Image 01 Image 03

Linda Sarsour declares legal Jihad on people who “defame my character”

Linda Sarsour declares legal Jihad on people who “defame my character”

“I am taking names of media outlets and prominent individuals” and they “will pay for this with their pockets. Big time.”

Linda Sarsour is a controversial public figure, to put it mildly.

We have covered her here, including:

  • her embrace (both verbally, politically, and physically — see Featured Image) of convicted terrorist murderer and immigration fraudster Rasmea Odeh;
  • her organizing of the Women’s March movement;
  • her tweet saying that Female Genital Mutilation victim Ayaan Hirsi Ali should have her vagina taken away;
  • her “little lie” at an appearance regarding the tweet, in which she implied the Hirsi Ali tweet may never have happened, which included a racially-based attack on the white student asking the question;
  • her involvement with the anti-Israel movement, where she has appeared with Keith Ellison;
  • her fiery speech at an event organized by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam;
  • her tweet that the “definition of courage” is a very young Palestinian child throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers;
  • her public fight with Courtney Love, who called Sarsour a “Fraud”, “Vile disgrace to women and all mankind”;
  • and her demand that Zionist women (who constitute the overwhelming majority of Jewish women) not be permitted in the feminist movement.

Sarsour was all over the news recently when she called for “Jihad” against Trump. Many people construed that as some form of call to religious war or violence — something understandable given the common current usage of the term by Islamic terrorists and extremists.

Sarsour took offense to that accusation in an Op-Ed in the Washington Post, Islamophobes are attacking me because I’m their worst nightmare:

… Most disturbing about this recent defamation campaign is how it is focused on demonizing the legitimate yet widely misunderstood Islamic term I used, “jihad,” which to majority of Muslims and according to religious scholars means “struggle” or “to strive for.” This term has been hijacked by Muslim extremists and right-wing extremists alike, leaving ordinary Muslims to defend our faith and in some cases silenced. It sets a dangerous precedent when people of faith are policed and when practicing their religion peacefully comes with consequences…..”

Many people who are far more familiar with Islam than I am disagree with Sarsour on the meaning of the term “Jihad.” But that’s an argument for others to have.

Using Sarsour’s definition of Jihad, Sarsour has declared legal Jihad on her critics, threatening to hold them monetarily accountable.

The spark for this legal Jihad threat appears to have been an article in The Algemeiner, Colorado Jewish Cemetery Promised $100,000 by BDS Activist Linda Sarsour in March 2017 Says Money Still Hasn’t Arrived:

A Jewish cemetery in Colorado that has fallen into severe disrepair has yet to receive a check for some $100,000 from a group associated with Palestinian-American BDS activist Linda Sarsour, despite being promised the money several months ago, The Algemeiner learned on Tuesday.

Neal Price of the Golden Hill Cemetery in Lakewood, CO said he had left three unreturned voicemails for Tarek El-Messidi, the founder of non-profit Islamic education organization Celebrate Mercy, who led the high-profile effort by the Muslim community in February and March to raise money for vandalized Jewish cemeteries in the US. El-Messidi’s partner in the effort was Sarsour.

The Algemeiner then goes into details of the cemetery’s frustration trying to obtain the funds. What’s interesting is what The Algemeiner article does not say — it doesn’t accuse Sarsour of stealing the money, keeping it in her bank account, or doing anything else. The Algemeiner added this update regarding Sarsour’s response:

UPDATE: In a response she issued following the publication of this story, Sarsour told The Algemeiner that El-Messidi was “awaiting a proposal from the cemetery for potential costs so they can be allocated. This proposal/estimates have not been delivered to Tarek and Celebrate Mercy, who too have to maintain the intention and integrity of the donations received. We promised people they would all go to helping Jewish cemeteries and that’s where they will all go.”

