This is an excerpt (without footnotes) from The Muhammad Code: How a Desert Prophet Brought You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram by Howard Bloom (Feral House, 2016). Reprinted by permission from the author.
The Struggle For Europe
“dear youth of Islam everywhere, …dear knights of Muhammad the Conqueror, …let your supplies be continuous so that you may… [continue] fighting steadfastly the treacherous Romans ….”
—Osama bin Laden, 2004
There will not be any place left for the camp of kufr [for unbelievers] to exist on the Earth, not even as humbled dhimmi subjects [second-class citizens] living amongst the Muslims.
—ISIS magazine Dābiq, issue 7, p. 65
Does Islam really stand a chance of finally achieving its ancient aim of taking Europe? Could it ever possibly reach top predator status in England, France, Germany and the rest of the European nations?
Memes, genes, and superorganisms use a host of strategies to expand their sway. Some are conscious. Many more are unconscious. Among those that straddle the line between consciousness and invisibility are reproductive strategies, strategies that show up in different cultural attitudes toward sex, toward the role of women, and toward socially acceptable—or socially required—family size.
Reproductive strategies came to the surface in 2004 when conservatives in the U.S. looked at demographic figures and realized that they were winning the battle for the American mass mind in part by out-reproducing their rivals, liberals.
Reproductive strategies reared their heads again in 2012, when writers at New York Magazine and Slate spotlighted research by Belgian demographer Ron Lesthaeghe. Lesthaeghe demonstrated that you could tell whether a state in the USA would vote Republican or Democrat by looking at its family size. Families with lots of children voted Republican. Families with fewer children voted Democratic. Which meant that there was more to the battle over issues like abortion, women’s rights, and gay rights than met the eye. Beneath the surface, Republicans and Democrats were fighting for different reproductive strategies.
But the most telling war of reproductive strategies in the 21st century is the one between dar el Harb and dar el Islam—the home of War, your home and mine, and the home of Islam.
A dedicated Muslim, Ali Mazrui, director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies, and writer and host of the nine-part PBS series The Africans, says that “When Islamic fundamentalism is combined with the zeal and dedication of jihad… the culture of procreation merges with the culture of combat.” What does he mean? “Fundamentalist Muslim families…,” Mazrui explains, “resort to having more and more children as a strategy for ‘multiplying in the name of Allah.’” Then Mazrui gets down to brass tacks. “Procreation itself,” he says in words we’ve heard from him before, “can be counted as a form of jihad.”
That jihad—that war of the womb—gains from a simple rule: “If the father is Arab, the child is Arab, regardless of race or ethnic origins of the mother.” And if the father is a Muslim, his child is a Muslim. Mazrui calls the resulting Islamic reproductive approach “competitive procreation.”
Then Mazrui gives an example of how effective “competitive procreation” can be. “Islam originally arrived in Africa as a religion on the run,” he reports. “The first Muslim refugees arrived in Ethiopia early in the seventh century a.d., fleeing from persecution in polytheistic Arabia.” They were fleeing persecution in Mecca. On Muhammad’s orders. Mazrui continues, “The refugees presumably decided that intermarrying with Ethiopians and having large families was a way to strengthen their kinship ties in the Horn of Africa, and to expand their local Muslim communities in exile.” Thus, Mazrui says, began “Islam’s culture of procreation.”
— Everyday Africa (@EverydayAfrica) August 2, 2017
Then things turned nasty. “The second significant arrival of Islam in Africa,” he says, “occurred in Egypt in a.d. 639. This time the Arabs arrived as conquerors rather than as refugees. But how was the Egyptian population not only converted to another religion (Islamization), but also transformed into Arabs (Arabization) over the centuries? How was this Arabization accomplished in the rest of North Africa and in much of the Nile Valley as well?” Good questions. And Mazrui is kind enough to answer them. “Historically,” he writes, “the culture of procreation among the conquering Arabs reinforced their jihad culture of combat. North Africa and much of the Nile Valley were Arabized as much by Arab intermarriage as by Arab conquests. The patrilineal system of the Arabs was part of their population policy, destined to transform a continent and affect the world. …By the end of the twentieth century, half the population of Africa was professing Islam.” And, Mazrui implies, with patience the remaining half of Africa’s population will someday be Muslim, too.
