What Is "Hijrah" and Is It a Trojan Horse?


The Islamic calendar contains two small letters which are a bit like the letters BC or AD or CE in the Gregorian calendar. These letters are "A.H" and they stand for the year of the hijrah. All of Islamic time is measured that way and to a strict Muslim this year is 1436 AH [until mid-October] and then 1437 AH thereafter. Now all of this sounds a bit trivial, but it is loaded with meaning.

A Bit of History

In 622 AD, Muhammad and his band of followers who did not have much of any political power moved to a city called Yathrib [now renamed Medina, which in Arabic means the city of the prophet]. Yathrib had a thriving Jewish population who were quite well off. Muhammad moved from his tribe's city of Mecca because he was not accepted in his role as a prophet or leader. In Medina he gained power by multiple methods, some of which changed over time. These included:

  1. Convincing people of Medina to follow him due to his charismatic leadership
  2. Convincing other people of Mecca to come over an join him
  3. Convincing some Jewish people to join him

In a fashion, this was still the non-compulsion stage of expanding his influence. Quickly, however, he realized that strategic alliances, force, and subjugation could achieve his goal of political and religious power much more quickly. This became the compulsion stage of his career and his methods included:

  1. Expropriation of property
  2. Forced conversions
  3. Religious and political domination of all other groups
  4. Expulsion of those who did not agree with him.

Islamic history is thus dated from the time of the immigration to Medina as it marks the turning point in Islamic history from being in an oppressed minority situation to  becoming the majority in terms of religious, political, and military power. This pattern has repeated itself throughout history.

Fast Forward to Today

The Islamic doctrine of hijrah or conquest via immigration is alive and well.  In a similar fashion to the movement to Medina, the purpose is to first establish a beach-head, and then slowly gain increasing influence and power, likely in a peaceful way at first, and then more violent later. The goal, as it was in Medina, is not to cooperate and to assimilate to the local customs and culture—although that can be done for a short time in order to gain a critical mass of Muslims—but it is to strategically take over more an more areas of religious and political influence. Recall that the Albanian leader of ISIS said (quoting the example of Abraham from Sura 60:3), "We say to you as Ibrahim said to his father: "Verily we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allah. We have rejected you, and there has started between us and you hostility and hatred forever, until you believe in Allah alone."  If one looks at areas of London, Amsterdam, Paris and Stockholm, this replay of Islamic history is patently obvious. At present four hijrah tactics are being used to gain control of certain areas:

  1. Multiplication of Muslims by birth rates
  2. Multiplication of Muslims by immigration
  3. Multiplication of Muslim influence via political systems
  4. Expulsion of non-Muslims from certain areas by numerical and sometimes dominance by force—[think of the effect of documented rape-gangs in areas of Great Britain]

So What Does This Have to Do With Refugees?

ISIS has gone on record that it will swamp Europe with refugees. It is doing so and is simply using the playbook of Muhammad at Mediina as very consistently ISIS is living out the adage "What Did Muhammad Do?" If we had a chance to replay history or to re-write history, the Jews of Medina who either were forced to convert to Islam, turned into sex slaves, killed or expelled, might have second thoughts about welcoming the "poor and oppressed and weak" band of followers of Muhammad and him as their leader. It would appear that non-Muslim countries today would need a great deal of discernment as to who is truly "poor and oppressed and weak" and whether or not they have any other agendas.

For reflection:

  1. A lot of talk of the Syrian refugee crisis does not consider the doctrine of hijrah. Is that wise?
  2. What might the people of Medina have done differently and lived—not just in subjugation, but in freedom—to tell about it?
  3. One author has gone on record as calling hijrah "civilization jihad" that is to say, a holy war designed to take over a civilization. Is that logical or pure hysteria?

For further reading:

Sam Solomon E. Al Maqdisi,  Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, the Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam  (Advancing Native Missions, 2009)

Alfred Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad [orignally by Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq] (Oxford University Press, 2002) *this is one of the earliest authorized biographies about the life of Muhammad. 

Posted in:

The Network hosts user-submitted content.
Posts don't necessarily imply CRCNA endorsement, but must comply with our community guidelines.

Let's Discuss…

We love your comments! Thanks for your help upholding the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.
Community Builder

This view assumes that Muslims who immigrate or come as refugees will want to live out this hijrah narrative. I think that many who come to Canada will repudiate such views as being "un-Canadian" and un- democratic and will participate in a pluralistic society that separates church and state - even though that is an un-Islamic concept. While there will be some "extremists" and there is a need for security, I think the percentage will be low. So I don't see Islamic immigration as a threat to western democracies. The situation in Europe is different because Europe was overwhelmed in a sense by it's colonial ties that allowed populations to migrate and become disaffected and alienated (ie North Africans in the suburbs of Paris). A further problem is the weakness of the church in Europe and the spiritual vacuum that has resulted.

