“Islamofascism”: The Failure of a Concept

The Louisiana politician Huey Long declared in the 1930s that “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism” and “in the name of national security.” I don’t think we’re there yet, but there are some fascist-like forces mobilizing, and they’re doing so in the name of protecting American Judeo-Christian civilization from a phantom they’ve conjured up called “Islamofascism.” (Variants include Islamo-Fascism, Islamo-fascism, Islamic fascism, etc.)

They want to make it a household word, sliding easily off the tongue, interchangeable with the more familiar “Islam” or inadequately frightening “Islamism.” (The latter alludes to specifically political Islam, including variants of it that—like the political evangelical Christianity in this country—are non-violent.) They want the media to embrace it, and politicians beginning with president Bush to routinely incorporate it into their rhetoric. They want academics to promote the concept of a specifically Muslim form of that evil phenomenon that emerged in war-exhausted Europe in the 1920s-30s and which in its principle expressions (in Italy, Germany, Spain, Hungary) had some distinctly Christian features. They’re throwing millions of dollars into a propaganda effort to popularize a concept that isn’t just politically and intellectually tendentious but calculated to vilify more targets (indeed any Muslim target) for attack.

The real (Americo-)fascists staged an early Halloween event last week, all dressed up as anti-fascists, made up as compassionate conservatives deeply disturbed by Muslim misogyny. They went door to door—or rather campus to campus—trick-or-treating, trying to scare. Their so-called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” undertaken by well-funded, extreme-right ideologues, featuring such cartoon characters as Ann Coulter and Rick Santorum and deploying student brown shirts to lead their way, was amusing in its childishness but like most Halloween events rather spooky. They want to scare. That’s the whole point.

The scare tactics involve the promotion of the notion that we’re back in the 1930s, and a Hitler is again undertaking a program of genocide. The fear-mongering propaganda program includes the following components:

1. The promotion of a certain interpretation of modern history, according to which, having defeated fascism in World War II, and communism in the Cold War, the West now in Bush’s “War on Terror” confronts a new, terrifying global “ism”—Islamofascism—that must meet with the same sort of heroic resistance. Some pronounce this most recent war as World War III, others World War IV. (Bush personally seems to want to apply the “World War III” designation to an upcoming confrontation he apparently seeks to provoke with Iran.)

2. The disparagement of those questioning this view of the past and present, and those inclined towards a level-headed response to the various forms of Islamic militancy, as “appeasers” analogous to those who failed to challenge Hitler during his rise to power.

3. The specific vilification of Iran, involving

1. the depiction of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the new Nazi Germany
2. the depiction of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the new Hitler, and
3. the representation of the Iranian nuclear energy program as a primarily military one,
4. the accusation that Iran’s nuclear energy program is designed to inflict a “nuclear holocaust” and “wipe Israel off the map.”

One finds this fear-mongering mix of loaded terms, fringe theorizing, unsubstantiated accusations and deliberate disinformation among other places in Norman Podhoretz’s recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal praying for the bombing of Iran. It’s nonsense—but frighteningly influential nonsense, peddled by right-wing think tanks and articulated by pundits treated with respect on mainstream news channels. (It may be having an effect. A recent Zogby poll shows 52% of Americans now favoring an attack on Iran.)

Podhoretz and fellow neoconservatives have George Bush’s ear, and the president has not only used the term “Islamofascism” but warned of a “nuclear holocaust” if Iran continues to enrich uranium, and in one of his most bizarre press statements to date suggested that Iran might by such activity provoke World War III.

“We’ve got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I’ve told people that, if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

He is speaking of a country with cordial ties to all its neighbors, including U.S. client-states Afghanistan and Iraq, and which has not provoked a war in many centuries. Iran’s president has actually not said that he personally, or Iran, wants to destroy Israel, a country with two or three hundred nuclear weapons. Iran according to both the IAEA and CIA is years from having nuclear weapons even if it planned to produce them, and if it used them against Israel the latter and/or U.S. would respond by eradicating the regime responsible along with much of the Iranian civilian population. But no matter that Bush’s charges make no sense (actually prompting Dennis Kucinich to question his mental health). He can depict a regime of pretty much anything having vilified it as Islamofascist.

