Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 13 2005 and May 6 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Islamofascism/Archive02. Thank you. Lee Hunter 15:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Needs to be done:

  1. The list of claimants to have coined this term needs to be rationalised. My user page User:Chalst/islamofascism may be useful to others;
  2. Weaselly terms like However, the goal of an integration of Arab (particularly Saudi) oil riches and theocracy, could be interpreted as a form of fascism. need to be rewritten.

I've not really got a high enough interest level to do this task well. --- Charles Stewart 18:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have time to criticize; but not to contribute. Well isn't that "convenient"? Porphyria 20:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've made plenty of contributions to this material and related material. Check my edits. And criticism is contribution, when it is constructive. --- Charles Stewart 21:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting excuse. I however would never accuse you of "weaselly" writing. Porphyria 21:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been guilty of it on occasion, and there are defences for using it: check out my summary at Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms#Minimise weasel terms. Could be interpreted is, according to the wikipedia term of art, a weasel phrase: does anybody so interpret this? Is the fact of such interpretations encyclopedic? It's not false, nor is it POV, but it is vague and fassl short of best editing practice. I was highlighting one example of a few such sentences in the article to bring attention to the problem. --- Charles Stewart 22:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

removed characterization

I removed the following unsourced characterization of "Islamofascism". My comments are interpolated, in italics:

Islamofascism is used by whom? to describe a an ideology with the following characteristics.

  • Promotes the establisment of a global puritan (Wahhabi) islamic nation state under the totalitarian control of Islamic religious authorities. Who does this? Some Islamic political movements promote the reestablishment of the Caliphate, others want an Iranian or Taliban-style theocracy. Which are we talking about here? Or is this just a made-up bogeyman, as the term "totalitarian" seems to indicate?
    • Islamofascists promote the creation of totalitarian theocratic Islamic states. It's intrinsic to the definition of Islamofascist. Some may want a caliphate, while other settle for taliban-type total government. Hence the appelation totalitarian.
  • Posit's the existance of an eternal violent conflict between muslims and infidels, that will end with the eventual victory of muslims over the infidels. An eternal conflict that will end. . . hmm, yes, that makes sense. Links to Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam might have been more informative.
    • This is still a article in progress. There would be no need to fight the infidel's but that this eternal conflict exists.
  • Accepts and promotes terrorism and violence to further its goals. Some Islamic political movements do. Some don't. Not very helpful.
    • Islamofascist movements support violence. Non Islamofascist movements may or may not support violence.
  • Strongly and violently anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, anti-American, and anti-western. All of these, all at once, then? Always?
    • Yes always, since Jews, Israel, the US, and the western world are all perceived as implacable enemies of Islam. Hence they must be subjugated or destroyed. This is a key islamofascist holding. Most advocates of islamofascism havent gotten to point of making feckless intelectually dishonest statements such as "I'm a stauch anti-zionist and not at all anti-semitic! I support palestinian armed struggle but oppose terrorism."
  • Denies normative western political concepts such as, the intrinsic value of human life, human rights and democracy. And motherhood and apple pie, too. Pure bogeyman.
    • Pure truth, sad but true. an Islamofascist state like Saudi Arabia or Taliban era Afghanistan does not embrace normative western political concepts. There is no democracy, and no human rights.
  • Advocates a philosophy of trotskyist entryism to convert/subvert non-Islamic societies from within. Proselytizing is such an insidious evil, isn't it.
    • When you are attempting to destroy the host society in bad faith, it could be considered a problem.
  • Advocates genocide of Jews or just the destruction or overthrow of the State of Israel—not quite the same thing—and even that isn't exactly a mainstream position.
    • You can't destroy or overthrow of the State of Israel without killing all or the vast majority of jews therein. Don't pretend otherwise.

There are two general problems with this text:

  1. Not a single source is cited.
  2. No significant movement that has all of these characteristics is named. I cannot think of one. Perhaps whoever added this text had some organization in mind.

Charles P. (Mirv) 04:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact I did. In no particular order.

  • Hamas and friends
  • Al Qaeda and friends
  • Taliban and friends
  • Saudi Government and friends
  • Advocates of Sharia Law

Inshallah, you will never have to live in a totalitarian state or face islamist terrorism, because they both really suck. Klonimus 05:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still no source, I see. Do you have one, or is this just an idiosyncratic definition? —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is a synthesis of many different articles in Commentary Magazine, American Jewish Congress Monthly, Blog postings, articles/books/lectures by Victor Davis Hanson, a large personal library of books on post 9/11 etc. Basicly I'm presenting the consensus Neo-con view of what Islamofascism is.If you can come up with a better definition besides, "Pejorative Epithet applied to violent muslims who attack america and israel" lets see what it is. Klonimus 14:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that Klonimus' list could be useful, in that in focusses on specific wishes that exist in the world of extermist Islamism. However I do not think that Islamofascism should be regarded as a term that admits definition, rather it is a polemical term whose various deployments have led its meaning to be a family resemblance concept. It is absurd to suggest that all advocates of Sharia law have all the characteristics that Klonimus listed, and some of the better fits for the term, such as the supporters of the Iranian theocracy, are very far from being Wahhabist. It should be presented as a list of the kind of characteristics that motivates use of the term, but vary in terms of centrality to the concept.

One other thing, that is stressed in the article: there is such a thing as moderate Islamism. --- Charles Stewart 08:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it is a polemical term whose various deployments have led its meaning to be a family resemblance concept—Bingo. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Mirv. you've got the
Ok, here;s a big dicdef for you. Islamofascism (n) A term used to describe islamist movments that advocate violent jihad against percived enemies and advocate the creation of a unitary nondemocratic islamic state governed by religious authorities enforcing sharia law.

The key points being.

  • Advocacy of the creation of a totalitarian islamic state governed by sharia law.
  • Violent Jihad against perceived enemies internal and external.
    • Jews.
    • Western Countries and Israel
    • Apostates (I.e muslims who do not agree with the Islamofascists)

Elements of Fascism in Islamofascism.

  • Violent expansionist nationalism: The emphasis on the creation of a unitary muslim state makes the movment fasicist. Note that since Islamofascists beleive there exist two nation-states, a nation of islam, and a nation of infidels. The muslim state is not geographicly limited.
  • Chauvinism in the attempt to right various wrongs and insults against the muslim nation, I.e creation of israel, expulsion of Moors from spain, presence of Nonmuslims in Saudi Arabia etc.
  • Totalitarian emphasis the role of ideology in every aspect of life, i.e sharia law.
  • Is not anti-capitalist.
  • Racial and religious intolerance

Klonimus 01:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII

"Grand Mufti of Jerusalem", Amin al-Husayni meets with Adolf Hitler (1941)

1930s-1940s relations of islamist movements with fascists during WWII will have to be a subtopic in this article.

  • Image:Himmler to Mufti telegram 1943.png November 2, 1943 Himmler's telegram to Mufti: "In the recognition of this enemy (the world Jewry) and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world." Was Heinrich Himmler right about everything he ever said? Or only when it serves our agenda?

Klonimus 20:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure there's any relevance; what fascistic underpinnings did the Grand Mufti's engagement with Hitler have? A simple analysis would be "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"; both of us want to get the Jews and the Brits out of the Middle East. Opportunism, certainly. Can you point to some discussion of the Mufti's ideological position to support this being other than a convergence of an Islamic interest and a Nazi one? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a stub. May I suggest reading the article on Amin al-Husayni , it's quite deatailed, he is very influential, but rather obscure since his Fascism is very obvious. He's a distant relative of Yassir Arafat IIRC.
I'm gonna fill out that section with more information about the mufti, and how he injected alot of respect/sympathy for nazi'ism into "mainstream" Islamism. Quite a bit of the Pan Arabism of the 1950s-1960s was inspired by Nazi'ism. With the goal of creating a United greater Arabia free from Jews. As well; Islam + Fascism =Islamofascism. Though I might add that not everyone is comfortable with that equation. BTW: I appreciate your putting up Judeofascism on VfD.

Klonimus 07:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I read the article on al-Husayni, and I still don't see anything to indicate that his ideology had anything to do with fascism (as opposed to a desire to eliminate Jewry). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite a bit of the Pan Arabism of the 1950s-1960s was inspired by Nazism.—Perhaps so (the idea predates the Nazis, though as a form of ethnic nationalism, it has some intellectual antecedents in common with Nazism—and Zionism for that matter. . .) However, Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism (look them up) were both primarily secular ideologies, by no means exclusively Islamic (Michel Aflaq, one of the godfathers of Ba'athism, was a Christian). And what evidence do you have of the Mufti's influence on Islamism? Yasser Arafat, you will recall, was not an Islamist. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the section. Before it goes back in, some of these questions ought to be answered, and referenced properly:

  • What intellectual influences, if any, did Nazism have on the Mufti?
  • Of these influences (if any exist), which did he pass on to Islamists, and how?

