| Revision as of 19:16, 18 September 2017 editPluto2012 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,612 edits →E M Gregory preempting the outcome of a title change← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:11, 9 October 2024 edit undoDrsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users826 edits →Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
| {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}<!--Common talking point--> | ||
| {{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=Low|fascism=y}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {| width=80% align=center cellspacing=3 style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px;" | {| width=80% align=center cellspacing=3 style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px;" | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |] | |] | ||
| | |
| {{center|1=This article survived '''two''' ''''']'''''. An archived record of these debates can be found ] and ].}} | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| {{Archive box|search=yes| | {{Archive box|search=yes| | ||
| Line 18: | Line 17: | ||
| * ] <small>(January–April 2006)</small> | * ] <small>(January–April 2006)</small> | ||
| * ] <small>(April 2006–Aug 2009)</small> | * ] <small>(April 2006–Aug 2009)</small> | ||
| * ] <small>(Aug 2009–April 2020)</small> | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| == 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.] (]) 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 . What do you think of that version? <font color="green">]</font> 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 Misplaced Pages 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.] (]) 15:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh...there was no discussion about these changes at all. Hmmm...] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ], 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] 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.] (]) 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 . 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Wow, here's an and description of the controversy coming from ] no less, and here is from ]. 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?] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] as a form of ]. 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] 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.] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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): | |||
| # A ] article ''quoting'' "chief executive officer of B'nai Brith Canada" | |||
| # Seemingly used as a one word tag on a "News Nuggets" page in the ] for an article that actually has nothing to do with the subject matter and never uses the term. Completely inexplicable | |||
| # 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." | |||
| # Published in Bay Area Independent Media as taken from a blog by ] and once again in scare quotes and in a manner clearly critical of the very idea | |||
| # Used by an anonymous ] "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. | |||
| # Used to describe the government of Iran in an opinion piece in ] written by Amil Imani, an Iranian ex-pat who writes for "". The second substantive use of the term. | |||
| # Sun-Journal piece (actually from 2007) which utilizes the term only in quoting ] and in reference to his "Awareness Week". | |||
| # An op-ed in the new ]. The author follows ] and this is the third substantive use. | |||
| # Coverage in the ] of the same story reported by the Jerusalem Post (#1 above) using the same quotes. | |||
| # A public relations report from the ] in which CAIR quotes ] 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.] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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 -- ], ] 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 ] and hardly an indication of mainstream use. The third is from an anonymous piece of analysis from ] -- 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] as if it were an entry on the ]. 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per PelleSmith's requst, I have reintroduced language which describes how reliable sources have linked the terms.] (]) 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.] (]) 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?] (]) 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.] (]) 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".] (]) 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have addressed this already.] (]) 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 "] with an Islamic face" (a play on ]'s phrase "fascism with a human face", referring to the ] in ] in 1981).'' | |||
| I will note as well that this is a direct quote from Safire which is not reflected in the above.] (]) 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?] (]) 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.] (]) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::BTW, I had already edited the language, deleting the paranthetical and quoting what should be quoted.] (]) 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''.] (]) 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.] (]) 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? ] (]) 10:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Mentioning Islamic fascism as an actual phenomenon == | |||
| 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. ''''' | |||
