Now I've Heard Everything

I've been out most of the day, so I haven't had any time to write anything of substance, but I had to pass on a link I got from IMAO, to an article in The Seattle Times. Religion can be confusing at times for most people, and usually if someone hasn't come up against hard questions that challenge their faith, they are either very sheltered or not thinking very deeply. Generally , however, people either resolve their issues to some degree, or move on to something that they can believe with more clarity. It's difficult to imagine someone doing both, but there is an Episcopalian priest--a woman who has been an Episcopalian priest for twenty years--who has recently converted to Islam, while still retaining her position as a Christian priest. Personally, I don't think it's possible to really be either if you claim to be both, at least not from a Christian perspective, but this woman claims to be okay with the conflicts inherent to the situation, although I'm surprised her denomination isn't less okay with it. Actually, now that I think about it, I'd be more surprised if the denomination involved wasn't on the front lines of redefining Christianity and Christian standards in America today. A Muslim Episcopalian. Now I've heard everything... maybe. (No, I take that back--when I've heard of a Hindu Baptist I will have heard everything.)

Secular Islam

There's been some discussion in the comments lately about whether Islam is capable of democratic government. I believe the pertinent question is less about democracy than it is about freedom and secularism. Democracy in an Islamic country would not ensure freedom, if the majority of the population thought that oppressing people of different beliefs or races was the right thing to do. What is necessary is secularism in government, and a commitment to respecting people's differences. I got some encouragement on that front today, from a statement released by delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, an event to be held in St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007. Here is what they have to say:

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to

reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;

eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;

and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves.

Those are great words, and I take heart in them. Now I know that there are some who will say that this Summit is happening in Florida, and not the Middle East, therefor it says nothing about the potential of that region for secular democracy or any other form of secular government, because the region/religion has a totalitarian mindset. However, I would respond that many of the signatories to the above statement are still practicing Muslims, which shows that it is possible for people to believe in Islam and also believe in freedom. It is my prayer that this understanding will spread throughout the Muslim world, and that the power of these ideas will defeat the opposing ideas of oppression and intolerance by sheer numbers and force of will. I don't know what the answer to that prayer will be, but events like the Secular Islam Summit keep me hoping.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Victim's Rights--Or Lack Thereof

Few of us here in the West don't bristle with outrage at the mere idea of the Islamic law which finds women guilty of a crime when they have been raped. The notion that any set of laws would demand four witnesses to an act of rape to prove that the intercourse wasn't consensual, and thus that the woman wasn't guilty of fornication, is so absurd as to defy any form of reason. Who on Earth is going to stand around and watch a rape happening, and not stop it?!? Such observers would not be impartial witnesses, but voyeurs of the sickest kind, and as such would be more likely to follow the rapist to his next victim than to stand up in court and put the blankety-blank blank away. Given this standard, what woman in her right mind is going to ever admit to being raped, let alone try to prosecute the perpetrator? It would be like screaming, "Kill me, or put me in jail. I'm guilty of being a victim." So, what is a woman living under Shari'a Law supposed to do? How about fight back? One young woman in Iran, named Nazanin Fatehi, did just that. She carried a knife for protection, and when three men attacked her and her 16-year-old niece, she stabbed one of them. That men later died. Guess what the Iranian courts decided? She's guilty of murder. They sentenced her to hang.

In a shocking display of sanity, an Iranian ayatollah set aside the verdict. In any civilized country that would be the end of it, but this is Iran. She's scheduled to be retried on January 10th. Powerline has the details.

Iraq Developments

Dean Barnett has an interesting analysis of the Sunni/Shia divide in Iraq--well, realistically, in Islam, and what the questionable actions of Saddam's executioners (when the tyrant went to meet his maker) show about the general state of the Islamic world:

...if you think the facts that Saddam’s executioners taunted him, behaved in an uncivilized manner and chanted the name “Moqtada” aren’t matters of concern for us, you’re deluding yourself. As the Allahpundit put it both eloquently and bluntly, “Why does this matter? Because it’s typical of these morons that even at a moment of supreme justice, they’d find some way to infect it with savagery.”

