Defining the Enemy

[Infanteer]

You are ignoring the militarism, police-state mentality and acute anti-Semitism (pretty much) unique to post-WW2 "radical" Islam: there are degrees of authoritarianism in Islam, none of which (except the one under discussion) approach the malevolent tyranny that is suggested by using the term "Islamofascism."  Moreover, I discern a pretty big difference between allowing 'people of the book' "Dhimmi" status and wiping tem off the face of the earth.

Police state and Militarism?  Are you referring to Saudi Arabia?  The Wahabbi alliance with the House of Saud has being doing a fine job of this before the coming of the Europeans.

Afghanistan under the Taliban as Islamofascists?  Not quite - the Taliban was a curious blend of Indian Deobandian thought (focusing on morality and the lack of it in modern Islam), imported Whabbism as a legacy of fighting the Soviets (which emphasises a puritanical interpretation of Islam), and the harsh punishments of the traditional Pashtunwali code.  No reference to Mussolini or Mein Kampf here.

Iran?  Are you going to present a neat case saying that the Ayatollah needed European political thought in the 1930's and 1940's to help give his worldview enough of a grounding to take the country over?  Please, not everything has to be connected to the West in some way, shape or form.

The enemy is widespread in both his objectives and his outlooks (it is indeed "networked" - the "terrorist/insurgency NGO"), so what is "the one under discussion"?  I've pointed to the words of Osama bin Laden and the writings he relies on the reinforce his ideas as well as highlighting notions which have strong precedence in Islam, and you've only returned with a few obscure political figures and movements from the 1940's.  If you really do think that bin Laden is a fascist, you are going to have to give me a better argument than that.

As well, I'm not sure where you are getting the notion that militarism and the police state are something new to Islam and that it is grounded in Western influence (this seems like the typical message of some lame ass neo-con pundit).  Islam has been militant since Muhammad returned to Mecca - the speed, scope and force of the expansion of the Caliphate was rivaled only by the Mongols in history.  As well, Islamic rulers have been just as prone as anyone else in history in instituting autocratic regimes that smack of the defintion of "police state" - read of the decline of a multicultural al-Andalus under the harsh rule of the Almoravids and the Almohads from North Africa.

As for anti-semitism, see below.

al-Husayni (and others) imported European anti-Semitism (and other fascist ideals) that first manifested in the pogroms in Algeria, then the Farhud, and later in Libya and Iraq:

The examples you cite are all around WWII, when (surprise of surprises) the German's were politically courting movements to undermine the British.  Is it no surprise that many would undertake Anti-Semitic acts to curry favour with a German Army that was figured to be the overlord quite quickly.  Are you really trying to convince me that much of what we see is somehow related to WWII?

I have no doubt that the current problems between Islam and Judaism have some roots in the Nazi influence of the 1940's, but I seriously doubt that this influence is enough to make the anti-Semitic trends in many current threads of Islamic thought to be mere extentions of National Socialist Anti-Semitism (which has its own roots in Germanic history).  Again, the use of the term Fascist links Islamic anger and hatred towards Jews to that of the Nazis, which to me makes erroneous and inaccurate links and obfuscates understanding and ideas of causality (and hence, the solution).  Are we to fight anti-Semitism in the Middle East by showing that they had no complicity in Versailles and that the House of Rothschild were instrumental in the Industrial Revolution?

I find it rather difficult to believe that those ideas suddenly disappeared while simultaneously an incredibly totalitarian, violent and anti-Semitic strain of Islam (that no-one has any memory or record of) was spontaneously 'rediscovered'.

I'm not sure where you are getting the "spontaneously rediscovered" bit from.  Any reading of the last 100 years of history in the Middle East lays it out clear that tensions between the two began to arise with the spread of Zionism and the conflict that arises out of the notion that Israelis wish to carve a state out of land that has been in Muslim hands (with a few interuptions) for 1400 years.  This was not the first time this occurred in the relationship between Islam and Judaism - read about Sabbatai Sevi and the call for the return of the Jews to Israel and how that fared with the Ottomans.

The Nazi's obviously added a catalytic affect to the situation (just as the Holocaust no doubt served as a catalytic affect for Zionism), but I would in no way point to it as the root cause (just as National Socialism is not the root cause of Zionism either).

Into this gradual growth of animosity, add the most important catalyst, Israel "spontaneously" forming in 1948 with the partitioning of Palestine and in quick succession, delivering an ass-kicking to the Arab states on multiple occasions.  Combined with the Palestinian/Israel issue that has been a problem for all involved since Day 1, and it easy to see that Anti-Semitism in Islam is not simply something inherited from a frothing National Socialist.  Listen to the rantings of Islamists against Israel today - the notion of Crusaders and Palestine obviously underline that the anti-semitism of Islamic strains of thought are their own and not borrowed from somebody else.

