For a long time, Islam has often been the target of one-sided accusations portraying it as a “religion of the sword,” with its spread allegedly tied to mass slaughter, the legitimization of slavery, and personal critiques of Prophet Muhammad regarding early marriage. However, these narratives are not merely historical misunderstandings but often represent a form of ideological propaganda that deliberately ignores the broader global context. In reality, practices of violence, slavery, and similar marriage norms—often far more extreme—have been part of the history of various civilizations, including Christian Europe, East Asia, and other ancient traditions, making accusations against Islam selective and disproportionate.
To critically address these accusations, I will adopt an approach grounded in verified historical data, analysis of social facts, and objective cross-cultural comparisons. For instance, while the spread of Islam did involve military conflicts in some regions, the majority of conversions occurred through trade routes, peaceful preaching, and cultural integration, as evidenced by its expansion into Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia, without significant warfare. Similarly, Islamic regulations on slavery emphasized the emancipation of slaves as a noble act, in stark contrast to The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, supported by European Christian powers, which claimed millions of African lives. As for the issue of early marriage, the context of 7th-century Arabia reveals that such norms were common across the ancient world—including medieval Europe, where girls as young as 12 were often married to adult men—highlighting the hypocrisy of modern critiques that single out Islam. Through this analytical lens, we not only debunk myths but also uncover patterns of systematic bias in dominant narratives, fostering a fairer and evidence-based understanding.
Why Is Islam Labeled a “Satanic Religion” or “Cult”?
Since the events of 9/11, Islam has frequently been portrayed in Western media as a religion synonymous with violence and terrorism. Mainstream reporting tends to disproportionately highlight criminal acts involving Muslims, fostering a confirmation bias among the public that Islam is inherently dangerous. In reality, this narrative often stems from theological ignorance and information manipulation. Many parties quote Quranic verses out of context, disregarding their historical or interpretive background—a practice that is not only misleading but also echoes historical patterns of demonizing minority religions. For comparison, during the Middle Ages, Jews in Europe were often branded as “children of the devil” in Christian literature to reinforce majority dominance, a pattern now similarly applied to Islam.
This negative narrative is exacerbated by unfair generalizations about 1.9 billion Muslims based on the actions of a few individuals. Figures like Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson), Charlie Kirk, Paul Golding, Geert Wilders, Laura Loomer, Gad Saad, Rupert Lowe, or even controversial tweets from personalities like Elon Musk often amplify stigma through social media. In social reality, criminal acts such as sexual abuse, violence, or corruption occur across all communities—Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, or atheist—without exception. However, when the perpetrator is Muslim, media outlets tend to use labels like “Islamic crime” or “Islamic terrorism,” while similar cases involving non-Muslims are more often framed as individual acts unrelated to religion. Read these articles: Muslim = Terrorist? Attribution of violent crimes to terrorism or mental health problems depend on perpetrators' religious background and Perpetrator Religion and Perceiver’s Political Ideology Affect Processing and Communication of Media Reports of Violence. Data from Europe, for example, shows that the majority of pedophilia and sexual abuse cases occur outside Muslim communities, including major scandals within the Catholic Church involving tens of thousands of victims. Yet, these cases are rarely labeled a “Christian rape crisis,” highlighting a stark double standard in media framing. Read: French Catholic church expresses ‘shame’ after report finds 330,000 children were abused and Sweeping study finds 1,000 cases of sexual abuse in Swiss Catholic Church since mid-20th century.
The Pattern of Selective Framing in Reporting
One of the primary mechanisms behind this bias is selective framing. When a Muslim is involved in a criminal act, their religious identity is almost always explicitly highlighted in headlines, such as “Muslim man accused of rape,” as if the behavior reflects Islam’s teachings as a whole. In contrast, when the perpetrator is non-Muslim, reports often emphasize personal aspects, such as “Businessman accused of sexual misconduct,” without mentioning the individual’s religion. A clear example is the case of Errol Musk, Elon Musk’s father, who admitted to a relationship with his much younger stepdaughter—an act that is morally and legally problematic. Read: Elon Musk’s father accused of sexually abusing his children and stepchildren. Yet, this case never became a global headline framed as “Western immorality” or a “Christian scandal.” Conversely, if the perpetrator were from a Muslim community, the case would likely be amplified with narratives of “Islamic barbarism,” fueling prolonged stigmatization.
