Recently, Tim Brown wrote an article on how one high school in Colorado encouraged students to recite the pledge of allegiance referring not to “God,” but to “Allah.” Tim noted, “Outrage is building over the fact that students were encouraged to recite the Pledge of Allegiance over the loudspeaker in Arabic replacing ‘one nation under God’ with ‘one nation under Allah’.” As expected, Principal Tom Lopez insists that he did not do this due to some hidden Islamic agenda. Uh…sure, Tom.
This is how subversive Islam can be. Though the word “Allah” literally means “God,” it refers specifically to the Islamic god, not the Christian God. That should be understood by everyone, but Muslims (and their apologists) pretend that is not the case.
This is nothing more than a form of “stealth jihad” that groups like CAIR have been using within countries like the United States for a number of decades. They get away with this because Muslims must present themselves as “victims” in society. They are misunderstood, hated for no real reason, and vilified because of a “few bad apples.” If they can successfully assert and maintain their victimhood, then they can go a long way in gaining special privileges that they seek in society.
I have been having a Twitter conversation (such as it is) with one particular Muslim who recently tweeted the following to me in response to what I had said.
@FredDeRuvo here we go again plz don't confuse islam with what some moslems do then we get wrong conclusions remember wako texas
— abdulazeez enzy (@anahoae) June 14, 2013
Though I stated that what radical Muslims do is representative of Islam, this individual tried to point out that only “some moslems” are bad and then pointed to “wako texas” to reinforce their point. I’m assuming that they were trying to say that David Koresh was one “bad apple” among many Christians and that all Christianity is not judged by David Koresh. No, but we need to judge followers of both Muhammad and Jesus by their fruit.
We know that in every ideology, there are examples of people who go off the deep end. This is fact. All we need to do though is look no further than the founder or originator of that particular ideology to see what flows directly from them to know whether or not their followers are actually following them.
In the case of Muhammad, though we agree that he began his adult life in many ways as a pacifist, something changed. He became a warmonger (after relocating to Medina), murderer and even a pedophile. What is also important to note is what his followers did and still do today because of Muhammad.
We agree that some who claim to follow Jesus have gone off into excesses that the Bible speaks against. All we need to do though is compare these people and their excesses to the life of Christ Himself. Did Jesus preach the kind of things they preach? Did He live the life they live? It should be obvious whether or not they followed Him in word and action through a simple comparison.
The same is done with Muhammad. How did he live? What did he preach? How did he treat people? In other words, do radical Muslims of today have ground to stand on when they say they are following in the way of Muhammad or are they obviously off the mark? Both groups – the radical Muslim and the moderate Muslim – cannot be correct, can they? It is simple to determine which group follows Muhammad more closely.
As an adult, Muhammad didn’t live peace and tolerance. He lived a life of fighting, slaughtering and conquering. According to history, “In 622, [Muhammad] finally fled his native Mecca for a nearby town, Medina, where a band of tribal warriors had accepted him as a prophet and pledged loyalty to him. In Medina, these new Muslims began raiding the caravans of the Quraysh, with Muhammad personally leading many of these raids. These raids kept the nascent Muslims movement solvent and helped form Islamic theology – as in one notorious incident when a band of Muslims raided a Quraysh caravan at Nakhla, a settlement not far from Mecca. The raiders attacked the caravan during the sacred month of Rajab, when fighting was forbidden. When they returned to the Muslim camp laden with booty, Muhammad refused to share in the loot of to have anything…But then a new revelation came from Allah, explaining that the Quraysh’s opposition to Muhammad was a worse transgression then the violation of the sacred month.”  From this point onward, Muhammad led his Muslim followers in one battle after another.
Historian Paul Fregosi notes,
“‘From the fury of the Mohammedan, spare us, O Lord’ was a prayer heard for centuries in all the churches of central and southern Europe. Fear of the jihad has not entirely vanished even now, particularly among peoples who have known Muslim domination.”
People were petrified of Muhammad and his forces! They knew how they would be treated by this warmonger.
