tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post7574024369992482843..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: The Jihadist in Your PortfolioGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-64547673099043932982007-10-24T09:12:00.000-06:002007-10-24T09:12:00.000-06:00No apology necessary. In fact, your comment was fa...No apology necessary. In fact, your comment was fascinating and topical. <BR/><BR/>I have learned many valuable things from comments like yours and I want you to feel free to "go off", as you put it, like that any time.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-57214529837866489122007-10-24T08:09:00.000-06:002007-10-24T08:09:00.000-06:00A great book that's related to this topic was Camb...A great book that's related to this topic was Cambridge University Press' "Alms For Jihad," by J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins. Unfortunately, the book is almost impossible to get since Cambridge acquiesced to the saudi businessman, Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, and pulled the book without protest after allegations of libel.<BR/><BR/>Nevermind that they authors had supporting evidence for their claims: the British court system is structured in a way as to be weighted in favor of the person making the libel allegation, and not the defendant. In fact, if the book was published in the U.S, Mahfouz would have found himself with egg on his face indeed, since any suit would have needed a lot more evidence to come to a decision. If it had been brought up in the U.S, the case would have likely gone to court, and a pre-trial discovery would have been necessary. This would have exposed all of Mahfouz's financial activities, and proved whether the authors were lying or not. I guess that's why the suit wasn't brought against the authors (who are American), but against Cambridge University press, subject to the aforementioned ineffectual British courts.<BR/><BR/>We could have had a definitive answer to whether or not Mahfouz was involved with radical islamic organizations, and, if the information was false, he may very well have won any suit brought against the American authors of the book - but that would have required that the evidence be in his favor.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sorry for cluttering up your comments, there. Thought of "Alms for Jihad" and off I went.BlackmarketPieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13848974923031379441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-40028112496669661752007-10-23T21:47:00.000-06:002007-10-23T21:47:00.000-06:00Thanks for bringing that up, and for reminding me ...Thanks for bringing that up, and for reminding me of what I can look forward to (i.e., the <A HREF="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-fall/morality-of-moneylending.asp" REL="nofollow">Brook article</A>) either the next time I <A HREF="http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2007/06/quick-roundup-209.html#quo" REL="nofollow">fire up the grill</A> or when I take off for Thanksgiving. I just got my Fall issue in the mail a week or so ago!Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-72795842818286360842007-10-23T21:23:00.000-06:002007-10-23T21:23:00.000-06:00Pragmatically avoiding anti-interest religious law...Pragmatically avoiding anti-interest religious laws is not confined to Islam. From reading Yaron Brook's latest essay on the history of money-lending (in the latest Objective Standard) I learned that the same thing went on for centuries in Christian Europe. In fact usury laws are based on the same anti-money, anti-interest principles. Even today there are credit lenders who work out all kinds of elaborate loan packages to avoid today's usury laws. <BR/><BR/>My point is not to minimize the point Glick is making. She's 100% right. But hostility to money is endemic to religion as evidenced by Christianity's past. I'm led to the conclusion that if the secular, Hellenized veneer were striped from today's Christianity, it would be just as bad as Islam.<BR/><BR/>John KimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com