Charles P. (Mirv) 20:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • Mirv, I grow bored with constant snarky attempts to weaken this article. (Go read the article on the Mufti, and reread that telegram. You're smart, try to connect the dots.) I really think am the only person trying to engage in organic growth. Pretty much everyone else (With a few notable exceptions) is deleting text or weakening the language. I am especially impressed that so many people who voted to delete/destroy this article (such as yourself, Yuber, Islamist, Mel, El C etc) are involved in weakening it. Eventually the obscurantists will suceed in grinding this article down to a stub, and then it will be merged or deleted. And I dont think that one person working alone, against pervasive bad faith, on hostile soil can change that. Klonimus 22:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I grow bored of your constant evasion of straightforward questions and your steadfast refusal to cite your sources. I also grow weary of your proclamations that you wish "organic growth" for this article accompanied by the very same deletion of which you complain. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • On a slightly more relevant note, it is not up to me, or you, or any editor here, to "connect the dots"; that would be an original thesis, and inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's worse is this is just a red herring. "Islamofascists" is what a few rightwingnuts call Al Qaeda. What Klonimus is trying to push here is material about some Muslims who may or may not have been fascists, or been connected with fascists, in WWII. The only connection between the two is a/ the word "fascist" and b/ they were all Muslims. Unless Klonimus is trying to work on a thesis that all Muslims are fascists, he has nothing here to include.Grace Note 13:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's not relevant. During WWII fascists were overwhelmingly Christian. At one point, before the war, some were even Jewish. Showing a picture of a handful of Muslims in Nazi uniform without a great deal of explanation is highly misleading. Just slapping these things on a page outside of any meaningful background and context is hardly illuminating. --Lee Hunter 13:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Outline

  1. Origion of the term Islamofascism
    • Post 9/11 popularity
  1. Description of what people mean or implay when they use the term
    • Use as a pejoratvie epithet.
      • Use by neoconservatives and warbloggers
    • Similarities and difference between Islamism and Fascism.
    • Islamism as a totalitarian ideology
    • Motivating ideology for islamist terrorism.
  1. Anti-democratic tendancy's in Islamist influence governments.
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Taliban Afghanistan
    • Northern Nigeria
    • Proposed World Caliphate
  1. Islamofascism and Racism
    • Anti-semitism
    • Darfur Genocide
    • Slavery in Sudan/Saudi Arabia
    • Meetings of Grand Mufti with Nazi's

The proposal above is original research

By virtue of using an epithet to chart a history of the fascistic tendency in 20th Century Islam. Was this ever attempted —in such a way— before? El_C 08:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Islam + Fascist Tendancies = Islamofascism. Klonimus 09:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Negative, you've yet to demonstrate that Islamofascism is a scholarly concept/name for this topic. You can't give an epithet a meaning it dosen't yet have, even if said epithet is worded very closely to resemble such a topic. If and/or when (you prove) it does, then you can go on to depict such an account using that title. Until then, it's original research. El_C 10:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with El C here; you can, of course, create any number of words using the formula: X + Fascist tendencies = Xofascism. How about 'Graecofascism'? 'Sinofascism'? 'Hindofascism'? The trouble is, having created the term, it's also easy to create a concept to go with it, and then to create a history. You don't even need to go outside the facts; there'll always be, in any nationality, race, or religion that's been around for a while, examples of people or groups acting badly. The term 'fascism' is being used in such a Usenet/school-debating-society way that that's all you need. Wikipedia isn't here to invent new concepts, nor to parrot whatever nonsense the U.S. neo-cons have come up with as they flail around trying to find reasons to attack other countries. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Mel, once any XYZfascism become notable, it deserves it's own wikipedia article. Given the fairly wide use of Islamofascism, to explicate a particular idea ( Violent totaltarian Islamism) it deserves an encyclopedia entry. Klonimus 16:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The subject is the WORD, not Islam

This is just like "Nigger". The "Nigger" article talks about the word. It is not a catalog of bad things that black people have done. Likewise, "Islamofascist" should discuss the term and should not be a catalog of bad things that Muslims have done.

If you want to write about Islamic extremism, there are other subjects for that. Mirror Vax 11:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it's about the concept. This isn't a philological work, but an encyclopædia. If it were just about the word, ir would belong in Wiktionary. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is no concept "Islamofascism". The term is not used in a serious academic context, as far as I know. There is a lot that can be said about a term besides its definition. Again, see "Nigger" for an example. Mirror Vax 12:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there's no genuine concept (read what I said above). This article, however, is not about the word. perhaps you mean that it should be about the word. My view, however, is that the article shouldn't be here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, Islamofascism is a real concept. It's a form of political islam with totalitarian goals and methods. Klonimus 13:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's a slur. Much can be said about Islamic extremism, but this is not the place. Mirror Vax 14:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you respond the the various arguments that I've offered, here and on the VfD? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Nigger" is a real concept to Ku Klux Klan members too. --Islamist 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it's a term used by them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, when a term is used it has a concept associated with it. Words have no meaning apart from the concepts they represent. --Islamist 15:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Many words have uses despite expressing no concept (e.g., prepositions, articles, placeholders), just as language can be used to perform many tasks other than making statements (e.g., illocutions, perlocutions). Insults often fall into one or other of these categories. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You can't have your shawarma both ways. Either Islamofascism is a merely a pejorative word, in which case merge it, or it is a fairly notable concept with 62.5 Kgoogles that deserves a worthy encyclopedia article. Klonimus 16:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Firebug, your edit summary which reads I agree that Wahhabism sucks, but we can't just present these allegations as fact in a NPOV encyclopedia.) is stylistically not one that I find acceptable for an edit summary, no matter how reactionary and oppressive I find Wahhabism to be. El_C 12:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put that in there because I know if I just said the statements were NPOV, some people would accuse me of denying the truth of Wahhabism or some such thing. My point is that, even though I personally think some of these descriptions have a great deal of accuracy to them, I feel that all sides of the issue need to be presented in a neutral manner without inflammatory language for NPOV to be satisfied. If we can describe what the Wahhabis believe in their own words, we don't need terms like "wild intolerance for any dissent", which I feel are unencyclopedic. Instead, quote specific statements by prominent Wahhabi extremists like Mullah Mohammed Omar. Firebug 17:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As should be obvious, I found the descriptions highly ignorant, greatly oversimplified, biased and propagandist, and sophomoric. I do not think the author is qualified to write on an issue with such an (utterly) dismal knowledge of its key components. El_C 22:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow, the description of Wahhbism and Salafism was just out there. Even Fox News would know better. I'm shocked. El_C 12:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Orientalism is an important related term

If you understand the concept of Orientalism, you understand the prejudice and bigotry behind those who promote the term "Islamofascism". --Islamist 13:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for the prejudice and bigotry behind those who promote the epithet Judeofascism (as a term) . . . El_C 14:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, that's why I call for equal treatment for the two terms. Either both deleted, both directed to List of political epithets, or both with equivalently written articles. What we see on Wikipedia is imbalanced treatment reflecting the prevalent anti-Islamic biases of many users. --Islamist 15:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that Islamofascism should be redirected to List of political epithets, and that Judeofascism should be deleted because it simply isn't in widespread enough use. But if both of them remain, I'm thinking about creating an article on Christofascism, which has 303 Google hits, and is often heard in the left-leaning blogosphere. Why not have an article for all three of the major Abrahamic religions with "-fascism" attached as a suffix? Or would that be WP:POINT? Firebug 17:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget ChristoNazi. Mirror Vax 17:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Okies, it looks like there is going to be quite a bit of heavy lifting before we come up a good NPOV article. The current edit/revert wars are not helping. I am especially disturbed by by certain users who are removing information from the article thus making it less useful. Especially notable is the fighting over the article's external links section, VfD'ing an article that was inprogress and being worked upon, and a general atmosphere of rancor created by bad faith actions.

Perhaps we can all draw upon the Islamic tradition of Ijma (Concensus of the Learned) to come up with an article that is agreeable to all. I think it's clear that people working on this article come from a wide range of political background. However to make a good article, you have to suspend your political beliefs and work on the subject of the article in good faith. If you can't do that, then you ought to recuse yourself.

Negative improvments are not helpful. If you have nothing positive to say, then restrict yourself to the talk page. Deleting other people's contributions while not contributing anything yourself does not further the objective of getting a finished article.

Basicly as I see it several issues need to be hammered out. I hope this list grows out organically. I look forwards to peoples comments.

  • Does islamofascism exist. If so, what is it? If it does not exist, why do people talk about it? The invention of a word is the invention of an idea, even if the underlying phenominon does not exist, the word does, and so does the idea.
  • Even if islamofascism does not exist: What is ment by people who say the word Islamofascism? I'd like to think I came up with a collection of concepts that are implied when people talk about islamofascism.
  • Are there any valid similarites between fascism and and alleged islamofascism.
  • Did Islamic Fascism excist pre 9/11?
  • Characteristics of governments governed under an Islamofascist system.
  • This article is big enough to be broken down into sections. What should that layout be?

Klonimus 20:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus, you are the most biased person here. You want to turn a slur into a forum for your "original research". That is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. "Islamofascism" is not a scholarly topic; it is an insult. To the extent it has legitimate meaning, it is redundant with other topics (such as Islam as a political movement, Islamism, Militant Islam, and Islamic terrorism). Mirror Vax 21:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus, I think that you've a little confused as to what editing is about. It's collaborative, and that means, among other things, that if people think that what you've written is wrong, they'll take it out. There are limits to that, of course, and there have to be good, NPoV reasons — but you can't complain and demand that they not do it in principle. Frankly, I agree with Mirror Vaux that you seem clearly to be engaged in original research here. (I'm not sure what obscurantism has to with any of this, by the way.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let us imagine, as a thought experiment, that someone posted these questions to the talk page of nigger. What do you think the reaction would be?
  • Do niggers exist? If so, what are they? If they do not exist, why do people talk about them? The invention of a word is the invention of an idea, even if the underlying phenomenon does not exist, the word does, and so does the idea.
  • Even if niggers do not exist: What is meant by people who say the word "nigger"? One could come up with a collection of concepts that are implied when people talk about "niggers".
  • Did "niggers" exist pre some date or other [let us say, the beginnings of the New World slave trade]?
  • Characteristics of niggers; nigger culture.
This example is extreme and will no doubt be offensive. It should be clear that I do not seriously mean or believe any of it; my purpose in writing it should also be clear. (If it's not: this is just a demonstrative restatement of Mirror Vax's point.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes it sounds very extremist. You made a good point about the offensive nature of this epithet. That doesn't stop people from trying to use the term in legitimate contexs though. See [1] --Islamist 02:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I really think this article is redundant, there are already articles on islamic terrorism, militant Islam, and political islam (Islamism). Islamofascism is just a slur that is used mostly by Neo-Conservative bloggers, that is why it gets so many google hits. Are we going to start writing articles on what a Koranimal is, or what the Religion of Pieces is if both terms become much more popular on the internet and in blogs? Or how about the term Jewish Supremacist, that is a fairly popular one among people such as David Duke, should we write an article about it and ask what the Jewish Supremacism culture is, what people mean when they say Jewish Supremacist, do Jewish Supremacists exist? That is why Islamofascist and Islamofascism are slurs, they are not fit for an encyclopedia.Yuber 00:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The 'nigger' analogy fails on a number of counts, the most important being that the word 'nigger' is nothing more than an insulting way to refer to people of a different race; its extension is the same as that of 'black person'. 'Islamofascist', on the other hand, may be used to insult people, but it isn't co-extensive with 'Muslim', nor with 'fascist', and the claim is that it representes a distinct political concept. I don't think that it does, and I've argued against keeping this article on the VfD — but not for the spurious reason that it's no different from 'nigger'. Klonimus' questions make sense for the most part, it's just that they constitute orriginal research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, Mel, you're very right (as so often, he says approvingly) and, sorry to say it, very wrong too. The point where this article really falls down is this: "Does islamofascism exist." No, it doesn't. "If so, what is it? If it does not exist, why do people talk about it?" They are rightwingnut mudslingers. If we wrote one sentence into, say, Christopher Hitchens explaining that, we've done this "concept" justice. "Fascist" in this context is simply meaningless. It doesn't mean that anyone is a fascist sensu Mussolini. It means they are nasty. Hitchens et al could have written "Islamonasties" or, frankly, "Islamoniggers". It is "coextensive" with a largely illusory bogeyman. Hey, that's the same as "nigger" then, no? Grace Note 13:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PoV additions

I broadly agree with Yuber on this; the mini-definitions of Isalmic concepts are unhelpful, if not PoV. The point of the links is that they lead to full articles; if they were neutral, helpful definitions, then there's be no harm, but as it is I think that you should leave the links unadorned.

