[Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.]

With much fanfare, a collection of far-right ideologues backed by right-wing "think tank" money are proclaiming an "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" on college campuses beginning Oct. 22. It is a calculated effort to vilify Islam in general, place Muslim Student Associations on the defensive, and generate support for further U.S. military action in the Islamic world.

Muslims constitute about a quarter of the world's population and around two percent of the U.S. population. They include members of many ethnic groups. Arabs are a minority in the Muslim world; the most populous Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh) are non-Arab. The Muslim world is complex and divided, religiously (into Sunni, Shiite, and other groups) and politically. There are Muslim absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies, secular states and Islamic republics. To understand this world, one needs to dispassionately examine it, avoiding stereotypes.

But immediately after 9-11, the Bush administration, having no patience with "nuance," set about trying to link the secular republic of Iraq with the (mostly Saudi) al-Qaeda religious fanatics. It believe that having been attacked by al-Qaeda most Americans would support an attack on the completely unrelated target of Iraq. But what did al-Qaeda and Iraq have in common? The former hated the latter for its suppression of Islamic religious activism, and its tolerance for Christians and other religious minorities. But somehow Bush was able to conflate the two, so that even today about a third of Americans believe Saddam was involved in 9-11. Those on the Christian right are most inclined to this view, and to embrace sentiments like those expressed by right-wing extremist Ann Coulter in National Review Sept. 13, 2001: "We should invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." But they're joined by secular neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz who has called on Bush to bomb Iran, which he calls "the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology."

Iran is another country with no ties to 9-11 or al-Qaeda, and indeed a mortal enemy of the latter. But it is another Muslim state in the Bush administration's crosshairs, along with Syria-yet another, very different, Muslim country. It's in this context, and that of general disillusionment with the Iraq War, that the radical neoconservatives are pushing this "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week." It's the brainchild of David Horowitz, professional "former leftist" and Fox News commentator, proponent of the Iraq War who called one antiwar demonstration in 2002 "100,000 Communists," and author of a book attacking college professors as "far left" in general. He founded (as a non-student in his 60s) "Students for Academic Freedom" which insists that conservative students are treated unfairly in academe. Horowitz is known for his 1990s ads in student newspapers protesting calls for reparations for slavery, stating that African-Americans should be thankful that they're here. In 2003 he maligned Rachel Corrie, killed by an Israeli military bulldozer while protesting a house demolition in Gaza, as a "terrorist" supporter. He is not about spreading "awareness" but selectively focusing on aspects of the Muslim world that might produce sympathy for more U.S.-sponsored "regime change."

The "Islam-Fascism Awareness Week" strategy is apparently to focus on gender inequality in the Muslim world. Participating students invite women's groups and gaylesbian groups to get involved, hoping to build a united front of general indignation at Islamic oppression of women and gays. Of course, in the Muslim world the status of women varies; under Saddam's secular Iraqi women were subject to no dress code, were among the best educated in the Arab world, and served in government, while under U.S. occupation their status (and that of gays) has plummeted. There is a big difference between the status of women in Syria and in Saudi Arabia. Recall how Laura Bush made a big deal about the burqa in Afghanistan, implying that the U.S. invasion would somehow remove it? It's still worn by the great majority of Afghan women. It was not invented by the Taliban and has not disappeared just because the U.S. has installed a client regime.

The term "Islamofascism" itself---popularized by Eliot Cohen (Condi Rice's deputy), Frank J. Gaffney and other neocon writers for the National Review, and used by President Bush in saber-rattling speeches---is highly problematic. It's defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary as "a controversial term equating some modern Islamic movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century." I teach every year Japanese fascism in the 1930s and 40s. I discuss different definitions of fascism, pointing out how some seem to fit the Japanese case, while others don't, causing some scholars to even reject application of the term. But there is precious little in any mainstream scholarly definition of fascism that applies to the Islamic world in general or even specific countries. What "ideology" links the disparate targets of this administration-the al-Qaeda and Taliban Sunni fanatics, the Baathists of Iraq and Syria, the Shiite mullocracy"guided democracy" of Iran---other than the common denominator of Islam? But you can't in polite company attack Islam in general, so you dub it "Islamofascism."

Those seeking to link contemporary Islam with European fascism emphasize feelings of victimization and dreams of restoring lost glory. But where in the Muslim world is the charismatic leader? Bin Laden? The Baathists and Shiites hate him. Where's the mass-based party? Where's ultranationalism or racism? Islam emphasizes the equality of peoples before God, while the Qur'an explicitly states that righteous Christians and Jews will enter Paradise.

