Much ado about labels

President Bush in his recent address to American public termed as "Islamic fascists", the world wide coalition of Islamic (or islamist, take your pick) terrorists engaged in bloody conflict with opponents from diverse background, including but not limited to west . [CNN link via confused]

This nomenclature has provoked a debate. Those opposing the term claim that such terms stereotype entire Muslim community. This, in my opinion is disingenuous. That the terrorists draw inspiration from a certain strain of Islam should be beyond dispute. The most frequent text cited by likes of Osama Bin Laden for why they do what they are doing is not Das Kapital or some anarchist publication but Quran. So yes the present attacks have something to do with Islam. However, here I differ from those supporting the nomenclature.

Fascists has become a convenient handle to group together any ideology which opposes democracy and freedom. While this misnomer may be allowed for discussions in usenet or blogs, it is misleading to confuse the ideology of terrorist as fascism, for there are fundamental differences between that ideology and fascism (A useful pointer, via Instapundit)

In original form fascism was not merely limited to opposition to these fundamental attributes of a liberal west. The basic premise of fascism was that existence of state had justification beyond its services and utility to citizens and individuals.
In particular, the ideology promulgated by Mussolini characterized state as a vehicle for existence and progress of civilization, [Wiki] and hence justification and extent for state has to be derived from consideration of civilization and not from mere view point of liberties of individual citizen.
To repeat, for a fascist existence of state is independent of its usefulness to individual.
Further to a fascist state and its strength is more important than the individual.
[Wiki]

Hence while suppression of liberty and democracy is one of the basic characteristics of fascism, it is not its most basic premises. This distinction is important because the ideologies which oppose democracy and freedom are not limited to fascism while having different premises.

Marxism for example is such ideology, in order to protect the proletariat from exploitation of capitalist and manipulation of bourgeoisie it advocates dictatorship of proletariat.
Socialists while not as extremists as Marxists also favour circumscribing individual liberty for "the greatest good of greatest number".

In both the cases state is not the most important but an instrument to carry out the wishes of the common mob. In principle this of course implies descent to mob rule. In practise however since human affairs tends towards order,Marxism invariably transforms into tyranny of individuals.
In a way, the strain of Islam terrorist adheres to is more similar to Marxism.
In both Marxism and Caliphate the state serves a higher purpose.In Marxism it is the common man, whereas in Caliphate it is Allah. The will of individual is secondary to will of downtrodden in former, whereas in latter it has to submit to will of Allah (as revealed by the last Prophet).
The canons are different, but the dogma is same.
[Wiki]