Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 02/19/2007 View Sun 02/18/2007 View Sat 02/17/2007 View Fri 02/16/2007 View Thu 02/15/2007 View Wed 02/14/2007 View Tue 02/13/2007
1
2007-02-19 Olde Tyme Religion
‘Islam should not be called fascist’
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by ryuge 2007-02-19 08:17|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Mussoolini didn't genocide people and as long as it was able to oppose Hitler's demands Italy protected Jews.

I agree Islam should not be called fascist.
Posted by JFM">JFM  2007-02-19 08:41||   2007-02-19 08:41|| Front Page Top

#2 From Islamic Law and Constitution by Maulana Maududi

Islamic State is Universal and All Embracing
A state of this sort cannot evidently restrict the scope of its activities. Its approach is universal and all-embracing. Its sphere of activity is coextensive with the whole of human life. It seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity in consonance with its moral norms and programme of social reform. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states. But you will find later on that, despite its all-inclusiveness, it is something vastly and basically different from the totalitarian and authoritarian states. Individual liberty is not suppressed under it nor is there any trace of dictatorship in it. It presents the middle course and embodies the best that the human society has ever evolved. The excellent balance and moderation that characterise the Islamic system of government and the precise distinctions made in it between right and wrong elicit from all men of honesty and intelligence the admiration and the admission that such a balanced system could not have been framed by anyone but the Omniscient and All-Wise God.

Islamic State is an Ideological State
Another characteristic of the Islamic State is that it is an ideological state. It is clear from a careful consideration of the Qur’an and the Sunnah that the state in Islam is based on an ideology and its objective is to establish that ideology. State is an instrument of reform and must act likewise. It is a dictate of this very nature of the Islamic State that such a state should be run only by those who believe in the ideology on which it is based and in the Divine Law which it is assigned to administer. The administrators of the Islamic State must be those whose whole life is devoted to the observance and enforcement of this Law, who not only agree with its reformatory programme and fully believe in it but thoroughly comprehend its spirit and are acquainted with its details. Islam does not recognise any geographical, linguistic or colour bars in this respect. It puts forward its code of guidance and the scheme of its reform before all men. Whoever accepts this programme, no matter to what race, nation or country he may belong, can join the community that runs the Islamic State. But those who do not accept it are not entitled to have any hand in shaping the fundamental policy of the state. They can live within the confines of the state as non-Muslim citizens (zimmis). Specific rights and privileges have been accorded to them in the Islamic Law. A zimmi’s life, property and honour will be fully protected and if he is capable of any service, his services will also be made use of. He will not, however, be allowed to influence the basic policy of this ideological state. The Islamic State is based on a particular ideology and it is the community which believes in the Islamic ideology that pilots it. Here again, we notice some sort of resemblance between the Islamic and Communist states. But the treatment meted out by the Communist states to persons holding creeds and ideologies other than its own bears no comparison with the attitude of the Islamic State. Unlike the Communist state, Islam does not impose its social principles on others by force, nor does it confiscate their properties or unleash a reign of terror by mass executions of the people and their transportation to the slave camps of Siberia.
Posted by John Frum 2007-02-19 08:49||   2007-02-19 08:49|| Front Page Top

#3 The division of Islamic Jihad into “offensive” and “defensive” is not permissible. Islamic Jihad is both offensive and defensive at the same time. It is offensive because the Muslim Party attacks the rule of an opposing ideology, and it is defensive because the Muslim Party is constrained to capture state power in order to protect the principles of Islam in space-time forces.
ayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi, Jihad fi Sabilillah (Jihad in Islam)
Posted by John Frum 2007-02-19 08:50||   2007-02-19 08:50|| Front Page Top

#4 More from Maududi...

