While much of the feedback Sarah and I received on our “Islamofascism” crib sheet was poorly articulated vitriol, I wanted to share an email exchange I had this week with CP.org reader Scott Malensek. Scott is a featured writer at New Media Journal Online and contributor to Flopping Aces. Read our conversation on the helpfulness of terms like “Islamofascism” and the supposed homogeneity of contemporary terrorists after the jump.

Annika,

I agree the term Islamofacist can be offensive, and a better description is needed, but "anti-Western Salafist jihadism" is just a completely useless idea.  It's so useless it's silly.  How about some other options?  I mean, you made a great case in the 1400 word article, but only suggested 4 words in a useless combination.

Complaining is fine and all, but "anti-Western Salafist jihadism" is your solution? Can you really see Brian Williams and Tim Russert asking all the candidates tonight (one at a time) about, "How will you address the threat of anti-Western Salafist jihadism?" I know you didn't create the phrase, but it's the only thing you suggested as an alternative to the Islamofascism.  The link to the blog discussion didn't work for me-- I couldn't see the other ways to describe the "facists who subscribe to a false version of Islam" (9 words, but just as useful as your 4).

Seriously, I'm very interested in how you propose to describe the threat of terrorists who kill in the misguided perception of Islam without mentioning Islam.

"pseudo-Islamic Death Cult followers"

"semi-Islamic Holy Warriors"

...how about

“drugged up suicide bombers who follow some Islam, but not all and distort the rest"?

Come on Annika, lacking a viable solution, no matter how well written your argument was against "Islamofacism," that ugly term--that 'something'--will always beat out your 'nothing' suggestion. I'm eagerly hoping that you can suggest other, better, less offensive choices.  When you do, I'll argue their validity against those who use the Islamofacism term, but until then...your article is useless.

Sincerely,
Scott Malensek

Hi Scott,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. As far as suggesting a new term to replace "Islamofascism," I ardently believe there should be no such term. As we discussed in the piece, lumping together disparate groups and labeling them anything beyond "terrorists" is reductive--we gain nothing by opting for an easy label instead of thoughtful, group-specific discussions of national security.

To use your example, I'd prefer Brian Williams and Tim Russert to ask "How will you address the threat of Hezbollah?" and "How will you address the threat of the Iranian government?"--both questions that seek group-specific responses rather than relying on a harmful misnomer.

Replacing "Islamofascism" with another blanket term would be a capitulation to the right's divisive agenda: a dangerously oversimplified "us versus them" foreign policy.

Best,
Annika

Annika,

Thanks for the reply--an extremely well-presented reply.  I too prefer the threat-specific commentary, but I don't think the majority of Americans are familiar enough with all the threats to understand the dramatic differences.

For example, the America's approach to dealing with Lebanese Hezzbollah vs. Saudi Hezzbollah or Palestinian Islamic Jihad vs. Egyptian Islamic Jihad—all four are very unique. All four do have shared objectives, similarities, tactics, and even shared support bases. In fact, the more we look at Al Queda's leadership, its organizational structure, its network of allied groups, affiliated groups, and common financial as well as logistical networks, then look at the themes and objectives that are common to all five organizations mentioned so far...doesn't it seem that the groups are as unique as the individual faces in the same demographic, the same audience, the same threat, and the same "army"?

You and I may understand the traits that make each of these groups their own, but most people do not, will not, and cannot.  Most people see only the commonalities, and in fact, it is the very commonalities that the so-called war on terror is confronting.

I understand the desire to prevent and/or limit offending Muslims, but the fact of the matter is that Al Queda, the allied and affiliated groups that support the Al Queda leadership councils, and the networks that support them are using a distorted form of Islam as the core unifier to their suicidal death cults.  That pseudo-Muslim theme as well as the others needs to be addressed--otherwise, we might as well just start lumping individual groups into the name Al Queda.  As Germany, Italy and Bulgaria were to the Axis so too are Egyptian Islamic Jihad, JI, and the Taliban all under the umbrella of "Al Queda"--"the base.”

Perhaps where you see individual faces, you're discarding and casting aside the commonalities, and that's limiting your ability to see a common threat as opposed to individual threats?

Anyway, thank you again for your response.  It's sincerely appreciated and admired.

Best,
Scott

So what do you think? Is Scott right that in attacking “Islamofascism” progressives are “limiting [our] ability to see a common threat”?