The term "Islamofascism" was introduced by...

[Macfistowannabe]

'Islamofascism'
Beware of a religion without irony.

BY ROGER SCRUTON
Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

The term "Islamofascism" was introduced by the French writer Maxine Rodinson (1915-2004) to describe the Iranian Revolution of 1978. Rodinson was a Marxist, who described as "fascist" any movement of which he disapproved. But we should be grateful to him for coining a word that enables people on the left to denounce our common enemy. After all, other French leftists--Michel Foucault, for example--had welcomed the revolution as an amusing threat to Western interests. It is only now that people on the left can acknowledge that they are just as much a target as the rest of us, in a war that has global chaos as its goal.

The word has therefore caught on, not least because it provides a convenient way of announcing that you are not against Islam but only against its perversion by the terrorists. But this prompts the question whether terrorism is really as alien to Islam as we should all like to believe. Despite his communist sympathies, Rodinson was a peaceful soul, who spent seven years teaching in a Muslim school in Lebanon and wrote a biography of Muhammad in which the prophet is portrayed as a mild-mannered campaigner for social justice. But this biography was denounced by the Egyptian authorities as an offense to Islam, was withdrawn from the curriculum of the American University in Cairo, and has ever since been banned in Muslim countries.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008822

 

[BVS]

It always amazes me the sources you read.

Despite his communist sympathies, Rodinson was a peaceful soul,

This quote alone shows an uneducated, extremely perverse thinking.

 

[deep]

Rodinson was a Marxist, who described as "fascist" any movement of which he disapproved.

well this explains a lot

 

[Vincent Vega]

But this prompts the question whether terrorism is really as alien to Islam as we should all like to believe.

And this makes me sick.


What's the reason for this thread?

 

[BVS]

What's the reason for this thread?

If you knew the poster, this answer would be obvious.

It's sad.

 

[Ormus]

What's the reason for this thread?

Christofascists need an enemy to demonize, of course. What's a cosmic struggle of good versus evil without the "evil"?

 

[Ormus]

Speaking of "Christofascism," here's one of their latest faux-controversies:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...man_takes_his_oath_on?page=full&comments=true

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.

A Muslim wishing to swear on the Koran? Gosh...who'd have thought that?

And, of course, it's always comforting to know that "religious freedom" is only really invoked when Christians are a minority in Muslim nations. We wouldn't want Ayn Rand's philosophy on the selfishness of mankind to be disproven, now do we?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Now objectivism makes some clear points on the nature of belief; anyhow I hardly see how fascism with an Islamic face is a useless concept, it seems to be an apt description of Islamic theocracy and the goals within. I am open to the idea that the state resulting from religion will be authoritarian, but I will have consistency in that view, as would so many freethinkers, marxists and anti-theists.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Christofascists need an enemy to demonize, of course. What's a cosmic struggle of good versus evil without the "evil"?

If "Christofascists" were of any political influence, you would have televangelists calling for blood, and the people would follow the orders.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

And this makes me sick.

Why so?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Speaking of "Christofascism," here's one of their latest faux-controversies:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...man_takes_his_oath_on?page=full&comments=true



A Muslim wishing to swear on the Koran? Gosh...who'd have thought that?

And, of course, it's always comforting to know that "religious freedom" is only really invoked when Christians are a minority in Muslim nations. We wouldn't want Ayn Rand's philosophy on the selfishness of mankind to be disproven, now do we?

It's funny you cite Prager as an example of "Christofascism" - a fantasized ideology invented by Utopians - he's Jewish, not Christian.

I could care less if he swears by the Koran. It is more bothersome that Ellison had ties to the Nation of Islam, and could potentially influence the shouting down of condemnation for radical Islam.

 

[Ormus]

It's funny you cite Prager as an example of "Christofascism" - a fantasized ideology invented by Utopians - he's Jewish, not Christian.

I could care less if he swears by the Koran. It is more bothersome that Ellison had ties to the Nation of Islam, and could potentially influence the shouting down of condemnation for radical Islam.

