The Millet system is a peculiar Muslim system pre-dating the Ottoman empire with its roots in Sharia law. The Millet system is alive and well today from Europe to Iran. Its basis is reasonably simple and was worked out for centuries – the dhimmis or infidels would be allowed some loose self governance within a Muslim state, but it would be the Muslims who owned the land, the tax revenues and who would dominate the political hierarchy. The import of the Millet system is that whenever a Muslim majority exists, the Muslims expect and demand land ownership. This will be a serious issue for Europe in the next generation.

Very few texts, encyclopedia's or histories bother to explain what the Millet system is and why it is important. And those which do focus of course on the multi-cult pieties that the Millet system supposedly supports. For the revisionists the Millet system is as follows. It was created during the Ottoman empire to allow minority self-governance. It mandated land, religious, and social links within the minority community be it Greek, Christian, Armenian or Jewish. There were local-dhimmi courts where legal issues were solved at the community level – as long as a Muslim was not involved. There was no centralised state control. It was laissez-faire, flexible and loving. So say the multi-culturalists and Arab apologists.

The reality is of course different. The Millet system pre-dates the Ottoman empire [c. 1100 a.d. To 1918] and was an integral part of the Muslim conquests of the 'other'. The Arab conquerors of the Middle East and North Africa took over far more civilised, cultivated and intelligent societies through blitz-krieg warfare. The Koran and Sharia law discuss the 'dhimmi' or the unworthy infidel.

The question the Arabs faced was 'how do we govern rich trading provinces and advanced cultures?'. One aspect of the answer was the hierarchical division of society between the ruling Arabs and the ruled. A key aspect of this division was the Millet system in which the Arabs controlled the social, political and economic life of the conquered vassal states, whilst giving some autonomy – under Arab and Muslim control – to the second class dhimmis or non-citizens.

There were a few key objectives within the Millet system that any conqueror of more advanced civilisations would want met.

First, the Arabs needed to own the best and more arable land. Without title if possible. In the Millet system and under Sharia law, Moslems do not need to buy land title. They can simply take land ownership either when they are the majority population in an area or after conquering the area.

Second, the locals should not in anyway interfere with Arab-Moslem rule and impurify Arab and Moslem domination [this even extended to strictures against inter-racial marriages or unions between Moslems and non-Moslems].

Third, the Millet system [or something like it], was necessary to impose Moslem law and customs on the conquered society in such a way as not to provoke radical uprisings or hatred of the new rulers. Much like the Nazi program of developing state institutions and state power in parallel to the existing civilian system, the Moslem Millet system was a practical and successful attempt to create parallel and domineering Moslem institutions which mimicked and then controlled existing civilian and political organisations in the conquered territories.

The Millet system is an obvious imperial tool – and a quite effective one at that. But it can also be turned around. If the Moslems are the minority in a post-Christian state they can invoke the Millet system to further assert their land, legal and social 'rights'. This cry is now often heard in Europe and more frequently now in North America. What the Moslems want under the Millet concept is autonomy over land, courts and social affairs within the confines of Sharia law. Since the Millet is based on Sharia law, a natural precursor to modern Moslem demands is the establishment in Western states of Sharia law.

In cities such as Amsterdam-Oost, East London, and Malmo, Moslem leaders now maintain that only Moslems can 'enter' these areas. Their rationale is simple. Moslems are the majority; within a multi-cult state they should be allowed local autonomy to regulate their own affairs; and ergo all land within that defined perimeter should be Moslem controlled. Within Sharia law and the Millet tradition, Moslems do not need to buy land in order to own it. They just need to be the dominant group.

As a former Moslem wrote about France – the Millet system – a system of apartheid and Moslem supremacism is already defacto in parts of Europe:

'Journalist Amir Taheri says that the Muslims in France are not actually interested in assimilation at all; rather, they want autonomy: “Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the ‘millet’ system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.” He reports that “in parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place.” Muslim leaders control the area and French officials, including police, simply do not enter.' [Nov. 08 2005, Frontpage Magazine, http://tinyurl.com/6dn4n7]

The Millet system is a method of control and supremacism – and it makes a mockery of Western concepts of one legal code for all citizens; universal equality; and individual rights to private property ownership. Sharia law and the Moslem tradition do not support any of these concepts.

The Moslems have a different appreciation of land 'rights' and titles. It is based on their 1400 year history of jihad and imperialism. If the Moslems are the dominant force in an area then the land naturally becomes the property of Allah's chosen cult. Why would Moslems need to buy land title if they are the ones chosen by Allah to dominate? The Millet system, like Sharia law, is an anti-Western, anti-modern pre-civilised ideal designed to subjugate and humiliate the dhimmi.

Not enough is being said about the Millet system and its pernicious potential within the West. Moslems are increasing their demands for autonomy not integration – especially in Europe as the numbers of Moslems will increase from 30 odd millions to 50 plus millions within 20 years. At that level expect far more social dislocation, unrest, violence and demands for Moslem domination of whole areas of European cities and centers.

Islam is patient. The West is ignorant. The Millet system will become a reality in many states.