"Islamic Fascism": Well, It’s Half Right

News Abroad

by Timothy R. Furnish

Mr. Furnish, Ph.D (Islamic History), is Assistant Professor, History, Georgia Perimeter College, Dunwoody, GA 30338. Mr. Furnish is the author of Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, their Jihads and Osama bin Laden (Praeger, 2005).

Since the 9/11 attacks President Bush has walked a politically correct tight-rope in referring to the enemies of this country operating from an Islamic geographical and ideological context. The President, and his administration, have always been careful to describe the struggle, from our end, as a war “on terror.” (In fact, the official rubric was, and remains, the “Global War on Terror,” or GWOT.) Perhaps burned by his one rhetorical sin—declaring a “crusade” to get those responsible for killing 3,000 Americans and catching hell for using that term—Bush has been bending over backwards to mollify his critics and avoid even the perceived hint of impropriety toward Muslims and Islam.

No longer. This past week, after the Brits stopped plans by Muslim terrorists on that side of the pond to blow up airliners bound for America, the President said “this nation is at war with Islamic fascists….” In doing so he seems to have finally caved in to critics, mainly of his own party, who have ridiculed the “war on terror” as inadequate, indicting merely a methodology and not the ideology behind it—akin to describing the war against Nazism in World War II as merely a “war on blitzkrieg.”

Predictably, the usual suspects—such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations—have been quick to condemn the usage of this term, accusing the President of “equat[ing] the religion of peace with the ugliness of fascism.” Indeed, CAIR is half-right: Islam should NOT be identified with fascism—but not because it is inherently a peaceful ideology. Rather, the term “Islamic fascism” or “Islamofascism” should be avoided because it’s simply another way to let Islam off the hook.

Consider: “Fascism” is a political ideology commonly said to contain the following elements: 1) extreme nationalism and/or racialism; 2) dictatorial (usually charismatic) leadership; 3) socioeconomic regimentation of some kind; 4) forcible oppression of opposition; and 5) the privileging the collective over the individual. Sometimes other characteristics, such as 6) extreme militarization of society and 7) a sense of victimization, are added.1

Does this paradigm fit with the ideology of Islamic terrorists? That ideology has four major aspects: 1) a starting point of victim-hood, especially vis-à-vis the West and Christianity; 2) an intermediate goal of re-pietizing Islamic society via imposition of “true” shari`ah (Islamic law); 3) a long-term goal of re-creating the early Islamic ummah (community) under a new caliphate, which would eventually encompass the entire planet; and 4) the preferred methodology to achieve these goals of jihad. Put up against the characteristics of fascism, Islamic-based fundamentalist ideology seems obviously to share the emphasis on the group (the ummah) and a clear sense of being victimized. Also, since a caliphate, historically, has been essentially an Islamic monarchy, the dictatorial aspect should be included as common; likewise for repression of opposition, since pre-modern Islamic regimes (and, indeed, most modern ones) have not been known for their political tolerance. The other three elements of fascism—extreme nationalism or ideas of racial superiority, socioeconomic regimentation and extreme militarization—really are not prominent themes in Islamic political thought and praxis, today or in the past. So, definitionally, while “Islamic fascism” at first glance appears appropriate, upon more careful consideration its descriptive value is nominal at best.

A second point is that the term reinforces the questionable tendency of us in the West, and especially in the U.S., to see every new global threat as a reprise of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Perhaps this is because World War II was the last war that all Americans agreed was truly legitimate, for every war since then—Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq both times (albeit much less so the first time)—has had its critics. Whatever the reason, wouldn’t it be more useful to the conduct of, and debate about, the undeniable global problem of Islamic-based terrorism if we analyzed the issue on its own terms? The differences between Nazi Fascism and Islamic-based terrorism are myriad, starting with the fact that the former was a state ideology and the latter is not (at least not yet). And whatever one wishes to say about Usama bin Ladin and his ilk, they are not devotees of racial purity. Religious purity, to be sure—but that calls for a different response.

One area where some have identified a nexus between Islam and fascism is in the anti-Jewish thought that is extant in the both, albeit less so in the former than in the latter. But—and this is a third major point—the undeniable anti-Jewish element in Islam actually long pre-existed the Nazis and their embrace of Amin al-Husayni, the then-mufti of Jerusalem, in the 1930s. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, ordered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah liquidated during the early Islamic community’s sojourn in Medina, allegedly for conspiring against him and questioning his prophethood. Yes, it is true that Jews (and Christians) afterwards were, under Islamic law, accorded the protected, and second-class, status of dhimmis. But Islamic eschatological tradition also developed the idea of al-Dajjal, the “deceiver” who comes before the end of time to lead many astray and away from true Islam. And the Dajjal will be, according to many interpreters of these traditions, Jewish and his cohort of followers will consist of 70,000 Jews. So anti-Jewish thought in Islam cannot be blamed solely on the creation of the “Zionist entity”—since it long predates that development. Bottom line: “Islamofascism” strongly implies that Islamic terrorists simply adopted anti-Judaism from the Nazis, which is untrue.

The fourth problem with “Islamic fascism” is that it insinuates a parallel between right-wing Islamic thought and that of right-wing Christianity, insofar as fascism is seen as an aberrant political articulation of Christianity. Now while it might be trendy in some circles to postulate such a parallel,2 ultimately the comparison breaks down for a number of reasons, chief among which is that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have yet to order their followers to fly jetliners into al-Azhar or the Aya Sofya. Muslims and some non-Muslims scholars have always objected to the usage of the term “Islamic fundamentalism” on the grounds that the provenance of the term “fundamentalism” is a Christian context; by the same logic, “Islamic fascism” should be eschewed.

Fifth, and the most telling reason to dispense with the term “Islamofascism” and related terms, is that Islamic militancy truly does have a legitimate intellectual and ideological pedigree within Islamic thought and history.3 As I have noted elsewhere:

Yes, there are verses of toleration in the Qur’an: Surah(chapter) al-Baqarah: 256 says “there shall be no compulsion in religion;” Surah al-Furqan: 65ff says that Allah will be merciful to those who repent and do good works; and Surah al-Nisa’: 19ff enjoins Muslim men to provide financially for wives and ex-wives. But verses such as these are arguably outweighed by others: Surah Anfal: 12ff and Surah Muhammad: 3ff command the beheading of unbelievers; Surah al-Nisa’: 34ff allows for beating of one’s wives and in verses 74ff and 94ff, promises great reward for those who die fighting for Allah; Surah al-Ma’idah: 51 says “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” Of course there are violent sections in the Bible—or at least in the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament (Joshua and David were military leaders as much as religious ones). But no one denies that, as many—both Muslim and non-Muslim—deny these violent and misogynistic passages in the Qur’an. Many arguments can be made against such verses (they must be contextualized, they are applicable only to that time, they are metaphorical, etc.) but one cannot say they do not exist. Someone who simply rehashes that “the Qur’an teaches peace” obviously hasn’t read it. No doubt most Muslims do not read the passages about decapitation as a blueprint for today. But just as some Christians take literally, for example, the command of Christ to handle poisonous snakes (Luke 10:19), some Muslims take literally the injunction to behead unbelievers. And the latter practice is a bit more injurious to other folks than the former.4

Of course, history and not just sacred texts must be taken into account when studying political ideologies, even ones that are religious-based. And no doubt moderate Islam does exist. One good historical example of it is the Ottoman Empire, which while paying lip service to jihad as holy war spent the last several centuries of its existence struggling (but ultimately failing) to evolve into a modern state. In the religious sphere, the strain of Islamic mysticism known as Sufism has often (but not always) been more tolerant and less jihad-prone than other strains of Islamic ideology. But centuries before the Bush family even existed, Muslim scholar-activists were dividing the world into Dar al-Islam, the “abode of Islam,” and Dar al-Harb, the “abode of war;” i.e., unbelievers, who could expect nothing but conquest. Imperial dreams did not begin with Hitler or, for that matter, with George W. Bush. While most modern Muslims have abandoned this violent, expansionist aspect of Islamic thought, all obviously have not. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish. And it is dangerously misleading to use a term that implies the aggressive tendency of certain strains of Islam is imported rather than indigenous.

In the final analysis, then, “Islamic fascism” or “Islamofascism” is a term that should be dropped from our political lexicon. But what could replace it? With whom are we are at war? Islamic fundamentalists? Too unwieldy. Islamists? Confusing to non-specialists. Caliphists? Again, too specialized. Perhaps the best term is one that has already gained some resonance: Jihadists. It’s short, it’s descriptively accurate and even CAIR—although it will try—won’t be able to convince the American public that jihadists are simply mundane Muslims struggling to be pious.

1 See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, s.v. “fascism,” and Wikipedia, “Fascism,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

2 For just the latest example: “Religious fundamentalism is by no means confined to the Middle East. We’ve got our own brand in this country in the more extreme elements of the Christian Coalition….They are, in a sense, our very own Taliban.” John Farmer, “Main faiths must atone for turmoil in Mideast,” “Atlanta Journal-Constitution,” August 12, 2006, pp. F1-F2.

3 See, for example, my article “Islamic Fundamentalism,” Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism (2001), pp. 235-240.

4 “7 Myths about Islam,” History News Network, October 10, 2005.

Related Links
Daniel Pipes:"At War with Islamic Fascists"

comments powered by Disqus

What fundamentalist does not consider their religion a way of life?

Is it likely that someones way of life does not shape their politics?

Rodney Huff - 8/18/2006

Mr. Friedman,

I side with neither the Left nor the Right, since my thought transcends this stale dichotomy. And you're right: Marx certainly would not approve of today's Left, if by Left you mean those who call themselves liberals. Liberals in the U.S. have proved more conservative than so-called conservatives, since they have, through welfare programs and regulation of private enterprise, impeded the formation of a revolutionary class and thus prolonged the life of capitalism. Marx had hoped that deteriorating working conditions would eventually unite working people everywhere, in which case they would demand the decentralization of control over the means of production and become the agents of their own destiny, thereby becoming a truly free and democratic people.

