Last year, in the San Francisco area, a little noticed public auction was held, called by the local county due to an unpaid tax bill. Put up for sale was a privately-owned residential street—a cul-de-sac upon which 35 mega-million dollar homes are situated in the Presidio Terrace gated-community.
The street was purchased by a young couple whom, looking to turn their purchase into a profit-making venture, are considering charging residents a fee to use the street. Imagine residents’ shock to learn what they previously had done freely may now cost them.
The lesson here is residents’ inattentiveness may well end up costing them the ability to exercise what they considered a basic right of their residency.
How does this lesson relate to the Conditions of Omar?
The Conditions of Omar ensconse three tenets, mandating compliance by all Muslims, to achieve Islam’s ultimate global objective. They dictate options Muslims must offer non-Muslims when the two cultures conflict. They include: (1) allowing non-Muslims to convert to Islam; (2) extorting non-Muslims to pay a tax, known as “jizya,” which then allows them then to continue practicing their own religion; and (3) putting to death those non-Muslims rejecting options (1) and (2). These Conditions make Islam’s ultimate objective undeniable—the subjugation of all other world religions to it.
Just like non-Muslims confronted by these Conditions who choose option (2)—paying jizya to continue practicing their religion—the Presidio Terrace residents similarly face paying a fee to be allowed to continue doing what they were doing.
While the Conditions of Omar originated over a thousand years ago, non-Muslims who might believe modern times have blunted their harsh impact would be mistaken. The most important university in the Muslim world, Al-Azhar, located in “moderate” Egypt, where President Barack Obama gave his 2009 “A New Beginning” speech, endorsed the Conditions which were incorporated into a 1991 Islamic law book.
The 21st century has seen the Conditions of Omar brutally enforced in ISIS-controlled territories. Meanwhile, in Western countries, Muslims receiving welfare benefits for not working, willingly accept them as jizya. This belief feeds a mindset by which Muslims feel entitled to receive drastically disproportionate amounts of public assistance. In Denmark, for example, a country with a Muslim population of only five percent, that small minority consumes 40% of the benefits.
There is a distinct pattern in how Muslims, immigrating to Western countries, seek to have the host culture and laws bend to theirs, ultimately including the Conditions of Omar. To understand this, it is imperative to understand Muslims see the world divided into two parts—one already subject to Islam and one yet to be (i.e., the West). The latter’s conquest is to be accomplished by means of “hijrah”—Muslim migration—which, eventually, through sheer force of numbers, will impose sharia upon it. Those doubtful this can happen in a democracy need heed England’s recent recognition of sharia.
Meanwhile, Muslim immigrants taking up residency in the West do what they have been instructed to do by Islamic leaders—reject the glue of assimilation that makes Western societies cohesive. One need only listen to speeches by Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, visiting Muslim communities in Germany and elsewhere, commanding them not to expose themselves to the “evils” of Western culture through assimilation.
As non-assimilating Muslims increase their numbers in a country, they establish their own “Fort Apaches,” around which they then secure surrounding neighborhoods as “their”—i.e., not the host nation’s—territory. These are known as “no-go zones,” where non-Muslims find themselves unwelcome and often attacked.
In 2016, as Prime Minister Manuel Valls denied these zones existed in France, police confirmed they did—some in the very heart of France’s big cities. But, like the Holocaust, there will always be deniers. In places like Australia, a video reveals a law enforcement officer warning a Western woman not to enter such a zone lest she be arrested for breaching the peace.
Whether Valls continues to turn a blind eye to such zones in France, the courier Chronopost could not afford to do so. It announced last year it would no longer deliver packages into the Paris suburb of Seine-Saint-Denis. A heavily-migrant population has established a no-go zone there proving too dangerous now to operate in for Chronopost’s drivers.
As these no-go zones establish a foothold and expand, residents’ confidence in imposing sharia within them increases. For women, both Muslim and non-Muslim, it becomes the law of the jungle as sexual crimes largely go unreported or unsolved. Further confidence in escaping prosecution for crimes committed gives rise to implementing the Conditions of Omar, initially by vandalizing or destroying synagogues and churches, but, later, once their numbers support it, more forceful implementation.
A courageous writer who has not hesitated to expose how Muslim communities in the West take root to impose their culture and laws upon us is Raheem Kassam. He wrote “No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You.” The book is a wakeup call for those believing no-go zones only exist outside our borders. They also exist here in the US, in places like Hamtramck, Michigan. While the Conditions of Omar remain the ultimate goal of no-go zone residents, they create an environment in which honor killings, female genital mutilation and polygamy are commonly practiced.
The residents of Presidio Terrace learned a discomforting lesson about failing to pay attention to details in their neighborhood. Whatever fee they may end up paying to use a private roadway will pale in comparison to the price non-Muslims will eventually pay for ignoring the Islamic juggernaut taking up residency in a neighborhood near them.