|
Has FrontPage falsely presented Spencer as defender of the term “Islamo-fascism”?
The article at FrontPage Magazine today under Robert Spencer’s byline, “Islamo-Fascism Denial,” consisting of a lengthy defense of the term “Islamo-fascism,” is very strange. It doesn’t read like something written by Spencer. It makes arguments I haven’t seen him make. Spencer, as I’ve pointed out previously, has never to my knowledge used or advocated the use of the expression “Islamo-fascist” to describe jihadists. Not only does he do so here, but both the writing style and the substantive thrust of the piece suggest to me that at least part of the article, and possibly the whole of it, was written by FP editor David Horowitz. For one thing, the article has a heavy focus on the radical leftist groups that support the jihadists, which is not something Spencer has written about to my knowledge, but of course is a central theme of Horowitz’s. In its third paragraph the article pointedly defends Horowitz from the left’s charge of racism based on his campaign against racial reparations. This is obviously Horowitz doing what he does all the time, which is to ward off leftist attacks against himself; it is clearly not written by Spencer; or, if it is Spencer, it is Spencer channeling Horowitz. Why has Horowitz put his own arguments under Spencer’s byline? Here’s a possibility. Since the left has been attacking FP’s use of the term “Islamo-fascism,” and since VFR—which for very different reasons also criticizes the expression—has been pointing out that FP’s own resident Islam expert, Robert Spencer, does not even believe in the idea of “Islamo-fascism,” Horowitz thought he could kill two birds with one stone, defending the term “Islamo-fascism” from the left’s “hate” attack, while also making it appear that Spencer is a strong advocate of the term. Wondering if I was wrong and if Spencer has indeed used “Islamo-fascism,” I did some googling and found that “Islamo-fascism” has appeared many times at Spencer’s website Jihad Watch, but mostly in relation to “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” or in quoting or responding to other writers who have employed the expression. Spencer just doesn’t bring up the term on his own, though he does not dispute others using it. Thus in December 2006 he reported the creation of a new anti-Islamofascist organization by writer Jack Wheeler and Steve Baldwin, executive director of the Council for National Policy. The title of the blog entry was:
A new movement against “Islamofascism”?Notice that Spencer puts “Islomofascism” in quotes, indicating that it’s not a word he’s completely signed on to. He quotes a WorldNetDaily article about the new organization, then he endorses it:
This all sounds great. As one who speaks around the country against Islamofascism and has created an anti-Islamofascist portal on the Internet, and who has long advocated that we investigate radical mosques, support anti-Islamofascist freedom fighters, thwart attempts to impose Sharia law, wage an ideological assault on Islamofascism, support efforts to evangelize Muslims in Europe and the Middle East, create a global anti-Islamofascist coalition, reframe the illegal immigration issue as one of national security, and end dependence on foreign oil that’s funding the Islamofascists, I am glad to see others taking up the cudgels.But then he subtly undercuts what he just said:
One small caveat: last year Wheeler said in an interview that I had “a problem claiming Attaturk’s [sic] abolishment of the caliphate (which is only relevant to the Sunnis anyway) is the cause of jihadism—namely, the half-century gap between the two.” I think Wheeler is a good guy, but if he thinks jihadism originated in the mid-1970s, I have very serious doubts about his ability to formulate effective strategies to combat it. This is a deeply traditional movement with very deep roots in Islamic tradition and theology. Unless we come to grips with that, we simply won’t be dealing with its motives and goals as effectively as we could be.While the meaning of Spencer’s quote of the Wheeler comment about Ataturk is not entirely clear (and it’s not any clearer in the FrontPage Magazine interview where Wheeler originally said it), the meaning of Spencer’s response to Wheeler is perfectly clear: jihadism (Islamofascism) is not recent, is not an outgrowth of a marriage between 20th century fascism and elements of Islam, but “is a deeply traditional movement with very deep roots in Islamic tradition and theology.” Meaning that it goes back to the beginning of Islam, 1300 years before fascism, and in its core doctrines has nothing to do with fascism. My conclusions: (1) Spencer does not himself think that “Islamo-fascism” is a true description of jihadism; (2) he thinks the assumption behind the phrase, that jihadism is something different from historical traditional Islam, will harm our efforts to fight jihadism; but (3) as a matter of getting along with allies (and in the case of Horowitz, getting along with his employer), he accepts their use of the term and does not openly dispute it. And that is why the article published under Spencer’s name at FP today, with its all-out defense of the term “Islamo-fascism,” is out of character and is very likely written at least in part by David Horowitz and not by Spencer himself. If I am wrong and Spencer wrote the entire article, then he’s forcefully taking a position that (as far as I can tell) he has never taken before and that contradicts his own long-held position, and he is doing so in David Horowitz’s language and style.
Email entry |