This is an article in the series A Look Into Islam.

There is a common thread to all the violence happening around the world: in almost every instance, one side of the conflict is dominated by Muslims. Since Muslim terrorists are active, we need to identify them, so what name or phrase can we use? We can’t just refer to these terrorists by the simple name of “Muslims,” “followers of Islam,” or the like because there are many Muslims who don’t chop off heads of the kafirs they meet. I have worked with many Muslims, and I’m still OK. So how can we identify the group? People have tried a multitude of names: Islamic radicals, Islamists, and Muslim fundamentalists, to name a few. I like my own term of “Islamic nutjobs,” but none of these terms have really commonly used by people to describe the terrorists.

But there is a term that works to identify these people: fascists, specifically Islamofascists. The term “Islamofascism” has been used by many different people, but it is one that I like. And it is a term used by President Bush. Here he uses the phrase in a discussion back in October 2005:

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus — and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

I’m not all that concerned about the name we use; I’m more concerned that we actually have a common term to label these terrorists. I refuse to accept the commonly held belief that one man’s terrorist is another man’s “freedom fighter.” As far as I’m concerned, if you stoop to blowing up and beheading non-combatants, you are automatically disqualified from ever claiming the status of “freedom fighter.”

But of all the articles I have read both for and against the term of “Islamofascist,” the best I have read thus far was written by Victor Davis Hanson. I very rarely do this, but I will quote the article in its entirety here. It is well worth reading.

Islamic Fascism 101
On all they’ve done to earn the name.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Make no apologies for the use of “Islamic fascism.” It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist” appeasers in the West is just too bad.

First, the general idea of “fascism” – the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology – fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.

In addition, Islamists, as is true of all fascists, privilege their own particular creed of true believers by harkening back to a lost, pristine past, in which the devout were once uncorrupted by modernism.

True, bin Laden’s mythical Volk don’t bath in the clear icy waters of the Rhine untouched by the filth of the Tiber; but rather they ride horses and slice the wind with their scimitars in service of a soon to be reborn majestic world of caliphs and mullahs. Osama bin Laden sashaying in his flowing robes is not all that different from the obese Herman Goering in reindeer horns plodding around his Karinhall castle with suspenders and alpine shorts.

Because fascism is born out of insecurity and the sense of failure, hatred for Jews is de rigueur. To read al Qaeda’s texts is to re-enter the world of Mein Kampf (naturally now known as Jihadi in the Arab world). The crackpot minister of its ideology, Dr. Zawahiri, is simply a Dr. Alfred Rosenberg come alive – a similar quarter-educated buffoon, who has just enough of a vocabulary to dress up fascist venom in a potpourri of historical misreadings and pseudo-learning.

Envy and false grievance, as in the past with Italian, German, or Japanese whining, are always imprinted deeply within the fascist mind. After all, it can never quite figure out why the morally pure, the politically zealous, the ever more obedient are losing out to corrupt and decadent democracies – where “mixing,” either in the racial or religious sense, should instead have enervated the people.

The “will” of the German people, like the “Banzai” spirit of the Japanese, should always trump the cowardly and debased material superiority of decadent Western democracies. So al Qaeda boasts that in Somalia and Afghanistan the unshakeable creed of Islam overcame the richer and better equipped Americans and Russians. To read bin Laden’s communiques is to be reminded of old Admiral Yamamato assuring his creepy peers that his years in the United States in the 1920s taught him that Roaring Twenties America, despite its fancy cars and skyscrapers, simply could not match the courage of the chosen Japanese.

Second, fascism thrives best in a once proud, recently humbled, but now ascendant people. They are ripe to be deluded into thinking contemporary setbacks were caused by others and are soon to be erased through ever more zealotry. What Versailles and reparations were to Hitler’s new Germany, what Western colonialism and patronizing in the Pacific were to the rising sun of the Japanese, what the embarrassing image of the perennial sick man of Europe was to Mussolini’s new Rome, so too Israel, modernism, and America’s ubiquitous pop culture are to the Islamists, confident of a renaissance via vast petro-wealth.

