Islam and fascism (split from IS thread)

[Flying Pig]

I don't dispute any of this. However, Nazism itself had religious elements which made it totalitarian. A non-secular society is characterised by complicated relations between religious and secular power. However, a secular society where non-secular notions are still influential may be prone to ideologies like Nazism and Weimar Germany can be characterised as such a society. So a partially secularised society is potentially more explosive than a completely religious or completely secular one.

I don't follow - unless you're using 'secular' to mean a society without any strong beliefs at all. Otherwise, the logical extension is that Nazism could never appear in modern Switzerland or France, which is manifestly not true. You could argue for an incompatibility like 'if a government is totalitarian (which is itself not a particularly easy word to pin down), then it is filling the role of religion, and therefore society is not secular', but you can't turn that into 'a society which is fully secular/religious on Monday is less likely to be totalitarian on Tuesday than one that isn't.' As I said, I don't think that the most religious society possible has any natural defence against ideologies like fascism, and gave (I think) enough examples to demonstrate that everything bad that the Nazis would have been intellectually and morally acceptable to at least some people living in fully Christian, pre- or non-secular societies.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't follow - unless you're using 'secular' to mean a society without any strong beliefs at all. Otherwise, the logical extension is that Nazism could never appear in modern Switzerland or France, which is manifestly not true. You could argue for an incompatibility like 'if a government is totalitarian (which is itself not a particularly easy word to pin down), then it is filling the role of religion, and therefore society is not secular', but you can't turn that into 'a society which is fully secular/religious on Monday is less likely to be totalitarian on Tuesday than one that isn't.' As I said, I don't think that the most religious society possible has any natural defence against ideologies like fascism, and gave (I think) enough examples to demonstrate that everything bad that the Nazis would have been intellectually and morally acceptable to at least some people living in fully Christian, pre- or non-secular societies.

Well we're at dead end here, I'm afraid. I'm inclined to say Nazism could not originate from Switzerland. Switzerland has had no historical overarching ambition to lead Europe like Germany has. Likewise, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are culturally more hardwired in favour of Capitalism than many other European nations, due to their geographical locales: Having large tracts of coastlines but in relatively close proximity to industrial and/or agricultural nations makes one inclined towards trade.

Anyway, my point is that non-secular societies always have some degree of power struggle between religious power and secular power. The Guelph and Ghibbeline struggles in the Holy Roman Emprie being a notable example. What I'm saying is that the transition between a religious society and a secular society is extremely dangerous because ideologies like Nazism can take root: Unlike a religious society, religion cannot contest secular power and unlike a completely secular society, the populace cannot adequately resist religious temperaments by otherwise secular ideologies. Thus allowing secular powers to wield religious power at the same time. In a completely secular society, religious power is effectively sealed off and unusable by political power.

 

[Funky]

Secularism reduced the influence of Christianity, which was a central weltanschaung (hope I've spelled it correctly, my German is horrible) up to that point, creating a void that could be filled by political ideologies with religious overtones such as Nazism.

In 1933, the overwhelming majority of Germans identified as Christians, including most of the Nazi general staff and other leading figures. It wasn't a lack of Christianity that gave rise to National Socialism.

What I'm saying is that the transition between a religious society and a secular society is extremely dangerous because ideologies like Nazism can take root: Unlike a religious society, religion cannot contest secular power and unlike a completely secular society, the populace cannot adequately resist religious temperaments by otherwise secular ideologies. Thus allowing secular powers to wield religious power at the same time.

I get what you are saying, but I believe you are mixing up secularism with non-belief. Secularism only refers to the separation of church and state, it doesn't neccessarily influence the intensity of beliefs people hold. The USA have a more secular constitution than most European societies, yet Americans are far more religious. The "transition" you speak of is really non-existant - Western societies became secular with the signing of their constitutions. This didn't influence the religiosity of the people.

What I think you are really suggesting is that a decrease of religious belief (which is uncoupled from secularism) can lead to a kind of void and therefore give room to destructive ideologies. While this may be true for certain individuals, overall the data doesn't seem to support this assumption. From what I've seen, the more atheistic societies dont have higher tendencies to adhere to totalitarian beliefs than religious ones.

 

[Tahuti]

What I think you are really suggesting is that a decrease of religious belief (which is uncoupled from secularism) can lead to a kind of void and therefore give room to destructive ideologies. While this may be true for certain individuals, overall the data doesn't seem to support this assumption. From what I've seen, the more atheistic societies dont have higher tendencies to adhere to totalitarian beliefs than religious ones.

Actually, I argue the reverse: Constitutionally secular states with a non-secular populace are prone to totalitarianism because religious power cannot challenge secular power, though secular power can quickly take up religious power.

