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

The Church of England.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Back to the original term, I think it might have some substance as a descriptive term, but the idea of using it to pigeonhole people is irresponsible. I agree with lurker's assessment of the "us vs. them" language because it's inherently a way for the government to re-establish boundaries and separate cultures. "They" are "over there" and their immediate goals are nebulous. Better keep a sharp eye out!

On another note, fascism denotes government control, and though that might or might not be true in Lebanon's case, the use here is a bit sweeping in its scope. That is simultaneously the purpose of the term and the reason why people are offended.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by a lurker

Nationalism can be applied to religions since when?

Since nationalism is based on a unity of culture, and in this case religion is key to the culture.

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

You feel that islamic states have a unified culture?

I was speaking idiomatically.

If you can have Islamic fascists, you could also have Christian fascists. However, I'm having a real hard time imagining what would constitute a Christian fascist. It's almost as hard as defining the term Islamic fascist.

Besides, why does Bush need to make these things up? Nobody has ever heard of Islamic fascism before, so I'm wondering wether there's a certain demand for this terminology now. Because otherwise it would just be yet another flowery phrase.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Rock

If you can have Islamic fascists, you could also have Christian fascists. However, I'm having a real hard time imagining what would constitute a Christian fascists. It's almost as hard as defining the term Islamic fascist.

Besides, why does Bush need to make these things up? Nobody has ever heard of Islamic fascism before, so I'm wondering wether there's a certain demand for this terminology now. Because otherwise it would just be yet another flowery phrase.

Islamic fascist is a term that many Americans are familiar with, it has been used by many bloggers and talk radio hosts among others.

This whole debate brings up an interesting question about the entire so called "war on terror". Terrorism is a military tactic, not a definable enemy. We, at least in the U.S., are told repeatedly that we are at war, but with who. All of the previous wars have had identifiable, definable enemies. The Kaiser in WWI, the Nazis and Imperial Japan in WWII, the commies throughout the Cold War, but this "war" seems very nebulous. If we are in fact at war with Isalmic Fascists we should by definition be at war with Iran, but we're not. Who are we at war with in Iraq? Fascists? Islamists? Insurgents? North Korea is a throwback to the Cold War against communism...are we still fighting that war since NK is an axis of evil member. If Bush wants to use the term I'm fine with that, but then lets get about the business of being at war and deal with the enemy before the enemy deals with us.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by a lurker

You feel that islamic states have a unified culture?

No they don't. I'm taking it that you are aware that nationalism exists outside the idea of the state.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Rock

If you can have Islamic fascists, you could also have Christian fascists. However, I'm having a real hard time imagining what would constitute a Christian fascist. It's almost as hard as defining the term Islamic fascist.

Here's a good place to start.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling

I'm taking it that you are aware that nationalism exists outside the idea of the state.

Can you give examples for that?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rock

Can you give examples for that?

Does 19th century German nationalism count?

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

And how exactly was this nationalism independent from the state?

How ya doing, buddy?

The central idea of 19th century German nationalism was the unity of the German people, and that the German nation as a whole was more important than the various states it was divided among, wasn't it?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Rock

Besides, why does Bush need to make these things up? Nobody has ever heard of Islamic fascism before, so I'm wondering wether there's a certain demand for this terminology now. Because otherwise it would just be yet another flowery phrase.

Regardless of my own opinion of the validity of the term "Islamic fascist", I think you already know the answer to your question. It's because "fascist" is a scary term, especially when cominbed with the name of a group of people that are thought to be behind 9/11, and keeping the American people scared is good for politicians.

I'm sure that it's not a controversial notion to suggest that politicians prefer you to be afraid. It allows them to justify whatever laws, and other measures they please, simply by pointing to the bogeyman. The Cold War is long gone, and America needs "Islamo-fascists" to replace "Commies".

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Looking at this at a non-academic view, without opening the dictionary and actually defining both terms. Think about the word fascism and what's the first thought that comes to mind? It's not a pretty picture; Nazis, WWII, concentration camps, genocide, etc. Even though fascism doesn't define that, it's what the majority would think. I'd hate to be linked to that word; my race or my religion. So Bush basically said those 'Islamic racists murderers' without knowing it, believe it or not.