Some very well-funded and highly energized proponents of the Iraq invasion and upcoming attacks on other Muslim countries conducted their “Islamofascism Awareness Week” October 22-26. The organizers have predictably claimed that the events on some 114 campuses (down from the 200 they’d earlier predicted) constituted a glorious victory. Extreme right-wing ideologue and principal organizer David Horowitz on his website boasted that the week “witnessed the largest, most successful campus demonstrations by students not associated with the anti-American left in the history of campus protests.” Actually, I’ve seen no evidence for any “campus demonstrations” by Horowitz-inspired, Islamophobic students at all. Rather, I’ve seen reports of reasonable people responding with appropriate revulsion to a campaign based on fear and hate.

Take Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, for example. When antiwar activists got word—just a few days before the event—that Daniel Pipes would be speaking on campus, posters appeared everywhere exposing this neocon’s history and calling on students, faculty and staff to attend and protest. The Tufts Democrats and progressive faculty members added their names to the flier, and on the evening of the talk a poster protesting hate speech endorsed by practically every religious organization on campus, plus the Tufts Coalition Opposed to the War in Iraq, was circulated and positively received by the great majority of persons in attendance. The student brownshirt introducing Pipes was noticeably shaken by the hostile reception, and Pipes himself seems to have abbreviated his remarks and availability for questions. Almost all of the latter were confrontational.

Pipes began somewhat disarmingly by stating that he personally did not think the term “Islamofascism” useful, nor did he think Islam itself was the problem. Rather, he targeted “Muslim extremism,” while noting that often Muslim extremists posed as moderates—another way of saying all Muslims are inherently suspect. Among the extremists he included a disparate array of movements and governments, including the Palestinians against whom Israel must not compromise but win “victory.”

I’ve tried to determine what the necessary components of “Islamofascism” or even “Muslim extremism” might be in the minds of those using the terms so glibly. I wind up with the following:

1. Islam (of any sort).
2. Willingness to use violence to obtain certain ends, not even necessarily religious but maybe political or nationalist (such as ending occupation).
3. Opposition to U.S. policy, particularly towards Middle Eastern countries including Israel
4. Opposition to Israel, particularly Israeli occupation of Arab land

Notice how minimalistic these components are.

One might include support for the implementation of Sharia law, but among the states and movements labeled “Islamofascist” by those promoting the concept there are a wide range of views on that issue. Some like Syria are pointedly secular (as was Saddam’s Iraq) and have harshly suppressed groups they consider extremist. One might include under component 2 specific reference to suicide bombing, but that’s not a feature of all the groups and states targeted by the terminology. Some, Bush included, want to associate the vilified with the idea of a revived Caliphate, but according to the authoritative Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford University Press, 1997), “in practice, there is little sign of any desire to return to the Caliphate” among Muslims. In any case, note that the four characteristics listed above are hardly “fascist” or even “extreme” by definition.

Lebanon’s Hizbollah is a political party that controls a large bloc in the national parliament, owns broadcasting stations, and provides a range of social services. One can say this of many political parties. It has an armed wing. But so do Lebanon’s Christian Phalangists. It is a Shiite party but has enjoyed widespread support among non-Shiites as well, obtaining enormous popularity during Israel’s attack last summer. It’s often accused of trying to impose Sharia law, but a secular Christian journalist, Joseph Samaha, wrote in 2004, “One would have to be blind not to notice the changes Hezbollah has undergone. Has Hezbollah tried to ban books or impose sharia? Not once. Their electoral program is [an] almost social democratic [one]. So we’re confronting a very different kind of Fundamentalist party.” Hardly sounds “fascist.” Where is the racial theory, the drive to expand territory? (Don’t tell me the drive to recover the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms is an effort to obtain Lebensraum.)

The Palestinian group Hamas is Sunni. Israel initially encouraged its formation as a Muslim alternative to the secular PLO. It evolved into a violent movement in resistance to occupation, employing such extreme methods as suicide bombings. But it observed unilateral ceasefires with Israel from January 2005 to June 2006, and November 2006 to April 2007, and has offered a 10-year ceasefire if Israel agrees to withdraw to the 1967 borders. Brought to power (if we can speak about power under occupation) in a free election, it is widely respected among the oppressed Palestinians as a moral and efficient alternative to corrupt PLO politicians. Last month leader Ismail Haniyeh’s spokesman stated the group’s willingness to negotiate with Israel, declaring, “The principle of negotiating with the enemy is not legally and religiously rejected” and “Hamas is ready to sit at the negotiating table if it is convinced that a political achievement can be made. But the general impression manifested by the current Israeli policy doesn’t give any positive sign.” These seem like moderate rather than extremist remarks.

Al-Qaeda is a collection of clandestine cells plotting spectacular acts of violence designed to produce a general all-out war between the (Sunni) Muslim world and the U.S. and its allies. It may succeed in that—in tandem with the neoconservatives in Washington who want to conquer Southwest Asia, encircle China, establish permanent military bases and control the flow of oil from the region.

If these movements have little in common, neither do the demonized states. The governments of Syria and Iran (those most in the neocons’ crosshairs) are strategically allied, but very different; one a hereditary secular dictatorship that deals harshly with political Islam, the other a Shiite theocratic state with some democratic features such as competitive elections. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan that fell in 2001 was another very different phenomenon; it had features in common with Saudi Arabia, one of the few countries that recognized the Taliban regime. Both apply Sharia law, notoriously stoning women for adultery. But Saudi Arabia is a close U.S. ally, generally exempt from vilification. Even the Taliban regime was initially welcomed by some in Washington, including the Afghan-American Zalmay Khalilzad, in recent years U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq. This neocon, as a Rand analyst in October 1996, wrote a Washington Post op-ed urging ties with the regime (in connection with oil pipeline construction) and nothing that it “does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran.”

No demonization of the Talibs as “Islamofascists” then. No great fuss about the burqa, the ancient female garment in Afghanistan that isn’t specifically Muslim and may indeed have Byzantine origins. (And which, you notice, has not disappeared under the Karzai/warlord regime placed in power by the U.S.) Recall that the Taliban toppled the Northern Alliance forces who had been funded by the CIA all through the 1980s to “bleed the Soviets” and overthrow a secular regime pitted against Muslim extremists. U.S. policy had been to encourage jihadist mentality to defeat a government promoting modern public education, health clinics, and gender equality. Mujahadeen of the Taliban had been involved in that effort too, as well as the Saudi volunteers led by Osama bin Laden!

The Taliban, even while stoning women in soccer stadiums, blasting away ancient Buddhist statues, and hosting bin Laden (who left Sudan for Afghanistan in a U.S.-backed arrangement in 1996) were receiving aid from Saudi Arabia and the U.S. up to 2001. The forms of “extremism” based on rigid interpretations of Islamic law were seen in Washington (appropriately enough) as internal affairs rather than cause for American fears and military intervention. But these days, allegations of Muslim maltreatment of women and cultural intolerance (which could have been made centuries before the western/capitalist phenomenon of fascism appeared) are being used to demonize and essentialize over a billion people in a heavily warlike atmosphere.

Designed for that purpose, Islamofascism is a failure as a concept. But it may yet be a success as a propaganda tool—rather like the concept of the “Jewish conspiracy for world domination” widely promoted in the 1930s. Thus would Huey Long’s prediction come true, and in the name of national security and anti-fascism a kind of American fascism fully emerge.

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University, and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu. Read other articles by Gary.

18 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. sk said on November 1st, 2007 at 6:32am #

    Another useful article by someone who knows what he’s talking about.

  2. Hatuxka said on November 1st, 2007 at 8:30am #

    But as heard here last week by someone, Ziofacism is real and a concept that is apt and works.

  3. Muslims Against Sharia said on November 1st, 2007 at 3:07pm #

    Muslims Against Sharia congratulate David Horowitz FREEDOM CENTER and Mike Adams, Tammy Bruce, Phyllis Chesler, Ann Coulter, Nonie Darwish, Greg Davis, Stephen Gale, David Horowitz, Joe Kaufman, Michael Ledeen, Michael Medved, Alan Nathan, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Daphne Patai, Daniel Pipes, Dennis Prager, Luana Saghieh, Rick Santorum, Jonathan Schanzer, Christina Sommers, Robert Spencer, Brian Sussman, Ed Turzanski, Ibn Warraq and other speakers on the success of the Islamofascism Awareness Week.

