Talk:Islamofascism: Difference between revisions
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{| width=85% align=center cellspacing=3 style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px;" |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}<!--Common talking point--> |
|||
}} |
|||
{| width=80% align=center cellspacing=3 style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px;" |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
|[[ |
|[[File:Clipboard.svg|50px|Votes for deletion]] |
||
| |
| {{center|1=This article survived '''two''' '''''[[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|votes for deletion]]'''''. An archived record of these debates can be found [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term)|here]].}} |
||
|} |
|} |
||
{{Archive box|search=yes| |
|||
* [[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 1|Archive 1]] <small>(April–May 2005)</small> |
|||
* [[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 2|Archive 2]] <small>(May–August 2005)</small> |
|||
* [[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 3|Archive 3]] <small>(April–November 2005)</small> |
|||
* [[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 4|Archive 4]] <small>(Nov 2005–Jan 2006)</small> |
|||
* [[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 5|Archive 5]] <small>(January–April 2006)</small> |
|||
* [[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 6|Archive 6]] <small>(April 2006–Aug 2009)</small> |
|||
* [[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 7|Archive 7]] <small>(Aug 2009–April 2020)</small> |
|||
}} |
|||
== Archive notes == |
|||
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. |
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. |
||
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]]. |
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]]. |
||
'''Previous discussions:''' |
'''Previous discussions:''' |
||
*[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01|Archive 1 (Apr 13 2005 to May 6 2005)]]: |
*[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01|Archive 1 (Apr 13 2005 to May 6 2005)]]: |
||
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#The meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII|Meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII]] |
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#The meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII|Meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII]] |
||
Line 19: | Line 33: | ||
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#Proposed merger|Proposed merger with Fascist (epithet)]] |
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#Proposed merger|Proposed merger with Fascist (epithet)]] |
||
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#how did this page get reduced to a collection if quotes?|how did this page get reduced to a collection if quotes?]] |
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#how did this page get reduced to a collection if quotes?|how did this page get reduced to a collection if quotes?]] |
||
*[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive02|Archive 2]]: May 9–August 11, 2005 |
|||
*[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive03|Archive 3]]: April 13–November 29, 2005 |
|||
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive03#Veiled censorship|Veiled censorship]] |
|||
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive03#Stop re-directing this article with neo-fascism or other non-sense|Stop re-directing this article with neo-fascism or other non-sense]] |
|||
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive03#Blogs as sources|Blogs as sources]] |
|||
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive03#Please Stop Edit War!|Please Stop Edit War!]] |
|||
:[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive03#Juan Cole and the 'F' word|Juan Cole and the 'F' word]] |
|||
*[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive04|Archive 4]]: November 29, 2005 - 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Talk:Islamofascism/Archive05|Archive 5]] |
|||
== Mentioning Islamic fascism as an actual phenomenon == |
|||
== 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. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 18:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Islamist VfD didn't work so they gutted it?== |
|||
And apparently they continue to do so - BrandonYusufToropov being just one example of those who stand guard removing ANY substantive edits on the matter. |
|||
Factually, the term IS used to describe Islamic regimes which ignore human rights, oppress their people, and generally behave in a Fascist manner. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Hezbollah are great examples. [[User:ElKabong|ElKabong]] |
|||
* Yes, that is the [[Fucked Company|correct motorcycle]]. [[User:Klonimus|Klonimus]] 08:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::In case you missed the discussion, the identification of those regimes with the actual political-science term [[Fascist]] has been a matter of some dispute hereabouts recently. Whether you like the regimes or not is not the issue. As for "generally behaving in a Fascist manner ..." -- this tone, which you've imparted to the article, may be perceived as reckless and less than objective. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 15:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, didn't miss the discussion, but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that the term itself is used often in connection with those nations/organizations. [[User:ElKabong|ElKabong]] |
|||
::::Yes, Syria is an Islamic regime, you have officially proven you don't know anything about what you're talking about.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 15:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Syria an Islamic regime? In what way? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 16:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I was being sarcastic. Syria has probably the most secular regime in the Middle East, due to the regime being controlled by a slightly heretical sect of Islam that is a minority in Syria.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 17:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Would other editors pls review ElKabong's changes == |