| While not the main subject of the article, that being the derogatory term, I believe actual occurrences of a ] of ] and ] (as an actual ideology) deserve a mention. I should note similarly the article ] was solely about the derogatory term but even that mentioned past and present actual "ecofascist" movements, although it has become about genuine ecofascism ideology as the prominent topic after the tragic Christchurch shootings. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Anyway some examples of this trend are the ] (a Egyptian corporativist party inspired by the government of ] which wanted to implement Islamic values as part of its ideology) and the ] (Libyan branch of the ], albiet unsuccessful). --] (]) 17:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == This article needs a rewrite == | |||
| "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. ] (]) | |||
| :Yes, that would be OR. Scholars of fascism who weigh in on the specific topic of Islamofascism, however, would be very welcome. <font color="green">]</font> 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 07:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| There's no mention of either Islamist critiques of facism or the influence of Juliues Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World on Islamism. Why not quote Islamists themselves? This article seems very Eurocentric, as if Islamists have never written about facism before (Hassan Al Banna mentions facism in his magnus opus Peace in Islam https://islamicbulletin.org/en/ebooks/resources/peace_in_islam.pdf ). | |||
| ==And nazislamism?== | |||
| ] became anti-semithic in 1938. And islamofascism is anti-semithic by definition. Why not to use the word ] for this ideology?] (]) 17:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)agre22 | |||
| "Nazism came to power in Germany, Fascism in Italy and both Hitler and Mussolini began to force their people to conform to what they thought; unity, order, development and power. Certainly, this system led the two countries to stability and a vital international role. This cultivated much hope, reawakened aspiration and united the whole country under one leader. Then what happened? It became apparent that these seemingly powerful systems were a real disaster. The inspiration and aspirations of the people were shattered and the system of democracy did not lead to the empowerment of the people but to the establishment of chosen tyrants. Eventually after a deadly war in which innumerable men women and children died, these regimes collapsed" | |||
| ==possible source, Boualem Sansal== | |||
| Here's what Khomeini had to say: | |||
| Author Sansal being about his novel ''Le village de l'Allemand'' (due for release in English in September 2009 as The German Mujahid): | |||
| https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/07/archives/an-interview-with-khomeini.html | |||
| ''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.'' | |||
| '''FALLACI:''' Love or fanaticism, Imam? It seems to me that this is fanaticism, and of the most dangerous kind. I mean, fascist fanaticism. In fact, there are many who see a fascist threat in Iran today, and who even maintain that fascism is already being consolidated in Iran. | |||
| ''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.'' -] (]) 19:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| '''KHOMEINI:''' No, it is neither fascism nor fanaticism. I repeat, they yell like this because they love me, and they love me because they feel that I care for them, that I act for their good. That is, to apply the Commandments of Islam. Islam is justice. Dictatorship is the greatest sin in the religion of Islam. Fascism and Islamism are absolutely incompatible. Fascism arises in the West, not among people of Islamic culture. | |||
| ==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… ]! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| '''FALLACI:''' Perhaps we don't understand each other or the meaning of the word fascism, Imam. By fascism I mean a popular phenomenon, the kind we had in Italy when the crowds cheered Mussolini, as here they cheer you, and they obeyed him as they obey you now. | |||
| == Organization of content == | |||
| '''KHOMEINI:''' No. Because our masses are Moslems, educated by the clergy — that is, by men who preach spirituality and goodness. Fascism would be possible here only if the Shah were to return or if Communism were to take over. Yes, what you say could happen only if Communism would win and wipe us out. Cheering, for me, means to love freedom and democracy. | |||
| 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? ] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ] (]) 13:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| please someone remove this idiotic article | |||
| :It’s really an article about the term “islamofascism”, not an article about the relationships between Islam, islamism, and fascism. ] (]) 03:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| atleast talk about how manufactured it is. | |||
| :@] There is no shortage of Islamists such as Khomeini denouncing/dismissing Fascism as unIslamic, inferior to Islam, etc. just as capitalism, liberalism, socialism, and any other ideology is inferior to the all-encompassing and perfect system of Islam. Does this mean there are no connections between Islamism and fascism? no such thing as Islamofascism? ] (]) 01:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps. I just thought it was relevant to document how Islamist have historically understood fascism. ] (]) 17:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Timothy Winter and Evola == | |||
| --] (]) 23:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I will delete the part on Evola which mentions that he influenced Timothy Winter, because Winter but I will add it to both their pages respectively because it is important to point out. ] (]) 08:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Paul Gottfried == | |||
