The New Republic

This is a good post. I think your 'jihadism' is really the closest, but there are some problems from an internal Islamic standpoint. Contrary to lots of popular perception, the jihads of Bin Ladin, Zarqawi, Hamas, Hizbullah, etc., are not derived from the orthodox Islamic legal, doctrinal view that Muslims are obligated to wage "expansionary jihads" (jihad al-talab) against infidel lands with the purpose of turning them into the "abode of Islam." Of course, all of these groups *do* affirm that doctrine. But none of them makes the claim that that is what their jihads are. All of them, from an internal Islamic doctrinal perspective, are "defensive jihads" to counter attacks against Islam and Muslims. So what's the big deal? Well, the sad thing is is that their claim is *absolutely uncontroversial* from an Islamic standpoint. No serious and honest Islamic scholar operating within a classical Islamic doctrinal framework would deny that Israel and the US are legitimate targets of Muslim resistance. (There may be legitimate disagreement about means, civilian targets and authority, but less than some apologists might wish for.) Now, to my mind, calling the phenomenon "jihadism" suggests that these groups are operating with a more unique and inovative conception of jihad and political action than they really are. The only thing really controversial about them from an orthodox Islamic standpoint is acting on self-appointment and, in some cases, the arbitrariness of terrorism. (Although there are sadly strong justifications for even this in classical doctrine, especially in the case of a defensive jihad.) Rather, I feel that the best way to understand these movements are as "Islamic nationalists". This gets at their motivations, their appeal in the Muslim world, and our strategic concern. They regard all parts of the Muslim world as a single moral community, so what affects Muslims in Indonesia creates justification for Muslims in Morocco. Their appeals are always related to communal pride, strength, glory, autonomy and honor. Even the religious and social agenda is rooted in the aspiration to "authenticity" Obviously "Islamic Nationalism" doesn't make for great propaganda. It may even sound apologetic. But it's not. Remember that Fascism is also a perverted form of nationalism.

- afmarch

September 1, 2006 at 1:40pm

Sorry, one more point. The other problem with reducing it to "jihadism" is that this only focusing on the means and the activity, not the underlying goals and moral perspective. To me calling them "jihadis" - as accurate and simple and parsimonious as it is - would be like calling Leninists just by the name "vanguardists" or "voluntarists" or "revolutionaries." All accurate, but is that all we mean?

- afmarch

September 1, 2006 at 1:43pm

I agree that fascist is a debased term because it is so frequently and loosely used. But when you couple it so that the term becomes Islamo-fascists, it seems to me that it is revitalized, and accurate. Of all the terms that have been proposed the one that I think is simplest and most descriptive if Islamo-fascists.

- John Reagan

September 2, 2006 at 12:16am

There was an article in WaPo today about Salafism in the DC area. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/09/04/AR2006090401107.html ...worth reading, nice commentary on the external AND internal nature of "jihad"

- grm211

September 5, 2006 at 2:15pm

We covered this exhaustively in a Plank thread. Problem with salafism: many of the jihadists aren't salafist, or even sunni. Problem with jihadi: this is a term of respect, even reverence, for most muslims, moderate and radical alike. It would be pretty stupid to stigmatize an islamic duty. One way that the fascist lable is apt is that as Ian Buruma has pointed out, fascism is above all a revolt against modernity and all its hallmarks-- liberalism, cosmopolitanism, women's equality etc. While of course employing modern communication and other technologies to pursue transnational ends.... Another reason fascism was picked up by westerners is it offers a nice bit of jujitsu against left-apologists for Osama and his confreres. cf Hitchens, Berman, others who pointed out that overthrowing Saddam was a progressive policy that opposed the oilmen's preferred approach. IMHO what we need is a term that achieves this jujitsu (within the west) while resonating with fence-sitting muslims, who are or should be our main concern. Something along the lines of enemies of (modern) civilization, something that underscores their barbarity and hostility to the modern world. What's arabic for berserker?

- teplukhin

September 5, 2006 at 4:54pm