You can watch my discussion on Fox here.
Last weekend Women’s March organizer Linda Sarsour called for jihad at the ISNA conference. She claims “Islamaphobes,” a word invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to deflect legitimate questions instead of answering them, are distorting her meaning. Let’s bring real context.
The conference at which Sarsour spoke and called for jihad is put on by the Islamic Society of North America, established by the Muslim Brotherhood and is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case (a case against those providing material support to Hamas).
“ISNA was established by the Muslim Brotherhood to be a progression from the Muslim Students Association, the Brotherhood’s foundational building block in the West. In the Justice Department’s terrorism financing prosecution, the Holy Land Foundation case, ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator because the evidence demonstrated that it participated in the movement of funds to Hamas.” Shielder notes that the English translation of an old sharia manual, the Reliance of the Traveler, defines jihad as thus: It “relates this duality of jihad as a fundamentally military concept, in which forcible and non-forcible means are joined in the mission of implementing sharia:
Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is the spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”
The ISNA has endorsed this translation.
The same hadith that Sarsour cites as her defense is the exact same hadith the Blind Sheik cited as his trial as the justification for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
… the Blind Sheikh was presenting the hadith – quite accurately – as a justification of violent jihad, not a divergent interpretation of jihad.
Siraj Wahhaj, the imam whom Sarsour calls mentor and praised in her INSA speech, testified in defense of the Blind Sheik and his explanation of jihad.
With such associations and in such context, how are we to conclude that she shares any different meaning?
Does the Women’s March endorse jihad? Why will they not address this very serious issue?