Back to the problem at hand: My assumption is not that "Jihadists are a simple biproduct [sic] of past wrongs by Westerners." In fact, I have acknowledged that the U.S. may be unfairly scapegoated by powerful elites in other countries. Targeting enemies beyond the gates (real or imagined) has always provided a safety valve for regimes that may be as much responsible for the misery of the people as the scapegoat. In any case, the function of the scapegoat is to redirect anger that may be more properly aimed at the local elite. That these same elites have often forged mutually beneficial (sometimes clandestine) relationships with powerful people in the scapegoated countries should not escape our attention either - in which case these opportunistic elites are indeed collaborators in the suffering of the common people. Consider the various bananna republics throughout the world. (By the way, we are all caught up in complicity when we buy the staples of poor countries that can't even feed their own people because nearly all the land is devoted to export crops.)

Thank you for the history lesson, but I'm not interested in deciding who's more imperial, or whose holy book is more violent. These are issues that feature pejorative and polemical arguments on both sides and therefore cannot contribute anything to a resolution of this conflict; they can only inflame both sides and make them even more impervious to reason. Besides, even if the number of peaceful passages in the Bible outnumbers those in the Koran, there's no guarantee that Christians will heed them, just as there's no guarantee that Muslims will heed the Koran's more violent passages.

Thus, my explicit assumption has always been that we must look beyond religion and sacred books as explanations for violence (or peace) - here, I think we agree - and ask: Why at this particular time do people heed this particular passage and not others? Or, why is this particular passage emphasized or interpreted in this way at this time, while at other times a different interpretation prevails? Just as soldiers following the orders of their superiors did not constitute the root cause of WWII - though they constituted the superficial cause of war (the last link in the causal chain) - jihadists merely following orders does not explain jihad. We must look to the material conditions of life and the political realities that are shaped by, and in turn shape, those conditions under which people are more likely to feel they must resort to violence to restore their human dignity.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/18/2006

Getz,
The entire blogosphere is a collection of opinions not more not less. I presented you with two opinions and you can discuss them instead of your nonsensical rant.
Ebbitt,
Of course Americans killed native Americans or Indians (as they are called in most of the rest of the world - so lighten up) but we discuss here the Islamofascists, so get to the point don't blabber your mouth.
There is nothing worse than the Jewish Holocaust, because the Jews were killed, during the Holocaust, without any opposition from the Jewish victim. I, sure, understand your position, as a hater of Jews, when Jews go quietly and in order to the ovens, it's OK with you only when Jews arm and defend themselves you protest!

Now for a better understanding I give you the link of the broadcasts themselves from Al Jazeera. watching them is quite amazing.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&;ar=1050wmv&ak=null

and

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&;ar=783wmv&ak=null

A. M. Eckstein - 8/18/2006

Oh, and "the party was UPSET" by the series? Then why did Al-Manar deputy director for production affairs Nasser Akhdhar state on Al Jazeera on Nov. 10, 2003: "This series presents nothing but the truth"? This man was an official Hezbollah spokesman. So: Jews eating Christian babies is "nothing but the truth"?

In the same interview on al-Jazeera, Al-Akhdhar stated that there was no way the series could be anti-Semitic, because every single person who participated in the production, editing and broadcasting of the episodes was a Semite.

Omar, these are intellectually ridiculous and shameful statements from a high official Hezbollah spokesman on world-wide tv about this series which was shown for TWENTY NINE vile, medieval anti-semitic episodes on al-Manar, official Hezbollah tv. Not to mention what happened the next year with the Jews spreading AIDS show on al-Manar.

Now I really do have to stop. I don't have time to teach you the basic use of specific evidence that is obvious to any undergraduate, Omar.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/18/2006

1. 29 episodes of vile medieval anti-semitism broadcast on official Hezbollah TV is a VERY long series on any calculation. As I understand it, the episodes weren't shown every day but on a schedule. If "the party was upset"about the sewer of anti-semitism of this series they had PLENTY of time to cancel it, on any calculation. THEY DID NOT. Even if the show was every day-- which it was not--with this vile medieval anti-semitism going forth on Hezbollah official tv every day, they STILL had plenty of time (a month) to cancel it. THEY DID NOT. And the NEXT year official Hezbollah tv broadcast a show with Jews intentionally infecting Muslims with AIDS--another version of the most primitive and vile medieval anti-semitic mythology, so primitive and vile that it led a French court to ban al-Manar tv for anti-semitism. DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANYBODY IN THE PARTY WAS THAT UPSET, DOES IT?

2. Apparently you are confusing The New Yorker with the The York Times,. Jayson Blair does not appear today on CNN, or anywhere else, as an expert on anything, does he? No. By contrast, the author of the New Yorker Hezbollah article of 2002, appeared last week on CNN as an expert on Hezbollah, including Hezbollah anti-semitism, and no one on the panel questioned this status--well, is Ted Turner being paid off by AIPAC? In the absence of ANY specific evidence or specific argument that any of the vile anti-semitic quotes in the article in the 2002 New Yorker were invented, or were ever doubted or denied, you have no case. Zero.

Omar, you shame yourself and make yourself look increasingly ridiculous with these sorts of desperate arguments.

N. Friedman - 8/18/2006

John,

I use religio/political to write in Western terms. The concepts understood by a person brought up in the Islamic tradition are different than in the West and, in the Islamic tradition, the religious and the political are not distinct. They are both aspects of Islam, which is viewed not merely as a religion but a way of life - in their terminology, a din.

N. Friedman - 8/18/2006

john crocker - 8/18/2006

"The assumption, however, of your comment is that the acts of the Jihadists are a simple biproduct of past wrongs by Westerners."
That was not his assertion or assumption. The point is that their current actions are the same as our not so distant past actions. Their religious justifications are different more in style than substance. Does it really matter to the conquered party which book was used as justification for their repression? Again the point is not that Islam is justified or morally superior, but that neither is Christianity. Religiously dominated societies tend to be aggressive, expansionist and socially repressive no matter the religion.

Indeed both sides of the West:Middle East back and forth were imperialistic and both sides used their religion as justification for their often reprehensible actions.

As you point out above the current conflict (and most of those in the past) are regio/political rather than religious. Religion is used to motivate the followers(again not so different as in the past). Since religion is used to motivate and justify the conflict (rather than being the root cause) it is only required that the text has passages that can be interpreted to justify the actions desired. All religious texts I have seen have passages that can be used to this effect. That one has a few more or less is immaterial. What matters far more is the fundamentalist mindset that short circuits reason and promotes blind faith in religous authorities.

E. Simon - 8/17/2006

Mr. Ebbitt, are you an anarchist? An American "constitution, a regime, and a state" is not the same as "White America," particularly in the 300 year time table that Sultan references when the greatest numbers of Native Americans died. You need to voice that grievance against the governments of Spain and the U.K. Was the transcript a translation or was this person deliberately using an archane English term for Native Americans just to piss (some people) off? I realize it gives you great catharsis to spout off like this but sometimes looking into such tiny/("major") details like these is what will actually earn you what seems to pass for respect in these sorts of forums. Mere protesting is more of a spectator sport.

Trevor Russell Getz - 8/17/2006

Ah! Yes! Mr. Amitz has proven his point by showing how two individuals, entirely lacking in official position or representative standing, have different worldviews. Clearly, one official represents the entirety of the 'modern' west (including 'westernized' Muslims), and the other the entirety of the 'medieval' east.

Surely, Mr. Amitz, you wish to support your point with something other than entirely anecdotal evidence?

A. M. Eckstein - 8/17/2006

Omar--

That anti-semitic tv series (which AT LAST you now acknowledge ws anti-semitic) was shown on al-Manar for TWENTY-NINE STRAIGHT WEEKS. Figure it out, Omar. It couldn't have caused THAT much controversy within the party, could it? They DID NOT STOP IT.

To say "except for this 29-part tv program, I see no anti-semitic problem with Hezbollah" is like saying, "Except for that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" It's a rediculous position.

And don't forget this in fact IS NOT the only al-Manar episode. A year later (December 2004) al-Manar was banned from France by a French court ON GROUNDS OF ANTI-SEMITISM, specifically for broadcasting stories about Jews spreading AIDS intentionally to Arab populations. This was the recycling of medieval superstition. Evidently the "disturbances within the party" over "The Disaspora" DID NOT PREVENT THIS atrocity, did they? I guess not. Or is the French Government now being paid off by AIPAC? Wake up.

As for all your insistance on sticking to "official" pronouncements--al-Manar is the OFFICIAL Hezb television station.

As for The New Yorker interviews in 2002: Your position is still to deny what the New Yorker reporter reported on the basis of personal interviews and quoting Hezb leaders directly--you offer no counter-evidence and no argument, you just deny it. On this, you're still hiding your head in the sand. CNN accepted this reporter in 2006 as an authority on Hezbollah. That's what he was asked about, and neither his credentials nor his opinions were challenged; he appeared as part of a panel of experts. We are talking about CNN--NOT Fox News. Or is CNN and Ted Turner being paid off by AIPAC too?

You simply refuse to accept facts, Omar--or, with the 29-episode tv series, after much effort on my part you grudgingly accept facts and then try to avoid their implications--and it makes you look foolish. No one can take you seriously.

Omar, I meant to stop responding to your ridiculous arguments before, but sometimes what you write is just so ridiculous and shameful that I have to respond. However, I will now try to be more disciplined, and restrict my conversations to those who accept empirical evidence.

N. Friedman - 8/17/2006

Mr. Huff,

I am not here to defend Christians or Christianity. And, I am not here to defend Europeans and European exploits. We are the beneficiaries of their behavior that is both good and bad.

The assumption, however, of your comment is that the acts of the Jihadists are a simple biproduct of past wrongs by Westerners. I do not think that is an accurate assertion. I do not think it is even close.

It is, instead, a political assertion made by people with a political agenda, in this case a far, far Left wing agenda. It is not, however, an agenda based on a fair reading of history. I cannot even imagine that Marx would accept the current far Left political agenda as it is simply based on a big lie, intended merely to revive the political Left. And I say this as a person who is not hostile to social democracy.

Ignoring, for a moment, the religious dimension of the war by Muslim Jihadists and the West, let us take a look at the history of relations between the Muslim regions and "the West." I see parties competing for power and influence. And, the Muslim side was, historically, as much imperial as the Europeans. And, through much of that history, the Muslim side was successful, often far more so than the European side.

