Calling Islamic fascists by their rightful name


The truly awful thing is that many people will agree with CAIR:

US Muslims bristle at Bush term "Islamic fascists"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions....
"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.

Don't you think that plotting to murder 2,700 people is a little more likely to "inflame anti-Muslim tensions" than a couple of words uttered by the president?

Besides, "Islamic fascists" is a perfect description of the terrorists' ideology. They plan to form an Islamic superstate from Morocco to Indonesia, governed by their interpretation of sharia law. From there, they will make jihad against non-Muslim lands until the entire world submits to the Word of God as delivered to Muhammad (npfp). This isn't the president's imagination. This is the Islamofascists' stated game plan. It's not a mischaracterization or interpretation.

Bookmark and Share


We may as well note that CAIR often opposes efforts against the Islamic militants.

During the Cold War, conservatives occasionally referred to certain people and organizations as "anti-anti-Communist": consistently opposed to efforts to oppose Communism. By analogy, CAIR would be "anti-anti-terrorist".

Yep, that's an apt characterization. CAIR will (sort of) denounce "terrorists" -- that is, people who have already carried out destruction and mass murder -- but in their minds, there are no potential terrorists in the Islamic community, whether in the U.S. or abroad. So if there are no potential terrorists, because Islam is a "religion of peace," then it follows that linking Islam to poltical violence is wrong, always and everywhere. QED.

Unfortunately it seems many Moslem religious leaders--though maybe not directly involved in terrorism --do a great job of enabling by constantly attacking any truthful descriptions or labelling of what some evil co-religionists of theirs are doing in the name of their God. They never seem to step forward to help fight the terrorism as Christian and Catholic leaders have against the IRA and the Mafia--which at least don't butcher their own children to carry out their bloody deeds by setting them up as suicide bombers.

what does the "npfp" stand for, all i can think of is "no peace for prophets"? I realize its a substitution for pbuh though.



CAIR needs to be asked that if they object to the term islamofascist, what is the appropriate term? It needs to be properly descriptive, have a negative connotation, and be relatively easy on the tongue.

I would be very interested in their response. I'm not holding my breath.

I dunno, it seems to me that the particular ideology is not similar to historical fascism. If we really want to be call a spade a spade, let us recognise that what these folks are doing is terrorism in the service of their religion. They are merely using modern tools to spread Islam as it has traditionally been spread. These terrorists are Devout Muslims engaging in Prostelytism.

Cary, it's a covert acronym -- "No Peace for False Prophets." I don't mean it offensively, really, it's just to prove a point: you'll find news accounts refer to "the Prophet Muhammad," as if they're conceding that he was an oracle of God's Word. I think that's telling, don't you?

Nan, there are close ties between "historical fascism" and Islamic radicalism. Hitler was (and is) widely admired in the Arab world, and the Baathist movement took the Nazis as their inspiration. You're certainly right that many elements of modern Islamofascism are found in classical Islam, but Al Qaeda and similar movements are actually quite modern -- and since their primary aims are to secular, fascism does seem to be an accurate description. Their theology seems more like a legal justification rather than their motivation.


I define historical fascism as a theory of organising society premised on supreme authority invested in one leader, regulation of industry, a generous welfare programme, cross-class solidarity based upon nationalism, and nationalisation/single party control of civic organisations. The universalist aspirations of the Islamists just doesn't fit the bill. They are not nationalists, and they seem generally unconcerned with the problems of industrial society that Fascism (along with Communism, Social Democracy, &c.) was attempting to solve. Unlike the fascists, who believed in control of church by the state, the Islamists seem to believe in control of the state by the mosque.

The connexion between the Nazis and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (and his heirs) seems to me more to do with their shared hatred of the Jews rather than any particular agreement on political theory, except that whereas Hitler's anti-semitism was based upon strange racial theories, the Islamists' are based upon the Koran. Why do you think that Al Qaeda and the like have secular motives? Why should we not take them at their word that they want to establish Islam throughout the world, as opposed to, say, just being bitter about the unemployment in France?

Again, not daring to presume to define "Islam" for Muslims, we ought to accept the Islamists' claims that they represent true Islam (and the verbal and passive support of the "Arab street" seems to suggest that this is not an outrageous claim), and not try to force their motives into our own ideological box. The left likes to imagine that despite what they say, the Islamists are really just doing some class struggle, and the right likes to immagine that it is fighting the Cold War again.

Let us not try to PC over the reality that what we have is a resurgence of that old mediaeval conflict and that we are at war with Islam by pretending that this is some Islamic manifestation of fascism rather than Islam itself. Just because we eventually lost interest in the conflict doesn't mean that it went away.

Very astute analysis, Han. Please see the main blog for my response.

Leave a comment

What? Who?

On life and living in communion with the Catholic Church.

John Schultz

You write, we post
unless you state otherwise.


OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Eric Johnson published on August 10, 2006 8:46 PM.

et in hora mortis nostrae, amen was the previous entry in this blog.

"Islamist" or "Islamic fascists"? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.