On Facebook, however, Sarsour threatened legal action in a post that seemed disconnected from the actual Algemeiner article content:

I have the unfortunate receipts of what it costs to be a target of the right wing, alt-right, right wing zionists. This has caused my family great emotional stress & trauma. It’s not free to keep my family safe. I just want people to know I am taking names of media outlets and prominent individuals who have used the last few months to defame my character. I may be quiet but they will pay with their pockets.

Today’s most recent outrageousness is questioning my integrity around the campaign to raise money for Jewish cemeteries. Algemeiner a right wing Zionist media outlet regurgitated a story that I already had responded to a few weeks ago. You can call me what you want BUT DO NOT EVER QUESTION my integrity.

We set out to raise $20K and raised over $100K thanks to generosity of so many people. We ensured that the St. Louis Cemetery (the original focus) received the funds they needed, and we found others who also had incidents of vandalism, etc. The money is being administered by CelebrateMercy, NOT me. There still is money left over and Tarek El-Messidi found a cemetery in Colorado that has been in shambles for years being cared for by a legally blind man. Tarek went and visited them (you can read more in this article) and said that once they had a plan to take on this huge project Tarek would be ready with the funds.

I am exhausted. I am tired of the lies, lies, and more lies. It’s too much and it reignites the most vitriolic human beings on this earth. I am not safe and someone will pay for this with their pockets. Big time.

Sarsour also took to Twitter with a series of tweets along the same lines:

Sarsour has many powerful friends, including the ACLU which issued a statement supporting her:

There also is a huge pool of sympathetic leftists “journalists” ready to come to her aid.

But she’ll need more than the help of the ACLU and friendly leftist journalists to win a defamation suit. If it’s ever brought.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


OK, honey.

Put me on your list. I’ll see you in court.

    puhiawa in reply to Ragspierre. | July 12, 2017 at 9:34 pm

    She would be dealing with more lawyers from this blog alone than she or CAIR (unindicted co-conspirator Democrats) could ever imagine.

    redc1c4 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 13, 2017 at 10:28 am

    think of how much fun discovery would be, were she stupid enough to actually file…

    then, after you make her turn over all the dirt, dismiss the case on an anti-SLAPP motion.

    “Thanks for playing and we have some lovely parting gifts for you back stage…”

Where’s my “INFIDEL” cap? I’m sure I left it around here so– … ah, THERE it is. 🙂


(A) “I am taking names of media outlets and prominent individuals who have used the last few months to defame my character.”

Linda, they’re not defaming your character. They’re describing it.

(B) “You can call me what you want BUT DO NOT EVER QUESTION my integrity.”

That’s exactly what we’re going to do to any Muslim practitioner of the Islamic tactic of Taqiya. We’ve become wise to Muslims’ trickery.

(C) “This has caused my family great emotional stress & trauma. It’s not free to keep my family safe.”

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Stated otherwise, “Tight Sneakers, honey.”

    Milhouse in reply to fscarn. | July 13, 2017 at 5:08 am

    Linda, they’re not defaming your character. They’re describing it.

    The truth can be — and often is — defamatory. That’s why the torts of libel and slander have two elements: the plaintiff must establish that the statement complained of was both (1) false and (2) defamatory. (In the USA in the case of public figures there’s a third element, “malice”, which doesn’t mean what it sounds like.)

      4th armored div in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2017 at 10:04 am

      Malice is a perfect description of this anti Semite and anti Freedom loving Americans.

      Lock her up and then kick her out of this Republic.

      I-Slam is NOT a religion – it is a Bedouin Thieves Credo –
      Taqiya being its’ prime way to fool and attack.

      “I am against my brother, my brother and I are against my cousin, my cousin and I are against the stranger” .

        Milhouse in reply to 4th armored div. | July 13, 2017 at 5:03 pm

        Can’t kick her out; she’s a citizen. And can’t lock her up until she’s caught committing a crime.

