Sunday, 6 May 2012

Islamic Immigration: the Trojan Horse

Anywhere in the world we have Muslims, we have stories about the problems they create. Today we hear of Muslims rioting and stabbing police officers in Bonn, Germany; last week there was an incident of voter intimidation at a polling booth in Britain; the week before that, the Philippines have decided to enter into peace talks with the Muslims in the south of the country (Mindanao), which might possibly mean the Philippines giving away some of its sovereign territory for ‘peace’, which will obviously mean increased terror if the Muslims establish a base of operations in the land.

These examples are different, but all the same. They represent the different stages of jihad and turning a non-Muslim country into Muslim land. But they have all been brought about through migration.

While we’ve been busy arguing over Muslim immigration, and trying to show it’s a bad thing because of the violent history of Islam, and what happens when the Muslim population reaches a certain size in foreign lands, it seems we’ve missed something crucial; that every move Muslims make into foreign lands is deliberate and part of a religiously sanctioned plan to impose Muslim rule.

In Sam Solomon and E al Maqdisi’s short book, “The Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, The Islamic Doctrine Of Immigration”, the authors make a convincing case that migration is as important to Islam as jihad.

With Mohammad’s life being the supreme example which all Muslims must copy, the prophet’s move from Mecca to Medina (or Yathrib) is explained. In fact, Islam’s calendar starts from the point Mohammad migrated from Mecca to Medina, because it was with this move that Mohammad had his first success for Islam.

Negotiating enemy tribes and community leaders who had even put a price on Mohammad’s head, the skill in pitting one tribe against the other, using another tribe until he was powerful enough to betray them and take power, reveals that not all of Mohammad’s conquests were by the sword.

As an example in today’s world, now that we're seeing more and more cases of Muslims refusing to handle alcohol or pork in the workplace, or insisting on segregation and for women to wear a hijab, begs the question, how come they did so in the past without complaint? This is explained with the principle of 'darura' or necessity. What is normally forbidden to Muslims under Shari'ah is permitted, considering the greater goal of their mission. But in complaining now, far from showing moderate behaviour, reveals the true motives of the Muslims in making a fuss now.

All over the place Muslims make demands, which to the liberal mind seem like nothing more than reasonable concessions, but in fact over time gradually turn a victim society into a land obedient to Islamic rule.

There are other principles explained, such as ‘preparation’ (or i’dad), which is where the multiple births comes in. ‘Empowerment’, which is where the building of mosques is necessary, and so on.
The Shard: A Symbol of Shari'ah Finance Dominating London's Skyline

With the growth of a Halal food industry and the introduction of Shari’ah finance, these not only represent major cultural and structural shifts in our societies, but a major transfer of power.

This book provides some disturbing but vital information in understanding a crucial but neglected aspect of Islam’s battle against the us: how they fight when they are the weaker party. 

The authors point out that not all Muslims are engaged in this 'stealth jihad', and that may be true (although I personally believe that to be an absolutely tiny minority) it makes Islamic immigration a much more serious question. By 'moderates' accepting being segregated means they give power to the 'radicals' to control their environment and the information the community hears. While one family may be innocent, their children may become entangled in fanaticism and a more puritanical Islam, as we see with so many second generation Muslim migrants in Britain. This is of even more concern when you think of how many children Muslim family's have.

But the book also lends further weight to the arguments of Joan Peters’ and others who show that in Israel, Arabs who call themselves ‘Palestinians’ today were only recent migrants to land, who followed the Jews there under the guise of seeking work and a better quality of life, but as history showed, quickly turned violent when the Jews attempted to create their own country.

PS you may also be interested to know Muslims are allowed to eat food that is acceptable to Jews and Christians, making the rapidly dominant Halal industry highly questionable.

Caped Crusader

No comments:

Post a Comment