Just in case he hasn’t gotten his message across, Mazrui repeats, “Preference for large families…was often deeply rooted in…the imperative of jihad.” And that preference often continues, he says, “when the family is middle class.” Remember, Mazrui is a Muslim whose works often portray Islam as a victim of imperialism, not an aggressor. So he’s skipped over the way that the “Islamizers” and “Arabizers” have used what the Qur’an calls “those whom thy right hand possesses” to increase the numbers of the faithful. He neglects rape, forced sex with slave girls, and forced sex with female prisoners. Mazrui also fails to explain what the modern Arab Muslims of the northern Sudan intend to do when, as he reports, they head south to the black portion of the country, Darfur—the land of Muslim raids and Muslim rape—saying, “I am going south—to bring into the world 40 more Arabs before I die!” Mazrui fails to tell us that these “40 more Arabs” will be produced by rape. Despite these omissions, Mazrui is telling you and me that one of militant Islam’s goals is to win more of the world by out-reproducing us.
How does this apply to Europe? The fact is that Europe’s Muslim population in 2004 was growing at three times the rate of the non-Muslim population. And from 2005 to 2010, the average non-Muslim European woman had 1.5 children. The average Muslim woman in Europe out-reproduced the average British woman by 67%. She had 2.2 children. That’s according to a calm and measured source, the Pew Research Center. Others were less calm. Wrote Vincent Cooper in The Commentator, “Britain is in denial. If population trends continue, by the year 2050, Britain will be a majority Muslim nation.” The usually staid London Times in a 1999 article was even more emphatic. It reported that the Muslim population of the UK “multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society.” For comparison, the Times added, “In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million.” Where did these numbers come from? Said the Times, from “research by the Office for National Statistics.” You can’t get much more authoritative than that. The Commentator’s Vincent Cooper blamed the native British fertility lag on what he called Europe’s “death bed demography.” What did he mean?
Says the Pew Research Center, “The number of Muslims in Europe has grown from 29.6 million in 1990 to 44.1 million in 2010. Europe’s Muslim population is projected to exceed 58 million by 2030.” 58 million, that’s just a tad less than the entire population of Italy. This is where “death bed demography” comes in. Europe’s indigenous population is in a nosedive. To keep a population even, you need a reproductive rate of 2.1 children per woman. Europe’s reproductive rate is below two. In fact, it’s way below two. It’s 1.5.
The result has made headlines. Britain’s Telegraph proclaims that “Europe is slowly dying.” And The Guardian warns of a “population disaster” and a “perfect demographic storm.
Is this demographic shift an accident? Actually, it’s an old biological pattern. One that modern militant Islam has turned from an instinctual response to an overt power ploy. It’s the battle of opposing reproductive strategies that population biologists call “r” and “K.” The r reproductive strategy involves having lots of kids and gambling their lives…often in anticipation of violence. The opposite of r is the K strategy. K relies on having just a few kids, investing in them heavily, and protecting them mightily. The r and K instincts appear in everything from “bacteria, flies, mice, weeds, and rabbits” to guppies, minnows, voles…and to human beings. In fact, these reproductive tactics sometimes shape the very foundations of human culture.
"The Muslim share of Europe’s total population has been increasing steadily."https://t.co/7tyFaGOlVG
— Church and State (@ChurchAndStateN) August 5, 2017
The battle in America between pro-abortion and anti-abortion forces, for example, is a battle between opposing reproductive strategies. More to the point are the reproductive strategies that may help militant Islam achieve its ancient goal of returning “to Europe as a conqueror and victor.”
The Muslim population explosion is giving Islam’s European community a “youth bulge,” a disproportionate number of young. A handful of the leaders of Europe’s roughly 45 million Muslims very openly want to use these youths to pick up where the conquerors of Constantinople left off. London-based Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohamed made a promise before the British threw him out of their land: “We will remodel this country in an Islamic image. We will replace the Bible with the Qur’an.” How did Bakri Mohamed intend to remodel England? You can find a hint in the title of four conferences he put together in 2003, conferences in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Leicester. The title of these gatherings: “The Magnificent 19.” Who were the Magnificent 19? The “heroic” hijackers who had demolished New York’s World Trade Center on 9/11. And you can find yet another hint of how Bakri Mohamed intends to “replace the Bible with the Qur’an” in the fact that half of the terrorist attacks on British soil from 2000 to 2015 were reportedly planned by Bakri Mohamed and his group, al-Muhajiroun. Bakri Muhammad was using one of Muhammad’s favorite tools for conquest: terror. And another: competitive procreation.