This pattern extends to recent examples where political figures adjust their rhetoric based on the perpetrator’s identity. Before the identity of a shooter is known, blanket condemnations of certain groups are common, only to shift toward individualized responses—such as calls for prayer or punishment—once the perpetrator is revealed as a white individual.
The immediate tone shift here is wild. pic.twitter.com/xJzhEzlrEK
— Cody Johnston (@drmistercody) September 12, 2025
This shift aligns with data indicating that white men, who account for 54% of U.S. mass shootings according to a 2019 Violence Policy Center study, are often framed as “lone wolves” or “mentally ill,” avoiding broader cultural generalizations. Read: Are white males responsible for more mass shootings than any other group? and Framing Islam/Creating Fear: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of Terrorism from 2011–2016. In contrast, minority perpetrators face scrutiny of their communities, with questions about radicalization or cultural influences dominating coverage. Studies also show that attacks by Muslim perpetrators receive 357% more media coverage than those by non-Muslims, with terms like “Islamic terrorism” prevalent, as seen in the 2015 Paris attacks, while non-Muslim acts like the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting focus on mental health or gun control, rarely mentioning religion. Read: Terror Attacks By Muslims Get 357 Percent More Media Coverage Than Other Terror Attacks, Study Shows. This double standard stems from cultural biases, political agendas, and post-9/11 stereotypes, though some outlets, like the BBC, avoid religious labels unless directly relevant. The trend reinforces a narrative where Muslim identity is disproportionately emphasized, while non-Muslim religion is often overlooked.
This phenomenon is not new but part of a recurring historical pattern. During the Crusades, atrocities committed by Christian armies were often downplayed in historical records, while Muslim actions were exaggerated to justify conflict. For example, Christian chroniclers rarely emphasized the massacre of Muslim and Jewish civilians in Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade, or the cannibalism at Ma‘arra (1098), which although recorded, was treated as a shameful or exceptional event rather than a systemic feature of the campaign; meanwhile Muslim sources and Western later narratives often focused heavily on alleged Muslim cruelty to reinforce the moral imperative for war. Read: Siege of Ma'arra and Massacre at Ayyadieh. In the colonial era, violence committed by European powers was rarely labeled “Christian savagery,” while Muslim resistance was quickly branded as “Islamic fanaticism” or “Islamic terrorism.” This continues today, with groups such as Hamas—who frame their struggle as resistance against Israeli occupation since 1946—being portrayed through the same lens. This pattern persists, where negative framing of Islam serves geopolitical purposes, including legitimizing foreign policies, military interventions, and systemic discrimination against Muslims.
Hypothetical Shift: The Charlie Kirk Case and Beyond
A striking illustration of this selective framing can be observed in the recent case of the Charlie Kirk shooting. After the identity of the perpetrator, a white Christian, was revealed, public and media discourse quickly pivoted toward gun control debates and individualized responses, such as calls for prayer or the death penalty from certain political figures. However, imagine a reversal: if the shooter had been Muslim, the reaction would likely have been markedly different. Media coverage would likely escalate into a frenzy, with continuous headlines amplifying the incident, Muslim ban, potentially inciting vandalism of mosques, Quran burnings, and widespread discrimination or violence against Muslim communities. Read: How Perpetrator Identity (Sometimes) Influences Media Framing Attacks as “Terrorism” or “Mental Illness”. Historical precedents, such as the post-9/11 backlash where hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. surged by 1,700% according to FBI data, support this hypothesis. Read: Anti-Muslim assaults reach 9/11-era levels, FBI data show. The 2017 Finsbury Park mosque attack in the UK, where a white attacker targeted Muslims, received significantly less sustained coverage compared to Muslim-perpetrated acts, further underscoring this disparity. Read: Why media reporting of Finsbury Park attack differs from that of other incidents.
This hypothetical scenario highlights a deeper issue: the media’s role in shaping public perception based on identity. When the perpetrator is from a minority group like Muslims, the narrative often extends beyond the individual to implicate an entire faith or culture, triggering societal chaos and reinforcing stereotypes. In contrast, when the perpetrator is white or Christian, the focus remains on policy issues like gun control or mental health, sparing the majority religion from collective scrutiny. This double standard not only perpetuates bias but also risks escalating tensions, as seen in past instances where inflammatory reporting led to real-world violence against marginalized groups.
