Shifting the Tide

One of the weakest ways to argue a case is to shift your premises from time to time without recourse to a qualification. In his latest response Maajid just does that

He responds by saying this

"It seems that you cannot come to terms with the fact that the definitions are disputed. It is a fact. Please just accept it."

Did he even bother to read my article? Definitions are disputed no doubt but surely that is not what Maajid was implying . Here is the quote again

“The Party definition of the land being “governed by the laws of Islam” is an innovation”

I was refuting that premise and not the point that he was making. The case of misquotation still stands!

"However, I invite you to consider that the "appearance" of all of the Islamic rulings in society is not the same as their "implementation on state level as law"."

Maajid reads Arabic doesnt he ? Well then how does he account for this possible view?

ويراد بظهور أحكام الإسلام: كلّ حكم من أحكامه،

Has he even read the scholars that he quoted? Was it a cut and paste job? Do we have an "Alan Dershowitz" attitude that claims originality at the expense of shoddy work? (cf "The Case for Israel" and his terrible "borrowings" that were claimed to be original, a "new chapter" if you like lol!)