The Religion of Peace 102: Dawa

Today at The Catholic Thing there is useful information about Islam and its tenets.

Is “Dawa” in your vocabulary?

So, what do you know about dawa? You know what jihad is, and what sharia is. That is Islamic vocabulary 101.

At the more advanced end of the lexicon are terms such as taqiyya (a form of lying specifically permitted to advance the cause of Islam). Or the formerly obscure taharrush, which might sound familiar inasmuch as it – the practice of groups of men surrounding and sexually assaulting women in public – rudely materialized in several European cities recently. That there is a name for it suggests it is a frequent enough occurrence. Charming.

[… cutting out a bit which you should read, over there…]

Dawa can be likened to proselytizing, but it is much more than that. It might be summed up as the insidious project to Islamize the world – as cultural imperialism bent on corroding Western liberties and ultimately imposing sharia law. It is an all-encompassing precursor to jihad, a summons to conquer non-violently, and utilizes any number of mechanisms to achieve that end.

[…] [Years ago I read a transcription of a Friday sermon by an imam in Italy.  He told his listeners to “take their women”.  “If before we did not win with the long sword, we will win with the short sword.”  This is an example of dawa.]

Dawa is nothing short of the effort to subvert from within. It is “to the Islamists of today what the ‘long march through the institutions’ was to twentieth-century Marxists.” We have a hard time imagining the immutable designs of Islam, even though Islamic leaders themselves forthrightly say they will conquer Europe and America though dawa, not the sword. [!]

It would be hard to find this more explicitly spelled out than in the Strategic Plan of the Muslim Brotherhood for North America – a land they see as territory to be settled:

The [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

To bring this about, alas, they are to become masters in the art of cooperation and coalition building. Authorities happened to stumble upon that document back in 2004, making their partners in “dialogue”– however much they want to seek common ground – all the more willfully credulous today.

[…]

We must not be ignorant of the tenets of the dominant religions of the world (including our own). Words matter, because they convey concepts which dedicated adherents of religions put into practice.

I recommend The Grand Jihad by Andrew McCarthy.  This explains how and why the liberal left coddles and cooperates in the destruction of Western culture.

US HERE – UK HERE

And, of course…

Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War by Sebastian Gorka.

US HERE – UK HERE

More on this HERE.

Many thanks to the reader who sent me the Kindle version from my wishlist.

Get a Kindle!  US HERE – UK HERE

Sts. Nunilo and Alodia, pray for us!

Our Lady of Victory, pray for us!

Please share!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices, The Religion of Peace and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The Religion of Peace 102: Dawa

  1. KateD says:

    This recently occurred to me:

    The Declaration of Independence asserts that we all are created equal and that we are endowed with certain rights by our Creator which are inalienable, including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Because they are “inalienable” by definition, they cannot be taken away from nor given away by the possessor. Sharia is therefore incompatible with American law and its establishment would violate the rights of those living under it, whether they were personally willing to or not.

    Unless….the understanding of the term “inalienable” was twisted or obscured…or redefined or otherwise obfuscated.

    If the right to Life is inalienable, how has Euthenasia become legal? It is not possible for the possessor of that right to give it away…and yet some states have passed laws which do just that.

    Is this the precedent which will allow Sharia to be established?

  2. YoungLatinMassGuy says:

    Very soon, us Christians (and all non-muslim kafir That’s another word you should know.) will have only two choices:

    1. Learn about islam, and go on the intellectual offensive against islam like your life and your civilization depends on it, bringing as many muhammedans out of that evil cult as possible.

    2. Learn MMA.

    If you won’t do the first one willingly, you will do the second one out of pure necessity.

    There are two things Our Lord commanded us to do:

    1. “Going therefore, teach ye all nations…” Matthew 28:19

    TEACH. Not “dialogue.”

    2. Fear not. Matthew 14:27

    Truth Himself has your back. Act like it!

    Have you confronted any muhammedan about his belief system today? That is a soul Your Lord has commanded you to teach.

  3. Imrahil says:

    Dear KateD,

    well, a Muslim would say that Sharia is the only real liberty, the only road to happiness and as for life, he merely wants to extend the list of capital offenses (that, not euthanasia, is the natural parallel). The death-penalty is well-established in the United states, all Sharia wants to do (says he) is not only apply it to murder but also to some other things he’ll forbid. But then it used to be applied to horse-stealing. As for lashes, if a state can kill and can imprison, why should he not be able to whip; and anyway, if the Declaration of Independence is in the way of the true law, so much the worse for the Declaration of Independence.

    And he would be almost right. The fact that he’s wrong hangs on one single thread: Islam is false, and the law it presents as demanded by God is not actually demanded by God.

    There is no substitute for the truth question.

