Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 7

organization

The organization of the article seems slightly off.

After the lead and the definition, wouldn't we want to talk about the origin and history of the term? It seems odd to jump right into criticism. Also, wouldn't it be better to integrate the history, criticism, and support sections into one "history" section. That would make the article less fragmented and easier to read and understand.

I'm late to the party, so if all this has been covered before, I apologize.LedRush (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not only been covered before, the article actually, until recently, did reflect that sensible structure. See here. What do you think of that version? IronDuke 23:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That version of the article seems vastly superior to the current one in several respects:

1. It's structure makes sense. It conforms more to the structure you'd expect of a Wikipedia article.

2. The current structure seems to be trying to make a statement...namely that the term is bad.

3. It gives more information on the term's usage, both in dictionaries and historically.

4. It describes "Islamic fascism", which obviously helps to understand this term.

I have a feeling that I am wading into dangerous waters. I guess I should go back and read the discussions on these changes.LedRush (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh...there was no discussion about these changes at all. Hmmm...LedRush (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I changed it around a little. I just feel that you can't go directly into criticism of a term without explaining it first. Part of understanding the term is knowing its historical context and how it came to be used. This includes discussion of related terms and their usage, especially as the terms are more than mere "relatives". After understanding the use, history, and context of the term, people should be equipped with the ability to discuss criticism and support for the term. If you have criticism and support first, new readers make judgments based on preconceptions and biases, and not on fact.LedRush (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues pertinent to your points have indeed been discussed in the past, even if the recent changes you mention have not. For instance see Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 6#"Support" Section, where CBerlet succinctly pointed out that -- "... this is the page for the discussion of the word and the controversy surrounding its use. The proper page for analytical text from cited published sources is Neo-fascism_and_religion." We do not have to discuss "related terms" because this term has no currency in academia or among reliable sources, only in fringe sources. We are not about to use those sources to claim otherwise. It's notability in mainstream reliable sources is through its controversy. Hence that should be the focus of the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion of the term (and not any imported philosophical implications) should be the focus of the article, which is why we need to discuss and understand the term before we decide to rip it to shreds. However, this page should be primarily about the word, and not the controversy. If you want to discuss the controversy and the expense of the term, start a new page on the controversy (though I would argue still that a new reader would still benefit from a more standard structure of first explaining a term before criticising it). Addtionally, it's notability is not because of the controversy. The term is used by very important and high level politicians. That makes it notable in its own right. The controversy makes it more so. Regardless of that point, it just doesn't make any sense to criticize anything before you explain it.LedRush (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "is" used by very important and high level politicians? Please make a case for that by providing reliable sources. The term "was used" in a handful of instances by such figures mostly during the Bush administration and particularly in the early years of the war on terror. I already demonstrated some time ago how mainstream sources treat this term, which is as a controversial neologism. I will gladly copy an paste from above but in general I suggest you familiarize yourself with the previous discussions on this talk page. We don't cover controversial fringe topics from the perspective of the fringe groups themselves but from the perspective of mainstream reliable sources (see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for instance). We also only cover topics in the first place because they are notable for some reason, then we focus on what makes them notable.PelleSmith (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• (copied from above) Can we take a look at whether or not controversy surrounds this term without making any assessments of its accuracy or usefulness. In other words it should be possible to say whether or not it is known to be controversial predominantly. My take, from a brief Google search, is that it is highly controversial, which is exactly why Christopher Hitchens has bothered to write specifically in defense of its use. What a Google search turns up, other than the obvious links to FrontPageMag editorials and the like, is only controversy. A very quick glance will give you sources like these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Wow, here's an indictment of the term and description of the controversy coming from The American Conservative no less, and here is a good example of the controversy from The Nation. Now I'm suggesting that this makes a case for "controversial" or "contested" being pretty good descriptors of the term, based on social fact. Is there an empirical counterargument to make?PelleSmith (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While your tone is condescending and unnecessarily hostile, I will try to address your points. However, I am not sure what you are arguing. My point is that you should understand and present the term as it is or (if you want to debate the present tense) was used before you can discuss controversy around its use. This seems a simple prospect, but I am willing to discuss different structures if anyone presents a reason to.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing hostile or condescending but if you give me an example of either and I will gladly apologize. Suggesting that you acquaint yourself with previous discussions is simply good advice especially when you have already acknowledged the following -- "I have a feeling that I am wading into dangerous waters. I guess I should go back and read the discussions on these changes." Templates to follow with this entry should reflect coverage of other controversial terms. To reiterate, this entry is not a discussion of Islamism as a form of clerical fascism. No reliable source on Islamism would ever utilize this term to do so, and none do. The attempt to rename this entry in order to reflect a broader subject matter which would encompass all analogies made between Islam and fascism (including this term, other terms, etc.) was not supported and the entry was moved back to the present title. People cannot have it both ways. Under this title we are only writing about a controversial term shunned by scholars and other experts as well as virtually all reliable sources in the mainstream media. Whenever the media reports on its use it is reporting on controversy, see above.PelleSmith (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I will again ignore your attitude (maybe it's your style, and if so I apologize) and try to address the points. However, again I feel like we're having very different discussions. I have never argued that this entry should be a discussion of Islamism as a form of clerical fascism. I have never tried to rename this entry (though I think you did until you changed your mind). I am not trying to do anything other than discuss this term. While I disagree with your contention about the use of the term by reliable resources, it doesn't matter. We still need to describe and explain the term before we criticize it. Actually, I am quite shocked that this is an issue.LedRush (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you may disagree with my assertion about usage, but I have presented evidence of my claim above. Feel free to provide evidence of a counterclaim at any time. We are describing it before we criticize it, and I'm not sure that ever was an issue. My point is not an argument against the order of the entry. BTW, if you openly criticize someone's attitude and they ask for examples and offer to apologize if you provide examples of said attitude you should oblige as opposed to just making more ambiguous and passive criticisms as you have done. Please either help me understand this supposed hostility or strike your comments. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not present evidence concerning your assertion about usage because it is not relevent to our discussion about organization. Remember, I started this section of discussion and very clearly remarked that I wanted to talk about the organization of the article. As the article now stands, 3 of my 4 issues have been at least partially addressed. Why get bogged down in a side argument with someone who has been openly hostile? But anyway, a google news search gets 26 hits in the last two weeks. Of the first ten, only one describes controversy over the word. The word is used in popular media either as a description of a concept, a person who uses the term, or a quote of someone who has used the term. Alas, now you'll try and respond, and we'll argue something that doesn't matter to the topic at hand. Oh well...

