Archive for the ‘terminology’ Category

Bolton: ‘War on terror’? – we should have been more specific that it’s about Islamic fundamentalism

April 7, 2009

Bolton: ‘War on terror’? – we should have been more specific that it’s about Islamic fundamentalism
foxnews ^ | April 4, 2009

‘The Journal Editorial Report,’ April 4, 2009 […] GIGOT: John, let me ask you — let me take up another subject here, a little more light hearted, but serious in its way. We have the Obama administration changing the rhetoric. No longer the global war on terror, Secretary of State Clinton said this week they’re not going to use that. It’ now an overseas contingency operation according to the Pentagon. What’s going on here?

BOLTON: Again, this would be laughable if it weren’t serious. I think they’re trying to distract attention from the war on terror. I don’t think that was necessarily the best name myself. I thought we should have been more specific that it was about Islamic fundamentalism. We weren’t concerned about dealing with the Baath’s or the IRA in Northern Ireland.

But when you remove the whole threat of terrorism out of your rhetoric, what you’re trying is get it out of the center of American foreign policy. I think that’s a mistake. I think people read that as a sign of weakness and will cause us problems down the road trying to rally other countries to our side for what overseas contingency?

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com

Advertisements

Early Views of Islamofascism

June 29, 2008

Early Views of Islamofascism
February 7, 2008

Early Views of Islamofascism

Carroll Andrew Morse

Anyone who thinks the idea of Islamofascism is a recent invention will be surprised by the series of quotes from early 20th century intellectuals linking Islam with totalitarianism upturned by Providence-area native Andrew Bostom.

Here’s a quote from Carl Jung, described by Bostom as the “founder of analytical psychiatry”…

We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.

Mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell, on the other hand, suggested in the 1920s that Islam’s sympathies lied more naturally with Communism…

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.

These aren’t fringe yahoos being quoted — these were well-respected scholars in their fields (though not necessarily experts on political philosophy). Dr. Bostom pretty well establishes that many observers in the early and middle part of this century noted a totalitarian streak in the public expressions of Islam that they had been exposed to.

However, I’m not sure that these kinds of quotes advance the central debate surrounding the nature of Islamofascism, whether Islamofascism is a natural outgrowth of the Islamic belief system (which I believe is Dr. Bostom’s position), or if it is a modern fasicist movement that has adopted the trappings of religion to hide its totalitarian nature and broaden its appeal.

That everyone — entire religions included — had to be placed on one side or another by those who lived through the battles between Fascism, Communism and liberal Democracy in the 1920s and 1930s probably tells us more about the state of Western political philosophy at that time than it does about the development of either Islamofascism or Islam.

http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/005328.html

Donal Blaney: I’m still calling it Islamofascism

February 11, 2008

(Donal Blaney:) I’m still calling it Islamofascism

Last night I debated Mohammed Shafiq from the Ramadan Foundation on BBC Radio Five Live. The topic was Jacqui Smith’s rebranding of Islamic Terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity”. I naturally decried this politically correct example of Orwellian Newspeak.

Mr Shafiq – who chose to defend the hateful Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the extremist cleric Yusuf Al-Qaradawi during our debate – also failed to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah. When I asked him if they were terrorists because they killed innocent people (which, in his attempt to sound moderate, he argued was what terrorists did) he responded by whining about Israel being a state sponsor of terrorism. It’s this kind of evasive moral equivalence that makes it so hard to take protestations of moderation from self-proclaimed Islamic spokesmen seriously.

The debate unfortunately moved away from the specific topic of “anti-Islamic activity” into a wider debate about integration. I argued that Trevor Phillips and Bishop Nazir-Ali were right to decry multiculturalism, cultural apartheid and ghettoisation. Mr Shafiq felt that ALL muslims were victimised and viewing in a hostile manner by wider British society and the use of phrases such as Islamic Terrorism or even Islamism contributed to that.

I cannot help but feel that Mohammed Shafiq, who seems to have encounted some considerable difficulties with his own LibDem leadership this past month, is a far from persuasive or moderate voice for his cause. Most of us are intelligent enough to realise that Islamic Terrorism is not the same thing as the peaceful practice of Islam. Most muslims are not terrorists and most thoroughly oppose terrorism.

If groups like the Ramadan Foundation spent less time wallowing in victim status and whipping up young muslim men into a fervour of bitterness, victimhood and revenge and instead concentrated on finding ways to promote integration rather than cultural apartheid, we would all be better off – muslims and non-muslims alike.

http://donalblaney.blogspot.com/2008/01/im-still-calling-it-islamofascism.html

The ‘Islamo-Fascism’ Debate

February 10, 2008

Source: Aina…

As the David Horowitz Freedom Center unveils its Declaration Against Genocide in Washington on February 9, we are inviting campus groups of all types to join us in condemning the genocidal impulse within Islamo-Fascism.

This Symposium discussion of the term “Islamo-Fascism” takes on a new urgency in light of that Declaration and of the upcoming second Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which will hit campuses nationwide the week of April 7.

The usefulness and accuracy of this term, and the general necessity of naming the enemy properly as a prerequisite for defeating it, became a subject of national debate during the first Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and that debate is certain to continue this April. This Symposium is dedicated to many of the issues involved.

Our guests are:

Christopher Hitchens, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, the author of the new book god Is Not Great. How Religion Poisons Everything and the editor of the new anthology, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, the vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the author of My Year Inside Radical Islam , which documents his time working for the extremist Al Haramain Islamic Foundation.

Bruce Tefft, the Director of CRA’s Threat Assessment Center. He retired from the CIA as a case officer in 1995 after 21 years, 17 working in Stations abroad. He was a founding member of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center in 1985 and has been involved with terrorism issues since then. After his retirement, he continued studying Islamic terrorist techniques and training more than 16,000 first responders, law enforcement, military and intelligence officials in terrorism awareness and prevention. For a two year period following 9/11, he was the Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence advisor to the New York Police Department.

Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement.

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.

Donna Hughes, Professor and Carlson Endowed Chairperson of the University of Rhode Island Women’s Studies Program.

and

Thomas Haidon, the Chief Legal and Policy Advisor of the Free Muslim Coalition and a member of its Board of Advisors. A commentator on legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism measures and Islamic affairs, he currently serves as an advisor to the New Zealand government and has provided guidance to parliamentary committees on counter-terrorism issues. His works have been published in legal periodicals, newspapers and other media.

FP: Christopher Hitchens, Robert Spencer, Bruce Teft, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Donna Hughes and Thomas Haidon, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Christopher Hitchens, let’s begin with you.

Is the term “Islamo-Fascism” legitimate in terms of defining the enemy we face in the terror war?

Hitchens: The attempt by David Horowitz and his allies to launch “Islamofascism Awareness Week” on American campuses has been met with a variety of responses. One of these is a challenge to the validity of the term itself. It’s quite the done thing, in liberal academic circles, to sneer at any comparison between fascist and jihadist ideology.

People like Tony Judt write to me to say in effect that it’s ahistorical and simplistic to do so. And in some media circles another kind of reluctance applies: Alan Colmes thinks that one shouldn’t use the word “Islamic” even to designate jihad, because to do is to risk incriminating an entire religion. He and others don’t want to tag Islam even in its most extreme form with a word as hideous as fascism. Finally, I have seen and heard it argued that the term is unfair or prejudiced, because it isn’t applied to any other religion. This was most recently argued by Patrick J. Buchanan, who asked us how we would have felt if Franklin Roosevelt had described Mussolini, say, as “Christo-fascist”.

Buchanan in his own autobiography describes being raised in a home where the true heroes were Father Coughlin the Jew-baiting priest, General Franco the foe of the Reds and freemasons, and Joseph McCarthy the drink-sodden bigmouth and bigot. That’s why the term “Catholic fascist” or “clerical fascist” used to be so current on the left.

This was to recognize the undeniable fact that, from Spain to Croatia to Slovakia, there was a very direct link between fascism and the Roman Catholic Church. More recently, Yehoshua Leibowitz, editor of the Encyclopaedia Hebraica, coined the term “Judaeo-Nazi” to describe the messianic settlers who moved onto the occupied West Bank after 1967. So there need be no self-pity among Muslims about being “singled out” on this point.

The actual term “Islamofascism” was first used in 1990 in the London Independent by the Anglo-Irish writer Malise Ruthven, who was writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power. The expression has some respectable antecedents. In his book, The Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa, published by Princeton in 1965, the German scholar Manfred Halpern (himself a refugee from the Third Reich) employed the term “Islamic totalitarian” to characterize the mingled worship of a heroic past with the mobilization of “passion and violence”. Perhaps you suspect Halpern of undue sympathy with Judaism or Zionism? Very well, then, consider Professor Maxime Rodinson, one of the most intransigent critics of the state of Israel. In an exchange with Michel Foucault in the late 1970s, on the subject of the nascent Shi’a theocracy in Iran, Rodinson writing in Le Monde alluded to “a certain type of archaic fascism” taking the form of “an authoritarian and totalitarian state whose political police would brutally enforce the moral and social order.” I didn’t know about all of these for-runners when I employed the term “fascism with an Islamic face” to describe the assault on civil society on 11 September 2001, and to ridicule those who presented the attack as some kind of liberation theology in action. “Fascism with an Islamic face” is meant to summon a dual echo of both Alexander Dubcek and Susan Sontag (if I do say so myself), and in any case it can’t be used for everyday polemical purposes, so the question remains: does bin-Ladinism or Salafism or whatever we agree to call it have anything in common with fascism?

I think yes. 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 Franco’s accomplice General Mola so pithily phrased it in a debate with Miguel de Unamuno). 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, and burn books and destroy museums and treasures.

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, especially in its most recent statement on the last anniversary of 11 September, the manner in which Al Quaeda has been striving to counterfeit and recycle the propaganda of the anti-globalist and “Green” movements.

There isn’t a perfect congruence. Historically, fascism laid great emphasis on glorifying the nation state and the corporate structure. There isn’t much of a corporate structure in the Muslim world, where the conditions often approximate more nearly to feudalism than capitalism, but bin-Laden’s own business conglomerate is, among other things, a rogue multi-national corporation with some links to finance-capital. As to the nation state, Al Quaida’s demand is that countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia be dissolved into one great revived Caliphate but doesn’t this have points of resemblance with the mad scheme of a “Greater Germany” or with Mussolini’s fantasy of a revived Roman empire?

Technically, no form of Islam preaches racial superiority or proposes a master-race. But in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the “pure” and the “exclusive” over the unclean and the kufar or profane. In the propaganda against Hinduism and India, for example, there can be seen something very like bigotry. In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler’s side). In the attempted destruction of the Hazara people of Afghanistan, who are ethnically Persian as well as religiously Shi’ite, there was also a strong suggestion of “cleansing”. And of course bin-Laden has threatened force against UN peacekeepers who might dare interrupt the race-murder campaign against African Muslims that is being carried out by his pious Sudanese friends.

Essentially, though, the point of convergence occurs at the word “totalitarian”. Study any serious proclamation about shari’a and you will be struck by the way in which Islam proposes itself as a “total” solution, covering every area of life and effectively abolishing the distinction between the public and the private. All “faith” does this, in my opinion, just as all “faiths” do it, but one cannot fail to be struck by the confidence with which Islamism legislates for absolutism in every department of existence.

This makes it permissible, it seems to me, to mention the two phenomena in the same breath and to suggest that they constitute comparable threats to civilization and civilized values. There is one final point of comparison: one that is in some ways encouraging. Both of these totalitarian systems of thought 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. Thus, while we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements, we can also be fairly sure that they will play an unconscious part in arranging for their own destruction, as well. Meanwhile, however our critics may wail about the way in which we generalize or deal in “stereotypes”, there is hardly one of them who has protested when the American flag is paraded bedecked with a swastika (a swastika!) or a cartoon of the President is carried across campus wearing a Hitler moustache. Who exactly is it who is looking for fascism in all the wrong places?

Gartenstein-Ross: Hitchens draws an excellent analogy between Fascist and jihadist ideology, and offers a competent rebuttal to various pundits’ objections to comparing the two. However, the question Jamie posed is not whether “Islamofascism” is an appropriate polemical term, or whether it is fair to compare militant Islam to Fascism. Rather, he queried whether the term is “legitimate in terms of defining the enemy we face in the terror war”; indeed, some commentators now use the term this way. My contention is that as a definitional term applied to the enemy, “Islamofascism” is too imprecise and in some ways counterproductive.

