That's simply not true - 'Islam', like 'Christianity' (or 'England', incidentally) changes in meaning over time. It would be entirely theoretically possible for somebody to emerge and argue, as below, that the community of Muslims constituted a natural political group, that it was a chosen community possessed of a divine mission revealed only to a particular (mortal) leader, that blindly following this leader was preferable to intellectual debate, reasoning and democracy (a key part of fascism; fascists, unlike nearly all of the other young ideologies of the past century, don't write much theory - compare their output with the Communists'!), that muscular and military work should be glorified, and so on and so forth - then you could have Islamic fascism. The point, however, is that Islam, as practiced (being a combination of what is written in the Koran and the interpretations, beliefs, traditions, attitudes and practices of the members of the religion) is not that. You can find similarities, much as you can find similarities between American ways of expressing patriotism and those used in fascist countries - a daily pledge of allegiance in schools, a culture which glorifies the military, saluting the flag and so on. That does not make America a fascist country. Even if you found an American arguing that American values were the same as fascist values, most Americans don't agree with him, and don't act like fascists. I would argue that the single Ubermensch of a leader is the crucial (missing) element in both.
