The Deception of Islam

 

It is said that Islam is a peaceful religion and that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban represented an extremely radical Muslim fringe that is not really a representative interpretation of true Islam. It may be that such an assessment is, to a small degree, more extreme than historic Islam. However, it is certainly not true that Islam is in any way a peaceful religion, especially toward outsiders.

ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION

First of all, we should know that Islam means “submission,” not peace. This does not imply mere voluntary submission but includes a forced submission where subjects will not comply. Historically Islam is not known for its peace movements, but for a uniquely Arab word we all know as “jihad,” which means an offensive war intended to lead to the conversion of the infidel to Islam or his annihilation. Dave Hunt notes: Islam is fighting a holy war for control of the world! That war was begun by Mohammed himself in the seventh century and is still carried on today by his faithful followers through terrorism. The terrorists are not radicals or extremists, as the media continually labels them. Instead, these are Islamic fundamentalists who are true to their religion and the teachings of the Koran and who follow faithfully in the footsteps of their great Prophet, Mohammed.

As one former Muslim and Islamic scholar has said: We must never imagine that such Muslims are being unnecessarily wicked. They are simply being faithful to their religion. The fact is never hidden as to the attitude a good Muslim should have towards Christians and Jews. In fact, much of the incitement to violence and war in the whole of the Quran is directed against the Jews and Christians who rejected what they felt to be the strange god Mohammed was try to preach.

It appears that the fundamentalists versions of Islam are closer to historic Islam than those who are followers of so-called modern “mainstream” Islamic expressions. Non fundamentalist Muslims are the ones who have changed historically and moved away from the historic Islam. I will provide more information supporting this claim throughout the remainder of this article.

ISLAM’S GLOBAL JIHAD

In an excellent book, written by a convert from Islam to Christianity, Abd El Schafi has documented from the Koran and widely accepted Muslim scholarship that Islam has always been and continues to be a religion spread by force, not through peaceful means or persuasion. His book, Behind The Veil: Unmasking Islam is the work of a team of Christian converts from Islam that base their research and conclusions on the work of nothing but mainstream Muslims, both ancient and modern, from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Middle Eastern Islamic countries.

El Schafi says Muhammad and his successors initiated offensive wars against peaceful countries in order to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundance of these lands. Their objective was to capture women and children and to put an end to the poverty and hunger from which Arab Muslims suffered. So,

Islam was imposed upon Syria, Jordan, Palestine (Jerusalem), Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, all of North Africa, some parts of India and China, and later Spain.

For those familiar with Muhammad’s rise to power will also realize that Islam rose to the fore as a result of military conquest upon the so-called “holy land” of the Arabian Peninsula.

El Schafi adds the following information about the militant nature of historic Islam in the following: Undoubtedly, the concept of an offensive war to spread the faith is a genuine Islamic concept; it is known as a Holy War for the sake of God. We will see what Muslim scholars have explicitly determined that this is the essence of Islam. They also indicate that if sufficient military power is available to Islamic countries, they ought to attack all other countries in order to force them to embrace Islam (as well as all the Caliphs who succeeded him) called for holy wars. All scholars and lawyers acknowledge that.

DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE KORAN

Anyone with even a casual acquaintance with Islam knows that the Koran is the authoritative scripture for the Muslim. Yet observe the many direct quotes from the Koran advocating militancy toward the non-Muslim. There are probably more that could be cited, but these are some that this novice was able to glean from Islam’s Holy Book.

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them. And seize them, beleaguer them. Lie in wait for the in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah 9:5)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)

Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive and struggle with your goods and your persons, in the Cause of Allah. (Surah 9:41)

The infidel is to be “killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land . . . and in the hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.” (Surah 5:33)

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth no aggressors. And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out. . . . But if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful. (Surah 2:190-92)

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. . . . Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! ( Surah 2:29, 41)

Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who reject the faith do battle for the cause of evil. So fight ye against the friends of Satan.(Surah 4:76)

MUHAMMAD AND THE ORIGIN OF ISLAM

It should not be surprising in the least to those familiar with the Koran and those with a knowledge of the genesis of this militant religion, that Islam was planted by Muhammad with the sword, not a philosophy or ethic of peace.