        Oh, and Islam is absolutely a religion, and the framers of the 1st amendment specifically had it in mind. Their view of religion include “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination”.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2017 at 7:34 pm

      Milhouse, I am not disputing anything you are saying r.e. defamation. But Sarsour is a Sharia supremacist, and according to Sharia the truth is no defense.

      Take Salman Rushdie, who received a death fatwa for writing The Satanic Verses. Where did Rushdie learn of this? From the early Islamic sources. There is no dispute; there are over three dozen early Islamic sources that mention the Satanic verses. The story goes that Muhammad longed for a verse or verses that would persuade his fellow Quraysh tribesman to become his followers. I’m not going to quote verbatim but finally he got what he wanted in Surah 53, ayat 19 and 20 in which he praised his fellow tribesmen’s beloved goddesses Al-lat, al-Uzzah, and Manat as the “high flying cranes” whose “intercession is to be desired.” These are usually described as the pagan moon god Allah’s daughters but the distinct possibility exists that Al-lat was Allah’s wife (Al-lat is the female form of Allah). The idea was, of course, that these stork-like birds flew so high that if you prayed to them they could deliver your message to Allah.

      According the Islamic histories (when I qualify the word history by putting the word Islamic in front of it, that is a huge indicator that we are not talking about actual history but they believe it when it’s convenient) Muhammad soon replaced the Satanic verses with a longer passage 19-30 ridiculing belief in the three goddesses. And you can still find other traces in the Quran that reflect the historical narrative such as Surah 22: 52:

      “And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.”

      As an aside, if you’re familiar with Mosaic law this marks Muhammad as a false prophet. In the book of Deuteronomy in what for us Christians is Chapter 18 verse 20 a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods or prophesies something that doesn’t come from God is a false prophet and must be stoned to death. So the Quran is correct; Muhammad is indeed predicted in the Torah and the Gospel (I’ll spare you the references) but not as a true prophet but a false one.

      But more to the point, under Sharia the truth is no defense against a charge of defamation, libel, etc. Defamation or whatever else you would like to call it includes revealing an embarrassing truth about a Muslim or Islam in general that the Muslim or the Ummah does not want known. So despite the fact that Rushdie learned about the Satanic verses from Islamic sources in his native Iran he embarrassed Muhammad and Islam before the world and therefore the Mullahs sentenced him to death.

      This is where Sarsour is coming from. I’m sure she knows about the legal principles you’ve cited. She just doesn’t care because Sharia, Allah’s law, is superior to any man-made law. And as I said earlier Sarsour is a Sharia supremacist.

      I know you’re going to say it doesn’t matter considering she is an American citizen living under our legal system. But look at the reaction from the left when Trump rightfully praised the superiority of Western Civilization. If she were to judge shop she could find a “culturally sensitive” judge who would accept her arguments. Others, such as wife beaters, have done so. At least at the lower court level in places like New Jersey.

      But no worries. If we’re going to do things according to Sharia, let’s go all the way. Per Sharia Sarsour’s testimony is worth half of my testimony. So I win.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 14, 2017 at 12:39 am

        Arminius, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. fscarn wrote “Linda, they’re not defaming your character. They’re describing it.” I pointed out that these are not exclusive. It is possible to accurately describe someone’s character and defame it, if the truth about this person is defamatory.

        That is why our legal system, which protects true speech, requires that a libel suit prove that a statement is both defamatory and false. If only false statements could be defamatory this would be redundant.

        And if she sues anyone she will have to do so under our system, and as a public figure she’ll also have to prove the third element of malice. I can’t see her succeeding with any judge.

        BTW Rushdie is native to India, not Iran.

        Also, the “satanic verses” story is certainly disputed; the chain of transmission is weak, and most Moslems reject it. Of course that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, and it also doesn’t mean Rushdie shouldn’t have written about it. (BTW I wonder how many of his critics bothered reading the book first; it’s wide open to the interpretation that the whole thing is the deranged hallucination of a lunatic strapped to a bed in an asylum, so why should anyone feel insulted?)_

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 14, 2017 at 8:51 am

          My point is Sarsour and her ilk know our laws, but have nothing but contempt for them. Because we are too misindoctrinated to be able to defend our own principles. Which is not an accident.

