Islamofascism

Islamofascism is a term often used in political statements, although not being internally consistent between the political philosophy of fascism and the principles of Islamist governance. Bernard Lewis, a respected if controversial Near Eastern historian, was asked why it appeared in his book, and he responded, Well, I don’t use it; I discuss it. I think one has to confront that this is a term that is used. I don’t like it because it’s insulting to Muslims. They see it as insulting to link the name of their religion with the most detestable of all the European movements. It’s useful in the sense that it does distinguish real Islam from “Islamofascism,” but I still feel that the connection is insulting, and I prefer to use the term “radical Islam.”

The inherent contradiction is that fascism assumes a human supreme leader whose decrees are inerrant, but classical Islam admits to no supreme authority other than God and his laws. Indeed, allegiance to a government that does not recognize the primacy of Islam commits, according to modern radical theologians such as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, the heresy of shirk or polytheism. This is not a new idea; Ibn Tamiyya(1294-1303), in spite of protests that the Mongol monarch had converted to Islam. That king, however, allowed Mongol tribal law to coexist with Sharia, making him an apostate and a legitimate target of jihad.

By requiring there to be no Muslim society without Islamic law, he set a context that Salafists used to justify rebellion against Muslim rulers that did not enforce that law, and was cited by the assassins of Anwar Sadat.