He's got his finger on the pulse of the conflict, but also has an eye for a more positive outcome in Iraq than many are expecting currently, and a realization that many Muslims in Iraq do, in fact, want peace. He reveals some promising new developments, as Iraqi government and Coalition forces are apparently now working to stamp out Moqtada al Sadr's militias. That could go a long way toward limiting some of the barbaric sectarian violence coming out of "the cradle of civilization." Have a look. It's worth the time.

HT: Instapundit

The Y Files: Women, Islam, and the veil

Hey, here's an interesting discussion on whether liberating Muslim women from the veil, by means of illiberal bans on the burqa and the niqab, makes sense. The Y Files: Women, Islam, and the veil looks at a Weekly Standard article by Olivier Guitta, which examines the issue of the coercion in fundamentalist Islam for women to wear the full body and face coverings, and Cathy Young of The Y Files weighs in on whether the alternate form of coercion--banning the coverings--is an appropriate action in liberal societies with liberal standards, including freedom of religious expression. This issue is popping up all over the place: England, the Netherlands, France, and even in Muslim countries. So, the question is, is tolerating the veil, in the name of tolerance, truly the liberal thing to do? Young quotes herself from an article in the Boston Globe, and I think that portion is worth passing on to you here:

using the language of tolerance to justify oppressive practices is a grotesque perversion of liberalism. The veiling debate is a case in point. No amount of rhetorical sleight of hand can disguise the fact that the full-face veil makes women, literally, faceless. Some Muslim women in the West may choose this garb (which is not mandated in the Koran), but their explanations often reveal an internalized misogynistic view of women as creatures whose very existence is a sexual provocation to men. What's more, their choice helps legitimize a custom that is imposed on millions of women around the world who have no choice.

I understand the conflict of interest inherent to this question. One wonders whether banning the veil is not as much of a violation of the rights of the women who truly do want to wear it, as forcing the veil is a violation of the rights of others who are trapped behind its confines, but I tend to agree with Young on this one. So many women are either pressured, browbeaten, or literally beaten to induce their cooperation in what is basically a misogynistic tool of enslavement, that I cannot think that the rights of those who desire to cover every inch of themselves, including their faces, outweigh the concerns for those many women who adopt the practice of totally covering themselves simply to appease their oppressors. Young's post touches briefly on a point made in the Weekly Standard article, the fact that some Muslim countries have banned the veil in order to promote women's rights, and, while they have not always been "liberal" about these attempts at modernization, the results have been liberating for the women involved. Have a look at the whole post, and, if you have the time, read the comments as well. I found the discussion there quite interesting.

On the same subject, The Big Pharaoh, an Egyptian blogger to whom I have linked several times, has addressed the question of the full covering, as well as just the hair covering, often. He laments the changes that allowed his mother to stroll the streets of Cairo in a mini-skirt, forty years ago, to the state today, where uncovered, and even covered girls, are routinely accosted by prurient youths. He says the problem has increased, rather than decreased, as more and more women have covered themselves in Egyptian society, and clearly believes the illiberal teachings of religious leaders is largely to blame. His latest post is a "letter from God," addressed to those who claim to speak for him, and tell young girls that they must cover their hair. (The page is a bit out of whack, but just scroll down and the text appears lower down the page.) This post addresses some of the passages in the Koran which are commonly used to support the idea that women must hide themselves. It's a fascinating, if occasionally profane, read.

Update: I thought I ought to explain what I meant by the veil being "basically a misogynistic tool of enslavement." My point is simply this. Requiring women to hide everything that a man might find titillating (is that even possible?) is making her responsible for his behavior, and excusing his lack of self control, thus making her a slave to his libido. The claim is that it's about protecting women. Bunk. It's about recognizing that these men lack character, but refusing to address the root of that issue. If the Imams who preach that women need to be covered from head to toe to keep boys' hands out of the cookie jar spent half as much time preaching to the boys themselves about keeping their hands in their pockets, the men might take a little more responsibility for their own actions. Her bearing the consequences for his lack of self control=misogynistic enslavement.