|||
Please discuss and/or pick the version that seems least POV.... thanks [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 15:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I've reverted back to the one that I last edited; the intervening edits either reverted my attempt to make the summary read better, or added back in a lot of PoV stuff. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 15:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: My so-called "changes" were the reversion of losers like you GUTTING THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. If you have SUBSTANTIVE changes to make, fine, but don't wholesale delete things because you're mad your attempted VfD failed. [[User:ElKabong|ElKabong]] |
|||
:::Re: "Losers like you." Your work today is not biased or in any way a personal attack? Just checking. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 15:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Just to define our terms, to a professional editor a "substantive edit" is a technical term which refers to changes to the structure and/or content of a document. This might include changing headings and heading levels, changing the point of view, revising conclusions, questioning the writer's facts or assumptions and generally ''adding and removing content''. In short, removing large chunks of nonsense would very much qualify as a "substantive edit".--[[User:LeeHunter|Lee Hunter]] 17:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== How many reverts of the page is that for ElKabong? == |
|||
I have lost count. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 15:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: I don't really care. How many is it for you, for that matter? A concerted campaign to gut an article is VANDALISM and so the three-reversions rule does not apply.[[User:ElKabong|ElKabong]] |
|||
:::Two. I'm disengaging from this discussion for a while in the hope that you will regain your composure. See you later. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 16:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
While not the main subject of the article, that being the derogatory term, I believe actual occurrences of a [[Clerical fascism|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. |
|||
[[User:ElKabong|ElKabong]] broke the 3RR, and has been blocked for twenty-four hours. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]] is up to three reverts. The "vandalism" defence doesn't hold in this case ''on either side'', and I'm not playing favourites. If ElKabong comes back and starts the same behaviour, you should ask for page protection rather than simply reverting his edits (I'd normally say that you should reason with him, but the exchanges above demonstrate that that's not really a practicable option). [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 16:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Anyway some examples of this trend are the [[Young Egypt Party (1933)|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). --[[User:PanNostraticism|PanNostraticism]] ([[User talk:PanNostraticism|talk]]) 17:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Protected == |
|||
== This article needs a rewrite == |
|||
I've protected the page. This revert war is unseemly, and since one participant is happy to use multiple IPs to override 3RR blockage, I don't see much choice. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 17:27, 6 May 2005 (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 ). |
|||
:: You should instead revert it to the state it was in before the whole thing started - before Grace Note vandalized the page in the first place.[[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
== Is "Islamofascism" a conspiracy theory? == |
|||
"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" |
|||
Since the term seems rather dubious to me I am wonder if it could accurately be labeled a "conspiracy theory"? As a separate question, why does the article only mention the "epithet" version of the term, I would have thought this article would be about politics or allegations of fascism. If this article's scope is only definining usages of the term itself then shouldn't it be transwikified to wikitionary? [[User:Zen-master|zen master ]] [[User talk:Zen-master| T ]] 01:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't see why not. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 02:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Here's what Khomeini had to say: |
|||
:I do not know if it can be labeled a theory, but I am still worried about the uses of this word. I do not know who uses it now, though mainly I just see blogs and news reports (Nov-Dec 2001). I will try to check in the word usage and see if it is still used. But, as for the transwiki, I do not know if it can be done. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(talk)]] 01:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/07/archives/an-interview-with-khomeini.html |
|||
:: The word is in use all over the place. Not that it matters; with the topic locked and neutered, Wikipedia is worse than useless in this regard. And all to placate a swarm of POV-pushers who were angry that they lost a VfD vote and decided that if they couldn't eliminate it entirely, they'd make the article useless. The saddest part is that the Admins went along with it - though that's not surprising since the first Admin to abuse his authority in here, Mel Etitis, is one of the main "contributors" to the discussion and has proven he has no objectivity at all on the matter. [[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
'''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. |