Also, as the article on Bat Ye'or makes clear, to use the term 'scholarly' without qualification is misleading. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not everyone knows what each islamic concept means, so a mini dicdef is ok. Removing NPOV information is not ok. I really don't see where any of the definitions were not NPOV. Maybe you and Yuber could explicate, and give examples of defintions that you and Yuber find to be NPOV? Klonimus 14:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is:
  • Dhimmi's are non muslims subject to special taxes (Jizyah + Land Tax) and restrictions on freedom. Did you know that under sharia the Jizyah must be greater, than the obligatory Zakat incumbent on muslims?
  • Jihad is Inner struggle or war against infidels. See What is Jihad? by Daniel Pipes.
  • Whabbism and salafis are both fundamentalist muslim sects accuesed of condoning or inspiring violence.
True wikispirit is to change and improve to make things NPOV, but deletion (destroying information) is always the easy way out. Klonimus 14:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where your definition of 'true wikispirit' comes from, but if an editor sees something that is wrong, PoV, or inappropriate, deleting it is perfectly acceptable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is no "short dicdef" for words as loaded and controversial as Jihad, Dhimmi, Wahhabism, and Salafism. There are already informative articles on each of these complicated words. This isn't about not knowing what each concept means, that is an inane statement on an Online Encyclopedia. There are links to the article where a person can learn what each concept means. Also, you're saying your source is Daniel Pipes, not exactly the most unbiased source on Islam. Please check your sources before using them for "short dicdefs". Yuber
As for the On Jihad article, I've cited that piece a few times as evidence for the proposition that Daniel Pipes is dishonest: the existence of the Inward Jihad (as opposed to the military Outward Jihad), which Pipes denies has any basis in Islam, is very well grounded in the Sunnah. I do not find it credible that a man of Pipes' wide reading is ignorant of this --- Charles Stewart 12:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would imagine that many Kuffar have been blown away by the concept of Outward Jihad Klonimus 13:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Political concept?

The 11th September attacks don't count as a political concept, so I've removed that link. It's hard to see what they have to do with so-called Islamofascism either.

As the article is developed, it's becoming more and more distasteful. We're told, for example, that some Islamic leaders allied with fascists in the second World War, but no mention is made of the fact that the fascists in question were Christians, and the purely pragmatic, non-ideological nature of the contacts is not properly explained. There's in fact no indication that any of the Muslims involved held any sort of fascist belief.
I've removed the text of a telegram. First, it's irrelevant to the article (showing merely that Nazi Germany tried to court Arab leaders, as they tried to court countless leaders); secondly, it appeared three times (once in the article, once in the image, and once in the caption of the image. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus, it's not enough just to say in an edit summary that the tegram is relevant — you need to explain your view. Why do you think that we should cite so prominently the claims of a Nazi, trying to gain allies, and thus with a vested interest in showing that Nazism is in sympathy with Islam (or with whatever views his correspondent held)? If the telegram were from al-Huseyni to Himmler, that would be genuinely significant. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus, please don't just return the text to your version with only an edit summary. It's good manners, and Wikiquette, to discuss such matters here on the Talk page. Please explain properly before you change the article again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok Mel, here goes.

1. 9/11 is Important because the term islamofascism was invented/popularized to help explain the psychology behind the attacks.

2. Haj Huseini was enormously influential in Palestinian Politics. He never missed a single chance to inject more hate into the conflict and to constantly encourge the notion that the only final solution to the conflict was to kill all the jews by any means necessary. He severely poisoned any chance for reconcilliation with early leadership of the state, because of his flagrant and open nazism. Haj Hueseini was also a powerful Islamist philosopher, and influential in that movement.

3. When Himmler says there is a natural allience between muslims and nazi's on a shared basis of jew hatred, that is important to an article on Islamic Fascism.

Klonimus 14:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. I didn't say that the 11th September atacks weren't important (though your claim seems to be that they're part of a psycho-political explanation of the genesis of the concept), but that they're not a political concept, under which heading you'd placed the link.
  2. Again, I said nothing about the importance of al-Husayni.
  3. This is the bit that I did talk about, and you haven't responded to my comments and questions. What Himmler says would be important to an article on German Nazism; important to an article on so-called Islamofascism would be what Muslims say (and see above for my other arguments). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Mel, please don't violate the 3RR. Everything I do is in good faith, Haj Huseini is a very important guy. He saw and was inspired by a final solution to his jewish problems. Klonimus 14:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not only have I not violated it, I'm in no danger of doing so. Indeed, as Grace Note reverted your last edits, you're more likely to risk violating it than I am. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I await with some glee our article on "Islamo yo' mother she fat ism". We need only have a Chris Hitchens article and we're away! Grace Note 13:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yuber/Porphyria revert war opinion

Nazis were not Christian. Pagan is a fairer description but it's not especially relevant here. I prefer "subjugated or destroyed". I'd like to see a source for "Political commentators ..." too. "comparing their religion" is a massive misstatement of the positions of both sides, while "comparison of Islamic extremism" is fair. "leaders throughout the Arab world" is not accurate since there were some on both sides, but perhaps "a number of ..."? Finally, MEMRI is not "Israeli" (unless you have a shred of evidence) and in any case nobody has ever caught them doing a bad translation, they are generally a good source. ObsidianOrder 23:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The warm friendship of the Grand Mufti and Himmler

I'm confused. It's been pretty well established that they were good friends and probably egged each other on in their mutal desire to kill jews. Not many people got a personal tour of Auschwitz from Himmler, and left alive. So IMHO the opinions of Himmler on the natural friendship between Nazi's and Islamists is very relavent to this article.

Haj Husaini is responsible for the introduction of nazi sympathy into Islamist and Palestinian movements. He is an important figure in the history of Islamofascism.

Klonimus 03:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid these personal speculations, Klonimus. Mel Etitis is an excellent editor, and it is you who is doing most of the POV pushing around here. --- Charles Stewart 10:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. To generalise from the beliefs of one person to claims about Islamists in general is not acceptable.
  2. To use the attempts of a Nazi to make common cause with a non-Nazi group as a way of tarring that group with the Nazi brush is not acceptable.
  3. See Wikipedia:Headings. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus, I really didn't think you could sink any lower in your POV-warrior stance after your absurdly non-NPOV entry on Wahhabism. It is very unfortunate, and shameful, for you to title a subsection as Why does the warm friendship of the Grand Mufti and Himmler make Mel Ettis so uncomfortable. Mel has done more than the vast majority of editors to combat against Nazi propaganda in the eneyclopedia; the irony is uncomfortably thick here. El_C 00:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mention of the Grand Mufti annoys critics of the term Islamofascism and makes them uncomfortable, since it shows the deep relationship between islamists and fascists. I'm sorry that it annoys you and makes you uncomfortable. But it is very important to an article on Islamofascism Klonimus 12:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have some nerve. El_C 13:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor".
  2. I am not made uncomfortable by anything except the poor logic of your arguments here. I've not denied al-Husayi's friendship with Himmler, nor denied that he was probably ideologically committed to some part of fascism, if not to fascism in toto. My point is that you're drawing unjustified conclusions from that fact, and presenting it in such a way as to imply much more than is justified. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nor am I, obviously. Deaf ears though, Mel, this editor isn't interested in collaborative intellectual discourse. We'll see where his obstructions and personal attacks will take him. El_C 02:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I commented on this above before I got this far down the page. At the moment I'm undecided on the term "Islamofascism" -- I don't like it primarily because the word Fascism is too closely tied to Naziism to be able to be used in a descriptive rather than a pejorative sense. (I have joked on occasion that Hitler really messed things up for the Fascists.) But that's just the name; the phenomenon exists. That being the case, I haven't seen demonstrated that the Mufti's association with Hitler was anything other than opportunistic -- his interests in the Middle East coincided with Hitler's, and they had in common their opinion of Jews. But neither of those have anything to do with fascism -- again pointing out a flaw in the nomenclature. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Judgemental language.



" However some secular Muslims such as Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali feel that Islamism represents a a threat to the ideals of western democracies in the 21st century equal to that of fascism in the 20th century."


" Muslim apostates such as Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali feel that Islam represents a a threat to the ideals of western democracies in the 21st century."

The new language (Yuber) is less informative, since it removes the reference to fascism, and somewhat judgemental and snarky. I'm inclined to think that calling Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as secular muslims is somewhat less judgemental than calling them apostates. But, I could be wrong.

Klonimus 03:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An apostate means "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause." It is a perfectly neutral term. Ibn Warraq refers to himself as an apostate. Also, Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali dislike "Islam" as a whole, not "Islamism". Until you can find me the part where either one of them claims that Islam is a threat equal to that of fascism, that part will remain out of the article.Yuber 03:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, it is not a neutral term and you know that. It is naturaly pejorative from the perspective their original religion. And you also know that too. Both Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali consider Islamism to have strong totalitarian tendancies, just like fascism. Both of them consider it to a be a very real threat to western democracy, just like fascism. And I know you know that too, because otherwise you wouldn't have changed the text. Klonimus 03:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I still don't see how "apostate" is a POV term, but I'll change it to "ex-muslims" if you want to be so stubborn. Your connections between fascism and islam are weak at best, and they still don't show how Ibn Warraq and Ali have said specifically in the past that "Islamism represents a a threat to the ideals of western democracies in the 21st century equal to that of fascism in the 20th century." Also, please don't try to make assumptions on why or why not I change the text, wiki-psychology is very pointless especially when you don't know anything about me. Yuber 04:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, your a smart guy, I try to treat you like a smart guy that you are. "...islamism represents a a threat to the ideals of western democracies in the 21st century equal to that of fascism in the 20th century." Is whats called stylish writing, it's part of a long sentance. It makes the whole paragraph more readable.

