# Islamofascist?



## Everness

“This nation is at war with Islamic fascists,” my favorite president said somberly, “who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.” He used that expression to describe the alleged London bomb plotters last month. 

Is it ok to put these two words together? Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based advocacy group, doesn't think so. According to the following article, he released an open letter to the president excoriating him for using language that “contributes to a rising level of hostility to Islam and the American-Muslim community.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14319984/site/newsweek/ I think he makes a valid point but then I'm too biased when it comes to judging anything W. says or does.  

Is it ok to put "Islam" and "Fascism" together? Why is Bush using this term? Why is the American right using "Islamofascism"? Does this term contribute to a rising level of hostility to Islam, as Parvez Ahmed argues. Is there an open or hidden agenda or no agenda at all behind this terminology? Would Christians be ok if people in the Arab world start using the term "Christianofascism" to describe US' actions in Iraq?


----------



## cuchuflete

I gather you don't much care for W's latest demonstration of hoof in mouth---and all the way up into the cranial cavity---disease.  

Ask W to tell us all he knows about Islam.  Then, two seconds later, when he has finished, ask him to define 'fascism'.  He will mumble something about Hitler, and then change the subject.  

In my youth, we called all political opponents fascists. (A few actually were!)  Most of us knew little about the real meaning of the term.  Some of us later learned what it really means, while others embarked on political careers in Texas.

_
 PS- From WR's English dictionary:  

 _


> _*fascist*_ _*A*__noun__*1 *__*fascist*
> __an adherent of fascism or other *right-wing authoritarian* views_


_ Sound like anyone we are talking about?_


----------



## Insider

Perhaps, the president has just made a mistake, as usual, and I'm not sure that he can freely explain the meaning and the ideas of the Fascism and of the fascist movement. Maybe, the knowledge concerning Middle East are better, but still, they won't make a good impression.

All this for me sounds like a new big and senseless speak on which the whole world one more time will make the jokes.


----------



## Lykurg

There is one very limited connection: The Baath Party (Saddam Hussein's party, still at power in Syria) has an unbroken fascist tradition.  And some school books in Middle Eastern countries today praise the Holocaust.

According to many Mullahs, the Terrorist organisations violate islamic law - they just exploit religious differences to enforce their political - non-religious - aims. Fascists acted like this, too.

But I think it is very awkward to use that term, since it harms deeply those who care. That phrase is none to gather friends with.


----------



## modus.irrealis

I don't see what would be wrong in using Islamic Fascist if it were accurate (I don't think it is because there seems to be no nationalistic elements to this phenomenon, and in those places that do seem Fascistic like the Baathist movement which Lykurg mentions, I'd say it's inaccurate to call them Islamic). Islamic fascist, considering that fascist has been emptied of almost any meaning in everyday discussions, might be accurate in some sense, but I personally would wish that politicians would be a lot more sophisticated in the expression of their views. Islamofascist, on the other hand, and the use of the term Islamist with this particular sense, I would say should not be used because they (more than) suggest that the fascism is a direct consequence of the Islam, rather than saying that this is a Muslim variety of fascism.

Whether it increases hostility to Islam, that's a tough question and I don't know. It would probably reinforce already negative opinions of Islam, and for those people who never had any opinion either way on Islam, constantly seeing Islamic and fascit put together is going to have a negative effect. I can't see it changing someone's positive reaction to a negative one, but now I'd say it would increase hostility to Islam, although perhaps not to individual Muslims.

Personally, I think there is an agenda, and that nobody is trying to hide it. Part of it could be that, considering the popular version of American WWII history, establishing something as fascist leads to the conclusion that you don't negotiate with these people, you don't make peace with them because they must be completely defeated, and so on. If the identification is established, it makes people a lot more open to the idea of punitive measures or even military action. But it's hardly limited to the current American administration or to American politicians in general. I'd say it's a pretty common phenomenon.


----------



## Blackleaf

> Is it ok to put "Islam" and "Fascism" together?


 
He's probably used the term "Islamofascists" because fascist Muslims are trying to kill us.


----------



## .   1

Blackleaf said:


> He's probably used the term "Islamofascists" because fascist Muslims are trying to kill us.


I think that this is accurate.
Fascist is a political word and Islam is a religious word.
Dubya was not trash talking all members of Islam. He was just badmouthing any Fascists who are Islamic.

