Islamofascists

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Can someone who uses this term explain your decision to use it? I see no real connection between al Quada-type groups and fascist movements. In the term's use, "fascist" does not seem to mean anything other than bad. But fascist movements were and are movements with core principles. Principles that are not shared by the "islmofacists."

Wouldn't, as Lawrence Wright has suggested, takfiris be a better term?

[suranyi]

It's a meaningless political slogan intended to inflame emotions. In a similar vein, see "feminazis".

[Bryan Ekers]

I see it as describing someone willing (indeed, eager) to use the modern tools of totalitarianism (propaganda, electronic monitoring of the population, state-controlled media services, secret police and arrests) in service of a government that happens to have Islamic fundamentalism as its core ideology.

[The Amazing Hanna]

It´s a silly term used by people with poor communication skills. George Orwell said it better than I can:

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

[BrainGlutton]

Wouldn't, as Lawrence Wright has suggested, takfiris be a better term?

I think "jihadists" is better. More familiar, and enapsulates what the GWOT should be against, which is not Islam. And the people involved are not necessarily takfiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri) (excommunicated).

[BrainGlutton]

It's a meaningless political slogan intended to inflame emotions. In a similar vein, see "feminazis".

See the feminazis.
See the feminazis march.
See the male chauvinist pigs sent to gelding-camps.

[TriPolar]

Islam was strongly tied to 20th century facism. Saddam Hussein's family was strongly tied to an Iraqi fascist movement that was in league with the Nazis. It may be misapplied in many cases, but it has a basis. This thread should be moved to GQ where people with specific information can provide factual background.

[Frylock]

Islam was strongly tied to 20th century facism. Saddam Hussein's family was strongly tied to an Iraqi fascist movement that was in league with the Nazis.

By the same logic, of course, Islam was strongly tied to 20th century Democracy, 20th Century Socialism, 20th Century Communism, 20th Century Monarchialism, and so on.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

I think "jihadists" is better. More familiar, and enapsulates what the GWOT should be against, which is not Islam. And the people involved are not necessarily takfiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri) (excommunicated).

Takfiris are not excommunicated. Takfiris accuse other Muslims of being apostates. The apostates, against whom the takfir has been declared, are excommunicated (in the eyes of the takfiris).

[BrainGlutton]

Takfiris are not excommunicated. Takfiris accuse other Muslims of being apostates. The apostates, against whom the takfir has been declared, are excommunicated (in the eyes of the takfiris).

Well, all jihadists might fall into that category, but it also must include many non-jihadists, so it's not the best choice for a name.

[TriPolar]

By the same logic, of course, Islam was strongly tied to 20th century Democracy, 20th Century Socialism, 20th Century Communism, 20th Century Monarchialism, and so on.

I believe the ties were quite strong in Iraq until recently (and maybe again soon), and in Syria. There is still a strong political force which was based on 20th century fascism. Saddam, Nasser, among others promoted Pan-Arabism to strengthen the fasces. I am not a historian, and am now over my head on this subject, but the link is not trivial, and the term has occasionally been appropriately applied.

The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Middle_East)has some info on this.

[tomndebb]

I believe the ties were quite strong in Iraq until recently (and maybe again soon), and in Syria. There is still a strong political force which was based on 20th century fascism. Saddam, Nasser, among others promoted Pan-Arabism to strengthen the fasces. I am not a historian, and am now over my head on this subject, but the link is not trivial, and the term has occasionally been appropriately applied.

The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Middle_East)has some info on this.The problem with the term Islamofascist, despite the common thread of anti-semitism, is that nearly all the fascist efforts in the Middle East have already collapsed. The current crop of Islamist Fundamentalists are frequently the ones who toppled the more fascist governments. Syria might still have a claim to "fascism," but they are not a serious exporter of terrorism, nor do they appear to have imperial designs on the region, beyond controlling Lebanon as a buffer state against Israel.

