Katha Pollitt writes: "I've written before about what's wrong with the term "Islamofascism" (which, contrary to Horowitz's assertion, was not invented by Algerians in the 1990s to describe the fundamentalist mass murderers in that country; it was used previously by historian Malise Ruthven in 1990 to describe the authoritarian governments of the Muslim world)."

Some pretty serious scholars disagree with her (although they also disagree with Mr. Horowitz as well). For example, Professor Martin Kramer posted material on his website which, if true, means that what Pollitt writes cannot possibly be true. He quotes from a 1963 book by famed scholar Manfred Halpern. According to Kramer:

In 1963, Princeton published [Halpern's] Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa. For years, this book was the basic text in the field, and included the only academic treatment of Islamism, which no one much cared about at the time. Halpern labeled it "neo-Islamic totalitarianism," and this is how he described it:

The neo-Islamic totalitarian movements are essentially fascist movements. They concentrate on mobilizing passion and violence to enlarge the power of their charismatic leader and the solidarity of the movement. They view material progress primarily as a means for accumulating strength for political expansion, and entirely deny individual and social freedom. They champion the values and emotions of a heroic past, but repress all free critical analysis of either past roots or present problems.

Halpern continued:

Like fascism, neo-Islamic totalitarianism represents the institutionalization of struggle, tension, and violence. Unable to solve the basic public issues of modern life--intellectual and technological progress, the reconciliation of freedom and security, and peaceful relations among rival sovereignties--the movement is forced by its own logic and dynamics to pursue its vision through nihilistic terror, cunning, and passion. An efficient state administration is seen only as an additional powerful tool for controlling the community. The locus of power and the focus of devotion rest in the movement itself. Like fascist movements elsewhere, the movement is so organized as to make neo-Islamic totalitarianism the whole life of its members.

At the time, Halpern was a central figure in Middle Eastern studies, and his book--reprinted six times--appeared in every syllabus for the next fifteen years. His critical analysis of Islamism very much cut against the grain, at a time when Cold War strategists ardently wooed Islamists as allies against communism. In the 1970s, he walked away from the field, and his reputation within it slipped. But his rigorous treatment of Islamism stands up well, and his equating it with fascism was a serious proposition, made by someone who had seen fascism up close.

The article goes on to quote others who long pre-dated the 1990s, including the great Marxist historian of Islam Maxine Rodinson. Kramer quotes Rodinson as follows in 1978:" But the dominant trend is a certain type of archaic fascism (type de fascisme archaïque). By this I mean a wish to establish an authoritarian and totalitarian state whose political police would brutally enforce the moral and social order. It would at the same time impose conformity to religious tradition as interpreted in the most conservative light."

The rest of the article is, by the way, no better attuned to facts.

The fact is that whatever Mr. Horowitz's motivations are, he is certainly correct that the radical Islamist movement is a very dangerous, reactionary movement that, among other things, targets women. It thus behooves progressives, if they want to be taken seriously and stand for something, to take Islamist oppression of women seriously and to fight it as among the gravest evils of our time--which it is.

Islamism is vehemently anti-woman, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-secularist, anti-Marxist, anti-liberal, etc., etc. In fact, it is anti-everything that progressives claim they stand for. Progressives should work against Islamists rather than shooting blanks at people like Horowitz who, in this case--and that is a rarity for him--is more correct than not.

Nial Friedman

Boston, MA

Katha, you contradict yourself by calling Ayaan Hirsi Ali a Muslim and at the same time an atheist. She cannot be both; in fact, she denounced Islam and has shown nothing but contempt for it.

Fouzia Yusuf

Milwaukee, WI

Like her or not, most of what I've read of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's writings about "honor" killings rings very, very true for me.

And, Katha, you might be surprised how many times I've heard from otherwise intelligent women who think it is just fine to look the other way on "honor" killings because they pertain to another culture. Not everyone believes in universal human rights.

Ellen R. Sheeley
Author, <Reclaiming Honor in Jordan

San Francisco, CA

Katha, I love your articles but I have to challenge you on Hirsi Ali. There's nothing to admire about her. Getting death threats by fanatics is no criteria for someone to be respected. Ali's a profound racist. Her views on immigration are appalling. She believes that immigrants must totally divest themselves of any connection to their homelands, and she despises the kind of immigrant parades we have here in NYC. When immigrants listen to their home country's music, eat their home country's food and so on, she sneers at them for doing so and believes it would be better to actually outlaw such practices. She'd legislate for the total, forced deracination or deculturization of immigrants. She holds retrograde, racist views of Arabs, calling them a "cancer" and "goat-fuckers."

She has absolutely no connection to the many active, vocal Muslim women's groups throughout the world--Muslim women's groups in Denmark tried constantly to engage her and she totally rejected their overtures. She despises them and holds them in contempt. She's totally ignorant of the risky work Muslim women's groups do to campaign within their communities on issues of domestic violence, employment and education, marriage and children etc. She rejects dialogue with them, turning down requests to debate with them. She supports Bush's wars. There is absolutely nothing to admire about her.

Sandra Nicholas

Brooklyn, NY