El Schafi provides the following synopsis of the bloody beginnings of the Islamic religion: Even the Muslim reader will be astonished to learn how cruel and brutal Muhammad was as he tortured his captives with fire, then killed them and took their wives as bond maids and wives for himself as well as for his companions. Had anyone dared to write defamatory poetry about him, the poet would have been assassinated whether a centenarian or a nursing mother. . . .

Following Muhammad’s death, his companions fought each other in relentless, savage wars. Competing for authority and out of deeply rooted hatred, Muhammad’s relatives and closest friends sacrificed and slaughtered on another. . All these historical facts are agreed upon by all Muslim scholars and historians.

No wonder that we see Muslims these days fighting with each other. In fact, these wars and hostilities spring from the heart of the teachings of Islam since it calls for the use of force to combat wrongdoing, as Muhammad’s relatives did with one another. It was Muhammad who said that “whoever sees an abomination must straighten it with his hands.”” Saddam Hussein repeated and relied upon this saying of Muhammad in his attack on Kuwait’s ruling family. Muslim brotherhood in Egypt depended upon this saying when they killed Anwar El Sadat.

Muhammad founded Islam with the sword. His followers maintained Islamic rule with the sword. Subsequent generations have always spread Islam’s oppressive rule beyond the Arabian Peninsula with the sword. One cannot be a true follower of Islam without holding to the tenants of the Koran, which also advocates forced submission to its rule. How can anyone who knows much about Islam deny this?

SECULAR WESTERNERS

Why are so many in the United States and the West inclined to want to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and not the militant movement that desires to conquer the world through Jihad? In general, it is most likely because of liberal enlightenment beliefs that dominate their mindset. Just as liberals change Christianity from something that includes the literal Word of God in the Bible that has occurred literally in history to the words of man that contain human ideas and universal human ethics. Western Muslims are often “liberal,” by Middle Eastern standards, in their interpretations of Islam.

Just as liberal “Christians” deny direct biblical statements and reinterpret Christianity as something that they want it to be, so also do Muslims, primarily in the West. It is only in this way can anyone could attempt to represent Islam as a peaceful religion. Obviously there are political motives behind President Bush and his administration that have given rise to their many statements that Islam is a peaceful religion. Yet such is simply not the case. If our American administration is going to truly defeat Islamic terrorism, they are going to have to face the fact that it is driven by a historic Muslim belief in holy war as a means of spreading their religion.

CONCLUSION

Biblical Christianity does not advocate the use of the sword to spread its message of forgiveness from sin by faith alone in Christ alone. The Bible advocates propagation of its message through the preaching of the gospel and verbal persuasion. Of course, Christians have the secret weapons of prayer and the Holy Spirit that works behind the scene in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel.

Is Christianity a religion of peace? Christianity is a religion of peace to those who come to know the grace of God through belief in the gospel message. Christianity is a peaceful religion in that Scripture does not advocate the spread of its message in any way through the sword, but with words only. However, the Bible clearly does teach that God, not mankind, will judge those who reject the gospel message of Jesus, His Son.

Paul says the following in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10: “For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.” Maranatha!

by Thomas D. Ice at digitalcommons.liberty.edu in May 2009

The dangerous notion that Islam is peaceful has been so frequently reiterated by world leaders, clerics, and the liberal media-academia complex that it has taken on the status of COWDUNG—a facetious near-acronym for ‘conventional wisdom of the dominant group.’

Denying 1,400 years of history, these apologists would have us believe that extremist Islam is a perversion. Their sanitized version presents Islam’s prime motif of violent jihad—or religious war against infidels—as an individual’s “inner struggle” for spiritual growth.

To expose these falsehoods—which have circled the globe before the truth even got out of bed—conservative authors Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin wrote Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam. First published in 2017, the bestselling book saw a second edition and faced an Amazon ban in 2019.

In light of Robinson’s early release from a British prison a few days ago, an overview of this important book seems fitting. The authors assert that the key to understanding what the Koran signifies to Muslims is naskh, an interpretive guideline indicating that in the Koran, what comes after negates what precedes it. Later verses remain valid even if they contradict earlier ones.

