Why are people offended by the term "Islamic fascists"?

I think 'both sides' have problems dealing with this issue. Rightfully or wrongfully Islam is associated with terrorism on a daily basis which (as far as I know) is the only time that a religion has been so much at the forefront of such conflicts. It's also clear to me that most Americans cannot take a mature and educated look at "what is Islam" which exacerbates the problem and helps to compound the feeling (for Muslims) that Islam is being treated as an outside, abnormal and bad religion. As for what is Islam? well, it's not a religion of peace and it's not a religion of violence. There one billion plus Muslims and only a Muslim should be stupid enough to talk of the "true Islam". The rest of us should deal with the reality that there are a multiplicity of interpretations all with varying degrees of support and not try to single out what is their truth. Government ties to neo-con / conservative writers cannot help out the case that it isn't a term (regardless of truth) to marginalize the larger group. The truth of the phrase isn't the paramount issue; it's how it's being used and to what purpose. Those are in question and that is why the reaction from the Muslim community has been so strong.

Even if this phrase isn't meant to marginalize / delegitimize Islam it is meant to do that to terrorism--which I think it's safe to say that many Muslims have a differing view of than the average American. "Do Muslims support terrorism?" is at the root of this and ths answer is incredibly complex. Most Muslims clearly wouldn't kill themselves to do it. Some Muslims accept suicide bombings against civilians as a last means of asserting your own rights against oppressive forces (I would still say this isn't too large of a number). Still more would support bombing of military installations of Israel (or other forces seen as occupiers) -- something in most cases still considered terrorism by the U.S. The U.S. government has muddled the line between insurgency and terrorist in many speeches. More support Muslim independence groups who commit violence but also give humanitarian services... do they support the violence of the services? We don't really know. And, if we are going to call Hizbullah and Hamas Islamo-fascist groups then do their supporters (no matter the specifics of their support) become Islamo-fascists? These are relevant issues and so if this isn't a campaign to make Islam look bad it's an effort to make Muslims with sympathies for these groups become marginalized. Which, has got to piss some people off because I really do believe there's a feeling of "who else is really trying to help the Palestinians / Lebanese than these groups?" and that condemning the U.S. and Israel is seen by many as being more important than condemning little groups who in the end kill fewer people.

Is the term apt for the few assuming it has no implications on other Muslims? I personally don't have a large problem in terms of correctness with using Islamo- instead of Muslim- I do have a problem with fascism firstly because it conjures up imagery from the past which really aren't relevant and secondly because even definitionally it's not the tightest fit. Fascism = Italiy and Germany 1940. Anyone who has read right right wing stuff like to talk about Islamic connections with Nazis and that's not really an apt comparison. I also think that because of the varying degrees of power these people have it's not safe to say that they would run a fascist state if they came into power. Their ideologies are not necessarily fascist although they surely could be. It's usage is strange because there is not a direct fit to Muslim terrorist and Muslim fascist. You can commit acts of terrorism with the vision of a very non-fascist state. I think the same political implications from the first section come with the term "Islamic-terrorism" but I think there are fewer definitional problems with it. The State Department has a definition of terrorism and if the reason for it was Islam then use Islamic terrorism if you so choose. Then we can have a whole debate on whether that term is proper.

Quote:

Who is their fascist leader?

That made me laugh... because, it would be the most diffuse group of fascists in history.

And Wesker, I don't think we can safely say that wanting to establish a caliphate is fascism in itself. Knowing how the state would be run is of paramount importance. It also brings up a comparison to the modern state where we can actually have a great amount of control over vast territories. The Caliphs did not have nearly the same type of control over their lands like we do today. Nominal loyalty for protection, etc. That map would be completely over stated in terms of real control. Even if they want to re-establish a caliphate on the borders of that map it's important to know how they'd rule it before calling them fascists. I would be willing to bet that the percentage of Muslims in that land is close to the percentage of Jews in Israel (Spain may throw that guess off a little). So, even making it an Islamic state (depending on the laws) would not be fascist. The loose definition posted earlier was:

Quote:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Assuming we can call Islam nation or race do we know that the state would go beyond modern nationalist (Germany, France) or religious homelands (Israel, Pakistan) of today? The rest of those points are all 'maybe'.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Well, no... it may very well apply for the Taliban but it doesn't apply for Hamas or Hizbullah... and I haven't read anything of their visions (were they allowed to propogate unfettered) that seem fascist. In fact, both have worked within democracies although plainly they don't have the power to overthrow the democratic systems.