Surely Bakri Mohamed’s extremist form of Islam doesn’t have a prayer of digesting Britain. Or does it? The British cleric is not just a crank caterwauling in the wilderness. Bakri Mohamed’s organization al-Muhajiroun is an international organization. It reportedly has had,“no fewer than 30 offices across Britain, with branches in France and throughout the Middle East.” The group also has had “offices across the developed world—in Kuwait, … South Africa, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Syria and Algeria.”
What’s more, Bakri Mohamed’s Al-Muhajiroun has organized yearly British celebrations of the Islamic triumph of 9/11, and has put together a conference in London called “The Choice Is In Your Hands: Either You’re With the Muslims or with the Infidels.” Just in case Bakri Mohamed’s calls for Jihad against unbelievers fail to wipe false beliefs like yours and mine off the face of Allah’s Earth, the Sheikh is practicing the if-we-can’t-beat-them-we’ll-outpopulate-them reproductive strategy, the r strategy, the “culture of procreation [that] merges with combat.” As of 2014, he had ten children.
No wonder a 1997 study of churchgoers in London predicted that Islam would become the number one religion in Britain by 2002, with more mosque-going believers than churchgoing Anglican Christian “idolaters.” The prediction was too optimistic. Britain’s The Guardian suspected that the number of Muslims regularly attending religious services in Britain had outpaced the number of Anglicans showing up in church by as early as 2001.
What’s more, the young men and women of European Islam are increasingly shedding their identification with the West. Even if they were born in Europe…in fact, even if their parents were born in Europe, they are embracing a global Islamic identity. Take the case of Omar Abaaoud, who moved from Morocco to Belgium in 1975, started a clothing store in Brussels’ Molenbeek district, did well, then opened a second store. Abaaoud sent his son, Abdelhamid, to an upscale school. He explains that “Our family owes everything to this country.” Brussels treated Omar Abaaoud and his family well. Continues Abaaoud, “We had a wonderful life, yes, even a fantastic life here.” How did this affect his son Abdelhamid? “Abdelhamid was not a difficult child and became a good businessman,” says his dad.
What Omar did not know is that his son was not popular. He was a bully who harassed both students and teachers and stole wallets. Says a classmate, “he was a little jerk.” Eventually Abdelhamid went to jail for “petty crimes.” Not because he was living under poverty and oppression. But because, wealthy as his middle-class family was, material advantages were not enough. In jail he apparently encountered something that offered to give his life meaning, something that offered to put him in touch with something bigger than himself—Islam. Jihadist Islam. Something that could turn his bullying into a blessed skill. Abdelhamid went to Syria to join ISIS, ran a recruitment network enticing other Muslim kids born in Europe to join the Islamic State’s Syria-based jihad, and began to plan terrorist attacks on Europe itself. On November 13, 2015, he masterminded and participated in one of those attacks—an attack in which, according to ISIS, “eight brothers wrapped in explosive belts and armed with machine rifles” struck in six places at once: four bars and restaurants, a concert hall, and a national soccer stadium, a stadium in whose audience the prime minister of France sat. Those attacks would kill 129 people. All of these six targets were in what an ISIS statement of responsibility would call “the capital of prostitution and obscenity”—Paris.
— HLN.BE (@HLN_BE) December 21, 2016
The U.S. Department of State’s Timothy Savage calls what Abdelhamid Abaaoud went through “re-Islamization” and reports that it is “significantly more pronounced among younger Muslims.” One result: as early as 2004, when Abaaoud was 17, Europe’s young, middle-class Muslims were reportedly more enthusiastic about signing on with radical and jihadist organizations than the youth in Islamic countries. Or so said Malcolm Turnbull, the future prime minister of Australia, who served as a director of the Australian Liberal Party’s Menzies Research Centre. Claimed Turnbull in 2004, mosques in Hamburg, London, Marseilles, and even Montreal were bringing in more jihadist recruits “than any Saudi Madrassa.”
Some of these recruits, in the words of Osama bin Laden, were “competing among themselves for fighting and killing you.” Or, as ISIS’ official spokesman, Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-‘Adnani, says in the pages of the ISIS magazine Dābiq:
If you can kill a kafir [unbelieving] American or European…then rely upon Allah, and kill them in any manner possible, regardless of the method.
The result? The killer of Wall Street Journal reporter and peace activist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002 was born and raised by a middle-class Muslim family in England. The bombers of four subways and buses in London on July 7, 2005, were also kids from solid, middle-class English homes, Muslim-English homes. The attackers who killed 12 people in January 7, 2015, in the office of the weekly French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, were, says a headline in The Guardian, “born, raised and radicalised in Paris.” Yes, not only born and raised in Paris, but radicalized there.
