Scott, over at IHE, alerts us to the “Islamophobofascist menace”:http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/10/17/mclemee
Not all Islamophobes are fanatics. Most, on the contrary, are decent people who just want to live in peace. Islamophobia forms only part of their identity. They grew up fearing Islam, and they still worry about it from time to time, especially during holidays and on certain anniversaries; but many would confess to doubt about just how Islamophobic they feel deep down inside. They may find themselves wondering, for example, if the Koran is really that much more bloodthirsty than the Jewish scriptures (Joshua 6 is plenty murderous) or the Christian (Matthew 10:34 is not exactly comforting).
Unfortunately a handful of troublemakers thrive among them, parasitically. They spew out hatred through Web sites. They seek to silence their critics, and to recruit impressionable young people. Perhaps it is unfair to confuse matters through calling the moderates and the militants by the same name. It would be more fitting to say that the latter are really Islamophobofascists.
Some might find the expression offensive. That is too bad. If we don’t resist Islamophobofascism now, its intolerance can only spread.
This is tongue in cheek, obviously, but his deadly serious description of them as “sleeper cells of malice and stupidity” is spot on.
{ 77 comments }
bi 10.17.07 at 5:21 pm
Um… why even argue whether the Bible is inherently more peaceful than the Quran? It’s obvious that many US neoconservatives/movementarians are showing their love for peace by asking that Arab lands be “turned into a glass parking lot”. Which is very peace-loving indeed.
Doctor Slack 10.17.07 at 7:17 pm
The comments thread over there is a treat.
Laleh 10.17.07 at 8:13 pm
Oh my god. _Who_ are the people commenting on the Inside Higher Ed blog? Where do they come from? Why do they read Inside Higher Ed? I suddenly feel as if I have been living in some sort of insular cave.
Brownie 10.17.07 at 8:51 pm
This is tongue in cheek, obviously, but his deadly serious description of them as “sleeper cells of malice and stupidity†is spot on.
Is it?
“Islamofascism†is the preferred term of those who don’t see any distinction between Al Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, and the Baathists.
The fact that “Islamofascism” is a term used by some idiots does not render the term idiotic. You need to think about it for 5 seconds to realise what dismal logic this is. Moreover, the word unforgivably conflates ordinary, peacable Muslims with Jihadis only if you want it to. If the majority of those using the term really believed that Islam and not Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism was the problem, they would call these people “Muslims” and not “Islamofascists”. The use of “Islamofascist” by definition distinguishes between the billion plus non-Jihad fighting Muslims and the tiny minority of looney tunes.
For the record, I stay away from the word myself. Not becuase I think it inapposite, but becasue it gives people like Scott and Henry an excuse to divert what should be the genuine debate: how we combat a political ideology informed by a religious fundamentalism.
I wonder, how many people have died as a result of being labelled an “Islamofascist”? Fanatacism and zealotry may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Hidari 10.17.07 at 9:38 pm
‘how ‘we’ (sic) combat a political ideology informed by a religious fundamentalism.’
Oh really? Suddenly this is the aim of Harry’s Place? So we can look forward to seeing searing exposes of the Christian fundamentalism of Tony Blair and George Bush?
(Cue ripostes from the usual suspects that ‘of course’ 9/11 (deaths, 3000 plus) was ‘obviously’ much worse than the invasion of Iraq (deaths, 1 million plus, so far) because, you know, ‘they’ have darker skins than ‘us’, and they don’t speak English, and besides, have you noticed that Michael Moore is fat? And so, tediously, on).
Rosie 10.17.07 at 9:54 pm
I suddenly feel as if I have been living in some sort of insular cave.
This place can do it to you.
Brownie 10.17.07 at 11:41 pm
Suddenly this is the aim of Harry’s Place?
Nope, we’ve pretty much believed this since 2003.
Good luck with the “Tony Blair is a Christian Fundamentalist” line of reasoning. It’s just as well his religious police never found my golden calf.
Donald Johnson 10.18.07 at 12:12 am
Exactly, brownie, it’s all about which people suffer. You’re not in any danger from religious police, so there’s no sense in which some Westerners can be condemned as ideological fanatics merely because they start a disastrous war for no good reason.
Doctor Slack 10.18.07 at 2:16 am
The fact that “Islamofascism†is a term used by some idiots does not render the term idiotic.
However, if the vast majority of the people using the term are idiots, we can take it as a clue.
bi 10.18.07 at 3:59 am
“If the majority of those using the term really believed that Islam and not Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism was the problem, they would call these people ‘Muslims’ and not ‘Islamofascists’.”
Did the existence of the word “idiot” stop the LGF guys from coining the word “idiotarian”? A term referring to stupid people isn’t enough, obviously they needed a term to refer to stupid people (as shown by the fact that they don’t agree with Our(tm) politics).
The term “Islamofascism” _should_ refer specifically to Islamic extremism, but — seeing the way that people like to argue about whether the Quran’s more violent than the Bible — it’s clear that there are many wackos who use “Islamofascism” to mean something like “Islam (which is a kind of fascism)”.
Hidari 10.18.07 at 7:43 am
‘Good luck with the “Tony Blair is a Christian Fundamentalist†line of reasoning. It’s just as well his religious police never found my golden calf.’
Well quite, and that’s the bottom line with the HP crowd isn’t it? Incidentally, Tony Blair is undoubtedly an extremist (Catholic) Christian fundamentalist…just see his views on the teaching of Intelligent (sic) Design. Moreover, it has been hinted at that his friendly relations with Ian Paisley and George Bush were facilitated by their shared extremist Christian agenda.
However, as you say, his Christian fundamentalism didn’t affect you, personally, so why should you care? After all, the core HP audience have always been pretty well inured from the impact of the Bush/Blair world view, on account of your geographical location and the colour of your skin and all.
Brownie 10.18.07 at 9:47 am
Donald,
Exactly, brownie, it’s all about which people suffer. You’re not in any danger from religious police, so there’s no sense in which some Westerners can be condemned as ideological fanatics merely because they start a disastrous war for no good reason.
