The United States and many of the world’s industrialized nations face a common enemy. We are at war if not on the defense against acts - or the threat - of terrorism from various bands of miscreants intent on toppling the way of life possessed by Western Society.

At first glance, this enemy may appear somewhat nebulous in its true identity, being that it is a disjointed collection of many organizations and self-directed teams which may or may not be interconnected. Even so, it is a singular enemy nonetheless, connected not by logistics, monies, and plans, but rather by the bonding interest of religion: The terror threat that hangs over our heads daily is perpetrated by a movement, one that is almost entirely based in Islam. 

That, though, does not mean the entire religion itself is to blame. Modern Muslims as a whole are a peaceful lot, so the mass of the religion is not that which is conspiring against Christianity, Hinduism, or the secular society.  One could certainly say that not all Muslims are anti-West terrorists. But, conversely, one could say without much deviation from the truth that all anti-West terrorists are Muslims.

We are at war with the militant fringe of Islam, people completely blinded by the base tendencies of their religion’s earliest days which required the demolition of non-believers. These militants are living in the past and have not taken the path of non-violence followed by the contemporary majority. They seem to be so enamored with making their religion the controlling belief system of this planet that they are centuries behind the times, following a path of merciless conversion that once was the norm for Islam and Christianity when these religions conducted their Crusades and subsequent oppressive rule thousands of years ago.

Over time, Islam and Christianity both evolved away from such bloodthirsty missionary tactics, except Islam’s transformation took longer and in some cases, is still taking place. Christianity could base its gradual yet comparatively quicker development of civilized behavior on the teachings of its central figure, Jesus Christ, who spread his God’s word through peace. Ultimately this peace and understanding took control and allowed significant societal growth following the Dark Ages.

The Islamic religion, on the other hand, lacks such a figure and suffered because of it. Its figure of interest is Muhammed, who created and spread the religion not through peace or preaching, but instead through the power of the sword. That was his method of choice, which therefore created a violent tendency to his religion. This angst gradually subsided over the past two centuries as the Arabic world took notice of how civility, democratic rule, and open minds made the Western World so much better. Basically, the Islamic religion became softer by taking-on Christian-like behaviors.

This transformation was slow to start but was accelerated greatly in very recent history due to our ever-shrinking world. That being said, the transformation is not entirely complete as many far-flung areas inadvertently were left out of the rapid and disorganized Westernization of the Islamic World. Those that were forgotten still follow and promote the basic founding beliefs of Islam. They believe their word must be spread and those who do not accept their truths must die.     

These violent sects have always existed and have now become more visible and organized thanks to technological advances. Through inexpensive travel, arms trade across borders, and instant access to knowledge, communication and finances they are now more adequately equipped than they ever have been. In essence, that very same shrinking world that made the majority of the Islamic religion better and more civilized has aided Islamic fundamentalists in spreading their disastrous methods by opening new venues for them. 

Knowing what has been and is occurring, the Western World has been living a half-truth since September 11, 2001 in thinking that we are in a war against “terror”. In reality, we are - like President Bush said two weeks ago - in a war against “Islamic Fascism”. As much as some people would like to take the politically-correct high road and denounce Bush’s vernacular it is the most accurate definition and one that should be applied to all future discussions. Then and only then will we truly recognize who or what the enemy is.