If you read Ayaan's writings, and Ibn Warraq's books, you know that they both feel that Islamism is a threat to western democracies and their ideals. Thats common knowledge to anyone who has read those books. This is an encyclopedia, not a Ph.D thesis. Every line does not have to footnoted. An encyclopedia is a readable restatement of what is common knowledge to experts in each subject, rendered in an NPOV manner for the general reader. Klonimus 07:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Wikipedia:Cite sources). If a specific claim is disputed, then surely a page number or, better, a quotation shouldn't be so hard to provide? This isn't an encyclopædia, it's a Discussion page, and you're dealing with other editors, not with readers. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Academics and commentators on Islamofascism

I'm a bit perplexed by this section. Other than the Sobran quote I contributed, it's just a list of names with no context at all. In other words, no links (other than to wp articles which don't discuss "islamofascism") and no indication of what, if anything, they have to say about the subject. I've never seen something like this in WP. I propose deleting the whole section unless someone can provide more context to justify its existence. --Lee Hunter 23:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it a little closer, the same goes for the think tank section and most of the links. For example, the Pipes article doesn't use the word "islamofascism" or even "fascism" so why is it there? Simply because he criticises Islamists? I don't get it. --Lee Hunter 23:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, and Pipes himself, bigot though he is, apparently does not use the word "Islamofascism". [3]Charles P. (Mirv) 23:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lee, I don't think there can be any complaint if you simply delete the lot. If anyone wants to reinstate them, then they can surely give links and source their inclusion. A list of people who have used, or we think might have used the term "Islamofascism" is preposterous. It's like "reverse poisoning the well". We sling the shit and then say, here are other guys who have slung shit so we're okay to do it. Imagine taking this approach to all epithets. I can just see the "list of people who have called other people motherfuckers". Grace Note 02:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I've cut it down at least as far as the list of people who have gone on record discussing "islamofascism" or "islamic fascism". I've also removed links to anything that didn't address the topic. --Lee Hunter 03:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aryan Nation material

What a severe misrepresentation of something that wasn't all that meaningful to begin with. From the top:

CNN reported on 23 April 2005 of fascist groups such as Aryan Nation seeking ties with Islamofascists such as Osama bin Laden for assistance in areas such as finance and organization.

. . .based on a common dislike of Jews and of the U.S. government. Much like the Mufti's alliance with the Nazis: enemy of my enemy, and so on. No further ideological connections were demonstrated. One might as well speak of IslamoAlbanianNationalism, based on al-Qaeda's loose financial and organizational ties with the KLA.

Posted under the rather misleading section title "Growing ties between Aryan Nation and Islamofascists" was the following:

In an interview with CNN, August Kreis the leader of Aryan Nation praised his fellow fascists in al Qaeda saying "You say they're terrorists, I say they're freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples' heart, in the Aryan race, that they have for their father, who they call Allah. I don't believe that they were the ones that attacked us," Kreis said. "And even if they did, even if you say they did, I don't care!"
Kreis explained the common cause he has al Qaeda is that they have common enemies, namely Jews and the government of the United States. He gave a public message to al Qaeda that "The message is, the cells are out here and they are already in place, they might not be cells of Islamic people, but they are here and they are ready to fight."

Left out was the report that the FBI found no evidence that al-Qaeda wanted anything to do with Aryan Nations. Left out, but conspicuous by its absence, is the lack of any connection beyond the perceived common enemies of the two groups—one which, it should be said, al-Qaeda's inner leadership has given no sign of endorsing.

During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had an alliance with Adolf Hitler.

This is discussed above; I won't rehash it here.

Following the war, many Nazis found asylum in Egypt and Syria.

And wasn't Martin Bormann repeatedly spotted in South America, and hey, didn't the U.S. government import some Nazis of its own? How very misleading.

Three years ago, I met a Swiss Islamic convert named Ahmed Huber, who began his life as a devotee of Adolf Hitler and moved on to praising former Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who led that nation's Islamic revolution and vigorously opposed U.S. policies.

A devotee of Adolf Hitler in his youth. Details are left out. Was he an unenthusiastic Hitler Youth, like the present Pope? Or was he a raving fanatical devotee? Does he still hold any Nazi beliefs? Have his Nazi beliefs, if he still holds them, had any influence on any Islamic organizations?

Huber wanted to forge a fresh alliance between Islamic radicals and neo-Nazis in Europe and the United States. And he cannot be simply dismissed as a crackpot: Huber served on the board of directors of a Swiss bank and holding company that President Bush accused of helping fund al Qaeda.

Perhaps he cannot be dismissed as a crackpot, but can he be dismissed as unsuccessful? The article reports that the FBI found no evidence of any such alliance in the United States. Did anyone in al-Qaeda listen to him? All these questions left unanswered.

Charles P. (Mirv) 05:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SS photo

Using a photo of people in Nazi uniforms at the head of a page about modern Muslims is not just misleading. It's POV pushing of the worst kind. It implies that modern "jihadists" are in some way connected with WWII fascists, which they are not. It implies that they self-identify as fascists, just as the WWII guys did, which they absolutely do not. "Fascist" is a playground insult, the kind of thing Chris Hitchens specialises in. It's a pity WP has dignified this nonsense with an article but truly sad that editors are working to spread the hatred. There is no such thing as "Islamofascism". Al Qaeda has no connection with fascist groups. They could not be less "fascist", so opposed to statism and state mechanisms are they.Grace Note 13:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You act as though relevant, objective facts were sufficient to determine such issues. :) BrandonYusufToropov 20:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I like to keep up the pretence that we're making an encyclopaedia! I know it's silly but it keeps me going. Grace Note 22:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Porphria's latest edit summary, and accompanying deletions ("Saudi Princes are the majority shareholder of these corporations, Iranian Oil wealth is also significantly corporate, state controlled, and therefore fascistic") is so far from being remotely accurate that I couldn't let it pass. All state control is by definition fascistic? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His new update referred to shares held in some unspecified "corporations". Which corporations exactly? Aramco is wholly government-owned. Private companies are private the same way they are in the west. Glad to see it's been reverted again. --Lee Hunter 14:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Are we ever going to see sources for the stuff about "oil wealth" being exactly like "corporate power"? Or any of the stuff that's being pushed into this article in an attempt to substantiate an insult that has no more substance than "yo mama she fat"? Grace Note 01:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An article of this kind should definitely have sources (and not only sources concerning "oil wealth"). I don't see a "source paragraph" at all!! Otherwise, this article will obviously go nowhere. --Svest 02:04, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


I removed this bit about Iran and Saudi Arabia: "the ideology of totalitarian theocracy allegedly espoused by these govenments" There's no need to give it such a convoluted spin. Everyone agrees (I believe) that both countries are theocracies. However, since fascism has never been particularly associated with religion and, if anything, fascists are known for being antagonistic to various religions, calling those countries "theocracies" hardly proves your point. I left in "totalitarian" because it is relevant to the definition of fascism. Of course, sooner or later we'll have to address that other "totalitarian theocracy" - the Vatican. :) --Lee Hunter 01:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More about sources

"Supporters of the term contend that the fusion of oil wealth within governments that are arguably totalitarian is consistent with the definition of fascism."

Who? Who says that? I'd like to call them a fool to their faces. What definition of fascism? Which states are you arguing are "totalitarian"? Whoever does say this clearly doesn't understand how Iranian politics works. I suggest they are pointed in the direction of an article about it. Or Saudi politics. Absolute monarchy, maybe. Totalitarian state, no way. "Totalitarian" does not mean "some repression" or "some rights lacking". Those who argue that these states are "totalitarian" are simply throwing another epithet at them. So their "contention" is that their epithet is justified because they throw another epithet at the states in quesion.

If you must push this nonsense, please cite sources and make it someone else's nonsense. That's if you can find any. Rightwing bloggers who need tying down by 3pm don't count. Grace Note 02:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iran (but not Saudi Arabia) is mentioned in the WP article on totalitarianism although as a disputed usage. Since "totalitarian" is another one of those words that is often interpreted quite loosely, it's not that unreasonable to say that they are "arguably totalitarian". --Lee Hunter 11:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are precisely not reputable sources. Don't you know that anyone can write anything ;-)? Yes, Lee, you can say they're "arguably totalitarian" if all you mean by it is that some joker is willing to argue that they're totalitarian. You could also say they are arguably from Mars, or arguably David Icke.Grace Note 23:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No argument from me about "arguably". It's just a limp way of reaching some kind of compromise with people who are adamant that an article contain certain 'facts' that must be true because they saw it on Fox News. What really bugs me more than "arguably" are the instances of "some people insist that ..." or "supporters of the term say that ... " which is secret WP code for "Me and my two drinking buddies think that ... " --Lee Hunter 00:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with that totally. I say that if it's not sourced to a specific "supporter of the term" it should be removed. If you cut this article down to everything that is a/ obviously true (such as that it's an epithet used by antiMuslims) and b/ anything that is directly sourced, I'd support that and help prevent its being reverted to anyone's original research. Grace Note 02:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still wonder about the list of supposed characteristics. Klonimus, who wrote it, has cited no specific sources, instead claiming that it is a synthesis of "many different articles in Commentary Magazine, American Jewish Congress Monthly, Blog postings, articles/books/lectures by Victor Davis Hanson, a large personal library of books on post 9/11 etc." However, without specific sources it's impossible to know whether each and every one of these was asserting that Wahhabism and Salafism are fascist. Perhaps this is why the list bears no resemblance to any definition of fascism. Perhaps it should be removed until the sources are specified. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's Klonimus' own idea of what "Islamofascism" might mean based on his own reading. But the sources must exist. He insists Islamofascism exists as a concept. It must be in the general discourse, even if not yet in the academic one. Surely Klonimus isn't relying on a few bloggers who use the term to cover any and all activist Muslims, ranging from Hamas (socialist if anything) to Wahhabists (closer in spirit to Calvin than Gentile)! Why, that would make this entire article a fraud... Grace Note 02:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eternal vs Inevitable.