Irregardless of its roots, it is sad to see that Islam, which had largely shielded Judaism from the persecution in Europe by Christianity for over a millenia, has been replaced by the seething and irrational hatred that we see today.  Hopefully, we will be able to turn back the clocks, but it sure won't be easy.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

In 50 words-or-less (busy today): I think you are painting with too-broad brushstrokes.  I'm not trying to claim that anti-Zionism, puritannicalism, etc., did not exist in Islam prior to the 20th-Century: what I am talking about is the split of the Qutbees/Brotherhood from the Wahhabis in (more-or-less) the period of the 1930's - 1960's (after Qutb was hanged and in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, the Brotherhood went a little more mainstream, but the real radicals, like Zawahiri, 'kept the faith': for all I know, maybe there's still a Sinn Fein - IRA type connection).  The Qutbees were very definitely western-influenced during (and since) WW2 (and not just by the Nazis) and Qutb himself was educated in the United States* (where he developed his intense anti-Americanism).  This is where bin Laden, et.al. are coming from and the fascist influence is apparent.  For the record, Hitchens (who coined the term) calls it fascism with an Islamic face: personally, I think of it more as Islam with a fascist face.

Certainly it is a (radical) sect of Islam, but there is also very definitely western influence.  Moreover, and more to the point, to simply call it "Islam" is rather misleading and does a tremendous disservice to Islam IMHO.  It is akin to using the term 'leftist' to describe Stalinists: technically true, but the label fails to capture the full measure of what we mean.

*In some of his writings he actually advocates western training for Muslims in technology, medicine, military, etc.

Irregardless of its roots, it is sad to see that Islam, which had largely shielded Judaism from the persecution in Europe by Christianity for over a millenia, has been replaced by the seething and irrational hatred that we see today.  Hopefully, we will be able to turn back the clocks, but it sure won't be easy.

Roger that!


Cheers.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Funnily enough this came up on Strategy page today (not really germane to the semantic argument, but I found it interesting nonetheless):

TERRORISM:  The War in Saudi Arabia is to the Death

July 29, 2005: There are three Middle Eastern battlegrounds for Islamic terrorists; Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia. This last one gets the least amount of attention, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has been the source of most of the money, ideology and people dedicated to Islamic terrorism. Since the invasion of Iraq, the Islamic radicals in Saudi Arabia have been at war with their own government. A two decade truce is over, and now the battle is to the death. Well, a temporary death. The al Saud family had to go through this in the 1930s, when the more radical Islamic warriors in the kingdom decided to carry their jihad to neighboring countries. Does this sound familiar? The king, and founder, of the recently established Saudi Arabia, realized that this would only mean trouble for his newly minted kingdom. So the king hit back hard, and kept killing the Islamic radicals until the survivors convinced him that there would be no more trouble. It was forty years before Islamic radicals felt strong enough to take on the king once more. They lost again, but instead of stamping out (ie, killing) most of the Islamic radicals, the new king (son of the old king) made a deal with them. The Islamic radicals could freely teach their hatred in the kingdom's schools, and support Islamic radicalism overseas. But they had to keep the peace at home. That truce lasted until 2003. Now it's back to the 1930s way of doing things.

The Saudis have killed or captured nearly all the Islamic radical leadership. The â Å“most wantedâ ? list is now largely composed of second string terrorists. But the Islamic radicals are not destroyed yet. The fighting in Iraq has created some new, and more experienced, Saudi Islamic terrorists. While several thousand Saudis have gone to Iraq, most have either died as suicide bombers, been killed by more experienced American troops, or come home discouraged (at the fact that most of the people killed, by terrorist attacks, in Iraq, have been Iraqi civilians.) But hundreds of hardened, experienced, and still bloody minded Saudi Islamic terrorists have returned from Iraq. These guys are out for blood, and are willing to die for the cause.

But it gets worse.

Another new development, since the 1930s, is the number of Moslems entering the kingdom each year on pilgrimage (Hadj) to the Moslem holy places. That's over three million foreigners entering the kingdom in a short period of time each year. There has always been a problem with some of them illegally staying on. Some of the Islamic terrorists already killed or arrested in the kingdom have been such men. It is feared there will be more, no matter how carefully Saudi security people scrutinizes the arriving pilgrims.

The Saudi royal family know that this is a fight to the death. The 1980s compromise didn't work, and this time around the battle has gone old school. But with a lot of new technology. The United States is providing a lot of technical help in the battle. Indirectly, the Saudis are even getting help from Israel, which has supplied the U.S. with many new ideas, and equipment, for fighting terrorism. The war on terror does indeed make strange bedfellows.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=urbang.htm

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Funny that you should mention Mein Kampf: if Ossama didn't study it, certainly many of his contemporaries (and mentors) have ...

Their Kampf
Hitler's book in Arab hands.

By David Pryce-Jones, from the July 29, 2002, issue of National Review

Adolf Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf is as vile as any book ever published. Written in 1923 while he was in prison as a revolutionary agitator and at that point unlikely ever to be anything else, Hitler built on the connected emotions of hatred and self-pity. It is the work of a failure, what is more of a man who knows himself to be a failure. The failure is everyone's fault except his own. And all these people are against him because they belong to different races: That is the key. In the book he invents a "racial ladder" with Germans naturally at the top of it and Jews down at the bottom. If only they had been properly German, all those other people would have recognized his greatness. But by definition they couldn't be German, and they stood in his way, and so he had to kill them, stamp them out. On the one hand, thwarted ambition; on the other hand, a hatred of humanity. The combination still has the power to send a shiver down the spine.