I saw it first on FOX News, where the hysteria alert is always on "imminent." The fact that Prager is Jewish doesn't change the fact that the "Christofascists" have something new to be outraged about. Some of the e-mail responses on Neil Cavuto's show absolutely disgusted me, considering their vitriolic level of hate and the assumption that this country was "theirs." And how dare some "minority" try to "break their rules" in "their country"? That kind of attitude absolutely sickens me.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I saw it first on FOX News, where the hysteria alert is always on "imminent." The fact that Prager is Jewish doesn't change the fact that the "Christofascists" have something new to be outraged about. Some of the e-mail responses on Neil Cavuto's show absolutely disgusted me, considering their vitriolic level of hate and the assumption that this country was "theirs." And how dare some "minority" try to "break their rules" in "their country"? That kind of attitude absolutely sickens me.

How about a real example of recent "Christofascism?"

And don't mind naming names.

Who is a Christofascist?

Anyone who condemns radical Islamic Jihadists?

 

[Ormus]

I don't know why this posted twice.

 

[Ormus]

How about a real example of recent "Christofascism?"

And don't mind naming names.

Who is a Christofascist?

Anyone who condemns radical Islamic Jihadists?

The "war on terror" and Islam has zero to do with this, so let's get that off the table right now.

1) "Christian fascism or Christofascism are terms used by some leftists and libertarians to describe what they see as an emerging proto-fascism and possible theocracy in the United States."

2) "More extreme than the Christian Right are two movements where there is more scholarly support for charges of neo-fascism: Christian Identity and Christian Reconstructionism. There are versions of the Christian Identity movement that adopt openly neo-Nazi ideologies."

3) "Some scholars consider Christian Reconstructionism a quasi-fascist movement because it is explicitly opposed to religious liberty and human rights. Chip Berlet and Lyons have witten that the movement is a "new form of clerical fascist politics."(Right-Wing Populism in America, p. 249) Karen Armstrong sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism, and claims that the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North is totalitarian: "There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom."

Taking note of the overtly fascist "Christian Identity" and "Christian Reconstructionist" movements are notable. The former is deep rooted within the realms of hate (i.e., Aryan Nations, certain neo-Nazi movements, etc.), whereas the latter has more traction within the political realm. Reconstructionists like millionaire Howard Ahmanson, Jr. have a lot of influence, as they are a backer of many Religious Right organizations and the Republican Party.

Now where this ends up applying to the mainstream "Religious Right" is over the issue of how Christian Identity and Reconstructionist ideology percolates into the minds of the "Religious Right." Most of this we can attribute to--perhaps you've guessed it?--right-wing talk radio and FOX News. The most extremist and overtly bigoted talk radio hosts cook up an idea, which then slowly works its way down through a continuum of increasingly less extremist and more mainstream right-wing radio hosts, which then makes it on to FOX News. And, like I said, with extremist millionaire financiers, money talks. Their ideology is gradually making its way into the political discourse.

That's why this vitriolic insistence that a Muslim swear an oath on the Bible is kind of disconcerting. This idea that America is a "Christian country," where religious minorities must follow "Christian rules" is directly from the Christian Reconstructionist playbook. Money talks.

 

[A_Wanderer]

How can it not be relevent to a discussion of Islamofascism? In both instances we are dealing with a religious identity that stipulates divine judgement against unbelievers, the imposition of state persecution against unbelievers (be it anti-gay laws or a dhimmi system), a will to rapture; both embrace the idea of an apocalypse and judgement day by God.

If we are to accept the idea of Christofascism then almost by definition Islamofascism must also be - and I think that the degree of violence the Islamofascist movements are exerting/threatening to exert exeeds that of the Christofascists regardless of rhetoric. Opposing both is perfectly fine and I see no reason that I should be held accountable for the actions of Christians before criticising some Mullahs and millitants.

Hate all religious fanatics with aspirations of state - we can't be discriminating. Christofascist is great, it cuts to the bone of people who condemn Muslims while willfully believing in the same basic lie, I think that it forces self-reflection on at least some level and pisses the right people off.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Case in point

the gunmen came at night to drag mohammed halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.

the 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. but his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying taliban orders to stop educating girls.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2023831.ece?taliban

Religiously minded group, intent on running everybodies lives in accordance the a literalist theology from the 7th Century who will use violent coercion to get their way. This shouldn't stand, it isn't anti-imperialist resistance, it isn't a struggle for human rights it is pure religious thuggery that hurts the people that live under it most.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The "war on terror" and Islam has zero to do with this, so let's get that off the table right now.