The first problem is that the term is overly broad. Hitchens actually does a good job of illustrating this problem in his opening remarks. In discussing the term’s history, Hitchens writes that Malise Ruthven first used it when “writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power.” Arab countries are, for the most part, no less fascistic today than they were in 1990, yet they are not “the enemy” in this war. Much of their heavy-handed police state tactics-for example, in Algeria and Egypt-are in fact aimed at the stateless Islamic militants against whom the present war is directed. (This statement is, of course, not meant as an endorsement of these states’ tactics.)

Taking a closer look at the Muslim world, the state of emergency that Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf declared in early November has much in common with Fascist governance-but it did not transform him from a bumbling and self-destructive ally into an enemy in the present global war. No Middle Eastern government had more in common with Fascist rule than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq: as former CIA director James Woolsey has said, the Ba’ath party was “modeled after the fascist regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.” But regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq war (and I have made my views on the matter clear), we did not go to war-nor would we have-because of the similarities between Saddam’s rule and Fascism. Rather, the justification was rooted in U.S. national interests, such as intelligence estimates of Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction and concerns about possible cooperation with al-Qaeda.

Other groups and countries that possess critical differences may be too quickly lumped together under the “Islamofascist” umbrella. There is currently a lively debate among policymakers and analysts about how the U.S. should deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. While I do not endorse the argument advanced by Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke about “the moderate Muslim Brotherhood,” I think the debate is a legitimate one-and that treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are “Islamofascist” would run contrary to our strategic interests. In President Bush’s September 20, 2001 address to the joint session of Congress, he said that the U.S. would “starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another.” I think this is the right approach, and that the overbroad “Islamofascism” definition jeopardizes our ability to produce schisms between groups that in many ways are not alike.

Aside from this definitional problem, there are also tactical problems with using “Islamofascism.” The term is polemical in nature, as Hitchens readily admits when he says that he first used the phrase “fascism with an Islamic face” to “ridicule those who presented [9/11] as some kind of liberation theology in action.” His initial use of the phrase was both clever and effective. But clever polemical turns of phrase are best used sparingly. I would wager that even Hitchens cringes at how some lesser writers have used “Islamofascism.”

The use of a polemical turn of phrase to “defin[e] the enemy we face” can also limit the audience that one reaches. If I’m reading a work that employs the phraseology “Bushitler” or “Zionazi,” that’s usually a strong sign that reading further could only possibly lower my IQ. While “Islamofascism” is not as false as either of those polemical terms, people associate it with a certain political viewpoint about the war against radical Islam. If they do not agree with the viewpoint, the term causes many people to stop listening-and to disregard otherwise legitimate arguments.

Finally, use of the term “Islamofascism” makes it more difficult to work alongside moderate Muslims, who almost uniformly bristle at the phrase. It is true that a number of Muslim moderates have a wide variety of objections to terms analysts use to describe the enemy, and many of their terminological objections are in my view illegitimate. But they have some legitimate objections to the term “Islamofascism.” One legitimate objection, as detailed above, is the term’s overbreadth. Another legitimate objection is that the term will almost undoubtedly be applied against Islamic religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent. This can be seen in some of the similarities Hitchens fingers between radical Islam and Fascism, including “exclusive stress on the power of one great book,” “strong commitment to sexual repression, especially to the repression of any sexual `deviance,'” and “subordination of the female.” These descriptions can apply not just to militant practice of the faith, but also conservative manifestations.

Secularists tend to view all religious practice with suspicion, and overgeneralize on that basis. Note that Hitchens argues that there is a totalitarian tendency not just within extremist Islam, but rather that “all `faiths’ do it.” Or note Christiane Amanpour’s clumsy attempt to liken American evangelicals to the Taliban on CNN’s God’s Warriors. Moderate Muslims are rightly concerned that the “Islamofascist” label will be applied to legitimate theological practices.

In short, I have no problem with Hitchens’s initial description of bin Laden’s agenda as “fascism with an Islamic face,” and I think he proffers a strong defense of the analogy. But the term’s overbreadth obscures real distinctions that analysts need to make, and I believe there are also solid tactical reasons that those of us who care about defeating Islamic extremism should select a different label.

FP: So what is that different label going to be? We can’t just reject a term without offering a term that we think is better to describe our enemy.

Surely “Islamo-fascism” is a legitimate term. We can’t take the Islam out of the fascistic Muslims who are waging war on us, and we would be fooling ourselves if we try to sweep the word “Islam” under the rug. Moreover, it is a given that many Muslims are not fascistic — just as many Italians weren’t fascistic all because Italian fascists existed. And we can’t take the fascist out of the Muslim fascists either.

Khalim Massoud, as a reform-minded Muslim, what do you think of this term? Do you “bristle” at the term in the way that Gartenstein-Ross says that moderate Muslims “almost uniformly” do?

Massoud: I define fascism as a totalitarian political ideology with an element of superiority. German fascism’s criterion of superiority was race. Islamic fascism’s criterion of superiority is religion. Otherwise both ideologies are practically identical.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says “use of the term ‘Islamofascism’ makes it more difficult to work alongside moderate Muslims, who almost uniformly bristle at the phrase.” I couldn’t disagree more. As long as the user of the term makes a clear distinction between Islam and Islamofascism, moderate Muslims will not be offended by the term. And the ones who are offended are not moderate. In fact, moderate Muslims were the first to widely use this term to describe radicals in Algeria who murdered more than 100,000 of moderate Muslims.

I also disagree with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross’s contention that “treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are ‘Islamofascist’ would run contrary to our strategic interests.” The strategic goals of al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood are identical; they both desire Global Caliphate. They may employ different tactics, but their objective is the same. And they both are Islamofascist organizations. Tactically, they need to be treated differently, but strategically they must be treated the same; these groups must be eliminated.

Starving terrorists of funding and turning them against one another hasn’t really worked so far. How can we possibly starve terrorists of funding when we are pumping billions of Petro-Dollars into Persian Gulf regimes? As for turning terrorists against each other, it might be working to some degree in Israel (Fatah vs. Hamas). However, in Iraq, Sunni terrorists are murdering Shia civilians and vice versa, but they don’t seem to be going after each other.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says, “I think this is the right approach, and that the overbroad “Islamofascism” definition jeopardizes our ability to produce schisms between groups that in many ways are not alike.” I don’t think we can rely on these schisms, especially when history shows that supporting the lesser evil, i.e., Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets or Iraq against Iran, may backfire. I think the correct approach is not to focus on making different terrorist groups fight each other, but to empower moderate Muslims and have them fight the radicals.

Tefft: My view is a bit more simplistic, and at the same time an amalgam of the rest of the panel. Islam is indeed fascistic in that it is (like National Socialism, Communism and Fascism) both totalitarian and posits an absolute superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims. This is demonstrated in the Islamic system of dhimmitude and the second class citizenship of kuffars who, if not killed or converted, are forced to pay the ‘jizya’ – the infidel poll tax.

The problem with using the term Islamofascist though is that it implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims — and this is misleading and therefore a disservice to our war effort. As the later Suras of the Koran indicate, Islam is to dominate the world, jihad is an obligation if not a duty of all Muslims, and all non-Muslims are to be converted, enslaved or killed.

As you know, the later Suras abrogate any contradictory earlier ones of “peace, love, and tolerance”. Given that the first duty of every Muslim, as an article of faith, is to accept the Koran as the literal word of Allah, is it possible for so-called ‘moderate Muslims’ to pick and choose which part of the Koran they will adhere to? To reject parts of the Koran? My understanding is that if a Muslim rejects the Koran he is rejecting Islam and Allah and is an apostate.

I think the evidence is clear that, as the Prime Minister of Turkey Erdogan said about “moderate” Islam, this past August, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

In further support of Erdogan, it is interesting that no Islamic religious authority has pronounced takfir on bin Laden or al-Qaeda declaring them apostates for their terrorism in the name of Islam. This is not from fear of retaliation by the terrorists, but recognition of the fact that bin Laden is not violating Islamic principles. He is practicing Islam as the Koran and the Hadiths dictate.

Insofar as Muslims murdering Muslims, this is human nature and fascist or not, Muslims are humans. They are divided into tribes, and groups, with leaders who have ego problems. Bin Laden and the Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to an alliance in 1995 that the Shia-Sunni conflict was inevitable and would continue but that both sides, as Muslims, must devote their efforts against the main enemy, the Great Satan. After the defeat of the United States and the West, then the Shia and Sunnis would sort out their differences. This agreement has largely held, in spite of the word not getting through to some of the lower level elements who insist on blowing up each other’s mosques in Iraq and Pakistan.

FP: With all due respect, Bruce Tefft, to suggest that there is no difference between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims is completely erroneous. I don’t know if I am missing something, but I think there is indeed a difference between someone who is fascist and someone who isn’t fascist.

It is a given that Islam has an intrinsic problem and that it does serve as a foundation to terror. And it is crucial that people such as yourself have the courage to raise this and to drive the point home. But to suggest that all Muslims are the same, indistinguishable from one another, and all our enemies is absurd. There are organizations such as Muslims Against Sharia and the Muslim Canadian Congress that reject Sharia and reject jihad. There are Muslims, such as the two on our panel, Khalim Massoud and Thomas Haidon, who oppose extremism and are trying to bring Islam into the democratic and modern world. They are not replicas of Osama bin Laden, they do not share his agenda, and they are his enemy and our allies.

Does this mean that there is no problem in Islamic theology? No. Does it mean that Islamic moderates and reformers don’t face a huge challenge in their effort to change Islam, especially when it is true, as you point out Mr. Tefft, that Islam itself disallows any change to its own teachings (i.e. the Qur’an)? No. But this does not mean that there are not many Muslims who want to try to create their own new Islam and who want a relaxation of Islamic principles? Whether they can do this, and whether it is possible, is another matter, but to suggest that all Muslims are the same because there are huge obstacles to an Islamic reformation is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions.

And these kinds of arguments do deadly damage to our own cause since the Muslims who embrace Western civilization and seek to change Islam, whether this is possible or not, are our inspirational hope against radical Islam. They have weapons against the enemy that we do not have and we would be foolish to push them away and consider them our enemy, when they are not.

Thomas Haidon, go ahead.

Haidon: Accurate problem definition is a crucial component to addressing any policy question. The failure to accurately frame issues and problems almost ensures a misguided policy response to any issue. Ensuring that the terminology we use to describe a problem is accurate is crucial. There are real risks if we get it wrong or articulate the problem in a manner that is “under inclusive,” inclusive or “over inclusive” (as Mr Garenstein-Ross has observed). We have seen what happens, at a policy level, when an “under-inclusive” approach has been taken to addressing the Islamist problem. The US “war on terror” has consistently failed (other than in soundbites) to identify Islam’s role. This has lead to flawed policies which have forced “democracy” in the Arab world, which has led to the consequences in Egypt and the Occupied Territories and the resurgence of Ikwan and Hamas.

An over-inclusive approach to problem identification has just been demonstrated to us by Mr. Tefft. This approach not only marginalises the Islamists, but also moderate Muslims who are in a bitter fight for survival in the battle of ideas. Mr. Tefft’s approach is not one rooted in strategy. Moderate Muslims should be viewed by non-Muslims as partners in fighting Islamists. That being said, I can understand and sympathise with Mr. Tefft’s frustration. Moderate Muslims are not always easy to identify.

Overall, while I think there is some incongruence between fascism and the nature of the Islamist threat, at a high-level I think that Islamo-fascism is an appropriate descriptor of the problem. It is neither under-inclusive nor over-inclusive. The challenge we are confronted with is a political, confrontational and authoritarian interpretation of Islam. The writings of the 20th century Islamist revivalists (Hasan Al’Banna, Sayid Qut’b, Abi Al’a Al Mawdoudi, Sheikh Haj Amin Al Husseini) demonstrate approaches in common with fascism. When one reads the writings and teachings of these individuals, which are celebrated in the Muslim world, and which form the ideological basis of the full range of Islamist organisations and movements (from Ikwan to Hamas to Al’Qaeda), there is no mistake about the commonalities and shared characteristics with fascism of Giovanni Gentile or Carl Schmitt, particularly a disdain for democracy and fundamental human rights, in favour of the rights of the collective.

Islamo-fascism, as a term, is neither “under-inclusive” nor “over-inclusive”. It defines the enemy narrowly. It has the potential to isolate some moderate and traditional Muslims, not because of the accuracy of the term, but in its delivery. The methods and ways in which the term is delivered will have a bearing on how moderate and traditional Muslims will react. The term “Islamo-fascism” is now inextricably linked to the so called “right-wing” and those who have traditionally been critical and skeptical of Islam. This perception will continue to contribute to the lack of moderate Muslim “buy in”. In my view, the “right”, which is on the forefront of this fight, needs to develop a more strategic approach in engaging moderate and traditional Muslims. How to achieve this is another question, but one that is closely linked and requires examination. It should be a core assumption (not shared by Mr. Tefft), that moderate Muslims and peaceful traditional Muslims are partners in this process. As Mr. Massoud has indicated, they need to be empowered. The term “Islamo-fascism” has the capacity to be an empowering mechanism, if delivered effectively.

