Two recent articles highlight the need to be clear about the nature of the threats facing the world from radical Muslim ideologists, or what Christopher Hitchens rightly terms Islamofascists. Rejecting criticism that this term is ahistorical (fusing ideologies from different eras) or unjustly singles out one religion, Hitchens defends the term:
Interestingly, he does not shy from noting that Islamofascism, while a right-wing and religious movement also regularly appropriates the language of the Left.
No doubt this - combined with a desire to see the collapse of the US and the Western capitalism that it represents - explains in part why many in the Left have secretly rooted for a group whose game plan and values they would normally excoriate. Sadly, these generally well-meaning and liberal leaning people, do not realize to what extent their support and inability to confront this threat endangers all that they hold dear. Worse, it sacrifices to totalitarianism precisely those who the liberals think they are helping.
As Bernard Lewis recently noted, Islamofascism is first and foremost a threat to Muslims in the same way that both Bolshevism and Fascism were a threat to their societies. Unfortunately, it did not take long before these ideological "deformations" threatened the rest of the world as well. (See article in The Sun)
Hitchens echoes this and points out that both radical Islam and Fascism:
Characteristically, Lewis is even more blunt:
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.
Interestingly, he does not shy from noting that Islamofascism, while a right-wing and religious movement also regularly appropriates the language of the Left.
Fascism (and Nazism) also attempted to counterfeit the then-success of the socialist movement by issuing pseudo-socialist and populist appeals. It has been very interesting to observe lately the way in which al-Qaida has been striving to counterfeit and recycle the propaganda of the anti-globalist and green movements.
No doubt this - combined with a desire to see the collapse of the US and the Western capitalism that it represents - explains in part why many in the Left have secretly rooted for a group whose game plan and values they would normally excoriate. Sadly, these generally well-meaning and liberal leaning people, do not realize to what extent their support and inability to confront this threat endangers all that they hold dear. Worse, it sacrifices to totalitarianism precisely those who the liberals think they are helping.
As Bernard Lewis recently noted, Islamofascism is first and foremost a threat to Muslims in the same way that both Bolshevism and Fascism were a threat to their societies. Unfortunately, it did not take long before these ideological "deformations" threatened the rest of the world as well. (See article in The Sun)
Hitchens echoes this and points out that both radical Islam and Fascism:
...evidently suffer from a death wish. It is surely not an accident that both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels or any dilution of the joys of absolute doctrinal orthodoxy.
Characteristically, Lewis is even more blunt:
"It's misleading to say we are engaged in a war against terrorism," Mr. Lewis said. "If Churchill had told us that we were engaged in a war against submarines and war craft, we'd be in a different world today. Terrorism is a tactic, it is not the enemy."
