The new term that completes it is “Islamic fascism.” Both terms, which have been put forward since a NATO meeting in 1993, are a sequel to the series of definitions: “Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic extremism, Islam fanaticism, political Islam, Islam the religion of violence, Islamic/Islamist terrorism, etc.” The aim of all these unsubstantiated terms is to serve to “evilize” and “demonize” Muslims and the Islamic world using the religion of Islam. They deem it completely justifiable to intervene in the religion in an injurious fashion in order to lay the groundwork for their political and hegemonic operations. Apparently, “Islamic terrorism” is gradually ceasing to function and is losing its functional value. “Islamophobia and Islamic fascism” are used in the field of operations carried out in the Middle East by the ruling neocons for their Christian Zionism, whereas it is used in Europe in the field of “xenophobia and racial discrimination.” It cannot yet be said that the new definition has been agreed upon. Therefore, they sometimes use the term “Islamic fascism” instead of “Islamophobia.” For instance, in a speech he made at the graduation ceremony of Cornerstone University on May 5, 2007, Rich DeVos, the founder of global leader in direct-selling Amway, which also operates in Turkey, claimed that Muslims are exposing a global threat as in the times of Hitler. When we read between his lines, the term “Islamic fascism” is implicitly highlighted. In the subconscious of the average Westerner, Hitler is a mad leader who is an enemy of humanity who at same time perpetrated the Holocaust. Now, if Israel is exhorting the United States to carry out a military incursion into Iran and the Islamic world, we can talk of “explainable reasons,” as in fact the Hitler fascism of the 20th century has been forcefully revived in the 21st century in the Islamic world.
Michael Rubin, a falcon strategist of the neocons, uses this term generously and wants the entire “civilized world,” particularly the United States, to take as many precautions against Islam as possible. The goal of people such as Rubin and Richard Perle is to generate a certain degree of legitimacy for the military operations carried out in the Middle East, at least at the rhetorical level. Some media companies and a number of columnists publishing and broadcasting in this direction in Turkey and in the Islamic world voice this doctrine through the perspective presented to them. (For instance, Melih Aşık’s “Islam and Islamism,” Milliyet, March 22, 2006)
At this point, we are face-to-face with a problematic conceptualization. What they try to mean by “Islamism” is an extremely rigid totalitarianism rather than any sort of political view or thought. Beyond Islam being a religion envisioning far greater liberties and a stronger justice than what is offered by Western-oriented ideologies, they hint at “fascism” defeated by the Allied Forces in World War II. That is to say, what is implied is that the Western alliance, just as it blotted out fascism from history, should risk waging a similar war against the Islamic fascism which has appeared as an ideology of revival. Isn’t this the mission of NATO? However, there is no remedy more effective than Islam to fascism and all the other totalitarian regimes which are ideologically and politically fed by the West, their historical and social homeland. Before associating Islam with fascism or totalitarianism, one should check whether Islam has had any strong fascist movements in its history, and as for today, whether the fascist tendencies and ideologies are really based on socio-cultural foundations. It is wrong to associate with Islam most nationalist movements supported by small segments of societies; because if no other totalitarian regime as bloody as the West’s fascism has emanated in world history -- and it itself will most probably not ever re-emerge -- one of its major reasons is that the preventive factors of Islam still exercise an immense influence on the world through Muslims.