Spencer: Perhaps it would be helpful to step back for a moment and recall some of the features of the phenomenon we are trying to capture in a phrase. The 20th century Islamic revivalists to which Mr. Haidon refers wrote of the need for Muslims to make war against and ultimately replace any government not based on Islamic law with a Sharia regime. This is an explicitly and inherently religious imperative, as Maududi articulated when he said that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” The Islamic way of life – Sharia in its classic formulations by the schools of Islamic jurisprudence — is a total concept, encompassing every aspect of life, and subordinating every human endeavor to the Islamic cause.

Is this an Islamic imperative? Undeniably, to any rational observer — although this half of the “Islamo-Fascism” term is controverted even more heatedly than the other half. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has even forbidden his cabinet to use another compound, “Islamic terrorism,” or to suggest in any way that Islam has anything to do with the.the.the large thing that the world faces today. Yet proponents of this view are indeed, as Mr. Haidon said, revivalists: they are attempting to restore what they argue is the purity and fullness of Islam, and appeal to peaceful Muslims on that basis. Part of that fullness and purity is the proposition that there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular, and that Islamic law must be the law of the land.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, however, is quite right when he points out that the term “Islamo-Fascism” has been applied to governments that are not strict Sharia or Islamic revivalist regimes, but are rather dictatorships that – as Hitchens notes regarding Malise Ruthven’s original use of the word “Islamo-Fascism” – “used religious appeals in order to stay in power.” Gartenstein-Ross correctly notes that sometimes these regimes, such as in Algeria, Egypt, and now Musharraf’s Pakistan, cracked down violently on “stateless Islamic militants” who hold an ideology identical to that held by those who attacked us on 9/11. This does complicate somewhat the usefulness of the term. If the enemy is Islamo-Fascism, can the U.S. have Islamo-Fascist allies such as General Musharraf?

Ruthven’s usage is perfectly legitimate: after all, Saddam Hussein, to take the most notorious example, headed an Arab nationalist secular regime, but he never hesitated to use religious language – specifically, the language of jihad warfare – to shore up his base and try to compel Islamic hardliners in Iraq to fight to defend his regime. Nevertheless, Saddam did not institute Sharia and had no desire to do so; Musharraf, despite his own occasional use of Islamic rhetoric, is now actively engaged in combating those who want to make over Pakistan into a strict Sharia state.

The term “Islamo-Fascist” may not, therefore, apply to them or to others like them as well as it does to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir and others who have made it clear that they are fighting for Islam and Islamic law as they see them: Saddam, Musharraf, Mubarak and the secular rulers of Algeria may indeed be authoritarians – fascists – but there is nothing specifically Islamic about their fascism other than the fact that they themselves are Muslim rulers of majority-Muslim states. The state envisioned by Osama and his ilk, in contrast, is just as authoritarian, but it is so in a strictly Islamic context – which is why those in favor of such a state – authoritarian and Sharia-based — merit the “Islamo-Fascist” label.

I disagree with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, however, and agree with Mr. Massoud, about the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross contends that “treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are `Islamofascist’ would run contrary to our strategic interests,” but Mr. Massoud points out correctly that “the strategic goals of al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood are identical; they both desire Global Caliphate.” As the Muslim Brotherhood’s website itself says:

“We want a Muslim individual, a Muslim home, a Muslim people, a Muslim government and state that will lead the Islamic countries and bring into the fold the Muslim Diaspora and the lands robbed from Islam and will then bear the standard of jihad and the call [da’wah] to Allah. [Then the] world will happily accept the precepts of Islam….The problems of conquering the world will only end when the flag of Islam waves and jihad has been proclaimed..The goal is to establish one Islamic state of united Islamic countries, one nation under one leadership whose mission will be to reinforce adherence to the law of Allah…and the strengthening of the Islamic presence in the world arena….The goal…is the establishment of a world Islamic state.”

That statement is quintessentially both Islamic and, in its authoritarianism and orientation of every aspect of society to Islam, Fascist.

As for Mr. Gartenstein-Ross’ contention that “the use of a polemical turn of phrase to `defin[e] the enemy we face’ can also limit the audience that one reaches,” and that “the term causes many people to stop listening-and to disregard otherwise legitimate arguments,” I’m afraid that is inevitable no matter what term one uses. People make decisions about the veracity of an argument based on who is making it, or where it is published, or what set of catch phrases are being used. That is true across the political spectrum. Dispassionate seekers after truth are as thin on the ground now as they were in Diogenes’ day, and we should not let that fact deter us from using a term that may be accurate, useful and in many ways illuminating.

And in light of the fact that the term is in both of its component parts accurate, I do wonder why, as Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says, moderate Muslims “almost uniformly bristle” at the phrase “Islamo-Fascism.” As I found myself saying many times during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, “Islamo-Fascism” doesn’t imply that all Muslims are fascists any more than “white racism” implies that all whites are racist, or “Italian fascism” that all Italians are fascist. So much for the term’s “overbreadth.” And will it “undoubtedly be applied against Islamic religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent”? A further distinction needs to be made here: are those engaging in this conservative but not violent Islamic religious practice believers in the Islamic supremacist notion that underlies the Sharia imperative? In that case, ultimately it matters little that they are “not violent,” for they are pursuing through non-violent means the same goal that Osama and others are pursuing through violence. There are many non-violent Islamic supremacists even in America today, and we need to be aware of the congruence of their agenda with that of the violent jihadists.

When Mr. Tefft says that “the problem with using the term Islamofascist is that it implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims,” I think he is failing to draw the necessary distinction between Islam and Muslims. Religious traditions are large things, and while it is certainly true that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that Muslims must wage war against and subjugate non-Muslims under Sharia rule, it does not follow from that that all Muslims, or any given Muslim, knows of such teachings, takes them to heart, or acts upon them — or ever will.

In Islam as in all religious traditions there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, fervor and emphasis. Islamic supremacism has not, unfortunately, been disavowed by any orthodox sect or school of Islam, but for a variety of historical and cultural reasons these teachings have not been emphasized for a considerable period in some areas of the Islamic world. Because of the deep traditional roots of these teachings, jihadist recruiters in person and via cassette tapes, DVD’s and the Internet are making inroads in these peaceful Muslim communities, and have seized the intellectual initiative in the Islamic world. Nonetheless, there is a large difference between fascist and non-fascist Muslims.

Unlike many analysts, I do not believe we can encourage those non-fascist Muslims by pretending that the Islamic texts do not say what they say, or that the jihadists have no case to make on Islamic grounds; rather, I believe that their case can only be combated by being confronted for what it is. There may be considerable numbers of Muslims who would sincerely renounce Islamic supremacism if given a chance to do so. But since the problem is not even being presented in those terms, non-Muslims are too often fooled by false moderates and pseudo-reformers.

And one quibble: Mr. Tefft says that “the later Suras of the Koran indicate” that “all non-Muslims are to be converted, enslaved or killed.” Actually, the choices for non-Muslims delineated by Muhammad and Islamic law are not conversion, slavery, or death, but conversion, subjugation, or death (cf. Qur’an 9:29, as well as the hadith recorded at Sahih Muslim 4294). Subjugation is not, strictly speaking, slavery, although the distinction between the two at various points in Islamic history was exceedingly fine. Non-Muslims had to accept a humiliating second-class status and held their lives and property always at the sufferance of their Muslim overlords, but they were not slaves outright.

Hughes: The comments and responses in this symposium are useful and enlightening. I think this is just what is needed to characterize and define what our moderator (Mr. Glazov) refers to as “our enemy.” Some may think that referring to Islamic militants as the enemy is too polarizing, but from my view, as a feminist concerned about the well being and rights of women and girls, they are indeed one of the most serious, global threats to women and girls.

As for the term “Islamo-Fascism,” it is a compound term comprised of two essential elements. First of all, it connects the growing threat to the religion that the militants choose to explain and justify their beliefs and actions. They have chosen this base for their ideology. They proclaim themselves to be God’s warriors and call their actions jihad. Their opponents did not project it on to them. It may challenge us to precisely name and identify who they are, but the Islamic radicals are not confused. I know liberal, moderate, and progressive Muslims who also are not confused, they have no trouble distinguishing between the Islamic fundamentalists and Muslims who have different interpretations of the religious texts, especially as they translate the texts into how they live their lives and define their politics.

The second part of the term “Islamo-Fascism” is also important. “Fascism” clearly indicates that this is a political movement. We can debate whether “fascism” is the correct name or not. Some say it isn’t because it differs in some ways from previous fascist movements and regimes. Well, nothing is ever exactly like anything else. I’ll let the historians and political scientists debate this one. If they come up with a better term, they can let us know. The point is we need a term that names this phenomenon as a political movement with common ideology, tactics, and way of ruling once control of territory is established.

A political label also helps us distinguish the political movement from conservative, traditional practices. This distinction is most apparent when we look at the lives of women. There are many families, communities and entire nations that are conservative and traditional, which often translates into suppression and strict control of women and girls. Females are oppressed by discriminatory attitudes and practices, often reinforced by violence (i.e. honor killings). Feminists say that sexism is political. A rallying cry of the second wave of the women’s movement (1960s) was “the personal is political.” While I agree that the status of women and girls is always political, influenced by culture, religion, and traditional practices, I want to distinguish between the small “p” politics of traditional practices, and the capital “P” politics of Islamo-Fascism.

The small “p” politics of sexism is systemic discrimination that exists all over the world; sometimes it is so severe that it reaches the level of oppression. Women’s liberation movements have addressed sexism throughout the world, some more successfully than others. In the ideology and practices of Islamo-Fascism, sexism is politicized. The suppression of women is incorporated in the capital “P” political movement.

As the influence of Islamo-Fascism grows and as Islamo-Fascists gain control of territory, women and girls and their rights become political targets. As I like to say “Terrorism begins at home.” The most severe oppression of women and girls we have ever seen took place under the Taliban in Afghanistan, where girls were banned from education and women were banned from working and consigned to house arrest. They could only emerge from their houses if they covered their bodies and identities with a burqa and were accompanied by a male member of their family.

Islamo-Fascism politicizes sexism, making the oppression of women and girls a political goal. Their success in controlling a population can be measured by the extent to which they have suppressed women and girls. It is their visible sign-to the communities they control and to the outside world-that they are in control. Just as anti-Semitism is a global prejudice, with consequences–sometimes severe consequences-to individuals, it is when anti-Semitism is incorporated into a political movement, as it was with Nazism, that it becomes more virulent and deadly. That is what Islamo-Fascism is doing with sexism. Because even the most misogynous Islamo-Fascist recognizes the biological indispensability of women, they don’t advocate genocide. Instead they practice slavery. Women and girls who violate their rules are viciously punished with whippings. In order to terrorize the rest of the population, a few women and girls are killed, often in brutal public executions, such as stoning to death.

To conclude, it is important to have accurate term or terms to describe the global threat we are facing. The “war on terror” as a label has failed us. My students have no idea what it means. It carries no information. It doesn’t identify the enemies the war is against or their ideas and goals. In fact, it’s a rather sad state of affairs that six years after 9-11 and nine years after the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania we are still trying to decide what to call the people and movement that have targeted us.

In the end, we may decide there are better terms to refer to this militant, deadly political movement, but Islamo-Fascism moves us in the right direction of identifying and characterizing it.

Hitchens: I feel very much vindicated by the comments of the learned members of this panel: whether our disagreements are concerned with principle or with emphasis they are nonetheless of the sort that enable one to learn. I think that the most thin-skinned objector to the coupling of the terms “Islamic” and “fascist” would have to agree that this symposium has enlarged and clarified the subject.

I myself am of the opinion that monotheistic religious belief, with its celebration of an absolutist and unchangeable deity, is in any case implicitly and explicitly totalitarian. But this does not mean that every Baptist in every epoch is always and everywhere the equivalent of today’s members of the deluded “Mahdi Army”, say.

Fascism is not something that can be a permanent part of the landscape. It is hysterical and spasmodic and relies on very strenuous forms of mobilisation. Even when victorious it probably cannot constitute, for very long, a regime. Its tendency to self-destruction is very marked, as I tried to point out. However, it is in some ways precisely this futility and degraded romanticism that make it so dangerous.