    Dear YoungLatinMassGuy,

    as the Moslems would say, this is a collective duty. I have not yet personally met a Muslim this day. If I had, chances are that I might have found it prudentially unadvisable to “confront” him about his belief system.

  4. Roy Hobbes says:

    Responding to KateD, while the Declaration Of Independence particularly points out certain inalienable rights endowed by the “Creator” (not Jesus nor the Trinity, mind you), no such language was carried over to the U.S. Constitution. Some would (should?) argue that that flaw has lead, or will lead, to the ultimate downfall of the United States. That, and the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, wherein ‘religion’ is intentionally left out of the public governing sphere.

  5. The biggest proximate threat to the survival of the West is that too many people in the West do not consider it to be worth defending. That is a fruit of the abandonment of Christianity.

  6. Alanmac says:

    And yet we have many Bishops sending greetings to Muslims on occasions such as Ramadan wishing them all the best and hoping for more “understanding”. The crazy spirit of ecumenism still flies everywhere but never lands.

  7. iowapapist says:

    In keeping with the discussion between Kate D and Roy Hobbes, I have long believed that Islam is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. The Q’ran (or Koran) mandates that non-believers convert. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution holds that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The Islamic faith (yes, I know it’s not monolithic, but regardless of sect, the result is the same) officially seeks not only to violate the U.S. Constitution, but to replace it with Sharia. For its disciples, Islam is not only a religion, but also a government which directs Muslims to conquer the world. We are currently importing insurrectionists into our land and guaranteeing a holy war right here at home. So, I would say the “religion of peace” is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.

  8. Roy Hobbes says:

    Responding to iowapapist, I do not disagree with what you assert. However, my larger point was not necessarily in the context of whether Islam was compatible with the U.S. Constitution (the most sacred of texts!), but whether the U.S. Constitution, namely the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, is compatible with authentic Catholicism.

  9. av8er says:

    Dinesh D’Souza also wrote a great book about the left’s “alliance” with islam.

    “The enemy at home: The cultural left and it’s responsibility for 9-11”

  10. JustaSinner says:

    Islam…Nuke it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure. Tip o’ the hat to Corporal Hicks. [And also to Ellen Ripley, who first suggested the idea.]

  11. Kathleen10 says:

    JustaSinner, we’re with you all the way.
    The West is busy deciding if it has the will to live. Islam surely does. We shouldn’t let it.

  12. JustaSinner says:

    Kathleen10, maybe God is waiting for us to act; in prayers and deeds so he can send us another Pope Urban II. It isn’t Pope Francis…he’d be apt to send children with ‘love’ and ‘happy’ talk. Look at Sweden and Germany for the end results of that…

  13. Aegidius says:

    I think I am not suspicious of having any sympathy with this diabolic antithesis of Christendom that cals itself the “Religion of Peace”. Still I have trouble imagining how this “Nuke it from Orbit” thing, especially the nuke part of it could be made compatible with Our Lord’s sacrifice and love. Actually, I shiver at the thought. And that someone could post such thought.

  14. chantgirl says:

    I have read the argument that Islam is more of a political system than a religion. Upon further reflection, I think that Islam is a demonically-inspired political system disguised as a religion. At its heart, Islam is all about power- domination and subjugation. If we argue that Islam is a seditious political system, it definitely could be argued that to adhere to Islam in the US is an act of treason. We have allowed the enemy to define the terms, and I think we need to start challenging them publicly.

    If we can successfully make the point that Islam is not a religion, and therefore has no rights under our freedom of religion, we can possibly make some headway. We would have a point to argue when CAIR tries to sue a municipality for denying a permit for a mosque, or for when CAIR pushes a public school system to teach toleration of Islam in class, or when a citizen appeals to sharia law.

    If Islam is properly understood as a seditious political system, then we have grounds for denying immigrants who adhere to Islam.

    Aegidius- since Islam is primarily concerned with power, I doubt that all of our tolerance, dialogue, pandering etc will do anything but convince the Muslim world that we are ready to be overtaken. You would think that all of the Christians who died as martyrs at the hands of Muslims would have softened some hearts and brought about conversions, but we don’t seem to see that through history. The only things that have kept Islam at bay in Europe in the past have been the prayers and sacrifices of Christians combined with military strength. Raw, brutal power seems to be the only thing that keeps the Middle East from completely descending into chaos. Muslim countries almost seem to need brutal dictators in order to keep the peace. Look what happened to Iraq and Libya after their dictators were removed- they became hotbeds of terrorism.

    Right now, I think that the only way to deal with Islam is prayer, penance, containment, and brute military strength. As for the poor people living under the thumb of Islam, I can only pity them. They live as slaves, given a ruthless God to worship, denied true mercy, and practice vice as virtue. Perhaps the Middle east needs some exorcisms as well as MOABs.

