American scholar Michael Howard has defended usage of the term, drawing parallels between Wahhabism and fascist ideologies in Europe. Howard has stated that he initially "deeply opposed" to Bush's idea of a global "war on terror": it was not a war in his view, except metaphorically, and according to Howard, it is possible to wage war against an abstract concept such as "terror". He further noted that giving one's adversary a belligerent status by reciprocating their idea that they are engaged in a war, as opposed to a confrontation where the question was one of "criminal disruption of civil order", would only increase their support among the civilian population. Despite this, Howard endorsed Bush's description of the adversary as "Islamic fascists", though he qualified this by stating that "although they are no more typical of their religion than the fanatics who have committed abominations in the name of Christianity", and their teachings are as much derived from Western notions as from Islamic schools of though. Fascism is, for Howard, "the rejection of the entire legacy of the Enlightenment" with its values of "reason, toleration, open-ended inquiry and the rule of law".