Hat tip: Instapundit, for the Cathy Young link

More Iranian Correspondence

The Washington Times has an analysis, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, of a letter Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent last Wednesday to "the American people." You will recall that earlier this year Ahmadinejad sent an 18 page missive to President Bush "inviting" him to join Islam. Timmerman says, 'That is a well-established Islamic tradition when dealing with an enemy just prior to war. If they refuse, then the Muslims are "justified" in destroying them.' Timmerman says the warning has now been extended to America's entire population in a letter that:

...sets out the terms of the traditional Muslim warning to the enemies of Allah. "And never will your Lord destroy the towns until He sends to their mother town a Messenger reciting to them Our Verses." This is precisely what Mr. Ahmadinejad does in his letter. Dump George W. Bush, allow the Muslims to destroy Israel, and adopt Islam -- or else you will be destroyed. This is Mr. Ahmadinejad's message.

Timmerman's commentary is pretty interesting, especially given how close the evil overlords in Iran are to having their very own nuclear weapons.

That's Insulting!!

It seems that someone is always insulting Islam, doesn't it? Even when they're not. At least that's the view of Kemal Silay, an Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies Professor at Indiana University, writing for TCS Daily. Silay, himself a Muslim, looks at a trumped up charge levelled against the Fifth Avenue Apple Store by an Islamist website, and says "the Islamist thought police" are "foolishly and maliciously" interpreting the architectural design of the store as "blatant insult to Islam." The store, you see, is in the shape of a cube, and thus too closely resembles the building in Mecca towards which Muslims pray. Even worse, customers sometimes refer to it as the "Apple Mecca." Could an insult to a religion get any more blatant? After all, the building couldn't possibly be designed to pay homage to the cube shaped computer that Apple put out in the nineties, and calling it the "Apple Mecca" couldn't refer to the fact it's the place to which Apple customers are drawn because of all it offers. Nope, it must be an insult to Islam. (Of course, as a Christian, I often get offended this way myself. I frequently find telephone poles an insult to Christianity, and have considered throwing a riot or two in protest.)

Silay is not happy with the Islamist ability to see insult where none is intended, and even where it is intended, makes it clear that he would rather his fellow Muslims spent their time more productively:

While Western civilization is inventing scientific and artistic marvels, the other wings of Islamism are preoccupied with inventing provocations in the hope of mobilizing otherwise ordinary Muslims. We have seen this before: the Muhammad cartoon controversy exhibited the same faulty reasoning but unfortunately it succeeded in turning thousands of Muslims to violent protests. This latest incident is one more in a growing list of examples of Muslims over-reacting, over- and mis-interpreting, jumping to conclusions and causing controversy over something innocent or innocuous.

Silay sees Islamism as the threat to Islam, rather than the Apple Store and other Western objects Islamists try to co-opt as tools in the propaganda wars. He rightly calls Islamism "the most dangerous global phenomenon of our time." Have a look at the rest of the article, if only to support the efforts of moderate Islam. I often want to pass on things like this when I find them, because I am always encouraged to see reasonable Muslim voices speaking out to counter the Islamist agenda. We need more of them, and we need to encourage their participation in the public forum. I know I'm risking "insult to Islam" by doing so, but since by some standards I insult Islam on a daily basis anyway by being a Christian, it's a risk I can live with.

Note: Sorry about the sarcasm on this one--although not sorry enough to rewrite this post. I'm apparently just in one of those moods. I'll try to tone it down now, though. Maybe.