| Is Paul Gottfried a reliable source in a conceptual discussion about fascism? I have not read the original source, but since he has direct ties to far-right orgs, it seems like he has a dog in the fight. Given the stigma of the label, it clearly is in his interest to define fascism in a manner that doesn't apply to his political activities. Also, if his claim is indeed that fascism only existed in Mussolini's Italy, why should he be included in any discussion about varieties of fascism? ] (]) 23:01, 21 January 2024 (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. | |||
| == Orwell and Hitchens == | |||
| --Jeff Timm, unregistered user <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| The Orwell quote should be removed as it pertains to a general discussion about fascism. | |||
| :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. ----] (]) 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 "]." 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. | |||
| Hitchens was not a scholar? He did not publish in peer reviewed journals and did not acquire doctoral qualifications. Journalist, author or critic would be a more accurate designation. ] (]) 11:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Falsehood that is repeated == | |||
| == Unreliable stories on the Muslim Brotherhood == | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is not going well. Before clearing should check that what is removed is inaccurate. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ;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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Al Arabiya news is a Saudi backed news channel. The Saudi government is anti Muslim Brotherhood (since MB is backed by Qatar) and should not be trusted as a reliable source - especially by Tony Duheaume - a man with hardly any scholarly backing. That article sites 0 sources that | |||
| == Islamic fascism == | |||
| . Banna personally ordered a translation of Mein Kampf (which is nowhere on ] article) | |||
| I have just redirected the title ] to this article. It was previously a disambiguation page between this and ], but the latter article was ] in March this year for violating ]. I note this here as there was controversy a few years ago at ] about redirecting. I have no opinion about the matter, I'm just tidying up a broken disambiguation page. ] (]) 12:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| . Banna had personal copies ''Der Sturmer'' (could Banna even read German?) | |||
| == 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 ] or ]. -- ] (]) 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.] (]) 11:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This article is a great insult to fascism. --] (]) 10:49, 5 November 2016 (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''.] (]) 00:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| The book I read on the Muslim Brotherhood is ''The Society of the Muslim Brothers'' by Richard P. Mitchell - who makes no mention of any of this. I tried looking in ''The Muslim Brotherhood and the West: A History of Enmity and Engagement'' but again there's no mention of any of that. At most it argues that the MB was funded by Nazis pre war but nothing like what Duheaume argued. | |||
| == Requested move 25 December 2016 == | |||
| With regards to Hamed Abdel-Samad, he cites a statement by Banna () where Banna praises the praised the militarism of Mussolini. But he forgot to include the last section of his speech: (translated from the Arabic with google translate) | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.'' | |||
| <blockquote>But know, my dear, that there is a huge gap between the goal that Islam wants to instill in its sons the military spirit to achieve, and the goal that European politicians and leaders like Mussolini and others want to instill in their nations this spirit. Islam intends by this that Muslims work to preserve the legacy of God that He has bequeathed to them and to guide the whole world to that which contains light and guidance. They do not work out of desire for this world or greed for power, nor do they subject those whom God makes victorious to various types of humiliation and severe torment. As for Europe, it calls for the military spirit in competition for colonization and preparation to eliminate weak peoples and in desire for economic gains and material ambitions. There is a great difference between a divine, humane goal in which the individual becomes a victim of the interest of the group and a private goal in which the strong tyrannizes the weak and the victor devours the vanquished, and in which the atrocities of Tripoli, Tunis , Syria , Algeria, Marrakesh and the Rif are represented. It is strange to see that these are the teachings of Islam and that Muslims are in a deep sleep about them.</blockquote>Also it was Salam Saadi, not Hamed Abdel-Samad, who said that "Hassan Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, said in a book in 1935 that Italian fascist and dictator Benito Mussolini was practicing one of the principles of Islam.". It's citation three in https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/7/2/article-p241_241.xml?language=en#ref_FN000003 ] (]) 19:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''No consensus to move'''. Extended discussion has not yielded a consensus. ] ] 21:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| : I took it out. If and when a reliable source is found, it can go back. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|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 ] with ], discussions of characterization of Islamism as fascism, and refutations of these comparisons. I could support splitting into 2 pages (] and ]), but what I am proposing here is to move the page to ] (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. ] (]) 12:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC) <small>--'''''Relisting.''''' ]] 20:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::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 ]/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 ], 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, ]. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] 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.] (]) 20:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler == | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> | |||