It has everything to do with this thread. But predictably, you dismiss the link out of political cowardice. You are a cover-up for radical Islam.

And I can care less about your intellectual dishonesty, your historical revisionism, and your utter hatred for Christianity. But go ahead and fill your mind with neo-Marxist propaganda. Rather than give any examples that even remotely support your outrageous claims, you turn to the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth, for a half-assed, Christophobe argument with nothing to back it up.

That's why this vitriolic insistence that a Muslim swear an oath on the Bible is kind of disconcerting. This idea that America is a "Christian country," where religious minorities must follow "Christian rules" is directly from the Christian Reconstructionist playbook. Money talks.

Again, it doesn't bother me that Ellison is being sworn in by his preferred religious text. I am more concerned about what he is capable of after he is sworn in.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Oh come on, Christophobe? that is as lame an label as Islamophobe - Christianity is ideas, not innate - being biased against ideas is something everyone does, and theres nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ormus]

It has everything to do with this thread. But predictably, you dismiss the link out of political cowardice. You are a cover-up for radical Islam.

And I can care less about your intellectual dishonesty, your historical revisionism, and your utter hatred for Christianity. But go ahead and fill your mind with neo-Marxist propaganda. Rather than give any examples that even remotely support your outrageous claims, you turn to the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth, for a half-assed, Christophobe argument with nothing to back it up.

Well, that's all folks. I've made it a rule to stop arguing with lunatics.

Enjoy your anti-Muslim masturbatory session here.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

If we are to accept the idea of Christofascism then almost by definition Islamofascism must also be - and I think that the degree of violence the Islamofascist movements are exerting/threatening to exert exeeds that of the Christofascists regardless of rhetoric. Opposing both is perfectly fine and I see no reason that I should be held accountable for the actions of Christians before criticising some Mullahs and millitants.

Nobody alive can rightfully be held accountable for such actions as the Crusades, unless they defend those who deceived followers into a religious war. "Christofascism", in my opinion, is ancient history.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well, that's all folks...

Someone who cannot make a distinction between radical Islam and moderate Islam isn't worth my time.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Oh come on, Christophobe? that is as lame an label as Islamophobe - Christianity is ideas, not innate - being biased against ideas is something everyone does, and theres nothing wrong with that.

At what part in the post was NOT exaggerated or fabricated?

 

[Ormus]

Someone who cannot make a distinction between radical Islam and moderate Islam isn't worth my time.

Someone whose entire worldview is a mirror of FOX News isn't worth my time either.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Someone whose entire worldview is a mirror of FOX News isn't worth my time either.

Your debating skills disappoint.

I ask for specific examples, and you chicken out.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Nobody alive can rightfully be held accountable for such actions as the Crusades, unless they defend those who deceived followers into a religious war. "Christofascism", in my opinion, is ancient history.

The crusades were reaction against the expanding sphere of Islam, this however is dealing with belief in the apocalypse and/or returning to biblical law.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The crusades were reaction against the expanding sphere of Islam, this however is dealing with belief in the apocalypse and/or returning to biblical law.

It was also a great manipulation accomplished mainly because scripture was not available to the average citizen in that time period. But yes, I see your point on the establishment of religion.

 

[Ormus]

Your debating skills disappoint.

I ask for specific examples, and you chicken out.

And I gave you plenty of specific examples, regarding the Christian Identity movement, the Christian Reconstructionist movement, and people like Howard Ahmanson, Jr., who, essentially, tie these movements to "mainstream" conservatism with their money.

But that apparently wasn't the answer you're looking for.

And I can care less about your intellectual dishonesty, your historical revisionism, and your utter hatred for Christianity. But go ahead and fill your mind with neo-Marxist propaganda. Rather than give any examples that even remotely support your outrageous claims, you turn to the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth, for a half-assed, Christophobe argument with nothing to back it up.

This isn't a "debate" point. You just think that if you throw enough insults one way that it becomes a "debate."