  15. Imrahil says:

    Dear chantgirl,

    well, what will the Enemy have gained even if he does succeed to cut off a few of our heads, establish a power by force to subjugate us into slavery, and all that?

    Not much. Someone holier than me might say “nothing”. Let’s stick to “not much”.

    On the other Hand, what will he have gained if he convinces us that the point of a religion is to retreat to the Sacristy or to the private living-room while having no business, none at all, in the public sphere, and that while anyone can choose a Religion as he sees fit, what is really sacrosanct is the given state’s Constitution?

    What, in a word, if the threat of Islam makes us bow down to the principles of secularism?

    The answer, I think, is obvious.

    In this sense,

    if only the true religion is religion, well then Islam is not a religion, as it is false. If, however, false religions, sincerely Held as such, are to be counted as religions, then Islam is a religion, and obviously so.

    —–

    On another thing,

    Military strength is a good thing, if used in a Just War or prepared for such a purpose.

    Indiscrimately exterminating an entire population, about whom it is even unclear which stand they personally take, with nuclear weapons… not so much.

    Hence as a rule of thumb, if there has to be war there have to be ground troops.

  16. Semper Gumby says:

    Dawa can also be, per the handy alMawrid dictionary, a “call” or “summons” or “invitation” to those Muslim immigrants living in the West for them to return to their Islamic roots, reject the West, etc. All that, of course, aids Islamization and “dhimmitude”- (see “dhimmi”).

    There is also another connotation that links dawa to “propaganda” and thus ties into “taqiyya”- a word mentioned at the beginning of the Catholic Thing article.

    On the ground, this dawa can result in what we are seeing in news reports: no-go zones and neighborhood sharia courts. For example, those zones/courts in Britain and news articles in the Telegraph and Daily Mail.

  17. JonPatrick says:

    It has always puzzled me why the left is so enamored with Islam. It cannot be explained solely by their joint hatred of Christianity. How can they promote a religion that is against much of what they claim to believe in such as equal treatment of women, sexual freedom, and so on. I should get Andrew McCarthy’s book, maybe it would shed some light on this.

  18. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    I believe that those who are so obsessed with the ideology of power that they enslave and kill all whom they encounter have not been a rarity in human history. The Communist governments have tended to act in much the same way.

    I also believe that such persons have one of two things wrong with them (or both together): (1) they view human history as a dog-eat-dog, zero-sum arrangement. Like the Mafia. Kill or be killed, period. You destroy their civilization and way of life, and subjugate them, or they will do it to you; (2) the influence of the demonic, perhaps up to and including diabolical possession. (Having heard excellent talks by one or two Catholic priest-exorcists, I learned that not all victims of possession manifest extraordinary signs and symptoms such as those we see in the movies, but that such persons may take the practice of evil-doing to unusual lengths.)

    If a distorted world-view and the influence of evil spirits (or both) can lead men to band together to perpetrate crimes against humanity, which I see happening among Islamic extremists, then, to be sure, their intended victims are within their rights to use lethal force to protect themselves and to restore justice. However, given God’s hatred of unnecessary violence, I, as a Christian who would contemplate taking human blood onto my own hands (whether or not by proxy) want to make D*MN sure that *all* other peaceful means have been tried, and *continue to be tried* even after the blood-taking begins.

    Jesus said, “this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting.” What if, when, on that Awful Day, the last day of my life, I stand before my Judge to give an account of my life, and He raises the question about my warlike actions – or my consent to war – to defend myself, my country, and others? And what if I should then reply to His Divine Majesty, that my violent acts – destroying the lives of the murderers, as well as of old people, children, and babies, (e.g. by “nuking”) were *necessary.*

    And what if Jesus then asked me, “did you at the same time devote yourself to prayer and fasting for their conversion?”

    I would hope that I may then reply to His Awesome Majesty, “Lord, I did devote myself with tears, and groanings, fastings and vigils, beseeching the Father in Your Holy Name to convert them and all sinners, as you well know. And these things I did even while working in the office (not with groaning or tears while in the workplace, but the prayer and fasting), and all while driving, while walking, while sitting down, while standing up, while taking my scant food and plain drink, and while lying in my bed. And I did my best to encourage others to do the same.

    “And it was only after having done all these things for quite some time, and preached and prayed others to do the same, while we all awaited Your help, that I consented within myself to see my government destroy the innocent with the guilty. Or even to obliterate whole nations and whole peoples. And even after consenting to see violence done, I continued to pray and fast for those remaining, that they would come to You.”

    If I could give that answer, I could face Our Lord unafraid on that point. But only *if* . . .

  19. JustaSinner says:

    Aegidus, I lived in SW Asia, aka the Middle East. Hence my post. Watch Aliens and you might get the humor. And yes, I am likening Islam to acid filled killing machines.