Richard Wiig

I am surprised that nobody has sought out information on Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri. How do you know that no one has sought information on him? Are you a mindreader? Personally, I've known about the man for a couple of years now. He had a big hand in implementing blasphemy laws in Pakistan. As far as I'm concerned he's a mystic with blood on his hands.

Don't say it can't happen here (in the USA). It did happen here. Said as if it is news to you. It shouldn't be. Honours killings have been happening in the US for a considerable time before this one.

It might be more comprehensive, LM, but I don't see it standing up. The Sheiks summary of it, which I have read a fair time ago now, is full of ill-defined terms and ambiguities. If the summary isn't crystal clear, then how can the 600 pages be? Regardless of that, though, nothing he's said has swayed the Mujahideen so far as I have seen. If you go and check out what they think of his argument (that is, do your own research as Michael would urge you to do) you'll find that they have not been swayed, and that they actually consider him to be acting contrary to Islam. When Muhammad says one thing, and Qadri says another, which one should you believe?

I just read all the "highlights" in this post, and I find it truly bizarre. There's absolutely nothing in the highlights that has not been said a long time ago, by so many other anti-jihadists. The highlights here are nothing but reinforcements of what people who are well ahead of Glenn Beck have known talked about for years.

You'll be pleased to know that Robert Spencer has been briefing him on his Islam show.

Rubbish. Trying to claim that Objectivism is about submission isn't about correct identification, it's about mitigating what was said about Islam - things said that you don't even attempt to gain the proper context of. The little bigot bell goes off in your head and you're off, with the injustice of charging people as bigots when they are anything but.

The Muslims claim they submit to the will of Allah as revealed through the words of the Prophet Mohamed (pus and blisters upon him). Ba'al Chatzaf Yes, but surely you don't believe them.

Submission in Islam means surrender of the individual will to the will of Muhammad. Islam is a collectivist social system that sacrifices the individual to the Ummah. That they bicker and disagree to varying degrees as to what constitutes the will of Muhammad means sweet f.a. It's absolutely bizarre to see so-called Objectivists leaping to defend a collectivist system.

It's not a development. There's been plenty of fartwas against "terrorism" since 9/11 and this isn't Mr Qadris first fartwa. It does keep the naive happy though, I guess.

Submission.

One of the better things, Michael, has said. May I suggest the Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom, for a rundown on the history of Jihad in Islam - documented fact that Jihad, and Sharia, existed long before the Islamic collaboration with the Nazis, and that Shariah has been with Islam throughout - and his Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. Raymond Ibrahim's Al Qaeda Reader, so that you can read Al Qaeda in their own words, the words they put to non-muslims, and what they say behind non-muslims backs to Muslims themselves. I suggest you read Robert Spencer's books, and judge his ideas on their own merit, rather than on Michael's characterisation of him as a bigot. Check what he says against the actual Islamic sources that he references. Read the likes of Resa Aslan, Tarriq Ramadan, Karen Armstrong, and other's who are opponents of the "bigots", and judge on their argument, not on their charges of bigotry, or "over-simplification". Fact is fact, whether its a simple thing or a complex thing. Sharia is part of Islam, is not an over-simplification. It's a basic fact. Read Sayd Qutb, and Hasan Al Bana, and investigate the religious grounding of their movement. Check out all four mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and see what they actually have to say on Jihad and relations with non-muslims. Check it all out, and then come to conclusions based on the facts, rather than on some peoples constant charges of bigotry.

It's got nothing to do with flexibility, it's to do with inconsistency with the application of your principles, that is, if you go by principles of justice (objectivce principles of justice, that is). If you dont go by principles of justice, then I guess there's no inconsistency.

Well, you have evaded. That isn't a trolling comment, whatever trolling means, it's an observation of you. Another observation is that you are very selective in insults that you will or won't send to garbage. For instance, Bob gave his honest opinion of someone, and it gets dumped, because you didn't like it's insulting flavour. Scherk gives his honest opinion of someone, and it get's a free pass, because you approve of its insulting flavour. If anyone's an Aystollah around here, it would have to be you.

No ones simplified anything, Michael. You haven't been able to show that Sharia is separate from Islam, so now you're saying that Sharia is all things to all men. Whether it is or not doesn't matter. Whether there are lots of people who say it is nothing but a few innocuous rules or lots of people who say it includes the death penalty for apostates and gays, is irrelevant. Either way, it is part of Islam. You can't even face up to that simple little fact. Some objectivist you are.

Of course we'll let people judge, but your post seems like a bit of a cop out to me, Adam.

For example, when Mullah Mohammed Omar of the Taliban was confronted by Sunni scholars who said blowing up the Buddha statues was not part of sharia, he responded with "Sharia in Afghanistan is what I say it is." That doesn't mean much. It may simply be that he didn't have the words right there and then. The case for destroying the remnants of Jahilliya is well grounded in Islamic teachings, regardless of whether or not the sanction to do so is codified in Shariah. That isn't a case of "it's what I say it is". Regardless of that, though, Mullah Mohammed Omar is a product of Islamic theology, as are all those evil religious scum.

Richard: Is your Sharia the same as my Sharia?*** You asked, "Is sharia part and parcel of Islam or not?" Is Canon Law "part and parcel" of Catholicism, Eastern Catholic, Anglican Communion and Eastern and Oriental Churches? Muslim believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails. Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well." I dunno dude...so wadda ya tink? What I think is that you've just shown me that Shariah IS part and parcel of Islam. That there are various disagreements as to which parts of Shariah should be implemented and which shouldn't means little. The fact is, every mainstream school of Islamic jurisprudence agrees on the essentials of Shariah, and their differences are merely over minor matters. You haven't shown that Sharia is not part of Islam at all. It clearly is part of Islam.

Shariah is Allah's law. Halal and Haram, something that all muslims take seriously, is part of Shariah. Given that Shariah is the law of Allah, how exactly can you have Islam without Shariah? It's like saying that you can have Islam with Halal and Haram.

On what basis do you claim that Islamic law is not part of Islam?

He was interviewed in London by the Financial Times before his return. The interview is an eye-opener and should deeply distress Emir McWillam and the Grand Mufti Wiig. The only thing that distresses me is your naivety.

Nazism isn't a race, nor is Islam. It's not about Germans, or about Pakistanis. It's about ideology. Is sharia part and parcel of Islam or not?

What do you actually disagree with. That all muslims support Islam, or that Shariah - Islamic law - is part and parcel of Islam? Why is Halal meat so popular with muslims?

Adam, it can be likened this way. Not all nazis supported the rounding up of jews and sending them to the gas chambers. In fact, many would have been disgusted and sickened by them, hence the protective mechanism of evasion. Not all muslims support flying planes into buildings, or other equally heinous acts arising from their ideology, but you can bet that all muslims support Islam, and you can bet that many evade, just like the "good nazis".

Talk about evasion.

Very nicely put, Bob.