Selective Silence: The Case of EDL and Tommy Robinson
Another dimension of this double standard is the selective silence surrounding scandals within anti-Islam movements. For instance, the English Defence League (EDL), led by figures like Tommy Robinson, has built its platform on condemning alleged crimes by Muslim communities, particularly focusing on grooming gang scandals. Yet, a notable case of pedophilia involving an EDL member, Richard Price—a close ally of Robinson—convicted in 2010 for possessing indecent images of children, and Leigh McMillan, a “senior member” of the far-right EDL jailed for sexually abusing a schoolgirl dozens of times, received minimal media attention and was rarely addressed by Robinson himself. Read: EDL’s ‘political prisoner’ is a convicted sex offender and 'Senior member' of English Defence League jailed for sexually abusing 10-year-old girl. Similarly, Kristopher Allan, associated with the Scottish Defence League (SDL), a group ideologically aligned with EDL, was convicted in 2006 for messages, images, and sexual contact involving a 13-year-old, as noted in historical records. And “when fifteen-year-old Paige Chivers was murdered by a pedophile, there were no far-right riots in response. No marches waving Union Jacks took place. Tommy Robinson remained silent—he did not even call for donations. Paige had been groomed and killed by Robert Ewing, a man linked to the English Defence League. Another EDL associate assisted in disposing of her body. @LouiseRawAuthor” Read: Paige Chivers murder: Neo-nazi paedophile Robert Ewing found guilty of murdering school girl. Despite these incidents occurring within circles linked to Robinson’s network, they have not sparked the same level of public outrage or media scrutiny as cases involving Muslims, where such crimes are often framed as systemic issues tied to Islam.
Ok while I have the far right’s attention, let me post this again.
— Dr Louise Raw (@LouiseRawAuthor) July 7, 2025
103 Far Right sex offenders, including:
-the paedophile Tommy Robinson founded the EDL with (Richard Price) and
-the EDL and BNP sex offender who who MURDERED 15 year old Paige Chivers (Robert Ewing)
1/ pic.twitter.com/DZnpxt6x59
This selective omission appears to serve a clear agenda: the EDL and Robinson’s primary focus is to vilify Islam rather than address crime universally across all communities. Research from HOPE not hate (2022) highlights Robinson’s history of ignoring or downplaying abuses within his own ranks, suggesting that his anti-Islam stance overshadows any genuine commitment to combating pedophilia or violence. If a Muslim leader exhibited similar behavior, the media frenzy would likely be unrelenting, with calls for investigations into Islamic institutions and widespread vilification of the faith. This discrepancy underscores how media and activist narratives prioritize political agendas over consistent accountability, further entrenching biases against minority groups while shielding majority-aligned figures from equivalent scrutiny. Read: The Far Right and the Riots: Paedophiles, Animal Abusers and Former Britain First Members.
Disparate Labeling: The Epstein Files and Beyond
A stark example of this selective labeling emerges from the recent release of Jeffrey Epstein’s files in September 2025, shedding light on the connections between elite figures and the convicted pedophile. On 26 September 2025, the House Oversight Committee released a third batch of documents, including log telephonics (2002-2005), flight logs (1990-2019), daily schedules (2010-2019), and financial ledgers, naming high-profile individuals like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Steve Bannon, Prince Andrew, and Bill Gates. Yet, no criminal charges or direct evidence of participation in Epstein’s crimes accompany these names. Musk’s mention stems from a Dec. 6, 2014 schedule entry—“Reminder: Elon Musk to island Dec. 6 (is this still happening?)”—suggesting an unconfirmed invitation to Epstein’s Little St. James Island, a site of documented abuse. Musk denied attending, tweeting on Twitter, “Epstein tried to get me to go to his island and I REFUSED,” and accused media of pushing a false narrative by linking him to Prince Andrew, who did visit. A 2014 photo of Musk with Ghislaine Maxwell at a Vanity Fair Oscar Party, confirmed by Snopes and the New York Times, shows a brief encounter Musk claims was an uninvited “photobomb,” with no further interaction proven. Maxwell herself noted in a 2025 DOJ transcript she knew Musk but never saw him meet Epstein directly. Read: Fact Check: Yes, Elon Musk and Ghislaine Maxwell were once photographed together.
