Talk:Islamofascism

This article survived two votes for deletion. An archived record of these debates can be found here and here.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Apr 13 2005 to May 6 2005):

Meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII

Wahhabism

Judgemental language

Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#Aryan Nation material

SS photo

Definition of fascism

Proposed merger with Fascist (epithet)

how did this page get reduced to a collection if quotes?

• Archive 2: May 9–August 11, 2005
• Archive 3: April 13–November 29, 2005

Veiled censorship

Stop re-directing this article with neo-fascism or other non-sense

Blogs as sources

Please Stop Edit War!

Juan Cole and the 'F' word

• Archive 4: November 29, 2005 - 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Archive 5

---

Criticism of the term

Juan Cole and Joseph Sobran have been accused of anti-Semitism. It seems to me that assuming these accusations are true, they are biased sources and thus ineligible for use as sources here (unless we add some kind of clumsy qualifier like 'Joseph Sobran, who has associated with Holocaust deniers, says that...'.

On the other hand, it's impossible to *prove* that these people are anti-Semitic, since unless someone is quoted as saying 'I hate Jews' it's pretty much impossible to prove anti-Semitism in general. How should we handle a case of likely (but not necessarily provably) biased sources? Ken Arromdee 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to Joseph Sobran, but I believe the accusation against Juan Cole is largely bogus. In any case, the bias of sources is irrelevant because all sources are inherently biased. Cole and Sobran are both critics of the term Islamofascism, and their criticism is presented as such. Wikipedia articles dealing with controversial topics should not avoid biased sources, but rather attempt to present those different viewpoints with a neutral point of view. bcasterline t 16:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I can't speak for Cole either, but it does seem like a strong case can be made that Sobran is an antisemite. Should we add that? IronDuke 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to speculate about his beliefs in an article that quotes him as just one of multiple examples. He is not the subject of the article, and his name links to his article if one wants to know more about him. Since "anti-Semitic" does not equal "pro-Muslim", I don't think it's relevant information either. bcasterline t 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sobran is notorious. Why are we citing such a marginal crank?--Cberlet 02:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add his quotation and I don't really know much about him. But, he has made a criticism which is not a marginal sentiment and is relevant to Islamofascism. I think it fits in the article well. bcasterline t 13:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If the criticism is not a marginal sentiment, then surely you could find a non-biased source which makes that criticism, right? Ken Arromdee 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's tough, considering the term is a neologism, which is used almost exclusively by biased sources in a war of words. There has not been any respected scholarship on "Islamofascism" -- so there really aren't any non-biased sources. (In fact, I think that's a fundamental problem with this article, which I mentioned in a topic above somewhere: the only thing to present is two sides of a dispute.) But many other people have expressed the same sentiment as Sobran, including Albert Scardino, whom the article cites in a different context. To leave out the "it's propaganda" criticism would be, in my opinion, a glaring omission. bcasterline t 06:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! We have to present the debate to the reader, not an ultimate judgement. Most of the controversy should be over determining who is a critical part of the debate vs someone no one's really listening to. As I mentioned below, I believe Thom Hartmann's article is an important contribution to the debate and should be included in the criticisms section: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-23.htm Plus his writing does a bit to clarify the debate itself in that he goes back to historical definitions that are being confused and then asks the question, "Why are they being merged today?" I haven't seen anything on this page go that deep yet (though I admit I haven't read everything through...) 72.244.201.27 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If "there really aren't any non-biased sources", and if the "it's propaganda" criticism is only made from biased sources, then you *should* leave it out (or else leave it in, but mention that it is a criticism made only by biased sources).

Besides, there are different kinds of bias. It's one thing that someone criticizes the term because he's leftist. It's another thing that someone criticizes the term because he doesn't like Jews and sympathizes with fascists and Islamists because they don't like Jews either. Ken Arromdee

I don't agree. Being a syndicated columnist and writer of some repute, Sobran is a legitimate authority per WP:V. To preclude him from the article because you believe "he doesn't like Jews and sympathizes with fascists and Islamists" violates WP:OR

The original research rule applies to the content of the article, not to the decisions about what content to include. It isn't "original research" within the meaning of the rule to decide that a source is a biased source.

-- even if it's pretty clear that he's an anti-Semite, because that doesn't equate into pro-Muslim. Even if it did, though, I still don't see a reason for precluding him: it's a presentation of two viewpoints, and he has one. No matter his motivation.

The article does not present Sobran's quote as an accurate description of the use of "Islamofascism", merely a criticism of its use. It does the same for the other four quotes, which are also attributed to people who (being people) must have biases of their own. Again, there's been no real scholarship here, so "third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (to quote WP:V) are out of the question. bcasterline t 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sobran's argument purports to be supplying facts (Sobran's observations of how the term is used) and uses those facts as a basis for his criticism. Bias which may affect the accuracy of Sobran's facts, therefore, is relevant. Ken Arromdee 16:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa...I honestly don't know anything about Sobran so I can't comment on him directly, but this discussion is going south. Ken, "bias" affects the accuracy of any "facts" that anyone uses as a basis for their critique of anything. Based on your statement, all of wikipedia would be blank. The best we can do is try to be honest about the character of that bias. If you have a source that makes a rational argument that Sobran is racist or prejudiced against a people based on stereotypes, that's one thing, and should be included if we include any of his criticisms of the use of the term, just in the interest of full disclosure. There are a lot of people who criticize the term who aren't anti-Semites, though. Based on that evidence, we cannot use the fact that Sobran criticizes the term as a criteria for whether it should be included because he is or isn't an anti-Semite. A) If Sobran can be determined to be a prominent voice in the debate over use and/or definition of the term, he must be included. B) if he is included, it is fair game to include sourced, non-slanderous characterizations of him as they apply to the formulation of his critique. His critique must be judged substantively, not on speculation of its origins. That is always speculation, because we can never know someone's true intents for sure. How do I know that you aren't "defending" the term because you hate Muslims and/or Arabs? I don't--nor do I really believe that, but I can use the same reasoning to come to that conclusion and argue that you should be removed from the discussion...which is just stupid in my opinion, because I see no substantive reason why you should be excluded.72.244.201.27 20:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose to do? I see three options:

1. Remove the quotation because it's biased. If there's controversy surrounding Sobran's credibility, I'm all in favor of giving him the boot. But, unless you can find a suitable replacement, this is not an acceptable solution by me because it leaves one of the primary criticisms omitted.
2. Remove all the quotations because they're all equally biased. None of them are from respected, peer-reviewed, non-biased sources. As a source, Sobran is no less legitimate than the others. In my opinion, this solution is even worse, although it's not as one-sided as #1. Remember that the WP:V standard is verifiability, not truth.
3. Label Sobran an "anti-Semite" and maybe a "Muslim sympathizer". This solution violates WP:OR and, even though it's not his article, possibly WP:BLP.

