Before any attempt to answer that question, it is essential that those taking up the challenge determine what is Islam, so let us, first of all, toss out the two most audaciously false claims: that it is the Religion of Peace™ and “one of the Great Abrahamic Faiths”. The first will only be true, according to Muslim authorities, when all of mankind is under the rule of the only “true” version of Islam, whatever that means. The second assertion stems, ironically, from the easily demonstrated fact that Muhammad plagiarised and distorted fragments of Christian and Jewish scriptures widely known in his 7th century Arabia. The late Christopher Hitchens, a scathing critic of all religions, reserved a particular contempt for the Koran, its borrowings, contradictions and arrogant presumptions. His appraisal of the Koran and its origins,good as any and better than most, can be heard here.
In fact, Islam is more than a mere religion. Rather, it is a totalitarian socio-political philosophy, adroitly contrived by Muhammad to secure for himself and successors total control over its followers by invoking the sacred authority of Allah.
It is no coincidence that the Nazis and Islam were staunch allies and actively cooperated to serve their shared interests, the murdering of Jews high on their lists. The Nazis must have envied Islam’s efficient functioning, how it had no need for a Gestapo to enforce absolute control of its adherents.
The second requirement is to ascertain the disposition of Islam towards us — the West and our traditions, in other words.
Islamic scriptures leave no room for doubt about the attitude of Islam regarding the non-Islamic part of the world in general and the “people of the Book”, Jews and Christians, in particular. It asserts vehemently that Islam is the only true religion and, further, that it is divinely destined to subdue all the world under its authority. Furthermore, it is prescribed as the sacred duty of every Muslim to endeavour in all possible ways to bring about that destiny. The Koran also specifically instructs the faithful to fight and kill the unbelievers (kaffirs), the enemies of Allah, true lord of the universe. They are also told that unbelievers, inferior beings, must either submit to Islam or die, with a third option of living as tolerated inferiors (dhimmis) and paying a special tax (jizya) for the privilege of being indulged by their Muslim masters.
All of the above is furiously contested by Muslims and their apologists, who regularly refer to certain verses of the Koran as proof that all accusations are unfounded. There certainly are Koranic verses urging love and compassion, but they need to be considered in context. First, bear in mind that the Koran speaks specifically to the faithful and refers to unbelievers only indirectly, which means the enjoinment of benevolent attitude applies only between Muslims.
Another is the rule of abrogation, which states that chronologically later verses supersede and negate earlier and contradictory messages, rendering them invalid. It is undisputed even by Muslims that the verses directing the faithful to be hostile and violent towards the unbelievers are of later origin than the ones with the kinder messages. Trotting out the more favourable but superseded verses to defend Islam while simultaneously presenting it as a pacific creed is taqiyya in action– the slippery business of telling sanctified lies in order to further the cause.
Readers doubting the above assessment of Islam and its attitude towards the non-Islamic world are urged to read the foundational books, the Koran and the Hadith, in order to ascertain the veracity of these conclusions. They are difficult reads for the uninitiated, regardless the authorised translation consulted, due to the strange syntax, many contradictions and repetitions. Several very good guides are available, in both print and online, to assist with the task.
In the light of the discomforting truth detailed above, the question arises: are all Muslims everywhere our mortal enemies?
No, mercifully, that is not the case. It need hardly be said that most Muslims most of the time simply want to get on with their lives, just like everyone else, although very often in ways alien to those of us imbued with the values of the Enlightenment. It must be noted, however, that according to credible surveys, a sizable proportion of Muslims are at least sympathetic to Islamic terrorism or actually support it. The absence of Muslim protests objecting to such violence indicates that there is no significant disapproval of it in Muslim communities, while aggressive anti-Western demonstrations conclusively prove the opposite.
Nevertheless, the world-conquering ambitions of Islam are largely the business of the most dedicated members of the faith, mostly religious and civic Muslim leaders and other committed Muslim activists, who engage in jihad (“struggle”), for the advancement of Islam. Significant militant organisations, such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Taliban, as well as smaller groups and individuals engage in violent jihad, while others apply more subtle means, or cultural jihad, to promote Islam. The blood-soaked, gruesome activities of violent jihad are obvious and all too familiar, most recently witnessed in Manchester, London and suburban Melbourne.
Cultural jihad is just as real but far less obvious, yet it poses a far greater danger to Islam’s host communities than violent manifestations. Operating almost exclusively in non-Muslim countries, often with the vigorous support of Islamic governments, cultural jihad has two main components: migration and propaganda. The former is to Islamise countries by means of migration of Muslims to non-muslim countries, the latter to present Islam in a falsely favourable light.
Migration (hijra), is specified in the Koran as a principal means of spreading Islam. Muslims have been steadily migrating to non-Muslim countries at varying rates for many decades, with an extraordinary surge over recent years. These migrants are instructed by their holy books to be amiable toward their hosts while their numbers are few but gradually exert themselves as their numbers grow. This is exactly what has been occurring, most noticeably in Europe, although the same process is underway on our own shores. According to a 2016 Sydney Morning Herald report summarising the then-most recent birth statistics the ten most fecund locations in New South Wales were Auburn (740 births), Bankstown (682), Merrylands (587), Orange (550), Parramatta (534), Dubbo (522), Liverpool (476), Guildford (473), Randwick (467).
