Migration as Jihad

Migration is part of the doctrine of jihad. Migration is so important that the Islamic calendar is based upon the Hijra, Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Why? Because it was migration that lead to the creation of jihad in Medina. And it was jihad that made Islam triumphant.

In the past Muslims tended to stay in Islamic countries. Today, the new politics is to migrate to Kafir lands and immerse themselves in local politics. This is the jihad of money, writing and speech. Their politics is to bring the Sharia to Kafir culture. An example is using Islamic money is to build departments in universities that will support Sharia and never criticize Islam.
Джихад в виде миграции
Their politics is to bring the Sharia to Kafir culture. An example is using Islamic money is to build departments in universities that will support Sharia and never criticize Islam.
Миграция является частью идеологии джихада. Она настолько важна, что даже исламский календарь основан на Хиджре, переезде Мухаммада из Мекки в Медину. Почему? Потому что именно миграция привела к формированию джихада в Медине. И именно джихад способствовал торжеству Ислама.
В прошлом мусульмане, как правило, оставались в исламских странах. Сегодня новая политика заключается в миграции на кафирские земли и погружение в местную политику. Это джихад денег, публикаций и речей. Их политика заключается в том, чтобы принести Шариат в кафирскую культуру. Примером может служить использование исламских денег для создания отделений в университетах, которые будут поддерживать Шариат, и никогда не подвергнут Ислам критике.

15 Responses

  1. […] Muslims often come to the West out of Jihad, and they salivate the weakness of the Left; they are uncontrollable by their […]

  2. […] can also take the form of immigration, which is called the Hijra. The sword is no longer necessary for conquering the West and bringing […]

  3. […] jihad kan ook de vorm van immigratie aannemen, dat noemt men “Hijra”. Het woord wordt tegenwoordig niet meer gebruikt voor de […]

  4. […] can also take the form of immigration, which is called the Hijra. The sword is no longer necessary for conquering the West and bringing […]

  5. TmKa

    My understanding of Islamic Law is that Islam generally respected conquored Dihmmis (non-muslim) property ownership, but they were inferiors. As such, Dhimmi’s could not force a Muslim’s heards grazing on his land from vacating his land. This little aspect of Islamic law had huge implications on the ethno-linguistic geography of the Middle East.

    As Islam conquered North Africa – especially west of Libya – they came into contact with agriculturally very productive lands. The same is true in the Fertile Cresent (the arc from Israel, through Lebanon and Western Syria, over to northern Mesopotamia [in Ancient times known as Assyria, in modern times Eastern Syria and Northern Iraq] – down through Iraq).

    These areas were initially mostly Christian until around 900-1000. In the Fertile Cresent they would have spoken Aramaic. In North West Africa there would have been a mixture of Berber, Punic (native Carthaginian), vulgar Latin (as was true in Spain and Italy) and perhaps some barbaric (Vandals, Goths – Germanic tongues).

    North Africa was especially productive agricultural land, and a bread basket exporting grain to Rome and Roman Europe. This was the result of Roman investment in improvements upon the land: aqueducts, terracing, irrigation all of which provided for an expansion of agricultural land and growth in population. At its peak Roman Empire had about 45 million people, of which 25 were in Europe. North Africa had nearly half as many people at 11 million. By 735, well after the Arab conquest, North Africa had only about 8 million people. It did not exceed 11 million until after 1815. This tells us a few things about the nature of the Islamic system of conquest and its consequences.

    With the decline and fall of Rome, it seems likely that some of the improvements were not kept up and so some fall in demand, productivity and population was the result. Some but not all. Given the relatively lush agricultural output of North West Africa, and the free right to graze on Dhimmi lands, apparently Arab herders followed Muslim armies to North Africa. There their animals could graze freely on the lush agricultural lands. The inability to guarantee returns on the land or the improvements to make the land productive, agricultural production dropped, and in many cases was abandoned completely. The influx of Arab Muslims herders along with the Muslim armies caused ethno-linguistic shift in these areas so that they became predominantly Arab in language and Muslim in religion and the native and over all population of the area to fall.

    This is all a bit speculative and anecdotal but there is reinforcing information. The Arab armies went on to Conquer Spain, and even advanced well up into France. But Spain did not become Arabized – in part because the Arab Muslim hearders were unable to migrate across the Straight of Gibraltar with their animals. Plenty of Arabs and Berbers made the crossing as part of Armies or as administrative/governing support – but the lack of a land bridge kept the big demographic, linguistic and economic transformation from happening.