Wahhabism predated fascism by many years and the ties between al Qaeda and fascism are extremely tenuous. The Ba'ath Party of Iraq was associated with the secular movement, not the Islamists.

Basically, since fascism is pretty much always used as "bad guys" in the West, tacking "fascism" onto "Islam" makes the terrorists, (or anyone else we wish to demonize), double plus ungood.

[FinnAgain]

Also, Syria is a secular state not an Islamist one.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Well, all jihadists might fall into that category, but it also must include many non-jihadists, so it's not the best choice for a name.

Jihad is a religious duty of all Muslims.

[FinnAgain]

Not the way "jihadist" is used to differentiate "violence in the name of Islam" from "an inner, spiritual struggle.'

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Not the way "jihadist" is used to differentiate "violence in the name of Islam" from "an inner, spiritual struggle.'

That is an illegitimate twisting of "jihad." It implies that a jihad is exclusively a physically violent struggle. "Jihadist" further implies that anyone engaged in a jihad is a violent terrorist.

By the way, mujahid is the proper term for a person who engages in jihad.

[Tamerlane]

I believe the ties were quite strong in Iraq until recently (and maybe again soon), and in Syria.

As noted, those were secularists. Anton Saadeh, founder of Syria's SSNP, was from a Greek Orthodox family. While the Lebanese Phalange, another explicitly fascist offshoot, was ( and in its current incaranation, is ) primarily Maronite Christian in composition.

Saddam, Nasser, among others promoted Pan-Arabism to strengthen the fasces.

Again, secularists. Modern 'jihadists' are no particular friends of Pan-Arabism ( mostly a dead letter these days anyway outside of an aging, secularized elite ).

No, while some of the early 20th century predecessors of the modern jihadists seem to have occasionally flirted with the Nazis for anti-colonial and/or anti-Semitic ( re: the British Mandate ) reasons, part of their shtick was actually a rejection of "corrupting western influences." Islamic-Fascism seems a term coined mostly from a perceived commonality in brutality and authoritarianism, rather than a genuine historical connection. As such it's a bit misleading and more an appeal to emotion.

I agree 'jihadist' works a lot better as a shorthand. The academic Kepel seems to like 'salafist-jihadist' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafist_jihadism), but that's more of a mouthful.

[FinnAgain]

That is an illegitimate twisting of "jihad." It implies that a jihad is exclusively a physically violent struggle.

So by stating that there are two meanings to Jihad, both violent struggle and spiritual struggle, it's twisting the meaning because really there are two meanings, both violent struggle and spiritual struggle.


"Jihadist" further implies that anyone engaged in a jihad is a violent terrorist.

No, it doesn't.

[TriPolar]

The problem with the term Islamofascist, despite the common thread of anti-semitism, is that nearly all the fascist efforts in the Middle East have already collapsed. The current crop of Islamist Fundamentalists are frequently the ones who toppled the more fascist governments. Syria might still have a claim to "fascism," but they are not a serious exporter of terrorism, nor do they appear to have imperial designs on the region, beyond controlling Lebanon as a buffer state against Israel.

Wahhabism predated fascism by many years and the ties between al Qaeda and fascism are extremely tenuous. The Ba'ath Party of Iraq was associated with the secular movement, not the Islamists.

Basically, since fascism is pretty much always used as "bad guys" in the West, tacking "fascism" onto "Islam" makes the terrorists, (or anyone else we wish to demonize), double plus ungood.

I don't have much information to add except for recollection that this term arose back in the time of Bush I's Desert Storm, with a direct reference to Ba'ath and Pan-Arabism. Islam- is not the exclusive prefix of Islamists. There are certainly many in this country who can't tell the difference between Islamic and Arab, but the secular movements in the Islamic country aren't a bunch of infidels.

