First, let us define Fascism:
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; More
antonyms: democracy, liberalism
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.
“Islamic Fascism” is one name for the modern, globalised, violent, terrorist, political form of Islam. In many ways the modern globalised terrorist form of jihad is simply a continuation of the 1,400 year old jihad of Islam. I will make the argument for giving the modern version a name below.
A formerly popular name for the modern ideology was “Islamic fundamentalism”. The terms “Islamic Fascism” and “Islamofascism” enjoyed a popularity after 9/11. “Islamism” is probably now the most common term. “Political Islam” and “Radical Islam” and “Islamic supremacism” are also used. All of these mean the same thing – the wing of Islam that uses war (jihad) to impose oppression (sharia).
The term “Islamic Fascism”
Islamic Fascism is really a modern phenomenon.
 It is basically a 20th century totalitarian movement – like fascism and communism.
Islamic Fascism is designed – like fascism and communism – to appeal to idealistic young people with a utopian future where the world will be “cleansed”. Other names for it are “Islamofascism” and “Islamism” and “Islamic fundamentalism”.
I think “Islamic Fascism” is the clearest, most descriptive name,
 showing that this is simply the same kind of thing that the democracies spent the 20th century fighting. Islamic Fascism is genuinely fascist. It has contempt for democracy, free speech and human rights. It is full of hatred for Jews, atheists, homosexuals, and liberated women. It is linked to racist hatred of blacks in Sudan, slave trading of black Africans, and racist hatred of other ethnic minorities in the Islamic world. And, like fascism and communism, the only solution is the destruction of this philosophy. This will take a long Cold War, lasting for perhaps this entire century.
I don’t mean to imply that Islam in general is peaceful or respects human rights. That is clearly not true. I am only saying that the Islamist movement we are up against – idealistic, utopian (full of young people), expansionist (let’s attack the west), suicide-bombing, fantasy-based (let’s conquer the whole world) – is quite a new movement, which did not really exist before the 1960s-70s.
The terms “Islamic Fascism” or “Islamofascism” are quite respectable:
President George W. Bush has used these terms:
“Islamo-fascism” and “Islamo-fascists” in Oct 2005 and Nov 2005 and Nov 2005 and Mar 2006 and May 2006 and June 2006 and Aug 2006.
“Islamic fascism” and “Islamic fascists” in May 2006 and June 2006 and Aug 2006 and Aug 2006.
Muslim / Middle Eastern dissidents have used these terms:
The Iranian Amil Imani calls the Iranian regime “vicious fascist killers” and describes Zarqawi, bin Laden and the Presidents of Iran as “Islamofascists”.
The Iranian Ali Sina says this is a fight against “Islamofascism” or “Islamic Fascism”.
The Egyptian Nonie Darwish calls the President of Iran an “Islamo-fascist”.
Are these people “racists” too? Not at all. They are simply describing what they see. Just as if starry-eyed young Christian fundamentalists were suicide-bombing gay bars, strip clubs, mosques, synagogues and abortion clinics, urged on by hate-filled TV-evangelist preachers who promised that the bombers would go to Heaven, we would not hesitate to describe it as “Christian Fascism”.
Defending “Islamofascism” – It’s a valid term. Here’s why, Christopher Hitchens, Oct 22, 2007.
“Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. … Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations” and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia … Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression … Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures. … Technically, no form of Islam preaches racial superiority or proposes a master race. But in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the “pure” and the “exclusive” over the unclean and the kufar or profane. … In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the grand mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler’s side). … And, of course, Bin Laden has threatened force against U.N. peacekeepers who might dare interrupt the race-murder campaign against African Muslims that is being carried out by his pious Sudanese friends in Darfur.”
I love the way he sums it up. It’s very simple: “we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements”
Islamic Fascism 101: On all they’ve done to earn the name, by Victor Davis Hanson, 25 Sept 2006.
“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.”
On the defeat of the jihad: “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.”
After Charlie Hebdo, French prime minister says France is at war with “Islamo-fascism”, Feb 2015. It takes some people a while to catch up.
The origins of modern Islamism:
If global, utopian Islamist terror is simply an outgrowth of ancient Islam, why does it only really start in the 1960s-70s? (soon after WWII and *”the Atlantic Charter” began to take effect) I am rather convinced by the theory that sees Islamism as a modern 20th century totalitarianism, like fascism and communism, in an Islamic form. The 20th century saw a huge counter-revolution against the Enlightenment ideas of democracy and a free society, a totally unexpected (to the Victorians) fightback by tyranny. It seems to me that Islamism is part of the same wave. This would also explain why many left-wingers are sympathetic to Islamism – they see it as the only revolution left in town.