And despite the USA being more religious than most European societies, the religious rigour of most American people is rather close to irreligiousity, except for tiny communities like Mormons. Modern-day Turkey would be a good example.

 

[Bootstoots]

Moderator Action: Split tangent about Islam and fascism off from IS thread.

 

[daft]

very similar, except fascism allowed ideological killings, islam allows spiritual killings, hey, I guess it's evolution (or the reverse of it)

 

[ParkCungHee]

That is a bold assertion, having in mind islam predates fascim by 1300 year or so. I am sure there are better ways for islam bashing than recurring to the hitler argument.

What's even weirder is how much intellectual heft it gives Islam. Because if Islam and Fascism are ideologically the same, it means loads of Europeans have been plagiarizing Islam for centuries. From Rosseau to Hegel, to the Popes, Marx, Keynes, Garibaldi, from the French Revolution on it's just been selective copying from the Islamic font of culture!

 

[sophie]

weltanschaung

Welt+Anschau+ung: Weltanschauung

 

[Funky]

Actually, I argue the reverse: Constitutionally secular states with a non-secular populace are prone to totalitarianism because religious power cannot challenge secular power, though secular power can quickly take up religious power.

I don't know. Which other secular countries produced totalitarian systems apart from Germany and Italy, which in their cases was due to a whole variety of more apparent reasons. And unlike France or the US, they weren't even totally secular (and still aren't up to this day). South American dictatorships spring to mind, but they weren't really secular either.
If we look around the world today, the overwhelming majority of dictators are from countries that are not secular. In fact, the more theocratic the state, the more totalitarian it tends to become (which is virtually pointing out a tautology).

And despite the USA being more religious than most European societies, the religious rigour of most American people is rather close to irreligiousity, except for tiny communities like Mormons. Modern-day Turkey would be a good example.

From across the Atlantic, one sure hears many peculiar stories about American creationist nutjobs. But I agree that they are basically harmless, which has to do with the specific doctrines of the new testament as well as the taming of Christianity by modernity.
Turkey on the other hand is not quite the success model for an Islamic country people want to make it out to be. Religiosity there is extremely high, which is coupled with appalling beliefs about the world, like belief in Muslim superiority, open hate of Jews and homosexuals, or rejection of democracy. It's still better than most other Muslim majority countries, but that doesn't really mean much.

 

[Tahuti]

Welt+Anschau+ung: Weltanschauung

Thank you.

From across the Atlantic, one sure hears many peculiar stories about American creationist nutjobs. But I agree that they are basically harmless, which has to do with the specific doctrines of the new testament as well as the taming of Christianity by modernity.

Superstitious beliefs do not equate to religious violence. Among Muslims, the worst experiences are with those who do not actively practice it that much and even appear semi-Westernised but do use it as a communal demarcation line to spit venom at gays and atheists. This almost certainly true for Christians and other religions as well.

 

[Funky]

Superstitious beliefs do not equate to religious violence. Among Muslims, the worst experiences are with those who do not actively practice it that much and even appear semi-Westernised but do use it as a communal demarcation line to spit venom at gays and atheists. This almost certainly true for Christians and other religions as well.

Christians certainly are in the business of denigrating gays and atheists. But honestly, who cares? As an atheist I can only laugh at the widely heard proclamation that atheists are immoral or that they really believe in God but have chosen to reject him. As long as they don't infringe on my rights, harrass me or try to kill me, I couldn't care less. And this is the crucial distinction to Muslims who go many steps further. In most Muslim majority countries if you publicly confess that you are an atheist or gay (or both!), your life expectancy will decrease dramatically. And God forbid you are a Jew!

In fact, Glen Greenwald, one of the most demented and regressive apologists for Islam among the American left, is all three, a gay Jewish atheist. He would be killed instantly if he set foot into most Muslim countries, and yet he defends Islam against all facts, including making personal attacks against true Muslim reformers like Maajid Nawaz. Fools like him have to be called out and exposed for their heinous BS. Feel free to thank me for doing so.

 

[Tahuti]

In fact, Glen Greenwald, one of the most demented and regressive apologists for Islam among the American left, is all three, a gay Jewish atheist. He would be killed instantly if he set foot into most Muslim countries, and yet he defends Islam against all facts, including making personal attacks against true Muslim reformers like Maajid Nawaz. Fools like him have to be called out and exposed for their heinous BS. Feel free to thank me for doing so.

Well, for some reason, "Left-wingers" (Karl Marx himself would certainly disapprove of such figures) such as Judith Butler have made a business out of taking ironic political positions.