Such reactionary fascism is complex because it marries the present’s unhappiness with moping about a regal past – with glimpses of an even more regal future. Fascism is not quite the narcotic of the hopeless, but rather the opiate of the recently failed now on the supposed rebound who welcome the cheap fix of blaming others and bragging about their own iron will.

Third, while there is generic fascism, its variants naturally weave pre-existing threads familiar to a culture at large. Hitler’s brand cribbed together notions of German will, Aryanism, and the cult of the Ubermensch from Hegel, Nietzsche, and Spengler, with ample Nordic folk romance found from Wagner to Tacitus’ Germania. Japanese militarism’s racist creed, fanaticism, and sense of historical destiny were a motley synthesis of Bushido, Zen and Shinto Buddhism, emperor worship, and past samurai legends. Mussolini’s fasces, and the idea of an indomitable Caesarian Duce (or Roman Dux), were a pathetic attempt to resurrect imperial Rome. So too Islamic fascism draws on the Koran, the career of Saladin, and the tracts of Nasserites, Baathists, and Muslim Brotherhood pamphleteers.

Fourth, just as it was idle in the middle of World War II to speculate how many Germans, Japanese, or Italians really accepted the silly hatred of Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, so too it is a vain enterprise to worry over how many Muslims follow or support al Qaeda, or, in contrast, how many in the Middle East actively resist Islamists.

Most people have no ideology, but simply accommodate themselves to the prevailing sense of an agenda’s success or failure. Just as there weren’t more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940, so too there wasn’t a Nazi to be found in June 1945 when Berlin lay in rubble.

It doesn’t matter whether Middle Easterners actually accept the tenets of bin Laden’s worldview – not if they think he is on the ascendancy, can bring them a sense of restored pride, and humiliate the Jews and the West on the cheap. Bin Laden is no more eccentric or impotent than Hitler was in the late 1920s.Yet if he can claim that his martyrs forced the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppled a petrol sheikdom or two, and acquired its wealth and influence – or if he got his hands on nuclear weapons and lorded it over appeasing Westerners – then he too, like the Fuhrer in the 1930s, will become untouchable. The same is true of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad.

Fifth, fascism springs from untruth and embraces lying. Hitler had contempt for those who believed him after Czechoslovakia. He broke every agreement from Munich to the Soviet non-aggression pact. So did the Japanese, who were sending their fleet to Pearl Harbor even as they talked of a new diplomatic breakthrough.

Al-Zawahiri in his writings spends an inordinate amount of effort excusing al Qaeda’s lies by referring to the Koranic notions of tactical dissimulation. We remember Arafat saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, and bin Laden denying responsibility for September 11 and then later boasting of it. Nothing a fascist says can be trusted, since all means are relegated to the ends of seeing their ideology reified. So too Islamic fascists, by any means necessary, will fib and hedge for the cause of Islamism. Keep that in mind when considering Iran’s protestations about its “peaceful” nuclear aims.

We can argue whether the present-day Islamic fascists have the military means comparable to what was had in the past by Nazis, Fascists, and militarists – I think a dirty bomb is worth the entire Luftwaffe, one nuclear missile all the striking power of the Japanese Imperial Navy – but there should be no argument over who they are and what they want. They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple.

And the least we can do is to call them that: after all, they earned it.

On September 1st, 1939, German forces crossed into Poland. Two days later, on September 3rd, England, France, Australia, and New Zealand all declared war against Germany. Two days after that on September 5th, the United States declared its neutrality in the conflict. The U.S. didn’t see why we should get involved in a European matter. After all, it was happening in Europe, not in our own country, so why should we bother or care? For all we could tell, Poland might have provoked the attack.

It wasn’t until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 that the U.S. realized it could no longer maintain a neutral position in the war. After this rude awakening, the U.S. geared up for war and began to slug it out on two separate fronts. It took many years and the force of an entire nation backing the war effort before we celebrated V-E Day and V-J Day.

