The Faces of Jihad

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Oh no, no, you can’t disguise
(You can’t disguise, no, you can’t disguise) Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.

—Fleetwood Mac, “Tell Me Lies”

The tendency toward conflict is the essence of the Arab. He is an enemy by essence. His personality won’t allow him any compromise or agreement. It doesn’t matter what kind of resistance he will meet. His existence is one of perpetual war.

—Historian Benzion Netanyahu

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

—Qur’an 9:29

The world today is haunted by a specter out of seventh century Arabia. It is the specter of Islamic imperialism, born and bred in violence. Even today, with very few exceptions the deadliest and longest-running conflicts in the world involve Islam. More often than not, Islam and violence have been synonymous.

Since the seventh century Muslims have been ready to take advantage of internal conflicts and contradictions within non-Muslim societies. Early on, the idolatrous Arabs and the Jews of Arabia were isolated and then killed, exiled, or converted. The Sassanid Empire of Persia, weakened by warfare with the Byzantines, was completely overrun. The peoples of India and the Middle East were divided among themselves and all were, to varying degrees, conquered and their histories erased.

Today, the greatest flaw of non-Islamic societies is their disinterestedness, apathy, and indifference to Islamic history and conquest. This book has made the case that Islam is not a religion at all, and should not be regarded as such. It is Arab imperialism through and through, with a metaphysical justification supporting it. The metaphysics of Islam prevents believers from looking too critically at the belief system and promises great rewards to them if they follow the program to the letter. When Islam fails to subjugate and enslave a non- Islamic society it offers Muslim soldiers or jihadists some form of pie in the sky—rewards for the believers that always come after the believer’s death (72 virgins and all the rest).

To defeat Islamic imperialism it is necessary both to know the enemy and to recognize the threat. At first, the problem may seem enormous—even insurmountable. The most fundamental claim of this book is that it is Islam itself, not Islamic radicalism or fundamentalism, which represents the problem. Islam as a religion, philosophy, and imperialist ideology is an existential threat to the entire free world. It threatens all non- Islamic civilizations. In other words, Islam is the greatest regressive, oppressive, and counter-revolutionary movement the world has ever seen. The threat comes primarily from demographics, which involves the replacement of native populations by Muslims. Demographic conquest is the most permanent form of conquest; it is irreversible.

THE EXAMPLE OF MUHAMMAD

The problem of Islam begins with its creator, founder, and supreme model for human existence—Muhammad. The differences between Islam and other religions can be seen quite clearly by comparing Muhammad as a religious leader with the leaders of other faiths and belief systems. Take four remarkable men such as Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, and Socrates. Certainly most people can agree that these are distinguished religious or humanitarian leaders. If these four are not religious or humanitarian figures, no one is.

Not one of these four led armies into battle or killed people. Muhammad’s biographers record at least 27 battles in which Muhammad personally took part. In Ibn Ishaq’s account (which has great religious authority as an official biography of the Prophet), Muhammad personally enjoyed the results of these engagements. After the infamous Battle of Badr, we even read of Muhammad ordering the bodies of his fallen enemies to be dumped into a well.1

Jesus, Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius have all been remarked upon for their pity for humanity. Of Muhammad, we read the following treatment of some camel thieves:

He then ordered to cut [off] their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. They were put in Al-harra and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.2

Such behavior is unthinkable for someone like Jesus or Buddha, but for the highest example of human life in Islam—the Prophet Muhammad—it is not only acceptable, it is something for his followers to emulate. Lest anyone think this treatment was a one-time thing, the Qur’an explicitly allows this kind of treatment:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land.3

In the Christian Bible, the Savior of mankind endures crucifixion; for Muhammad, it is just another punishment to be used against one’s opponents.