I did not present evidence of your bad attitude because I thought that doing so would make the discussion degenerate into name calling which would detract from my point on organization.

"The term "is" used by very important and high level politicians? Please make a case for that by providing reliable sources. The term "was used" in a handful of instances by such figures mostly during the Bush administration and particularly in the early years of the war on terror."

You make a snarky observation which does not alter my argument. On top of that, you add to the negative tone by asking me to find reliable sources. You could have politely noted that the term has fallen out of favor and so I should change my tense, and then address the point about notability in this context. Instead, you acted immaturely.

"I will gladly copy an paste from above but in general I suggest you familiarize yourself with the previous discussions on this talk page."

Seeing as the topic is not important to the discussion, why would I? Your condescending point of me needing to familiarize myself with earlier discussions helps nothing. Indeed, you did cut and paste the argument anyway, so you just wanted to be insulting. And needlessly so as: 1. your assertion is wrong; and 2. it isn't central to the point.

"We don't cover controversial fringe topics from the perspective of the fringe groups themselves but from the perspective of mainstream reliable sources (see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for instance). We also only cover topics in the first place because they are notable for some reason, then we focus on what makes them notable."

It is insulting and generally considered bad form to tell established editors about basic WP policy. It is done to imply that you are better than the other editor, who is so green, stupid, or lazy that he doesn't even know basic policy. Using this type of language rarely ever helps in dealing with established editors.

In your next post, you imply that I hold a host of opinions which I have never held. Again, strawmen are never seen as polite.

"Well you may disagree with my assertion about usage, but I have presented evidence of my claim above. Feel free to provide evidence of a counterclaim at any time."

I already told you that it wasn't central to my point. Why would you want me to argue with you on something that neither of us has yet contended is central to the discussion? This is hostile and condescending tone.

"BTW, if you openly criticize someone's attitude and they ask for examples and offer to apologize if you provide examples of said attitude you should oblige as opposed to just making more ambiguous and passive criticisms as you have done. Please either help me understand this supposed hostility or strike your comments."

Again, this is condescending. I find it hard to believe that you could not recognize that you have not been friendly or warm in your comments to me and need me to go through line by line. For that reason, I felt it was better not to get into a pissing match about tone. I just thought you could try and pay attention to this issue a little. Instead, you have asked me to engage in what will surely become an unhappy discussion or strike my comments.

I would strongly prefer not to continue this discussion (or the one about usage), so I hope you can let it go.LedRush (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My tone has been nothing but "matter of fact" (see examples you outline above). You call it "snarky", "condescending and unnecessarily hostile", etc. -- this constant commenting on my supposed tone instead of the arguments I'm making about entry content is itself not in keeping with basic Wikipedia guidelines, but of course pointing that out to you is apparently "condescending". You know what though, I can live with that Catch-22. By the way, as I understood them your initial points were not simply about the order of the entry contents. They appeared to also be about the more general focus of the entry. This is what I was responding to. If you think it is off topic then lets refocus the conversation. I am not sure I agree though. Re:

• But anyway, a google news search gets 26 hits in the last two weeks. Of the first ten, only one describes controversy over the word. The word is used in popular media either as a description of a concept, a person who uses the term, or a quote of someone who has used the term.