|||
::So says a user that just registered today, and already has knowledge of the history of the vote and the topic over the past few weeks. I'm not saying that you're a sockpuppet, Kainthescion, but your comment seems strange for a newcomer.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 03:46, 7 May 2005 (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. |
|||
::: Maybe you've never heard of a "lurker" before, Yuber. Or maybe you're just incredibly biased on this topic. Whoops! A quick look through your talk page reveals that you're INCREDIBLY biased and shouldn't be let within 1000 feet of this topic. [[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
'''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. |
|||
::::Comments about someone vandalizing my userpage, comments about having a link on an article, and comments about me categorizing [[Irgun]] as a zionist terrorist organization reveal me to be incredibly biased? Well, you're a strange lurker, you seem to have lurked this discussion and series of articles for a long time with no contribution.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 04:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
'''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. |
|||
:::I have to agree with you on that one. I do not know much about this topic myself, but I know I am walking into a battle that has been ever raging. I do not know what else I can bring into the article, since I mainly got dragged into this page (and others that deal with Arab topics) due to vandalism. I just mainly want to know if a link to this article from a page called Islamist Terrorism would be considered OK or POV pushing (as some users have told me). [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(talk)]] 03:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Such a link would be a tool for instilling POV and would be totally inappropriate. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 11:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::I would say that a link to this page from the Islamist Terrorism page would be completely OK; they ARE related topics, even if this one has been shredded to bits by those who are mad that they couldn't get it completely deleted. Maybe THAT can get sorted out sometime soon. The old page actually had valuable information on it, while the vandalized one that's been locked in by an Admin on a power trip is almost worse than useless. [[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
[[User:Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)|Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)]] ([[User talk:Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)|talk]]) 13:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:It isn't a conspiracy theory since it isn't a ''theory''; it's an epithet that some editors here have turned into an [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] "theory." [[User:El C|El_C]] 03:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:It’s really an article about the term “islamofascism”, not an article about the relationships between Islam, islamism, and fascism. [[User:Prezbo|Prezbo]] ([[User talk:Prezbo|talk]]) 03:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, it's neither a theory NOR an epithet, but a real term, admittedly recently coined, used to describe a very real political agenda. [[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
:@[[User:Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)|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? [[User:Louis P. Boog|Louis P. Boog]] ([[User talk:Louis P. Boog|talk]]) 01:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It isn't a ''term'' unless it can be shown that the critical scholarship considers it to be one, rather than an epithet used to describe (and I won't comment on their description) a phenomenon (the fascistic tendency in Islam) depicted through (or within) more objetctively-phrased terms, concepts, constructs, etc. (theories, models, etc.). Until if and/or when this is demonstrated, my above statement stands-''o''. [[User:El C|El_C]] 04:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Perhaps. I just thought it was relevant to document how Islamist have historically understood fascism. [[User:Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)|Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)]] ([[User talk:Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)|talk]]) 17:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::So let me get this straight: it's not a "term" until some ivory-tower egghead puts it into a paper and gets it printed in a scholarly journal or into some book off the printing press? You're certifiably bonkers if that's your justification for claiming the term doesn't exist.[[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
:Don't troll, and don't play with semantics. [[User:El C|El_C]] 04:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Once again, KaintheScion, can you describe this fascistic agenda that is Islamofascism? I wouldn't recommend taking a dictionary.com definition and twisting it around as ObsidianOrder did.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 04:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
If it's a polical agenda why doesn't the article discuss politics at all really? Is "Islamofascism" anything in addition to being an "epithet"? Seems like this "epithet" describes an allegedly "fascist" political theory? Is Wikipedia really in the business of having articles on epithets like this? I bet the [[fuck]] article is more informative. [[User:Zen-master|zen master ]] [[User talk:Zen-master| T ]] 04:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Timothy Winter and Evola == |
|||
