Following the recent arrest of al-Qaeda-linked conspirators planning to bomb aircraft over the Atlantic, President Bush reminded Americans that they continue to face a fanatical, determined foe. Speaking in Wisconsin just hours after the plotters' arrest, Bush declared that the West is "at war with Islamic fascists." In case anyone missed the point, a few days later Bush described Islamic radicalism as a "totalitarian ideology" menacing people everywhere.
This comparison between Islamic radicalism and fascism, which some commentators on the Right have trumpeted ever since 9/11, is misguided and ultimately harmful. Because fascism, at least in its most familiar German incarnation, was a genocidal, totalitarian movement, Bushs comparison suggests that Islamic radicalism must, as with the Third Reich, be annihilated militarily.
Not only do many moderate Muslims find the equation offensive, it obscures the novelty of the danger posed by al-Qaeda and breeds complacency about our ability to win the "war on terror." Al-Qaedas ideology and methods are not those of fascism, and this new struggle will have little in common with that of World War II.
There is no question that al-Qaeda, and Islamic radicalism more generally, spring from the same sources of resentment and humiliation as the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s. In both cases, the replacement of an old order with instability and foreign domination, whether exerted by French troops in the Rhineland in 1923 or more recently, American support for corrupt Arab autocracies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have created a wave of xenophobia and longing for an idealized, if mythical, past.
Like European fascists, al-Qaeda extols militarism, coupled with a rejection of Enlightenment rationalism. Both emphasize the community, whether the global Islamic "umma" or the German "volk," which must be regenerated through the purging of alien elements. Al-Qaeda also espouses radical antisemitism, which it shares with most, though not all, European fascists.
Al-Qaedas use of religion as an inspiration for violence and intolerance also has precedents. World War II-era fascist regimes in Croatia, Slovakia and Romania all justified their genocidal actions on the basis of establishing religious purity. The Slovak fascist leader, Jozef Tiso, was even a Catholic priest.
Yet if the ideologies of fascism and Islamic radicalism share similarities, the political and military approaches of the two movements differ sharply, and these differences render Bush's comparison meaningless in the realm of strategy. For example, Al-Qaeda is not a mass movement akin to Mussolinis Blackshirts. Instead it is a small, conspiratorial organization whose influence flows more from its ability to inspire small numbers of fanatical followers with its mastery of modern communication technology than from its ability to become a mass movement or a force in electoral politics.
Even the nature of al-Qaeda's violence is different. Al-Qaeda mostly targets foreign enemies (the West) rather than "enemies" --whether Jews, socialists, or Serbs -- within fascist-ruled states or occupied territory. Most important, European fascists all glorified the state and sought to seize state power for themselves. Al-Qaeda rejects the legitimacy of existing states in the Muslim world, which were largely created by European colonialists.
Applying the template of fascism to al-Qaeda does more to obscure than to clarify the current situation. Fascism in Europe was destroyed when the states it ruled were occupied and their governments replaced. Al-Qaeda is not a government, and it is unlikely to ever rule a state. The United States and its allies have already occupied the one state ever to come under direct al-Qaeda control, Afghanistan, without eradicating the threat. The occupation of Iraq, modeled on that of post-1945 West Germany, has been an even bigger failure.
Al-Qaeda will continue to remain in the shadows, and the struggle against it will involve spies, diplomats and police more than soldiers. Conflating the threat of al-Qaeda with fascism makes for good political rhetoric, but it represents a failure of imagination, a failure to recognize the novel nature of this new threat.
This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.
Far-sighted distortion
It is deliberate neocon propagandist strategy to justify the so-called preemptive wars against sovereign
Muslim states, the ones who are <not
with us> (as GWB ones mentioned), by
putting the equality sign between radical group mentality and criminal choice of means of a struggle and the openly declared and persistently followed racist state ideology pursuing the ultimate goal of world dominancy by Arian race and, led by that very goal, attacking foreign countries to occupy, control them, often planning to turn their entire populations into slaves of the "higher race".
Not bad for a grad
But, in his post above, Mr. Shcherban is also on to something. This Cheney-Rove mislabelling is not just a misreading; it is also a deliberate part of a larger agenda.
Shcherban would turn Bush on his juvenile-rhetoric head, by categorizing him as a neo-con and neo-cons themselves as fundamentally fascist. I would suggest that this too, is overly simplistic. Bush does not inspire thousands of worshipful followers at huge rallies with his impassioned speeches. There is no talk of a "thousand year" Bush empire. No one raises their arm in a "Heil Dubya" salute. Bush hasn't the slightest idea what a national network of public transportation might look like, let alone get the "the trains running on time."