Contrast this with other figures: Prince Andrew flew with Epstein and Maxwell (log, 12 May 2000) and paid millions to settle Virginia Giuffre’s abuse claims; Bill Clinton took 26 flights on Epstein’s jet (2002-2003) for charity, denying knowledge of crimes; and Donald Trump, a 15-year friend, flew six times (1993-1997) and hosted Epstein at Mar-a-Lago, cutting ties post-2008 conviction. Read: Prince Andrew 'flew on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet and had massages paid for by paedophile' while Elon Musk 'planned to visit island', according to bombshell documents. Similarly, Mohammad bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, was photographed with Epstein at a 2018 event in Riyadh, as documented in court filings, though no evidence confirms deeper ties or visits to Epstein’s properties. Unlike Musk, these connections—particularly for Andrew, Clinton, and Trump—are backed by stronger evidence of repeated contact, yet media scrutiny varies. Musk’s case, amplified by his political rivalry with Democrats—who released the files post-election—lacks proof of wrongdoing, yet speculation of “Islamic barbarism” would likely dominate if a Muslim elite like bin Salman were more prominently implicated. Instead, their names are tied to individual speculation, not collective religious frames, mirroring how non-Muslim figures evade systemic labels. Notably, the association of Trump, U.S. president, with Epstein raises profound concerns: a leader of a global superpower linked to a convicted pedophile underscores a troubling tolerance for elite misconduct, amplifying the stakes of such connections compared to the generalized vilification of minority groups.
Disparate Labeling: The Norway Attacks vs. Charlie Hebdo
A compelling historical example of this bias in labeling is the contrast between the 2011 Norway attacks by Anders Behring Breivik and the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack. Breivik, a self-identified Christian and anti-Islam extremist, detonated a bomb in Oslo and shot 69 people, mostly non-Muslim youths, at a Labour Party camp on Utøya, motivated by his desire to frame Muslims as a threat to Europe. Despite his ideological drive and the scale of the attack (77 deaths), he was rarely labeled a “Christian terrorist” in mainstream media, with coverage often focusing on his mental state or political extremism without tying it to his religion. Read: The Color of Terrorism. In contrast, the Charlie Hebdo attack, carried out by two Muslim brothers, Said and Chérif Kouachi, was immediately branded “Islamic terrorism” globally, with extensive coverage linking the act to Islam despite the attackers’ actions not representing the faith’s 1.9 billion adherents.
This disparity in labeling reflects a broader pattern: acts of violence by Muslims are swiftly associated with their religion, inciting widespread backlash, including mosque vandalism and hate crimes, as seen post-9/11 with a 1,700% surge in anti-Muslim incidents per FBI data. Meanwhile, similar acts by non-Muslims, even when ideologically driven like Breivik’s, are individualized or politicized without religious framing. A 2018 study from Georgia State University notes that white perpetrators of mass violence are 60% less likely to be labeled “terrorists” compared to Muslim counterparts, reinforcing how cultural biases shape media narratives. This selective application of labels not only distorts public perception but also justifies differential treatment, sparing majority religions from the collective blame routinely applied to Islam.
Disparate Accountability: The Tom Alexandrovich Case
A recent and particularly egregious example of selective accountability in elite misconduct is the case of Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, a senior Israeli cybersecurity official arrested in the United States for attempting to solicit a minor for sexual conduct. This incident, unfolding in August 2025, exemplifies the double standards in media framing and judicial leniency afforded to figures from allied nations, contrasting sharply with the swift vilification and collective blame applied to Muslim or minority perpetrators. Alexandrovich, executive director of the defense division at Israel’s National Cyber Directorate—a body under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office—was in Las Vegas for a security conference when he was ensnared in a multi-agency sting operation targeting online child predators. Despite the gravity of the charges, he was released on minimal bail without travel restrictions, allowing him to flee to Israel before facing trial, prompting widespread outrage and accusations of U.S.-Israeli interference. This leniency mirrors the Epstein network’s pattern of elite impunity, where powerful connections shield individuals from consequences, yet if a Muslim official were involved, the narrative would likely escalate into “Islamic predation,” inciting global backlash against an entire faith.
- August 6, 2025: Arrest in Las Vegas Sting: Alexandrovich, 38, was detained by Las Vegas police and federal agents during a two-week operation. Reports detail his online chats with an undercover officer posing as a 15-year-old girl, arranging a meeting for sexual contact, complete with condoms and plans for a Cirque du Soleil show. Charged with felony luring a child online for sexual conduct, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
- August 7, 2025: Release on Bail: Freed the next day on a $10,000 bond without conditions like passport surrender or monitoring, despite being a clear flight risk as a foreign national. During interrogation, he insisted the “girl” was 18.
- August 8, 2025: Flight to Israel: Departed the U.S. two days post-arrest via New York, evading further scrutiny. Israel’s policy against extraditing citizens ensures he remains beyond U.S. reach.