Terms like feminazi, and Fox News calling Obama a Nazi have no such basis.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

So by stating that there are two meanings to Jihad, both violent struggle and spiritual struggle, it's twisting the meaning because really there are two meanings, both violent struggle and spiritual struggle.



No, it doesn't.

Muslims engaging in an internal struggle or a physically violent struggle (or a societial struggle) are all engaging in jihad. There is not a legitimate reason to call one a jihadist and not the other. A jihadist is a person engaged in jihad. Using "jihadist" as a replacement for "violent Muslim terrorist who engages in, supports, or encourages killing people" implies that all people engaged in jihad are violent Muslim terrorists who engage in, support, or encourage killing people.

[Tamerlane]

That is an illegitimate twisting of "jihad." It implies that a jihad is exclusively a physically violent struggle. "Jihadist" further implies that anyone engaged in a jihad is a violent terrorist.

It's a shorthand and as such is not perfect. But it pretty much encapsulates the violent impulses of the modern violent Islamists ( not a better term, as not all Islamists are violent ). But its use is pretty universally applied as above - I've never heard the term jihadist used to describe to anyone occupied with an inner jihad.

One can use Kepel's longer term, but that's just as cumbersome, because you potentially have to explain the difference between early salafists and the quite different salafist-jihadists.

Either is better than Islamofascist however, which has always seemed more emotive and ultimately obfuscatory to me.

[FinnAgain]

There is not a legitimate reason to one a jihadist and not the other.

Yes, there is. It's a commonly understood term in wide usage that refers to only those who engage in or advocate violent jihad.


Using "jihadist" as a replacement for "violent Muslim terrorist who engages in, supports, or encourages killing people" implies that all people engaged in jihad are violent Muslim terrorists who engages in, supports, or encourages killing people.

No, it doesn't.
If you infer that from the word it doesn't mean that anybody is implying that with the word.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Yes, there is. It's a commonly understood term in wide usage that refers to only those who engage in or advocate violent jihad.

.

Jihad is an extremely misunderstood word. Ask the average person what it means, and you will probably hear "holy war." This problem is, in part, caused by the use of "jihadist."

"Islamist" causes a similar problem.

[FinnAgain]

It doesn't matter if Jihad is misunderstood. The fact that "Jihadist" has a recognized, common usage means it has a specific meaning. Likewise, for "Islamist".

We can use a mouthfull of words to differentiate people who follow a path of Jihad that involves bloodshed and those who do not, or we can use "Jihadist" to mean those who follow a violent path of Jihad.

[Tamerlane]

Jihad is an extremely misunderstood word. Ask the average person what it means, and you will probably hear "holy war." This problem is, in part, caused by the use of "jihadist."

On the one hand you are correct, but on the other you have the cart before the horse. The notion of jihad as "holy war" led to the use of "jihadist." You're a relatively recent member, so let me assure you we've been over this is some detail more than once in my ten years on this board ;).

But again, jihad as a violent struggle ( i.e. the 'Lesser Jihad' ) is the term violent Islamist groups use themselves and it has plenty of classical backing. While the usage of jihad as an inner struggle with ones ownself also has a long pedigree ( primarily in the medieval period with quietist Shi'a jurists ), it has only become prominent in more modern times.

Yes, confusion over the issue is certainly possible, but I still say as shorthand it is the better than most alternatives. What one word descriptor do you prefer :)?

[tomndebb]

Jihad is an extremely misunderstood word. Ask the average person what it means, and you will probably hear "holy war." This problem is, in part, caused by the use of "jihadist."

"Islamist" causes a similar problem.I'm not sure why you are pursuing this line of argument. You and those you oppose are actually on the same side of the argument, but you appear to be picking nits with accepted definitions.

Jihadist is the word--that had no prior meaning in English--that has been applied to those people who have chosen to declare war on Western values, invoking, (correctly or incorrectly), the word jihad in their rhetoric.