In fact, Muslim imperialism did not come crashing down, in practice, entirely as a result of European imperialism but instead as a result of gross inadequacies in the Ottoman Empire - a vast, powerful empire that controlled nearly all of the Arab regions, substantial portions of Asia, portions of Europe (and this even into the 20th Century), much of Northern Africa, and that treated its subjects, particularly as its power and influence began to fade, attrociously -. Among other things, that empire failed to keep up its military, its educational system, it political system, etc., etc. and, in time, began to crumble as Europeans pushed back - in response often to wars instigated by the Muslim side -.

But note: that Ottoman Empire was, in its ascendency, agressive and militeristic, fighting its way into all of the noted territories - while beginning as a tiny statelet on the rim of Constantinople -, that united first that regions and then began a vast conquest that took it, over the course of centuries of warfare, eventually up to Poland but began to fade, interestingly, on September 11, 1683 when its seige of Vienna was defeated. After that - and we are not talking ancient history -, the Empire's fortunes faded and those of Europe improved.

The point is that the Muslim side was as imperial as the European side.

And, then there were the Qajar Dynasty (1781–1925) in Iran - another empire. It also failed its people, politically, militarily and in every other way. And, it was no paragon of virtue when it came to treating its subjects or in its effort to expand its interests.

So, while the Europeans did push and push at the Muslims and the Arabs, such is not the whole or even the most of it. Most of the problems they have had are of their own, not Europe's making.

Now, the root cause of the current Jihad is, frankly, religio/political. Islam is in revival so far as its political aspects are concerned. Its leading adherents believe that they can revive their people's past glorify through religion and its Jihad tradition. Were the issue one of being pushed around by Europe, they could respond as does India - far more the victim of European power than have been the Muslim regions - and attempt to join the world. The issue here, ergo, is not one of righting wrongs. It is of reclaiming power and revival of the Islamic imperial tradition.

Rodney Huff - 8/17/2006

Dear Professor Furnish, Mr. Friedman:

Like it or not, we are the beneficiaries of atrocities sanctioned, condoned, and/or committed by Christian fundamentalists who aided colonialists in subduing, exploiting, and killing peoples of the Americas, Africa, and the South Pacific. As I said in an earlier post: Today ultra right-wing Christian fundamentalists don't have to order followers to fly jet planes into buildings because equivalent orders have already been executed by previous administrations, as well as by colonialist adventurers, speculators, and missionaries. It was an ideology infused with the Christian spirit of expansion, of spreading the gospel (see Mark 16:15), that justified and supported the conquests of the Americas, which facilitated the systematic destruction of the lifeways of indigenous peoples, which led to the Trail of Tears, which justified the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, the colonizing of Africa, the colonizing of the South Pacific, and all varieties of mischief, mayhem, and murder - all of which was in part justified by Christian fundamentalism and expansionist rhetoric. Our European forbears siezed the land we now occupy and built towns and missionaries as if they were God's stamps of approval.

Thus, it appears Islamic fundamentalists, or jihadists, are merely attempting today what Christian peoples accomplished over the past few centuries: hegemonic ascendancy in the world. Christian peoples, including fundamentalists and nonfundamentalists, have the luxury of viewing the world and their opponents from a position of power that was secured by means of violence, compared to which 9/11 seems like child's play. True, the power exercised by so-called Christian nations today is more administrative and manipulative in character than it is violent, with brute force appearing to be used primarily as a last resort (though this is not always the case, of course). However, this institutionalization of power was made possible by the sheer violence that preceded it and which periodically maintains it. For Christians most of the dirty work has already been done.

Whether the Bible is less violent than the Koran matters little. Ambiguous passages exist in both books, and people in similar circumstances throughout history have quarried them and held them up as rallying cries in their struggles for privileges, power, and prestige (or rewards in the afterlife) they believe they have coming to them by virtue of being god's chosen people or carriers of the light of "civilization." What we should focus on, then, are the conditions under which an individual or group is likely to resort to violence and perhaps use holy passages as justification for despicable, violent acts. We should get to the root cause of terrorism instead of forever battling symptoms. A.F.C. Wallaces's classic analysis of revitalization movements holds a clue, I believe, as does Freud's Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego.

If one adopts a world-historical perspective, the paralells between Christian and Islamic right-wing thought are obvious. Eventually, we must come to realize that fundamentalists, in seeking to impose their values and way of life on the rest of us, using violence if necessary to create some paradise on earth, are not unlike what they despise most. Human beings, it seems, prefer to see in their enemies that which they refuse to see in themselves. It's always tempting to make such projections onto others. It's also tempting to dismiss enemies as hopelessly irrational and to dismiss their holy texts as more violent than ours - a childish my-religion-is-better-than-yours kind of argument - when in fact all religions boil down to the same mystical insight that ALL IS ONE. (The differences between religions are in the dogmatic accretions to which followers get attached over time and to which they cling in fits of idolatry, thus belying or obscuring the essential underlying message of these revered texts - a communication of that unfathomable mystery and wondrous spectacle of creation, before which we are all as nothing, cosmic equals. All religions begin with this basic insight.)

Hence, instead of fueling the fire on one side and ensuring that this conflict will continue, thus ensuring that there will indeed be more 9/11s, we should seek understanding of the causes of terrorism, even as we bring perpetrators of heinous crimes to justice (which the U.S. leaders are clearly not interested in doing - who imagined that OBL would still be on the loose 5 years later?). Such understanding will come from not only exploring the ways in which leaders of predominately Muslim countries scapegoat the U.S. to divert attention from their own high crimes in office, but also exploring the ways in which the U.S. has earned its reputation for being, in Colin Powell's words, "the world's foremost bully," a status towards which the neoconservatives running this country (e.g., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) have been pushing us since the end of the Cold War. Do you doubt that the U.S., through its historical dealings with people in other countries, has had a hand in creating the conditions for terrorism?

N. Friedman - 8/17/2006

John,

You write: "If the Christians or the Jews were to switch places with the Muslims, I don't think the results would be appreciably different."

I do not think there is any way to reach the conclusion you reach as there is no simple substitution of parties, all else being equal. First, about Christianity: the religion is not territorial; Islam is. Second, Christianity is not inherently political; Islam is. Third, Christianity has no universal goal that includes conquest as part of God's plan. So, whether or not Christians would fight Muslims so that Christians could gain territory and influence - and they certainly might -, it would not necessarily be a fight in the name of religion.

Judaism, like Islam, is territorial but the territory is not the entire globe, as it is in Islam. The territory of interest to Jews is located in and around Israel and only there. Judaism, like Islam, also has a political aspect, mostly about the social conditions of people. And Judaism, like Christianity and Islam, distinguishes between believer and non-believer but, unlike Islam and some branches of Islam, Judaism has not wrapped that point in evangelicalism and, most certainly, not in encouraging violence to spread Jewish rule. So, again, I think your assertion makes little sense. If Jews were to seek conquest, as radical Muslims do, it would not be to conquer the entire world.

Then, there is the question of tactics. The current behavior of Muslim Jihadis has its roots, so far as I can tell, in the caravan raids of Muhammed and the razzias employed by Muslims in order to break down the moral of non-Muslims on the borders of Muslim controlled territory. Jews do not have a similar historical example to follow as justification for the sort of barbaric activity being deployed by today's Muslims. I believe the same is true for Christians as well.

I might also note: there is the question of what people do with their circumstances. There is, as I see it, no imaginable reason why Arabs in Arabia cannot make their land into a paradise. The country certainly has fantastic resources and it has a close political relationship with the world's most powerful country, the US - which ought not be the curse of death, since Israel and Japan, neither of which have much in the way of natural resources thrive depsite close relations with the US -.

My bet: were Jews to move to Arabia but did not take with them Arab history, the desert would be made to bloom. I bet that such would be the case if Christians controlled Arabia but did not carry with them Arab history. Which is to say, I am not at all convinced that the substitution of peoples would yield the same results. I think that there are a myriad of reasons why the Arab regions are a mess, some of historical, some of them religious, some of them cultural and some of them politics.

With that in mind, I do not think it quite possible to say that, put yourself in the place of Arab Muslims and you would do as they do. I think that is rather all too simple. I think you might or you might act rather differently. And, the tactics employed would almost surely be different.

Lastly, how people interpret their conditions - the glass being half full or half empty or completely empty - is not a mere product of their condition. Arab Muslims are not the poorest or most politically abused people on Earth. Palestinian Arabs are not the poorest or worst treated people on Earth - far from it -. The same for Kashmiri Muslims. Saudis, including many of those who count themselves Jihadis, are not poor at all. In fact, some of them are down right rich, like bin Laden. Which is to say, I take their movement as not being driven by the desire to improve social conditions but, instead, as a desire, driven and reinforced by religion, for power and prestige.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/17/2006

One more time, Omar (and for the last time I talk to you on this thread; but I will bring this issue of your intellectual dishonesty up on any other thread on which you attempt to engage in debate as an intellectual):

1. The author of the 2002 article for The New Yorker on Hezbollah, in which the anti-semitic remarks were made to him in personal interviews by Hezbollah leaders (including statements such as "The Jews are a lesion on the forehead of humanity"), appeared LAST WEEK both on CNN and MSNBC. He appeared on both networks as an authority on Hezbollah. No one questioned his credentials, and neither network is known as pro-Israel. We are not talking Fox News but CNN.

Your only defense of your denial of the Hezbollah statements which this reporter quoted in 2002 is...well...to deny they actually were made. Period. You offer no evidence that they were not made, not even a Hezbollah denial that they were made. You just deny they were made. You do this because the evidence is very inconvenient for you.
That is a profoundly unintellectual way to operate.

Well, perhaps you prefer to believe that the appearance of this reporter last week on CNN and MSNBC was all part of a huge and secret Zionist conspiracy. That seems to be your current preferred way of dealing with inconvenient facts. You make yourself look ridiculous by adopted that stance.

2. "The Diaspora", the 29-episode anti-semitic series (TWENTY-NINE episodes, Omar!) was shown on official Hezbollah television al-Manar (OFFICIAL, Omar--since you're so interested in official Hezb statements) in November 2003. Scenes from this series, transcripts of the episodes, including transcripts from Al Manar itself of episode 20, where Jews are depicting as eating Christian children in Passover Matzoh--ALL of this is EASILY accessible on the Web. You have known about this official Hezbollah televsion series for at least a week, because I offered this up to you as powerful evidence of Hezbollah anti-semitism last week, on the August 7 thread on Hezbollah anti-semitism based on the article by Jeffrey Herf.

