Islam Opposes America

Americans need to know how orthodox, mainstream Islam Opposes America, and opposes all other non-Moslem nations, and even the very notion of national existence itself. We're not talking about Islamic terrorists here, or Islamofascism, or radical Islam, or extreme Islam. It’s Islam itself. All the so-called Moslem killer terror groups or tribes or gangs, from Al Queda through Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, the Al Aqsa Brigade, CAIR, the Moslem Brotherhood, etc., etc., etc., have one thing in common, and that is, Islam.

In the Islam And The Jews page we talked about the three houses or domains of Islam:

1. Dar Al-Islam, the House of Submission (Islam)
2. Dar Al-Sulh, the House of Truce (Temporary Peace)
3. Dar Al-Harb, the House of War (Non-Moslem)

The whole goal, the primary purpose of Islam is to expand Dar Al-Islam at the expense of Dar Al-Harb. Dar Al-Harb happens to be where we live. To say that Islam opposes America is a radical understatement of the case. Even the warlords and groups and factions within Islam that hate and occasionally kill each other, such as the various Sunni and Shia dominated factions, Hamas and Fatah, Al Queda and the House of Saud and so forth, all agree with the ultimate goal of so-called lesser Jihad, or Holy War.

The “Greater Jihad” is the war within, in which the disciple of Islam seeks greater and ultimately perfect submission to God. The “Lesser Jihad” is the external war, in which disciples are called to cooperate in whatever way they can to bring the entire world into submission to God, on strictly Islamic terms. And submission to Islam means eliminating all existing Constitutional and Civil Law, and replacing it with the law of Islam, or, Sharia.

As discussed in multiple places in this site, mainstream Islam intends for one of three and only three options for us non-Moslems, and Moslems are to follow a certain path of escalating action to make sure that we each, individually and nationally, take one of those three options.

1. First, we are to be offered the opportunity to submit to Islam before they make actual war on us.
2. We are to be allowed to enter Dar Al-Islam, which means total conversion to Islam and all Islamic practice, culture and law.
3. If we do not wish to convert to Islam but we “submit” to Islamic domination, then we will not be killed and will be allowed to practice our religion out of sight and public view. No visible crosses or bibles, no public liturgy under pain of beheading. And we must pay the Poll Tax, and be the sole supporters of the “government” and the only ones to pay taxes.
4. If we do not convert and we do not submit, then we are to be killed.

Very simple; nothing to it. This is the straight-up teaching of mainstream Islam. Islam opposes America and Islam opposes even individual “nationhood” as a concept. Islam ultimately seeks to create a one-world Caliphate in absolute submission to Islam. The only issues of contention among Moslems regarding this ultimate goal involve whether the ultimate one-world Caliphate is to be Sunni, Shia, or whatever. This is what Americans need to know and need to internalize:

• Islam opposes America.
• Islam is not peaceful.
• Islam is violent.
• Islam is intolerant.
• Islam is a world menace.

I have elsewhere spoken of Islam as a false, sham religion and a dangerous ideology masquerading as a religion. Recognition of the simple fact that Islam opposes America should induce us to find ways to assault the idea of Islam; it is the ideology that is dangerous to the peace of the world, just like the ideology of Marxism, that similarly seeks the end of all sovereign nationhood and thus the end of America.

But, what of Dar Al-Sulh, the House of Temporary Peace? Where doe that fit in? Dearborn Michigan is an example. It is a place where a Moslem minority has established itself within a non-Moslem territory. Until they become strong enough to return to active war, Moslem disciples in Dearborn are freed from the Islamic requirement to wage relentless external Jihad in Dearborn Michigan. Once they feel that they “own” Dearborn, things will change, as they have in Moslem neighborhoods in France and other Eurabian lands, and they will begin violent enforcement of Sharia in their own neighborhood, which they claim as new Dar Al-Islam land, which they will defend, and they will seek to expand.

Every time a “moderate” Moslem group asks for civil law sanctions within a non-Moslem land they further the cause of external Jihad. For instance, a request to local government to set-aside a portion of a public beach or swimming facility for Moslem women to be able to bathe out-of-sight of the public seems innocent enough on its face. But it will become a little piece of Dar Al-Islam over which the nation has lost authority and sovereignty. When Islam opposes America in little ways, they become big ways.

What prompted these comments on how Islam opposes America was an article seen at the SANE site regarding an argument between SANE and an Islamic group called CAIR, for the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR appears to be a group that seeks to negotiate little concessions from America to build up Dar Al-Islam within American borders using our typical American religious tolerance and our Constitution against us.

