While I do have a lot of respect for Rodriguez' capabilites, he casually concludes that the Paulien, etal, interpretation is historicist without making the case.  It is my contention that Paulien, etal, are outside of historicism in this case and drawing on the other interpretive methodologies to come up with their alternative interpretation.  As Paulien is an apologist for many of the points you make in the article, it would seem that he needs an alternate interpretation so that he can believe that Islam is a good religion.

The abandonment of Uriah Smith's Ottoman Empire thesis has to do with Daniel 11.