Obsession: Radical Islam

There is an outstanding 8-part documentary (a little less than an hour and a half), available on YouTube, called Obsession: Radical Islam. If you have a hard time believing that there really is a threat to the West from radical elements of Islam, or a culture of jihad spreading throughout the world, you need to watch this video. If you think that the number if Islamists who hate the West is small and insignificant, watch the video. If you doubt that there is any connection between Radical Islam and Nazi Germany, or any lessons learned from WWII that must be applied to the War on Terrorism, you really need to watch this documentary. If you don't believe that many Muslim children are being abused--indoctrinated with lies and hate from the earliest ages, you need to watch this video. If you don't believe that it is the radical elements of Islam that truly harbor aspirations of global domination, despite all their accusations of U.S. imperialism, please, watch this video. I read a comment on someone else's blog earlier today saying that it is totally inaccurate to link Islamofascism and Hitler's Naziism, and that what we learned in WWII has no application to current events . I challenge anyone (sane) to draw that conclusion after watching Obsession.

Please know, I truly believe there are many Muslims around the world--most in fact--who really do love peace, and will stand with civilization when given the chance. However, if we do not see the danger for what it is of the 10% of Muslims (over 100,000,000 people) who ascribe to Islamist extremism, if we allow ourselves to hide from the truth, and hide from the need to confront the threat, they will never have that chance. Many of them cannot stand up from within Islamic countries, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, etc., until they are sure that we will not abandon them to reap the whirlwind for speaking against the radical Islamic ideology. We absolutely cannot abandon Iraq to her fate, nor cede ground on any other front. Watch the documentary. This is not going away.

Hat tip: Sioux Lady

Wow Again

But for a completely different reason.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

But is that a good thing? Here's a bit of perspective and history on women wearing the hijab in Muslim countries, from Big Pharaoh.

Ramadan TV

I would not have expected to read that Ramadan comedy could involve making fun of Islamic fundamentalists, would you? Ramadan is the holiest month in the Muslim calendar; surely it's a time to all pull together and focus on the things all Muslims have in common, right? Well, it seems not, if this NBC News report, by Charlene Gubash, is any indication. According to Gubash, Ramadan is also the high point in the Muslim TV viewing year, equivalent to sweeps week here in the States, and the competition is fierce. Oddly enough, for those of us who aren't familiar with the television options in Muslim countries, not all the Ramadan viewing fare is "Islamically Correct." Gubash elaborates:

An example is "Tash Ma Tash," a wildly popular Saudi TV series that is deploying satire to poke fun at the fundamentalists.

Staff on the show have received death threats for what some consider brazen impertinence; meanwhile, senior sheikhs issued a religious edict which deemed it was sinful to watch "Tash MaTash" after an episode skewered religious judges for working only three hours a day. Another episode was heavily criticized by clerics and others when it ridiculed the practice of requiring women to be accompanied by a male relative or a husband when dining out.

Interesting, eh? Saudi TV as a refuge for anti-fundamentalist satire? Who'da thunk? The article has a few more surprises as well, and other programs that might put a twist in your preconceptions--well worth a read. Moving on, Gubash's article led me to an Associated press piece which furthers indicates that Ramadan TV isn't all about pleasing the jihadis and Islamic fundamentalists. There's a Syrian director who's putting out a series for Ramadan that condemns terrorism, saying it hurts Muslims. One thing of note in this article is that the director blames the rise in terrorism 100% on the U.S., because we invaded Iraq and support Israel. (I don't suppose it would do any good to note the rise of terrorism before we ever put a toe in Iraq. I'm sure it wouldn't do any good to defend our stance on Israel. That would just be wasted breath.)

Regardless of what I think is a mistaken perspective on the source of Islamic terrorism, it's encouraging to see influential Muslims using the airwaves to condemn it. I keep reading things which make me think that the Islamic world can be extremely reasonable, despite what the loonies do. I read today that even the Sunnis in Iraq have largely turned against Al Qaeda, and are cooperating with the government in fighting that organization. Let's hope all these positive indications are a sign of things to come, shall we? I'm still having a hard time getting my head around religious satire in Saudi Arabia, but it's a befuddlement to which I would most happily adjust. I hope "Tash Ma Tash" wins Ramadan sweeps.

