This was one of the most weak, execrable pieces I have ever read here at Salon. It surpasses the fluffy interview of Tariq Ramadan a few months back as a new low in my opinion. Is there no excuse or rationalization to which Salon is not willing to sink on behalf of Muslims?

"the political and historical grievances that are largely responsible for Muslim and Arab rage at the West"

“The opposing side could be called the ‘historical analysts.’ Those who hold it -- virtually all of whom opposed Bush's war against Iraq -- argue that Arab/Muslim rage against the West is in large part driven by specific historic injustices, most of which originated in the Western colonialist carving-up of the former Ottoman Empire after World War I.”

So when I look in the Salon archives I can expect to find Kamiya defending the Bosnian Serbs and their struggle against a Muslim-dominated government in Sarajevo? After all the Serbs in general lived under humiliating, exploitive, violent Muslim occupation for nearly six centuries and then suffered violence at the hands of Muslims collaborating with the Nazi’s during WW2 (like the Bosnian SS division and Yasar Arafat’s uncle the Mufti of Jerusalem) and then saw foreign Muslim fighter intervene in an internal Bosnian/Yugoslavian conflict. That sure sounds like historical grievances to me and the first two happened before Israel even existed.

Do you honestly think that if Israel were wiped off the map (or never existed) or colonialism (which lasted a few decades at most in Middle East proper) had never taken place there would be no conflict with the Muslim world? Look at the breadth of Islam’s conflict with other cultures and religions in the world spanning the entire history of Islam. That pretty much says it all.

You have to be delusional not to see the religious foundation of Muslim’s endless sense of victimhood. Read the Qur'an, look at the 'example' of Mohammed. The followers of the perfect, revealed, one-true faith are near the bottom of the human development and political ladder. In many cases they have to immigrate to Muslim-minority societies in order to succeed. How can that be…must be someone else's fault. Enter Salon...

“But she shows no understanding of the historical reasons why Islam has not yet had an Enlightenment and fully reconciled itself with the modern, secular world. I believe that it can and will, and I believe when it does it will more closely resemble the kind of religion Manji says she wants -- but the change is not going to be produced by someone as far out of the Arab and Muslim mainstream as she is.”

And these “historical reasons” would be??? What an intellectual coward to chastise Manji and then not be able to offer a shred of proof as to why Islam has not become Enlightened. Soviet Russia produced a wealth of writers, scientists and artists despite the oppressive internal and external forces affecting the nation. What a patronizing, degrading view of Muslims/Arabs your ‘defense’ of them offers. The multiculturalist (anti-liberal) mind unconsciously sees Muslims as such immature, irrational children that they cannot be expected to act in their own best interests. Perhaps Muslims self-rationalize stewing in rage because of “historical reasons” but why justify this mindset when looking at their actions from a disinterested perspective? The fact is you could not justify the Islamic world’s collective actions unless motivated by deep prejudice and/or political considerations (i.e. attacking Bush means making common cause with Islam).

Finally your wishful thinking regarding an Islamic Enlightnment is meaningless. The Enlightenment has already happened: the idea of the supremacy of reason has been let loose in the world. The fruits of the Enlightenment (e.g. egalitarianism, free speech)don’t need to be re-invented just applied. Arguably it was an idea which has always been around but kept in chains for nearly two millennia by the dogma of Islam and Christianity. Muslims can choose to embrace reason which would mean abandoning their religion or cling to ‘faith’ as so many Christians in America do (in the face of every opportunity to become rational, informed citizens).

Sadly human nature may be against you (and me) Gary. People like their make-believe wrathful, sexist, megalomaniac god who offers them certainties and reward if they just submit and obey. Maybe what Islam needs is a French Revolution where imam and sheik alike finds his head on the end of a pike. A rhyming ending, classy.

p.s.

“My point here is not to argue for one position or the other, although I obviously subscribe to the latter.”

What kind of open dishonesty is that? ‘I’m not biased, except I totally am.’ Should I admire that or revile that?

I was not trying to make ann implied comment about you at all and apologize if you took it that way. It was just your bringing up Gould as you did sparked a broad comment based on past instances (including here at Salon) where I have seen Gould "invoked" as I put it in order to rationalize giving religion a pass from critical analysis. I am agnostic too, do not discount the possibility of an immaterial aspect to existence, but feel that suitable theories can only be formed through scientific inquiry into immaterial phenomena throught the material ways they (seemingly) manifest themselves.