| US President George W. Bush declared war on “Islamic fascism” this summer. This term, also used by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, caused a real storm both in the Arab East and in Muslim communities in Western countries. One after another, Islamic organizations in the United States and Western European countries are expressing their indignation: they believe that the very combination of the words “Islam” and “fascism” is a grave insult to hundreds of millions of believers.
“You equated the religion of the world with monstrosity - fascism!” - Chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Pervez Ahmed condemned the US President. The president of the Islamic American Society, Isam Omesh, announced to thunderous applause from members of the society: “Mr. Bush, don’t you dare call Islam fascism!” The Islamic Association of Great Britain also condemned Bush and said that "such statements provide a new pretext for far-right forces to persecute Muslim minorities."
I don’t know about the pretext, but Bush, of course, did not call Islam as such fascism, this is an obvious distortion. He was referring to Islamic radicals who resort to violence to achieve their political goals. Let me remind you of his quote: “The latest arrests (of suspects in an attempt to blow up planes over the Atlantic in mid-August. - Ed. ) are a clear reminder that our country is at war with Islamic fascism.”
How successful such a formulation can be considered is another matter. After all, the word “fascism” in modern times has lost any real, scientifically defined meaning. For example, I personally heard it applied to Margaret Thatcher and her policies. Amazed, I asked my interlocutor whether he should be taken literally, and in response I heard a categorical “yes”: of course, the course of the “Iron Lady” to weaken the control of trade unions over society, to curb hyperinflation and tough economic reforms is precisely fascism in its purest form. In Russia, the right calls the left fascists, and vice versa. And finally, in England, the word “fascism” can even be read as an epithet, for example, to the theoretical research of nutritionists or supporters of political correctness. In other words, the word became just another curse word, and as such it was subject to considerable inflation. Calling someone a fascist today is about the same as calling him a scoundrel, a scumbag, a scoundrel. And like any curse, it is as offensive as it is unproductive. And ultimately pointless.
But for the sake of academic interest, we can recall the arguments resorted to by the main popularizers of the term “Islamofascism” - the American Stephen Schwartz, who converted to Islam (of the Sufi persuasion), as well as Robert Wistrich and Sakai. This argument can be summarized as follows: in the time since the Second World War, the term “fascism” has lost its ethno-racial connotation and has come to mean any totalitarian systems and ideologies that proclaim the superiority of a certain group of people over all others, denying democracy, pluralism, freedom words and so on. Typical manifestations of such totalitarian thinking are considered by some to be hatred of the West, Jews, people of non-traditional sexual orientation, a penchant for conspiracy theories and a willingness to easily justify violence and cruelty in the name of political ends that justify the means.
Some even argue that one of the theorists of modern radical Islam (the extreme form of which became the ideology of Al-Qaeda), the Egyptian Seyyid Qutb, recognized the influence of the French fascist philosopher Alexis Carrel. Others see in the idea of a supranational, transcendental Islamic “ummah” something in common with the German “Volksgemeinschaft” (Great German “people’s community”). They recall the collaboration of the Mufti of Jerusalem with fascist Germany and even Carl Jung’s ecstatic statement about Hitler: “He is like the Prophet Muhammad. Emotions in Germany now are Islamic. Militant and Islamic. The wild god intoxicates everyone.” However, Jung (writing in 1939) can hardly be considered an expert on modern Islam. And in Germany, in the end, he didn’t really understand much... So this quote can be perceived more as a historical anecdote.
Many believe that radical Islam is closer to Bolshevism than to Nazism or, especially, fascism, which in its original form belonged to Italy. If we remember what a huge force Bolshevism turned out to be, how it almost subjugated the entire globe, how it made all the powers that be tremble, and how long it remained one of the engines of history, then such a comparison can be considered almost a compliment. Henry FEOFANOFF, London
|