I do think it is good for Christians to be aware of this history, and that Muslims and Christians have different values. To follow the cross means sacrifice and suffering and that may involve risks in accepting refugees. Better to work with the diversity of the Islamic world, encourage peaceful solutions to these difficult conflicts, while at that same time isolating Islamists who do pose a danger to western society.

Greetings Greg:

     I recall a book written a long time ago called "You Can Trust the Communist to Act Like a Communist" by Glen Schwarz. What he was saying in that book is that whether in leadership or not, a person will act according to their philosophical commitments. It was Lenin who said, give me 12 [or maybe it was 20?] committed people and we will turn the world upside down.  Thus it was not a question of large numbers of communists who took over then Russia, it was a level of commitment of a few. Thus you might want to be more aware of what a small number of "extermists"[ actually they are the ones who are consistently living out their Islam to the full, and who for good reason called the Muslims who hobnobbed with the Pope, "coconuts" ---which is about as low a slur as one can give] are thinking and stating.

As to consdering that all of this is only a phenomenon for Europe, consider these recent news events:

    1. USA. Consider the Muslima mother in New Jersey who was offended because the school did not honour the holiday for Eid. She stated: "“We’re going to be the majority soon,” [September 22/2015]

   2. Australia: 15 year old radicalized Muslim shoots police officer while dancing and shouting Allahu akbar [October 3rd]

3. Canada: Peterborough. Man with cache of weapons worth $20,000 and ties to radical M. groups reason for deportation. [June 2015]

4. UK.: Family of Pakistani origin who converts to Christianity is harrassed with death threats. [October , 2015]


As much as you want to believe the best of all refugees, which is laudable, and to desire to expose as many as possible to the Gospel, which is laudable, there is no way to turn off the reality of "What Would Muhammad Do?" in the Muslim mind. Some may abhor it, some may try to reject it, but as long as they are Muslims, they will be drawn to it, or have the risk of being labelled as coconuts.








     I do hope that you read the book on the Hijrah by two former Muslims. 

Mr Sinclair, you view the world through rose colored classes. Canadian culture and values mean nothing to an Islamic person; you are simply "Infidels" keeping a prosperous land from them, their land by the grace of Allah. They will befriend you while you have strength in numbers. When that is lost they will subjugate you. Read their Koran...


... and Canada is in deep trouble :-

The Canadian House of Commons passed anti-Islamophobia motion (M-103) on Thursday, leaving opponents stunned that protests and tens of thousands of Canadian signatures to petitions calling for rejection of the motion were ignored. M-103 was touted as advancing tolerance, inclusiveness and racial harmony, but instead it bestows a special status to Muslims and is a first step in edging Canada down a dangerous path, eroding the freedom of speech and potentially leading to the censorship of reporting on crimes committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Even after the cover-up of the UK’s “grooming gangs” and the eventual revelation that up to “one million white English children” may have been victims of Muslim rape gangs; the sex assaults in Germany which have led to signs in pool areas telling Muslim migrants that it is not appropriate to touch women; Sweden’s rape crisis; and France’s no-go zones, still, the German Media Council told journalists not to mention the ethnicity or religion of perpetrators on the grounds that it would be discriminatory to do so. Such an approach leaves Westerners ignorant and uninformed, and living in a permanent state of unease. In Canada, Mohamed Huque, executive director of the Islamic Family and Social Services Association in Edmonton has already called for migrant sex crimes to be covered up following the sex assault of six Edmonton teen girls of which a Syrian refugee was arrested.

In a Toronto Sun article entitled “I’m a liberal Muslim and I reject M-103,” Farzana Hassan writes:

Internationally, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has moved to curtail “Islamophobia” in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. I categorically reject such restriction on free speech, just as I reject M-103, tabled by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, who has refused to remove the term from the motion.