On the contrary. You can indeed make such a case, but if you elect to construct an argument that tries to postion the faith of Blair and Bush as the preeminent motivational factor in what what you would consider their folly, then you’re just going to look silly.
I mean, for the past 4 years I thought it was all about oil, and now I’m being told it’s Christian fundamentalism that drove the Bush/Blair desire to invade Iraq? Make your minds up, guys.
The term “Islamofascism†should refer specifically to Islamic extremism, but—seeing the way that people like to argue about whether the Quran’s more violent than the Bible—it’s clear that there are many wackos who use “Islamofascism†to mean something like “Islam (which is a kind of fascism)â€.
I wouldn’t really disagree with that. I know the wackos you’re talking about. But shouldn’t you deal with them on the basis of their wacko-ness instead of focusing on their chosen nomenclature and, in my opinion at least, misappropriation of a perfectly respectable word (albeit one I avoid for reasons given previously)?
Hidari,
Well quite, and that’s the bottom line with the HP crowd isn’t it
What, that we’re all glad TB didn’t find our golden calves?
If you say so you scary, scary person.
bi 10.18.07 at 9:53 am
To elaborate on my earlier point: it’s bizarre how some wonks try to explain that “Islamofascism” isn’t the same as “Islam”… only to turn around and then try their very best to ‘prove’ that Islam _is_ inherently fascist (“look at this and this passage from the Quran!”), or that Muslims _are_ fascists (“look, those moderate Muslims aren’t making a lot of noise over al-Qaeda’s killings!”)… so yes, We(tm) think that “Islamofascism” really _is_ the same as “Islam”, but let’s pretend that they’re different when it’s convenient for us.
And yeah, Michael Moore is fat.
bi 10.18.07 at 10:18 am
“misappropriation of a perfectly respectable word”
What’s so “respectable” about the word? The word is fraught with imprecision, nobody knows or cares what it originally means (incidentally, Wikipedia gives _2_ different theories on the origin and the original meaning), and lots of idiots are using it to refer to “Islam the fascism”.
If there’s anything “respectable” about this word, I’m not seeing it.
MFB 10.18.07 at 10:48 am
The thread in response to Scott’s posting is remarkable. You can smell the reek of bigotry all across the Atlantic.
The term and concept “Islamofascist” needs to be buried, as do the people who promote it, but most of all this ridiculous Islamophobia, and particularly the appalling people who say “I really do care most deeply about Islam, except for those of them whom I don’t like, who are untermenschen and should be put in little camps”, needs to be combatted. Because it is far too widely tolerated, in the real world, not on the Web.
bi 10.18.07 at 10:48 am
“I wonder, how many people have died as a result of being labelled an ‘Islamofascist’? Fanatacism and zealotry may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
What’s the argument here? Is it that “Islamofascism” is just a word, so it doesn’t even matter if the word is vague or idiotic? Or that an idiotic word isn’t idiotic because it’s free speech?
Donald Johnson 10.18.07 at 11:44 am
Brownie, there’s nothing incompatible in saying that both religious inspired self-righteousness (I’m a Christian, btw, and don’t think Blair is a fundie the way the term is usually used) and a desire to claim Iraq’s oil played roles in motivating the Iraq war. Bush and Blair both have a self-righteous air about them (more like a thick choking fog). Cheney probably cares more about the oil.
It’s even possible for one person to be both self-righteous and greedy.
Hidari 10.18.07 at 11:51 am
You forgot to mention that Michael Moore is fat, Brownie. That’s the killer point for which we limp wristed liberals have no answer.
Brownie 10.18.07 at 12:07 pm
To elaborate on my earlier point: it’s bizarre how some wonks try to explain that “Islamofascism†isn’t the same as “Islamâ€â€¦ only to turn around and then try their very best to ‘prove’ that Islam is inherently fascist (“look at this and this passage from the Quran!â€), or that Muslims are fascists (“look, those moderate Muslims aren’t making a lot of noise over al-Qaeda’s killings!â€)…
You keep saying it, and I’ll keep agreeing with it.
The word is fraught with imprecision, nobody knows or cares what it originally means (incidentally, Wikipedia gives 2 different theories on the origin and the original meaning), and lots of idiots are using it to refer to “Islam the fascismâ€.
Well this is my point. The word is as equivocal and ambiguous as you want it to be. If you’re having a debate with someone who uses the term “Islamofascist” but gives you no cause to think s/he believes all Muslims are Jihadis or that Islam itself is inherently evil, then what is there to be confused about? Are you going to pretend your interlocutor is conflating peacable Muslims with the religious fanatics becasue it will make it easier for you in debate, or are you going to confront him/her on the issues?
Conversely, if your debating partner uses “Islamofascist” and is clealry a bigot who encourages the belief there is no such thing as a peaceful Muslim and who denigrates the entire Islamic faith, then why would you bother with nomenclature?
The term and concept “Islamofascist†needs to be buried, as do the people who promote it
Nice. Does this not make you a “terminologyfascist”?
What’s the argument here? Is it that “Islamofascism†is just a word, so it doesn’t even matter if the word is vague or idiotic? Or that an idiotic word isn’t idiotic because it’s free speech?
bi, all you’ve done to ‘demosntrate’ how “idiotic” is the term “islamofascist” is point out that some thick people use it incorrectly.
BTW, I don’t necessarily buy that the bigots we’re talking about do use “Islamofascist” all that much. If you think all Muslims are fascists and that Islam is evil, you tend to be the sort of person who deosn’t much mind being called on it. You wouldn’t opt for the tautological “Islamofascist” as cover. As before, the word by definition implies the existence of non-fascistic adherents of Islam, just as “Christian fundamentalist” implies that not all Christians are fundamentalist.
Brownie 10.18.07 at 12:13 pm
Bush and Blair both have a self-righteous air about them
Even as a Blairite I can see that. Of course, this is a about a billion degrees of separation from claims that:
a) they are both Christian fundamentalists, and
b) that their fundamentalism informed their decision to go to war with Saddam.
