Posted by
Randy Miller on Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:38:11 PM
There's a discussion over at NRO about whether or not pres. Bush should use the term "Islamic Fascism," after he used it recently in a speech and CAIR (the council of Apologists for Islamic Radicals) complained about it. I recall an earlier usage, where he said something to the effect of "... some call the ideology we fight "Islamic extremism" others "Islamofascism" ..." Certainly the term is more descriptive than War on Terror.
But it is a redundancy. Jonah Goldberg points out that fascism isn't explicitly defined. However, it is popularly conceived of as a description of an ideology bent on total control by a state. All devout muslims want two things that fit this perfectly:
Return of the Caliphate. A single ruler over the whole Islamic world imbued with the powers of government, military, and religious authority. (Rather than religious authorities using an oddly named figure head with secular control.) Now, doubtless such a figure would spark an Islamic civil war to put the 30 years war to shame, but once achieving control would have the allegiance of every Muslim official, and would have powers and (if today's Muslim leaders are any sort of guide) actions to put Hitler and Mussolini to shame. Except in the getting trains to run on time, of course.
And secondly, a world (all of it) run according to Sharia law, with harsh penalties for any infraction. In such countries today (like probably Somalia) people are KILLED for WATCHING soccer, girls killed for... well, its a long list. If Fascism does not describe what such a world would look like it's a meaningless word, and if all Muslims who wish for this world are not by this fact fascists then no one is.