Islam and fascism (split from IS thread)

While there are a lot of parallels, I don't think radical Islam has much if any leader-worship, and Nazism wasn't centered around a book. Radical Islamists may revere a number of figures, especially past ones such as their prophet, but crucially, they don't seem to much revere living leaders like al-Baghdadi. It's unclear how much power and influence he actually has, and it seems like he's more a means to the end of establishing a Caliphate, whereas Hitler was, during his rule, the central figure of Nazism. And Mein Kampf wasn't quite the center of the whole ideology the way the Quran is.
 

Welcome to DiscoverTheNetworks, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
You can't be serious. Right?

Academia

Some of Horowitz's accounts of U.S. colleges and universities as bastions of liberal indoctrination have been disputed.[55] For example, Horowitz alleged that a University of Northern Colorado student received a failing grade on a final exam for refusing to write an essay arguing that George W. Bush is a war criminal.[56][57] A spokeswoman for the university said that the test question was not as described by Horowitz and that there were nonpolitical reasons for the grade, which was not an F.[58] Horowitz identified the professor in this story[59] as Robert Dunkley, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Northern Colorado. Dunkley said Horowitz made him an example of "liberal bias" in academia and yet, "Dunkley said that he comes from a Republican family, is a registered Republican and considers himself politically independent, taking pride in never having voted a straight party ticket," Inside Higher Ed reported.[59]

In another instance, Horowitz stated that a Pennsylvania State University biology professor showed his students the film Fahrenheit 9/11 just before the 2004 election in an attempt to influence their votes.[60][61] Pressed by Inside Higher Ed, Horowitz retracted the story.[62]

Horowitz has been criticized for material in his books, particularly The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, by noted scholars such as Columbia University Professor Todd Gitlin.[63] The group Free Exchange on Campus issued a 50-page report in May 2006 in which they take issue with many of Horowitz's assertions in the book: they identify specific factual errors, unsubstantiated assertions, and quotations which appear to be either misquoted or taken out of context.[64][65][66]

Allegations of racism

Chip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), identified Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable."[67] Berlet accused Horowitz of blaming slavery on "black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs" and of "attack[ing] minority 'demands for special treatment' as 'only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others,' rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism."[67]

Horowitz published an open letter to Morris Dees, president of the SPLC, saying that "[this reminder] that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers" was a response to demands that only whites pay reparations to blacks. He said he never held Africans and Arabs solely responsible for slavery. He said that Berlet's accusation of racism was a "calculated lie" and asked for his report to be removed.[68] The SPLC refused Horowitz's request.[69] Horowitz has criticized Berlet and the SPLC on his website and personal blog.[70][71]

In 2008, while speaking at UCSB, Horowitz criticized Arab culture, saying it was rife with antisemitism.[72][73] He also referred to the Palestinian keffiyeh, a traditional Arab head covering that became associated with PLO leader Yasser Arafat, as a symbol of terrorism. In response, UCSB professor Walid Afifi said that Horowitz was "preaching hate" and smearing Arab culture.[73]

Criticizing Islamic organizations

Horowitz has used university student publications and lectures at universities as venues for publishing provocative advertisements or lecturing on issues related to Islamic student and other organizations. In April 2008, his 'David Horowitz Freedom Center' advertised in the Daily Nexus, the University of California Santa Barbara school newspaper, saying that the Muslim Students' Association (MSA) had links with the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Hamas.[74] In May 2008, Horowitz, speaking at UCSB, said that the Muslim Students' Association supports "a second Holocaust of the Jews".[73] The MSA said they were a peaceful organization and not a political group.[74] The MSA's faculty adviser said the group had "been involved in interfaith activities with Jewish student groups, and they've been involved in charity work for national disaster relief."[73]

Similarly Horowitz ran the ad in The GW Hatchet, the student newspaper of George Washington University in Washington, DC. Jake Sherman, the newspaper's editor-in-chief, said claims the MSA was radical were "ludicrous." He vowed to review his newspaper's editorial and advertising policies.[75]

Horowitz published a 2007 piece in the Columbia University newspaper, saying that, according to [unnamed and undocumented] public opinion polls, "between 150 million and 750 million Muslims support a holy war against Christians, Jews and other Muslims."[76]

Speaking at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in February 2010, Horowitz compared Islamists to Nazis, saying: "Islamists are worse than the Nazis, because even the Nazis did not tell the world that they want to exterminate the Jews."[77]

Horowitz created a campaign for what he called "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week," in parody of multicultural awareness activities. He helped arrange for leading critics of radical Islam to speak at more than a hundred college campuses in October 2007.[78] As a speaker he has met with intense hostility.[79][80][81]

In a 2011 review of anti-Islamic activists in the US, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified Horowitz as one of 10 people in the United States' "Anti-Muslim Inner Circle."[82]
 
I "stepped up" and "saw" the usual Islamophobic nonsense by one of the key players.

