It has become almost impossible to hear the word Islam without the subsequent words “is a religion of peace”. But is it really? If so, then where is the peace? Luckily people are no longer being fooled by this misnomer. Just because an ideology is claiming to be a religion or an ideology of peace does not suddenly warrant it to be representing peaceful teachings. Everyone has woken up to the fact that Islam is not really a religion of peace and this fact can be easily quantified and demonstrated through the behavior of vast numbers of Muslims. But let us examine whether Islam was a religion of peace during Muhammad’s own lifetime.
From my deep research into Islamic resources and texts, it is clear that there was a time when Islam truly was a religion of peace, but that time was short lived. Yes, in Mecca where Muhammad began preaching, he truly did bring a message of peace and egalitarianism. Muhammad had no choice but to preach peace because anyone wanting to be followed as a Prophet must teach good teachings to get anywhere and be taken seriously. So for five to six years of his early career he brought a religion which could be called that of representing true peace but this quickly changed as Muhammad realized he wasn’t getting any real results being a Prophet. After thirteen years of preaching he could only claim about 150 people who would call him a Prophet. This was a very poor performance and it seems Allah was not the most convincing God ever invented.
Muhammad taught Islam in secret for years, but suddenly he claimed that Allah had told him that the time had come to go public with his message. As one would expect, his public message also was peaceful initially. But as he saw weeks turn into years with only a few followers, his project could only be described as a failure. Muhammad got frustrated and began to insult the gods of the Meccans and their religion. Just like today you see Muslims arrogantly claiming their religion to be better than every other creed and paying no attention to how insulting their words are, similarly Muhammad began to push his religion as being better than the Meccans’ paganism and began to disrespect their culture.
Muslims today would have you believe that the Meccans of the 7th century persecuted Muhammad. This although true, fails to mention why he was persecuted and the reason Muslims can not explain this is because Muslims are unaware of their own history. Let me illustrate my point by analogy. Imagine you turn on the TV today and there is a report of a man with about a hundred followers suddenly coming out publicly in Saudi Arabia claiming that he is God’s true messenger and everyone else is praying to a false God. No one needs to tell you what would happen to him; we already know how peaceful Islam is. Yes, this pseudo-Prophet and his gang of followers would be persecuted but would any Muslim say that it was wrong for them to be persecuted? Then why the double standards? Why is it that when the same thing happens and Muhammad begins insulting Meccan gods, suddenly he is hailed as a hero and a victim. Why do Muslims expect other people to treat Muslims differently and in a more special manner? Did the Meccans not have the right to love and defend the honor of the Gods they worshiped?
After these few years of preaching however, the message quickly turned sour and began to be poisoned by messages of hate which are easy to ascertain from the Quran and are a signature testifying to its human origin. The peaceful message Muhammad began with quickly took on a different tone as Muhammad’s followers, now convinced he was the Prophet of God, numbered about 150. Islam quickly turned into a religion of constant quarrel and war that last to this very day. What kind of peace is this I ask? Muhammad poisoned the Meccan society so much and created such divisions that he was forced into exile. After this point there was unending war and bloodshed. Muslims say all these wars were defensive wars and Muslims were only protecting themselves. Again, this demonstrates how little Muslims have looked at their own historical sources. When you do, it rapidly becomes obvious that most of Muhammad’s battles were offenses and “NOT” defenses. How else do you think Muhammad and his “Ummah” paid for their expenses? Muhammad paid for his and the Ummah’s expenses by looting and stealing from innocent tribes, merchant caravans and peoples. If you do not believe me, as I am sure you will not, take this hadith as an example which explicitly show Muhammad attacking a whole tribe without warning: –
Narrated Ibn Aun:
…Muhammad had SUDDENLY attacked Bani Mustaliq WITHOUT WARNING while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army.
This is exactly the behavior of a warlord, not a Prophet. Muhammad’s career as a Prophet ended very early on as he realized he would have more success as a military leader, using his religion as a way to attract more followers and keep his followers in line. Disobeying him became a capital offense punished by death and hell-fire. Without any evidence given, Muslim scholars casually assert that all these attacks were done preemptively because the tribe in question was conspiring to fight against the Muslims in the future even though there is no evidence given for this assertion and unfortunately Muslims who want to believe their Prophet was truly peaceful believe this lie without questioning or looking at the facts. Whichever way you look at the hadith above, you see Muhammad attacking an innocent tribe to steal their property and pay for the expenses of his Ummah through looting. Even if this tribe was conspiring against Muslims (there is no evidence that they were), then its still an offensive battle and so Muslims can not say that Muhammad killed people only in self-defense. This is not self defense. Muslims were not attacked here but were the aggressors. So much for peace…
Yes, Muhammad failed as a Prophet and when he migrated to Medina he changed his strategy so he was a Prophet in name but a warlord in action spreading his message through force. Here is a graph which illustrates the failure of Muhammad as a Prophet but his success as a warrior chieftain: –
Constant warfare, constant death and destruction. The biography of Muhammad is filled with murder, violence and hate. I was hard pressed to find anything peaceful in Islam. Almost everything peaceful was only during the first few years of Islam and then it was continual hate and violence. Look at this image made from using only Islamic sources. These are direct quotes, not opinions: –
What people believe to be true matters because it animates them to act on what they believe. When we look around the world and see extreme atrocities being committed by Muslims with no concern for human life, is it any surprise considering that they look to Muhammad’s legacy as their model for living their life? I have demonstrated that Islam never was a religion of peace and any Muslim claiming that it is or was, simply is not aware of their own history and clearly has not done any objective unbiased study of Islam. I would urge Muslims to stop going to biased pro-Islamic propaganda websites and look at the original material like the Quran and Hadith themselves. Read the Quran from first page to last in a language that you understand and you will see the unbelievable hate and violence that I saw and quickly realize that it was written by a war mongering man who imposed his ideology on Arabia through force and brutality. Muslims who act like savages are the ones who are actually implementing the true essence of Islam as done by early Muslims and any Muslims who are not acting like savages but behaving like peaceful humans are simply ignoring most of their religion or are unaware of the true barbarity of the early Muslims and Muhammad himself.