Any other ideas? As I mentioned above: considering the quotations are presented as perspectives, not facts, I personally believe these are all unnecessary. -- bcasterline • talk 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest 1. Remove the quotation because it's biased. If you can find the criticism made by a non-biased source, use that. If it's really "one of the primary criticisms," then you should have no trouble finding the non-biased source. If you can't find one, it never was a primary criticism in the first place and *should* be removed.

Actually, "biased source" is the wrong phrase. You're right in that every source will have bias of some kind. But there's a difference between being, say, a Democrat, and just hating Jews, even though both of them are biased. You shouldn't quote a Jew-hater about Jews or about a subject directly influenced by his attitudes towards Jews. Ken Arromdee 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Semite" does not necessarily mean "pro-Muslim".

But the former often leads to the latter. Ken Arromdee 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And even if it did: Why does being a pro-Muslim writer preclude someone from offering an opinion on Islamofascism? You concede that they all have biases. The origin of their bias does not matter -- the effect is exactly the same. -- bcasterline • talk 18:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone who's pro-Muslim *because he hates Jews* should be disqualified from being quoted in an encyclopedia article about Islamofascism. Just because everyone has some bias doesn't mean that all biases are created equal or that it is impossoble to reject a source on the basis that he is biased in an exceptionally bad way. Ken Arromdee 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand, Islamofascists are "individuals who use Islam as an excuse to behave like fascists" and its purpose is therefore to distinguish between terrorists and mainstream Muslims. The term is identical to "militant Muslims" and "Islamic fundamentalists." Bill Levinson 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we include Thom Hartmann's critique of the use of the term in this section. In an article about domestic fascism, he defines the terms that are being merged into synonyms and gives some reasoning why: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-23.htm The article also provides an overview of various other critiques, and some writings from VP Wallace (WWII). One of the most important distinctions he makes is that a fascist can use fundamentalist theocracy for fascist goals, but being a fundamentlist theocrat does not necessarily make one fascist. Thus the criticism against those who use the term as a blanket statement against all Islamic theocrats (while conspicuously ignoring, supporting or using domestic theocratics)72.244.201.27 19:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic fundamentalism

The article Islamic fundamentalism seems to be along similar lines to this... Maybe the two should be merged? Or is there some big difference about where a muslim nation stops being big on religion and becomes islamofascist I'm missing?--Josquius 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the criticism of the term--it's just being used provoke western fears about "fascism" and therefore action against what are really and essentially Muslim fundamentalist theocrats, very similar to the Christian fundamentalist theocrats we have here domestically in the USA in that their goal is a non-secular government established on the basis of religious law with a strict, literalist interpretation of the religious texts. I am going to pop my source up to the "criticism" discussion and suggest we include it, since it's an important point I didn't see discussed yet in the actual article that gets to the heart of WHY there is a blurred distinction. Merging the articles would actually be doing neoconservatives an ideological favor and wikipedia scholarship a large disfavor. Instead of saying they are the same thing, it is much more useful on a scholarly level to include critiques that show WHY and how they are being made to mean the same thing.72.244.201.27 19:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction is (as far as I understand it) is that Islamic fundamentalism is a very strict interpretation of Islam and forcing everyone to follow the religion in a very strict way. Islamofascism is more of people using Islam as a false front to enact fascism, which is their real goal. I guess it all boils down to the goal - is it to get people to follow the religion in a strict way, or is it to form a fascist country? Even with that description, it's kind of ambiguous. I guess think of it this way: It's a circle. At the 12:00 position is moderate, "normal" Islam. At 6:00 is the worst opposite of that. Islamofascism and Islamic fundamentalism are at the 5:00 and 7:00 positions. I don't know, that's the best I can figure to explain it, as I understand it, anyway. Hope it helps somewhat. --69.161.146.61 06:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First, there are theoretical reasons why the two articles should be separate. They are not the same phenomenon nor are they particularly compatible (it depends on how loose one's definition of facism is, however). Second, there are cultural reasons why the Wiki articles are separate. These include the fact that "Islamic facism" is controversial while "Islamic fundamentalism" is a bit less perjorative. This point really expands to a large body of Western scholarship that does not use "facism" to describe interpretations of Islam (even political interpretations). Even when it is used, it is rarely emphasized and developed. Some call this a "liberal bias", others good scholarship. --Vector4F 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks, sorry if this is not exactly in the right place but... I humbly recommend keeping it simple. Don't try to over intellectuallize it. It means somewhat different things to different people (or nothing at all) and at this point that interpretation is somewhat in a state of flux.

For example: To me it represents a theocratic totalitarian ideology, which substitutes a fanatic interpretation of Islam for fanatic nationalism/racism as a justification. And there is a component that in my view includes a hegemonic zeal to actively export that theocratic totalitarianism at any cost and by any means necessary. A "Greater Islamic Reich", if you will permit the allusion.

In my view it is a separate term from "Islamic Fundamentalism" in that "Islama(o)fascism" was deliberately coined to allude to the similarities in the means and ends of the two root ideologies (Islamic Fundamentalism as a theocracy, and Fascism); a rhetorical reflection after at least 10 years experience in the west with fallout of the "Islamic Revolution".

Now... will that satisfy some poli-sci post graduate? Probably not. Or perhaps its like pornography, you can't quite define it, but you know it when you see it. The Taliban, Al Qaeda and the current government of Iran fit the bill in my view. What about the Fascist/Corporatism component, etc? To me its just splitting hairs to undermine or belittle the term. As Hitchens said, its "Fascism with an Islamic face". That's what the term represents. If people are offended or have political science or theological objections, it's beside the point.

So it seems therefore that if Christopher Hitchens or Khalid Duran or Stephen Schwartz or whoever coined the term, then that's what it is, for better or worse. Appropriate to stick with those definitions/attributions until such time as there is a clear consensus of some other nuance.

I would suggest thinking about the matter-of-fact characterization of Islamafascism as a political "epithet". While technically this is correct, "epithet" can have the connotaion as defamatory (as in slander or libel). Whether or not the term is defamatory depends on which side of the fence you are on. PJNevada --71.9.97.212 06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move

User:Humus sapiens has suggested that the article Islamofascism be moved to Islamofascism (epithet). Do other editors agree with this proposal? CJCurrie 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please can we not? I hate these sorts of "shudder parens" that are coming into vogue. Either delete the article or leave it. The word is what it is. Let the reader decide how to interpet it. IronDuke 03:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also oppose the move. CJCurrie 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd oppose it but I think he's already done it. --Coroebus 06:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He did, but I moved it back before calling the current vote. CJCurrie 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that move would really only be merited if there existed a version of this word that wasn't an epithet. Netscott 08:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good reason...what was Humus Sapien's original reasoning for suggesting the move?72.244.201.27 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Per article-naming conventions, parentheses are only used to disambiguate between identically-named articles, not to clarify an article's meaning or topic when there's nothing else to confuse it with. Hundreds of Wikipedia's articles are about "epithets"; if we used (epithet) at the end of every one, it would be unmanageably cumbersome, and if we didn't use (epithet) at the end of every one, only for this one, it would be horribly biased. The italicized "This article is about..." notice is more than sufficient for clarifying exactly what this article is about. -Silence 09:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Just put the pertinent information in the intro summary, rather than the article title. If there is a problem with the "Islamofacism" title, adding qualifiers doesn't solve this (a better article, however, would). --Vector4F 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I am wondering why nodody voted at a similar case Israeli apartheid (epithet). Humus's suggestion is interesting in a sense that whether to follow one rule (or guideline) or none. Cheers -- Szvest 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I've provided the argument for moving Israeli apartheid (epithet) back to its correct title, Israeli apartheid, at Talk:Israeli apartheid (epithet). Hopefully the wheels of change will start relatively soon, now that Islamofascism is back to its own correct title. A third article, Wall of shame (epithet), has also been mentioned at the village pump; hopefully there aren't many more hidden out there to fix. -Silence 20:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Silence. --maru (talk) contribs 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per NetScott, for what it's worth. cacophony ◄► 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Flippant suggestion. Fatalis 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Agreed. --Petercorless 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage

"Radio talk show host Michael Savage has used the term "Islamofascism" frequently on his program. The context suggests the invocation of Islam to justify fascist-like activities."

Michael Savage, even on his own radio talkshow "The Savage Nation," takes credit for coining the term "Islamofascist." I haven't heard the term ever used before he started using it on his radio show, but I could be wrong.

If it can be cited, there's nothing wrong with including Savage's claim that he coined the term, as long as it is presented in the third person as a claim. It's relevant to the article.72.244.201.27 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081606C This guy says he was the first person to use the neologism, so if the above is going to be included than we also need to include that claim, too72.244.201.27 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this exclusively a right-wing buzzword?

Islamofascism seems to be a contradiction in terms on the face of it, as Islamism is a stateless movement with no connection to corporate capitalism, and fascism implies a tight connection between a state and corporations.

I have not gotten through the article yet, but I come here via the repeated use of the term in a major academic journal out of sheer interest to see how contentious the talk page is. While certainly the term is popular with the hard right, there are many very serious, objective academics who have made strong cases for and agaist the term. The very fact there is such a debate means there should be a wikipedia page. We cannot let a fear of discourse place an artificial veil over the content on this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.96.215 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I hear the well known demagogue Rush Limbaugh use this term all the time in his usual ignorant manner, and I have come to feel it is a smokescreen to distract from his own and the right-wing's overt fascist tendencies to take over the USA and make it a fascist country.

But this is why the article should be included in wikipedia w/these criticisms...for instance Thom Hartmann: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-23.htm hasn't been included yet, but he talks about that very issue in his article. Let's work on getting some of his criticism and research included. People need to know the historical definitions of the terms vis-a-vis their current usage so they might be allowed to come to the conclusion that "Islamofascism" is indeed a contradiction of terms. It's impossible to do that without a wikipedia article on it, though72.244.201.27 20:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone might want to write a section on the nature of it as a possible political oxymoron, that is amenable, but please do not conduct original research. Search the web to see if there are other scholars and authors who consider it so. If there are good sources, cite them. There are cases to be made in both directions. Just keep your own bias in the background and write from an WP:NPOV. --Petercorless 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic fascism

This article is about the political epithet "Islamofascism"... for "Islamic fascism" please see this section of Neofascism and religion thanks. (→Netscott) 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well-spotted! -- Szvest 23:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that "Islamofascism" is an epithet. It is a mere neologism. Even to say it is an epithet violates NPOV. People who have the term hurled at them may not like it, but that in no way diminishes the validity of the concept. I believe this entire article should have a "Neutrality Disputed" notice posted at its top. This should be discussed more fully. Syntacticus 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is a neologism doesn't exclude it from being an epithet. But that is beside the point. "Epithet" is a loaded term, and it is more useful and honest to explain the controversy in the article vs just label and dismiss it. eg "Epithet" is fair game to include in the critiques section, and if it is a prominent crtique, perhaps in the head paragraph.72.244.201.27 20:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush near-use

Bush used "Islamic fascists" in his reaction to the foiled British airliner attack, which seems to have been run widely in the media in the last day or so... AnonMoos 10:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to the 'Examples of use in public discourse' section. --duncan 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See also previous point (#Islamic fascism).

Note that Islamic fascism now redirects to Neofascism and religion.

Islamic fascist also currently redirects to Neofascism and religion.

I have no preference but several options could be explored, as far as I'm concerned:

• Move the Bush quotes to Neofascism and religion#Islam — however, if Bush (or his advisors) intended "neofascism", he'd have said Islamic neofascists, no?
• Have a separate article on Islamic fascism, instead of a redirect, if reliable sources document the use and meaning of this expression (note that several of the external links now on the "Islamofascism" page speak about "Islamic fascism", and not about "Islamofascism" - if it would be Original Research to consider these as synonyms, that's an indication that starting a separate page would maybe be a good idea)
• Explain both related concepts ("Islamofascism" and "Islamic fascism") on the same page, making one of the two a redirect to the other. There are other Wikipedia pages where a concept redirects to a page on a related concept, and both concepts are explained on a single page. Think e.g. Fin de siècle - turn of the century: the intro of that page explains that connotations of both concepts only partly overlap.
• Start a new page Islam and fascism and have all related concepts redirect to that. There is however a discouragement for the use of such page name at wikipedia:naming conventions#Use of "and" --Francis Schonken 11:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem be highly knowledgeable about wiki-lawyering, but you don't seem to have much grasp of the relevant linguistics involved... According to your principles, "Franco-American relations" and "French-American relations" would have to be two completely separate articles! AnonMoos 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs convincing. [1] [2] --Francis Schonken 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos, this article is about the term "Islamofascism", is that difficult to understand? (→Netscott) 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This AfD should be rather enlightening about why there is an article on the term "islamofascism". (→Netscott) 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Bush near-quote deserves to be here, not at Neofascism and religion#Islam. Even though he didn't use the exact word islamofascist/islamofascism, I think it's a fine point to say using 'islamic fascists' means something different. Is this article about the word or what it means? --duncan 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Duncan, have you read this AfD yet? (→Netscott) 08:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what's your point? --duncan 09:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that this article is for the actual term. For the concept of "islamic fascism" there's Neofascism and religion#Islam. The title of this section is "near use" that's like saying "a near pregnancy" (either a woman is pregnant or she's not)... User:Francis Schonken makes a good point here... if there's a need then an article on the concept of "islamic fascism" should be created... and the content from Neofascism and religion moved to it. (→Netscott) 09:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I really don't see why this is important, we thankfully don't create articles for every made up word and/or phrase that bush creates. This is no more, or less, of a justification for this article existing--64.12.116.137 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens citations

I've removed most references to Hitchens as the ones I removed didn't have him using the term. What I would suggest for those wanting Hitchens cited in this article is to either find references of his utilization of the term or further references to others' usage of the term similar to this article. (→Netscott) 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This too might be a good start for including citations of Hitchens and the term "islamofascism". (→Netscott) 20:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamofascism

It seems a pleonasm to me. Every monotheistic religion only supports 1 Leader, that is God (or Allah in this case). Add the punishments against traitors of that particular religion, the fact that non-religious people are inferior to religious people etc. And consider the name of Islam, meaning "Submission", and you get the full story. A muslim can be peaceful despite of Islam, never because of it... Pity. Torero 00:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Torero! This is not a blog!!!! Please discuss stuff related to how to improve the article and that's it. I see that you are "new" but seems that you got an agenda. Please leave those kinds of comments out of this respectable place. -- Szvest 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This certainly is not a blog. But that doesn't mean only Islamohorny people may react to it. Respect is not dependent on pro- or anti-Islam (or neutral). I hope you will recognise that. Cheers, Torero 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you recognize it is not a blog than why are you blogging anyway? You should respect this place first before an "islamohorny" (in other words me) could respect such a rant! -- Szvest 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

All the makings of a fine blog, left-field commentary based upon original research (otherwise known as "one's own ideas"). Good call Szvest. :-) (→Netscott) 01:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Torero is welcomed to contribute. However, i'm not convienced w/ his first day show. -- Szvest 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right!!!! But consider using less punctuation. Fatalis 21:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

users of this term tend to be be fascist?

Perhaps this goes along with criticism, but it seems a specific issue. Use of this term appears to come primarily from the far right of current political movements. This means that those who are using the term are the most likely to be accused of fascism themselves. This means that this rhetoric follows a common thread of false rebellion against one's own core values. -- M0llusk 05:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if your intention is to discuss this matter but if so this isn't the place to do so. If you have reliable and verifiable sources that are saying this then by all means add these ideas while citing them. (→Netscott) 08:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

original research

It might be appropriate label the unsourced statements as original research. The statement of the definition I understand for islamofascist is based on common knowledge and its use can be found on these blogs[3][4][5]. (can provide more). A published source with this usage includes the the National Review:[6] "...Hitler had his Reich, Osama wants his Caliphate...". Mrdthree 12:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no mention of "islamofascism" in that National Review article. Remember this Wikipedia article is about the actual term. (→Netscott) 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Should I ignore the comment about some writers given the plethora of bloggers[7][8]? Mrdthree 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell the text you're working on would be better suited to idea of the concept as explained in Neofascism and religion#Islam. There's some talk above about starting an article (using content from there and elsewhere) entitled Islamic fascism, that might be an even better option given that the President of the United States is utilizing the phrase "Islamic fascists". (→Netscott) 23:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what this article is intended to do, but if it means to discuss Islamofascism, it should offer or mention a definition that is in fairly wide use.Mrdthree 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

judeofascism

The inclusion of the comment on judeofascism seems a little petlulant. This article is not about making everythign else balanced. This article is valid and needed beacuase unlike the peripheral use of judeofascism, Islamofacism is in core poltical use by world leaders and media. It is also a current affairs issue. For this reason I am deleting this paragraph and would agree that perhaps the inclusion of the term exist on its own merits, in its own article, just asother types of facism should. It is however not relevant to discuss here. This is not a score chart to give political discussions parity.--Peej 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Peej. If Zionism has been notably compared to fascism, the Zionism page might be a place to mention that. Personally I haven't run across the term judeofascism before, and while it may be a great pity that the term hasn't achieved currency, this isn't the place to ascribe currency to it that it doesn't have. St. Jimmy 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see an expansion on this topic, I belive Zionfascism is a more appropiate term.

Why? You think the Zionists want to conquer the world? Or maybe you think they knocked down the World Trade Center? Your made-up terms "Judeofascism" and "Zionfascism" might have some usage among anti-Semites and the like, but are simply namecalling in the same vein as "So's you're old man!" Give it a rest. 68.5.64.178 08:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a pro-Nazi Jewish terrorist group called the Stern Gang. It is best known for the murder of Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden (1948), a UN mediator at the time. It's leader was Yitzhak Shamir and he later became Israeli prime minister. I doubt that the dumbasses who use words like Zionazi or Judeafascist even know about any of this, though.Kauffner 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Totalitarianism

Islamic Totalitarianism is an article on a very similar subject to this. Nothing links to it. Perhaps editors of this would like to look at that. Drett 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why so many examples?

Do we really need eleven examples of use in public discourse? A few (maybe four or five?) quotations are helpful, but most of these don't add any information to the article, except the name and role of the person at the end of the quote. Those names can easily be summarized by saying, "Other politicians and writers who have used the term are...". Clayoquot ^Sound 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on this in the past three days, so I've reduced the number of full examples to four, and summarized the remainder at the end of the section. Clayoquot ^Sound 05:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a more general word -Theofacism

Is there not some way to place this with other Theocratic movements and ideology. There seem to be many variants of Islamic theocratic extreamism, based around Sunni/Shia divisions as well as some more esoteric than I can understand, but other than variations of Dogma they seem to differ little in policy from Kahanists, the several flavors of Dominionists, Moonies, and many smaller cults.

Though agressively atheists, the unitary nature, and death penalty for "apostacy" to their fantasy pastoral vision, the Kmer Rouge was extreamly similar to these groups in many primary ways. Dragonwlkr 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this neologism. It fits my bias like a glove. Fatalis 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to create an article on the neologism Theofascism, feel free to add it to Wikipedia. There are citations of the term out there on the Internet. However, Islamofascism is a particular allegation of "theofascism" tied directly to Islamist movements. It is also a pejorative which might be inaccurate used by people who are Islamophobes. So, while we can have a reference to theofascism, and even say that "Islamofascism is a form of theofascism," there's no reason to genericize the term Islamofacism when it is such a polarizing term and should be studied with a bit of academic sobriety. --Petercorless 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

mention in the news

FYI, this article and an editing dispute on it are mentioned in the article What Is 'Islamofascism'? by Stephen Schwartz. After a paragraph explaining how he coined the term, he follows with another describing "a long and demeaning colloquy" in which the wiki article ended up attributing Malise Ruthven, he states "I do not care much, these days, about Wikipedia and its misapprehensions, or obsess over acknowledgements of my work.". - BT 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Fascism page

The Islamic Fascism page and several others were the subject of lengthy and heated debates, numerous attempts to delete the pages, POV wars, numerous attempts to rename the pages, etc. These discussions are therefore on a number of pages going back over a year. Most recently there has been a discussion on Islamofascism, although even that page has had several names. Almost all of the text on the Islamic Fascism page that was recently revived already had been moved to either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. The very outdated and redundant page was simply switched back on by deleting the redirect. Therefore almost the entire page was redundant. There was no serious attempt to engage editors in a discussion on either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. There was no substantative discussion over several weeks--I waited to see if there was a serious dicussion. There was not. POV page forks are a violation of Wiki policy. Any editror can do what I did. I have no intention of trying to suppress claims about Islam and fascism, and in fact have written scholarly articles where I argue some forms of militant Islam are indeed forms of theocratic or clerical fascism. At the same time, I was just quoted in Newsweek saying that the term "Islamofascism" creeps me out. Over time, the two pages Islamofascism (on the term) and Neofascism and religion (on the contemporary debate), along with a few pages that mention the Grand Mufti and the Phalangists, have been the best way to keep this topic from turning, once again, into an endless POV war. If people want to have this discussion here, that's fine, but it is not a useful procedure to launch a discussion on an inactive redirect page.--Cberlet 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet -- thanks for bringing some much-needed perspective to this. This conflict mirrors one in the English language itself, and in American political culture. It's important, and I hope editors are willing to have a meaningful discussion to this page to address it responsibly. What, if I may ask, do people feel we should do here? BYT 12:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia government and islamofascism

I see that user:SlimVirgin reverted my edits without motivation. I would like to request her to give this motivation. Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the edit; I think you mean 'without explanation.' She may have avoided giving you an explanation because the reason this doesn't belong in the article seems pretty obvious on its face.

