Muhammad mapped a migration master plan centuries before Merkel
East is east and West is west and never the twain shall meet. Western secularists who claim to understand the Eastern mind, strain at Middle Eastern gnats and swallow Arabian camels by adopting the reductionist methodology of sanitising religion from the Eastern way of life and explaining the actions of Easterners purely through the Marxist matrix of poverty, equality or education.
‘Is it ok for Muslim parents to stop their kids having non-Muslim pals?’ asks Mary Wakefield in this week’s Spectator. Her analysis is as naïve as that of a voyeur peeping through the keyhole of a glass door. Mothers of assorted varieties select their child’s peers through Jewish, Christian or private schools and if you were a devout Muslim mother would you want little Ali or Fatima snorting coke or having petting sessions with British classmates Tyler or Chantelle or that trans kid named Phoenix? Wakefield has a point. Even Katie Hopkins would have a fit!
But burrow a little deeper under the veneer of Western morals and mores and you can bet your last riyal Fatima’s mom has been browsing Muslim Mums Net and Mothers in Burkhas have been messaging her Qur’anic injunctions not to ‘make friendship with those who oppose Allah and his Messenger’ (Sura 58:22) or ‘not to take the Jews and the Christians for friends’ (Sura 5:51) or ‘not to take for intimate friends from among others than your own people’ (Sura 3:118).
A Westerner like Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury or his Cathedral deans in Southwark and Newcastle would hardly take seriously St John’s injunction to ‘not receive into your house or give any greeting’ to a deceiver who denies Christ as the Son of God. They’re so bum-clenchingly inclusive they’d do just the opposite and fling open cathedral doors for post-Ramadan Iftar binges. So can one really imagine an Easterner sticking to her Qur’an’s teachings and treating religion like it is a way of life and not a hermetically sealed compartment unlocked for an hour on a Sunday morning?
Mary Wakefield’s analysis is as naïve as that of a voyeur peeping through the keyhole of a glass door.
Consider how Western secularists discuss immigration. If you’ve watched the movie The Man Who Knew Infinity – the story of India’s greatest mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan and his time at Cambridge University, you will notice his mother’s revulsion at the thought of her son, a Hindu Brahmin, ritually contaminating himself by migrating to a Western country.
Starry-eyed Western secularists view the current tsunami of migration through the lens of the song Moon River as if the muscular men wearing Ray-Bans and leaving wives and children at home are ‘two drifters off to see the world’ because ‘there’s such a lot of world to see’.
Muslim migration to the West is reaching the point of meltdown. Horst Seehofer, Germany’s interior minister, has given Merkel an ultimatum to agree a new migration policy or face a rebellion from her own government, threatening to bring her 13-year reign to an inglorious end.
Seehofer is scathingly critical of Merkel’s migration policy that has allowed over a million migrants into Germany since 2015. His ‘migration master plan’ is a counter to Chancellor Merkel’s pie-in-the-sky ‘migration master plan’ which began with an unhinged ‘you can all come’ and climaxed with a megalomaniacal ‘Wir schaffen das’ (‘We can do this’).
Mutti’s migration master plan began with an unhinged ‘you can all come’ and climaxed with a megalomaniacal ‘Wir schaffen das’.
If Merkel had looked at migration through the Eastern eyes of pious Muslims, the Holy Mother of Migration would have known that Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, had mapped out a master plan for migration and global domination centuries before the Führer and his dream of a Third Reich.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi unveiled this migration master plan in his prophetic 2006 speech. ‘We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades,’ Gaddafi declared.
In their book Al-Hijra: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Islamic scholars Sam Solomon and E Al Maqdisi give an insider view of how immigration is a bona fide doctrine of Islam and the recent tidal waves of migration are not just a random phenomenon but are methodically planned, as was Muhammad’s Hijra – his migration from Mecca to Medina.
The fact that the Islamic calendar starts with the Hijra testifies to how pivotal the Hijra is in the blueprint for Islamic global domination. A good Muslim follows Muhammad’s sunnah, his example, and imitates it in every area of his or her life. Muhammad’s own migration is the paradigm for today’s Muslims to emulate by migrating to non-Muslim lands and spreading Islam until its host citizens submit to Allah (‘Islam’ means ‘submission’).
Immigration is a bona fide doctrine of Islam.
‘Therefore, immigration is viewed as a transitional period of preparation for transforming the host society from an open, or non-Muslim, society into an Islamic society or at least one where Islam would be supreme,’ write the authors. Muhammad himself made it clear that ‘migration is a duty that needs to be upheld forever or until the earth has submitted to Islamic hegemony,’ they argue, citing Muhammad’s instruction in a hadith: ‘O people, immigrate, holding on to Islam, for Hijra or migration is to continue as long as jihad continues.’
Of course, not all Muslims migrate to seek this goal, but ‘even when the original intent of the immigrants is to seek other goals’ they have a religious obligation to keep the ultimate goal of an Islamic society in sight.
This raises issues of integration and jihad. There must be no integration with the host society, unless it is for the purpose of ‘reconciling hearts’ (Ta’leef al Qulub) or infiltrating institutions in order to ‘win over’ individuals, since segregation is a foundational Qur’anic doctrine. The policy of segregation is based on numerous religious texts from the Qur’an and Hadith. ‘The first foundational principle for the creation of a successfully visible Islamic society is to be separate and distinct,’ state the authors.
If a society can be taken over by immigration, what is the need for jihad (striving in Arabic) or holy war? ‘Hijra and jihad are inseparable companions,’ say the authors. ‘Qur’anically speaking Hijra is always preceded by faith, and followed by jihad in the cause of Allah.’ They cite a number of verses to support their claim.
‘Hijra and jihad are inseparable companions.’
These Qur’anic verses string together the three concepts of ‘belief’, ‘emigration’ and ‘striving’ (jihad). E.g. ‘Verily, those who have believed, and those who have emigrated and have striven hard (jihad) in the Way of Allah…’ (2:218) or ‘Those who believed and emigrated and strove hard and fought in Allah’s Cause … are the successful ones’ (9:20). Immigration and jihad are thus inextricably intertwined.
Immigration is followed by tamkeen or the consolidation and empowerment of the immigrant Muslim community, who will raise their voices demanding to be governed according to their own Islamic law, i.e. Shariah. The host society passively witnesses the Islamic takeover, first with horror, but are gradually conditioned to accept it as normal, to adopt it and ultimately to become part of it.
This takeover is accompanied by I’dad or preparation of the Muslim community to be a militant fighting force ready to wage jihad against those who have refused to submit to Islam or against surrounding nations who are resisting Islam while the host country has surrendered to Islamic rule.
In the meantime, Muslim immigrants are to make concerted efforts for the total transformation of the host society. They are to make demands but couch them as requests for legitimate religious rights. Sporadic demands will mostly be viewed as ‘insignificant by the host society. Yet these demands have the inbuilt potential of undoing the whole system and ultimately ushering in the Shariah step by step,’ outline the authors.
There is no foreseeable end to Islamic immigration to non-Muslim lands. This is the most terrifying note sounded by Muhammad’s migration master plan. Muhammad himself underlines this in a hadith: ‘Migration will continue until the sun rises from the West, Hijra would not be stopped until repentance is cut off, and repentance will not be cut off until the sun rises from the West.’
If that happens, East and West will finally meet, because the West as we know it will have ceased to exist. Merkel’s dystopian vision of a new Europe will have completed the migration master plan Muhammad mapped out centuries ago when he migrated from Mecca to Medina.
(Originally published in Republic Standard)