The profound problem of Muslim immigration
Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration
by Sam Solomon & Elias Al Maqdisi ANM Publishers, 2009, 139 pp., $14.95
Reviewed by Henrik R. Clausen
As the West has accepted extensive immigration from Islamic countries, unexpected social and political problems have followed. While rising crime rates, rampant unemployment and a heavy load on our much-appreciated welfare systems are severe problems in itself, a distinct and dramatically more significant problem is the subtle subversion of our free and democratic societies, also known as “Stealth Jihad”.
The retired Islamic scholar Sam Solomon, in this compact book Al-Hijra, The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, connects the dots and explains why seemingly unrelated incidents are in fact rooted in Islamic tradition and are steps on the path to create a fully Islamized society.
To demonstrate how this functions, Sam Solomon dives into his exhaustive knowledge of Islamic history and law. As with scholars of Islam everywhere, he derives his conclusions from Islamic scripture, the life of Muhammad in particular, and shows how historically immigration has slowly but steadily lead to formerly Jewish or Christian societies submitting to Islam. The primary example in the book is Muhammad’s takeover of Yathrib, today known as Medina, and how the concepts and strategies developed for the conquest of a relatively insignificant Arab city are being duplicated by Islamic leaders worldwide, with the same goal: Expanding Islamic conquest ever further.
The depth of knowledge and connections described in Al-Hijra constitute both a strength and a weakness. Most important is the strength: Sam Solomon uses his Islamic scholarship to reveal the justifications and machinations being applied to undermine and attack the very notion of a secular society. This is important information that everyone involved in these matters deserve to have.
The weakness is that the book frequently becomes hard to follow. Understanding Islamic terms like Darura (necessity), Takweem (empowerment), I’dad (readying) etcetera are important in order to counter the undercurrent of Islamization, yet the denseness of the presentation makes the lines of thought hard to follow for the unprepared. One does well in having some knowledge of Islamic thought before reading Al-Hijra.
That said, this book is indispensable for a very simple reason: It presents information otherwise not available to the uninitiated Westerner, and mercilessly reveals the twisted logic of Islamist activists, their justifications, methods and ultimate goal: a fully Shariah-compliant society. By pointing out the scriptural justifications and inner logic of seemingly benign and unrelated Muslim demands, it provides an invaluable tool for identifying and countering the stealth jihad destabilizing our societies. Dismantling this threat peacefully requires knowledge as provided by Sam Solomon.
Unique book with invaluable understanding of matters. Well worth tackling despite dense prose.
First up is the book cover: A wooden horse associates directly to the Trojan Horse, the stratagem that according to legend was applied by the Greeks to finally conquer the city of Troy. The use of this archetypical image is sure to evoke emotional responses by many, but it also points to an important fact:
The subversion against our societies is executed by relatively few immigrants. Most immigrants from Islamic countries do not come to the West in order to transform free Western countries into semblances of the autocracies or theocracies they have fled from. They seek better living conditions, employment, a better future — but they do so without the intention to change their religion, and this is where things get complicated.
Retaining faith in Islam and Islamic scholars will lead the immigrants to tacitly support the subversive aims of Islamists who have also come to the West, initially as a relatively small fraction of millions of Islamic immigrants. These Islamic leaders and scholars use the Islamic teachings to destroy confidence in Western democracies, and they are astonishingly effective in achieving that aim.
Explaining how this seemingly irrational development can take place requires some history. This first and foremost means the life and conduct of Muhammad, the perfect example for the pious Muslim even today. The authority of Muhammad is absolute in Islam, be it in form of Quranic commands or the examples of conduct recorded in hadith collections, known in Islam as the ‘Sunna’. Hijra, immigration, was a key element in Muhammad’s takeover of Yathrib, today known as Medina.
Unfortunately, the concept of Hijra is not limited in time or space to 7th century Arabia. The command as given is absolute, and remains an obligation on Muslims. One of many hadith quotes Muhammad for this:
I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah.
Thus, immigration is step four out of a five step plan. Sam Solomon elaborates:
So Hijra or migration is binding on all Muslims for numerous reasons; the most important being that migration is preparatory to jihad with an aim and objective of securing victory for Islam and Muslims either in another country or generally as a community.
