...

I think  you answered your own question.

Of course I did.

Anyway, as a freedom fighter that man was simply not bloodthirsty enough. So no grand cross for the humanitarian this time.

well the child is still innocent though, no fault for having such parents (unless you are buddhist then he is very much at fault)

The dentist still has to deal with the parents. Maybe the orthodontist in the article wanted to avoid such dealing in advance.

16 isn't a child, it is a juvenile... in many places it is legally an adult. He might not be at fault for choosing his name (and that "endeavour for good" definition is BS), but he can change his name and choose not to use it. The doctor was right at refusing to treat him. Understendably this would be difficult to do while living with your parents. But choosing a different doctor would be a stark reminder that he has to get his name changed ASAP, aka, as soon as he turns 18 and leaves home.

If he was truly a child, say, a 10 year old, then obviously he is at a more difficult situation. In which case the doctor is still justified in refusing to treat him (since its not a life threatening condition) in order to avoid the parents.

The true travesty here is that the family was not deported or the parents arrested for child abuse (courts have ruled that really horrible names are child abuse; I tend to agree).

What would be your opinion of the issue if the parents have named him "Nigger Slayer" or "Jew Slaughterer" or "Kill all homosexuals". Because Jihad is essentially "kill all infidels"

The doctor proved to NOT be insane in using the most rare super power of them all (common sense). And guess what? she was proven to be correct when the father threatened her.

I think it goes without saying that the doctor was within his rights to refuse a patient whose name suggested (correctly) that one could expect violence from the parents.

But this is not how this will be seen.

The common opinion is that violence is a part of Islam and has to be accepted the same way we have to accept that Africans are blacks or that Jews exist. Speaking up against Islamic violence (or the threat of violence) is seen as akin to being prejudiced about Jews (in the centre of society, on the left the latter is acceptable while the first is considered racism).

Either way, refusing a patient because his name is "Jihad" will be seen like refusing a patient because his name is Yitzaq. It will be seen as anti-Islamic racism rather than anti-violence idealism.

Do you know what Islamophobia really is? It's not an irrational fear of Muslims. It's the widely-accepted belief that Islam is and has to be violent, anti-Semitic and misogynist and that we have to accept violence, anti-Semitism and hatred of women as part of a "culture" rather than as the civil diseases they really are.

Yes.

Really horrible names are child abuse and German courts make such rulings all the time. But the afore-mentioned general acceptance that criminal violence is a part of their "culture" makes it impossible to make such a ruling as long as the patents are (or claim to be) Muslims.

These days you can excuse almost any character flaw as "Islamic" and it doesn't matter whether Islam actually supports or ever did support the crime in question. As soon as a criminal act is called "Islamic" by its perpetrators or their allies the western left will accept the crime as "resistance against oppression" and the political centre wil accept it as the Islamic equivalent of whatever it is one imagines that Jews do in their free time.

This is how it works in Europe.

Jihad actually means "struggle" and nothing else. It is used in Arabic for Gandhi's struggle against the British and for feminists' struggle against male oppression.

It was the terrorists who claimed that jihad must be and is only violence struggle, preferably against school children and surprisingly enough most often against other Muslims.

In the west the left have supported the terrorists by accepting the violence as part of Islamic culture whereas the right have supported the terrorists by accepting their claim that the violence actually is the true Islam.

The kid is 16 years old which means that when the parents gave him the name it was already well established that "jihad" primarily and most obviously stands for "holy war" against the infidels, akin to Nigger Slayer or Jew Slaughterer. If they had wanted him to have the name for truly religious and non-violent reasons they could have named given him a different call name and added "Jihad" as a middle name ("Muhammed Jihad Utzknurtz" or whatever his name would be).

So the name was obviously a test of how much the country they live in will take.

Of course she was. It's a fair guess that any (self-proclaimed) Muslim who is upset about being thought of as a violent jerk will prove to be a violent jerk. It worked with the Muhammed cartoons too. Pretend Islam is violent and violent people will think they are the right Muslims and they will protest, obviously violently.

The Muhammed cartoons were bad because one shouldn't associate Islam with bombs?

I agree.

And I'll never forgive the Iranian mullahs for doing that, because it was them who first associated Islam with bombs.

Then came the Sunni "fundamentalists" and these days it is difficult even to find a Muslim who doesn't somehow think that he should be more violent because Allah wants him to be.