Is Islam a Form of Fascism?

Fascism:

"A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

I had the extremely unpleasant occasion to have an exchange with the archetypal self hating useful idiot who busied himself explaining, in sanctimonious fashion, that Islam is nothing like fascism and if we just showed Muslims more respect terrorism and such would simply evaporate. However useless the statement, this self flagellator did get me thinking about how Islam is, precisely, like fascism.

I will add yet another definition of fascism, from my beloved Wikipedia:

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race. Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, fascists believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.

If we take the above definition we can see that Islam is in fact a fascist enterprise. Namely that istseeks an authoritarian single party state. Islam demands the institution of Shariah, and that the leader of such a state would be the "shadow of god on earth", meaning that he would carry out the political and military aspects of the Islamic state (while the clerics would administer Islamic justice), meaning he would be amir al-mu'mineen (Commander of the Faithful), and would command the jihad conquest of non-Muslim areas. Shariah would be the exclusive law of the land and no new law could be enacted that contradicted any aspect of Shariah.

Islam promotes violence amongst nations demanding that jihad be conducted to spread the Islamic state and Shariah, subordinating all people to this ideology, regardless of local beliefs or customs. Islam refers to polytheists as the worst of peoples and Jews as descendants of "apes and swine". Islam institutionalizes inter-religious hostility. In summary Islam versus anyone else. This is why Islamic scholars have divided the world into two competing factions, Dar al-Islam (The Realm of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (The Realm of War). An area is either Islamic, or it is subject to the hostilities of the mujahideen commanded by the Caliph.

Now there is a slight departure here, the social Darwinism certainly does not apply to the Islamic form of fascism, but the notional ideology here is the same, namely that there is an external force exerting pressure to separate those that are "worthy" of survival and those that aren't. The social Darwinists (and I object to this being inextricably linked to fascism, but this is another matter) would say that there are environmental pressures that would shape the destiny of humanity, yet the fascist state must intervene to expedite this process by the domination and even extermination of these inferior people. Islam accepts that this external force is god, and that the Muslim is called to strive in his path to implement his will, that his religion, Islam, be spread to every part of the globe, that the inferior faiths of Christianity and Judaism be "brought low" (to quote the Qur'an) and others be exterminated or brutally oppressed. In both instances the fascist state assigns itself the right to carry out the mandate of an external and invisible force, one which places them at the pinnacle of society, to carry out the destruction and oppression of the inferior peoples.

Finally I would say the warrior mentality is common to Islam as well. Muhammad said that fighting one day of jihad is better than months upon months spent in a mosque. Ibn Qayyiam al-Jawziyya wrote in his work Zaad al-Ma'ad (Provisions for the Hereafter) that "jihad is the pinnacle of the Islamic faith, and that the Messenger experienced it in all its aspects". The warrior, the martyr, is rewarded with virgins in the hereafter, he holds the highest place in heaven. Furthermore, Islam views this state of war between the Muslims and the Kuffar (Infidels) as the natural order of the world. This is why truces are non-existent in Islamic law, save that they can be used to cease hostilities long enough for the Muslims to rearm and gain enough strength to overcome those they wish to conquer.

As we return to our definition, I have made a few edits (bolded italics):

Islamic Fascism is a radical, authoritarian religio-nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party religious state with a government led by a Caliph who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the Islamic state. Islamic Fascist movements promote violence between nations and religions as part of a theologically militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of divine order. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, Islamic fascists believe only the divinely chosen can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive jihad mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed religiously inferior and degenerate.

With a few simple edits we have Islam and fascism defined. The fascism model fits Islam so perfectly, is it any wonder that Churchill said that Mein Kampf was "the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message"?

Finally..... Stats on Support for Shariah in the Islamic World

Overwhelming majorities support Shariah playing a LARGER role in the government of their countries.

The good news, there are actually people who support decreasing the influence of Shariah, just not many.

See pages 27-30.

HERE!

Video: Islamic States Blocking Discussion of Female Genital Mutilation Based on "Insult Laws"

What these cretins fail to realize is that real girls are being mutilated while they are stifling debate on the grounds that Islam will be insulted, or maybe not, maybe they view FGM in a positive light. Everyone should be enraged.

32 countries have FGM practiced regularly, 29 of those are members of the OIC!

Pakistan's Deal with the Devil

The latest news is that Pakistan has struck a peace deal with the Taliban (and it isn't just the Pakistanis who are knuckling under it is the Danish too). Where to start, where to start. Well let's start by saying not all Pakistanis with any authority think it is sane. But the fundamentals of the deal are that the Taliban will be allowed to administer the territory under Islamic law, despite the fact that Pakistan has 12,000 troops in the region, and the Taliban only about 3,000. Despite a superiority ratio of 4:1, the Pakistanis will give in. Why is this, and what is the history?

