The stronger critique against the use of the term is that it obfuscates more than it clarifies.  Are the Baathists, the Saudi monarchy, al Qaeda, Hamas and Iran and its proxies really part of the same phenomena?  

The case for using the term is much stronger when applied only to totalitarian Islamists, of either the Sunni or Shia variant (although as odious as the Iranian regime is, it is a stretch to call it totalitarian.)  There is a danger in using the term to conflate the different challenges posed by Sunni and Shia Islamism, but they at least represent aspects of similar ideologies.  Further, do we gain anything rhetorically by lumping together hostile, but similar ideologies.   Shouldn't be looking for ways to exploit the mutual animosity between Shia and Sunni Islamism rather than looking to unite them against a common enemy?

Once the term is applied retroactively to Hussein, it loses all descriptive clarity. Hussein ruled as a fascist in an Islamic country, but he was not an Islamofascist.  He did not seize power or rule in the name of political Islam, but instead out of ideology of Arab nationalism.  The fact that he had alliances of convenience with Islamo-fascists is not the same thing as being an Islamofascist. 

Similarly, the Saudi regime is a conventional, conservative authoritarianism in which Islam is used to buttress the power of the state.  The problem with the Saudi regime is that it appeases Islamofascism and in the past has facilitated its export in an effort to avoid its domestic success.

It is certainly silly to avoid using the term "Islamofascism" because it is offensive.  But it is another thing to avoid using the term because it is counter-productive.  

it shouldn't matter if a term is offensive; this term is not accurate in that it obfuscates. 

it is also counter-productive, at least according to military peeps. This is what abizaid said:

ABIZAID: I mean, even adding the word Islamic extremism, or qualifying it to Sunni Islamic extremism, or qualifying it further to Sunni Islamic extermism as exemplified by government such as Bin Laden, all make it very, very difficult because the battle of words is meaningful, especially in the Middle East to people. And so, I do think, and I had a chance to get to know many of the regional leaders out there. They clearly understand that we, collectively, are fighting a problem that they don’t want to win, that we don’t want to win. The problem that we have to face is how do we work together to keep this problem from becoming mainstream. […]

The key is to figure out how we don’t turn this into Samuel Huntington’s Battle of Civilization’s and we work toward an area where we respect mainstream Islam. There’s nothing Islamic about Bin Laden’s philosophy, there’s nothing Islamic about suicide bombing. I believe that these are huge difficulties that we need to overcome, this notion of Christianity versus Islam. It’s not that, it doesn’t need to be that.

Christopher Hitchens is "no conservative"? That's something of a surprise to me, as he seems to fit in quite comfortably with several other figures who have far-left backgrounds but have become neocons (much like Horowitz).

The term "Islamofascism" doesn't mean anything. It's a made up, not-quite-portmanteau that is usually simply used as a codeword for Islam in total, much the same way a lot of people who don't want to to sound anti-semitic say "Zionist" when they mean "Jew". I have always been against the leftist (and, at least in the US and UK, Muslim) tendency to pin exaggerated and inaccurate labels on their opponents, and I am against it when the center and far right do it as well, and they have been the primary porters for this expression.

As for the "if they were as concerned" bit, it's intensely frustrating to be a Muslim in America who is trying to combat injustices within the Muslim ummah (as I am, and I feel Ali Eteraz is as well) and then being told at the end of the day that we do nothing and turn a blind eye all because we also have a problem with a campaign of demonization aimed at us.

Saying "unless you're the intended target" reminds me of the "I only mean kyke if you're one of the bad ones, there's a difference between kykes and other Jews" routine I heard so much growing up. Leave aside that to Horowitz and his crowd a Muslim is apparently evil until they renounce Islam (his Muslim reformists he touts are all confirmed atheists who often make their trade slamming Islam), I shouldn't have to have my religious views scrutinized because of the somewhat similar religious views of people with separate and even opposed agendas. If I do, you do too. Judeofascism! Every Jew has to apologize for jerks like Kahane from now on! Sound fun to you? Me either.

Just curious, do you invoke the "boo hoo" sentiment every time the ADL starts bitching about an affront to Jewish dignity? You know, I used to have a problem with the official pre-Vatican II story being anti-semitic, but, now that I think about it, if you weren't there nailing up Jesus, well, it shouldn't offend you should it? You should just have to spend the rest of your life apologizing and condemning whenever a Christian wants to take you to task, and admitting that your religion sucks and praising Christianity.

Great rebuttal to the Judeo-fascist Jamie Kirchik.

I'm so sick and tired of Muslims whining about how they're stereotyped as being violent terrorists.  What else are the rest of us to think of when Muslim oppression and terrorism occurs everyday all over the world.  Beheadings, bombings, preaching hatred and murder toward the Jews and Christians are par for the course.  Virulent racism, sexism, discrimination and repression of non-Muslims are part of almost every Muslim country and society.  Iran and Saudi Arabia are the tip of the Islamofacist iceberg.

Change your barbaric religion or else stop your whining.  There's no moral comparision between Jews, Christans and Muslims.  Horowitz and Hitchens are speaking the truth and you facists don't like it.  The world is not going to stand by and let a bunch of evil Islamofacists take us over. 

 Great job Jaimie!  When Islamofacists start calling you a facist in return you know that you won the debate.

I'm actually opposed to using that term, I find it just as empty as "Islamofascist", and that was my whole point in bringing it up.

FOR PRESIDENT!

"simple fact that Islam is a non-Western religion"

Actually Islam is a western religion. I'm continously surprised by how little most people know about Islam this many years into our "cosmic war" against Islamic fanatics. No wonder we continue to make zero progress.

A (very) brief and abridged history of Islam:

Nuh (Noah) - 1st prophet (acknowledged by Jews, Christians and Muslims). Ibrahim (Abraham) - 2nd prophet (acknowledged by Jews, Christians and Muslims). Musa (Moses) - 3rd prophet (acknowledged by Jews, Christians and Muslims). Isa (Jesus) - 4th prophet (acknowledged by Christians and Muslims), and finally Muhammad - 5th prophet (only acknowledged by Muslims).

So, either all three Religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are western, or they are all eastern. But you can't split them up because they all share the same roots. Its rather like one family where each generation disagrees about the proper way to behave. Christianity built upon the teachings of Judaism (you can bet the Jews didn't appreciate Christians altering their beliefs.) And Islam builds upon Christianity (which makes the Christians not approve of the Muslims for altering Christian beliefs).

From a rational standpoint Islam is the most open and accepting of the 3 as it encompasses the teachings of both of the others. Of course this is at odds with our modern impression of Islam because our news focuses upon all the horrible things happening in the Islamic world involving the fanatics and the fundamentalists and those two groups are NOT accepting of Jews or Christians in the SAME WAY that Christian fundamentalists are opposed to Jews in "western" society.

By the way, I'm a buddhist, I've just taken the time to read the other world religions' important texts.

And for everyone opposed to "islamofascist" or "islamofascism" just bear in mind that "christofascist" and "christofascism" are equally valid terms and are often used in other parts of the world (or translations of similar effect) to denote the more barbaric aspects of western hegemony (as we are using the similar term to highlight the objectionable parts of the Muslim world).

ooommm

The debate over terminology only obfuscates. The core of the problem is that Islam is generally as great a danger to human freedom and dignity as were fascism and communism and as was medieval Christianity.

My Mizrahi friends lived under near-apartheid dhimmitude in North Africa, under eliminationist threat in Israel, under daily intimidation from Islam in France, and finally had to listen to "the Jews are our dogs" at pro-Pal demonstrations in the USA. Some of those same friends fled Islam only to settle in Sderot, were they are of course once again subject to Islamic aggression.

So, the term is irrelevant. Christian friends comment to me in disgust that even assimilated, pro-American Muslims in the USA are "nuts" about Jews. IF AMERICAN JEWRY DOES NOT DO ITS UTMOST TO STOP MUSLIM IMMIGRATION, IT WILL ENSURE THE SAME SITUATION OBTAINS HERE AS IT HAS IN EUROPE - JEWS ONCE AGAIN LIVING IN FEAR, AFRAID TO SHOW THEMSELVES IN PUBLIC.

Realism means recognising that Ali Eteraz's nice words are as dangerous to Jewish liberty as Tariq Ramadan's.