The Threat of "Islamofascism"

I confess that the only concern I have for the rise of "Islamofascism" is that it will be because of the ongoing occupation of half the Muslim world by western interests, not in spite of it. "Islamofascism" is a specter conjured up by neocons to support the war on terror; the Muslim world inherently has no power to destroy the west without a unifying leader as Belloc pointed out in "The Great Heresies," and this has not been a concern since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

 They are currently factionalized and content to fight with each other, and in doing so they pose no threat to us. Except, of course, insofar as we give common cause to Muslims everywhere, as by invading and occupying Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and eventually Iran. Now at least four ethnic groups that would normally be content to slit each other's throats over extremist interpretations of the Koran are unified and legitimized to the Muslim moderate public. Our best interest is in continuing the factionalism and disunity in the Muslim world, not uniting it and giving it "liberty," whatever that means today.

 

Regarding that "liberty", the very idea of imposing a modern secular democracy on Iraq, or anywhere in the Muslim world, is absurd. A civilization that is essentially pre-medieval in its ways and ideas simply cannot support such a system, and when it is militarily forced on them - as they never bring it on themselves, not being so foolish - they reject it as soon as they have the opportunity to elect terrorists, enact Sharia or move in that direction (see, e.g. Palestinians voting for Hamas by a landslide, Turkey's vote for the AKP being discarded by the secularist military regime, Algeria's 1992 military intervention to stop the duly elected radical islamic party from taking power, and the general failure of Iraqis and Afghanis to remove the Baathists and Taliban, the British Empire's failure to impose western-style democracy in Iraq in the early 20th century in a manner eerily presaging the current American failure in Iraq, etc. etc. etc.). In my opinion, the moral and material decline of Europe and the US is a powerful argument for the proposition that no civilization, no matter how advanced, can long survive the imposition of modern secular democracy.

The real threat to us is not the Muslim world - it lies dormant for the time being, despite our attempts to rouse it. I say let sleeping dogs lie, and attack the real present evil in our day: the modern heresy and all of its attendant isms. It is not the Muslim jihadist who can kill your soul, he can only ever have at your body. The Modern attack is far more subtle, more pervasive, and has eternal consequences.

JMM

Comments

[Scott B. Wilson]

There's one error with this post: "I say let sleeping dogs lie, and attack the real present evil in our day: the modern heresy and all of its attendant isms."

Well, perhaps not an error, but to be more precise the one's who are doing the attacking militarily now (Bush, Clinton, et al.) ARE part of the "modern problem" and all of its "isms."

I would completely agree with JMM's post though. Witness JPII's pain at seeing the evil of godless-Communism collapsing in his Catholic Poland, only to see later the void filled with western skepticism and consumerism.

[Josh Montagnini]

I left the modern heresy open intentionally. It includes much more than the neocons and their military attacks, even if those are most directly implicated.

The sleeping dogs are the Islamic world, if that wasn't clear.