Islamofascism

 

Islamo-Fascism

The concept of ‘Islamo-fascism’ (also rendered as Islamofascism or Islamic fascism) has been a highly contentious term in political, historical, and social scientific discourse. It emerged primarily in the late 20th and early 21st centuries to describe certain forms of radical Islamist movements that exhibit authoritarian, totalitarian, ultra-violent, and supremacist traits akin to 20th-century European fascism. This thesis examines the term through interdisciplinary lenses of sociology, psychology, history, and politics. It draws on scholarly debates to assess whether the analogy holds analytical value or functions primarily as a polemical label.

The analysis reveals a polarized field: some view radical Islamism as sharing “family resemblances” with fascism (e.g., anti-liberalism, cult of violence, mythic revivalism), while others criticize the term as reductive, Islamophobic, or historically inaccurate. Psychologically and sociologically, both phenomena often arise from reactions to modernity, identity crises, humiliation narratives, and authoritarian personality structures, yet they differ in foundational drivers (secular nationalism vs. theocratic revivalism).

Abstract

‘Islamo-fascism’ refers to the alleged fusion of Islamist ideology with fascist characteristics such as totalitarianism, expansionism, anti-Enlightenment irrationalism, and genocidal tendencies toward perceived enemies (e.g., Jews, secularists). Coined in the 1990s and popularized post-9/11, the term peaked in usage during the 2000s–2010s but declined among academics and policymakers by the late 2010s due to criticisms of oversimplification. This thesis evaluates its validity by comparing structural, ideological, and psychosocial features of historical fascism (Italian Fascism, Nazism) with radical Islamist groups (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, ISIS). It concludes that while parallels exist in authoritarian mobilization and rejection of liberalism, the term risks conflating distinct phenomena and should be used cautiously in scholarly contexts.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction

2.  Historical Origins and Evolution of the Term

3.  Defining Fascism: Core Features from Political Theory

4.  Islamist Extremism: Ideological Foundations and Variants

5.  Comparative Analysis: Parallels and Divergences

6.  Sociological Perspectives: Social Conditions and Group Dynamics

7.  Psychological Perspectives: Authoritarian Personality and Radicalization

8.  Criticisms and Alternative Frameworks

9.  Conclusion

Index of Key Sources (by Title and Author)

1. Introduction

The term ‘Islamo-fascism’ gained traction after the September 11, 2001 attacks, framing violent jihadist movements as a new totalitarian threat analogous to 20th-century fascism. Proponents argue it highlights shared traits like anti-democratic authoritarianism, glorification of violence, and supremacist myths. Critics contend it essentializes Islam, ignores historical contexts of Western intervention, and serves propagandistic ends. This thesis adopts an interdisciplinary approach, integrating fascist studies, Islamist ideology analysis, sociology of extremism, and psychology of radicalization.

2. Historical Origins and Evolution of the Term

The portmanteau ‘Islamo-fascism’ appeared sporadically in the 1990s (e.g., in discussions of authoritarian regimes in Muslim-majority countries) but surged post-9/11. Early uses linked it to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or Iranian regime. It reached prominence in U.S. political rhetoric (e.g., brief mentions by President George W. Bush) and neoconservative commentary. By the mid-2010s, amid ISIS’s rise, some revived it, but usage waned among experts due to fears of alienating Muslim populations and conceptual imprecision.

3. Defining Fascism: Core Features from Political Theory

Fascism, as per scholars like Robert Paxton, involves ultranationalist revivalism, dictatorial leadership, suppression of dissent, mythic palingenesis (national rebirth), militarism, and rejection of Enlightenment rationalism. Umberto Eco’s “Ur-Fascism” lists 14 traits, including cult of tradition, rejection of modernism, action for action’s sake, disagreement as treason, fear of difference, appeal to frustrated middle classes, obsession with plots, and selective populism.

4. Islamist Extremism: Ideological Foundations and Variants

Radical Islamism (e.g., Qutbism, Salafism-jihadism) seeks to impose sharia via jihad, viewing modernity/Western influence as corrupting. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and ISIS emphasize caliphate restoration, anti-Western resentment, and violent purification. Historical influences include interwar fascist admiration by some Arab nationalists (e.g., Amin al-Husseini).

5. Comparative Analysis: Parallels and Divergences

Parallels include totalitarianism, anti-liberalism, violence as redemptive, anti-Semitism/conspiracism, and mythic revival (ummah vs. nation). Divergences: fascism is secular/nationalist; Islamism is theocratic/transnational. Eco’s framework applies to ISIS (e.g., cult of tradition, machismo, rejection of weakness), but adapts via religious rather than racial parameters. Some scholars see “clerical fascism” as a bridge.

6. Sociological Perspectives: Social Conditions and Group Dynamics

Sociologically, both fascism and Islamist extremism thrive in contexts of humiliation, economic dislocation, and identity crisis. Fascism arose from post-WWI trauma; radical Islamism from colonial legacies, failed states, and globalization’s dislocations. Both exploit group polarization, in-group supremacy, and out-group demonization, fostering cumulative extremism in conflicts.

7. Psychological Perspectives: Authoritarian Personality and Radicalization

Psychologically, Theodor Adorno’s authoritarian personality (rigidity, submission to authority, aggression toward out-groups) applies to both. Radicalization involves identity fusion, quest for significance, and narrative framing of victimhood/heroism. Islamist extremists often exhibit traits like need for order/hierarchy, mirroring right-wing authoritarianism. Shared mechanisms include online echo chambers amplifying resentment.

8. Criticisms and Alternative Frameworks

Critics label the term an epithet that confuses analysis, promotes Islamophobia, and ignores fascism’s European roots. Alternatives include “Islamist totalitarianism” or “jihadist extremism.” Four discourses emerge: prohibition of comparison, endorsement as accurate, dismissal as propaganda, and cautious comparison acknowledging distinctions.

9. Conclusion

‘Islamo-fascism’ captures real overlaps in authoritarianism and anti-modernism but risks analytical dilution and political misuse. A nuanced approach—comparing without equating—better serves understanding. Radical Islamism remains a distinct totalitarian ideology, warranting focused counter-strategies beyond historical analogies.

Index of Key Sources (by Title and Author)

•  Islamic Fascism by Hamed Abdel-Samad

•  ‘Islamofascism’: Four Competing Discourses on the Islamism-Fascism Comparison by Tamir Bar-On

•  The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton

•  Qutbism: An Ideology of Islamic-Fascism by Dale C. Eikmeier

•  The Shadow of Ur-Fascism in Contemporary Terrorism: The Islamic State through Eco’s Typology (author not specified in sources, but references Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism)

•  Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 by Matthias Küntzel

•  The Black Book of the American Left Volume 4: Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews by David Horowitz