Hill is right: it is “fundamentally wrong” to use the phrase “Islamist terrorism,” because it is actually “Islamic terrorism,” no steps removed from Islam as such. Can Max Hill refute that assertion with references from the Qur’an and Sunnah? Why, of course not. I’m certain he has never read the Qur’an or Hadith; if he cares to prove me wrong, I’ll be right here, but of course he will take no notice of the writings of an “Islamophobe.”
In other news, meanwhile, Philadelphia Islamic jihad terrorist Edward Archer, who shot a Philadelphia police officer multiple times, explained: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State, and that’s why I did what I did.”
Will Hill rebuke Archer for equating Islam with terrorism? Of course not. Hill, like other brainwashed non-Muslim lemmings, wants non-Muslims to stop equating Islam with terrorism — which is also, incidentally, the agenda of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). When Muslims equate Islam with terrorism, Hill doesn’t say a word, and neither does the OIC.
The underlying agenda, although it is unlikely that a dhimmi fool such as Hill realizes this, is to silence all honest analysis of the motivating ideology behind jihad terror. That will allow the jihad to advance unopposed and unimpeded. For Islamic jihad terrorists worldwide, Max Hill QC is an extremely Useful Idiot, and Britain is, as is obvious, finished.
“Don’t refer to ‘Islamist terrorism’, says watchdog,” by Martin Bentham, Evening Standard, February 1, 2018:
The Government’s terror watchdog has declared that it is “fundamentally wrong” to use the phrase “Islamist terrorism” to describe attacks carried out in Britain and elsewhere.
Max Hill QC said that the word terrorism should not be attached “to any of the world religions” and that the term “Daesh-inspired terrorism” should be used instead.
His comments put him at odds with Prime Minister Theresa May and the Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who have both spoken about the threat posed by “Islamist terrorists”.
The head of MI5, Andrew Parker, also linked Islamism with terrorism when he warned of an “intense UK threat from Islamist extremists”. But in evidence to Parliament’s joint committee on human rights, Mr Hill said that such language was wrong as he responded to a question from Labour MP Karen Buck.
She said that Mr Hill’s recent report on the operation of terrorism legislation had acknowledged that “Daesh and Daesh-inspired terrorism is the greatest threat” but asked him, in light of dangers posed by Irish and far-right terrorism, “whether there is any downside that the current debate does tend to focus largely on Islamic terrorism”.
Mr Hill replied the legal definition of terrorism “mentions religion but mentions no particular religion nor sect within a religion”.
He then overlooked Ms Buck’s reference to “Islamic terrorism” and told her: “You are accurate in using the phrase ‘Daesh-inspired terrorism’ where many other commentators use the words ‘Islamist terrorism’.
“It is fundamentally wrong to attach the word terrorism to any of the world religions. Put that another way round: those who adhere to any of the great religions or none can be terrorists within the definition.”…