It is similar to words like anti-semitic, a word coined explicitly to mean a person prejudiced against Jews even though Arabs are also semitic peoples, or homophobe, a word used to indicate an extreme prejudice against homosexuals, even when they are not actually fearful, (phobic), of homosexuals.

The words jihadist and Islamist have entered the English language with particular meanings. Railing against their use because you can create a separate meaning based on manufactured etymology is rather pointless because the etymology to which you point was never part of their coinage in English.

[BigT]

So what word would be better to indicate people who want to force other people to live under Islamic sharia law and use violence to pull it off?

Islamoterrorist is a little less specific, but it works.

[TriPolar]

Islamic-Fascism seems a term coined mostly from a perceived commonality in brutality and authoritarianism, rather than a genuine historical connection. As such it's a bit misleading and more an appeal to emotion.



It is misleading and an appeal to emotion in the context used most commonly now.

I couldn't speak to the details, but I get the impression that among the varying factions, the ideologies are chosen for their popular appeal by those who control the faction. Some may be deeply rooted in religion, but others seem more driven by a lust for power, and don't intend to share that power with religious leaders should they gain it. Fascism, in the sense of gaining strength from a united Arab or Islamic nation of enormous size, population, and resources is a tempting goal for these groups.

I think Iran fears this end as much as they fear Israel and the West also. The infighting among the various factions certainly stands in the way of this happening now, but the politcal structure among Islamic and Arab nations and cross-national political movements have changed in nature many times in my lifetime, and will probably continue. It is one of the tightropes the US walks with continued involvement in the region. Our greatest mistake would not be allowing disparate rogue nations to form, but inducing anti-western sentiments strong enough to allow broad unification.

Obama gets criticized for his positions on these subjects, but a perception that the US will be influenced by local political concerns, and not just act autonomously with only our own interests in mind, is a way to prevent unification around anti-Western sentiment. This point seems to be lost on many in this country.

I do not however, know many of the details of the national, political, and religious structures.

[Magiver]

fas·cism (fshzm) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism)
n.
1. often Fascism
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.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Islamofascism certainly conveys the wider definition of oppressive dictatorial control as well as many elements of the narrow definition.

Using the word as a noun is an accurate description of someone who wishes to impose Islam as a dominant political force through the use of violence.

[BigT]

^ I was actually going to post something like that, but I realized I'd be fine if we changed the word to be less ambiguous to those who think it confusing.

[Magiver]

Can someone who uses this term explain your decision to use it? I see no real connection between al Quada-type groups and fascist movements. In the term's use, "fascist" does not seem to mean anything other than bad. But fascist movements were and are movements with core principles. Principles that are not shared by the "islmofacists."

Wouldn't, as Lawrence Wright has suggested, takfiris be a better term?

A Takfiri (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=XvJ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:Takfiris&sa=X&ei=HB0DTf-fIoinnQfHnOzlDQ&ved=0CBMQkAE)(from the Arabic word تكفيري) is a Muslim who practices Takfir, which is to accuse other Muslims of apostasy. The term Takfir derives from the word kafir (impiety) and is described as when "...one who is, or claims to be, a Muslim is declared impure.


Nobody has heard of the word takfiris and if they looked it up it wouldn't apply to Al Quada-type groups who are attacking non-Muslim groups.

[Capitaine Zombie]

I believe the ties were quite strong in Iraq until recently (and maybe again soon), and in Syria. There is still a strong political force which was based on 20th century fascism. Saddam, Nasser, among others promoted Pan-Arabism to strengthen the fasces. I am not a historian, and am now over my head on this subject, but the link is not trivial, and the term has occasionally been appropriately applied.

The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Middle_East)has some info on this.

Worst examples you could think of, both Iraq and Syria were ruled by people belonging to a religious minority (especially in Syria), the last thing they would have wanted was to have religion in their way. Besides Arab Nationalism (and, later, Pan-Arabsim) was mostly coined an designed by Christian Arabs, they too wouldnt have wanted religion to muddy things up for them.

