The exact date is debated; but possibly as early as the seventh century, the “Pact of Umar” was negotiated between Christians and their Muslim conquerors. The pact set out conditions by which non-Muslims subordinated themselves to Islam.
Today, while the pact is known as the “Conditions of Omar,” it is embraced by Islamic scholars, including those at Egypt’s leading Sunni authority, Al-Azhar University. Any Muslim rejecting them is deemedan apostate – the penalty for which is death.
The Conditions of Omar basically mandate three options to which non-Muslims must abide. While these will be enumerated later, in general they establish Islam’s superiority over all other religions, mandating full compliance with Shariah law.
Interestingly, in the track record of one of the first two Muslim women to serve in Congress, Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), suggests, she has selectively chosen what tenets of Shariah to follow. Her recent questionable conduct brings this selectivity into focus.
As her first initiative promoting the Conditions of Omar, Rep. Omar sought imposing Islam’s superiority upon non-Muslims. She knew non-Muslims – uneducated about Islam – would fail to recognize it as such, although Muslims would. Her initiative sought to demonstrate a non-Muslim custom, and tradition of the U.S. House would bow to Islam’s superiority. Ironically, she was assisted in achieving this with the naïve help of Nancy Pelosi and a newly-elected Democratic House majority.
Following Omar’s November 2016 election victory, she wanted – contrary to a 181-year House custom banning the wearing of head coverings – to impose her own religious custom of wearing a headscarf. Omar co-authored a bill to change this – one quickly passed in January 2017 when the Democrat majority was sworn in. What Democrats saw as tolerance, Omar and other Muslims saw as America submitting to Islamic superiority. U.S. House traditions be damned; Islamic religious traditions full speed ahead!
Unsurprisingly, Omar’s bill was supported by a group claiming (falsely) to be the nation’s largest Muslim rights organization – the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is the product of a Hamas-supported, U.S.-based network. Formed in 1987, Hamas was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department in 1997. Proving the seed doesn’t fall far from the tree, CAIR sullied its name when, in 2007, it became an unindicted co-conspirator in one of the largest terror-financing cases in U.S. history, involving the Holy Land Foundation and its former officials. For both Hamas and CAIR, Omar’s right to wear a headscarf was the equivalent of the Islamic camel nudging its nose under the American tent.
Intriguingly, a recent revelation about Omar’s conduct has generated nothing but silence from both her and CAIR, despite being one directly addressed by Shariah. As such, Shariah mandates an appropriate punishment for this conduct. CAIR’s silence is especially surprising, as its claim to fame is as a zealous civil advocate promoting respect for Muslim custom and practices, unencumbered by the U.S. government and private sector.
The transgression Omar committed is adultery. The claim came to light in court documents for divorce filed by the wife of a man professing his love for Omar and acknowledging being romantically involved with the congresswoman. This news is leading to many more legal problems for Omar, as numerous payments have been made by her to her paramour – an advisor who has accompanied her on numerous trips, perhaps in a dual advisor/lover capacity.
Shariah is very clear on the punishment for Muslims committing adultery. While Islam provides escape mechanisms for men, such as sanctioning a “temporary” marriage, Muslim women are not so lucky. If adultery is proven, the practice of stoning is well entrenched within Islam.
And here again, Islam gives male offenders an important advantage over females. While the punishment involves placing the adulterer upright in a hole in the ground that is then back-filled, Shariah allows one able to break free a pardon for his or her sins. But a major difference exists between how the two genders are positioned: women are buried up to their necks; males are only buried up to their waist.
Since the Pelosi-led House Democratic majority has already set a precedent of breaking a House tradition to allow Omar to practice her religious tradition, they have an opportunity to set another precedent by passing a bill that most assuredly would enjoy Republican support and even that of President Donald Trump. Let them pass a bill illustrative of Democrats’ tolerance that allows Muslims to impose Shariah-mandated punishment upon their fellow Muslims. In honor of the Muslim congresswoman from Minnesota, it could be known as the “Rep. Omar Bill to Mandate Islamic Punishment.” It would clearly demonstrate our two political parties are capable of working together.
Lest a reader think the above suggestion is serious, let me state for the record it is not. But it is made to reveal to non-Muslims, determined to promote tolerance of Islam (despite their unfamiliarity with it while rejecting any criticism as Islamophobic) that a dark side exists to the religion. ISIS made this clear during its Middle East reign of terror as it imposed the Conditions of Omar upon its captives. The Conditions gave non-Muslims three simple choices: convert to Islam; pay a tax to Muslim authority to be allowed to practice a different religion; or be put to death. It should not be forgotten that the Conditions of Omar are embraced by “moderate” Muslims as well.
It can be expected Rep. Omar will probably accomplish very little legislatively before running for re-election, if she is able to do so. Recent evidence indicates she may well be facing 40 years in prison and deportation for seven new crimes uncovered. These include very credible evidence she and her family changed their name to illegally enter the U.S. in 1995, and at least eight instances of perjury going back to 2009.
Whether we are discussing the Conditions of Omar or the conditions Rep. Omar selectively follows, both need be recognized for what they really promote.