Yet, we are to believe that Islam is a “religion of peace,” that “jihad” is an “inner struggle.” How can we look at the history of Muhammad and Islam and come away rationally believing that Islam is peaceful? We can change the meaning of jihad by allegory to make it mean an inner struggle, but it is clear that this is not what Muhammad meant by it. To say that jihad is an inner struggle is to be disingenuous and even subversive about it.
It is clear that Islam, as originally led by Muhammad, and later by those who followed in his steps, exhibited a fierceness that is rivaled by few others. The goal of Islam is complete and utter domination. “The threat [of Islam] continued for centuries, with Muslim forces laying siege in 1529 and 1683 to Vienna, the capital of the Holy Roman Empire, located in the heart of Europe.”
Islam continued to expand through conquering of nations. It did this for hundreds of years until the 20th century. “By 1920 it seemed that the triumph of Europe over Islam was total and final. The vast territories and countless millions of the Muslim peoples of Asia and Africa were firmly under the control of the European empires—some of them under a variety of native princes, most under direct colonial administration. Only a few remote mountain and desert areas, too poor and too difficult to be worth the trouble of acquiring, retained some measure of sovereign independence.”
As far as the world was concerned, Islam had been stopped and controlled, finally. That is, until World War II. This was when Hitler realized that Islam was useful to him. He found a way to unite with Islam because in some ways, their goals crossed. We will deal with this more in a separate article. For now, understand that Hitler stoked the fires of anti-Semitism that was somewhat inherent within Islam and began using them as foot soldiers to extend his own empire in Israel with promises that they would be rewarded for their efforts.
Hitler united with Islam’s racist beliefs. I’m sure you’ve noticed how often the mainstream media speaks of conservatives in denigrating tones, often applying the word “racist” liberally. Yet, for some strange reason, Islam escapes the New Left’s tirades and charges of racism.
Why is that?
Suffice it to say that it is for the same reason that Hitler chose to unite with and use Islam to his advantage decades ago. Radical Muslims are the best soldiers because they have little to no fear of death. They will willingly go to death for Allah and for the rewards they believe will be received after death.
The person I am having a discussion with on Twitter said the same thing.
@FredDeRuvo and if I die fighting back then I am shaheed
— abdulazeez enzy (@anahoae) June 15, 2013
Note the use of the word “shaheed,” a reference to a “holy martyr.” This person believes that if they die while fighting Allah’s battle (for the promotion and extension of Islam), they will die a martyr’s death and gain their promised reward because of it. They are contradicting themselves between this tweet and the first one I quoted when they said that radicals are few and far between, but then say that if they fight and die, they win. That’s what Muslims believe too. The truth comes out.
Muslims are simply mirroring the same life Muhammad lived. By the way, these Muslims will tell you (when you begin discussing the Qur’an, the history of Muhammad or Islam, or the Hadith) that it is really impossible to understand what the Qur’an says unless you know Arabic. Some Muslims go so far as to say that unless you are Muslim or preferably Arab, you will never truly understand the Qur’an because supposedly the language is so nuanced in the Arabic. This assertion is incorrect as no language is so nuanced that it cannot be translated accurately.
@OCoonassa you see you have to know arabic to understand correctly what is stated,arabic so artistic that is why arabs are called arabs.
— abdulazeez enzy (@anahoae) June 14, 2013
But what of Christ? Did He live a life of violence? Did He murder people or slaughter villages? Did He take booty? Did He even carry a weapon? The answer to all these questions is a resounding “NO.” Christ lived a life of peace and while He argued with the religious leaders of His day, He never raised a finger to physically hurt any of them. He spent His time healing people, feeding the hungry and even raising the dead.
Those who follow Muhammad use violence because that is what Muhammad did and it is what he taught his followers to do. Those who follow Christ are to live a life of peace as far as they are able because this is what Jesus did. Self-defense is certainly allowed as a Christian. He doesn’t expect us to be doormats or cowards. But His Kingdom is not extended through physical force.
People who say they are Muslim and do not pick up their swords as Muhammad did to go on the defensive for Allah are not true followers of Muhammad. Those who say they are followers of Jesus and use terror, evil, and physical harm against people are not His followers either.
We have much to discuss about aspects of Islam in upcoming articles. Please join me then.
This is Part 2 in a series. Read Part 1 here.
 Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, 2005, p. 5-7