| There needs to be some mention of the influence of Nazi German fascististic thought upon the Umma due to the influence that Hitler had on the ]. Richard Webster, who is generally sympathetic to Palestinians, blames the British for instilling both anti-semitism in Islamic thought as well as a fascist type response. He says all Abrahamic religions have components of fascism (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) because they want to make the entire world believers. (I don't agree with that, not in the present re Christianity, and Jews have never proselytized.) I also disagree about propaganda disappeared from Europe after WW2 (ha ha!) but I'm not the expert; he is. He is referenced as a source from the earliest versions of the article. A sentence of two that captures the relationship between Hitler's fascism and fascism in N Africa and other Arab nations via Amin should be mentioned (paraphrased) so as to include the impact of Nazi German fascist thought on Islam in the Middle East post-WW2: | |||
| == E M Gregory preempting the outcome of a title change == | |||
| <blockquote>'Throughout WW2, Hajj Amin remained in touch with the German government, and in 1941, having fled... to Berlin, he held talks with Hitler... thanked him for the ‘unequivocal support’ he had shown for the Palestinians... Anti-semitic propaganda broadcast in Arabic from Berlin had a significant effect in Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Tunisia and in other Arab countries. | |||
| Although such propaganda disappeared from Europe ... in Egypt anti-semitism was taken up not only by Nasser, but also, in a particularly violent form, by Sayyid Qutb... of the Muslim Brotherhood whom Nasser executed and who... shaped the thinking of modern, militant Islam including bin Laden. In Qutb’s view, Jews, who had always rebelled against God, were inherently evil... | |||
| 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 destructive form which anti-semitism has now assumed within militant Islam... is not authentically Islamic; is western. ...dreams of world-domination which drive extreme Islamists have been there from the beginning. But such dreams are not unique to Islam; they are the common property of all three Abrahamic faiths. For, in that they look forward to a time when the entire world will bow down to the God they worship, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have always been...ideologies of world-domination."</blockquote> | |||
| The material he added was from ]'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 , 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.] (]) 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 ].] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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.] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages.Also failing assuming of ] is not appropriate.--] (]) 10:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is ] 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, 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 ], 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.] (]) 11:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::*My edit is supported by the souce.] (]) 17:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''' that ] redirects to this page. Nishdani, you can help me address this problem. As I state above, either we need to redirect ] 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 ] for 3 years. Also on google . 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 ].] (]) 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 ],],], ], ] 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 ]'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.] (]) 20:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I can try, but this is not something I know much about. ] (]) 10:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Other minds welcome == | |||
| :I think I'd agree with an inclusion on the Mufti and Hitler, but specifically on the academic discourse on the subject. The idea that Hitler "introduced" antisemitism to the Muslim world or helped invent 'radical Islam', as argued by , is not without controversy. This is mainly because it assumes that: | |||
| @], @], what is your mind about the use of the following pictures on this article : as well as the other comments that were deleted... ] (]) 19:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :# Radical or antisemitic tendencies in Islam did not already exist before the Hitler-Mufti meeting | |||
| . | |||
| :# That there was an increase in, specifically 'radical Islamic', antisemitism post war, as opposed antisemitism by the anti-Islamist and socialist governments in Syria and Egypt. | |||
| :# That this increase could '''only''' be attributed to Nazi propaganda and not to other events post-war | |||
