One of the most deceptive and potent strategies employed by Islamic groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, is their deliberate manipulation of language. This tactic, often called “Initiate Language,” involves using terms that resonate positively with Western audiences but hold entirely different meanings within an Islamic context.
This technique works remarkably well because it allows jihadi groups to infiltrate Western discourse while masking their true intentions. The target group—mainly Western societies- is largely unaware that the same words have radically different interpretations inside the ideological framework of Islam. This tactic is not new; communists have historically used similar methods to disguise their intentions by redefining common terms or masking them with more acceptable ones, such as using ‘progressive’ instead of ‘communist’ as a common example.
Below is an analysis by Clare Lopez, a retired CIA officer with expertise in Islamic ideology, where she discusses the tactical use of key language within Islam and how it is employed by its followers.
“The problem with Islamic fundamentalism is the fundamentals of Islam”. – Sam Harris.
Islam is Islam: No Distinction Between Radical and Moderate
Western societies often attempt to differentiate between “Islamists” and “moderate Muslims” as if the ideology itself can be split into benign and malignant forms. However, Islamic doctrine inherently merges religion with governance, law, and social structure. The term “Islamist” itself is a Western construct, used to describe Muslims who actively pursue political power. Yet, within Islam, political and religious authority are inseparable. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has openly rejected the notion of “moderate Islam,” stating that such terms are offensive and misleading. He bluntly declared, “Islam is Islam.” This acknowledgment challenges the Western practice of labeling some Islamic practices as radical or extremist while viewing others as peaceful. Understanding that there is one unified Islam is crucial when evaluating the linguistic manipulation highlighted throughout this article.
The Western media often uses the terms “Islamist” and “moderate Muslim” to create a false dichotomy, suggesting that only a fringe group within Islam seeks political dominance. In reality, Islamic teachings do not separate personal faith from political governance. This misconception leads to a dangerous underestimation of the ideological consistency within Islamic doctrine, allowing groups that openly pursue Sharia governance to be falsely perceived as merely political rather than fundamentally religious.
By perpetuating this misleading narrative, the media inadvertently shields those who actively advocate for theocratic rule while portraying them as moderate voices. This manipulation not only distorts public understanding but also facilitates the ideological infiltration of Islamic governance models into Western societies.
Jihad: A Word Twisted for Deception
In Arabic, “jihad” simply means struggle. In Islam, however, it unequivocally connotes holy war. The Quran specifically exempts the disabled and ‘weak’ from jihad (4:95, 9:91), which would make no sense if the term solely referred to an inner spiritual struggle. Moreover, Muhammad’s Quranic commands to “smite the necks” and “strike off the fingertips” of unbelievers clearly point to violent conflict, not personal growth.
Despite this, Muslim apologists often assert that “inner struggle” is the “greater jihad,” while “holy war” is the “lesser.” However, this claim originates from a single weak hadith that most Islamic scholars agree was fabricated. In contrast, the most reliable Hadith collection—Bukhari—mentions jihad over 50 times, each in the context of armed struggle, with only a few exceptions related to women’s support roles during warfare or non-combatants’ obligations to fund jihad.
Islamic jurisprudence leaves little room for interpretation. Neither the Shiite tradition nor any of the four schools of Sunni thought significantly references jihad outside of physical warfare against non-believers. The authoritative Islamic legal manual Reliance of the Traveler bluntly states:
“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion” (o9.0).
The Manufactured Misconception
In modern discourse, the association of “jihad” with peaceful self-improvement is not just inaccurate, it is a deliberate deception. Islamist groups strategically promote the idea of “jihad as an inner struggle” to deflect criticism and portray Islam as inherently peaceful. This narrative disarms Western critics while masking the militant reality that underpins jihad’s historical and doctrinal roots.
While Western audiences are fed the idea that jihad is a quest for inner peace, classical Islamic jurisprudence unambiguously supports violent jihad when necessary to defend or expand Islam. Prominent scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and Sayyid Qutb explicitly argue that physical combat is integral to the faith. This interpretation is not limited to academic debate; it is central to the operational ideology of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and is woven into the writings of its founders and key figures.
Weaponizing Jihad for Modern Warfare
In practical application, violent jihad has been embraced by Islamist organizations such as Hamas, ISIS, and others, framed not just as self-defense but as a religious obligation to establish Islamic dominance. This dual interpretation—publicly peaceful, privately militant—enables radicals to exploit Western tolerance while quietly justifying terror as divinely sanctioned.