Your continued denial of the relevance of this evidence on the grounds that "I haven't seen it and so I cannot comment on it" is at this point intellectually dishonest and indefensible. You have known about the television series for a week, and it is easily accessible on the Net. If you haven't looked at this evidence, it is because you CHOOSE not to look at it. You are not engaging in scholarly dubitation here--you are simply running away and hiding your head in the ground. You've had a week to look at it, and it's all over the Net. Your refusal to "pass judgment" on, say, episode 20, whose TITLE is "Jews Eat Christian Babies"--well, this simply makes you look ridiculous. Desperately to seek a way to avoid powerful evidence you don't want to see--this is as profoundly unintellectual as denying (on no evidence) that the Hezb leaders said what they said to that reporter.

Engaging in vicious personal insults, as Professor Furnish has also said to you, is no substitute for offering evidence and argument, Omar. It's time you learned this, also.

Art Eckstein

Tim R. Furnish - 8/17/2006

Mr. Crocker,
I was just reading an article in the "Atlantic Monthly" about some of the data in that Pew poll of Muslims. 35% of French Muslims and 25% of British and Spanish Muslims support suicide bombings! How much greater do you think the figures are in the MIddle East proper?
So much for that "fringe element" argument.

Tim R. Furnish - 8/17/2006

Mr. Crocker,
As I pointed out in the article, reading sacred texts is necessary but not sufficient to understand the religious motivations and actions of people. You have to look at history, too. And while in the Middle Ages the New Testament teachings of Jesus and the Apostles were distorted into a support for crusade, no one in the Christian world today still supports that. However, the ancient idea of jihad-as-holy-war IS different in that 1) it's extant in the sacred texts (Qur'an and Hadiths) of Muslims, and 2) it's still a legitimate concept within that faith and civilization. It is NOT simply a fringe element that maintains that position. It's frankly just silly (and, at the risk of offending, ignorant) to claim that Christianity and Islam are equally violent.

john crocker - 8/17/2006

I think we are talking past each other. My point is not that all religions are peace loving. It is simply that judging by the actions of religiously dominated societies that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are more or less equally warlike and the fringe groups of all of these religions are violent.

If the Christians or the Jews were to switch places with the Muslims, I don't think the results would be appreciably different. This is not to say that what the terrorists are doing is right or should not be opposed. It is simply that Christians and Jews are not somehow better or less violent, judging from what I have seen of them.

I can't speak to the texts until I have finished reading them.

Tim R. Furnish - 8/16/2006

Well, if Mr. Baker would try refuting some of my points rather than attacking me personally, I might find him a bit more palatable.
More on your other points tomorrow--right now I'm well-nigh brain dead.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/16/2006

That seems a good analysis of the ideological causation of jihadism to me, Tim.

Art

Tim R. Furnish - 8/16/2006

Mr. Mahan,
Any relation to the famous military historian?
Thanks. I don't have any hobbies (other than "Lord of the Rings" and basketball), so this is what I do for fun.
Actually, Hillary might be tough enough to order the 82nd Airborne to drop in on the ayatollahs. But of course, you're right, that would be a last resort after months or years of slapping them with lawsuits. I'm sure the usual suspects (William Christopher, Allbright, etc.), will be around to help with that fruitless endeavor.

Tim R. Furnish - 8/16/2006

Good point about the blowback of certain strains of Western thought on jihadist ideology. I'm sure they all adore Wallerstein, or would if they read him. I'm not enough of an expert on post-Enlightenment thought to truly answer you well, but I seem to recall that it's been in Iran in particular that tres-chic European Leftism has been imbibed.
No doubt jihadism, as probably the preeminent global mode of bashing the West today, is a melange of ideas. But at root it's grounded in Islam or, I should say, a certain understanding of Islam and NOT primarily in ideologies from outside that context, either from the Left or Right.

A. M. Eckstein - 8/16/2006

Dear Professor Furnish:

I know you are right, Tim. I just couldn't let "Omar Baker" masquerade as an intellectual once more after his disgraceful performance in denying Hezbollah anti-semitism last week, a denial perpetrated in the face of overwhelming and disgusting evidence.

I have promised my wife that I would make that only one entry on Omar, and then let this ridiculous person go.

Interesting paper: but you know, lots of these jihadists draw inspiration from Guevara, Stalin and Fanon, who normally are viewed as people of the Left, and their world-view is sometimes expressed in cod-Marxist terms. Ali Shariati of Iran is a good example from the 70s, and he knew his Fanon and Sartre well. Of course, these lefist monsters were all fascists of a sort as well--but you see my point, that these writers are not usually whom we associate with the term 'fascism'. Of course, you are arguing that we should avoid this term, but a sone writer has said--it's too late at this point. This will be the "term of art", as they say.

There is of course no contradiction between possessing a pre-Enlightenment mind-set and a fascination with modern technology, as shown by my colleague Jeffrey Herf in "Reactionary Modernism". The current leader of Iran is an engineer by training, and the same is true of several of the leaders of Hamas. That doesn't make them less "medieval-fanatical" in deepest outlook--simply more frightening.

But what about the inspiration from the western Left on the jihadists as well as the right? How does that work into it?

best wishes,

Arthur Eckstein
Professor of History
University of Maryland

Tim R. Furnish - 8/16/2006

Mr. Ebbitt,
Thanks for your gracious reply.
Look, with all due respect, if you think we haven't been hit in the mainlaind U.S. because Bush "weakly complied" with UBL's demands, I would submit you need a really intense primer on the history of the Middle East. We haven't been hit because of intense military, intelligence and law enforcement efforts to prevent it, and because the Jihadists have been quite busy killing us, and other Muslims, in Kabul and Baghdad.
I almost hope Hillary wins the next election just so I can watch Bush-bashers twist in the wind when she proves clueless dealing with the bearded fanatics. Almost.....
Sometimes, in another fit of pique, I think we should just put Saddam back in control and get the hell out. Would that make the Bush haters happy?
It's been a long day....
About time for another attack by Mr. Baker....better go check.

Tim R. Furnish - 8/16/2006

Mr. Eckstein,
Trust me, you're wasting your time (as I did on a post to Mr. Baker further down....).
Tim Furnish

A. M. Eckstein - 8/16/2006

Mr. Baker--

It's hard to see any possibility of rapprochement with Islamic "thinkers" such as yourself who are impervious to any amount of argument or evidence that contradicts their emotions and ideology. Thus, when you were confronted last week with overwhelming evidence of the most vile and medieval kind of anti-semitism in Hezbollah, including personal interviews with Hezbollah leaders and the broadcasting on Hezbollah TV of a 29-episode series concerning Jews eating Christian children, your response was: that isn't enough evidence to convince me!

Given THAT kind of anti-intellectual behavior, why should we take anything you say--anything--seriously?

In fact, your behavior confirms all the negative Muslim stereotypes you claim to be combatting.

Art Eckstein

Tim R. Furnish - 8/16/2006

Mr. Baker,
I was wondering where you and your lovely ad hominem attacks were! Glad to know you're back.
As for AIPAC: I've never met anyone from there, or had contact with anyone from there, in my entire life.
If you had a modicum of research ability, you'd easily discover that I was an Arabic linguist in the military and that both my doctoral dissertation and book (the one so prominently displayed on this article, if you'd open your eyes) used Arabic sources--which pretty much means that I read them.
Now: how about a specific criticism of my article instead of simply personal attacks?
If you don't have any, kindly shut up.

N. Friedman - 8/16/2006

John,

To have a discussion that is historically based, not based on false views. In discussing the dispute in today's world and the fact that the disputants on the Muslim side claim they are doing so in the name of their religion, it is worth exploring how that could be. Your approach, which assumes that religions all believe in peace - which is simply not the case - leads to poor analysis, in my view.

I note that different religions have different teachings. To assume that all have the same view about fighting is, to me, bad history.

Take an easy example: Christianity - or at least most branches - and Judaism have very, very different teachings about sexuality. That, however, has not stopped religious people from ignoring the teachings but attitudes toward sex among believers are, in fact, rather different for Christians and Jews and such is due, for believers, to the different teachings.

The same is true for war. Islam has a more accepting view of war than does Christianity. War is, in the classical Islamic theological scheme, part of Allah's plan. Peace, on the other hand, is something that occurs only after the entire world is ruled by Muslims under Islamic law. That scheme is different from the Christian scheme. Which is not to say that Christians never make war for religion. Rather, war is not a necessary part of that scheme as there is no such mandatory teaching for Christians.

In short, the Islamic teaching is evangelical - like some branches of Christianity - but, where resistance to Islamic overtures occur, war is religiously mandated. Unlike in Christianity, the goal of the evangelicalism is not directly the conversion of non-Muslims but their governance in accordance with Muslim law.

And such is the theological scheme that is taught, even today, in places like al-Azhar University.

john crocker - 8/16/2006

You say that the Koran exorts violence more than the Bible, Torah or Talmud. If your point is not to imply by extension that Muslims are therefor more violent than Christians and Jews what is your point?

Yehudi Amitz - 8/16/2006

Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006:

This is the link:

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1050

The following are excerpts from a debate between Wafa Sultan, a psychologist from Los Angeles and Dr. Ahmad Bin Muhammad, an Algerian professor of religious politics. Al-Jazeera TV aired this debate on July 26, 2005.

This is the link:

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=783

N. Friedman - 8/16/2006

Correction:

My last sentence above should read: With that in mind, I do not think you are employing correct terminology.

N. Friedman - 8/16/2006

John,

I do not think you read what I wrote with sufficient care.

I have never said that Christians and Jews do not employ violence. And I have not said that neither seek justification in religion. I have said something very different.

In any event, you write: "The Christian and Jewish holy books are cited by their fundamentalists as the justification for their violence. The same may be said of the Muslims."

Again and as I said before, people do what they may with their holy books. My point was quite different.

My point was about the books and I noted that the Koran and ahaditha and what those books, as traditionally understood and as reasonably read, teach. And I reiterate: they often exhort violence and rather little peace. That is a fact.

The Bible, by contrast, includes episodic violence but not a general call to kill the infidel wherever you find them and not to cease violence until they convert or pay the poll tax and lower themselves. But, that is what the Koran states and such is not interpretted, traditionally, to be an episodic, contextualized requirement but a general requirement.