    Islamofascism (or Islamism) is the main threat facing modern civilization and ignorance about this threat is astounding. We hope that this event becomes regular and reaches every campus.

    A great many Westerners do not see the clear distinction between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism). They need to understand that the difference between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism) is the same as the difference between Christianity and Christian Identity Movement (White Supremacy Movement).

    Original post

  4. Gary Leupp said on November 1st, 2007 at 5:05pm #

    I notice these “Muslims Against Sharia” issuing this zombi-like tribute (to what was in fact a dismal failure of a propaganda barrage) include no names.

    I’m reminded of “Students For Academic Freedom” founded by 60 year old nonstudent David Horowitz.

    But thanks for monitoring the left sites, guys, and trying to make an impression. Entertaining.

  5. heike said on November 1st, 2007 at 5:31pm #


    This whole writing is horribly naive. Do you really think the “international Jewish conspiracy” died out in the 1930’s? Look again (see above) . The real brown shirts are those who try to disrupt people from speaking on campus when they disagree with their views. Why would you think someone who introduced Daniel Pipes is a brown shirt? Is Pipes a member of a Nazi organization?

    The people about whom Leupp is writing have said many times that they have no beef with Islam — only its extreme form. Is there no Christian extremism? And does using that term mean that all Christians are suspect? Leupp has written his own essay on the concept of Christian fascism, but somehow linking the concept to Islam is beyond his comprehension. http://counterpunch.org/leupp01132005.html

    And of course, Mr. Leupp and his comrades simply sweep under the table the history of collaboration of leading Muslim clerics with the Nazis:

    //The Mufti spent the remainder of the war assisting with the formation of Muslim Waffen SS units in the Balkans and the formation of schools and training centers for imams and mullahs who would accompany the Muslim SS and Wehrmacht units. Beginning in 1943, al-Husayni was involved in the organization and recruitment of Bosnian Muslims into several divisions. The largest of which was the 13th “Handschar” division of 21,065 men.//

    Why do you call American conservatives fascists? You may disagree with their political views, but calling them fascist means that they have no political legitimacy in our country. Who gives you the right to decide that?

    For truth in labeling about Mr. Leupp, try

  6. Gary Leupp said on November 1st, 2007 at 7:24pm #


    The above-referenced essay was a CRITIQUE of the concept of “Christian fascism,” a questioning of its use by some on the radical left. Anyone actually reading it through will realize that.

    The “Answering Islam” piece by the anonymous “Silas” is a work of Christian proselytization, an effort to show how Christianity rather tghan Islam is the truth—not an exercise in “truth in labeling about Mr. Leupp.”

    But good try, anonymous Elderofziyon.

  7. sk said on November 1st, 2007 at 7:26pm #

    No beef whatsoever with Muslims for this man who also coined the phrase ‘Clash of Civilizations’.

  8. sk said on November 1st, 2007 at 7:47pm #

    As someone put it, if the Mufti didn’t exist, he would have to be invented. Here’s an excerpt from Peter Novick’s The Holocaust in American Life

    The claims of Palestinian complicity in the murder of the European Jews were to some extent a defensive strategy, a preemptive response to the Palestinian complaint that if Israel was recompensed for the Holocaust, it was unjust that Palestinian Muslims should pick up the bill for the crimes of European Christians. The assertion that Palestinians were complicit in the Holocaust was mostly based on the case of the Mufti of Jerusalem, a pre-World War II Palestinian nationalist leader who, to escape imprisonment by the British, sought refuge during the war in Germany. The Mufti was in many ways a disreputable character, but post-war claims that he played any significant part in the Holocaust have never been sustained. This did not prevent the editors of the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust from giving him a starring role. The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Goering, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann–of all the biographical articles, it is exceeded in length, but only slightly, by the entry for Hitler.

  9. Louis Proyect said on November 2nd, 2007 at 7:02am #

    The Enemy of My Enemy
    The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam and the Extreme Right
    George Michael

    April 2006
    368 pages, 6-1?8 x 9-1?4
    Cloth ISBN 978-0-7006-1444-8, $34.95 (t)

    book cover imageIn the violent world of radical extremists, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In this provocative study, George Michael reveals how that precept plays out in the unexpected bonding between militant Islam and the extreme right in America and Europe.

