# Islamofascists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 10, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719 "2010-12-10T23:16:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/41 "2010-12-11T20:13:06Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/42 "2010-12-11T20:22:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > [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. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/43 "2010-12-11T20:36:15Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/44 "2010-12-11T20:40:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/45 "2010-12-11T20:46:41Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/46 "2010-12-11T20:47:40Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/47 "2010-12-11T20:49:38Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/48 "2010-12-11T21:01:50Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/49 "2010-12-11T21:03:52Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/50 "2010-12-11T21:14:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/51 "2010-12-12T03:14:09Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/52 "2010-12-12T03:56:24Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/53 "2010-12-12T06:23:27Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/54 "2010-12-12T07:27:24Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719/55 "2010-12-12T07:55:21Z")
> [@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. 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islamofascists/563719.md?page=2)