| :# That Nazi propaganda was widespread and taken at face value in the Arab world, and not challenged in any serious way, including on Islamic grounds | |||
| :# That most Arabs even had access to radios in the first place and could (and did) listen to Axis propaganda (Joel Beinin challenges the idea that Qutb was inspired by the Nazis, since evidence for his radicalism did not appear until at earliest 1948).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Beinin |first=Joel |date=2010 |title=Review of Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World; From Empathy to Denial: Arab Responses to the Holocaust |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41308720 |journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies |volume=42 |issue=4 |pages=689–692 |issn=0020-7438}}</ref> | |||
| :# That the Nazi ideology was not contradictory; | |||
| :Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, as Ulrike Freitag and Israel Gershoni put it: | |||
| :''"To our mind, the Muslim Brothers' position vis-a-vis Zionists and Jews had its own logic: The Muslim Brothers aggressively agitated against the Zionist project and took a leading pro-Palestinian role in Egypt and the Arab world between 1936 and 1939. They did not need to nurture their hatred of Zionism, and sometimes of Jews in general, with external sources. Actually, at the same time they developed a clear-cut anti-Nazi and anti-racialist position. There is no hard evidence in al-Banna's rhetoric, ideology or practices that demonstrates any sympathy, let alone collaboration, with the Nazi regime in Germany or its aggressive anti-Semitism. On the contrary, al-Banna and other ideologues and activists of the Muslim Brothers rejected and denounced Nazism on the grounds of its racism and totalitarianism. They considered it to be a new kind of Western imperialism, crueller and more oppressive than the old imperialism of Britain and France. Therefore, to accuse them of Nazi influences because of their support for the Palestinian national movement and its leader, the Mufti, and because of his later collaboration with the Nazis amounts to guilt by association"'' | |||
| :https://www.jstor.org/stable/41303595 | |||
| :As Mia Lee puts it: | |||
| :''"Both sets of authors claim that Arabs increasingly participated in operations against Jews during the German occupation. But they do so without showing significant corroborating evidence of this alleged increase in violence, thus creating ambiguity about the reasons behind the rise of anti-Semitism in the region. Moreover, while they emphasise Arabs’ welcome of the Germans, neither set of authors convincingly addresses the findings of numerous studies from scholars of the Middle East that document how Middle Eastern leaders in the interwar era were suspicious or antipathetic toward imperial powers".. "There is no new evidence that the Mufti commanded the support of any significant number of Arab Muslims either during his exile or afterward. Moreover, neither book satisfactorily demonstrates that the Mufti’s anti-Semitic position was shared by Islamic groups in the Middle East during the war"'' | |||
| :https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26852336 | |||
| :Hitler was fascinated with Islam, but was also incredibly ignorant of even basic Islamic practices. For example, one of the ways the SS differentiated who was Jewish and who wasn't was by checking to see who was circumcised, and then killing them on sight. This was done completely ignorant to the fact Muslims also practice circumcision; the SS killed hundreds of Muslims Tatars before realizing their mistake.<ref>{{Citation |last=Motadel |first=David |title=Veiled Survivors: Jews, Roma and Muslims in the Years of the Holocaust |date=2015 |work=Rewriting German History: New Perspectives on Modern Germany |pages=288–305 |editor-last=Rüger |editor-first=Jan |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137347794_16 |access-date=2024-10-09 |place=London |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |language=en |doi=10.1057/9781137347794_16 |isbn=978-1-137-34779-4 |editor2-last=Wachsmann |editor2-first=Nikolaus}}</ref> | |||
| :The extent to which radical Islam ''needed'' Nazism to proliferate, that it couldn't possibly spread without the Nazis for other reasons, is not, to put it lightly, an idea without some skeptics. ] (]) 01:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:11, 9 October 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamofascism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article survived two votes for deletion. An archived record of these debates can be found here and here. |
 Archives |
Archive notes
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page. Previous discussions:
- Meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII
- Wahhabism
- Judgemental language
- Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#Aryan Nation material
- SS photo
- Definition of fascism
- Proposed merger with Fascist (epithet)
- how did this page get reduced to a collection if quotes?
- Veiled censorship
- Stop re-directing this article with neo-fascism or other non-sense
- Blogs as sources
- Please Stop Edit War!
- Juan Cole and the 'F' word
Mentioning Islamic fascism as an actual phenomenon
While not the main subject of the article, that being the derogatory term, I believe actual occurrences of a ideological syncretism of Political Islam and Fascism (as an actual ideology) deserve a mention. I should note similarly the article Ecofascism was solely about the derogatory term but even that mentioned past and present actual "ecofascist" movements, although it has become about genuine ecofascism ideology as the prominent topic after the tragic Christchurch shootings.
