Self avowed Marxist Christopher Hitchens wrote an article supporting the term Islamofascism. He argued that the similarities between radical Islam and Fascism are unmistakable.

“The most obvious points of comparison would be these: Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. (“Death to the intellect! Long live death!” as Gen. Francisco Franco’s sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations” and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression—especially to the repression of any sexual “deviance”—and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.”- Christopher Hitchens

Conservative David Horowitz also recognizes the similarities between fascist Germany and various fundamentalist Islamic groups. . Regardless of what side of the political spectrum you are on, both sides acknowledge that Islamic fundamentalism seeks to violently repress opposing views. Islamic fundamentalism makes no effort to integrate into a society. Rather, its sole intention is to migrate into a society and alter that society’s political structure. The best example I can provide is what is currently happening in France. Islamic fundamentalists are rejecting the French mandate against wearing the hijab, or facial veil. Because French authorities did not repeal the ban an extremist went on a violent killing spree . France’s system of rights is very similar to the U.S.’s, France upholds the right to practice any religion a person desires as long as that practice is not threatening harmful to other citizens. The French authorities are against wearing the hijab because it hides an individuals face, and can be used to conceal that person’s identity. The nation of France as a political structure does not favor any particular religion over another, it simply denies religion’s priority over the priorities of the state.  It is clear that these protests in France were not about equality, but rather about hegemony. France’s authority is irrelevant to these fundamentalists, all that maters to them is that the France acquiesce to Islamic fundamentalism.

These same Islamofascist sentiments are apparent in the rhetoric that these fundamentalists spread. For example, when the US embassy was attacked in Egypt the protesters raised a flag that stated “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger,” there is no tolerance in this message, only fundamentalism backed by force The reason why the protests occurred also supports my claim. The protesters lashed out against a film that denigrated the prophet Mohammad, they also killed the ambassador to Libya and three fellow members of this consulate. These protests occurred all over the middle east and parts of Africa, as well as Australia. These protesters do not care about the Western Liberal right to freedom of expression. Even if the film was solely for degradation,  a violent response is unacceptable in any Liberal democracy. It is clear that the hidden message of all these protests is that freedom of expression is irrelevant when critical of Islam . This exceptional standard for Islam is a double standard for the rest of of the world.  Of course this is not the first time we have seen this. Theo Van Gogh was murdered for producing a film that was critical of how Islam treats women, and Salman Rushdie  still has a mandate for his execution by Iran’s supreme leader for the book he wrote that is critical of Islam.

In conclusion, Islamic fundamentalists are only concerned about their own agenda of reforming nations into Muslim states. Moderate Muslims are usually ambivalent toward their more extremist counterparts, more concerned about achieving economic success, and care little for reforming their cultural image. Both only want to take what they can get and have little desire to conform. Moderates want money, fundamentalists want power and influence. Few Muslims take significant measures in the pursuit of a multi-ethnic cosmopolitan society. Those that do take measures are the best kind of Muslims because they truly want to make the world a better place for everyone. They not only deny radical fundamentalism, they actively encourage other Muslims to reject it in favor of tolerance. They are not a part of this Islamofascist movement but rather in favor of multiculturalism and acknowledge the sovereignty of the state in which they reside. These Muslims are a welcome contribution to any culture.