By presenting the Koran in reverse chronological order, the authors allow us to see how quotes on peace and the absence of compulsion in religion that Islam’s apologists cherry-pick hold little significance because they precede more violent dictates. The authors utilize a widely popular 1930 translation of the Koran by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, a British convert to Islam, while shedding light on a deception it created. More on that later.

Their 101-page introduction outlines the history of Mohammed’s religion and its misrepresentation after 9/11. It mentions that in the 19th and 20th centuries, authors as diverse as Winston Churchill and Samuel Huntington could openly criticize Islam as frenzied and violent. British Prime Minister William Gladstone (1809-98) proclaimed that “So long as there is this book, there will be no peace in the world.”

The authors indicate that there were two phases in the Prophet’s life, each corresponding to different sections of the Koran. In the first phase, Mohammed lived in Mecca with a few followers and no power; the related section is benevolent and peaceful. In the second phase, following the Hijra to Medina, he emerged as a powerful warlord focused on conquest; the Koranic section for this phase is overtly violent and abrogates what is stated in the first.

During the first phase, survival required Mohammed to foster good relations with the Meccan tribes. Therefore, he preached tolerance, presented himself as peaceful, and refrained from discussing jihad. However, respect for other religions faded once he gained power. He executed defeated tribes and demanded either conversion or submission to Islam.

The oft-quoted ayat as-sayf—or Verse of the Sword (Koran 9:5) from the chapter titled Surat at-Tawbah—which sanctions the massacre of infidels, comes from the latter phase of Mohammed’s life. It abrogates 120 earlier ayats, including Koran 2:256, which speaks of “no compulsion in religion.” To Muslims, Mohammed’s later words represent the unchanging word of Allah. The authors’ reverse presentation exposes the deception of apologist quote masters.

Mohammed’s religion expanded only after he integrated robbery and killing into it. Thus, war and plunder are intrinsic to Islam. The authors state that “strive in Allah’s way” always refers to jihad, and “gardens” to Paradise, the reward for jihadis. Those words inspire today’s terrorists as much as they did medieval warriors.

Unlike Buddhism or Christianity, whose founders advocated love and peace, Islam has often been linked to bloodshed and subjugation. As a result, after 9/11, it became crucial for Islam to present a gentler image to the world, which still struggles to connect with a religion tied to violence by a warlord. Many world leaders became unwitting accomplices in this deception.

To prevent reckless attacks on large Muslim communities within their borders and to appear fair while pursuing Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Western leaders such as George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac, and Tony Blair began to express platitudes about Islam being inherently peaceful. Shortly thereafter, religious leaders joined this initiative. Islamists allied with left-leaning figures in the media and academia to weaken Westerners’ resistance to Islam.

The authors note how post-9/11 academic works relied on a deception that had been practiced from the mid-19th century to the early 20th century. Before World War II, the available translations of the Koran, some by non-Muslims, were chronological and reflected the true intent of Islam.

The most popular was one by James Medows Rodwell. Flipping through its pages, one might think the chapter numbers are hopelessly jumbled. However, it follows a chronological order, concluding with the most violent chapters, 9 and 5. Robinson and McLoughlin argue that anyone reading the Koran in English during that time would have understood that the peaceful verses were annulled and that, toward the end of his life, Mohammed was calling for “genocide and apartheid.”

But by the 1950s, with the increase of Muslim immigrants to the West, the Rodwell translation was “crowded out” by the Pickthall version, which is not only turgid but also obscures the intent with a neat yet misleading chapter numbering. The chapters themselves follow the non-chronological, traditional presentation, written a few years after Mohammed’s death and based on recitations by those who had reportedly memorized the previously unwritten revelations.

Many of these memorizers, the fiercest warriors of Islam, were dying in battle. Fearing that the revelations might be lost, early Muslims recorded various recitations. This resulted in many versions, which were ultimately unified into one in Arabic that is now accepted as the final word.