Anyway some examples of this trend are the Young Egypt Party (a Egyptian corporativist party inspired by the government of Fascist Italy which wanted to implement Islamic values as part of its ideology) and the Muslim Association of the Lictor (Libyan branch of the Italian Fascist Party, albiet unsuccessful). --PanNostraticism (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
This article needs a rewrite
There's no mention of either Islamist critiques of facism or the influence of Juliues Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World on Islamism. Why not quote Islamists themselves? This article seems very Eurocentric, as if Islamists have never written about facism before (Hassan Al Banna mentions facism in his magnus opus Peace in Islam https://islamicbulletin.org/en/ebooks/resources/peace_in_islam.pdf ).
"Nazism came to power in Germany, Fascism in Italy and both Hitler and Mussolini began to force their people to conform to what they thought; unity, order, development and power. Certainly, this system led the two countries to stability and a vital international role. This cultivated much hope, reawakened aspiration and united the whole country under one leader. Then what happened? It became apparent that these seemingly powerful systems were a real disaster. The inspiration and aspirations of the people were shattered and the system of democracy did not lead to the empowerment of the people but to the establishment of chosen tyrants. Eventually after a deadly war in which innumerable men women and children died, these regimes collapsed"
Here's what Khomeini had to say:
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/07/archives/an-interview-with-khomeini.html
FALLACI: Love or fanaticism, Imam? It seems to me that this is fanaticism, and of the most dangerous kind. I mean, fascist fanaticism. In fact, there are many who see a fascist threat in Iran today, and who even maintain that fascism is already being consolidated in Iran.
KHOMEINI: No, it is neither fascism nor fanaticism. I repeat, they yell like this because they love me, and they love me because they feel that I care for them, that I act for their good. That is, to apply the Commandments of Islam. Islam is justice. Dictatorship is the greatest sin in the religion of Islam. Fascism and Islamism are absolutely incompatible. Fascism arises in the West, not among people of Islamic culture.
FALLACI: Perhaps we don't understand each other or the meaning of the word fascism, Imam. By fascism I mean a popular phenomenon, the kind we had in Italy when the crowds cheered Mussolini, as here they cheer you, and they obeyed him as they obey you now.
KHOMEINI: No. Because our masses are Moslems, educated by the clergy — that is, by men who preach spirituality and goodness. Fascism would be possible here only if the Shah were to return or if Communism were to take over. Yes, what you say could happen only if Communism would win and wipe us out. Cheering, for me, means to love freedom and democracy.
Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- It’s really an article about the term “islamofascism”, not an article about the relationships between Islam, islamism, and fascism. Prezbo (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) There is no shortage of Islamists such as Khomeini denouncing/dismissing Fascism as unIslamic, inferior to Islam, etc. just as capitalism, liberalism, socialism, and any other ideology is inferior to the all-encompassing and perfect system of Islam. Does this mean there are no connections between Islamism and fascism? no such thing as Islamofascism? Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I just thought it was relevant to document how Islamist have historically understood fascism. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Timothy Winter and Evola
I will delete the part on Evola which mentions that he influenced Timothy Winter, because Winter but I will add it to both their pages respectively because it is important to point out. StrongALPHA (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Paul Gottfried
Is Paul Gottfried a reliable source in a conceptual discussion about fascism? I have not read the original source, but since he has direct ties to far-right orgs, it seems like he has a dog in the fight. Given the stigma of the label, it clearly is in his interest to define fascism in a manner that doesn't apply to his political activities. Also, if his claim is indeed that fascism only existed in Mussolini's Italy, why should he be included in any discussion about varieties of fascism? 37.96.36.84 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Orwell and Hitchens
The Orwell quote should be removed as it pertains to a general discussion about fascism.
Hitchens was not a scholar? He did not publish in peer reviewed journals and did not acquire doctoral qualifications. Journalist, author or critic would be a more accurate designation. 37.96.55.252 (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable stories on the Muslim Brotherhood
Al Arabiya news is a Saudi backed news channel. The Saudi government is anti Muslim Brotherhood (since MB is backed by Qatar) and should not be trusted as a reliable source - especially this article by Tony Duheaume - a man with hardly any scholarly backing. That article sites 0 sources that
. Banna personally ordered a translation of Mein Kampf (which is nowhere on Mein Kampf in Arabic article)
. Banna had personal copies Der Sturmer (could Banna even read German?)
