Seems to me both impose absolute control over all aspects of life - political, cultural, social, economic, religious...
I see no one here listens to dave emory. He uses the word "islamofascist" to decribe the saudi/wahabbi, third reich remnants, and the Bush family axis. good stuff.
"Klan with a Koran" works for me. For religions using Fascism and vice versa, see Clerical Fascism. During the 1930's, it was all the rage in Catholic countries like Germany, Italy, Austria, Spain, France, Belgium, Portugal, Ireland, Croatia, Hungary, etc. The Imperial Japanese used Shintoism during the Showa Period to the same effect.
An excellent example of why Church and State should be kept forever as separate as possible. Those people sympathetic to America's theocrats should take note. What the Wikipedia article does not mention is that the Japanese fascists (would Bush call them "Nihongofascists"?) made all religious personnel state employees. Whenever a Shinto priest or Buddhist abbot spoke out against the war, the Kempei-tai came in, removed the offender (who was, of course, never heard of again) and replaced him with a government bureaucrat who became a "priest" and enforced the pro-war ideology in that shrine or temple. The Japanese government also brutally imposed their own "state buddhism" on Korea with deleterious effects that lasted well into the 1990s by importing their own secular bureacrats to oversee Korean temples and married "monks" to "minister" to the lay populace.
Given that bin Laden's ultimate goal is to establish a new, totalitarian Caliphate, I actually think it's a pretty good phrase. Bush, naturally, did NOT coin the phrase.
I agree it's a pretty good description and the similarities are considerable but, let's be honest... isn't that the ultimate goal of ALL religions? That they be 'taken seriously', that people should 'live by the creed' or whatever? What's the difference? IMO the only real difference is that, generally speaking, people in the west treat religion as a bit of a joke that matters only when it suits them... except in Britain, of course. We don't even do that.
There are plenty of religious liberals and moderates who respect ideas like seperation of church and state and the value of a tolerant, secular civic culture. Organizations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban, to put it mildly, don't feel the same way.
True. If you haven't read Eqbal Ahmed's series on religious fundamentalism, btw, you all need to. I've linked to a few of his essays in the past, but not this one. More of his work
Clearly there are probably as many shades of opinion as to how much impact religious belief should have on ones life as their are believers. Nobody is EXACTLY the same as another. It just seems to me that it's too easy for western liberal, (and illiberal), believers to state their beliefs without it impinging on their lives in any meaningful way. But it could be argued that means they're simply trying to live up to the ideal more than others? At least, I imagine that would be THEIR argument, half-baked as it is. Personally I think there is a part of all religions that ask for unwavering commitment from their followers and the majority of them require believers to attempt to convert non-believers to their way of thinking. That's pretty much their defining quality. Certainly that's the case with most christian and muslim fundamentalists. I'm just a bit baffled by this new distinction between christian fundamentalists, for example, (some of whom go around murdering doctors who carry out abortions), who are seen as terribly misguided but essentially 'good'; and muslim fundamentalists who are just seen as 'bad' and 'fascist'. Why aren't they 'christiofascists'. To be clear I'm talking about 'good' and 'bad' in the view other fundamentalists, obviously. People who are just not quite as committed as they are. People who agree with their aims but 'wouldn't go that far'. Thinking about it I would imagine there are some Jews who are fundamentalists and could be considered jewish fascists as well.
There actually is a link between fascism and radical Islam, even if its an old one. During the Second World War the Nazis had close links with the Grand Mufti of Jersusalem. He was reportedly the most popular leader in Palestine at the time of the war, and his anti-Zionist views had a significant effect on the region. Future PLO leader Yasser Arafat was one of his most loyal followers.