Isn't fascism, though, a term directly connected to the state? From my minimal study of comparative politics, from what I understand, fascism is the subordination of the individual to the state through force and coercion. Perhaps the actions or even some of their beliefs of Bin Laden and other terrorists mirror those of fascism, but that is not enough to declare them fascists. You accuse people on the left of "sneering at any comparison" between the two ideologies, but really what they are doing is practicing academic restraint and honesty.

Fascism has a very specific meaning and to blur the lines in order to come with a scary sounding and populace motivating sound-bite is the height of irresponsibility. Without a doubt Islamic terrorism should be condemned, but dishonesty and hyperbole do not help our cause, but rather hurt it. Sober, measured judgment is what is needed, not rash overstatements that are incorrect and counterproductive.

"fascism is the subordination of the individual to the state through force and coercion."

This seems like an appropriate definition to me. From this defintion you might call the goal of Islamic terrorism:

"the subordination of the individual to religion (Islam) through force and coercion."

add this to the fact that Bin Laden and his ilk make no real distinction between the state and Islam, and you do have something very much like facism, which is why there are so many apparent similarities. However, I think you are right to make the distinctionm between facism and the ideology of jihadis, because facism as I understand it makes the state the religion, whereas Islamic terrorists are attempting to make religion the state. I think it is probably better not to conflate the terms. I think "religious totalitarianism" sums up the philosophy of jihadis more accurately (as someone else suggested in another thread).

Americans have always had trouble understanding that classic fascist movements (Italy, Spain, Germany) do not recognize the legitimacy of the state except insofar as it is made to execute the fascist program. Fascism defines itself, first and foremost, as a popular movement of national rejuventation or salvation. It aims, of course, at political power, which means taking over state machinery. But it does not recognize the legitimacy of "the state" as an entity in its own right, with an existence more durable than that of any political movement. Fascism conceives of itself as the only legitimate political movement, since it alone expresses "the will of the people."

Good points. Since fascism supposedly express the will of the people, it can be seen as a degenerate form of democracy which adheres to no law except that of the supposed will of the people.

And as such, it's a specifically Western phemonena. Fascism is what happens when democratic populations decide that democratic institutions and laws are mere hinderances and bothers to be dispensed with. It is not simply authoritarianism and it just doesn't apply to bin Laden, who has no interest in democracy, the 'will of the people,' or Western rules of law.

The term "Islamofacism' makes about as much sense as 'Azectofascism' would make; none, really. Real fascism was and is a danger to us, because it might still happen here. But Islamic fundamentalism is about likely to happen here as the return of human sacrifice.

You are right that classic fascisms tended to appear as corruptions of a democratic process in which a population had at least partially lost faith. True in Italy and Germany, and in a different way, in Argentina. Not true in Spain or Chile, where fascist regimes took power without an electoral mandate, but did use "managed" elections to legitimize themselves later.

I doubt that fascism is "specifically Western." Japan from 1928 to 1945, Taiwan under Chiang, and Burma today might all qualify as "fascist." The signature feature of fascism is regimentation of society around a "national salvation" theme. It will always claim to be a popular mandate even when it is not, because its legitimacy does not rest on constitutional, or any specifically political, processes. Its legitimacy (in its own eyes) rests on its supposed unique ability to express the will of the nation.

"Islamofascism" seems to me to fail on two counts. One, it is not national. Two, it bases its legitimacy not on the will of the nation, or the people, but on the will of God. Classic fascisms have usually been willing to ally with religion (Mexico was a notable exception; the Burmese generals have tried to co-opt religion but apparently have not been successful), but have never, to my knowledge, claimed a specifically theological basis.

However, Islam might be a special case where religion is concerned. Fascisms have tended to distrust religion because they think it divides the people's loyalty and inculcates undesirable attitudes, e.g., ethics, compassion, etc. Islam, which has never recognized a clear distinction between the religious and the secular, and which is a notably militant creed, might meld better with the fascist style than other religions.