What Is True Islam?

What Is True Islam?
Western Bewilderment at a Religious-Political-Military System
By William J. Federer

Muslim terrorists commit attacks:

Orlando Mass Murder, Boston bombing, Paris bombing, Belgium train station bombing, beheading in Oklahoma, San Bernadino shootings, Fort Hood ?workplace violence,? Boko Haram Nigerian kidnappings, Kenya mall killings, disfiguring acid attacks in Pakistan, Syrian genocide, ancient Iraqi churches & monasteries destroyed, grave of Prophet Jonah blown up, and more.

Apologists and politicians are quick to assure us that these terrorist acts do not represent true Islam.

Yet, in many cases, the terrorists are yelling “Allah Akbar” and claim they do represent true Islam.

Who can tell us what true Islam is?

One person: Mohammed.

Mohammed was the best Muslim that ever lived.

His life is called the sunna, which means the way or the example.

If we examine Mohammed’s life, we gain an insight into those trying to be like him.

His life went through three stages: he was a RELIGIOUS leader; then a POLITICAL leader; then a MILITARY leader.


Mohammed began as a religious leader in 610 AD in the pagan city of Mecca, making only 70 converts in 12 years.

When he became confrontational, the Meccans drove him out for disturbing the peace.

He attempted to go to the city of al-Taif, but they pelted him with rocks.

With no place to go, Mohammed was a Muslim refugee.

In 622 AD, he fled 210 miles north to Medina, a city controlled by three Jewish tribes.

They were tolerant and let Mohammed in as a Muslim immigrant.


Mohammed went into Medina’s minority pagan neighborhood and began to organize the community, finding reception among those who had grievances with the Jewish-controlled government.

He then pressured the Jews to accommodate him and his followers politically.

The Jews made a treaty with Mohammed, recognizing him as a political leader in addition to being a religious leader.


Back in Mecca, Mohammed’s followers became confrontational. Considered disturbers of the peace, they were chased out.

Now refugees, they traveled to Medina where the Jews let them in as Muslim immigrants.

Mohammed allowed his followers to rob the trade caravans headed to Mecca in retaliation for the Meccans driving them out.

This was a departure from the teachings of Jesus, who said: Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to those hate you; if they take your coat, give them your shirt.

Mohammed’s instructions were, in essence, if they take your house, you retaliate and take their caravan.

Mohammed had 300 warriors who robbed caravans.

He received a whole chapter of the Qur’an, Sura 8, on how to distribute booty from robbing caravans. His portion was a fifth of the booty.

In 624 AD, the pagans of Mecca sent a thousand soldiers to escort and protect their caravans. Mohammed, with only 300 warriors, defeated them at the Battle of Badr.

This amazing victory, having been outnumbered 3 to 1, convinced Mohammed to be a military leader.

He fought in 66 battles and raids in the next eight years before he died, killing an estimated 3,000.

He even used the catapult in his attack on the city of al-Taif. When he was told the catapult was hurling stones that were killing innocent women and children, Mohmmed responded, “They are among them.” In other words, they have to be killed too.

Today’s suicide bombers and ISIS fighters think they are following Mohammed’s example: religiously, politically and militarily.

The effort to split the religious side of Islam away from the political-military side is, in a sense, an effort to split Mohammed.

There is freedom for all religions in America, but is Islam just a religion?

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America, 1840:

“Mohammed. . . put into the Koran not RELIGIOUS doctrines only, but POLITICAL maxims, CRIMINAL and CIVIL laws.”

U.S. Minister to Spain, Washington Irving, wrote the book, Lives of Mahomet and His Successors (London: John Murry, 1850; New York: George P. Putnam, 1850; London: George Routledge, 1851; Philadelphia, 1873; Paris: Baudry’s European Library; A. & W. Galignani, University of California Libraries; Ipswich Press, 1993; Kessinger Publishing, 2008).

In Chapter 16, titled “The Sword Announced as the Instrument of Faith: First Foray Against the Koreishites: Surprisal of a Caravan,” Washington Irving wrote:

“We come now to an important era in the career of Mohammed. Hitherto he had relied on argument and persuasion to make proselytes. His exhortations to them to bear with patience and long-suffering the violence of their enemies almost emulated the meek precept of our Saviour, ‘if they smite thee on the one cheek, turn to them the other also.’ He now arrived at a point where he completely diverged from the celestial spirit of the Christian doctrines.

“The means of retaliation unexpectedly sprung up within his reach. He had come to Medina a fugitive seeking an asylum. In a little while, and probably to his own surprise, he found an army at his command. The fugitives flocking to him from Mecca were men of resolute spirit, skilled in the use of arms, and fond of partisan warfare. . . . He endeavored to persuade himself that the power thus placed within his reach was intended as a means of effecting his great purpose, and that he was called upon by divine command to use it.”