"Google news" is not simply some clearinghouse for reliable sources and counting hits is not particularly meaningful. What sources? Are they op eds or news reports? Is the term used in scare quotes because it is a reference to someone else's opinion? Is someone being quoted directly? Etc. Care to share some examples from the list? I'll enumerate the top ten of which you speak (I used "islamofascism" without a hyphen):

1. A Jerusalem Post article quoting "chief executive officer of B'nai Brith Canada"
2. Seemingly used as a one word tag on a "News Nuggets" page in the Colorado Independent for an article that actually has nothing to do with the subject matter and never uses the term. Completely inexplicable
3. From Examiner.com - in scare quotes as a term used by those with "an interpretation that Muslim fanatics are the majority force in the Middle East that requires US military response to crush and our direct intervention to rebuild their society."
4. Published in Bay Area Independent Media as taken from a blog by Juan Cole and once again in scare quotes and in a manner clearly critical of the very idea
5. Used by an anonymous Gerson Lehrman Group "expert contributor" in an analysis of a New York Times article on Iran. This person does indeed utilize the term as if it were a meaningful word.
6. Used to describe the government of Iran in an opinion piece in Global Politician written by Amil Imani, an Iranian ex-pat who writes for "Islam-Watch". The second substantive use of the term.
7. Sun-Journal piece (actually from 2007) which utilizes the term only in quoting David Horowitz and in reference to his "Awareness Week".
8. An op-ed in the new Philadelphia Bulletin. The author follows Robert Spencer and this is the third substantive use.
9. Coverage in the National Post of the same story reported by the Jerusalem Post (#1 above) using the same quotes.
10. A public relations report from the Council on American-Islamic Relations in which CAIR quotes Brigitte Gabriel as saying: "Islamo-fascism is a politically-correct word...it's the vehicle for Islam...Islam is the problem.

Only three of these sources actually utilize the term in a substantive way (e.g. not in quoting a partisan source, or referring to a partisan POV specifically) -- none of those three are reliable mainstream sources. Now it took a lot of time actually sorting this out, but I will do so again if I have to.PelleSmith (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong about your tone, about whether some of the sources used the term substantively, and about whether some of the sources are reliable. It seems I was right to resist indulging your desire to enter petty side fights.

Your accusation that I am not following Wikipedia guidelines is again ironic and unnecessary. You are the one focusing on tone...I merely politely asked you to keep it less hostile and more productive. Additionally, you are the one who focuses on side issues in a bid to try and embarrass other editors while ignoring a basic premise of good article editing and debating: discuss the central idea, not the argument or the arguer. May I suggest if you wish to respond to this sentiment, you do so on my personal page? Perhaps their we can hash out these clearly non-substantive issues without hijacking this discussion from everyone else. LedRush (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Led, the one and only comment about you (tone or otherwise) I've made I made just above. We can end this type of discussion right now if you simply stop commenting on me or my tone. As you point out yourself there are other venues for that (including various noticeboards which by your descriptions of my attitude and tone you should be more than justified taking this to and I would welcome it). What I don't appreciate is being accused vaguely of being hostile during a discussion, and that is why I asked for examples. The irony of ironies of course is that now I'm the one accused also of taking the discussion in this direction. This will be the last I mention the matter unless you continue commenting on me of course.PelleSmith (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only have I tried to avoid the conversation, I've tried to end it. I hoped that a polite reminder that negative tone only hurts discussion would be enough to make you approach this project with less venom without the need for this long debate. I predicted this type of issue and begged you not to force the conversation. Instead, you plowed ahead, taking my silence on the matter as further proof of my bad behavior. I am more than willing to let this drop and discuss any future issues of this kind on our respective talk pages, as I have already stated.LedRush (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly am I wrong about regarding these sources? Sources #1, 7, 9, and 10 use the term only as part of quotes by partisan others -- David Horowitz, Brigitte Gabriel and the "chief executive officer of B'nai Brith Canada". Source #2 makes no sense to me and I'd be happy to hear the explanation. Sources #3 and 4 use "islamofascism" in scare quotes to make reference to a partisan POV. The authors in the remaining sources (5, 6, 8) actually use the term themselves substantively, as if it were a neutral term referring to a legitimate referent. Two of these are op-ed's written by authors who are partisan in this area -- hardly WP:RS and hardly an indication of mainstream use. The third is from an anonymous piece of analysis from Gerson Lehrman Group -- again hardly either reliable in this area or a mainstream media representation. In news coverage from the mainstream media the term is only ever used when quoting someone or when otherwise referring to a particular partisan POV (in scare quotes). The fact that the media does not at every turn add a footnote that the term is controversial does not mean it isn't treating it as such.PelleSmith (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, it seems I am quite good at predicting bad behavior. To avoid a debate that achieves nothing and does not belong in this section, I will only say that I disagree with your definition of when the word's use in a source is substantive and whether a source is reliable for this discussion.LedRush (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