Hat tip: In DC Journal

Thailand

Interesting. It looks like the recent, and successful, coup in Thailand had a lot to do with the Prime Minister's response to an ongoing Muslim insurgency. Why does it seem as if most of the notable conflicts in the world these days somehow involve Islam?

Hat tip: Instapundit

I Can't Find The Patient, Doctor; I know She's Gotta Be In There Somewhere

Egyptian blogger Big Pharaoh has an example of Western "sensitivity to Muslims" run amok (in the doing things not to offend them sense, not the being allergic to them sense.) A couple of British hospitals are offering a burka-style gown for their patients who really want to preserve their modesty. BP says, "No Freakin Way!', and comments that they don't even have this kind of hospital gown in Egypt. He thinks Britain is going way too far, and not doing Muslims any favors. Check it out. He's got a picture of the gown. It actually looks really comfortable......okay, not even close.

Truce

I know I've been a bit out of the loop the last few days, what with the Fair and all, but just because I let my reading slip is no reason for major events to occur in my absence. I can't believe I missed this--Pakistan has ceded territory to the Taliban? There is now an "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan," recognized in a Taliban/Pakistani truce? Bill Roggio, writing at The Fourth Rail, describes the results of the agreement:

The Pakistani government has ceded a region the size of New Jersey, with a population of about 800,000 to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is not the end of the Taliban's expansion, however. An intelligence source indicates similar negotiations between the Taliban and the Pakistani government are being held in the agencies of Khyber, Tank, Dera Ishmal Khan and Bajaur. The jihadi dreams of al-Qaeda's safe havens in western Pakistan have become a reality. And the gains made by the Coalition in Afghanistan have now officially been wiped away with the peace agreement in the newly established Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.

Read Roggio's post for more details, including the terms of the truce, which don't seem to favor Pakistan, and, some sources indicate, include a safe haven for Osama bin Laden. I'd love to put a positive spin on this one, but I may need some help getting there. Any suggestions? I'm looking for the U.S. reaction to the news, and will report back if I come up with anything. You do the same, okay?

Hat tip: Instapundit

Update III: I moved this update up, because it answers a pertinent question from the previous paragraph. According to Forbes.com, posted today, Pakistan has denied that the truce will provide bin Laden with safe haven:

"Pakistan is committed to its policy on the war on terror, and Osama caught anywhere in Pakistan would be brought to justice," the country's top army spokesman, Gen. Shaukat Sultan, told The Associated Press.

Of course, the key phrase here is "caught anywhere in Pakistan." The catching part has been a problem.

Update: According to this report, from Jonathan S. Landay at McClatchy Newspapers, the truce went ahead with U.S. approval, although Landay, like Roggio, says that what the truce did was free up Taliban fighters in Pakistan to go join the battle against U.S., NATO, and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, now that the militants are not busy fighting the Pakistani army. Despite how this looks, though, I have to believe that if the U.S. encouraged the truce, there has to be more information that we don't know. Why would the U.S. back something so totally against its interests?

Update II: This report, from Yahoo!News India, sees the agreement as a good thing, and says that the truce carries a Taliban agreement that local tribesmen will stay put and stop fighting--and not head into Afghanistan:

No local tribesman would be allowed to enter Afghanistan to attack US-led coalition forces stationed in Afghanistan under the agreement signed on Saturday by pro-Taliban militants with the Pakistan government to ensure 'permanent peace' in the volatile northwestern tribal region near the Afghan border, The News International reported from Miramshah in Waziristan, quoting intelligence officials.

Under the agreement, which is likely to be unveiled by the government next week, militant will halt all attacks on government officials and security forces, and the army 'will not carry out operations against them,' said an area intelligence official on condition of anonymity, the newspaper reported.