The labelling of Al Qaeda as fascist does have a neo-con warmongering element. We heard a similar kind of crap from the Cheney administration right after 9-11 as well. But, soon after the Iraq invasion, they varied their tune. Now that mislabelling has resurfaced. In 2003-2004 there was a need to pretend that a great victory was being achieved in the "war" against Saddam bin Hussein (in order to cover up the bogus reasons for that bogus, blunder-ridden and unplanned fake-imperialism). In 2001 and now again in 2006 there was and is a need to fearmonger in order to cover up the crass, pathological, incessant, and value-less ineptitude that has been the lasting hallmark of the Cheney admin.'s foreign "policy" and has resulted in serial disaster for the American people, America's national security, and democratic human rights around world. The consistency throughout looks to be an all-politics orientation by which the lack of a coherent and credible Democratic (=wimp) alternative approach is used to obscure the lack of a coherent and credible Republican (=hypocrite) approach. Using whatever BS sound bites and raping of history happen to be convenient at the moment.
Re: Not bad for a grad
Re: Not bad for a grad
Re: Not bad for a grad
Islamic Fascists vs. al Qa'ida Fascists
The reality is that the number of violent Jihadists is unknown. And the number of supporters of violent Jihadists is unknown. And, the number of people who share the end goal, but not the means, of the Jihadists is unknown.
We should stop pretending otherwise.
As for the comment that al Qa'ida is not a fascist movement plays a bit loose with the evidence, in my view. Fascism was not always the movement of particular governments. At some point, it did not control states. Yet, it was a dangerous movement - as the historical record shows - that, in time, came to control states.
As for coming to control states, we know that the Jihadist movement came to control not only Afghanistan, as the article suggests. The movement also controls much of the PA, controlled Sudan and is now making inroads toward controlling Somalia. And, while not Sunni movements or states, there is a pretty good case to be made that Iran is Jihadist and, it should be added, serious inroads are being made in the Hezbollah ruled portions of Lebanon.
So, I think that a good case can be made that Jihadism is making serious inroads at governance in the Muslim regions.
Now, I think - and believe Professor Furnish has made an excellent case in his article last week - that the Jihadist movement is not really fascist, although there are elements clearly in common, as the current article also indicates. So, I agree with that part of the article but am not quite sure that its reasoning is so good.
Re: Not bad for a grad
and actions, perhaps, based on those
conclusions, not by what he's reading.
So, if you Mr. Spense are really serious, as you stated, then ... well,
I'll refrain from offending your intellectual capacity for now.
Re: Not bad for a grad
It looks like you didn't taste the juice of my last comment at all.
I did not make any attempt to compare Bush administration or the ideological constructions it builds
the policies on with respective ones of the Nazis.
You perhaps misread what I typed or
was misled by poor construction of
some of my sentences.
But you did grab the main point made by me correctly: Cheney-Dubya's and neocon's propaganda's labeling Islamic terrorism as 'fascist' is not coincidental or inaccurate rhetoric, but part of systemic manipulation of US public opinion to justify the preemptive war (essentially - agression) strategy.
Re: Not bad for a grad
neocon's religiously mythical terminology) evil with low IQ.
Not all evil personas are exactly geniuses, you know.
May be dumb, but right (no pun intended) was also one of the intentionally created by neocons GWB's electorial images to make him
likable for common, less educated Americans.
And saying it isn’t doesn’t mean it’s not…..
Thank you Mr. Mankoff for your thoughtful article. With the precision of a well-trained historian, you insightfully point out some key differences between Al-Qa’ida and the Third Reich, and I concur with your view that this “new struggle will have little in common with that of World War II.”
I am not a trained historian, so I will leave the ultimate question (and debate) of whether Al-Qa’ida’s ideology could be properly regarded as “fascist” to those better informed than I . In his recent book, The Anatomy of Fascism, historian Robert Paxton uses the following definition: "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion" (p. 218).