          And her ilk includes far too many leftist judges.


Thieving sharia loving 7th century savage. Go back to the desert.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | July 12, 2017 at 9:38 pm

Why she want all those microwaveable Hot Pockets?

Will she take ham ones?

“You can call me what you want BUT DO NOT EVER QUESTION my integrity.”

I would NEVER question her integrity.

Since I know she has none.

She will provide entertainment for months to come! Mock her without mercy.

It sounds like events are progressing satisfactorily.

And the ACLU has weighed in.

Good. That clarifies things.

Here are the Islamophobes Top 10, with quotes of their understanding of the meaning of Islamic Jihad,

Spoiler Alert: they’re all highly-placed Muslims describing the meaning of jihad, with #1 being Big Mo himself.

    Anonamom in reply to pfg. | July 13, 2017 at 9:00 am

    That’s priceless. Thanks for the share.

    4th armored div in reply to pfg. | July 13, 2017 at 10:16 am

    give the Fakistinian (Egyptians) another state –
    see how well they have done in Gaza.

    Arminius in reply to pfg. | July 14, 2017 at 12:25 am

    You forgot the original Islamophobe. Allah. Since he was the theoretical origin of Surah 9.

    Do you want to go through the comedy material or should I?

The free ride is over for her where she uses Islam and victmhood to shield her eevery offensive move. Has anyone notice the only people who speak for Islam are in a hijab? Seriously, how is it even possible this isn’t by design.

    randian in reply to Conan. | July 13, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Isn’t by design? I disagree, it’s entirely by design. It’s propaganda designed to normalize hijab. That’s why we’re seeing things like the current cover of a woman’s magazine whose name I forget showing a “model” in hijab.

bring the bacon, lettuce & tomato sandwich for the sh*t show she’ll try to put on as a horrid “victim” of the intolerant ppl of the cross…

I think the lady doth protest too much.

This is America, where everyday people are free to judge others by the content of their character. And after they judge it, they are also free to state their conclusions, correct or not. So put me on the list, too, for I have weighed your character, and found it wanting.

An otherwise incompetent sociopath who is desperate for attention, and will do anything to get it.

And that’s just hillary clinton. Then there’s this lunatic.

Apparently, she never heard the term “Streisand effect”.

Amazing: When this ass yells “jihad!”, she sounds EXACTLY like a donkey braying:

As ‘jihad’ goes, she is the serena williams of men’s tennis.

Lawfare calculated to suppress discussion and criticism of Islam is just Jihad by other means.

Defame her character? Can one break a broken window?

You’re getting so predictable, lady…

If she can call for a jihad, can we call for a crusade?

So, it was really all about the money. What a surprise…not.

She’s got children? I read her Wikipedia page, where it says she was placed in an arranged marriage at 17 and had three children by her mid-twenties. It says nothing about a husband currently. Does she know, if she’s divorced, that the Islamic law she promotes will permit her ex-husband to take the children from her once they’re over the age of seven, and to place her daughters, if there are daughters, in arranged marriages beginning at the age of nine (if American law doesn’t catch on).

Jihad has always meant armed struggle to establish the supremacy of Islam. The internal struggle meaning she says she meant is a more modern adaptation of the word. The original meaning is so overwhelmingly the accurate one that if she doesn’t want to be misinterpreted she should take care to say “non-violent jihad” every time she uses the word. She didn’t, and her Islamic listeners knew what she meant.

    Milhouse in reply to tarheelkate. | July 13, 2017 at 5:15 pm

    The internal struggle meaning she says she meant is a more modern adaptation of the word.

    Not true. Jihad has always meant both violent and non-violent struggle with others, as well as internal struggle, which is a third meaning. Mohammed himself said war is the lesser jihad, and the struggle with temptation and one’s own base nature is the greater jihad.