Islam’s numbers are boosted not only by the arrival of further immigrants, but also the very high rate of reproduction, often enhanced by polygamy, compared to Western host societies. All Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are incidental foot soldiers in the process of the Islamisation of those countries, whether they know it or not. If the current trend continues unchecked, one host country after another will have a Muslim majority within two or three generations, which will inevitably result in democratically electing Islamic governments. That, of course, will be the end of genuine representative democracy. As Mark Steyn has noted, that is the most immediate existential threat facing the West.
To bolster the Islamisation of host countries, Islamic propagandists use every available means of spreading their message, and they are very good at it. In addition to utilising all forms of conventional and social media, they organise Islamic institutions and schools, publish books and magazines, operate bookstores, cultivate friendship with politicians and other prominent people, recruit high-profile non-Muslim allies to reinforce their credentials, often by bribing them with the political support of Muslim electors. Raising imagined and real Muslim grievances of past and present is another favourite technique, as is the claiming of specific concessions and privileges exclusively for Muslims, supposedly essential for the practice of their faith, and crying religious discrimination when such claims are challenged.
Now that we have determined precisely what Islam is, its attitude is towards the West and the danger we face as a result, we should be able to contemplate what policies could and should be put into place to protect ourselves. This is a far more difficult task than it might first appear. Some radical options tend to spring to mind: banning the practice of Islam altogether, preventing further Muslim immigration and deporting thos unwilling to abandon their faith. Such measures are not only impractical and impossible to implement but also uncivilised, unbecoming of a country claiming both a Judeo-Christian heritage and honouring the liberty, free speech and the state’s non-intervention in matters of peronal belief. It must be kept in mind that the purpose of the policies we contemplate is to prevent the Islamisation, never to promote the persecution of Muslims.
The first step must be to openly call out Islam, loud and clear and as often and as persistently as necessary, by publicly proclaiming that we are keenly aware of Islam’s cultural jihad, its agenda and methods and its ultimate purpose. In this regard the Left has attained the heights of vaulting hypocrisy. A religion that not merely spurns homosexuals while promoting the oppression of women draws barely a murmur of disquiet, if that. Perhaps it is too much fun hounding cardinal George Pell to notice the Royal Women’s Hospital’s clinic every Friday morning for victims of female genital mutilation.
Simultaneously, all the special concessions and indulgences demanded and enjoyed by Muslims but not available to others are to be cancelled with immediate effect. That, of course, will cause howls of protest from Muslim leaders and the politically correct, with multiculturalism’s activists of whatever persuasion certain to hurl accusations of bigotry, intolerance and worse. It is essential that we remain steadfast in our willingness to do what we believe to be both necessary and fair, while relying strictly on the facts we know to be true about Islam and refraining from attacking Muslims ad hominem. All our arguments must be firmly based on what can be indisputably supported by the contents of Islamic texts and proclamations generally accepted by Muslims, minus the misleading and bogus interpretations.
The issue of the loyalty of Muslim citizens and residents to the country must also be addressed, and hear bar in mind that a far greater number of Australian Muslims went off to fight for ISIS than have served in the ADF. No other “religion” or belief system demands the exclusive fealty of its followers, surpassing all other obligations, except Islam. Following the cancellation of Muslim privileges, it must be demanded that Muslim leaders publicly affirm the equality of the sexes, acknowledge the personal and private nature of faith, and insist their followers to do likewise. A charter of signed understanding could well be an ideal means to those ends.
Preaching in mosques and elsewhere must be strictly monitored, also the teaching at Islamic schools. Those found to promulgate material deemed contrary to pledges publicly given or deemed threats to the security of our country or residents need to be promptly and permanently deported where and when this is possible. Second offences will incur lengthy jail sentences.
It must be emphasised, and emphasised relentlessly, that we have no interest in, or objections to, what Muslims believe, what they think, what they wear, what they eat and/or how they pray, with a single caveat: When Islamic law and practice clash with Australian law and Australian values, Australian law and values take precedence and do so without exception. This would apply to other religion as well. There will be beneficial side effects to these policies. The country will be a less attractive destination for Muslim immigrants, particularly those with radical tendencies, and Muslims with similar mindset already in the country will be more likely to depart voluntarily.
Sadly and alarmingly, none of that is likely to happen in the foreseeable future, if ever.
The majority of our political, civic and even religious leaders are stubbornly unwilling to grasp and accept Islam’s true nature, its ambitions and what those things mean in the context of Australia’s future. When a visiting author can proclaim on the ABC’s Q&A that refrigerators represent a greater peril than jihadis and utter that absurdity without fear of contraiction, denialism has become dogma. Sadly, most who know the truth now seldom dare raise their voices for fear of losing jobs, reputations, even their lives. A public burning is not a pleasant experience, especially for the hapless individual atop the pyre.
That silence is the measure of how extraordinarily successful cultural jihad has been. Worse than that, it is a dire indication of the fate that awaits, not so much us, but our hapless descendants.