The Trump Administration Should Treat Islamists Like The Mafia

9541686914_d48e1acc23_o-1024x680The analogue is so close that, reading public statements from the early 1970s and replacing ‘Italian’ with ‘Muslim,’ you’d be hard-pressed to spot the incongruence.

The Federalist, by David Reaboi and Kyle Shideler, January 2, 2017:

Thousands attend their rallies, claiming widespread discrimination. They wrap themselves in displays of “interfaith” cooperation. National, state, and local officials pay them heed. Words that “offend” them are removed from movies, newscasts, and even official government reports. All the while, the men who lead this organization have appeared extensively on FBI wiretaps and are known to federal law enforcement to be involved in a national criminal conspiracy.

You could be forgiven for thinking this describes the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders—a group the FBI, federal prosecutors and a federal judge have all affirmed supported the designated terrorist group, Hamas.

But no. The year is 1971, and the pressure group is the Italian American Civil Rights League (IACRL). Its founder, Joe Colombo, is known to federal law enforcement as the head of New York’s Colombo crime family, one of the infamous “Five Families” of the Cosa Nostra. Its most high-profile spokesman is his son, Anthony, who, for more than 30 years would deny the Mafia existed and rail against dark government conspiracies targeting Italian-Americans.

You Fight Crime, You Fight Italians?

It may seem like a punch line now but, in the 1970s, the effort by gangsters to don the mantle of activists and wrap themselves the flag of “civil rights” was taken semi-seriously. Many prominent Italian-American elites (prominenti in Italian) endorsed the call, throwing their influence behind the grievance-mongering. As scholar Joseph Sciorra of the Italian American Review describes,

A blurring occurred in which the mobbed-up League was conflated in the popular imagination with civic-minded spokespeople, thus diminishing the latter’s seemingly altruistic efforts (Kenna 2007, 193). But as historian Philip V. Cannistraro notes, “the prominenti’s constant preoccupation with the Mafia issue” (2005, 83), dating to the early 1930s when newspaper owner Generoso Pope launched an anti-defamation campaign against cinematic depictions of mafiosi, has historically been a self-serving agenda. ‘The dual focus of prominentismo has always been to promote the separate, self-aggrandizing interest of their own particular elite rather than the community as a whole, and to stress what Italian Americans are not’ (Cannistraro 2005, 84). It is no surprise, then, as Fred Gardaphé observes, that ‘more unified acts by Italian Americans have been launched against fictional portrayal of the mafia than ever were mounted against real mafiosi in the United States’ (2015, 365).

The obvious parallel is to the tens of thousands of Muslim-Americans CAIR enlists to bolster crowds condemning “Islamophobia” and any discussion of Islamic terrorism, but offer at best anemic support for pro forma denunciations of terrorism. As The Federalist’s Sean Davis has noted, the analogue between the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Italian American Civil Rights League is so close that, reading the latter’s public statements from the early 1970s and replacing “Italian” with “Muslim,” you’d be hard-pressed to spot the incongruence.

The way Sciorra described “the mobbed-up League” and its efforts could be an apt descriptor for CAIR, a group founded and run by ex-Islamic Association for Palestine staffers that has had more than one of its employees convicted of terror-related criminal activity. As Sciorra explained, while the crowd at the league’s rallies wore pins discussing their Italian pride, the leadership had more strategic concerns. They focused on attacking federal law enforcement and purposefully conflating all investigation of Mafia criminal activities with discrimination against the large Italian-American community.

The only way to end this perceived “discrimination,” the league insisted, was for the government and media to change its ways; not only must it stop using the word “Mafia,” it must deny that any such criminal conspiracy existed. And they did. The Department of Justice adhered to federal regulations, which prohibited use of the word. “There is nothing to be gained by using these terms,” U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell wrote, “except to give gratuitous offense” to “many good Americans of Italian-American descent.” The New York State Police had a similar rule. The word “Mafia” was deleted from the script of “The Godfather” at the behest of Colombo’s league.

Once, the Media Reported These Connections

Not everyone fell for it, including among the Italian-American community. New York state Sen. John Marchi warned that Italian-Americans had “been had” by their endorsement of Colombo’s Italian American Civil Rights League, only to be denounced as a “self-loathing Italian.” One wonders if Marchi didn’t feel then much the way Zhudi Jasser of American Islamic Forum for Democracy must feel now as he warns the American people about the machinations of Islamist groups, only to be denounced as an “Islamophobe” by known terror conspirators.

