Islamofascism

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

Not long ago tomndebb posted their disapproval of the use of the word “islamfascism”. See thread and post#143

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

Nah. If you use “Islamofascist” you will be admitting that you follow the ranting of a noted xenophobe who invented a nonsense word for the purpose of drumming up bogeymen to hate and fear. The “fascist” suffix was simply tacked on to the word because it gets a good negative visceral reaction in the U.S., even though the word is utterly meaningless in this context as the Islamists have very few features that could be accurately described as “fascist.”

[/QUOTE]

I recall that this wasn’t the first time so I dug up their Post #16 in an earlier thread where they define it.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Of the following list, I would say that there are several actual traits (bolded) that are indicative of Fascism (as a distinct movement):
**1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism **
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
**3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause **
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections

The rest of the list is either true of a lot of non-Fascist authoritarian states or true of totalitarian states or simply added to the list to make the point that Fascism is “bad.”

In addition to those points, I would note that Fascism has traditionally enhanced point #1 with a sense of “identity” (frequently, but not always racial) and it requires a controlled (but not socialist) economy.
[/QUOTE]

Now several months ago I opened a speech at my daughter’s wedding expressing gratitude for our Canadian soldiers and their families who were “fighting the Islamofascists in Afghanistan”. So forgive me for taking up this issue.

Now I’m going to challenge Tomndebb using the criteria for fascism that they have advanced.

**1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism **

The Ummah comes to mind.

@Wikipedia

Ummah (Arabic: أمة) is an Arabic word meaning Community or Nation. It is commonly used to mean either the collective nation of states, or (in the context of pan-Arabism) the whole Arab world. In the context of Islam, the word ummah is used to mean the diaspora or “Community of the Believers” (ummat al-mu’minin), and thus the whole Muslim world…Some modern Islamists use the term “Islamic Ummah” or “Muslim Ummah” to refer to all the people in the lands and countries where Muslims predominantly reside, and which were once under the control of the Islamic Caliphate. They thus include non-Muslim minorities as members of the ummah. Shariah (Islamic law) would apply to the citizens of the state. In such a unified “Islamic Umma,” the non-Muslim citizens would be subject to Dhimmi limitations and conditions.

Powerful ? They’ve done pretty well against the world’s superpower. Nationalism?
Well, Whats the difference between a “collective nation of states” and the US.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

check

**3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause **

The US and Israel Perhaps?

4. Supremacy of the Military

Well that didn’t apply to the nazis either prior tho Hitler’s coming to power. (not applicable)

5. Rampant Sexism

check

6. Controlled Mass Media

The media must have been controlled by the Taliban when they were in power in Afghanistan. once again Hitler the nazis never controlled the media prior to being in power.

7. Obsession with National Security

not applicable, not in control yet.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

That is their goal

9. Corporate Power is Protected

I don’t know where the islamlofascists plan to go with that one.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

I can only speculate if the islamofascists come to power.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

No argument there is there?

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Getting hand chopped off, 200 lashes, thrown off of tall buildings…

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
    14. Fraudulent Elections

not applicable yet

In addition to those points, I would note that Fascism has traditionally enhanced point #1 with a sense of “identity” (frequently, but not always racial) and it requires a controlled (but not socialist) economy.

Now a lot of Tomndebb’s points refer to fascists in control of a country, but bear in mind before Hitler came to power he and his followers were still fascists. Its easy to Godwinize here, unification of Germans and the resurection of the caliphate, the hatred of Jews, the main enemy the US, and the supremacy of German blood compared to the supremacy of Muslims.

I would suggest the “islamofascists” is the best word to describe who we are fighting. Everyone of them subscribes to Islam, and it is no secret that they want Shariah and are fighting for the Ummah and Islamic supremacy. They are not all terrorists. You’re not a terrorist if your fighting armies.

I actually think that “Islamist” is a ridiculous word. Etymologically its simply a synonym for Muslim. It sounds as benign as Buddhist.

By the way, you’ll have noted my use of the plural pronoun for Tomndebb. Just take that as a little friendly dig at someone who is taking issue with a word.

[Revenant_Threshold]

So of 14 traits, you believe 7 get a certain yes. Half doesn’t sound all that fulfilling, really.

The appropriate question to ask in this case is not how many does it fulfil, but does it fulfil these characteristics better than others? You say “Islamofascists” is the best word to use; presumably tomndebb has another or others which he thinks are more accurate. The only argument you’ve put against other words is that “terrorists don’t fight armies”, something i’d very much disagree with, given that my definition of terrorist is “someone who aims specifically to cause terror”.

