The Corner

Re: Jihad on Jihad

K-Lo, but why should that be?  According to the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the sundry other components of government that are having our agents endure sensitivity training from CAIR and its ilk, the “real” jihad  has nothing to do with violence.  The real jihad is the internal struggle to become a better person, right?  Regardless of what such minor authorities as Mohammed may have thought of it, and despite credible scholars who acknowledge that jihad was ordained as a forcible, military struggle to establish the supremacy of Islam, we very sophisticated, evolved geniuses now know that jihad is really something we should all look at as a very wholesome, positive obligation. Nothing to worry about.

Why on earth would anyone think calling someone a “jihadist” would resonate with radicals of all people?  Since jihad is wonderful and Islam is a religion of peace, what’s the problem?