Imagine a religious leader like Jesus or Buddha arranging for an opponent to be assassinated. This happened dozens of times on Muhammad’s orders. The Prophet had a Jewish man and an Arab woman killed for writing poetry that mocked him.4 Examples like this are why Muslims have no qualms about killing or rioting whenever someone offends Muhammad’s honor today. The rioting in 2006 over cartoons of the Prophet run in Danish and Norwegian newspapers is a typical case in point.5

Not one of the other four was ever involved in the execution of a human being— let alone an entire tribe of them. One of Muhammad’s bloodiest accomplishments was exactly this. They were known as the Banu Qurayza, a tribe of Jews who lived in Arabia and were allied for a time with the Muslims. When the alliance had run its course, the Muslims besieged the tribe in their stronghold, forcing an unconditional surrender. When the Prophet asked one of his followers what should be done with the prisoners, he received the answer that the adult males should be killed and the rest taken as slaves. Muhammad called this judgment divine. Accordingly, all the males of the tribe were examined and those with pubic hair were judged to be adults and summarily executed. A poor woman who lost her mind upon seeing her entire family butchered began to laugh at the sight of the executions. She went so out of control she was executed along with the rest. Far from being an event of embarrassment to Muslims, it is considered a holy act with details of the slaughter recorded in the Qur’an—where Allah is very pleased by the “terror” this action put into the hearts of the Jews—and in the Sunna.6

None of the other four religious leaders were sexually licentious. Jesus was a celibate, and Buddha became one after his enlightenment. Socrates was (unhappily) married, and Confucius was a firm family man who still has descendants living today. Muhammad, of course, is notorious for his many sexual escapades. These include not only juggling multiple wives (sometimes unsuccessfully, as the wives were often jealous of one another, to the Prophet’s constant vexation) but numerous sex slaves. He married the wife who would become his favorite when she was six years old, consummating the relationship when she was nine (he was 52 at the time). Because the Prophet sets the example for his followers, it is no stretch to say that the marriage to Aisha has been the cause of more pedophilic relationships than anything else in history.

Jesus on the cross implored God to pardon his enemies and espoused the virtue of meekness (controlling one’s own use of force). Muhammad freely and openly hated his enemies and there are numerous records of him condemning people and even whole tribes of Jews to death. Confucius emphasized the importance of social bonds, the maintenance of tradition, and worship of ancestors. Muhammad completely overturned Arab society, eradicating almost every trace of tradition or regard for ancestors which he did not approve of. Buddha taught that the purpose of human life was to relieve the suffering of others. The primary means by which Muhammad spread his religion was through violence and robbery. There are numerous records of his enjoyment at the suffering of his political enemies (or their potential suffering in Hell). Socrates famously said that the unexamined life was not worth living. For Muhammad’s followers, the only need for examination is to determine whether or not one has been living up to the example set by Muhammad himself. If Muhammad is a religious man, what are we to make of the humanity of these other four men?

THE HISTORY OF ISLAM

The history of Islam is a history of jihad against humanity (that is, against all non- Muslims). The first jihad was fought against the non-believing Arabs from 622 – 634 AD. It was followed by jihad against the Zoroastrian Persians, Byzantine Christians, Coptic Christians, North African Berbers, and the Hindus of India. By the eighth century, the jihad had also gone against the Spanish, the French, the Sicilians, and the Turks (even the Chinese suffered assault, as the westernmost provinces of the T’ang Empire in Central Asia were taken by Muslim armies after 100 years of warfare in 751). In each case, the civilization was destroyed or completely transformed.

Just in the past ten years the jihad against the Christians of the Middle East is coming near to completion. For centuries Christians have lived as an oppressed minority group in the areas now containing Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. These were some of the earliest Christian communities in the world, but also some of the first regions to fall under Islamic hegemony during the first century of jihad. Today, Christians are fleeing these countries in droves due to sectarian conflicts and terror.