The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is not as one might think to compel the believers into embracing Islam. Rather, their purpose is to put an end to the sovereignty and supremacy of the unbelievers so that the latter are unable to rule over men. The authority to rule should only be vested in those who follow the true faith; unbelievers who do not follow this true faith should live in a state of subordination. Unbelievers are required to pay Jizyah (poll tax) in lieu of the security provided to them as the Dhimmis (‘Protected People’) of an Islamic state. Jizyah symbolises the submission of the unbelievers to the suzerainty of Islam. ‘To pay Jizyah of their own hands humbled’ refers to payment in a state of submission. ‘Humbled’ also reinforces the idea that the believers, rather than the unbelievers, should be the rulers in performance of their duty as God’s vicegerents.
Posted by John Frum 2007-02-19 08:51||   2007-02-19 08:51|| Front Page Top

#5  Islam wishes to do away with all states and governments which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of this ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of standard-bearer of Islam, and regardless of the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic state. Islam requires the earth — not just a portion, but the entire planet — not because the sovereignty over the earth should be wrested from one nation or group of nations and vested in any one particular nation, but because the whole of mankind should benefit from Islam, and its ideology and welfare programme.
It is to serve this end that Islam seeks to press into service all the forces which can bring about such a revolution. The term which covers the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. To alter people’s outlook and spark a mental and intellectual revolution is a form of Jihad. To change the old tyrannical system and establish a just new order by the power of the sword is also Jihad, as is spending wealth and undergoing physical exertion for this cause.
Mawdudi, Jihad,
Posted by John Frum 2007-02-19 08:52||   2007-02-19 08:52|| Front Page Top

#6 Why not? Straight question. If nationalism has been typically identified as the ruling principle of fascism, then yes, that would have to be replaced by loyalty to Islam ("umma-ism"), but there certainly are some similarities:

Here are two definitions from google.

A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.
www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Witness_And_Legacy_-_Teacher_R/Glossary__Teacher_Resource_Boo/glossary__teacher_resource_boo.html

a totalitarian political system led by a single dictator who allows no opposition, promoting an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/
Posted by Jules 2007-02-19 08:52||   2007-02-19 08:52|| Front Page Top

#7 I have mentioned elsewhere that to compare fascism and islam is an insult to fascism. I am quite serious.
Posted by Excalibur 2007-02-19 09:05||   2007-02-19 09:05|| Front Page Top

#8 How 'bout Islamo-NAZIs then?
Posted by eLarson 2007-02-19 09:20|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2007-02-19 09:20|| Front Page Top

#9 Im quite happy calling it anything derogatory.
Posted by MacNails 2007-02-19 09:29||   2007-02-19 09:29|| Front Page Top

#10 From Wikipedia: Fascism is a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and historical terms, above all other loyalties, and to create a mobilized national community.

This fits Islam to a "T".

Islam is as much a political entity as it is a religious one in that it specifically does not differentiate between the government and the application of sharia law. In fact, Islam specifically states that the government or other political entities must submit or be covered by sharia law.

Islam definitely seeks to place the "nation" by any description you care to apply above all other loyalties and to mobilize the "national" community.

Therefore, Islam equates directly to fascism.

'Nuff said.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg  2007-02-19 10:01|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com]  2007-02-19 10:01|| Front Page Top

#11 There is the problem that fascist ideologies are exclusivist - defined either by racial or national terms. Fascist ideologies are inherently non-expansionary in intellectual terms. You're either German or you're not; you're either Italian or you're not; you're white or black or you're not. Fascisms are territorially expansionist - lebensraum and all that - but the land is for the group, the people on the land are not wanted. Fascism isn't looking for recruits to the totality, it's been defined & will be purified.

Islam and communism, on the other hand, are missionary ideologies. They want both land and souls. Your property, possessions and earth are not enough for the Islamist or the Communist - they want your allegiance, your mindspace, your heart. They want you, or at least your progeny if you're too intransigent to be convertible.

But the man on the street doesn't understand why it's worse to be a Communist than to be a Fascist; calling someone a totalitarian Islamist doesn't have the rhetorical punch of "Islamofascist".
Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H.  2007-02-19 10:42|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2007-02-19 10:42|| Front Page Top

#12 Correct him at: mjakbar@mjakbar.org
Posted by Angenter Crolugum3645 2007-02-19 10:49||   2007-02-19 10:49|| Front Page Top

#13 Islam and communism, on the other hand, are missionary ideologies. They want both land and souls. Your property, possessions and earth are not enough for the Islamist or the Communist - they want your allegiance, your mindspace, your heart. They want you, or at least your progeny if you're too intransigent to be convertible.

French 50's seminal anticommunist sociologist & political thinker Jules Monnerot made that very same comparison, calling the first (or second? Can't remember) book of his monumental trilogy on the "Sociology of communism" : "communism, 20th century's islam".
Posted by anonymous5089 2007-02-19 11:00||   2007-02-19 11:00|| Front Page Top

#14 Facist.
Posted by Art 2007-02-19 11:47||   2007-02-19 11:47|| Front Page Top

#15 Is Islam a religion of peace? Are not many of the members of Islam not fomenting much of the terrorism in the world today? Do not many of its imans preach and advocate the killing of infidels? Who planned and carried out the destruction of the World Trade Centers (1993 and 2001)? What do they have in common? Who carried out the London bombings. Spain bombings? Cole bombing? Lebanon Marine barracks bombing? Various graphic beheadings? Murder of the Blackwater employees? Various embassy bombings? Belsen school murders? The list goes on and on. What evidence is there that Islam is the religion of peace?
Posted by JohnQC 2007-02-19 11:48||   2007-02-19 11:48|| Front Page Top

#16 The argument shouldn't be whether or not Islam is facist but whether it is evil.
Posted by JohnQC 2007-02-19 11:54||   2007-02-19 11:54|| Front Page Top

#17 Spot on JohnQC.

Whatever happened to Zenster? I would expect a detailed dissertation on this one. Was he banned?
Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2007-02-19 13:25||   2007-02-19 13:25|| Front Page Top

#18 Ironically, MJ Akbar and his paper have no problems writing about Hindu Fascists
Posted by John Frum 2007-02-19 13:51||   2007-02-19 13:51|| Front Page Top

#19 I read somewhere that Eskimoes (sp?) have over 80 words for various kinds of snow. But at the end of the day it is all still some kind of snow.
This interesting discussion of what box to put islam in is great intellectual exercise, but in the end whatever box you put it in still falls in the dangerous, evil, enemy categories for Western Civilization. That generalization shouldn't be difficult to accept.
Posted by JustAboutEnough">JustAboutEnough  2007-02-19 13:52||   2007-02-19 13:52|| Front Page Top

#20 What did happen to Zenster ? .com also has disappeared once again. I am concerned about such things, because I wonder if someone can be tracked down and neutralized by underground forces like stinkin' Islamofasists nazi pigs.
Posted by wxjames 2007-02-19 14:46||   2007-02-19 14:46|| Front Page Top

#21 The Zenster has been sounding the alarm for the islamoterror problem for a long time. He might be a little frustrated with the slow pace against the terrorist problem.
Posted by JohnQC 2007-02-19 14:47||   2007-02-19 14:47|| Front Page Top

#22 John Frum:

I downloaded Hizb ut-Tahrir propaganda that informed members of the cult of terror, "democracy seizes sovereignty from allah." Western Muslims use democratic institutions, including the secular courts, as a means to the end of obliterating democratic institutions. Lenin made a similar statement: "The purpose of Parliamentarism is the abolishment of Parliamentarism." Totalitarians think alike.
Posted by Tweak Uncordial 2007-02-19 15:06||   2007-02-19 15:06|| Front Page Top

#23 Agree. Islam should not be called fascist for the same reason that AIDS shouldn't be called flu!
Posted by gromgoru 2007-02-19 15:11||   2007-02-19 15:11|| Front Page Top

#24 It seems to me that the amount of intellectual leeway that the left uses to make the case that Bush==hitler and Republicans==nazis allows for the Islam==facism case as well. of course, both argument patterns, as well as Akbar's, founds their arguments on superficialities while carefully avoiding truly substantive similarities or differences that would spoil things for them.

George Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" is a real jewel. Although first observed in Nationalists, he uses the term to mean a certain way of thinking about one's most cherished beliefs and ideology that makes one behave in a totalitarian manner.

To me, the various little -isms ALL say "Absolute power and authority exercised to support _______ is inherently good, right, and free of error.". All of them merely differ in what they put in the blank: Nazis put "the aryan race", Facists put "the Italians", Communists and socialists put "the workers", extremist zionists put "The jews", The KKK put "the white man", the Roman Catholics put "the roman catholic church. Mohammed was no different in putting "Islam" in the slot.

In contrast, the American founders said "Screw absolute power, and inherent goodness in any such exercise is non-existent." For all its faults, calvinism's belief in the depravity of man has been their most factually well supported assertion.
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2007-02-19 15:27|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2007-02-19 15:27|| Front Page Top

#25 Islam is fascist because:

- it denies individual freedom

- it promotes one collective and encourages it to kill members of enemy collectives

- it claims to uphold private property while rejecting a free-market economy (especially financial markets)

It's different from Italian fascism, or German national-socialism, yes. Still, at the end of the day it is one of the foulest forms of totalitarianism ever witnessed. It deserves to be eradicated.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-02-19 15:39||   2007-02-19 15:39|| Front Page Top

#26 #5 is an outright declaration of war.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-02-19 16:00||   2007-02-19 16:00|| Front Page Top

#27 #20 What did happen to Zenster ?

Zenster posted today at Jihad Watch. I miss him here.
Posted by info 2007-02-19 17:29||   2007-02-19 17:29|| Front Page Top

#28 It seems to me that those elected officials who use the word Islamofascism are not accusing Islam of fascism; they are accusing Islamofascists of fascism.

The problem the Rantburgians see (and that I see) is that Sharia is so tyrannical that it could be called fascistic - of course in Sharia the moslem has it worse than the dhimmi in some ways (being given lashes for not going to prayer, etc.)while the dhimmi is worse off in other ways (paying the protection fee).
Posted by mhw 2007-02-19 17:35||   2007-02-19 17:35|| Front Page Top

#29 Let's not introduce a dichotomy between the theory and practice of Islam.

Islam is a thoroughly evil ideology, in words and deeds. It cannot be defeated if we pretend to only deal with some errant practitioners while we tolerate propaganda for their foul, tyrannical ambitions.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-02-19 18:25||   2007-02-19 18:25|| Front Page Top

#30 Hello...why the roadside America BS?
Posted by Chiper Threreger8956 2007-02-19 20:27||   2007-02-19 20:27|| Front Page Top

#31 I don't know what happened to Zenster, but I do know that if we had applied his "kill them all" mentality in WWII there would be no ethnic Germans, Italians, or Japanese alive today. We don't need that approach to subdue Islam any more than we needed it in WWII.
Posted by Darrell 2007-02-19 20:38||   2007-02-19 20:38|| Front Page Top

#32 What did happen to Zenster ?

He was administered a rebuke, went off to sulk and never came back. He appears to have quite the following at Jihad Watch. Still the same verbosity.

You can read his old stuff by searching Google. It seems I keep getting sent to RA for trying to post a link to the search results. Pfeh!


Posted by Chiper Threreger8956 2007-02-19 20:38||   2007-02-19 20:38|| Front Page Top

11:14 ARMYGUY
23:56 mac
23:52 3dc
23:46 RD
23:31 Atomic Conspiracy
23:30 anonymous2u
23:23 3dc
23:20 Eric Jablow
23:18 RD
23:18 C-Low
23:16 RD
23:15 C-Low
23:12 RD
23:09 Frank G
23:09 RD
23:06 Barbara Skolaut
23:06 Frank G
22:59 gromgoru
22:57 phil_b
22:57 mhw
22:54 Frank G
22:51 MoeDee
22:47 whatadeal
22:44 Barbara Skolaut









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com