Your narrow definition of "fascism" to only mean "violence" completely ignores the fact that people like fascist Spanish dictator and Hitler ally, Francisco Franco, never engaged in foreign wars or ethnic cleansing. And, likewise, if Islamic terrorism wasn't an issue, it doesn't ignore the fact that many Muslim nations have long been repressive, intolerant of minority rights (yes, that would include Christians in Muslim nations), and live in a world where "freedom" is not in their vocabulary.

The trouble with the term "Islamofascism" is that, for all the bluster, it apparently has little to do with actual definitions of fascism. Like Orwell stated, it is little more than an epithet like most of your arguments here. If you're against Islamic terrorism, just say so, without all the name-calling, alright?

But if we are to accept the notion of "Islamofascism," as an ideology, rather than a terrorism epithet, then a case can be made for the existence of "Christofascism" as an ideology. Indeed, "Christofascism" has many more legs to stand on, considering how the Church was used as an arm of the government with Franco, Salazar in Portugal, and even the provincial government of Maurice Duplessis in Québec during the 20th century. I see many conservatives in America, unknowingly, trying to recreate these kinds of regimes.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

And I gave you plenty of specific examples, regarding the Christian Identity movement, the Christian Reconstructionist movement, and people like Howard Ahmanson, Jr., who, essentially, tie these movements to "mainstream" conservatism with their money.

But that apparently wasn't the answer you're looking for.

You gave plenty of buzzwords and cited only agenda-driven leftists. I can care less about what fanatics like Karen Armstrong has to say about the "religious right."

Your narrow definition of "fascism" to only mean "violence" completely ignores the fact that people like fascist Spanish dictator and Hitler ally, Francisco Franco, never engaged in foreign wars or ethnic cleansing. And, likewise, if Islamic terrorism wasn't an issue, it doesn't ignore the fact that many Muslim nations have long been repressive, intolerant of minority rights (yes, that would include Christians in Muslim nations), and live in a world where "freedom" is not in their vocabulary.

It also includes the captivity of "infidels" under Sharia law, that call for laws that the Koran doesn't even advocate, like burquas, for example.

But if we are to accept the notion of "Islamofascism," as an ideology, rather than a terrorism epithet, then a case can be made for the existence of "Christofascism" as an ideology.

It could, in a fantasy world. Utopian fantasizers often exaggerate the threat, the influence, and the power of "the religious right." I agree that Pat Robertson, being a religious figure, was inapproprate for calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. But to give credit to the claims of anti-Christian fanatics, Robertson's followers would have to fly to Venezuela and shoot him.

 

[Ormus]

You gave plenty of buzzwords and cited only agenda-driven leftists. I can care less about what fanatics like Karen Armstrong has to say about the "religious right."

Umm..."Christian Identity" and "Christian Reconstructionism" are two specifically defined movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_identity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_reconstructionism

And I already pointed out that, although they are outside the mainstream of conservative Christianity, their theology is finding its way into mainstream.

It could, in a fantasy world. Utopian fantasizers often exaggerate the threat, the influence, and the power of "the religious right." I agree that Pat Robertson, being a religious figure, was inapproprate for calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. But to give credit to the claims of anti-Christian fanatics, Robertson's followers would have to fly to Venezuela and shoot him.

Again, "violence" is not an inherent definer of "fascism." Like I said, either "Islamofascism" is a meaningless epithet, which, in that case, "Christofascism" is an equally meaningless epithet; or, if we are to actually start applying the actual political definition of "fascism" into this discourse (God forbid!), I've already cited three historical regimes, none of which engaged in foreign wars or terrorism, but had repressive governments that severely restricted freedoms and did not tolerate minority dissent, that fit the bill, using Christianity to cement their power.

If we are to accept this political definition, then "Islamofascism" takes on a whole new connotation, which not only covers people like Osama bin Laden, but also nations like Saudi Arabia, who do not support Al Qaeda, engage in foreign wars, or commit genocide, but have tightly controlled governments that have no tolerance for minority rights or beliefs, and use Islam to cement their authority and power.

So which is it? I guess we need to come up with a mutual definition of what "Islamofascism" is before we even try to continue this discussion.