The book I read on the Muslim Brotherhood is The Society of the Muslim Brothers by Richard P. Mitchell - who makes no mention of any of this. I tried looking in The Muslim Brotherhood and the West: A History of Enmity and Engagement but again there's no mention of any of that. At most it argues that the MB was funded by Nazis pre war but nothing like what Duheaume argued.
With regards to Hamed Abdel-Samad, he cites a statement by Banna (archived in ikhanwiki) where Banna praises the praised the militarism of Mussolini. But he forgot to include the last section of his speech: (translated from the Arabic with google translate)
But know, my dear, that there is a huge gap between the goal that Islam wants to instill in its sons the military spirit to achieve, and the goal that European politicians and leaders like Mussolini and others want to instill in their nations this spirit. Islam intends by this that Muslims work to preserve the legacy of God that He has bequeathed to them and to guide the whole world to that which contains light and guidance. They do not work out of desire for this world or greed for power, nor do they subject those whom God makes victorious to various types of humiliation and severe torment. As for Europe, it calls for the military spirit in competition for colonization and preparation to eliminate weak peoples and in desire for economic gains and material ambitions. There is a great difference between a divine, humane goal in which the individual becomes a victim of the interest of the group and a private goal in which the strong tyrannizes the weak and the victor devours the vanquished, and in which the atrocities of Tripoli, Tunis , Syria , Algeria, Marrakesh and the Rif are represented. It is strange to see that these are the teachings of Islam and that Muslims are in a deep sleep about them.
Also it was Salam Saadi, not Hamed Abdel-Samad, who said that "Hassan Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, said in a book in 1935 that Italian fascist and dictator Benito Mussolini was practicing one of the principles of Islam.". It's citation three in https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/7/2/article-p241_241.xml?language=en#ref_FN000003 Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- I took it out. If and when a reliable source is found, it can go back. Zero 03:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler
There needs to be some mention of the influence of Nazi German fascististic thought upon the Umma due to the influence that Hitler had on the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Richard Webster, who is generally sympathetic to Palestinians, blames the British for instilling both anti-semitism in Islamic thought as well as a fascist type response. He says all Abrahamic religions have components of fascism (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) because they want to make the entire world believers. (I don't agree with that, not in the present re Christianity, and Jews have never proselytized.) I also disagree about propaganda disappeared from Europe after WW2 (ha ha!) but I'm not the expert; he is. He is referenced as a source from the earliest versions of the article. A sentence of two that captures the relationship between Hitler's fascism and fascism in N Africa and other Arab nations via Amin should be mentioned (paraphrased) so as to include the impact of Nazi German fascist thought on Islam in the Middle East post-WW2:
'Throughout WW2, Hajj Amin remained in touch with the German government, and in 1941, having fled... to Berlin, he held talks with Hitler... thanked him for the ‘unequivocal support’ he had shown for the Palestinians... Anti-semitic propaganda broadcast in Arabic from Berlin had a significant effect in Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Tunisia and in other Arab countries.
Although such propaganda disappeared from Europe ... in Egypt anti-semitism was taken up not only by Nasser, but also, in a particularly violent form, by Sayyid Qutb... of the Muslim Brotherhood whom Nasser executed and who... shaped the thinking of modern, militant Islam including bin Laden. In Qutb’s view, Jews, who had always rebelled against God, were inherently evil...
...the destructive form which anti-semitism has now assumed within militant Islam... is not authentically Islamic; is western. ...dreams of world-domination which drive extreme Islamists have been there from the beginning. But such dreams are not unique to Islam; they are the common property of all three Abrahamic faiths. For, in that they look forward to a time when the entire world will bow down to the God they worship, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have always been...ideologies of world-domination."