Mohammed turned out to be an extremely effective military leader, primarily because he was creative, unpredictable and unconventional, not playing by the rules of traditional Arab warfare.

For example, pagans in Arabia had one month off a year where they agreed not to fight. It was their pilgrimage month. They would set aside their differences and go to Mecca to worship the 360 gods kept in the square building called a Kaaba.

Mohammed received verses to attack the caravans during this month, catching them by surprise and carrying away much booty.


In 627 AD, the pagans of Mecca sent 10,000 soldiers to Medina to stop Mohammed’s warriors from robbing their caravans.

Mohammed’s version of roadside bombs was to dig trenches and potholes all around the city of Medina, thus rendering the superior cavalry of the Meccans useless, as they could not charge their horses and camels across such an uneven field.

Throwing off the Meccan battle strategy, Mohammed went out at night, bribed some Meccans, and they slipped away. He then went to others, threatened them, and they slipped away. . . in a type of bribe or the bullet.

When the weather turned freezing cold, the rest of the Meccans lost heart and retreated.

This left a power vacuum similar to August 31, 2010, when the President of the United States declared the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was over, “Mission complete.” When the American troops were brought home, it left a power vacuum.

Did the fundamental Muslims become more peaceful? No, they began what Secretary of State John Kerry called “a genocide.”

Similarly, when Mohammed saw that the Meccan soldiers had retreated, he was emboldened that his enemies were cowards and unable to subdue him.


What happened to the three Jewish tribes who let Mohammed into Medina?

The first Jewish tribe, Banu Qurayza, did something that offended Mohammed. He stirred his followers into a sudden outbreak, and they attacked that tribe, confiscated their property and drove them out.

Then, the second Jewish tribe, Banu Nadir, did something that offended Mohammed. He again stirred his followers into an outbreak of violence, attacked that tribe, confiscated their property, and drove them out.

This set a precedent in Islam called “hudna,” which means, when you are weak, make treaties, until you are strong enough to disregard them.

This tactic was referred to in Frederick Leiner’s book The End of the Barbary Terror: America’s 1815 War Against the Pirates of North Africa (Oxford University Press):

“Commodore Stephen Decatur. . . withdrew to consult in private. . . Algerians were believed to be masters of duplicity, willing to make agreements and break them as they found convenient.”

Medina’s third Jewish tribe, Banu Qurayza, was bottled in their neighborhood for 25 days. When they surrendered, Mohammed took them into the market and beheaded 700 men and sold the women and children into slavery. He did keep one of the Jewish wives for himself, Rayhana.

Within five years of Mohammed immigrating into the Jewish city of Medina, there was not a Jew left in the city. They were driven out, killed or enslaved.

Within five years of Mohammed’s death, every pre-existing culture in Arabia was driven out.

It was a three step process. Like Caesar’s three steps: veni, vidi, vici (“I came, I saw, I conquered”); Mohammed’s three steps were immigrate, increase, eliminate.

Immigrate as a religious refugee into the host country;

Increase the number of followers among disadvantaged minorities and demand political accommodation;

Then eliminate the previous civilization with sudden outbreaks of militant violence.


A behavioral tactic utilized in this process is “psychological projection,” where the attacker blames the victim.

Muslim immigrants take advantage of the tolerance of host communities to move in, then they accuse their hosts of being intolerant, justifying their intolerant, violent retaliation against them.

This tactic of “blaming your opponent of what you are guilty of” was alluded to by David Axelord, the President’s political adviser, in an NPR interview, April 19, 2010:

“In Chicago politics, we have a tradition where you throw a brick through your own campaign office window, then call a press conference to accuse your opponent.”

“Psychological projection” is used by bullies on playgrounds, wife-beaters, some PC advocates, and in international politics by aggressor nations as pretense for invasion. The Islamic apologist organization CAIR adeptly utilizes this tactic.


There are two sets of verses in the Qur’an. The “weak” verses Mohammed received in Mecca, which were relatively more peaceful, as there he was just a religious leader; and the “strong” verses he received in Medina, where he became a political and military leader.

The later verses supersede and abrogate the earlier verses.

By way of comparison, the Bible has some violence in the Old Testament; and in the New Testament, Jesus and the apostles never killed anyone.

What is the Christian saying: “WWJD: What Would Jesus Do?” In other words, the later more peaceful example is what devout Christians strive to imitate.

It is the same way in Islam, only in reverse. Their peaceful verses came first in Mecca, and these were superseded and abrogated by the later political-military verses received in Medina.


