Is Allah the Author of Islamophobia?

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.”

Photo of Quran manuscripts taken in Timbuktu, Mali in 2011.

By Michael Brown Published on June 15, 2017

Whatever the origins of the term, is “Islamophobia” an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims? Or do Muslims believe that Allah (the Arabic word for “God”) has commanded them to strike fear in the hearts of non-Muslims ? If so, then fear would be the rational response to some Muslim actions. That’s what a Christian colleague of mine, who is also an expert on Islam, suggests. 

‘Cast Terror into the Hearts’

He bases this claim on a well-known verse which states, “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (8:12, my emphasis).

So, the source of the terror is twofold. First, Allah will strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Second, Muslims are to smite their enemies in specific ways, beheading them and chopping off their fingertips.

Other passages call for barbaric punishments, including:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement (5:33).

I’m aware, of course, of the debate among Muslim scholars about how to apply verses like this. Did they apply only to wars in which Mohammed was fighting? Do they apply in an ongoing way in times of martial conflict? Or do they apply more universally in Islam’s war against the unbelieving world?

For the moment, we can leave that debate aside and simply affirm this: The prescribed punishments were intended to strike fear into the hearts of the enemies of Islam. And to this day, when those punishments are carried out, be it legitimately or not, they are meant to instill fear. This is done in harmony with Allah, who promised to cast terror into the hearts of the non-believers.

In that sense, Islamophobia is something authored by Allah and produced by his devoted followers. In that sense, Islamophobia is a desired Islamic result.

A Healthy Fear

Again, I understand that many Muslims will protest this line of thinking. They claim that Islam is peaceful and peace-loving and that the West has an irrational fear of Islam. I’m somewhat sympathetic to this argument. It grieves me that peace-loving Muslims will be negatively judged by the actions of their violent co-religionists.

But what else should we think when Pakistan sentences a man to death for speaking against Islam on Facebook? Or when ISIS throws homosexuals off buildings and Iran hangs them from the gallows? Or when “nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law”? Aren’t the public punishments prescribed by sharia law meant to instill fear?

Every time ISIS puts out a new video demonstrating its demonic brutality, the intent is to instill fear in the hearts of those outside of their group.

A colleague of mine who lived in Saudi Arabia for several years told me about the routine on Friday afternoons (Friday is the Muslim Sabbath). The community would be rounded up to go to the local square (called Chop Square) to watch beheadings and amputations. The message was loud and clear: We want you to see this and we want you to be afraid.

Every time ISIS puts out a new video demonstrating its demonic brutality, the intent is to instill fear in the hearts of those outside of their group, be they non-Muslims or other Muslims. And every time a radical Muslim commits an act of terror, the intent is to strike terror into the hearts of “unbelievers.”

Could it be, then, that Allah really is the author of Islamophobia? Conversely, could it be that we should have a healthy fear of Islam — not a fear of peace-loving Muslims but of Islam in its original form? And could it be that, when radical Muslims say to us, “We will kill you if you call us terrorists!” that Islamophobia is not so unhealthy after all?

Judge for yourself.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    Every Muslim is a threat to all Americans.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    There is reason to this madness that provokes some non Shariah promoting adherents of Islam & some from all other religious & idealogical persuasions to find themselves saddled w/that politically correct but theologically misunderstood label. “Islamophobe” is a term coined simply for political expediency by those who promote a globalist agenda. Problem is , as Mr Brown suggests, there is Islamic precedent for striking fear in the hearts of those on the wrong side of their sword. The Arabic word for God is Allah but the Arabic concept of God differs greatly from the judeo-Christian revelation of this supposedly same God. So, no matter what side of the political &/or theological fence you reside, the same conclusion regarding islamophobia can be drawn. It’s a characterization of those who in a misguided effort to promote an agenda not sanctioned by the God of Abraham , Issac & Joseph who is the God & Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. We who recognize that distinction from the god of the Islamist should agree on this one thing, it is “Allah” who promotes directly & otherwise this blatant inequity among any who get in their way. In that sense one of the devils most devious charades is the use of the word ‘islamophobe’ & all that it’s protagonists ignorantly espouse …

  • Grumpy4456

    Please, enough of the term radical Islamists. ISIS are fundamentalist Muslims. By non-Islamic standards their actions are radical but by the teachings of the Qur’an and the Hadith their actions and beliefs are, for lack of a better term, mainstream Islam.