I can try, but this is not something I know much about. FeralOink (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'd agree with an inclusion on the Mufti and Hitler, but specifically on the academic discourse on the subject. The idea that Hitler "introduced" antisemitism to the Muslim world or helped invent 'radical Islam', as argued by Matthias Kuntzel, is not without controversy. This is mainly because it assumes that:
- Radical or antisemitic tendencies in Islam did not already exist before the Hitler-Mufti meeting
- That there was an increase in, specifically 'radical Islamic', antisemitism post war, as opposed antisemitism by the anti-Islamist and socialist governments in Syria and Egypt.
- That this increase could only be attributed to Nazi propaganda and not to other events post-war
- That Nazi propaganda was widespread and taken at face value in the Arab world, and not challenged in any serious way, including on Islamic grounds
- That most Arabs even had access to radios in the first place and could (and did) listen to Axis propaganda (Joel Beinin challenges the idea that Qutb was inspired by the Nazis, since evidence for his radicalism did not appear until at earliest 1948).
- That the Nazi ideology was not contradictory; that the Nazis did not also praise the explicitly secular and anti-religious regime of Ataturk
- Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, as Ulrike Freitag and Israel Gershoni put it:
- "To our mind, the Muslim Brothers' position vis-a-vis Zionists and Jews had its own logic: The Muslim Brothers aggressively agitated against the Zionist project and took a leading pro-Palestinian role in Egypt and the Arab world between 1936 and 1939. They did not need to nurture their hatred of Zionism, and sometimes of Jews in general, with external sources. Actually, at the same time they developed a clear-cut anti-Nazi and anti-racialist position. There is no hard evidence in al-Banna's rhetoric, ideology or practices that demonstrates any sympathy, let alone collaboration, with the Nazi regime in Germany or its aggressive anti-Semitism. On the contrary, al-Banna and other ideologues and activists of the Muslim Brothers rejected and denounced Nazism on the grounds of its racism and totalitarianism. They considered it to be a new kind of Western imperialism, crueller and more oppressive than the old imperialism of Britain and France. Therefore, to accuse them of Nazi influences because of their support for the Palestinian national movement and its leader, the Mufti, and because of his later collaboration with the Nazis amounts to guilt by association"
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/41303595
- As Mia Lee puts it:
- "Both sets of authors claim that Arabs increasingly participated in operations against Jews during the German occupation. But they do so without showing significant corroborating evidence of this alleged increase in violence, thus creating ambiguity about the reasons behind the rise of anti-Semitism in the region. Moreover, while they emphasise Arabs’ welcome of the Germans, neither set of authors convincingly addresses the findings of numerous studies from scholars of the Middle East that document how Middle Eastern leaders in the interwar era were suspicious or antipathetic toward imperial powers".. "There is no new evidence that the Mufti commanded the support of any significant number of Arab Muslims either during his exile or afterward. Moreover, neither book satisfactorily demonstrates that the Mufti’s anti-Semitic position was shared by Islamic groups in the Middle East during the war"
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26852336
- Hitler was fascinated with Islam, but was also incredibly ignorant of even basic Islamic practices. For example, one of the ways the SS differentiated who was Jewish and who wasn't was by checking to see who was circumcised, and then killing them on sight. This was done completely ignorant to the fact Muslims also practice circumcision; the SS killed hundreds of Muslims Tatars before realizing their mistake.
- The extent to which radical Islam needed Nazism to proliferate, that it couldn't possibly spread without the Nazis for other reasons, is not, to put it lightly, an idea without some skeptics. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Beinin, Joel (2010). "Review of Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World; From Empathy to Denial: Arab Responses to the Holocaust". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 42 (4): 689–692. ISSN 0020-7438.
- Motadel, David (2015), Rüger, Jan; Wachsmann, Nikolaus (eds.), "Veiled Survivors: Jews, Roma and Muslims in the Years of the Holocaust", Rewriting German History: New Perspectives on Modern Germany, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 288–305, doi:10.1057/9781137347794_16, ISBN 978-1-137-34779-4, retrieved 2024-10-09