The Northwest Frontier Province has long been problematic. In the 19th Century Reza Khan led a rebellion against the governing authorities there, and when he concluded a peace treaty, one of his former followers, Sayyid Ahmed Barelwi, broke from his movement and created his own. Barelwi was a curious mix of Sufi (Chigishtiyya, Muhammadiyya) and Wahhabi. Writing a book on Tawhid (the ubiquitous theme of all the works of Bin Abd al-Wahhab himself) entitled Sirat al-Mustaqim (The Straight Path). It may be coincidence (or not) that Barelwi was a Sufi, and the Taliban has its roots in the Deobandi Sufi Tariqa in the Subcontinent. For my money, Barelwi is the most important progenitor of Islamic resistance in the NWFP. And to this day, the NWFP maintains its staunch Islamic character.

One would be right to ask, "Why would the Pakistanis do this?" And the answer isn't quite so easy. Pakistan has a number of strategic concerns which flow directly through the NWFP. First is that Pakistan still fears India and wants to keep the NWFP both placated and a contiguous portion of Pakistan for the purpose of strategic depth if a conflict were to arise with India (which doesn't seem all too remote at this point). Indeed this has been an overt policy for the Pakistanis, and it is also why a porous border with Afghanistan provides some benefits for the Pakistanis as well.

Why else would they do this? Well the ISI (Pakistani intelligence, which, along with the military, has great power in Pakistan) has long maintained a working relationship with the Taliban. The reason, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan is Pashtun (roughly 34%) and Pashtuns make up (16%) of the Pakistani population. The ISI fears that any form of ethnic nationalism (Pashtun) in Afghanistan could spread to its own Pashtun population creating great instability and overcoming the unity enjoyed in a nominally 'Islamic' state. Thus the ISI has a strong interest in keeping Afghanistan defined on religious terms, and the Taliban is integral to this. Thus the Pakistanis are all too willing to allow the Taliban to fester, and to allow the border to be a relative non-issue with regards to the movement of their forces.

What will the results be? More of the same. Persecution of minority religious groups, degredation of women, and destruction of schools (especially girls schools). Yes indeed, the Pakistani government plans to allow the Taliban authorities there to administer Shariah law in the NWFP. This will spell doom for women and minorities in the region. Already women are being beheaded for perceived violations of "morality", and we can only expect this trend to increase once the Pakistanis give formal approval for such behaviors. And what is the response of the west? The US remains silent, and the ever obsequious British have begun broadcasting messages begging Pakistanis not to attack (or hate) the British. Once again British cowardice and capitulation requires a special aside in a post here. It is truly stunning the depths to which the British will sink in their Islamo-sycophancy, perhaps if they beg and plead enough... nah.



Any hope for a decent life for the people of the NWFP is now lost. And all the British can do is beg for mercy. Someone get me a drink.

How are Women Viewed in Islam?

Oh how I grow sick of listening to Muslims explain to me how wonderful Islam is when it comes to women, all the while telling me that the west is abusing women by letting them choose how to dress. I thought I would take a brief moment to comment on how women are treated in the Muslim world, in practice. There is plenty to be said of the textual basis for treating women as unclean, property, and inferior.

Now that we have dealt with the Qur'an and its awful approach to women (the Hadith are rife with similar commentary such as Muhammad saying that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women), we can move on to the treatment of women in the Islamic world, and we can see if it follows from the texts (I know this got Geert Wilders in trouble, but I will also read Islam back to anyone who wants, or does not want, to hear it).

One principle regarding a sex crime (rape) in Islam is that there must be four witnesses to prove rape. So when a woman was gang raped in Saudi Arabia, the judge sentenced her to 100 lashes and a year in jail for committing adultery (as prescribed by the Qur'an). The rejection of the rape report and the punishment meted out to the woman were both in perfect accordance with Islamic Law and the texts of Islam. Some scholars of Islam say that, in fact, the women deserve to be raped for their illicit dress.

Of course often enough there is a lack of a legal structure (or simply a functioning government) so Muslims must take matters into their own hands. And it isn't just in Pakistan were women are brutalized for immorality. It is right here in a secular western democracy, were Muslims carry out their violent misogyny. A Muslim man beheads his wife in what is known in Orwellian terms as an "honor killing". His wife had requested a divorce. It is impermissible in Shariah for a woman to initiate a divorce in Islam. On the other hand a man my divorce his wife with ease, it is as easy as saying talaq three times.

It is a wonder that Muslims even bother to keep up the PR charade. Who would believe the cries of innocence from a suspect who repeatedly and habitually confesses to the crime?

