Limiting Islamic Theocracy in America

Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

We have spoken often and at length about the menace presented by the Islamic theocracy to our various religions, our culture and our nation. The menace is twofold: first, Islam is a theocracy, pure and simple; that means that Islam is a radical combination of Church and State. Second, Islam is, at its ultimate end goal, absolutely intolerant of any other religion and any other form of government or civil law. Disciples are required by faith to embrace, promote and live within Sharia, the Islamic law, which encompasses both civil and ecclesial law.

Henceforth, I will refer to Islam as a theocracy rather than a religion.

The relentless goal of the Islamic theocracy is to expand Ummah, meaning the entire Moslem world community in submission to Allah, at our expense. Another term for Ummah is Dar Al Islam, or the House of Peace. Where we non-Moslems live is in Dar Al Harb, or, the House of War. The whole goal of Islam is to expand Dar Al Islam at the expense of Dar Al Harb. This vitally important aspect of Islam is tightly bound up in the guiding ethos of the religion and culture of Islam; it is interwoven into the very purpose for being of the devout Moslem.

For this reason I have set my sights on the very ideology of Islam, the core belief, which is the thing that must ultimately be defeated in the hearts and minds of men. The current Ummah contains many millions of disciples of Islam who know little or nothing about Sharia, other than what they hear in the Mosques, which may or may not go into detail. The fact that there are huge numbers of faithful Moslems who are peaceful and decent people operates in spite of the Islamic theocracy, and certainly not because of it. The whole goal of the Islamic theocracy is to expand itself by force.

Here, allow me to present a brief summary of what the Islamic theocracy demands of adherents, toward achieving a one-world Ummah under one grand Caliph:

1. An offer must be made to the non-Moslem person or nation to submit to Islam.
2. The non-Moslem may convert and live in accordance with Islamic religion, culture and law.
3. The non-Moslem may not convert, but submit to Islamic authority, pay a special tax, and continue to live where he resides.
4. If the non-Moslem person or nation does not convert and does not submit, war is to be made against them.
5. If a Moslem commits murder or violence against a non-Moslem in Dar Al Harb without first making the offer, he commits a sin; however, there is to be no temporal punishment for this violation of Sharia, because, in Dar Al Harb, anything goes against the non-believers. Allah is merciful only in Dar Al Islam.

From Saladin to Khomeini to Bin Ladin, nobody ever “hijacked” Islam or otherwise miss-represented what Islam stands for. They all acted in strict accordance with the law as defined in the Islamic theocracy. It was thoroughly main-stream and perfectly orthodox Islamic law that directed them all to do the things that they did.

The problem in America is that we Constitutionally insist upon freedom of religion, and Islam is touted to be a true religion rather than a political ideology aimed at world domination. Even outlawing Sharia, as we have recommended, presents the same difficulty, because the Islamic law is itself all bound up in the “religion.”

And so we are presented with the unique situation in which foreigners have the unmitigated gall to plot our death and destruction because of our non-adherence to their foreign laws. Enemies actually dare to come here and murder innocent people without warning because of some law, edict or fatwa issued by somebody foreign to us and not subject to our law. Islamic “immigrants” and local converts feel perfectly free to work within our own borders to achieve our ultimate subjugation or destruction.

Those few of us not mesmerized by the “Islam is a religion of peace” mantra are still hindered by our own law from actually doing anything serious about it.

SANE enters the picture again, with what looks to be a viable solution. What they propose is attacking not the religion, and not Sharia, but the words and the intent and the specific preaching of the Islamic theocracy’s ultimate world domination law. And the tool they use is The Smith Act of 1940, as amended; the existing US law as codified in Title 18 (the federal criminal code), Section 2385, as follows:

§ 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

I submit that the Islamic theocracy cannot properly operate anywhere in America without violating this American law. Full enforcement of this act, if that were possible, might result in the elimination of the Islamic theocracy in America. The prohibitions in the act represent the contents of editorials and sermons heard in most if not all Moslem communities and Mosques in America. You can see a great deal more about this in SANEs new project, Mapping Shari’a in America.

Again, SANE seems to show the way. Our civil and ecclesial authorities must be separate, by law; our Constitution demands it. The Islamic theocracy seeks to destroy that, and replace it. I have some problems with SANE. However, when they identify a legal weapon to oppose the advance of the Islamic theocracy I stand with them.

