Talk:Islamofascism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Iran has stated they want to destroy America and Israel.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It gets way more complicated than that. Read. Learn. Grow. P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby?Moderator 02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I'll read it, provided it wasn't vandalized by junior high kids.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Leading professor on the subject, not a junior high student P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby?Moderator 02:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I didn't realize the possibility of a mistranslation.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fascistic Islam[edit]

I agree that this is partly drummed up by US neocons, but shouldn't we say something about fascistic Muslims, because they certainly do exist... albeit not in the form dreamed up by the Americans. Islamic Fundamentalism can certainly come very close--Albannach (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this word just an Islamic form of clerical fascism? If so then it's is as real and interchangeable as any other theocratic ideology and we should embrace its use. This wiki's rational POV tends to oppose the war in Iraq but the term predates that war, being first used (according to Christopher Hitchens), "...in 1990 in Britain's Independent newspaper by Scottish writer Malise Ruthven, who was writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power." The three talking points given in this article as reasons for why this term is fabricated for a war are debatable as well; this article says the relationship between Islam and fascism is tenuous...really? I see a lot of similarities between fascist regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. You say, "Islamic form of authoritarian conservatism", I say "Islamofascism". --emc [TALK]

I vote for a partial rewrite[edit]

The legitimate criticism of the intended oversimplification by neoconservatives notwithstanding, Islamofascism is at least as real as Christofascism, and our article on that subject clearly reflects a belief that Christofascism is real. I understand why Hitchens preferred the term "fascism with an Islamic face"- groups like al-Qaeda and some Islamic regimes parallel Hitler in being anti-Semitic, anti-minority, and anti-leftist-, but let's not forget the role of their interpretation of Islam in causing terrorist groups and regimes to arrive at fascism. Furthermore, this article asserts that there has not been much of a relationship between Islam and fascism in fascism's history, beyond al-Husseini. That's not entirely true. Let's not forget the Bosniak and Kosovar Nazis during World War 2. And yes Baathism was started by an Iraqi Catholic, but as our article notes, Saddam added plenty of political Islam to it. This is important because Iraqi Baathism was a strain of traditional fascism in that it existed partly to suppress organized labor (of course, the law restricting trade unions was the only of Saddam's laws kept on the book by the US occupation- because neocons actually like fascism). We list examples of Christofascists on our Christofacism page, and I think we should mimic that on this page. In that list we include Francisco Franco and mention that he is the most literal example of a Christofascist. That's accurate: he was very much a fascist and came to power by crushing working-class liberatory movement (and he used a working-class, colonized, majority-Muslim Moroccan army to do it), and part of his program was to restore the domination of the Catholic Church over Spanish society. Well, Saddam is probably Franco's equivalent, no? Rand0 (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)