.,,


----------



## claudine2006

Blackleaf said:


> He's probably used the term "Islamofascists" because fascist Muslims are trying to kill us.


To kill who exactly?


----------



## Everness

. said:


> I think that this is accurate.
> Fascist is a political word and Islam is a religious word.
> Dubya was not trash talking all members of Islam. He was just badmouthing any Fascists who are Islamic.
> 
> .,,



If fascist is a political word and Islam is a religious word, shouldn't we try to keep them apart? 

Islamists have decried the use of violence in the name of the Prophet. They argue that a group of religious fanatics are using Islam to commit crimes. They are using *religion *to advance their *political *agenda. It's important to keep in mind this distinction. The usage of the term Islamofacists doesn't help at all. 

We also have dangerous religious Christian zealots in the West. Let's not forget that Pat Robertson asked the intelligence community to kill the president of Venezuela. Preachers like Robertson spread their political gospel of hatred. They also politicize Jesus' gospel. They have a murderous mind but they don't have the cojones to pull the trigger. Maybe that's the main difference with their counterparts in the Islamic world. 

In sum, people in Islam and Christianity can hijack their religions to pursue their political agenda. So let's keep religion out of it.


----------



## Everness

Blackleaf said:


> He's probably used the term "Islamofascists" because fascist Muslims are trying to kill us.





claudine2006 said:


> To kill who exactly?



Oh, I can't wait for the answer to this question!  For some reason, I'm always asked to clarify the use of the pronouns we and us.


----------



## DavyBCN

Everness said:


> If fascist is a political word and Islam is a religious word, shouldn't we try to keep them apart?
> 
> Islamists have decried the use of violence in the name of the Prophet. They argue that a group of religious fanatics are using Islam to commit crimes. They are using *religion *to advance their *political *agenda. It's important to keep in mind this distinction. The usage of the term Islamofacists doesn't help at all.
> 
> We also have dangerous religious Christian zealots in the West. Let's not forget that Pat Robertson asked the intelligence community to kill the president of Venezuela. Preachers like Robertson spread their political gospel of hatred. They also politicize Jesus' gospel. They have a murderous mind but they don't have the cojones to pull the trigger. Maybe that's the main difference with their counterparts in the Islamic world.
> 
> In sum, people in Islam and Christianity can hijack their religions to pursue their political agenda. So let's keep religion out of it.


 

I agree to a large extent, but to suggest that it is possible to "keep politics out of it - religion" is a little naive. Religion is political - now and all through its history. Nobody needs to hijack religion because it has throughout history and in every part of the world been political - and usually nationalist. "God is on our side" has been the rallying call of all governments at war.

Religion has also always been a mechanism by which those in authority have divided and ruled. While I accept the right of any individual to have a religious faith, I despair that they divorce their personal beliefs from the intrinsic "evil" that is organised religion, which is essentially based on the premise that there is only one God and that is the one that I believe in, so I am entitled to call you a heretic. Consequently, if you do not convert to my religion then you are of no consequence at best, and to be eliminated at worst.

A harsh view? Read the history of the world.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everything I've ever read about fascism emphasizes that it is about state control of all military, political and economic power.

Religions cross borders.  Where is the state that is to be in control?

The terrorists who act, falsely, in the name of Islam, would be just as quick to undo an Islamic state as a Western one.

"Fascist" only works if one assumes that the terrorists want to establish a single state.  It's clear that some of them want to impose their own very sick and twisted notion of religion, but I have not yet seen statements indicating that they want a single state in control of everything.

Many, but certainly not all, recent terrorists claim adherence to Islam.  If W had referred to those people as Islamoterrorists, he would have used too broad a brush, but would have been a little more accurate than he was in using facism.


----------



## cuchuflete

Blackleaf said:


> He's probably used the term "Islamofascists" because fascist Muslims are trying to kill us.


Your profile suggests that you are not a Texas politician, but I'd be curious to know you own definition of 'fascist'.


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> “This nation is at war with Islamic fascists,” my favorite president said somberly, “who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.” He used that expression to describe the alleged London bomb plotters last month.
> 
> Is it ok to put these two words together? Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based advocacy group, doesn't think so. According to the following article, he released an open letter to the president excoriating him for using language that “contributes to a rising level of hostility to Islam and the American-Muslim community.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14319984/site/newsweek/ I think he makes a valid point but then I'm too biased when it comes to judging anything W. says or does.
> 
> Is it ok to put "Islam" and "Fascism" together? Why is Bush using this term? Why is the American right using "Islamofascism"? Does this term contribute to a rising level of hostility to Islam, as Parvez Ahmed argues. Is there an open or hidden agenda or no agenda at all behind this terminology? Would Christians be ok if people in the Arab world start using the term "Christianofascism" to describe US' actions in Iraq?