Al-Qaeda maybe has a fascist vision. Definitely a conservative and religious one with a different economic system then we have... does that mean rigid control? I'm not sure, maybe if we take market capitalism to be the only form of uncontrolled economy (although it is not nearly realized anywhere). I think it would be interesting to see if they would fit a classical fascism definition (minus racism). It's possible they would, but I'm not convinced that it's inevitable. If you _really_ think Bush is a fascist then maybe you have some right to call these group fascist... but it's clear that Bush is nothing near the classical definition.

It's true that not everyone is calling all Muslims fascists. However they are calling all Muslim groups that will take up arms fascists since all Muslim terrorists are considered Islamic fascists. This is problematic considering the term terrorist (state department definition) is incredibly political in itself. Only "non-state actors" can be terrorists doesn't make a lot of Muslims who happy. Also, calling them Islamo-fascists makes anyone who supports one of these movements supporting fascism and therefore guilt by association. And it's clear that a lot of Muslims are willing to call Hamas' actions just as acceptable as the IDF's.

You also have the fact that Islam is already a religion that Muslims feel is being picked on and this doesn't help. Israeli positions in the occupied territories do involve stringent economic controls and destruction of opposition, censorship, etc... but we wouldn't call them Judeo-Fascists... and it's not that I think we should.... but, I am sure many Muslims feel that this term is only acceptable because it's being used against Muslims... and I do think to an extent that is true.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Aramaethe, it's not just using 'ur' that is problematic. Often your grammar is not conducive to making a structured argument--not that mine is either. I am aware that a webforum is not the most important place to make clear points but it is a useful skill. I think you should keep that in mind whether or not you want to act on it.

I also have a problem with throwing words like 'fanatic' around. It connotes that he is uncritical in his beliefs and is nothing more than a meaningless slur unless accompanied by an explanation. You also said we are fighting terrorism. As has been said by many recently, terrorism is a methodoogy and not an ideology. I can understand that states want to eliminated what they deem terrorist actions, however you can't fight the methodology--you must fight what leads to that methodology. That happens to be a complex array of ideologies and circumstances which have manifested themselves in many ways all around the world. Obviously the American government is interested fighting threats to America and they don't care too much about FARC or the LTTE. Reductionism is necessary for theory but we can't reduce arguments so far that they become irrelevant.

I am probably, in general, liberal (at least on foreign affairs). Being conservative or liberal dictates certain moral and methodological choices. It should not be a complete disconnect of realities. I was most struck by watching a conference by an academic conservative group on C-SPAN. They were incredibly intelligent and while I did have problems with some of their goals I could respect their opinions and come to an understanding of what our differences actually were. Typical mass media debates are a Republican and Democrat both trying to help the American people but fighting tooth and nail over something stupid. You need to define 'what you want' in arguments and base certain realities around that. Also 'read smart stuff'. I realize it's a tad subjective but, attempting that is a start.

And for the record I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad is a Persian name. Many Persians use Arabic names or slight deviations from them. I would be curious to know its etymology but I can't assume it's Persian just because he is.