This has done much to completely debunk the notion of any connection between Islam and fascism. I couldn't have done better myself looking for Muslim hate sites that feature this same rhetoric.
 
I "stepped up" and "saw" the usual Islamophobic nonsense by one of the key players.

This has done much to completely debunk the notion of any connection between Islam and fascism. I couldn't have done better myself looking for Muslim hate sites that feature this same rhetoric.

Out of curiousity, have you ever actually read either the Bible or the Koran?

Islam is far more heavy handed in terms of unbelievers than Christianity by New testament standards.
 
Out of curiousity, have you ever actually read either the Bible or the Koran?

Islam is far more heavy handed in terms of unbelievers than Christianity by New testament standards.
:) Actually, the Koran is after all 'unbelivers' where the Old Testament is after specific peoples, like the Amalekites:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul#Rejection
After the battle with the Philistines was over, the text describes Samuel as having instructed Saul to kill all the Amalekites. Having forewarned the Kenites who were living among the Amalekites to leave, Saul goes to war and defeats the Amalekites. Saul kills all the men, women, children and poor quality livestock, but leaves alive the king and best livestock. When Samuel found out that Saul has not killed them all, he informs Saul that God has rejected him as king, because Saul was disobedient. When Samuel turns away, Saul grabs Samuel by his clothes. A piece off his garment tears off, and Samuel announces this as indicative of what will happen to Saul's kingdom. Samuel then kills the Amalekite king himself 1 Samuel 15:33 and leaves Saul for the last time.
So if you not an Amalekite no problem. as long as your not one of the other people God condemns. But their mostly (if not all) extinct.

So sleep tight tonight!

Nothing to fear from Bible Thumpers.
;)
 
This is the case for al-Nimr in Saudi Arabia, as well as for the Islamic ideology in general, where there is no major school which rejects the tenet that apostates should be killed.
What is noteworthy in al-Nimr's case is that his decapitated corpse will be tied to a cross and set up for public display. This is indeed the same kind of punishment that ISIS employs.

Paradoxically, the government of Saudi Arabia was just named head of a panel on the U.N. Human Rights Council.
 
:) Actually, the Koran is after all 'unbelivers' where the Old Testament is after specific peoples, like the Amalekites: So if you not an Amalekite no problem. as long as your not one of the other people God condemns. But their mostly (if not all) extinct.

So sleep tight tonight!

Nothing to fear from Bible Thumpers.
;)

The old testement also didn't like Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, etc.

Realistically in the bible it was foretold that Arabs would be against all their brothers as Ishmael, the older brother of Isaac, is their ancestor and God said the "his hand will be raised against all his brothers". So the situation in the world today was foretold eons ago.
 
The old testement also didn't like Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, etc.

Realistically in the bible it was foretold that Arabs would be against all their brothers as Ishmael, the older brother of Isaac, is their ancestor and God said the "his hand will be raised against all his brothers". So the situation in the world today was foretold eons ago.
:) Yes and no, trying to tell if our era is the foretold era is a fools game,what if your wrong and aren't prepared. IMHO it's best to be always prepared, then when it comes your ready.

Not meaning any criticism, just worried that when it comes we'll be setting around smugly saying 'not us'. Like now.

Am watching The Battle of Vienna, September Eleven 1683, good movie, worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChdGe2YxVmA

Best
;)
 
I dont know if I'd call a belief Arabs came from some dude who lived ~4kya realistic ;)

But the thing is that according to a lot of them, they actually believe it and they insist that Ishmael and not Isaac was the Child of prophecy/destiny.

Christianity/Judaism/Islam are called the Abrahamic faiths for a reason, in that all of us are spiritual descendents of Abraham.
 
While there are a lot of parallels, I don't think radical Islam has much if any leader-worship

Leader-worship lies at the core of Islam, not just radical Islam. Mohammed is considered the best person who ever lived by an overwhelming majority of Muslims, even by moderate Muslims. He is considered the perfect role-model who all Muslims should strive to live up to. That is why just drawing him is considered an act of blasphemy which must be punished by death.

The problem is that this was a man who did truly horrible deeds. He was a conquering warlord, and would be indistinguishable from the most ruthless dictators of our time if he lived today. For example, he is said to have personally beheaded 800 Jews in Medina when they refused to convert to Islam. After he had returned to Mecca and conquered the city, he eradicated all the different religious sects, destroying every religous symbol he deemed non-Islamic and persecuting and killing those unwilling to submit. This is all based on the original Islamic texts. There are countless passages in the Koran and the hadith in which Mohammed orders Muslims to fight against the unbelievers.
We can see the disastrous outcome of Muslims trying to live up to his example in the thousands of deaths caused by global terror every month.


Nazism wasn't centered around a book.
Irrelevant. Obviously there are minor differences between various fascist systems. But the core tenets of fascism, which I talked about earlier in the thread, apply to German and Italian fascism as well as to the scriptural base of Islam.
 
Irrelevant. Obviously there are minor differences between various fascist systems. But the core tenets of fascism, which I talked about earlier in the thread, apply to German and Italian fascism as well as to the scriptural base of Islam.

No. Hostility to intellectuals and theorising is a key part of fascism - it's in the lineage of Wagner and the Romantics, and sees thinking about politics as a decadent distraction from actually doing it, following the natural, hardy spirit of the simple master-race. Hence fascists are not democrats, because they do not believe that reasoned argument is a good way to settle political questions: they believe that the leader is right, even if 'enemies' can come up with verbal tricks to 'prove' that he isn't. Islam has from the beginning had a strong intellectual and theological tradition.
 
:lol: Look at me, am a Neo-Con https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism and posting here.

Interesting, may learn something.
You can be a neocon without promoting Islamophobia.

Only 39% of all Republicans think that Islam is a religion of violence. 13% of Democrats do. That likely means perhaps 25% of all Americans believe this nonsense, which hardly anybody thought prior to 9/11 for some odd reason.

But then again, nearly half of all Republicans think the president is Muslim who was born in Kenya so nothing they think should be too surprising. Do you?

Out of curiousity, have you ever actually read either the Bible or the Koran?

Islam is far more heavy handed in terms of unbelievers than Christianity by New testament standards.
"Out of curiosity", do you think modern day Christianity and Judaism promote stoning people to death for taking "accursed things", blasphemy, adultery (including rape), animals that gore you, worshiping other gods, disobeying parents, for witches and wizards, for giving children to Molech, for breaking the Sabbath, or for cursing the king?

It doesn't really matter which scriptures are more "heavy handed" given that only some of the more wacky fundamentalists in all 3 religions believe they should follow all the scriptures and still want to practice these barbaric acts anymore. Now does it?

Besides, using the OT you can even rationalize genocide. Can you with the Koran? :dunno:

I will readily admit I'm no expert on either book, and I'm sure that is true for anybody who has posted in this thread. But the overwhelming majority who are considered to be experts in this area don't seem to promote this blatant hatred and intentional misinterpretation of Islam. Now do they?

Irrelevant. Obviously there are minor differences between various fascist systems. But the core tenets of fascism, which I talked about earlier in the thread, apply to German and Italian fascism as well as to the scriptural base of Islam.
Even your own "source" doesn't agree with that utter nonsense. He is doing an incredibly bad job of trying to convince people that Islamist extremism have parallels with fascism, not Islam in general.

Again, have you even read the book? Or are you paraphrasing what you read on some Islamophobic hate site? Why don't you provide us a URL?

If you want to draw parallels to fascism, I suggest you start much closer to home.

EGvAbTc5Kjp9qkzaLcX5tm2po1_r1_400.jpg
 
Actually Christianity never promoted stoning, OT Judaism might have but Jesus intentionally saved an adultress women by saying "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Jesus did come to fulfill the law, but that really means to complete it. The two most important commandments in Christianity are love the lord your god with all your heart and love thy neighbor as yourself. People who don't follow the 2nd one or at least try to pervert Christianity. I'm not really sure about Judiasm but the Koran is certainly more militant and unforgiving with enemies than the New Testement. You have to have at least read one or the other entirely yourself(either the bible or the Koran) to actually debate on it seriously rather than just depend on the opinion of "experts", especially if some of said experts aren't believers themselves in the first place.
 
