrommen.be/?p=92
However, I think it is a mistake if you see most regimes in the Middle East as Islamofascist, as it might be tempting to interpret your note in the comment from mr. Kolker. Doing this, turns a whole region into a incomprehensible grey mash which is impossible to understand and even worse to take reasonable political steps towards. The Hamas-charter might indeed be a prime example of Islamofascism, but not all totalitarism is fascist, and not all Islamic totalitarianism is Islamofascist.
Dec 19, 2006 - 7:53 am