I tried to introduce a version of the term because, as Marx says at the opening of the Eighteenth Brumaire, a person trying to learn a new language will always have a tendency to translate it back into the tongue that he already knows. I knew that there would be those who compared the struggle against jihadism to the Cold War (and I argued with Jim Woolsey and others that this was no time to resurrect The Committee for the Free World: an opinion of mine that events have not forced me to reconsider.) The battle, it seemed and seems to me, was very much more like the earlier struggle against an essentially irrational movement. Stalin and Mao may have been deeply unstable people but they were somehow constrained by a wooden materialism: religious intoxication can have the effect of making half-way sane people act with wild disregard for their own self-interest, let alone the interests of others. Khalim Massoud has noticed this demented tendency in the case of the Algerian jihadists, who ended up excommunicating an entire North African population as infidel. Similar pathologies are observable among the sadistic maniacs of Al Qaeda in Mesopotomia.

Let us not forget that ultimate victory over fascism was made possible in large part because of that movement’s own tendency to act in mad ways. (Declaring war on three fronts at once, expelling all those who knew anything about nuclear physics, diverting rail-cars and troops and materiel for the purpose of eliminating civilians.) Thus, in pointing out the kinship between one kind of irrational fanaticism and another, I was also hoping to put a bit of heart and stomach into the argument, and suggest a thoughtful confidence in ultimate victory. This confidence is given a slight surge, in my own case at least, by observation of the criminally insane and self-defeating tactics that the fascists of Islam have been pursuing since the fall of 2001.

I should add the anti-fascists of Islam, who have born much of the heat and burden of the day, deserve a much more honorable title that that of “moderate”. Perhaps this condescending terminology could furnish the material for a subsequent FP round-table.

FP: And the round-table on this subject will begin immediately. Thank you for the excellent idea Mr. Hitchens.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, your turn my friend.

Gartenstein-Ross: At the outset, I’d like to agree with Hitchens’s remark that even “the most thin-skinned objector to the coupling of the terms `Islamic’ and `fascist’ would have to agree that this symposium has enlarged and clarified the subject.” In fact, I recently spoke with a “moderate” Muslim colleague (I put the term “moderate” in quotations not to suggest that my colleague is a closet extremist, but to signal my agreement with Hitchens’s statement of the term’s inadequacy) about Hitchens’s initial contribution to this symposium. On hearing that past usage of the terms “Catholic fascist,” “clerical fascist,” and “Judaeo-Nazi” mean that Islam is not being uniquely singled out, he commented, “As a Muslim, that makes me feel somewhat better about the term.”

That being said, I do not waver from my initial position in this debate: while the analogies between Islamic extremism and fascism are clear, and while Hitchens (and, perhaps, others?) has competently employed the polemical term to rebut those who would like to paint al-Qaeda as a kind of turbaned liberation theology, “Islamofascism” is not the term we should use to define the enemy. It seems that I am alone on the panel in taking that position: the only other contributor who opposes the use of this term is Tefft, who argues that it falsely “implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims.” That is, obviously, not my argument. Now, it’s always pleasant to be the lone dissenter in a debate-particularly in a debate like this, where I’m not forced to distance myself from the kind of hypersensitive “how could you even think of using that term?” arguments to which the other panelists alluded. But because I am a lone voice, you’ll have to indulge the length of this summary of the reasons that I encourage others to avoid “Islamofascism” as a definitional term.

The first argument I advanced against the term is its overbreadth. Arab countries, for example, are generally no less fascistic than they were in 1990 when Malise Ruthven applied the term to Arab dictatorships-yet they are not the enemy that we’re fighting. My argument on this point has not been refuted. Haidon argues that the term is “an appropriate descriptor of the problem” because such twentieth century revivalists as Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and A.A. Maududi have approaches in common with fascism. (He also mentions Haj Amin al-Husseini, grand mufti of Jerusalem, who had more in common with fascism than just an approach.) I don’t disagree with the parallels that Haidon draws, but they are not responsive to my argument: while “Islamofascism” is a fair description of the jihadist ideologues whose views drive al-Qaeda and other militant Islamic movements, it also describes many other actors in the Middle East. The term has been applied to groups ranging from al-Qaeda and Hizballah to the PFLP, Iraqi Ba’ath party, and Syrian Alawite elite. “Islamofascism” largely appears to have become a stand-in for “Middle Eastern bad guys.”

Spencer agrees that there is a problem with overbreadth, but attempts to mitigate it by pointing out that although Pervez Musharraf, Saddam Hussein, and other leaders in the Muslim world to whom the term “Islamofascist” might apply employ religious rhetoric, they have not implemented sharia law. Therefore, Spencer states, the term might not “apply to them or to others like them as well as it does to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir and others who have made it clear that they are fighting for Islam and Islamic law as they see them.” His argument is true enough if one emphasizes the “Islamo” half of “Islamofascism.” But if one emphasizes the “fascism” half of the term, it fits Middle Eastern regimes better than it does al-Qaeda. I do not deny the authoritarian nature of today’s militant Islamic movement, nor its conception of religious supremacy-but some Middle Eastern regimes explicitly drew their organizing principles from twentieth century fascist movements. George Michael (no, not the Wham! singer) writes in his book The Enemy of My Enemy:

The German model of centralized government and corporatist nationalism remained attractive to many of the early pan-Arab nationalists in Egypt, some of whom sought the creation of an “Arab Reich” that would unite all Arabs into one nation. The early pan-Arab leaders searched for methods to mobilize their populations and build independent nations. They were influenced in large part by European fascists who viewed the state as an organic outgrowth of the nation. As they saw it, only a strong, authoritarian state could protect the nation. Hence, the German model of bureaucratic centralization and authoritarianism looked attractive to many Arabs who sought an alternative way to modernize their countries.

This approach was most influential in Egypt, where such former Nazis as Otto Skorzeny, Johann von Leers, Wilhelm Farmbacher, Oskar Munzel, and Wilhelm Voss were given positions in Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government. But former Nazi officials were granted sanctuary in other Middle Eastern states as well (notably Syria), and the fascist model was adopted elsewhere: recall that in my first contribution to this symposium, I quoted former CIA director James Woolsey’s statement that Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party was “modeled after the fascist regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.” In contrast, if you look at the kind of rule that was set up under the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, under al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in those parts of Iraq that came under its control, and more contemporaneously in northern Pakistan, these are not typical fascist states. Rather, their murderous political apparatus is somewhat unique. The same can be said of the long-term end-states laid out by both Indonesia’s Jemaah Islamiyah and also the international Hizb-ut-Tahrir movement. So if you give equal weight to both “Islamo” and also “fascist” in the term we are debating, overbreadth remains a problem.

My remarks about the Muslim Brotherhood have been somewhat misapprehended. Massoud decries the tactic of “supporting the lesser evil,” while Spencer quotes from the Brotherhood’s web site to show that the organization is “both Islamic and, in its authoritarianism and orientation of every aspect of society to Islam, Fascist.” I did not claim otherwise: in my first contribution, I said that both al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood should be considered “Islamofascist” if one employs that term. Massoud in fact makes my point for me by stating that, tactically, al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood “need to be treated differently.” One reason a definitional term like “Islamofascism” is not useful is that it may obscure the tactical need to deal differently with such groups. (Incidentally, I’m currently participating in a separate FPM symposium on the Brotherhood that further elucidates my views on the group.)

Massoud claims that turning terrorists against one another “hasn’t really worked so far.” Nothing could be further from the truth. A critical reason that the U.S. has made such gains in Iraq over the past year is our ability to engage locals through the Awakening movement, along with other institutions such as the Concerned Local Citizens. Our ability to “turn” former insurgents has been an important part of this. Turning former insurgents has reduced the pool of potential recruits for AQI, created a mechanism for allowing experienced Sunni fighters to provide security in their areas, established a security force with local knowledge of AQI (since many of these men were formerly aligned with or subordinate to AQI), and provided a reconciliation mechanism for incorporating large numbers of armed Sunnis into the security forces in their areas. It has also been an important part of convincing people to stop participating in the insurgency. I don’t think the U.S. has done a fantastic job of this beyond Iraq, but Iraq clearly shows that turning terrorists against one another can work.

My next argument was that, tactically, using a polemical term to define the enemy can limit the audience that one reaches. Spencer replies that “[d]ispassionate seekers after truth are as thin on the ground now as they were in Diogenes’ day”-and thus we shouldn’t worry about employing potentially alienating terminology. It is true that we live in an age where public commentary can be characterized by its cheapness, demagoguery, and overall cowardice. Yet I don’t think the situation is as bleak as portrayed by Spencer. If it were, why are any of us wasting our time engaging in public commentary about terrorism and religious extremism? None of the panelists has seriously disputed the fact that the term “Islamofascism” causes a portion of the one’s potential audience to simply tune out. Why use such a term when there are other options?

Finally, I argued that the term “Islamofascism” makes it more difficult to work with moderate Muslims. Certainly Massoud and Haidon provide examples of Islamic moderates who aren’t upset by usage of the term, but Massoud’s statement that “the ones who are offended are not moderate” is simply untrue. I personally know a number of moderate Muslims who take exception to that phraseology. It is true that some Muslim extremists masquerading as moderates have objected to the term, but it’s a category error to say that therefore any Muslim who objects to the term “Islamofascism” is not moderate.

I stated in my first contribution that some moderate Muslim objections to the term “Islamofascism”-and to other terminology used to describe militant Islam-are illegitimate. But are there legitimate objections? I think so. One legitimate objection is the term’s overbreadth, which I have already discussed at length. A second legitimate objection that I outlined in my initial response is the concern that the term will be employed against religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent. In response, Spencer asks whether “those engaging in this conservative but not violent Islamic religious practice” are “believers in the Islamic supremacist notion that underlies the Sharia imperative.” If they are, he argues that “it matters little that they are `not violent.'” While I do not want to excuse those who seek to impose brutal forms of sharia through non-violent means, I note that within virtually all religions there is a constant struggle to determine what the faith means, and how it intersects with society. Some Muslims, for example, define themselves as pro-sharia, but in fact mean that they incorporate sharia into their personal lives while favoring secularism in society. This approach appears contradictory at first, and only time will tell if it can gain traction. There are also some Muslims who define themselves as pro-sharia but interpret the sharia in such a way that it has little in common with the religious laws adopted by the Taliban, the Islamic Courts Union, or Saudi Arabia. I agree with Spencer that we do Muslim moderates no favors “by pretending that the Islamic texts do not say what they say,” but a distinction (albeit one that is not always crystal clear) exists between conservative and militant practices of Islam.

How do I define the enemy? Sadly, my own terminology isn’t all that exciting. I agree with Glazov that one cannot remove the word “Islam” from the equation because that is how bin Laden and others expressly frame their motivations. I tend to use the phrase “militant Islam” because we are contending with Islamic movements defined by their willingness to take up arms for their cause. I use the terms “radical Islam” and “extremist Islam” because Islamic terrorist movements are radical or extreme by any sane definition-and both terms signal that this is not.

http://www.aina.org/news/20080208141046.htm

It’s The Left And The Islamo-Fascists, Not the Term ‘Islamofascism’ – That’s Soiling The Name Of Islam

November 11, 2007


http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/11/its_the_left_an.php

It’s The Left And The Islamo-Fascists, Not the Term ‘Islamofascism’ – That’s Soiling The Name Of Islam
Topics: Understanding Islam
Islamofascism Week is over, but not the controversy.

However, unless one has maintained a 24-hour existence in a remote cave somewhere in the hinderlands of some remote jungle, how can any rational human being deny the role Islam plays in 21st century terrorism? What is it about the Left that brings them to defend radical Islam and refuse to admit that it is indeed extreme fascism with an extreme propensity for terrorism and intolerance? What is it about the term “Islamofascism” that brings the Left to refuse to acknowledge it as representative of militant Islam? Is it the case, as Jamie Kirchick’s suspects (hat tip JPost.com), “that the Left’s aversion to the use of ‘Islamofascism’ has much to do with the simple fact that Islam is a non-Western religion, supposedly comprised of the wretched of the earth, and thus, a different standard must apply to its most fanatical adherents, whose real motivation must, at ‘root’ be a legitimate anti-imperialist impulse”?

Or is the Left simply off the reservation of reality – as usual?