In the early 1970s, the media was a lot more skeptical of these obvious propaganda efforts, as well. At the end of a syndicated 1971 article about the League’s alliance with the Jewish Defense League, the Jewish Telegraph Agency slips in the following inconvenient information for context, complete with parentheses:

(Joseph Colombo, president of the League, faces a Federal hearing on April 21st on charges of conducting a gambling business. He has also just been convicted in the Manhattan State Court on a perjury charge and was recently arrested for allegedly receiving stolen goods from a robbery of the Long Island Jewelry Exchange in Mineola.)

The JTA obviously thought it was important to describe for its readers the provenance of the league’s complaint, as well as its unsavory record. Of course, one would wait in vain today for a mainstream media outlet to describe CAIR’s troublesome history with the same forthrightness.

In fact, despite U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis ruling that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR [and other Islamist groups] with Hamas,” none of the nearly 700 articles the New York Times has run about the group has mentioned it. Even more egregiously, the Times covered CAIR’s 2007 efforts to break free of its designation as an unindicted coconspirator in the largest terror finance trial in American history, yet neglected to cover the 2009 rejection of the Islamist group’s appeal.

What It Takes to Fight International Leagues of Terror

The parallels between the League’s censorship efforts in the ‘70s and CAIR’s efforts today aren’t lost on Rudy Giuliani, and for good reason. In 1983, when he was U.S. attorney, Giuliani launched his successful prosecutions against the New York crime families. One of his first acts was to violate the prior decade’s DOJ regulations and say the forbidden word “Mafia.” In a piece for the Wall Street Journal last year, Giuliani made an apt comparison between the battle for accurate vocabulary in both the fight with the mob and with Islamic terrorists.

I had a different view of using the term Mafia. It reflected the truth. The Mafia existed, and denying what people oppressed by those criminals knew to be true only gave the Mafia more power. This hesitancy to identify the enemy accurately and honestly—“Mafia” was how members described themselves and kept its identity Italian or Italian-American—created the impression that the government was incapable of combating them because it was unable even to describe the enemy correctly.

As Giuliani argued, the similarities go beyond mere forbidden words and get at the heart of what it takes to prevail against both the Cosa Nostra and Islamic jihadists. In a recent piece for the Claremont Review of Books, we argued for a new law enforcement approach to dealing with Islamist movements, of which the Muslim Brotherhood is the most consequential, that draws explicitly on efforts to defeat the Mafia:

Instead of approaching Brotherhood members and organizations as respected community leaders for outreach purposes either at home or abroad, the primary goal should be to acquire the intelligence needed to disrupt terror finance or prevent indoctrination. If necessary, officials can use the possibility of prosecution under the Muslim Brotherhood designation to secure cooperation, which would be similar to the way informants are treated when approaching other conspirators, such as crime organizations.

Since Giuliani crippled the New York mob in the 1980s, Colombo’s League and its campaign to ban the word “Mafia” seems more like a quaint throwback to the 1970s than a threat to the integrity of organized crime investigations. Perhaps the Trump administration will be able to accomplish the same for groups like CAIR, when the inappropriate deference, and White House meetings, become a thing of the past.

Of course, some of the league’s bitter holdouts will always remain. Anthony Colombo continues to write on his mob boss father, insisting the FBI had him killed to halt his civic accomplishments. Even more colorfully, Father Louis Gigante—brother to famed Genovese Mafia Boss Vincent “the Chin” Gigante and a well-known Bronx community organizer—holds up mobsters as exemplars for civic minded Americans, in just the way Islamist groups sing the praises of convicted terror financiers.

For most Americans of all ethnic groups, though, government efforts to act against the Mafia are considered appropriate rather than discriminatory. No serious person insists that admitting Mafiosi were largely Italian-Americans is the same as saying all Italian-Americans are mobsters. The same can and must be done for Islamic terrorism.

David Reaboi is a national security consultant and a Claremont fellow. Kyle Shideler is director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy.

The preferred candidate of jihadists loses the US presidential election

obama-hillaryJihad Watch, by Christine Williams, November 9, 2018:

Prior to Election Day, imams were out telling Muslims to vote, even launching a special campaign:

October 7 is My Muslim Vote National Khutba Day a day meant to encourage American Muslims to get to the polls this November. During this week’s services, spiritual leaders will be ascending minbars, or pulpits, to preach a khutba, or sermon, that focuses on the importance of voting in this election.

The #MyMuslimVote campaign is led by the activist group MPower Change and the national Muslim Students Association.

A CAIR survey predicted that 75% of Muslims will vote for Clinton. It is well known that:

CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation.

