Debunking "Islamofascism"

"...these Islamofascist evildoers..."
"...the Islamofascist regime of Morocco..."
"...we should bring the Islamofascists to justice..."
"...the Islamofascists are hellbent on dominating the world..."
"...bringing about an Islamofascist caliphate..."

Whose ass made up the word "Islamofascism"? Is it just another attempt by the already intellectually-bankrupt right-wing machine to look and sound smarter, in order to give their enemies some sort of ideology? "Islamofascism" is a concept as dumb as the "War on Terror", which, in the words of a friend, is like declaring a "war on happiness": terror is an intangible aspect... a tactic of war. It is akin to what George Bush Sr. said about Communism in the early 1990's:

"The Communism has died this year..."

Well, it hasn't: there are millions of socialists out there, and many socialist organizations and parties running for power. Heck, there are many pseudo-socialist countries out there. Israel, for example, has socialist roots, specializing in the collective farm industry (Kibbutz). Certain political parties worldwide adhere to socialist fiscal principles.

But wait! You might be thinking, "Why the hell are you talking about how communism is still around?" After all, I'm here to prove that "Izlamofashism" does not exist. Right? Well, let's start first by criticism of the term itself from several prominent figures.

"It is hard to see the difference between the bigotry of anti-Semitism as an evil and the bigotry that [Michael] Medved displays toward Islam. It is more offensive than I can say for him to use the word "Islamo-fascist." Islam is a sacred term to 1.3 billion people in the world. It enshrines their highest ideals. To combine it with the word "fascist" in one phrase is a desecration and a form of hate speech. Are there Muslims who are fascists? Sure. But there is no Islamic fascism, since "Islam" has to do with the highest ideals of the religion. In the same way, there have been lots of Christian fascists, but to speak of Christo-Fascism is just offensive"
-Juan Cole, professor of modern Middle East and South Asian history at the University of Michigan

Juan Cole raises excellent points. The "Christian fascists" (fascists who just happened to profess Christianity) have been numerous in history, among them Mussolini's Italian Fascist Party, the Nazis of Germany, and the Phalangists of the Lebanese Kataeb Party. However, there has been no reference to them as "Christo-fascists", as Mr. Cole pointed out.

"The idea that there is some kind of autonomous "Islamofascism" that can be crushed, or that the west may defend itself against the terrorists who threaten it by cultivating that eagerness to kill militant Muslims which Hitchens urges upon us, is a dangerous delusion. The symptoms that have led some to apply the label of "Islamofascism" are not reasons to forget root causes. They are reasons for us to examine even more carefully what those root causes actually are." He adds "'Saddam, Arafat and the Saudis hate the Jews and want to see them destroyed' . . . or so says the right-wing writer Andrew Sullivan. And he has a point. Does the western left really grasp the extent of anti-Semitism in the Middle East? But does the right grasp the role of Europeans in creating such hatred?"
-Richard Webster, author of A Brief History of Blasphemy: liberalism, censorship and 'The Satanic Verses' writing in the New Statesman

The underlined bits raise some questions: do the Arabs really hate Jews and want them destroyed? The answer is no, but why the answer is negative is the topic for another discussion. Also, it is natural for rightwingers to explore the symptoms of what they (and we, in certain cases) perceive as terrorism instead of its root causes. It was one CIA agent who has said that the Middle East populace does not despise the U.S. for their "freedoms", but for foreign policy and interventionism. That, too, will be the subject of another discussion. However, for the sake of the discussion, I will say that indeed what they are seeing today is a result of what happened in the past.

"Fascism is nationalistic and Islamicism is hostile to nationalism. Fundamentalism is a transnational movement that is appealing to believers of all nations and races across national boundaries. There is no idea of racial purity as in Nazism. Islamicists have very little idea of the state. It is a religious movement, while Fascism in Europe was a secular movement. So if it's not what we really think of as nationalism, and if it's not really like what we think of as Fascist, why use these terms?"
-Roxanne Euben, professor of political science at Wellesley College

This proves the asinine usage of the word itself: Islam is a religion. Fascism is a secular and totalitarian ideology that contradicts even the most basic Islamic principles. Ms. (Mrs.?) Euben argues that Islamicism and Fascism differ in the matter of nationalism. Why is that? One of the assumed goals of Al Qaeda is to establish a "global caliphate", which eliminates national boundaries and thus destroys nationalism as a whole. So, in that sense, if Al Qaeda was planning to do so, "fascism" doesn't enter the equation as it asks for retaining national identity. Granted, Islam has nothing rotten to say about patriotism, but takes the issue of nationalism as a sin, much like arrogance.

The right-wing hawks argue that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have the goal of establishing a "caliphate" or something of that sort. This term came about during the invasion of Iraq and the rise of the Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. However, the myth that the insurgents in Iraq are mostly foreigners has been disproven by the CSMonitor. In that sense, one could conclude that the insurgents in Iraq are Iraqi freedom fighters. Therefore, those who are conducting these operations don't have an "ideology" in mind as the rightwing hawks exclaim, but have the intent of ridding Iraq of the foreign military presence. Al Qaeda has the intent, therefore, to aid these people... not that I justify their attacks on civilians.

However, when one looks at the parties that are running for the Iraqi elections, which have proved time and time again to be a bunch of farces, one can find that many of them are actually radical groups and former militias. Therefore, it is highly hypocritical that the rightwing hawks claim that they are trying to destroy "Izlamofashism" (misspelling intended for mockery) when they are inviting to power the parties that exhibit this "ideology". This "Islamofascism", nothing but a word invented by neocon spinners, is not an organized crime syndicate, and has no roots in fascism or Islam, but hey, all the more reason for the rightwing hawks to dehumanize the enemy, even those who resist the Coalition and civilians around them, right?

Islamofascism is an asinine word, and it's funny that we as Palestinians have yet to insult Judaism because of Israel's inception, or Christianity because of the Holocaust, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Dark Ages. We have yet to call Zionism a form of "Judeo-fascism": the usage of such a word is hypocritical on our part and is equally insulting. It's also obvious that we as MidEasterners have not held the entire white race or the American people responsible for the Iraq war and the stupidity of their leaders like Bush and Blair.

Finally, I would like to conclude this little spiel with a quotation from a Paleoconservative Catholic commentator:

"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own."
—Joseph Sobran, Catholic commentator

People, try to avoid the usage of such ridiculous words, and keep the politics of the situation in mind. Religion and race are not to be brought into the issue whatsoever.

Salaam, from
Saracen