I do tend to agree with your statement about “Islamist”, though, in that it does seem similar to otherwise neutral terms. But hey, that’s English for you.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]

I actually think that “Islamist” is a ridiculous word. Etymologically its simply a synonym for Muslim. It sounds as benign as Buddhist.
[/quote]

Etymology is a strange argument, all in all. Thursday is, etymologically, Thor’s day. Part of the problem is that we’re dealing with a variety of ideologies, and not all Islamists have the same interpretation of Sharia, or believe in a reformed Caliphate, etc… I would wager that there are enough doctrinal disagreements among even neo-fundamentalist Muslims that would complicate any system of neat packaging.

I personally don’t much like the term “islamofascists” because I feel that the word “fascism” has been overused to the point of becoming nonsense, almost always in a bombastically partisan manner. You will note, of course, that many folks who’ve been bemoaning how America has become a “fascist” nation or what have you, are the same ones objecting to labeling totalitarian theocracy as fascism.

Bah.

As far as I’m concerned, fascism was a political movement in the early and mid 20th century, and is a subset of totalitarianism as a whole. Islamism and/or neo-fundamentalism are plenty scary in and of themselves and they represent another subset of totalitarianism. I’d actually rather that we didn’t talk about “islamofascism”, if only because any time it’s mentioned the debate is almost guaranteed to be sidetracked by people challenging its usage and, yes, by some people trying to insinuate a strong correlation between the Axis powers and various Islamic nutjobs.

/$.02

[Marley23]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Its easy to Godwinize here
[/quote]

All Godwinization is intentional. The term was introduced into the current debate to deliberately compare the War on Terror to World War II and then make it harder to criticize this war on terror/struggle against extremism/whatever the hell it is, because if you oppose entering World War II you’re an anti-Semite Nazi collaborator. Which is one reason to avoid the word.

I would suggest the “islamofascists” is the best word to describe who we are fighting. Everyone of them subscribes to Islam, and it is no secret that they want Shariah and are fighting for the Ummah and Islamic supremacy. They are not all terrorists. You’re not a terrorist if your fighting armies.

The term isn’t totally inaccurate, I just find it loaded and useless. And it’s created to be loaded and (from the stanpoint of objective debate) useless. So why bother with it? Fanatical Islam or authoritarian or totalitarian Islam or whatever, I do think it lacks some key features of fascism. And fascism can be a pretty amorphous term to begin with.
Terms like this are chosen based on what the speaker wants people to think. That makes the whole thing pretty close to worthless.

I actually think that “Islamist” is a ridiculous word.

Agreed. I guess it’s nice that someone is trying to separate the nutjobs from Muslims in general, but this doesn’t work.

It sounds as benign as Buddhist.

So a criteria for a useful term is that it has to sound like what it means? I think not.

[The_Hamster_King]

Islamic fanaticism is very different from traditional fascism and blurring the boundaries between the two makes our fight against it harder, not easier.

Traditional fascism is an extreme *nationalist * movement. It claims that a particular ethnic group (identified with a nation-state) is superior to others and rightful should dominate them. It also claims that all aspects of life should be subservient to the needs of the “people”, whose will is personified by a single “great man” who leads the unified state.

This describes how Nazi Germany functioned, as well as Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, and a host of other contemporary minor fascist states.

Islamic fanaticism does not fit this mold. It has no cult of personality, and it is international and inclusive rather than being regional and exclusive. It’s strives to dominate only those aspects of society that it takes a theological interest in – other things (like big business) are ignored or neglected.

Call it Islamic fundamentalism. Call it radical Islam. Call Islamic theocracy. But applying the fascist label just muddies the waters.

[BrainGlutton]

They’re fundamentally different animals. Islamic extremism is on the religious-traditionalist side of the civilizational divide; fascism is a political expression of romanticism, one of the three Western post-religious political traditions (the others being humanism and rationalism). See “Which Civilisation?” by Michael Lind, Prospect, 10/25/01.

[Tamerlane]

An earlier thread on this exact topic: Bush says we're fighting "Islamic fascists" - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board

My own opinions from that thread:

Eh. I prefer “jihadist.” Or Keppel’s “salafist-jihadists” perhaps. But just plain jihadist works well enough for me in context and avoids the historical baggage of the term fascism. Khomeinian Iran and the Taliban’s Afghanistan are best and most simply described as theocracies, not as fascist states, the one to me contradicting the other despite the superficial similarities. And as Sam correctly noted, while all jihadists are Islamists, not all ( or even most ) Islamists are jihadists.

In general I guess I agree with tomndeb and griffin on this one. Whether it is my own personal blinders or not, I find the broader definitions of fascism too wishy-washy stripped of its historical context. “Islamo-fascist” to me sounds sloppy and potentially obfuscatory.