Hitler's fate, and the mass-murder he inspired, did not put an end to the malignant appeal of his book. There are plenty of people who know themselves to be failures and blame everyone for it except themselves. They too fantasize that they have enemies who can never be anything else because they belong to another race, and the only solution is to massacre the lot. Almost 80 years after its first appearance, Mein Kampf remains an international hit. The Bavarian state owns the copyright but whether it collects royalties is unclear. The book is banned in Germany, but for some years Random House has been marketing an English translation, defending itself with the argument that it is a historic text which has to be studied.

Communism was perhaps the most spectacular political failure in history, killing tens of millions, and wasting the lives of hundreds of millions more. These victims mostly came from societies that were still traditional, usually agricultural. How were they to explain to themselves the calamity which Communism visited upon them? The arrival of democracy in Russia and its former satellites has brought into these countries fresh editions of Mein Kampf in half a dozen languages. In Poland the initial print-run was 20,000 copies (a significant quantity there). A minority evidently believes that Communism was all a Jewish plot, and Hitler had got things right. The authorities crack down half-heartedly.

Muslim and Arab society is today a failure much as Communism used to be. Muslims and Arabs live under absolute and despotic government which prevents them from enjoying anything like the freedom and prosperity that they see in the West and wish for themselves. On the whole they realize that they have long ago taken their history and destiny into their own hands, and so are responsible for themselves. But so dire are the injustices and the poverty, and so threatening is the tyranny over their heads, that many are lost in pity for themselves, and hatred of everyone else. A slew of racists, radicals, and Islamists share a frame of mind that the West is selfishly conspiring against them, with the Jews once again secretly in charge. Catering to such people since the early '60s, editions of Mein Kampf have been put out in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, and it is reported to be a bestseller in the Palestinian Authority area. It is available in London stores selling Arabic books. As its Arabic translator Luis al-Haj expresses it in his preface, "National Socialism did not die with the death of its herald. Rather, its seeds multiplied under each star."

In traditional society in the Middle East, Arabs were the masters and Jews were second-class subjects, protected though under rather demeaning conditions. European-style anti-Semitism, usually spread by missionaries and diplomats, came in during the 19th century. Zionism, another import from Europe, redefined Jews according to nationality rather than religion, and the accompanying improvement in their lowly status abruptly challenged Arab assumptions of superiority. These second-class people could surely never have done it on their own; they could only be obtaining their new power from outside â ” it had to be a plot. Hitler says so too in his book. He believed Zionism was "nothing but a comedy," and he could see through "this sly trick of the Jews." He wrote in Mein Kampf:

They have no thought of building up a Jewish state in Palestine, so that they might inhabit it, but they only want a central organization of their international world cheating, endowed with prerogatives, withdrawn from the seizure of others: a refuge for convicted rascals and a high school for future rogues.

The Third Reich and the Arab East, by Lukasz Hirszowicz, a Polish-born scholar, was published almost 40 years ago but remains a definitive work. It examines in careful detail how Hitler's Germany sought to woo Arabs through anti-British and anti-Jewish policies. Nazi personalities like Josef Goebbels and Baldur von Schirach of the Hitler Youth carried out goodwill tours. Various German agents financed and armed clandestine Arab fascist groups. The first Arabic translation of Mein Kampf appeared in 1938, and Hitler himself tactfully proposed to omit from it his "racial ladder" theory.

Of all the Arabs convinced of Hitler's coming triumph, none was so eager as Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian Arabs in the Hitler years. Vincent Sheean, the Thomas L. Friedman of the day, thought that Haj Amin had "great gifts." Along the lines that "my enemy's enemy is my friend," Haj Amin converted the Palestinian cause into a local branch of Hitler's worldwide anti-Jewish persecution. Fleeing from the British, he spent the war in Berlin. A friend and admirer of Himmler's, he raised a division of Bosnian Muslims for the SS. Hitler made grandiose promises to him, but was cautious enough to add that they could be met only after victory.

Fanaticism had led Haj Amin into utter delusion. Hitler, the expected savior, had in reality the settled conviction that Arabs were Untermenschen and he had no intention of doing them any favors. On that racial ladder of his, Arabs occupied a servile place, held in much the same contempt as the Jews. All sorts of Arab leaders were to follow Haj Amin's example and fall into the racist trap Hitler set for them, including Gamal Abdul Nasser and Anwar Sadat, the Syrian and Iraqi Baathists, and King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia.

It cannot be proved, but I suspect that many â ” probably most â ” Arabs accept Israel as a fact of life, created by the millions of individual choices which make up history, and over which nobody has any control. But the leadership, the intellectuals particularly, have internalized and perpetuated Hitler's fantasies about Jews and a Jewish state. In one Muslim country after another, leaders who may describe themselves either as Islamist or secular call for the State of Israel to disappear from the map, and its people to be annihilated. It does not seem in the least shocking to them to be proposing mass-murder.

On the contrary: It is only natural in an absolute ruler to seek to kill off his enemies. Ahmad Ragab, a columnist for the Egyptian government paper Al-Akhbar, is only one example among many opinion-makers to "give thanks to Hitler, of blessed memory," and regretting only that Hitler had not extracted revenge for Palestine by murdering every last Jew. Arab propagandists contradictorily go in for versions of Holocaust denial. The present mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, said quite typically before his recent meeting with Pope John Paul II that the numbers of Holocaust victims had been exaggerated. "The Jews are using this issue, in many ways, [including] to blackmail the Germans financially." That has become a standard notion and it chimes perfectly with Mein Kampf and its lies about "rogues" endowed with "prerogatives."