The only historical Muslim-Fascism connections I could see would have been:
-the Great Mufti of Jerusalem
-Bosnians auxiliaries to the Waffen SS
-Sadat, who actively tried to get some German help against British rule.

Not a very substantiable crop.
It's more to do with WW2 fetishism, and having the Nazis remembered forever as the ultimate bad guys, if you got nothing in the way of arguments, go for knee-jerk reactions (Obama is a nazi is a good example).

[Der Trihs]

So what word would be better to indicate people who want to force other people to live under Islamic sharia law and use violence to pull it off?"Oppressive theocrats". Of course, that doesn't get the all-important word "Islam" in there and invites comparison to our own theocratic political factions. Islamic theocracy bad, Christian theocracy good.

[Bryan Ekers]

<never mind>

[newcomer]

Now I'm curious... what country is ruled by Islamofascists, today?

[AK84]

Islam was strongly tied to 20th century facism. Saddam Hussein's family was strongly tied to an Iraqi fascist movement that was in league with the Nazis. It may be misapplied in many cases, but it has a basis. This thread should be moved to GQ where people with specific information can provide factual background.

You kidding me? The Baa'th party who used to lock people up for praying too much much were connected to Islam?

[Paul in Qatar]

Fascism is not a curse word. It describes a right-wing sort of collectivism where the community has rights over the individual. Fascist actually describes most political thinking in the region.

[Alessan]

I don't see why you need an overarching term to begin with.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Which oppressive governments does al Qaeda support? They are actively opposed to pretty much every government in the region and the world. The only government they ever had any connection to is/was the Taliban, but that is/was more a marriage of convenience than actual support.

There are some terrorist groups that get support from governments (Hamas is a good example), but these groups are not ones that are usually referred to as the "islamofacists," a term that is used for al Qaeda and its offshoots. If al Qaeda is anything, they are anarchists--al Qaeda has never given a clear articulation of what would happen if they "won."

Nobody has heard of the word takfiris and if they looked it up it wouldn't apply to Al Quada-type groups who are attacking non-Muslim groups.

al Qaeda kills more Muslims than non-Muslim. The takfir viewpoint underlies al Qaeda's actions.

Zawahiri exposed Bin Laden to a dangerous new line of thought: Takfir, or excommunication, is the condemnation of another Muslim as an apostate. The takfiris believed that only their extreme interpretation of Islam qualified as the true religion and that they had the right—in fact, the religious obligation—to kill everyone who disagreed with them. That included the largely Sufi population of Afghanistan, the country they were nominally there to defend. Indeed, with the exception of 9/11, most of al-Qaida's victims have been other Muslims. Purification was the goal of these ideologues, not government, and of course purity and terror go hand in hand, ever since the French revolution.

http://www.slate.com/id/2146654/entry/2146656/

For a fuller description of the takfir movement, see Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, chapter 6 "The Base."

[TriPolar]

You kidding me? The Baa'th party who used to lock people up for praying too much much were connected to Islam?

Yes, most of them were Muslims. I'm not saying they wanted a religious state, but those countries are as strongly tied to Islam as the US is to Christianity.

It is interesting to see the variety of ways everybody has interpreted this subject. So I think BigT and others are right that we need an unambiguous term for this subject.

[Magiver]

al Qaeda kills more Muslims than non-Muslim. The takfir viewpoint underlies al Qaeda's actions.

What does that have to do with your thread? Who is using the word and why? If it's used to refer to Al Queda type terrorist groups who attack Western concerns then Islamofascism is a term people in the West understand.

[FinnAgain]

fas·cism (fshzm) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism)
n.



But it doesn't match. We're not talking about a group of people who necessarily support dictators and strict economic controls. The only matches are to violence, the suppression of dissent and a racial/nationalistic belligerence. Fascism doesn't fit.