Fantasy Islamism really dates from the Iranian revolution in 1979 (which was inspired and encouraged by the marxist left in France in the 1970s).
At most, we could date it back to the origin of international Palestinian terror in 1968 – which again was very much inspired by the marxist terrorism sweeping the world at that time. The marxist ETA’s campaign also started in 1968. The marxist IRA’s campaign started in 1969. Marxist revolution was in the air then.
In either case, fantasy Islamism is not an ancient phenomenon. It is a 20th century phenomenon, part of the same wave of reaction to the modern world that brought us the bloodthirsty ideas of fascism and communism, and the daft ideas of anti-globalisation. It is modern totalitarianism in Islamic form. In a real sense, the marxist left – not ancient Islam – is the origin of modern Islamist terror.  [It is the result of the Atlantic Charter that allowed Islamism to flourish unconstrained.]
Sayyid Qutb (/ˈkuːtəb/ or /ˈkʌtəb/; Egyptian Arabic pronunciation: [ˈsæjjed ˈʔotˤb], Arabic: [ˈsæjjɪd ˈqʊtˤb]; Arabic: سيد قطب Sayyid Quṭb; also spelled Said, Syed, Seyyid, Sayid, Sayed, Koteb, Qutub, Kotb, Kutb; 9 October 1906 – 29 August 1966) was an Egyptian author, educator, Islamic theorist, poet, and the leading member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1966 he was convicted of plotting the assassination of Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser and was executed by hanging.
Author of 24 books, including novels, literary arts critique and works on education, he is best known in the Muslim world for his work on what he believed to be the social and political role of Islam, particularly in his books Social Justice and Ma’alim fi al-Tariq (Milestones). His magnum opus, Fi Zilal al-Quran (In the Shade of the Qur’an), is a 30-volume commentary on the Quran.
During most of his life, Qutb’s inner circle mainly consisted of influential politicians, intellectuals, poets and literary figures, both of his age and of the preceding generation. By the mid-1940s, many of his writings were officially among the curricula of schools, colleges and universities.
Even though most of his observations and criticism were leveled at the Muslim world, Qutb is also known for his intense disapproval of the society and culture of the United States, which he saw as obsessed with materialism, violence, and sexual pleasures. Views on Qutb vary widely. He has been described by followers as a great thinker and martyr for Islam, while many Western observers see him as a key originator of Islamist ideology. Others in the West believe Qutb is an inspiration for violent groups such as al-Qaeda. Today, his supporters are identified as Qutbists or “Qutbi” (by their opponents, not by themselves).
Late in his life, Qutb synthesized his personal experiences and intellectual development in the famous Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq, a religious and political manifesto for what he believed was a true Islamic system. It was also in this text that Qutb condemned Muslim governments, such as Abdul Nasser’s regime in Egypt, as secular with their legitimacy based on human (and thus corrupt), rather than divine authority. This work, more than any other, established Qutb as one of, if not the premier Islamists of the 20th century.
***Sayyid Qutb’s mature political views always centered on Islam—Islam as a complete system of morality, justice and governance, whose sharia laws and principles should be the sole basis of governance and everything else in life – though his interpretation of it varied. Qutb’s political philosophy has been described as an attempt to instantiate a complex and multilayer eschatological vision, partly grounded in the counter-hegemonic re-articulation of the traditional ideal of Islamic universalism.
Following the 1952 coup, he espoused a ‘just dictatorship’ that would ‘grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.' Later he wrote that rule by sharia law would require essentially no government at all. In an earlier work, Qutb described military jihad as defensive, Islam’s campaign to protect itself, while later he believed jihad must be offensive.
On the issue of Islamic governance, Qutb differed with many modernist and reformist Muslims who claimed that democracy was Islamic because the Quranic institution of Shura supported elections and democracy. Qutb pointed out that the Shura chapter of the Qur’an was revealed during the Mekkan period, and therefore, it does not deal with the problem of government. It makes no reference to elections and calls only for the ruler to consult some of the ruled, as a particular case of the general rule of Shura.
Qutb also opposed the then popular ideology of Arab nationalism, having become disillusioned with the 1952 Nasser Revolution after having been exposed to the regime’s practices of arbitrary arrest, torture, and deadly violence during his imprisonment.