    Again this is all anecdotal and speculative, but the entire episode repeats again, in smaller scale, with the Turkish conquest of Anatolia after the battle of Manzikert in 1071. That battle opened up the entirety of Asia Minor/Anatolia to Turkish conquest. Immediately Turkish herders began migrating in large numbers from Central asia – they had to move through Iran, through northern Iraq, through some of the most mountainous terrain on Earth in some cases over a thousand miles. Why? Because at the end of the line was newly conquered land that whose property was possessed by Kafirs now in a statue of Dhimmitude. The Turks could graze freely. Once again, but to a lesser extent the population stagnated, urban populations fell and the ethno-linguistic changed from Christian and Greek speaking to Muslim and Turkish speaking. Once again the pattern did not spread into Europe because the migrating herders could not cross the Straits in large numbes into the Balkan peninsula.

    The other thing the North African example reinforces is the concept that Islam spreads poverty and ignorance in its wake. It is a system for conquerors, that helps the conquering executive succeed in his endeavors, in part through a system of raiding, banditry and the sharing of the spoils. The actual religion component is designed to make docile the conquered peoples – not improve their lives in any way. Muhammed worked the system out and it became the dominant pattern: 1) Raid and pillage areas not belonging to you – this transfers wealth from advisary to you, making you richer and stronger and they poorer and weaker. 2) After you’ve done this over so many years you are rich & strong enough and your advisary is poor and weak enough for you to easily to advance your borders, where by you repeat. At no point did Mohammed even bother with “improvements” to conquered areas. He just took the wealth and moved on. So there is no tradition or philosophical tradition of development and improvements (of people or land or other assets). In the Islamic system the way to grow your wealth quickly is to raid, loot, steal and then conquer then repeat. Repeat there is no tradition of improvements.

    Islam manage to expand quickly to create an Empire bigger than Rome’s (which took hundreds of years to build). But once Islam quit growing, i.e. hit its limits in Europe, India, and Central Asia, the empire began to balkanize quickly. The reason seems evidently clear: without expansion, revenues (tax or otherwise) for the state quickly began to contract making it hard to maintain the state. . What then follows is new groups following a new sect of islam, such as Shi’ism would quickly expand by saying they were the orthodox Islam and so they’d treat the conquered Muslims as if they were Dhimmi’s and the whole thing repeated. There’s a fairly repeating pattern of consolidation, expansion, and balkanization and then repeat. The Ummayads were replaced by the Abbasids in only 100 years. The Abbasids were effectively reduced to only Iraq within about 150 years. Then came the Seljuk Turks. Then came Saladin. Then came Mamelukes. Then came Mongols, Then came Ottomans. After it reached its zenith, the Ottoman empire experienced a slow, gradual collapse that could not be easily reversed the lack of a philosophical orientation towards development.

    To reinforce – the population of North Africa stayed below its Roman peak of 11 million right up to 1815. By that time Europe’s population had expanded from 25 million to 200 million – and would more than triple over the next 100 years. But even more – the main dynamic and economic activity in 1815 WAS STILL BANDITRY!!! The Barbary pirates, despite the American attack on Tripoli in 1803, across all of North Africa, were not effectively dealt with until 1816 by the British. Before the 1803, the American government sent approximately 1/5th of its national budget to the Barbary pirates to keep them from attacking American shipping and enslaving American sailors. Given that a little Islamic Pasha was gaining that kind of money from piracy, why would he bother investing in the complex process of land and agricultural improvements.

    Again this is all anecdotal but reinforced by the Turkish experience. The Turks took the Island of Cyprus from the Venetians in 1571. The Venetians had invested in improvements in Central Cyprus – irrigation and drainage – to provide for the production of Sugar there. We know that for the next 200 years that the value of Sugar was so great that the Carribean Islands were the most valuable real estate on Earth until around 1800. Despite the immense value of sugar, the Turks quickly let the improvements and production of sugar fall into ruin, causing the area to turn into marsh land that happened to be highly favorable for the kinds of Mosquitos that carry malaria. Throughout most of the 19th century, contracts for Western tours to the Holy Land included provisions that ships not call at the Island of Cyprus on their way to Palestine. The British finally gained the Island around 1878 and was caught flat footed by a shortage of quinine for their soldiers.