Sure, out of the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world, there are almost certainly a non-zero number who want a dictator in power, the economy to be tightly controlled to avoid 'western influence', etc... but the overlap with Jihadists in general seems to be rather small.

[Magiver]

But it doesn't match. We're not talking about a group of people who necessarily support dictators and strict economic controls. The only matches are to violence, the suppression of dissent and a racial/nationalistic belligerence. Fascism doesn't fit.

Sure, out of the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world, there are almost certainly a non-zero number who want a dictator in power, the economy to be tightly controlled to avoid 'western influence', etc... but the overlap with Jihadists in general seems to be rather small. It certainly fits the broader term of oppressive, dictatorial control. Radical Muslims responsible for the current acts of terrorism support a worldwide caliphate.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

What does that have to do with your thread? Who is using the word and why? If it's used to refer to Al Queda type terrorist groups who attack Western concerns then Islamofascism is a term people in the West understand.

Lawrence Wright is the first person, of whom I am aware, to suggest using the term. It is used because it accurately describes the philosophy that underlines al Qaeda's actions.

Whether "Islmofascism" is a term that is understood by people in the West is irrelevant. It is a term that does not accurately describe al Qaeda's philosophy. Al Qeada has nothing to do with fascism.

[FinnAgain]

It is used because it accurately describes the philosophy that underlines al Qaeda's actions.


No, it doesn't.
In your own recitation of facts AQ kills more Muslims than non-Muslims, but more and than do not mean exclusively and rather than. AQ murders westerners who stand in the way of their vision, and Muslims who stand in the way of their vision, and Arabs who stand in the way of their vision, and...

For example,Bin Laden's "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders" (http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm), which was organized to attack American interests, was rather obviously not set up to exclusively challenge Muslims over differences in politics/theology/what-have-you.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

It certainly fits the broader term of oppressive, dictatorial control. Radical Muslims responsible for the current acts of terrorism support a worldwide caliphate.

I am not aware of a widespread support for a worldwide caliphate. Al Qaeda has called for a re-establishment of the caliphate that ended in 1924, which was obviously not a worldwide caliphate.

Another relevant point is that none of the caliphates were fascist.

[Magiver]

I am not aware of a widespread support for a worldwide caliphate. Al Qaeda has called for a re-establishment of the caliphate that ended in 1924, which was obviously not a worldwide caliphate.

Another relevant point is that none of the caliphates were fascist. Again, in the broader term fascism works. Your other term is universally unrecognized in the West so I ask you again who is using the word and who is it supposed to represent?

[Magiver]

I am not aware of a widespread support for a worldwide caliphate. Al Qaeda has called for a re-establishment of the caliphate that ended in 1924, which was obviously not a worldwide caliphate.

Another relevant point is that none of the caliphates were fascist. And I meant to add that widespread support has nothing to do with the discussion. When I hear Islamofascist I think of ultra-right wing Islamic terrorists. It's not a numbers game, it's a description of the wackos committing the acts.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

No, it doesn't.
In your own recitation of facts AQ kills more Muslims than non-Muslims, but more and than do not mean exclusively and rather than. AQ murders westerners who stand in the way of their vision, and Muslims who stand in the way of their vision, and Arabs who stand in the way of their vision, and...

For example,Bin Laden's "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders" (http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm), which was organized to attack American interests, was rather obviously not set up to exclusively challenge Muslims over differences in politics/theology/what-have-you.

Yes, they also focus on killing non-Muslims. But if you look at history of the movement, you will see that takfirism changed the movement into what it is today.

Before al-Zawahiri (who is probably the most important person in al Qaeda's history) adopted takfirism, he supported targeted attacks to achieve a quick coup (in Egypt). After he adopted takfirism, he supported the killing almost anyone and anywhere. When Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda merged, it was al-Zawahiri's philosophy, adopted by bin Laden, that underlay al Qaeda's actions. Without the adoption of takfirism, attacks like 9/11, 1998 embassy bombings probably would not have happened because the attacks were sure to other Muslims. With takfirism, indiscriminate attacks can be carried out because any Muslims killed are apostates.