    At first glance these two groups would seem to share little if any common ground. Why would various neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, white separatists, and antigovernment radicals find themselves attracted to movements such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad? After all, the extreme right’s racist and radical Christian segments tend to deride and exclude all nonwhites and non-Christians, while Islamic fundamentalists angrily denounce all non-Muslims, especially Americans, as infidels. Nevertheless, as Michael shows, they have developed strikingly similar critiques on such issues as American foreign policy, the media, modernity, and the New World Order.

    The first book to focus on the growing linkage between these two movements, The Enemy of My Enemy analyzes the histories and ideologies guiding these disparate groups, clarifies the nature of their mutual appeal, and shows how the Internet and globalization have made increased interaction possible. Michael notes that one particularly dominant thread running throughout both camps is a fervent anti-Semitism, accompanied by strong pro-Palestinian views, anger over Israel’s influence on American policymakers, and opposition to the Iraq War and the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

    Michael also speculates on how the so-called War on Terror might unfold if this unexpected and alarming convergence grows stronger. While the thought of Americans assisting or fighting alongside Islamic militants—in America—sounds utterly far-fetched, Michael points out that some members of the extreme right have publicly expressed admiration for Al Qaeda’s audacious attacks on 9/11.

    Daring to consider the unthinkable, Michael provides an insightful and sane look at the possibilities for collaboration between these groups and raises a quiet but clear alarm for anyone concerned about America’s future.

    “A detailed and reliable study of a neglected topic—the rapprochment, ideological as well as political, between extremists on the American right and Islamist extremists. It is widely believed that because of the racism and the xenophobia of the former and the anti-Christian attitudes of the latter such
    a convergence is well nigh impossible, but as the author shows, ‘the enemy of my enemy is [still] my friend.’”–Walter Laqueur, author of A History of Terrorism

    “A fascinating and authoritative book about a threat that has been ignored by most terrorism experts.”–Christopher Hewitt, author of Understanding Terrorism in America: From the Klan to Al Qaeda and Political Violence in Modern America

    GEORGE MICHAEL is assistant professor of political science and administration of justice at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise and the author of Confronting Right-Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA.

  10. Mike McNiven said on November 3rd, 2007 at 1:19am #

    Louis Proyect asked the following question in the above comment:

    ” Why would various neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, white separatists find themselves attracted to movements such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad? ”

    The answer is that all of the above named groups believe in the “sacredness of private property”, and they all have one formidable common enemy which is called Socialism! Please remember Jimmy Carter/Ronald Reagan years of unlimited support for the Mujahedin of Afghanistan against Afghan socilaists!

  11. AJ Nasreddin said on November 3rd, 2007 at 9:27am #

    Mike, – The answer is that all of the above named groups believe in the “sacredness of private property” – is stupid and shows that you don’t know a thing about Islam.

    In Islam we have a system of “waqf” – which is a system of social security wherein the religious tax, called “zakat” and which is incumbent upon all Muslims being one of the five pillars of Islam, is distributed among the poor, travellers, various institutions such as schools and hospitals (which are free), etc. Additionally, there are a number of charitable practices in Islam which encourage people to share wealth. One of the traditions of our Prophet was that we look after our seventh neighbor and that we are not dutiful Muslims unless we want for our brethren what we want for ourselves. Historically, there were instances when very wealthy people were forced to give up their money to charity. To horde wealth in Islam is a sin.

    In the modern context, such organizations like Hizballah have tremendous affect on people’s lives through their charitable work. Looking at what is happening now in Lebanon – Hizballah is rebuilding the destroyed areas, providing money to the homeless, etc. Everything one may think the government ought to do but is not doing. Hamas provided many schools for the Palestinians when the “authority” did nothing.

    True, Islam gives people the right to private property – thus you can argue that it is “sacred” – but you ought not draw a conclusion that secular ideologies of neo-Nazis and whomever are the same as the religious ideas of Islam.

    I think the whole point of the article is that fringe groups and those groups with extreme ideologies do cooperate for the larger end goal. Once certain foes are conquered, those groups will fight it out – as we saw in Afghanistan with the Soviet invasion. It has also been noted that “terrorist” groups cooperate – IRA with PLO, etc. I myself have received a few calls in the past from local KKK and neo-Nazi groups expressing their support for our mosque against the Zionist occupation in Palestine. It can be a strange world.

