Islam, Religion of Conquest & Deceit

Mohammad says, "War is deceit." (Sunnah Vol 4, Book 52, Number 269; The Sunnah, or Sahih Bukhari, is a collection of purported sayings and deeds of Mo, written about 200 years after his death, but regarded by Muslims as a sacred and perfect text.)

Islam is a religion of world conquest over all non-Muslims, via military means which include lying to un-conquered non-Muslims. This concept has a formal name, Al-Taqiyah, and can take many forms.

The most famous example of Al-Taqiyah appears in the Koran, where Mo and his original band of Muslims confront Mecca, and agree a treaty that bans military hostilities for ten years, in exchange for the Meccans permitting the Muslims to enter annually to engage in the pagan pilgrimage to Mecca's shrine to the moon god, "Allah". At the time, Mo's army was only about 1,500, and Mo didn't believe that it could conquer the Meccan army. So Mo honored the treaty just long enough to build his army to over 10,000. At that time he felt he could conquer the Meccans, and he discarded the treaty, conquered Mecca, and subjected its people. This subjugation included the execution of the comedian/poets who had previously ridiculed him for claiming to be the new King of the Jews, etc.

Of course Mo's Islamic army is not the first or last to lie to their adversaries in order to buy time for a future conquest. Hitler famously did this, as did the eventual US Confederates, and the US military made many treaties with American Indians which they always broke. However, only Islam amongst religions condones (even commands!) such behavior as a requirement for its adherents.

This frightens me. When people advertising themselves as Muslims, who both proclaim their actions all as deriving from Islam and the eventual defeat of non-muslim secular democracies, sign treaties with these non-Muslim democracies, I have serious doubts.


Tom Philpott said...

Paul, from a rhetorical perspective, your arguments would gain power if you cited sources that weren't other blogs, tendentious documentaries, and Web sites with blinking Israeli flags. If i were to cite only, say, Counterpunch articles and Michael Moore, I would be justifiably laughed off of this site. That's why I try hard to cite stuff like WSJ articles and articles by Economist correspondents.

If you want to argue that Islam at its heart urges war and deceit, then at least cite the Koran chapter and verse. Of course, you then have to answer to all sorts of sketchy stuff in the Bible, but that's better than citing a man who calls himself Frodo Baggins and posts on a blog called, gulp, faithfreedom.org.

Paul Hue said...


Ref 1: University of Southern California's Muslim Student Association "Compendium of Muslim Texts", which quotes from and refers straight to the Islamic text which instructs the faithul to lie to the infidels in order to conquer them.

Ref 2: A website by ex-Muslims presenting an overview of how Islam constitutes a religion of world domination under the sword. This site lists references to the koran. If you are really interested, you can read the site, get a copy of the koran and confirm -- as I did -- what this site overviews.

Ref 3: A Lebonese history professor explains on his website the definition of Al-Taqiya.

Ref 4: The same Lebonese professor with a second article on the same topic, printed the website of "India's Only Nationalist E-Newspaper".

Ref 5: A blog by a guy calling himself Frodo. OK, I didn't notice that; I just noticed that he quoted from the Koran and cited references. I should change this reference.

Ref 6: Fully referenced article by an ex-muslim on the respected ex-muslim website, islamwatch, which uses as its image the smiling face of Salman Rushdie.

OK, you busted me for one bum reference out of 6. The other five deserve your attention, and I deserve respect from you for objectively researching about Islam and Arabian history, and for doing so before forming my opinions on these matters. One of thse ex-muslim scholars from Ref 6 has a book, "The Prophet and the Sword," which I have read, along side the official Saudi Arabian Koran that I appropriated from your dad's library the xmas after 911.

Do you own a Koran? Have you read it, attempted to do so, or read from it? Prior to 911 I had read zero books about Arabian or Islamic history, and knew about Islam only what I had read from five or so readings of the Autobiography of Malcolm X. I admitted as much in our discussions after 911.

Since that time I have purchased and read nearly ten books on the subject, plus the Koran. Some of the books are by muslims and / or Arabs who present no views on current matters. The history books tend to gloss over the details about Mohammad and Islam.

I am very curious to know what "sketchy stuff" I might have to "answer to" in the bible. I do not consider the bible, or any book, to represent holy scripture; I do not advocate forcing anybody to adhere to anything in the bible; nor does the New Testiment / Gospels / Jesus book. The Old Testiment / Talmud is, like the Koran, full of detestable people held as heros and detestable orders from god, plus the detestable and racist notion of a "chosen people".

However, the Old Testiment doesn't go into details about any of its evil heros, and no extra-Talmadic scriptures exist to do so either. Meanwhile the Koran and its ancillary texts fill hundreds of pages of details about Mohammad, surely one of the cruelest humans ever that we know about.

I have not studied the lives of Jesus, or the Tulmadic charactors, as I have Mohammad, though I have learned much more about them in studying Mo and Islam. These studies have conferred to me a great deal of respect for Jesus as described in the gospels, and a great deal of derision for many of the Tulmadic charactors, especially David the mass murderer of the Canaanites, and indeed the Tulmadic god himself, with all his violent vengance and demands for blind, unquestioning obediance. I don't believe in any of the Jesus fairy tales, but it appears that he preached a revolutionary advance of civilization against most of the horrible aspects of his society, and that that Mohammad preached a return to those barbarism, and practiced barbarism himself.

Please go poke around my Ref 6 website, with its articles by ex-muslims. And please consider the possibility that white people aren't the only people capable of constructing sinister empires like those of the Nazis and Confederates.