That word (Islamofascist) is a 'catchy catch-phrase'  (as they were known on the TV show _'Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin'_, that I have heard a lot on what I used to call when I listened to it 'Right-wing Radio'. It is as contentless as any slogan coined for propaganda purposes...


----------



## Victoria32

DavyBCN said:


> . Nobody needs to hijack religion because it has throughout history and in every part of the world been political - and usually nationalist. "God is on our side" has been the rallying call of all governments at war.


I just saw a rather disgusting example of just that... I was looking for an E Card to send my niece, who is 23 today, September 11th 2006. I googled E cards, found a Christian site in the USA and when I clicked on it, what do I find - an exhortation to send a card for *Patriot Day September 11th,* invoking God all over the place! 
I shut that immediately.

I am currently reading the excellent book by Jim Wallis, _God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it wrong, and the Left just doesn't Get it._Very earnest and very good! Jim Wallis is an Evangelical church leader who is shocked and disgusted with what could be called 'Christianofascism, Pat Robertson and the like...


----------



## Everness

DavyBCN said:


> I agree to a large extent, but to suggest that it is possible to "keep politics out of it - religion" is a little naive. Religion is political - now and all through its history. Nobody needs to hijack religion because it has throughout history and in every part of the world been political - and usually nationalist. "God is on our side" has been the rallying call of all governments at war.
> 
> Religion has also always been a mechanism by which those in authority have divided and ruled. While I accept the right of any individual to have a religious faith, I despair that they divorce their personal beliefs from the intrinsic "evil" that is organised religion, which is essentially based on the premise that there is only one God and that is the one that I believe in, so I am entitled to call you a heretic. Consequently, if you do not convert to my religion then you are of no consequence at best, and to be eliminated at worst.
> 
> A harsh view? Read the history of the world.



There are approximately 1,200 billion Muslims in the world. How many of them are killing people in the name of their God and religion? 1%? 0.1%? 0.001%? 0.0001%? I'm talking about people who will kill in the name of the Prophet, not about people who might deeply disagree with our Western post-Christian lifestyle and strongly criticize it. 

The vast majority of the 1,200 billion Muslims know that their religion has nothing to do with fascism and terrorism. But how do you think they feel when the President of the US puts together the words Islam and fascist? Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reacted with anger, and if I were Muslim I would react the same way.


----------



## DavyBCN

Everness said:


> There are approximately 1,200 billion Muslims in the world. How many of them are killing people in the name of their God and religion? 1%? 0.1%? 0.001%? 0.0001%? I'm talking about people who will kill in the name of the Prophet, not about people who might deeply disagree with our Western post-Christian lifestyle and strongly criticize it.
> 
> The vast majority of the 1,200 billion Muslims know that their religion has nothing to do with fascism and terrorism. But how do you think they feel when the President of the US puts together the words Islam and fascist? Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reacted with anger, and if I were Muslim I would react the same way.


 
And so would I probably. But I'm not sure how my post led to your comments. I wrote about organised religion in general throughout history and I am therefore at a loss about why you link my comments to your remarks above.


----------



## cuchuflete

If there is such a thing as a "post-Christian lifestyle", then dare we (note your pernicious influence!) ask what lifestyle came before the 'post-' was added, and just what was 'Christian' about it?  

Islam is not fascistic.  Many--I haven't got a survey handy to tell me how many--Muslims dislike the US, for reasons that have been beat to death and resurrected and beat to death yet again in other threads.   I really suspect they will take W's latest gaff as further proof of the righteousness of their feelings.   If they are anything like some of the members of this forum, they probably don't know what fascist means, but will take it as an insult, feel insulted, and hate the person who uttered it.   