The influence of his work extends to issues such as Westernization, modernization, and political reform and the theory of inevitable ideological conflict between “Islam and the West” (see Clash of civilizations), the notion of a transnational umma, and the comprehensive application of jihad.
Qutb’s theoretical work on Islamic advocacy, social justice and education, has left a significant mark on the Muslim Brotherhood (at least outside of Egypt).
[Qutb] dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that ‘nothing will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.'[n. 12] 
Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. ***First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). ***Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. ***Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. ***Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. ***All Muslim—as he defined them—therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction. 
The Muslim Brotherhood
Despite attempts to portray them as “non-violent” and as “moderates”, ***the Muslim Brotherhood remains a totalitarian, anti-semitic movement of religious fanatics which supports sharia law and the suicide bombing of Jews.
Nick Cohen: “The Muslim Brotherhood is an imperialist movement that wants to establish a Muslim empire in which laws will come from an early medieval holy book rather than the parliaments elected by mortal men and women. It is sexist because its clerics justify the beating and circumcision of women. It is homophobic because it justifies the execution of homosexuals. And it is psychopathic because it justifies the murders of apostates, any Jew in Israel and any British or American soldier in Iraq.” 
Ex-Muslim: “Islam is Worse Than Nazism”
Islam is Worse Than Nazism
by Serkan Engin
I am an atheist author and poet, who had lived as a Sunni Muslim for 23 years from birth, and I am still living in a Muslim country, Turkey. Also, my parents and all of my relatives are still Muslim. So, my critics about Islam can be easily consider this an inside view.
I know that the title of this essay seems assertive, but I will explain the rightness of this title step-by-step in this essay.
First of all, you have to learn about Islam that if you are an “outsider”, a non-Muslim, for example, a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Jew or whatever else, ***all Muslims have the “right” of killing and raping you, grabbing all your properties, your country, land, money and anything else. They take this “right” from the book of their belief, the Quran. In other words, they take this “right” from their belief’s core, the theology of Islam.
Here are some examples of this in verses from Quran.
This verse of Quran is about “all non-Muslims”, all “heretics”! — Christians, Buddhists, atheists, Jews, etc. — describing them “who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad)”
Surat Al-Ma’idah (5.33)
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.”
And this verse of the Quran is about the order to kill the humans who left Islam, the apostates:
Surat An-Nisa’ (4.89)
“They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.”
Look at the current situation in Syria. How can Islamist terrorists slaughter Alawite people or rape Christian women so easily? Because they take this “right” from their belief and they believe that they will go to the heaven because of these vandalistic actions against “outsiders”, who are out of Islam, who don’t believe the same religious tenets — in other words, those who are the “heretics” according to their belief. Some Muslims say, “But they are not the real Muslims.” That is a big lie; that is the exact form of real Islam, because these vandalistic actions are in accord with the orders of Quran.
You have heard many times that “Islam is a tolerant religion”. That is the biggest lie that you can hear all over the World, and this lie is used as a mask to hide the terrible face of Islam. There is NO difference between Islam and Islamism. This is the main error that the modern world make about Islam. There are not different forms as Islam and Islamism, they are the same thing, and they have the same content. This separation is just only an illusion, and it is used by Muslims to hide the brutal, hateful, oppressive,murderous, genocidal face of Islam.
Islamic theology is based on the verses of the Quran and Hadith. Hadiths are the words and actions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and all Muslims must follow these words and actions in addition to the orders of Quran.
For example, you have to defecate as Muhammad did, and you have to clean yourself as he did, or you can rape and enslave a “heretic” woman in a war as a sex slave as Muhammad did, or you can torture your enemy in a war to learn the place of his hidden money, as Muhammad did.
You “must” cut the hand of a thief as Muhammad did, not give him any prison sentence as do the modern laws.
You must stone a woman to death as Muhammad did, because she had sex outside of the rules of Islam (but you must only whip her partner a hundred times). If you are a Muslim, you can never set them free while considering that their sexual actions are about their own personal relations and freedom, in accord with modern laws. You must definitely apply the punishments of Muhammad such as stoning the woman to the death and whipping her partner a hundred times if you want to be a good Muslim.
You must kill the man who left the belief of Islam, as Muhammad did. You can’t say “This is his own choice and he has the freedom of thought and belief”, because it is an order of the Quran that you “must” kill the persons who were Muslim before and then left the Islamic religion.
