The author of this article takes quick offense in criticizing Berman for poor scholarship. The brand of scholarship this critic wishes to see is instead one that is deeply informed and therefore less critical, we must suppose? But if the issues are plain and even the deeply informed (and involved) participants in the faith continually pursue the most manic, radical sort of revolution to prove their point and win the so-called fight, then what is the benefit of being, shall we say...better informed? That means you have only succeeded in permanently complicating the argument. There is no solution to any problem in that circumstance. You become vested in your knowledge, however right or wrong, and what pops out the other end is jihad, fatwah, crusade, and so on. We've been there. We've done that. Let's do something else. That is what Berman seems to be trying to say.