You may not be claiming that, but my comment to which you responded was itself a response to claims that they are and it did.
Brownie 10.18.07 at 12:14 pm
You forgot to mention that Michael Moore is fat, Brownie. That’s the killer point for which we limp wristed liberals have no answer.
Does the phrase “out of your depth” have any meaning for you?
MFB 10.18.07 at 12:19 pm
In essence, the reason for wishing the term removed is not because it is used by obvious bigots, but because it is used by people who aren’t obvious bigots and want to shift the debate towards bigotry.
If a person calls Muslims “rag-heads” then you don’t really need to deal with him; you can ignore whatever he has to say.
But if a person refers to “Islamofascists”, you might be dealing with someone who actually is worth talking to and is just misguided about Islam, fascism and so forth. That is really what the term is invented for; it’s a bit of Newspeak intended to cloud the issue and confuse people into, essentially, hating Muslims or believing that other people have a reason for hating Muslims.
The most common use of the term that I have come across suggests that Muslim people have some mysterious tendency in the direction of fascism because of their faith, but that some Muslims are not necessarily so bad; in any case, that the resistance to foreign aggression and the annoyance about internal repression which exists in the Muslim world doesn’t have any real basis, but is something to do with their faith and its alleged propensity towards fascism.
This often slides into actual anti-Muslim bigotry and racism, but even if it didn’t, the term would still be toxic and the concept behind it deeply unhealthy.
bi 10.18.07 at 1:57 pm
“The word is as equivocal and ambiguous as you want it to be.”
In short, the word is equivocal, period. Why’s Brownie so in favour of keeping a word that does nothing but sow confusion?
“If you think all Muslims are fascists and that Islam is evil, you tend to be the sort of person who deosn’t much mind being called on it.”
Provably false. The very thread Henry linked to is filled with people who go “yes, they’re moderate Muslims, but they don’t make a lot of noise over terrorist bombings, so we can treat all Muslims as complicit terrorists for all intents and purposes, but we’re tolerant people, really” (see MFB #15).
But let no facts get in the way of some good Newspeak, eh?
Actually, Scott’s blog post isn’t even about the word “Islamofascist” — it’s about Islamophobofascism, the special brand of stupid that makes people go apopletic at the mention of the word “Eurabia”.
Brownie 10.18.07 at 2:21 pm
Provably false. The very thread Henry linked to is filled with people who go “yes, they’re moderate Muslims, but they don’t make a lot of noise over terrorist bombings, so we can treat all Muslims as complicit terrorists for all intents and purposes, but we’re tolerant people, really†(see MFB #15).
Well, bi, I think you’ve fallen a long way shy of proving anything. I’m saying that people who think all Muslims are terrorists usually leave you in no doubt that they think like that. This doesn’t mean that they won’t ever use the term “Islamofascist”, it just means you don’t have to guess whether use of this term is indicative of bigotry. You know they’re bigots because they tell you as much every other sentence, whether they realise it or not.
You’re countering this by parahprasing the commenters on Scott’s thread thus:
we can treat all Muslims as complicit terrorists for all intents and purposes
This proves my point, not yours. The people in question are not hiding behind “Islamofascist”. They’re telling you outright that they are bigots, albeit they won’t see it that way.
The truth will out, and all that.
The point in all this is that if I begin a discussion with you on religious violence and use the word “Islamofascit” (which I wouldn’t) but never give you any reason to believe that I’m conflating the huge majority of peacable Muslims with the Jihadist nutbars, then there is nothing for you to get confused about. You (should) automatically know to whom I’m referring in the context of such discussion in the event I use the term “Islamofascist”. There’s nothing to stop you diverting the discussion onto terminology at this point, pretending that you’re confused by my use of this descriptive noun; just as there would be nothing to prevent me from concluding that you were debating in bad faith and finding someone else to talk to.
zdenek v 10.18.07 at 2:37 pm
re 22 : “In essence, the reason for wishing the term removed is not because it is used by obvious bigots, but because it is used by people who aren’t obvious bigots and want to shift the debate towards bigotry…”
The entire argument, which involves attributing bad motives to people who wish to use the term ‘islamofascism’ in a serious debate, rests on an elementary confusion of psychology with epistemology.
You are like someone who argues that Nietzsche’s view of morality must be crap because the guy was a sociopath . This is a silly muddle and so excuse some of us for not taking your wish to control what people think and how they speak too seriously.
zdenek v 10.18.07 at 3:00 pm
bi : “In short, the word is equivocal, period. Why’s Brownie so in favour of keeping a word that does nothing but sow confusion?
This is just a guess but maybe he thinks we would have to chuck words like ‘democracy’, ‘justice’ or ‘freedom’ too, because they give even more trouble ?
bi 10.18.07 at 3:21 pm
Brownie:
“This proves my point, not yours.”
No, it doesn’t.
“There’s nothing to stop you diverting the discussion onto terminology at this point, pretending that you’re confused by my use of this descriptive noun;”
Just to refresh your memory, Brownie, _you_ were the one who in the first place responded to this blog post about belligerent Islamophobic wackos by quibbling about Scott’s complaint over the word “Islamofascism”.
No, I’m _not_ confused by this noun. It’s precisely because I’m _not_ confused — despite the efforts of lots of people to confuse me — that I oppose its use.
“… just as there would be nothing to prevent me from concluding that you were debating in bad faith and finding someone else to talk to.”
Oh, if you decide that I’m debating in bad faith, then obviously I must be debating in bad faith. Quod erat demonstrator.
= = =
“The entire argument, which involves attributing bad motives to people who wish to use the term ‘islamofascism’ in a serious debate, rests on an elementary confusion of psychology with epistemology.”
Exactly what’s this “serious debate” we’re talking about here, zdenek v?
= = =
If either Brownie or zdenek v actually has anything to say about the factual foundations of David Horowitz and Ann Coulter’s “Islamofascism awareness” movement, then I’m all ears. Otherwise, stop blowing smoke.