Without takfirism, al Qaeda would look very different, probably more like Islamic Jihad used to look. The attacks would be focused to achieve quick, limited results.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Again, in the broader term fascism works. Your other term is universally unrecognized in the West so I ask you again who is using the word and who is it supposed to represent?

I am also opposed to using fascism in that overly-broad sense in general. Using fascism to mean any oppressive government is stupid. Fascism is a real form of government with a clearly articulated philosophy.

Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Oliver Cromwell were not fascists. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Francisco Franco were fascists. But if we use the stupid, overly-broad sense all these people were fascists regardless of their actual relationship to a fascist movement.

[Bryan Ekers]

But it doesn't match. We're not talking about a group of people who necessarily support dictators and strict economic controls. The only matches are to violence, the suppression of dissent and a racial/nationalistic belligerence. Fascism doesn't fit.

Well, it kinda does if your first thought on hearing "fascism" runs to images of brownshirts smashing Jewish storefronts. I know I tend not to care if during the brownshirt's day-job he ponders the subtleties of economics - what I get is that he's a thug with government sanction or at least tacit approval.

[FinnAgain]

I can grok that, but I'm not aware of any Jihadists who've actually graduated to the level of government, as of yet they're just using violence to maintain Purity of Essence, and whatnot. the closest we've gotten in modern times would be, I'd think, the Taliban. But then "theocrat" or "totalitarian theocrat" would be a better labels, I'd think.

I've argued before that, for instance, that there was no essential difference between Stalin's form of government and Hitler's, and they were essentially two flavors of fascism fighting each other. But I see the Jihadists as a different animal.

[Dissonance]

I consider the term Islamofascist to be extremely useful. When I see someone use it, it generally means I can safely skip reading further as it's likely to be drivel.

[AK84]

Yes, most of them were Muslims. I'm not saying they wanted a religious state, but those countries are as strongly tied to Islam as the US is to Christianity.

It is interesting to see the variety of ways everybody has interpreted this subject. So I think BigT and others are right that we need an unambiguous term for this subject.

Then the Italians during Mussolini's time must have been Cathlo-fascists, the German in Hitler's time Nazi-Christian, since it makes much more scence.

After all many senior Ba'ath party member were NOT muslims, Tariq Aziz for instance is a Christian. In Egypt, our pan-Arab homeland, two out of their three army commander in 1973 were Coptic.

You really really really need to read a (lot) more before making such statements.

[Bryan Ekers]

I can grok that, but I'm not aware of any Jihadists who've actually graduated to the level of government, as of yet they're just using violence to maintain Purity of Essence, and whatnot. the closest we've gotten in modern times would be, I'd think, the Taliban. But then "theocrat" or "totalitarian theocrat" would be a better labels, I'd think.

I've argued before that, for instance, that there was no essential difference between Stalin's form of government and Hitler's, and they were essentially two flavors of fascism fighting each other. But I see the Jihadists as a different animal.

Actually, it occurs to me that I've never actually used "fascist" or "Islamofascist" to describe ragtag jihadists - my first thoughts tend to run toward pre-invasion Taliban, the Iranian basij (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij) and the Saudi Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. These barely-educated thugs are given a taste of power and told to enforce religious laws, by which they can arrest, beat and even kill with impunity. Simultaneously, their masters could be using modern totalitarian methods like surveillance, censorship and propaganda. It doesn't necessarily conform (and likely contradicts) the classic economic aspects of fascism, but the mechanisms to enforce conformity and control are there.

This is what Al-Qaida could become if they got actual power (that is to say, I don't expect they'd be any different in any significant way from current or former Islamic dictatorships), but they have to earn their title as fascists. Right now they're barely at the beer-hall putsch stage.