Now to the uncomfortable part-
The terrorists demonize Western culture, governments, peoples. W demonizes with an equally inaccurate, broad generalization.  The sharing of tactics is frightening.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> If fascist is a political word and Islam is a religious word, shouldn't we try to keep them apart?
> 
> Islamists have decried the use of violence in the name of the Prophet. They argue that a group of religious fanatics are using Islam to commit crimes. They are using *religion *to advance their *political *agenda. It's important to keep in mind this distinction. The usage of the term Islamofacists doesn't help at all.
> 
> We also have dangerous religious Christian zealots in the West. Let's not forget that Pat Robertson asked the intelligence community to kill the president of Venezuela. Preachers like Robertson spread their political gospel of hatred. They also politicize Jesus' gospel. They have a murderous mind but they don't have the cojones to pull the trigger. Maybe that's the main difference with their counterparts in the Islamic world.
> 
> In sum, people in Islam and Christianity can hijack their religions to pursue their political agenda. So let's keep religion out of it.


May I suggest that you take the plastic wrap off the cigar before you smoke it.
How on earth can you tell me to keep religion and politics separated when the question is of the combination of religion and politics.
Religion does not start wars.
Time and time again politics starts wars and uses religion as an excuse. 
It is not possible to discuss the word fascist and not delve into politics.
It is not possible to discuss the word Islam and not delve into religion.

Yes I do agree that it would be theoretically wonderful to always and entirely separate politics and religion but my magic wand is busted and I have to live in the real world.

.,,


----------



## diseña

Everness said:


> There are approximately 1,200 billion Muslims in the world. How many of them are killing people in the name of their God and religion? 1%? 0.1%? 0.001%? 0.0001%? I'm talking about people who will kill in the name of the Prophet, not about people who might deeply disagree with our Western post-Christian lifestyle and strongly criticize it.
> 
> The vast majority of the 1,200 billion Muslims know that their religion has nothing to do with fascism and terrorism. But how do you think they feel when the President of the US puts together the words Islam and fascist? Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reacted with anger, and if I were Muslim I would react the same way.


1,200 billion? But there are only six and a half billion people in the world (or six hundred thousand million if we use the non-US counting method).
Maybe you are using the Spanish comma there (i.e. instead of a decimal point), but even so, that would still mean that over a fifth of the world's poplulation is Muslim... Are you sure of those figures? (and do you mean practising Muslim, or people who were just born into the faith... (like most religious people, unfortunately)).


----------



## Everness

DavyBCN said:


> And so would I probably. But I'm not sure how my post led to your comments. I wrote about organised religion in general throughout history and I am therefore at a loss about why you link my comments to your remarks above.



I forgot to introduce my remarks. I agree with everything you said. I also strongly believe in the separation of church and state and that we should keep fighting to keep those boundaries clear. But this time it's not religion using politics but unscrupulous politicians craftily combining charged words for political gain. Bush uses notions like "Islamic fascists" to make sure that Republicans don't lose control of the Congress next November. Religion and religious leaders can be rightfully criticized for many, many things. But this time the blame should be placed squarely elsewhere. The Bush-Cheney administration decided to resort to irresponsible under-the-belt blows to win an election. And this is just the beginning. And of course they don't give a sh*t about Islam...


----------



## Everness

diseña said:


> 1,200 billion? But there are only six and a half billion people in the world (or six hundred thousand million if we use the non-US counting method).
> Maybe you are using the Spanish comma there (i.e. instead of a decimal point), but even so, that would still mean that over a fifth of the world's poplulation is Muslim... Are you sure of those figures? (and do you mean practising Muslim, or people who were just born into the faith... (like most religious people, unfortunately)).



I meant 1.2 billion. I don't know where to find reliable figures but most websites I checked seem to agree on that figure.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I really don't know how to answer your question about practicing vs. non-practicing Muslims. However, my hunch is that Muslims don't have the problem many Christians churches or denominations have. How many people have you met who say, "I'm Catholic but I don't go to Mass" or "I'm Protestant but I don't attend any church?"


----------



## Brioche

claudine2006 said:


> To kill who exactly?


 
It kill anyone who is a Kaffir or infidel: that is, not an Muslim [according to their definition of Muslim].
Anyone who is opposed to the establishment or re-creation of the Caliphate.

The Islamofascists - for want of a better word - believe that (1) the path to peace and justice lies in a return to the original message of Islam., and (2) that it is their job to make sure it happens.

Anyone who opposes this idea is, ipso facto, and enemy of Allah, and worthy of death. As they see it, the secular, liberal-democratic state is incompatible with Allah's will.

