Is Islam a form of Fascism?

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Arrian
Lots of replies to such a ridiculous thread title. Must be a slow day.

-Arrian

Strange, that's exactly what I thought about the media reaction to Bush's attempt to compare his WOT to the WW2. Which kinda got me thinking about this question to start this thread in the first place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Berman identifies the core of fascism NOT in ultranationalism, but in a cult of death and violence, and a revulsion at the "moral breakdown" associated with liberalism and modernity.

He's incorrect them. The core of Fascism is most definetly an ultranationalism. Only through that can you reach the "moral breakdown" because you need to find the values of the nation beforehand to realize which morals have broken down.

[:) Smiley]

Fundamentalism and Fascism are two different things, but are quiet closely related through military rule.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114886

[chequita guevara]

LotM and Imran both make good points.

[Ramo]

I have read Berman's book. While definitely a decent book, his conclusion that Islamism is a form of fascism is nonsense.

And no, Francoism ain't fascism either. For if he were, what would that make the Falangists that he co-opted? Spanish Italian fascists? One can ask the same question of the Ba'ath; are they Arab European fascists? Is Arab nationalism not really Arab nationalism?

No, Islamism is an internationalist ideology. Sadr and Khamenei might share a similar Khomeneiist ideology, but numerous cultural nuances seperate them, language on down (indeed, the differences are so great that genuine nationalistic bigortry crops up among some of Sadr's followers).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Berman identifies the core of fascism NOT in ultranationalism, but in a cult of death and violence, and a revulsion at the "moral breakdown" associated with liberalism and modernity.

He's incorrect them. The core of Fascism is most definetly an ultranationalism. Only through that can you reach the "moral breakdown" because you need to find the values of the nation beforehand to realize which morals have broken down.

what if youre from a culture where the core values have been maintained by an elite that cross lines of states and languages(the Sunni Ulema), where for centuries theres been no particular match between the language of the rulers and the ruled (turks ruling arabs, Afghans ruling India, etc) , and where in contemporary times pan-national movements (pan-arabism, for example) have conflicted with loyalty to individual states. Methinks "nationalism" here is an ethnocentric, western construct - so naturally, in the WEST, a movement to restore values, and to do so by a cult of violence, will appeal to the nation state, which for decades or centuries has been the guarantor of the moral order, and the sole legitimate wielder of political violence. In the Islamic world this was not quite the case - upto the Young Turk revolution, most of the core Islamic world was governed by a NON-national state, whose legitimacy was in the (non-fundamentalist) ulema. In the resistance to colonialism Islamic, rather than national elements were important, though this varied from place to place. From the Young Turk revolution to the abolition of the Caliphate, their was a crisis of legitimacy - how could arab muslims owe loyalty to a regime that, whatever else it was, was neither Arab nor particularly Islamic? With the explicit adoption of secular Turkish nationalism under Ataturk, the situation changed. One way was secular arab nationalism, or secular local nationalism. The other way, adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood, was Islamic identity as principle. Arguably (and i think Berman addresses this) this latter was more deeply rooted locally. So when fascism came east, it was naturally an influence on both secular nationalism, and on Islamism.
And of course the Islamists couldnt acknowledge an influence, since there whole point was to assert (rightly or wrongly)their own authenticity, and to deny ANY western influence.

again, i think people here are treating fascism as if it were Marxism, a set doctrine with cannonical books, and a set of doctrines that applied globally. That made sense for Marxism, which by its nature was a movement that transcending local cultures. Fascism by its nature rejected the universal and embraced the parochial - by it nature local variants of fascism dont resemble each other much.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Let's see...

hallmarks for fascism:

*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission. - CHECK

*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit. - CHECK

*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others - CHECK

*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate. - CHECK

*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader. - UNSURE (yes wrt terrorist groups such as Hamas and Al Qaida, no wrt Iran or Sudan).

*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism. - CHECK

*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character. - CHECK

*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them. - CHECK

*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy. - UNSURE (islam does consider itself superior to socialism/capitalism/democracy, but views itself not "beyond" them, but before them. Sorta a "honourable barbarian" thing. Going back to their roots, instead of going beyond the current paradigms)

*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society. - CHECK

*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power. - NO CHECK (they're mostly purists, after all)

Most fit, it seems...

:b

I don't see Islam as being a fascist movement, I come from a semi-Islamic nation myself (50/50)... and that is not my experience. I do think what can be called Shariaism and the Jihadi world view [together] is fascistic by the terms of Mussolini's own definition. Let's not forget, if Everything is in the State/Islam, and Nothing is against the State/Islam, there is no distinction between religion and government, the two are one. That is the self-admitted attitude of Shariarist/Jihadi's.

