‚ÄėA Word of Truth‚Äô About Linda
Linda Sarsour bores me. She is the radical flavor-of-the-month.
But she is a numbingly familiar type to longtime observers of sharia
supremacists in the West: the forked tongue, the flag-draped
anti-Americanism, the close partnership with the hard left, and so on.
Eight years ago, I wrote a book called The Grand Jihad about
this breed of Muslim Brotherhood-mold operative. Sarsour fits the
pathology to a tee ‚Ä¶ but once you‚Äôre on to them, these people are a
dime a dozen. Yawn.
She got my attention, though, with her call for ‚Äújihad‚ÄĚ in
executing the Islamist-Leftist ‚Äúresistance‚ÄĚ to Donald Trump.
Naturally, this has led to a brouhaha about whether she was really
calling for violence or using ‚Äújihad‚ÄĚ in the revisionist non-violent
sense of ‚Äúan internal struggle for personal betterment.‚ÄĚ
I have no doubt that Lee Smith (in Tablet) is correct:
Sarsour is a provocateur who was trying to call attention to herself
while laying the groundwork to play the victim when she was inevitably
criticized. What I have found amusing, however, are the two premises
urged by her apologists: (a) we should take the jihad revisionism
seriously; and (b) she must have meant ‚Äúnon-violent‚ÄĚ jihad because she
introduced the term by referring to a hadith in which Mohammed,
Islam‚Äôs prophet, explains that, rather than violence, ‚Äúthe best form
of jihad‚ÄĚ is to speak ‚Äúa word of truth‚ÄĚ before a tyrant.
On the first point, jihad is essentially a forcible struggle.
As Lee Smith points out, the evidence of sense should tell us all we
need to know about it: just look at what is happening ‚Äúon the killing
fields of the Middle East.‚ÄĚ Still, we do not need to make a deduction
because the meaning of the word is clear, and because non-violent
connotations of jihad are understood to be in support of the same
mission as forcible jihad: the implementation of sharia, Islam‚Äôs
societal framework and legal code.