I think that fascist is reasonably accurate, since they do envision a single, Islamic world. Hitler wanted Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer. The Islamofascists want One Religion, one People, one Caliphate. 

Just as in days of old, the adherents various varieties of Christianity - Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical, Calvanist - did not regard the other "sort" as real Christians. In fact, the other "sort" were worse than infidels, since they corrupted the "true" Christian message. So Christians of variety A were happy to kill Christians of variety B - because they were heretics/apostates.

Similarly, there are several branches of Islam. Some sects believe the members of other sects are effectively apostate/heretic. Under Islam, apostacy merits the death penalty.

There is not much point is pointing out that the Koran says this or that. The New Testament says in several places that Christians are commanded to love one another. That didn't stop the Thirty Years War.
And it didn't stop nominally Christian Roman Catholics or nominally Christian Presbyterians slaughtering each other in Ireland.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Brioche said:


> It kill anyone who is a Kaffir or infidel: that is, not an Muslim [according to their definition of Muslim].
> Anyone who is opposed to the establishment or re-creation of the Caliphate.
> 
> The Islamofascists - for want of a better word - believe that (1) the path to peace and justice lies in a return to the original message of Islam., and (2) that it is their job to make sure it happens.
> 
> Anyone who opposes this idea is, ipso facto, and enemy of Allah, and worthy of death. As they see it, the secular, liberal-democratic state is incompatible with Allah's will.
> 
> I think that fascist is reasonably accurate, since they do envision a single, Islamic world. Hitler wanted Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer. The Islamofascists want One Religion, one People, one Caliphate.


 
 Just like any fascists. The question is homophobia, I think. And little does it matter what brand of philosophy one picks out for that. 
 We have become so fond of attaching religious and/or nationalistic connotations and bases to the term "facism", yet... oh dear, the vast majority of violence in the world is accounted for by purely  everyday hatred on the grounds of anything. And this is fascism just as much.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> Many, but certainly not all, recent terrorists claim adherence to Islam.  If W had referred to those people as Islamoterrorists, he would have used too broad a brush, but would have been a little more accurate than he was in using facism.



I beg to differ. Allow me to elaborate. 

First, I've already stated that a minuscule group of Muslims have hijacked Islam to pursue a pseudo-religious agenda. But Islam and most Muslims don't subscribe to their ideologies and violent ways. Therefore, they get p*ssed, and rightly so, when Western politicians come up with terms that combine the religion they love so much (Islam) with a particular ideology that most people repudiate (Fascism.) If I were Muslim and I was asked to pick between Islamofascist and Islamoterrorist, I would go with the former. 

Second, the Bush-Cheney administration is trying to sell the Iraq war to the American public. But apparently there are few buyers. Therefore, they know they have to be very creative in getting the message across and making sure that in November Americans vote Republican. Addressing the national convention of the American Legion the other day, the President denied Iraq had degenerated into a civil war and he cast the fight there as a successor to the grand campaigns of the 20th century, against fascism, Nazism and communism. I don't think Bush subscribes to the formula Islam = Terrorism. However, he needs to sell the war in Iraq. So by equating the Iraq fight with history's great wars against Fascism, Nazism and Communism, he's attempting to manipulate Americans in order to change their minds, their hearts, and the f*cking negative polls!


----------



## Tsoman

If we didn't have a word like Islamofascism, then we would just have to invent another word for it. Islamofascism is a good word. It's easy to say, to me it describes well what it refers to.

I used to be one of those people who repeated "Islam is a religion of peace" and "it's our actions that are creating terrorism" and "insurgents are people too" and "we need to tolerate and embrace Islam" and "let's dismantle our nuclear weapons" and "let's make peace instead." I swear to god. I used to wear hippy T-shirts and go to protests.

Not anymore. I guess I was only saying that stuff because it was the "in thing." Now I realize that I was putting some stupid ideology above my own common sense. And that's what I need to follow above everything else.

I know that most muslims are peaceful. I would welcome them into my home and visit their country. BUT, muslim extremists are my enemy, and I hope that our military kills them, captures them, or frightens them into submission. Seeing pictures of the dead ones does not make me sad.


----------



## Anatoli

I'd like to hear more voices like that of the former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami.
Muslims of the world who oppose terrorism should talk and make sure people around the world disassociate Islam and terrorism.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/09/10/harvard.khatami.ap/index.html

We all know why the perceptions 


> Islam = Terrorism


 exist and innocent Muslim people can't do much about it but their leaders, politicians can and should.