You must kill all homosexuals according to the orders of Islam. No Muslims can say according to Islam that their sexual orientation is their own natural right, in accord with the human rights norms of our age.
You have the “right” to marry a little girl at 9 years old, as Muhammad did. In other words, you can rape a little child legally in Islam and make her a sex slave, and also a domestic slave till the end of her life.
You can lie alongside of your dead wife for 6 hours, as Muhammad did. In other words, you can rape the dead body of your wife for 6 hours after her death.
Here is Islam…Here is the “tolerant religion”…Here is the right way to the heaven…Here are the orders of Allah…Here are the actions of Muhammad…
You can easily see how civilized the Muslim countries of the world are because of Islam, such as Afghanistan, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran, Sudan and the others. You can see how much they have contributed to the history of philosophy, the history of art, and the history of science of the whole world. You can see how respectful they are to human rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, the freedom of expression and thought, the freedom of the press, the freedom of belief, etc.
***The first genocide wave of 20th century, the Armenian Genocide, the Assyrian Genocide and the Pontic Greek Genocide, was perpetrated by Turkish and Kurdish people of the Ottoman Empire and the new Turkish Republic, getting motivation from the “rights” that they had because of Islam: the “rights” of killing and raping the non-Muslims, enslaving their women and little girls as sex slaves and also domestic slaves, and grabbing their money, houses and lands. However, “The Committee of Union and Progress” (CUP) (Turkish: İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti) was based on Turkish nationalism; they used Turkish and Kurdish people easily for these genocides because of the Islamic religion’s content about non-Muslims. All the Turkish and Kurdish Muslims believed that they would go to the heaven if they killed more non-Muslims, as do today’s Islamist terrorists.
The owners of the second genocide wave of 20th century were Nazis, as you know. They took the genocides of the Turks as a sample. It is know that Adolf Hitler said to his military commanders,“Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?,” while they were talking about the reaction of the world about the genocides that they were planning to perpetrate.
Nazism was considered a legal and respectable ideology at the beginning of the 1930s, and then the world saw how dangerous Nazism was. Millions of people died because of Nazism, and today it is illegal to support Nazism in any civilized country. You can never make propaganda about Nazism legally. Today, Nazism is not considered as a genuine thought alternative, and it is not included in the freedom of thought and expression.
As I have detailed above, ***Islam is against the human rights norms of our age, and it has more dangerous content than Nazism. Islam is not a belief alternative, it is just a crime against humanity, and any crime shouldn’t have freedom in our modern world. So, Islam must be declared illegal all over the world, as is Nazism, because of its vandal content and commands that are against human rights. All actions about Islam must be forbidden and the propagandists of Islam must be judged because of instigating to the crimes of murder, rape, grab and crimes against humanity. Otherwise, the world will meet with a big tragedy when the Islamists will get more power, as the world suffered because of Nazism. 
Mohamed Sifaoui: “I Consider Islamism to Be Fascism”
Mohamed Sifaoui was born on July 4, 1967, and spent most of his childhood in Algeria. He holds a master’s degree in political science and studied theology for two years at the University of Algiers and for two additional years at Zeitouna University’s Institute of Theology in Tunis. In 1994, he began work for the Algerian daily Le Soir and survived a February 11, 1996 bomb attack at Le Soir‘s headquarters at the Maison de la Presse. In 1999, the French government granted him political asylum after he received death threats both from Algerian Islamists and the military. In Paris, Sifaoui works at the French weekly Marianne. Between October 2002 and January 2003, he infiltrated an Al-Qaeda cell in France in order to research his book, Mes frères assassins: Comment j’ai infiltré une cellule d’Al-Qaïda. (My assassin brothers: How I infiltrated an Al-Qaeda cell).
Sophie Fernandez Debellemanière, a former intern at Le Figaro and The Weekly Standard, interviewed Sifaoui in Paris on September 12, 2007, after meeting him at a 9-11 ceremony on the Champ de Mars.
In Islamism’s Cross Hairs
Middle East Quarterly: Did you flee Algeria because of the terrorist attack on Le Soir?
Mohamed Sifaoui: No. Throughout the 1990s, I was determined to stay. I only left in 1999 when I was sentenced to one year in jail for insulting the head of state. I had criticized President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s reconciliation policy because I considered it unfair to grant amnesty to a terrorist without even judging him. The Algerian government talked about peace without ever recognizing there was a war. The terrorists suddenly got themselves released with the same rights as the victims’ families. Bouteflika’s behavior towards his people was criminal. They wanted to send me to jail at the same time they were releasing criminals.