The real intention here is to couple "Islam" with a powerful epithet, devoid of analytical content, conjuring up images of a universally detested past. Bush insists on comparing the constitutionally weak Iranian President Ahmadinejad, leading a country that hasn't attacked another in hundreds of years, with Hitler (as his father compared Saddam to Hitler). Similarly, the proponents of the "Islamofascism" concept want to play upon emotions rather than really spread "awareness." Their historical analogies are absurd, while their planned week is more than an affront to Muslims. It is an insult to everybody's intelligence.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/28/2007

Mr Friedman
I gather from your post that there is now , as expected,a great deal of Jewish thought of a great varaiety and diversity which ranges from, say,Talmudic/ Maimonides to the modernists that you quote!

All new thought , however, being of mundane, as distinct from Divine,origin ( No criticism meant)
reflects the thought of whoever chose to speak for Judaism at that particular point in time!

So it is the thought of Jewish thinkers and their own interpretation of what Judaism stands for at a certain time and NOT of Judaism per se that has changed.

Fair enough and good enough except that who is to decide what does JUDAISM believe in, teaches, advocates, preaches from this great amalgam?
AND what does the majority of JEWS consider, from the great varity of Talmudic/Maimonides thought to the modernists, to be truly the "genuine", "orthodox" Jewish position ?

Are we, the goyim, faced now with several Judaisms? One that did not bother about the punishment of those who kill us and another that really bother.

AS you appreciate the importance of religious thought, religion?, is the manner in which it is interpreted , and applied?, by most of the believers in that religion ?

Where does the majority of Jews stand now re the Talmud/Maimonides and the modernists great divide ??

Should we judge by the policies and practices of Zionism and Israel as our criterion as to where they, the majority of Jews, stand,
then the inevitable conclusion is that the racism, aggressiveness and overall denial of others rights practiced and advocated by both Zionism and Israel certainly make them much closer to the Talmud/Maimonides than anything else you quote.

Shahak demonstrated and unequivocably established the decisive, the formative, relationship between
Talmudic/Maimonides Judaism and its spiritual, modern?, offspring Zionism.

A topic that merits further consideration!

art eckstein - 10/28/2007

TWO THOUSAND years doesn't matter to Omar, N.F.--he's not capable of being educated and has NEVER responded to your scholarly refutation of Shahak, nor to mine, and he prefers this CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR, who is not a historian.

Similarly, Omar chooses to believe that a pamphlet from a lower-level crazed rabbi from 1974 that was immediately suppressed by the IDF high command, is the "real" and "secret" IDF human rights policy (he got THIS from Shahak too), and that ALL the official policy on civilians and ALL the training received by IDF soldiers over the past SIXTY years is mere "public relations." It's not just bad historical methodology--it's just completely nuts.

Here's another example of that IDF policy at work:

Nonie Darwish's father was the Egyptian officer who was the founder of the anti-Israel Fedayeen in Gaza who attacked Israeli civilians in the 1950s. Here is what SHE says about the Israelis who came after her father--and about the unrelenting hate-mongering she experienced among the Arabs and Muslims.

"One night Israel sent commandos to our heavily guarded home, but my father was not home. All the Israeli soldiers found were us, women and children. The Israeli soldiers left us unharmed.
[GET IT, OMAR? FROM AN EYE-WITNESS.]

I attended Gaza elementary schools. It is there that we learned hatred vengeance and retaliation; peace was never an option; but a sign of defeat and weakness. Jews were portrayed as less than human; I was told ‘don’t take candy or fruit from a stranger, it could be a Jew trying to poison you’. They filled our hears with fear of Jews; that made hatred come easy and terrorism acceptable, even honorable.
[GET IT OMAR? FROM AN EYEWITNESS.]

Nonie Darwish is now an American citizen and she sees YOU as the problem, Omar--not Israel.

I suggest you read HER work, not the chemistry prof Shahak.

N. Friedman - 10/28/2007

Omar,

Judaism likely changed more than any other monotheistic religion so that one can speak of pre-Talmudic Judaism, classical Judaism/Medieval Judaism and contemporary Judaism. Over that time - four thousand years or so -, there have been radical changes, with, for example, Reform Jews - a major sect (perhaps the largest or second largest Jewish group in the US) of contemporary Judaism - today not accepting Jewish law at all.

The changes are not cosmetic. The changes are in substance. For example, the notion of the chosen people - a concept that also is accepted (as in the umma) by Muslims but has not, thus far changed for Muslims - has changed dramatically in Judaism. At one time, the concept was as in today's Islam but in Judaism changed to the notion that Jews, as a nation, should be a light among the nations and not the only nation favored by God.