This history should be familiar to us, not only because we studied World War II in school and we watch it nightly on the History Channel, but because the same thing seems to be happening now–albeit with a twist of locations. And I need to credit Glenn Beck for first pointing out this historical linkage.

In current history, it was the U.S. and not Poland that received a Blitzkrieg attack. While some of our allies–notably England–have rallied to our aid in this war against the terrorists, most of Europe is sitting back and declaring itself neutral in the conflict. It’s almost as if the world is at a pre-December 7th state in the conflict, but this time the positions of Europe and the U.S. are reversed. Will there be an attack equivalent to Pearl Harbor that will engage Europe fully in this war? Or will the parallel break down? I joked with my wife that since there is a slight twist to these events, I couldn’t really say the two time periods are parallel–more like perpendicular events. Eh, so not everyone appreciates math humor.

To round out this historical parallel, one would expect an attack on Europe as devastating and as unsuspected as the 1941 attack in Hawaii. Imagine the horror of an attack by Islamic fanatics in Berlin, causing the death of thousands. Germany has remained neutral in the war on terror, so any attack against Germany would be unwarranted and unexpected. I hope Europe might be spared the horror and tragedy of such an attack, but I also believe that without the impetus of such an attack, Europe will not fully engage with us against our common enemies. And since the terrorists hate the West and Western civilizations, Europe does have a common enemy even if it chooses not to engage them.

If such a vicious and unexpected attack does occur in Europe, I hope it will serve as a wake-up call. So far the majority of Europe has ignored, however uneasily, the March 11 attack in Madrid, the July 7 attack in London, and the weeks of riots in France. (To be honest, England has been our ally since before the London bombings, and France seems to have found its backbone after the riots, as the Prime Minister recently stated France would be willing to use nuclear weapons against anyone who attacked the nation.)

Having watched the brouhaha surrounding the Danish political cartoons about Mohammed, I am somewhat less than confident in Europe’s strength and determination. So far, Europe has not stood by the Western democratic principle of free speech and has buckled under to Islamic pressure to publicly censor the cartoons. No one really cares about insulting Christianity because they know that Christians don’t believe in cutting throats and turning themselves into human bombs to make a point. But Islam does–or to be more accurate, many followers of Islam do.

I am afraid that Europe is going down the road of acquiescing to Islamist threats. I can’t help but picture the Islamic fanatics as international bullies, threatening and carrying out violence if they don’t get their way. When you are confronted by a bully, you have only a few options. You can run away, assuming that you won’t encounter him again, or that you can successfully run from him again if you do. But as the world shrinks with the swiftness and availability of travel, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to hide from those who would hurt you. Alternatively, you could surrender to the bully’s threats. You sometimes see this with dogs. The dog who surrenders to the stronger dog will roll over on its back and piddle on itself to show its submission. I’m not all that keen on the idea of politically rolling over and piddling on ourselves to resist Islamist brutality. The last option is to resist the bully. Yes, fighting against the bully may hurt, and the bully may win the first fight, but if you fight again and again and again, every time the bully confronts you, either you will win the fight or the bully will come to realize that it’s not worth fighting you over and over. Bullies are basically cowards at heart, so when someone stands up to them and fights back, they are likely to roll over and piddle themselves.

Before September 1st, 1939, there were several times when Hitler took risks: arming Germany contrary to the Versailles treaty, sending troops into the Rhineland, and annexing the Sudetenland. He later remarked that he would have backed down if any of the European nations had called him to account for these acts. But because no one had the political backbone to hold him accountable, the world had to endure years of bloody fighting against the Nazis. We saw, and ignored, certain attacks made against us: the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of our embassies in Africa, the attack against the U.S.S. Cole. Because we did not act decisively against these weaker attacks, I can’t help but believe we encouraged the terrorists to strike us in a way we could no longer ignore.

As much as I’d like to see Europe to join with us in the war against the terrorists, I don’t want them to go through a Pearl Harbor-like event of death and destruction. I just despair that without some historic equivalent, Europe won’t stand up against the bully of runaway Islamofascism.