Islamofascism - how language paves the way for . . .

The 'Islamofascist' page is locked (gee, can't imagine why), so no one can change the contents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism_%28term%29

But meanwhile, the meme of 'islamofascism' spreads, and wikipedia has an extremely high google ranking. One person all over wikipedia, Chip Berlet, who purports to be a progressive, is stridently blocking any dissent to his promotion of his own work via Wikipedia.

Berlet's page on wikipedia is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet

His wikipedia discussion page is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cberlet

his organizations wikipedia page is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Research_Associates

and his organizations website is here:
http://www.publiceye.org/index.html

-----------------------------

Here's one comment on the discussion section of the Islamofascist page now:

Iran must now be considered Islamofascist state

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=CultureAndMedia&loid=8.0.261252316&par=0

"Tehran, 6 Feb. (AKI) - A 19-year-old Iranian journalist, Elham Foroutan, risks the death penalty for a satirical article in which she compares the Islamic revolution in Iran to the AIDS virus. Foroutan, wrote the article for the magazine, Tamaddon Hormozgan, a weekly which is published in Bandar Abbas, in the south of Iran. Foroutan, was arrested together with six editors of the magazine, whose publication has also been suspended."

"Foroutan has been accused of insulting the founder of the Islamic Republic, an act that is punishable by death. In the meantime, the ministry of culture and Islamic orientation announced the imminent closing of 70 magazines which "do not respect the values of the revolution and express the concepts contrary to the principles of Islam".

Hmmm:

* Insulting great leader = death, check
* ministry of culture shuts down magazines that do not respect the "values of the revolution", check
-----------------------------------

Here's a discussion going on . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamofascism_%28term%29#Status_update.3F

because readers keep voting to delete the page but people like Chip Berlet won't have it, and instead, keep referencing the basis for keeping it in obscure texts, or people like Michael Savage having used the term.

This is a comment questioning the inclusion of the term on wikipedia. It goes on from there:
---------------------------------

Fascism is a historical political movement with certain historical and essential characteristics. It is also used as a spit word by people when criticising political views or systems that they feel are based too much on coercion. Militant fundamentalist islam may be a partially distinct flavour in Islam, but to call it Islamic Fascism or Islamofascism puts us in the position of people delivering the spit, which isn't within our charter on Wikipedia. Let's describe its use as a term, and then provide links to a more accurate and less charged term. It is true that this involves a value judgement in deciding that spit words are not appropriate on Wikipedia, but unlike article content where we can describe multiple viewpoints, when it comes to naming articles, we can only have one name, and so we typically instead go with a tradition of using terms/titles that involve as little emotional charge as possible and lead the user to as few value conclusions as possible. Calling the article "Militant Islamic Authoritarianism" or something closer to that certainly makes more sense from that light than the current term. MSK, if you were a wikipedian and a member of a sect of Islam (or Islamic state), what would you think the article should be called? Perhaps "True and Holy followers of Mohammad(pbuh)" or "True Believers" or something like that... but that would, apart from possible use as a proper name for a group, be inappropriate, because it would incorporate value judgements and heavily disputed questions of fact into the name of the article, which we try to avoid here. --Improv 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Improv: You cannot simply ignore the fact that several serious scholars of fascism and of religion have pointed to fascistic elements in certain militiant islamic movements. That is substance, not spit.--Cberlet 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources Please. --Improv 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Attention please: Wistrich 2002; Armstrong 2001; Laqueur 1996. Find the details at Neofascism and religion where the cites to these well-regarded scholars (and text detailing their views) has been residing for lo these many months...--Cberlet 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Those seem to be more popular press (read: propoganda for common folk) than efforts at serious scholarship. In any case, as that article notes, it's (at best) highly contentious, and hardly a proper article title. As I stated above, we prefer article titles to be based on minimal emotional charge and minimal leading towards a conclusion. Just as no doubt you can find a number of scholars (or, much easier, popular writers) on the middle east referring to Israel as either an "occupying force" or equally fun terms on the other side, depending on where you look, we can find all sorts of terms, attack or not, for discussion of some islamic political movements. We don't ignore them, we just don't see them as being appropriate inspiration for article titles. --Improv 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Laqueur, Walter. 1996. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hmmmm. Oxford University Press. Hardly popular "propaganda for common folk."--Cberlet 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

---------------------------------

I guess the 100,000 - 1 million+ lives that will be lost now as war expands in the Middle East are all worth it because Islam is fascist, and we have language to prove it! Laqueur, Walter said so, in 1996, in literature that's not for common folk! so it's all going to be okay . . .