And with fear and trembling, I venture to quibble with one of my favorite Dopers.
I seem to remember a certain level of disagreement about the accuracy also of the term jihad. Maybe “lesser jihadists” would be more accurate. But, since it is more obscure, less worthwhile.
ISTM that “fascist” is more a generic term of political abuse than an accurate label. “Islamic fascists” is a loaded term, obviously. But everyone knows what Bush means by it - those persons who are Islamic who are attempting to impose a totalitarian form of government that cannot be questioned on the rest of us. The fact that they wears turbans instead of brown shirts, use fatwas instead of the Fuehrerprinzip and a selected few of the verses from the Koran instead of Mein Kampf is, I suppose, a real distinction, but not a particularly useful one.
Are you disagreeing with me? If so you are being so diplomatic that I can barely recognize it. Have you considered a career in diplomacy?
In any case, each case is of course different. The situation in the Arab world is unique to itself. Still, it is sort of Corporationist State, where the corporation is a government and church joined at the hip. All rights are to the community and none for the individual.
So I do not find it hyperbolae to call it a Fascist sort of society. It seems to fit the facts.
Calling them “Islamo-theocrats” could work as well I suppose; but it suffers from the same difficulty as the already-existing term “Islamicist” - no differentiation between types like Bin Laden and those who are merely very pious Muslims. It is not in either our interests or those of Muslims to elide this distinction, is it?
If they did, they were simply wrong to do so. Ba’athism is emphatically not a religious movement.
And yet, the variation within and among “fascist” regimes was greater than the variation between them and “Islamicists”. Indeed, the real question in my mind is this - if they existed during WW2 and allied themselves to Germany, would the differences have been sufficient to declare that they were “not fascist?” I submit they are not.
Consider first the differences and distinctions between various fascist movements. You have stated several criteria:
Idolatry of the leader - this certainly varies among the “classic fascists”. Obviously Mussolini and Hitler made themselves cult figures. Not so Tojo - the Japanese government was a more collegial affair, with factions within the armed forces competing for power. Clearly a god-like leader isn’t necessary for “fascism”, though it is very often present within it - some “fascists” have a god-like leader (Germany); some do not (Japan).
Idolatry of the leader is hardly absent from “Islamism”. Consider the position of the Ayatollah Khomeni when he was alive; consider the current position of Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Obviously, some “Islamists” have a leader with cult status (Khomeni) and some do not (Taliban).
Appeals to lost or mythic grandeur - this obviously fits “Islamism” quite well. They after all long to bring back the glories of the Khaliphate, and decry the “degeneracy” of modern times - which they tend to blame on the West.
Excessive militarism - how do “Islamicists” not qualify for this? Practically every picture of one is festooned with AK-47s.
Exaltation of nation over self - replace “nation” with “the movement” and you have no differences here. After all, “Islamicists” are famous for suicide bombings and other forms of “martyrdom”, which is about as extreme evidence of exaultation over self as one can get!
The only criterion I am uncertian of is the economic one. I have no real idea how “Islamicists” organize their economic affairs. Other than that, I fail to see the vital differences you describe.
I submit that no other term as useful has emerged. The term “Islamicist” is the obvious competitor; yet it bears with it the possibility of un-useful eliding of the distiction between the “Islamicists” and “pious Muslims” - one which would no doubt gladden the hearts of “Islamicists” and bigots alike.
They did have a “divine” Emperor, however. I see the difference this way : in Germany and Italy the “God-King” and supreme leader were one and the same; in Japan the jobs were separate. Rather like a grotesquely exaggerated version of modern Britain, where the Queen reigns but has little real power.
Interesting point. I never thought of it that way, given that the “divine” emperor was largly a cypher.
However, I would contend that the existence of a “divine” Emperor predated “fascism” in Japan by a great deal and was not necessary for its existence. In any event, his presence and role was quite different from that of a dictator like Hitler. Though his prestige was immense, there was nothing of the charismatic “infallible leader” about him either alone or in combination with the “active” leader Tojo.
I would contend that the example of Japan demonstrates that one can have “classical fascism” without a charismatic, infallible leader along the pattern of a Hitler or a Mussolini - though obviously most varieties did have such a leader.
I’ve considered this objection, but the fact of the matter is that while every Muslim ( or even human ) could conceivably be considered a “jihadist” in the broad sense ( i.e. one who struggles ), the term has never been used that way that I can think of. Perhaps the occasional poet or philosopher might speak of us all being jihadists, but in practice it isn’t a normative religious term. Jihad has multiple definitions, but these days jihadist pretty much has one.