  12. sk said on November 3rd, 2007 at 9:45am #

    An interesting post-9/11 development is how the electorally significant elements of the far right have made their peace with Israel and are now scapegoating Muslims as the “Existential Threat”, all in the cause of standing for “freedom”, of course.

    The last Foreign Minister of Italy, Giancarlo Fini–who called Benito Mussolini the “greatest statesman of the 20th Century” as late as the mid-90s and was a frequent visitor to top government offices in all NATO countries and even Israel where Ariel Sharon called him a “good and friendly leader”–might very well be the face of things to come.

  13. david hill said on November 3rd, 2007 at 5:40pm #

    The article is fine in its assessment but where due to growing factors, a global war in some highly powerful minds, may make perfect sense. I say this as the greatest threat to humanity is the population explosion and where a major global war would solve this problem. Indeed, there is a minority of humans with considerable wealth and power who see the destruction of others as the savoir of themselves (and their vast wealth it has to be said also). The late Glenn Seaborg(Element 106 Seaborgium) our founding President personally appealed and implored President Truman not to drop the ‘bomb’ on occupied Japanese territory. The President though through his military advisers took no notice even though he discovered Plutonium and was head of the Plutonium plant on the Manhattan Project. But behind the scenes also at the time, there were dark figures who saw that after the fall of Japan, great wealth could also be secured. These figures manipulate presidents and leaders to their own ends and basically again today, change-master politicians and governments in particular, are in the pocket of very rich and very powerful individuals/multinational companies, who seemingly do not look for peace but in many ways for wars and their own vested economic interests. Thinking that they can survive because they are on the strongest side and the reason why in many ways US$1.2 trillion per annum and growing, is spent on armaments now.
    But getting back to humankind’s greatest threat (even greater than that of even the warmongers it has to be said) is that of the ever-growing population problem and where I give a little evidence based facts that people may not be aware of.
    The population of the world (in absolute numbers) has only to increase year-on-year by a mere 0.85% for there to be 12 billion people by 2075. The current population growth (in absolute numbers) is 1.27% (most recent UN figures), some 26% above the percentage increase for 12 billion humans to exist in 2075. But looking at the present rate of human growth, there would be 15.6 billion human inhabitants living on planet Earth in 67-years time. But again, as growth rates are, in statistical terms (not the best accurate measure by any means), slightly declining year-on-year, let us assume that the growth rate is the average of the two, which is 1.18%, then we would still have 14.7 billion people to support. In every scenario it is something that the world’s resources could not possibly support considering rising standards of living throughout the world and where it is predicted that India alone will have over half-billion middle class citizens by 2025 (McKinsey, May 2007) on its present economic path. And a final point, what is happening with statistics is that they are being manipulated as usual. In this respect people say that population is declining statistically, but where in reality as we have a greater number each year for our base-line, the figures are really growing at the same rate as the year before, or close to that. It is a bit of a con job that governments in particular like to use so not to alarm their electorate.
    Therefore overall looking at our bleak future in a world with vastly dwindling resources by the decade, a war may very well be on the cards for humankind in this century, and one where this time there will be no winners.
    Dr David Hill
    World Innovation Foundation Charity
    Bern, Switzerland