As Petra Marquardt-Bigman points out at JPost.com, in the war of words, the front lines are drawn clearly enough: employing the term Islamofascism is just a “conservative smear tactic”, and as Jeff Jacoby once documented, for the truly dedicated practitioners of political correctness, no verbal contortion is too grotesque to avoid having “Islam” or “Muslim” appear anywhere near the word “terrorism”:

… it is by no means true that the resemblance between the fascist and totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century and Islamist extremism has been acknowledged only by conservative or right-wing writers. Indeed, several writers with impeccable leftist credentials have published books on the subject, most prominent among them perhaps Paul Berman’s Terror and Liberalism (2003). But as some of Berman’s critics have demonstrated, substance counts little in the sound and fury of political debate, and anybody who argues that Islamism has fascist or totalitarian traits will have to resign himself to be denounced as a neo-con Bush supporter, no matter how strongly he has stated different positions.In the current controversy about Islamofascism, Christopher Hitchens has once again explained why this term is an entirely valid one to describe contemporary jihadist ideology. Focusing on the often expressed criticism that any comparison between jihadism and fascism is ahistorical, Hitchens lists several striking similarities: “Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. […] 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”. Moreover, Hitchens notes that calls to re-establish the caliphate are reminiscent of Hitler’s ambitions for a German “Reich” or Mussolini’s fantasies about reviving the Roman empire.

Hitchens concludes his list of comparisons arguing that it is “in some ways encouraging” that both fascism and jihadism have some sort of self-destructive “death wish” since “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”.

Indeed, this easily brings to mind the often fondly repeated assertion of Hamas politicians that they are “not seekers of office, but seekers of martyrdom”. But if history is any guide, the self-destruction of such movements tends to entail so much destruction for everybody else that there is hardly anything “encouraging” about it.

Like I’ve said, what is it about about the term Islamofascism that fails to describe radical Islamism?As Denis Prager notes in his piece today, Muslim student groups and other Muslim organizations joining with the left in the ad hominem condemnation of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week was most unfortunate. Many Muslims know well that there is indeed such a thing as Islamo-Fascism, and they should be the first to join in fighting it. It is not those who use the term “Islamo-Fascism” who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists.

And it is the Left that is helping the Islamofascists do the sullying ….

Related reading: If Not Islamofascism, What Name to Give?

Technorati –

Islam and Islamofascism

November 9, 2007

Islam and Islamofascism Larry Houle – 11/8/2007The term Islamo – Fascism gives tremendous creditability to Islam. It perpetuates the myth that Islam is a wonderful religion of peace and love that has been hi – jacked and perverted by a few bad apples of evil Islamo – Facsists, Islamic militants, jihadists, Wahhabism, radical Islam, Islamists. There has been no hijacking. There has been no perversion. These demented souls are following exactly the teachings of the Koran and in the footsteps of the Prophet – Muhammad.The reality is that Osama bin Laden is a true Muslim – a holy man of the book who is following exactly the teachings of Islam as recorded in the Koran.

By not exposing the true nature of Islam, those who use the term Islamo – Fascism etc are elevating Islam to an equal footing with Christianity and other world religions.

WHY ISLAM IS ISLAMO – FASCISM

Islam is a barbaric, sexist, violent ideology (not a religion) that worships a pagan god (Allah) and women are oppressed under Islam.

THE CRIMINALITY OF MUHAMMAD

How could any person be ‘proud’ to follow a man who was a pedophile, endorser of clitoridectomy, slave trader, rapist, polygamist, punched his child bride and endorsed whipping/beating women and ploughing them like fields, stoned women to death, flogged his slave women for fornication while he had sex with slaves himself, propositioned women and passed them round to friends, denied women equal inheritance, or equality under the law etc forever and abused and denigrated them in every way–not to mention his general sadism to others, mass murder, beheading captives, massacres, terror, torture, owning slaves and raping them, looting and pillaging, amputations, flogging, thievery, lying, hate, megalomania— unending horror.

All Muslims believe the Koran is the Eternal divine word of God – the Eternal laws of God. All Muslims believe that God authored the Koran and a copy of the Koran is in heaven. The Koran remains for all Muslims, not just “fundamentalists,” the uncreated word of God Himself. It is valid for all times and places forever; its ideas are absolutely true and beyond all criticism. To question it is to question the very word of God, and hence blasphemous. A Muslim’s duty is to believe it and obey its divine commands without question.

Following are some of the close to 1000 Islamo – Fascist teachings of the Koran that are not sins against God, are not crimes against God but are THE LAWS OF GOD.

SLAVERY AND RAPING AND KILLING SLAVES ARE LAWS OF GOD FOR ALL ETERNITY

4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

“All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. You can’t have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like).” 4:24

If some one kills your freeman, you must kill one of their free men, if some one kills your slave, you must kill one of their slaves, if some one kills your woman you must kill one of their women.

2.178 O true believers, the law of retaliation is ordained you for the slain: The free [shall die] for the free, and the slave for a slave, and a woman for a woman.

23.1-6: Successful indeed are the believers, Who are humble in their prayers, And who keep aloof from what is vain, And who are givers of poor-rate, And who guard their private parts, Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable.

LOOTING AS AN ETERNAL LAW OF GOD AND SHARING 1/5 OF THE PROCEEDS FROM LOOTING AND SELLING SLAVES WITH GOD

Quran-8:41— “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.

Quran-33:27- “And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.” [Merciful Allah asked Prophet Muhammad to confiscate entire properties of the surrendered Jews]

100% OF BOOTY WAS MUHAMMAD’S IF NO VIOLENCE WAS INVOLVED

However if the victims surrendered without any fight, all the booty belonged to Muhammad.

59.6 Allah gave all the booty (Fai’) to His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) if the unbelievers surrendered without fight.

MURDERING INFIDELS AS AN ETERNAL LAW OF GOD

9:50 When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS (unbelievers) WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them

9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, feel themselves subdued.”

5:36 The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

Quran-8:17—It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s…..” (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah)

Quran-8:67—“It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until He thoroughly subdued the land….” (Allah insisting Prophet to kill all the prisoners, and should not keep any surrendered prisoners alive until He (Prophet) occupied entire Arabia .”

Quran-33:26- “And He brought those of the People of the Book [Jewish people of Banu Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew (beheaded) and some you took prisoners (captive)”

APOSTATES SHOULD BE EXECUTED

4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? God hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom God hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom God hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them;

THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN ARE ETERNAL LAWS OF GOD

Koran sura 5.6 (repeated in sura 4.43 –re removing pollution before praying) And if ye are sick on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet or ye have contact with women and ye find not water, then go to clean high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it

“When it’s time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can’t find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6

Qur’an 4:43 “Believers, approach not prayers if you are polluted (had sex, farted, attended call of nature or touched a woman).

2:223 Likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will;”

65.4 You can marry (and divorce) little girls who have not yet reached menstruation age.

65.4 For those who have no courses (premenstrual underage girls i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months.

WOMEN ARE ½ HUMAN BEINGS AND STUPID CREATURES

4:11 God (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females

4:176 They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: God directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. … if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female.

4:14 Women have very little intelligence—their own testimony is inadmissible in rape cases; in other matters their testimony is half to that of a man

MEN CAN MARRY UP TO FOUR WOMEN: MUHAMMAD CAN HAVE UNLIMITED WIVES

Men can marry up to four women if they treat them equally; unlimited forcible concubines permitted

In Islam, not only are men allowed to practice polygamy, but they may also capture women in war and use them as sex slaves. This is considered morally legitimate according to the Quran. In other words, non-Muslim women have no right to be free from the horror of slavery and serial rape by Muslim military men.

4:3 Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

Muhammad can go beyond the four-wife restriction, can treat his own wives and sex slaves unequally

33:50-52 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large);

EVIL PARADISE

An evil Paradise of big breasted, big eyed Hurs to be sexually molested for all eternity as a reward for those who slay and are slain in the service of God.

9:111 “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden ( Paradise ) will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain”

“As for the righteous (Muslims)…We (Allah) shall wed them to beautiful virgins with lustrous eyes” – Q 44:51-54

BRUTAL AND INHUMANE INJUSTICE OF GOD

“Lewd” women should be punished with life imprisonment

4:15 If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way.

It is unclear what “lewdness” actually means. This verse is so open-ended, almost any woman could potentially be accused of lewdness and sentenced to a life of house arrest, except ultraconservative women who never do anything to offend strict Muslim men.

Stealing should be punished by amputation of hands

5:41 As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from God, for their crime: and God is Exalted in power.

When a person has no hands, they probably cannot earn a living anymore, so they will end up as a beggar on the street. That doesn’t seem very beneficial to society. Also, before medical sanitation and anesthesia, amputation of the hands was in many cases the equivalent of a death sentence.

Adultery and fornication must be punished by flogging with a hundred stripes.

24:2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

This verse leaves no other option for Muslims who believe in the divine origin of the Quran. It specifically says they must not have mercy on people who have committed adultery or fornication, and that this brutal punishment of 100 lashes is “prescribed by God.” However, since other verses in the Quran specifically allow men to have sex slaves, the horrible crime of serial rape against a non- Muslim is allowed.

IS IT RATIONAL – IS IT A REASONABLE HUMAN THOUGHT

Does anyone truly believe that God would have as His Prophet for His one and only true religion a criminal – Muhammad and teachings of slavery, rape, murder etc. Is this a rational, reasonable human thought that God would be a criminal involved in these evil criminal acts.

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to require His believers to murder unbelievers after giving them a warning to convert or pay a submission tax. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion who slay and are slain in His service to ascend to an evil Paradise of big breasted, big eyed virgins (Hurs) that they can sexually molest with eternal hard ons for all eternity in the presence of God who teaches you how to engage in orgies, group sex. Virgins that re-generate as virgins after each sex act. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable? How can you be normal and believe that by fulfilling Kornic teaching 9:111 (quoting again) – “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain” you will go to this demented sexual whorehouse of God and not directly to hell and damnation.

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion with such an evil sexually depraved Paradise . Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational, reasonable human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to enslave the unbelievers, breed and sell them. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His male followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to rape unbelievers and gang rape them. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to marry up to 4 women and His
Prophet to marry as many women as he desired and own and rape his slaves. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion were women are evil, vile creatures – ½ human beings. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to require His believers to share the booty gained from the looted property of the unbelievers and from the sale of slaves with God Himself. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to amputate hands or flog to death (100 lashes is death) for robbery or adultery.

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to murder freemen, slaves and women in retaliation for someone killing one of their freemen, slaves, and women.

We can go on and on.

THE ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY NOT. IT IS NOT RATIONAL. IT IS NOT REASONABLE. THERE IS NO SUCH CRIMINAL GOD.

Islam was the invention and creation of Muhammad. There was no Allah. The Koran is the teachings of Muhammad and not any God. By not exposing the truth of Islam, and trying to be politically correct and not be labeled as a racist or Islamaphobic , these people utilizing these terms are doing us all a grave disservice. By perpetrating the myth of a hijacking and perversion of the teachings of Islam, they are granting Islam – legitimacy.

Islam is totally and completely bogus – a sham and a fraud.

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3689&cid=11&sid=109

Technorati – ]

ISLAMOFASCISM 101 – The Very Appropriate Term

March 15, 2007

ISLAMOFASCISM 101, the very Appropriate Term, Islamo Arab Fascism (Islamic facism)

Hitler’s Mufti Islamofascism 101 ‘Apes & pigs’

Mufti Part 1 – The Arab Muslim Nazi Connection

Mufti Part 2 – Accounts of atrocities

The Truth about Islam and Nazism

Adolph Hitler meets with Mufti

Hitler, Mufti, Modern Islamo Nazism

Hitler and the grand mufti of Jerusalem

Nazi Roots Of Islamofascism http://www.willisms.com/archives/2006/06/nazi_roots_of_i.html

Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini with Hitler http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

Islamic Fascism 101, On all they’ve done to earn the name. Make no apologies for the use of “Islamic fascism.” It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarr. to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist” appeasers in the West is just too bad. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGEyNjcyNzBjYTQ2MDM0ZGIzZjY5YjhhMzViYjdjNTA

‘Islamofascism’ Beware of a religion without irony. BY ROGER SCRUTON … The term “Islamofascism” was introduced by the French writer Maxine Rodinson http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008822

Islamofascism … Bush Is on to Something http://hnn.us/articles/30111.html

Defending ‘Islamofascist’ What I like the best about the term Islamofascism is that it calls a spade a spade. It’s not some wishy-washy euphemism. It pinpoints and accurately describes this century’s greatest threat to humanity. It combines intolerant religious zealotry, that’s the “Islamo” part, with ruthless totalitarianism, that’s the “fascist” part. Islamofascism is a radical subset of Islam. Just as Earth First! terrorists are a radical subset of environmentalists. Not all Muslims are Islamofascists, but all Islamofascists are Muslims. Al-Qaida is Islamofascist, as are the Taliban and the extremist Wahhabi sect. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5011681,00.html

What Is ‘Islamofascism’? http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/593ajdua.asp

Deroy Murdock on Islamofascism http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock120302.asp