General focus

The source discussion above is important because it relates to the general focus of the entry. The entry should focus on the usage of this term after briefly describing what those who use it mean by it. It is not used substantively by academics or the mainstream press. It is used in that manner by partisan sources only. Commentators point out that semantically the construction is virtually meaningless. Its use during the "War on Terror" is pure politics. The term "fascism" is used politically because people know to distrust fascism even though the ideologies being called fascist do not resemble fascist ideologies (of course this general strategy is used on the left and the right all the time). Does this mean these ideologies aren't oppressive? Not in the least ... they can be more oppressive than Mussolini's Italy was but what commentators are pointing out is that they are no more or less "fascist" because of it. My point here is that this is not an entry on a non-controversial subject matter that can simply be covered as if it is a referent of legitimate topic. That would be like treating an entry on Intelligent design as if it were an entry on the Gravitation. What is notable about the term we are discussing is how it is being used as part of a Euro-American (mostly American) culture of politics.PelleSmith (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume that you are right, which I will not concede. I know what your opinion is, so why don't you suggest a substantive change to the article? Despite your desire to continue superfluous discussions on this board, we've actually been pretty good on compromising and getting the language in the article better. Make a suggestion and describe why you want it, and I will politely and honestly comment about it, telling you my concerns and counter-suggestions, if indeed I have any.LedRush (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

related terms

For well over a year, this article has included discussion of "related terms". This has been recently deleted because the article is about this term, and not related ones.

I disagree strongly with this unilateral edit. The term "islamic fascism" is more than just a related term to this article. It's history and usage directly informs the usage we are talking about here. The articles that provide sources for "islamic fascism" all directly discuss "islomafacism" and bring up the usage of the term "islamic fascism" to inform this discussion. They do this because it is educational and useful to understanding the term.LedRush (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So what if little attention was paid to this entry for the last year. Because of a move request certain issues with it are back in the limelight. If reliable sources relate the terms then report what these sources say. What I deleted was not of that nature.PelleSmith (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You deleted exactly that. Two of the sources explicit relate the terms, and the other implicitly does. The article itself doesn't need to spell it out, as res ipsa loquitor. However, if you want us to add more to the deleted section which explains that the usage of the term islamofascism is related conceptually to the use of the terms "islamic fascism" we can do that quite easily. LedRush (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Per PelleSmith's requst, I have reintroduced language which describes how reliable sources have linked the terms.LedRush (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In the sources you use Schwartz does not use "Islamic fascism" himself ... he quotes Bush using it. So yes he is comparing the terms but your rendering is inaccurate. In the Hitchens piece "Islamic fascism" does not even appear.PelleSmith (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Safire does not provide any backing for the claim as written either. He says Hitchens uses "Islamofascism". What gives?PelleSmith (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Schwartz discusses one concept embodied by two terms, Islamofascism and Islamic fascists. Hitchens describes fascism that is Islamic, the use of the terms fascism and Islamic near each other, and their relation to the history of the word islamofascism. Claiming that this is not relevant here is disingenuous. Similarly, Safire discusses the history of the term and how it evolved. The sources directly back up the claims of the article.LedRush (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Disingenuous is an accurate description of the text I found in the entry. As I said Schwartz does discuss the term, as used by others, but he uses "Islamofascism" only. If someone want to add something about how he actually relates the two that might be informative. Hitchens never uses "Islamic fascism". Again if there is a way to incorporate accurate and relevant information from his piece then please do. Safire's piece is relevant to the entry ... but it was not in any way relevant to the claim that these two use "Islamic fascist".PelleSmith (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed this already.LedRush (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Uninformative text

What is the informational value of the following:

• William Safire makes particular note of Hitchens declines credit for coining the term, although he did describe the Septermber 11 attacks as "fascism with an Islamic face" (a play on Susan Sontag's phrase "fascism with a human face", referring to the declaration of martial law in Poland in 1981).