Using the general contours of this definition, I certainly see some ways in which a global militant jihadist ideology might fit the bill, but perhaps that misses the point. I don’t know that it is necessarily true that the “comparison suggests that Islamic radicalism must, as with the Third Reich, be annihilated militarily” - or at least only or primarily militarily. Stephen Biddle of the US Army War College, with remarkable foresight in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, said: “Our real opponent is the ideology that underpins al-Qaeda’s terrorist program—it is not terrorism per se, nor even al-Qaeda itself.” He also remarks, as others have, that “this war {on terrorism} can be won, not merely contained. But this will require war aims focused on our enemies’ ideology, not their tactics.” Even if Al-Qa’ida is destroyed, that ideology will be its legacy. That ideology should reasonably be the focus of our long-term counterterrorism efforts.
In 2004, President Bush declared that: “We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.” Whether or not it can be characterized as fascist, it is a hateful, intolerant, anti-democratic ideology that is totalitarian, at least in the sense that, it seeks to control all domains of life and behavior.
Re: Not bad for a grad
Re: Islamic Fascists vs. al Qa'ida Fascists
European Fascist parties were generally surprisingly weak. In every case where they came to power through their own efforts (Italy, Germany and, briefly, Romania) they did so with the complicity of domestic conservatives. (In Croatia, Slovakia and Hungary, they were installed through German intervention).
For various reasons, I'm not sure I buy much of the "Islamofascism" argument (I find the movements too different in ideological and social terms. If nothing else, Islam is a universalist creed while Fascism in all its incarnations was strongly nationalist.) But the question of whether or not radicalism in the contemporary mideast is comparatively *stronger* (and state structures comparatively weaker than in 1920s-30s Europe) is a very pertinant one, I think.
Re: Not bad
I get it now.
Worse than Fascism
Fascism has become a pejorative that means many things to many people. Most agree it is an ultranational political force that manifests in repression and expansion. Radical Islam is all that and more.
Mr. Mankoff spends most of his essay showing similarities and produces rather easily overcome distinctions:
First, he calls al Qaeda, "a small, conspiratorial organization whose influence flows more from its ability to inspire small numbers of fanatical followers with its mastery of modern communication technology than from its ability to become a mass movement or a force in electoral politics."
This is sophistry. Al Qaeda is a group of like-minded fanatics who are expanding where they are allowed and allying with groups like Hamas, the Taliban, Hezb'Allah, etc. to reach a common goal of world domination. This is clear from their espousal of the Caliphate, the 12th Imam legend and their stated intent to destroy all who do not believe.
Muslim radicalism is everywhere similar. Look at Darfur, Somalia, Iran, Iraq and Afganistan. Killing innocents is customary and there's no treating with them, only submission.
Second, Mankoff writes "the nature of al-Qaeda's violence...targets foreign enemies." That is not true in Darfur, not true in Afganistan and not true any where else strict Sharia takes control. First they target domestic enemies as did Hitler and Stalin.
Lastly Mankoff writes how, "European fascists all glorified the state and sought to seize state power for themselves." True. But conveniently he forgets the Islamic Radical goal of a grand Caliphate replacing all other countries.
Greater Germany in spades; USSR worldwide and a new Roman Empire in all continents. Worse than Fascism, these radicals demand we submit or die. They will accept nothing less. Fascism does not encompass this evil.
We must invent another word.
Bill Heuisler
TiVo HNN
1.) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2.) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3.) Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Wasn't this subject beat to death last week? Replace Moslem with al Qaeda to eat up the same amount of bandwidth as Professor Furnish' effort. At least Mr. Mankoff isn't wasting space pushing a book. HNN must be hurting for quality researched articles what with school soon starting and the last days of beach bumming coming to a quick close. If President Bush didn't plant the seed in the feeble minds of journalists/scholars with this purely propaganda/emotionally charged term to fire up the remaining moribund base who still believes this 'War on Terror' corker this subject would be a pass thru.
First, the liquid/gel bomber scare was a total hoax. Enough said.
Secondly, Al Qaeda is a stateless entity so how does fascism serve their purposes? It is not a economic nor societal or religious entity and is certainly not centralized. Al Qaeda is strictly a fraternal military organization. This should not even be a subject for discussion in the local bridge circle let alone a site for scholarship.
If HNN is looking for 'fascism in action' look no further than our very own Bush/Cheney Administration and the Republican Party it fronts. You are what you eat and the Elephants meet all the criteria of fascism in the new world odor of corporate/government dictatorship in 2006 Amerika.
A few weeks ago a poster wrote a two word response under the 'Bush On Vacation' essay that include this dreaded 'F' word coupled with a three letter word for swine and the post was removed. Censorship and fascism, like hand in glove, warm/tight fitting and at home right here.
Re: Islamic Fascists vs. al Qa'ida Fascists
You make some interesting points. I am definitely not an expert on Fascism.
As for Islam, there is some evidence of Western influence on thought in the Muslim Arab regions. For example, the Baathist movement was clearly influenced by the Fascists. It is said that Sayyid Qutb was influenced by Western thought also although the alleged connections seem, from what I can tell, to have less to them than meets the eye. Then again, no one is an island.
My gut reaction is that we are dealing with an Islamic revival, not an outbreak of fascism. The form that the revival has taken is one that looks to the first great era of Islamic expansion, the first several hundred years of the faith. Its cause is, in my view, opportunity: a large generation of hungry young, the rise of global communication via the Internet, the appearance of large numbers of Muslims in Western countries, etc., etc. There may be other causes but the above is sufficient to explain most of what is occurring.
"We must invent another word"?
"Fanatical suicidal murderers" would describe the essence of Al Qaeda's hundreds of core members, and the thousands of individuals in similar radical fringe groups, including the latest batch of conspirators rounded up in England. It is not a fair description of one billion Moslems worldwide. It is the fanatical Moslem minority which has by far the most direct interest in making a "clash of civilizations" out of the outrageous crimes of small cliquish groups of highly indoctrinated amoral thugs. The "clash" between "fundamental Islam" and western civilization exists, but it is not the same thing as what happened on 9-11-01, or the later imitations, or what is going on now in Iraq, or Lebanon, or Darfur.
The mislead USA
Islam doesnot need any defence, God will defend Islam against 21st century draculas.
Re: The mislead USA
Isn't anyone here concerned about the disgracefully low intellectual level that people claiming to be Muslims have exhibited on this forum in the past three weeks? What are we to make of it? Is this yet another "plot against Islam", or are we dealing with real but incredibly ignorant and ideologically blinded people? Hard to tell.
art eckstein
Re: The mislead USA
We have no evidence that the people posting here as Muslims, i.e., with "Muslim" names, are actual Muslims. And the intellectual level of their postings is so disgracefully low that it is hard to believe they are. I certainly hope they are not. But...if they are (which I have serious doubts about)...wouldn't that raise very serious questions?
art eckstein
art Eckstein
Re: "We must invent another word"?
You are being unfair to Bill. And, as I said in my post above, the number of people who are part of al Qa'ida itself is unknown. The number of people who are rather supportive of al Qa'ida is unknown. The number of people who, while not liking the violence espoused by groups such as al Qa'ida, believe in such groups' long term goals is unknown.
What is known is that while groups like al Qa'ida have been challenged by "moderates" at least to some extent, challenges have not been much on theological or moral grounds. And the reason that such is the case is quite probably that groups like al Qa'ida are not, intellectually speaking, entirely outside of the mainstream of what is considered traditional Islam.
That is not to say that a traditional Muslim might not have a theological objection to al Qa'ida but, rather, that such objection is not so profound as you and I might like it to be. In this regard: I remind you that the call to da'wa is a traditional and profound one in Islam and the use of Jihad to advance the cause is also traditional and profound one in Islam as well. And, historically, there has been quite a lot of small groups engaged in Jihadic activity - usually termed razzias and, sometimes, ghazwa.
Now, after 9/11, Walid Phares - whom you berate but who, to anyone who has taken his classes or read him, is really a close watcher of the debate among Muslims in the Muslim regions - reports that there were substantial debates broadcast on al Jazeera TV. According to Phares, not one of the debates included a single panelist or even questioner who objected to the attack as being wrong or unIslamic. Instead, these debates - which apparently were frequent and rather far reaching in the wake of 9/11 - focused on practical issues, such as whether it was really good tactics to blow up buildings in the US, whether it was the right timing then or whether, as a practical matter, violence was necessary to push the cause. As he says in his recent book, no one - as in not a single person on any of these TV shows - argued or even doubted the justice of the attacks or the propriety of the attacks in the Islamic scheme of things or in the general moral scheme of things.
Assuming that Phares is correct, the idea that the groups which share the aims - if not the methods of - al Qa'ida cannot be small. In fact, even if he overlooked mention by someone as to the morality or Islamic appropriateness of the attacks, the groups which share the aims must be very large and there must be widespread support as to the long term goals. So, I am rather doubtful that we really are dealing with a tiny group, even if al Qa'ida itself only has a few hundred inner circle members and a few thousand other members.
Jihadist Islam and the (US)neocon-imperialist/Zionist alliance.
