I’ve been wondering a lot recently about the term “Islamo-Fascism.” Does it mean the same thing as “Islamic Fascism?” If so, is there such a thing as “Jewish Fascism?” Were the Nazis believers in “Christian Fascism?” Or were the Nazis un-Christian, and thus just plain “Fascists?”

And if “Islamic Fascism” and “Islamo-Fascism” are different, then is there such a thing as “Judeo-Fascism?” What would you call the Christian equivalent - “Christo-Fascism”? I guess that would be the proper term, but it just doesn’t roll off the tongue like “Islamo-Fascism.”

In any event, what does Islamo-Fascism mean? If you wanted to use the term and remain moderately respectful of Islam, you’d probably say “a totalitarian political system in which the state exercises stringent social and economic control, is probably headed by a dictator, and incorporates elements of Islamic theology and culture.”

But isn’t it kind of self-evident that any fascist government would incorporate elements of the culture (including religion) of its country (be that Islam, Christianity, or Zoroastrianism)?

Plus, the word “Islamo-Fascism” strikes me as implying a very intrinsic relation (at least moreso than “Islamic Fascism”) between the religion and the political system. Given these two factors, maybe the correct definition would be “a totalitarian political system based on Islamic tenets, in conjunction with stringent social and economic control, and probably headed by a dictator.”

Ignoring the theological arguments that such a term would inevitably raise (e.g. “can you have a totalitarian political system that is truly based on Islamic tenets?”), there need to be some actual Islamo-Fascists (what good is a word if it doesn’t describe anything?). Since President Bush uses the term, I’m assuming he’s referring to Islamic governments/movements the US doesn’t like. So the government of Saudi Arabia can’t be Islamo-Fascist, nor can that of Egypt.

But the Baath Party could be. But the government of Iraq was pretty avowedly secular, as is the government of Syria (not that they’re above using religion to prop up their regimes; but neither were the Nazis), so they’re not really good candidates for Islamo-Fascism, but rather regular fascism.

How about the government of Iran? They have elections that kind of matter, and there is political debate in the country to a degree that wasn’t seen in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. So, unless Islamo-Fascism implies greater plurality than regular fascism, Iran isn’t a great example.

As for the Taliban, though they fit the dictator/totalitarian/strict social control description, I don’t think they had the same obsession with economic and industrial development as the European fascists. Though maybe that’s supposed to be the “Islamo” part of “Islamo-Fascism” (you don’t need a military-industrial complex if you’ve got God?).

Regarding Al-Qaeda, it hasn’t ever had control over a government, making it difficult to ascertain its exact political and economic programs, though I’m sure it would involve strict social controls. However, is it possible Osama bin Laden dreams of Dar al-Islam governed by Sharia Law and a strict system of checks-and-balances?

Then again, it’s possible that the “fascist” part of “Islamo-Fascist” is just supposed to be an epithet- so a fascist is someone opposed to freedom and apple pie; an Islamo-Fascist is also opposed to hot dogs, bikinis and beer. I guess it’s a good technique: combine two words sure to strike fear in Middle-America, then use the new term to label our enemies.

However, I find this disconcerting- using a term that conflates a religion and one of the vilest political ideologies of the 20^th century doesn’t seem to be a particularly constructive manner of labeling an abhorrent minority within that religion, something a lot of people have argued in a manner much better than mine.

That said, I’m at least kind of proud that we aren’t using “Islamo-Communism.”