Originally Posted by Casual_Otaku

if white serial killers were referred to as 'white psychopaths' or 'american psychopaths' in the media i guarantee you would be offended.

Completely agreed, basically basing my argument off yours. Add to that, how about an enemy of America saying this, how would you like it? "Justice must be served for all the American psychopaths". Well, he was simply talking about the serial killers but he was extremely unspecific about it right? You'd be crying a different tone then.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

The central idea of 19th century German nationalism was the unity of the German people, and that the German nation as a whole was more important than the various states it was divided among, wasn't it?

I might be confusing things here, but I thought the original quote meant to use the term "state" as a substitute for "nation". Even if not, how was 19th century German nationalism "existing outside the idea of the state"?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

The desire to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate is an example. This theocratic rule stretches across the region, regardless of national borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Caliphs.gif

Their goal is not to change Israeli policies; it is to eliminate Israel entirely, as they and their Iranian patrons say quite openly. But even this is not the main goal, but only a first step. As they also say quite openly, they are aiming to establish a new caliphate that will recreate what they view as the golden age of Islam. And they want this caliphate to rule over all of the lands of the Muslim empires of the past--from Morocco and Spain in the west to the Philippines in the east, taking in the southern half of Europe, the northern half of Africa, and most of Asia.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Regardless of my own opinion of the validity of the term "Islamic fascist", I think you already know the answer to your question. It's because "fascist" is a scary term, especially when cominbed with the name of a group of people that are thought to be behind 9/11, and keeping the American people scared is good for politicians.

I'm sure that it's not a controversial notion to suggest that politicians prefer you to be afraid. It allows them to justify whatever laws, and other measures they please, simply by pointing to the bogeyman. The Cold War is long gone, and America needs "Islamo-fascists" to replace "Commies".

You hit it right on the head. If there is any reason for the term to be used, that is it.

Quote:

Their goal is not to change Israeli policies; it is to eliminate Israel entirely, as they and their Iranian patrons say quite openly. But even this is not the main goal, but only a first step. As they also say quite openly, they are aiming to establish a new caliphate that will recreate what they view as the golden age of Islam. And they want this caliphate to rule over all of the lands of the Muslim empires of the past--from Morocco and Spain in the west to the Philippines in the east, taking in the southern half of Europe, the northern half of Africa, and most of Asia.

And yet everyone in the Islamic world knows such an idea will never work, whether extremist or not. Besides Shia/Sunni divisions, there are too many issues, in particular, regarding science. The Shia Caliphate stems from an attempt to reignite a wave of scientific progress in the Middle East, it is hardly one of destruction. A central Sunni idea doesn't exist really, since the Sunni division of Islam has no head unlike the Shia.

And yet again we are back to Israel. The reason every Middle Easterner would relish the idea of Israel getting destroyed is because of the unending arrogance of the way the state behaves. The forces have been strengthened after Israel's latest attacks on Lebanon. In addition, Israel sits on stolen land. Period. Ben Gurion himself remarked on the issue, basically stating that if he were an Arab, he'd be fighting to destroy Israel just like everyone else.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rock

Can you give examples for that?

Sure no prob.

First lets define some terms here, just so that everybody is on the same page.

Nationalism: Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

In this instance, nations are not considered to be states in the formal sense. Rather, they are merely large groups of people with cultural similarities. A state would be defined as a sovereign political group with established definite geographical boarders.

For example: The Kurds. They don't have their own state, yet they have a nationalist movement. The Kurds have a unified culture, but they are spread out as a people across many states.

Another example could be the nations within the UK. Within the UK you have the nationalist movement of Catholics in Nothern Ireland. In this instance the Irish Catholics are considered to be a nation of people.

A final example could even be Quebec where there is a nationalist movement to separate from the rest of Canada.

Of course there is the idea of a nation-state where a state with recognized boarders has a unified culture. Within nation states, those that are outsiders or ethnic minorities are scrutinized and even killed at times.

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

Your examples all have one thing in common: The interest of certain cultures or movements to build their own nation. You can add some Jews and the founding of Israel (which has absolutely nothing to do with nationalism, of course) to that list, as well.

This would describe the term "Islamic fascism" as a cultural group wanting to establish their own nation. While this might very well be true, I still think the usage of the term is largely incorrect, because ... seriously, what does this have to do with anything?

