Was the Prophet’s Madinan ‘State’ (the first Islamic ‘State’), which is frequently hailed as the model, the ‘ideal state’ for devout practitioners of Islam (practicing Muslims), an Islamo-Fascist State?
Please click here to see why the first Islamic State was not even a ‘State’ as we understand it.
So in terms of all those modern Muslim nation-states we have nowadays, where does the appellation ‘Fascist’ come from?
ANSWER: The ‘Fascist-bit’ has come not from the significance of the adjective, ‘Islamo’, clearly (as outlined in the link, above). Rather it appears sulkily from the understated, sneaking, quietly whistling in the corner, looking the other way, ‘Moderno’ descriptor, that not-surprisingly is absent as an adjective on this ideologically constructed label by Islamo-phobes.
It would be better to alter this to ‘(Muslim) Moderno-Fascist’ state! The word ‘Muslim’ is in brackets because this merely designates the unwitting peoples who are carrying around a ‘Moderno-Fascist’ state. It is merely flavour to an unsavoury stew. The point is, (Muslim) can be replaced with (Christian), (Jewish), (Hindu), (secular) etc. Different flavours. Still no one wants to eat it! The problem, actually, resides more in the ‘Moderno-Fascist’ bit – the stew. The flavours cannot improve poor taste.
But all modern nation states aren’t fascist! What are you talking about? True. The term ‘Islamo-Fascist’ was made by Islamophobes, who, given the fact that they also make connections between what some call ‘Political-Islam’ and the ‘Red scare’ (which is a Communist phenomena – not a Fascist one) I believe they mean ‘Totalitarian’ and not ‘Fascist’. (Islamo-Totalitarian… Or rather, (Muslim) Moderno-Totalitarianism.)
So are all modern nations states totalitarian? The clue is in the name: Modern Nation STATE. The answer hinges completely on the role of the state. And compared to all traditional (pre-modern) ones, the modern nation state is defined by an intrusive, all pervasive, totalising state… : simply, a bad state of affairs.
One might say there is a sliding scale of totalitarianism depending on how ideologically ‘modern’ the state is trying to be. Hmm… Perhaps.
Dr Blankinship, however, uses the term ‘Muslim Zionist state’ for this totalitarian aspect when (inevitably) merged with Nationalism. This extract from his article (linked below) is critical:
“Modern statism is always connected with nationalism, in the sense that the nation becomes identical with the state. This is the case here in the US where the right-wing bleating sheep express outrage if the presidency or the American state is criticized, even sometimes explicitly identifying “patriotism” as support of the state. Ditto for Israel, which has become a litmus test for Jews. The apparently material success of Israel, belied by a total moral failure, indeed, a destruction of Judaism as a religion, has dazzled a lot of the Muslims, so it would not be surprising if some of them adopted these ideas too, and they have. Thus, some want an authoritative, authoritarian, institutional state. Being out of power, they are innocent and do not yet perceive the moral consequences, the worst of which is that the state itself becomes an idol which sits on Allah’s throne, a`udhu billah, and expects to be, or rather demands to be, worshiped, as we see with nationalist regimes around the world, and especially the American and Israeli ones. Such a project is not improved by being dressed up in “Islamic” window dressing. So may Allah make us all far from that outcome.”
Is it no surprise that what started out officially as a ‘New World Order’ (Novus Ordo Seclorum – alternatively translated as the ‘New Secular Order’) via the League of Nations in 1919 to control modern nation states under the auspices of ‘peace processes’ [!]; what was meant to be symbolic, to mean “out with the old [traditional/ pre-modern] and in with the new [modern, secular])”; and what has even been stamped onto the one dollar bill in 1935 to herald the supremacy of a global, vulture-capitalist, monetary system – is also the time when (given the hegemony of Western Modernism (including postmodernisms) the world over) this age has been dubbed ‘the Age of Extremes’ byEric Hobsbawm).
How can you war against extremists when the very spirit of the age is extreme!
- ShocKINGly rich versus stunningly poor
- the 0.01% (or the 1%) versus the 99%
- the clash of civilisations versus the crisis of Civilisation
- the reality of plutocracy vs. the pretense (ideological uses) of democracy
It is no surprise that a godless morality will devolve to nihilism. And with the bases of meanings sundered, the people might find themselves devoted to idols of their own making – clever conjectures, big ideas, novel notions, self-identities, wishful thinking, all distractions – hiding the reality of the Beast that lurks (in us all?) to rule instead.
What we need is to be balanced. Holistic. Calm and steady against haste. Gather ourselves. Reflect. Seek the Radical Middle Way to defeat the tyranny of extremes in our own selves and in the System(s) that always tries to take control… to take over… as false gods.
(The discussion on Muslim Zionism is at 9:30.)
For Dr Khalid Blankinship’s article, ‘Is the Islamic State just a form of Muslim Zionism?’ please click here.