Citizens of New World nations – North and South America, Australia and New Zealand – invariably assume that anyone settling in their country will embrace and cherish their ways so will integrate into what’s been called their demographic ‘melting pot’. New World nations have well-established traditions of live-and-let-live, egalitarianism, individual liberty and equality. And their citizens abide by a range of modern practices, including democratic governance, and assume these will survive forever.
Such an understandable belief ignores the relative novelty of these practices. They are only about 200 years old, whereas authoritarian theologically-sanctioned governance associated with Islam dates back 1,400 years. Modern era Christian or European emigration to the New World is far more recent than Islam’s spread to the Atlantic’s shores (Morocco); Central Asia (Xinjiang, China); and South-East Asia (Indonesia and Mindanao, Philippines).
Furthermore, Islamic migration and settlement rests on markedly different precepts that are diametrically opposed to the New World’s traditions of welcoming newcomers and promoting integration since their forebears were beneficiaries.
Islam does not welcome religious diversity. Instead it sets about dominating other faiths, relentlessly seeking to convert what they call infidel ranks. That is the theme of Solomon’s and Al Maqdisi’s important book. It outlines how Islam has used and promoted migration since the 7th century to Islamise peoples in other lands whereas the Europeans who settled the New World nations have tolerated diversity.
More recently Muslims have emigrated not only to New World countries, but also into western Europe. The question confronting the New World nations and now Europe is which tradition of governance will prevail: their own egalitarian ‘melting pot’, or the dogmatic theocratically justified laws of sharia.
The authors show Islam embodies a long-standing doctrine of emigration, called Al-Hijra, designed to expunge, not tolerate, other creeds. Islam rejects outright diverse ‘melting pot’ societies such as those that have emerged across the New World. Al-Hijra is as important to Mohammed’s vision for an Islamic State as is militant jihad.
Al-Hijra actually predates jihad. It was the crucial opening gambit in Islam’s expansionism that began with Mohammad’s leaving Mecca for Medina in 622 AD.
Mohammed’s 13-years in Mecca showed little success. But on relocating – his Hijra – to Medina, in less than 10 years he became ruler and prophet of Arabia and was poised to attack nearby Christian Byzantine and Zoroastrian Persian peoples.
That is why the Islamic calendar begins with the Hijra. This celebrates the transforming of weak, disunited desert peoples into a ‘powerful political entity’ that created a formidable army backed by a united community that became a ‘powerful socio-economic political state’. That is also why Solomon and Al Maqdisi describe Islam as ‘a whole encompassing political system, garbed in religious outfit, addressing every aspect of the life of its adherents.’
It is best viewed as a military doctrine and as a technique of ensuring permanent occupation of the conquered. Mohammed is thus best viewed as the greatest military thinker in history since he bequeathed his followers a bloody (jihad) and bloodless (al-Hijra) way to conquering infidels. After Mohammed converted Medina’s pagans to his views, the surrounding Jews and Christians were methodically subjugated to his newly-founded dogmatic rule. His words and deeds were as synonymous with Allah’s desires. Hijra, migration, became obligatory to spread his new desert faith far and wide.
True, not all Muslims entering non-Islamic lands are motivated by Hijra. This matters little, however, because well-defined networks of motivated Islamic community organisers consider it their duty to ensure the creation, within host countries, of a self-segregated Islamic community. Their job is to prevent assimilation. These self-segregated communities begin by ‘asking for more and more rights and privileges to the point of the recent adoption of Shariah Family Law in the United Kingdom.’
Solomon and Al Maqdisi meticulously analyse this long-established anti-’melting pot’ tradition and outline how separateness unfolds. They quote numerous Islamic texts that justify it.
Unfortunately, the true nature of Al -Hijra is understood by only a handful of western politicians and policy advisers.
Westerners, and especially their political elites, continue to cherish the hope that somehow their countries will be the exception. But history and contemporary press from around the world show the outcome is otherwise.
‘The Islamic community consolidation system works through a network of volunteers and other paid “pious” individuals who act as community or mosque liaison officers, who keep a close eye on the community by policing the new immigrant arrivals,’ Solomon and Al Maqdisi say.
‘As the new migrants naturally gravitate to the food stores of their country of origin or other places of meeting such as cafés, restaurants, and other outlets, the community/mosque workers take it in turn to frequent these places and introduce themselves to the new migrants. These volunteers are very smooth and skilful salesmen who know how to express sympathy and empathy to the new migrants. They offer help and, knowing the systems of the host country, they quickly manage to facilitate a lot of things for the new migrants.’
Their primary goal is creation of ‘a successfully visible Islamic society’ that must be ‘separate and distinct’. These community workers do not wish to see Muslims enter the ‘melting pot’: they wish to see them standing well away from it.
Solomon and Al Maqdisi stress that western universities are also not overlooked. Campuses have Muslim student associations where students are recruited for various forms of advocacy and communal works. Islamic studies are also avidly promoted on western campuses. There is also the financing of professorial chairs and research projects that are endowed by oil rich Middle Eastern benefactors.
This, the authors say, helps explain why so little ‘textual analysis of the Qur’an or a proper assessment of violence in Islam can be found’ in the seemingly objective scholarly works that are written.
‘Today,’ Solomon and Al Maqdisi write, ‘we are witnessing the greatest Islamisation efforts ever, especially in Europe, Canada, USA and Latin America – all the major bastions of Christianity.’ Including Australia.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10