I will note as well that this is a direct quote from Safire which is not reflected in the above.PelleSmith (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitchen's not claiming credit is immaterial, especially since Safire mentions the first usage he can find in the same piece. How is a description of this play on words relevant at all?PelleSmith (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is supposed to provide information to people seeking it. I am trying to include history of the use of the word so that people can learn about its use. That he declines coinage and instead uses a different term is informative, especially seeing that he "popularized" the term.LedRush (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I had already edited the language, deleting the paranthetical and quoting what should be quoted.LedRush (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He does not use a different term currently. The quip is about how back in 2001, after 9/11 he wasn't using the term yet but instead used the phrase I keep on removing. That is trivia related to Hitchens as opposed to informative content regarding the history of this term. I'm not sure how it relates to the history of this term at all in fact. It relates to the history of terms and phrases used by Hitchens to describe his own analogy between Islamism and fascism.PelleSmith (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we reached agreement on the article itself? I don't know how it helps to continue the discussion here. Of course, relating on how a term came to be "popularized" seems like an important part of understanding its history of use. But the sentence never really flowed with the section, and I'm not in love with it anyway. I am content to leave it out unless it can be more seamlessly or meaningfully integrated to the text.LedRush (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC: should 'Islamofascism' include scholarly definitions of fascism?

The article contains definitions by supporters of the use of the term islamofascism, and quotes from them showing the characteristics of Islam that they maintain are analogous to Fascism. Scholars of fascism have determined its defining characteristics. Should the article contain these scholarly definitions, with citations? Anarchangel (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I came here from the RFC page asking for contributions from "uninvolved editors". That's me. By the way, wasn't it possible to archive all the discussion from 3 years ago before inviting comments? The discussion above is misleading as it seems to refer to long since gone versions of the article.

I would classify "Islamofascism" as a neologism which only exists to promote a point of view. On the same RFC page is a request for help on "Communist genocide". That term is in the same category and the debaters there ought to be referred to this page as a good model for such an article.

If we have to have such an article at all, the current one is just about right and the only change I would suggest is to merge the section "The proposed analogy with Fascism" into the "Support" part of "Controversy" and place "Support" before "Criticism". No we don't need a scholarly analysis of Fascism on this page, the beauty of Wiki is that we have hyperlinks for that sort of thing. Sussexonian (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Scholars of Fascism"... defining Islamofascism? How does one get a degree in scholarly study of islamofascism, are these Political Science folks? I think the inclusion would really hinge on the academic credentials involved, and which scholarly journals were involved. If they're not actual scholars on the topic, or the definitions aren't from actual scholarly works (popular novels and opinion pieces don't count) then, no. Ronabop (talk)

Yes, that would be OR. Scholars of fascism who weigh in on the specific topic of Islamofascism, however, would be very welcome. IronDuke 01:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment: Article should not contain scholarly definitions of fascism. Scholarly definitions of fascism are nowhere near political/historical consensus within the academic community. Article may contain critiques of Islamofascism by political scientists or historians published in peer reviewed journals, monographs or edited collections from scholarly presses. If such critiques included a list of the criteria of fascism, and evaluate islamofascist claims against them, then bully for you. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If others want to degrade the word and use fascism as a all round good word for "bad" doesn´t mean we should give them a forum. If there is some islamic corporatism angle that I have missed, I will revise.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And nazislamism?

Fascism became anti-semithic in 1938. And islamofascism is anti-semithic by definition. Why not to use the word nazislamism for this ideology?Agre22 (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

possible source, Boualem Sansal

Author Sansal being interviewed about his novel Le village de l'Allemand (due for release in English in September 2009 as The German Mujahid):

Q. ... Many Algerians who have managed to read it, as well as the Algerian population in France, have criticised it because it draws parallels between National Socialism and Islamism. Are you not exaggerating here? Islamism does not aim per se to eradicate or subjugate another race of people. And not all Islamists want to introduce Sharia law or hide women under veils.

Sansal: On the contrary! I have followed the development of Islamism from its beginnings to the present day and analysed its discourses. In my opinion there are enormous similarities, in every sense. There is the concept of conquering – the conquering of souls, but also of territories. And there is the idea of extermination, the extermination of all those who do not submit to the ideology of Islamism. To this extent I certainly do see parallels, and I believe we have to analyse National Socialism if we are to keep Islamism in check. -BoogaLouie (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Analogies

"Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined "humiliations" and thirsty for revenge." -- hey… THAT'S RUSSIA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.198.49 (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Organization of content

Shouldn't "support of ..." come before "criticism of ..."? First you build the complete picture of the theory, and in the end you present the counter-point. Right? Nshuks7 (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets remove this article as it is a made up term designed to spread hate

There is no reason to have this article it only perpetuates the myth that all Muslims are terrorists.At a time when right wing extremism is on the rise in America we shouldn't be adding to the fire by legitimizing made up terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

please someone remove this idiotic article

atleast talk about how manufactured it is.

--Ninja247 (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there *is* a section devoted to criticism of the term. Second, just because an individual is witness to this article doesn't mean their opinion will be swayed one way or the other. Third, there is no sign of compromised neutrality; the article presents the term as objectively as possible. Finally, if you think the typical Muslim is any less conservative than the those in Christian right (jihadist or not), or don't think Islamic governance is itself authoritarian and socially conservative, you must have been raised by wolves.