MEQ: You stayed longer than most. Were people right to leave Algeria?
Sifaoui: The intellectuals and journalists who left Algeria when the murders started in 1992 were right to do so because the risk was real. Survival instinct is natural and legitimate. It would be indecent to judge them because fear is a legitimate human feeling. In this sense, I was the one being unreasonable by risking my life to stay.
MEQ: Why did you stay in Algeria?
Sifaoui: I didn’t want to leave the country under pressure, because of the possibility of another terrorist attack. Nor do I believe that I was especially brave to stay. It is not a question of being brave or weak. The only thing that matters is the message and the values that you want to transmit. As a journalist, I felt that I had to stay. We never obtained press freedom in Algeria, but I wanted to struggle to get a small part of it. We made some progress, but then, Islamism took us backward. By staying, I wanted to show that I would not accept submission to Islamist censorship and its diktat.
MEQ: Are you still worried? After all, two bodyguards are supervising this interview.
Sifaoui: No, I am not worried. I have built sort of a shell around me. I keep calm, and I do not panic. Honestly, I prefer not to think about it; otherwise, I would worry too much.
MEQ: Are you proud today to have risked your life for your ideas?
Sifaoui: Yes, because I am lucky enough to be alive. It is a shame that those who died did not leave for safety. I stayed because I felt that I was able to accomplish this act of resistance. Each person resists in his or her own way; each does what he or she feels able to. Among the members of the World War II resistance, some hid other resisters; some hid Jewish families or helped them escape to Switzerland, and some failed only to denounce them. For me, at this time, my resistance to fundamentalism is based on a determination not to concede any ground to the Islamists but to keep on writing and to defy danger everyday.
MEQ: What was your reaction to Al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri’s appeal on September 20, 2007, “to wipe sons of France and Spain” out of the Maghreb?
Sifaoui: I’ve been expressing the same warnings about Islamist terrorism for years. Zawahiri’s statement doesn’t surprise me. Since the GSPC [Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat] pledged its allegiance to Al-Qaeda in September 2006, Algerian terrorists and Al-Qaeda leaders expressed their objective very clearly: Intensify terrorist attacks against the Algerian regime and its institutions, as well as against lay and democratic people, targeting Western and especially French citizens.
MEQ: Do you believe that Zawahiri was referring to the descendants of former colonists in Algeria by using the expression “sons of?” Or was this the result of too literal a translation of the Arabic?
Sifaoui: No! This has nothing to do with any literal translation! Zawahiri is referring to all French and Spanish citizens by saying “sons of.” Al-Qaeda’s targets are all the French and Spanish citizens in the Maghreb.
MEQ: Less than twenty-four hours after the release of Zawahiri’s message, a terrorist attack in Lakhdaria in northern Algeria, fifty miles southeast of Algiers, wounded two French citizens, one Italian, and six Algerians. Is this attack a sign that the European presence in the Maghreb is in jeopardy?
Sifaoui: I would not be so pessimistic, but such a quick reaction indicates how organized and coordinated Al-Qaeda and the GSPC are. It also shows the Algerian regime’s incapacity to deal with terrorism.
An Islamist and Fascist Nexus?
MEQ: Would you use the term Islamo-fascism to describe this threat?
Sifaoui: I certainly am one of the first Muslims to consider Islamism to be fascism. This is not a subjective decision but rather a serious, academic argument. Fascism and Islamism are comparable in many aspects: Fascism, without evoking all its particularities, bears similarities to trends also present in Islamism. I am, of course, making a reference to their will to exterminate the Jews. On this point, the Islamists may go even further in their doctrine than the Nazis did, considering that the end of the world could only occur when there are no Jews left on earth. In the three monotheist religions, apocalypse, end of the world, and doomsday exist and are liturgical events invested with a high degree of spirituality. Hence, the Islamists interpret the end of the world in a very special way. Whereas it is written nowhere in the Qur’an, exegetes describe the end of the world as the day when even the trees and rocks will be able to talk and tell the Muslims: “Come here, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” And this would go on, until there would not be any Jew left on earth. This ideology is pure fascism.
MEQ: Are there other similarities?
