Ислам мен фашизм идеологиясының салыстырмалы талдауы

Concept of analogy relating Islamic ideological characteristics and European fascism

"Islamofascism", first coined as "Islamic fascism" in 1933, is a term popularized in the 1990s drawing an analogical comparison between the ideological characteristics of specific Islamist or Islamic fundamentalist movements and short lived European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neo fascist movements, or totalitarianism.

The term "Islamofascism" is defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary as "a term equating some modern Islamic movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century". The earliest known use of the contiguous term Islamic Fascism dates to 1933 when Akhtar Husain, in an attack on Muhammad Iqbal, defined attempts to secure the independence of Pakistan as a form of Islamic fascism. Some analysts consider Manfred Halpern's use of the phrase 'neo Islamic totalitarianism' in his 1963 book The Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa, as a precursor to the concept of Islamofascism, in that he discusses Islamism as a new kind of fascism. Halpern's work, commissioned by the United States Air Force from the RAND Corporation, arguably represents a mix of mid Cold War analysis and orientalism. In 1978, Maxime Rodinson, a distinguished Marxist scholar of Islam, responded to French avant garde enthusiasm for Ruhollah Khomeini's revolution in a three part article in Le Monde, by arguing that, in response to successive assaults by Crusaders, Mongols, Turks and Western imperialism, Islamic countries had come to feel embattled, and the impoverished masses had come to think of their elites, linked to foreigners, as devoid of traditional piety. Both nationalism and socialism imported from the West were recast in religious terms, in a process of political Islamicization which would be devoid of the progressive side of nationalism and revert to what he called "a type of archaic fascism" characterized by policing the state to enforce a totalitarian moral and social order. The earliest example of the term "Islamofascism", according to William Safire, occurs in an article penned by the Scottish scholar and writer Malise Ruthven writing in 1990. Ruthven used it to refer to the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power. "Nevertheless there is what might be called a political problem affecting the Muslim world. In contrast to the heirs of some other non Western traditions, including Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism, Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say Islamo fascism, is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan." Ruthven doubts that he himself coined the term, stating that the attribution to him is probably due to the fact that internet search engines do not go back beyond 1990. After nationalizing the Suez Canal, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser was called "Hitler on the Nile" by the West.

The Young Egypt Party was a political party that operated between 1933 and 1953 within Egypt, following an Egyptian nationalist, pro Islamic and corporatist agenda inspired by Italian fascism and Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini.

As a neologism it was adopted broadly in the wake of the September 11 attacks to intimate that either all Muslims, or those Muslims who spoke of their social or political goals in terms of Islam, were fascists. Khalid Duran is often credited with devising the phrase at that date. He used it in 2001 to characterize Islamism, generally, as a doctrine that would compel both a state and its citizens to adopt the religion of Islam. Neo conservative journalist Lulu Schwartz is regarded as the first Westerner to adopt the term and popularise it in the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center. In an article in The Spectator, Schwartz used it to describe the ideology of Osama Bin Laden. She defines it as the "use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology" and alleges that various Islamist movements shares fundamental ideological features of fascism. The term was sufficiently in vogue by 2002 to lead the cultural historian Richard Webster to remonstrate with its usage, in arguing that grouping many different political ideologies, terrorist and insurgent groups, governments, and religious sects into one single idea of "Islamofascism" both grossly oversimplifies, and induces us to ignore root causes, a key one of which, in his view, was 'the history of Western colonialism in the Middle East, and above all in Palestine'. Accounts differ as to who popularized the term. President George Bush introduced the term officially during his presidency. According to Safire, author Christopher Hitchens was responsible for its diffusion, while Valerie Scatamburlo d'Annibale argues that its popularization is due to the work of Eliot Cohen, former counselor to Condoleezza Rice, reputed occasionally to be "the most influential neocon in academe". It circulated in neoconservative circles for some years after 2001 and came into wider currency after President George W. Bush, still grappling to find a phrase that might identify the nature of the "evil" which would define the nature of his enemy in the War on Terror, stated in 2005 that Islamofascism was an ideology synonymous with Islamic radicalism and militant jihadism, which, he then clarified, was decidedly distinct from the religion of Islam. It moved into the mainstream in August 2006. After the arrest of Islamic terrorists suspected of preparing to blow up airlines, Bush once more alluded to "Islamic Fascists", apparently a "toned down" variant of the word, The public use of the neologism and the analogous Islamic fascism during the run up to the U. S. 2006 mid term elections, perhaps with a specific focus group in mind, provoked an outcry, or storm of protest, and was quickly dropped from the president's rhetorical armory. coined in the 1970s by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, editor of the Encyclopedia Hebraica, to characterize Messianic Jews settling in the occupied West Bank. Hitchens replied that the link is no more deleterious than that made by Leibowitz, or by left wing analysts who wrote of clerical fascism.

Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, wrote extensively on nationalism, militarism, and Islam. In his book, Peace in Islam, he criticizes fascism, saying:
text=Nazism came to power in Germany, Fascism in Italy and both Hitler and Mussolini began to force their people to conform to what they thought; unity, order, development, and power. Certainly, this system led the two countries to stability and a vital international role. This cultivated much hope, reawakened aspiration, and united the whole country under one leader. Then what happened? It became apparent that these seemingly powerful systems were a real disaster. The inspiration and aspirations of the people were shattered and the system of democracy did not lead to the empowerment of the people but to the establishment of chosen tyrants. Eventually after a deadly war in which innumerable men women and children died, these regimes collapsed. He also denounced militarism, citing Quran 8:61 "If the enemy is inclined towards peace, make peace with them". When it comes to nationalism, he praises the "Nationalism of Glory", the "Nationalism of Political Community", and the "Nationalism of Discipline", while denouncing the "Nationailsm of Paganism" and "Nationalism of Aggression". Blockquote|text=If what is meant by "nationalism" is racial self aggrandizement to a degree that leads to the disparagement of other races, aggression against them, and their victimization for the sake of the nation's glory and its continued existence, as preached for example by Germany and Italy; nay more. as claimed by every nation that preaches its superiority over all others then this too is a reprehensible idea. It has no share in humanitarianism and means that the human race will liquidate itself for the sake of a delusion with no basis in fact and embodying not the slightest good. Contrary to contemporary nationalist movements in Egypt, such as Pharaonism and Pan Arabism, the Muslim Brotherhood preferred Pan Islamism, as Islam is viewed as "above" worldy ideas such as race. For example, former Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Akef said "to hell with Egypt", which lead to an outcry among Egyptian nationalists.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini has only commented on fascism and Hitler twice in his interviews and speeches. In Kashf al Asrar, which was published during World War II, Khomeini wrote:Do you know what justice is? If you do not know, ask your reason, for reason acts like an eye for man. You have justice when everyone is permitted freely to dispose of the property he has acquired by legitimate means, and injustice when someone is permitted to transgress against the property and rights of others. This is unjust and evil, whoever the transgressor may be and however powerful, no matter how obscure and powerless the person is who is condemned to suffer his oppression. This Hitlerite mentality you idiotically praise from afar, which says, “I will occupy Poland by tank and bayonet, even though a hundred thousand families may perish,” is one of the most poisonous and heinous products of the human mind. Every lover of justice must oppose it, and those wise men who are concerned for the future of the world must root out such thoughts as these in order for the world to attain tranquillity. In an interview with Oriana Fallaci in the New York Times, Khomeini rejected the claim that his movement was fascist, saying "Fascism and Islamism are absolutely incompatible".

David Horowitz developed an "Islamo Fascist Awareness Week" consisting of 26 workshops on university campuses, between 2226 October 2007. A number of Republicans, such as Rick Santorum, used it as shorthand for terrorists, By 2007 Norman Podhoretz, arguing that the United States was in the midst of World War IV, identified Iran as the main center of the Islamofascist ideology he was convinced America had been fighting since 2001. Podhoretz called on the United States to bomb Iran as "soon as logistically possible".