Was it confirmed that there have been plans made by the U.K. bombers to establish their own nation by blowing up airplanes? Again, while this may be true, wouldn't you expect someone to call them "Islamic fascists" to base their paranoid accusations on solid proof or use different, not so vaguely defined terms?

Are Islamic fascists worse than terrorists? Are they actually terrorists at all or just another virtual entity to be at war with? How do Islamic fascists look? Who is their fascist leader? You know, there needs to be a political dictator or something to lead their ideology. Who and where is he? Is my neighbour an Islamic fascist? He's not a Muslim, but certainly a fascist, so maybe even an Islamic fascist? Where do Islamic fascists meet to practice their fascism? Is everyone blowing shit up an Islamic fascist? And why are we even at war with them, when clearly, it isn't even confirmed that this Califate they're trying to establish is meant to stretch out to the U.S.?

Sorry, but there are a lot of questions arising from such a statement and their effects are directly in line with the goals of global terrorism.

Seriously, I guess Bush just meant to sound incredibly clever in using a term he probably doesn't even understand himself.

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

Originally Posted by Rock

Your examples all have one thing in common: The interest of certain cultures or movements to build their own nation.

They already are a "nation" what they don't have is a formally recognized independent state with finite borders.

The entire point of my post was to show the difference between nations and states because both terms have been loosely thrown around and used interchangeably when they are actually different ideas.

As for whatever an Islamic fascist is?... My guess is a totalitarian muslim who is hell bent on the glorification of his state, or perhaps nation-state if he lives in one.

Most amazing jew boots

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'.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Fascism implies some form of government. As far as I know, Al'Quida et. al are in the business of launching sporadic, small-scale attacks on Western targets, not exalting some race or nation above others. Nor does it appear they want to centralize authority. If anything, they want to render chaos and dispersal, not centralization. In fact, the organization of Al'Quida itself doesn't display any kind of autocracy, as many of its cells operate without any central direction. Hell, the whole Islamic Jihadist movement is without any central direction, the same people we want to annoint with the title of "Fascists".

Besides, by calling them Fascists we give them organizational legitimacy, instead of recognizing them for the lawless killers they really are. Do we really want that?

FELIPE NO

Agree with gren.

People have watched for the last 5 years of many terror incidents committed by those who claim themselves as the true guardian of Islam.

So when the administration, media, radios and blogs kept mentioning the terms 'islamo-fascist' and 'islamo-terrorist', it is bound to happen that many people will associate the word 'Islam' with 'fascism' and 'terrorism'. And that is not true.

The name Joseph Goebbels comes into my head.

I say, just call them 'terrorists', because they justified themselves in targeting civilians.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Disregarding the conversation's direction i'll address the first post :

Islamic Fascist is an unacceptable generalisation, and dragging Islam into the name (no matter the context) only stirs up the automatic defense mechanism of any hot blooded muslim..

Of course it's hard to explain to athiests what religion and religious references 'do' exactly but think of it this way : If you're not offended that's because it ain't directed at you (not christianity or judaism if you're any of those, YOU) it's hypocritical to say that if a Muslim leader with speaking power and a heard voice (no he doesn't exist) called a bunch of christians "Christian Fascists" non of the christians would be offended.. That's a flat out lie.. Of course it'll offend people because it straight-out drages religion into it, and if you're religious you get offended, why the hell did he associate his religion with his errors/ways ?

Dumb thread i must say.. Not that i'm hurt but i find it funny to see so many idiots thinking they're the "High-road masters" wondering why the world has so many "closed-minded people".. I'll tell you why, while you act all perfectionist; because the world's full of these people. Now shut up with your "open-mindedness".. I ain't even a muslim but a discriminative term like that used beside me warrants a swift 'truck to the face' punch.. Morons..

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary.

This sounds like organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Quaeda (As was represented by the Taliban). They've legitimzed themselves and placed themselves in seats of legal power. I believe then, that the term "Islamo-Fascism" would apply in these cases.

Furthermore, to reply to CryHavoc's oddly self-righteous indignatory comment from way out in left field, no one is categorizing all muslims (or arabs/indo-aryan peoples) as such. Simply the ones who continue to commit violent acts in the name of Islam.

I would also describe Bush as a religio-fascist. He uses his seat of power to enforce his religious beliefs.

There's nowhere I can't reach.