The Muslim Students Association – a leader in the “MyMuslimVote” campaign — also has Muslim Brotherhood links.

Most telling about Hillary Clinton was that she “raked in” over $41,000 “from prominent Islamists” in donations, which included “$19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.”

An Aljazeera report stated that Muslims, “blacks, South Asians, Middle Easterners and converts…form a Democrat-leaning mass, according to CAIR’s survey.” That same report painted Trump as racist and Hillary as the preferred candidate, citing the CAIR survey. Meanwhile, Pakistani American Muslims were reportedly busy making a “final push” for Hillary Clinton:

The US Council of Muslim Organisations, an umbrella group of two dozen Muslim advocacy organisations announced this week that over one million American Muslims have registered to vote in the November 8 US elections.

Despite the old us-versus-them rhetoric of Islamic supremacists, CAIR, and the Left, who are all too eager to scream “Islamophobia” and claim that Trump is the preferred candidate of the whites-only club, a Fox News report pointed out a historic shift in party alignment:

First, for the first time since anyone can remember, Republicans have broken the communications monopoly Democrats have enjoyed among African-Americans.Trump is persistently reaching out to them; visiting their churches and neighborhoods, making a commitment to rebuild America’s cities, economy and jobs.

A report from last March, summing up the CAIR view of the election: “CAIR Super Tuesday Poll Shows Muslim Voters Support Hillary Clinton, Concerned About Islamophobia”,  CAIR, March 10, 2016:

Survey shows that more older Muslim voters back Clinton, while younger Muslims support Bernie Sanders

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/2/16) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today released the results of a six-state “Super Tuesday” poll of almost 2000 Muslim voters indicating that almost half of those voters (46 percent) support Hillary Clinton, followed by Bernie Sanders at 25 percent and 11 percent support for Donald Trump.

CAIR’s poll also showed that growing Islamophobia is the top issue for Muslim voters.

“American Muslim voters are worried about the unprecedented anti-Muslim rhetoric being used by presidential candidates and are going to the polls in increasing numbers at both the state and national levels to make their voices heard by the candidates,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

An exit poll of Muslim voters in Texas and Virginia indicated that Sanders narrowed Clinton’s lead in those states – 34 to 40 percent in Virginia and 29 to 37 percent in Texas.

In upcoming primary elections in California, Illinois, New York, and Florida Clinton’s lead over Sanders ranged from 22 percent (California) to 40 percent (New York).

The survey indicated that older Muslim voters – 65 percent of those 45 to 64 and 80 percent of those 65 and older – backed Clinton, while younger Muslim voters (18 to 24) supported Sanders (78 percent). In the 25 to 44 age group, support for Clinton and Sanders was more evenly distributed at 44 percent for Sanders and 56 percent for Clinton.

CAIR noted that Muslim support for Sanders may actually be higher because its poll surveyed more voters over the age of 45.

Nationwide, Islamophobia continued to rank as the most important issue of concern for all Muslim voters (24 percent), a partisan divide was evident with Muslim Democrats ranking Islamophobia highest (27 percent) and then the economy (19 percent), while Muslim Republicans ranked the economy (38 percent) highest followed by Islamophobia (14 percent).

Support for the Democratic and Republican Parties mostly remained constant from previous surveys with 67 percent of Muslim voters supporting the Democratic Party and 18 percent supporting the Republican Party. CAIR’s February 1 poll of Muslim voters showed 67 and 15 percent respectively voiced support for the Democratic and Republican Parties…….

Illinois Seeks Nation’s First Muslim Advisory Council

screen_shot_2016-07-12_at_4.30.19_pm

Truth Revolt, by Trey Sanchez, July 12, 2016:

Legislation currently pending in the state of Illinois would authorize a special Muslim-only advisory council if signed by Gov. Bruce Rauner.

It would be a permanent 21-member council made up of volunteer members appointed by the governor and House and Senate members to advise the governor and the General Assembly on issues that would impact Muslim-Americans and immigrants. Meetings would be held monthly with two public hearings each year. Members would serve two-year terms and are required to have expertise in business, law, or health care.

The timing of this legislation is a bit curious, as Bruce Cornibe notes at Counter Jihad:

At the end of an especially bloody month of Ramadan, which included the worst terror attack in America since 9/11, some politicians and lawmakers feel the solution is to give Muslim community more of a voice in government.

Not to mention the mixing of religion with official state business.

“This special status for a religious group is surprising in a country that bars an official state religion,” Cornibe states. “Why wouldn’t Illinois require a Christian council? Or how about a Jewish council?”