'This is a good development because the Taliban have promised to stay away from militancy,' said the official. 'The Taliban have also agreed to distance themselves from foreign militants' hiding in the area, he added.

I note that it's local tribesmen that are prohibited from crossing the border, but with the number of foreign Taliban fighters in Pakistan, which I understand to be quite high, I'm not sure that this restriction is very meaningful, and I'm very sure that this portion of the truce will be hard to enforce anyway. Militant Islam does have a habit of talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Be Careful What You Say

Wow, Mark Steyn of the Chicago Sun-Times has some difficult and profound words for the West, and Western media. Most of you probably know that a few weeks ago, two FOX News Channel journalists were captured in Gaza, and held prisoner for two weeks. The ransom demand was the release of all Muslim prisoners in the U.S., which, needless to say, didn't happen. What did happen was that the two journalists publicly (as in, they were videotaped for later broadcast) converted to Islam, garnering their own release.

Many journalists and pundits hailed the conversion as a common-sense move by the journalists to free themselves--just a practical step, or even a clever sham, that anyone would take to ensure their own safety. Steyn's perspective is different, and he examines what the effect on the Islamist mind is when the message we in the West send continually conveys weakness:

It doesn't matter how "understandable" Centanni and Wiig's actions are to us, what the target audience understands is quite different: that there is nothing we're willing to die for. And, to the Islamist mind, a society with nothing to die for is already dead.

Read the rest, if you have the time. It's an important reminder that what we intend to say, and what others hear, are not always the same thing--and that what we do is part of what we say. Not all Muslims are looking for the West to fall, but those who are waging this jihad are looking to exploit any weakness. Their message is consistent: Convert, or die. We need to make sure that our words and actions are sending a consistent message, too, and that the message isn't, "We surrender."

Hat tip: Instapundit

You Can't Watch That From Here

You'd think that a society so sure of its own greatness, virtue, and superiority wouldn't be afraid of a little contrast and comparison. Gateway Pundit has the lowdown on the Iranian government's latest efforts to control the thought-lives of its citizens. The targets: satellite dishes, bloggers and student activists--i.e. anything that could tell the Iranian people that they might not have it as good as the Mullahs like to claim, or that the West isn't as evil as depicted in Tehran, or that the War Against All Evil People--meaning everyone who isn't them (especially Jews and Americans), isn't necessarily going as well as they boasted it would. Notice there are still Jews living in Israel, and not all floating around as Mediterranean fish food. Hezbollah was supposed to have had some great victory by now, weren't they? (No, I'm sorry, having some of your people survive the war is not victory. That's mercy.) What's worse from Tehran's point of view, there were actually Muslim governments speaking against the Iranian backed Hezbollah attack of Israel. That's enough reason right there to want to keep information from the Iranian masses. Not only did they not win the war, but the only other acceptable humans on the planet didn't even all root for the right team. Time to clamp down on alternate sources of info!! So, to keep their citizens from getting any more of an inkling that their supreme leaders aren't perfect and invincible, they're fighting an enemy they can probably defeat, at least temporarily. Stationary inanimate objects make easy targets, so they are showing their military prowess by destroying as many satellite dishes as they can. Satellite dishes are illegal, you know. Most evil things are. I'm sorry if this post sounds a little more snide than usual, but good grief, this kind of thing is so pathetic, it just ticks me off. I think about all the people who are stuck in that world and I just get steamed. What a great place to live that must be. Let's sell the satellite dish and move there--whaddaya think?

Seriously--there are about three to four million satellite dishes in Iran, and they're hunting them down and destroying them. Big victory for the Mullahocracy, huh?

Rant Over. Hat tip: Instapundit

Islamofascism

I learned a new word today: neologism--meaning a newly invented word or phrase. The word it referenced was Islamofascism. Stephen Schwartz, the Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, and the writer at TCS Daily delving into this topic, has some grounds for expertise in the subject, and a definite perspective as to its meaning:

I admit to a lack of modesty or neutrality about this discussion, since I was, as I will explain, the first Westerner to use the neologism in this context.