Some may say, Muslims killed people, but so did Christians, but instead of comparing “followers,” the comparison must be made of “founders.”

If one’s computer acts up, the owner reloads the software to the way it left the factory store. If one’s religion acts up, we must look back to the example left by the founder.

Let us compare Jesus and Mohammed, the founders of the two largest religions in the world, Christianity, around 33 percent; and Islam, around 22 percent.

Jesus never killed anyone.

Mohammed killed an estimated 3,000 people.

Jesus never fought or led armies.

Mohammed fought in 66 battles and raids, leading 27 of them.

Jesus never owned slaves.

Mohammed owned slaves, including African slaves, as he was an Arab.

Jesus never married.

Mohammed had at least 11 wives, with the youngest being Aisha:  “The Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Jesus never tortured anyone.

Mohammed had the Jewish chief of Khaybar stretched out on the ground and kindled a fire on his chest because he refused to tell where the tribe’s treasure was hidden.

Jesus did not permit His disciples to lie.

Mohammed permitted “taqiyya,” sacred lying or holy deceit. Muslims are obligated to lie to infidels if they feel it can help advance Islam.

Jesus never forced anyone to follow Him.

Mohammed instituted the death penalty for those leaving Islam, called the “ridda” apostasy laws. Egyptian Imam Yusuf Qaradaw stated: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today; Islam would have ended since the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him. . . Opposing apostasy is what kept Islam to this day. Ibn Mas’ud hadith: ‘Kill these three criminals: the adulterer, the murderer and the apostate that leaves our community.’”

Jesus did not permit His disciples to rape anyone.

Mohammed permitted this, as described in many hadiths.

Jesus forgave insults, praying for those mocking Him, “Father, forgive them.”

Mohammed ordered Ibn Khatal murdered for composing poems ridiculing him.

Jesus told His disciples to preach the Gospel and if they were not received to shake the dust off their feet and depart.

Mohammed told his followers to offer infidel cities peace if they submitted to Allah, but if they rejected the offer, subdue them.

Jesus and His apostles were never governors or generals.

Caliphs and Sultans were governors and generals.

Jesus taught God as our Father.

In Islam, it is blasphemy to call Allah your father.

Jesus taught that people are children of God.

In Islam, it is blasphemy to claim you are a child of Allah, as Allah took no wife and has no son.

Jesus taught that men and women are made in the image of God.

In Islam, Allah has no image.

Jesus taught to have a personal relationship with God.

In Islam, it is blasphemy to even want to have a personal relationship with Allah, as he is transcendent and unknowable.

The first 300 years of Christianity, Christians were thrown to the lions. They never led an armed resistance to overthrow the Roman Emperor.

The first 300 years is Islam, they conquered from Arabia to Paris.


Islam is a religion of peace, but the Islamic definition of the word “peace” is different than that commonly understood among Westerners.

In the West, peace is achieved when different groups get along.

In Islam, peace is achieved when the world submits to the will of Allah.

To a fundamental Muslim, world peace means world Islam.

This is like Abraham Lincoln’s statement at the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore, MD, April 18, 1864: “We all declare for liberty, but in using the same word, we do not all mean the same thing.”


Moderate Muslims believe the world will submit to Allah later, maybe in the distant future, at the end of the world, or even figuratively.

Fundamental Muslims, on the other hand, believe the world should submit to Allah now, and they are very motivated to make it happen.

The dilemma for the West is that the more it shows itself nice, accommodating, respectful, self-censoring so as not to offend, the more moderate Muslims begin to rethink, saying, this has never happened before, maybe the world is, in fact, submitting to Allah now rather than later.

Moderate Muslims then migrate from the “future” non-violent mindset to the fundamental “it is happening now” mindset, which is the more violent mindset.

This is called getting radicalized.

Niceness is viewed as weakness by fundamental Muslims, who hold the belief that when your enemy shows weakness, that is Allah giving them to you.


Muslim apologists explain that terrorist attacks are not representative of true Islam, as Islam teaches that it is wrong to kill the innocent.

But, fundamental Muslims consider a person innocent only if they are a faithful follower of “the way of Allah.”

If they reject Islam, or are an unbelieving infidel, the Qur’an teaches:


“Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.” Sura 3:32

“Be ruthless to the infidels.” Sura 48:29

“Make war on the infidels.” Sura 9:123; 66:9

“Fight those who believe not in Allah.” Sura 9:29

“Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them.” Sura 2:191


When they say it is wrong to kill the innocent, it is code for, it is wrong to kill faithful Muslims.

To be fair, fundamental Muslims view non-violent moderate Muslims as having backslidden from “the way of Allah,” and they are just as motivated to kill them as they are to kill infidels.