There is no end to the conflict against infidels. India has been subjected to jihad since the first Muslim conquest in 712. Today, despite the partition which divided India into Hindu and Muslim nations there are still terror attacks by Muslims eager to claim all of India for Islam. Since the creation of Israel in 1948 Muslims have been attempting to destroy the Jews there. Since the 1960s Muslims in Nigeria have been engaged in constant conflict with the Christian population. Since the 1990s, Muslim separatists in Chechnya have waged a bloody conflict with the Russian people. More recently, Muslims in Thailand have stepped up jihadist attacks in the hope of creating an independent state in the south where they have a sizable population advantage (the country is majority Buddhist).

Yet even if the whole world should convert to Islam the jihad would not end. Sectarian conflicts between Sunnis and Shias illustrate this point quite clearly. In Iraq the ISIS jihadist group (which is Sunni) is asking Shia suspects questions such as how many times a day they pray, what type of music they listen to, and how they wear their turbans. If the suspects answer these questions “incorrectly” they are executed. In Pakistan, members of different ethnic groups will kill each other over grievances only they can understand. Even two Sunni Islamic states, Pakistan and Bangladesh (formerly known as West Pakistan and East Pakistan) could not remain at peace with one another.

This is the history of how Islam was spread. It advanced through violence and destruction of existing civilizations. The list of civilizations destroyed or completely uprooted by Islam is long. It includes the Coptic Christians of Egypt, most of the Orthodox Christian world, Hindu civilization, Buddhist civilization across Asia, the Zoroastrians of Persia, and even southern Europe (Spain, Sicily, and the Balkans all spent time under the Islamic yoke).

The crucial point is that this is not just ancient history. Today, Muslims still look to bring jihad to non-Islamic countries. In July 2014 journalist Abhishekh Bhalla reported on Al-Qaeda’s latest plans for India—a plan which involved “mobilization of its resources” for an apocalyptic final battle in India called Ghazwa-e-Hind.7 According to Islamic belief, this war will feature the final conquest of India by a jihadi army; all soldiers of this army will be guaranteed a place in heaven. That same month, British newspaper The Guardian reported on the wave of British-born Muslims going to fight with jihadists in Syria. One volunteer told the paper:

If and when I come back to Britain it will be when this khilafah—this Islamic state—comes to conquer Britain and I come to raise the black flag of Islam over Downing Street, over Buckingham Palace, over Tower Bridge and over Big Ben.8

ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION

Sometimes the argument is put forward that Islamic conquest may not have been a good thing, but the Caliphate provided many benefits of civilization to conquered peoples. These arguments are overstated and inaccurate. As this book has shown, many of the cultural advances Muslims are given credit for are really borrowed glories. The much-heralded Islamic architecture was itself a combination of styles taken from conquered people—most notably from the Persians and the Byzantines. Many of the alleged advances in mathematics were made not by Muslims, but by non-Islamic Assyrians. So-called Arabic Numerals are not Arabic in origin at all; they were developed by Hindu mathematicians and only became known as “Arabic” because they arrived in Europe through Arab intermediaries. The centers of learning during the Caliphate were never Mecca or Medina but cities such as Baghdad and Cordoba—centers captured from the infidels. Until the 20th century, Mecca and Medina were little more than small towns. The most magnificent of Muslim cities were places captured from infidels like Istanbul or Cairo.

When Muslims took over a territory they often found early “success” in ruling it for three reasons: looting, slavery, and taxation of infidels. Slaves formed the backbone of their Caliphates, and the brand of slavery practiced was on a scale and level of brutality far beyond anything practiced in the United States. Africans were brought into Islamic lands by the millions. The men were often castrated to keep them docile and worked to death in brutal conditions. The women were brought in to serve as sexual playthings for the wealthy. Although it is seldom discussed today, white Europeans were also captured and sold into slavery in Islamic lands by the hundreds of thousands (the infamous Barbary Coast Pirates were responsible for much of the white slavery).

In captured countries that had been the homelands for centuries of Christians, Jews, and other infidels, Muslim rulers had another means of extracting wealth. This was the protection racket known as the jizya tax. Essentially, infidels who paid jizya accepted second-class citizenship in their own countries in order to avoid death or exile. Payment of the tax was sometimes accompanied with various ritual humiliations so the infidels would know their place in Islamic society.