  14. Shabnam said on November 4th, 2007 at 3:30pm #

    Professor Leupp, thank you for this paper which shows your concern about attack on humanity by those who are preaching freedom and democracy.
    According to wikipedia the term Islamofascism was first used in 1990 by Scottish writer Malise Ruthven, coming from a family who defended the British Empire and died for it. When the writer used this term to describe the authoritarian government of Muslim World, then it was picked up by the neocons to be used specifically against Iran to brainwash the ignorant population and let them to endless Zionist wars.
    Italian Fascism, German Nazism and other European fascist movement of the 1930s were nationalist and secular, closely allied with international capital. The main characteristics were modern, bureaucratic and “rational”. The fascist were the violators of law and used terror against both the existing political structure and the society at large. Their willingness to resort to violence, assassinations, and coups to expand their spheres of influence, therefore, it was imperialistic in nature.
    Majority of these characteristics are described George Bush and his associates’ neocon who are Zionists. Therefore the term Zionofascism is appropriate to show those who want to harm humanity to gain unlimited power and expand their sphere of influence by waging war, terror, “targeted” assassinations and violation of international law and stealing resources of other countries to gain “real assets” instead of plastics.
    These characteristics are well applied to Zionofascists and their puppet who happens to be “Muslim government” of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan and yet they have been protected and invited to the center of terror, the black house, over and over. Everyone in the Middle East and those who analyze the nature of the killing in Iraq knows that majority of the killings are done by the Saudis on behalf of the US to create instability and force the population into submission. These killings have an intention to create a “civil war” between Sunni and Shiites so the occupier takes this excuse to explain its brutal occupation and criminal activities in Iraq since every single lies they have used so far has been exposed. The intended “civil war” buys more time for the Zionofascists designer of attack on humanity and tells the ignorant population at home that we can not leave until Iraq is stable because an unstable Iraq is dangerous for us and the world. Everyone knows that their occupation and the accompanied terror by the occupier and those who act on their behalf, Saudi, are the main reasons for the disaster in Iraq. Islamofascism campaign is head by a neocon who explains the poster of their campaign by saying that women are beheaded under Taliban because of sexual impropriety yet forgets to tell that Taliban was the product of Pakistan, US and Saudi Arabia efforts. He claims that Islamofascists believe “America was attacked because US has done a lot of bad things and has occupied …” and one person from the audience completed his sentence by saying.. occupied 100s of countries. The campaign has targeted Iran and not those fascist countries who are close associates of the Zionofascists such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Instead, this neocon goes after Hezbollah and Hamas who are killed by the Zionists all the time against all international law and code of human behavior. Horowitz points out to “honor killing” of women but refuse to mention Pakistan and Sadie Arabia where the political elites, British-American in thinking and Arab or Pakistani in blood, refuse to educate and provide any opportunities for the population at large especially women who are not allowed to drive their private car, forget about participation in political system. There is no word on Wahabism since the west have gained so much benefits from wahabism because it has given a bad name to Islamic civilization and has funded Mojahedins who were named Taliban later to force the United State’s enemy out of Afghanistan on expense of Afghani people to loose more than a Million of their population, and later their children to be kidnapped by the Zionofascists to bring to Quantanoma and created Abu Gharib to treat their children with torture and rape. Instead, he goes after Iran whose population is educated and Iranian women are active politically and working in science, technology, art, music and work as drivers film directors and compete as pilot. This Zionist lies when he attributed female circumcision to Islam who was corrected by the audience and reminded him of his lie by saying that this is an African tradition and not Islamic tradition.
    Those from the “left” who analyze George Michael’s book and find it “interesting” forget to tell you that his work was supported by RAND cooperation, close to Neocons who supported pro Bush politician such as Zalmay Khalilzad. Furthermore, most of the universities involved in the campaign of Islamofascism which spread lies to scare people to force into another Zionist war, are part of RAND cooperation. These individuals are blind to the atrocities of the Zionists and have supported the words of individuals who attack those who are against the influence of Zionist Lobby in foreign policy of the United States.

    Those individuals who present the Zionist war, global war, as means of population control like the racist British economist Thomas Malthus who found war and famine as means of population control for the poor people forgets that this war has been waged to change the Middle East map in favor of the Zionist state and to grab the real assets of the population of the region. Therefore, we are not talking about “poor people” to be eliminated. As matter of facts due to your policy of double standardness you have enrich yourself. Thus if global war should be used to control the population for lack of natural resources, then the best would be the population of those countries who consume and pollute the most for accumulation of capital and profits without any concern for others and the planet and are willing to attack on humanity to expand their sphere of influence.



  15. Mike McNiven said on November 19th, 2007 at 2:53am #


  16. Mike McNiven said on December 8th, 2007 at 6:16pm #


  17. Art M. said on January 3rd, 2008 at 2:54pm #

    Gary Leupp does not address the actual issue of Islamofacism in this article. The article is simply a series of distortions. It is a tragedy that progressives are leaving it to the right wing to address this serious problem. This is a problem that progressives ought to be taking the lead on.

  18. jukin said on March 14th, 2008 at 10:02am #

    So by not allowing a discussion of the radical wing of Islam, leftists think they are promoting critical thinking?

    You guys would have fit right in with Hitler and Stalin.