But if really Hitler and his henchmen are role models to be imitated, then it is confused and confusing that Arab media regularly publish articles and cartoons caricaturing Israelis as Nazis, twisting the Star of David into a swastika, and so on. In today's Muslim and Arab world, Hitler and the Holocaust are labels bandied about without regard to historical truth, in order to promote hatred on the one hand, and self-pity on the other â ” twin signals of intellectual and moral failure.

http://www.nationalreview.com/29july02/pryce-jones072902.asp

And in London:

Mein Kampf for sale, in Arabic
By Sean O'Neill and John Steele
(Filed: 19/03/2002)

AN Arabic translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf which has become a bestseller in the Palestinian territories is now on sale in Britain.

The book, Hitler's account of his life and anti-Semitic ideology written while he was in prison in the 1920s, is normally found in Britain in academic or political bookshops.

But The Telegraph found it on sale in three newsagents on Edgware Road, central London, an area with a large Arab population.

The book, originally translated in the 1960s and revived by Bisan, a Lebanese publisher in the 1990s, has a picture of Hitler and a swastika on the cover and is selling for £10.

Although the Bavarian state government, which claims copyright in the text, has tried to stop its publication around the world, Mein Kampf became the sixth best selling book in the Palestinian Authority area.

Copies of the translation are understood to have been distributed to London shops towards the end of last year and have been selling well.

In the preface, Luis al-Haj, the translator, states: "National Socialism did not die with the death of its herald. Rather, its seeds multiplied under each star."

The book was on sale alongside newspapers, magazines, cigarettes and sweets at a newsagent's kiosk.

"People are interested in it," said the shop assistant. "It is legal to sell it. London is a free city and, anyway, he has been dead a very long time."

Andrew Dismore, Labour MP for Hendon, said the distribution of an Arabic version of Mein Kampf was "a very worrying trend" and he would be tabling questions to the Home Secretary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F03%2F19%2Fnmein19.xml

And more recently in Turkey (excuse the BBC's ham-fisted attempt to frame the reporting):

Hitler book bestseller in Turkey
Adolf Hitler's autobiography, Mein Kampf, has become a bestseller in Turkey - sparking fears of growing anti-Semitic feelings in the country.

The book has sold more than 50,000 copies since January.

Analysts fear that the Middle East conflict and the US-led war on Iraq might have fuelled extremist ideology.

Turkey has been a Jewish-friendly place since the times of the Ottoman empire, when a sultan offered protection to Jews fleeing from 15th century Spain.

A cheap paperback version selling at the equivalent of $4.50 ( £2.30) is currently among Turkey's top bestsellers.

Ogus Tektas, the owner of Mephisto, one of the publishers which re-issued the 500-page book, told AFP news agency Mein Kampf had always been "a sleeper, a secret bestseller".

Some feel there is an international conspiracy led by what they call the crusaders - meaning the US and maybe the West in general and the Zionists
Dogu Ergil, political scientist

"We took it out of the closet for purely commercial reasons," he said, adding his company was only interested in making money.

But the owner of another publishing house, Sami Kilic, acknowledged the book was being bought primarily by young people influenced by international politics.

Conspiracy theories

Dogu Ergil, a political scientist at Ankara University, told the BBC he believed recent developments in Iraq and the Middle East might have fomented anti-Semitic and anti-American feelings among right-wing ultranationalists and extremist Islamists.

"There has been no objective reason for anti-Semitic feelings to crop up in Turkey," he said, adding that Hitler has always been considered "a criminal" and "a maniac" in his country.

"However, some feel there is an international conspiracy led by what they call the crusaders - meaning the US and maybe the West in general and the Zionists."

He said people from different backgrounds, such as left- and right-wingers and Islamists, had found common ground - "not on a common agenda for the future, but on their anxieties, fears and hate".

Mein Kampf was written by Hitler in 1925 and first published in Turkey in 1939.

Turkey has a 22,000-strong Jewish population, mostly living in Istanbul.

Bavaria, the German state that holds the rights of Hitler's work, has fought to prevent publishing houses around the world from publishing it.

"Mein Kampf," or "My Struggle," is banned from sale in Germany, where it can only be found in libraries for research purposes.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4361733.stm

This is but one example of the popularity of Nazi propaganda among the Islamofascists: I find it very hard to believe that it is pure coincidence.

More here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389126/posts
Excerpt:

...Nevertheless, Arab-Nazi collaboration had serious implications for the future. Sami al-Jundi, a Syrian Arab nationalist, a founder of the Ba`ath Party, wrote in his memoirs, "We were racialists. We were fascinated by Nazism, reading its books and the sources of its thought..." (35)

From the 1930s till now, Mein Kampf, other Nazi writings, and earlier Judeophobic works like the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion, have been commonly read in Arab countries. And Arab writers have made their own contributions to this literary genre. PLO publications have joined in the chorus of Holocaust denial. (36)

Arab leaders freely expressed pro-Nazi sentiments even years after the war. For example, Nasser told a German neoNazi editor in 1964: "Our sympathies in the Second World War were on the German side." (37)

Nazi war criminals were granted refuge in Syria and Egypt. Some of them, such as former Goebbels assistants, Johann von Leers, Franz Buensche, and Louis Heiden, helped those governments make anti-Jewish propaganda, while others helped Nasser to set up a security police. (38)

Moreover, Arab governments have carried out their own mass murders. Sudan is the worst example. There Arab Muslims have slaughtered tribal Black Africans...