Cornibe notes that Muslims aren’t the biggest victims of discrimination, and in fact, FBI records show that nearly 60% of crimes against Jews are motivated by anti-Semitism. But that matters little to those screaming “Islamophobia.”

And it’s no surprise to know that those Muslim activists and organizations, like CAIR, who are supporting the bill have known associations with terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Just as CAIR and other Brotherhood-linked activist groups weaken the functioning of our government, so too would the Muslim-American Advisory Council in Illinois,” Cornibe writes. “There are no councils to represent the interests of other faiths in Illinois, and the likely leaders of this council are from the same band urging the Federal government towards censorship of criticism.”

Sharia Versus Freedom in America

constitution-vs-sharia-1By Andrew Bostom, July 5, 2016:

Yesterday July 4th, Independence Day, celebrated American liberty. Consistent with that spirit of hard won freedom, new polling data reveal non-Muslim Americans are increasingly cognizant of the threat Sharia, Islam’s totalitarian religio-political “law,” poses to their basic liberties, and overwhelmingly, they reject its encroachment in the US.

Opinion Savvy polled a random sample of 803 registered voters—98.2% non-Muslim, and 1.8% Muslim (with age, race, gender, political affiliation, and region propensity score-weighted to reduce biases)—June 19 to June 20, 2016, and asked, “Do you believe that the United States government should screen, or actively identify individuals entering the United States who support Sharia law?”  Seventy-one percent affirmed, “Yes, supporters of Sharia should be identified before they are admitted into the US.” As a follow-up, the group answering “yes,” was asked, “Once identified, do you believe that individuals who support the practice of Sharia law should be admitted into the United States?” Eighty percent responded,“No, supporters of Sharia should not be admitted into the US.”Moreover, the very next query, which addressed foreign visitors, elicited an even more emphatic demand for fidelity to bedrock first amendment US Constitutional principles. It asked: “Do you believe that the United States government should require all foreign individuals entering the United States to affirm that they will uphold the principles of the constitution, such as freedom of religion and speech, above all personal ideologies for the duration of their stay in the country?” Seventy-eight percent of the sample insisted, “Yes, visitors to the US should be required to agree to uphold the constitution, regardless of their personal ideology, as a condition of their visit.”

The unblinkered assessment of Sharia validates its broadly shared rejection by non-Muslim Americans, but also illustrates how countervailing increased US Muslim Sharia support represents a dangerous trend.

The Sharia, Islam’s canon law is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith,” or traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community, and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists. Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.,” within Western European Christendom, and it is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Liberty-crushing, and dehumanizing, Sharia sanctions: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

Compounding these fundamental freedom and dignity-abrogating iniquities, “matters of procedure” under Islamic law are antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law: “evidentiary proof,” is non-existentby Western legal standards, and the Sharia doctrine of siyasa(“government” or “administration”), grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, rendering permissible arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects. Clearly, Sharia “standards,” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to obtain “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

These profound threats to US constitutional liberties notwithstanding, polling data reveal an ominous—and growing—proportion of American Muslims wish to impose Sharia on America.

Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, polled 600 US Muslims of high socio-economic status. When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied “no,” while only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious, or any other dogma. Indeed, oblivious to US constitutional law, as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed “…that those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges,” while 38% did not, and 17% were “unsure”.  Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.” Three years later, in June of 2015, data from a survey of another 600 US Muslims conducted by the respected political pollster Kellyanne Conway revealed 51%, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharia.” (A “mere” 25% of those polled agreed that “violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad”)

 Why is Sharia supremacism—diametrically opposed to US Constitutional law—so alarmingly prevalent among US Muslims? The inescapable conclusion, validated in Senate Judiciary Committee testimony this week by Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney, is that mainstream institutional Islam within the US inculcates this liberty-crushing mentality. Haney’s presentation mentioned in passing the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, (AMJA). Well-accepted by the broader American Muslim community, the Islamic scholars affiliated with AMJA have attained influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. AMJA scholars train American imams, and issue online “fatwas”, Islamic Sharia rulings, to guide individual Muslims. Should the mainstream AMJA accomplish its unabashed goal of implementing Sharia in North America, the organization has already issued, for example, a ruling which sanctions the killing of non-Muslim “blasphemers.”

Donald Trump’s rational call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, especially from hotbeds of violent Sharia supremacism, must be viewed gimlet-eyed bearing in mind irrefragable data capturing US (here; here) andglobal Muslim attitudes, as well as the behavior of mainstream, institutional American Islam.