Note that we are talking about what people who use the term Islamofascism mean, not what we think it does mean, should mean or should not mean.

"Propose the existence of an eternal violent conflict" means that the conflict exists right now, not that it is bound to happen in the future as Yusuf's edit implies. The Koran/Hadith propose that there is always a conflict between Muslims and infidels.

  • Sura 8.38: Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do. (Infidels have been warned, the muslims will fight them unless they convert)
  • Sura 9.5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (I.e attack the Infidels by any means at your disposal.)
  • Sura 9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews] , until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (All non muslims must pay an extra tax)

[USC Interlinear Koran]

Klonimus 20:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know what they say about the devil and scripture. I wasn't aware though that the Qur'an was a treatise on fascism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Shall we trot out all the verses on tolerance and consensus?Grace Note 23:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition of fascism

This paragraph just doesn't work for me. My notes are in square brackets "It should be noted that [the] above definitions [definitions? what definitions? they are nothing more than a bunch of random statements which are specific to a certain critical view of radical Islam. They don't "define" anything at all and certainly not fascism] are controversial [only controversial in the sense that one or two people on WP insist that they are somehow meaningful], and intended to explicate [?] what is commonly me[a]nt by those who use the terms "Islamofascist" and "Islamofascism". There is much controversy over if the above definition actually describes a type of fascism [arguments between a few wp editors doesn't constitute a controversy. Those bullets don't come within a million miles of any real world definition of fascism], per a generally accepted definition of fascism, or instead describes variants of political islam" --Lee Hunter 20:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Lee, try very hard to step outside the box. Somehow you seem to miss the point that Islamofascism is "new" idea, and not one derived mathematically from first principals of Islam and/or Fascism.
I have no problem with thinking outside the box as long as the article makes clear that that is what is happening. Instead we have an article on "Islamofascism" where, for some peculiar reason, you don't want to let people know that the information being presented is the result of 'thinking outside the box'. Instead we're presented with a list of "facts" about Islamists which supposedly explain where the word comes from even though those "facts" don't actually have anything more than the dreamiest link to fascism. That's "thinking outside the box" all right. I don't actually mind that this "out of the box" stuff is there, just so long as it is clear that it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with accepted mainstream knowledge. Otherwise a naive reader will be totally mislead. Why do you have such a problem with that? --Lee Hunter 23:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You cant make a 1:1 connection. It's silly to argue that you can, and I am not doing that. The question is what do people mean when they say islamofascism? If you look at instances where islamofascism has been used, That list contains the points which the speaker is trying to make. I really dont see why this is so controversial. Islamofascism is a term specific to a certain critical view of radical Islam. If you are going to talk about that term and the people who use it, you need to descibe the term as it is used. Regardless of if this usage offends you.

Certain editors insist on creating great controversy and inserting large amounts of qualifiing language into this article untill it becomes a world salad dressed with political correctness. I'd like to try and isolate all the controversy into a section on controversy, and keep the simple documentary parts free of qualifing language that makes the article less readable and destroy's any semblence of encyclopedic style.

Personally at this point I would be happy if the article merely said that

  • Islamofascism in a new word
  • It's used in a certain context.
  • This is what its useage means/implies as it is used
  • Some muslims find this term to be offensive becase it conflates Islam and fascism.
  • Users of the term claim that this term is informative because because some types of Islamism and Islamic regimes express some elements of fascism. Klonimus 21:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Thinking outside the box" is entirely frowned on in Wikipedia. A theoretical enquiry into what "Islamofascism" might mean is totally out of place in an encyclopaedia, particularly one that expressly forbids original research.Grace Note 23:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

Klonimus, sticking 'inuse' on an article simply to stop people reverting your edits is even less acceptable than reverting an article with the template in place; there was no sign at all that you were in fact engaged in an extensive edit. The present version, while flawed, is better than the one it replaces, both in terms of accuracy and neutrality and in terms of grammar. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Mel, please assume good faith, I was hunting for LeeHunters mysterious spelling and grammar errors. Turns out there weren't any. The inuse tag was only on for less than 20 minutes. Perhaps you may want to look at the edit history again.

It took you nearly twenty minutes to look for spelling and grammatical errors? And you had to do it in edit mode? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • Yes. I copied the article into MS word, and then did a spell check/grammer check, and lexical analysis. Anyways it turned out that there werent any material errors as Lee Hunter had claimed. Klonimus 21:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC).
      • MS Word is notoriously unreliable when it comes to checking spelling and grammar and completely useless for fixing awkward writing. And thank God, for that, because otherwise I'd be out of a job. The paragraph you inserted needed a lot of work but didn't seem to be expressing anything other than your opinion, so I reverted it. In those two sentences there were at least three spelling errors, doubled words, a missing word or two, words that needed to be upper-case, misused words and generally awkward writing. Here's what you wrote, just for the record: "It should be noted that above definitions are controversial, and intended to explicate what is commonly ment by those who use the the terms "Islamofascist" and "Islamofascism". There is much controversy over weather the above definition actually describes a type of fascism, per a generally accepted definition of fascism, or instead describes varients of political islam". The point of your paragraph seemed to be that there is "controversy" over whether those bullet points constitute a definition of some type of fascism. First of all, the only controversy is between a small handful of WP editors and secondly, the bullet points are not what anyone would call a "definition". If anything, they just represent some background information put forward to support your case. Look through a dictionary and you'll see what I mean by a 'definition'. --Lee Hunter 21:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe some of the editors arent aware of this, but there is the impression that a small clique of editors is trying to block any attempt at incrimental improvment, and instead attempting to enforce a certain POV (some sort of leftist, easily offended, anti-anti-islamist POV that see's anti-islamic bais under every burqa and refuses to see any good faith in other people.) This is going to chase away everyone except this clique. At some point the editing on this article will become a circle jerk among editors who have openly called for this articles deletion. That is both silly and sad, but guess as Yusuf said, it's inevitable. Klonimus 01:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those who have a strong point of view usually see attempts to produce neutrality as being biased. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocking incremental improvement? What I see happening is that a whole bunch of tangential stuff that didn't have anything to with the topic of "islamofascism" has been removed. To me that was an incremental improvement. A number of relevant quotes have been added. To me that was an incremental improvement. Lots of unsupported musing, pontificating and theorizing by various WP editors has been blocked, removed or modified. To me that is an incremental improvement. Perhaps your problem is that when you take away the POV stuff and add in material from credible sources this concept of "islamofascism" comes into focus. This article has actually improved a great deal over the past week. --Lee Hunter 11:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. I think think the pro Islam editors could try to set a good example be more curtious. Klonimus 21:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is propaganda, not an article

Thus it should be deleted. - Stancel 16:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's being voted on. That's what the VFD tag is for. You can't just delete articles on your own. --Lee Hunter 21:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Stancel, I don't want to be the first person to write in your talk page. Please, stop your vandalism. It doesn't make sense giving a vote in the Vfd page while deleting an article by yourself. Otherwise, why waste your time voting? Keep vandalising! Cheers and respect Svest 04:38, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism does not help. Please stop, Stancel. BrandonYusufToropov 14:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Expand this article ...

... by supplying specific citations of this term's use. The unattributed "some say"/"others say" stuff is a rather ineffective fig leaf placed over a WP debate. BrandonYusufToropov 08:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Quotes, examples

If indeed there are to be quotes, they have to be selected in an NPOV fashion. And where's the grandmother of them all, Hitchen's coinage of the term? The Orwell one of course is a general condemnation of the use of the term "fascism"; I'd venture it's the earliest incarnation of a pre-usenet form of Godwin's Law. Regardless, I don't see much point in a series of quotes condemning the term; one should suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The Orwell quote is relevant because it talks about how 'fascism' can be applied to nearly anything. Each of the quotes condemning the term makes a different and important point.--Lee Hunter 16:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
But since it certainly was not made in the context of Islamofascism, it's in Original Research territory. If a critic of the term has made the link to Orwell, then that critic would be worth quoting. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see Jayjg's point here; Orwell is talking about the use of the word "fascism" in general — therefore he's talking about its use here. If Socrates has said "all men are mortal", he'd have been talking about me as well as his father; that's the way universal generalisations work. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

By that measure you should include all sorts of quotes about the meaning and use of the word "Islam" here as well, since anyone who is talking about Islam must be talking about its use here too. Quotes about Islamofascism belong in this article; if someone has said that Islamofascism is an invalid term because fascism is an invalid term, go ahead and quote them. Orwell certainly never commented on Islamofascism. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Which again is why the "Fascism as epithet" solution works so well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
It works if you are hellbent on including the Orwell quote. It doesn't work so well if you are trying to build an encyclopedia article about the term or concept of "Islamofascism", including its origins, its meanings, its uses, and its criticisms. Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merger