Doctor Slack 10.18.07 at 3:39 pm
Does the phrase “out of your depth†have any meaning for you?
AGH! Brownie! You just snapped the needles off the irony-gauges!
zdenek v 10.18.07 at 3:49 pm
bi: “If either Brownie or zdenek v actually has anything to say about the factual foundations of David Horowitz and Ann Coulter’s “Islamofascism awareness†movement, then I’m all ears. Otherwise, stop blowing smoke.”
There are two different issues here : (i) the aptness or otherwise of the term ‘islamofascism’, and (ii) the extent to which David Horowitz’s project is open to criticism or not ( and what kind of criticism exactly and so on ).
I am interested in showing at the moment that the criticisms offered here against using the term ‘islamofascism’ are weak and do not stand up : you just have to take a better look at them and they are shown to be based on a misunderstanding of some sort ( consider for instance that the term was coined by a a French writer Maxine Rodison who was a Marxist and who taught in a Muslim school in Lebanon for instance ; hardly a neocon bigot ).
Connectedly I think that it is easy to show that you do not have to think David Horowitz is right if you accept that the term ‘islamofascism’ is useful because it denotes something real and worth drawing attention to.
Doctor Slack 10.18.07 at 3:58 pm
I am interested in showing at the moment that the criticisms offered here against using the term ‘islamofascism’ are weak… consider for instance that the term was coined by a a French writer Maxine Rodison who was a Marxist…
Yeah, totally no way she could be bigot. She was French! And a Marxist! Zdenek, watching you try to talk about the “weakness” of arguments is a little like watching these people dance; the difference is, at least they were joking.
Doctor Slack 10.18.07 at 3:58 pm
these people dance.
zdenek v 10.18.07 at 4:26 pm
Wrong end of the stick doctor slack ( I must recommend a useful trick just for you : try to follow the argument before commenting ) : Rodison is mentioned as a counterexample to the insinuation that only rightwingers use the term ‘islamofscism’.
And btw Rodison is a he.
Doctor Slack 10.18.07 at 4:42 pm
I must recommend a useful trick just for you : try to follow the argument before commenting
Physician…
Rodison is mentioned as a counterexample to the insinuation that only rightwingers use the term ‘islamofscism’.
And that’s stupid, since the argument is mostly about whether bigots prefer the term. Do try to follow the argument, Zdenek.
(My apologies to Maxine Rodison for mistaking his gender.)
Keely 10.18.07 at 4:56 pm
Guys, it’s “Maxime Rodinson” !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Rodinson
An interesting writer, btw.
zdenek v 10.18.07 at 5:15 pm
“And that’s stupid, since the argument is mostly about whether bigots prefer the term. Do try to follow the argument…”
Maxime Rodison can be used as an example of someone who was on the left *and* as someone not bigoted against Muslims because he has written a very kind biography of Mohamhad in which he ( the prophet that is )is described as kind campaigner for social justice and equality ( Karen Armstrong approves ).
On the face of it this early user of the term ‘islamofascism ‘ ( used to describe Iranian Revolution ) is not by someone who is bigoted or ill informed about Islam.( another claim made in a number of comments above ).
Doctor Slack 10.18.07 at 5:16 pm
…and who is actually of fairly questionable relevance to the whole “Islamofascism” bromide. I was assailing Zdenek for being a fool, but making the even more foolish mistake of taking part of what he said seriously. A good lesson.
bi 10.18.07 at 5:40 pm
“the extent to which David Horowitz’s project is open to criticism or not ( and what kind of criticism exactly and so on ).”
I’m interested to know the extent to which Horowitz’s “Islamofascism awareness” project is based on fact and evidence. Well, if the amount of evidence behind his “academic freedom” campaign is any guide…
“We have entered the era of a new civil war between the forces of freedom and the powers of Islamo-fascist and communist darkness, and once again the left is clearly determined to take its stand on the other side.” — David Horowitz
Um… OK.
zdenek v 10.18.07 at 5:41 pm
doctor slack :”and who is actually of fairly questionable relevance to the whole “Islamofascism†bromide.” ( meaning Rodinson )
Opens mouth and inserts foot : concedes that he doesnt know the author at all by thinking Rodinson is a woman , but goes on to claim that author is not relevant to the discussion ; asinine indeed .
bi 10.18.07 at 5:46 pm
Hey zdenek v, where’s this “serious debate” that’s supposed to be taking place now about the role of Islamic extremism now? Is Maxime Robinson relevant to any of this “serious debate” about the state of things in the present world?
bi 10.18.07 at 5:47 pm
s/Robinson/Rodinson/
bi 10.18.07 at 5:50 pm
I keep hearing this stuff about getting a “serious debate” over the hard-hitting issues that we face in Earth’s Final War.
Yet all I see are people like Brownie and zdenek v quibbling and quibbling and quibbling over one word.
Where’s the attempt at a “serious debate”, people?
Where’s the attempt to just get right down to the grave issues of national security in the Great Eurabian Ragnarok?
Where?
Bruce Baugh 10.18.07 at 6:15 pm
As nearly as I can tell, the term “serious debate” has been reserved for those whose primary concern is whether we should kill all Arabs until they surrender and then see how many more Muslims of other ethnicities we should kill, or whether we should kill all Muslims until they surrender and then see how many Arabs (and other Middle Easterners) we need to kill.
Doctor Slack 10.18.07 at 6:26 pm
Opens mouth and inserts foot
I didn’t recognize the wrong name for the author, Zdenek, you’ve got me there. But I’ll tell you what, here’s your chance to demonstrate you’re actually capable of “serious debate;” kindly tell us how you think Maxime Rodinson’s evocation of “Islamic fascism” to designate the Iranian Revolution is comparable to the current usage of “Islamofascism” by the various people promoting “Islmaofascism awareness.”
bi 10.18.07 at 8:06 pm
Bruce Baugh, I thought the real issue is whether we should ship Al Gore off to Gitmo.
