I'm very interested in the issues raised in this exchange between you and Mr. Berman (and between him and Mr. Ramadan, and so on down the line). I've read Mr. Berman's works, and was glad to see that someone had written a critique of his writings, so I could get both sides of the issue.

Unfortunately, your points here (and they are valid ones) are mostly obscured by your rhetoric, and most notably your ad hominem attacks on Mr. Berman. Rather than offering arguments for why Mr. Berman's association of political reform with religious reform is wrong, you content yourself with references to an "inability to genuinely comprehend" and his "obliviousness."

It goes on in this vein: "The extent of his ineptitude is revealed by a characteristic overreach into fatuity;" he is "deceptive" with a "tin ear" for religion. These may be valid conclusions, but you don't present them as conclusions founded on solid arguments. Your background and writing seems impressive, so I'm sure you're more than capable of making those detailed intellectual arguments. That's why it's so disappointing to find so much of your critique consisting of these attacks and not reasoned rebuttals.

I'm very interested to hear your point of view here; from what I pulled from this piece, it sounds like you've got some good points. But I wish you had presented your argument in a more reasoned format that would have furthered the debate, and not debased it into the realm of ad hominem attacks.

Thank you.