    On the surface her claim to have meant the non-violent kind of jihad is plausible. But it’s belied by the specific words she used, and her specific background.

    The phrase “a word of truth to a tyrant” sounds like what she said it meant — waging jihad by peacefully resisting an oppressive government. In someone else’s mouth it might well have meant just that. But her origin in the Moslem Brotherhood gives it a different and very sinister meaning: it is precisely the phrase that Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman used in his famous defense at his trial for inciting Anwar Sadat’s murder, and later as the title of his book. In her specific corner of Islam the most effective “word to a tyrant” is a bullet.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 14, 2017 at 10:01 am

      Jihad means struggle, yes, but so much more. Much like the German word Kampf. It derives from the word “mujahada” which means war to establish religion.

      I don’t know about you, Milhouse, but as for me I resent being lied to and won’t be taken for a fool. Islam is a sinister force.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 14, 2017 at 10:30 am

        Arminius, how is “Kampf” different from “struggle”, or “war”? You cannot deny that “jihad” has always included both violent and non-violent struggle with unbelievers, and more inportantly the internal war within a person’s own heart. This is not some recent exercise in apologetics; Mohammed himself called this “the greater jihad”. So when someone — especially a woman — refers to jihad it is entirely plausible, even likely, that they mean one of these two non-violent forms. In Sarsour’s case the giveaway that she doesn’t mean it this way is “a word of truth”. It’s a dog-whistle, to borrow a term from the left; to normal people it implies non-violent resistance, speaking truth to power, while to her fellow Moslem Brotherhood adherents it means assassination.

Once you are in an online fight with Courtney Love all credibility is lost. Maybe you could box Tanya Harding next.

buckeyeminuteman | July 13, 2017 at 1:08 pm

Muslims like her literally are my “worst nightmare” and she is acknowledging that and proudly parading that phrase around. I guess that means I really am an Islamaphobe.

lawfare…these POS we allowing our country are not here to assimilate…….they are here to dominate

Almost as absurd, reprehensible & disgusting as a politician claiming Islam is a religion of peace (as many low-life sellouts have) is a Muslimah claiming to be a feminists. In the latter case it’s also hilarious.

“Many people who are far more familiar with Islam than I am disagree with Sarsour on the meaning of the term “Jihad.” But that’s an argument for others to have.”

Well get familiar!

The word jihad is rampant in the Muslim community, e.g.:
Jihad: Striving, holy war. (Dictionary of Islamic Words & Expressions, Darussalam publishers in Saudi Arabia.)
…the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur’anic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war… (The Message of the Qur’an, n. 167, p. 51. This is the translation of the Koran endorsed and distributed by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.)
…he was taken prisoner in a jihad – that is, a holy war… (The Message of the Qur’an, n. 72, p. 284.)
…a woman taken captive in a “holy war” (jihad)… (The Message of the Qur’an, n. 58, p. 727.)
And He (Allah) said: Jihad (Islamic holy war) is ordained for you (Muslims)… (Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “The Call to Jihad (Fighting For Allah’s Cause) in the Qur’an,” Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur’an (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Maktaba Dar-us-
The holy war (jihad) is a collective duty… (The Mainstay Concerning Jurisprudence (Al-Umda fi ‘l-Fiqh), in a chapter titled “The Book of the Holy War (Kitab al-Jihad), p. 313.)
“Holy War.” See Jihad. (Subject Index to Reliance of the Traveller (‘Umdat al-Salik), A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, p. 1162.)

IMO the most important take away from Sansour’s speech at the ISNA is her reminding her fellow Muslims that they are not to assimilate.

Muslims are essentially forbidden by Islam to assimilate into any kafir culture as made clear in their Koran. The West needs to face that fact, though it’s probably too late for Europe – but not for the US. We are lucky to have a President that seems to know this.