The actual article at SANE is available right here. Now, I have taken issue with SANE over their NuVo Initiative, in discussions that ultimately showed that SANE opposes representative government in favor of some new form of unrepresentative Republic, whatever that might be. Perhaps a modified monarchy or dictatorship of some kind, but not the American ideal, and not anything like America’s representative government, as it is or as it ever was.

At first blush the SANE mission statement seems to drive toward restoration of the original American Republic, but that is a false first impression. They imagine achieving some perfect Republic with some perfect ruler, at which point history will stop. Lots of silly daydreamers have dreamed up something like that. Unfortunately, history will not stop, until He comes again, in the Christian view, or until He comes the first time, in the Jewish view. The world will not stop changing and social orders will not ever just freeze at some hoped for point. Whatever sitting government any nation has – including this one, including Russia, including Israel, including all nations – it is not the last government, it is only the current one. There will be another sitting government when this one ends. History will not stop.

But on this topic, SANE is right on: Islam opposes America and every other non-Islamic nation or entity. SANE (and this site) has called for war against Sharia, the legal system tied into Islam. That this runs into a direct conflict with the First Amendment is obvious; nevertheless, it is necessary, and needs to be addressed, by the citizens, by their Representatives and by the Courts. Our national existence is at stake here. We cannot have an enemy within our borders left free to destroy us, whether slowly or quickly.

So here is how the argument went at the SANE site.

CAIR attacks SANE (and the Washington Times) for Mapping Shari'a

The Washington Times online journal, Insight Magazine, covered the Mapping Shari'a press conference. CAIR took umbrage. Let's listen to what they have to say, shall we?

CAIR: Washington Times Promotes Hate Group That Would Outlaw Islam

What follows is a press release issued by the infamous PR Jihad group, CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR is upset with the Washington Times for covering the Mapping Shari’a press conference and even more upset with SANE for sponsoring the Mapping Shari’a in America Project.

One, the definition of “Adherence to Islam” is defined carefully as follows:

[2] “Adherence to Islam” shall be defined as any act, including any written or oral declaration, in support of Shari’a or in furtherance of the imposition of Shari’a within any territory of the United States of America. “Territory of the United States of America” shall be defined as any territory under the civilian or military control or governance of personnel acting for and on behalf of the US Government.

Now, the next question you must ask once you read this definition of “Adherence to Islam” is what is “Shari’a” under this proposed law. The answer is:

[3] “Shari’a” shall be defined as any set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support in any way the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America. Any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising from the extant rulings of any of the five authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence (the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Shafi'i, the Hanbali, or the Ja’afariya school or fiqh) are prima facie Shari’a without any further evidentiary showing.

Now, if CAIR wants to take the position that Islamic Law or Shari’a does not in any way seek to establish a worldwide Caliphate and that all of the legal decisions by the major Islamic schools of thought are simply false, we would be more than happy to challenge them to a debate.

But first, in order to prove their bona fides, we would ask them to go to Saudi Arabia or Islamabad or Beirut or Baghdad or Amman or Cairo and stand in the public square and begin announcing that Islamic Law rejects the political ideology that the world must submit to the will of Allah via adherence to Shari’a.

Once they have done that, we will have won the debate by default for they would have been slaughtered on the spot by the Shari’a faithful who would murder them for being infidels.

Now, since we know that CAIR officials are not infidels, in fact they are faithful Shari’a adherents, they would never take up our challenge. Instead, in America, to the gullible media and the even more gullible politicians, they will claim that what SANE seeks to do is rob them of their First Amendment rights, that we’re Islamophobic, and that we’re propagators of hate.

But simply ask these Madison Fifth Avenue Jihadists a simple question: do you support or reject Shari’a?

They will then answer: “What is Shari’a? Do you know what Shari’a is?”

The answer of course is yes. Shari’a is the developed legal scholarship arising out of the five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence that has been around for over 1000 years. And, if they want to obfuscate some more in order to avoid the real issue, we’ll help them a bit:

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (10th century), a Maliki jurist, declared:

Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.

Ibn Taymiyya (14th century), a Hanbali jurist, and a favorite of contemporary jihadists:

Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).

The Hanafi school, as set forth in an the authoritative work, Hidaya, authored by Burhan-ud-din Ali ben Abu Bakr al-Marghilani (12th century), a work which is considered widely authoritative as a guide to Islamic jurisprudence in Central Asia, Afghanistan, and India, rules:

It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.