For the second time, in a million, I find myself in Agreement with a sentence made by Mr. Friedman but not necessarily with Mr. Friedman.
As has been amply demonstrated in the [posts of the more knowledgeable posters any presumed relationship between Islam and fascism is superficial and could easily be "found" with many doctrines/movements if the searcher is hell bent on finding it irrespective of the proof to the contrary.
A much more solid mental/psychological-ideological relationship could be discerned and established between fascism and Zionism with the unabashed racist pretensions of both; the " chosen people" and " Aryan superiority" complexes and their manifestly racist political, and "legal /legislative", practices derived there from and based thereon.
However Mr Friedman is substantially correct when he describes what is going on in the Moslem world as a "revival" movement in the sense of the great numbers voluntarily adhering to, as distinct from inheriting, the Moslem faith, observing its dictates and choosing its precepts as their only guide to behavior and action.
The revival movement is Islam wide and its ever expanding reach is demonstrated where ever elections are held with a modicum of freedom.
Its resounding success in the (Israeli) occupied territories, besides being part of that phenomenon, is the inevitable, though overdue, response to the religious content of the Zionist movement and its presumed divinely granted privileges and prerogatives bestowed on the "chosen people".
With the patent failure of the secular, progressive Arab movements (Nasserism, Baathism etc) to stem and reverse the Zionist onslaught on Palestine and surroundings the true, “divinely inspired and guided”, nemesis of Zionism, Jihadist Islam, inevitably took charge of the confrontation at the most active battlefronts with Hamas in Palestine , Hizb Allah in Lebanon and Al Qaeda ,world wide, to battle the world wide no less "divinely inspired" (US)neocon-imperialist/Zionist alliance.
Re: The mislead USA
Sorry, I forgot that only jews are the intelectuals of this world while all others including christians and muslims are 2nd class people who are ignorant and should not express their views or they will be insulted. Thank you
Re: The mislead USA
I do not know about Mr. Halabi, but Omar is the real thing, in the sense that he is Arab and, quite clearly, of Muslim background. I take his view as rather typical of those of Muslims in the Middle East.
Note, also, that he believes that we are dealing with a revival of Islam, not a neo-fascist movement. See http://hnn.us/comments/96076.html . I, for one, think that he is entirely correct.
If this is a religious revival, we are dealing with a phenomena likely to be far longer lasting and more difficult to overcome, as an active force to contend with, than was fascism. There is, as it were, no way to tell people that what they do in the name of their faith is wrong-headed. And, since Jihad is a rather central element of Islam, it is rather difficult to tell Muslims that Jihad is wrong and immoral when, in the Islamic scheme, it is just and enjoined by Allah.
As for the traditional view of Islam, I quote, as I have numerous times before, a passage co-written by the greatest, by far, Islamicist of his time, Ignaz Goldhizer - and he was no enemy of Islam but, if anything, a man who saw it his life mission to present Islam in a positive light - in order to explain the Islamic world mission:
In addition to the religious duties imposed upon each individual professing Islam, the collective duty of the "jihad" (= "fighting against infidels") is imposed on the community, as represented by the commander of the faithful. Mohammed claimed for his religion that it was to be the common property of all mankind, just as he himself, who at first appeared as a prophet of the Arabs, ended by proclaiming himself the prophet of a universal religion, the messenger of God to all humanity, or, as tradition has it, "ila al-aḥmar wal-aswad" (to the red and the black). For this reason unbelief must be fought with the force of weapons, in order that "God's word may be raised to the highest place." Through the refusal to accept Islam, idolaters have forfeited their lives. Those "who possess Scriptures" ("ahl al-kitab"), in which category are included Jews, Christians, Magians, and Sabians, may be tolerated on their paying tribute ("jizyah") and recognizing the political supremacy of Islam (sura ix. 29). The state law of Islam has accordingly divided the world into two categories: the territory of Islam ("dar al-Islam") and the territory of war. ("dar al-ḥarb"), i.e., territory against which it is the duty of the commander of the faithful ("amir al-mu'minin") to lead the community in the jihad.
It is important to understand that Jihad is, in fact, a potent issue for those who really believe in Islam. And it is important to understand that Jihad, by small groups, is an issue of debate by Islam.