In Islam, the world is divided in two: the half that has submitted to Allah, called “dar al-Islam” – the house of Islam; and the half that is in the process of submitting to Allah, called “dar al-harb” – the house of war.

The Non-Muslim world is supposed to be at war because it’s in the process of submitting to Allah.


There have been three “springs” in the 1,400 years of Islam.

The FIRST SPRING was an Arab-Persian Spring from 622 AD to 1071, where Mohammed and the “rightly-guided” Caliphs conquered Arabia, Persia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and areas that were Christian, namely, the Middle East, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain.

The SECOND SPRING was a Turkish Spring, from 1071-1923, where fundamental Muslims, led by Seljuk and Ottoman Sultans, conquered the Byzantine Christian Empire, Bulgaria, Albania, Walachia, parts of Hungary, Austria, the Mediterranean Sea, Eastern Europe. The Europeans responded with two centuries of crusades, as compared with Islam’s 14 centuries of crusades. Tamerlane, Babur and descendants conquered Central Asia, Northern India, and into Indonesia.

The THIIRD SPRING is the Arab Spring begun in 1928 with the founding of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and given a tremendous boost in 1938 with oil being discovered in Saudi Arabia by Standard Oil Company of California.


The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to reestablish the Ottoman Empire – the Islamic State or “Caliphate,” using the strategy based on the two cities Mohammed lived in, Mecca and Medina.

In Mecca, Mohammed was a religious leader; and in Medina he became a political-military leader.

Since large numbers of Muslims are moderate, like Mohammed was when he lived in Mecca, the Muslim Brotherhood members pretend to be moderate in order to infiltrate a host nation.

They take advantage of the tolerance, diversity, multiculturalism and freedom of religion to move into a region.

After increasing in numbers, they transition into the Medina phase, organizing to take over the host nation politically and militarily.


The word “light” has three meanings, namely:


a NOUN-a source of illumination;

an ADJECTIVE-the opposite of the word heavy; and

a VERB-as in “to light a fire.”


In like manner, the word “Islam” has three meanings. It is a RELIGIOUS system, a POLITICAL system and a MILITARY system.

Muslim Brotherhood members want to be treated like a NOUN, yet they want the freedom to act like an ADJECTIVE and a VERB.


If one sets aside the religious aspect of Islam and examines it politically, it is incompatible with United States law. For example:

– The First Amendment guarantees the government will not “prohibit the free exercise” of religion, yet Islamic Law imposes the death penalty for those who leave Islam, as Mohammed said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57).

– The 8th Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves” (Sura 5:38) and punish a woman who is a victim of rape “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2)

– The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet Islam accommodates slavery as Mohammed owned slaves.

– The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Non-Muslims equal to Muslims.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the foreword of Law in the Middle East (1955): “Islamic law. . . of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.”


In the last 70 years, what political-military systems had:

1) a goal of global conquest; and

2) in areas they conquered, non-adherents were not treated with equality?

During WWII, the attitude was, we love Germans, but we have to stand against the political-military system of Nazism; we love Italians, but we have to stand against Mussolini’s Fascism; we love Japanese, but we have to stand against Emperor Hirohito’s Imperialism.

During the Cold War, the attitude was, we love Russians but we have to stand against the political-military system of Communism; we love Chinese, but we have to stand against Mao Zedung’s Collectivism; we love Cambodians, but we have to stand against Pol Pot’s killing fields.

Today, the understanding is, we love Arabs, Turks, Egyptians, Indonesians, Pakistani, Somali, and others, but we have to stand against the political-military system of fundamental Islam.

Why? Because it has:

1) A goal of global conquest; and,

2) Wherever it conquers, Non-Muslims are not treated with equality.


Europe is dynamic case study of the ongoing challenge.

It has gone from a Judeo-Christian past, into a secular/LGBT present, and is now entering an Islamic future. The secular humanist agenda has, in effect, functioned as a transition phase from a Judeo-Christian past into an Islamic future.

Western countries are having a rude awakening to the millennium-old challenge, namely, though large numbers of Muslims are moderate, with some even being courageous Muslim non-violent reformers, there will always be those drawn to follow the political-military examples of Mohammed in Medina, the “rightly-guided” Caliphs, and the Ottoman Sultans.

Western Civilization is reexamining the prophetic insight of Hilaire Belloc, one of the four great Edwardian Letter writers with H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw and G.K. Chesterton, who warned in The Great Heresies (1938):

“Anyone with a knowledge of history is bound to ask himself whether we shall not see in the future a revival of Mohammedan POLITICAL power, and the renewal of the old pressure of Islam upon Christendom.”

Sign Up To Stay Informed

Enter your email address:

Delivered by TheCultureWatch

Comments are closed.