  • davidrev17

    Would someone please be kind enough, or bold enough, to identify “Allah” for me; since it’s obvious this so-called “god” is light-years from even resembling the Holy One of Israel, i.e., YHWH, aka the Creator God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures?? Thank you!

    • Dean Bruckner

      Read The Islamic Invasion by Robert Morey.

      • davidrev17

        Thanks Dean. But it was just a rhetorical question anyway; hoping to elicit some responses from what appears to be hordes of silent PC professing Christians. After all, the correct answer should be readily apparent to most all of WE Christians. And you’re surely right about Robert Morey’s work!

        • Dean Bruckner

          Thanks, David! Please see my expanded comment above .

    • Billy Chickens

      I’ve already identified him for you but you ridiculed me because you had to have proof. In addition, since I’m a Catholic – a member of the one and only church Christ founded (BTW, I’m a convert) – you would not listen since you consider Catholics heretics, (Gary. No comment from you, please. Thanks.) or at least that’s what I gathered since you seem to despise Christ’s most holy and blessed (that’s in the Bible) mother so much. So just keep wondering and wandering in the wilderness. I found my way across the Tiber. Maybe you will also one day. The sooner the better because life is short.

      • davidrev17


        Always a pleasure to hear from someone trying to speak, with BOTH FEET in one’s mouth! (Just read my response just below to Dean.) Also, if you’d allow the Holy Spirit to simply humble you, perhaps it’s possible for you to “see” that you’re not nearly as enlightened – as you imagine yourself to be! Finally, please don’t try and express what’s in my heart, because only God Himself “knows the thoughts and intents” of such. Have a very blessed weekend.

        (BTW: What’s all this about the “Tiber” anyway; as I don’t ever recall reading anything about such a river in the Holy Scriptures, having ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with humanity’s salvation, through the Lord Jesus Christ???)

        • Billy Chickens

          You are incredibly obtuse. Unfortunately the light of Truth may never shine in you since your mind is befuddled by belief in falsehood.

          Also, it was Martin Luther who removed entire sections, even entire chapters, from the Bible in both Old and New Testaments, so the “add-on’s” are actually retaining what was there in the first place – before protestants took them out to fit their agenda instead of God’s.

          The Tiber is a river in Rome across which stands the Vatican. “Crossing the Tiber” is a phrase which means conversion to Catholicism. You’ll want to remember that one day when you convert. Do you think that every word out of man’s mouth must come from the Bible? That it’s a sin to use a phrase like “crossing the Tiber”?

          And I’m not expressing what’s in your heart. I’m expressing what’s obvious to a person reading your comments. Isn’t that obvious to you? You expressed your views that I’m not humble and not enlightened. So what’s the difference? What’s good for you to do isn’t OK for me? That’s called hypocrisy…and that’s in the Bible.

          • davidrev17

            “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you CONTEND EARNESTLY FOR THE FAITH, WHICH WAS ONCE FOR ALL HANDED DOWN TO THE SAINTS” (Jude/Judah 3 – my emphasis of course).


            As Yeshua said to the religious leaders of his day, of whom should’ve known better re: the Old Testament teaching on physical/bodily resurrection: “You do err not knowing the Scriptures [i.e., Old Testament, as there was NO New Testament available] nor the power of God” (see Matthew 22:23-33, for context).

            Having said that, I offer you just a few observations: When one “objectively” analyzes the evidence for the “worldview” incorporated within both Old/New Testament’s (i.e., Covenants), one will unambiguously recognize that it’s pure “Near Eastern,” within a purely Mediterranean context – namely from Genesis, through the Book of Revelation.

            Or stated another way: this worldview is unambiguously Israeli-centered, within this Near Eastern context; whose broader implications include what we recognize today as representing the “Middle East.” And this area revealed in the Book of Genesis, has been called the “cradle of civilization”; so consistent with sound reason, these same geographic boundaries are, quite naturally, the location where all things in redemptive history will find their ultimate, biblically prophesied “fulfillment.”

            Thus in the final analysis with regard to biblical eschatology – meaning during the “restoration of all things,” whether one is Amillenialist, Postmillenialist, or Premillenialist – there are ONLY two rivers that will actually have any significance in this matter: the Jordan River, and the Euphrates River. (Just consult a map of the Middle East and/or Near East.) You should easily notice that anything Euro-centered (as in Rome, Italy etc.) is conspicuously absent!

            “It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch [the very Shekinah Presence of YHWH, Who is Fire] which passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying,

            “To your descendants (both Jewish & Gentile spiritual “sons of Abraham,” thus “sons of God,” through FAITH in OUR Lord Yeshua haMashiach) I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates” (Genesis 15:17-18 – my emphasis of course. You might want to read all of Genesis chapter 15?).

            Also, since you mentioned the activity of the clearly ANTI-Semitic, thus Jew-hating Martin Luther – BTW: Jesus, or Yeshua, was/is Jewish, as were ALL His apostles, as well as the rabbinical scholar “Sha’ul of Tarsus,” or the Catholicized “St. Paul,” the “Apostle to the Gentiles,” i.e., see Ephesians 2:11-22: Now please understand, that the only critically relevant issue IS the authority of the text of Holy Scripture handed-down to us – including the Old Testament “Masoretic Text” – whose authenticity has been certifiably established through the rigorously undertaken, scholarly endeavor called the “science of textual criticism”; an area of academic pursuit still ongoing after well-over two-centuries now. (You should probably look into this subject in earnest too!)

            Here’s a very illuminating, FINAL authoritative statement from the Apostle Paul, circa 66-67 AD/CE, of which we find in Second Timothy, just prior to his martyrdom; as this “giant of the faith” is about to willingly offer-his-head to the maniacally evil Roman Emperor Nero, after roughly 30-years of some of the most sacrificially devoted “Christian” service to his “King of Kings and Lord of Lord’s,” this world has ever witnessed:

            “You [Timothy] however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings (Old Testament) which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture (Old Testament at this time) is INSPIRED [Greek “theopneustos” = “God-breathed”] by God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

            Hopefully in your studies, you’ll be able to “see” that almost every time the term “Scripture” is used in the New Testament, the context is ALWAYS that of indicating the completed Old Testament in existence during that time, probably even the “Septuagint.” And such references would no doubt implicate today’s recognized Greek text of the New Testament “Canon”; having since been rigorously authenticated, thus established through the “science of textual criticism” mentioned above.

            So in closing Billy: These 1st-century Jewish & Gentile followers of the risen/glorified Lord Yeshua [Jesus], had obviously evangelized the known world of their day, by preaching the ONLY message of salvation for mankind called the “gospel of Jesus Christ” = Messiah; having been revealed to them by the Holy “Spirit of Truth” Himself, to have been contained within the pages of their Old Testament Hebrew Bible’s, all along. (Please consider very carefully, the following: Luke 24:13-27; 33-55 – statements from the resurrected Lord Jesus to His followers – or 1 Peter 1:10-12 & 2 Peter 1:16-21 – words from the thoroughly Jewish Apostle “Kefa,” or Peter.)

            “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified. But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified” (2 Corinthians 13:5-6, the Apostle Paul).

          • Billy Chickens

            Matthew 11:25

          • davidrev17

            If you’re going to use scripture Billy, please…at least make sure it’s presented in its appropriate “context”; and not just lifted-off the page, literally wrenched from its surrounding context! (You might try what’s called the “20-20 approach”; as in try reading at least 20-verses BEFORE a particular verse, [i.e , Matthew 11:25] – then 20-verses AFTER? That method of biblical interpretation, can be enormously insightful at times? Thanks & hope you’re having a blessed weekend!

  • eddiestardust

    The Islamic god is NOT God at all…..

    • Billy Chickens

      No, he’s actually satan. It was Lucifer who Muhammad saw appearing as Gabriel.

  • Ryan

    “Terrorism, is to terrorize.” Joseph Stalin
    As long as it works, those who use it will do so.

  • You’re being foolish when you say you’re sympathetic to Islamic protest to claims of Islamic violence. Either they don’t understand fully their own religious texts or they are being deceptive. Speak out the truth about Islam. The truth will set everyone free.

  • Fr. David Jacobs

    Allah was the word used by arabic speaking Christians long before Islam. In the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church, in which I am a priest, you will hear this word throughout our services that are done in Arabic. For example, Quduson Allah means Holy God. It is a shame that Christianity from all jurisdictions have allowed Satan to hijack this word that was used and still is used for the True Christian God. Islam has desecrated the name of God and Christians should be seeking to sanctify it in their communities through education. Allah Maak / God Bless.

    • davidrev17

      This may come as a major surprise (or shock!) to you, but you might need to resort to the Hebrew Bible, or today’s “Masoretic Text,” [same authoritative content] in which the “Old Testament” Scriptures consist, for the name(s) given for the “Holy One of Israel” – aka the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”; in whose writings there are also many “compound names” – but ONLY ONE actual/true name, meaning “YHWH,” or “YHVH,” [see all of Exodus chapter 3, esp. vv.14-17 and/or Exodus 6:1-3].

      Additionally, contra your statement: based upon the blatantly ignored evidence found throughout the Greek text of the New Testament (or New Covenant), it’s been observed by distinguished biblical scholars for so long now – that “Christianity was/is thoroughly Jewish [Hebrew] to its core”; notwithstanding the comprehensive “Gentilization” of so-called “Church” history, or more accurately, THE “ekklesia.” (e.g., Matthew 16:18)

      Plus, one can search the entire Greek text of the New Testament, and never encounter even the remotest reference to this “Allah,” of whom you’re speaking. The “God” always referenced by Yeshua of Nazareth, Israel’s Messiah, and his thoroughly Jewish Apostle’s & disciples who’d followed Him, and had participated in “penning” the NT – with the exception of the lone Gentile writer Luke, the traveling companion of the Apostle Paul et al., through whom the Holy Spirit had “inspired” in his writing both Luke/Acts – was none other than the “GOD” of the Old Testament, i.e., “YHVH,” or “YHWH,” aka the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

      “Facts are stubborn things…”

      • Fr. David Jacobs

        I am aware of the origins of Christianity. What you are missing is that Arabic speaking Christians have use the arabic word “Allah” for God (much like Greek speaking Christians use “Theos”) and it has nothing to do with Islam or the god of Islam.

        • Fr. David Jacobs

          For example. In John 1.1 the arabic word for God is الله, which is Allah.

          • davidrev17

            But what does Arabic have to do with the New Testament Greek text; the very language into which the Hebrew Old Testament (i.e., “Septuagint”) had been translated, perhaps some 200-years before Jesus entered humanity? The entire biblical worldview, or context, is Jewish/Hebrew; thus the Bible itself is also a “Jewish book,” as are all its human writer’s except Luke, the lone Gentile.

            Given the absolute, unambiguous “incomparability” of the “only true and living God” YHWH/YHVH, perhaps those Arabic speaking individuals could try and arrive at a far-more appropriate name for the “triune” “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” relevant to the three languages into which the Holy Bible has been handed-down to humanity…Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Greek?? Just sayin’!

          • Fr. David Jacobs

            The point is Christianity spread to all nations as commanded by Jesus. That meant translating the Word of God in all languages
            Allah was the word used for God by Christians long before Islam. There were Arabic speaking Christians long before Islam. My point about the Greek word “Theos” is that it wasn’t always used for the Christian God.

          • Fr. David Jacobs

            Furthermore, the aramaic word for God is ʼĔlāhā which is Allah. As you know Jesus spoke aramaic and would have used this word when referring to God the Father.

          • Billy Chickens

            Not hard to understand. Allah was the name used by Arabs for of one of the idols in the Kabba long before Christianity. Don’t blame the correlation on the Bible, linguistics or Aramic. John was written in Greek. I am confused why THAT is so hard to understand. “God” translated from Greek into any other language always and forever should never be linked to or with any word remotely connected to an ancient pagan idol.

          • Fr. David Jacobs

            So you think the Greek word Theos which is used in the New Testament was never used by pagans to identify their idols/ gods? Wow.

          • Billy Chickens

            I’m not a linguist by profession. I’m just a lowly chicken. However I don’t know anyone by the name of Allah, nevertheless I do know that there are many people named Theo. Allah is a SPECIFIC name of a pagan idol while theo(s) is a generic Greek word for gods.

          • Fr. David Jacobs

            Good point. So what was/is the generic word for god in arabic and aramaic?

          • Billy Chickens

            Sigh. What are we arguing about here? I forgot. Anyway…use of the word “Allah” has EVERYTHING to do with Islam and the God of Islam. Today. Everything. It isn’t the fault of Christ – or John who wrote in Greek – that Christian Arabs want to call God by the name of an ancient pagan idol. To EVERYONE TODAY calling God “Allah” intimates the pagan idol of that name and infers that Allah – the “god” of Islam – is one and the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The use of the word Allah is a device of the devil to confuse man – especially Moslems – that their “god” is the same as the Ancient of Days.

          • davidrev17

            “Christian God”?? Now I understand your apparent confusion. The “echad” (Hebrew in the “Shema” of Deut. 6:4-5) triune Creator God revealed in the Judeo- Christian Scriptures – from Genesis 1:1 – Revelation 22:21 – is the one-and-only incomparable “true and living God,” or the “God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.” All others are thus impostors, and need not apply.

            “Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

          • Fr. David Jacobs

            You are missing the point. Allah is the arabic word for god related to the aramaic which Jesus spoke. People who did not speak Hebrew or Greek but Arabic used the word allah to speak about the Christian God.

          • Billy Chickens

            John was written in Greek. How the word “God” is translated into Arabic is irrelevant as to the meaning of the word Allah. It is necessary to go to the exact foundation of Muhammad’s vision of “Allah”. Who was this vision? Who was this apparition in the dark cave when Muhammad was alone? It certainly was not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It identified itself as Allah… as God… as the God of Abraham.

            However, since belief in Muhammad’s Allah wipes away Christianity and Judaism in their entirety, Muhammad’s Allah cannot be the God of Abraham. Belief in Allah as God ipso facto makes one a Muslim, a worshiper of Allah.

            Allah was an ancient Arabic idol from long before Jesus was born. The vision Muhammad saw was none other than Lucifer appearing as Gabriel the Archangel. God would never have resent St Gabriel to earth again to announce a new religion that in its essence irradiates Christianity, would He? Either one believes in Jesus and the Bible or one believes in Allah (the devil) and the Quran. One or the other.

          • davidrev17

            And a wholehearted AMEN to that great hunk of Truth Billy!

          • Billy Chickens

            Smile. You’ll be a Catholic yet, notwithstanding your identity as Rev:17.

          • davidrev17

            That Rev17 stands for Revelation chapter one, verse 7! A favorite…carrying powerful Old Testament allusions to passages like Daniel 7:13-14 & Zechariah 12:10; plus the obvious view of the Lord Jesus on the cross – where the SINS of both Jew & Gentile had placed/nailed Him.

          • Billy Chickens

            Oh, well then you might want to place a comma in there since it looks like the entire chapter of Rev 17 which refers to the great harlot who protestants wrongly think is the Catholic Church.

          • Fr. David Jacobs

            The aramaic word Jesus would have used for God is ʼĔlāhā which is Allah in arabic. Linguistically it is also related to the Hebrew word for God “elohim”. It matters because Allah was used by Jesus and early Christians long before Islam. Islam hijacked the term. And since we can all agree about Satan’s involvement in establishing Islam is it so hard to believe he would corrupt a word used for the true God, one used by the very Saviour he hates? I am confused why this is so hard to understand.

To God be the Glory
James Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us