Bush, IMO, shouldn't be using "Islamofascists" but what's the term for terrorists who kill in the name of Islam? Doesn't "Islamic fundamentalists" mean the same thing? I am not sarcastic, honestly don't know.

--
Western media calls Chechen terrorists - "rebels" to upset Russia, although everyone in Russia knows they are terrorists. Recently there was a move on different levels to rename Chechnya because of its reputation unpleasant both to Russians and Chechens. The new popular native name would be "Nokhchiin" (note it's not "Ichkeria" - name used by Dudayev's government). This may not happen officially.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Anatoli said:


> I'd like to hear more voices like that of the former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami.


 
I have always found it an interesting fact how the nation which had,in my opinion, one of the wisest leaders in the modern world, got another one like the one they have now to succeed him.



Anatoli said:


> Muslims of the world who oppose terrorism should talk and make sure people around the world disassociate Islam and terrorism.


 
That`s very very true. That`s true about any conflict.


----------



## Brioche

Setwale_Charm said:


> Just like any fascists. The question is homophobia, I think.


 
I'm not sure that homophobia is the right word here!

_Homophobia_ means fear/hatred of a person who wants to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex. Or more succinctly: _hatred of gays_.

Islam is opposed to homosexual relationships. Consensual gay sex in any form is punishable by death in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Several thousand male and female homosexuals have been executed since the Islamic Ayatollahs took power in 1979.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Brioche said:


> I'm not sure that homophobia is the right word here!
> 
> _Homophobia_ means fear/hatred of a person who wants to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex. Or more succinctly: _hatred of gays_.
> 
> Islam is opposed to homosexual relationships. Consensual gay sex in any form is punishable by death in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Several thousand male and female homosexuals have been executed since the Islamic Ayatollahs took power in 1979.


 

Well, no? All my life we have used this word to denote the hatred against other human beings: as the phobia of _homo._ It may embrace hatred against homosexuals as anything.


----------



## cirrus

Interesting thread.  My take: it's a conveniently vaccuous label that appeals to people who are ready to hate the other without actually going to the trouble of finding out what is going on.  

At least in the UK, the word fascist has long been a catch all phrase used to describe someone you don't like.  Combining it with islam is I feel a less than intelligent step as all it succeeds in doing is putting all muslims on the defensive.  I you want to create an enemy this is a good way to go about it. Imagine if I were to call the republican party under George W fascist how many friends I would earn within the party?  Just because certain elements of it have an at best limited understanding of terrorism and less commitment to human rights - having admitted to keeping secret jails and set up a worldwide kidnapping network doesn't mean the whole body is fascist.  

Similarly Al Khaida is a virtual franchise,  a particular set of people who aspire or subscribe to a certain set of values and who specialise in creating havoc in Indonesia, Spain, Bombay, Irak and elsewhere.  Muslims on the other hand are one of the worlds biggest faiths with a variety of strands, the two are not identical. It would be laughable it wasn't so serious we need to move out of the politics of the soundbite and start some serious thinking and listening.


----------



## .   1

Anatoli said:


> Bush, IMO, shouldn't be using "Islamofascists" but what's the term for terrorists who kill in the name of Islam? Doesn't "Islamic fundamentalists" mean the same thing? I am not sarcastic, honestly don't know.


I think that you are absolutely correct.
Islamofascists is probably slightly more accurate than Islamic Fundamentalists.  I suppost that a real Islamic fundamentalist could be interested in nothing more than living a life utterly as described by The Prophet.  Kind of like a holy hermit or an ultra-Orthodox Christian Monk or totally Hassiadic Jew.
Islamofascist does not conjure images of peaceful contemplation.

.,,


----------



## ireney

As much as I dislkie W and although I agree that he used the word "fascists" in order fto create strong sensations of abhorence and that some people may do the connection fascists= evil, Islam = fascism => Islam = evil, I am not sure there is a word to describe this particular group W was referring to with a way everyone would be happy with.
Would "fanatics" do? I bet some people would say that "fanatics" or "zealots" don't always blow people up. How about "bigots"?

(Off topic) P.S. Homophobia's first compound is "homoios" which means "the same" so it means "fear of the same" not fear of homo, homini. The way phobias are usually named, I am willing to be that that (is) would be called something like "anthropophobia"


----------



## Outsider

Lykurg said:


> There is one very limited connection: The Baath Party (Saddam Hussein's party, still at power in Syria) has an unbroken fascist tradition.


