Monday, September 04, 2006

Islamofascism: A Fair Title?

When Republican lawmakers started throwing around the word Islamofascism over the last few weeks (a term coined by radio host Michael Savage), it didn't take long for Muslim groups and the media to pull out the PC card. Many liberals find that combining the word Islam with Fascism and likening modern day terrorists to Hitler's brownshirts is an unfair comparison. Moderate Muslims have come out of the woodwork to claim that Islam is really a religion of peace and should not be judged based on the actions of "a few extremists".

To be fair to Islam, I agree that we should not judge an entire religion based on extremists who belong to that religion. Every religion has it's extremists. Christianity had the branch Davidians. Recent fugitive Warren Jeffs was the leader of an extreme branch of Mormonism. To judge these religions based on the misguided perceptions of a portion of it's followers would be short sighted of us. The question however, remains, what should we judge these religions on? The answer is the texts that define these religions. For us to accurately judge whether or not the Islamofascist label is a fair label, lets take a look at the Koran. What does the Koran have to say to it's followers? Here are a few of my favorite passages from the supposed religion of peace:

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

[9.73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.


Doesn't sound much like a religion of peace. These texts are used to incite millions of Muslims to take up their holy duty of Jihad, fighting against any religion other than Islam. Many people have said that the true meaning of Jihad, literally meaning "struggle", does not imply holy war. The Koran, however, is full of parts inciting Muslims to take up arms against non-Muslims:

[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

[8.55] Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.

[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.


What happens to the unbelievers they fight against?

[8.54] In the manner of the people of Firon and those before them; they rejected the communications of their Lord, therefore We destroyed them on account of their faults and We drowned Firon's people, and they were all unjust


Although the Koran is an invaluable source of knowledge to discern the true nature of Islam, perhaps the best is in the careful evaluation of the life and times of Islam's prophet, Muhammad. Not only did he lead armies, he was a brutal egomaniac who did everything from ordering the stoning of women to ordering the assassinations and murder of his former tribesmen and political enemies. The most telling book on this subject is by A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah
, Oxford University Press, 1955.

Is the term Islamofascist appropriate? Merriam-Websters defines fascism as:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Not only is it a fair assessment of what true Islam is all about, but it highlights the dangers of leaving this oppressive and violent religion unchallenged in a world of nuclear proliferation.




4 Comments:

At 5:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why Islamofascist isn't appropriate:

http://laney5-sb.livejournal.com/73344.html

 
At 5:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, you are absolutely right and whoever posted the above should check a non ultra-liberal website (like webster.com) to find a clear definition of what Fascism is. It seems today that people, rather than take a stand and argue a point that they have thought out, simply throw a website or site a book they read having taken the authors word (or opinion) as gospel. Keep up the good (and I mean good in a sense of good vs. EVIL-islamofascism) fight!!!

 
At 8:46 PM, Blogger J B said...

I think the anonymous entry's point was just that the term "Islamofascist" is not appropriate as a description for multi-national (or non-national)terrorists; they are neither a state or a race.

I also tend to believe it is appropriate to paste a link to your own blog/webpage if you have already written an opinion on the subject.

 
At 9:28 PM, Blogger Mboniface said...

The term "fascist" would not be appropriate, but the intent of prefixing it with "Islamo" is to create a distinction between the fact that the vehicle for oppression is not a Nation or race, but the religion they follow.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home