On the other hand, certain Muslim countries such as Morocco are de-facto quite tolerant of homosexuality, despite being legally forbidden. And there are probably more atheists in Muslim countries than they let on, since it is embarrasing from their view. On the other hand, I can understand why atheists could think that paying attention to Islam could be counterproductive: A good argument for it, would be that such leads to complacency and leads to overlooking Christian fanatics such as the KKK and Jewish fanatics such Naturei Karta.

Rather than contrasting the Muslim world with the "free" West, it might be healthier to contrast the Muslim world and the West with Confucian societies such as China and Japan which have been secular for the better part of their history.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I already pointed out some of the obvious parallels between Islam and fascism. But let us let Hamed Abdel-Samad speak for a moment. This is a man, a Muslim, who was born in Egypt, used to be a fundamentalist and was part of the Muslim Brotherhood. After he wrote his book "Islamic Fascism", a fatwa was issued against him. He has since received thousands of death threats and is currently living in Germany under extreme police protection. The irony is that this reaction to his book only proves his point.

"Under extreme police protection?" You seem to think a Fatwa by some cleric must be an automatic death sentence.

Samad was even "kidnapped", as reported by his brother and the Egyptian government. But then he mysteriously reappeared 3 days later and still hasn't explained why. He seems to have intentionally staged it. But after it didn't seem to get as much publicity as he had hoped, he magically reappeared.

So one Muslim decides to obviously misuse the word to write his book, and now it must be so? These "obvious parallels" are actually predominately about Islamist extremism, not Islam in general. It seems you haven't even read the book you are using as your authoritative logical fallacy. Why don't you provide the URL of the website where he was mentioned?

Since the 1920s, some of the most influential Muslim scholars to this day have viewed fascism as an exemplary ideological paradigm and have been avid and outspoken admirers of Hitler and Mussolini.

Ah, here comes the usual utter nonsense found on so many Islamophobic websites based on how Hitler once tried to recruit some Muslims to fight against the Jews during WWII. Could it even be the very same one perhaps?

Even the prime minister of Turkey displayed his adherence to basic fascist ideas when he said "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers."

Isn't it interesting how you can twist just about any quote intentionally taken out of context to "prove" whatever you want. It's called "quote mining".

But searching the internet for that quote reveals this Islamophobic website:

http://lawandfreedomfoundation.org/

it is also mentioned in a Geert Wilders book, Marked for Death.

Westerners view mosques and minarets as religious symbols, but that is not how Islam sees them.

You can always count on Geert Wilders to show how "intellectually unsustainable" his rhetoric truly is:

Of course there are specific differences between the various implementations of fascism. But denying that the defining elements of fascist ideologies in general are found to a large extent in Islam and are followed and promoted by tens if not hundreds of millions of Muslims, is intellectually unsustainable.

What is "intellectually unsustainable" is misusing a book written by an ex-Muslim atheist as a means to try to denigrate an entire religion that obviously has little to do with "fascism" any more than any other similar group. But given all the posts you have made in this forum in the same Islamophobic vein while apparently using various Islam hate sites as your basis, it is hardly surprising.

Christians certainly are in the business of denigrating gays and atheists. But honestly, who cares? As an atheist I can only laugh at the widely heard proclamation that atheists are immoral or that they really believe in God but have chosen to reject him. As long as they don't infringe on my rights, harrass me or try to kill me, I couldn't care less. And this is the crucial distinction to Muslims who go many steps further. In most Muslim majority countries if you publicly confess that you are an atheist or gay (or both!), your life expectancy will decrease dramatically. And God forbid you are a Jew!

It is ironic that you just used Turkey as your example of a supposed "fascist" state based on a single quote, yet Turkey has allowed homosexual sex since the late 1800s. Its Supreme Court has even ruled that homophobia is "hate speech". Yet their "life expectancy" doesn't "decrease dramatically" as you alleged.

Furthermore, millions of Jews live in predominately Muslim countries peacefully, as they have for thousands of years. This is all even more hyperbole.

In fact, Glen Greenwald, one of the most demented and regressive apologists for Islam among the American left, is all three, a gay Jewish atheist. He would be killed instantly if he set foot into most Muslim countries, and yet he defends Islam against all facts, including making personal attacks against true Muslim reformers like Maajid Nawaz. Fools like him have to be called out and exposed for their heinous BS. Feel free to thank me for doing so.

Ironically, Glen Greenwald is a highly decorated journalist who has won numerous awards for his work. What were you just saying about "personal attacks"?

 

[Funky]

On the other hand, certain Muslim countries such as Morocco are de-facto quite tolerant of homosexuality, despite being legally forbidden.

83% of Moroccans reject homosexuality. Still less than the 100% in England, but it hardly qualifies as being "quite tolerant".

And there are probably more atheists in Muslim countries than they let on, since it is embarrasing from their view.

There are no statistics about atheists in Muslim majority countries (for obvious reasons), but I would guess that the number is huge, especially among young people. The problem is that it is virtually impossible for them to come out without being hacked to bits or otherwise severely punished. That is why the Islamic reformation movement almost unvariably has to start in the West, by secular Muslims living in comparable safety (albeit often under police protection).

On the other hand, I can understand why atheists could think that paying attention to Islam could be counterproductive: A good argument for it, would be that such leads to complacency and leads to overlooking Christian fanatics such as the KKK and Jewish fanatics such Naturei Karta.

A good argument? I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you mention the KKK? In 2015? This is a defunct group, and it has been so for decades. They have like 5,000 members scattered across the US. They don't kill anyone. They don't do anything really, apart from meeting with each other, saying rascist things, and going home again. And I hadn't even heard of Naturei Karta, but from what I checked, they aren't a violent group at all. Their last action was apparently the issuing of a leaflet in 2008. How anyone, atheist or not, could compare these groups to the threat of global jihad and its mass killings causing thousands of deaths each month, not to mention the insane oppression of women, homosexuals, free-thinkers, and religious minorities, is beyond me.

Rather than contrasting the Muslim world with the "free" West, it might be healthier to contrast the Muslim world and the West with Confucian societies such as China and Japan which have been secular for the better part of their history.

I don't tend to contrast the Muslim world with the West. I contrast it with liberal values, which happen to have arisen in the West, but are by no means exclusive to Europe and America. Countries like Japan and South Korea have more or less adopted these values and have since been flourishing. The basis for liberal principles to spread is of course the existence of a secular society.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't tend to contrast the Muslim world with the West. I contrast it with liberal values, which happen to have arisen in the West, but are by no means exclusive to Europe and America. Countries like Japan and South Korea have more or less adopted these values and have since been flourishing. The basis for liberal principles to spread is of course the existence of a secular society.

Here is the thing: Korea, China and Japan did not adopt Liberal values. They adopted Western styles of governance (only partially) and technology. However, these countries have always been secular.

Let's face it: Western and Arab civilisation are very alike. We and the Arab world share a common intellectual lineage based on Greek philosophy and Abrahamic religions. The Enlightenment is merely a recycling of Christian, Jewish values and Germanic, Roman and Celtic paganism, then secularised.

In the long run - from a Confucian perspective - we have been longer religious than not. It is not unlikely that Islam may see widespread adoption among Westerners in the future, indeed, the flirtation with Islam by Western intellectuals may only increase in forms and is perhaps hardly a coincidence if we take a closer look at the origins and the long-standing dominance of Christianity with all its retrograde features not at all unlike Islam. If we want to have true alternative to Islam, we may want to look to Confucianism and/or Taoism for inspiration instead of banging our heads on 'Liberal values' because those tolerate the very things that are dangerous to it and in fact have a common origin with Islam that could make it self-destruct.

Basically, I'm saying our own civilisation currently offers no alternative to Islam in the same way the philosophical traditions of the Far east do. Just as China, Korea and Japan adopted Western ideas to survive, we may have to borrow from them to accomplish the same.

 

[Flying Pig]

Here is the thing: Korea, China and Japan did not adopt Liberal values. They adopted Western styles of governance (only partially) and technology. However, these countries have always been secular.

The Japanese head of state was officially considered a literal, living god until 1945.

 

[Tahuti]

The Japanese head of state was officially considered a literal, living god until 1945.

This is an observation caused by a misreading of Japanese religious notions. It is more accurately considered to be a form of secularism: The worldy is deified and this existence is spiritualised as opposed to the sacralisation of the unworldly, a common theme in Christianity, Islam and Gnosticism. Most Japanese people throughout history are atheists by Christian and Islamic standards. And it is not completely a form of Caesaropapism either, since the Emperor rarely held actual political power throughout Japanese history.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There are no statistics about atheists in Muslim majority countries (for obvious reasons), but I would guess that the number is huge, especially among young people. The problem is that it is virtually impossible for them to come out without being hacked to bits or otherwise severely punished.

You don't seem to care one bit what you post with no actual basis in fact:

Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism

"A convinced atheist"

Iraq 0%
Malaysia 0%
Pakistan 2%
Palsestinian Territories 4%
Saudi Arabia 5%
South Sudan 6%
Turkey 2%

Muslim 3%

Unfortunately, many predominately Muslim countries were missing from the list.

