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?
It’s a meaningless political slogan intended to inflame emotions. In a similar vein, see “feminazis”.
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.
It´s a silly term used by people with poor communication skills. George Orwell said it better than I can:
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 (excommunicated).
See the feminazis.
See the feminazis march.
See the male chauvinist pigs sent to gelding-camps.
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.
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.
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.
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 articlehas 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.
Also, Syria is a secular state not an Islamist one.
Jihad is a religious duty of all Muslims.
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.
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.
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’, but that’s more of a mouthful.
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.
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.
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.