Islamist Double Talk: Terrorism is Expressly Forbidden. Except When It Isn't

Raymond Ibrahim applauds Islamic legal scholar Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris for letting Jihad the cat (meow!) out of the bag:

At any rate, in the context of the Muslim Brotherhood's recent terrorist attacks throughout Egypt -- including the destruction of over 80 Christian churches -- Idris goes on to agree that:

... [i]t is therefore correct to define what happened recently [in Egypt] as terrorism and it cannot be called, as some have done, a jihad or ribat in the path of Allah, for the difference between them is vast.  Terrorism is a crime, both according to Sharia and the law; and all international conventions consider it a crime and call on all people to fight against it through all means. 

Up until this point, Idris defines and agrees with the international definition of terrorism, and portrays the actions of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (whom he never names) as terrorism.

So far, so good.

However, Idris immediately makes a complete reversal in his follow-up sentences (emphasis added):

But jihad in the path of Allah, to make his word supreme, spread his religion, defend the honor of the Islamic nation [umma], and respond to the aggression against Muslims all around the earth -- this is jihad: when a Muslim fights an infidel without treaty to make the word of Allah Most High supreme, forcing him to fight or invading his land, this is a permissible matter according to the consensus of the jurists.  Indeed, it is an obligation for all Muslims.  Now if the deeds of the jihad -- including fighting the infidels and breaking their spine through all possible means -- are permissible according to Sharia, then it is impossible to define those acts as terrorism, which Sharia-based evidence has made illegitimate. A large gap exists between them [jihad and terrorism].  And there is no connection between what is obligatory [jihad] and what is forbidden [terrorism].

At this point, the befuddled Western reader may be at a loss to understand how, exactly, jihad -- "according to the consensus of the jurists," no less -- is different from the aforementioned definitions of terrorism. 

What's needed here is for the non-Muslim to transcend his epistemology and think, for a moment, like an observant Muslim...

Indeed. And channeling my inner ardent believer for a moment, I would have to explain it like this: Islam strictly and entirely forbids pointless terrorism. Terrorism that does have a point, however--the point being to help Islam assume its rightful, supreme place in the world--is, scripturally-speaking, okey-dokey.