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Subterfuge: Plan For Islamofascism – 101 http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2005/11/the_muslim_brot_1.php

Islamofascism Rising in Holland http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6485

Sheik: ‘It’s OK to kill non-Muslims’ London Islamic cleric caught on tape http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29709

“If a kafir person (non-believer) goes in a Muslim country, he is like a cow,” explains Hamza. “Anybody can take him. That is the Islamic law.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30689

What I mean by ‘Islamo-fascism’ [March 2003] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31315

The Moderate face of Islamofascism http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/06/the_moderate_fa.php

Islamofascism The Clash of Civilizations is West vs. West http://www.michaelnovak.net/Module/Article/ArticleView.aspx?id=110

The Devilfish of Islamofascism http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4364

Islamic radicals, like Hitler, cultivate support by nurturing grievances against others. Islamists, like Hitler, scapegoat Jews for their problems and want to destroy them. Islamists, Hitler divided the world into Aryans and subhuman non-Aryans, while Islamists divide the world into Muslims and sub-human infidels. Nazis aimed for their Thousand-Year Reich, while Islamists aim for their eternal Caliphate. The Nazi party used terror to achieve power, and from London to Amsterdam, Bali to New York, Egypt to Turkey, Islamists are trying to do the same. The two fascisms, one racial and one religious, one beaten and the other resurgent, are evil in both their ideology and their methodology, in their supremacism, intolerance, belief in violence and threat to democracy http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article550184.ece

…the United States can’t win this war alone. We can do damage to the enemy. We can take the philosophical high ground and remind people of the importance of how freedom can change societies. But we will work with allies and friends to achieve this objective. And part of the challenge in the 21st century is to remind people about the stakes, and remind people that in moments of quiet, there’s still an Islamic fascist group plotting, planning and trying to spread their ideology. And one of the things that — one of the things that came out of this unfortunate incident in the Middle East is it is a stark reminder that there are those who want to stop the advance of liberty and destabilize young democracies. And they’re willing to kill people to do so. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060807.html

…about the term, Islamo-fascism […] listen to what Osama bin Laden has said. He has said that his envisions an “Islamic nation,” to reestablish the caliphate — I don’t know if it would still be headquartered in Baghdad, but if you want your pristine historic analogy, that’s where it would be, and it would extend from Asia all the way back to Spain, because memories are still raw about 1492 when the Moors were expelled from Andalusia. That’s what he’s talking about. So in that sense, what you end up having is strict centralized government under repressive conditions, the likes of which we saw with the Taliban. If you look at the interpretation of sharia law that has been championed by bin Laden and others, it fits all of the descriptions you’ve had. And if you talk about an unbroken government using those kinds of regulations over an extended landm.., which is what he’s talking about, that it does fit the description. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060913-3.html

Said Amir Arjomand [1986]: Like fascism, the Islamic revolutionary movement has offered a new synthesis of the political creeds it has violently attacked. And, like the fascists, the Islamic militants are against democracy because they consider liberal democracy a foreign model that provides avenues for free expression of alien influences and ideas. (Also like the fascists, however, the Islamic militants would not necessarily accept the label of “antidemocratic.”) http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-8871(198604)38%3A3%3C383%3AIIRICP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

It’s Fascism — And It’s Islamic [September 07, 2006]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/its_fascism_and_its_islamic.html

We must stand up to Islamo-fascism [August 2006] … The apologists for the Islamo-fascists – an accurate term – leave millions around the world exposed to a less obvious but more insidious barbarism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/aug/15/haroldevans

A new movement against radical Islam? Dec 2, 2006 … director of the Council for National Policy, have teamed up for what they describe as the creation of an “Anti-Islamofascism Movement.” …

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53190

A European Awakening Against Islamic Fascism?

[February 6, 2006]

By Victor Davis Hanson

….Yet suddenly in 2006, the Europeans seem to have collectively resuscitated. The Madrid bombings, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the London subway attacks, and the French rioting in October and November seem to have prompted at least some Europeans at last to question their once hallowed sense of multiculturalism in which Muslim minorities were not asked to assimilate at home and Islamic terrorists abroad were seen as mere militants or extremists rather than enemies bent on destroying the West.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_6_06_VDH.html

West vs. Islamofascism: We’re Too Nice – Goodwill gestures to Muslims often blow up in our face.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17169

Crisis in the Middle East: Civilization at Stake – Jul 20, 2006 … Islamofascism seeks our destruction — not accommodation, … Islamofascism does not end with the “recapture” of “historic Palestine. …

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16127

Yes, the problem is ‘Islamic fascism’ [Aug 13, 2006]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525865419&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/14/cnr.05.html

How to defeat Islamo-fascism

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Ohmyrus51230.htm

Faster, Please! Islamofascism [February 7th, 2007]

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2007/02/07/islamofascism/

Islamofascism

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina50419.htm

Islamofascism and the Mental Immune System Oct 26, 2006 … The surest way of dealing with Islamofascism is through effective inculcation of a religious software that promotes tolerance of diversity, … http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/islamofascism_and_the_mental_i.html

Never Mind the Bomb, Beware of Islamofascism [Dec 20, 2007]

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=88&Itemid=2

Islamo-Fascism Week Spotlights Terrorism Oct 23, 2007 … A week-long series of forums discussing Islamic fundamentalism’s ties to human rights abuses and terrorism has sparked protests and charges …

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/islamofascism_week/2007/10/23/43339.html

Let’s worry about Islamofascism

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=kanchan%2Fkanchan166.txt&writer=kanchan

Arab Racism & Islamo-Fascism!!! The most vicious Torture for WEEKS! and Cold Blooded Murder of poor Innocent Ilan Halimi by Islamo-Fascists http://arabracismislamofascism.blogspot.com/2006/03/most-vicious-torture-for-weeks-and.html

Neo-Nazi becomes fanatical Muslim. 24/5/2006. YOU COULDN’T make it up. A leading Nazi behind the notorious Combat 18 has become a fanatical Muslim supporter http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=11680&grp=66&cat=330

Islamofascism the term (article by WSJ) http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/08/islamofascism.html

Kinder, Gentler Islamofascism http://www.kxnet.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=103620

How to explain the rise of Islamofascism? One word: Success http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/sound2454159.992361111.html

Islamofascism’s 1936 http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060801-093446-6334r.htm

More on the Term “Islamic Fascists” http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/652

The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al Qaeda http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15344

Islamofascism by any other name http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060901-090752-7525r.htm

Yes, the problem is ‘Islamic fascism http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525865419&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Islamofasicsm: Hamas’ Sturm Und Drang Islamofascism is a completely appropriate term http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008063.php

Islamic Fascism the Enemy, Not Terror, Says Santorum — 07/21/2006 http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200607/POL20060721a.html

New wave of genocide building in Sudan… cleansing black Sufi Muslims from the western province of Darfur http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200406250926.asp

Oriana Fallaci and the War Against Islamofascism http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20343

The Meaning of ‘Islamofascism’ … ‘Islamofascism’. That conflates (sic) all the elements into one image: suicide bombs, kidnappings, and the Qur’an; the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan; Iranian clerics and Hitler … Unlike CAIR, many Arab liberal and reformist writers, have supported such an analogy. A Saudi columnist, Muhammad bin ‘Abd Al-Latif Aal Al-Sheikh, published a series of articles in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah in July, attacking the ideology of the Al-Salafiyya movement (long as. with Saudi Wahhabi Islam). He said that the ideology of this movement was similar to, or even worse than, the Nazi ideology, and that it should be dealt accordingly. Mr. Al-Sheikh cited the conference on “de-Nazification” held in Potsdam, Germany, shortly following Nazi Germany’s surrender in 1945 to serve as precedence today. He explained it was credited with uprooting the culture of Nazism from Europe and that the conference made Nazism into something similar to a crime, not just in judicial and political terms, but also in terms of culture, ideology, and the media. Just as the world uprooted Nazism at the Potsdam conference, Al-Sheikh explained that the West should follow suit with Islamism after the attacks of September 11, 2001: “I still believe that one of the primary missions of the international community today is to repeat its experience with Nazism and to deal with this dangerous barbarian culture [of Islamofascism] exactly as it dealt with the Nazi culture. If this does not happen, the near future is liable to bring many [events], the consequences of which will be far more severe for all of humanity than [the consequences] of World War II.” A columnist for the London Arabic daily Al-Hayat, Zuheir Abdullah, blamed what he termed “Arab fascism”and “Islamism”for leading to the current backwardness of the Middle East. In an August 2003 article he wrote, “since 1948, primitive Arab fascism,” sometimes “allied with fundamentalist Islam,” has produced only “empty slogans.” Mr. Abdullah continued, “many simple-minded people and ignorant persons were unfortunately brainwashed and turned into the fuel of this extremism.” He concluded by stating the Arab world’s embrace of fascism and Islamism has led it to adding “almost nothing” to modern civilization. http://www.nysun.com/article/33302 Michael Ledeen on Fascism & War on Terror http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200310170840.asp

Islamic Fascism The only proper response to Islamofascism is total war http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.fascism.html

The Devilfish of Islamofascism http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4364

Lebanon, Islamofascism and democracy http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050619-111015-8701r.htm

Rogmios on Islamofascism http://mysite.verizon.net/rogmios/id75.html

Islamofascism — an enemy like no other
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2006/08/03/islamofascism_–_an_enemy_like_no_other

Islamofascism, Inc. by Chris Weinkopf To use Time’s pop-business lingo, Hamas is but a subsidiary of Islamofascism, Inc. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7938

Hamas and Islamofascism http://allocasuarina.blogspot.com/2006/10/hamas-and-islamofascism.html

The Hamas-charter might indeed be a prime example of Islamofascism http://ronrosenbaum.pajamasmedia.com/2006/12/18/islamofascism_denial_and_islam.php

Nuclear Islamo-fascism http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3182730,00.html

THE CREATION OF AN ANTI-ISLAMOFASCISM MOVEMENT http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/2539/2/

The Scope of Islamofascism http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/5948

Islamism, fascism and terrorism [Nov-Dec ’02]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/islamism-fascism-terrorism.html

Islamofascism and the Mental Immune System http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/islamofascism_and_the_mental_i.html

The Historical Collaboration of Nazis with Muslims/Arabs http://somebodyhelpme.info/nazimuslims/nazimuslims.html

DANEgerus – Islamofascism http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/Right.asp?svSubject=Islamofascism

A Bridge to ‘Moderate’ Islam Is In Fact a Road to Hell… Let us, for the record, be clear on this subject one more time: Islamism, Islamofascism, Radical Islam, Political Islam, and Militant Islam are different terms for essentially the same thing, a virulent, hateful, and violent system of beliefs and practices. Yet, one and all are progeny and mutation of Islam itself. [Agust 2007] http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3226&cid=2&sid=2

If we don’t win the war against Islamofascism other issues won’t matter at all.

http://www.americancongressfortruth.org/

What is “Islamo-fascism”? Persian Journal, Iran – Jul 20, 2007 http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_22192.shtml

Moderate Islam Is No Islam http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3109&cid=2&sid=2

“Islamofascism is rooted in a theocratic Islamic jihadism that seeks to destroy and annihilate every last one of us. It wants to establish a complete Islamic theocracy across the world and for that to happen it means our culture has to be completely snuffed out http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58183

Fascism, Islamism, and Anti-Semitism [Jan. 2006] http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed010306c.cfm


WAKE UP AND SMELL THE CONFLICT [September 23, 2007] — WORLD WAR IV: The Long Struggle against Islamofascism

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/wake_up_and_smell_the_conflict.htm

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week [week of October 22-26, 2007] http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A5F5C60A-C63A-4142-B4F5-1B8E5A3F3E94