And no doubt the Bible can be read to advance a particular cause (e.g. opposition to abortion or Israel's boundaries) for which violence is committed and those so acting claim justification for their violence in the holy books. But that is rather different from the generalized calls for violence and war in the Koran. I really suggest you pick up the Koran and read it.

One last point. I reiterate that the bulk of Muslims - better than 90%, according to scholar M.J. Akbar - are what you would call fundamentalist. With that in mind, I do not think you are employing incorrect terminology.

Yehudi Amitz - 8/16/2006

In our political system (I am talking about USA but it can be extended to the western world with little changes) it's quite common to divide the world into "them" and "us" (which can be used from any side of the political divide) and becomes, during political campaigns, "fascists" for "them" when used from the left or "communists" (or the American term "liberals") when used from the right. The idea is to blur the other side to remove the political nuances in a very nuanced political world and especially when the animosities between left and right of the political center are at their top.
Islamofascist is the best term describing the animosity of the Islamic world towards the West, maybe a little extreme but a good description of the Islamic enemy.
The term "Fascist" derives from "FASCES" (rods bound in the form of a bundle, and containing an axe in the middle, the iron of which projected from them)(Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra)which was a symbol of unity and power in the Antique Roman world. It defines a social and political system with virtually no dissent and the Islamic world is quite a good example of such a system. There is no real protest in the Islamic world against the extremists from within. It can be argued that Moslems are afraid to express any kind of protest because in the Islamic world a good part of the common human behavior is punished by death but in the same time we have seen this year Moslems dying because of cartoons in a Danish newspaper which isn't common human behavior but extremism perpetrated by regular people Moslems on the street. As I see it the Islamofascism is the act of a small number of Moslems which is condoned by the vast majority of the Moslems. We will talk about nuances in the Islamic world when the war will end but now, at the top of the fight, the term ISLAMOFASCISM it's very appropriate they are "THEM" who want to destroy "US"!

john crocker - 8/16/2006

Mssrs. Furnish and Friedman

An undeniable slice of fundamentalist Christians also seek the death of all Jews. That these fundamentalist Christians do so by selective reading of their holy texts would be relevant if it were not for the fact that most fundamentalist Christians read the Bible selectively to support their own beliefs.

The Christian and Jewish holy books are cited by their fundamentalists as the justification for their violence. The same may be said of the Muslims.

Christianity and Judaism in practice have not been shy about violence either. To deny that is to be ignorant and deluded.

The cynical leaders of the Islamist terrorists are not so much fundamentalists as are their followers. These leaders use the blind faith of their followers to craft them into weapons. Cynical leaders of Christian fundamentalists have different aims at present and so use the blind faith of their followers to different ends.

To date Christian fundamentalists have killed more Americans than have Muslim fundamentalists. Were I African American or Homosexual and living in the Bible belt I would certainly have more to fear from Christian fundamentalists than Muslim fundamentalists.

A mass of intollerant and willfully ignorant people are a danger to those around them. It takes very little for a charismatic leader to rouse them to violence against someone they see as an other.

Fundamentalism leads to irrationality and that is the enemy of a society based on the principles of the Enlightenment.

john crocker - 8/16/2006

Religion:
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

To say that communism is a religion is to ignore the definition and etymology of the word religion.

Are you postulating that the Bush administration is not attempting to spread democracy with idealism and an aggressive crusading spirit?

"Your attempts to distinguish between 'real' communism and commmunist regimes gets it backwards. Real communism is what has existed in human history."

By your own logic 'real' democracy is then what has existed in human history and thus is by definition a cultural construct.

Jason Blake Keuter - 8/16/2006

Moreover, the "support" for jihadists is a result of jihadist terror against other Muslims. The gang metaphor is apt. Jihadists don't just issue calls for prayer and give speeches. They're the ones with guns.

Jason Blake Keuter - 8/16/2006

Yes, there are hate mongerers in all faiths. The real question is: why is it the hate mongerers are able to dominate one and not the other? I would argue that most Christians are a lot less Christian than they profess. That even among the most reactionary, their lives are essentially secular, and, if push came to shove, they would give up Christianity before they gave up all they get from living in the modern secular world.

Jason Blake Keuter - 8/16/2006

Re 13 : Communism is a religion. To contend otherwise is absurd.

Your post epitomizes the quest of true believers to disassociate the consequences of communism from the doctrine of which those consequences are a logical result.

It is hard to be a messianic spreader of democracy. Democracy is a process of governing a society. Messianic movements like communism and Islam and Christianity postulate an end to history and insist that people be molded towards accomplishing that end.

Just because legions of professors have spent the past decades arguing that democracy is really a cultural construct (which is code for accepting tyranny in non-democratic societies as equally legitimate as democratic societies) doesn't make it so.

Your attempts to distinguish between "real" communism and commmunist regimes gets it backwards. Real communism is what has existed in human history. It is actual. What you call "real" is the quasi-religious opium of the intelligentsia. It is not real.

N. Friedman - 8/15/2006

Clarification:

I resist making comparisons. I did so reluctantly for you.

For what it is worth, my view of Islam is that, while it exhorts violence, the religion is quite obviously a source of great meaning to its followers. So, it is a rather successful religion. And that is, to me, interesting and important.

But, Islam is a religion that is not shy about violence. That is a fact. And to deny that is to be ignorant or deluded. Again: read the Quran and read about Islamic theology. And do not read the nonsense that appears on Wiki. Read a real book by a real scholar. Try Patricia Crone or Professor Furnish, etc., etc.

N. Friedman - 8/15/2006

John,

I resist making comparisons. I note that Christians find lots of reasons to be violent. However, the Christian and Jewish holy books are not often the source of that violence. By contrast, in Islam, it is the holy books which exhort people to violence. Like it or not, that is the truth. Try reading the Quran and you will see that I am correct.

Tim R. Furnish - 8/15/2006

Mr. Crocker,
It's simply silly to "worry" about all fundamentalists to the same degree. Southern Baptists are fundamentalist Christians, and other than voting Republican en masse, just how are they worrisome? An undeniable slice of Islamic fundamentalists--what I call jihadists--on the other hand behead people, want to kill (all) Jews and, in case you haven't noticed, fly airliners into buildings. AND THEY DO ALL OF THESE THINGS WITH LEGITIMATE SANCTION FROM THEIR OWN HOLY TEXTS!
I truly fear for the survival of Western civilization when you, and far too many like-minded, well-meaning people cannot (or perhaps choose not to) differentiate between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists.

john crocker - 8/15/2006

In your posts your refer to violent actions of jihadists and you imply broad support of those actions among the Muslim community, you cite their holy books only to point to their violent nature (in contrast to Christian and Jewish holy books who's violence is contextualized) and state that widespread violent behavior is "normal to Islam." In short your point was not only about the books, but about the people.

It seems that the more religious a society is the more violent its policies seem to be, whether that society is Muslim, Christian or Jewish. The problem with Iran is not that it is Muslim, but that it is a theocracy and the problem with the Islamist terrorists is not the Q'uran it is their fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalist movements hold faith above reason and this makes them difficult to deal with in any rational way.

The problem I have with what you have said is that you seem to be saying that Christianity is somehow less violent Islam and Christian fundamentalists are more reasonable than Islamic fundamentalists.

You seem to focus your worry on Islamic fundamentalists and I am worried about all fundamentalists.

N. Friedman - 8/15/2006

John,

Let's suppose I said that - although that is not quite what I said -. What of it? Is it wrong to note that one doctrine is more violent than another?

Let us try a though experiment. Fascism: Is fascism inherently more violent than pacifism? Or, must we assume that all doctrines are the same?

Which is to say, I think your point is nonsensical. In fact, I was talking about books. And the Muslim source books, by comparison with the Jewish or Christian books, seem more to exhort violence and, as I noted, there is little exhortation of peace in the Muslim holy books, something that simply cannot be said about either the Christian or Jewish books.

Again, yours was not my point. My point was about the books and what they said, not about people and what they decide to make of and do with their books. Now, in my view, where the main books in a society have little to say in favor of peace and, instead, include substantial portions exhorting war, the doctrine taught by means of such books is not likely to be peaceful.

john crocker - 8/15/2006

"You write: 'Your post comes dangerously close to positing that Muslims and their holy books are inherently violent...'

I do not think I said that."

Here is what I was referring to:

"And, as a result, it is a rather straightforward read of the Quran which leads one to advocate violence against infidel because the book appears to so preach - again and again and again.
By contrast, there are numerous violent episodes in the Bible but they mostly have a very clear context. And, unlike the Bible, the Quran does not include many passages advocating peace. And, the accompanying texts of interest to Muslims - ahaditha - are in substantial part about making war and not much about making peace."

The above comes awfully close to saying Muslims are by virtue of there faith more violent than Jews or Christians.

When you say "...such activity is normal to Islam," you lend further credence to the above interpretation.

N. Friedman - 8/15/2006

John,

You write: "The hate mongers are a minority in both the Christian and Muslim faith. // The jihadis you are speaking of are fundamentalists."

Is there a poll you rely upon regarding the view of Muslims? Is Mr. Ahmadinejad an anomaly, unrepresentative of the views of Muslims? If so, where are the Muslim voices saying he is wrong? And, even if there have been condemnations by a few, why such a small group?

The word "fundamentalist" is the wrong term when speaking about Islam. As scholar M.J. Akbar notes, better than 90% of Muslims are, by the Western definition, fundamentalist. That, surely, is not what you have in mind.

You write: "Many moderate Muslims condemned the attacks of 9/11..."

So? In the Arab regions, speaking Arabic, there were questions raised about timing, not substantive denunciation. See, Walid Phares' book Future Jihads. But, the problem is that very few voices have been raised. And, there has been almost no substantive rebuttal made to the Jihadists. Contrast that with the Muslim theological voices raised against the Mahdi - See Tim Furnish's book Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama bin Laden. Professor Furnish notes substantial voices making serious, theologically based arguments against Mahdis. But, there is nothing similar going on with respect to the Jihadists.

Which is to say, your point is nonsensical. If there were real opposition to the Jihadists, it would involve a substantial attack on their theological underpinnings. That remains to occur in any substantial way.