Plunder from looting usually did not last very long. Once it was drained, only jizya and slavery kept Muslim leaders living in their accustomed luxury. The vast majority, both Muslim and non-Muslim, lived in relative poverty—even in lands which could richly support human populations. Mesopotamia is an excellent illustration of this. For 2,000 years before the coming of Islam it was the cradle of civilizations and a major center of trade. Since the coming of Islam it has never amounted to much. Even today, countries in the region such as Iraq and Syria are basket cases only held together by tyranny and force. India is another example. Prior to the Islamic invasions the subcontinent was wealthy and culturally advanced; today, after 1,300 years of jihad and misrule it is poverty-stricken.

The pattern of an extremely wealthy few lording over a vast majority of citizens living in relatively poverty is still in place in Islamic countries today. In the 21st century, the presence of massive oil reserves marks the difference between those countries where the majority enjoy various comforts from the state in exchange for their docility and those countries where the majority lives as poorly as they always have. According to one estimate, “Despite possessing 70 per cent of world energy resources and 40 per cent natural resources, the gross domestic product (GDP) of all member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is less than that of Japan.”9 OIC member states are generally unable to leverage their resource wealth into high productivity: the same source shows that OIC countries contribute only 8 percent to world GDP and 40 percent of their populations live in poverty.10 The six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council are the wealthiest Arab nations on earth, but most of their combined economic output of $1.39 trillion per annum (2010 to 2012 figures) comes solely from resource wealth (mostly oil and natural gas).11 Outside of oil, Arab countries offer little in terms of economic productivity.

On top of this, Muslim countries contribute little to the global store of knowledge. OIC countries on average spend less than one percent of their GDP on research and development. Despite being close to 1/4 of the global population, Muslims have so far produced only two Nobel laureates in the sciences. The first of these was a Pakistani theoretical physicist named Mohammad Abdus Salam. Ironically, Salam doesn’t really count because he was a member of the Ahmadiya sect, which has been deemed non-Islamic by the Pakistani government. The second Muslim laureate was Ahmed Hassa Zewail, a chemist. Zewail is an Egyptian-American who lives and works in California.12 So, out of 1.6 billion Muslims there have only been two who have made significant contributions to the sciences. Rather than advancing knowledge, most Islamic states actively repress it. Pakistan is a prime example, with some of the most brutal and repressive “blasphemy” laws in the world.

THE SHARIA THREAT

One of the poorest understood dangers coming from the Islamic world today is sharia. This situation is in part the creation of “stealth” jihadist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the religious leaders of Saudi Arabia—both of which have spent enormous amounts of money and effort to spread misinformation and deceit about the true nature of sharia. It is sometimes claimed, for example, that only a handful of jihadists want to impose sharia law. In fact, many Muslims tacitly agree with the jihadists about their ends; the primary disagreement concerns their means. Others may disagree with both the ends and the means, but anyone who opposes the imposition of sharia law runs the very real danger of being denounced as an apostate, which is a crime in most Muslim countries punishable by death.13

Adherents to sharia are not isolated or extremist figures. On the contrary, “shariah adherents who comprise the supremacist camp constitute a mainstream and dynamic movement in Islam.” No one can deny that sharia law is derived from Islam’s most authoritative texts and is explicitly favored by many very influential Muslim leaders. It has been financed and propagated by Islamic regimes (most notably Saudi Arabia and Iran) for more than 50 years. In fact, it is very difficult for any would-be reformers in Islam to make sharia appear illegitimate to other Muslims.14

Actually, sharia is not really a religious code or even “law” as most people in the west think of it. It covers law, morality, customs, politics, the military; it is a doctrine presenting a complete way of life that is binding upon all Muslims. Although there are disagreements on some of the particulars between Muslims sects and between different schools of thought, there is broad agreement on about 70 percent of the major details.15

Sharia is based on four sources. One is the Qur’an, which is regarded as the revealed word of God. As such, it is beyond question. A second source is the Sunna, which is all the sayings and doings of Muhammad. This, too, is more or less beyond question. A third source, which is only slightly less in dignity than the other two, is called ijma. This is the consensus opinion of the greatest Islamic interpreters of the past. Over a period of time, Muslim sages came to agree on a number of issues; this consensus has become a permanent part of Islamic sharia. Finally, there is something called qiyas, which is reasoning by analogy—a way of applying accepted principles to new situations to arrive at sound rulings.