:An epithet is: ''a defamatory or abusive word or phrase; "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me" or a descriptive word or phrase'' [http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/epithet]. To me, I do not know if Islamofacism is a word. [http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=29099 This] is a posting I have read about this word (phrase seems to be the keyword on Google). As mentioned earlier, it is not used by our government, but mainly by political pundits (O'Reilly, Limbaugh). I have no clue on how to make it POV, since most of the sites I am finding now that deal with this issue are stinking blogs. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(talk)]] 04:16, 7 May 2005 (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. [[User:StrongALPHA|StrongALPHA]] ([[User talk:StrongALPHA|talk]]) 08:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::By your definition there, the terms [[liberal]] and [[neoconservative]] are both epithets. But they are also real terms. What is disgusting is not the fact that this page has entries on the word's use as an epithet, but that there are actually people here deliberately trying to ensure that this page does NOT discuss the rest of the term, its meaning, how and why it is used, and what it really represents. What is DOUBLY disgusting is the fact that they've gotten away with this abuse courtesy of admins who are actively trying to enforce precisely that POV.[[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
:::You can aim for a better straw man — not all words that, in that specific sense, are (sometime) employed as epithets, are limited to that use alone. [[User:El C|El_C]] 04:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::Technically, this can be called a political epihet. From the main article on political epithets: "Many political epithets are obtained by joining an otherwise neutral description of a political movement or group with a pejorative term questioning the groups's sanity or motives, or associating the group with hated political movements or leaders of the past." It qualifies as that since a word that is a neutral description of a group (Islam, the religion) is combined with a word that is questioning the groups motives and the term is associated with groups past that are hated (fascism, the political idiology of Hiter and Mussolini). Though all we have is basic quotes on when the term is used, but we should give more background detail into the word, such as, who started it, where it was first published, if this word is used now and mention on why this word is offensive to the Muslim population. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(talk)]] 11:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Paul Gottfried == |
|||
::::Slippery slope. We tried that. The article quickly turned into a food fight. "Intelligent people believe X about the topic, whereas idiots, on the other hand, believe Y." [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 11:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, it was just fine up until your VfD attempt failed and you, Grace Note, and Yuber started systematically removing all content of value from the article.[[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
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? [[Special:Contributions/37.96.36.84|37.96.36.84]] ([[User talk:37.96.36.84|talk]]) 23:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You seem to know an awful lot about this conflict, Kain. How is that? I mean, you're a brand new user, right? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 17:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Orwell and Hitchens == |
||
The Orwell quote should be removed as it pertains to a general discussion about fascism. |
|||
Can someone add the {cleanup} header to this article, in my opinion it needs it badly. Also, I think the {disputed} header is more appropriate than the {npov} header as there is a dispute over whether excluding definitions of this term that aren't "epithet" related is the right thing to do. {TotallyDisputed} could work too but first and foremost the factual accuracy of this article is disputed (since facts are systematically being excluded). [[User:Zen-master|zen master ]] [[User talk:Zen-master| T ]] 21:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[Special:Contributions/37.96.55.252|37.96.55.252]] ([[User talk:37.96.55.252|talk]]) 11:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I don't see that it's in need of cleanup as such. It's perfectly readable. There are no facts being excluded. The proponents of the original research into Islamofascism as a concept have been asked to source their contentions and have provided nothing. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Unreliable stories on the Muslim Brotherhood == |
|||
::* It should be noted that Grace Note is the user who touched this whole thing off by vandalizing the article in the first place. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islamofascism&diff=13199818&oldid=13163097 REFERENCE]. His/her contribution to any discussion of this topic ought to be deemed worse than meaningless.[[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
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 [https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2018/06/27/ANALYSIS-The-Nazi-roots-of-Muslim-Brotherhood this article] by Tony Duheaume - a man with hardly any scholarly backing. That article sites 0 sources that |
|||
::* All he did there was revert to the last version by Jayjg, maybe you should go harass him.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 23:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::* BULLSHIT, Yuber, and you're really one to talk. From the headers of the edits: |
|||
. Banna personally ordered a translation of Mein Kampf (which is nowhere on [[Mein Kampf in Arabic|''Mein Kampf'' in Arabic]] article) |
|||
:::Revision as of 04:08, 3 May 2005 |
|||
:::Fredwlerr (Talk | contribs) |
|||
:::restore last good version |
|||
. Banna had personal copies ''Der Sturmer'' (could Banna even read German?) |
|||
:::Revision as of 04:12, 3 May 2005 |
|||
:::Grace Note (Talk | contribs) |
|||
:::rv to Jayjg |
|||
