I’ve seen and heard this term bandied about quite a bit lately, apparently referring to Islamic terrorists. I fail to see the connection between their apparent goals and those of fascism (from Dictionary.com):
fas·cism n.
often Fascism
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.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Can’t be 1.1 - they have no government.
2.0 seems unlikely for the same reason - kind of hard to have that sort of control without a government.
1.2 is one heck of a stretch, I suppose one could argue that AlQueda et al are trying to instill an “Islamic” form of government, and if you believe that form of government uses 2.0 Opressive, dictatorial control, then therefore Islamic=fascist. But perhaps I’m using the wrong terminology for the type of government advocated, or am missing something important.
My personal take is that the term Islamo-fascist is a term of propoganda, used to rile up feelings of hatred against those accused of being a part of the movement by those who want to attack it.
However, I would like to hear a different take, hopefully many views. I want to believe that the people who are using this term have a good reason for doing so. I also want this knowledge so I have a clear picture of the arguments when I visit my very Republican family for Christmas, as I fully expect this term to leap out of one of their mouths sometime over that weekend.
So, for debate, here’s the question:
Does the term Islamo-facist refer to an actual movement, or is it a tool of propoganda?
The prefix “Islamo-” is supposed to make a distinction between actual Fascism and a different, newly defined idea.
The short definition of Fascism you found is not enough to cover the subject entirely. Fascism is also associated with intense oppression against opposing religions, especially Jews, to the point of murder, torture, and attempted genocide. It is associated with territorial expansionism and intolerance to dissent and oppression of women, among other things. All of these are similarities between Fascist practices and a fundamentalist Islamic movement. We all know that fundamentalist Islamists are NOT Fascists per se, but the term is meant to point out how many of the things we hate so much about Fascism are also apparent in the Islamic movement.
In short, it’s a meaningful term, but with powerful propaganda value.
It’s a tool of propaganda, but I don’t think it is neccesarily unfair.
Islamicists want to set up a theocratic pan-Islamic state, uniting all Muslims under one Islamic government following Sharia law.
From your definition:
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.
Such a state would have centralized authority, the Caliph would be a dictator, there would be stringent socioeconomic controls (no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, no alcohol, segregation of sexes, burkhas, etc, etc), there would be suppression of the opposition (see how the Taliban ran things), and the Muslim nation would definately be hostile to the West, India, Russia, non-Muslim Africa and China, although perhaps not racist in a Western sense.
A theocratic dictatorship like the Taliban of course wouldn’t be a literal recapipulation of Italy’s fascist government, but would bear some striking similarities. The biggest question is how powerful such a government would be…third world government are often brutal, tyrannical, murderous and repressive, but lack the ubiquity of a modern industrialized police state. The dictator’s goons might murder you for fun, but there might not actually be that many goons out there murdering people, since the state lacks the resources to hire that many goons. Of course, oil-rich third world dictatorships have an advantage, since oil wealth represents an easily controlled source of wealth for the state.
I personally don’t think the comparison between a Taliban-style government and a fascist government to be so unfair. Your mileage may vary.
Ummm, no. Had you just left it at opposing religions you would have been right. Since Fascism came from Italy, I don’t recall Mussolini having anything against Jews.
I think it’s a term used for its emotional response rather than its intellectual response. Islamo-theocrats would probably be more accurate, but that just doesn’t have same “zing” to it. And, as others have noted, the goals of the al-Qaeda type groups do have a strong fascist element to them.
Hitler’s Germany amalgamated state with church. His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church and blindly followed all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.
Hitler politicized “family values.” He liked corporeal punishment in home and school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany, he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it.
Mein Kampf is chock full of the Fuhrer’s musings on God. (“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord,” Hitler wrote).
Properly used in an historical sense, Islamofascist does not refer to the anti-secularists such as al Qaeda and it’s spiritual parent Wahhibism. Rather, it refers to primarly secular parties (which, when useful, coopt religious and racial ideas of course). The Ba’ath parties in Iraq and Syria date directly to fascist idealism spreading from Europe before and during the second world war. Libya is similar in this regard, as are some influential elements in Egypt. It’s only recently that the term has been expanded to include the other enemies of democracy in the Islamic world, the Shi’ia movement and its allies in Hezbollah and elsewhere and Wahhibism and it’s offshoots.
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn some were using the term that way. For others, it’s merely sloppiness – there are three broad groups of bad guys we’re at war with now, all of whom have a claimed connection (however tenuous in reality) to Islam and to Arabs and one of whom has a direct fascist origin, so why not lump them together? Still others are simply extending the analogy. Whilst the Shi’ia in Iran and the Wahhibis in Saudi Arabia didn’t arise from the European fascist movements, they are, in James Woolsey’s words, “totalitarian in exactly the sense Mussolini meant it: total commitment required, total control.” So whilst they may not be exactly fascist in the traditional political scientists’ definition, they have a world view of control which closely parallels that of the most famous fascist.
I think one would want to learn more about the user of the term before drawing any conclusions from it.