Sifaoui: The will to exterminate or do harm to homosexuals is another similarity between Nazism and Islamism. The Islamists, also, say that they are the best community in the world, a superior race thanks to their beliefs. They use political means to arrive at this erroneous exegesis. I do not fear to call it fascism. And there are many more similarities between fascism and Islamism.
Islamism vs. Moderate Islam
MEQ: Do you believe it is possible to criticize Islamism without being called a racist?
Sifaoui: Absolutely, I would say that one must criticize Islamism. When I am criticizing Nazism, I am not being anti-German.
MEQ: When did you feel for the first time that you had to criticize Islamism?
Sifaoui: I have always felt that it was a moral duty.
MEQ: Do you believe that moderate Islam exists?
Sifaoui: Of course, it does. If the majority of Muslims were not moderate, Islamists would have destroyed the Western world a long time ago. Despite its technological lead, its nuclear power, and all its armies, the Western world would never be able to face an Islamist world entirely convinced by the terrorist cause. One billion people supporting Al-Qaeda would reduce the rest of the world to ashes. Islam contains violent texts that need not be applicable today. Islam is a religion of moderation. I know because I studied theology for four years.
Perhaps 20 percent of Muslims on the planet must be totally reeducated. We have to fight them politically, ideologically, and also militarily. Western societies do not fight them well; whenever they try to do so, they end up strengthening them.
One proof that moderate Islam exists is the huge number of sympathy messages that I received from Muslim people when my investigative story on Al-Qaeda Salafist networks, J’ai infiltré une cellule islamiste, was broadcast on French television M6.
MEQ: Given the Islamists’ vision of apocalypse, do you believe that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would fear reprisal should Iran attack Israel? Should Western analysts rely on Iran’s rationality?
Sifaoui: Too many Western analysts look at any adversary through a Western lens. Western analysts believe that Al-Qaeda is as rational as the Basque separatist group ETA [Euskadi Ta Askatasuna] or the Irish Republican Army. My personal history, culture, and investigative journalism work allow me to understand what Westerners cannot see: Iran will attack Israel as soon as it can.
MEQ: Doesn’t Iran take into account the eventuality of its own destruction?
Sifaoui: No, it does not. Martyrdom is exalted in Iran. Iranians view annihilation positively. The Islamists’ main purpose is to create the conditions for the West to believe that chaos is possible. The argument that says that Iran will not attack Israel because of immediate and massive retaliation from Israel and the United States is absolutely wrong. The Islamists would welcome such retaliation in order to cement coalitions among Muslim peoples and to encourage riots in the Arab street. U.S. military action, or even its prospect, coincides with Islamists’ interests. That is the reason why I was against the war in Iraq.
MEQ: Can you explain?
Sifaoui: Between October 2002 and January 2003, I spent four months infiltrating an Al-Qaeda terrorist cell in France. Two months before the launching of the Iraq war, when I was in the midst of the group, one of the Islamists said, “Now we are going to pray for George Bush to attack Iraq.” I was surprised and acted as if I were stupid: “Really? Why do you want America to kill our brothers?” The most clever and elevated in Al-Qaeda’s hierarchy, Amara Saïfi [the GSPC’s emir in London] whispered to me, “All over the world, our brothers are now praying for George Bush to attack Iraq. War between the Muslim world and the Western world is bound to happen. Unfortunately, Muslims are too divided. Far too many of them do not pray regularly and neglect religion and jihad. In order to unify and mobilize all these people, we have to continue what we initiated on 9-11. We attacked America to make her retort everywhere in the Muslim world, in order to create a real war between Muslims and the West, and especially Israel.”
MEQ: That’s incredible.
Sifaoui: Another of the group added, “Once Iraq is at war, many of our brothers will go there to fight jihad. George Bush will have answered our prayers by suppressing our enemy Saddam Hussein and unifying the Muslims in jihad. Then as Westerners do not know how to fight attrition wars, we know that they will inevitably get stuck. We will wait until they leave in order to establish an Islamist state in Iraq. This war will be a pretext to launch terrorist attacks in Europe as well.”
Unfortunately, you can see their theory is valid. They predicted exactly what is happening.
 Paris: Le Cherche-midi Editeur, 2003.
 Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Special Dispatch Series, no. 1721, Sept. 21, 2007; “Warden Message,” Embassy of the United States of America, Algiers, Algeria, Sept. 24, 2007; Andrew Black, “Recasting Jihad in the Maghreb,” Terrorism Monitor, Oct. 25, 2007.