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not to sure about that - it seems your stretching to make the link.

The first article falls back on Husseini again, who was obviously a creature of his time who was catalysed by explosion of Nazi Germany within Europe.   Does this mean that he is a Fascist or a card carrying member of the Nazi Party?   Or did, as I said before, he see the oppurtunity to match rising anti-semitism in the Middle East to the dominant movement within Europe at the time?   As well, the article links National Socialsim to two seperate factions that were popular within the Middle East half a century ago - the Ba'athists and the Nasirists.    These two movements are ones that have been opposed by those who would seem to fit the bill as the current crop of Islamists (those who's ideology is of the Ihkwan/Qutb line of thought we discussed above) - Qutb was hanged by Nasir, while the Muslim Brotherhood has traditionally opposed Nasirists in Egypt (the assassination of Sadat and where Zawahiri got his spurs) and the Ba'athists in Syria (the Hama Uprising).   Unless you are trying to convince me that the enemy of today is a bunch of closet Nasirists/Ba'ath party members, then I'm not seeing the link.

The second and third articles don't make any connection between Fascism and the current crop of Islamist movements, they only point to the fact Mein Kampf is popular in the Middle East.   Is that any wonder that, in an area that has had mortal conflict with the Jewish state for over 50 years, that anything having to do with Anti-Semitism would be popular?    :

The last article again makes links to the Ba'ath party and anti-Semitism - again, I don't see how this tags Islamists as "Islamofascists", seeing how many/most of them seem to be ideologically opposed to the Ba'ath.

4 articles that don't say much about the enemy except that they don't get along with the Jews - big surprise.   I'd say that Mein Kampf gets its ratings boost because of pre-existing anti-semitism that has its own roots in Middle Eastern politics (as opposed to trying to convince me that Arabs hate Jews because they are closet Nazis).

I'm willing to bet that Anti-Semitism we see in the Middle East today has more to do (and is probably grounded upon) the Zionism of the late 19th/early 20th century, the rapid migration of Jews to Palestine, and the Israeli War of Independence and subsequent schlacking of every Arab/Muslim state in the neighbourhood for about 50 years.   The enmity between these peoples, as sad as it is, can be seen very clearly in the historical record of the last 100 years.   Sure, Mein Kampf may make a decent coffee table book in the Mid-East, but I would assume that attitudes stem not from some appreciation of the words of a failed Austrian artist, but of a stream of images and stories (whether real or propagandized; probably a lot of both) of Israeli soldiers bulldozing Palestinian houses, shooting kids with rocks, and generally flexing it military muscle - this has gone on for so long as to be embedded within the consciousness of the Arab/Islamic world.

Anyways, moving along from the world of Anti-Semitism, I will again state my conviction that the term "Islamofascists" is of no real value to the debate.   As the Wikipedia article here is apt to point out, it is contested as to whether it is really applicable to specific groups at all (different pundits seem to be willing to adopt it to label whomever they are puditing about).   You can stick the word Facsim anywhere you want and it doesn't really do anything except up the level of mindless rhetoric (Us labelling them Fascists is as stupid as them labelling the Israelis Nazis).   No thanks - Islamist fits the bill; all the enemies are Muslim, and they are our enemies because, for a variety of reasons (varied amongst different groups within the Islamic Insurgency), they ascribe to the two biggest trends within Islamist thought, anti-Westernism (and, by proxy, anti-Americanism) and anti-Semitism.

It is ironic that the guy who coined "Islamofascism", Christopher Hitchens, idolizes a George Orwell who (in a neat quote from the Wiki link) would have mocked the very idea:

"the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."

George Orwell

I guess you could just call them "IslamoNazis" if that's the effect you're gunning for....

 

[Acorn]

Nice Orwell quote Infanteer.

Stapling "facism" on to the type if Islamist extremism we're dealing with is a classic case of "mirror imaging." We don't understand Islamism, so we create a compound word that make it fit into our little universe. Forget that "fascism" is not, by definition, anti-Semetic any way (hint - Facism is a creation of Mussolini, not Hitler, and predates the latter by a few years. It is merely an Italian form of ultra-nationalism, and if the Italian conduct in WWII is any indication it is less anti-Semetic than the Vichy French.)

For those unfamiliar with "mirror imaging" I'll explain: fundamentally there are two types of intellectual error: bias (an "input error") and fallacy (an "output error"). Mirror imaging is a classic bias, where the observer attempts to explain something through his own experiential lens. In the case of most Western observation of other cultures it is an attempt to apply our own cultural experiences to others. In this specific case it is clear that the similarities of the Islamic theocratic extremist thought to those of Naziism (more than actual Facism, imo) has cause many to think a term such as "islamofacist" is accurate, when nothing could be further from the truth. That Mein Kampf is popular in the Arab world (not the borader Muslim world, by the way) should be no more surprise than observing that the National Review is popular among a certain type of conservative in the US and Canada - the printed word suits the individual's world view.

