"Your comment contains too many links and will not be added"
So I'm posting my comment here.
According to Steve Newton, Richard John Neuhaus of First Things, says:
I have argued on several occasions that it is not helpful to describe radical Islam as "Islamofascism." That imposes a Western ideological contrast--fascism--on an indigenous, however wrongheaded, Islamic teaching. The more accurate term, I have suggested, is Jihadism which refers to the doctrine that it is the duty of Muslims to force the world's submission to Allah by any means necessary.
To what degree is "jihadism" really "indigenous?"
It looks to me like "jihadism" is a creation of the superpowers, beginning with CIA funding of the "anti-soviet Afghan resistance," and continuing with Soviet funding of anti-U.S. jihadists (i.e., the same terrorists).
Sources to the right of Neuhaus:
Behind Islamic Terror
The Real Terror Paymasters
The "Former" Soviet Bloc
Sources to the left include Napoleoni's book Modern Jihad (nicely distinguishing it from "ancient" or "indigenous" jihad), released in the U.S. as Terror Incorporated
.There seems to be quite a few people willing to argue passionately for or against the word "islamo-fascism." I'm not sure I understand the passion. I don't really care; I just like to argue with people. I'm currently attending a 12-step group for argument addicts, so I need to step back and ask again, what is the value that's being protected by this argument over terms? What's really at stake?
No comments:
Post a Comment