I didn't find any obvious faults with your article on Islamofascism, but using Christopher Hitchens to defend your point seems an exceedingly poor choice, since from my PoV, racist Islamophobe is a rather mild and kind description of his attitudes.
Also, I'm pleased you also mentioned fundamentalist Christianity as an equal threat, but I find articles like this written by people of European ancestry who were raised in nations where most religious people are Christian to be inherently a bit dubious, both because I'm strongly opposed to all forms of international (or for that matter internal) military aggression (which articles of this sort are often used to justify) and also because none of us are going to know about the issues involved in primarily Muslim nations nearly as well as we are going to understand our own nations' problems with Christofascists.
Obviously, stoning gay people and punishing rape victims is vile and wrong, but there are vast and important social and economic differences between a violent failed state like Pakistan or an even more violent and chaotic mess like Afghanistan and functional prosperous and at least somewhat democratic nations like Iran that this article entirely ignores.
Also, and perhaps equally importantly, while I greatly approved of mentioning the link between Western (largely US) aggression and violent Muslim fundamentalism, what you didn't mention was any connection to economics. It's far too easy to see an article like this as a call for military intervention, drone strikes, and similar forms of violent, and vile idiocy, when it's perfectly clear that (as has so vividly happened in Ireland) if you solve the economic issues, the young people who might become terrorists or violent enforcers of local social norms are largely more than happy to get good jobs and spend their time buying consumer electronics and consuming mass media. Similarly, it seems perfectly clear that Iran would be in far better shape socially if the government and religious officials weren't able to regularly drum up support by playing up the very real threat of Western aggression and even of direct military attack by the US. This article talks more about this side of the issue, as does this post of mine.
In any case, given the complete lack of any credible large-scale threat to Europe, or to North American, Australia, or any of the other European-diaspora nations by any Muslim group or groups, it seems to me far better to encourage and disseminate articles written by liberal Muslims on the dangers of Muslim fundamentalism and focus on our own far more real threats of apocalyptic Christian zealots.
no subject
Also, I'm pleased you also mentioned fundamentalist Christianity as an equal threat, but I find articles like this written by people of European ancestry who were raised in nations where most religious people are Christian to be inherently a bit dubious, both because I'm strongly opposed to all forms of international (or for that matter internal) military aggression (which articles of this sort are often used to justify) and also because none of us are going to know about the issues involved in primarily Muslim nations nearly as well as we are going to understand our own nations' problems with Christofascists.
Obviously, stoning gay people and punishing rape victims is vile and wrong, but there are vast and important social and economic differences between a violent failed state like Pakistan or an even more violent and chaotic mess like Afghanistan and functional prosperous and at least somewhat democratic nations like Iran that this article entirely ignores.
Also, and perhaps equally importantly, while I greatly approved of mentioning the link between Western (largely US) aggression and violent Muslim fundamentalism, what you didn't mention was any connection to economics. It's far too easy to see an article like this as a call for military intervention, drone strikes, and similar forms of violent, and vile idiocy, when it's perfectly clear that (as has so vividly happened in Ireland) if you solve the economic issues, the young people who might become terrorists or violent enforcers of local social norms are largely more than happy to get good jobs and spend their time buying consumer electronics and consuming mass media. Similarly, it seems perfectly clear that Iran would be in far better shape socially if the government and religious officials weren't able to regularly drum up support by playing up the very real threat of Western aggression and even of direct military attack by the US. This article talks more about this side of the issue, as does this post of mine.
In any case, given the complete lack of any credible large-scale threat to Europe, or to North American, Australia, or any of the other European-diaspora nations by any Muslim group or groups, it seems to me far better to encourage and disseminate articles written by liberal Muslims on the dangers of Muslim fundamentalism and focus on our own far more real threats of apocalyptic Christian zealots.