British Jihadi Defends Jihadi John's 'Right to be Violent,' 'Moral High Ground' of ISIS

A British jihadist who slipped off to Syria under UK authorities’ noses last fall has apparently penned an essay defending the right of fellow Briton Mohammed “Jihadi John” Emwazi to behead people.

Siddhartha Dhar, who’s close to cleric Anjem Choudary and marched in his pro-Sharia events, was arrested in Britain in September on suspicion of encouraging terrorism. He jumped bail and fled to the Islamic State with his pregnant wife, who later gave birth to a boy.

In a column posted this week on a file-sharing site under his nom de guerre, Abu Rumaysah al-Britani, the jihadist argues that the desire of the families of Steven Sotloff and David Haines to see Jihadi John captured and imprisoned for life — “prolonged Guantanamo style incarceration” — “as opposed to a quick death, is made to appear morally acceptable.”

“Even though we have been force fed by the media to believe that the Islamic State is ‘barbaric’ and ‘medieval’, if you want to torture an Islamic State soldier, bomb an Islamic State building or perhaps nuke Raqqah, all of a sudden such behaviour is deemed perfectly rational. You are not barbaric for wanting this, on the contrary, you are civilised and educated,” he wrote. “So what is the difference between Jihadi John and the thousands of Westerners who seek to see blood on the streets of the Caliphate, I ask?”

“…Take the gloves off, leave the political correctness aside and be totally honest with ourselves. Yes, violence can be justified – bombs, bullets, knives, air strikes etc. are needed for the right enemy and we should not be made to feel ashamed about it.”

Dhar said the “identity of Jihadi John is largely irrelevant; he is after all just another soldier following orders.”

But he disagreed with the father of slain journalist James Foley, who spoke of the need to stop “hating one another and hurting one another.”

“I have always been of the opinion that the Islamic State has the moral high ground with regards to the use of violence and not the US led coalition. I have come to this conclusion because I see the Islamic State as the victim, and I view their ideology as something I can support because it is so undeniably Islamic,” Dhar wrote. “…From where I stand it was America who first interfered in the Caliphate, and not the other way round.”

Dhar, whose past media appearances to promote radical Islam have included BBC and VICE News, stressed he “cannot envisage any piece of land whether in Makkah, London or Washington where Islam is not the rule of law, because I have lived in a non-Muslim country and I now live in the Islamic State and know what each can bring.”

“You could choose to be a casual observer, but when the Islamic army comes knocking on your door will you remain calm, or exercise your right to be violent? And I would argue, in this instance, you do not have that right… And as for conquest, well, military coups have been around since the birth of civilisation itself, and virtually every country, particularly in the West, have been guilty of it. And I would argue that the Islamic model of governance is what civilisation needs, and that we can live together peacefully, just not under any other law.”

Dhar added “you will probably find that hard to swallow, but understand that equally shoving pluralism, the right to self-determination and the rest of the democratic jargon down my throat is just as unpalatable, because I as a Muslim do not believe in it, and quite frankly neither should you.”