--Jeff Timm, unregistered user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.104.57 (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this term clearly distinguishes ordinary Muslims from those who misuse Islam as an excuse to wage holy war on everybody else, I have to object to any effort to remove the article. ----DanTD (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a typical liberal/Muslim lie that goes hand-in-hand with the ridiculous label of Islam as a "religion of peace." How is waging holy war on normal people "misusing Islam," when the founder of the religion, Muhammad, did exactly that? The jihadis are merely following in their beloved prophet's footsteps.

Falsehood that is repeated

If any article is taken as references taken from Christopher Hitchens's all a lie. What quote Christopher Hitchens is totally false, a lie. Franco never said what this man is credited. He said the general José Millán Astray's sidekick eing in the altercation he had with Miguel de Unamuno on October 12, 1936 in the auditorium of the University of Salamanca. I tried to correct this falsehood and a patrolman Wikipedia has relocated as it was. View history: (cur | prev) 13:55, 21 December 2012‎ 212.183.252.160 (talk)‎ . . (29,840 bytes) (+84)‎ . . (→‎The analogy between Islamism and Fascism: Misnomer. It was Franco who said that, but the general MiIlan Astray.) (undo) If this is objectivity, neutrality and transmitting knowledge to read it, because Wikipedia is not going well. Before clearing should check that what is removed is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.72.162 (talk)

If removing falsehoods the reversers were so attentive as you have been with me to put my IP address, the items would be much more accurate, precise and correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.72.162 (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Islamic fascism

I have just redirected the title Islamic fascism to this article. It was previously a disambiguation page between this and Neofascism and religion, but the latter article was deleted at AfD in March this year for violating WP:SYNTH. I note this here as there was controversy a few years ago at talk:Islamic fascism about redirecting. I have no opinion about the matter, I'm just tidying up a broken disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

not reputable

This article is truly silly and has no encyclopedic value other than insulting a religion in a childish manner. If this is reputable, I can also start an article called Zionazi or Berlussini. -- 188.23.148.146 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I am in the process of fixing it comprehensively, and the revised article will appear in a few days.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Propose moving title to Islamic Fascism

I propose moving this page to Islamic Fascism, a term in far wider use in mainstream publicaiotns and in academia than Islamofascism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2016

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Extended discussion has not yielded a consensus. bd2412 T 21:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Islamofascism → Islamic Fascism – (note that the term Islamic Fascism directs here.) Islamofascism was a politically charged, negative neologism that emerged in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and appears to have faded. It can certainly support a page. However, this page has evolved into a discussion of the many academic and popular attempts to liken aspects of Islamism with fascism, discussions of characterization of Islamism as fascism, and refutations of these comparisons. I could support splitting into 2 pages (Islamofascism and Islamic Fascism), but what I am proposing here is to move the page to Islamic Fascism (and then, of course, move the neologism Islamofascism to a subhead) The point is that while reputable scholars continue to discuss aspects of Islamism that are similar in sundry ways to aspects of fascism, Islamofascism is in use mainly as political invective. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 20:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh really, islamofascism was 'a politically charged negative neologism' whereas 'Islamic fascism' isn't? There is among scholars a consensus that fascism was strongly charged with Catholic conservative movements but we don't characterize, as do the usual crowd of paid-up political analysts in the present case, the movements of fascism as 'Catholic fascism': there is a distinct term for it, 'clerical fascism'. If you study the subject of fascism, you will find that it was simply defined in the post war years, and then broke down as scholarship improved its area-by-area analysis. The whole issue of islamophobia/islamofascism/ is intensely bound up with geopolitical pressures, evidenced in the analytical literature to define Arabs and Islam in some collectivist manner, and we need, as here (and at Islamophobia, and here distinct pages that define each aspect. You want to create a separate page on the political use of Islam by Islamic movements, go ahead, roll up your sleeves, and write an independent page on the topic. Readers are not going to waded through a massive merge as you are proposing, in order to get at last to the Islamofascism nonsense buried way down the page. We need distinctions, on separate pages, that enable readers to focus on each aspect. Your proposal is a recipe for confusion or reader tedium or both. It's not healthy either that you specialize in creating articles highlighting Islamic violence, WP:POINTY. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, well, as I just said below, it was strange to search "Islamic fascism" and land here. But, frankly, it appeared to be a pretty sensible solution, keep the minor neologism in the page on the significant topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There is quite a simple reason why the merge won't work. 'Fascism', like 'feudalism' were analytical categories with an impressive long history. Based on a small sampling in European history, a theory with universal application was developed, and applied all over the world, in either case. If you look at the scholarship on both feudalism and fascism as analytical categories over the last several decades, their heuristic value has all but collapsed because definitions that fit one area, don't fit another area of the world, despite broad analogies. The Islamic fascism gambit has already suffered this fate: there's been no adequate reply to the hundreds of pages of detailed rebuttal and qualification given in the Welt des Islams special issue I know of, where it was shredded as political crap or an ideological smear. I suggest you read Halpern from cover to cover, and then the Die Welt des Islams before you start a page. There's a ton of material that would make havoc of the kind of literature that plays games with that concept.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