Ahmadinejad's view on the Holocaust are probably complex. I doubt that he conceives of it in the same way that most Westerners do. The way I understand it he doesn't directly address the issue (as seen by his 60 Minutes interview). He always starts out by forming an argument: "If Jews were slaughtered in Europe and that helped to lead to the creation of a Jewish homeland then why is that homeland in Palestine and hurting Arabs when the Europeans caused the Holocaust". I think this and "wipe them off the map" has to be seen in the context of the question of whether the creation of Israel in the colonial context was legitimate and "right of return" for Palestinians. I think the media has been evoking the imagery of genocide which should not be a foregone conclusion. He could very well have a much different view of the Holocaust if not full denial. But it's clear he is using it to make a political point about Europe's culpability and the condition of the Palestinians. I think the Der Spiegel interview does a good job of showing his ambivalence about discussing the issue. However, I think the fact that he is still talking about proving the Holocaust does show that his views are incredibly different than Western view for the last many decades.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

My point was that calling someone a fanatic without explanation is not helpful. I am a Taco Bell fanatic. I am uncritical of their glorious food. However, you would not know I was a fanatic

He has not said he wants the Jews to leave or die. He likely supports the Palestinian right to return to their pre-1947 homes which could imply some Israelis moving but it is not clear. He has called for the destruction of what he sees as an illegitimate political entity. I don't believe he has expressly talked about the populace. He expressly uses the term Zionism--not Jew--because his point is that the creation of a Jewish political entity on the land called Palestine was not legitimate and has caused harm to the Palestinians (although Palestinian identity was not fully formed in 1948).

Has Israel done anything to Iran? Well, not much directly. They have fought a war in the realm of public diplomacy. Israel also has nuclear weapons which scares Iran because some of the Israeli hardline have mentioned that fact in relations to Iran's nuclear ambitions. So--realist or not--you must see a certain balance of power act going on in the region. Hizbullah is a manifestation of that. Shibley Telhami's idea of "prism of pain" is that many Muslims react stongly to the Palestinian issue. Therefore the governments of the Middle East have often reacted in favor of the Palestinians because it can take their populace's attention off of domestic issues (although there is likely a degree of genuine caring in some cases). If Iran is going to be seen as the major Muslim power then they must assert their influence in major Muslim issues. That leads them into confrontation with Israel.

Does Israel only attack when attacked upon? No. The Suez Crisis of 1956 is one obvious example. But, there was much domestic contention about Israel's stay in Lebanon in the 1980s. Israel kills more civilians than their enemies have killed Israelis. You may think this is legitiamte--that is your choice--however, you need to understand that killing Arabs does tend to piss off Arabs. You also need to understand that there is a causal relation between Israeli's treatment of Arabs and the creation of terrorist organizations. If you believe that Israel's actions have no impact on how Arabs treat or attack Israel then you are just wrong. Actions cause reactions and this does not legitimize either actions or reactions but you must realize and deal with these causal relations.

Israel cannot crush Hizbullah. The group thrives on the marginalization of Shia in Lebanese society because they can help the poor (with Iranian money). You cannot see this as a battle between good and evil. Hizbullah does help the Shia and in return they have an allegiance to Hizbullah. The group was foudned during the Lebanese Civil War when the south was under Israeli occupation. At first the Shia were happy that the IDF was going to kick out the PLO but they overstayed their welcome and when they started making life worse for the Shia groups like Amal and Hizbullah were formed with varying degrees of foreign support at the beginning.

I don't even think you understand why Iran has concerns about Israel. You may still think Israel is in the moral right or that Israel has a right to use force and kill civilians to protect itself--I may disagree but at least understand why Iran is pissed off. Your view is entirely uncritical. You don't see that there is any culpability on Israel's side. I don't want you to like Iran and Hizbullah. I don't like them. But you need to see why Hizbullah exists and will always exist as long as certain social circumstances persist. It may not only exist under the name of Hizbullah. But some violent group will exist among the Shia if they are marginalized in Lebanese society and Israelis take their men as prisoners. The PLO went to peace talks which failed and Hamas filled the void. If somehow Hizbullah stops its fight whether because it's destroyed or because it joins a political process that isn't working some ideology will satisfy the people. That is how things go.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?