Following the passage of M-103, a reporter in the CBC video here begins by saying: “That woman with the glasses is Liberal Iqra Khalid. It’s hard to tell if she’s happy or just relieved that her motion passed.” Khalid emerged beaming like the proverbial cat that got the canary after her victory in Parliament by a 201-91 vote, courtesy of the majority Liberal government. Most Conservative Members of Parliament voted against the motion, “with leadership candidate Michael Chong and Simcoe North MP Bruce Stanton voting in favour.” Some say that a motion is harmless, but it is not. It guides legislative decisions. Liberal MP Raj Grewal revealed the ominous intentions behind the “anti-Islamophobia” motion during the M-103 parliamentary debate of February 15, 2017, when he stated:

One of the most important things about the motion that Canadians should understand is that it encourages a committee to collect data and to present that data in a contextualized manner so we, as members of Parliament elected to this chamber, can study it and propose laws.

Iqra Khalid now stands as a hero among Islamic supremacists after managing quite cleverly to play the victim herself and on behalf of other Muslims. She spoke to reporters after the motion was passed on Thursday:

“I’m really happy that the vote today has shown positive support for this motion and I’m really looking forward to the committee taking on this study,”

Khalid is referring to the Commons heritage committee, which is now tasked with developing a “government-wide approach for reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia.” Following the passage of M-103, Khalid was swamped by the media, and pressed by a reporter on whether she thought she could have allayed the concerns of many Canadians by including a written definition of “Islamophobia.” Instead of addressing the question, Khalid clumsily dodged answering. The reporter continued: “Why won’t you answer my question?,” at which point Khalid rudely turned away from him. Still in full avoidance mode, she turned to another reporter, who embarrassed her further by stating that she, too, was  interested in an answer to the question. Now cornered and looking foolish, Khalid turned back to the original reporter and asked, “What was the question?” The reporter repeated himself but she replied only by hailing the merits of M-103, stating that it involved a collaborative effort and had the support of Canadians, parliamentarians and grassroots organizations, which is a bogus assertion. There was no collaboration, but rather a dictation to all Canadians by the Liberal government and Islamic supremacists.

Khalid refused discussion with community members and groups that did not align with her agenda, including those who stressed the need either to fully define “Islamophobia” or otherwise change the word in the interests of a united Canada. One of those groups was the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), which stated in a declaration that “We believe the term ‘Islamophobia’ should be replaced with a more precise phrase, such as ‘anti-Muslim bigotry,’ which was suggested by, among others, former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.” Jews and blacks still suffer more hate and racism, by far, than Muslims do, but Iqra Khalid was not interested in them, nor in inclusiveness.

If Khalid’s intentions were as benign as she pretends them to be, she would hardly be so dogmatically resistant to adopting the suggested phrase, “anti-Muslim bigotry,” that was presented to her as an option that would be acceptable to all peace-loving Canadians. Khalid sought to use the specifically branded term of “Islamophobia,” which is a broad and sweeping term intended to intimidate and silence critics of Islam. Iqra Khalid appeared to be well aware of the confusion that resulted from her “Islamophobia” motion as she remained resolute in insisting on that word.

Khalid is well versed in deceit, and has, despite her harmless appearance, a questionable history. She is a former president of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim Student Association (MSA) at York University. MSA’s are “essentially an arm of the Saudi-funded, Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Muslim World League.” The Muslim Student Associations are also well known for their aggressive Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions drives on campus to demonize and delegitimize the State of Israel, and for their intimidation of Jewish students. In January 2016, Khalid received a red carpet welcome from board members of the Palestine House in Mississauga (near Toronto) and a “large number of members of the Palestinian  community,” including Palestinian political activists. Palestine House supports the Palestinian al-Quds Intifada, and its settlement program was defunded by the former Conservative Harper government for allying itself with terrorism.

The controversy surrounding Khalid’s motion was first portrayed in the mass media as an issue of right versus left and of white supremacists versus “immigrants.” Even the tragic shooting in January at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City — which killed six people and injured 19 — ended up being used as a political rallying point to shore up support for M-103 and fan the flames of division that were spreading fast, despite the lack of transparency about what really occurred at that mosque and the motive behind the shooting. But Forum Research proved that Canadians still widely rejected M-103. The research group found that only 14% of people supported M-103, and an Angus Reid poll showed that only 12% thought that M-103 was “‘worth passing’ and ‘will help reduce anti-Muslim attitudes and discrimination.’”

Behind Khalid were muscular Muslim Brotherhood lobbies and a global network. Canada’s first anti-Islamophobia motion that passed in October and the second, M-103, were built on petition e-411 by Samer Majzoub, who managed a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Montreal high school, and is a leader of the self-described Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim Association of Canada (MAC). Majzoub even accused Conservative MPs of “stoking a wave of anti-Muslim sentiment” in opposing M-103.