Those who do not desire to live in an Islamic theocracy had better take heed. Over the last decade we have observed how jihad has come to the West in various forms. The most obvious is the violent, such as train bombings in London and Madrid, and more recently even in immigration-friendly Sweden where a cartoon drawn by Lars Vilks has become a pretext for detonating bombs during Christmas shopping.
However, more important than the flagship violent jihad is the so-called ‘Stealth Jihad’, where Islamic law (Shariah) is quietly being implemented in our societies, usually in seemingly benign aspects of life, but leading to a constant affirmation of Islamic identity being more important to Muslims than honest integration in the host societies. Sam Solomon quotes extensively from scripture and interpretation, pointing out how Islam in itself constitutes a barrier to integration.
The strange concept of ‘necessity’
The Islamic doctrine of ‘necessity’ is a strange twist in these problems. For a Muslim is permitted to ignore any and all Islamic rules if ‘necessity’ dictates it, even to the point of openly denying his or her religion, a move also known as ‘Taqiyya’. Ignoring Islamic rules regarding halal/haram (permitted/forbidden) enables Muslims to work as shop clerks handling pork and alcohol if needed to make a living.
Later, when the Islamic community feels strong enough, cases are seen where Muslim shop workers start protesting having to handle these ‘unclean’ items, and demand an exception due to their ‘religious needs’. Demands for gender-segregated swimming halls, prayer breaks, prayer rooms and eventually mosques follow similar patterns, where items that were initially not a concern suddenly become demands voiced with strong conviction of their necessity. Employers and public institutions tend to yield to such Islamic demands, not noticing that this is a slippery slope towards implementation of Shariah.
Shariah — a totalitarian system of state
As has been pointed out by Robert R. Reilly (The Closing of the Muslim Mind) and others, Islam as a theological system has, step by step, lost the connection to Hellenic thought and ideals, respect for reason, the notion of causality (that laws of nature govern the physical world), the notion of individual responsibility, and has devolved into a Rule of Will, commonly known as ‘despotism’. Instrumental in this rule is the Shariah, as established and interpreted by the Islamic clergy.
Islam today consists mainly of its legal code, the Shariah. Islamic law is derived from the life and actions of Muhammad. Codifying his life into law has been a major undertaking by Islamic scholars through the centuries, resulting in detailed manuals of conduct like Reliance of the Traveller, which describe in detail how a pious Muslim is supposed to behave. This all-regulated way of organizing a society is also known as ‘totalitarian’ (Wikipedia):
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.
Totalitarian models for organizing societies have been tried in the 20th century, most notably in Italy, where the totalitarian model of society was a cornerstone of fascism:
The new state was to provide the “total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals.” He described totalitarianism as a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to Benito Mussolini, this system politicizes everything spiritual and human:Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
All Western attempts at establishing a totalitarian state have failed miserably. In the Islamic Middle East, however, the religious authority of Muhammad, combined with extensive enforcement on every level of society, regulating every aspect of human behaviour is largely successful, largely due to the religious prestige associated with interpreting Islamic law accurately.
The grand ambition of Islamists is to implement this system everywhere in the world.
Now, living under a totalitarian system might sound awful. Everyone is obligated to spy on everyone else, and those most zealous in enforcing the rules are held in highest regard, with actual living circumstances in the totalitarian system not being an issue of debate, for obvious reasons. Instead, such systems have intricate pecking orders, where the top cadres get to pick on the lower cadres, who pick on ordinary citizens, who in turn need some kind of enemy to pick on. As Wafa Sultan described in her book A God Who Hates, this is very much the case in Islam.
Easing the burdens: Tay’seer and Darura
Converts to Islam face a bewildering set of rules and norms to adhere to. One might think that breaking these rules would cause the failing Muslim to effectively become an apostate, but here the doctrine of Tay’seer (‘easing of burdens’) comes to the rescue. If the burdens imposed by Islam are too difficult to bear, the Muslim can depend on Allah to ease the burdens of those unable to bear them, or until bearing them becomes possible.
