Article seems designed to discredit itself with stupid strawman arguments, ad hominem arguments and attempted delegitimization of criticism of Islamic doctrine.
The article's conclusions would please a theocrat, but it is so blatantly careless of reason and evidence that it is not useful for any purpose.
It has been written with an ideological bent completely at odds with the mechanisms of rationalism. Accordingly, it fails at an elementary level to even criticize Pipes.
That the article is composed of wishful-thinking inanities suggests that the authors have not the remotest sense of self-awareness or irony when accusing Pipes of coming to unevidenced or foregone conclusions. Truly, there is a religious zeal here, not to demonstrate that Pipes is wrong about something (can't be too hard, can it?) but that he is a pariah.
All the inanities in the article are symptomatic, not of rationalism, but of the opposite - of group-think and partisan zealotry. It gives a very dismal impression.— Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! --Kungo GumiQui ça ? 07:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The apple that ended up fairly close to the tree...
Consider who dear daddy Pipes was:
Back in the day when evil conspiracies were run by Reds, rather than Muslims, Pipes Sr. was educated in Russian Studies. However, he then became the coldest of cold warrior conspiracy theorists. When heading the infamous Team B, Pipes declared himself not to know much about intelligence, but to be qualified because he was "a specialist in the Soviet mindset", suggesting some sort of telepathic ability. Team B went on to produce reports that will look awfully familiar to those who remember the so-called "intelligence" on Iraq in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion. Prefacing Rumsfeld's infamous "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", Team B, unable to find any evidence of the USSR having developed an advanced acoustic detection system to spot US submarines, concluded that this meant that the Soviets had developed a non-acoustic, non-detectable system. Yes, indeed, absence of evidence is evidence of invisible evidence... Similar claims abounded in Team B-cuckoo land, incl. the Reds having beam and anti-satellite weapons.
- ScepticWombat (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Subject is annoyed with article
 Worth a knowledgeable review - David Gerard (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)