Also you can embrace pollitcal correctness and change the language just not to hurt the ones that are menacing you, as the EU is doing (again), from A Wastern Heart.
By the way, you can read this post from Elder of Ziyon, who qoutes IslamOnLine:
The meaning of Jihad in our present time particularly refers to striving to liberate Muslim lands from the grip of the disbelievers who usurped them and imposed on them their own laws in lieu of the Divine Law. Those disbelievers may be Jews, Christians or both or even pagans, who follow no particular religion at all. Disbelievers are all alike.
Capitalists, Communists, Westerners, Easterners, People of the Book and pagans are by no means different from one other. They should all be fiercely fought if they attempt to occupy any part of the Muslim land. This duty falls on those closest to the occupied land, who should be aided by those closest to them, who, in turn, ought to be aided by those closest to them, till it becomes incumbent on all Muslims to take part in Jihad.
There is a problem though: any part of the world where a Muslim sets foot becomes Dar-Al-Islam, so afterwards they can fight for it.
… jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.
The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.
Jihad consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam," he determined; presenting it as peaceful persuasion or self-defense "disregard[s] entirely the previous doctrine and historical tradition, as well as the texts of the Qur’an and the Sunna."11 In fact, someone has to be "imperfectly educated" to argue that jihad must be understood as struggle without arms. As Rudolph Peters wrote in his book on the doctrine of jihad, it is the idea of pacifist or defensive jihad that is new; Islamists (like bin Ladin) are much closer to classical doctrine.12 And that doctrine has enjoyed an obvious revival over the past twenty years.
And Robert Spencer:
"The meaning of the term ‘terror’ used by the media . . . is Jihad for the sake of Allah." Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir in Indonesia, Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza in England, Mullah Krekar in Norway, and other radical Muslims around the world have been unanimous in declaring that they are not indiscriminate purveyors of mayhem — terrorists — but mujahedin: jihad warriors. They have declared again and again that they are fighting to unify the Islamic people under a restored caliphate, and to establish the hegemony of Islamic law over the reunified umma, as well as over the non-Muslim world
The European Union, each day dhimmier and more blind and deaf to reality.
Powered by Qumana