Many Christians did stone people to death until they were forced to stop by secular laws. it probably still occurs in the more backward countries in Africa now and then. After all, they think every single word found in the Bible is the word of their god (which actually consists of the OT and the NT in case you didn't know).

And "OT Judaism might have"? So you asked me if I had ever read the Bible when it patently obvious you haven't?

If you want to contravene the opinions of virtually every single truly objective religious scholar, you had better have some facts or other extremely compelling reasons to support it. And quote mining ancient religious scriptures interpreted into another language, and which are contradictory and clearly not completely followed anymore except for a handful of religious extremists, aren't facts.
 
And "OT Judaism might have"? So you asked me if I had ever read the Bible when it patently obvious you haven't?

Maybe I stated that wrong but I've read the bible several times over, it seems that you haven't actually read it as you just keep referencing "those expert scholars". Actually I don't think Jesus ever tells people to stone anyone. In the Bible, it was generally the Pharisees and their group who tried to stone people. People misuse religion all the time, probably they haven't carefully read what Christ taught them. See, I actually have the source scripture to back my opinions up, which is a far higher authority that any "expert scholar".
When you study religion, you actually have to go back to the original context and source of what people believe and not just some "expert opinions". And religion is subjective in nature in the first place, there are no "truly objective scholars". Most of them derive their opinions for religious texts or just formulate theories out of their ass based on whatever they feel like saying.

Every word in the OT and the NT is the word of God. Christ is the fulfillment of the law and he saws many things that actually are contrary to some of the teachings in the OT. He says those laws were given in the OT because of the "Hardiness of Heart" or mainly because people just couldn't accept his teachings(which is why he was crucified for his message). Christianity is based mostly on the teachings of Christ and he does replace a lot of the stuff that was necessary in the OT. For instance, sacrifice of animals was no longer needed after Christ came nor was circumcision although they still did it at times to please the old traditionalists.

You can't just reference some "experts" in the field and expect it to have any authority if you haven't actually gone into yourself on subjects like religion when in itself is very subjective.
 
So why is it relevant whether the fascist doctrines are centered around a book or not? If anything, it makes the ideology of Islam more transfixed, since the koran is viewed as the the direct word of God and is unalterable. The koran itself forbids any meaningful re-interpretation: "It is not for me to change it [the koran] on my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me." (sura 10:15)

Hostility to intellectuals and theorising is a key part of fascism.
Indeed. And that is what we see in large parts of the Islamic world. There is a remarkable scarcity of Muslim scientists and philosophers. The Al Azhar university of Cairo is considered the intellectual capital of the Muslim world. Yet it follows the traditions of hanbalism, the most conservative of the four Islamic schools of law. Many of its professors teach open hate of, or at least contempt towards the West. It endorses sharia, and it is one of the main sources of fatwas against critics of Islam. And this is the best there is in the Muslim world.

Islam has from the beginning had a strong intellectual and theological tradition.
Only within the narrow boundaries of Islamic scripture. The dogmatic religious interpretations have never been fundamentally challenged.
 
Indeed. And that is what we see in large parts of the Islamic world. There is a remarkable scarcity of Muslim scientists and philosophers. The Al Azhar university of Cairo is considered the intellectual capital of the Muslim world. Yet it follows the traditions of hanbalism, the most conservative of the four Islamic schools of law. Many of its professors teach open hate of, or at least contempt towards the West. It endorses sharia, and it is one of the main sources of fatwas against critics of Islam. And this is the best there is in the Muslim world.

You failed to notice Egypt is a secular state? There are in fact only 2 major non-secular states in the Muslim world: Saudi Arabia and Iran. The largest Muslim country is secular: Indonesia. So much for sharia.

Interesting that you should pick one of the few non-secular universities in the Muslim world. (I think CFC-ers refer to this as cherrypicking.)

Sharia, by the way, implies respect for the Law. Not really a strongsuit of fascism.

The dogmatic religious interpretations have never been fundamentally challenged.

See above for comment.
 
Back
Top Bottom