If thinking about our enemy as Facists makes one feel better - fine. As long as one isn't in a position to actually influence policy or strategy it's a bit of harmless mental masturbation. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that too many decision makers are unable to identify and set aside their biases.

Acorn

 

[a_majoor]

I think you have hit on a good point Acorn; the mythical Caliphate of the Jihadis and many current Middle eastern states superficially resemble the sort of "Total State" that was the end goal of the "New Order"; so tagging the Jihadis as the current banner wavers for National Socialism isn't much of a stretch.

Of course, the roots of the Total State can be traced all the way back to Plato; it would be rather amusing to try to label the Jihadis as "Radical Classicist Insurgents" (Although Victor Davis Hanson would probably go after them with an axe if you could make a convincing case). Infanteer is quite correct, we really do not understand them, and without understanding what we are up against there are very few options we have on the table ("the Romans create a wilderness, and call it peace").

Perhaps the American "Uber strategy" of supporting freedom and democracy in the region and encouraging self help projects like the Cedar Revolution is mostly an attempt to bypass that annoying scholarly research stuff by calling on deeper (and hopefully universal) yearnings for freedom and prosperity.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I'm not to sure about that - it seems your stretching to make the link.

The first article falls back on Husseini again, who was obviously a creature of his time who was catalysed by explosion of Nazi Germany within Europe.  Does this mean that he is a Fascist or a card carrying member of the Nazi Party?  Or did, as I said before, he see the oppurtunity to match rising anti-semitism in the Middle East to the dominant movement within Europe at the time?

Certainly opportunism played a role, but he raised an entire SS division himself and had was 'appointed' (by the Nazis) Prime Minister of the Pan Arab Republic (nationalism was another barely-known concept prior to Nazi influence) with his headquarters in Berlin.  He also planned to construct a concentration camp in Nablus to implement Hitler's final solution.  Arafat was also a protege of al-Husseini from age 17 (it is actually rumoured that Husseini is Arafat's great-uncle).  There's some interesting photos in this (admittedly sensationalistic) website: http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

OMHO, the idea that Muslims who became SS soldiers and officers were not influenced by the Nazis is a stretch!

As well, the article links National Socialsim to two seperate factions that were popular within the Middle East half a century ago - the Ba'athists and the Nasirists.  These two movements are ones that have been opposed by those who would seem to fit the bill as the current crop of Islamists (those who's ideology is of the Ihkwan/Qutb line of thought we discussed above) - Qutb was hanged by Nasir, while the Muslim Brotherhood has traditionally opposed Nasirists in Egypt (the assassination of Sadat and where Zawahiri got his spurs) and the Ba'athists in Syria (the Hama Uprising).  Unless you are trying to convince me that the enemy of today is a bunch of closet Nasirists/Ba'ath party members, then I'm not seeing the link.

That was to show the influence of fascism, as a foreign concept, in that part of the world more generally: you don't seem to accept this line of reasoning, however I contend that that, as I just wrote, "nationalism was another barely-known concept prior to Nazi influence."

The second and third articles don't make any connection between Fascism and the current crop of Islamist movements, they only point to the fact Mein Kampf is popular in the Middle East.  Is that any wonder that, in an area that has had mortal conflict with the Jewish state for over 50 years, that anything having to do with Anti-Semitism would be popular?  :

Possibly, but it was more of a response to your statement that OBL never read Mein Kampf: Protocols is also popular among this crowd, and certainly it more fitting with their world-view, but why is it so much less popular than Mein Kampf?

The last article again makes links to the Ba'ath party and anti-Semitism - again, I don't see how this tags Islamists as "Islamofascists", seeing how many/most of them seem to be ideologically opposed to the Ba'ath.

It doesn't "tag Islamists as 'Islamofascists'": all it suggests to me is that there was (and still is) a largely unrecognized Nazi influence in Middle Eastern politics.

4 articles that don't say much about the enemy except that they don't get along with the Jews - big surprise.  I'd say that Mein Kampf gets its ratings boost because of pre-existing anti-semitism that has its own roots in Middle Eastern politics (as opposed to trying to convince me that Arabs hate Jews because they are closet Nazis).

I'm willing to bet that Anti-Semitism we see in the Middle East today has more to do (and is probably grounded upon) the Zionism of the late 19th/early 20th century, the rapid migration of Jews to Palestine, and the Israeli War of Independence and subsequent schlacking of every Arab/Muslim state in the neighbourhood for about 50 years.  The enmity between these peoples, as sad as it is, can be seen very clearly in the historical record of the last 100 years.  Sure, Mein Kampf may make a decent coffee table book in the Mid-East, but I would assume that attitudes stem not from some appreciation of the words of a failed Austrian artist, but of a stream of images and stories (whether real or propagandized; probably a lot of both) of Israeli soldiers bulldozing Palestinian houses, shooting kids with rocks, and generally flexing it military muscle - this has gone on for so long as to be embedded within the consciousness of the Arab/Islamic world.