The widespread use in mass media of the term "Islamofascism" has been challenged as confusing because of its conceptual fuzziness. George Orwell, it has been noted in this connection, observed as early as 1946 that "[T]he word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'", and linking Islam to that concept was more a matter of denigration than of ideological clarity. Chibli Mallat, while noting that the term is controversial, thinks it warranted but notes that there is something anomalous about Islam being singled out, since fascist practices among Jews in Israel, Buddhists in Burma, and Narendra Modi's Hindi constituencies in India do not generate the same terminology: one rarely hears of Hindu , Buddhist or Judeo fascism. A number of scholars and thinkers, such as Michel Onfray, Michael Howard, Jeffrey Herf, Walter Laqueur, and Robert Wistrich have argued that the link between fascism and Islam/Islamic radicalism is sound. Many scholars who specialize in Islam and the Arabic world are skeptical of the thesis: Reza Aslan, for one, identifies the roots of jihadism not in the Qur'an, but in the writings of modern Arab anti colonialists and, doctrinally, to Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah Historians like Niall Ferguson dismiss the word as an "extraordinary neologism" positing a conceptual analogy when there is "virtually no overlap between the ideology of al Qaeda and fascism". Walter Laqueur, after reviewing this and related terms, concluded that "Islamic fascism, Islamophobia and antisemitism, each in its way, are imprecise terms we could well do without but it is doubtful whether they can be removed from our political lexicon."

Manfred Halpern, the first major thinker to characterize politicized Islam as a fascist movement, called it "Neo Islamic Totalitarianism" in his classic 1963 study The Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa. The French Marxist Maxime Rodinson described Islamic movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood as a "type of archaic fascism" whose goal was the establishment of a "totalitarian state whose political police would brutally enforce the moral and social order." and that the Palestinian cause had become "part of the Islamofascist jihad against the West." The sociologist Saïd Amir Arjomand has argued since 1984 that Islamism and fascism share essential features, an argument he made at some length in his 1989 book The Turban for the Crown; The Islamic revolution in Iran. Howard has stated that he was initially "deeply opposed" to Bush's idea of a global "war on terror": it was not a war in his view, except metaphorically, and according to Howard, it is possible to wage war against an abstract concept such as terror. He further noted that giving one's adversary a belligerent status by reciprocating their idea that they are engaged in a war, as opposed to a confrontation where the question was one of "criminal disruption of civil order," would only increase their support among the civilian population. Fascism is, for Howard, "the rejection of the entire legacy of the Enlightenment" with its values of "reason, toleration, open ended inquiry and the rule of law". While Islamic Fascism has been discussed as a category of serious analysis by the scholars mentioned above, the term "Islamofascism" circulated mainly as a propaganda, rather than as an analytic, term after the September 11 attacks on the United States in September 2001 but also gained a foothold in more sober political discourse, both academic and pseudo academic. Many critics are dismissive, variously branding it as "meaningless" (Daniel Benjamin); a "figment of the neocon imagination" (Paul Krugman); and as betraying an ignorance of both Islam and Fascism (Angelo Codevilla). Tony Judt, in an analysis of liberal acquiescence in President George W. Bush's foreign policy initiatives, particularly the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq, argued that this policy was premised on the notion there was such a thing as Islamofascism, a notion Judt considered catastrophic. In his diagnosis of this shift he detected a decline in the old liberal consensus of American politics, and what he called the "deliquescence of the Democratic Party". Many former left liberal pundits, like Paul Berman and Peter Beinart having no knowledge of the Middle East or cultures like those of Wahhabism and Sufism on which they descant authoritatively, have, he claimed, and his view was shared by Niall Ferguson, latched onto the war on terror as a new version of the old liberal fight against fascism, in the form of Islamofascism. In their approach there is a cozy acceptance of a binary division of the world into ideological antitheses, the "familiar juxtaposition that eliminates exotic complexity and confusion: Democracy v. Totalitarianism, Freedom v. Fascism, Them v. Us" has been revived. Judt cited many others who, once liberals have fallen in lockstep with the American idea of a global war against Islamic jihad: Adam Michnik, Oriana Fallaci; Václav Havel; André Glucksmann, Michael Ignatieff, Leon Wieseltier, David Remnick, Thomas Friedman and Michael Walzer. Christopher Hitchens was also criticized by Judt, as making unhistoric simplifications, to justify use of the term. In 2012 a special issue of Die Welt des Islams was dedicated to surveying the issue of Islamophobia in recent Western reportage and scholarly studies, with essays on various facets of the controversy by Katajun Amirpur, Moshe Zuckerman, René Wildangel, Joachim Scholtyseck and others. Their positions were almost invariably critical of the term and the concept underlying it.