 “Warden Message,” Sept. 24, 2007.
A religion or political ideology?
Is Islam a religion in the same sense as Christianity or Buddism or Hinduism, or Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Catholicism or Judism? Absolutely not! Islam is an agressive, warring, political ideology. Pat Robertson is “politically incorrect”, but correct nonetheless when he declares Islam to be an ideology more than just a religion. Even ex-Muslims declare Islam is not a religion. It is odd that those who suggest Islam is an all-encompassing “ideology” rather than just a “relgion” are often accused of being bigots or Islamophobes. Those accusers are either grossly ignorant of Islam or are purposely being deceptive.
Read more about why Islam should NOT be protected as a “religion” under the US Constitution HERE.
Islam is an all encompassing ideology that has its own legal, moral, social, military, financial as well as religions codes. (See “Sharia law“). As one Islamic website describes: “Islam is a complete way of life. It impacts every part of life, from eating and sleeping to working and playing. It is not only a personal religion, but also a social one” – putting it mildly.
This distinction between Islam and all other religions is described clearly in this commentary.
*****In its purest fundamental form, it is a fascist, top down political system. Granted, not all Muslims practice Islam so completely, especially in non-Muslim countries. (See “moderate” Muslim.) Their practice becomes more complete and all-encompassing the greater the number concentrated in a particular area. They are emboldened by their numbers to practice purer forms of their all-encompassing ideology. They enlarge their numbers through varying degrees of influence, coercion, or violent terrorism, depending on the nation they are in. In the US, Muslims most often work to “influence”, or in Christian terms, “evangelize”. In political terms, they are lobbyists for their cause. In commercial terms, they are promoters of their cause. Of course, there is the occasional “sudden Jihadi syndrome” that erupts in violent acts such as at Fort Hood. Or intricately planned attacks such as 9-11. In countries with greater concentrations of Muslims, they are more agressive, practicing more overt forms of coercion often through fairly frequent acts of terror. And in Islamic nations that are threatened with western intervention, terror acts are daily occurrances.
What is the rationale for proclaiming Islam an “ideology” rather than merely a protected “religion?” It is this. If Christian churches throughout this land trained their flocks in political action, advocated a foreign, fascist political system, preached hatred toward other religions, and sent funds to foreign movements to support anti-American activities, they would most certainly lose their tax exempt status. They would no longer be classified as “houses of worship” but would be classified as houses of political action – actually sedititious political action. That is exactly what is being taught and promoted in Islamic mosques and “training centers” throughout this country. CAIR is being exposed for their seditious actions. If we can refrain from being politically correct long enough to act on what is going on in Islamic centers and Mosques, Islam will be correctly classified what it is – a fascist political movement more than a “religion.” See examples here, here, here, and here.
Are there any conditions under which a self-declared “religion” could or should lose its protected status as a “religion” in the United States and be outlawed? In reality, the trend is in the opposite direction, toward suppressing the freedom of speech to express not only opinions, but facts, about a religion. Read more about pending “hate speech” legislation here.
First let us define a religion:
- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.“ideas about the relationship between science and religion”
- a particular system of faith and worship.plural noun: religions“the world’s great religions”
- a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.“consumerism is the new religion”
Although many consider Islam as a religion, a system of faith and worship it is much more than that. It is also clearly a fascist ideology which is:
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism;
***And while the innocent and the gullible and the naive see only the religious aspects of Islam they are all apparently blind to the more sinister fascist aspects of Islam, the totalitarian supremacist military absolute aspects of Islam. It is these absolute fascist aspects that clash with Western democratic values and that can never be reconciled.
Until our Western leaders and her peoples are able to understand that Islam is a fascist supremacist political ideology cloaked in a veneer of religion and thus classify Islam as a subversive political ideology and not a (true)religion, by classification, will the mass of our people accept that Islam does not come under the jurisdiction of “The Freedom of Religions.” Only when we are able to view Islam in its true political ideology that we can start to resolve our conflicts of our consciences over our obsession of “the Freedom of Religion.” It is only when we can treat Islam as a supremacist political fascist ideology that we can tackle it as we have battled Nazism or Communism.
 Islamic Fascism: http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.fascism.html
 Sayyid Qutb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
 The Muslim Brotherhood: http://markhumphrys.com/egypt.html#muslim.brotherhood
Islam is worse than Nazism: http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/ex-muslim-islam-is-worse-than-nazism.html/#sthash.ytOudxTf.dpuf