I wonder if this “blow a lot of smoke in the name of promoting ‘serious discussion’ but if I’m asked to actually enter such a serious discussion I’ll find excuses to avoid it” has just become the wingnut’s new rhetorical template.
Brownie 10.18.07 at 10:27 pm
Yet all I see are people like Brownie and zdenek v quibbling and quibbling and quibbling over one word.
Yep, we were arguing with products of our imagination.
And that’s stupid, since the argument is mostly about whether bigots prefer the term.
No it isn’t. It’s “mostly” about whether the term itself has any worth.
Covered yourself in glory on this thread, hey Doc?
Doctor Slack 10.19.07 at 12:04 am
No it isn’t. It’s “mostly†about whether the term itself has any worth.
…or whether it mostly facilitates bigotry.
Apparently this isn’t the right room for an argument.
Covered yourself in glory on this thread, hey Doc?
Only compared to some, dear Brownie. Only compared to some.
bi 10.19.07 at 4:06 am
So Brownie and zdenek v, when’ll you actually attempt the “serious debate” that you keep saying you want? Why do I see you continually trying to avoid this “serious debate” now?
Friends, Romans, countrymen: the Eurabian Ragnarok — Earth’s Final War Between Good and Evil — is upon us! The dark forces of Islam, Marxism, and Barad-dûr are clamouring at our gates, even as I speak! Now’s the time for us to get right down to the hard-hitting issues that confront our glorious Western civilization! Yet our stalwart generals, Brownie and zdenek v, are still quibbling over one word…
MFB 10.19.07 at 6:46 am
Not quibbling, bi. Dissembling. They find the word extremely useful for their political purposes, but are trying to pretend otherwise in order to confuse their readers, since their political purposes are deeply unattractive.
zdenek v 10.19.07 at 6:56 am
doctor slack : “kindly tell us how you think Maxime Rodinson’s evocation of “Islamic fascism†to designate the Iranian Revolution is comparable to the current usage of “Islamofascism†by the various people promoting “Islmaofascism awareness.—
As far as I can see, both ( Rodinson & Horowitz ) think that the term has denotation/reference and picks out real properties in the world, and hence both deny that the term ‘islamofascist’ has only emotive meaning ( this is an important point if one is going to block the move which tries to establish some sort of conceptual link between ‘islamofascism ‘ and ‘bigotry’). And clearly Rodinson’s work in this area can be used by Horowitz to rebut the claim that his position necessarily involves bigotry.
bi 10.19.07 at 7:01 am
zdenek v:
Oh, both Rodinson and Horowitz believe the term refers to something. That’s so relevant.
So, where’s your effort to start the “serious discussion” that you always wanted on the issues that confront us in the Great Clash Between Civilizations, Earth’s Final War Between Good and Evil, the Great Eurabian Ragnarok? I’m still waiting…
bi 10.19.07 at 7:05 am
MFB:
“Not quibbling, bi. Dissembling.”
Oops, we’re now quibbling over the word “quibbling”. The man in the cave would’ve approved.
And on the great issue of whether Al Gore should be sent to Gitmo: yeah, we could’ve discussed this all-important issue which has great ramifications for national security and world peace, but we’re prevented from having this debate because some people have declared the word “Islamofascism” verboten. If only those wordnistas will stop heaping abuse on the word “Islamofascism”, we can finally start the much-needed discussion on the best way to kill Arabs and Muslims and Al Gore!
zdenek v 10.19.07 at 7:22 am
mfb : “Not quibbling, bi. Dissembling. They find the word extremely useful for their political purposes, but are trying to pretend otherwise in order to confuse their readers, since their political purposes are deeply unattractive.”
You are are helping to make Horowitz’s point that the case against him is irrational ( only politically motivated ) with your confusing epistemic and psychological questions. Here is an example of what you keep on doing : suppose we discover from new material ( new letters and new notebooks ) that Charles Darwin did not actually believe that natural selection was a real process and instead intended the term ‘natural selection’ as a tool for undermining the authority of the Church of England. And the new material establishes beyond doubt that Darwin was a liar.
Does this show that ‘natural selection’ has no reference to a real mechanism because that is what Darwin thought ? No. But similarly even if bigots use the term ‘islamofascism’ to stigmatize and demonze Islam that on its own does not show that the term does not pick out something real in the world.
bi 10.19.07 at 7:38 am
zdenek v:
Oh, so now we’re embarking on a philosophical excursion on the pristine Platonic ideal behind the word “Islamofascism”. This Platonic ideal, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Horowitz uses the term in a bigoted way — but of course has everything to do with the Plain Truth (unblemished by fact) that Horowitz is Right! And while we’re at it, how about we bring in some fact-free what-ifs so we can steer further and further away from the question of whether Horowitz’s campaign is ultimately based on any shred of fact?
But of course, we know this to be a self-evident truth: that Al-Qaeda, Karl Marx, and Sauron… they’re all in this together, they want to Destroy Western Civilization, and they’re Dark — in more ways than one.
And Michael Moore is fat. (No, by Michael Moore I don’t mean that specific person, I mean the Platonic ideal as exemplified by the phrase “Michael Moore”. The Platonic substance of Michael Moore exhibits the Platonic property of fatness. Ergo, Michael Moore is fat.)
Brownie 10.19.07 at 12:29 pm
bi,
I think you’re confused (I *know* the good Doctor is confused). If it were possible to have a debate about religious violence and for one party to use the term “Islamofascism” without the other hurling accusations of bigotry and/or questioning the validity of the term, there would be no issue here.
Yes, zdenek and I are party to a discussion on this thread that is debating use of the term, but only because there are those who want to rule it offside. If a debate about the *real* issues is being forestalled, then neither zdenek nor I am responsible, or, at most, we only share responsibility with others.
Of course, none of this prevents you making your own points about whatever you so wish.
And what is it you guys have got against Michael Moore?
Kevin Donoghue 10.19.07 at 1:28 pm
…none of this prevents you making your own points about whatever you so wish.