I don't disagree that there are multiple roots to the extreme anti-Semitic attitudes that prevail today, but I don't think that we are doing ourselves any favours by pretending that Nazi politics/philosophy and methodology had no influence!

Anyways, moving along from the world of Anti-Semitism, I will again state my conviction that the term "Islamofascists" is of no real value to the debate.  As the Wikipedia article here is apt to point out, it is contested as to whether it is really applicable to specific groups at all (different pundits seem to be willing to adopt it to label whomever they are puditing about).  You can stick the word Facsim anywhere you want and it doesn't really do anything except up the level of mindless rhetoric (Us labelling them Fascists is as stupid as them labelling the Israelis Nazis).  No thanks - Islamist fits the bill; all the enemies are Muslim, and they are our enemies because, for a variety of reasons (varied amongst different groups within the Islamic Insurgency), they ascribe to the two biggest trends within Islamist thought, anti-Westernism (and, by proxy, anti-Americanism) and anti-Semitism.

It is ironic that the guy who coined "Islamofascism", Christopher Hitchens, idolizes a George Orwell who (in a neat quote from the Wiki link) would have mocked the very idea:

I guess you could just call them "IslamoNazis" if that's the effect you're gunning for....

If thinking about our enemy as Facists makes one feel better - fine. As long as one isn't in a position to actually influence policy or strategy it's a bit of harmless mental masturbation. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that too many decision makers are unable to identify and set aside their biases.

Actually, "IslamoNazi" would be more accurate, however "islamofascist" is preferred in an (admittedly rather futile) effort to be less sensationalistic, IMHO (while both "Nazi" "fascist" are hackneyed terms, there are cases in which they actually should, and do, apply.).

 

[Acorn]

Actually, "IslamoNazi" would be more accurate, however "islamofascist" is preferred in an (admittedly rather futile) effort to be less sensationalistic, IMHO (while both "Nazi" "fascist" are hackneyed terms, there are cases in which they actually should, and do, apply.).

I have to dissagree as strongly as I can. Adding a "nazi" or fascist" suffix puts the islamists in a box, however one thinks the terms might apply due to the perception of their conduct. Islamonazi would be no more or less accurate than Islamofacist or "IslamoSocialCredit" for that matter. It provides you with a frame of reference, perhaps, but it is inaccurate.

Acorn

 

[Andyboy]

Is the term "Jihadi" more accurate?

 

[Acorn]

Barely more accurate, and I do admit to using it myself. However, given the broad meaning of "jihad" I think it may not be the best choice. As tame as "Islamic Extremist" sounds it is probably the most accurate.

 

[Andyboy]

Thanks Acorn,

I have read that there are two interpretations of the term Jihad, one meant as an internal struggle and one as an external physical conflict. It seems that we are fighting the latter.

What do they call themselves?

 

[paracowboy]

why don't we call them "Deceased" and "Soon to be Deceased"? Kinda stream-lines things a bit, don't you think?

 

[Andyboy]

Firm but fair, I like it!

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I have to dissagree as strongly as I can. Adding a "nazi" or fascist" suffix puts the islamists in a box, however one thinks the terms might apply due to the perception of their conduct. Islamonazi would be no more or less accurate than Islamofacist or "IslamoSocialCredit" for that matter. It provides you with a frame of reference, perhaps, but it is inaccurate. ...  As tame as "Islamic Extremist" sounds it is probably the most accurate.

Using "Islamist" or "Islamic" without some sort of a modifier does the majority (i.e., other than the lunatic fringe) a major disservice, and is far more likely to degenerate into racism and a whole host of other complications, IMHO (I think the B.S. about 'guarding against an anti-Muslim backlash' after every single al-Queda attack is overblown, but could well become real if we continue to blame Islamics ).

"Islamic Extremist" simply suggests (also IMHO) that the problem is with Islam itself, and thus will only be resolved by eliminating (or somehow de-radicalizing) Islam.  I disagree with those who claim that Islam is the problem.

"Islamofascist" reflects Nazi characteristics of the particular radical sub-group, both in projecting our perceptions (of the latter onto the former) AND in a part of their actual heritage.

why don't we call them "Deceased" and "Soon to be Deceased"? Kinda stream-lines things a bit, don't you think?

This works just fine for me!  :threat:

 

[Acorn]

paracowboy's idea would be good, if we could get it to work (without excessive fatigue to his shoulder from recoil).

I_am_John_Galt,

"Islamic extremist" may suggest to you that the problem is with Islam, but are not the extremists of any religion the problem, not the religion itself? There are Christian extremists, and we've recently seen the results of Jewish extremism (I never thought I'd ever hear the likes of Ariel Sharon call another Jew a "terrorist" we really do live in interesting times).

The problem with the "fascist" lable is that it is not part of their heritage - regardless of how they took on board Mein Kampf and the like. The Islamic extremist philosophy is rooted deeply in Islam itself, and the fundamental idea that the Qur'an is the Word of God and must be taken literally (despite the built in contradictions common to all religious texts). The ideology is pan-national, which contradicts Facism and Naziism which are both ultra-nationalist. Their (Facist and Nazi) expansionist tendency is colonial, whereas the expansionist philosophy of the Islamists is religious assimilation.