How anyone, atheist or not, could compare these groups to the threat of global jihad and its mass killings causing thousands of deaths each month, not to mention the insane oppression of women, homosexuals, free-thinkers, and religious minorities, is beyond me.

How anyone could "willfully ignore" that "global jihad" isn't much of a threat at all to North America and Europe, while these other groups which you peremptorily dismiss clearly are "is beyond me".

Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close

“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How many times have you heard that one? Sure, we heard Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade say it, but to me, that was simply part of the Fox News plan to make their viewers dumber, as we saw again this past weekend when its terrorism “expert” Steve Emerson was caught fabricating the story that Birmingham, England, is closed to non-Muslims. But more alarmingly, even some reasonable people have uttered this statement.

And that comment is often followed up by the question: Why don’t we see Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish terrorists?

Obviously, there are people who sincerely view themselves as Muslims who have committed horrible acts in the name of Islam. We Muslims can make the case that their actions are not based on any part of the faith but on their own political agenda. But they are Muslims, no denying that.

However, and this will probably shock many, so you might want to take a breath: Overwhelmingly, those who have committed terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe aren’t Muslims. Let’s give that a moment to sink in.

Now, it’s not your fault if you aren’t aware of that fact. You can blame the media. (Yes, Sarah Palin and I actually agree on one thing: The mainstream media sucks.)So here are some statistics for those interested. Let’s start with Europe. Want to guess what percent of the terrorist attacks there were committed by Muslims over the past five years? Wrong. That is, unless you said less than 2 percent.

As Europol, the European Union’s law-enforcement agency, noted in its report released last year, the vast majority of terror attacks in Europe were perpetrated by separatist groups. For example, in 2013, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs.

We are talking about groups like France’s FLNC, which advocates an independent nation for the island of Corsica. In December 2013, FLNC terrorists carried out simultaneous rocket attacks against police stations in two French cities. And in Greece in late 2013, the left-wing Militant Popular Revolutionary Forces shot and killed two members of the right-wing political party Golden Dawn. While over in Italy, the anarchist group FAI engaged in numerous terror attacks including sending a bomb to a journalist. And the list goes on and on.

Have you heard of these incidents? Probably not. But if Muslims had committed them do you think you our media would’ve covered it? No need to answer, that’s a rhetorical question.

Even after one of the worst terror attacks ever in Europe in 2011, when Anders Breivik slaughtered 77 people in Norway to further his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pro-“Christian Europe” agenda as he stated in his manifesto, how much press did we see in the United States? Yes, it was covered, but not the way we see when a Muslim terrorist is involved. Plus we didn’t see terrorism experts fill the cable news sphere asking how we can stop future Christian terrorists. In fact, even the suggestion that Breivik was a “Christian terrorist” was met with outrage by many, including Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.

Have you heard about the Buddhist terrorists? Well, extremist Buddhists have killed many Muslim civilians in Burma, and just a few months ago in Sri Lanka, some went on a violent rampage burning down Muslim homes and businesses and slaughtering four Muslims.

Or what about the (dare I mention them) Jewish terrorists? Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers in what are known as “price tag” attacks. These Jewish terrorists attacked Palestinian civilians causing physical injuries to 93 of them and also vandalized scores of mosques and Christian churches.

Back in the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme left-wing actors.

And as a 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered (PDF).

In fact in 2013, it was actually more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon bombing. How many people did toddlers kill in 2013? Five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.

But our media simply do not cover the non-Muslim terror attacks with same gusto. Why? It’s a business decision. Stories about scary “others” play better. It’s a story that can simply be framed as good versus evil with Americans being the good guy and the brown Muslim as the bad.

Honestly, when is the last time we heard the media refer to those who attack abortion clinics as “Christian terrorists,” even though these attacks occur at one of every five reproductive health-care facilities? That doesn’t sell as well. After all we are a so-called Christian nation, so that would require us to look at the enemy within our country, and that makes many uncomfortable. Or worse, it makes them change the channel.

Look, this article is not going to change the media’s business model. But what I hope it does is cause some to realize that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, they are actually a very small percent of those that are. Now, I’m not saying to ignore the dangers posed by Islamic radicals. I’m just saying look out for those refrigerators.

 

[brennan]

Ah the old 'list terrorist attacks where they are few in number are not committed by muslims while hoping nobody posts figures from e.g. Iraq' manoeuvre. No-one will spot that old trick.

 

[Formaldehyde]

"Ah". Claiming that all deaths relating to the civil wars in Syria and Iraq in any way related to ISIL are "terrorist". "No one will spot that old trick".

The well-known study from the University of Chicago found that 95% of all suicide bomb attacks were not religiously motivated.