If I were to offer an explanation for this revert, which I very much support, it would be this: while the passage in question makes a lot of noise about "promoting" Islamofasists, it never refers to the government of Saudi Arabia as an Islamofascist regime. Nobody seems to know what would actually constitute such a regime, but let's leave that problem aside, as it doesn't seem to stop anyone on Fox News. Not a lot of fascist monarchies out there. BYT 17:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

State capitalism is central to fascism, not to totalitarianism

Fascism was (is) totalitarian, but all totalitarian ideologies are not fascist ideologies. "Islamototalitarianism" ain't catchy, but it'd be more accurate. The word "islamofascism" is despicable precisely because it muddies our thinking & replaces reason with emotional appeals. Billbrock 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Muddying our thinking and replacing reason with emotional appeals is precisely what the people who popularized this term, and now appeal to it with talismanic frequency, have in mind. BYT 20:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

State Capitalism is what we capitalists call a socialist mixed economy and regardless of whether you call it a socialist economy or state capitalism it is the dominant form of economics practied in the region (Iran, Saudi, etc.) Mrdthree 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So capital will be deployed in the Reich and in the Caliphate similarly? I do admit that Ahmadinejad is an interesting case (Holocaust-denial and exterminationist rhetoric), but I think that in many respects, the vision of the radical Caliphate is closer to the Communist vision. Billbrock 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Thinking about this stuff got me to wikify Chasseguet-Smirgel, a friend of truth who (I just discovered) passed this year & should be mourned by friends of freedom on both Left and Right. Billbrock 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

When people start equating sharia law with corporatism or state capitalism, I get curious about exactly how they plan to back such an argument up. "The region" is not an Islamic state. Compare: What is happening economically "on the ground" in Israel today tells you exactly ... what? ... about what Judaism mandates regarding economics? Help me out with this one, please. Historically, what variety of state ownership are we talking about under Muhammad or any of the rightly-guided caliphs? What madhab today advocates seizure of the means of production by the Islamic state? BYT 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not "Islamocommies?" It has the same desired rhetorical effect, and it's probably less inaccurate! Billbrock 02:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

IG Farben, Degussa, Krupp, Siemens AG, Volkswagen AG, Daimler-Benz, AEG, Osram, Rheinmetall Borsig, MAN AG, Henschel, Dornier, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Blohm & Voss, AG_Weser, Deutsche Schiff- und Maschinenbau AG...I'm just getting warmed up. Somehow I don't think the bin Laden Group is a full equivalent.  :-) Billbrock 02:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On another level (having little to do with economic form--oh yeah, superstructure): for the Islamic fundamentalist, the dhimmi has certain rights under sharia; further, the ethnic Jew (e.g.) is always free to convert. Compare the Nuremberg laws. Sure, the followers of dajjal are baddies, but so were the kulaks. Get rid of the baddies, and the world can be paradise: subtract ganja, add jihad (or class struggle), and neither the Communist nor the Islamic fundamentalist are that far away from Bob Marley's vision of One Love. Zionists are excluded from both visions (heh! not Marley's!) for ideological reasons; Jews aren't. Again, Ahmadinejad doesn't fit neatly into my little story. We empiricists are accustomed to making such concessions. Reality is messy; fairy tales are neat. Billbrock 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC), minor edits Billbrock 06:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand, but heres some unfiltered source material on the economic vision of Islamists, someone who has time can run a summary? [9] Mrdthree 20:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The article Neofascism and religion#Islam explains that there are a few scholars who make the case for certain militant Islamic movements to be classified as neo-fascist.--Cberlet 03:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric Margolis article

Silence from the neocons. As usual (when they're not in attack mode, that is). The act of posing questions based too closely on objective reality disturbs and frightens them, I think.

It isn't clear what your questions are. Perhaps if you made a new section titled "questions", someone might answer them? Ken Arromdee 15:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Either that, or I could use a device known as a "question mark," as in the quotation below:

Historically, what variety of state ownership are we talking about under Muhammad or any of the rightly-guided caliphs? What madhab today advocates seizure of the means of production by the Islamic state? BYT 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another question -- echoingly unanswered here over a period of months, but which I pose every once in a while in an attempt to tether this conversation to reality -- is this one: What Islamic scholar advocates corporatism, which is regarded by Benito Mussolini (see below) as a prerequisite (at least) of fascism?

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini (from Encyclopedia Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor). BYT 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of developing and sustaining fairy tales for political advantage ... what do editors here make of this article from Eric Margolis, the respected author of WAR AT THE TOP OF THE WORLD? BYT 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

<-------------Sorry folks, but the Mussolini quote is a hoax. It does not appear in the Encyclopedia Italiana. It cannot be found in any of Mussolini's English translations. There were three types of fascism between WWI and WWI: Italian corporatism, German national socialist racialism, and clerical (or theocratic) fascism. See Fascism, Fascism and ideology, and Fascism and Religion.--Cberlet 19:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad -- didn't doublecheck the source. Thanks Cberlet. BYT 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

(With thanks to Ken for the suggestion that I use this heading.)

This source connects Mussolini with the process of "organizing the whole of society into corporate entities subordinate to the state." Clearly, when we talk about fascism we're not talking about merely taxing economic activity -- the IRS does that, and they're not fascists. (At least not if the word "fascist" carries any actual meaning.) We're talking about the state controlling, appropriating, targeting, and/or reallocating massive resources and (classically) authorizing a small number of corporate elites allied closely with the state, and subordinate to it, to use those resources. Where is this advocated in Islam, please? BYT 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see a discussion of how some scholars see elements of fascism in certain Islamic movements, see Neofascism and religion#Islam or this resources page I just posted a few weeks ago after Bush and Rumsfeld started tossing the terms around. The Term "Islamofascism" still creeps me out, even though I think selected Islamic militant movements qualify as forms of theocratic neofascism. I think the use of the term fascism by Bush and Rumsfeld to demonize U.S. political enemies is a reprehensible political propoganda ploy that should be treated skeptically by Wiki encyclopedia editors.--Cberlet 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If a new word is necessary to describe radical Islamic totalitarianism, then coin it. Fifty million people died to end fascism; that's too many deaths to bandy the word about lightly. And it's easier to be an effective leader when one can clearly explain to one's citizens what the struggle is all about. Terrorists are bad and real: imaginary fascist régimes (useful for crowd control) aren't. When I hear "Islamofascism," I can't help thinking of "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." Billbrock 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

It appears that User:Francis Schonken is going to insist that we all go over to the outdated Islamic Fascism (that was turnd from a redirect back to a redundant POV fork page) and debate a merger proposal. Please take a moment and post comments at Talk:Islamic_fascism#Merger_Discussion--Cberlet 19:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See also above #Bush near-use for prior discussion. E.g. (quoting Netscott, near the end of that section): "if there's a need then an article on the concept of "islamic fascism" should be created... and the content from Neofascism and religion moved to it."