Since the thread is about Islamophobofascism, our host might reasonably ask those who wish to discuss other topics to do so on other sites. Islamophobofascism is the real issue here. But inevitably, any attempt to discuss Islamophobofascism is derailed by people (many of them honest and sincere Islamophobes who want only to express their honest and sincere beliefs about the dangers of Islam) who refuse to see that those of us who warn against the dangers of Islamophobofascism (well, some of us anyway) are raising the issue out of genuine concern at the rise of a real movement whose activities have real (and often fatal) consequences for many people who have suffered death or grave injury due to the grip which Islamophobofascism holds over its followers.
And even if some of those who rail against Islamophobofascism are insincere, is it not a grave philosophical error to focus on the sincerity, or lack thereof, of those who use this term, when the reality of Islamophobofascism is in no way affected by the intentions of those who draw attention to it? Indeed it is, and if you try to claim otherwise I may just start pasting chunks of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here just to show what an untutored schmuck you are. Oh yes, I have studied the methods of Zdenek V and Keith Burgess-Jackson and I can clog up a thread with reams of pseudo-philosophical bullshit as well as anyone. You have been warned.
Hidari 10.19.07 at 2:48 pm
‘And what is it you guys have got against Michael Moore?’
It’s just that he’s so…………fat!
Everyone knows that degree of versimilitude in any given documentary stands in a direct and linear relation to the size of the director’s waistband.
zdenek v 10.19.07 at 4:36 pm
kevin donogue : “Since the thread is about Islamophobofascism… Islamophobofascism is the real issue here.”
Kevin you are not your usual sharp self because you have obviously missed Scott saying this in his piece :
“As neologisms go, “Islamophobofascism†probably sounds even more stupid than the term it mocks. But there is a point to it. “Islamofascism†is a noxious and counterproductive term — a bludgeon disguised as an idea. Its use comes at a cost, even beyond the obvious one that goes with making people dumber. “Islamofascism†is the preferred term of those who don’t see any distinction between Al Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, and the Baathists. Guess what? They are different, which might just have been worth understanding a few years ago.”
The point you have missed is that the target of Scott McLemee’s ridicule is the alleged stupidity of using the term ‘islamofascism’ ; he is saying it is as stupid as the term ‘islamophobofascism’ ( and this is a claim that brownie and myself have been resisting ). But this of course is a serious claim that invites an obvious question about its merit : how good is the comparison , and is he right that the term is used to stigmatize Islam as a whole, and motivated exclusively by bigotry , and so on ?
Take away lesson ? In the words of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : what entitles you to criticise a position is the amount of care you have taken to understand it and its support.
bi 10.19.07 at 5:30 pm
zdenek v,
In the words of Sun Tzu, “Quote-faking is lame.” Well, actually, Sun Tzu never said that.
And I like how you argue that Horowitz is right because it doesn’t matter whether Horowitz is right. I think that’s because we all know by now the degree to which Horowitz’s “Islamofascism awareness” campaign is based on fact, which is the same degree to which Horowitz’s “academic freedom” campaign is based on fact:
Zero point zero percent.
Doctor Slack 10.19.07 at 5:44 pm
If it were possible to have a debate about religious violence and for one party to use the term “Islamofascism†without the other hurling accusations of bigotry and/or questioning the validity of the term, there would be no issue here.
If it were possible to have a debate about religious violence and for one party not to use a term heavily identified with bigots, deception and sloppy thinking about Islam, there would be no issue here.
And clearly Rodinson’s work in this area can be used by Horowitz to rebut the claim that his position necessarily involves bigotry.
Only if a) Rodinson’s use of the term can be adequately defended (it being a signal flaw of Marxist historiography to describe as “fascism” anything of which one disapproves) and b) Horowitz’s use of a different but vaguely related term can be demonstrated to be substantively similar to Rodinson’s use of it. I think a) is possible and b) much less likely. Got anything specific to offer on either point?
Doctor Slack 10.19.07 at 5:46 pm
Got anything specific to offer on either point?
(I mean, come on, I know you don’t, hence all the empty waffling. The point is, maybe you should.)
Fuzzy 10.19.07 at 7:09 pm
I knew a raging racist who great lengths to use the term “ethnics” when he really meant “niggers” or “spics”. Anybody listening could hear what he really meant, but it gave just enough cover. I’m happy to debate anybody who talks about “islamic fascism” or uses “ethnic” as an adjective, but I seriously question the motives of somebody who uses ethnic as a noun or “islamofascist.”
There comes a time when the biggot have taken over a word and one needs to admit that it no longer means what it used to.
bi 10.19.07 at 7:15 pm
OK children, are all of you more aware of the great threats that confront the Free World now?
roger 10.19.07 at 8:58 pm
Interestingly, the party brand identified with fascism – the Italian fascist party, or its newly named descendents in Berlusconi’s government – was on board with Bush’s unprovoked attack on Iraq (which may have reminded some of those fascists of their glory days).
Now, when discussing whether something is Coca Cola or like Coca Cola, shouldn’t the opinion of the Coca Cola company count?
So, my guess is: the fascist seal of approval goes to those, decent lefties (hey, Mussolini was once a socialist) and righties, who have decided to launch a campaign against Islam. Islamophobic fascism is about right. Look at statements made by Francesco Speroni, head of the Northern League Party, about closing Europe to Moslems, or look at the intellectual roots of Anti-islamic movements in Europe, which touch on Milosovic’s rhetoric on the one side and the Nouvelle Droit writers like Alain de Benoist on the other. The images and tropes are recirculated by people like Horowitz, or the ranters on Harry’s site. They have their origin in a very predictable fascist mindset.
Brownie 10.19.07 at 9:35 pm
Since the thread is about Islamophobofascism, our host might reasonably ask those who wish to discuss other topics to do so on other sites.
That’s a joke, right? Take a look at the paragraph zdenek quotes. Are you seriously suggesting that a discussion on the merits of “Islamofascism” is off-limits on this thread? That in the context of Scott’s post it represents “other topics”? If you are going to define the “topic” in terms as narrow as these on every thread, then you are going to busy with your warnings.