The same is true for the issue of Jews in relation to non-Jews. The penalty for killing a non-Jew was, three thousand years ago, different than for killing a Jew. That changed about 2 thousand years ago - no matter what Shahak the chemist thinks. By contrast, Islam has retained the original Jewish notion that came from Jewish relations with pagans. As you know, in Islam, the murder of a non-Muslim is not supposed to be as severely punished as the murder of a Muslim while in all major branches of Judaism today, the notion that all life is equally sacred to God is held so that the murder of anyone is equally a crime and equally punished applies.

Arnold Shcherban - 10/26/2007

Any religious belief systems have nothing to do with historic facts and logic of the facts.

Whoever kills whoever, if not over
RESPONSIBLE self-defense, commits a crime against humanity.
Any retaliation raids during which civilians are killed, whether they are perpetrated by the individuals, group of individuals, or at the order of state authorities are crimes against humanity.
Even in targeting a murderous criminal, if there is a significant risk of harming innocent people around him or somewhere else, launching a military strike is illegal (according to a well-known international law).
This is what UN and other legal international bodies define, in lay
terms, as state terrorism (in regard
to any country.)

There is no argument (and has never been) about the past and potential horrors brought by recent wave of Islamic terrorism.
The argument is (and always has been) about the outright terrorist activity of some immeasurably more powerful states such as e.g. US and Israel, against the world at large and Arabs, respectively.
If not the right of veto in the UN Security Council that the US used much more frequently than any other member of that international body, including the allegedly so infamous for "NET" (NO) Russians, and the US and Israel's arrogant disregard for this highest international authority, in general (when its decisions don't fit their strategic plans), the world and the Middle East, in particular, would have seen a sharp decline in violence.
And, if the US and Israel's political elite were really committed to the goal of a long-lasting peace in the Middle East (as they claim they always are) that "not the most dangerous conflict in the world" would have been gone many years ago.
Alas, the US, as its current loyal leautenant -the UK - in the past, intentionally creates time-bomb like situations/resolutions to get, even if highly controversial, excuse to interfere in the future, thus holding continious grip on the important strategic regions of the world.

Therefore, I say: there is no chance
for even a remotely fair resolution of the conflict in question for an Arab side, and, therefore, for a long-lasting peace in Middle East, On the contrary, there is a significant chance for a war/strike with nuclear weapons coming from more powerful side.

As far as it concerns Iran, regardless
of what it does, with the exlusion of taking openly pro-US policy stance, and has or has not, it will be attacked by the US or/and Israel very soon.
Its fate has been already decided...
Wait to hear exaulted praises to the courageous US (Israeli) troops who
defeated (through murderous air raids) yet another "mortal" (or, perhaps, immortal?) enemy.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/26/2007

Mr Friedman
You have often responded to what Shahak wrote but have never "addressed It" in the sense of formulating a direct rebutall or negation that belies a certain statement or gives evidence that it was later abrogated by a higher, Jewish, authority.

Many others than Shahak had certainly had a great deal to say .

Everybody seems to have something to say ...so what?

NOT every body who says so , I presume, speaks for Judaism!

Who DOES and who DOES NOT speak for Judaism as an established classical reference and authority determines the validity and representativeness of what he has to say ?

Shahak contends that:
"When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.2"

His allegation?, claim?, contention?, is based on and supported by a major Jewish scholar of undoubted authority , namely :

1/1 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 'Laws on Murderers' 2, 11; Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Goy'.and on
2/2 R. Yo'el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Beyt Josef, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The two rules just mentioned apply even if the Gentile victim is ger toshav, that is a 'resident alien' who has undertaken in front of three Jewish witnesses to keep the 'seven Noahide precepts' (seven biblical laws considered by the Talmud to be addressed to Gentiles).

Now Shahak either misquoted Maimonides,attributed something wrongly , falsely, to Maimonides or Maimonides have been abrogated?, disowned ?,superceded? or Maimonides have been "excommunicated" and is no longer held a spokesperson for Judaism!

That would have been addressing Shahak's claim .
However unless and untill Maimonides is proven to have falsely, wrongfully, interpreted Judaism or shown NOT to speak for Judaism , or to have been disowned and abrogated by a higher Jewish authority , until such a time Shahak contention stands unchallenged as a true and genuine interpretation of Judaism as supported by Maimonides....no less.

Your statement:

"Judaism has changed substantially in the last 3,000 years. In fact, the changes are very great"

intrigues me!

How deep, how far, does "change" in a religion go?
In worldy doctrines it could involve a drastic reversal , a major "revision" or some cosmetic, PR targeted, surgery .

Does this change , in Judaism, involve total abandonment of previously held views (God's chosen people; for example) or simply a modification of that tenement?

Does this "change" involve a reversal of opinion re , for example, Murder and Genocide, whereby in the after change the position of Judaism would have become,is now:

"When the victim is a Gentile, the position is (add:NOT) quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty (cross out : only ) of a sin against the laws of Heaven, (cross out :not ) (Add :and IS also) punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is (cross out:no ) (add:a) sin. (cross out:at all).2"

With the Catholic Church we know, for better or worse, who speaks for IT and on its behalf.
Who speaks for "changed" (Non Maimonides) Judaism?