This post will be the first in a series of posts on Islam (tomorrow will be Jews, the following apostates, then gays, etc...). Hopefully (or as the Muslims say Insha'allah) this will bring to light the fact that the current practices of Muslims are firmly rooted in the texts of Islam.

A Comment on RD.net and the Wilders Debate

Since I have been banned from RichardDawkins.net I am forced to comment here about the insanity there. The following comment was brought to my attention by the ever prescient and entertaining Styrer. He asked for my commentary, and I plan to give it to him. Here is the link to the comment in question:


http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3597,Dutch-MP-refused-entry-to-Britain,BBC,page4#339916

Here is the relevant portion of text of the comment:

"Not that I am against [crucial edit] opposing Islam as a
religion, but not from the point of view of privileging Christianity and/or
Judaism, as Wilders
does. The Abrahamic
religions are after all cut from the same cloth; they have all drunk from the
same poisoned well of tribal barbarism.

Where I disagree with Hitch (and
Sam) is that Islam is inherently more barbaric or conducive to violence. Wrong.
The societies in which Islam predominates are today more backward, that is the
difference. When those societies were relatively more advanced (eg 10th century), Islam was
relatively more enlightened, and tolerant, than Christianity"

It is difficult to know where to start with this bit of regurgitated nonsense propaganda. But I shall give it a whack. Whether or not Wilders priveleges Christianity is irrelevant, and is also his right, just as Muslims are free to privilege Islam in their proselytizing of infidels. The Abrahamic religions are cut from the same cloth indeed, yet they maintain remarkable differences. The Qur'an is rife with calls for violence and oppression, those verses do not need to be recited here as they can be found by even a doltish self flagellator with a google search. One often hears the ignorant retort "Well the Old Testament says awful things as well", oh and indeed it does, but the Torah (OT) is a book that functions as a description of the history of a people. When god told the Jews to murder a tribe of people, it was just that, limited to the tribe mentioned. These are as much descriptive as anything else. Now the Qur'an doesn't speak specifically about tribes, it speaks generally of disbelievers. Thus the calls for violence don't have a limitation, one delineated in the text. If we leave the Qur'an we find ample reinforcement in the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) for this near limitless violence.

"The societies in which Islam predominates are today more
backward, that is the difference. When those societies were relatively more
advanced (eg 10th century), Islam was
relatively more enlightened, and tolerant, than Christianity. "

This here, right here, is what drives me up the damn wall. This kind of parroting of myth and half truth is where our problem lies, this fetishization of all things non-Western. The inversion of reality, that a barbaric faith is ACTUALLY the exact opposite. Islam is clearly barbaric and violent, so the intellectual exercise to say the exact opposite is of primary importance. What nonsense. These places are backwards precisely because of Islam, how else do you explain countries awash with unprecedented oil wealth where female rape victims are beaten for adultery? What is the critical element here? Islam.

Let's move on to this 'golden age'. Indeed Islam produced some great scholarship as it spread like a pack of locusts across the globe. Devouring local knowledge, and rehashing it and producing new knowledge. But this was quickly put to death. After the Abbasid Caliph, Harun al-Rashid ushered in a period of mihna, in which literalism and rationalism were pitted against one another. The literalists (Asharites), armed with the totality of Islamic canon promptly thrashed the rationalists (Muatazilites). The rationalists were run out of town, tarred and feathered for heresy. And by no small coincidence the vast majority of scholarly production came from the Muatazilites. Rationalism was crushed, Baghdad was sacked by Hulagu, the library burnt, the Caliph stuffed in a carpet and rolled down the stairs of his palace.

The notion that Barbarians can bring benefit is not particularly special, by comparison Genghis Khan was a brutal but just leader. A man who had many redeeming qualities, but never enough to rehabilitate the destruction he wrought. Islam destroyed itself, setting quite a precedent, namely that when the texts are examined, a literalist will win. The Qur'an is not a book of allegory and metaphor, it is a book of clear and timeless commands for domination and austerity, no western scholar proved this, Muslims did. It did not help that Sunni scholars determined that the doors of Ijtihad (interpretation of the religion) were closed, leaving the Sunni world with four schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali) all vying for who shall be most austere as well as patronage of the ruler of the day, whomever it was.

Is it any wonder that the period between the destruction of Islamic rationalism and present day has been a descent into further barbarity... by the miracle or miracles reflecting the very texts Muslims deemed literal and eternal? The citation of the Golden Age of Islam as a meritorious period is simply disingenuous in the extreme, it is not meritorious, it is an example of how an honest adherence to a religious text will destroy a functioning society.