Not to mention the fact that it’s not as if a separate dicussion was being “derailed” or we’ve been “clogging up” anything. Have a look up top; the conversation was going nowhere until I popped up.
You should be thanking me for stimulating discussion, not warning me.
I knew a raging racist who great lengths to use the term “ethnics†when he really meant “niggers†or “spicsâ€. Anybody listening could hear what he really meant, but it gave just enough cover.
Sorry, but it eiter gave him cover or everybody knew what he meant. Given I can’t conceive of a sitaution where use of “ethnics” could be indicative of anything other than racism or at least bigotry, this is a really poor analogy.
Doctor Slack 10.19.07 at 10:49 pm
Well said by roger.
Brownie 10.20.07 at 12:26 am
Roger,
I don’t know where you’re posting from, but in the UK the largest and best-known fascist party is called the BNP and guess what? They opposed the war in Iraq.
Which just goes to show you….absolutely nothing.
Rather like the fact that my Auntie Mabel (who is a bitch) opposed the war, but my Uncle Mac (who’s a diamond) supported it.
Have you mentioned to Vaclav Havel that he is unwittingly in league with Italian Fascists? I think he should be told.
roger 10.20.07 at 1:04 am
Havel doesn’t need me to tell him – after all, he is now comfortably ensconced on the committee of the present danger, which is the wacky rightwing American group that fielded all the old cold war dinosaurs in its day. All he has to do is talk to the guy on his right or his left to find out what they have to think about such things as civil rights.
As for the BNP – it does not exactly have the import, the centrality of the Italian fascists. The Italians are not only the real thing, the lines of their descent are purer, but they actually had real power at the time, given that the disgusting Fini was foreign minister, and swung it behind Bush. And you know what? Havel was president of the Czech republic then, and he knew that his compatriot was Berlusconi, and it didn’t bother him a bit. The Decent Left and Italian fascists have found a common vocabulary of anti-Islamic racism, but the Decents continue to pretend that they are somehow re-enacting the Spanish civil war, except this time on Franco’s side. It is a union of loons, and Horowitz is a perfect master of ceremonies for it – he has adjusted well from being in the extreme left to the extreme right, since both satisfy his pathological desire for violence.
zdenek v 10.20.07 at 9:04 am
roger : “Now, when discussing whether something is Coca Cola or like Coca Cola, shouldn’t the opinion of the Coca Cola company count?”
Really ? But then this has to be correct too : since Hitler approves of his mother and Hitler is a mass murderer , his mother is a mass murderer.
What has gone wrong ? Hint : if you can derive a falsehood from P then P must be false.
You write nicely roger but your reasoning sucks.
bi 10.20.07 at 9:31 am
zdenek v, is “mass murderer” an ideology? No?
I still like the way you defend Horowitz’s campaign without reference to any facts.
bi 10.20.07 at 9:35 am
Quote-faking, disregard for facts, Platonic ideals… wow, this “serious debate” on the dangers of Islamic extremism is really serious indeed. Truly, we have Brownie to thank for having such a stimulating discussion over… whatever.
zdenek v 10.20.07 at 10:08 am
Roger : “The Decent Left and Italian fascists have found a common vocabulary of anti-Islamic racism,…”
Calm down Roger, the ‘decents’ have a subtler view than that : if I say ‘Marko is an Italian fascist’ I am not committed to saying ‘ all Italians are fascists’ or ‘I disapprove of all Italians ‘.
Similarly , the whole point of using the locution like ‘S is an islamofascist’ is to distance myself from anti-Islamic sentiments and the false claim that Islam as such is fascistic ; the term makes this possible and it should be welcomed for that reason.
But I am sure you know this so why make such a basic faux pas ? Mitchell Cohen in the fall issue of Dissent provides something of an answer : The fact must be faced that there are parts of the academic left that apologize for Islamic extremism in ways reminiscent of how an earlier leftist generation apologized for Stalinism, and who believe that Islamic extremists are part of a “liberating†multitude because they are against imperialism, etc.
What we see here is yet another reinvention of tiers-mondisme, a failed left-wing doctrine that provided numerous grotesque illusions to intellectuals for 30 years but was not much help for the difficult, painful problems of the real third world.
Kevin Donoghue 10.20.07 at 10:26 am
Zdenek V: The point you have missed is that the target of Scott McLemee’s ridicule is the alleged stupidity of using the term ‘islamofascism’ ; he is saying it is as stupid as the term ‘islamophobofascism’ (and this is a claim that brownie and myself have been resisting).
I didn’t miss that point, not that it’s of any relevance to the validity of a point whether I miss it or not – you can see that surely? (If you can’t, just dream up something like the guff you wrote upthread about Charles Darwin and the Church of England.) Scott’s argument should be addressed on its merits and by (falsely) claiming that I have failed to understand it you are (as usual) dancing around the issue. You have failed to make the case that “Islamophobofascism†is more stupid than “Islamofascismâ€; you haven’t even proposed a test of that inequality. (Brownie has at least proposed a crude utilitarian test, by asking how many people has the word “Islamofascism†killed; they can hardly be fewer that those killed by “Islamophobofascismâ€, but maybe he has in mind a time-weighted calculation and sees lethal potential in Scott’s invention.) So you would be contributing nothing of relevance even if the point you mention were Scott’s main concern, which clearly it is not. If his target is “Islamofascismâ€, why does he bring up the ravings of Martin Amis? Amis doesn’t use the term in the outburst Scott quotes. There is more at stake here than whether a particular word is enlightening or stultifying. Scott is concerned with the movement itself, not the word used to describe it.
But in any case this is Henry’s thread, not Scott’s, and the point which Henry has chosen to emphasise is that the Islamophobofascists truly are “sleeper cells of malice and stupidityâ€. So when I say that “the thread is about Islamophobofascism†and therefore “our host might reasonably ask those who wish to discuss other topics to do so on other sitesâ€, it will be clear to any moderately careful reader that the thread I am referring to is this thread and the host I am referring to is Henry.
zdenek v 10.20.07 at 11:53 am
bi:– “zdenek v, is “mass murderer†an ideology? No?”