But more than procreative strategies are aiding the growth of militant Islam in Europe. It’s that youth bulge thing. When we’re in our teens and twenties, we have a powerful need for idealistic goals…goals in which we sacrifice ourselves for a higher purpose and for the poor and the oppressed. Goals in which we give up our lives for the good of the superorganism. Often those transcendent ideals contribute to the advancement of a multi-generational cause.
Peace is one good example of a multi-generational ideal in the West. We’ve dreamed of achieving peace since the prophet Isaiah imagined a day when the nations “shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks” and since Jesus said, “blessed are the peacemakers: for they will be called children of God.”
Those dreams have turned into Western movements for over a thousand years. The Middle Ages were violent, and not everyone was happy about it. Not everyone enjoyed the perpetual killings inflicted by rampaging knights. Mass demonstrations for peace erupted in Europe as early as the 900s a.d. And they coalesced in a “Peace of God” movement whose first declarations emerged from the Council of Toulouges-Roussillon in 1027 and the Council of Limoges in 1031. The concluding document from the Council of Limoges showed that the public was fed up with the perpetual war made by men in armor. It called down God’s anger “upon all knights, upon their arms and their horse.” More than six hundred years later, the modern peace movements took hold. The Quakers adopted pacifism in 1652. In 1693, William Penn, the Quaker founder of Pennsylvania, suggested a “European League, or Confederacy” complete with a European Parliament. His goal was clear in the title of the document he wrote on the topic: “An Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe by the Establishment of an European Dyet, Parliament, or Estates.” Penn had written “an essay on peace.”
Twenty years later in 1713, Charles-Irénée Castel de Saint-Pierre, the son of a Marquis, wrote A Project to Render Perpetual Peace in Europe—an entire book that proposed a European union, another book with peace as its goal. A farther 48 years down the line, in 1761, Jean Jacques Rousseau made a splash when he published a commentary on St. Pierre’s Project of Perpetual Peace, an essay in which Rousseau backed St. Pierre’s proposal of a multinational federation. And German super-philosopher Immanuel Kant took a crack at an international system to stop war in 1795 with his “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” a work in which he laid out a series of steps that he felt would gradually allow Europe’s states to coexist in peace.
Then the peace movement went from philosophy to activism. The first national American Peace Society was founded in 1828. And in 1848, the son of a Massachusetts pencil manufacturer, Henry David Thoreau, objected to an 1846 war between his home country, the USA, and Mexico. In protest against the war and against slavery, he stopped paying his taxes for what he recalled as “six or seven years.” Since the loss to the state was only a penny and a half a year, the tax collector ignored the first few years of infringement. Then one day Thoreau says he was “going to the shoemaker’s to get a shoe which was mended” in the town where he lived, Concord, Massachusetts. That’s when Concord’s sheriff, Sam Staples, nabbed him and hauled him off to jail.
Happy Birthday Henry David Thoreau! He was born 200 years ago today! pic.twitter.com/iyX4xuleJ7
— Henry David Thoreau (@ThoreauPage) July 12, 2017
Thoreau was hoping for a nice, long, publicizable martyrdom. He was hoping for what he called going to jail for “nothing but principle.” But that’s not how things worked out. To quote UCLA English professor Barbara Packer in her book The Transcendentalists, Sheriff
Staples told an interviewer that he had just gotten home from locking up Thoreau with the rest of the inmates and had taken off his boots when word was brought to him that a veiled woman had appeared at the jail with ‘Mr. Thoreau’s tax’ in an envelope. Unwilling to go to the trouble of unlocking the prisoners he had just locked up. Staples waited till morning to release Thoreau—who, he remembered, “was mad as a devil when I turned him loose.”
Why was Thoreau angry? He was hoping for a jail term that would make headlines. He wanted to make a statement. And one night in jail wouldn’t do it. So he was forced to make that statement in a lecture. A January 26, 1948, lecture to the Concord Lyceum on “The Rights and Duties of the Individual in Relation to the Government (‘Resistance to Civil Government’).” That lecture would prove to have more power than any jail sentence. Far more. Four years after Thoreau’s death, the lecture would appear with a few changes in a multi-volume anthology of Thoreau’s work put together by his sister, Sophia. The new version would carry an equally new title: Civil Disobedience. That essay would inspire the next 150 years of protests for peace. And, astonishingly, it would influence the nonviolent tactics of India’s Mahatma Gandhi and civil rights movement leader Martin Luther King, Jr. In fact, Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience would become vital to the civil rights revolution of the mid- to late 20th century.
