There has been much discussion about the coordinated Muslim migration from Syria to Europe and the United States. This migration has been called by some a parasitic one, as Muslims become welfare recipients of the host nation while they maintain their sacred duty to remain devout followers of Mohammed.
History shows how the followers of Mohammed cannot by Muslim law (shariah) integrate or assimilate into the host nation’s culture. Rather they feed off the host country until the time when they have sufficient political, financial, social and military power to overthrow the host country and replace it with Islam.
Europe is witnessing a revolution against the Muslim “invasion.”
Columnist Robert Heller in an email titled “Why Christian refugees should be given priority to emigrate to the U.S.” writes:
Christians are earmarked for genocide by the Islamic State. Many have already been beheaded or otherwise slaughtered. When President Obama said there should not be a religious test he omitted the fact that people marked for genocide and extinction should by all human instincts be saved from certain death. These people marked for death happen to be Christian.If the Islamic State decided all people with blue eyes or black skin should be marked for genocide would President Obama say we don’t recognize their plight over Muslims who wish to emigrate because living in a war torn country is dangerous or difficult.
The issue is not whether a person is Christian; it is that this particular group of people are subject to rape, torture and death above all others. Obama’s effort to make this a Christian or Muslim religious issue is beyond comprehension.
Former Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, in his column “Second Thought: A U.S.-Israel Initiative”, writes:
Europe has ignored the significant impact on contemporary Islamic geo-strategy by crucial milestones in the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, such as the 7th century Hijrah (Islam-driven emigration). Muhammad emigrated/fled from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina) – along with his loyalists – not to be integrated and blend into Medina’s social, economic or political environment, but to advance and spread Islam through conversion, subversion and terrorism, if necessary. Asserting himself over his hosts and rivals in Medina, Muhammad gathered a critical mass of military might to conquer Mecca and launch Islam’s drive to dominate the world.
In 1966, this Hijrah precedent was applied by Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat and the entire Fatah leadership which emigrated/fled from Syria to Jordan, incited the Palestinian population of Jordan, but failed in their attempt to topple the hosting Hashemite regime. In 1976, they failed in their attempt to topple the regime in Beirut, which had hosted them since they emigrated/fled from Jordan in 1970. In 1990, they collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion and plunder of Kuwait, stabbing the back of the Sabah family, which had hosted them, their relatives and PLO associates since they emigrated/fled from Egypt in the mid-1950s.
On Friday morning, November 13, 2015, a few hours before Islamic terrorists launched their offensive against France, French Muslim children studied – and French Muslim adults heard in French mosques – that according to the Quran, humanity must submit to the prophet Muhammad, and the “infidel” must accept Sharia’ laws; “Holy War” (Jihad) must be conducted on behalf of Islam, and the participation in the Jihad rewards one with the benefits of paradise; the abode of the “believers” (Dar al-Islam) must be expanded into the abode of the “infidels” (Dar al-Harb), who are doomed to the sword; prohibiting “believers” to submit themselves to the rule of the “infidel,” except as a temporary tactic; agreements with “infidels” are provisional, as a prelude to subordinating the “infidel;” emigration of the “believers” must serve the historical, supremacist goal of Islam; and shielding the “believers” from “infidels” may require the Quran-sanctioned Taqiyyah – double talk and deception-based statements and agreements to be ignored, contradicted and abrogated once conditions are ripe.
Selwyn Duke in his column “Islamic influx: Why a Religious Test for Immigrants is Moral and Wise” writes:
People believe in things.
Some of those things are good and true, others are bad and false. And if what people believe is bad and false — whatever water-muddying label it wears — there’s every reason not to vote for them. There also may be good reason not to befriend or hire them, depending on the degree and nature of the badness. There may be reason to keep them out of your home.
And there certainly may be reason to keep them out of your national home.
It should be noted that when Charles Martel saved Europe from a Muslim invasion in 732 A.D. and when the responses to Islamic aggression known as the Crusades were launched in 1095, people understood the above well. In fact, the earliest known uses of the terms “religious” and “secular” were, respectively, 1200 and 1300; even so, they didn’t have their current meanings. “Secular” as in “in reference to humanism and the exclusion of belief in God from matters of ethics and morality,” only dates from 1850.
Thus, during Christendom’s formative years, adolescence and rise to dominance, people did in fact view the world more clearly in the most important sense: they understood that there was simply the true and untrue. Maybe now we can understand why Pope Benedict XVI identified the 13th or 14th century as the West’s high water mark.
The ultimate question is: Whom do you trust?
Recent events in Paris and Mali must be viewed in a historical perspective. Islam and the followers of Mohammed have a sacred duty to conquer the non-believers. Remember the Middle East was once a Judeo/Christian paradise of prosperity, trade and peace.
It fundamentally began to change when Mohammed migrated (hijrah) from Mecca to Medina. Thus ends today’s lesson.