You write: "Your post comes dangerously close to positing that Muslims and their holy books are inherently violent..."

I do not think I said that. I think that Islam can be what Muslims want it to be. Historically, Islam, like Christianity, has been used to justify a lot of violence. The Islamic holy books, unlike the Christian and Jewish books, have little to latch onto for those who might advocate peace. The way Muslims have dealt with that problem - whether or not for religious reasons or for the practical need to survive in a political community - is to assign the role of making war to the Calif/ruler. And, the Califs have largely adopted an imperlial approach to their rule, which guarantees a lot of war.

Today, as I note: the issue is the absense of the Calif, which leaves an era as in the days when Islam was on the rise, where the borders of Islam had a lot of dedicated people engaged in personal Jihad - which was called razzias. The historical record is replete with such activity and such activity is normal to Islam. If you want to call that dangerous, you are correct. But, it is not my doctrine.

N. Friedman - 8/15/2006

John,

The Jihad I have in mind is Jihad fi sabil Allah.

You mention six Jihads. Muslim theology generally speak of two, with one being substantially more important than the other. Jihad fi sabil Allah has been the dominant version of Jihad in Muslim history. That is Jihad as war.

The so-called greater Jihad arose in connection also with a military matter: the loss of a battle by Mohammed. The view arose that by soul searching and prayer and righteous living, the enemy might thereafter be defeated, as occured when Mohammed was defeated in battle.

I do not posit anything about Islam which is not supportable in the record. I suggest you pick up David Cook's book Understanding Jihad. Or, you might read Bernard Lewis' The Political Language of Islam. As scholar Walid Phares notes: in his years growing up and living in Lebanon, the word Jihad was used only one way: namely, to mean war.

Now, a careful review of Islamic theology will note for you that the duty to pursue Jihad fi sabil Allah usually fell on the party in the place of the imam - the Calif. It was a collective - not an individual - duty as understood by most Muslims through history. The issue today is the absence of a Calif - that rightly guided person who can decide on pursuing Jihad as war.

Those Jihadis today rely on the historical record by which Jihad was, in fact, pursued by Sufis and others along the borders with Christian territory. And, they rely upon the razzias pursued by Mohammed and his companions. And, they note that in the absence of the Calif, there is every reason for Muslims to follow the noted tradition.

john crocker - 8/15/2006

"There may be some dangerous Christian fundamentalists. So what? Does that somehow nullify the danger posed by Jihadists or make them ok?"

There are some dangerous islamic fundamentalists. So what? Does that somehow nullify the hatred of the Christian fundamentalists or make them ok?

The hate mongers are a minority in both the Christian and Muslim faith.

The jihadis you are speaking of are fundamentalists.

Jihad may be a central tenet of Islam, but Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) is but one of six types of jihad. Many moderate Muslims condemned the attacks of 9/11 and American in several Muslim countries was over 60% after those attacks.

Your post comes dangerously close to positing that Muslims and their holy books are inherently violent, unlike Christians and their holy books. I hope that this is not your contention.

Rodney Huff - 8/15/2006

I don't think John was talking about nonfundamentalist Christians like you, Tim. I believe he was refering to people like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, among others, who appeal to passages in the Bible in their crusades against "evil."

So do passages admonishing violence exist in the Bible? YES. Are these passages accepted by all Christians? NO. But are there fundamentalists who consider these passages the Word of God and thus interpret them as absolute, eternal Truths? Absolutely. (See http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html.) Have such fundamentalist groups created an enabling atmosphere in which people have been willing to blow up abortion clinics, lynch People of Color, terrorize Jews, and kill homosexuals? Yes. Bigotry is as American as apple pie.

Let's not turn a blind eye to all the varieties of mischief, mayhem, and murder perpetrated by people throughout history who believed they were doing God's good work. It was the New Testament exhortation to go throughout the world and spread the Gospel that provided colonialist adventurers, speculators, and conquistadors justification for murdering and enslaving indigenous peoples the world over, and then taking their land to set up towns and missionaries as God's stamp of approval. (All of this is old news, of course, but nonetheless relevant to a discussion of whether there is fundamental difference between Christian and other sorts of religious fundamentalists, all of whom seek to impose their way of life on the rest of the world, using force if necessary to prepare the way for some paradise on earth. Strange, isn't it, how evil is introduced to the world precisely by those who profess to be crusading for the good?)

N. Friedman - 8/15/2006

John,

There may be some dangerous Christian fundamentalists. So what? Does that somehow nullify the danger posed by Jihadists or make them ok?

Comparisons are interesting but they should not become an excuse to avoid understanding. And, for the most part, those who respond to discussions about Jihadist by countering that there are violent fundamentalist Christians effectively insulate Jihadists from careful scrutiny.

I might add: Jihadism is not a function of fundamentalism, in any event. Jihad is central, theologically speaking, to Islam. It is not, theologically speaking, a doctrine that Muslims might adopt. It is one of the central tenets of the religion.

Now, as for your point that fundamentalist Christians point to the OT Scriptures to justify bad behavior, that may be true. My suggestion to you is that you read through the Quran. It is a fascinating book but, unlike the Bible, it is very difficult to contextualize because it reads more like a series of prayers and calls to action rather than, as in the Bible, stories. And, as a result, it is a rather straightforward read of the Quran which leads one to advocate violence against infidel because the book appears to so preach - again and again and again.

By contrast, there are numerous violent episodes in the Bible but they mostly have a very clear context. And, unlike the Bible, the Quran does not include many passages advocating peace. And, the accompanying texts of interest to Muslims - ahaditha - are in substantial part about making war and not much about making peace.

So, the point here is that comparisons are interesting but cannot be made by noting that all faiths have their loonies. Jihad is central to Islam, not a matter which, for Muslims, is subject to dispute - at least not yet -. Rather, the issue is a tactical, not strategic. As reported by Walid Phares in his book Future Jihads, the debates on al Jazeera after 9/11 were never - as in they did not occur - about whether the attack was justified, in Islam, morally or otherwise. The debate was limited to the timing.

john crocker - 8/15/2006

The current leaders of the fundamentalists movement in America regularly draw from the Old Testament. The passages you cite are are rarely the ones cited by Dobson and the like. They prefer to go to the Old Testament for their fire and brimstone.

The prominent fundamentalist Christian leaders that I mentioned are all American. They live in a largely secular society where they cannot get away with calling for the death of homosexuals or infidels. The death threats come from fringe movements like the Klan and Christian Identity.

Tim R. Furnish - 8/15/2006

Mr. Ebbitt,
Well, if you really want to know, I started writing an article on this several years ago but small children, a 5/5 teaching load and writing a book rather got in the way. By the time I got back to it, the term seemed entrenched and a foregone conclusion in terms of usage. But then, last week, the President resurrected it as a salient issue--hence, my article.
Bush used "crusade" in the sense in which we all do normally (crusade against drugs, for good grades, against Yankee fans): in a secular sense of a great struggle. Don't be disingenuous.
I think the "tensions that currently exist between the US and our Moslem [sic] brethren" would be eased more by the jihadists giving up their attacks on civilians and their dream of a global caliphate more than by George Bush calling them nicer names.

N. Friedman - 8/15/2006

or you!!!

Tim R. Furnish - 8/15/2006

But everyone's not as discerning as you....

N. Friedman - 8/15/2006

Tim,

As a non-Christian and non-conservative, I still think you are correct on this point.

Tim R. Furnish - 8/15/2006

Well, as a member of a conservative (but not fundamentalist) church and denomination, I disagree (again): the most salient texts for Christians on the topic are Romans I (esp. the second half) and I Corinthians 6:9ff. As a 21st c. AD Christian, I am NOT bound by divine laws from 3,000 years ago. And even among those of my faith who would disagree with me: name me a fundamentalist Christian leader who is calling for the death of homosexuals in the same way that certain jihadist are calling for the death of infidels.

Rodney Huff - 8/15/2006

Andy, here are some contemporary examples of Christian fundamentalists perpetrating, encouraging, and/or condoning violence against people perceived as different and thus inferior in some way: the KKK and its various offspring organizations, the Christian Identity Church, Aryan Nations (a group based in Pennsylvania, with branches in Ohio and Idaho), European-American Unity and Rights Organization (founded by David Duke), Christian Patriots, Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.

And, as John mentioned, although Christian Churches were not soley responsible for the atrocities I mentioned earlier, the role of the missionaries in colonial exploits can be seen as supportive. I don't see this statement amounting to a "silly" belief on my part; it strikes me as a well documented (if not a trite) observation. I did not think I was offering anything controversial in making such a claim. Instead, I felt that by making the claim I was alerting readers of the article to an obvious bias, or a blind spot, that led the author to believe that Islamic fundamentalists are somehow qualitatively different from (and more loathsome than) Christian fundamentalists.

Response to Patrick's post: Christianity is continuous with Judaism. Jesus was a Jew and can be seen as a reformer of the Judaic tradition in that he reduced the hundreds of commandments found in the Old Testament (there weren't just 10) to a couple basic principles: Love God and love thy neighbor. He simplified the old moral code; he didn't refute it. In fact, in the early Christian church, you had to be a Jew in order to become a Christian. Paul later changed all that, extending the opportunity of salvation to Gentiles.

After Jesus's death, Christians began proclaiming that Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection was sufficient demonstration of God's power and love; thus the Jews, they argued, should no longer be recognized as the Chosen People; that is, those chosen by God to demonstrate His love and power through their experience of extreme suffering (demonstrating God's power - look at what He can do to you) only to be redeemed in dramatic fashion in the end (demonstrating God's love - look at what He can do "for" you). According to Christains, that part of history in which a Chosen People was needed is over; it ended with Jesus. Such an observation should not be taken to mean that the Christianity developed in opposition to Judaism. In fact it was built on it.

N. Friedman - 8/15/2006

Mr. Barton,

While your comment was addressed to Professor Furnish, I note the following with reference to your comment: Would calling the bad guys "jihadists" lead a significant number of folks who are not our enemies to feel more like they belong on the other side of the order of battle? There's the rub, and I'd like to know your thoughts:

No doubt that Jihadists would prefer that we call them "freedom fighters." But would not calling Jihadis "freedom fighters" legimitize our enemies and, by that token, encourage people to join in the battle against us? Suppose we choose the term "militant" - as some newspapers and the BBC have done -? Does that not sew doubts among our friends regarding the justness of our cause to stop the jihadis? And is that not the most serious problem, since the West is seemingly so deeply divided?

