Jihad, according to many Church of Interfaith (from now on 'C-of-I') Muslims, is only carried out for 'a just cause'. The problem is very many things can be counted as a just cause. Many things are counted as a ‘just cause’ by Muslims. So it is not as if a Just Cause Theory of Jihad, as it were, should automatically give rise to calm and optimism on the non-Muslim's part.
For example, this particular C-of-I Muslim lays out his own reasons for acceptable (violent) jihad. He writes:
“The main hot spots that Muslims currently want to see resolved are Kashmir (independence from India), Palestine (a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital), Chechnya (independence from Russia), the Sudan (an end to the foreign-backed southern rebellion), Azerbaijan (an end to the Armenian occupation), and Xinjiang in China (independence or at least meaningful autonomy).”
But this C-of-I Muslim is being modest here. He also knows that many Muslims demand that US troops withdraw from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and so on. Not only that. Many Muslims, perhaps also many C-of-I Muslims, also want to reclaim Spain for Islam, as well as southern France, southern Philippines (or all of it), southern Thailand (or all of it), the Central Asian (Russian) republics, states and areas in south-eastern Europe and so on.
What now of the Muslim areas, ghettoes, or 'enclaves', of Europe and other areas? What about Malmo, Sparkbrook in Birmingham, large areas of Paris, Manningham in Bradford, Muslim ghettoes in Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and so on?
This C-of-I Muslim himself casts the net of Islam far and wide. He says that “captive Muslim nations can still be found in parts of Russia, China, the Philippines, Africa, and Europe”. That's one hell of a list considering that this Muslim has left out many areas - for reasons of interfaith taqiyya and the affectation of controlled/limited Muslim demands.
In addition, is it the case that Muslims are automatically or really 'captive' if they live under non-Muslim rule or if they live in a non-Muslim nation? He is clearly speaking here of the 'captive Muslims' in the central Asian (former Soviet) republics. In that case, these Muslims live in states with very sizeable non-Muslim populations, such as the Armenians in Azerbaijan. What about the African Muslims in Nigeria – they are only around half of the population of that country? The Muslims in the southern Philippines and China are tiny populations in their native countries. Does that mean that in every place that there is a Muslim minority that this minority, being Muslim, must automatically have its own state?
One of the worst examples this C-of-I Muslim gives of Muslim demands – otherwise it's jihad time! - is the Sudan. He said, before the southern state was created recently, that the animists and Christians of that region are indulging in a 'foreign-backed southern rebellion'. This clearly means that as a Muslim supporter of Islamic Sudan, he didn't believe that the southern Sudanese Christians and animists deserved their own state (which they got in 2011), which is precisely what he thinks 'captive Muslims' deserve when they suffer from the same fate as the southern Sudanese Christians and animists under Muslim control. There is clear Muslim bias and hypocrisy here. Or, if not, that must only be because he thinks that Muslims are superior to animists and Christians and thus they, unlike the latter, deserve their own state. Not only that. If you read between the lines of his prose, it is also clear that this C-of-I Muslim is not critical of the obscene and terribly violent actions carried out by the Janjaweed and the Sudanese Islamic state against these Christians and animists. This has been a conflict which had resulted in over two millions deaths (at the C-of-I Muslim's time of writing – 2005) and yet this IF Muslim is only critical of the 'foreign-backed southern rebellion'.
*) All quotes are from the writings of Yahiya Emerick; an important Muslim member of the Church of Interfaith.