Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:36, 15 April 2005

Early history of this page

Look to the talk pages Talk:Slogan 'Islamofascism' and Talk:List of political epithets for much discussion of this text. --- Charles Stewart 18:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Needs to be done:

1. The list of claimants to have coined this term needs to be rationalised. My user page User:Chalst/islamofascism may be useful to others;
2. Weaselly terms like However, the goal of an integration of Arab (particularly Saudi) oil riches and theocracy, could be interpreted as a form of fascism. need to be rewritten.

I've not really got a high enough interest level to do this task well. --- Charles Stewart 18:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have time to criticize; but not to contribute. Well isn't that "convenient"? Porphyria 20:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've made plenty of contributions to this material and related material. Check my edits. And criticism is contribution, when it is constructive. --- Charles Stewart 21:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting excuse. I however would never accuse you of "weaselly" writing. Porphyria 21:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been guilty of it on occasion, and there are defences for using it: check out my summary at Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid weasel terms#Minimise weasel terms. Could be interpreted is, according to the wikipedia term of art, a weasel phrase: does anybody so interpret this? Is the fact of such interpretations encyclopedic? It's not false, nor is it POV, but it is vague and fassl short of best editing practice. I was highlighting one example of a few such sentences in the article to bring attention to the problem. --- Charles Stewart 22:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

removed characterization

I removed the following unsourced characterization of "Islamofascism". My comments are interpolated, in italics:

Islamofascism is used by whom? to describe a an ideology with the following characteristics.

• Promotes the establisment of a global puritan (Wahhabi) islamic nation state under the totalitarian control of Islamic religious authorities. Who does this? Some Islamic political movements promote the reestablishment of the Caliphate, others want an Iranian or Taliban-style theocracy. Which are we talking about here? Or is this just a made-up bogeyman, as the term "totalitarian" seems to indicate?
  • Islamofascists promote the creation of totalitarian theocratic Islamic states. It's intrinsic to the definition of Islamofascist. Some may want a caliphate, while other settle for taliban-type total government. Hence the appelation totalitarian.

• Posit's the existance of an eternal violent conflict between muslims and infidels, that will end with the eventual victory of muslims over the infidels. An eternal conflict that will end. . . hmm, yes, that makes sense. Links to Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam might have been more informative.
  • This is still a article in progress. There would be no need to fight the infidel's but that this eternal conflict exists.

• Accepts and promotes terrorism and violence to further its goals. Some Islamic political movements do. Some don't. Not very helpful.
  • Islamofascist movements support violence. Non Islamofascist movements may or may not support violence.

• Strongly and violently anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, anti-American, and anti-western. All of these, all at once, then? Always?
  • Yes always, since Jews, Israel, the US, and the western world are all perceived as implacable enemies of Islam. Hence they must be subjugated or destroyed. This is a key islamofascist holding. Most advocates of islamofascism havent gotten to point of making feckless intelectually dishonest statements such as "I'm a stauch anti-zionist and not at all anti-semitic! I support palestinian armed struggle but oppose terrorism."

• Denies normative western political concepts such as, the intrinsic value of human life, human rights and democracy. And motherhood and apple pie, too. Pure bogeyman.
  • Pure truth, sad but true. an Islamofascist state like Saudi Arabia or Taliban era Afghanistan does not embrace normative western political concepts. There is no democracy, and no human rights.

• Advocates a philosophy of trotskyist entryism to convert/subvert non-Islamic societies from within. Proselytizing is such an insidious evil, isn't it.
  • When you are attempting to destroy the host society in bad faith, it could be considered a problem.

• Advocates genocide of Jews or just the destruction or overthrow of the State of Israel—not quite the same thing—and even that isn't exactly a mainstream position.
  • You can't destroy or overthrow of the State of Israel without killing all or the vast majority of jews therein. Don't pretend otherwise.

There are two general problems with this text:

1. Not a single source is cited.
2. No significant movement that has all of these characteristics is named. I cannot think of one. Perhaps whoever added this text had some organization in mind.

—Charles P.  04:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact I did. In no particular order.

• Hamas and friends
• Al Qaeda and friends
• Taliban and friends
• Saudi Government and friends
• Advocates of Sharia Law

Inshallah, you will never have to live in a totalitarian state or face islamist terrorism, because they both really suck. Klonimus 05:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)