Despite the authoritarian aspects of our Islamic extremist enemies, which has the superficial similarity to Western dictatorships like  Facism or Naziism, the roots of the problem are deeper and more complex

 

[a_majoor]

The problem with the "fascist" label is that it is not part of their heritage - regardless of how they took on board Mein Kampf and the like. The Islamic extremist philosophy is rooted deeply in Islam itself, and the fundamental idea that the Qur'an is the Word of God and must be taken literally (despite the built in contradictions common to all religious texts). The ideology is pan-national, which contradicts Fascism and Naziism which are both ultra-nationalist. Their (Fascist and Nazi) expansionist tendency is colonial, whereas the expansionist philosophy of the Islamists is religious assimilation.

Despite the authoritarian aspects of our Islamic extremist enemies, which has the superficial similarity to Western dictatorships like  Fascism or Naziism, the roots of the problem are deeper and more complex

Another "Bingo" quote. The only really close ideology was Communism, as expressed by the international communist movement. Communism transcended national boundaries by stressing real or artificial "class" boundaries across societies, just as Islamism (or whatever you want to call it) stresses religious ties across societies, hence the recruiting of British born and bred homicide bombers in London. Communism never took in the United States because so called "class" boundaries were extremely fluid, but religion isn't susceptible to simply being elevated to management.

The unfortunate analogy for me is the Peleponnesian Wars or the 30 years war, which pitted different conceptions of society against each other, and ended in mutual exhaustion and allowed rival civilizations to expand into their place (Phillip of Macedonia conquored Greece, while the ravaging of Europe during these wars allowed peripheral nations like England to advance towards a dominant position).

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

This is killing me, 'cuz generally when I'm right and (seemingly) everyone else is wrong, then I'm maybe not right (sometimes ... rarely  ;D).  Anyway, in this case I'm just not seeing it (or perhaps, I can't help but to see it).

I grant that there's extremism in pretty much every religion (and it too often manifests itself as something a little short of pious virtue), but I think that Marxists did have that one right insofar as religion is generally a mechanism, or an excuse, for war rather than a real 'cause'.  More to the point, extremist Muslims have historically been pretty accomodating of the Jews, or at the very least a far cry from the genocidal aims of those of the WWII and post-war era.  I'm not an expert on the Koran but AFAIK it is very explicit on the treatment of the Jews, and it is nothing like what is currently contemplated in'shalah.

Nationalism often manifests itself along ethnic and/or religious boundaries rather than, or in combination with, (perceived) political or cultural boundaries.  I've always understood this to be a fundamental differance between Italian-style fascism and Naziism: ethnic nationalism (& racism) wasn't nearly as important an element of Italian Fascism as it was of Naziism.  The Anschluss and the Munich Agreement appealed to substantially differant notions of nationalism than the subsequent invasions of Poland, France, etc.

While I certainly wouldn't argue that the Pan-Arab Nationalism of Saddam Hussein (et.al.) is closer to (and perhaps more influenced by  ) Stalinist Russia, the establishment of the Caliphate (in it's currently-understood form and by the means espoused by the Qutbees/Salafis/extremistWahhabis/whateveryouwanttocallthemandtheirbuddies) is IMHO, much nmore reflective of Nazi influence.

 

[a_majoor]

Short answer; I really do not fully understand what the Jihadis hope to accomplish. The Syrians, Saudis and Iranians are fairly straightforward in that they look and act like states harbouring Imperialist ambitions; theirs is an alliance of mutual convenience since the United States not only thwarts their regional ambitions but threatens to unhinge their very existence through Western cultural pull, Middle Eastern economic irrelevancy and US military power.

Perhaps the Jihadis really believe in the establishment of a pan Islamic Caliphate; the center of some spiritual, cultural and social revival of Islam in the world. More probably, based on their actions in places like Fallujiah or Mousal when they had managed to gain control, they will establish a petty thugocracy where they can quote from the Q'ran while holding the real instrument of power; an assault rifle, in their hands. The root cause tm of crime and terrorism is the same in all times and places: the will to power. Pan Islamic terrorism simply provides a much wider recruiting pool than appeals to ethnic or national origin.

 

[Acorn]

While I certainly wouldn't argue that the Pan-Arab Nationalism of Saddam Hussein (et.al.) is closer to (and perhaps more influenced by   ) Stalinist Russia, the establishment of the Caliphate (in it's currently-understood form and by the means espoused by the Qutbees/Salafis/extremistWahhabis/whateveryouwanttocallthemandtheirbuddies) is IMHO, much nmore reflective of Nazi influence.

The "socialist pan-Arabist" movement (Ba'athist in Syria and Iraq) certainly was greatly influenced by Marxist/Leninist thought and supported by the USSR. The Caliphate ideal of UBL and his ilk is a bit more religious than you may think. A comparison, ironically, can be made to Pope Urban II and the first Crusades. The ideology that sparked the Crusades was strongly religious, regardless of the opportunism of some of the Crusaders. The call to crusade of Urban was genuinely religious, as was the religious fervor that convinced so many to participate. The opportunism came later.

I don't deny that one can make the Nazi comparison, I just question the logic of doing so. There are factors here that are very much similar, but there are also factors that are fundamentally different.

Acorn