In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama'atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Political typologies should make distinctions, rather than confusing them, and Islamofascism is neither a loose nor an improvised concept. It should be employed sparingly and precisely. The indicated movements should be treated as Islamofascist, first, because of their congruence with the defining characteristics of classic fascism, especially in its most historically-significant form -- German National Socialism.

What follows in the article is an exploration of what makes fascism distinct from other far right ideologies, which, according to Schwartz, seek to enforce laws and reinforce authority. By contrast, he says, "...the fascist organizations of Mussolini and Hitler, in their conquests of power, showed no reluctance to rupture peace and repudiate parliamentary and other institutions; the fascists employed terror against both the existing political structure and society at large. " He stresses that, "Fascism is not merely a harsh dictatorship or oppression by privilege." Where he says groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah converge with fascism is in their "...willful, arbitrary, and gratuitous disruption of global society, either by terrorist conspiracies or by violation of peace between states." Schwartz also claims that, as in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, Islamofascism has a root in economic dissatisfaction and frustrated ambitions. He goes on to explain that fascism is imperialistic, totalitarian, and paramilitary. This is the common ground which Schwartz sees the Islamofascism of today, and the forms of fascism we find in history, as sharing.

Where Schwartz takes his analysis from there is his stated belief that this fascism is not intrinsic to Islam:

Islamofascism is a distortion of Islam, exactly as Italian and German fascism represented perversions of respectable patriotism in those countries. Nobody argues today that Nazism possessed historical legitimacy as an expression of German nationalism; only Nazis would make such claims, to defend themselves. Similarly, Wahhabis and their allies argue that their doctrines are "just Islam." But German culture existed for centuries, and exists today, without submitting to Nazi values; Islam created a world-spanning civilization, surviving in a healthy condition in many countries today, without Wahhabism or political Shiism, both of which are less than 500 years old.

Schwartz then goes on to examine fascists movements that have been tied to Christian extremism, citing several examples. Of course, as a Christian myself, I would say that these "Christian fascists" were not really Christian at all, by any spiritual standard, but merely co-opting Christian terminology, or historical cultural tradition, to attract others to their cause and invest themselves with legitimacy. I think this is the point Schwartz is making about the Islamofascists as well. It is definitely true that the people who have declared war on the West are Islamic. It is true that most of the terrorist attacks around the world are committed by young Muslim males (as Michelle Malkin frequently points out when parts of the media refuse to acknowledge this fact after any given terrorist act of violence.) There is no question that some Muslims believe their faith justifies, and in fact commands, their aggression. However, it is also true that there are many Muslims throughout the globe who do not share the Islamofascists world view.

Because of this distinction, Schwartz thinks the definition of the term Islamofascism is extremely important, as well as the way civilized people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, respond to the threat of this particular fascist ideology:

Similarly, the violence wreaked by al-Qaida and Hezbollah, and by Saddam Hussein before them, has been different from other expressions of reactionary Arabism, simple Islamist ideology, or violent corruption in the post-colonial world. Between democracy, civilized values, and normal religion on one side, and Islamofascism on the other, there can be no compromise; as I have written before, it is a struggle to the death. President Bush is right to say "young democracies are fragile ... this may be [the Islamofascists'] last and best opportunity to stop freedom's advance." As with the Nazis, nothing short of a victory for democracy can assure the world's security.

What I find encouraging is seeing this kind of argument from the Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. I've read Mr. Schwartz's writing before, and it's always been something notable to me to read this kind of reason from a very vocal Muslim. What discourages me is that it is so very notable, by reason of being rare. What I can hope, being by nature an optimist, is that he speaks for a large, if relatively silent majority. Now, if that majority could become more vocal, and stop the prevalent drumbeat that any use of such terms as Islamofascism is by nature racist and bigoted, instead acknowledging that the term has its roots in reality, we as a civilization might be able to come to a more unified consensus and strive for and achieve "nothing short of victory."