What makes sharia so treacherous from an American perspective is that it is completely at odds with America’s most basic principles. The U.S. Constitution declares that the power to create government and make law comes from the people; in sharia, only Allah can truly make law. The law given by Allah is perfect and cannot be changed. It is only necessary for all human beings to adopt sharia and follow it.16 The U.S. government and society have means to foster changes and improvements in society and technology. As the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has explained, “The shariah cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards. Rather, it is the absolute norm to which all human values and conduct must conform.”17

Sharia also introduces an important principle that many non-Muslims do not fully appreciate: the principle of abrogation. This principle is crucial for reading the Qur’an correctly. Since the Qur’an was revealed over a long period of time, it contains passages that contradict other passages. Even Muhammad admits this is so. Following a rule laid down by Muhammad, sharia uses abrogation to resolve the contradictions. What happens is, chronologically later verses replace or abrogate earlier verses. Sharia tradition is very clear on which verses are chronologically later.

The principle of abrogation explains why Muslims are either ignorant or dishonest when they quote from the “moderate” verses of the Qur’an to imply that Islam has a live- and-let-live attitude toward other religions. In fact, the chronologically last Sura (chapter) dealing with jihad is in Sura 9, “Sura of the Sword.” It reads:

Then kill the Mushrikun [unbelievers] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and establish [regular prayers] and give Zakat [Islamic charity] then leave their way free.18

And a little later in the chapter:
Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.19

This verse is the final and definitive word on jihad.
Apologists for Islam will often quote the verse, “There is no compulsion in religion.”20

Non-Muslims should be aware there is another verse, which comes later and is therefore more authoritative: “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him.”21 Another asserts that those who do not believe in Islam are “the worst of creatures.”22 This sort of passage forms the basis for sharia as a system of Islamic supremacy.

By now, the reader is better informed than President Obama’s own counterterrorism expert John Brennan when it comes to sharia. Brennan fatuously claimed that the U.S. government would no longer describe its enemy as ‘jihadists’ because “jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam” while there was “nothing holy or legitimate about murdering innocent men, women and children.”23 Following the Sura of the Sword, sharia does not classify non-Muslims as innocent. While millions of Muslims may not follow sharia, and may indeed think poorly of jihadists killing innocent people, it should be clear that those who do adhere to sharia have very solid grounds for arguing that their version of Islam is the most authoritative.24

Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are engaged in a different version of jihad in the United States. They are not engaging in direct violent acts because they believe slow and silent subversion is a better technique for achieving the same end (global Islamic rule). In 2008, the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, Texas “provided evidence that the majority of Islamic organizations in America are affiliates of or associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in some way and many of them are raising funds for jihad.”25

The Muslim Brotherhood’s goal for the United States has been made clear in an “Explanatory Memorandum” produced by the organization for some of its key followers. This document describes the aim of the Ikhwan (that is, the Muslim Brotherhood in America) as a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” whereby western civilization is infiltrated and destroyed from within. To this end, the organization prioritizes making coalitions with other Islamic groups, taking them over, and directing them to its own ends.26 This Memorandum also listed its many front groups operating in the United States. This included prominent allegedly respectable organizations like the ISNA and the ICNA, among many others.27

Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are particularly dangerous because they operate by stealth rather than open violence. They are harder to denounce than open terrorists like Osama bin Laden because the means by which they operate are not so obviously abhorrent. Yet it must be stressed that their aims and goals are exactly the same. The Explanatory Memorandum makes clear that the Brotherhood seeks to destroy non-Islamic civilization in America, replace it with Islam, and support the efforts of the “global Islamic state” wherever it may be. “It is a Muslim’s destiny,” the document says, “to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes.”28 By maintaining a low profile, the Muslim Brotherhood has been fairly successful in its goals of co-opting American leadership, influencing public policy, and propagandizing Americans to think that sharia law is simply a case of freedom of religion.29

Wherever Islam comes into power it imposes sharia in one way or another. In the United States, this would mean an end to civil rights, an end to the U.S. Constitution, and an end to the Statue of Liberty. Civil rights are an absurdity in Islam, which sees the Qur’an and the words of Muhammad as the true source of law and wisdom. The Constitution is the antithesis of sharia because its source of authority is not in Allah but in the people. The Statue of Liberty is nothing more than an idol, one of the most abhorrent things to Islam. Like all idols, it must be destroyed.

The same situation holds across the Western world. Each of the nations of Europe is completely unacceptable from an Islamic viewpoint. They are based in secular and non-Islamic principles. They do not ban things that Islam says should be banned (such as alcohol). Nelson’s Column in Trafalgar Square will have to come down, just like the Bamiyan Buddhas were brought down. St. Paul’s Cathedral must be turned into a mosque, just like the Hagia Sophia. Islam made inroads into Europe before, taking parts of Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, Greece. It is important to recognize that it still wants to conquer Europe. If it does, Western civilization will be destroyed just as the Byzantines were destroyed.

THE FACES OF JIHAD

The jihadist threat today comes in three forms. Two of these, terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction, are already familiar to most of us. With terrorism, it must be kept in mind that it is only a technique—it is not the problem itself. Other groups, like the Tamils in Sri Lanka, have used this technique. The problem is Islam itself. No other religion today makes the killing of innocent people into an acceptable means of spreading and defending the faith.

As for the use of weapons of mass destruction, again it must be recognized that Islam itself poses the serious threat here. The United States and the Soviet Union both backed away from nuclear conflict; would Osama bin Laden have done the same? The regime in Pakistan which sheltered bin Laden is in possession of a nuclear weapons stockpile. The ISIS organization in Iraq recently obtained about 90 pounds worth of uranium from a university lab.30 While they are unlikely to have the know-how to make a working nuclear device, they could certainly build a so-called dirty bomb—an explosive that scatters dangerous radioactive material around an area rather than creating a fission reaction.

But the most insidious and significant jihadist threat comes from the third source: demographics. The demographic jihad is both the most effective weapon in Islam’s arsenal and the least understood or appreciated of all. For the full picture of demographic jihad in motion, consider the four charts added to the end of this chapter. The following data is taken from those charts.

To illustrate the dramatic demographic shift that has taken place, consider that in the year 1900 there were more Hindus in the world than there were Muslims. In South Asia, there were 86 million Muslims in 1900, representing 28 percent of the population. Today, they number 500 million in South Asia and represent 34 percent of the population. By 2050, there are expected to be 867 million Muslims in South Asia.31 Not coincidentally, this dramatic shift in demographics has come with increased hostility between Muslims and Hindus and increased jihadist efforts to “reclaim” India as a Muslim country. This is how demographic jihad works.

Consider that in 1900 Muslims were almost nonexistent in Western Europe and jihad was almost entirely unknown there. Only 50,000 or so Muslims lived in Western Europe at that time, less than a fraction of a percent of the total population. Today, there are more than 11 million living in Western Europe, and they are 6 percent of the population and growing. By 2050, it is projected that Muslims in Western Europe will number around 18.7 million and be just under 10 percent of the total population.32 That is a massive demographic shift toward a completely alien religion. The shift has been accompanied by increased hostility, calls for sharia law, and terror attacks.