Defending the term “Islamofascism.” – By Christopher Hitchens [0ct. 2007] The term Islamofascism was first used in 1990 in Britain’s Independent newspaper by Scottish writer Malise Ruthven, who was writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power. I didn’t know about this when I employed the term “fascism with an Islamic face” to describe the attack on civil society on Sept. 11, 2001, and to ridicule those who presented the attack as some kind of liberation theology in action. “Fascism with an Islamic face” is meant to summon a dual echo of both Alexander Dubcek and Susan Sontag (if I do say so myself), and in any case, it can’t be used for everyday polemical purposes, so the question remains: Does Bin Ladenism or Salafism or whatever we agree to call it have anything in common with fascism? I think yes. 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. 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. (See my column on Osama Bin Laden’s Sept. 11 statement.) There isn’t a perfect congruence. Historically, fascism laid great emphasis on glorifying the nation-state and the corporate structure. There isn’t much of a corporate structure in the Muslim world, where the conditions often approximate more nearly to feudalism than capitalism, but Bin Laden’s own business conglomerate is, among other things, a rogue multinational corporation with some links to finance-capital. As to the nation-state, al-Qaida’s demand is that countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia be dissolved into one great revived caliphate, but doesn’t this have points of resemblance with the mad scheme of a “Greater Germany” or with Mussolini’s fantasy of a revived Roman empire? Technically, no form of Islam preaches racial superiority or proposes a master race. But in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the “pure” and the “exclusive” over the unclean and the kufar or profane. In the propaganda against Hinduism and India, for example, there can be seen something very like bigotry. In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the grand mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler’s side). In the attempted destruction of the Hazara people of Afghanistan, who are ethnically Persian as well as religiously Shiite, there was also a strong suggestion of “cleansing.” And, of course, Bin Laden has threatened force against U.N. peacekeepers who might dare interrupt the race-murder campaign against African Muslims that is being carried out by his pious Sudanese friends in Darfur. http://www.slate.com/id/2176389/

Islamo-Fascism Denial [Oct. 23 07] There is nothing artful or contrived in the term “Islamo-Fascism.” It is derived from history itself. Hasan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which today’s radical Muslim groups descend) was, after all, an open admirer and supporter of Adolf Hitler — as was the principal theorist of the modern jihad, Sayyid Qutb. During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, cousin of Yasir Arafat and spiritual godfather of Palestinian nationalism, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, prouncounced his pro-Nazi sympathies openly and proudly. In May 1941, he issued a fatwa calling upon the Germans to bomb Tel Aviv, and in November 1941 traveled to Berlin and met with Hitler. He implored the Nazi dictator to help implement a Final Solution in the Middle East. Then he went to the Balkans, where he spearheaded the creation of Muslim units of the Waffen SS. In terms of the specific terrorist groups and entities mentioned in the MSA packet, all of them — along with many others — have indeed made clear that they wish to destroy the United States and dominate the world under an oppressive caliphate — that is, a unified Islamic state ruled by Islamic Sharia law: Al-Qaeda: Osama bin Laden has said that the 9/11 attacks strengthened the Muslims, “which is a very good sign and a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous Islamic Khilafah [caliphate] insha-Allah [Allah willing].” His second-in-command, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, has declared: “The war with Israel is not about a treaty, a cease-fire agreement, Sykes-Picot borders, national zeal, or disputed borders. It is rather a jihad for the sake of God until the religion of God is established. It is jihad for the liberation of Palestine, all Palestine, as well as every land that was a home for Islam, from Andalusia to Iraq. The whole world is an open field for us.” Hamas: The Hamas Charter sets out its Islamic mission as global: “Its spatial dimension extends wherever on earth there are Muslims, who adopt Islam as their way of life; thus, it penetrates to the deepest reaches of the land and to the highest spheres of Heavens. . . . By virtue of the distribution of Muslims, who pursue the cause of the Hamas, all over the globe, and strive for its victory, for the reinforcement of its positions and for the encouragement of its Jihad, the Movement is a universal one.” Universal in what way? The Palestinian Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi exhorted believers in 2002 “Oh beloved, look to the East of the earth, find Japan and the ocean; look to the West of the earth, find [some] country and the ocean. Be sure that these will be owned by the Muslim nation, as the Hadith says . . . ‘from the ocean to the ocean.'” The Muslim Brotherhood: Its founder, Hasan Al-Banna, wrote that “it is a duty incumbent on every Muslim to struggle towards the aim of making every people Muslim and the whole world Islamic, so that the banner of Islam can flutter over the earth and the call of the Muezzin can resound in all the corners of the world: God is greatest [Allahu akbar]!” Despite recent claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that the Brotherhood has renounced this goal. Hezbollah: Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah has made clear that he wishes to pose a threat to the United States: “Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan is absolute.…I conclude my speech with the slogan that will continue to reverberate on all occasions so that nobody will think that we have weakened. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.” The Islamic Republic of Iran: While as a Shi’ite he does not wish to see the establishment of a caliphate, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad harbors similar dreams of Islamic domination. He said in 2005: “we will soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism and will breathe in the brilliant time of Islamic sovereignty over today’s world.” And in terms of Saddam Hussein, suffice it to say that there was a reason he trained thousands of Islamic jihad terrorists from all over the Middle East at camps in Iraq over the four years preceding the U.S. invasion. http://www.aina.org/news/2007102311299.htm

Why ‘Islamofascism’ correctly identifies threat [Oct. 25 07] Islamofascism is an ideology that seeks a global theocracy under the dictatorship of a caliph. Everyone will be converted to their extremist interpretation of Islam, and any one who resists will be killed in the name of Allah. These extremists, however, do not represent the basic beliefs of Islam, and their message and methods resemble Nazis more than Muslims. Their goals are almost a mirror image of Hitler’s dreams of world domination and extermination of the Jews, except their justification claims to be rooted in Islam rather than German nationalism. How is “Islamofascism” a racist term? It isn’t. The term has nothing to do with the ethnicity of our enemy, nor should it. The term is a fusion of Islam – which is a religion and not a race – and fascism. Most of the terrorists are ethnically Arabic, but the membership of al-Qaida and similar networks is not exclusively Arabic. The focus of the word is fascism, which is used to describe the terrorists’ methods and goals. How does the phrase “militant fundamentalist Muslims” more accurately describe who we are fighting? It doesn’t. Our enemy is indeed militant and claims to be Muslim, but their breed of Islam is not fundamentalist. The fundamentals of Islam are faith, worship, charity, sacrifice and pilgrimage. Islamofacism has interpreted Islam as not only a religion but an entire political and economic system as well. They have twisted the meaning of holy war into a tangible fight against infidels when the concept of jihad is supposed to be an internalized battle within the human conscience. http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2007/10/25/Opinion/Why-islamofascism.Correctly.Identifies.Threat-3059132.shtml

Islamofascism 101 – Little Green Footballs has several posts that are demonstrative of the true nature of Islamofascism. Rather than post them individually, they are all on this post. Only excerpts are given so check them out via the headline links to the permanent archives!

http://blogfromthejungle.blogspot.com/2007/04/islamofascism-101.html

Militant Islam 101: a history – In the wake of the Iraq War, there has been much Monday morning quarter backing by America’s weak offensive line (liberals) who insist the “War on Terror” is to be waged only against Osuma bin ladens al Qaeda. This essay is to make the connection of pan-Islamo Fascism and its long terrorism history. As the democratic world confronts al Qeada’s Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah ‘s Hassan Nasrallah, and their followers, many among us are trying to understand militant Islam, where it came from and its aims. The following background material is designed to give an overview of the phenomenon that has been called “militant Islam,” “fundamentalist Islam,” “Islamo Fascism” “Islamism,” or “radical Islam.” [July, 2008]

http://www.free-press.biz/usa/Islamism-101.htm

Tony Blair: Iran extremism like rise of 1930s fascism [Oct. 2007] http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/archives/1668-Tony-Blair-Iran-extremism-like-rise-of-1930s-fascism

The Benazir Bhutto I Knew
By DANIEL JOHNSON January 3, 2008
Benazir Bhutto fell victim to the murderous misogyny of Islamofascism… In the end, the Islamists did her in. A woman prime minister, especially a Western-educated woman like Benazir, was an anathema to them. Never has the murderous misogyny of Islamofascism been more vividly demonstrated than in her assassination.

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/benazir-bhutto-i-knew/68862/

The truth about Islamofascism

Coffee break: Kanchan Gupta… [2008]

40 per cent want shari’ah in Britain for Muslims; 33 per cent favour a worldwide Islamic caliphate; 24 per cent think men and women are not equal; 32 per cent believe killing in the name of religion is justified; 33 per cent don’t think Islam is compatible with democracy…The reason for this digression is not to provide an insight into the warped mindset of those who believe ‘Islam is the solution’ — much as Adolf Hitler thought he had found the ‘final solution’ to rid the world of Jews and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks god has willed him to complete Hitler’s unfinished task — but to highlight the danger posed by those who see nothing wrong with the fringe increasingly occupying the centre. The lib-left intelligentsia, whose criminal disregard of facts and aggressive peddling of fiction often persuades ill-informed and ill-intentioned journalists to suppress the truth, wants society to be tolerant of Islamofascism; to indulge the Muslim cult of denial; and, to gloss over incidents like serial bombings and suicide attacks. Those who refuse to do so are accused of Islamophobia…

http://www.dailypioneer.com/agenda1.asp?main_variable=sundaypioneer%2Fdialogue&file_name=dial1.txt&counter_img=1

Islamic Terror Breeds in Iran [August, 2008]… But once again, human decency is rising to the challenge. This time, in the voice and actions of billions of free people who proclaim: we are also children of Iran in the spirit of Cyrus the Great; we meet any challenge and pay any price to defeat Islamofascism; and, we will not rest until humanity is completely free of the despotic rule of Islamofascism. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/islamic_terror_breeds_in_iran.html

Islamofascism, the broader, wider & deep reality, (research) How radical Islam makes you a fascist Islamo Arab fascism: For Arabs only, For Muslims only & Anti-Israel as an integral part of it The middle east, Arab Muslim violence & Islamo-Fascism – http://somebodyhelpme.info


Finally mainstream media blows the lid on Islamofascism, Islamofascists: ‘Non Muslims = apes & pigs’

The following are some of the recent showing in US media, where up to now it was a taboo, so not to offend some Muslims it’s called “Politically correctness”, as Brigitte Gabrielle said this PC is killing us… on Glenn Becks’s special called “Radical Islam Extremist agenda”.

You can see how

they compare their tactics to the nazis of WW2, (No, not the exaggerated slogans anyone throws in a political discurse, but) real fascism. They show there the Wahabbi Saudi Arabian evil textbooks that are being spread into the US calling Christians and Jews “apes and pigs” (as if it’s not enough that their Quran says that, they stress it out to adhere to in real life…).

Another Arab speaking out is M. Darwish that laments on how the Islamic adults brainwash the toddlers with so much hatred and glorifying murder in the name of Islam. Finally he has the segment of the few rare moderates, like the Nevada’s Islamic group that is moderate and speaks out against it so do some cleric in Kuwait that regret the CULT of DEATH, “not giving the value of life to our kids”… http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

OBSESSION The Movie Obsession http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227057,00.html The Threat of Radical Islam http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/15/tivo-alert-glenn-beck-presents-exposed-the-extremist-agenda/

(CNN) Glenn Beck: ‘Islamic Extremism’ Greatest Threat to US http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/11/14/170416.shtml?s=br

(Video) Exposed: The Extremist Muslim Agenda http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185400.php

Some quotes from the “Obsession” On radical Muslims’ war against Non Muslims (copied from http://attheagora.blogspot.com/ )

First, Walid Shoebat – Billed as a “Former” PLO Terrorist:

1. “When the terrorists attacked America on 9/11 – everyone asked, “Why do they hate us, Americans had no clue!”

2. “Muslims are also victims.”

3. “Jihad means to struggle – the struggle within – but so does Mine Kampf.”

4. “Radical Islam is way more dangerous than German Nazism because it is god not the Fuarer telling you to do this.”

Second, Khaled Abu Toamel – Palestinian Journalist: 1. “Radical Islam has declared War . . .”

2. “A campaign to bring down the West”.

3. “Islam has been hijacked”.

Third, Nonie Darwish – Daughter of a Shahid (martyr) 1. “When I saw the second airplane hit, I knew Jihad had come to America.”

2. “A down right declaration of war from Islam on Western Culture.”

3. “To conquer the world for Allah – That is Jihad.”

4. “They blame every little problem in the Arab world on the West.”

5. “We have been infiltrated by people who want the Koran to replace our Constitution.”

6. “. . . They are here to make Islam the law of the land.”

7. “America has to wake up because we are strangling ourselves with our political correctness.” What follows now are direct quotes from Islamic Radicals. I have given names and dates when possible. Speakers are presented in the order of their first appearance, although many statements were presented by some later in the documentary. 1. Khattab – Chechen Terrorist Leader (Sept. 2004): “From now on we will get our bombs everywhere! Let Russia await our explosions blasting through their cities. I swear we will do it.” 2. From a Lebanese Suicide Bomber Induction Ceremony (1996):

“We swear by the blood and severed bodies of our children and the torment of our prisoners, and we will reply blowing our bodies!”

3. Hasan Nasrallah – Hizbollah Sec. Gen. (2005): “The most honorable death is by killing. And the most honorable killing and most glorious martyrdom is where a man is killed for the sake of Allah.”

“We consider [America] to be an enemy because it is the greatest plunderer of our treasures, our oil, and our rescores, while millions in our nation suffer unemployment, poverty, hunger, unmariageability, ignorance, darkness, and so on.”

“Our motto, which we are not afraid to repeat year after year, is: Death to America.”

4. Hasein Suadd – Al-Qasam Brigades Commander (Dec. 2005): “We succeeded, with Allah’s grace, to raise an ideological generation that loves death like our enemies love life.”

5. Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi (2001): “We must educate our children on the love of Jihad for the sake of Allah. And the love of fighting for the sake of Allah.”

6. Little Girl on Palestinian T V: “But I march quickly toward my death.”

7. Little boy on Palestinian T V: “. . . And we swear to take vengeful blood from our enemies for our killed and wounded.

8. Jordanian and Palestinian School book (1998): “This religion [Islam] will destroy all other religions through the Islamic Jihad fighter.”

9. 3 ½ year old Girl prompted by some adult (May, 2002): “A – . . . Are you familiar with the Jews? G – Yes. A – Do you like them? G – No. A – Why don’t you like them? G – Because. A – Because they are whats? G – They’re apes and pigs. A – Who said they are so? G – Our God. A – Where did He say this? G – In the Koran.”

10. Sheik Dr. Bakr Al-Samarai (February, 2003): “If Allah permits us, oh Nation of Mohammed, even the stone will say, ‘Oh Muslim, a Jew is hiding behind me come and cut off his head! And we shall cut off his head! By Allah, we shall cut off! Oh Jews. God is Great; Jihad for the sake of Allah!” (There were thousands shown cheering this speech.)

11. Little girl on Palestinian T. V. “When I wander into the entrance of Jerusalem, I’ll turn into a suicide warrior. I’ll turn into a suicide warrior. In battledress. In battledress.”

12. Sheidh Al – Bajrruni – Palestinian Religious Scholars As. (2004): “Oh Muslim, as much as you yearn for death, so you will be given life”

13. Ahmed Abdul Razek – Palestinian Cleric (2002): “Should we want honor the only way to honor is by jihad!”

14. Ibrahim Muderis – Palestinian Cleric (2003): “America is the foremost enemy of the Muslim Nation because it wages war against the Arab, Islamic Nation.”

15. Nagi AL-Slihabi – Egyptian Newspaper Editor (2004): “The truth is that the US wants to eradicate our religious and Islamic identities.” “The only enemy of the Arab and Islamic peoples is the US and not only Israel.”

16. Saudi Cleric Aed Al-Qami (2004): “Houses and young men must be sacrificed. Throats must be slit and skulls must be shattered. This is the path to victory.” “Furthermore, reality shows that American is behind all problems.”

17. Al-Qaeda Operative, (In a hood) (2005): “Come and join us. Join this blessed jihad. Come for the sake of Allah. Join us in the blessed jihad, with Mullah Omar and Sheik Osama bin Laden.”

18. Abu Hamza Al – Masri (1998): “What makes Allah happy? Allah’s happy when (non-Muslims) get killed.” “You see the Islamic rule, if a Kuffar (non-Muslims) goes into a Muslim country. And he’s walking by. He’s like a cow; boy, anybody could take him. That is the Islamic rule and this is the opinion of Islam. It’s not my opinion. If you read the books of jihad, you’ll see . . . A Kuffar is walking by, he walks inside – you catch him. “What are you doing here?” Then he’s a booty, you can sell him in the market. If Muslims cannot take him, you know, and sell him in the market then you just kill him. It’s okay.” “It’s only a matter of time until we rule Earth, until we control Earth.” “In the end of the day, Islam must control Earth whether we like it or not it’s a promis from the prophet.”

19. On Iranian TV– Momaoun Al-Tamimi – Political Consultant (May 2004): “They [The Americans] are beasts in human form.”’

20. Voice over on Iranian TV (2004): The Statue of Liberty slowly turns in above a sea of blood. “There she is, the unique symbol of freedom. American is the enemy of God’s unity and an affront to God.” The statue turns to reveal a death’s head. While showing a picture of President Bush, “This is Satan, the source of tyranny.”

21. Palestinian TV – Suliman Sutari, before thousands of chanting fanatics. (July 8, 2005): “Annihilate the infidels and the polytheists. They’re [God’s] enemies and the enemies of the religion. God, count them and kill them to the last one, and don’t even leave one.”

22. June 2005 – The Islamic Thinkers Society – a video voice over while young “Americans” are stamping on an American flag: “In this country, one of the loopholes of this government is they allow the freedom of expression.” “Indeed, it is He [Allah] who sent His messenger, Mohamed, with the Islam to dominate over all other religions; to dominate the United Sates; to dominate the world even though the non-Muslims may hate it.”

23. Some unnamed, turbaned figure speaking on a computer capture. “Islam’s superior than the Jews, than the Christian, than the Buddhists, than the Hindus. Who ever seeks any other thing apart for Islam will never be accepted. And the Christian or Kuffar, you may think to yourself. No, No, No, they are innocent. No Kuffar is innocent.”

24. Another shouting computer image: “From yourself we’ll make your destruction because Allah’s tradition will prevail on this earth.”

25. Mohanoud Ahmadinejad – Iranian President (July, 2004): “The message of the (Islamic) Revolution is global, and is not restricted to specific place or time. Have no doubt – Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountains tops of he world.”

26. “Palestinian T.V, Ibrahim Mudeins (March 2005): “We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again!”

27. Screaming demonstrator at a rally in Great Britain: (May 2005) “One day this very flag will fly over the Parliament in London. We will see this flag that will fly over the White House, and we will see the Black House, the Kaaba [in Mecca] will take over the whole world!”

28. H. R. Saleen, Chairman of Muslim Youth Organization: “You will take over USA! You will take over UK! You will take over Europe! You will defeat them all! You will get victory!! You will take over Egypt! We trust in Allah!”


The usual slogan by the “religion of peace” – Palestinian-Arabs shout “itbach al yahood”, slaughter the Jews!

http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/raging.html

Not just radical clerics, but even mainstream “activists” like ‘Pro-palestinian’ ISM – Anti-Semitic hate speech http://www.stoptheism.com/Default.asp?M=24&T=139

“When the Solidarity Movement met at the University of Michigan, delegates chanted ‘Kill the Jews.’” The ISM/PSM denies that it chanted “Kill the Jews,” apparently because what it actually chanted was “Itbach al yahood” (Arabic for “Kill the Jews”). http://www.standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=85

“…At the 2nd PSM Conference at the University of Michigan in October 2002, the audience chanted “Kill the Jews” — “Ittbach al yahood” in Arabic.” http://www.take-a-pen.org/Campus/Articles/Art01102004.htm



What the neo-Nazi fanatic did next: switched to Islam-News-UK … A NEO-NAZI whose ideas were said to be the inspiration for the man who let … bomb in Central London in 1999 has converted to an extremist form of Islam.

[BROWN non “white” MUSLIM NAZI calls:] “Kill All Kikes” (indicted 2007)


Islamic Hatred, Islamo fascism, the ‘apes & pigs’ thing!

Christians are ‘pigs’ & Jews are ‘apes’

Islamic Hatred, Islamo fascism

We do use books that call Jews ‘apes’ and Christians as ‘pigs’ admits head of Islamic school,The principal of an Islamic school has admitted that it uses textbooks which describe Jews as ‘apes’ and Christians as ‘pigs’ and has refused to withdraw them

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=434506&in_page_id=17 70

When I read that the principal of a school had admitted that it used textbooks that called Christians “pigs” and Jews “apes”.
http://theaustralianindex.com/?page=search&searchterms=%22christians%22

King Fahad Academy in Acton, west London has said that The schoolbooks in use describe Jews as monkeys or apes and Christians as pigs… How is it that a holy book has a reference to people as “monkeys”?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/christopher_howse/blog/2007/02/07/whats_this_about_apes_and_pigs

Pupils aged five ‘poisoned’ at Islamic school that ‘teaches hate’
An Islamic school is poisoning the minds of pupils with lessons in hate, a former teacher claims.
Colin Cook, 57, says textbooks used by children as young as five at the King Fahad Academy in Acton describe Jews as “repugnant” and “apes” and Christians as “pigs”.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/pupils_aged_five_poisoned_at_i.php

A BRITISH Muslim school is teaching children that Jews are “repugnant apes” and Christians “pigs”, a former teacher claims.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060106,00.html

Christians still ‘swine’ and Jews ‘apes’ in Saudi schools.
By Harry de Quetteville, Middle East Correspondent. Last Updated: 1:22am BST 25/06/2006 …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/25/wsaudi25.xml

NPR : Saudi Textbooks Still Teach Hate, Group Says It says that the textbooks instruct students that Christians and Jews are apes and pigs, and warns students not to greet, befriend, or respect non-believers (aka non Muslims) …
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5426633

Steven Stalinsky on Saudi Arabia & Textbooks on National Review Online A textbook for eighth graders explains why Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs. Quoting Surat Al-Maida, Verse 60.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-stalinsky020703.asp

The Swine are Christians and the Apes are Jews
See the verses quoted above, which establish the apes and pigs reference and show that Allah’s curse is on Jews and Christians.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22578

American Congress For Truth Brigitte Gabriel
Jews and Christians – Cursed by Allah and Turned into Apes and Pigs- a textbook explains why Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/sign-our-petition.asp

American Thinker: Allah’s special little apes and pigs… says that if the People of the Book (Jews and Christians, but he deals … We have tolerated you for a long time — you offspring of apes and pigs!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/allahs_special_little_apes_and.html

MEMRI TV
Some of us (Muslims) say: “May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians, the offspring of apes and pigs.” Is this the language of progress? …
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1363

Another verse linking Christians with apes and pigs is 3:61; according to
the commentary on this verse, a deputation of Christians from Najran came to…
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01102

Christians still ‘swine’ and Jews ‘apes’ in Saudi schools
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/25/wsaudi25.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/0 6/25/ixnews.html

In Spain, during periods of friction between the various religious
communities, the Muslims called the Jews “apes” and the Christians “pigs and
dogs. …
Their research revealed that viewing Jews as the ‘descendants of apes and pigs’ is grounded in the most important Islamic religious sources. …
http://www.paktoday.com/wall2.htm

The Swine are Christians and the Apes …See the verses quoted above, which
establish the apes and pigs reference and show that Allah’s curse is on Jews and
Christians. …
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22578

If you are a Jew or Christian you are a pig-descendent or an ape-descendent.
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01102

Ramadan in Saudi Arabia To punish them, Allah has turned them into apes
and pigs.” … along with Allah” – in other words, against Christians, Jews and
pretty much everyone else.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35510

Teach Kids Peace – Saudi Education: Hatred of Christians & Jews Jews
and Christians – Cursed by Allah and Turned into Apes and Pigs: A textbook for
8th grade … To punish them, Allah has turned them into apes and pigs.
http://www.teachkidspeace.org/doc3516.php

CNN.com – Transcripts “Jews and Christians cursed by Allah and turned into
apes and pigs. … To punish them, Allah had turned them into apes and pigs.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/21/gb.01.html

Townhall.com::Stand up: Wafa Sultan is passing::By Mona Charen… Islam
orbids them to offend the beliefs of others, and yet characterize Christians
and Jews as “those who incur Allah’s wrath” or as apes and pigs.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2006/03/17/stand_up_wafa_sultan_is_passing

Special Report – Arab Antisemitism [November 1, 2002] Based on Koranic Verses, Interpretations, and Traditions, Muslim Clerics State: The Jews Are the Descendants of Apes, Pigs, And Other Animals

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01102

SONS OF APES AND PIGS
That’s what… Islam… Jews and Christians in his Koran. – Christians under siege in virtually every Muslim country…
http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org/2008/06/christians-under-siege-in-virt.html

Saudi education system majors in ‘jihad’ – Jews and Christians – apes and pigs. An 8th-grade textbook also explains “why Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs. …
http://www.likud.nl/extr253.html

Saudi textbooks still teaching hate: report, Saudi textbooks still teaching hate: report. Jews, Christians referred to as apes and swine. Charles Lewis, National Post Published: Thursday, July 17, 2008 …

Despite a promise to remove attacks on other faiths from the public school curriculum, Saudi Arabia’s state-produced textbooks still refer to Jews and Christians as apes and swine, insist that Jews conspire to take over the world and on Judgment Day “the rocks or the trees” will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews, says the Washington-based Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.

The textbooks, used by five million students in the kingdom every year, as well as in many Saudi-funded institutions outside the country, also attack homosexuals and Muslims who do not practice a fundamentalist form of Islam.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=662057

Ann on BBC.


Jews and Christians
are
Apes and Pigs

Islamic School Update

What’s being taught about non muslims in islam Schools

Technorati – ]