    All of this reinforces the idea that Islam is a system oriented towards conquest but cares nothing about development and as a result leaves in its wake nothing but poverty and ignorance. Literacy in the Ottoman empire was around 3% – almost all of this Greeks or Jews or a few in the ruling classes.

    Much of this post relies on data from Penguin Atlas of History written by Colin McEvedy and “Seeds of Change: 6 plants that changed Mankind” by Henry Hobhouse.

  6. anti-statist

    Thank you Dr. Warner for this insightful video. One side note I want to make, the audio is quite muffled.

  7. levon425

    Thanks dr. Warner for great message
    maximum in 5 years european will see the result of this mass migration.
    It seems they want be blind and beheaded.
    US is going to be next country after bringing enough the islamic “gunpowder” to our country.

  8. disseo3

    Right on. Also see:
    The Final Hijra A Warning on the Refugee Crisis
    at OnePeterFive, By Andrew Bieszad on September 11, 2015

  9. mikegranto

    And because of our jihadist-in-chief we are going accept thousands of muslim refugees, who will harbor among themselves thousands of isis terrorists, who will commence in this country the same sort of cultural rape they are perpetrating in Europe. wonder what they’ll call this “new” country? Barackistan?

    • TmKa

      Look pal, if you have an alternative political agenda then it belongs on other sites. The only President to visit a mosque, so far, is George W. Bush. He spent much of his efforts making life and America safe for Saudi-Muslims, including providing for the special exporting of Saudi’s including members of the extensive Bin Laden family out of the United States – allowing them to fly when absolutely no one else was able to fly over and out of the United States. He then did the Saudi’s bidding by attacking Iraq to no advantage to the United States. Obama is no more or less a Muslim than George Bush was and he arguably has made things worse.

      So your problems with Obama are separate issue. Got that. When the Republicans can figure out a way to run a country and an economy without totally trashing it into a heap of rubble – after being handed the richest most successful country in the history of history mind you, then maybe they have a case for being able to run the government.

      In the mean time apposing the spread of political Islam is an issue that ALL of us in the West have to come to grips with a resist in solidarity. Most progressives, like Christ himself, and of course all western atheist are against the conflation of religion and politics which is one of the things that Islam represents. Islam will not be successfully resisted by the west if we don’t develop cohesion in our society among all of us. All that is needed for most progressives to come to the conclusion that Islam needs to be resisted is for them to realize that Islam is a political system masquerading as a religion. This is the work, in part, which Warner is doing.

      Okay! Okay?

      Conversely most conservatives I know don’t like Islam because it is not Christian. Many want America to have a Christian government. I tell them they are temperamentally and philosophically in the wrong religion: Christ COMMANDED them to separate religion from politics, they are really latent Muslims because Islam is THE religion that believes in conflating religion and politics.

      Look: I have different ideas about how government should work (see FDR & Truman) than you do. Do you want to fight me or do you want to fight the spread of Islam to the west? Make a choice. Enlightening progressives (and all Americans) to the idea that Islam is a political ideology masked as a religion should be job one to creating a cohesive resistance to its spread in the West, including America.

      I would take things a step further. The separation of Religion from Civics is the greatest event in the history of civics (thank you Jesus, but sorry it took 1792 years to implement). The 1st amendment represents Governments pledge not to intrude on religion – it avows not to intrude upon religion. What we need is for all people to avow, and all religions to avow, the same towards government. It should be a law. Then when one religious group in America, say Safalic Muslims begin acting like a political movement they are breaking the civil contract that runs our society. But that would also be true of Christians trying to do the same (Mike Huckabee).

      Put aside your animosity towards progressive Americans. We can agree to disagree about civics. It is not the belief in progress that keeps progressives from resisting the spread of political islam, it is the ignorance that Islam is a political movement and ideology. Once this is widespread knowledge for progressives, they will universally resist Islam’s spread in the west.

      (I maintain one important way to do that will prove to be through emphasis in separation of religion and civics in our social and governmental systems – as a matter of law and ethics – and the enforcement of that.)

Leave a Reply

We require registration to prevent excessive automated spam commenting.