Isn't the Baath Party socialist (i.e., left-wing)?


----------



## Brioche

Setwale_Charm said:


> Well, no? All my life we have used this word to denote the hatred against other human beings: as the phobia of _homo._ It may embrace hatred against homosexuals as anything.


 

Homophobia, from its Greek roots, "ought" to mean "fear of the same".
Homo meaning 'man' is a Latin root. Since phobia is a Greek root, it should be joined only with another Greek root.

Whatever the etymology, gays have adopted the terms "homophobe" , "homophobia" and "homophobic" to refer to  people who hate, fear or dislike homosexuality.

Hatred of human beings is _misanthropy_, and a person infected by such dislike or distrust is a _misanthrope._

A _misogynis_t dislikes women, and a _misandrist_ dislikes men.


----------



## Everness

I think we're struggling to define fascism. Here's an easy test that will allow you to figure out if your government has or doesn't have fascist leanings.

1. Has your government invaded two countries in the recent past guided by an official doctrine of global domination and illegal preemptive war?

Yes     No

2. Is your government threatening another country, possibly with nuclear weapons? 

Yes    No 

3. Has your goverment committed war crimes through torture, rendition, and illegal detention, which your leaders still insist must continue?

Yes    No

4. Has your government grabbed unprecedented power, spied on millions, and eviscerated rights?

Yes    No 

If you answered yes to more than 2 of these questions, your government might be embarked on a fascist trajectory.


----------



## fenixpollo

Blackleaf said:


> He's probably used the term "Islamofascists" because fascist Muslims are trying to kill us.


 A bold, unprovable and false statement. And who is "us" exactly?  Also, can you define "them"? 





cuchuflete said:


> Everything I've ever read about fascism emphasizes that it is about state control of all military, political and economic power.


 I agree. The definition of fascism is political... and also historical. Most political scientists talk about fascism as a historical movement (Germany, Japan, Soviet Union & Italy in the first half of the 20th Century). It can only be defined and understood in a historical context, and can't accurately be applied to most modern repression.  Everness, your "poll" doesn't account for this.


Brioche said:


> The Islamofascists - for want of a better word - believe that (1) the path to peace and justice lies in a return to the original message of Islam., and (2) that it is their job to make sure it happens.


 There has got to be a better word... and I think the word is "radical fundamentalists" or something of that nature, as Anatoli observed: 





Anatoli said:


> Bush, IMO, shouldn't be using "Islamofascists" but what's the term for terrorists who kill in the name of Islam? Doesn't "Islamic fundamentalists" mean the same thing?


----------



## cuchuflete

I am not struggling.  You are struggling to invent a new definition that suits your dislike for the policies of a specific government.   You have lots of good reasons to dislike the actions and policies of that government, but rewriting the dictionary is not an honest way to go about combating them.

Franco's regime in Spain was fascistic.  Would it pass your silly test?  

This is a good example of petty revisionism.  You don't like Bush and his policies and actions.  You call him a fascist.  It's as much a misnomer as Bush calling terrorists Islamofacists.  You invent a cock-and-bull definition to justify your own misuse of language.   Shame!



Everness said:


> I think we're struggling to define fascism. Here's an easy test that will allow you to figure out if your government has or doesn't have fascist leanings.
> 
> 1. Has your government invaded two countries in the recent past guided by an official doctrine of global domination and illegal preemptive war?
> Yes     No
> 2. Is your government threatening another country, possibly with nuclear weapons?
> Yes    No
> 3. Has your goverment committed war crimes through torture, rendition, and illegal detention, which your leaders still insist must continue?
> Yes    No
> 4. Has your government grabbed unprecedented power, spied on millions, and eviscerated rights?
> Yes    No
> If you answered yes to more than 2 of these questions, your government might be embarked on a fascist trajectory.


----------



## caravaggio

I think this word is a prove more the occidental world not understand the islamic culture, like always we try to introduce definition not exist there without respect.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> I am not struggling.  You are struggling to invent a new definition that suits your dislike for the policies of a specific government.   You have lots of good reasons to dislike the actions and policies of that government, but rewriting the dictionary is not an honest way to go about combating them.
> 
> Franco's regime in Spain was fascistic.  Would it pass your silly test?
> 
> This is a good example of petty revisionism.  You don't like Bush and his policies and actions.  You call him a fascist.  It's as much a misnomer as Bush calling terrorists Islamofacists.  You invent a cock-and-bull definition to justify your own misuse of language.   Shame!