:::Grace Note wasn't "restoring" anything; he/she was engaging in vandalism. Go read the rules: wholesale content deletion, without a consensus on the Discussion page (and there isn't one) is vandalism[[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
You seem to know a lot about the "rules" for a new editor. It's only a pity you didn't read the rules on civility. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 00:15, 9 May 2005 (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. |
|||
:This KaintheScion guy is starting to sound more and more like an LGFer. He edits the Islamofascism and Rachel Corrie articles on a regular basis and keeps calling people Islamists. But I'll assume good faith :).00:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> |
|||
With regards to Hamed Abdel-Samad, he cites a statement by Banna ([https://www.ikhwanwiki.com/index.php?title=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B1_%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%89_%D9%8A%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%AD_%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A3_%D9%85%D9%86_%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%89%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85 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) |
|||
::My problem with this word, and based on talks with a few users on the [[Islamist Terrorism]] is that there is no key definition of this word. People use fascist all of the time to describe activity that is being restricted or a situation is being tightly controled and enforced. As stated above, it is a political epithet since it combines a term that is associated with past evils and with a term that is normally used to describe a group. I do not disagree that this term is used, but mainly, as I also said, the term is being used in blogs. So what we (the people here) should decide is what to include in here. The "defintion" of this term is fine, though we should give a small background on it (who first said it, when it was first said, where it was said, where it is used now, different spellings, why the term was even coined). The quotes can be kept, since it is showing the users on how the term is used. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(talk)]] 00:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
<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 [[User:Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)|Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)]] ([[User talk:Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)|talk]]) 19:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::No one has any problem with ''properly sourced'' material along those lines, given that the article survived VfD. What is problematic is unsourced speculation about a nonexistent political movement. There's no dispute that it is used, and I suppose there's some case for suggesting that it's notable that rightwingers abuse their enemies by calling them fascists (when they are not accusing them of being communists, of course), although I tend to agree with those who believe that that discussion belongs on a page about "fascist" as an epithet. The article you are suggesting would still not be about "Islamofascism", which doesn't exist, but about the use of the word "islamofascism" to label a wide variety of Muslims. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 01:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::However, will blogs be consdiered ''properly sourced'' material? [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(talk)]] 01:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::They are only sources for what they themselves have said. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 02:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: I took it out. If and when a reliable source is found, it can go back. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 03:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I see too much logic on what is commented by all of you above, with a single exception -that of KaintheScion because of the fact that he/she is still not being clear about his/her identity. People who started this article are the same who call people with whom they disagree ''Islamists''. I still remember Klominus claiming a win over ''Islamists'' (0-4). I still remember another one saying ''do not let islamists hijack WP'', etc... These are hate messages and are a proof that you can call your opponent anything you want!. This shows that those people got an agenda behind! There is no islamists no x-ists, there are only WPdians. |
|||
::I still believe that this term exists along with ''Christian fascism'' and ''American fascism''. I still believe that it is an epithet (being myself who added the link to LeeHunter article called [[Fascist (epithet)]] on top of the article). And I still believe that all those me-you-fascism articles SHOULD be included together in LeeHunter article. |
|||
::Between, I would not have an objection citing Hitchens in the article as being the one who coined and invented this term. Cheers and respect from [[User:FayssalF|Svest]] 01:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC) <sup> [[User talk:FayssalF|Wiki me up]] </sup> |
|||
== Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler == |
|||
::: Hitchens didn't coin it. This is part of the problem. It suits the agenda of the POV pushers to suggest that Hitchens might have coined it and that it represents something cogent, but he did not. At first, he simply called the 9/11 terrorists "fascists". [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 02:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::The Hitchen's claim is what I see in the blogs. From doing a Google search, some people claim Michael Savage coined it. Plus, the idea Svest gave is not a bad idea at all. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(talk)]] 02:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::I had a look at the first article of Hitchens after 9/11 arguing against Husseini and Chomsky. You are right GraceNote; he coined nothing. However, if someone else coined it than why not mention it. Again, I do believe that it is an epithet and future readers would believe so, whatever we include abour who coined it or not. |
