I saw an article from an American journalist raising the interesting point, which I had overlooked so far, that "je suis Charlie" could of course be translated just as validly by "I follow Charlie". It then degenerated, rather bizarrely, into a long etymological discussion about how Latin verbs as different as "sequi" and "esse" somehow managed to yield the same first person singular in modern French.

Though I don't really think anyone ever intended the "suivre" meaning.

Three points of criticism:
1) Does he expect anyone to believe this is actually written for a Muslim audience, or that it will reach it?
2) He makes the same mistake that people the world over keep making over and over again - conflating "Islamic world" with "Arab world". Yes, there is terrorism and oppression in the non-Arab Islamic countries as well, but still it's not quite the same - and many of the non-Arab countries are much better performers in terms of democracy, human rights and even economic performance. Can we talk a bit more about Jokowi and a bit less about Assad, when discussing Islam?
3) First he dismisses the Western intellectuals who blame history, politics or economics for most of the ills of the Muslim world. Then he starts talking about the root problems of the Muslim world... most of which are political at heart. Then he moves on to talking about the 18th century. And finally "the global sickness which is the cult of the god Money". One might be forgiven for thinking he doesn't disagree with those Western intellectuals after all.

But of course he's right in the closing point that the solution is education, education and education. The curriculums in the Arab and wider Muslim world need to be purged, firstly of all the nationalist crap in them, and secondly of the Islamist crap. And we need to reopen, once and for all, the famous "Gate of Ijtihad", not just among small minority groups but among the Sunni mainstream. Good luck achieving any of that, though.