Note that Goldhizer presents the classical Sunni view that Jihad is the collective - rather than an individual - endeavor. Not to challenge Goldhizer's view, which is clearly correct in theory, but it is important also to note, with today's problems in mind, the existing history in which small groups engaged in non-officially sanctioned Jihad through most of Islam's history. In this regard, there is precedent in the early razzias of the Prophet and his companions. There is well documented precendent in the razzias conducted during most of the history of the religion thereafter. So, what is going on today not only has precedent but that precedent is within not outside of what is arguable, based on what occurred from the very earliest days of the faith.
Re: The mislead USA
It would help if you read the comment to which you responded. Professor Eckstein wondered whether you were really Muslim, as your parting words (i.e. "God will defend Islam against 21st century draculas") suggest, or whether you are a person seeking to give Islam a bad name.
That is a fair question as, in fact, the tenor of your comments (e.g. http://hnn.us/comments/96057.html ) appear to deny the humanity of those who have a dispute with certain Muslims.
Surely, true Muslims should understand that the issue in the Arab Israeli dispute is how to accomodate competing legitimate claims - that of Israeli Jews and that of Christian and Muslim Arabs - on a small tract of land. So, the professor finds it difficult to imagine that you really believe in Islam.
He was not attempting to create a network where Jewish people can debate. He was concerned that someone was posing as a Muslim and, given the tenor of your comment, bad mouthing Muslims by attacking Israel.
Re: Jihadist Islam and the (US)neocon-imperialist/Zionist allian
The racialist thinking of the Nazis was a factor apart, however. While I'm sure that there's racism in Israel (as there's racism everywhere), I'm not sure how the ethnic diversity resulting from the Jewish Diasporah would *allow* for a Nazi-style racial categorization. I'm sure a few loonies have tried, but there's loonies everywhere.
I suspect we're far into the territory of Godwin's Law, I fear. Though indeed, your point on radicalism's appeal when other forms of secular politics have apparently failed is a good one. If we continue the original parallel to Fascism, the problem that radicalism might face is whether or not it can promise long-term "constructive" growth. (Fascism certainly failed to deliver on either its promise of revolution or of growth, but this was in a different context so it's not necessarily prescriptive.)
"we must" recognize the dangers of both radical Islam
Political Dissent and Historical Descent
Radical fringe vs mainstream
Friedman is trying to make Al Qaeda seem representative of Moslems as a whole. As if "the number" of Americans who are neo-cons "is unknown," and "not a single" article writer on on David Horowitz's website ever "objected to the" bungled occupation of Iraq "as being wrong or unAmerican" therefore "the groups of Americans which share the aims - if not the methods of the Project for a New American Century cannot be small."
I am rather tired of having to repeatedly preemptively torpedo missattribution, but note well that I am NOT SAYING in ANY way that the actions of Horowitz or PNAC are as immoral as those of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is far worse, and don't you dare claim that I ever so much as implied otherwise.
Now I think you knew all of that before you made your post. So, if YOU "don't mind" please try harder to make your reply honest, fair, and free of nitpicking fishing expeditions.
An honest reply
Thank you for the first sentence; it clarifies all for which I ask, and NO, I did not know that this was your position.
As far as what you say that Friedman is "trying to" do, or what you think that I knew before I made my post, I think that such speculation is, frankly, what drives missattribution. The statement of what you thought I knew was certainly not an accurate representation of what I did or did not know. And if none of us speculate into the motives of others, but rather do our utmost to clarify positions that we shouldn't guess are as clear as they are to ourselves, then it seems many less of us would feel any need to preemptively torpedo misattribution, as this would be less likely to occur.
Thanks!
Re: The mislead USA
Dear Dr. Friedman,
Of course it would have been better if a Muslim (or someone claiming to be a Muslim) had explained all this and thus had begun a real conversation about the crisis of modernization within Islam. Even as it is, you provide much food for thought. I believe that Goldhizer was actually an intellectual influence on that inspirier of terrorists and neo-traditional primitives Sayyed Qutb.
But I remain to be convinced that "Omar Baker", intellectually illiterate but ineffably stubborn and impervious-to-specific-evidence, is an actual Muslim. Mr. Halabi, if he is indeed a Muslim (which I hope he is not, but just a trickster), represents the most primitive and hate-filled and historically ignorant of "Jewish conspiracy" theories. If both these guys are actual Muslims, however, and this is the way they actually think (I mean not merely in ignorance of facts but in triumphant hatred and rejection of rational argument to boot), and they represent a significant portion of the Muslim population, then--as I said--this represents a serious problem which has reared its head on HNN for all of us who are actually civilized to consider.
I seriously hope, however, that these are just guys trying to give Islam a bad name.
