It was in 2015 that Muslim refugee Dr. Mudar Zahran warned of the “soft Islamic conquest of the West.” Zahran was referring to the wave migration affecting Europe, which ultimately saw millions more Muslims enter the Continent. Now, a decade later, an ex-Muslim sounds the same alarm here in America. In fact, she says, operational in the U.S. is a decades-old, clearly stated plan for civilizational jihad.
Only, like sheep to the slaughter, most Americans are unaware of it.
Writing at The Christian Post, Hedieh Mirahmadi opens her article talking about a recent viral Dearborn City Council video. In it, a journalist named Cam Higby told the Councilmen that he was pepper-sprayed and robbed, and had equipment destroyed, at a Dearborn “Americans Against Islamification” rally on November 18. The police, however, would do nothing.
“I feel like a dhimmi, a second-class citizen,” Higby told the politicians. And this “is what Christians are in the majority of Muslim countries.”
He made the attendees uncomfortable, and this was for a very simple reason, states Mirahmadi.
He spoke the Truth — realities people would rather ignore.
Not Your Grandfather’s American Politics
Mirahmadi warns that we’re witnessing a historic sea change. The last election cycle “cemented” the ascendancy of Islamists in politics, she says. Two-hundred-eighty Muslims now occupy offices across all U.S. governmental levels, with six being mayors, including Abdullah Hammoud of Dearborn. Why, neighboring Hamtramck, Michigan, recently became the first American city with an entirely Muslim government.
Mirahmadi comments on this transformation:
Elections can produce officials of any background, yet the scale of this rise is not accidental. It mirrors exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood promised in their internal documents 30 years ago, revealed during the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial. They called it a civilizational jihad. Their words, not mine. Their plan involved softening America through cultural influence, political infiltration, and demographic expansion. The strategy is unfolding exactly as documented, and still, many people refuse to acknowledge it.
The modern West seems to have collectively forgotten the lessons of history. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, Islamic thought leaders announced a shift in the global struggle. Military conquest had failed. The new plan was to expand through demographics, exploit Western religious freedom, and pursue political power from within. They laid this out openly at conferences and published writings. The ideology of expansion never changed. Only the strategy adapted to modern realities. It is astonishing to watch people claim that these observable outcomes are unrelated to the very strategy that was clearly articulated by the ideologues who crafted it.
This once again echoes what Zahran, a self-professed practicing Muslim, warned of regarding the migrations into Europe. “I have to be honest,” he said in a 2015 interview. “You read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers, [and] they are talking about, ‘Good job! Now we’re going to conquest [sic] Europe.’ So it’s not even a secret.”
Revealing More “Secrets”
Mirahmadi, who was a devout, practicing Muslim for more than 20 years, made some other usually buried points:
- Islam has ever and always been a global, expansionist, military-backed ideology.
- “Islam” means submission; the system is designed to bring civilizations under Islamic norms.
- Today’s “political Islamism” has different means but the same goals as always — remaking societies based on Islamic law.
- Sharia law explicitly deems women second-class, criminalizes blasphemy, crushes religious freedom, enforces Islamic supremacy, and mandates death for apostasy. It is fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization.
- Mirahmadi points out that she’d be executed for converting to Christianity (which she did) in several Muslim countries today.
- Christian ethics’ decline has created a moral and spiritual void that aggressive ideologies (Islamism, Marxism, occultism) are filling, especially among relativism-imbued young people.
- Believers must reclaim public-square confidence, defend the Christian sense of virtue, and recognize our battle’s spiritual nature.
Regarding Mirahmadi’s fourth bullet point, note that a 2015 poll of Muslims in the U.S. found that 51 percent believe they should be allowed to govern themselves with Sharia and not American civil law. The 2015 “(Muslim) man on the street” interviews below illustrate this — and more — shockingly.
Eyebrows apparently raised, one YouTube commenter addressed the above and perhaps spoke for many. “[S]triking about this video is that the people being interviewed are civil, decent and friendly,” he said. “Probably hardworking, too. What they say, however, is unjust and dangerous to the extreme.”
“What people believe really does matter….”
Discernment
This brings us to why we’ve slouched into balkanization to begin with. That is, too many of our basic assumptions are wrong.
First, in the grip of immigrationism, we’ve neglected to view prospective newcomers qualitatively and as completely human. For example, it’s common to ask, “What skills do the immigrants have? What work roles can they fill?”
Such inquiry would suffice were immigrants merely entities that perform an economic function — namely, robots. They are instead, however, sentient beings; they have intellect and free will. They come to our shores with religions, ideologies, philosophical foundations, a sense of virtue, cultures, and emotional attachments. Thus must we ask if we’re non-suicidal: Are a given immigrant group’s beliefs compatible with Americanism? Are the people assimilable? And:
Do we have a bona fide national interest in admitting these immigrants?
For with demography being destiny, large numbers of newcomers will change your civilization. Oh, this change may be a good thing or a bad thing, but for sure it’s this: a real thing. And only the foolish would admit immigrants before figuring out which real thing it is.
“If Wishes Were Horses…”
Then there’s the mistake of religious relativism (which corresponds to relativism generally). This is the idea that “all faiths are morally equal.” It’s comforting to many because, it’s assumed, we needn’t fight over religion if we just fancy them all qualitatively identical.
Imagine, though, tackling ideological divisions this way. We could simply agree that all ideologies are morally equal, from conservatism to liberalism to libertarianism to Nazism to communism. Then we don’t have to argue about them, right?
Unfortunately, fault lines don’t disappear because you paint them over with the same brush and color. You just don’t see them — until the whole illusory edifice collapses underneath you.
As with different ideologies, different religions espouse different values. They thus couldn’t all be morally equal unless all values were and, again, that’s the bush-league philosophical mistake of relativism. And when lukewarm relativists invite passionate absolutists into their midst, they can get a painful object lesson in being absolutely wrong.
Whom we let into our home — personal or national — is one of the most important decisions we’ll ever make.
