As far as neologisms go, 'islamofascist' is an oxymoron with, in my always humble opinion, dangerous consequences.

Linguistically, 'Islam' is abnormally conjugated in the English language. Unlike the words we use to describe other religions, 'Islam' refers to the faith whereas 'muslim' is used to to describe an adherent of the faith (as opposed to Catholocism/Catholics, Buddhism/Buddhists, &c.) Although it doesn't roll off the tongue as smoothly, 'muslimofascists' would be at least lexically corrrect.

Secondly, Islam does not promote a central political authority or a political system centered around a state-based military-economic complex. It might be argued that those states which adopt Sharia are (at best) authoritarian and (at worst) totalitarian, but the same terms apply with varying shades of success to every state that has ever existed, including the US and GB. The point is that the primary criteria for identification of fascism are fundamentally absent from the Islamic faith.

So why do people continue to coin this stupifying oxymoron for describing those who some have alleged to constitute 'the greatest threat to western civilization'? One might think it lends legitimacy to the ill-defined typology of enemies (TERRROR!!! ™) which the United States has discovered during its most recent adventuring in the middle east. Fascism, specifically in the form of National Socialism, was indeed a very legitimate threat during the mid 1900s but does fascism deserve to be associated with the loosely organized yet strongly convicted muslims who allegedly coordinated 9/11? In the context of fighting a war, are we not collectively wandering down a slippery slope by allowing the terms we use to identify our opponents become increasingly ambiguous and, in this particular case, unequivocally wrong?