Yes, McCarthy has so little experience writing about Muslims and Terrorism. Only the good folks at Al-Ahzar can competently criticize.

McCarthy's ENTIRE POINT is that Saudi Arabia understands the Koranic text better than non-Muslim westerners do, meaning that westerners should accept Saudi practices as accurately incorporating Koranic doctrine. McCarthy defers to the Saudi interpretation, then explains why (in his view) the Saudi interpretation is reasonable -- even though he doesn't like the results of that interpretation.

Maybe you disagree with McCarthy and the Saudis, and you have a superior interpretation of Islamic law to offer. If so, provide your reasons; you're entitled to an opinion as well. But mischaracterizing McCarthy, merely so that you can sneer at him, is singularly unhelpful for everyone.

“Let there be no compulsion in religion.' We should know it by heart at this point, so often does it roll off the tongues of Islamist charlatans and their Western echo chambers"

Yes, sir! Please feel free to aggressively counter the lies with the truth, Andrew. You are a warrior on the battlefield for truth where we cannot afford to relinquish any more ground.

Okay, here is my question. McCarthy has told use that we are only fighting Islamists. That the vast majority of muslims are a decent, hardworking, even patriotic (h/t to Dan Foster) sort who are not into that whole bombing, Allahu Akbar! thing.

Whatever you do, don't confuse the two or somebody might get their feelings hurt!

But now Mr. McCarthy tells us that the real problem is actually Sharia. That is what the Islamists want. Got it? Okay, but Sharia and Islam go hand in hand. I'm no Islamic scholar (check with Chris Christie or that Grover guy if you want the definitive answer) but I do believe you can't have Islam without Sharia. I really do. So it would follow that all the non-islamists Muslims want Sharia too. Ask them if you are not sure. In that case, and maybe I'm wrong, the whole "Islamist"/Muslim thing is a distinction without a difference. They all want the same bad thing. And with Sharia, I and other Dhimmi's-in-waiting aren't going to have a say in the matter, kind of the essence of coercion, correct? It's not like I can go to my local non-Islamist Muslim lawyer (great guy, BTW), for example, slip him a couple of $K and get a waiver. Nope, it doesn't work that way. So whether you let in to your country "Islamist" Muslims or the other kind, once their are enough of them, the end result is always the same. It's kind of like Affirmative Action: everybody has a say in it -- except the people who are negatively impacted.

If I'm wrong, tell me where my logic has failed.
And if I"m right, Andy has some explaining to do.

Your premise as I understand it is correct--without Sharia, there is no Islam. But your conclusions do not follow and, in fact, are almost unrelated to that premise. That is, your "logic" is in fact a non sequitur.

The actual error is the underlying unstated assumption that Sharia is uniformly construed and uniformly applied across Islam. That is the only way to erase the distinction between Islamist/non-Islamist Muslims. Islamic theology, like Christian and Jewish theology, is rich and diverse. It is anything but uniform. Even if it were uniformly construed, it is not uniformly applied.

We therefore have groups of Muslims that, for example, cut off peoples heads and blow up buildings as well as groups of Muslims who don't do anything like that.

I am not singling out Islam for this. Every religion of any sizable following exhibits both these characteristics. Not every adherent agrees on what the scripture says and not every adherent implements scripture the same way in their lives.

Surely, you don't deny that distinction.

The author misses a fundamental point in his eagerness to agree with radical clerics in Saudi Arabia.

All religious texts are fairly vague (including those of Islam), and religions (like Islam) are subject to varying interpretations. Most texts include contradictions. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for American Muslims, and indeed moderate Muslims to interpret their religion differently than radical clerics.

What's funny is that instead of supporting people who take a more moderate interpretation, the author is all too eager to shout them down. Instead, he lends his support to the radical clerics in Saudi Arabia. I know plenty of American Muslims who would disagree with the viewpoint of the Saudi clerics, but the author simply ignores their viewpoints in this debate.

By this author's logic, we should therefore automatically assume that the most conservative or fundamentalist interpretation of any religion is the correct one. But as the Westboro "Church" shows, this simply isn't the case.

This will probably not pass the censors who prefer more agreeable hymns for their choir, but I'll try again.
The unquestioning acceptance of McCarty's "Grand Jihad" as the infallible wisdom of an Islamic scholar is both laughable and pathetic. This man is no scholar. He is a bloodthirsty, warmonger and a simpleton! Like his historical and equally deranged namesake who found communists under every bed, for Andy there will always be Jihadists as well as communists there.
How could a such an apparently erudite man be so obstinately, willfully & callously ignorant of the human misery caused by America's meddlesome foreign adventures whether in Southeast Asia, the Middle East or where ever it leaves its bloody boot print ?
The answer: he is a mule-headed Reaganite.

For what it's worth, the passage in question as quoted and out of its context is capable of other constructions . For example, it could be an admonition or direction to those converting that conversion should be performed gladly and willingly rather than an injunction against coerced conversion.

But, really, I don't care what Islam says or doesn't say in theory or what anybody argues the Koran says.

What I care about is how the people who identify themselves as adherents to Islam conduct themselves. It doesn't help any of the rest of us if Islam's adherents act contrary to Koranic injunction. Anybody who denies the occurrence of coerced conversion or the persecution of other religions even to death (ask Egypt's Copts) by adherents of Islam is ignorant, deluded, or lying.