Rejecting the lifestyle of non-Muslims is one of those difficult challenges, in particular for converts who usually would come out of a Christian or secular background, be accustomed to having a beer or a glass of wine, to women having equal rights with men, and to religion being a private matter. Changing the mindset from one of reason to one of irrational religious zeal takes great effort, and has a great potential for conflict. The application of Tay’seer permits this transition to be quite gradual, but must also be seen in light of the polar opposite, the doctrine of Darura (‘need’).
The doctrines of Tay’seer and Darura add up to a rather confusing whole. Muslims in principle have an obligation to live in accordance with the Shariah, but host societies who find those customs bizarre, unreasonable and wildly impractical are likely to refuse implementation of all but a few minor elements of Shariah. Sam Solomon describes this contradictory situation:
So under the darura (necessities), the forbidden becomes lawful, the exception becomes the rule and the rule as we know it is suspended until the circumstances change or the objectives are achieved. Hence this principle is applied to overcome every obstacle by Muslims in a non-Muslim country from visa regulations, to obtaining nationality of the host country, to ushering in Islamic Shariah slowly […]
The unsettling implication of this that Muslims, at large, cannot be trusted to respect secular law, even if superficially it would appear that they do.
Be prepared: Tamkeen and I’dad
Now for something disturbing: the Islamic concepts of tamkeen and i’dad. Tamkeen (‘empowerment’) is the strengthening of Islamic identity (as opposed to assimilating into the host society), and is a fundamental precondition for establishing Islamic rule. Without a significant number of persons identifying with being Muslims, having faith in Islamic scripture and its interpreters, Islamic leaders would have no cadres to base their authority upon, and thus no chance to seize power and establish Islamic rule in the land.
The next step, i’dad, is the practical preparation for seizing power in the land. This means building and strengthening Islamic infrastructure in the land, building networks and making Muslims proudly display their Islamic identity in public. I’dad also constitutes the practical preparation for the final physical effort to establish Islamic rule in the land, executed by a well-prepared army of soldiers fighting in the Cause of Allah, also known as jihad. Physical fighting would be a foregone conclusion at this point. For that reason, military training and accumulating weapon stocks are natural parts of i’dad. Logically, finding weapons in mosques or other Islamic buildings is a stark sign of warning to the host societies.
A logical and practical conclusion
The main text of the book ends on page 97 with a concluding chapter so short and clear I will repeat in full. It reads:
Islam is neither a religion nor a faith in a personal way, as defined and understood in the West. It is a whole encompassing political system, barged in religious outfit, addressing every aspect of the life of its adherents.
So when Muslim immigrants refuse assimilation and despise integration, it is done as a political move expressed religiously. Hence it would be in the interest of the host society and its national security to examine all requests, from a socio-political angle. For every Islamic doctrine is a political dictate aiming to establish itself by undoing the existing systems to control, rule and dominate in every area.
It must be mandatory for all immigrants, and particularly Muslim immigrants, to sign an undertaking with built-in punitive charges, that they would:
|1.||Abide by the law of the land.|
|2.||Do their utmost to be integrated and assimilated with the host society.|
|3.||Regard religion as a personal matter of free will and choice.|
|4.||Embrace the equality of genders in all aspects.|
|5.||Regard and treat the discriminatory and violent doctrines and teachings of the Shariah as inapplicable and ineffective for today.|
|6.||Accept the equality of all Muslims and non-Muslims.|
|7.||Uphold the separation of state and religion.|
|8.||Value and uphold the right of every individual to choose the religion of his or her choice, irrespective of the religion of the next of kin or community they might have belonged to by birth, or by association of any kind.|
George Orwell in his novel 1984 described how the Western world might have fallen to the totalitarian temptation, as did F. A. Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom”. This decay of our free societies into totalitarianism has not taken place on its own, but might come about through religious authority and pressure.
Sam Solomon describes the mechanisms used for this purpose, and is clear about what we must do to stop it. It is the task of our politicians to take heed and do so. Sam Solomon, as usual, is unrivalled in his profound understanding of the problems. Reading and re-reading the compact books of Sam Solomon is an excellent way to gain the knowledge needed for this task.