Understanding the Deception
By manipulating the meaning of “jihad” to align with Western values, Islamist groups create a linguistic shield that both conceals their militant intentions and preempts criticism. This strategy allows radicals to operate under the guise of religious freedom while promoting violent expansionism. Recognizing this tactic is essential to countering the ideological subversion that exploits Western ignorance of Islamic doctrinal realities.
Freedom and Justice: Words Turned on Their Head
One striking example of language manipulation was the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. To Western audiences, “freedom” and “justice” evoke democratic values and civil rights. However, in Islamic doctrine, freedom means liberation from man-made laws, specifically, any legal system not explicitly derived from the Quran and Hadith. Justice does not mean fairness or equal rights but rather the strict application of Sharia (Islamic law).
After the Arab Spring, when Mohammad Morsi became Egypt’s president, the true meaning of these terms became evident. Under the banner of freedom and justice, Christians were killed, churches were burned, and even Shi’a Muslims were hunted in the streets. This violence was not an unintended consequence – it was the direct result of the Brotherhood’s vision of Islamic justice.
While much of the West, including the Obama administration, presented the Arab Spring as a movement toward democracy and human rights, it is likely that political leaders were well aware of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological goals. Despite intelligence warnings and the Brotherhood’s clear history of advocating Islamic rule, the administration chose to support the movement, projecting it as a democratic uprising. This alignment was not merely naïveté but a calculated approach that overlooked the Brotherhood’s theocratic ambitions.
To the Muslim Brotherhood, freedom means eradicating secular governance, while justice means enforcing Sunni Islamic dominance. Since many hardline Sunni Islamists consider Shi’a Muslims as heretics and Christians as infidels, targeting these groups was seen as upholding Sharia.
However, following Morsi’s removal from power in 2013, the Egyptian government banned the Muslim Brotherhood and declared it a terrorist organization. Subsequently, the Freedom and Justice Party was dissolved in 2014, with the government accusing it of inciting violence and attempting to establish a theocratic regime.
Despite the ban in Egypt, the deceptive use of terms like “freedom” and “justice” by Islamic organizations continues globally. These terms are still employed in Western discourse to gain social and political legitimacy, even though the underlying intention remains the establishment of Islamic governance.
When Islamic leaders in the West speak of “freedom,” they mean freedom from secular laws. When they talk about “justice,” they are advocating for theocratic rule. These same terms are being repurposed across the West, including the United States, to camouflage radical intentions behind seemingly benign language.
The Illusion of Peace
To most Americans, “peace” means harmony, coexistence, and the absence of violence. Yet, within the Islamic framework, peace signifies the absence of opposition to Islam. It is not achieved through mutual respect or coexistence but through the complete submission of all societies to Sharia.
When Muslim Brotherhood leaders proclaim that “Islam is peace,” they are not advocating for interfaith harmony. Instead, they mean that peace will be established only when Islam dominates and all resistance is quashed.
The Linguistic Deception:
Muslim apologists often claim that the root word of Islam is “al-Salaam,” meaning “peace” in Arabic. This assertion is not just misleading—it is outright false. In Arabic, an individual word has only one root. The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.” There is no disagreement about this among Arabic or Islamic scholars.
If al-Silm truly meant peace, it would be synonymous with al-Salaam, yet the two words are fundamentally different. By conflating them, Islamist groups craft a deceptive narrative that disarms Western audiences, allowing them to present submission as harmony.
Oppression: A Weaponized Concept
In Western discourse, “oppression” implies denying basic freedoms or human dignity. But in Islamic ideology, oppression means being subject to non-Islamic governance. Essentially, living under secular law is seen as oppression because it denies the application of Sharia.
Islamic groups often use the phrase “man-made law” as a derogatory term to describe any legal system not rooted in Sharia. This concept is crucial because it justifies their rejection of democratic institutions, portraying them as inherently illegitimate. In their view, true “justice” can only exist under divine (Islamic) law, rendering any secular legal system oppressive by default.
Therefore, Muslims living in a democratic state may claim they are oppressed, not because they lack rights, but because they are not governed by Islamic principles. This manipulation turns the concept of freedom upside down, where secular liberty becomes the very oppression they must fight against.
Innocent: Only Muslims Qualify
One of the most misleading linguistic tricks is the word “innocent.” To Westerners, it means anyone not guilty of a crime. Yet, in Islamic teachings, only Muslims can truly be innocent. Non-Muslims are inherently guilty simply by rejecting Islam.
This distinction becomes crucial when radicals publicly denounce attacks on the innocent. While it sounds like a condemnation of violence, what they actually mean is protecting fellow Muslims, not non-believers. This linguistic sleight of hand allows them to appear moderate while privately endorsing jihad against non-Muslims.
Below is a brief excerpt from an interview with Anjem Choudary, an influential and dangerous Islamic preacher in the UK, where he clearly explains the concept of ‘innocence’ in Islam.
Human Rights: Only Within Sharia
Western societies, influenced by the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, view human rights as inalienable and universal. These rights are grounded in the principle that every individual, regardless of religion, gender, or background, is entitled to fundamental freedoms. However, in Islamic doctrine, rights are not inherent to individuals but are granted only within the framework of Sharia.
A stark example of this divergence is the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990), presented by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). This declaration explicitly states that “all rights and freedoms are subject to Islamic Sharia.” Unlike the UN’s declaration, which advocates for equality and freedom regardless of religion or gender, the Cairo Declaration subordinates all human rights to Sharia law. By adopting this declaration, the OIC effectively rejects the concept of universal human rights, replacing it with Sharia-compliant rights that prioritize Islamic doctrine over individual liberties.
This means that equality, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech are only valid if they align with Islamic teachings. For instance:
- Freedom of Religion: Only exists as the freedom to choose Islam or remain Muslim. Apostasy (leaving Islam) is punishable by death under Sharia, clearly conflicting with the Western notion of religious freedom.
- Gender Equality: Women’s rights are inherently limited, as Sharia law enshrines male guardianship and permits domestic violence.
- Freedom of Speech: Criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy, punishable by severe penalties, including death in some Islamic countries.
When Islamic groups in the West advocate for human rights, they often mean rights granted under Islamic jurisprudence, not the universal principles understood in secular societies. For example, when lobbying for the implementation of Islamic family law within Western legal systems, they frame it as a “human right” for Muslim communities to be governed by their own religious norms. This deceptive tactic reframes what would typically be seen as a legal imposition into a plea for cultural autonomy.
The Deception of “Community Rights”
While Western societies champion individual rights as inalienable and universal, Islamist advocacy groups have rebranded these concepts to align with Sharia law. They frequently argue not from the standpoint of personal freedoms but from the perspective of “community rights”—a subtle yet powerful shift that prioritizes the collective will of the Islamic Ummah over individual autonomy.
This distinction is critical because it allows for the erosion of personal freedoms under the guise of protecting cultural or religious norms. For instance, when Islamist activists in the West lobby for “community rights”, they often aim to embed Sharia principles into local governance. This can manifest in demands for Islamic family arbitration councils, which effectively bypass secular legal systems and establish a parallel justice system grounded in Sharia.
In practice, this collective approach to rights undermines fundamental civil liberties. Women, LGBTQ individuals, and religious minorities within Muslim-majority communities may find their rights subordinated to Islamic norms. For example, in several European cities, Islamist groups have successfully campaigned for separate swimming hours for women in public pools, justified as respecting “community values.” This kind of accommodation normalizes Sharia-driven standards under the pretext of cultural sensitivity.
The use of “community rights” also allows Islamists to challenge secularism without openly opposing it. By demanding communal accommodations in public institutions—like halal food in schools or prayer rooms in government buildings—they gradually establish Islamic norms as a parallel legal framework.
This linguistic deception ultimately leads to an environment where Islamic standards are protected as collective rights, while individual rights—especially for non-Muslims or those who dissent from Islamic norms—are systematically undermined. The notion of community rights serves as a Trojan horse, embedding Sharia into public life while appearing to uphold multiculturalism and social harmony.
Tolerance: Only on Islamic Terms
In the West, tolerance once meant respecting diverse beliefs. Today, however, it increasingly means allowing Islamic practices to dominate, while any effort to uphold secular or Western traditions is dismissed as intolerant. It has become a one-way street where Islam must be accepted unconditionally, and any critique is labeled as intolerant or Islamophobic.
This tactic makes it almost impossible to challenge Islam without being accused of bigotry. The Brotherhood knows that Western guilt over accusations of intolerance is a powerful tool to silence opposition.
The Political Use of “Dialogue” and “Interfaith” Initiatives
One of the most insidious strategies used by Islamist groups is promoting “interfaith dialogue” and “community cohesion” initiatives. These programs, often positioned as efforts to build bridges between communities, mask a more calculated objective: to establish Islamic norms within public and institutional frameworks.
In theory, interfaith dialogue should promote mutual understanding and cooperation between diverse religious groups. However, Islamist organizations often use these platforms to subtly push Islamic standards while silencing criticism. By participating in these dialogues, they position themselves as champions of peace and understanding, leveraging Western guilt over accusations of intolerance.
This tactic was notably employed in the UK, where Islamist groups pressured local councils to include Sharia-compliant practices under the guise of community cohesion. Under the pretext of protecting religious sensibilities, they successfully lobbied to limit freedom of speech concerning Islam, effectively criminalizing dissent.
A prime example is the push for hate speech laws that disproportionately favor Islamic beliefs while curtailing criticism. By labeling criticism of Islam as “Islamophobia” during interfaith sessions, these groups manipulate secular institutions into enforcing de facto blasphemy rules.
Islamist organizations know that appearing as advocates of peace and cooperation resonates positively with liberal, multicultural audiences. In reality, their true aim is to enforce gradual accommodation to Islamic standards, thereby eroding secular principles while appearing cooperative.
Victimhood: The Ultimate Rhetorical Shield
By framing any criticism of Islam as ‘Islamophobia,’ groups like terror-tied Council on American Islamic Relations effectively create a rhetorical shield. This tactic not only discredits legitimate concerns but also mobilizes Western guilt to disarm opposition. Those who question Islamic expansion are cast as bigots, regardless of their factual or legal arguments.
This manipulation is especially effective in Western societies that value tolerance and inclusivity. By positioning themselves as the persecuted minority, these groups exploit an imputed cultural guilt to silence opposition. Much like communists repurposed the word ‘progressive’ to signify communist advancement, Islamic groups similarly manipulate words like ‘oppression’ and ‘innocent’ to serve their ideological goals.
For them, ‘oppression’ often means living under non-Islamic rule, while ‘innocent’ specifically refers to Muslims alone. This strategic language manipulation not only garners Western sympathy but also vilifies those who challenge their ideology. By controlling the narrative, they make it nearly impossible to critique radicalism without being labeled a bigot or an oppressor.
The Communist Parallel: Redefining “Progressive”
Much like the Muslim Brotherhood, communists have historically employed language manipulation to subvert democratic societies. The word “progressive” was co-opted to mean moving toward communism. Opposing it made one seem regressive or backward. Similarly, Islamic groups craft words like peace, justice, and human rights to sound universally good while embedding totalitarian goals.
Just as communists redefined ‘progressive’ to push socialist ideologies, Islamists co-opt language to make radical goals sound universally positive. This linguistic subversion deceives well-meaning Westerners into supporting causes that ultimately undermine their own values.
The Ultimate Purpose: Linguistic Domination
The strategic goal of redefining these terms is to advance Islam as the sole dominant governing and legal principle. By embedding deceptive language into public discourse, radicals create a narrative shield that protects their true intentions. They know how Westerners perceive these words and leverage that perception to gain political and social power.
In their own writings, such as the Reliance of the Traveller (r8.2), it is explicitly stated:
“When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if the goal is permissible; and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”
This doctrine of deception in the service of Islam (known as Taqiyya) is a core strategy. It allows radicals to present themselves as moderates while infiltrating institutions and shaping policies.
In addition to Taqiyya, the concept of Kitman, deliberately concealing parts of the truth to protect Islamic interests, also plays a role in how radicals manipulate language. This practice allows them to present half-truths to Western audiences, maintaining a veneer of moderation while advancing their ideological goals.
Exposing the Deception
It is vital to unmask this linguistic manipulation and understand the true meanings behind the terms radicals use. To preserve Western civilization, we must reclaim language and hold radical ideologies accountable. Failing to recognize this semantic subversion will lead to unintended complicity in advancing an agenda fundamentally opposed to freedom and democracy.
Only by confronting this strategic deception head-on can we safeguard our democratic institutions and protect the fundamental liberties that define Western civilization.
