Word War That Is Taking On a New Dimension
Stephen O’Shea, The GuardianIn giving talks about my book on Islam and Christianity in medieval times, I am, inevitably, asked about “Islamofascism†and a present-day “clash of civilizationsâ€.
The questioner is, just as inevitably, white, male and, more often than not, angry. I used to think that that profile was just a coincidence. Now I’m not so sure.
There are several types of rhetoric that have appeared in public discourse about the geopolitical dog’s breakfast currently featured in our morning newspapers every day. In America, where punditry’s abiding and almost exclusive historical references are the World War II and Vietnam, the time-honored technique of “Hitlerizing†the enemy was used in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Stephen O’Shea, author of the terrific Sea of Faith: Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean World, has this op-ed in the UK’s The Guardian.
On the whole, O’Shea has some interesting points to make. He also has a few lame ones—as repudiating the naming of certain forms of terror committed in the name of Islam as “Islamofascism” on the grounds that since fascism was of European origin, it’s a mistake to extend it beyond the borders of that continent.
I understand what he’s saying, but also note the irony of his statement given some of the points he makes in his book. For instance, the borders between the medieval Islamic and Christian worlds were so fluid, involving three continents, that one can only see the borders as contingencies of history. The attempt to apply geographic limits to cultural expanses is rather odd.
He does, however, make the very valid point that it is Usama bin Laden who seeks the “clash of civilizations’. Stooping to name-calling cedes to him the strategy with which the war against terror is being fought. Name-calling is a “weapon” of little use and should be dropped from the arsenal.
I’ll have a review of O’Shea’s book posted later this week. It’s really very good and highly recommended.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
October:12:2006 - 02:34
“The questioner is, just as inevitably, white, male and, more often than not, angry. I used to think that that profile was just a coincidence. Now I’m not so sure.”
Interesting. I am sure these angry white males believe the same truth to be self-evident about the “Islamofascists”. Particularly when it comes to the sense of humour regarding cartoons.
October:12:2006 - 10:19
In the US, there is a clear sexual and racial component to voting that no political professional ever ignores. The left and the Democrat party have lost the white male for decades, probably since Nixon, certainly since Reagan. Similarly white married females also tend towards the right almost as strongly as single females tend left (explaining much of marriage policy debates in this country). Thus, it’s not a coincidence that white, male questioners are going to tend to bring up islamofascism. The subject is of great interest to the center-right and that’s where the large majority of white males are these days.
All this is a completely independent variable from the central question of whether there is such a thing as islamofascism and does it animate Al Queda and its constellation of allies. The dubious (often labeled downright evil) nature of Al Queda theology has been observed by enough imams and other muslim authorities that giving it a new name seems warranted. So given the relatively recent nature of these innovations why not islamofascism? To deny the label, worse the need to label, is to tar the whole of Islam with the theology of bin Laden. That would not be a helpful thing.
October:12:2006 - 11:08
There are other terms, though none is universally accepted. The one I think best fits is that created by Anthony Cordesman of CSIS: “neo-salafism”. What it provides in accuracy, it loses in mystery to non-specialists.
I think “Islamofascism” is correct in certain ways, the focus on the totalitarianism of UBL’s dream world, for instance. But it is also inaccurate enough, in the way O’Shea critiques, that it’s not really useful.
The “next-best” term seems to be “violent Islamists”. That, at least, is accurate in noting both the tendency toward the use of force to coerce behavior and the politicalization of Islam as a uniting theme. But even this is subject to misunderstanding as the term “Islamist” has been around longer than UBL with a mostly anodyne meaning.