Forty years ago, Husayn al-Quwatli, director general of Dar al-Ifta, the center of spiritual authority for the Sunni community of Lebanon, and author of the treatise, “Islam, the State, and Secularism (1975)” candidly elucidated the Muslim Sharia supremacist mindset which perhaps best validates Trump’s moratorium, pending wrenching changes in such pervasive Muslim attitudes:

 The position of Islam is very clear on one point, namely that the true Muslim cannot take a disinterested position vis-à-vis the state. As a result, his position with regard to ruler and rule cannot be an indecisive one which is content with half solutions. Either the ruler is Muslim and the rule Islamic, then he will be content with the state and support it, or the ruler non-Muslim and the rule non-Islamic, then he rejects it, opposes it, and works to abolish it, gently or forcibly, openly or secretly.

US Residents Linked to Terrorism Increased 200% in 2015

anwar-al-awlaki-story-top (1)

What was that about not needing to monitor Muslim communities in the US?

Truth Revolt, by Tiffany Gabbay, March 29, 2016:

In the wake of terror attacks in Paris, San Bernardino and Brussels, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a new report that exposes the rise of terrorist activity among US-based Muslims.

ADL reports that in 2015, 80 US residents were inspired by ISIS and linked to terrorism themselves, marking a nearly 200 percent increase from 2014. PRNewswire reports:

“The tragic attacks in Brussels remind us of the need to continuously evaluate the threat posed by foreign terrorist organizations and the influence they have on communities around the world,” said Oren Segal, Director of ADL’s Center on Extremism. “While there are significant differences in the threats to the U.S. and Europe, this report identifies some meaningful similarities, which can help us understand the threats and develop solutions to counteract them.”

As in Europe, the vast majority of U.S. residents linked to terror plots and other activity motivated by Islamic extremist ideology in 2015 acted in support of ISIS. ISIS and other terrorist groups continue to take advantage of technology to mobilize followers, spread their messages and expand their influence worldwide. While in-person networks are stronger and more prevalent in Europe, and particularly in Belgium, than in the U.S., the internet and social media sites remain a pivotal element of the modern radicalization process worldwide.

The ADL report uncovered terror plots across 22 states, with the largest portion occurring in New York, Minnesota and California. The report found that these US resident-terrorists engaged in plotting attacks and furnishing material support for attacks. Key aspects of the report found that 20 of the terror-linked US residents converted to Islam and came from a diverse array of ethnic backgrounds:

“Understanding the backgrounds, demographics, and aspirations of U.S. residents engaged in activity motivated by Islamic extremist ideology can provide valuable insights into the trends and nature of terrorism we currently face and how we can best be equipped to combat it,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “As we saw the events tragically unfold in Brussels, ISIS terror has far reaching influence across the globe.  And the risk is not only from ISIS members themselves, but from those who might be radicalized by their hateful message.”

The way we can combat it is by abandoning our obsession with multiculturalism and political correctness. Crucial to that is purging the invented term “Islamophobia” from the popular lexicon. Further, our intelligence and law enforcement communities must not be impeded in their responsibility to monitor all mosques and Islamic centers for hate speech and questionable practices among congregates and faith leaders. Nor should they be barred from monitoring self-segregated communities that have refrained from assimilation or engaging in profiling whenever and wherever applicable.

Most important, we must exhibit strength — not capitulation — in our foreign and domestic policy concerning terrorism or the infiltration of any values anathema to our own. We must not turn on our allies. We must not tamp down any regime, however repugnant, that aids us in crushing Islamic extremism. The Islamic world bows only to the iron fist. Diplomacy works on those with whom there is leverage, not on those who aren’t even afraid of losing their own lives or the lives of their children.

***

The Threat Knowledge Group keeps a running tally of ISIS jihadists interdicted here in the United States. The current count is 98.

Also see:

Worrisome Number of American Muslims Polled Believe Sharia and Violence Are Acceptable

u1_muslim-image-intense-us-flag

Political Islam, Jul 8 2015, by Bill Warner:

We are constantly told that only a tiny minority of Muslims hold extremist views and that Muslims make wonderful citizens. But a recent survey refutes all of this optimistic propaganda.
The survey tell us that significant numbers of Muslims in America do not want to be ruled by our Constitution but want Sharia law. Nearly a third of the Muslims said that violence to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws are acceptable. Nearly 10% of American Muslims say that Islamic State is real Islam.
Why do we want to admit more Muslims who oppose our laws and customs? How can Muslims be true citizens of America?
Survey: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/