Once upon a time I was a full-time employee of GOOD and occasional writer for the website, and I'm saddened to see a piece like this now passes muster for publishing.
I know that the job of Mr. Brooks is to provide commentary and argument on the prevailing events or subjects galvanizing the public conversation. I know that the commentary is expected to be well-researched and the argument cogent and cited with evidence. Instead Mr. Brooks provides five hundred words of unsupported and logically incoherent blogging that reads like a haughty mad lib of what's trending on twitter.
Boil off the fluff, and Mr. Brooks argues that Sam Harris and his followers cite ambiguous polls, use "random" Koran quotes, make inaccurate generalizations about all 1.6 billion Muslims, are largely disinterested in the experience of Muslims--with whom they've never interacted--and also racist. These allegations are supported by no citations, no quotes, and no evidence. Any college freshman who turned in writing like this would receive a failing grade.
Back up your arguments. Cite the ambiguous polls and provide evidence of Sam Harris' sole reliance upon them. Elucidate why the Koran quotes he uses are "random," and what is even meant by "random" (occurring in a non-coherent dispersal within the text?) Provide the nasty quotes and sweeping statements he made that inaccurately generalize all Muslims. Cite examples of his apparent disinterest in Muslims and of his racism, keeping in mind Islam is not a race. Then provide the data that compelled you to conclude that at the very least a majority of his followers do not care about Muslims, have never interacted with Muslims, and are also racist.
If the allegations you levy are true, we would be happy to learn of it. At the very least, your readers would appreciate a response.