Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Unmasks the Smearcasters How Islamiphobes spread fear, bigotry and misinformation

Islamofascism:

A fringe term goes mainstream, with a little help from the media

In defending the term, the New York Times' William Safire, former op-ed columnist and current "On Language" columnist, wrote (10/1/06), "Islamofascism may have legs: The compound defines those terrorists who profess a religious mission while embracing totalitarian methods and helps separate them from devout Muslims who want no part of terrorist means."

But the term does precisely the opposite, say critics, linking an entire religion to the violent and intolerant actions of a minority claiming to act in its name.

Many scholars dismiss "Islamofascism" as little more than a political slogan that "War on Terror" proponents use to play on emotions by invoking odious historical enemies. As former Clinton security advisor and Center for Strategic and International Studies fellow Daniel Benjamin put it in a BBC interview (8/12/06):

There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term....This is an epithet, a way of arousing strong emotion and tarnishing one's opponent, but it doesn't tell us anything about the content of their beliefs.

Niall Ferguson, the right-leaning Harvard historian, points out the term's role in Western propagandizing against the latest enemies in the large and disparate Islamic world. According to Ferguson (Interviewed for Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley's "Conversations with History" series, 10/19/06), Islamofascism is

a completely misleading concept. In fact, there's virtually no overlap between the ideology of Al Qaeda and fascism. It's just a way of making us feel that we're the "greatest generation" fighting another World War, like the war our fathers and grandfathers fought. You're translating a crisis symbolized by 9/11 into a sort of pseudo=World War II. So 9/11 becomes Pearl Harbor, and then you go after the bad guys who are the fascists, and if you don't support us, then you must be an appeaser.

As the term has been increasingly criticized, its use in the media has dropped, with 328 occurrences in 2007 and a pace that will barely break 200 so far in 2008. In April 2008, the White House thought better of the term, deciding it would no longer use it, along with "Jihadist" and other similar expressions. The administration explained (Associated Press, 4/24/08), "Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates."

All true, but there is also the problem of double standards--a theme that runs deep in any investigation of Islamophobia. Boston Globe columnist James Carrol put it well in a column about politicians using the term (1/21/08):

The pairing of "Islam" and "fascism" has no parallel in characterizations of extremisms tied to other religions, although the defining movements of fascism were linked to Catholicism--indirectly under Benito Mussolini in Italy, explicitly under Francisco Franco in Spain. Protestant and Catholic terrorists in Northern Ireland, both deserving the label "fascist," never had their religions prefixed to that word. Nor have Hindu extremists in India, nor Buddhist extremists in Sri Lanka.

Carrol adds, "The point is that there is a deep religious prejudice at work, and when politicians adopt its code, they make it worse." Journalists would do well to heed these words as well.

« Prev