E M Gregory preempting the outcome of a title change

E. M. Gregory has added a number of sources re 'Islamic fascism' to this page whose remit was strictly to analyse the rise of the concept of 'islamofascism'. Until he did this the page had been scrupulously careful to add sources that specifically mentioned the word 'islamofascism' to its content. By introducing material on 'Islamic fascism' that do not appear to use that term and which scholarly reconsrtructions of islamofascism do not cite, he has engaged in WP:OR while trying to change the nature of the page preemptively to fit his proposed retitling.

The material he added was directly from Martin Kramer's blog, an example of plagiarism he concealed by using google books to give the impression he had accessed the new sources independently. Kramer is so academically neutral that he once advocated that Western aid agencies cut back the starvation rations for Palestinians in the strangled enclave of the Gaza Strip because pre-natal assistance is counterproductive since helping Palestinian women feed their children produces suicide bombers. By starving them one could “crack the culture of martyrdom [among some Palestinians, which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men. That is about as genocidal and obscene as you can get, and gives you an idea of the way Gregory 'sources' stuff.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Please to not make accusations involving outright falsehoods. Please AGF. I was, in fact, working from a physical book recently published by Kramer, The War on Error: Israel, Islam, and the Middle East,. However, do note that information from the blog of a notable expert in an academic field is regarded as a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note' that the term Islamic Fascism was redirected to this page about a year ago,making ti reasonable for an editor, like me, looking for the Wikipedia age on "Islamic Fascism" to see this as a page on the significant topic of the similarities of Islamism and fascism, not merely a page on the neologism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of the sources have some bias including academic ones for example Khalidi that widely used in wiki.The source was printed in academic publishing house and by expert on the field it more then enough to include the material on Wikipedia.Also failing assuming of WP:AGF is not appropriate.--Shrike (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to connect things not connected in the sources. The principle ruling this page has been to add material where 'Islamofascism', its origins as a term, its development as an 'analytic principle' are mentioned. Gregory added Halpern without providing a source that showed Halpern's work was considered a presage of theories of Islamofascism. This is an elementary error, one I corrected last night by providing two such sources.

Secondly, a foundational scholar of modern Arab political movements, and the first major thinker to characterize Islamism as a fascist movement. This is not in the first source given.

Thirdly, the standard page template for citation was ignored.

Fourthly, the section Kramer's pastiche was plunked down into reduplicates what we have above, esp. by Rodinson.

Our article is directed at the rise of the concept of Islamofascism, the word and the way the concept developed, not at Islamism, which is much broader (any form of political movement involving the deployment of ideas drawn from Islamic, as opposed to Western ideological, thinking.

Iì'll have more to say about the mess introduced, but the page needs fixing first.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• My edit [1] is supported by the souce.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note that Islamic fascism redirects to this page. Nishdani, you can help me address this problem. As I state above, either we need to redirect Islamic fascism to a new page, where the extensive scholarship on this topic can be presented. Or we need to make this page conform to the search terms that redirect here, but making it a page about Islamic fascism. Note, comment above shows that this has been the search page that comes up in searches on Islamic fascism for 3 years. Also on google [2]. Moreover the lede reads: ""Islamic fascism" (first described in 1933), also known since 1990 as "Islamofascism",..." I find Nishdani's assertion that the article must be restriced to sources that use the term "Islamofascism" inexplicable, except in the context of WP:OWN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

A redirect in itself has no authority. As I said, by all means write a page on Islamic fascism, adding that to Islamic fundamentalism,Jihadism,Islamic terrorism, Islam and violence, Islamism and a dozen other pages where the general intent of editors has been to use wiki as an echo chamber for neocon American and likudist Israeli ideological smearing of Arabs and their religion. There is an imposing technical literature on the theory that Islamic revolutionary movements fit the fascist (as opposed to Nazi) model, which has traction among a political constituency and ideologically committed academics like the eulogist of starvation artistry, Kramer, but little weight in serious scholarship on Islam. This page deals quite specifically with the term Islamofascism as that was defined, analysed, and traced back in the literature that emerged in the 2000s. Just to cover this angle required 51,624 bytes. To write (repeating much of the 'dope' in the other Islam=violence=fanaticism=fascist=totalitarianism articles) a comprehensive article on the rest, Islamic fascism as you broadly represent it, would require 4 times that volume. To merge this into such a page would mean you're looking at something of the ordure of 250,000 kb. 70,000kb is the recommended length, and we are parlously close to that now. So technically, your merge proposal won't work. Obviously you should therefore write a specific article on Islamic fascism. Take a leaf out of William Smith Clark's advice to his Japanese students in Hokkaido:少年よ、大志を抱け この老人の如く (Lads, grab ambition by the horns, like I, an old man, have done). The other option, which is more sensible, is to expand your 'Islamic fascism' as a section on the Islamism page (i.e. the one dealing with Islam as a political ideology.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Other minds welcome