Petition e-411, which was presented with 70,000 signatures, outlined the contributions of Islam throughout history and declared Islam a religion of peace that had been hijacked by a violent few. The petition was celebrated by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the former Canadian branch of CAIR (CAIR-CAN). CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history, related to funding Hamas. CAIR was also designated a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates. The NCCM’s Executive Director, Ihsaan Gardee, said of the first anti-Islamophobia motion that it sent “a strong message to Canadians that discrimination and hatred against Muslims is unacceptable.” Six major Canadian cities also signed an anti-Islamophobia charter last summer, which was initiated by the NCCM.

Those who are pushing the “Islamophobia” agenda have not finished, either in Canada or worldwide. This nefarious scheme can be traced all the way up to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC has many member nations that once subscribed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but which signed on to the Cairo Declaration of Human rights in August 1990. The Cairo declaration affirmed that Sharia is the sole source of determining human rights. Sharia is regarded as divine law, and any insult to Muhammad or Islam is deemed blasphemous.

The passing of this “Islamophobia” motion in Canada represents a low point for freedom and an outstanding achievement for Islamic supremacists. For over 20 years, the OIC has been pressuring the West to restrict the free speech in accordance with its charter to “to combat defamation of Islam.” In 2009, an official OIC organization, the International Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Academy, issued fatwas calling for bans on the freedom of speech, legislation to protect Islamic interests, and judicial punishment for public expressions of apostasy. Demands to ban the freedom of speech also came from Egypt’s Salafist Nour party, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hizballah and al-Qaeda-linked groups.

The “Islamophobia” subterfuge is not new in Canada. In November 2012, a video created by a member of the Canadian military that mocked Osama bin Laden was deemed Islamophobic. The video was shown during an event as a satire of the brutalities practiced within Islamic regimes, which freedom-loving Muslims themselves rail against. The head of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin, was so upset by this video that he issued an apology to those who were offended and stated that the military has “zero tolerance for acts that do not reflect our Canadian values, especially the respect we owe to other cultures and religions.” A full military investigation was also launched, with a promise to follow through with disciplinary action against those involved. CAIR-CAN called it “tragic that an ignorant prank threatens to cast a shadow on our heritage.” The real tragedy, however, was the intimidation and attempt at censorship. And as accusations of “Islamophobia” grow more common in the West, there are bound to be much more intimidation and censorship.

In a special contribution to the Montreal Gazette, Montreal physician Dr. Sherif Emil, who grew up in Saudi Arabia, wrote prior to the passing of M-103:

The demagoguery of Islamophobia is already manifest in the Liberals’ apparent quest to brand all opposed to M-103 as extremists, racists and bigots. All three opposition parties supported an alternative motion that urged the House to condemn “all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities….

No Liberal MP supported the motion; it seems they did not have the guts to defy their prime minister and be — well — liberal.

The controversial Muslim author and speaker Irshad Manji once told Canada’s Globe and Mail that “offending people may be the only way to achieving a pluralistic society.” The best defense against the Islamophobia ploy is the active defense of our constitutionally protected principles of human rights, especially the freedom of speech, even when that speech is offensive, and the encouragement of pluralism within Islam. To criticize or insult Islam — or any religion, for that matter — is neither racist nor incitement to hatred. In fact, the reverse is true: smothering public discourse creates a fertile ground for toxic emotions to fester against Muslims, thereby creating the opposite of what Iqra Khalid says she is trying to do.

Some other recent incidents of Islamic supremacist incursion in Canada: Ontario also unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, and most disappointing was that Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown “instructed” his caucus to vote for it; the Peel Regional School Board in Mississauga is not only allowing Islamic sermons, but is refusing to monitor the contents of those sermons. Parents are furious. When protests erupted a couple of months ago, Peel police intervened as if they were Sharia police and bullied a female protester outside. New protests have now begun. Last Wednesday, a Peel District School Board meeting about Muslim prayer was cleared by police after some infuriated attendees shouted comments about Sharia and concerns about the Islamic indoctrination of children; pages were torn from a Quran.

Author Bruce Bawer in his book While Europe Slept warns that Europe is being destroyed from within by Islamic incursion, and most Europeans don’t even know it is happening. The same process has begun in Canada, with its suicidal refugee policy of welcoming in unvetted asylum seekers and ramming “anti-Islamophobia” initiatives down the throats of Canadians, along with the persistence of Canadian authorities in unreasonably accommodating Islamic supremacists and even allowing Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and individuals to sway public policy. The only positive aspect of the M-103 “anti-Islamophobia” ordeal was the open and widespread rejection of it by Canadians of every race and religious background.


Long, but an excellent piece of work. Good Job!