THESE DAYS, MOST EVERYONE AGREES that Americans need to develop a better understanding of Islam. They disagree, though, on how this understanding should be built. I’ve had ample opportunity to consider this question after the publication of My Year Inside Radical Islam, a book that details my time working for the U.S. headquarters of the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Wahhabi charity that has been named a specially-designated global terrorist entity. I became persuaded by Al Haramain’s teachings while there, and adopted their views as my own. I decided to write this book because a large part of the global war on terror is ideological and I thought my narrative could help shed light on how people are drawn to extremist Islam. The book has generated discussion among both Muslims and non-Muslims, many of which have been productive. Nonetheless, some of conversations are instead indicative of how one shouldn’t talk about the subject. Most instructive is Holly Lebowitz Rossi’s recent review in Slate, which engages in virtually all of the silly argumentative techniques that stifle serious discussion.

ONE TECHNIQUE used by people to disqualify those they disagree with from discussing Islam is the ideological pigeonholing of their adversaries. Rossi attempts this by claiming that I have become a “hero” to conservative media figures such as Michelle Malkin, Jamie Glazov, G. Gordon Liddy, and Sean Hannity. I’m not sure what hero status entails, but I’ve certainly reached out to conservatives. However Rossi fails to mention is that I have also made numerous appearances on NPR affiliates and progressive talk radio.