Muslims in the English speaking world, in particular North America, have voiced strong exception to the term fascism being conjoined to the word Islam. For several years commentators such as Christopher Hitchens have used the term “Islamo-Fascists”, and it has now entered the American common vernacular. The phrase has even been adopted by the US president. George W. Bush made a point of using “Islamofacists” when speaking of two democratically elected parties; Hizbullah and Hamas. A Canadian government minister from the Conservative Party compared Hizbullah to the Nazis of Germany.
Quite rightly many Muslims have protested against the use of the term being linked to a religious belief that is far removed from the tyrannies of fascism. Historically fascism is associated with violence and oppression. There is a perception that the political culture of fascism is epitomized by the brutal excesses of the Mussolini and Hitler regimes of the 1930s, and later by Franco in Spain and Peron in Argentina. Fascism, or fasci di combattimento, meant bundle or group when first used in its modern context, in Italy. The political manifestation of this was the binding together of a tribe, a group, or a nation to form a political unit. Fascism has now become a byword for violent repression carried out by maniacs in the name of ultra-nationalism. All this is anathema to term “Islam”, the very word is rooted with the Arabic word for peace. Bush’s choice of groups to label as was at odds with most definitions of fascism. In fact few of the many Muslim groups opposing US-British control of the Middle East fit the received definition of fascism. The only truly fascist group ever to emerge in the Middle East was Lebanon’s Maronite Christian Phalange Party in the 1930’s which, ironically, became an ally of Israel’s rightwing in the 1980’s.
We are utterly appalled at the coupling of fascism to Islam. However, there are many other such grammatically and semantic conjugations that we are equally appalled by. Political concepts such as monarchical rule, republicanism, democracy and quasi-nationalism are also commonly linked to Islam. The context for these terms being bolted on to “Islam” is not one of rhetoric, as with Vanity Fair’s use of the term Islamo-fascist. The use of the terms such as: Islamic-democracy, Islamic-republic and Islamic Kingdom are not portrayed as pejorative, rather they are positive associations. In reality there is little that is laudable about democracy, and it has no place being joined by hyphen, oblique-stroke or the “-ic” suffix to Islam. In fact the notion of sovereignty for human’s law and not Allah’s law is the antithesis of the Islamic ruling system. How possibly can the two be joined?
The term Islamic-democracy is no more or less ridiculous as the term Islamic-fascism. It is also no less offensive than that phrase. The ancient Greek words demos meaning people, and krat??-rule (derived from kr?tos ‘power or authority’), was compounded, via Latin and French, to give democracy. So democracy literally means; that the authority and ruling is derived from the people, and not from Allah (swt). So to call a system democratic is to explicitly state that it’s power is anthopogenic. Similarly the Latin term r?spublica meant a matter for the people, a compound noun made up of r?s-matter or issue, and publicus–the public. So in the 17th century it became used in English to mean a state governed by the people. This notion is surely an association with Allah’s authority, sheirk (polytheism). So the Islamic Republic of Iran by its very description has Islam (Allah’s deen) sandwiched between republic (rule by the people) and Iran-representing a nationalistic notion of Persian identity. So what is worse Islamic-fascism or Islamic-Persian-nationalist-extremist-humanist state of sheirk? They are both surely on a par. The same augment can be levelled against the democratic states of Sudan and Pakistan. As for the Kingdom of the Tribe of Saud situated in Arabia, again this is a state with ultra-nationalism as its basis – Saudism. Although they don’t use Islamia in the title of the Kingdom, they add insult to injury by reducing “la-ilah il-Allah wa Muhammad Rasool-Allah” to a slogan on their green nationalistic flag. The rule of Allah has no meaning in that Kingdom.
Muslims are not allowed to run their affairs any way they please, but have to rule according to what Allah has revealed. So, for example, the people cannot decide by majority to make interest (riba) lawful or prohibit jihad. Thus, sovereignty resides with Allah (SWT) and His Shari’ah.
“No guardian have they apart from Him, since He allots to no one a share in His rule.” [Al-Kahf 18:26]
“Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are disbelievers.” [nisa 5:47]
“O you who believe! Obey Allah, obey the Messenger of Allah and those in authority amongst you; and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day.” [Maidah 4:59]
The Islamic ruling system is a unique and pure political structure. It is not theocratic, nor democratic, nor dictatorial, nor nationalistic and nor is it monarchical. The limited political textbook terminology of western political science has no clear succinct description of what Islam is. We shouldn’t expect them to have one and we shouldn’t look to them to define our way of life based within their narrow constraints. We don’t need, or want democratic Islam; we want Islamic-Islam or better still just Islam. It is our responsibility to understand what the Islamic ruling system is: from our sources and applying our terminology. The sawm of Ramadan is not accurately described as Muslim-lent. Nor can Salat be simplified to Muslim mediation. Neither can Zakat be translated to mean merely alms or charity in absolute and basic terms. It is like saying Surat-al-Faatiha is The Muslim’s “Lord’s Prayer” and Istigfhar and Tauba are “confession” and “atonement”. We all know that Sawm, Salat and Sadaqa are much more than any one-word English approximation. The translation of these complex concepts cannot be encapsulated merely in the words; fasting, prayer and charity. We don’t use western terminology when it comes to rituals, or we at least bare in mind certain caveats and limitations when using them. So why do so many of us have few reservations when it comes to the political terminology employed when discussing Islam? There are many Muslims that are adamant that democracy is not only compatible with Islam, but is an idea born from the Quran and Sunnah. The fact that a Khalifah is normally voted for, does not mean that democracy is Islam. The procedure of voting is only a marginal secondary part of what democracy is about, and voting within Islam has many over-riding obligations that contradict western democracy. Muslims can’t just decide to vote a woman into office, as a Khalifah: nor a Kafir nor a faasiq etc. Rather Shar’a, Allah’s law, has stipulated who does and does not fit the criteria.
So we conclude that it is wrong to use the F-word in association with Islam. Muslims should show outrage at such descriptions. We commend those that have spoken out against the term Islamo-fascism. However we should be equally outraged at the adulteration of the Islamic thought and Islamic method of implementation with the D-word.
Source: KCom Journal
Leave a Reply