In my view, I think that your quoted point misses the point. The main people affected by the labels we use are us, not those who would make Jihad against us. Those who would make Jihad against us are attracted to the cause by an ever shifting - and, hence, unresolvable - array of grievances, not our choice of words to describe them. Hence, whether we contribute a loathsome word or an apologetic word or a purely descriptive term to classify Jihadists or not, arguments will be made to potential Jihadists.

john crocker - 8/15/2006

The OK City bombing was not about Christian fundamentalism, but I had to respond to your point about the New Testament.

Christian fundamentalists when attacking homosexuality or many of the other things they see as "evils" of the world primarily refer to the Old rather than the New Testament, primarily Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These books have some really bizarre and scary rules within an otherwise beautiful and, for its time, progressive text. Among other things children who backtalk are to be taken to edge of town and stoned to death. As for polygamy the Old Testament does limit you to 3 wives and only if you can afford them.

john crocker - 8/15/2006

At its core communism is a purely economic system that has absolutely nothing to do with the aims of these terrorists.

By communist you seem to mean the Soviet/Chinese model which are arguably not actually communist but rather totalitarian dictorships.

Points 2, 6, 9-12, 14, 15 are common to fascism and more broadly to all totalitarian regimes.

1. Messianic:
1 : of or relating to a messiah
2 : marked by idealism and an
aggressive crusading spirit
I assume here you are using the second definition. I would characterize communism as practiced by the Soviets and China as marked by cynicism rather than idealism. Messianic would better describe the current US administration's goal of spreading democracy (if you take them at face value).

3. Internationalist:
1 : international character,
principles, interests, or
outlook
2 a : a policy of cooperation
among nations b : an
attitude or belief favoring
such a policy
Here I assume you mean to use the first. By this definition every political movement is internationalist.

4. Applies equally well to the current US administration and to most totalitarian regimes.

5. I don't see how this is a defining character.

7. It was the American right wing under Reagan who labelled the groups that grew into Al Quaeda and the Taliban as "freedom fighters." As for the rest of this, it is rubbish.

8. The leadership of the American revolution consisted mostly of disaffected middle and upper class intellectuals.

13. This comment is absurd. Chinese and Soviet communism is/was atheist.

Fascism is not a perfect fit for the ideology of these terrorists, but it is a much better fit than communism.

michael Randolph stephenson - 8/15/2006

The support for jihadists is not as widespread as the media image portrays. I am not implying that this is by design either. First, we must understand that most Muslims around the world are just like the rest of us. They work, they pray, they hope for the best for their children. Second, the support for jihadists is more Shia than Sunni. Shia form 15% or thereabouts of all Muslim adherents. Third, if support was as widespread, then we would likely see more violence than already occurs. I will admit however that the war in Iraq and Lebanon coupled with the failure to alleviate suffering in slums like Gaza will increase support for radical Islam as the only viable alternative.

Jason Blake Keuter - 8/15/2006

1. Messianic

2. Murder

3.Internationalist

4. Small minority trying to create galvanizing "crisis" through terror

5. Radicals going back and forth to west and adopting west's criticism of west

6. love to march in front of people bearing weaponry

7. Despite all evidence of abhorrent nature of group, still considered the lesser of two evils by left-leaning western intellectuals (before 9 11 were simply considered heroic freedom fighters or generally ignored) and assumed to be moving history forward as enemy of capitalist (corporate) America.

8. Leadership consists mostly of disaffected "middle" class...

9. Cultish adoration of leadership.

10. Utter disregard for well being of people over who they seek total power

11. Cynical manipulation of anti-imperialism in order to launch an imperial crusade

12. Relies on terror to control territory

13. Animated by absurd religious vision that justifies violating the core principles that keep its religion respectable in the eyes of others

14. Hates democracy

15. Murder

john crocker - 8/15/2006

A couple of examples of Christian Fundamentalists responsible for the behaviors I mentioned above are: Savonarola, the Spanish Inquisition, German ghettos, African and American colonialists.

As for modern fundamentalists that would take up that banner, Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and the various abortion clinic bombers come to mind.

Another modern example, the Philippines has devoloved into a virtual fundamentalist state with severe restrictions of the rights of women. The fundamentalists I cited above are trying to transform the US into a similar model.

The short answer to why the positions of Muslims and Christians are not reversed is population density. High population densities facilitated the Enlightenment and the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions.

Trevor Russell Getz - 8/15/2006

Mr. Mahan,

Thank you. You probably figured out that, politically, I oppose Mr. Bush... but that's no reason to make claims that cannot be substantiated. Everyone quotes the Post, Der Speigel or Estado do Sao Paulo [sic?] articles, without realizing that they're in a single line of evidence each quoting the other, each building validity where none really exists. Trace the path to its end and there's no substance. Folks, let's investigate and use evidence appropriately!

N. Friedman - 8/14/2006

Professor,

First, you have written another excellent article. I agree with you that to understand the Jihadi movement, it is probably best, first and foremost, to examine the movement in Muslim, not Western terms. That is certainly my view.

I note that some writers - particularly Paul Berman in his rather interesting book, Terror and Liberalism, have argued that people like Sayyid Qutb, etc., have brought Western ways of thinking and merged them into Islamic thought. I think his book is worth reading even though I think he should read a bit more about Islam, not to mention the history of the Muslim regions, before he concludes that advocacy and commission of mass murder have their roots in the Western but not also the Islamic tradition and history.

By the way: here is another pitch for your wonderful book Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, their Jihads and Osama bin Laden. It should be read by anyone and everyone. Bravo!!!

Now, for my concerns. I think that people like Pipes, etc., are not always using the term "facism" literally and probably not in the technical manner you employ. Rather, they are attempting, by and large, to place the Jihad movement so that it will be understood by non-Muslims - and, most specifically, people not interested or willing to actually study rather difficult, albeit fascinating, subjects, namely, Islam, Islamic history and Islamic culture(s).

Although Pipes does, at least in his essays, argue that the the Islamist movement is not quite traditional Islam, I think that his argument is strained and that he does not truly believe in his argument, much less the implications of his argument. In any event, I do think there is benefit - from a scholarly point of view but only after Islam, its history and culture are first studied - to addressing what best parallel there is in the West for the Jihadist movement. Which is to say, I am not sure that it is necessary to always and only examine the Jihadists on their own terms - although, quite clearly, such does not occur in public debate enough and such ought to be the prime focus -.

Lastly, I note that you make pains not to condemn the entire Muslim community for the Jihadist movement. You, however, leave the impression of a small group. In that there are Jihadists all over the world and no substantial movement among Muslims to challenge the Jihadists openly or, so far as I know, even quietly on theological grounds, (a) I do not see how it can be argued that the group is small or (b) necessarily even the minority (whether or not a large percentage is willing themselves to die for the cause).

My view is that Islam - i.e. what makes the religion so powerful and all consuming to its believers - is difficult to understand apart from Jihad. The percentage of ahaditha dedicated to Jihad is astounding. The exhortation to war in the Quran, the enactment of detailed religious laws related to its conduct and to the treatment of the conquered belie the view that Jihad could be anything less than central to the faith. As a telling hadith asserts, paradise is under the shade of swords. My view is that Jihad serves the purpose of giving life a purpose, which is why it has played such a powerful role in Islamic history.

While clearly, there are some innovations by today's Jihadists, I do not see them as being outside of traditional Islamic thinking. While the Caliphate surely controlled much of Jihad, there is a long history of individuals engaging in Jihad.

Your discussion of the Mahdi movements in your book would seem to fit that pattern - and a particularly scarry version of it, I might add -. But, Patricia Crone also describes individual Jihadi activity along Islam's periphery in her book God's Rule - Government and Islam Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought - another book I highly recommend to anyone on this website. I believe she notes that there was a substantial amount of Sufi involvement in such activity - just like you describe such in connection with Mahdi movements among Sunnis. Lastly, Bat Ye'or, in her wonderful book The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam - another must read, in my view -, describes bi-annual razzias from Andalusia into Christian areas of what was left of Spanish territory and in French territory. And, of course, there were the razzias engaged in by Muhammed and his companions. Your colleague David Cook also notes, in his excellent book, Understanding Jihad, that Jihad fills the role of asceticism for Muslims. My impression is that he is largely correct.

In any event, my point here is that I think it is more political correctness than truth that Jihadism is a minority view among Muslims. I just do not think that most people prefer death and that such, if it is a, fact tends to be a deterrent to people without regard to what they really believe and I think that a large percentage of Muslims are more interested in going along and getting along than fighting.

Again, you have written a terrific article.

Trevor Russell Getz - 8/14/2006

Mr. Mahan,

I think you're probably right that Bush never said this. However, it would be more precise for you to state that the report that he did so is based on an anonymous and unsubstantiated single source (probably an antagonistic individual in the Brazilian government), and is thus very weak indeed. I think such specificity would strengthen, rather than weaken, your case.

It is generally impossible, as many historians have discovered, to prove that somebody DIDN'T say something... which doesn't mean that it's responsible to allege that he DID say it.

Stephen Kelly Barton - 8/14/2006

Nice piece Prof. Furnish. I'm going to forward a link to this around for some folks to chew on.

The problem, as you have stated, is that these bad guys arise out of an (not the) Islamic faith tradition. So the naming of the enemy is tricky.

"Islamic fascists" is not a good descriptor except in the modern/internet-flame-war sense of everybody-I-disagree-with-is-a-fascist. Therefore, Islamic fascists = Islamic bad guys.

"Jihadists" tells you that the bad guys are conquerors, subjugators, religious warriors -- and is Islam-specific. And you can deflect the inner-struggle-jihadists by using "Violent Jihadists."

The thing I am not sure about, and is more in your line of study, is how many workaday, regular-joe Muslims feel a connection, a pull, a twinge for the word "Jihadist?"

"Jihadist, yeah that's me!" Like talking with a European who says "oh you cowboy Americans..." A regular American is not going to disavow "cowboy" in his heart.

Would calling the bad guys "jihadists" lead a significant number of folks who are not our enemies to feel more like they belong on the other side of the order of battle? There's the rub, and I'd like to know your thoughts.

The benefit of calling the bad guys fascists is that regular Muslims can say "what's that got to do with me?" Appending the "fascist" to Islam allows us to half-name (as you say) our enemy -- and the imprecision of "fascist" is a feature, not a bug! We think "bad guy", regular Muslims think "huh?" (yes, they know what we're fighting and hopefully they don't feel threatened by us).

The best thing about your think-piece is its reminder that what we are fighting is a genuine strain of Islam that wants to subjugate the world. They are not going away.

Last week I saw a copy of your book stuffed next to the cash register at Garcia's, the Mexican place down from Georgetown Kroger at Chamblee-Dunwoody and 285. I didn't find out which employee is taking a course from you, maybe next time.

-- Steve Barton, across Womack from the campus, Dunwoody, Georgia

Tim R. Furnish - 8/14/2006

Exactly. And had they TRIED to justify the bombing based on the New Testament, they would have appealed to....what passage? Whereas, on the other hand, the decapitators in the Muslim world have several Qur'an passages as proof texts, as do the suicide bombers, polygamists, wife beaters....

Tim R. Furnish - 8/14/2006

Mr. Ebbit,
How can you construe this as "apologist" when I spend the whole essay expounding on why the term is inapt?

Tim R. Furnish - 8/14/2006

You're wrong, sir. Go get a Qur'an and read it. Unlike the New Testament, it postulates beheading of unbelievers, sensual rewards for martyrs, and beating of one's wives. Now, do ALL Muslims accept these verses? NO. But are they there? Yes. And is it a legitimate exegesis of the Qur'an to take them literally? Yes.

Jeffery Ewener - 8/14/2006

This article seems to very glibly and shamefully understate the danger of Christian terrorism. With the single and undeniably unique exception of September 11th, the worst single act of terrorism on American soil was committed by self-described defenders of Christianity, at Oklahoma City. One hundred & sixty-eight innocent people died (including the children in the daycare center), and for much the same reason as those who died at the World Trade Center -- because of where they worked.

Maybe there should be a single category of "religiously motivated terrorism", if a kind of shorthand is deemed so necessary. This would helpfully disassociate the tenets of the religion -- any religion -- from the ravings of those who seek to kill in its name. Or is it politically or militarily useful to distinguish between the Hindu terrorism of the Tamil Tigers and the Buddhist death squads of their Sinhalese opponents, the Jewish settler terrorists in the West Bank who stop & kill random Palestinian victims on the roads, and the good Christian townsfolk who used to back up Jim Crow with lynch law? Oh yeah, and Osama bin Laden.

None of these murderous actions have anything to do with the religions they claim to espouse. They should be denied their specious justifications.

john crocker - 8/14/2006

I believe the parallel he was trying to draw was with Christian fundamentalists not Christians as a whole. Religious fundamentalist of all stripes reject the ideas of the enlightenment. The freedoms of Western civilization are largely opposed by religious fundamentalists. If the political, economic and military positions of the Christian and Muslim fundamentalists were reversed the outcome would likely be very much the same. A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist.

Indeed the events described by Mr. Huff were not directed by the "Christian Church," but that was not his claim. Christian missionaries were often the first wave in Western expansion, bringing the "heathens" to God was often a justification for reprehensible actions and the non-Christian status of native peoples was used as a justification for their displacement, murder and enslavement. I don't think that this can be denied.

john crocker - 8/14/2006

You may prefer to call the extreme left "red fascists," but is it an appropriate analogy? If you feel it is you need to back it up.

Surely you are not under the misapprehension that the Islamist terror groups are ideologically aligned with the left. Again, if this is your contention you need to back it up.

john crocker - 8/14/2006

"the Islamists share much in common with communism as well"

What exactly are these commonalities between the Islamist terror groups and communists?

Tim R. Furnish - 8/14/2006

Mr. Amitz,
But what of my points as to why fascism does NOT fit Islamist ideology?

Yehudi Amitz - 8/14/2006

I prefer to call the present extreme left "red fascists" since we also call the present extreme right "neo fascists". It can be argued that we can call them "neo communists" but I believe would be inappropriate because the old communists were more responsible and used their power in a more restrained way (Hruschev was removed from power when he brought soviet union almost in a nuclear confrontation with USA).
The islamofascist ideology is a combination of neo fascism and red fascism

E. Simon - 8/14/2006

The differences are also that Christendom had undergone a reformation, and an enlightenment. And an age of discovery. And capitalism. And so on.

For all the destruction the jihadis wish, they can offer none of the advantages that Western civilization offered - and, by extension, brought - to today's globalized world, even if the less savory aspects of Christendom were also a part of that package.

Tim R. Furnish - 8/14/2006

Sir,
I'd be curious to know what your data source is for the assertion that the support for jihadists is "not widespread?"
Say only 1% of the world's Muslims support jihadists. That's certainly not "widespread," but it's still 13 million supporters.

michael Randolph stephenson - 8/14/2006

Unfortunately fascism is one of those terms whose meaning has evolved far beyond its original meaning. The article fails to account for a couple of ideas. Fascism is also predicated upon a socialist system. It is far from correct to equate it with communism as one gentlemen does. Communism is anti-religion. Though these jihadists are not truly religious, they are certainly not atheists. There is also a difference between fascism and Nazism ( a more viralent form). In the final analysis Hitler could not have been satisfied with just a state or even a European empire. He had to destroy because that kept him in power. Iran has been an Islamic Republic far longer than Nazi Germany has existed. I suggest a thorough reading of Roger Griffin's book, the Nature of Fascism for a far more detailed explanation of true fascism and nazism. Also Hitler and Mussolini had widespread support for their movements. The support for jihadists is not widespread, a fact that hidden when all we see is the product of terrorism. Quite simply terrorism is gang violence. It is a crime against the world and until we all truly come together, it will continue. A Pakistani jihadist is little different from a Crip or a Blood. They are sold a facade of brotherhood and higher calling, a family and loved ones, and a chance at being great (or at least rich). The gangleader, druglord, or mullah never does the dirty work. That is left to those who are expendable.

Rodney Huff - 8/14/2006

So the difference is one of degree rather than kind.

These ultra right-wing Christian fundamentalists don't have to order followers to fly jet liners into buildings because equivalent orders have already been achieved by previous administrations, as well as by colonialist adventurers, speculators, and missionaries. It was an ideology infused with the Christian spirit of expansion, of spreading the gospel, that justified and supported the conquests of the Americas, which led to the government sanctioned systematic destruction of the resources on which the lifeways of those who lived here before us were based, which led to the Trail of Tears, which justified the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, the colonizing of Africa, the colonization of the South Pacific islands, and all varieties of murder and mayhem - all of which was in part justified by Christian fundamentalism and expansionist rhetoric. Islamic fundamentalists, or jihadists, are merely attempting today what Christian peoples accomplished over the past few hundred years. If one adopts a world-historical perspective, the paralells between Christian and Islamic right-wing thought are glaringly obvious.

Ricardo Luis Rodriguez - 8/14/2006

They killed themselves. They did not kill unsuspecting innocent bystanders.
As far as the other "right wing lunies" who bomb abortion clinics and government buildings, I agree with you, they are evil. But they do not have standing armies, as do Hezbollah, nor do they have the support of nation-states (Iran). Comparing one to the other is like comparing the threat of attack by a half dozen fire ants to a scholl of hungry pirahnas.

Ronald Dale Karr - 8/14/2006

" The fourth problem with “Islamic fascism” is that it insinuates a parallel between right-wing Islamic thought and that of right-wing Christianity, insofar as fascism is seen as an aberrant political articulation of Christianity. Now while it might be trendy in some circles to postulate such a parallel,2 ultimately the comparison breaks down for a number of reasons, chief among which is that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have yet to order their followers to fly jetliners into al-Azhar or the Aya Sofya."

If you think Jerry and Pat are extremists, you aren't that familiar with the real right wing lunies who have encouraged their followers to bomb abortion clinics, kill homosexuals, or blow up government buildings. Or even commit mass suicide (remember Jonestown?).

John Chapman - 8/14/2006

this is more accurate than “Islamofascists”. Good article. But I also noticed Mr. Furnish’s interesting wording. Is it really “merely a methodology”, this administration’s approach to the war on terror, which is to topple and occupy countries? A methodology that now seems overdone the avenging of 3,000 American lives for tens of thousands of our enemy). The point being the comparison to the methodology Britain used last week to stop plans by Muslim terrorists: good police-work. Hopefully this method will be used more often since it’s better than sending armies out to destroy whole countries.

Jason Blake Keuter - 8/14/2006

Islamofascism is an accurate parallel, although I think Islamocommunism might be better given the degree of support Islamists have among intellectuals.

What you describe as characteristic of fascism seems more characteristic of fascism once in power. What you describe as Islamist has strong parallels to fascism ascending to power. It is vindictive; it blames its failures on perfidious minorities and those who work with them within the Islamic world (Muslim US allies =stab in the back); it seeks to "restore" a mythic past of grandeur; its cult of violence is overt (except for western intellectual audiences); and, like fascism, it is threatening existing states and could very well become the ruling party in one of those states (there were fascist parties all over Europe in the interwar years). In other words, the first state to become a radical Islamist state will, like Nazi Germany, lead the charge against democracy.

Last, it has long received tacit and even overt support from Muslim governments who have mistakenly seen it as a manageable counterweight to (from the perspective of those governments, at least) more dangerous radicalism - namely, democrats.

The term of Islamofascism, I think, is being used to undercut tacit approval among left-leaning western intellectuals. As for the historical profession, it is a shame that communism has yet to be held in near equal universal contempt, as the Islamists share much in common with communism as well - not the least of which has been adopting critiques of the west that it learns in the west a la Lenin and Stalin in exile in London. Also, the term Islamocommunism wouldn't be expedient given the existence of communist parties throughout western Europe - many part of governing coalitions that grant to those commmunists ministries in education from where they work to prevent a true reckoning with their ideologies almost completely ignoble past.

For the intellectual, then, totalitarianism is probably the best descriptor; but it lacks the punch that fascism has and doesn't do much to undercut or at least put on the defensive, left-leaning intellectuals who sympathize wih it because they confuse it for some kind of progressive crusade against modernism, or, follishly beleive it to be the lesser of two evils.