69 million page views

defining Islamofascism?

Reader comment on item: "At War with Islamic Fascists"

Submitted by Jascha Kessler (United States), Aug 16, 2006 at 00:31

Pipes votes for "Islamists." Which, in plain English, would mean the terrorists/fascists, soi-disants, are espousers of Islam, the Muslim religion. Meaning, in plain English, that Islam, the religion itself, aims to be a worldwide, exclusive corporate entity, under which would be all Hindus, Buddhists, and Judaeo-Christians, pagans, animists, everyone else alive, in short.

And if we are at war with their Army of God, which is a branch of Islam/Shiite, then we are at war with all Muslims, as during the Crusades, engendered themselves by the march of Islam and its Islamists. "Fascist" is a dirty word. Muslims per se who call themselves moderate are not, by that definition. Nor can they be without losing that faith. And faith is unarguable. Any faith.

Pipes brings in the mishmash of Lenin-Stalinism, et al. When the Cold War commenced, the dissenters within and without the USSR began to use the term, Red Fascism, since they discovered that Stalinism was reactionary and obscurantist from before the time of the Moscow Trials...say 1930, when the Surrealists were driven from the International Comintern Congress held in Moscow. Since then Fascism per se has taken on the whole aspect, denotative and connotative, of reactionary thought and action. That is its nature. So that giving it the adjective, "Islamic" is not unclear. The two are already conflated, welded in doctrine, dogma and action.

It may in practice take on cultural aspects, depending on its location: fierce in Pakistan, gentler in Indonesia, relatively speaking. But, an absolute is an absolute. It is interesting that those who know God's will, are absolutists, and having found themselves subject to what they believe is God's will, act out what they believe that will requires of others. The only question for such is: Whose foot shall be on whose neck? That is an old form of speech, but graphic enough to describe this epoch.

Perhaps that is precisely where we are today: a culture of the modern technological West being attacked with its own monies that purchase its own technology by a culture that exists on this planet in a time-frame of somewhere between 1100 A.D., and 1600-1700 A.D., on the Western scale.
Solution(s) anyone?
Jascha Kessler


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)