If you do not like my example involving the property ‘being a mass murderer’ then here is a better one involving the property ‘being an open society’, and ‘being a constitutional democracy’:
(i)South African government approves of Iranian regime ( defends it at UN ,trades with it etc ). But since South Africa is an open society, Iran must be too. ( by using roger’s principle ). But this is false. So again the principle implies a falsehood and hence is false.
(ii) South Africa does not approve of Irsael. But since SA is a constitutional democracy this shows that Israel is not a constitutional democracy , but this is false ( again applying the principle in question ).( Once again if P implies Q, but -Q is the case then -P is the case )
So the principle in question ( kind of ‘birds of a feather flock together ‘ for determining whether something has a property * ) is crap.
zdenek v 10.20.07 at 2:28 pm
kevin donogue :– “Scott’s argument should be addressed on its merits ….”
Yes, so what is the argument and how good is it ? Roughly he wants to show that anyone who calls Muslims Islamofascists, is herself , because of bigotry this involves, a special kind of fascist viz. ‘Islamophobofascist’.
What is the argument for this ? Roughly the argument goes like this :
1) If one uses language which is imprecise and which deliberately offends moderate Muslims, one shows special kind of Islamophobia ,i.e one shows oneself to be a fascist. That is one shows oneself to be “Islamophobofascist”.
2) But anyone who uses words like ‘Islamofascist’ is deliberately offending all Muslims because such terms are imprecise and involve bigotry and intend to offend.
Therefore : people who use language with words such as ‘islamofascist’ , like David Horowitz and Martin Amis do, are Islamophobofascists.
How good is this ? Obviously the weakness is the premiss number 2 because it is plainly false that if I say ” Osama is an Islamofascist ” I must be offending Islam . Consider this from *’speaker’s meaning ‘* point of view first : if I use a locution with the term ‘Islamofascist’in it, I may deliberately aim at not offending and aim at distancing myself from sweeping generalizations ; this is why I choose to use the term.
From the *’sentence meaning ‘* point of view similar considerations hold : the term denotes those and only those organizations and their members who are totalitarian, militaristic, anti-democratic and so on. It does not, from sentence meaning point of view, refer to Islam or all Muslims.
But this point, btw, also undermines the attempt to show that Horowitz and Amis must be fascists. Maybe they are fascists, but Scott has not shown this to be so, because his argument is unsound.
Kevin Donoghue 10.20.07 at 3:11 pm
Zdenek, once again your English is proving inadequate to the task. The verb “to countâ€, as used by Roger, does not mean what you evidently think it means.
Here is what Roger actually wrote: “discussing whether something is Coca Cola or like Coca Cola, shouldn’t the opinion of the Coca Cola company count?†Of course it should and saying so does not commit me to any fallacy. Suppose that a witness who is authorised to speak on behalf of the Coca Cola Company says: “this can contains Coca Cola.†In an appropriate context that statement could certainly be helpful to a defendant accused of distributing poison in Coca Cola cans. Of course it need not be decisive. The witness may be mistaken or a party to the conspiracy. But the statement of the witness is certainly germane.
Similarly, the fact that Italian fascists endorse Islamophobofascism should count when we are discussing whether that term is appropriate. (I take it that Roger is correct in saying they do; I don’t follow their proceedings closely.) It’s evidence of a sort – rather weak evidence I would say, since (to highlight just one problem) fascists of all types are untrustworthy. But Roger’s reasoning on this point is sound as far as it goes. Your fallacy-detection system has registered yet another false positive. You should get it seen to.
Your reading of Scott’s article is hopeless. He says that “Islamofascism†is a noxious and counterproductive term and the preferred term of those who don’t see any distinction between Al Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, and the Baathists. You have him saying that all those who use the term are Islamophobofascists. He says nothing like that; indeed he would reserve the term for “a handful of troublemakers [who] thrive among [Islamophobes], parasitically. They spew out hatred through Web sites. They seek to silence their critics, and to recruit impressionable young people.†You attribute to him the view that “anyone who uses words like ‘Islamofascist’ is deliberately offending all Muslimsâ€. He doesn’t say that. Nothing in his article rules out the possibility that the word may be used by people who are not even Islamophobes. (I have seen it used by Muslims, albeit very rarely.)
To say you are attacking a straw man would be too kind. Your target doesn’t have even that much substance.
zdenek v 10.20.07 at 4:53 pm
kevin donogue : “You attribute to him the view that “anyone who uses words like ‘Islamofascist’ is deliberately offending all Muslimsâ€. He doesn’t say that. Nothing in his article rules out the possibility that the word may be used by people who are not even Islamophobes.”
After Scott says ““Islamofascism†is the preferred term of those who don’t see any distinction between Al Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, and the Baathists. ” He goes on , in the very next next section , to say:
The more serious consequence, over the long term, is that of offering deliberate insult to those Muslims who would be put to the sword under the reign of Jihadi fundamentalists.”
What has this consequence of deliberately insulting Muslims ? Natural reading here ( and remember this is precisely the view defended here too, by many posters viz. that if you use the tern ‘islamofascist’ you are a bigot and they take theselves to be taking broadly Scott’s position ) is that using the term ‘islamofascist’ leads to insulting moderate Muslims.
I would also add as a point against your interpretation of Scott that if you interpret Scott as saying that one can use the term ‘Islamofascism’ without opening oneself to the charge that one is a bigot ( just by virtue of using the term ), then David Horowitz is off the hook, since this is precisely his defence. And moreover you are conceding the argument to me and brownie because that is what we have been maintaining against the received view here.
bi 10.20.07 at 7:40 pm
“David Horowitz is off the hook, since this is precisely his defence.”
It was? I thought this was his defence:
“We have entered the era of a new civil war between the forces of freedom and the powers of Islamo-fascist and communist darkness, and once again the left is clearly determined to take its stand on the other side.”
Comments on this entry are closed.