If a Muslim attack infidels without previously calling them to the faith, he is an offender, because this is forbidden; but yet if he do attack them before thus inviting them and slay them, and take their property, neither fine, expiation, nor atonement are due, because that which protects (namely, Islam) does not exist in them, nor are they under protection by place (namely the Daru ‘l-Islam, or Muslim territory), and the mere prohibition of the act is not sufficient to sanction the exaction either of fine or of atonement for property; in the same manner as the slaying of the women or infant children of infidels is forbidden, but if, notwithstanding, a person were to slay such, he is not liable to a fine. It is laudable to call to the faith a people to whom a call has already come, in order that they may have the more full and ample warning; but yet this is not incumbent, as it appears in the Traditions that the Prophet plundered and despoiled the tribe of al-Mustaliq by surprise, and he also agreed with Asamah to make a predatory attack upon Qubna at an early hour, and to set it on fire, and such attacks are not preceded by a call. (Qubna is a place in Syria: some assert it is the name of a tribe).

If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do. And having so done, the Muslims must then with God’s assistance attack the infidels with all manner of warlike engines (as the Prophet did by the people of Ta’if), and must also set fire to their habitations (in the same manner as the Prophet fired Baweera), and must inundate them with water and tear up their plantations and tread down their grain because by these means they will become weakened, and their resolution will fail and their force be broken; these means are, therefore, all sanctified by the law.

The Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (11th century), holds:

The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…

Robert Spencer’s www.jihadwatch.com continues:

Underscoring the fact that none of this is merely of historical interest is another Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.” It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” noting that the word itself “is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”

It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad’s instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions.” Also, if there is no caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad.

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Extremists? Propaganda? No, this is the Islamic mainstream.

So, now that we have a clear understanding of what the mainstream Shari’a legal scholars have to say about warring against the infidel, let’s hear from CAIR:

[ PR Newswire • 2007-06-14 ]

'Adherence to Islam' would be punishable by 20 years in prison

WASHINGTON, June 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Council on American- Islamic Relations (CAIR) today expressed concern about an article published by Insight magazine, a website owned by the right-wing Washington Times newspaper, that offered a sympathetic portrayal of an anti-Muslim hate group that advocates making "adherence to Islam" punishable by 20 years in prison.

The hate group, Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), is supporting the so-called "Mapping Shari'a in America Project" devoted to spying on 2,300 Islamic institutions in the United States.

SEE: Private Undercover Team Exposes Nationwide Network of Radical, Anti- U.S. Islamic Centers http://www.mappingsharia.us/Insight-Magazine-Mapping-Sharia-Project-Uncovers-Jihadists-near-DC-article-438-67.htm

See Original Article: http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirsect.asp?sid=7FD9C68AF0F844919BF0684F279BF505&nm=Subscribe

In February of this year, SANE offered a policy proposal that states in part:

"Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US. [sic] Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution and the imposition of Shari'a on the American People . . . It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam."

SEE: A SANE Act to Deal with the Islamic Threat to America's National Existence (SADITANE) http://www.saneworks.us/SANE-Immigration-Proposal-article-379-1.htm

In its report on the mosque spying project, Insight magazine falsely claimed: "Hundreds of Islamic centers in the United States have become a hot- bed of extremist activity; they promote violence, terrorism and hatred against America."

Earlier this week, CAIR accused the Washington Times of "agenda-driven reporting" for falsely suggesting there has been a drop in that organization's grassroots support. CAIR says its membership, donor base, annual budget, and attendance at fundraising events has increased each year.

SEE: CAIR Accuses Washington Times of 'Agenda-Driven Reporting' http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2775&theType=NR

Many Muslims have expressed concerns about repeated instances of anti- Islam bias in the Washington Times' reporting and commentary.

The paper has in the past refused to publish CAIR's responses to its Islamophobic content.

SEE: CAIR Says Washington Times 'Hypocritical' on Press Freedom

http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2624&theType=NR

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 33 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to promote justice, enhance the understanding of Islam, and empower American Muslims.

CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, E-Mail: rahmed@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com.

SOURCE Council on American-Islamic Relations

It should be of more than passing interest that all five of Islam’s major schools teach the same thing regarding external Jihad, proving that Islam opposes America. And of equal interest to me is how SANE is considered to be a “Hate Group” for daring to speak of these things. Whatever differences I might have with SANE over NuVo, they are certainly not a hate group, but rather a vitally important light shining in a dark place.

No one else is paying attention to the fact that Islam opposes America and American national existence even to the point of violence. Islam itself proves that Islam is violent, Islam is not peaceful, Islam is warlike, and Islam is the sworn enemy of every other religion and every other form of government in existence.

Islam is the enemy. Islam has already declared war on us.

And we still do not recognize that Islam opposes America.

Forward this e-mail to a friend.

All previous articles are available right here.