Disbelievers in freedom contemplate natural selection and decide that they, or their preferred authority figure, can do it one better. Just as disbelievers in freedom who embrace (any particular) religion will generally favor aggression against heretics.
That reformulated statement expresses the original intent without using the word that confuses you (fascist), but it raises two new problems:
First, the new statement will be incomprehensible to you without knowing the definition of "freedom," and it's a virtual certainty that you don't know it. If you're a "conservative", you no doubt believe that "freedom" is limited by the State's compelling power to intervene--in other words, your sympathies are what I would call "fascist"--or, if you are a "liberal", you will imagine that freedom is about running around topless and urinating on crucifixes.
Second, if you manage to comprehend the reformulated statement, you'll realize that I really said, "People who don't believe in freedom contemplate X, and conclude that X implies a need to violate others' freedom." If you're really perceptive--so there's no danger in your case--you'll realize that my statement was an utter tautology: "People who don't believe in freedom tend to oppose freedom."
If you reach the zen level of comprehension, so that both of the above points are clear to you, then you'll realize that my original statement was so much a truism as to be almost trite. At which point, you'll grasp why I find you so amazingly obtuse for disputing it in the first place.
It's worth pointing out that beneath the triteness lies a certain profundity. Namely, that Muslims are a pestilence not because they are muslim, but because they lack a fundamental belief in freedom. There's interplay, because their religion teaches against freedom, but with only that one change their religion would cease to be any part of the problem.
It also helps clarify why Dems so often find themselves on the side of the Muslim terrorists: they are united by a common rejection of freedom. The only point on which they differ is who gets to sit in the despot's throne.