Peace movements have been major components of Western civilization for over 1,100 years. And, believe it or not, they’ve worked. Partially. According to Stephen Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature and according to research cited in my book The Lucifer Principle, the rate of violence in the West is one-tenth what it was in 1650. One-tenth—a reduction of 90%. That’s in spite of the 752,000 deaths of America’s Civil War and the 70 million deaths of Europe’s two world wars. But there have been no comparable peace movements in Dar el Islam.
Militant Islam offers one of the highest ideals a meme can present—the mission of saving the world, of liberating you and me so we can embrace the truth, of giving those of us who live in the darkness of unbelief the only freedom and light that counts, the freedom to live under the God-given laws of Shariah and the “complete system of life” of Islam. That’s a multi-generational project on a grand scale. But the means to that ideal, the tool for the liberation of humanity, is not peaceful protest. It is not civil disobedience. It is jihad. And jihad, as one young Egyptian told Britain’s Grenada TV in 1987, “is a tree that feeds on blood and grows on severed limbs.” What’s more, Muhammad made something clear during his lifetime. He would tolerate no dissent. None. In fact, dissenters were to be killed. Quickly and brutally.
Excerpted from The Muhammad Code by Howard Bloom. Copyright © Howard Bloom, 2016. All rights reserved.
Howard Bloom has been called “next in a lineage of seminal thinkers that includes Newton, Darwin, Einstein, [and] Freud” by Britain’s Channel4 TV, “the next Stephen Hawking” by Gear Magazine, and “The Buckminster Fuller and Arthur C. Clarke of the new millennium” by Buckminster Fuller’s archivist. Bloom is the author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History (“mesmerizing” – The Washington Post), Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century (“reassuring and sobering” – The New Yorker), The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism (“Impressive, stimulating, and tremendously enjoyable.” James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic), The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates (“Bloom’s argument will rock your world.” Barbara Ehrenreich), How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a monumental, epic, glorious literary achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The Muhammad Code: How a Desert Prophet Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram – or How Muhammad Invented Jihad (“a terrifying book… the best book I’ve read on Islam,” David Swindle, PJ Media).
Bloom explains that his field is “mass behaviour, from the mass behaviour of quarks to the mass behaviour of human beings.” That specialisation gives him a wide scope. His scientific work has been published in: arxiv.org, the leading pre-print site in advanced theoretical physics and mathematics; PhysicaPlus, another physics journal; Across Species Comparisons and Psychopathology; New Ideas in Psychology; The Journal of Space Philosophy; and in the book series: Research in Biopolitics. In 2005, Bloom lectured an international conference of quantum physicists in Moscow – Quantum Informatics 2006 – on why everything they know about Schrodinger’s Equation is wrong, and the concepts Bloom introduced were later used in a book proposing a new approach to quantum physics, Constructive Physics, by Moscow University’s Yuri Ozhigov.
Bloom’s second book Global Brain was the subject of an Office of the Secretary of Defense symposium in 2010, with participants from the State Department, the Energy Department, DARPA, IBM, and MIT. Bloom is founder and head of the Space Development Steering Committee, a group that includes astronauts Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell (the sixth man on the moon), and members from the National Science Foundation and NASA. He has debated one-on-one with senior officials from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Gaza’s Hamas on Iran’s global Arab-language Alalam TV News Network. He has also dissected headline issues on Saudi Arabia’s KSA2-TV and on Iran’s global English language Press-TV. And he has probed the untold story of the Syrian Civil War with Nancy Kissinger.
In addition, Bloom’s work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Wired, Knight-Ridder Financial News Service, the Village Voice, and Cosmopolitan Magazine. He has appeared 199 times for up to five hours on 500 radio stations on the highest-rated overnight talk radio station in North America, Clear Channel’s Coast to Coast AM, discussing everything from the biome in the gut and the evolution of the stars to the mechanism of the Great Recession of 2008 and North Korea’s rocket programme.
Bloom has his own YouTube series, Howard the Humongous, which gets up to 790,000 views per installment. His website, howardbloom.net, has had between four and five million hits. Follow him on Twitter at @HowardxBloom.
The Muhammad Code: How a Desert Prophet Brought You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram
By Howard Bloom
Feral House (December 6, 2016)
Did the CIA Create ISIS?
The Origin of Islamic Extremism – Howard Bloom
Taking Over Europe While Muzzling You and Me
Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook