Please note: The following excerpt is drawn from my book, “Trojan Religion: The Final Prophetic Warning to the West“. Complete sources, citations, and references are documented within the book itself.

Taqiyya began as a shield — a desperate survival instinct in the early years of Islam. When Muhammad’s followers were few and surrounded by enemies, they were told they could conceal their faith, even deny it, to save their lives: “if you indeed fear a danger from them” (Quran 3:28). Another verse made the license explicit: “Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief—except for one who is forced while his heart is secure in faith—upon them is no blame” (Quran 16:106).

In its original setting, taqiyya allowed Muslims to survive. Say what you must, keep your faith in your heart, and live to fight another day. But somewhere between the desert tents of the 7th century and the political offices of the 21st, taqiyya changed shape. What was once a personal permission to lie under duress has become a collective strategy — a means of spreading influence, disarming critics, and advancing Islam’s reach through the appearance of moderation. In essence, taqiyya evolved into a tool of stealth jihad — a strategy that permits deception to advance Islamic goals under the guise of peace or coexistence.

The Expansion of a License

Classical Islamic jurists did not limit taqiyya to times of mortal danger. They broadened it to include any moment when Islam’s interests might benefit from concealment. Al-Tabari, one of Islam’s earliest and most revered commentators, wrote that Surah 3:28 gave Muslims permission to appear friendly with non-Muslims if fear is involved: “If you fear them, appear friendly toward them with your tongue while your heart is inwardly opposed.” He even justified the episode where Ammār b. Yāsir — a companion of Muhammad — publicly cursed Islam under torture, only to be told by the Prophet: “If they do it again, say what saves you.”

The theologian Imam al-Ghazali, praised in Western universities as a voice of reason, stated in Ihya’ Ulum al‑Din that lying is not only allowed but obligatory if it advances Islam: “If a lie is the only way to reach a good end, then it is permitted.” In his logic, anything that benefits Islam is a “good end.”

Sahih Bukhari 3029-30 is part of The Book Of Jihad—Fighting For Allah’s Cause, a Hadith containing the sayings of Muhammad, which clearly and openly states: “The Prophet Muhammad said, War is deceit.”

Another Hadith (Sahih Muslim 2605a) explains that lying is permitted “in three cases: in war, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife.”

All modern political Islamist movements view themselves as being “at war” with the West, referring to the entire non-Muslim world as “Dar al-Harb,” or the house of war.

This is a divine justification for:

• False treaties

• Feigned weakness

• Propaganda

• Misdirection

From there, the door swung wide open. Since Islam divides the world into Dar al‑Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar al‑Harb (the House of War), the non‑Muslim world is perpetually in a state of hostility. If war allows deceit, and the world is war, then deception becomes perpetual strategy. Thus, a doctrine born of fear became a policy of manipulation.

Truth Isn’t a Universal Moral Value

The idea that lying could ever be acceptable feels strange to most Christians, many of whom have historically chosen to sacrifice their lives rather than deny the name of Jesus. In contrast with taqiyya, Scripture consistently calls believers not to conceal their faith (Matthew 10:33) and to reject deception. Jesus taught, “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.'” (Matthew 5:37). The Apostle Paul wrote, “We renounce secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception” (2 Corinthians 4:2). In Christian ethics, truth is not situational — it is sacred. A lie to hide one’s faith is still a lie; a deception for evangelism’s sake is still a sin. Over many centuries, this commitment shaped one of the core values of Western civilization: truth. Christianity’s central claim is, in fact, a truth-claim — exclusive and ultimate. Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), the Word made flesh, the embodiment of divine truth.

In the Islamic tradition, however, the moral framework operates on an entirely different axis. Values such as power, strength, dominance, subjugation, and conquest occupy the highest ground — forming the core of Islam’s historical and theological worldview. This emphasis is especially evident in classical jurisprudence and throughout the history of Islamic expansion, where religious virtue was often equated with the ability to conquer and command. These values gave rise to a profoundly different civilizational ethos — one that stands in sharp contrast to the Judeo-Christian worldview. Traits that Christianity exalts as virtues — honesty, humility, mercy, forgiveness, and compassion — are often interpreted within Islamic thought as signs of weakness rather than moral strength.

Christians are called to make disciples of all nations not through deception or coercion but through intellectual persuasion, witness, compassion, the power of the Spirit, and the transformation of hearts. Christianity is symbolized by a cross — self-giving and sacrificial love. By contrast, Islamic tradition uses the imagery of the sword, reflecting the historical role of violent subjugation and military conquest. While Christ is depicted as a sacrificial Lamb, Muslims take great pride in depicting their founder as a cruel and vicious warrior.

Two Tongues, Two Faces

Modern Islamists refined taqiyya into a communication art. In Arabic, they speak one message; in English, another. When addressing Western audiences, they preach tolerance, coexistence, and peace. When speaking to Muslim listeners, the same leaders affirm Sharia supremacy, call for “resistance,” and glorify martyrdom. The Grand Imam of al‑Azhar, Ahmed al‑Tayeb — celebrated in the West as a “moderate” — has repeatedly affirmed in Arabic that apostates should be executed and that stoning and amputations remain divine laws that “The rulings on apostasy and hudud are part of the religion, and no one has the right to challenge them.”

This duplicity mirrors the Quran’s dual approach itself. Western translations often soften commands by adding explanatory brackets such as “[only if they attack you first],” phrases absent from the Arabic originals. In the Arabic text, the tone is absolute: “Fight the unbelievers” full stop. The edited versions are not mistranslations — they are strategic rebranding, crafted to calm Western sensitivities while preserving the original meaning for insiders.

Case Study: Nuclear Weapons and the Islamic Republic of Iran

A clear modern example of taqiyya can be seen in Iran’s manipulation of global perception regarding its nuclear program. To the West — speaking in English — Iranian officials insist that Iran’s nuclear efforts are purely for “peaceful purposes.” Yet, when Iranian leaders address their own people in Persian, they proclaim the opposite message.

For instance, in August 2025, Ali Motahari, a prominent Iranian politician (and former Member and Second Deputy of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran) openly admitted in Persian to an Iranian reporter that the regime’s nuclear ambitions had always been militant:

When we first entered nuclear activities, our real goal was to build a bomb. No point denying it… the whole system, everyone who started this. We had started, and we wanted to go all the way.

But when Ali Akbar Salehi, former head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, gave the West a statement in English, he insisted the program is purely “for energy and for peaceful purposes.”

Ironically, while civilian power reactors require uranium enriched to only about 3–4%; the Islamic Republic has enriched uranium to levels above 60% — concentrations consistent with weapons programs.

Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons cannot be understood apart from its religious and ideological motivations.

Iran’s former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani openly boasted — in Persian — about nuclear warfare, stating that “the use of a single atomic bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, while it will merely harm the Islamic world.” This chilling statement exposes the apocalyptic logic underlying Iran’s strategic thinking: its pursuit of nuclear capability is not driven by a quest for energy or peace, but by a religiously infused ideology that views destruction as a means to a prophetic end.

Considering these and other remarks by Iranian leaders, it’s clear that peaceful intentions were far from their minds. The genocidal rhetoric and the program’s advancements point to goals that extend well beyond the realm of peaceful energy production.

Taqiyya as Warfare

Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and affiliated movements discovered how effective taqiyya could be when deployed politically. In Western democracies, they avoid blunt talk about imposing Sharia or rejecting secular rule. Instead, they invoke civil‑rights language: “justice,” “equality,” “anti‑racism.” The vocabulary is Western, but the worldview is not. Beneath the slogans lies a consistent logic: Islam must eventually dominate, and lying is permissible if it brings that goal closer.

The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is an Islamist, pro-Muslim Brotherhood, anti-Israel nonprofit funded by Qatar. It is followed by millions worldwide on social media. On September 12, 2025 (during Israeli-Gaza war), MEMO published a viral post falsely claiming that as of April 2025, Israel had killed 680,000 Gazans. The deceptive post went even further, alleging that 380,000 of the victims were babies and children under the age of five. Not coincidentally, this was posted just three days after Israel struck in Qatar in an attempt to assassinate Hamas leadership. The following week, in her 15 September 2025 speech, UN’s Francesca Albanese declared, “We shall start thinking of 680,000 [dead] because this is the number some claim.”

This scene was carefully staged. Where do you think she got that number from? That’s how taqiyya works. Albanese shields herself from blame by claiming she’s merely quoting others, while knowing full well that most people will never bother to check or verify the figures. And yet, because the claim was made by a UN personal, countless people will accept it as truth.

How do we know the 680,000 figure to be false? Because according to the Palestinian Health Ministry (PHM) — effectively Hamas’s propaganda outlet — a total number of 67,869 Palestinians — militants and civilians — had been killed (as of October 13th), most of whom were Hamas militants. Even these numbers, however, are highly dubious and were labelled as “completely unreliable” by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Taqiyya thus evolved from an act of defensive silence to a method of offensive infiltration. The West, built on trust and transparency, offers the perfect environment for taqiyya to thrive. Liberal democracies assume sincerity; Islamists assume deception is a duty.

In the 7th century, taqiyya was whispered. In the 21st, it’s broadcast. It now operates through press releases, political lobbying, and “interfaith dialogue.” Western media, desperate to appear tolerant, repeat Islamist talking points without investigation. When Western governments consider laws against “Islamophobia,” they often rely on Muslim Brotherhood‑linked NGOs for definitions—NGOs that treat any criticism of Islam as hate speech.

This is not merely semantics. When language itself is policed, the ability to name reality disappears. That is the final triumph of taqiyya — not in the battlefield, but in the newsroom and the classroom. The sword doesn’t cut through flesh anymore. It cuts through language, truth, and the ability to ask questions.

Victimhood as a Weapon

After the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacres, global protests did not mourn the victims but condemned Israel. Crowds from London to New York chanted slogans justifying atrocities. Universities and media outlets quickly reframed Hamas not as terrorists but as “resistance fighters.” This was taqiyya on a planetary scale — a moral inversion that painted murderers as victims and victims as oppressors.

Taqiyya no longer hides belief; it hides violence itself. It wraps bloodshed in words like “justice” and “freedom,” counting on Western guilt to do the rest. The deception works because Western institutions have lost the moral vocabulary to call evil by its name.

Taqiyya functions only in societies that value sincerity. It’s parasitic — living off Western virtue. The more tolerant and self‑critical the host culture, the more room deception has to operate. The West’s greatest moral achievements — freedom of speech, pluralism, compassion — become its weakest defenses when wielded by those who despise them.

Every time a Western journalist apologizes for “Islamophobia” instead of investigating Islamist violence, every time a government official bows to pressure not to “offend,” the mask tightens. Fear of appearing intolerant becomes the new form of submission.

That moral clarity is precisely what the West has lost. When the Judeo‑Christian moral compass was strong, deception could not thrive. But as faith gave way to relativism, the line between truth and expedience blurred—and Taqiyya found fertile soil.

The New Face of Stealth Jihad and Why the West Still Doesn’t See It

The Muslim Brotherhood’s own internal memorandum, uncovered by the FBI, defines its mission in North America as a “civilizational jihad process” to destroy Western civilization from within. Taqiyya is its cloak. It hides intent behind smiles and press statements, converts critics into allies, and recasts exposure as prejudice. It is jihad without bombs — war by words — a gradual, lawful, and psychological campaign to normalize Islamic supremacy under the guise of rights and tolerance. It’s not conspiracy — it’s doctrine.

Because the West has largely moved away from a belief in objective truth, it assumes everyone else plays by the same rules. It cannot imagine a faith where deception is sanctified, or where lying to unbelievers can be a religious duty. This cultural blindness — born from secular relativism — renders Western institutions incapable of defense.

Taqiyya thrives not because Islam is strong, but because the West is becoming weak and naïve. It cannot tell the difference between compassion and capitulation, humility and humiliation. The tragedy is that this blindness is self‑inflicted.

Conclusion: From Shield to Sword

Taqiyya began as a shield for survival. It has become a sword for conquest. Its power lies not in armies but in ambiguity. It convinces the West to doubt its own eyes, distrust its own instincts, and silence its own voice.

To resist it, the West must rediscover its moral backbone. Truth must once again be treated as sacred, not negotiable. Freedom of speech must include the freedom to expose lies. And tolerance must never mean tolerating deceit.

As history shows — civilizations that cannot distinguish between enemy and friend, truth and falsehood, do not survive long enough to learn the difference.

This was an excerpt from my book “Trojan Religion: The Final Prophetic Warning to the West“: