It’s been talked about on NPR, the New York Times and FOX News. For all you moderately informed folks out there, you may be wondering, “What’s the deal with Islamofascism, and why is it causing so much public debate?” I’m not here to jump to the Muslim defense and say that the so called “Islamofascists” that we are battling today only represent a minority of those who claim Islam to be their religion — you can hear that from most Muslims on this campus. I’m here because I have beef with the term itself. “Islamofascism?” Do the users of the term know what they’re grappling with? Are they showing any sensitivity to history or religious identity? And equally important, will the use of this term enable us to effectively battle terrorism? There isn’t a chance.

The term “fascism” itself is heavily laden with negative connotation and fear, but we have to ask ourselves, do we understand what the word really means? Or has the word become a pickup suffix, used to describe any blatantly evil entity we cannot define? A brief look into history tells us why the word has evolved the way it has: in the world of political theory, fascism describes an authoritarian state that focuses on coercion, complete power, aggressive nationalism, and often racism. Governments that have been dubbed as “fascist” are Italy under Mussolini, Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Franco’s Spain and many other European governments throughout the 1920s and 30’s. Since then, rhetorical evolution has picked up the term to inspire fear, virulence, and evasion.

It was not too surprising when President Bush also picked up the term in October 2005, when he needed a new, all-inclusive term to define the enemy in the ever-declining-in-popularity War on Terror. Four years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden was still at large, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the American public was beginning to lose faith in the administration’s efforts for security. Come time for Bush to define exactly who/what we were fighting, he gave shape to the most heinous enemy in sight: the Islamofascists. Likening them to “evil Islamic radicals” and “militant Jihadists,” he combined the Iraqi farmer fighting to protect his family and the Al-Qaeda mastermind under the same category. But none of this mattered. The only issue of concern was to rally the public in support of the war, and exploit people’s fears about terrorism.

I once read a bumper sticker that said “Fear makes people believe stupid things.” Someone out there got it right. What does this have anything to do with the subject at hand? Classifying bin Laden and Saddam Hussein together under the category of Islamofascism can be said to be quite “stupid.” According to the above stipulations, fascism is defined as a political ideology. These two men certainly don’t share political aims. In fact, one has been known to publicly decry the other. They do, however, share the title of Islamofascist because they both claim to be Muslim and they both have exhibited extremely violent practices, and for altogether different reasons. Don’t get me wrong here — I won’t be the one to justify their depraved morality, but the fact is that distinct political and social differences were to be found in these men. Yet we still see individuals ranging from bin Laden to Hussein being clumped unhappily together. Fear in the public has made this categorization credible. Fear of the amorphous enemy has led the public to believe irrational claims.

To effectively fight the enemy, you must know the enemy. Part of knowing the enemy is being able to properly define it. Clearly, use of the term “Islamofascism” is not solving any problems. By attacking the religion itself and perfunctorily attaching it to fascism, there lies the suggestion that all Muslims have fascist beliefs. In turn, this stigmatizes the entire body of Muslims. The trend of trouble arising from a small group within a larger religious community is not a new one. For instance, the Klu Klux Klan espoused deep rooted Christian beliefs, and has been referred to as bigoted, racist, extreme — but never Christo-fascist. Why, then, has Islam as a religion been denounced? In dealing with an often hidden enemy, using such explosive terminology is really not the best tactic of choice. More specifically, the inherent implication in attaching fascism to Islam is that the Prophet Muhammad and the lineage that followed him are directly responsible for spreading a fascist doctrine. By waging war on an entire religion rather than a specific, relatively small group of people, one only breeds more consternation, hostility and intolerance.

This week has witnessed ultra conservative activist/phenom David Horowitz’s testimony to Islamofascism. All across the nation, universities have hosted lectures and screenings to educate the student populace on the dangers of Islam, and warn them against the threats posed by their local Muslim student associations. The point in writing this column has not been to express an opposition to Islamo-Fascism Week. Everyone is entitled to the right of free speech. People are free to say what they like, but they must do so responsibly, and at the risk of losing their own legitimacy and credibility. It does not make sense to criticize the intolerance of a specific group of people by being intolerant of a larger community. Screenings of the highly controversial and degrading documentary Obsession, and lectures by the infamously bigoted and racist Ann Coulter ’84 at USC and Tulane University, and similarly renowned Daniel Pipes at Northeastern University and UPenn, are not tolerant. Horowitz wrote in the Columbia Spectator last week that his aim is to initiate a discussion. Discussion was certainly not the outcome of this week. Rather, the outcomes have been provocation, stigmatization and hatred. Again, how does this solve the problem of terrorism?

If you want to deal with terrorism, go to the root of the problem. If you want to deal with Muslim extremists, study them and know what they are all about. If you want to understand how Islam is related to all this, talk to Muslims in your community. Engage in civil discussion. Audit Prof. Ross Brann’s class on holy war, crusade and jihad. Using inappropriate rhetoric not only takes away one’s credibility, it actually feeds the flames. As students of higher learning, it isn’t just our privilege to question, stay informed, and assess public discourse — it’s our obligation. Only tolerance can overcome intolerance, and the day we figure that out might be the day we end a long cycle of violence, extremism and prejudice.

Khullat Munir ’09 is the president of the Islamic Alliance for Justice. He can be contacted at kmm222@cornell.edu. Guest Room appears periodically.