Unbelievable

I ask you, who attacked whom? Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei is saying--now get this-- that the U.S. planned the Israeli attack on Lebanon, in advance, in order to take over the whole Muslim world. Boy, does he think we have a lot of power. (Of course we need a lot of power, what with our designs on ruling over almost a third of the world's population and all.) Apparently, not only do we control Israel, but Hezbollah, as well. How else could we get them to cross the Israeli border, kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers, in order to get this "taking over the Muslim world" show on the road? We must have Hezbollah on our subversive payroll. Yet, by Khamenei's count, Hezbollah is "the front line of defense for the Muslim nation," in a holy war, no less, against a racist and bloodthirsty Zionist regime. Again, I ask you, who attacked whom? Is there anyone in power in Iran who isn't insane?

Update: Iran is putting its money where its Hezbollah-backing, inflammatory, jihadist mouth is. According to Jane's Defense Weekly, via Yahoo! News, the Iranians are supplying Hezbollah with ever more sophisticated weapons:

Iran will supply Hezbollah with surface-to-air missile systems in the coming months, boosting the guerrillas' defences against Israeli aircraft, according to a report by specialist magazine Jane's Defence Weekly, citing unnamed Western diplomatic sources.

In a meeting, held late last month, the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia called on Tehran to "accelerate and extend the scope of weapon shipments from Iran to the Islamic Resistance, particularly advanced missiles against ground and air targets."

Hat tip for the post and the update: Michael Totten--guestblogging at Instapundit

World War I

Another interesting commentary on the general conflict in the Middle East--Joseph Farah of World Net Daily says that the battle between radical Islamism and the rest of the world isn't, as some people have called it, World War III, but World War I, making it a very long war indeed.

HT: Pajamas Media

The Savior Imam

Omar, at Iraq the Model, is pointing to greater religious trouble brewing in the Middle East. Excerpt:

A few days ago we mentioned that we tend to believe that this ongoing war in-geographically-Lebanon is not only about Hizbollah and Israel; that it is probably the first stage of a wider regional conflict that is going to extend far beyond the borders of Lebanon and Israel. What I want to add today is that it is not wise to try to deal with it in the same way previous conflicts were dealt with, why?Because this conflict is not like any of the previous ones.

What we must realize here is the involvement of the theological (mythological) element in this particular conflict which is also the reason why this conflict has the potential to expand into full-scale regional war.

It is true that religion had always been playing a central role in the numerous chapters of the conflict between the Muslims and the West but this time there's a totally different theological belief that is being used by Iran to provoke and direct this war; I think the best way to say it is that we are about to see Iran launch the mullahs' version of an 'Armageddon'.

I know this may sound absurd and maybe some of you are thinking no one could possibly be thinking that way but remember, I am telling you what extremist theocrats seem to be planning for and logic has very little space in the mullahs' way of thinking.

Omar says the mullahs are looking to pave the way for the rise of the "Imam Mehdi", the prophesied savior of Islam, foretold to be the 12th grandson of the prophet Mohammed (although I'm not sure how the math works on that.) He says this goes beyond pan-nationalist conflict between Israel and Arab nations. (Iran is Persian, not Arab):

All previous wars between Israel and Arabs were of a pan-nationalist nature and used feelings of Arabism to push the people to war. Of course religion had a role too but now religion is going to push Arabism aside and be the dominant element in Iran's planned war because of the failure of pan-nationalism to retain its influence in the region after a long history of failures.Iran's dreams in exporting the Islamic revolution were stopped by the once strong pan-nationalism in last quarter of the 20th century but today we're facing a renewed project of exporting the Islamic revolution in an attempt to fill-and taking advantage of-the vacuum left by the fading pan Arab nationalism…And with liberalism still not strong enough to face such a challenge, I think the future of the region is in big danger.

Read the whole thing. Hat tip: Pajamas Media