Also above #original research: "There's some talk above about starting an article (using content from there and elsewhere) entitled Islamic fascism, that might be an even better option given that the President of the United States is utilizing the phrase "Islamic fascists"." --Francis Schonken 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic fascism is a Disambiguation Page

The compromise consensus among those discussing this matter was to make Islamic fascism a disambiguation page. The majority opposed the merger. Please, Francis Schonken, stop reverting this decision and join with other editors on this and other active pages where this topic is being discussed. You lost the vote. Get over it.--Cberlet 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What a useless article!

Most of the article is about what a terrible word "Islamofascist" and why you should never use it. Both the intro and the Criticism of the use of the term sections are solid POV rants with no useful information at all. The quotes in the "Examples" section are overly long. If the article is going to be kept at all, I'd like to see brief OED-style citations demostrating the use of the word in its various senses. I say merge this article with Militant Islam and Islamic Fascism. The merged article should be about the actual phenomenon and not what word should be used to describe it, which is an entirely subjective question.Kauffner 14:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what Neofascism and religion is for. There were two VfDs for this article, and neither generated consensus to delete. So here it is. -- bcasterline • talk 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

From looking at the comments, I gather the participates overwhelming wanted a merger. But of course that's not an option in a VfD, which is about voting "yes" or "no" on deletion. I can't understand why anyone would want deletion -- that would leave us with nothing to say on a hot topic that is persumably a common search term.

Pending a merger, I'd like to see the article the redone in a more NPOV format. It would be a series definitions, each with several brief citations, OED-style. (OED doesn't have an entry for Islamofascism, so it wouldn't be redundant.) Then there would be a section on the controversy regarding the use of the term, with 2-3 articles cited on each side.

Kauffner 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to start on a test page, although you seem to be describing the article more or less as is. If you can find a series of clear definition with citations for each, please do; but I think you'll find there's a reason the article is as it is. -- bcasterline • talk 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Check

I hope I'm doing this POV Check right. Here goes: It seems abundantly clear to me given the lengthy discussion of the term Islamofascism that the article itself may not be NPOV-compliant. As I noted above, to call the term an epithet appears to be an attempt to delegitimize it. To me, it seems a perfectly legitimate concept. Islamofascism does not appear to have all the attributes of the more classic Hitlerian Fascism or of Fascism a la Mussolini, but it does contain key attributes of Fascism, for example, 1) a belief in a strong, supreme leader, or in German, the Fuehrerprinzip 2) preservation of private property rights subject to heavyhanded control by the state 3) a romantic longing for a better time in the past (as opposed to the socialistic/communistic longing for an ideal future) 4) militarism and 5) irredentism. I suspect the rejection of the term by many is grounded in a dislike of the Bush administration's war on terror, but that's just a guess on my part. I also suspect the fact that the main proponents of Islamofascism are non-state combatants makes many uncomfortable labeling the phenomenon Islamofascism. We should discuss this in a more balanced, systematic way. Syntacticus 01:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Syntacticus. Have you read the previous discussions of the points you bring up? This has been much-discussed. Check the archives at the top of this page. Cheers. IronDuke 02:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke: Yes, I skimmed those previous debates. I still don't believe the "epithet" issue has been resolved. All the other points I make above are as to the validity of the concept -- which I acknowledge has been well covered in the debates. I think reason has prevailed because the entry survived deletion attempts. Whether it is an epithet is key, as I see it. Just because the word "Fascist" is thrown around so carelessly today that its meaning has been reduced to an emotional ejaculation like "I don't agree with it" or "I hate you so much I can't express my hatred intelligently" (similar arguments were made by George Orwell in his classic "Politics and the English Language" essay) does not mean that there is no such thing as a hyphenated version of Fascism pertaining to the Muslim world. Let's debate whether it is an epithet. Is this unreasonable? Syntacticus 03:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all unreasonable. However, as someone involved in some of the past debates, I'd just say a couple things: 1) This article has engendered a lot of bitterness for people on all sides of all debates about it. 2) The version you see is pretty much a compromise version. Trying to shift it too far one way or another may result in the start of another disruptive edit war about it. 3) As a technical matter, my understanding of the word epithet is that it is not per se negative. Rather, it refers to a descriptor imposed from without. And this is technically true: no one has ever referred to themselves as "Islamofascist", as far as I'm aware. 4) The "rightness" or "wrongness" of IF as a term (e.g., can Islam be said to contain fascistic elements) is not relevant for our purposes. Merely how and when the term is used. IronDuke 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, IronDuke. You have opened my eyes somewhat as I did not think through fully what would happen later. Note that I have never slapped a POV Check on an article before (not even in the 3 or so years before I formally registered with Wikipedia). I would have made the change myself (that is, by deleting the epithet reference) but I thought that might needlessly stir things up (and that it would have been rude and presumptuous). I could always take the POV Check off in a few days...or I suppose someone could 86 it on their own (ha ha). Anyway, I take your excellent point as to an epithet being how the term is actually used, but it has been my observation that "epithet" is a loaded term, rich with connotations that outweigh the strict dictionary definition. Islamofascism itself has not always been used in a pejorative way, i.e. as some kind of curse word, and suspect that some other non-loaded term might be more appropriate. I think it is a useful neutral political science descriptor, that it is used as such and ought to be. I could be wrong and perhaps I am making a mountain out of a molehill. Let's see what others have to say. Syntacticus 04:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the "compromise" in the page as it is now? The article is a rant about what terrible word Islamofascist is. Islamofascist is not my favorite word. I prefer militant Islam and would redirect to that article. Islamofascist can be put in the wikidictionary. But in the meantime we can rewrite this article in an NPOV manner.Kauffner 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kauffner. Off the top of my head, I'd say the compromise lies in the article's existing at all. Many people voted for its deletion, others that it be merged to various different articles dealing with Islam and fascism or simple political epithets. Many people felt that by taking the word more or less at face value, WP was implicitly endorsing the views of those who use the word. This created quite a lot of controversy.

Note: I just removed "politically motivated" from the lead. I have argued in the past and will continue to argue that this article must not become a platform from which to attack the term itself. IronDuke 06:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Islamofascism is a perfectly justifiable term to describe the ideologies spread by Islamoterrorists like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The term exists and will continue to exist, like it or not. Cerebral Warrior 15:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

to the anon

Supporters of epithets usually don't believe they're epithets. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Good point. Syntacticus 00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the article shouldn't contain the accusation that it is a political epithet. However, I agree that the proper place for the term "political epithet", which links to a page of "pejorative political epithets" such as "baby killer" and "moonbat" and "feminazi", is clearly in the "critics say", not in the first sentence, where it is now accurately labeled a "controversial neologism". Fair? -- User:Symphy

Sunday Times article

A Sunday Times article by historian Michael Burleigh arguing against the idea of Islamofascism in case anyone wants to make use of it:

• Burleigh, Michael. "Islamofascists: a dangerous label", The Sunday Times, October 1, 2006. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A fascinating article, SlimVirgin. I believe those whose oppose the use of the term Islamofascism make their strongest argument when they contend that Islamofascism is not true Fascism because it lacks nationalism. Indeed, Fascism, as I understand the term, does not refer to a pan-national phenomenon (unlike Communism, for example). This thing I call Islamofascism is not, strictly speaking, necessarily nationalistic: the Islamists don't seem to care which nation sets up the Caliphate, whether Saudi Arabia or Iran. Dissimilarly, Hitler wanted his Germany-based Third Reich to dominate the world as a vast empire. Is the lack of nationalism in a Hitlerian sense what makes Islamofascism not true Fascism in the eyes of those on the other side of the argument? (Also, when Hitler came on the scene with his rabidly anti-Semitic brand of Fascism, did academics --many of whom in the West deeply admired Mussolini and his works-- argue that Hitlerism was not true Fascism? I myself don't know.) Thoughts, anyone? Syntacticus 22:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with these points. I think part of the problem is that the term is a complete neologism. Connotation aside (for a second), I don't know if its extant usage is actually encyclopedic by itself. Besides, the juxtaposition of the two concepts in question is essentially oxymoronic. One point of Islam is the primacy of God, and one of fascism (I hope we can agree on this) is the primacy of the state. So it doesn't even make sense in the first place. For this reason, I think that use of the term presupposes some (unjustified) commonality. Which sounds POV to me. I say pitch it. --Mashford 22:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above; for the record I oppose the use of the term for four reasons: 1) in terms of political science it makes no real sense (see above arguments, especially on nationalism), 2) it says nothing in particular (vaguely anti-liberal, statist), 3) it suggests very crude comparisons (e.g. people continually try to equate Sayyid Qutb with Alexis Carrel), and 4) the philosophical bases for Islam and fascism are radically different.

The use of terms like Nazism and Fascism are generally meant as historical constructions related to nation-states. (It's really no accident that the Western discipline of political science developed out of historical studies.) The farther you stretch these terms beyond their historical apex, the more and more vague they become. We could theoretically start calling the Babylonians fascists - since typical use of the term "fascists" is essentially egocentric political rhetoric (language meant to please ourselves and a select, closely identified group), the details of, say, material reality are never really issues of concern (notably, nationalism has strong material correlates). If you want to use historical constructions seriously, you have to carry some overhead of information in the discussion. Political rheotoric is designed to be devoid of such content. Nevertheless, the slight obsession Western societies have with these ideologies (they are part of our cultural lexicon), itself a historical phenomenon we are still living through (with some good reason), will pass. One of the benefits of general ignorance is that some people can get serious study done.

Islamism is an open-ended historical construction - scholars are still working out what it might mean, and the plethora of labels (e.g. Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic resurgence, etc.) reflects this. The interdisciplinary field is just now getting over state-centric thinking, moving towards a transnational understanding of Islamism. The religious elements are still completely up in the air though, as it's still a struggle to define what Islam is, let alone define it terms that can be studied.

The real defense of the term "Islamic fascism" comes down to this: As Kierkegaard described it "There is a view... which conceives that where the crowd is, there is also the truth, and that in truth itself there is need of having a crowd on it's side." The Internet allows us to compile our own crowd so as to support any number of claims - and make no mistake, using this term is making a claim. Wikipedia is not somehow disengaged from various crowds and their assertions. An encyclopedia can be neither a democracy nor a transcript/vehicle for popular rhetoric. This is where Wikipedia will be most strongly tested. --Vector4F 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reality always has more dimensions than a single word can describe. The Sunday Times article defines "fascism" as "extreme nationalism," but this strikes me as simplistic. Mussolini wanted to recreate the Roman Empire, and a Caliphate is the Islamic equivalent of this idea. Words like "Islamofascism" are useful as weapons of war, even if they are imperfect as descriptors. "Islamofascist" is in common use now; It's not a neologism any more. There is at least one area of overlap between the ideologies of the Nazis and that of militant Islam: extreme anti-Jewish sentiment. This can be traced back to the success of Nazi propaganda during WWII. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were popularized by Nazi agents based in Vichy-administered Arab countries and the book remains both popular and widely accepted to this day.Kauffner 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. The status of this term as a neologism may be open to argument, but its use seems more likely to assert a sort of analogic similarity between the two concepts, rather than an actual relation. There is no justification for the implicit assertion that putative commonality between the two concepts constitutes a defense of their union.

Aside from these formalist objections, (and please bear in mind that I am not defending terrorism) it should be noted that European (fascist) anti-Semitism and Islamic anti-Semitism have clearly distinct motivations and apologia. Moreover, the position of the Caliphate in the Islamic community in general (the 'umma) is a poor comparison to the leader of a fascist state. In this context, fascism itself is a neophyte: how can we accurately compare (much less equate) a purely 20th-century phenomenon with one that is essentially medieval? There are more divergences than similarities. These extend from the motivations of each to their demonstrable manifestations. The fact remains that no historically recognized fascist regime or movement has had Islamic elements (for rank speculation, I think Hitler probably would have exterminated any Muslims in Nazi Germany along with the Jews), and that no organization of militant Islam (Hezbollah, for example) has expressed fascist tendencies.

For these reasons, I believe the term is a semantically bankrupt weasel word, and that the article's language should express this lack. --Mashford 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pfff, a half good article, good ol mike is kind of a chauvinist and never sticks to one issue and loses its trail of thought before even reaching to any logical point (the question: "we should or shouldnt use the word Islamo facism because...?" never really gets a proper answer or even a decent synthesis), the most interest part of the article is where he completely ignores the oil interests of the western in middle east or in Africa and goes on into saying that we should probably modernize villages and completely erradicate any sign of their culture in our advantage (assimilate them into something more like us, cos its smalltown-islam the cause of all this terrorism!, right...). With no real proofs and an article that completely loses its point, i think its more of a quck advertize for his upcomming book (pretty obvious there).

To my mind, the word "caliphate" immediately brings up parallels that justify the "Islamofascist" moniker, (or would, if I thought Islamic militants were serious about the caliphate idea). A caliph is "commander of the faithful" and therefore the Islamic version of Il Duce or Der Fuhrer. On the other hand, I don’t see how an actual person could even begin to go about becoming a caliph. There is no appointment mechanism that would be recognized in more than one Islamic country. So the calls for caliphate are more along the lines of looking forward to the second coming than a political agenda.