@Zero0000, @Nishidani, what is your mind about the use of the following pictures on this article : [3] as well as the other comments that were deleted... Pluto2012 (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've no strong objection to the Husseini-Himmler image, except for the fact that it is plunked all over Wikipedia regularly to 'prove' that because one Islamic figure met Himmler, all Islamic thinking is Nazified. I prefer the one you added, because it is apposite, focusing on the kind of book that promotes the post-1990 equation of Islam=Fascism, which is what this article deals with. Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing for specific previous allies in discussions is not allowed according to Wikipedia's regulations. In addition, historical documents of close collaboration between Islamists and Nazis are highly relevant, and should not be removed, regardless of potential conflicts with personal ideology. David A (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to ask the mind of anybody. The one of Nishidani was argued and obvious.

The pictures that you refer to are *not* "historical documents of close collaboration between Islamists and Nazis". This thesis is highly controversed. Reason why the pictures I added is much more relevant. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

David A. Curious you blow in from nowhere and suddenly have a deep knowledge of Pluto, Zero and Nishidani's putative 'alliance'. The ground we share is this: high bars for sources, stick punctiliously to the rules, and, above all, familiarize oneself with the topic, and go where the evidence takes you, and fuck the consequences, whatever one's POV. I wrote the page, and had it bookmarked. I have a heavy-work load, and seeing the revert thought Pluto made the proper call. I see you reverted him again without any argument other than assertiveness.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

How are these images not historical documents? If they chronicle alliances between Nazists and Islamists they should be treated like any other valid reference, and be kept in the page.

I was referring to that canvassing for input from likeminded people is not allowed according to Wikipedia's regulations, as far as I have been told. David A (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

However, I am willing to be convinced othervise if you properly explain your reasoning to me. David A (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The reasoning was given above. I don't own the page, but I rewrote it from top to bottom, as I did the page on Husseini (at Pluto's request a decade ago), so I have a fair knowledge of the argument, and follow developments on it, like your edits. Pluto, Zero and myself are not 'likeminded', which is an abusive insinuation, implying a consistent failure to exercise one's judgement autonomously. Editing in like-mind(less)-lockstep is something you'll find all over I/P articles, but not from those three. All documents are historical: that is not the point. History is not an exercise in repetition of memes, images or clichés, which is what splashing the same picture on every article that deals directly or indirectly with Husseini does. The appropriateness of Pluto's photo is that it is taken from the cover of a book which promotes the idea that Fascism and Islam are inextricably intertwined, a modern post 90s thesis, which is not taken seriously as valid for the 1930s-40s, despite the ardent efforts of, mostly, pseudo-scholars with a nationalist or politically hysterical POV to argue the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@David A: your description of the images shows that you do not understand the purpose of images in Wikipedia articles. It is not our remit to provide evidence for or against anything, nor to present ambiguous material chosen to promote a particular viewpoint. Our role is only to present the arguments made by reliable sources. The concept of Islamofascism, to the extent that it makes sense at all, is not just a matter of interaction between fascists and Islamic figures. Would we show this famous image with the obvious intent of promoting the idea that Nixon was a Maoist? Zero^talk 01:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Never mind then. David A (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect definitions

Firstly, the term does not date from the 1930's, it dates from after 2001. A passing accusation in the 1930's of some Islamic politicians as being "fascist" was simply a form of abuse.

Secondly, the claim that the term was "adopted broadly in the wake of the September 11 attacks to intimate that either all Muslims, or those Muslims who spoke of their social or political goals in terms of Islam, were fascists" is incorrect. It was adopted by some, perhaps after 2001. But to say that the label was applied to all Muslims is wrong. To say that Muslims who spoke of their social or political goals in terms of Islam were therefore called Islamofascists is also false. That is not the definition of the term, even as it appears on this page.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

What you get on the page is in the sources, and we are bound by the rules to follow them, not our personal impressions. For example, Halliday speaks of the widespread indiscriminate use of the Islamo- prefix, as in Islamofascism. Nearly everything documented is a matter of (hysterical) abuse, apart from Maxime Rodinson's invariably intelligent, totally non-instrumental mode of analysis.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamofascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140827105449/http://isgap.org/working-paper-bassam-tibi/ to http://isgap.org/working-paper-bassam-tibi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061016103410/http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2006/0811.html to http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2006/0811.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)