Art Eckstein
Re: Radical fringe vs mainstream
Do not put words into my mouth. I said what I said, not what you have twisted my words into.
Moreover, I have never supported the Iraq war and am not a devotee of Mr. Horowitz. I have, however, read him and some of what he writes makes sense to me and some does not.
Again: stop twisting my words around. I did not say what you attributed to me.
Re: The mislead USA
While I read everything I can get my hands on about Islam, its theology, practice and history, etc., my doctorate is in law, which I practice. Which means, that I can read many hundreds, but not thousands, of books on my noted area of interest, fitting such things between work and family.
I wonder about your comment on Ignaz Goldhizer. I suspect that he would be mortified if what you say is correct. And, he is certainly one of the best informed scholars about Islamic theology and law that I have ever read. In any event, please explain the connection you see between Qutb and Goldhizer. I do not see it but, of course, we are all here to learn.
Re: The mislead USA
The quote you quote in Italics is enough to show the possible connection of Goldhizer's understanding of jihad to Qutb's thinking. But I may be confusing Goldhizer with someone else (a Jewish convert to radical Islam in the 1920s whose work certainly did influence Qutb), so I won't press this at all. (That is, I may well be wrong on Goldhizer, who certainly was a great scholar of Islam.)
Art Eckstein
Re: The mislead USA
Goldhizer was presenting what is the classical understanding of Islam, as understood by the mass of Muslims over the course of the millennia. This should not, at least in my view, be a controversial matter although I have heard that there are people in universities who make a habit of re-creating the word "jihad."
You've Got The Most Sanctified Johnson In All Louisiana, No Shit
And N.,
For the edification of the unwashed exactly what is the "real thing"?
Heiuslers' Apocalypsis
for the main chapters of 20th century history to disappear from peoples' minds.
They say that "we", i.e. Western civilization, has never faced
such a global and terrible threat as
the one coming from Islamic terrorism/fascism.
As it has become traditional for those
folks they are lying again.
According to essentially the same singers in this choir of ideological terrorists (they do murder the Truth all the time) Western civilization has already faced the threat that (if
one took their contructions for a face value at the time) was, by all means, more global, capable and lethal: the Reds - inside and outside.
Moreover, since apparently their imagination for trumping up a fresh lie failed them miserably, the
the same obsolete terms are employed for their meta-religious rhetoric with
which they try to line up one group of
religious fanatics(evangelical Christians) against the other (Islamic
fanatics). The terms like: "Axis of Evil" - obvious reference to Soviet Evil Empire (the invention of
the Father of neoconism - Ronald Reigan) along with the catching phrases like "Russians are coming" were meant exclusively to scare the life out of the US common folks, having, at the same time, nothing to do with military, political, and strategic reality.
The fascist Axis was really a global
and deadly threat, but the relative economic, technological and military capacities of even all Arab nations taken together cannot be marginally compared to respective capacities of
the Western civilization, in
striking difference with the relative
capacities of countries of fascist
Axis to their respective adversaries
at the start of their wars of agression and territorial conquest.
The probability of Iran or Syria or entire Arab League military attacking major Western countries, like UK and US, is as big, as the probability
of GWB typing Kamu's "Stranger" from memory without making a single error
from the first attempt.
The real end of so-called War on Terror will come when the West stop
its greedy attempts on the mineral and human resourses of other sovereign nations and the policies
of economic, financial and military
dictate, the policies of inhumane sanctions, insulting ultimatums, and
military agression and start paying
elementary respect not to Muslim elite, but to Muslim populus majority
around the world, as well, as to the majorities in the other countries, including their own.
Not coincidentally and quite symbollically that GWB openly and shameleslly called captains of Big Business, not the US majority, his political and social "base".
understand through the harsh lessons
of prolonged political defeat
Re: You've Got The Most Sanctified Johnson In All Louisiana, No
I was merely indicating that Omar appears to be what he claims. The context was Professor Eckstein's claim that certain posters, such as Omar, might be phoneys.
Re: Radical fringe vs mainstream
Re: Heiuslers' Apocalypsis
its greedy attempts on the mineral and human resourses of other sovereign nations and the policies
of economic, financial and military
dictate, the policies of inhumane sanctions, insulting ultimatums, and
military agression and start paying
elementary respect not to Muslim elite, but to Muslim populus majority
around the world, as well, as to the majorities in the other countries, including their own."
Know the truth and the truth shall make you free.
