According to Sharia law, the world is divided into several abodes, or houses.

The major ones are:

Dar al Islam (the House of Submission). The Islamic countries.

Dar al Harb (the House of War). Everywhere else.

There are various minor abodes but these two will do for present purposes. The religious obligations of moslems vary greatly depending in which of those two divisions he finds himself (or herself). When living in Dar al Islam, the obligations are essentially to pray five times a day and obey Sharia.

When living in Dar al Harb, a moslem’s obligation is to wage jihad towards bringing that country into Dar al Islam. In other words, it is a duty to Islamify the country. According to the principle of Taqiyya, a moslem may engage in any ruse or lie– up to and including a purported renunciation of his Islamic faith– to advance Islam.

From Jihad Watch:

“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.” An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse — “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” {2:256} But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.”Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.”

***

Against that background, consider that the president’s father was a moslem. According to Sharia, that makes the president a moslem.

His brother works to promote Wahhabism in Africa. His US-registered 501(c)(3) charity supports a the Masjid Jamia-King Abdullah Kogelo-Masumbi mosque in Ngiya, Kenya.

The president refuses even to say “Islamic terrorism,” despite multiple cases of Islamic terrorism in the US this year: Chattanooga, Roseberg, San Bernardino, and perhaps others. Instead, he seeks to disarm law-abiding Americans.

While I cannot know what motivates the president to import Sunni moslems into the United States and “seed” them into our cities and towns, his actions appear to be consistent with the duties of a moslem living in Dar al Harb. It can be observed that the policies, actions, and omissions of the president objectively advance Islam in the US and Europe. The motive is irrelevant.

Things may be far, far worse than I had imagined.