The authors claim that the Pickthall translation lacks the necessary information “to make sense of the illogical ordering of the chapters.” They contend that its publication in an Everyman’s Library edition, which replaced the Rodwell version, was part of a “wider movement of the educated elite submitting to Muslim demands to frame Islam” to accommodate Islamic supremacists.

They say that, nevertheless, the elite, had they been careful readers, could not have missed Islam’s belligerence. Introductions to both translations note the fearsome early wars to establish a Caliphate. The authors suggest that the publication of several confusing, chronology-concealing translations from the 1990s onward was deliberate. This “thicket of misleading Koran translations provided the background” against which “the Grand Lie” that Islam is peaceful flourished.

After 9/11, self-proclaimed moderate Muslim leaders—some of whom had visited the White House, advised the Pentagon, and lectured FBI cadets on a peaceful Islam—continued to inform Muslims living in the U.S. that their ultimate goal was to transform America into an Islamic state. Their moderation and patriotism were merely a façade for conquest.

Robinson and McLoughlin’s book contains all the background needed to see past the Grand Lie and understand that a) Muslims are to remain in perpetual jihad until the world is converted or subjugated; b) they are to besiege, enslave, or kill non-Muslims; c) they are not to make friends with Jews or Christians; d) they are to wage war even if they find it hateful; and e) they may deceive infidels without fear of sin.

The authors write: “Muslims around the world must laugh at the freedom-loving, democracy-loving West, where our elected leaders can lie to us blatantly about the doctrines and history of Islam.” Their book—a bold attempt to stop the lying—is a must-read for the free world.

by Janet Levy at americanthinker.com on June 3, 2025

When it comes to Islam, are we in the West too stupid to survive? I question whether we will survive as a nation or are even worth saving. If nothing else, our refusal to recognize Islam for what it is seems to presage our demise.

Putting aside the damage leftism does to American culture, we are also at risk from Islam, about which we still remain appallingly ignorant 24 years after 9/11. Instead, we have adopted the myth of “Moderate Muslims.” Before elaborating on Moderate Muslims, we must ask, “What other groups get to use the prefix “moderate?” During WWII, were there moderate Nazi members of Congress who claimed to only believe in the “good” parts of Mein Kampf, such as free health care. Were there moderate members of the KKK who only went out occasionally lynching, burning, and raping? And where are the moderate wife beaters who avoid hitting the face and who don’t leave visible bruising?

Moderate Muslims adopt a cafeteria approach to Islam, ignoring those they dislike or that play badly in the West, all while clinging to the core message: A worldwide caliphate, free of all other faiths, except those that are useful to their Islamic overlords.

The current image of a Moderate Muslim is Ilhan Omar. That begins with how she dresses. Although Muslim women are required to be completely covered, except “the eyes or one eye to see the way,” Omar wears Western clothing, often with a turban. Her eyebrows look carefully groomed, but in Islam removing eyebrow hair is forbidden because you cannot alter what the Islamic god created. Conversely, pubic and armpit hair must be removed, and there is the female genital mutilation exception to altering what the Islamic god created.

Omar is also wears nail polish, which theoretically needs to be removed before washing for each of her five daily prayers, and pants, even though Muhammad cursed women who dressed in a masculine manner.

Her speech and lifestyle also deviate from Islam. She has used obscenities to refer to colleagues. Muhammad condemned the use of vulgarity, saying that one of the reasons women are overrepresented in hell is that they swear a great deal.

Lastly, Omar appeared to be in a “relationship” with her current spouse while one or both were still married. The penalty for adultery is 80 lashes, after which the adulterer is stoned to death. Islam also forbids a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. There’s also the alleged marriage to her brother. Islam forbids sibling marriages, and the penalty is death. Muhammad also disliked women in politics because they are deficient in intelligence.

Is Omar a Muslim or a “Moderate Muslim?” Muhammad recognized that there were cafeteria or moderate Muslims. He called them hypocrites, for saying with their tongues what is not in their hearts. They were not to be forgiven for their hypocrisy, and he foresaw a hell for them that was worse than that for non-Muslims. For Muhammad, hypocrites were the vilest of the vile, the worst of the worst. The Islamic god curses hypocrites. The Islamic god knows the truth and promises them the fire of hell as a lasting torment.