N. Friedman - 10/24/2007

Omar,

We have already addressed what this "writer" - your term - has written.

Find a serious scholar on Jewish history and/or on Judaism - not a professor of chemistry - who says the same sort of things Shahak says and then there might be something to address here. And note: unlike a few other religions, Judaism has changed substantially in the last 3,000 years. In fact, the changes are very great.

I provided a scholarly article by a serious authority. His article refuted your article.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/24/2007

Absolutely nothing of the sort!
Israel Shahak stands out and will always stand out as a paragon of scientific objectivity,personal decency and moral courage .

Whatever was said about him and his oeuvre , in the childish attempt to efface history and re write doctrine into a PR friendly version, palls besides the meticulous documentation and solid substantiation with which he, Shahak, supported each and every word he wrote.


The knee jerk frenzied reaction that the mere mention of that great name, Shahak, causes in some circles confirms his standing as a scholar of outstanding erudition and a man of exceptiona personal honesty and moral courage.

(Once again we note they have nothing to say about the substance and a lot to say about the writer; although it is NOT the writer who is the subject but what he wrote!)

N. Friedman - 10/23/2007

Art,

Thanks you for your kind words.

art eckstein - 10/23/2007

Thanks, N--this is enlightening in many ways, both about Leupp and about "the imperialism of religious lunatics."

A. M. Eckstein - 10/23/2007

MUST you start with this again Omar? You've been DESTROYED on this, absolutely DESTROYED, a month ago. This was all discussed on HNN starting around Sept. 6.

Shahak is worthless as a source, and this was PROVEN to you with MASSIVE EVIDENCE a month or so ago. No one should be misled by any of what Omar writes here. He's simply downloading material from anti-semitic websites. That's where the Shahak stuff is coming from.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/23/2007

"Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. "

There is compelling reason to believe that the other cult than fascism is Halakhic Judaism which, in its peerless classification of mankind into Jew and Goyim , exults in the killing of nonJews in accordance with an unabashed racist system of standards that defines the punishment as a function of WHO committed the crime and not of the crime itself as is noted and well documented in:

Jewish History, Jewish Religion:

The Weight of Three Thousand Years

by Professor Israel Shahak
CHAPTER 5

The Laws Against Non-Jews

"Murder and Genocide

ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man.

When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.2

Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice .., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly:3 He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews.4

A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.5

All this has a direct and practical relevance to the realities of the State of Israel. Although the state's criminal laws make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, such distinction is certainly made by Orthodox rabbis, who in guiding their flock follow the Halakhah. Of special importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers.

Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.6 Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes:

When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed ... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.7 "

(Chapter 5: The Laws Against Non-Jews)
Footnotes:
1 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 'Laws on Murderers' 2, 11; Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Goy'.
2 R. Yo'el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Beyt Josef, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The two rules just mentioned apply even if the Gentile victim is ger toshav, that is a 'resident alien' who has undertaken in front of three Jewish witnesses to keep the 'seven Noahide precepts' (seven biblical laws considered by the Talmud to be addressed to Gentiles).
3 R. David Halevi (Poland, 17th century), Turey Zahav" on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158.
5 Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Ger' (= convert to Judaism).
6 For example, R. Shabbtay Kohen (mid 17th century), Siftey Kohen on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah, 158: 'But in times of war it was the custom to kill them with one's own hands, for it is said, "The best of Gentiles -- kill him!"' Siftey Kohen and Turey Zahay (see note 3) are the two major classical commentaries on the Shulhan 'Arukh.
7 Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel), 'Tohar hannesheq le'or hahalakhah' (= 'Purity of weapons in the light of the Halakhah') in Be'iqvot milhemet yom hakkippurim -- pirqey hagut, halakhah umehqar (In the Wake of the Yom Kippur War - Chapters of Meditation, Halakhah and Research), Central Region Command, 1973: quoted in Ha'olam Hazzeh, 5 January 1974; also quoted by David Shaham, 'A chapter of meditation', Hotam, 28 March 1974; and by Amnon Rubinstein, 'Who falsifies the Halakhah?' Ma'ariv", 13 October 1975. Rubinstein reports that the booklet was subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff, presumably because it encouraged soldiers to disobey his own orders; but he complains that Rabbi Avidan has not been court-martialled, nor has any rabbi -- military or civil -- taken exception to what he had written.
(http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis7.htm#Colonel%20Rabbi%20A.%20Avidan)

art eckstein - 10/23/2007

More on Islamofascism,
from Christopher Hitchens, in Slate. An excerpt:

"The most obvious points of comparison would be these: Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. ("Death to the intellect! Long live death!" as Gen. Francisco Franco's sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined "humiliations" and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression -- especially to the repression of any sexual "deviance" -- and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures."