How about merging this into a new article called Fascist (epithet)? There's some bits in the Fascist article, the new (and equally odorous) Christofascism article etc. It seems more useful and interesting to address the question of how the word "fascism" is used to slur one's enemies than to have an article on each spindly variant (and thereby losing the very useful context of how this pattern has been repeated for the past 60 years or so). --Lee Hunter 19:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I think this is a very good idea. It may be the final solution (no pun intended) for all of these arguments about "Foofascism has an article, but Barfascism doesn't, and that's not fair". Firebug 02:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Are these terms all related? Who says? Anyway, they seem to be about more than just fascism. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Of course they are related. They are all instances of "fascism" applied strictly as an epithet to groups or individuals who don't consider themselves as fascist. "Fascism" is a vague enough term, at least in the public's mind, that, as Orwell says, you can get away with slapping it on anything that moves. I think your point that the articles are "about more than just fascism" is very relevant. The stuff that's "more than fascism" - terrorism, fundamentalism etc - is covered in excruciating depth and detail elsewhere. Tossing it in with the F word, creates the false impression that there is some connection.--Lee Hunter 20:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Possibly. Anyway, this article has been up for VfD; the results of that process should be honoured. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree. If we ignore the VFD by merging -- and that is really what we would be doing -- we will probably only increase the partisan chaos. I don't like the "keep" outcome, but I think we are bound to work with it somehow now. BrandonYusufToropov 21:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
VFD process is not an issue. Surviving the VFD doesn't mean it shouldn't be merged into another article if that's where it belongs. --Lee Hunter 01:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Lee, I agree about the idea. I will support it based on your comments. Cheers from Svest 01:13, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
  • I like the Fascism as epithet idea. Start with the Orwell quote and proceed from there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've started the article (Fascist (epithet)) but holding off on merging the other articles for the moment. --Lee Hunter 21:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • It appears we may have created an unintentional fork: at about the same time, I created the article Fascism (epithet) which covers about the same ground and was inspired by your original suggestion. We will need to merge the two articles, or just decide which one to go with and delete the other. Firebug 03:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge. This is pretty ridiculous. We voted, merge was one of the options, it was not that popular, now just leave it alone. ObsidianOrder 01:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge into the list of political epithets was the option. Here the talk is of merging all fascism articles into one "Fascism as an epithet".Yuber 01:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, then, you can propose a new VfD; merge was clearly rejected in the previous Vfd. Jayjg (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, we don't actually have Votes for Mergers, Jay. Only about whether to delete or keep. Whether to merge has the force only of a recommendation. If this user wants to be bold, you should perhaps treat his suggestion on its merits and not attempt to defeat it with legalism. I support merging it. This article is an absolute joke. There is nothing to say about "islamofascism" except that some commentators have used it. As I pointed out in the VfD, some people call others other rude names. I won't repeat the names i suggested there, to save the delicate. But we don't write articles about that.Grace Note 14:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
We do have articles on nigger and ZOG. However, these articles aren't a list of bad things that blacks and Jews, respectively, have done. That's my primary objection to the Islamofascism article. I would have the same objection if someone inserted into the ZOG article a long digression about Jewish influence over the US government, included a list of Jewish neoconservatives, bad things Israel has done, and so forth. It's not appropriate to give credence to racist epithets in such a manner. Firebug 03:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
VfDs always include "Merge" as an option, which in this case was used by some voters, and clearly rejected by most. As for the article, it currently has "nothing to say about "islamofascism" except that some commentators have used it" because most of the substantive content has been deleted, and some irrelevant quote about facism included; see, for example, this edit:[4]. It's rather disingenuous to gut an article and then claim that it is "an absolute joke". Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I, for one, dislike both versions noted by that diff. And I hope it will be merged/redirected as I believe it reflects poorly on Wikipedia. But you already know that's how I feel. El_C 17:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, it can't reflect as poorly on Wikipedia as the version that contains 5 quotes, one of which is off-topic, and three of which criticize the term. That version is ridiculous. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, but I believe that equale ridiculousness to the opposite can be shown to exist with other diffs. El_C 22:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
It's an odious term so it's hardly surprising that it is easy to find people who say so. I added a few of those quotes - including the one from that creepy Clifford May character who actually likes the term. The previous version which you're so fond of was filled with a whole pile of vague links and references to people who supposedly had something to say about islamofascism, but when I tried to find out what exactly it was they said on the subject there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. Orwell's a bit of a stretch but it does highlight the point that you can call anybody a fascist. It's just a smear. Nothing more. --Lee Hunter 22:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why some editors want to keep an article that only serves to create conflict and dissension. The article was "gutted" because someone removed the original research that made up its bulk and rightly so. I mean, really, "the Mufti was a fascist so Osama is a fascist...", "Saudi Arabia is fascist because women can't drive and the Sauds own the oil..." I do suggest that if Jay doesn't like any of the quotes, he removes them. Of course, if the quote he dislikes is the Orwell one, it's liable to be replaced, because it speaks most eloquently, almost presciently, about the term. Basically, it says, using Orwell's own words, that even, what, 70 years ago, people used "fascist" as a lazy epithet to smear those they didn't like. Grace Note 22:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The use of the terms

Other fronts of Vfd's are still open. The term Islamofascism surely exist. Christofascism and Americofascism has been created on a wrong basis because they are used so rarely. However, Christian fascism and American Fascism do exist in parallel along with Islamofascism. Indeed there are tens of books discussing the issue, at least American fascism as I am not concerned about Christian Fascism for the time being:

  • The Coming American Fascism by Lawrence Dennis
  • Understanding the F-Word: American Fascism and the Politics of Illusion by David McGowan
  • The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism by Jonathan Westminster... Just to name a few. (a complete list will be found on Americofascism very soon).

The point here is that some argue that we don't have to merge the whole x-fascism articles on Fascism as epithet. Why not? This will explain the real reality. All terms are invented by the opponent sides. So how come one exist and others are excluded? It will be one of the big mistakes ever in WP to neglect this fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a podium! Imagine a reader aware of the existance of both terms searching WP and finding one but none of the rest of the team!!! So using the right terminology, articles should exist; I would prefer to see them merged (because they are all epithets), but if not they SHOULD all exist. Cheers and respect -- Svest 02:22, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up

There is no reason why they should all exist as articles, if some of them don't exist in reality. You can invent any term or phrase you wish, but some are real (and commonly used) and refer to real things, while others do not. This is a logical fallacy, or perhaps a [[WP::POINT]]. ObsidianOrder 02:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Then perhaps you would like to add your knowledge into the article of the "real things" that Islamofascism refers to?Yuber 02:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

    • ObsidianOrder, We are discussing the uses of the terms as epiteths as explained clearly at the preview of each article. We are not discussing if there is fascism in America, the Muslim or the Christian world. That would be a POV article.
What an indignation! Are you telling me that the epiteth American fascism DOESN'T EXIST? There are more references to it than to Islamofascism. Are you familiar with! And when was fascism not Christian?
I am really getting tired of repeating the following: (I don't believe in Google, but since you do, then I repeat what I have posted on Vfd Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Americofascism.
    • Here we go again with another brand of fascism! We already got a quite considerable collection of A/Z-fascisms. I don't doubt that we will be having a big list. Please, I suggest to delete all X-rated fascism articles or at least merge them into one general article so people can add aliens-fascims entries if possible. Svest 01:13, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Rename it American fascism. I voted first to delete this crap as for all of the X-fascisms that are not based on academic basis and probably used as personal arguments. But I am changing my vote now in order to be fair to myself and not to be a stupid.
I changed my vote according to the basis on what Islamofascism was kept. Islamofascism was kept because of the arguement that the term is being used widely (the same applies to American fascism but not to Americofascism). It was kept also because of the famous google hits (the same applies to American fascism but not to Americofascism).
Some helpful facts:
--->Islamofascism gives you 601 nail bombs. (I mean hits) -taking google shadows into account
--->"American fascism" gives you 445 BGM-109. (I mean the same as above and this time please use quotes when searching).
Does this sound fair or stupid? Please correct me if I am wrong. Let's googlewhack. Cheers and respect for all votes below -Svest 22:25, May 1, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
I will add that Christian fascism gives you 466 of whatever you like.
Libertarian Justin Raimondo, in a piece called Today's Conservatives are Fascists, called the neocons shaping US foreign policy fascists, pure and simple. United Methodist minister Rev. William E. Alberts accuses some of Bush's followers of upholding a super religion displaying tendencies similar to Hitler's super race with its fascist ideology of superiority.
Revolutionary Communist Party circulates in the tens of thousands a statement declaring that Bush and his people are Christian Fascists -dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. This is quite a wide spectrum of anti-fascist opinion.
Got any other point apart from the one expressed above? Cheers and respect - - Svest 03:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
Yes; your numbers are wrong and your comparison disingenuous. Even taking "shadows" into account, (and I'm not exactly sure what those are) Islamofascism gets 610 (not 601) Google hits, and 997 Yahoo hits. On Google "Islamic fascism" gets another 521, "Islamist fascism" another 296, and "Muslim fascism" another 129, for a total of 1556 (though there will no doubt be some overlap). All of these pages are referring to the same topic. On the other hand, "American fascism"'s 436 (not 445) hits refer to all sorts of things; movements in the 30s, modern day Republicans, Lyndon Larouche, even the Green Party! Anyway, if you want to write a history of Fascist movements in the U.S., feel free. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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

Just wondering, I guess I didn't catch it while it was happening, but the current version of the page is ridiculous, there's nothing in it but a few quotes, of which one has nothing to do with the term, and three of the other four talk about why there is no such thing. Why was everything else removed? I don't see any discussion leading up to it. I don't really like the old version of the page but it had a whole lot more substance, it could be improved instead of being (essentially) deleted. ObsidianOrder 21:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