Thank you Mr Arnold Shcherban for a rational, easy to understand and comprehensive formulation of what is really at the bottom of this sad situation.
Those that fail to understand this elementary diagnosis are truly hopeless .
Re: Radical fringe vs mainstream
The problem, then, is that you did not understand what I wrote. I did not say or imply all or most. I said a large group of people must be rather supportive of the Jihadist movement. You, by contrast, made an idiotic analogy.
mangling history and language
(here: Re: "We must invent another word"? (#96074) by N. Friedman on August 22, 2006 at 11:40 AM:
"the groups which share the aims must be very large and there must be widespread support" )
and also said "The number of people who are rather supportive of al Qa'ida is unknown. The number of people who, while not liking the violence espoused by groups such as al Qa'ida, believe in such groups' long term goals is unknown."
When you talk out of all sides of your mouth like that, with scarcely a clue as to an awareness of the concept of relative magnitudes, you cannot fault readers of your mumbo jumbo for choosing what seems to be the most plausible interpretation thereof. If you want to be more precise after the fact, that is fine, but it does not follow that therefore those trying to decipher your vagueness are making
"idiotic analogies."
Your basic problem here, as on many prior pages, seems to be that you cannot let go of the obsessive phobia that Islam itself is the main reason for all great threats and challenges in the Mideast and globally. That is a mindset ready-made for BS propoganda lines such as "Islamic facists".
Re: Jihadist Islam and the (US)neocon-imperialist/Zionist allian
In assessing the intellectual value of anything that the Islamofascist propagandist Omar Baker says, including accusations of the most primitive type against Israeli society, I urge all readers to look back at his entries on Islam and fascism over the past two weeks, There you will discover that this is a person who vociferously denied and indeed continues to deny, in the face of overwhelming and specific evidence--dated events and quotes--that Hezbollah is anti-semitic. The evidence includes statements from a Hezbollah spokesman on al-Jazeera tv in November 2003 that the idea that Jews eat Christian babies on Passover is "totally true." That wasn't enough for Omar. That includes the showing on official Hebollah TV, during the HOLIEST month for Muslims (Ramadan) in 2003 of a TWENTY-NINE-episode television show (!!) based on this premise. This, however, was NOT enough to convince Mr. Baker that Hezbollah was anti-semitic. This includes the broadcasting the next year of a show accusing Jews of spreading AIDS. This led to the Hezbollah network being banned from France by a French court as anti-semitic. That wasn't enough to convince Omar Baker either.
This sort of primitive medieval hatred is what Baker means by "the Islamic revival."
.
Draw your own conclusions about the intellectual worth and honesty of this person. Any statements Omar Baker makes that actually happen to be true? Well, folks, it's purely an accident..
Art Eckstein
Re: mangling history and language
This is a factual issue, not an ideological issue. The question is how large a group. The evidence suggests that the group is quite large. But, how large is an open question. And that is what I was saying.
What you are doing, by contrast, is playing games with words. I suspect you are alone in your interpretation of what I said.
Do you, by the way, challenge Professor Phares' point about what occurred on TV stations such as al Jazeera? If not, how do you explain that evidence other than to suggest a large group of people must be, in some way, pro-Jihadist?
The state is the caliphate
As an example the Croatian fascists glorified the Croatian fascist state, which was in existence for a few years duting WWII, and contested the legitimacy of the kingdom of Yougoslavia.
The state is there but, of course, not in the European form of it.
Re: The fanatasy is not a fact
In contrast, major fascist movements of the past sought to take over, and did take over, EXISTING nation-states. Taliban, though it was more like a theocracy than a corporatist-syndicalist-militarist, racially-oriented fascist regime, also ruled a STATE. Al Qaeda, in contrast, is a umbrella grouping of terrorist cells. Its greatest success is in duping many George W. Bush supporters, (whose knowledge of European history tends not to exceed that of the average viewer of "Hogan's Heros") into thinking that it is something like a real country with a real government and a real military, fighting a real war with mass armies seeking territorial annexation for the geographic expansion of an existing sovereign power.
P.S.
Yu are too much of a literalist , i am talking about a caliphate
"fascists for allah" suits you?
P.S.: that's the same kind of extended semantics we always use
In the heat of the conversation we call fascists everything right of the political center and communists everything left of political center and most of us know that it's an exageration.
Islamofascist decribe the islamic extremism maybe 80-90%, that's good enough for me, the rest is an exercise in futility.
extended semantics