[Thorin]

>>>>>Both definitions seem to fit quite well into the Quranic worldview.

The Koran was written in the 7th century and has nothing to do with fascism, which was a European movement with intellectual roots in 19th and 20th century Europe. This isn't too say that Islamic fundamentalism isn't evil. But it's not "fascist."

[unionblue83]

So the Satanic Verses, er, I mean Koran, was the earliest form of fascism? To continue the semantics argument, it seems that Islamofascism is "a movement" that "stands for a centralized autocratic government" (the caliphate) "headed by a dictatorial leader" (ayatollah or mullahs), "severe economic and social regimentation" (dhimmitude)," and forcible suppression of opposition" (the constant references in the text itself to the killing of infidels/non-believers). I am still calling it Islamofascism.

[statered]

"Fascism" as a concept is independent from where it was conceived. If it suits you better we can call Islamic fascism something else, "jihadism" perhaps, but the attributes are strikingly similar.

You seem to think that because the word "fascist" is not in the Koranic lexicon that we can not call it such in Islamic countries. That's just silly.