|||
:::For me, that is not the story. My point is that, -as explained loudly here as well as in [[Americofascim]] and [[Islamic fascism]], I am against hypocrisy of some WPians. They apply their POV which is based on Anti-muslim agendas. They think that this is a podium for their hate comments; no wonder they created another one called [[Islamic fascism]] and voted an extreme delete for both articles they feel bothered with. If they can't agree this is an epithet than there would no concensus about this article. |
|||
:::For me, the ideal scenario for this article would be to merge it with other x-fascisms into [[Fascist (epithet)]] of LeeHunter. If not, than the referal on top of this article to the epithet article SHOULD REMAIN and than there would be no big deal saying that the term is used mainly in blogs by X people and that it was coined by Y. Cheers and respect from [[User:FayssalF|Svest]] 03:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC) <sup> [[User talk:FayssalF|Wiki me up]] </sup> |
|||
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: |
|||
Oh look, here goes Yuber trying the usual tactic - try to associate your opponent with someone you don't like. And then a bunch of POV pushers show up going "hate speech, hate speech." This looks either like an LGF or Indymedia board now. The fact that a user named "Fayssal" is trying to hide this by signing as "Svest" is just icing on the cake. Fayssal, you obviously have a POV you're trying to push here rather than being interested in seeing a vandalized article put right.[[User:KaintheScion|KaintheScion]] |
|||
<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. |
|||
:Look my friend. I am not hiding anything since you know everything. There is no magic about that I suppose. I didn't kill Caligula. I've been signing as Svest since my first day or if we can put it straight, ''since the day you got to know me''. I think my only POV is about other people's POV. They are swearing that ''Islamofascim'' exists and not ''American fascism''. If you are ''familiar'' with all the discussions we have had, than you would understand what I am not ''icing on the cake''. |
|||
:We are not here to attack eachother. I gave facts that people are attacking others personally as this is documented. I don't care if someone is a new or an old user as long as she/he is welcomed and free to change accounts and participate in a civilized and responsible way. The thing is that I rarely enter in those kind of discussions. I try to stick to the subject that it is the article. But since you insist in knowing about my feedback than I'd tell you that I don't care who you are but I may care about what you say and contribute. People are concerned about you because you are new and you know a lot of things and if someone looks at your contributions he may question your agenda (Saudi Arabia, Edward Said and this article). If you are not happy with what I am saying, please let me know and explain better your concerns. Cheers and respect from [[User:FayssalF|Svest]] 06:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC) <sup> [[User talk:FayssalF|Wiki me up]] </sup> |
|||
::From what I notice here is that everything is boiling down to is attacks against users, not the issues of this page. The next section below us is a good start on how to tackle the various issues of this article, but the personal attacks are getting us nowhere. If you guys have some really serious issues between each other, then I would suggest try to get some outside help on Wikipedia, like an abritation/intervention. Until then, let's focus on what the topic at hand: trying to make this article NPOV as much as possible. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(talk)]] 18:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Although such propaganda disappeared from Europe [after the war]... 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... |
|||
==Lists of undisputed, disputed and rejected information== |
|||
Here's an experiment which hopefully will clarify what, if anything, could be added to this article without sparking a revert war. To this end I've created three subheads here: undisputed, disputed and rejected. If there's some factual, sourced information that you think can be added to the article without argument put it in the "undisputed" section. If there's something that should be in the article but there is controversy over how it should be worded or whether there should be some qualification, put it in disputed. If it's something that you think is flat out unacceptable and which you personally would automatically revert, put it in "rejected". You can also ''demote'' information, for example from undisputed to disputed or even to rejected, but please don't move anything back up. In other words, if someone says they're going to dispute it then it belongs in the "disputed" section. The object here is not to argue whether anything is particularly right or wrong, just to see get a feel for how we could move forward with an unlocked article. |
|||
...the destructive form which anti-semitism has now assumed within militant Islam... is not authentically Islamic; [it] 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> |
|||
===Undisputed=== |
|||
* the word is a neologism |
|||
* it is used mainly by right wing commentators (columnists and bloggers) in the US. |
|||
I can try, but this is not something I know much about. [[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 10:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Disputed=== |
|||
* Whether or not the term is "solely" an epithet. |
|||
* Information into the actual definition and use of the term [http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina50419.htm link] |
|||
**<small> Please, be gentle signing your entries and comments. An anonymous or a registered user, just sign please! Cheers from [[User:FayssalF|Svest]] 19:58, May 10, 2005 (UTC) <sup>[[User talk:FayssalF|Wiki me up ™]] |
|||