I wouldn’t get too worked up about it, though. Semantics. And al-Qaeda by any other name would smell just as bad.

and…

Tomato, tomahto - I just don’t like the term because to me fascism doesn’t invoke something generic, but rather something specific. Mind you, like everyone else I genericize such words all the time in casual contexts - i.e. “health Nazis.” But I wouldn’t use it as a serious label for an ideology, because to me it implies that violent Islamists are lineal descendents of and/or a political subset of the larger group known as fascists. Which I don’t happen to agree with. Authoritarian doesn’t necessarily equal fascist - a fascist authoritarian is not the same as a communist authoritarian, which is not the same as an Islamist authoritarian. In my mind, anyway.

But again, it doesn’t push any outrage buttons with me. I just think it sounds stupid.

[stolichnaya]

I’ve wondered where the “o” comes from. Why not “Islamifascist” (after “Islamic”)?

Am I missing something?

[FinnAgain]

Thanks for your contribution Tamerlane. A few quibbles, however: Islamists, while not always jihadists, are always theocrats. And theocracy is an inherently totalitarian system of government.

In addition, some folks who might be identified as Jihadists did indeed have something of a direct ideological relationship with the Nazis, whether it was a co-believers in a racist and violent ideology or as students of that specific ideology. Figures such as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, would probably qualify as would some of his proteges. Indeed, new research paints a picture of the WW II Arab street that, in Nazism, saw a path to their own political self determination (and who shared some common goals where the Jews were concerned) . Likewise, Mein Kampf has been translated into Arabic and has been a best seller among certain Arab populations. Ditto for the Protocols.

So there are (and were) similarities. Enough to classify various jihadists as a subset of Nazism? I suppose that’s a matter of personal preference as ontology still won’t let nomenclature kiss it full on the mouth.

Other than that, yes, I agree. There are terms that I prefer more to describe both the violent and non-violent adherents of theocratic Islam.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Thanks for your contribution Tamerlane. A few quibbles, however: Islamists, while not always jihadists, are always theocrats. And theocracy is an inherently totalitarian system of government.
[/QUOTE]

Eh? North Korea has a totalitarian government. Iran does not have a totalitarian government. Neither does Saudi Arabia. They’re not very libertarian, but they’re not totalitarian either.

[FinnAgain]

What definition of totalitarianism, exactly, are you using?
Iran has a Supreme Leader and a ruling council who make the rules. The Saudis have a functioning King. Neither are democratic.
Both have centralized authorities who make the rules for the society. Both do so based on religion. Both suppress dissent and do not allow a free press. Etc, etc, etc. How are those not theocracies? How are they not totalitarian?

[treis]

Fascists throw huge rallies, drape themselves in flags, talk about the superiority of their race/country, wear uniforms, and generally are devoted to a charismatic leader. That doesn’t describe remotely the Islamic movement.

[FinnAgain]

Huge rallies? Check.
Drape themselves with their faction’s ideology? Check.
Talk about the superiority of their religion/culture? Check.
Devoted to a charismatic leader? Or two? Or three? Check.
Wear uniforms? Guess you’ve got them on that count.

Calling it ‘fascism’ is still not justified, in my book. But the argument you just posted is silly. I mean… uniforms as a defining characteristic?

[Miller]

@The Flying Dutchman

Well that didn’t apply to the nazis either prior tho Hitler’s coming to power.

You want to run that one by me again, chief?

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
What definition of totalitarianism, exactly, are you using?
Iran has a Supreme Leader and a ruling council who make the rules. The Saudis have a functioning King. Neither are democratic.
Both have centralized authorities who make the rules for the society. Both do so based on religion. Both suppress dissent and do not allow a free press. Etc, etc, etc. How are those not theocracies? How are they not totalitarian?
[/QUOTE]

A totalitarian state owns and/or operates the entire economy and controls all aspects of social life. Iran and SA are authoritarian states. They may interfere in private behavior and intellectual freedom a great deal and have some state-owned industries, but by and large the economies are private.

Iran also has elections, real ones. They’re not fully free elections as the Council of Guardians can strike anyone off the ballot, but they’re not total shams like elections in Hussein’s Iraq. Iran has a thriving civil society independent of the state – something totalitarian states generally do not allow.

SA is less like a totalitarian state than a company town, with the Sauds as stockholders.

[Captain_Amazing]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Eh? North Korea has a totalitarian government. Iran does not have a totalitarian government. Neither does Saudi Arabia. They’re not very libertarian, but they’re not totalitarian either.
[/QUOTE]

Both governments are totalitarian in that they seek to regulate all aspects of a person’s life. There isn’t an concept of a “private sphere” in which government has no place.

[Tamerlane]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Thanks for your contribution Tamerlane.
[/quote]

Certainly. Allow me to counter-quibble however.

Islamists, while not always jihadists, are always theocrats.

Incorrect. An Islamist wants a government that, at some level, takes into account Islamic precepts ( usually some version of Islamic law at a minimum ). Theocracy on the other hand is specifically rule by the religious class ( clergy or what have you ). It’s entirely possible to be pro-democracy ( at some level ) and Islamist.

Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was an Islamist and a theocrat.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is an Islamist. But he is not a theocrat.

In addition, some folks who might be identified as Jihadists did indeed have something of a direct ideological relationship with the Nazis, whether it was a co-believers in a racist and violent ideology or as students of that specific ideology.

WW II Arab flirtations with Nazism are often cited, but have been often been slightly overblown IMHO. Anti-Semitism really became entrenched in the Levant in the late 19th/early 20th century, starting with polemic literature translated from French, legacies of the Dreyfus Affair. The Protocols were published in Arabic in 1927. The Nazis certainly pushed their anti-Semitic ideas aggressively in the 30’s and 40’s ( where their literature joined anti-Semitic scrawls from such notables as Marx and Henry Ford ), but political flirtation seems based more on “enemy of my enemy” principles than philosophical solidarity ( the Maronite Phalange are probably the most notable exception ). Outside of common enemies ( colonial powers and Jews ) and anti-Semitism, there weren’t many touchstones between pious Muslims and Nazis. Arabs definitely weren’t good Aryans ;).

I wouldn’t want to undersell the influence of German ideas ( including, and probably more important, pre-Nazi German nationalism ) on the region either. But while Islamist authoritarianism and Nazi/fascist authoritarianism may belong to the same family, they aren’t IMO in the same genus.

[treis]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Huge rallies? Check.
[/quote]

What? A riot isn’t anywhere close to the mass rallies of a fascist state. The mass rallies of a fascist state were highly organized and ordered, centered around the party and/or leader. A riot is a spontaneous, leaderless, and disordered.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]

Drape themselves with their faction’s ideology? Check.
[/quote]

How is that anything like draping yourself in a flag?

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]

Talk about the superiority of their religion/culture? Check.
[/quote]

This is one person, and I don’t think it’s indicative of a trend. I have no doubt that these people think that Islam is the One True Faith[sup]TM[/sup], but that’s not the same level of superiority that fascists movements proclaim.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]

Devoted to a charismatic leader? Or two? Or three? Check.
[/quote]

Every movement has leaders. In a fascist movement a leader is as much the movement as he is the leader of it. In other words, he is not just the leader of the movement, he is the embodiment of that movement.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]

Wear uniforms? Guess you’ve got them on that count.

Calling it ‘fascism’ is still not justified, in my book. But the argument you just posted is silly. I mean… uniforms as a defining characteristic?
[/QUOTE]

Uniforms are certainly important evidence of a fascist movement. It shows the level of organization, control, and influence of the party on the day to day life of the populace.

Picture in your head a Nazi rally and a rally of the Taliban. The things I listed are the immediate differences you see.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
A totalitarian state owns and/or operates the entire economy and controls all aspects of social life.
[/quote]

No, a totalitarian government is one that is ruled by an absolute, single party government. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are ruled by absolutist, single party governments.

As for controlling ‘social life’, come on.
Iran has its own morality police regulate all aspects of social life that they deem ‘un-Islamic’. The Saudis have the
Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. Those same wonderful chaps who made sure that schoolgirls died by fire rather than running from a burning building without headscarves. Some more of Saudi Arabia’s civil society.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

Iran and SA are authoritarian states. They may interfere in private behavior and intellectual freedom a great deal and have some state-owned industries, but by and large the economies are private.
[/quote]

A private economy does not make a state non-totalitarian.
And, as long as I’m at it:

@Random House

1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.

@American Heritage

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed

@Merriam Webster

1 a: of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian dictatorial; especially : despotic

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

Iran also has elections, real ones.
[/quote]

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

They’re not fully free elections as the Council of Guardians can strike anyone off the ballot, but they’re not total shams like elections in Hussein’s Iraq.
[/quote]

No, they’re total sham elections like in the Ayatollah’s Iran. It’s totally different! :dubious:
Any candidates they don’t like aren’t allowed to be elected. All real policy is made by the Supreme Leader or the Council of Guardians, half of whose members are directly appointed by the Supreme Leader. The other six are selected by the head of the Judiciary branch who is himself, you guessed it, is appointed or dismissed solely at the pleasure of the Supreme Leader.
The Guardian Council, in turn, has veto power over anything Parliament does.
The Assembly of Experts, the only body that can offer a significant check to the Supreme Leader is, go figure, also selected by the Guardian Council.
The Expediency Discernment Council, which can mediate between the Guardian Council and the Majlis is, itself, a body that operates largely at the behest of the Supreme Leader.

Edit: fuck, hit submit instead of preview.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
No, a totalitarian government is one that is ruled by an absolute, single party government.
[/QUOTE]

That description applies to Mexico for most of the 20th Century, but it was never a totalitarian state.