Hitchens has always recognized the dangers to the world posed by religious fundamentalists whether they be Christian, Judaic, or Islamic. Which makes it so strangely curious that he fails to see the more dangerous global-corporate-socialist statists.
It makes one wonder what it will take for Chris to see the value of ethical-capitalism?
Because Chris has replaced that old time religion with a utopian vision of a "pure" socialist world. I agree with a lot of what Hitchens says...and I disagree with a lot of what he says, also.
I definitely agree with Hitchen's in that the world should have no pity for fanatics who zealously fufill their perverted religious or political interpretations with violence, barbarism, murder and forced piety/patriotism on the masses. Fanatics who believe that they must enforce their doctrine and lifestyle onto others by way of freedom-denying laws, cruel punishments and killing anyone who disobeys deserve to be exterminated. Individuals and/or religious/political movements that physically threaten Civilization, deny choices, free-will and smother basic human rights deserve to be put to rest in the graveyard of failed ideals.
Logic, free-will, personal choice and talks of peaceful co-existence between fanatics and what they deem to be "non-believers" will never sway their belief that they are doing "God's" or, in the case of a humanist/socialist/totalitarian follower, the "People's" will. The ends always justify the means to a fanatic's way of thinking. Peaceful diplomacy won't cause a fanatic to tolerate what he or she believes is an affront to God or the People. Rather than let God or a half-way decent court system sort it out, the fanatic becomes the jury and judge who mets out "justice" according to their narrow-mindedness and bigotry.
I heartily disagree with Hitchens about Islam having the capability of becoming "a moderate religion." His comparison of Islam's fanatics to Christianity's fanatics of the past lacks a few theological facts.
In the past, Christianity has been perverted by power-hungry men and women who were religious fanatics, no doubt. The Crusades, Inquisition and Reformation were violent historical episodes that fell prey to ignorance, brutality, corruption, intolerance and greed. Jesus Christ would never have condoned the horrors that were done in His Name during those events...no matter how "well-intentioned" and "holy" the supposed goals of the Crusades, Inquisition and blood-soaked battles of the Reformation were meant to be by those involved.
Islam's modern-day fanatics, however, are only following the teachings of the founder, er, prophet Mohammad by carrying out a jihad that allows Muslims to deceive, cheat, loot-from, extort, rape, enslave and murder non-Muslims with impunity until the day that Sharia law holds sway over the entire world. (Not in heaven, mind you, but the everyday world!) That is the end-game for Islam. (Islamic heaven, er, paradise, complete with it's personal orgies and perpetual room service, is the reward for those Muslims who died trying to impose or succeeded in implementing Sharia.)
I would assume that any Muslim who does not sincerely hope and pray for Sharia is not a devout Muslim according to the Koran, Hadith and Imam's who hold sway. A so-called "moderate" Muslim must maintain the appearence of being a devout Muslim and keep his thoughts to himself. Muslims who speak openly of moderation or tolerate (not necessarily condone according to their personal beliefs) freedoms or free-thinking risk being killed by their fellow Muslims for blaspheming the main goals of the Islamic faith.
Perhaps a Reformation would cure Islam of its bloody reputation, both past and present. Somehow I doubt it. Mohammad's teachings and Christ's teachings are at great odds with one another...at least when it comes to how people should be treated here on earth.
I think we're not supposed to see that man behind the curtain.