On the issue of anti-Semitism: Of course, there are anti-Jewish verses in Islamic literature (as well as attacks on Christians and pagans). But modern anti-Semitism in the Mideast is based on the idea of an international Jewish conspiracy, which I don’t you’ll find in the Koran. Hamas cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their charter like it was holy writ.

The isn't much consistancy in the way the Islamofascist label is used. The Ba’ath Party is both Islamic and fascist, but somehow not Islamofascist. Militant Shi’ite groups like Hezbollah have no historic links to fascism and don’t believe in caliphate, but they still get the Islamofascist label.

I would say that the basic philosophical difference between fascism and militant Islam is that fascism is about obtaining government power and exercising it. When Mussolini was asked about his program, he replied, “We’ve seen enough of parties and their platforms. Our program is to rule Italy.” Fascism is a reaction to communism. The underlying idea is that only communist methods can succeed in the fighting communism. In contrast, militant Islam is about killing unbelievers, dying, and getting your 72 virgins (or raisons, as the case may be). “We love death as you love life,” is how they put it. After 9/11, Bin Laden made those videotapes where he rambles on about the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the Byzantines and whatnot. He doesn’t seem to have any deep belief that he wants to communicate. Killing defenseless office workers is his thing and he’ll reach for whatever justification comes to mind. If he was devout, would Robert Fisk be his favorite journalist? The jihadists are terrorists sponsored by Syria, Iran, and Pakistan rather a political faction with a distinct ideology. Blaming “Islamofascism” puts the onus on something abstract as opposed to governments that the U.S. has diplomatic relations with.Kauffner 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rescission of POV Check

I am satisfied with the sentence someone inserted, namely: "Critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with fascism is an offensive and inaccurate political epithet." I am now going to attempt to remove the POV Check notice that I installed. Thanks to everyone who participated in this voir dire. Syntacticus 00:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

"Islamofascism" is a propaganda term. This article should be deleted. FilipeS 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

well, this article has already survived two WP:AFD motions. is it a propaganda term? yes. is it a neologism? yes. is it potentially offensive to some people? of course. however, it is a notable term that has gained widespread usage and since most discussion on the internet that uses this word tends to be heavily loaded with bias, the web needs a good, well-written and neutral treatment of 'islamofascism'. -- frymaster 15:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is a propaganda term does not mean it should be deleted. There are many English-language neologisms developing around this conflict: War on Terrorism, Islamism, Islamofascism, Talibanization, Al-Qaedaism. They each have their own Wikipedia pages. They are in the news and they are terms used by the heads of state. They are memes in the matrix. You can deny them all you want, you can be angry that they exist. You can feel however you feel. But as a neutral observer of the world, Wikipedia should simply recognize the debate, remain calm and rational, and note how it is being used by people. Do not censor. Observe and record. --Petercorless 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because this is a propaganda term, I doubt it will ever be possible to talk about it neutrally. Besides, what about verifiability? Which peer-reviewed publications is the article supposed to be based on?... Rabid op-eds don't count. FilipeS 13:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of heads of state who are using this term in everyday speech. It is not our job to ignore vital neologisms which are being used by people who are using such concepts to determine whether, for instance, they commit nations to war or peace. Had some of us been alive when other highly politicized neologisms were coined, such as Lebensraum or Quisling we might have had similar debates. Yes, it is often used pejoratively. That can be duly noted. But such highly-charged terms became part of culture and language during the conflicts, stretching from the highest ranks of politics to the common everyday beliefs of the masses (or at least, some large percentage of them). Islamofascism is part of the meme-stream. We document what people are meaning when they use it. If you want to write about this in Criticism of the War on Terrorism, you can cite reputable sources that do not like such neologisms as, for example, Islamofascism, Islamism, Al-Qaedaism and Talibanization -- all of which are modern Western neologisms to describe or ascribe characteristics of elements of Islamic society as seen through the lens of modern politics and current conflicts. Rather than complain about why you don't personally like the term, document reputable sources that make your case. Consider making a page called Propaganda in the War on Terrorism. Also consider making the page balanced, and cite the propaganda from both non-Muslim and Muslim groups. That'll be a pretty big barn to paint to earn a barnstar for writing up a good article. --Petercorless 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job dodging my objections entirely. Bravo! ("Meme-stream"? Where did you dig that one from?!...) FilipeS 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "meme-stream" has been around for a while: meme-stream.com, Memestreamblog. --Petercorless 05:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite this Garbage

This term is a product of a competing ideology that seeks to subjugate Islam. There is no analogue to the term in the Islamic lexicon. I am not arguing that the term does not exist. But the etymology of the term MUST be discussed at length because it is rooted in ideology and is not objective. We know that leaders such as G.W. Bush have used the term. But this just proves that it does exist. We need a detailed explanation why it exists. And that explanation is not simply because there are these "Mooslims in the Middle East that don't like the way we live...." hence the term Islamofacists. I think that it goes a little deeper than that....

70.55.238.80 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to create an account, log in, and improve the article. --Petercorless 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the "garbage" has been re-written rather well, and I would like to duly recognize and thank others for a few recent contributions, especially some of the salient comparisons to historic fascism and modern militant Islamism. Good work! --Petercorless 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be a good idea, seeing that we are using neologisms in our exploration of other neologisms (Islamofacism and Islamism anyone?). That said, the article is improving.

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 18:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Is holocaust denial amongst the muslims considered as a part of so called "islamofascism"? Tuohirulla puhu 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly valid to quote sources that assert connections between Holocaust denial and Islamofascism. For example: Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal noted that "The three AEL cartoons posted so far have been very instructive in that they have all mocked the Nazi persecution of the Jews and the Holocaust, as if Mr Jahjah wants to emphasize that islamofascism is indeed the ideology he adheres to." -- Hamshahri newspaper plans cartoon response (Wikinews) --Petercorless 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added more about the historical comparisons of Fascism and Islam from the 1930s, and added the common attribute of Antisemitism. --Petercorless 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Neologism?

It's a contradiction to begin the article by saying that "Islamofascism" is a neologism. Wikipedia has a policy against article titles that are neologisms. Does it make any sense any sense for an article to begin by denouncing its own existance? But as a Google search will confirm, Islamofascism is in fact a common term and even appears in some dictionaries -- it's clearly not a neologism.

Do we really know that Hitchens' "fascism with an Islamic face" is a play on Susan Sontag's phrase "fascism with a human face"? Whether it is or isn't, the original phrase is "socialism with a human face," a slogan of Prague spring (1968). Kauffner 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the quote from Carl Gustav Jung authentical?

In the article it says: "in 1939, when psychologist Carl Jung observed of Adolf Hitler, "he is like Mohammed. The emotion in Germany is Islamic, warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god."[5] Is this proven to be authenic? Can I find anywhere the German original of this quote which allegedly is from Jung? Thank you. 81.173.230.143 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)--Robert

Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article

here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)