However, there were a few specific points raised by commentators to his site that I wanted to respond to. So I have decided to post them here rather than ramble in his comments section. I also address the purpose of my original post.
One commentator (I believe it is one of the co-authors of GNXP) writes that
"Islam needs to be neutered in the same way Christianity has been neutered[...]"
This is indeed one of the main talking points today; the "need" for a "neutering", or "debunking", or "refuting", of that edifice known as "Islam", in much the same way that "Christianity" has been disabled. The Muslim must see the worthlessness of his religion, just as the Christian has (apparently) realised the folly of his! Accepting this would, of course, mean accepting the idea that Christianity has been castrated from the conscience of Western man. From where I sit, though, Christianity still seems the heartbeat of the US social fabric. Not many European politicians, if any, could get away with constant references to 'faith'. Even a supposed liberal like Kerry has no hesitation in mentioning his faith. Blair, unlike Bush and Kerry, keeps his religious beliefs private. The latter's 'Good and Evil' quasi-theological rhetoric is more reminiscint of religious politics in the ME, than a secular politician. And if we consider Christianity outside of Europe and North America, then there we would need to consider the resurgence of Christianity across Africa (over here, in the UK, we have African missionaries spreading the Gospel: an interesting reversal of history!), the Far East, as well as South America (see the excellent J. Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World). In any case, let us consider what this apparent "neutering" of Christianity requires us to assume.
First of all, it should be pointed out that Kant, the man who destroyed all the classical arguments for God, was a pious Christian. Indeed, a great many "scientists" (natural philosophers) and philosophers in Western Europe were Christians of one form or another. Secularism, liberalism, atheism, etc. are the outcome of discussions between Christian peoples, by and large. Other peoples, however, including the Muslim, encoutered these 'Good Things in History' under the boot and at the end of the gun. This leads us onto the next point.
If Islam (Muslims) needs to go down the 'Same Historical Path' as Christianity (European Christians) then we must consider what this means carefully. This is because Nazism and Communism, the eugenics programs of the early 20th-century, Social Darwinism and other scientific-racist attempts to control and transform society, imperialism and colonialsm, as well the plundering of a New World, plus the near extermination of the New World peoples, are all something which a part of European history, which includes its intellectual traditions. To what extent can they be divorced from the rise of Christian Europe and its European peoples (the US, Canada and Australia share in Europe's legacy to a certain degree regardless of modern politics)? For if a genealogy is produced of Western thought and practices, I'm certain some connection will be made between, say, the Englightenment and Nazism or Communism. If people are seriously advocating that 'Muslims Must Follow the Path of Christians' then these other 'Not So Good Things in History' cannot be brushed under the carpet, and their place must be considered.
Further, it needs to be pointed out whether a "neutering" of "Islam" is possible or not. This not to say that "Islam" is immune from criticism. Far from it. The point again ties in with the above paragraph. What is it that allows us to assume that 'history' is moving in a certain 'direction'? I am not advocating that history is 'One Damn Thing after Another'. Yet teleological assumptions in certain forms of Western historiography do not allow people to see beyond their own time and space. Why must a "neutering" of "Islam" produce Western liberalism? Am I being told that liberalism is so all-encompassing that there is no escape from it? Unless direct intervention from a diety is being claimed, this would suggest that liberalism is in fact the opposite of what it claims: it is very intrusive, intensely ideological and is willing to stifle all alternative view points, all most at any cost; even at the expense of its own, much cherished, principles. Interestingly, people now demand that the "supremacy" of "Western civilisation" (which is being equated here with the liberal-secular axis) must be underlined. I have no immediate problems with this, as I have made clear (France and Turkey can ban headscarves because of their belief in secularism). But this would suggest that greater coercion and manipulation is required in order to create adherents to this ideology.
Razib writes in one of his footnotes:
"Imagine that the 1 out of 4 who wear head scarfs starts to call the 3 out of 4 who don't sluts, and begins to spread rumors about their sluttiness..."
This is precisely the argument I have made above. An unwarranted assumption from the "liberal" on behalf of the head-scarf wearing Muslim woman: she must want to call the scarf-less female a "slut" . And, for some unknown reason, the scarf-less woman must be viewed as an extremely "bad" Muslim (or a "slut"). Therefore, the latter is coerced into wearing a headscarf, because for some untold reason she has no voice of her own! Little scope for what both might want, think, reason or conclude. This is not much different from how a religious "fundamentalist" might think or act and is actually quite derogatory.
I would say that in this case it is the "liberal" who denies the Muslim woman agency. Her 'rights' to speak for herself seem to be ignored by the male `ulema, Western or Muslim. In these sorts of discussions she is often treated no better than the slave, the propertyless, the child or the indeed the female of classical philosophy; a voiceless thing to be debated over, classified, discussed, dissected, and analysed, but never asked herself of her own opinion or allowed the time and space to create her own ideas or to participate in the debate. Indeed, she is often no better than the Untermenschen.
"Islam" (as a practice) will be "neutered" if Muslim peoples find they can live without "it" . What exactly the "it" is in the words of the commentator is not clear. If "it" refers to "laws" and "rules", then these fall into abeyance when societies find they can do without them. How many laws against various sexual acts still exist on the books in the US? How many are enforced? Blasphemy laws still exist in the United Kingdom, the home of the Life of Brian. The connection between Law and Ideology should not be ignored: just as law in Western nations has everything to do with freedom, democracy, human rights and other 'Nice Words', and nothing to do with power and control by the state, ever increasing regulation and regimentation of our everyday lives, neutralising subversion, and cocercion of the 'lesser' nations, than law in Islamic nations has nothing to do with these 'Nice Words' and everything to do with being "God's Law". Beyond this practical concern, I cannot see anything else which 'must to be neutered'; unless the commentator wishes to exterminate "religion" altogether from the human conscience, which is a secular delusion that has long been refuted.
 The "religious" counter-argument would be that a Muslim woman, especially one who was so concerned with the headscarf (because, apparently, the headscarf is a sign of a "pious" Muslim female), would have realised that gossip and backbiting, as well as slander, are viewed as sinful in Islamic formulations of religious ethics.
 Obviously, as a Muslim I believe al-Islam is impervious to human activity, in as much as it is makes truth-claims for man beyond this world.