Yeah, I know the feeling. I reacted the same way when I applied this test to my goverment and it came out positive. It's kinda shocking. But don't worry. Pretty soon denial will kick in and things will be go back to normal. I promise. And you're right. I run this same test on Franco and Peron's administrations and they both tested negative! Can you believe it? This might be another test with doubtful validity and reliability.


----------



## Everness

caravaggio said:


> I think this word is a prove more the occidental world not understand the islamic culture, like always we try to introduce definition not exist there without respect.



We already have words that perfectly describe these individuals: terrorists, assh*les, pieces of sh*t, deranged criminals, etc. etc. In Spanish, we can call them hijos de p*ta, comemi*rdas, terroristas, cabrones, criminales, lunaticos, etc. etc. 

So if we already have these words, why do we have to start combining political and religious notions that serve no purpose except to p*ss off and further alienate a Muslim world that is already p*ssed off at many of us in the West?


----------



## Noel Acevedo

Everness said:


> “This nation is at war with Islamic fascists,” my favorite president said somberly, “who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.” He used that expression to describe the alleged London bomb plotters last month.
> 
> Is it ok to put these two words together? Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based advocacy group, doesn't think so. According to the following article, he released an open letter to the president excoriating him for using language that “contributes to a rising level of hostility to Islam and the American-Muslim community.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14319984/site/newsweek/ I think he makes a valid point but then I'm too biased when it comes to judging anything W. says or does.
> 
> Is it ok to put "Islam" and "Fascism" together? Why is Bush using this term? Why is the American right using "Islamofascism"? Does this term contribute to a rising level of hostility to Islam, as Parvez Ahmed argues. Is there an open or hidden agenda or no agenda at all behind this terminology? Would Christians be ok if people in the Arab world start using the term "Christianofascism" to describe US' actions in Iraq?


 

Everness:

The following page might help you in answering your question the why this "new" word is popping up in the discourse of the creative right that governs the US.  http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0908-23.htm  (Why are we suddenly at war with Islamic Fascists?  A Neologism that signals a change in strategy as elections near.)

Hope it helps,

Noel


----------



## Everness

Noel Acevedo said:


> Everness:
> 
> The following page might help you in answering your question the why this "new" word is popping up in the discourse of the creative right that governs the US.  http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0908-23.htm  (Why are we suddenly at war with Islamic Fascists?  A Neologism that signals a change in strategy as elections near.)
> 
> Hope it helps,
> 
> Noel



Gracias Noel! A good article that confirms what I've been saying: Hay que meterle miedo al pueblo americano. Bush necesita un pueblo tan cagado de miedo que hasta se cague en los pantalones!

_For these reasons, the Administration needs to create a more fearsome enemy. That new enemy is Islamofascists - whoever these people may be, they sound more frightening and important than the previously-named enemy. The Administration is aware that Americans are not sufficiently afraid, and that clear thinking will be its demise._

I'm fascinated that I'm on the same page with Pat Buchanan on this one!

_Buchanan says that using this term "represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11." Buchanan believes that unless the Bush folks actually want a war of civilizations, he should drop this term, because it is deeply offensive to peaceful Muslims._

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0908-23.htm


----------



## .   1

caravaggio said:


> I think this word is a prove more the occidental world not understand the islamic culture, like always we try to introduce definition not exist there without respect.


Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful post on an yet another unpleasantly contentious thread.
I am ashamed of myself.
I allowed myself to be swayed by glib words and sly thoughts.
I will be a little more proactive in my vigilence.
The word is a bad word and I will not say or use it.  It is a word designed to inspire fear and loathing.  Fascists were not identified religiously and the linking of that horrid term to anything shatters rational thought on the matter.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

Noel Acevedo said:


> Everness:
> 
> The following page might help you in answering your question the why this "new" word is popping up in the discourse of the creative right that governs the US. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0908-23.htm (Why are we suddenly at war with Islamic Fascists? A Neologism that signals a change in strategy as elections near.)
> 
> Hope it helps,
> 
> Noel


Thank you for that link, Noel!


----------

