Islamofascism ... Bush Is on to Something
When speaking of today's affairs, are historical analogies and allusions helpful? Several commentators think not, at least when it comes to US President George W. Bush's recent references to "Islamofascism." Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson has argued that "the jihadists are pretty much sui generis – they aren't fascists or Nazis and certainly aren't communists." Center for Strategic and International Studies security expert Daniel Benjamin agrees – " The people who are trying to kill us, Sunni jihadist terrorists, are a very, very different breed."
Very different, perhaps, but in what way? Dictionary.com defines analogy as " Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." The key therefore is not that two things can be shown to be different, even very different, but rather that their similarities can be demonstrated to be significant.
Fascism differs from Islamism most obviously in its glorification of the state, its sometimes covert but firm rejection of religion and its preoccupation with racial exclusivity. It is for these reasons that some scholars of Islam have found it more useful to compare Islamism to Marxism-Leninism. Here, too dissimilarities exist – most obviously the Marxist-Leninist radical rejection of religion.
However, where all three can be said to be similar is in their pursuit of a utopian re-ordering of the world; a willingness to use unbridled violence and terror to bring it about; and in anchoring justification for the consequent barbarism in immutable, iron laws. Consequently, all three have claimed to know where history is, or should be, headed and decreed the complete obliteration of all opponents – whether whole classes, peoples or states – as the necessary and beneficent prelude to an epoch of orderliness and justice.
All this is reasonably well known and acknowledged today of fascism and Marxist-Leninism, but was not at the time. An interesting analogy with the 1930s therefore lies in the fact that today, too, it is hard to obtain similar acknowledgment about Islamism.
In a penetrating but largely forgotten analysis of the mainsprings of anti-Semitism entitled The Great Hatred (1940), Maurice Samuel observed that liberals and conservatives in the 1930s commonly failed to see in anti-Semitism anything more than an ordinary bigotry and political manoeuvre issuing from certain local grievances and economic conditions. In fact, anti-Semitism was central to Nazism's assault on the Judeo-Christian values under-girding Western civilization.
Samuel argued that whereas Christianity can be subverted internally or uprooted externally, the Jews stand for better or worse as eternal representatives of that which totalitarians wish to destroy. Thus the extraordinarily lurid Nazi hatred and fantasies about Jews – rife today in much of the Muslim world – that would never obtain a hearing if spoken about any other people. A totalitarian temptation seems built into modern life and thus the anti-Semitism common to such ideologies has always found a certain receptivity even in democratic societies.
The failure to comprehend this was perhaps the most profound factor in blinding the democracies to the demonic quality and implacable belligerence of Nazi Germany. But for this failure, the democracies in their own interest probably would have moved swiftly to deter or defeat the Axis Powers when that course was still relatively easy. They didn't, because they hadn't penetrated to the heart of anti-Semitism and the danger inherent in it for themselves – much like today's pundits, who similarly speak of the Middle East in 1930s terms of "legitimate grievances," "self-determination" ad nauseam.
Putting aside a hundred Islamist sermons and speeches about destroying America and subduing the West, the demonic quality of Islamist anti-Semitism should be therefore an unmistakable warning signal.
When Iran's leadership prepares to arm with nuclear weapons and speaks openly of Israel as its intended target; when Ahmadinejad speaks as Hitler did of destroying Jews collectively; when his Lebanese satrap, Hassan Nasrallah, observes that "If [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide", and when Hamas dedicates itself in its Charter to the elimination of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7), something more incisive and discerning is required than fastidious differentiation between ideologies.
Affirming that Islamists are totalitarian while discounting all past manifestations of totalitarianism as irrelevant empties the term 'totalitarian' of any meaning that can inform readers of the danger and significance of Islamism.
Accordingly, for all its obvious shortcomings, Bush's reference to "Islamofascism" has merit. For reasons that are indeed similar to those of the 1930s, peace has proved elusive, conflict is brewing and the only question is if the democracies will again allow themselves to be gulled into sleep on the eve of a supreme test.
Ron Briley: Must We Put Up with Munich Analogies Yet Again? Martin Kramer: Islamism and Fascism ... Dare to Compare
Very different, perhaps, but in what way? Dictionary.com defines analogy as " Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." The key therefore is not that two things can be shown to be different, even very different, but rather that their similarities can be demonstrated to be significant.
Fascism differs from Islamism most obviously in its glorification of the state, its sometimes covert but firm rejection of religion and its preoccupation with racial exclusivity. It is for these reasons that some scholars of Islam have found it more useful to compare Islamism to Marxism-Leninism. Here, too dissimilarities exist – most obviously the Marxist-Leninist radical rejection of religion.
However, where all three can be said to be similar is in their pursuit of a utopian re-ordering of the world; a willingness to use unbridled violence and terror to bring it about; and in anchoring justification for the consequent barbarism in immutable, iron laws. Consequently, all three have claimed to know where history is, or should be, headed and decreed the complete obliteration of all opponents – whether whole classes, peoples or states – as the necessary and beneficent prelude to an epoch of orderliness and justice.
All this is reasonably well known and acknowledged today of fascism and Marxist-Leninism, but was not at the time. An interesting analogy with the 1930s therefore lies in the fact that today, too, it is hard to obtain similar acknowledgment about Islamism.
In a penetrating but largely forgotten analysis of the mainsprings of anti-Semitism entitled The Great Hatred (1940), Maurice Samuel observed that liberals and conservatives in the 1930s commonly failed to see in anti-Semitism anything more than an ordinary bigotry and political manoeuvre issuing from certain local grievances and economic conditions. In fact, anti-Semitism was central to Nazism's assault on the Judeo-Christian values under-girding Western civilization.
Samuel argued that whereas Christianity can be subverted internally or uprooted externally, the Jews stand for better or worse as eternal representatives of that which totalitarians wish to destroy. Thus the extraordinarily lurid Nazi hatred and fantasies about Jews – rife today in much of the Muslim world – that would never obtain a hearing if spoken about any other people. A totalitarian temptation seems built into modern life and thus the anti-Semitism common to such ideologies has always found a certain receptivity even in democratic societies.
The failure to comprehend this was perhaps the most profound factor in blinding the democracies to the demonic quality and implacable belligerence of Nazi Germany. But for this failure, the democracies in their own interest probably would have moved swiftly to deter or defeat the Axis Powers when that course was still relatively easy. They didn't, because they hadn't penetrated to the heart of anti-Semitism and the danger inherent in it for themselves – much like today's pundits, who similarly speak of the Middle East in 1930s terms of "legitimate grievances," "self-determination" ad nauseam.
Putting aside a hundred Islamist sermons and speeches about destroying America and subduing the West, the demonic quality of Islamist anti-Semitism should be therefore an unmistakable warning signal.
When Iran's leadership prepares to arm with nuclear weapons and speaks openly of Israel as its intended target; when Ahmadinejad speaks as Hitler did of destroying Jews collectively; when his Lebanese satrap, Hassan Nasrallah, observes that "If [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide", and when Hamas dedicates itself in its Charter to the elimination of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7), something more incisive and discerning is required than fastidious differentiation between ideologies.
Affirming that Islamists are totalitarian while discounting all past manifestations of totalitarianism as irrelevant empties the term 'totalitarian' of any meaning that can inform readers of the danger and significance of Islamism.
Accordingly, for all its obvious shortcomings, Bush's reference to "Islamofascism" has merit. For reasons that are indeed similar to those of the 1930s, peace has proved elusive, conflict is brewing and the only question is if the democracies will again allow themselves to be gulled into sleep on the eve of a supreme test.
Related Links