For no reason that I can see, except perhaps to make it a useless page, or as an alternative way of deleting it after the VfD failed. Regardless of its flaws, the previous version was indeed vastly superior. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
It was just original research -- crumbs about any hint of a connection between fascism and Islam, a list of things people accuse Islamists of and suggestions that they amount to fascism, some stuff about oil wealth that didn't stand up to scrutiny. Someone took out all the original research, and all that was left was what we have. Personally, I like it. It says all there is to say. I'd be all for removing the quotes too, if you want. Grace Note 22:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
That's quite an attitude! My take is: everything on topic was taken out and we're left an article which argues against its own legitimacy and existance. If you really don't think that Islamic extremism has been influenced by fascism, by all means add whatever evidence you can find to the article. But your position seem to be that whole issue should not even be discussed. It's a position that has been rejected twice in voting, but keeps rising from the dead. Kauffner 16:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Grace, it is not original research - would you like to elaborate? The VfD was in part based on the content at the time, presumably people thought that content should be kept, but your proposed version deletes most of it, basically deleting 90% of the article. I see that as a lame attempt to circumvent the results of the VfD (as Jayjg said). And there is no discussion I can see leading up to it - the original edit deleting everything but the quotes is this one [5] by BrandonYusufToropov, it says "see talk page" but as far as I can tell this was never discussed. You say "let's talk about it", well we did talk about it when we voted against the VfD. ObsidianOrder 22:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • ObsidiaOrder, it was an original research. What was there? A Big Mufti being a fascist? I am confused! Why not than have this article called IslomoNazism instead? Tell me your opinion about the following. Would you like to include a synthesis of it in the article too? Bear in mind, the following is not or is an original research, it's history I believe:
...The most damaging development in this respect was itself the result of western meddling. When the Mufti (religious leader) of Jerusalem died in 1921, the recently appointed British Governor, Sir Herbert Samuel, took charge of appointing a successor, inventing the new title of ‘Grand Mufti’.
When the local electoral college of pious Muslims voted for a moderate and learned leader and placed at the bottom of their list Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a young man in his twenties, given to fanaticism and hatred of the Jews, the Governor was initially content and confirmed the appointment. However, at this point the Hajj’s powerful family, backed by right-wing extremists, launched a fierce campaign of denigration against the electoral college, accusing its members of treacherously conspiring with the Jews to appoint one of their own party.
Sir Herbert, who was himself Jewish, sought the counsel of E. T. Richmond, who acted as adviser on Muslim Affairs, and who was an extreme anti-Zionist. Richmond persuaded Sheikh Hisam al-Din, the man who had already been confirmed in the post, to stand down. He then convinced Samuel that the best way to restore order was to concede to the agitators by letting the Hajj become Grand Mufti. This was in spite of the fact that the Hajj had already been imprisoned by the British in 1920 for his role in fomenting vicious anti-Jewish riots.
The British themselves were thus responsible for turning an electoral process upside-down in order to install an extremist Palestinian leader. This abuse of power would have fateful consequences not only for the future of Israel but also for ordinary Palestinians who were now subjected to a leader they had not chosen but for whose ill-judged actions they would, in the years to come, repeatedly be held responsible... -richard webster, [6] New Statesman, November 29,2002. Cheers and respect - - Svest 00:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up

FayssalF - What was there, you ask?

  1. Origins of the term - what possible objection do you have to that?
  2. Application of the term - reports things which notable people have said to explain why they use the term. what is the objection? I suppose each one should be individually sourced, but aside from that?
  3. Islamist/Axis Alliance during WWII - possibly does not belong in this article, however the information itself is extremely interesting. Okay, move it to its own article, mention it here as related.
  4. Related terms and concepts - again, what is the objection?
  5. Academics and commentators on Islamofascism - perhaps call it "People who have used the term", whatever

What you quoted above only deals with item 3, and would be a great addition to an article about it (as opposed to, say, a reason for deleting it). You can't just say "it was original research", you have to show why you think each individual piece to be deleted is not sourced and cannot be sourced - and some of it obviously cannot be original research, because it simply reports facts. Can you explain why you think you can delete 70% of an article that "survived a VfD"? ObsidianOrder 04:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Thanks for replying ObsidianOrder. I see clearly your point. I agree about some of what you say. I believe the origin of the term as well as the commentators of the term have to be quoted. Why? Because they represent facts; the term has an origin and there are commentators who use it.
However, for the rest, I am afraid not to agree with you. Why? Because of the POV. You yourself say those commentators are notable. Isn't it a POV? Nobody among them got a single book named Islamofascism. I may call them propagandistas. Have they got any academic backgroud? I doubt it. We have to be very cautious on that.
Regarding the applications of the term, (well, it is still POV). They preach that the fact that some countries own oil companies is considered fascism. I already asked someone before here in this talk if he can apply the theory to France (as it owned for decades some energy and transport companies -i.e. EDF, Air France, etc...). I got no response for my question. You still can apply the term to Wahhabites but it is still a POV.
Apart from the above, I see that you are not set to one standard, ObsidianOrder. You said on the section The use of terms that There is no reason why they should all exist as articles, if some of them don't exist in reality. I agree about the comment. But you voted delete in Americofascism. I have stated many times that I am against any article called me-you-fascism. However, I changed my vote there from delete to keep and change the name of the article because of the hypocrisy of of some wikipedians (don't forget that I was the one who presented Americofascism to the Vdf!). The voters insist that Islamofascism exists and not Americofascism, just like you do. Well, what about American Fascism? Would you be one of the ones to vote for a keep? I extremely doubt so ObsidianOrder. The difference between your comments and mine is that yours apply no logic; you just apply yourself. I asked you to check but I bet you didn't. No worries, here is the synthesis of it:
-->Books found in about Islamofascism:[7]
--> Books found in about Islamic fascism: [8]
--> Books found in about American Fascism [9].
For google analysis, please refer to my vote on top of Americofascism vdf page .
I hope you be a good judge to your comments. Who are notable? People writing books or people talking tongues? Cheers and respect from Svest 05:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up

If you insist, I'll answer that:

  1. It wasn't even an attempt at being accurate. Duran used it first. He was talking about those in Muslim societies who wish to enforce orthodoxy. Hitchens simply called the 9/11 bombers "fascists". There's no discussion of who Hitchens is or why he'd take that view. There's no discussion that the two applied the word "fascism" differently, simply as a slur on those they opposed.
  2. That section was entirely original research. It had a list of slurs against some groups in Muslim society with an almost preposterously bad attempt to tie them in with "fascism". None of it was sourced and absolutely no wonder. It was all made up by editors here.
  3. "Islamist/Axis Alliance"? What Islamists? What alliance? What on earth does the Mufti being a fascist have to do with today's Islamists? He would have opposed them fiercely.
  4. The related terms and concepts are not connected in any way, shape or form to "Islamofascism". This is not just original research. It's nonsense.
  5. The quotes are the only thing you can even partly justify.

I'll stand up for Firebug's compromise. The rest is POV nonsense. I'm for at an absolute minimum moving this page to Uses of the term "Islamofascism" and redirecting Islamofascism to that. I'd prefer a broader article about "fascist" as an epithet, so that we can discuss usage of "Jewish fascism" and "American fascism", which are equally misplaced epithets. All sourced, all correctly presented. Not the utter farrago of an article you are arguing for. No way is that what Wikipedia is here for.Grace Note 05:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. "wasn't even an attempt at being accurate" - fix it, then. actually I'm pretty sure Mike Savage may have used it first. not a reason to delete. "simply as a slur" - that's your opinion.
  2. "list of slurs" - well, again, that's what you think. I'd prefer to source each item, which should not be very hard.
  3. any connection between the antisemitism of the Nazis and of Arabs and their WW2 relations in general are quite noteworthy although I will agree it doesn't belong here (separate article, mentioned here)
  4. not connected? huh? islamist certainly is (by definition, basically), islamophobia ditto, and so on down the list.
"Firebug's compromise"?! That's a compromise? I think not. I was offering you a real compromise, when I said that any specific item which is unsourced can be removed as original research (but you have mention that it is unsourced, at least with a note in talk). ObsidianOrder 06:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
FayssalF - "the voters insist that Islamofascism exists and not Americofascism" - that's right. Who is notable? Anyone with an audience of a few thousand to a few tens of thousands, I'd say. Certainly most of the people quoted to have used the term pass easily: Hitchens, Sullivan, but also Daniel Pipes, Victor Davis Hansen, Michael Novak, Eric S. Raymonds, etc & etc. ObsidianOrder 06:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Dear friend ObsesianOrder, I don't buy what you say now. "the voters insist that Islamofascism exists and not Americofascism" - that's right is simply hypocrisy IMHO; I stated that clearly to them in Americofascism. Except a few and BD2412 who lately voted to rename it American Fascism or merge all into Fascist (epithet), nobody even responded to my commenets. But again, have you really checked the Amazon links? They are ready for you; you don't have to type any me-you-fascism. Just click on the links. People were writing books about that since the 40's. Your notable journalists started to use islamofascism only 3 years ago. Do you agree on that or not? the voters insist that Islamofascism exists and not Americofascism - that's right? But since you are sticking to your point, I'll be rather create American Fascism and see your comments there (as surely you will present your hypocrisy there too). At that time, we will discuss if the term is widely used or not. For the time being, I am still challenging you to bring us a name of just ONE book that is discussing the term or the phenomenon. Your tens of thousands can be compared to other x-millions who deny it. Again, this is not a podium for political debate, this is an encyclopedia. And again, I am against the me-you-fascism articles, but since one is existing, the other should exist on the basis of usage of the terms, whatever your political or religious motivations are; it is just take it or leave it. I can't believe or aknowledge your neutrality for that I am sorry. And among the notable journalists you cited above, none has gone so far explainig to us what is Islamofascism in depth. I believe Klominus did better (I believe it was his own definition or explanation of what Islamofascism is different than Islamic Fascism, just like if he was talking about a bike and a motorbike). Cheers from Svest 07:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
By the same logic an encyclopedia written in 1941 should have contained entries for Italian Fascism (which was real) and "American Fascism" (which did not exist)? "one is existing, the other should exist"? Really. I am not "neutral" and have never claimed to be; I want the good guys to win. But I aspire to be objective, that is to say describe things as they exist in reality; and in reality there is a part of Islam that has all the characteristics of fascism (see e.g. Umberto Eco's Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt). I call it Islamofascism. There is no parralel trend in America, hence there is no Americofascism. Common usage is not an important criterion to me, although Wikipedia does give it some weight. As for explaining what it is in depth, Daniel Pipes does a great job: "Militant Islam is best understood not as a religion but as a political ideology. Indeed, it is the successor of both fascism and Marxism-Leninism in its nature (radical utopianism), its means (totalitarianism), and its goals (world conquest). Just as fascism was the ultimate enemy in World War II and communism was the ultimate enemy during the cold war, so militant Islam is the ultimate enemy in the war on terrorism." (In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power) ObsidianOrder 07:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I call it Islamofascism. There is no parralel trend in America, hence there is no Americofascism. ObsidianOrder, that's pure POV. (And inaccurate: there are far too many trends reminiscent of fascism in American government today.) Firebug 07:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Firebug - I call'em like I see 'em. If a sufficient number of people say there is such a thing, it might become worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia based on that, of course. But I don't think it exists. Sorry if you don't like that. ObsidianOrder 08:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
ObsidianOrder, your comments seem very contradictory and pure POV. You say if a sufficient number of people say there is such a thing, it might become worthy. I bet again you haven't taken a look at and compare. You are too lazy. You say that there is no term called American Fascism because in reality America has never been fascist (as you say some parts of militant Islam is fascist, than accept KKK were fascists. Weren't they Americans, weren't they Christians indeed?). This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. You have Satan, you have God, you have UFO, and tons of articles of that kind. Can you tell me if they exist? They exist in an encyclopedia because people talk and refer to them. They exist in real life for people who believe in them. But they don't exist for everybody. The epithet American Fascism does exist as Islamofascism and Co. American Fascism doesn't exist in your POV dictionary but not in all dictionaries.
You say Islamists are fascists because Daniel Pipes and Co say so! Daniel Pipes also said that "The professors who have asked to be included on the Web site may be put on a new list under a label of people who associate themselves with "suicide bombings and militants." He was talking about the professors who voluntarely signed in protest his action to list and label some American professors, from Harvard to Columbia and so on, accused of being Anti-Israel in his own created controversial Pro-Israeli that blacklisted them, just because he got a POV. [10]. Hitchens, is controversial too.
You say the goal of Militant Islam is world conquest. How do you know? Most of the world population have been hearing that they want America physically out of the Muslim World.
You say I am not "neutral" and have never claimed to be; I want the good guys to win.. For the X-time, this is not your place than. This is Wikipedia, not a podium. There are no bad, no good guys.
You cite Umberto Eco. This guy got nothing to do with Pipes and Co. As you can read, -at least I read it, he says clearly Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Freedom and liberation are an unending task. Do you KNOW what he is talking about? Cheers and respect Svest 10:33, May 5, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
Hear hear! Grace Note 14:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
"American Fascism" - well, to be fair it did exist as a somewhat prominent movement in the 1930's. I wouldn't vote to delete such an article. FayssalF, whatever you say about Pipes, American Fascism, or what I personally think exists or not is irrelevant. The only relevant question is why did you delete parts of the article which were sourced along with the ones which (admittedly) were not? I asked you to justify the deletion of each section, you have not replied. I am going to put some of the sections back in, in particular Origins, Related and Commentators. ObsidianOrder 22:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
ObisidiaOrder, I did reply to your answer. This is why I said you are too lazy to read. Please, see my reply above @ 05:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC). For the deletion issue, I haven't deleted anything in this article. I never did so. All I did since its creation is to add 2 things: a quote and the referal to the main article of LeeHunter. Cheers and respect --Svest 03:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
True, you didn't delete it, BrandonYusufToropov did that; I should have said more accurately that you, Grace Note and Yuber keep reverting to the version in which those things are deleted. I didn't mean to single you out, sorry. I read all you said above; it didn't answer my question, although if I understand you correctly you said that there is no "original research" objection to the "Origin" section at least. Grace Note tried to answer it, but he basically just said "slurs" and "nonsense", not a very substantial answer. Yuber hasn't said a word. So my objection stands. ObsidianOrder 04:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
You answer every objection with "well, that's just what you say". You say "Well, it wouldn't be difficult to source x" but I don't see you sourcing x. What I do see you doing is reverting to a POV article that faces very strong objections. I don't see any sign of your trying to resolve them. I'm happy to resolve your objections to our article, but we should start from what we have, given that it is much less controversial and add your stuff in as and when you source it.Grace Note 06:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
"as and when you source it"? OK. Some of the origin section was already sourced (it needs more). The commentators section, well, 3/4 of everyone in there has specifically written about Islamofascism (at length) and the rest have written about synonyms such as "theocratic fascism". Should I provide a specific source for each one? I can certainly do that. "reverting to a POV article" - you will note that the sections that had the strongest objections (with some justification) are absent from my version? "don't see you sourcing x" - not if I think it will just be deleted, obviously. What you say is ok, I can work with that if you really mean it. ObsidianOrder 07:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Google links to "American Fascism" refer to all sorts of different things; American movements in the 30s, the Republican governments today, the Lyndon Larouche movement, even the Green Party. Conflating all these unrelated items makes the term seem more popular than it really is. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The irony is utterly exquisite!Grace Note 01:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you are using the word "irony" in the way it is normally used. Jayjg (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Would dissimulation be a little more accurate? How about hypocrisy?BrandonYusufToropov 14:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Only if used ironically. However, since you're getting abusive again, as you have before, I'm disengaging from further discussion with you. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, you give a reply to yourself. You admit that it refers to a LOT of things. So, it exists in terminology! Guys, you are debating one thing that it is not our issue here. We are not into if God exists or not; this depends on everybody's belief. We are debating if there are people who call it God or not, if the term exists or not. You are debating it on a political basis. I am not doing so. I am not saying if America is really or ever been fascist or not. I am simply saying that the term is being used. Green party or red is not my issue. All I see that there are dozens of books about the issues. Books and not commentaries. Between, does Islamofascism sounds more popular than American Fascism?! For you, yes. For me, I don't care. Cheers and respect -- Svest 03:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up
As I've said several times before, if you want to create an encyclopedic article about the use of the term "American Fascism" go right ahead; that might well be an encyclopedic topic. Jayjg (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Supporters/opponents nonsense