</small> |
|||
: I note that the supplied link is to a writer who apparently believes that Islam is incompatible with democracy and that any system that is not democratic is fascist. This is an extraordinary viewpoint and would be rejected by at least myself and probably others. --[[User:LeeHunter|Lee Hunter]] 20:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Faithfreedom.org is heavilly anti-Arab. The host of the website claim Muhammad is a pedophile, murderer and other things. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(talk)]] 20:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::First of all, you're engaging in "shooting the messenger." Whether or not YOU claim the site is "anti-Arab", the fact remains that the site is one of those that uses the term, and that the article clearly shows that the term is not merely an epithet. |
|||
:::Second, your attack on the "claims" of the group is suspect, because each of those views of Mohammed can be (and is) borne up by Koranic quotations. That is a subject of controversy that has no bearing on the other part of this discussion. |
|||
:::Third, while Wikipedia is NPOV, there is a prior requirement that material in an encyclopedia needs to be FACTUAL. Sins of omission are just as POV as sins of untruthfulness or sins of poor wording. Therefore, I will INSIST that this material MUST be included, otherwise the article is INCOMPLETE. [[User:ElKabong|ElKabong]] |
|||
::::Again -- you appear to have a deep, impassioned familiarity with this debate. How is this possible? Aren't you a brand-new user? Why didn't you want to answer me the last time I asked you this? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 19:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Looking up the page, it appears you asked KaintheScion this question and not me. As for me, the situation isn't hard to understand: all it takes is a little time reading back through the discussion page and the page's previous revisions to see your edits and those of your friends for what they are: a transparent POV-pushing attempt to kill through content vandalism an article you couldn't kill by VfD. What appears to be the larger problem is that those who voted in the VfD assumed good faith and didn't keep an eye on you afterwards. [[User:ElKabong|ElKabong]] |
|||
:::I (as well as a dozen of people in this discussion) insist that this material should not be included. ElKabong, following your logic, you would be accepting that people would start ''American Fascism'' and bring materials of a kind of Faithfreedom.org? There are plenty of them online. So you want to bring all internet garbage into WP just because you insist? We all agree that the term is an epithet intended to put down one's opponent. For everyone there is an opponent, and for everyone there is a fascist somewhere! No garbage in WP please. No government, no institution; be it academic or political, recognizes ''Islamofascism''. Cheers and respect from [[User:FayssalF|Svest]] 19:52, May 10, 2005 (UTC) <sup>[[User talk:FayssalF|Wiki me up ™]] |
|||
::::Fayssal, if I could imagine for one minute that an article started by YOU on "American Fascism" would be properly factual and NPOV, including the bona-fides of the sources and the multiple sides of any argument made rather than just "oh it's just an epithet", I'd say to go ahead. But it's obvious from the comments of you and BYT that that would never happen, just like you are determined to make sure that this article remains gutted of factual information and as POV-biased as possible. [[User:ElKabong|ElKabong]] |
|||
: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 [https://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Jew-Hatred-Islamism-Nazism-Roots/dp/0914386360 Matthias Kuntzel], is not without controversy. This is mainly because it assumes that: |
|||
===Rejected=== |
|||
:# Radical or antisemitic tendencies in Islam did not already exist before the Hitler-Mufti meeting |
|||
Information that one or more editors would insist on removing: |
|||
:# 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. |
|||
* The Orwell quote about "fascism": this is purely prejudicial POV and has no relevance to the article. |
|||
:# That this increase could '''only''' be attributed to Nazi propaganda and not to other events post-war |
|||
* relevance of contacts or communications between fascists/nazis and various Moslems. |
|||
:# 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 |
|||
:This has been consistently removed from the article by a number of editors. |
|||
:# 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> |
|||
* information that tries to provide a justification or rationale for the term or ... |
|||
:# That the Nazi ideology was not contradictory; [https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674368378 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.<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. [[User:Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)|Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)]] ([[User talk:Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D)|talk]]) 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. |
Article policies
|
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 Wikipedia'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.
|
Archive notes
[edit]Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia: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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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. Zerotalk 03:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler
[edit]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 [after the war]... 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; [it] 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).[1]
- 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.[2]
- 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