Jihad advocate and rising Democratic star Linda Sarsour says her July 1 require jihad versus President Donald Trump is not a require violence.
Her self-defense in the Washington Post includes name-calling, diversions, and blaming others– plus weak claims that jihad does not mean violence, battling, and killing.
Her op-ed did not estimate her own speech or even mention orthodox bible declaring the presence of non-violent jihad, and she did not justify her enthusiastic endorsement of a and I plan to continue to press my country to respect the rights of all its citizens. I will not be silenced.Sarsour’s op-ed did not price quote from her July 1 speech to the nation’s most popular Islamic organization, the Islamic Society of The United States and Canada. Her words matter, because they show she was urging Muslims to jointly declare that opposition to Trump is a religious duty under Islam’s jihad teaching. Here is exactly what she said: There is a man who one asked our prophet … “Exactly what is the best for of jihad or battle?”And our cherished prophet Muhammed … stated to him”A word of truth in front of an autocrat, ruler or leader, that is the finest for of jihad,”and I hope that we, when we withstand those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts us from us that as a form of jihad, that we are resisting autocrats and
rulers, not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, however here, in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes ruling in the White House.Sarsour’s speech conflated elected President Donald Trump with high-handed leaders in Arab nations, such as Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whom Islamic groups are now trying to eliminate via a full-out tanks-and-artillery traditional war that has actually killed numerous thousands of people.Sarsour represented Trump as an “oppressor,”even though Islam’s holy book, the Koran, regularly discusses”oppressors,” and explicitly advises kill-or-be-killed war against” oppressors.
“For example, verse 2:193 in the Koran orders followers to “f ight them on up until there disappears tumult or oppression, and there dominate justice and faith in Allah; however if they stop, Let there be no hostility except tothose who practice injustice. “Sarsour’s” word of fact “expression looks like an appeal for Western-style appeal for dispute, however for Muslim activists,”fact” is only found in the Koran’s transcribed guidelines from Allah, including the Koran’s regular call for warfare. That’word of truth’expression also stimulates the dramatic courtroom defense method embraced by the “Blind Sheik “Omar Abdel Rahman, who was implicated by the Egyptian federal government of urging the murder of Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat in 1981. Quickly after Sadat was murdered, Rahman was implicated by the Egyptian federal government of urging the murder of
Sadat in prior religious tracts. Rahman pressured the Egyptian government and judges to declare him innocent by representing himself as merely a blameless messenger of the Koran’s denunciations versus oppressors. He then transferred to Sarsour’s hometown of Brooklyn here he continued to urge his followers to violence till he was imprisoned in 1995. In fact, several of his followers were condemned for the first battle attack on the Twin Towers in 1993. Andrew McCarthy, the United States prosecutor who won a guilty verdict against Rahman in 1995 for
plotting terrorist attacks in the United States, discussed the concealed hostility behind the” word of truth “phrase used by Rahman and other Islamic activists: When [Rahman] was finally brought to trial after almost three years in prison, the Blind Sheikh resolved to make this lesson the leitmotif of his defense before the courts of Egypt, a country which professes, above all else, to honor Islamic law. Betting that his incontestable mastery of that [Koranic text] would transform him from a weak detainee into an intimidating presence, Abdel Rahman delivered an unflinching tour de force … [Rahman] started a brazen defense of the [Sadat-killing] conspirators. It was as if he were a teacher objectifying a historical event remote from himself. If the killers had acted honorably, how
attempt the tribunal accuse them, much less condemn him? … Jihad is not merely a duty. It is, as Abdel Rahman ceaselessly counseled his disciples, “the peak of a complete [welcome] of Islam … [T] here is no work that equates to jihad.” Acts of jihad might not be condemned. Exactly what were condemnable were efforts by afraid clerics and corrupt rulers– using the status of their positions to distort jihad’s true significance– to divert Muslims from this sacred striving …
These commands held that society needs to be governed by sharia; if it is not, it ends up being the private responsibility of every Muslim to perform jihad against the program up until it is either toppled or imposes God’s law as God decreed it. This self-evident reality, Abdel Rahman rumbled, needed no scholar to interpret and
no fatwa to vindicate. Hence, Sadat’s slayers were performing a spiritual duty, and it was meaningless to quibble over whether it had been licensed by him or by any male; it was determined by the Qur ‘an, which Muslims can check out for themselves.It was a method as fantastic as it was frightening … And so he was acquitted.The proceedings burnished his legend. He was lionized not for being innocent however since he had staked his life on the unwavering conceit that God authorized his actions, and he had actually been delivered. He
had spoken a word of truth to the autocrat. Through all his sightlessness and all his imperfections, he had gazed his accusers down through the sheer force of his will. A couple of years later, he would compose a book based mostly on his browbeating of the court. He called it A Word of Truth. The phrase afterwards became his unbearable signature, right down to the last will and testament he released twenty years later from his American prison cell, urging fans: “Do not have my blood [be] in vain. Seek for me my vengeance, the most violent vengeance. And keep in mind a bro of yours
who stated a word of reality and was killed in the sake of God.” Sarsour’s invocation of
her home town extreme cleric’s catch-phrase is also significant since she began her ISNA jihad speech by describing herself as a trainee of another Brooklyn cleric, Siraj al-Wahhajj: My favorite person in this room, that’s shared, is Imam Siraj Wahhaj, who has been a mentor, and incentive and encourager of mine, someone who has actually taught me to speak fact to power and not fret about the consequences, somebody who has actually taught me we are on this earth to please Allah, and only Allah, that we are not here to please any guy or women on this Earth, so I’m grateful to you, Imam Siraj … I’m grateful to you Imam Siraj, God bless you and secure you for a long time due to the fact that we need you now more than ever.In 1995, Siraj Wahhaj worked as a courtroom character witness for Rahman, the Brooklyn-based Egyptian cleric who utilized a “word of truth “to validate the killing of Egypt’s president.”He is a widely known scholar, he is a highly regarded scholar
,”Wahhaj said about Rahman throughout the courtroom trial, continuing: You know, individuals in the neighborhood, they discuss widely known scholars and he is amongthe ones who is pointed out. He is called the hafiz of the Koran … He memorized the whole Koran, 114 chapters. That is why I respect him. He has remembered the numerous statements of Prophet Mohammed, peace and true blessings be upon him. And he is vibrant, as a strong preacher of Islam. He is appreciated that way.Sarsour safeguarded her use of “jihad “and the “word of fact “phrase in an appearance on a< a href="https://soundcloud.com/siriusxm-news-issues/linda-sarsour-responds-to" > radio show: The type of jihad that I discussed, which is
really clear in the video, was’a word of fact in front of an oppressive ruler.’Which is what I take part in every day. That is comparable to when we state ‘dissent is the highest kind of patriotism’in these United States … There is absolutely nothing to sort of back up the claim that someone like me would be even calling for something violent due to the fact that this simply not whoI
am and what I’ve been providing for the last 17 years in the United States.Sarsour’s understanding of Islam means she is mindful that other Muslims will hear her jihad speech as a coded call for violence, says Robert Spencer, a best-selling author of books about Islam. “When she says,’I hope that when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a type of jihad, ‘she may indicate a non-violent standing up [to protest], however she needs to understand that when other Muslims who know the genuine meaning of jihad in Islam hear that, they will hear it as a
call to violence,”Spencer < a href= "https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/07/10/yes-linda-sarsour-did-incite-violence-against-president-trump/" target ="_ blank" > composed. Sarsour has a long history of remarks about violence: