Horowitz’s escapist fantasies about a “good” Islam, enabled by Spencer

How Orwellian must a person be to organize and endlessly trumpet an entire “Awareness Week” concerning a phenomenon—Islamo-fascism—that doesn’t exist? Yet this is the current passion of David Horowitz over at FrontPage Magazine, and it’s finally being officially launched today after weeks of breathless build-up; one day last week, no fewer than four of the six lead items on FP’s main page had the Orwellian phrase “Islamo-fascism” in their titles. However, unlike dimmer neocon lights such as Frank Gaffney, Horowitz is unable entirely to conceal from himself the problematic nature of the term “Islamo-fascism,” and so he attempts to justify it:

They [the “Islamo-fascists”] believe in their superiority and deny basic human dignities to those whom they regard as “infidels.” Their goal is to establish a theocratic totalitarian state that will control every aspect of an individual’s existence in accordance with the regime’s interpretation of Islamic law. This is a fascist agenda and creed.

Except for the use of the word totalitarian, which is not quite correct as Islam does not have a single center of absolute authority such as Adolph Hitler or the leadership of the Communist Party, what Horowitz is describing is simply classical Islam. A person who insists on calling the 1,400 year old religion of Islam “Islamo-fascism,” thereby creating a distinction between “good” Islam and “bad” Islamo-fascism, is, whether he realizes it or not, concealing from us the nature of our mortal adversary. Which, with all due respect, I think is a most dangerous thing to do, in addition to being intellectually dishonest.

Ironically, Horowitz pays Robert Spencer to write regularly on Islam at FrontPage Magazine, and Spencer, of course, never uses such a ridiculous term as Islamo-fascism; last week FP’s editors even put “Islamo-fascism” in the title of one of Spencer’s articles, though the phrase did not appear in the article itself. How could Spencer speak of “Islamo-fascism,” since the central theme of his writings is that there is and can be no authoritative Islam apart from theocratic, jihadist, tyrannical Islam, i.e., the bad Islam? But Spencer also knows which side his bread is buttered on, and has never challenged Horowitz and other neocons to show some intellectual probity on this important issue.

- end of initial entry -

Larry G. writes:

I remember learning in grade school that words like “beef” and “pork” and “mutton” were invented to shield people’s delicate sensibilities from the reality that they were killing and eating a cow, pig or sheep, respectively. Like all euphemisms, it was a way of coping with an uncomfortable situation.

If the definition of “Islamo-fascist” is identical to the definition of “Muslim,” then what we have is a euphemism designed to protect our sensibilities. Westerners are not ready to condemn an entire religion and all its adherents, but it may be possible to get agreement to act against these “Islamo-fascists”. As long as we take the right steps to protect ourselves by excluding and removing the people who fit the definition, what difference does it make what we call them?

LA replies:

> If the definition of “Islamo-fascist” is identical to the definition of “Muslim,” then what we have is a euphemism designed to protect our sensibilities. Westerners are not ready to condemn an entire religion and all its adherents,

But words like “fundamentalist Islam,” “militant Islam,” “Islamic radicals,” were used at various times for decades before “Islamo-fascist” came along. On one hand those earlier terms did not mean simply Islam and condemn all Islam; on the other hand they did not suggest an entity separate from Islam. Rather they denoted the fundamentalist, militant, and radical strain within Islam. Yet they didn’t bend anyone out of shape, did they? In 2001 Daniel Pipes was constantly talking about militant Islam; yet that phrase seems to have vanished and been replaced by “Islamism” and “Islamo-fascism.” So why are conservatives MORE sensitive now than they were just a few years ago?

One possibility is Auster’s First Law, which is a corrolary of modern liberalism: the more objectively bad we realize some alien or minority group really is, the more we must cover up for them and pretend they’re completely ok, nothing wrong with them at all. The worse Muslims get, the more euphemistically we must speak about them.

> but it may be possible to get agreement to act against these “Islamo-fascists”. As long as we take the right steps to protect ourselves by excluding and removing the people who fit the definition, what difference does it make what we call them?

It makes a differences because “Islamo fascists” means that all real Muslims are ok. Indeed, since the motivating impulse for the use of the term is to show that real Muslims are ok, everything done about Islamo-fascists must be accompanied by extravagant gestures to show that we believe that regular Muslims are ok. Which means that we must let more of them into the country; approve them even more than before; approve sharia “so long as it’s not advanced by means of terrorism”; approve more and more Muslim customs in mainstream institutions such as foot washing (have you seen a single mainstream conservative Islam critic attack the accommodation of Muslim foot washing?), make Muslims part of “conservatism,” ask for their input on what to do about “Islamo-fascists” (with inevitably results: did you see my articles about what happened when the Tory Party did that recently?). We thus become more committed to including and empowering Muslims as a whole even as we’re supposedly going after the supposed Islamo-fascists. Imagine fighting World War II by defining it as a “war against SS Nazis, not against rank and file Nazis, who are good folks.”

Thus your analogy between “Islamo-fascism” and ordinary euphemisms such as “beef” does not hold up. Calling cow meat beef did not change the fact that people are slaughtering and eating cows. But calling militant Muslims “Islamo-fascists” fundamentally changes what we are doing, from resisting the militant strain of Islam (a strain that is in fact supported by a very large part of the Muslim population and is not separable from it) to resisting something conceived as totally apart from Islam, “Islamo-fascism,” a 20th century movement that has supposedly “hijacked” real Islam in a hostile takeover.

Larry G. replies:

“So why are conservatives MORE sensitive now than just a few years ago?”

Because they now see the problem isn’t just a “tiny minority” of Muslims, and they are faced with having to condemn an entire religion. They don’t want to do that, because they believe religion is good, so they’re trying to redefine the political doctrine of Islam as a separate entity they can oppose. Further, the left will respond to attacks on Islam with attacks on Christianity, citing the nasty parts of the Bible and claiming moral equivalence. That will force conservatives to question and/or defend their faith, and I’ll bet that’s something else they don’t feel comfortable doing.

“It makes a differences because ‘Islamo fascists’ means that all real Muslims are ok.”

You and I know that “real Muslims” believe in Sharia and killing or subjugating non-Muslims. I think these conservatives are trying to say, “Oh no, real Muslims are peaceful. Those who want to impose Sharia are the Islamo-fascists, and they’re just a tiny minority of extremists.” I don’t think the conservatives actually believe this, but are trying to define the problem that way. I can think of two reasons to do this. 1) They realize they are going to have to act against these people, and it’s easier to do so if they define them as a tiny minority of evil-doers than as the entire religion of Islam. 2) They may be hoping to force Muslims to either drop the idea of spreading Sharia, etc. (unlikely), or to admit that, yes indeed, they really do believe in imposing Islamic law and killing non-Muslims, in which case acting against them would become politically possible.

The bottom line is that you think they’re still ignoring the problem, while I think they just may be waking up to the problem and are laying the groundwork for eventual action. Of course, I used to think Bush couldn’t possibly believe some of the ridiculous things he’s said, so I could be wrong.

LA replies:

Larry, you know you surprise me. If anything in this life is certain—if history has taught us anything—it’s that once people in liberal society start speaking lies to avoid offending a group, the lies only get bigger, not smaller.

[That is, of course, a paraphrase of a famous line in The Godfather, Part II.]

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 22, 2007 09:15 AM | Send