When most Westerners think of jihad, they imagine bombs, guns, and masked men. However, according to the Quran, there are subtler forms of jihad that are acceptable to gain power when Muslims are in a minority.
The most successful form of jihad in the modern West does not arrive with weapons. It comes with mass migration. It is accompanied by lawyers, activists, institutions, and demographic concentration.
It does not announce itself as a conquest. It presents itself as civil rights masquerading under the banner of the left, with its slogan being "the religion of peace." Not to distant battlefields or ancient empires, but to modern Western cities where Islamic power advances through law, culture, and political pressure rather than force.
Mass immigration has always reshaped nations. Historically, Western societies absorbed newcomers by requiring assimilation into a shared moral and cultural framework. However, because of the left, that expectation has largely disappeared.
In the late twentieth century, Western nations embraced multiculturalism as a governing ideology. Instead of integration, the difference was protected. Instead of shared norms, parallel communities were encouraged. This mattered profoundly when applied to Islam.
Islam is not merely a set of private beliefs. It is a comprehensive system governing law, family, finance, education, and public behavior. When Muslim communities immigrate without pressure to assimilate, they do not gradually secularize. They reproduce.
Numerous studies show that religious identity among Muslim populations in the West remains significantly stronger across generations compared to other immigrant groups.
Combine this with the Muslim doctrines encouraging deception (taqiyya) and holy war (jihad) against all non-muslims (infidels), and you get the result unfolding in the United States right now. When a critical mass is reached, Islamic communities shift from minority accommodation to collective assertion.
Mosques expand into political centers. Religious leaders become community authorities. Social pressure enforces conformity. Dissent is punished informally. This is how enclaves form.
Enclaves are not defined by ethnicity but by authority. The question is not who lives there but who sets the rules. In many Western cities, parallel norms now exist around speech, gender relations, and religious criticism. Police hesitate. Politicians defer. Institutions adapt. Not because the law requires it. Because intimidation works.
This is how, in the UK, a native born white person can be jailed for posting memes or comments, but Muslim grooming gangs can rape, traffic, and kill British girls with impunity.
But the issue isn't limited to the UK; it's right here. Dearborn, Michigan, illustrates these dynamics openly. The city has one of the largest Muslim populations in America. Over time, religious identity has translated into political power. The Muslim population moved in, ran for local office, captured the regional power, and now that local governance reflects Islamic priorities.
Public schools face pressure over curriculum. Christian evangelists have been harassed and silenced while Islamic proselytizing is protected. The call to prayer now blasts through the city. At the same time, Islamic norms increasingly shape public life. Criticism of Islam is treated as hate speech. Criticism of Christianity is routine.
This asymmetry is not accidental. Modern jihad in the West utilizes lawfare to make it so. Activist organizations file lawsuits, pressure employers, influence media narratives, and lobby governments to restrict speech deemed offensive to Islam.
Blasphemy laws do not exist formally in the United States. But social and professional penalties enforce them informally. Those who criticize Islam face protests, threats, and institutional consequences. Those who criticize Christianity gain applause in a dominant secular culture. The result is selective silence.
As former Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali has documented, intimidation backed by the threat of violence produces compliance without requiring constant action. Another mechanism of Islamification is parallel infrastructure.
Sharia-compliant finance has expanded rapidly in Western countries. Islamic banking rejects interest and operates under religious law. While marketed as cultural accommodation, it creates parallel economic systems governed by Islamic norms. Courts in the United Kingdom and Europe have quietly allowed sharia arbitration in family matters, particularly in matters of divorce and inheritance for over a decade.
These systems exist alongside secular law but answer to different moral authorities. Parallel law is not coexistence. It is fragmentation. Islamic activism in the West rarely presents itself as religious. It frames demands in the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Islamic identity is treated as immutable and protected. Western norms are treated as oppressive and negotiable.
Political parties court Islamic voting blocs, as is seen by Ilhan Omar, Tim Walz, and Jacob Frey. Meanwhile, "conservative" candidates avoid controversy. Institutions self-censor. This is how power consolidates.
Historically, jihad has always included nonviolent means when force was impractical. Treaty, deception, and gradual domination are not modern inventions. They are classical strategies. A striking example of how ideological influence, rather than military force, now shapes contemporary jihad and cultural competition comes to the fore this week.
The United Arab Emirates recently announced that it will no longer include British universities on its list of institutions eligible for government-funded scholarships for Emirati students, effectively curbing state-sponsored travel to the United Kingdom for college.
Abu Dhabi made this change because of concerns that students might be "radicalized" on UK campuses, particularly by Islamist networks associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which the UAE has designated a terrorist organization.
Emirati officials reportedly told British counterparts that they "do not want their children to be radicalized on campus," and the exclusion was deliberate.
British officials emphasize academic freedom and deny the existence of systematic radicalization on campuses. Still, the move underscores a new reality: even governments in the Islamic world perceive Western educational institutions as vectors of ideological radicalism.
All the while, Islam makes public claims that directly conflict with Western principles of free speech, equality before the law, and religious liberty. When those claims are enforced collectively, conflict is inevitable.
Multiculturalism denies this reality. It assumes all values are compatible. It refuses to fight back against the takeover happening right now. Western institutions are paralyzed by fear of appearing intolerant. They prioritize inclusion over cohesion. They protect differences at the expense of unity. This is not compassion. It is an abdication of public duty. A society that cannot articulate its own values cannot ask others to respect them.
The objective of Islam has not changed. It seeks to rule the West. To conquer Christendom. Islamic power historically advances where resistance is weakest, where boundaries are unclear, and where moral confidence collapses. The battlefield is now not only military, but cultural and legal.
The consequences are just as real. This series has traced fourteen centuries of conflict. From conquest to subjugation. From resistance to forgetting. From jihad by the sword to jihad by the system. The final question remains: What now?
In the final installment, we turn to faithful resistance. How can we reclaim the West, restore Christendom, and strengthen our great nations? We will talk about recovery, memory, and courage. We will need to rebuild families, churches, schools, and nations rooted once again in Christian truth. Christendom will not be defended by outrage alone. It will be defended by those who remember who they are.