He treats the other similarities -- both are repressive of political, religious, and social dissent -- as too obvious to need mentioning. He also goes on to acknowledge differences, related to corporatism and racial superiority (though suggests that Islamofascism does in some measure involve some claims of racial or ethnic superiority).

The fact is, that we are talking about a REAL THING.

Except that there are many "liberals" and Leftists on university campuses that don't want to talk about this topic AT ALL.

Professor Leupp is one of those repressors of inconvenient speech--for the reasons N. Friedman suggests above.

N. Friedman - 10/23/2007

Art,

Leupp's position focuses on the US as if the US were the font of an evil system. This is because, if I understand his view correctly - and I think I do - the US is the source of imperialism, which he views not so much as a government policy but as a system with an internal logic.

That likely follows from a reworked Marxism - perhaps we should term it neo-Marxism - in which the capitalist system is replaced by the imperialist system. That the Islamists make common cause against the Western imperialism is enough to allow him, I suspect, to defend Islamist interests on the theory that such helps fight the imperialist system.

And that is why he would allow, even if distasteful to him personally, Sudanese to kill each other to their hearts' content rather than consider the implications of Churchill's quip that "If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

What Leupp does not appear to recognize or, if he does, even want debated or discussed - and hence his opposition to the on-campus activities related to unmasking Islamism - is that Islamism is an imperial system and is something that Islamists are fighting for, in many cases with horrendous, even genocidal, violence.

Unmask the Islamist system as an imperial system and the neo-Marxist version of anti-Imperialism is open to serious question on the ground that it does not abate, but actually helps, imperialism, albeit the imperialism of religious lunatics.

art eckstein - 10/23/2007

N.F. has it correctly. The issues in Darfur are complex, and involve a struggle for resources and a local rebellion against the national government. BUT religion and jihad from Khartoum against Muslims whom it views as insufficiently Muslim--i.e., Takfir--is also involved.

In particular, many of the western Darfur tribes are Sufis--and the regime in Khartoum is Wahabi/Salafist. All over the world, the Wahabis persecute the Sufis as insufficiently Muslim. They regard the Sufis as "polytheists" (mushriqun), while the Wahabis see themselves as the only true monotheists (tawhids). (The Wahabis regard the Shia as "polytheists" as well.) This was true in Afghanistan, where Sufi Muslims were mercilessly persecuted by the Taliban (they also persecuted the Shia). Sudan is little different. Though the Darfur tribes may *claim* to be Muslim, and while they are recognized as Muslims by the most of the rest of the world, they are not so recognized by Wahabis in Khartoum--and especially because they are now rebels (fitnah).

In both the south and in Darfur, the policies of the radical Islamist military dictatorship in Khartoum against "rebels" have had racial and ethnic overtones as well as involving struggles over resources. But the regime has also been motivated in both cases by a radical Islamist agenda.

General Bashir the current dictator attempted to Islamicize and Arabize the south through the forcible imposition of sharia (Islamic law). He launched, by his own definition, a "jihad" against the south when it resisted. The policy of forced Islamicization in the South was celebrated by Ali Mazrui in his best-sellling (if disgraceful) book The Africans.

Though the tribes of Darfur are Muslim, they are not hardline Salafsts like Khartoum's National Islamic Front government. The NIF is an offshoot of the radical Muslim Brotherhood--and as I have shown above with scholarly references, the MB is an organization influenced from the 1940s by Nazism, so that the hyperviolent policies we see being pursued by Khartoum are hardly surprising. This was most famous in the South, where the genocide and enslavement of non-Muslims constituted a world-wide scandal about which nothing was done because of Sudan's oil reserves.

The far West is not animist or Christian as the South was. But the Darfur Muslims do NOT speak Arabic and their women wear colorful African clothes, and NOT the burka. Worse, they do NOT follow the strict criminal code of Khartoum's Wahhabi-style sharia. And, as I have noted, many of them are Sufis, who are viewed as "polytheists" by Wahabi/salafists.

For years Khartoum has treated the Sufi Muslims of Darfur as second-class citizens. They excluded them systematically from development opportunities, government services, and positions of power. When they rebelled against this policy they became fitnah--rebels. But in the view of a regime that conflates religion with politics —they also became "apostate." Under Islamist rules, apostates are to be put to death or taken as slaves. In 1992, six pro-government Sudanese imams issued a fatwa making this explicit: "An insurgent who was previously a Muslim is now an apostate and a non-Muslim is a non-believer standing as a bulwark against the spread of Islam, and Islam has granted the freedom of killing both of them." Though the fatwa was intended at that time for the Muslims of the central Nuba province and the Christians and animists of the South, it equally applies today to the Muslims of Darfur.

Is takfir the major reason for fighting in the West? No. But is it absent as a motive at Khartoum? No. Sufism (like Shiism) must be destroyed--it is a Wahabi duty, and this is a policy pursued all over the planet. It was the policy of the Taliban. It is the policy of Khartoum.

I note that in Counterpunch last year Professor Leup opposed outside intervention in Darfur even for "alleged" humanitarian purposes against the, in his words "alleged 'genocide'" goin on. Note the double doubting on Leupp's part here, both with "alleged" AND the scare-quotes around the genocide itself. Leupp last year was worried far more about stopping "U.S. imperialism" than stopping the slaughter in Darfur.

But all of this Darfur business is not very relevant to Professor Leupp's current project, which is to prevent any discussion of totalitarian Jihadism on university campuses

N. Friedman - 10/23/2007

Kenneth,

In Islam, Muslims are never supposed to kill Muslims. They can only do so if those to be killed are declared infidel in some manner.

The issue in Darfur is complicated. To say that it is primarily about religion, on the other hand, would also be a mistake. To say that religion has nothing to do with it would be a mistake.

Kenneth Laurence Davis - 10/22/2007

I have certainly heard of takfiri, but based on my reading, this is not the problem in Darfur. If you can cite otherwise, please do so.

N. Friedman - 10/22/2007

Kenneth,

You write: "Obviously, if a half-million Muslims have been killed by their Muslim government in the Sudan, religious extremism is not the reason."

Clearly, you are not familiar with the takfiri doctrine that has played havoc among Muslims, especially among the Kharjite movement in the early years of the religion but also in very recent time. In fact, such is a rather important doctrine of discussion among Islamists.

The gist is that certain Muslims are not Muslim enough and hence can be treated as kafir.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/22/2007

1. Exactly, Mr. Davis--but one case is hyperviolence that is Government inspired and perpetrated (Sudan, Bush), and that is one subject, and the other is hyperviolence that is private RELIGION inspired (Islamofascism), and that is another subject, and once again you insist on mixing the subjects. But that governments do a massive amount of damage doesn't mean that one should not discuss the latter topic of Muslim "NGO" religious hyperviolence when the latter is doing a lot of damage too, mayhem worldwide, though not as much damage as governments can do!

2. As for "Islamofascism" being some sort of plot by Bush and Horowitz not related to a grim reality, tell that to Bassam Tibi, Professor of International Relations at Gottingen and A.D. Whitehead Professor at Cornell University. Here is what HE says:
"Jihad Islamism represents totalitarianism in its latest manifestation."
Is this phenomenon really not worthy of discussion on campus?
See Tibi's article "The Totalitarianism of Jihadist Islamism and its Challenge to Europe and to Islam", in Totalitarian Movements and Political Religion 2007.

Tibi is a Muslim himself. If Bassam Tibi is willing to be this blunt about Islamicist totalitarianism, how can it be that YOU want to ban discussion of Islamic totalitarianism from campuses, and how can you claim that there is no intellectual basis for the designation and how can you claim that it's all a plot by Bush and Horowitz to defame Islam in general?

I'll tell you this: Bassam Tibi knows a heckuva lot more about this topic than Professor Leupp, whose specialty is Japan. And he's talking about "Jihadist Totalitarianism" without any qualms.

Kenneth Laurence Davis - 10/22/2007

On the contrary, I see American Fundamentalism as inextricably interwined with religion. I made that clear when I wrote of the conflation of Religion, Capitalism and Nationalism. This is the essence of fascism, bound up as it is with Corporatism. It is a religion. An extremist belief system. But it is never discussed in symposia in prominent places or in the Media in this country.

Obviously, if a half-million Muslims have been killed by their Muslim government in the Sudan, religious extremism is not the reason.

I will reiterate that Leupp's premise is that this focus on Islamofascism, which has been discussed ad nauseum for twenty years or more in the Media, is part of a process of demonization in a foolish lead-up to war.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/22/2007

The examples you cite have little or nothing to do with religion, Mr. Davis. You were talking about violence done in the name of religion. That's why you brought up Christian fundamentalists. Now you are shifting the topic.

If you want to talk about govt-mandated genocide, then one can start with the Sudanese govt policy since 1962, which killed at least 2 million non-Muslims in the south of the Sudan and has now killed at least 500,000 Muslim civilians in the west (in Darfur) comes into play for a comparison. But in fact Professor Leupp doesn't want to talk about Darfur EITHER, as I happen to know from counterpunch.

But WE are talking about the hyperviolence of religion extremists. That's the topic of "Islamofascism." We have a situation where religious extremists are killing tens of thousands of innocent people each year in the name of religion (namely, Islam), and you don't think we should talk about it on campus?

Would you be saying the same thing if Christian extremists were killing tens of thousands of innocent people each year in the name of Christ--you wouldn't want to talk about it on campus for fear of alienating Christians, or because it was impolite, etc? You know, I find this hard to believe. In fact, if Christian extremists were murdering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the name of Christ, or flying airplanes loaded with screaming civilians into buildings loaded with civilian office workers in the name of Christ, or blowing up schools filled with children in the name of Christ--well, I think the number of academic conferences on campuses devoted to the Christian roots of this hyperviolence would be innumerable. Do you disagree?

Kenneth Laurence Davis - 10/22/2007

Words almost fail me. What do you call what we have done to Iraq since '91 but an unprecedented wave of hyper-violence? What do you call US adventurism, overt and covert, around the world at least since 1898? In Mexico and Central America years before that?

American Fundamentalism.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/22/2007

Why single out Islamic fundamentalism? Because Christian fundamentalists are not killing innocent civilians by the thousands worldwide in an unprecedented wave of hyper-violence.

Kenneth Laurence Davis - 10/22/2007

Why single out Islamic fundamentalism? All religious fundamentalism is ideologically ossified and retrograde. The fundamentalist conflation of Christianity, Capitalism and Nationalism has made the US the most warlike state on the face of the planet.

Your evidence and argument is irrelevant to Leupp's argument, which is that "Islamofascist Awareness Week" is part of a thinly veiled campaign to demonize Iran, among others, in an effort to manufacture consent for an attack, a war.

Islamofascism is no more the real reason for US plans to attack Iran than Saddam's WMD and cruelty was to attack Iraq. The real reason is the assurance of vastly enhanced world hegemony that control of the region would provide.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/22/2007

For all that we know or care to know it could well have been Islamo Communist , Islamo Nihilist or IslamoFascist as long as :" (the)intention here is to couple "Islam" with a powerful epithet, devoid of analytical content, conjuring up images of a universally detested past."

Israel has hitherto had a relatively free ride and at practically no real real cost attained its present position of regional "super power”!

With Iraq which turned out to be an American disappointment in many ways and threatens to become, mainly for the USA, much more than a disappointment Israel has achieved a blatant success in its campaign for total USA identification with Israeli domineering and expansionist plans.

At no real cost to herself Israel has made of the USA the implacable enemy of ALL ARABS as far as Israeli interests, ambitions and designs are concerned.

The temptation now, as advocated by Horowitz, is to repeat the exercise aiming at an ALL MOSLEMS capitulation by attacking Iran, the standard bearer of the Islamist movement and the outstanding anti Israel power.

Iran, though, seems to be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq was and an attack on it warns to have very grave results, verging on the cataclysmic, particularly for ISRAEL which seems to be destined to receive the major brunt of Iranian retaliation.

Now that Israel is liable to be called upon to carry, for the first time, its share of the cost for its regional ascendancy will it persevere in its all out campaign for a war on Iran or will it cool down and look for a no war way out?

The crucial difference now is that such a war will NOT be carried solely by the USA and Israel will have to partake in the cost.

Will Israel agree to carry its share??

art eckstein - 10/22/2007

1. Note: there is no reply by Mr. Davis to my specific arguments or evidence.

2. As for Mr. Davis' supposedly constitutionally weak Ahmedinejad, Ahmedinejad is the president of a major country, who denies the Holocaust while declaring that he is preparing another one. Is not Mr. Davis concerned? And as for A-jad's political or constitutional "weakness", the New York Times *just yesterday*, in reporting the bad news of the resignation of the "moderate" Iranian nuclear issue negotiator from further talks with the Europeans, says that the mullahs are *backing* Ahmedinejad's ultra-hard line. The fact is that they always have.

3. I carefully distinguished Islam in general (and potential) from Islamofascist terrorism. It looks as if only the campus Left, such as Profesessor Leupp, seeks to make the equation here between Islamofascist violence and islam in general, hoping thereby to silence all campus discussion of Islamicist violence as a violation of multiculturalism. I am puzzled why anyone would take this position.