My problems with SANE’s direction are related to their opposition to representative government, and their inability or unwillingness to identify the form of unrepresentative government they prefer. There is also a less defined uneasiness relating to their seeming willingness to restrict the right to vote from everyone other than white males, although I have seen nothing explicitly racist or sexist in their output. Restricting the vote makes no difference anyway, since SANE opposes the vote, period. Their NuVo Initiative and their many anti-Democracy editorials prove that they just flat out oppose all representative government, and that’s definitely an equal opportunity position.

The usual position of the party who opposes representative government is that the party sees the overall population as too stupid to govern themselves, and in need of an elite class of educated bureaucrats or monarchs or an un-elected Senate or something to take care of them and all their needs. That’s a position that will never find comfort among the lowly hoi polloi of America, stupid though we all may be. Of course, SANE has never stated precisely what they would like to replace our vote with.

But when it comes to identifying and knowing the enemy, at least the Islamic theocracy as an enemy, there is no one else out there doing as good a job as SANE. Their effort needs to be as widely disseminated as possible. And the true nature of the international threat posed by the Islamic theocracy needs to be publicized more than any topic today.

Pray for America.

Reference Material

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Thu Jul 12 23:25:20 2007
From: Greg
Email:
Subject: Unfortunately, Your Solution Violates The Constitution
Comment:

The Supreme Court repeatedly upheld that mere advocacy of the necessity or desirability of overthrowing the US government, even by violent means, is constitutionally protected speech, absent an imminent threat of action to carry that out.

And an attempt to use Constitutional means to do so -- such as the ballot box and the amendment process, is always Constitutionally protected.

Date: Fri Jul 13 7:40:21 2007
From: Vic Biorseth
Email:
Subject: To Greg
Comment:

Greg:

I disagree, and (at least sometimes) so does the Court. As documented by SANE right here, this law was tested by the Supreme Court twice, once in support, and once avoiding the first amendment issue altogether.

Our history shows that determination of whether an issue violates or does not violate our Constitution depends almost entirely upon the makeup of the Court at that moment in time. Whether the sitting Justices represent, in their majority, the guiding ethos of, say, atheism or secularism, or the Islamic Theocracy, or, wonder of wonders, the most common guiding ethos of the American People is entirely dependent upon the nominations of our Presidents and the advice and consent of our Congresses.

The Democratic Party has consistently shown that it is and will always be steadfastly opposed to the confirmation of any Justice who’s guiding ethos, personal sense of purpose for being, and framework for determining right and wrong coincides with the overwhelming majority of us, the American People. It is the nature of those who consider themselves to be “the elite” to feel that they know better than us and need to shepherd us where we would not otherwise go, in our own best interest. So, the ultimate outcome of Constitutional issues like this one depends equally as much on such seemingly unrelated issues as whose running for Congress in the next election as it does on the issue itself.

This is an issue that needs to be hammered from every available angle, including the long process of Constitutional Amendment. Every tool in the box needs to be relentlessly and repeatedly applied. If our theoretically representative government does not take care of this, eventually, the people will be left no recourse other than to take care of it themselves. The likely result of that eventuality might involve a chaotic bloodbath, in which innocents on both sides might die. Something effective must be done.

There are Americans who will never convert to Islam, who will never submit to Sharia or pay any poll tax, who will go wherever they damn well please in America whenever they want to, and who will defend their ability to do so. And, against this simple fact, we know that the Islamic theocracy will never stop trying to grow itself.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Day Tue Dec 29 22:30:34 2009
From: Libertad
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Sharia's secret weapon is vigilantism. Without the grassroots support of vigilantes, Sharia cannot be enforced. When Muslims in the US begin to do this, they will discredit themselves and Islam to the point there will be no possible repair. An example is Dr. Nidal Hasan. When 10 such incidents occur, Americans will organize and Islam will be exposed as a belligerent political system that makes war on 'the other'.

Date: Wed Dec 30 05:12:37 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Libertad:

Counting from when? Ten such incidents have already occurred.

I do not believe Dr. Hasan was any sort of vigilante or anything particularly unusual. He was simply a devout Moslem. As Moslems get more devout, as they get more deeply into their religion, they become more dangerous to the other. That’s just the way it is.

Some of them seek out or are sought out by terrorist groups; some do not and are not. The end is the same. They are Moslems.

See the Islam is the enemy page for my take on Dr. Hasan.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.