Islamic Fascism debacle

Recently, very sincere people have urged that the term 'islamic fascism' not be used when discussing terrorists who happen to be muslims.

The arguement is sometimes made, there are christian terrorists, like say the IRA, we don't call them papo-fascists, or like the christian identity movement, rarely are they described as 'christo-terrorists'. Even the KKK isn't called a 'christo-terrorist' organization, when their motivations are largely religious. So why focus on the 'islamic' portion of the terrorists who happen to be muslim, people question.

I think that the IRA example illustrates it nicely. The PLO, for example, wasn't called an 'islamo-fascist' organization, it was, in a sense, more political, more like the IRA, which was a 'republican' movement, though of course there was huge sectarian strife between the catholics and protestants.

I think that, if anything, that shows that this isn't some plot to demonize muslims. The usage 'islamo-fascism' only started being used recently, because the terror organizations weren't nationalists, but were urging caliphate and the creation of states operated by koranic-sharia law. That does seem to show that there is a basis for calling them 'islamo-fascists'. Indeed, many people, who really have a poor perception of islam, simply call them 'muslims', even insist that the terrorists are, like the terrorists themselves claim 'muslims strictly observing the dictates of their religion'.

More so, while the KKK perhaps escapes similar labeling, the other christian based terrror groups do tend to have their fundamentalist, radical christian views emphasized. Consider the Branch Davidians. Just as much as their interests in guns was talked about was their religious interpretations. The phrase 'christo-fascists' wasn't created for the situation, but then again, we've often seen politicians who emphasize christianity labeled as out and out 'fascists', and the original fascists were christians, 'christo-fascist' would be redundant, to a degree. The 'islamo' addendum is more of a qualifier to the 'fascist' label.

Any thoughts?

In response I would say that the IRA and KKK whose acts of terror were limited to the country they originated from. If you look around the world you will see that the KKK did not conduct acts of terrorism outside of the United States, regardless of how many non-caucasian people exist. These two organizations were domestic dilemmas that had little or no effect on those outside of their nations.

Islamic terrorism however is a global movement that has been conducted by numerous organizations based on the teachings of Islam (which of course is an interpretive matter). Though scriptures from the Qu'ran such as:

"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!"

...Would make it appear that there is some validity to the reasoning of these organizations.

Unlike the KKK and IRA, Islamic based terrorism is widespread and has been documented in Africa, Europe, North and South America, Asia and Australia. So I do believe "islamic-terrorism" is an appropriate term at this time.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by laiguana]

Actually the ones that started calling the term was first in Britain but. . . it didn't make it in the news as an offensive term until Bush used it two times in his speech after the failed terrorist attack in UK.

I will give some credit to muslin communities that had nothing to do with terrorist but Islam is their religion they have the right to feel targeted upon their believes along with terrorist.

But we must understand that the propaganda wagged against Islam extremist is also affecting the muslin community as a whole.

Nope but to them we are called ZIONISTS CRUSADERS and the great Satan so what are we wrong to call names back?

Muslims don't call their own anything and nor do the West call their own in that manner. I think like all of us Bush is fed up with the Crusader tag so why can we not say they are facists because in a way they are and in a way we are not Crusaders but are doing what our ansesters did and stick up against an Islam Invation that spread not by preaching but by the sword. If we did not Crusade you would be a Muslim and maybe this internet would not have been invented.

The propagander if Chritianity being bannned in Islamic countries and not accepting other systems to intergrate also has an effect on the non Muslims living in those countries. If its about equality then we would like the same demands in Iran and the rest of the counties that ban religious rights to show their double standards the seek from the UK but it never will be heard.


[edit on 14-8-2006 by The time lord]

Originally posted by laiguana
In response I would say that the IRA and KKK whose acts of terror were limited to the country they originated from. If you look around the world you will see that the KKK did not conduct acts of terrorism outside of the United States, regardless of how many non-caucasian people exist. These two organizations were domestic dilemmas that had little or no effect on those outside of their nations.

There were some instances of KKK bashings here in Australia from memory in the late 80's early 90's. There presence here has morphed into groups with different names now but their roots were definately sponsored by the KKK in their infancy. A relative in the AFP confirmed this for me but i will attempt to find a source for you. Im sure you will find other instances of the KKK funding other white supremist groups around the world if you look hard enough.

The reason the right has adopted the term "Islamic Fascist" is simply to avoid the term "Islamic Fundamentalist", which is too much of a reminder of our own faction of religious medievalists seeking to impose a state religion. Since these people happen to represent a major part of the current administrations' support base, they'd rather not encourage the comparison, even if it's fairly obvious.

[edit on 8/15/06 by xmotex]

IRA has some major ties to America, since many Irish did settle here.

Terror of any kind knows no boundaries.

Prior to 9/11, the largest terror attack (if memory serves correctly) on a western country was when Canada lost 280 citizens on Air India Flight 182. 329 people lost their lives to Sihks who wanted their own homeland carved out of the Indian state of Punjab.

We called them Sihk militants.

We called them Sihk militants.

Seems sensible enough, militants/terrorists who's motivation is sectarian and goals are also sectarian. If the IRA had wanted to create a catholic state, not an irish one, or focused it attacks on protestants because they were protestants, then it'd've made sense to call them catholic terrorits.

The Falange movement in lebanon, I beleive, were catholic terrorists, and are usually discussed as such.

This thread may be nearly 20 years old, but in a publication titled The Caliphate is not a Totalitarian State, Abdul-Kareem Jamil rejects the tendency of George W. Bush and the British government to characterize al-Qaeda's notional Islamic caliphate as totalitarian, arguing that any potential modern-day Islamic caliphate fails to fulfill all the characteristics of totalitarianism outlined by Carl Friedrich and future National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in their 1956 book Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy:

1. 1. An official ideology to which general adherence was demanded, the ideology intended to achieve a ‘perfect final stage of mankind’
   
2. 2. A single mass party, hierarchically organised, closely interwoven with the state bureaucracy and typically led by one man
   
3. 3. Monopolistic control of the armed forces
   
4. 4. A monopoly of the means of effective mass communication
   
5. 5. A system of terrorist police control
   
6. 6. Central control and direction of the entire economy.
   

George W. Bush disregarded the characteristics of totalitarianism outlined by Friedrich and Brzezinski, saying that in light of the Taliban's brutal treatment of the Afghan people and al-Qaeda's vows to have all peoples practicing non-Muslim faiths killed for not adhering to bin Laden and al-Zawahiri's will, the Islamic caliphate envisioned by al-Qaeda qualified as totalitarian due to the requirement for a religious police and bin Laden's denunciation of democratic governance as un-Islamic (e.g. al-Qaeda calling US-style representative governments "councils of polytheism") and utter disdain for peoples of different religions, races, and creeds. It may be true that al-Qaeda and ISIS opposed political pluralism, but they also despised Marxism on the grounds that Karl Marx's narrative of religion as "opium of the masses" overlooked the fact that one of the five pillars of Islam is zakat, which involves providing alms to beggars.

Any thoughts?

Yup. It was a great piece. Easy to read, informative..excellent. Thank You.