[Ramo]

lotm:

I thought that the argument Berman made was that Islamism is an aspect of the Arab (etc.) nation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
I have read Berman's book. While definitely a decent book, his conclusion that Islamism is a form of fascism is nonsense.

And no, Francoism ain't fascism either. For if he were, what would that make the Falangists that he co-opted? Spanish Italian fascists? One can ask the same question of the Ba'ath; are they Arab European fascists?

So would the German Nationalists (under whats his name, that publisher) not fascists because they were coopted by the Nazis? Does the existence of pro-Nazi parties in parts of western europe exclude the possibiliyt of native fascisms?
1. The existence of multiple parties does not prove they werent all fascist, any more than is the case for communist or other groups
2. The existence of different definitions of the basis for restoring the moral order doesnt prove they arent both fascist.

The falangists were Spaniards who read Spain as being more like Italy. Franco saw them as wrong. I would say he was correct in that judgement. The Baathists were middle easterners who either from their own level of westernization (the officer corps, often the most westernized portion of 3rd world societies) from their own relgious identies (christians, alawites, etc) or for other reasons grabbed at the more western vision of NATIONALIST fascism, rather than the Islamist one.

[:) Smiley]

In any case, both are at the extreme right wing, and for 90% of the population, similar enough. to both.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Methinks "nationalism" here is an ethnocentric, western construct

And thus Fascism is mostly a Western philosophy. The primacy of the nation is key. And a nation needent be bound by state borders, but ethnicity can suffice. So the may be an Arab nationalist fascism, but there cannot exist an Pan-Islamic nationalism. Muslims are not of the same ethnicity. Islam is a universal religion, where members of many different nations can come together under the religion. That would not be the case in Fascism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
lotm:

I thought that the argument Berman made was that Islamism is an aspect of the Arab (etc.) nation.

Islamism in general is the assertion of a belief that the state should be Islamic. As such its a possibility in any muslim country. Also, at least theoretically, it need not take a totalitarian form - i dont recall how he stands on the debate about moderate islamism (not moderate Islam, but rather the attempt to build a Sharia state with democratic means, and with such regard for liberal rights as some interpretations of Sharia allow) Islamofascism - the form of Salafi-Jihadi ideology that he identifies with Sayed Qutb, and that is the AQ ideology, at least aspires to rule all Islam, and has SOME followers throughout Islam, but is in many ways very much a feature of Arab society - the actual tracing of that ideology to Pakistan, Indonesia, and elsewhere, often via Saudi influence, is fairly complex, and not really at the core of the book.

He certainly DOES NOT see the Qutbist ideology as a natural aspect of Islamic civilization. Thats the whole point of his book, and why its in many ways a direct counter to "clash of civilizations" ideology - to Berman the fascism in Qutbism is VERY MUCH a western import - though it hit a social situation that was ripe for it (Berman is enough of an old leftist to see the role of objective social reality) one of his main themes is how Qutbism had to HIDE the western influence to succeed in its claim to authenticity, and his project is to "demystify" Qutbism, to reveal the hidden WESTERN fascist core beneath - so to Berman the Qutbist ideology is NOT AT ALL authentic Islam.


Again, he says it better himself.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Methinks "nationalism" here is an ethnocentric, western construct

And thus Fascism is mostly a Western philosophy. The primacy of the nation is key. And a nation needent be bound by state borders, but ethnicity can suffice. So the may be an Arab nationalist fascism, but there cannot exist an Pan-Islamic nationalism. Muslims are not of the same ethnicity. Islam is a universal religion, where members of many different nations can come together under the religion. That would not be the case in Fascism.

Imran - Berman doesnt state that there can be a panislamic nationalism, rather that nationalism is NOT what fascism is fundamentally about. Throughout you take as GIVEN that fascism is a form of nationalism.


Ok, lets shift from word play, to history - lets say youre an Ikwani in Cairo in 1935 - youre exposed to an ideology that speaks of the decadence of the west, of democracy and capitalism (and socialism) and that asserts the superiority of organic values, of organic society, of a politics that asserts force over liberal right, of one that glorifies death and violence, and the aesthetics of death. Now do you toss your koran, and run and join Aflaq and the Baath? Or do you keep your fundamentalist approach to Islam, with its vision of a univeral ummah, and incorporate all the aspects that speak to you, and that end up distinguishing your new ideology from earlier versions of ikwanism, and from other varieties of Islam. To Berman THATS what Qutb did, and its clearly visible in his works, his life story, etc.

[Ramo]

The basic disagreement I have is the idea that the essence of a nation are the political and social values prominent in it.

Again, he says it better himself.

Oops, I'd meant to write Islam (since it's been misused in this thread so much, I automatically typed Islamism instead).

[Thorn]

You know, why don't we go ask Mussolini, I'm sure he would be able to tell us what fascism is.....