Kenneth Laurence Davis - 10/22/2007

In reply to Mr. Eckstein, I'll repost the last paragraph of Leupp's piece, as it seems so insightful:

The real intention here is to couple "Islam" with a powerful epithet, devoid of analytical content, conjuring up images of a universally detested past. Bush insists on comparing the constitutionally weak Iranian President Ahmadinejad, leading a country that hasn't attacked another in hundreds of years, with Hitler (as his father compared Saddam to Hitler). Similarly, the proponents of the "Islamofascism" concept want to play upon emotions rather than really spread "awareness." Their historical analogies are absurd, while their planned week is more than an affront to Muslims. It is an insult to everybody's intelligence.

art eckstein - 10/21/2007

Professor Leupp,

I quote from a recent posting on this subject on Insidehighered.com:


"1. Is it “hate speech” to condemn the terrorist murder of innocents specifically
done, as the terrorists consistently proclaim, in the name of Islam? It is not
Horowitz who is demonizing Islam. It is the terrorists who act in the name of
Islam who are demonizing Islam. Do you wish to prevent this problem from even
being spoken about on campus?

2. Horowitz didn’t fly planes filled with screaming civilians into office buildings
holding thousands of peaceful office workers—an act done specifically in the
name of God. Horowitz doesn’t behead people on video and use it as a
*recruiting* tool—something no western terrorist group ever attempted,
because it knew that *its* audience would be repulsed. Horowitz didn’t rocket
school yards filled with children at Sderot (inside the 1967 borders of Israel).
Horowitz didn’t blow up 150 children in Beslan, Russia, in the name of God.
Horowitz didn’t kill 200 partying Australians on Bali in the name of God.
Horowitz didn’t blow up trains in Madrid and London, filled with peaceful people
going about their business, in the name of God. Horowitz didn’t try to blow up
nightclubs in London, patronized by “immoral women,” in the name of God. And
Horowitz didn’t murder 34,000 civilians in Iraq (UN estimate) in the name of
God either.

I repeat: do you want to prevent this problem from being pointed
out on the campus for serious discussion?

3. If *Christians* were the ones committing terrorist atrocities on this scale all
over the world, instead of Muslims, would you want to ban this topic, as “hate
speech", from any discussion of the problem? (Come on, Professor Leupp—answer
honestly!)

4. A leading textbook of the 1960s, Politics of Social Change in the Middle East
and North Africa (1963) by the late Princeton professor of Middle Eastern History
Manfred Halpern, included the thesis that the neo Islamic totalitarian movements
are essentially fascist movements. They concentrated on mobilizing passion and
violence to enlarge the power of their charismatic leader, their form of Islam,
and the solidarity of the movement. Halpern pointed especially to the
totalitarian and fascist elements in the ideology and the practice of the Muslim
Brotherhood. At the time Halpern wrote, the Brotherhood had been weakened by
repression by Nasser. But with the fall of Nasser and the breakdown of Arab
nationalism and communism, the Brotherhood, and Islamism had a strong
revival. The Muslim Brotherhood, with its branches in various Arab countries, is both
the direct ancestor of Hamas, and, through Ayman al-Zawahiri, exercises strong
influence in al-Qaeda.

[The Muslim Brotherhood also had strong ties to the Nazis, esp. via the activity of SS Ensatzgruppe Egypt which accompanied Rommel in 1941-1942, followed by daily radio broadcasts from Berlin; and meanwhile the Baathists had their origin in the elements behind the Rashid Ali coup in Baghdad in April 1941, which brought a pro-Nazi
regime to power in Iraq, and a Luftwaffe squadron to a base outside of Baghdad
[!]. The British overthrew the Rashid Ali regime in June of 1941, but not before a
massacre of Jews in Baghdad by that regime.]

5. And for those of you who find this intellectual ancestry of the term Islamo-
fascism too abstruse, just google-image “Hezbollah + salutes” and check out all
those terrorists making the Nazi salute."

6. For those of you who live in Washington D.C. take a look at the horrific image on the cover of today’s Sunday Bookworld to see what the real issue is.

7. On the newly established connections between Nazism and the Muslim Brotherhood (in part through the Nazified Palestinian Grant Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini, one of only two non-Germans indicted for war-crimes at Nuremburg): see Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das "Dritte Reich", die Araber und Palästina.Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; Auflage: 2., durchges. Aufl. ( 2006). A book in English: Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism, and the Roots of 9/11 (2007), by Matthias Küntzel. Küntzel, like Mallmann and Cüppers, is a distinguished German historian, and all three base their work on new research in the German archives.

8. But of course Professor Leupp—no, no, let’s not talk about ANY of this!!


9. NONE of the above means that one is equating Islamofascism with Islam in general.

10. The ONLY people doing this equation are on the campus Left (such as the Leftist pamphleters who caused such a scandal at George Washington University two weeks ago, with their racist posters all over campus which they falsely attributed to the organization behind Islamofascism Awareness Week). The Left is making an attempt to shut down any discussion of a legitimate issue, the issue of Islamic terrorism and its ideology, by equating focused concern about Islamofascism with “Islamophobia”.

11. That’s what Professor Leupp’s article is intended to do. But why the campus Left wishes to do this, I cannot imagine.