The United States is not nearly as beset as Europe, but the trajectory of Muslims there is almost identical. In 1900, there were only about 10,000 in all of North America, a statistically insignificant number. Today, there are more than five million and their presence is already being felt in many ways (9/11 being only one example). By 2050, there are projected to be about 11 million.33 America will soon be close to where Europe is now in terms of having a ticking demographic time bomb on its hands.

In global terms, Muslims are expected to make a major jump from 1.6 billion to 2.2 billion people over the next 20 years. At that time, a little more than a quarter of the world population will be Muslim. “If current trends continue, however, 79 countries will have a million or more Muslim inhabitants in 2030.”34 By that time, Pakistan will likely pass Indonesia in having the largest single Muslim population of any country. The United States will have a larger Muslim population than any European country other than Russia or France. Most tellingly, the increases in Western Europe are driven not just by fertility but “primarily by continued migration.”35 This means that the Western countries are openly and actively courting demographic disaster by continuing to import large numbers of Muslims whom it already admits openly to being unable to assimilate or accommodate properly.

The intimidation and silence in the face of Islamic intolerance and violence will only increase as this demographic situation grows more ominous. The consequences of the demographic pressure are already visible. When the Muslim population has grown in the major European cities, they begin to establish their own legal fiefdoms independent from, and often contradictory to, existing European norms. Journalist Joachim Wagner documented this phenomenon in Germany for nine months and found that the shadow sharia system was directly undermining the German legal process. It has gotten to the point where witness testimony is now being withdrawn from German courts and existing legal cases there completely derailed by the shadow sharia system. The justice system is “powerless” to stop it, “partly because it hasn’t tackled the problem vigorously enough.”36

Contrary to what Islamic apologists may say, Islam does not bring peace. The name does not mean peace; it means “submission.” The Muslim submits to Allah, the Muslim’s wife submits to her husband, and all non-Muslims submit to Muslims. In fact, it is not even a religion at all. It is an Arab imperialist philosophy dressed up in metaphysical robes. Muhammad is no religious teacher in any ordinary sense of the word. He is a political leader—perhaps posthumously the most successful the world has ever seen, but essentially a worldly leader who defended the interests of his race, his family, his nation, and his culture.

The Arab imperialism Muhammad founded is unlike any other form we have seen. It is infinitely more dangerous than British, French, Spanish, or American imperialism. It is infinitely more dangerous than any totalitarian regime founded by Nazis or Communists. The difference lies in its effects, which are radical and completely transformative. No culture “colonized” by Islam has ever recovered.

Islamic imperialism is established in two ways. One is already familiar to most people; it is violent jihad performed by terrorists. The other, and more insidious way is to infiltrate and subvert. Whichever way it is carried out, however, the final goal is the same. In the words of student of Islam James Arlandson, “Ultimately, violent and non-violent radicals want religious world domination.”37 Looking at the words of actual Islamic writers, and their origin in the Qur’an and other religious texts, Arlandson shows the truth which most Western leaders are reluctant to admit:

Accommodating Islam is impossible in the long run. Muslims believe that it best expresses the will of Allah, so it must prevail … Since Christianity is declining in Europe, the threat of an Islamic takeover is real, in the next five or more decades.38

Most importantly, Islam is always literal. Referring to adherents of the literal words of Islam as “Islamists” or “jihadists” is not strictly accurate. In fact, they are good Muslims. Whatever name we may choose to use—literal Islam, radical Islam, jihadist, Salafist, followers of Mehdi—the end result is the same. All these names refer to the same sort of person. It is probably best to think of Islamic “radical” groups as something like Delaware corporations: on paper they seem to exist in different forms, but once you shut down one group it simply metamorphoses into a new group with a new name.

In the end, Islam is not a religion but an imperialist system that threatens the world. It follows Muhammad, who is not a religious man, and the Qur’an, which is not a holy book. It provides no real benefit to 95 percent of its adherents around the world. From its history, its belief system, and the actions of its present followers it is clear that Islam presents a clear and present danger to the non-Islamic civilizations of the world. Therefore, Islam in its present form must be defeated. The only question is how.