Say I want to forbid Islam in my country, for reasons. Would that be fascism?

Islam already had Reformation. It's called Wahhabism.

What Islam needs is Enlightenment.

So Islam was formed from non-mainstream revolutionary syndicalist circles?

Didn't know that.

>which restriction are reasonable?
I'd say restructions should be similar to now, little to none. However this also entails dealing with the consequences of that speech. What I would say is what should be more restricted and also a significant issue is the weight that speech has, especially in legitimate institutions. When shit like femenism/SJW bullshit, pay gap myth etc. is being taught in schools, in the workforce, military,etc. as correct as well as any other type of similar bullshit; then it should be absolutely refuted and heavily restricted. Censored if need be. Basically you say what you want but the moment your bullshit starts weighing down legitimate institutions, legitimately harassing and impeding other people, it gets shut down and thrown out .

>>blending of corporate and political power
You're misunderstanding the Mussolini quote. Read about what "corporatism" actually means, rather than learning the definition from retarded hippies.

It's not just "the state". It's the NATION, which is the foundation of the state. You make it sound like a materialist dictatorship.

It wouldn't be fascism but it would completely violate freedom of speech and religion. There are only two acceptable limitations on speech, which are libel and slander.