So, Omar is either a hypocrite, who will go to hell, or a planned distraction from the reality of Islam. The reality is that Islam believes in global domination with the forced conversion, death, or enslavement of non-Muslims.

And that reality is what we ignore, whether willfully or through ignorance. The Koran, sharia, and hadith all shine a light on Islam’s hostility to Western values.

Muhammad had numerous wives and sex slaves, but seemingly disliked women, seeing in them evil omens, which he also saw in horses and houses. To him, women were no more than domestic animals, and he said he hadn’t left anything more harmful to men than women.

In Islam, if a woman passes in front of a praying man, the prayer is nullified, as they are if a dog or donkey passes in front of a praying man. A husband to beat an emboldened wife, and women who are ungrateful to their husbands go to hell. If a husband is displeased with his wife, so is the Islamic god. It is legal to rape non-Muslim women.

For grooming, only red or yellow hair dye is allowed. Women may wear earrings, but men may not because it is unlawful for men to imitate women. Other body piercings, including tattoos, are forbidden since it is unlawful to change the Islamic god’s creation. Clothing that shows nakedness is forbidden. The Islamic god hates effeminate men and masculine women, including those wearing the opposite sex’s clothing.

Those in same sex relationships will be killed, preferably by being stoned.

Literature is out. A few years after Muhammad’s death, Muslims conquered Alexandria and burned the world’s greatest library. The reason was that if the library’s contents duplicated the Koran, the library wasn’t needed. If it wasn’t in the Koran, it was heresy and needed to be destroyed. Leftists who want to destroy Shakespeare and Aristotle for challenging their shibboleths may agree, even if Heather has Two Trans-Mommies will also be destroyed.

Other cultural prohibitions include chess and backgammon, singing, which produces “hypocrisy of the heart“; most musical instruments, which are tools of Satan, that will turn musicians into monkeys and pigs; most poetry, which can have wisdom, but it’s still better to fill your body with pus than poetry; art, for hell’s worst punishment is reserved for those who make pictures; comedy because excessive laughing kills the heart, while jokes may cause hurt to others; and drinking alcohol requires flogging 40 to 80 times, and death, after three to four offenses.

Men are superior to women, and men are destroyed if they obey women. Wives are obligated to have sex with their husbands on demand, if they can physically endure it. The maximum waiting period is three days. Angels curse wives who don’t have sex on demand.

Apostasy is a capital crime encompassing leaving Islam, as well as denying the Islamic god’s existence, reviling Muhammad, or denying any verse in the Koran.

Muslims who kill non-Muslims are not punished, nor are parents who kill their children or grandchildren.

Solo masturbation is unlawful, and babies born of “doggy-style” sex will be squint-eyed. A couple must be covered during sex, and sex must be directed at a “fruitful end,” not “vain delight.” There is no talking during sex.

Muslims say prayers because no one likes to be praised more than the Islamic god. Humans were only created so they could worship the Islamic god.

Exposing Islam’s evil is complex because it has splintered into many branches and schools, each of which accepts its version of the Quran, school of sharia, and specific hadith. According to Muhammad, Islam would splinter into 73 sects, only one of which would go to paradise, so the right choice matters. In his last speech in Mecca, Muhammad said that if Muslims looked to and followed his behavior and words, they would never go wrong, and reiterated the necessity of a jihad until there a global Islamic conquest. His own behavior in Medina showed that he meant it. The Arabs were forcibly converted. The ancient Jewish tribes ere slaughtered, enslaved, and expelled.

Islam is following Muhammad’s behavior and words. Moderate Muslims are either apostates going to hell or engaged in Taqiyya, which forgives their sins.

Those hoping for reformation within Islam will be disappointed because Islam forbids religious innovation, partly because Muhammad said he had perfected Islam, and why would anyone change perfection? Also, the Koran is an absolute truth with certainty “about which there can be no doubt.” It cannot be reinterpreted.

Unless America recognizes Islam’s reality, it may well be doomed.

by Richard C. Crandall at americanthinker.com on July 6, 2025