It’s potentially imprecise in a certain context, like, say, using the term anti-Semite for Jew-hating Arabs. But as with anti-Semite, I’m personally comfortable with using the restricted definition. Or in other words I have no problems calling anti-Jewish Arab propaganda anti-Semitic, even though both Arabs and Jews speak Semitic languages. So similarly I have no problem using “jihadist” ( a term I believe was more or less coined by academic experts in Islamism ), for Islamist revolutionaries seeking to establish theocracies or quasi-theocracies through violent means. In those rare cases confusion might result, one can easily clear it up by amplifying on what your referring too.
Tomato, tomahto - I just don’t like the term because to me fascism doesn’t invoke something generic, but rather something specific. Mind you, like everyone else I genericize such words all the time in casual contexts - i.e. “health Nazis.” But I wouldn’t use it as a serious label for an ideology, because to me it implies that violent Islamists are lineal descendents of and/or a political subset of the larger group known as fascists. Which I don’t happen to agree with. Authoritarian doesn’t necessarily equal fascist - a fascist authoritarian is not the same as a communist authoritarian, which is not the same as an Islamist authoritarian. In my mind, anyway.
But again, it doesn’t push any outrage buttons with me. I just think it sounds stupid. To me :).
I also prefer the term “Jihadist” because I believe that it comes closer to being honestly descriptive and not merely an insult.
The term Islamic Fundamentalism was coined for the benefit of Americans who are familiar with Christian Fundamentalists. Christian Fundamentalists, like Islamic Fundamentalists, believe in a pre-modern interpretation of their faith, unsoiled by the touch of modern humanism. But there the similarity ends. So while the term Islamic Fundamentalist gives you a flavor of what they’re about, it’s applicability is limited. BTW, “Fundament” is an archaic English word meaning “arse” or “anus.”
“Islamo-Fascist” is a nice bit of name-calling, but not really very descriptive. AFAIK, the only regimes that have ever referred to themselves as Fascist are Mussolini’s Italy and Franco’s Spain. Although Jihadists share some of the less savory characteristics of these governments, their underlying philosphy is quite different, despite the fact that they have a similar “look and feel.”
In an interesting historical footnote, however, the Arab/Muslim world has been associated with such regimes in this century. The Ottoman Empire, centered in Turkey and including most of the Middle East, sided with Germany in WWI. In WWII, many of the nascent Arab countries also sided with Germany. The Mufti of Jerusalem, the head Palestinian at the time (although they didn’t call themselves Palestinisans back then), wrote a letter to Hitler congratulating him on his Final Solution for the Jewish Problem, and urged him to implement the same solution in Arab lands once he had purified Europe. Also, many Nazi’s escaped to Arab countries after the collapse of Germany and were sheltered there.
Fascist is a term guaranteed to evoke an emotional response. Its a Rush Limbaugh like use. But as a form of government it includes a marriage of state and corporate power.
\ However a lookup on the internet gets a lot of definitions. But ,I think none apply well to Muslims of today. Unfortunately we are heading there more than they are. It is a theocratic government perhaps even more dangerous.
If the implication is they are militarily agressive. I do not think the definition fits, many governments have been. Spain, Portugal ,Brittain all nation building militarists. Not us though .we would never attack a country that hasn’t attacked us first.
The term was used to elicit a predictable emotional response. It is not used to liken them to Fascists but to make you sweaty and scared. It was not an accurate discription, simply a device to cause fear. These people can’t be reasoned with .They are crazed ideologues bent on destruction.
Unfortunately mostof the definitionsof Fascist do not apply to them. More to the neocons.
Another problem is that the left used the term so indiscriminately in the last half of the the twentieth century; practically every public figure to the right of Ted Kennedy got tagged with the “fascist” label at one time or another. Because of this, the mere use of the term “fascist” today tends to make one look like a ranting loonie.
But it’s a question of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Islamic militants resemble the old-fashioned fascists so much, right down the murderous anti-Semitism and totalitarianism, that I can’t get terribly upset when someone describes them as Islamic fascists.
Fascism - Wikipedia Def in Wiki says marriage of corporation,Anti liberalism and pro nationalism… Militarism,authoritism, We do not have to look eldswhere with this admin.Eisenhower didnt call it that when he warned us of the military -industrial complex. It is here and now.
Fascism - Wikipedia Def in Wiki says marriage of corporation,Anti liberalism and pro nationalism… Militarism,authoritism, We do not have to look eldswhere with this admin.Eisenhower didnt call it that when he warned us of the military -industrial complex. It is here and now.