I see that someone revised the opening to remove the "supporters of the term" and "opponents of the term" nonsense. Thanks, you saved me the trouble. Not only does that construction make the article seem juvenile, it does nothing but reference an internal WP debate which doesn't really belong in the article and it also misrepresents the various opinions about the article and the word. It's not so much that there are actual supporters and opponents of the term itself - it's more a question of whether the article should depict the word as a simple slur (approximately on the level of nigger) or whether the article should present Islamofascism as a recognized political or social movement. --Lee Hunter 01:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The supporters of this term have yet to present evidence of the existence of a political or social movement known as Islamofascism.Yuber 02:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
That isn't what's needed. What would be needed to establish that is serious analysis -- not by Wikipedia editors but by reputable sources -- of it. None exists because no one but the screaming, fit-to-be-tied right believes that Islamists are fascists, unless "fascism" is defined in a way that simply makes it an insult rather than a political label. Grace Note 03:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a catch-22 for the proponents of a POV article. They cannot source analysis of connections between Islamism and fascism because there are none (the page used Klonimus's own analysis, which is utterly unacceptable -- we do not include original research). There are none because it is simply used as an insult by the likes of Hitchens and other rightists. But they don't want a page that just says it is an insult. So they need to source an analysis of connections between Islamism and fascism.

I say we go from the page with just the quotes and that the people who want a broader article present their material here on talk first, with sources. I think I'd be very suspicious of the motives of editors who did not want to go through that process on a contentious page.Grace Note 06:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterisation of "it is simply used as an insult". What you propose is reasonable though, provided that the revert warriors (and sock puppets) can be kept in check. Would you help with that? I will give it an honest try. ObsidianOrder 07:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I know you disagree. If you do what I'm asking, I'm undertaking to support your efforts. Make a genuine effort to compromise and I'll support it a hundred per cent. Grace Note 13:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
If I may add my two cents: I'd be quite interested in a reasoned discussion with anyone who honestly disagrees that the term "is simply used as an insult." If you really feel this way, I'm curious to discover your reasons for believing this.
What I find unacceptable are the assaults of editors who choose to use the article page as a platform for insults, then use the talk page simply to repeat the insults -- or, perhaps more common, ignore the talk page entirely. BrandonYusufToropov 14:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Brandon - ok, I honestly don't think it is simply an insult. I guess you have to distinguish between Fascism (capital-F, the Italian corporatist variety) and fascism (lowercase-f). Let's have a look at what the dictionary says about it:
fas·cism (Merriam-Webster)
1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race 
above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial 
leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
fas·cism (American Heritage Dictionary)
1.a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent 
socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically 
a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
to take each bit in turn: exalts nation and race? check, nation replaced by the religious community (ummah) or the Dar-As-Salam, and race to some extent with religion. centralized authocratic government? check, government of clerics, although not necessarily a single leader. economic and social regimentation? check, sharia. suppression of opposition? check. terror and censorship? check. belligerent nationalism and racism? check, in this case jihad and antisemitism.
now, you might say, this would seem to be the same thing as Islamist? almost. Islamists want Islam to dictate politics, in theory they might differ on their interpretation of Islam, and very moderate interpretations might be included in the same term. In practice almost all Islamists do want autocratic government and economic and social regimentation, and usually try to suppress the opposition - but they are not necessarily externally belligerent, or racist. in short, Islamofascism = Islamism + belligerence + racism. But as you know the three almost always occur together. There are exceptions: the Taliban might be more closely described as Islamist, not Islamofascist (but possibly only due to lack of resources/opportunity). I think this is just a perfectly technically accurate descriptive term for a real phenomenon. ObsidianOrder 16:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
For starters ... you write:
exalts nation and race? check, nation replaced by the religious community (ummah) or the Dar-As-Salam, and race to some extent with religion.
... and I must respectfully disagree.
  • A) If something is "replaced" by something else, it is, I regret to report, not the same as the original element.
  • B) The ummah is not the nation. (If you think Sunni and Shia religious scholars are in agreement on nation-state issues, check your local newspaper under "Iraq.")
  • C) [Most important, probably] Religion just plain flat-out is not race, and I'm afraid not even Fred Astaire could tap-dance around that one. BrandonYusufToropov 19:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This is original research. You present a dictionary definition and then totally rewrite it in your own words and say "see it's the same thing". Well, no. It's not. Religious community does not equal nation. Religion does not equal race. Government of clerics does not necessarily mean autocratic leadership (although it could be interpreted that way, the clerics would believe that they are in service of their deity). Also I've never heard of Islamists being overly concerned with economic regimentation.--Lee Hunter 17:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
"original research"? sure, I never said it wasn't. Brandon asked "I'm curious to discover your reasons for believing this", so I responded. this is not exactly rocket science though, I'm sure any number of authors have examined the same parallels. this is not the most detailed definition of fascism either, but the phenomenon we're talking about fits most other definitions just as well. ObsidianOrder 18:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
How about the type of editors who insists on inserting a link to this epithet into other Wikipedia articles? For instance, this guy: [11].
A related link is a related link. And I'll note you couldn't even be bothered to sign your complaint, little Islamist.ElKabong

I did a Google search of this term,, and I get mainly 64,000 pages. I know I have heard the term used on Rush Limbaugh. This website,, claims Christopher Hitchens (who authored the book No One Left To Lie Too), coined the word. I do not know what to say about this term specially, but I had people tell me that adding a link to this article under "related links" is considered POV pushing. Zscout370 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)