- August 18-27, 2025: Denials and Court No-Show: Israel’s government initially denied the arrest, calling it mere questioning. U.S. authorities affirmed no intervention, but a federal prosecutor criticized Nevada officials for the lapse. Alexandrovich skipped his August 27 arraignment, ordered to appear remotely but failing to comply.
- Ongoing Backlash (September 2025): U.S. politicians decried the release, linking it to Epstein file delays and U.S.-Israel ties. Social media erupted with calls to extradite Alexandrovich, drawing parallels to protected pedophiles fleeing to Israel. Media coverage faded quickly, unlike the frenzy over minority-linked crimes.
This case underscores a troubling asymmetry: Alexandrovich, tasked with national cyber defense including child protection online, exploited the very systems meant to safeguard minors, yet his elite status and geopolitical alliances enabled escape. Speculation ties it to broader Epstein-era impunity, with critics noting tolerance for fugitives from allied nations. If reversed—if an official from a Muslim-majority nation like Saudi Arabia fled similar charges—the outcry would frame it as “jihadi depravity,” sparking mosque attacks and policy crackdowns. Instead, the narrative softens to “diplomatic mishap,” sparing scrutiny of systemic protections for allied elites while minorities bear collective shame. As with Epstein’s web, where over 100 underage victims suffered due to elite networks, Alexandrovich’s flight highlights how power, not faith, dictates accountability—yet media bias ensures Islam remains the scapegoat for societal ills.
Asymmetric Hatred: Quran Burnings vs. Bible Burnings
A further manifestation of this bias is the stark asymmetry in public expressions of religious hatred. High-profile cases of Quran burnings, often broadcast live and witnessed by wide audiences, have become increasingly visible. Examples include Salwan Momika, an Iraqi immigrant who burned a Quran outside a mosque in Stockholm in June 2023, sparking international protests; Rasmus Paludan, a Danish far-right politician who has repeatedly burned Qurans, including a tribute to Momika in February 2025; and Valentina Gomez, a U.S. congressional candidate who burned a Quran in August 2025, drawing widespread condemnation. These acts, often framed as exercises in free speech, receive significant media attention and provoke global outrage, particularly within Muslim communities, yet the perpetrators face limited legal repercussions in some contexts due to freedom of expression laws.
In contrast, there is a conspicuous absence of documented cases where Muslims have publicly and deliberately burned the Bible in a similar manner, broadcasted for global audiences. While isolated incidents of religious desecration occur across all faiths—such as the burning of religious texts during sectarian conflicts—these are not amplified with the same intentionality or publicity as Quran burnings. A review of global media archives and reports from organizations like the United Nations and Amnesty International (up to September 2025) shows no equivalent high-profile, livestreamed Bible-burning events by Muslims, suggesting a directional bias in how hatred is expressed and reported. This asymmetry may reflect the majority-minority dynamic: acts targeting a minority religion (Islam) by majority or influential groups are more visible and tolerated, while the reverse is rare due to social, legal, and cultural constraints on Muslim communities in Western contexts. This pattern reinforces the narrative that Islam is uniquely targeted, while Christian symbols remain largely insulated from similar public desecration.
One of the very few documented cases involving the public desecration of the Bible by a Muslim was that of Ahmed Abdullah (commonly known as “Abu Islam”), a hard-line Salafi preacher in Egypt. In 2013, he was given a suspended sentence for tearing and burning a copy of the Bible during a demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Crucially, this act was not carried out as a gratuitous display of hatred toward Christianity, nor as a performative spectacle for global audiences, but as an expression of anger in direct response to an anti-Islamic film produced in the U.S. that had provoked outrage across the Muslim world. Even so, the incident was immediately prosecuted under Egyptian law (Muslim majority), underscoring both its exceptional nature and the fact that such actions are neither normalized nor celebrated within Muslim societies. Read: Hard-line Egyptian cleric sentenced for burning Bible.
Islamic Morality: A Strict Preventive System
Ironically, Islam has a highly stringent system of sexual morality designed to prevent violations from the outset. Classical Islamic law imposes severe punishments, such as flogging or stoning, for adultery and homosexuality, but more importantly, Islam emphasizes preventive measures to close the door to transgressions. Rules such as prohibiting seclusion between unrelated men and women, requiring the lowering of the gaze, banning physical contact between members of the opposite sex who are not close relatives, and mandating modest dress are part of a system aimed at protecting individual and societal purity. Read: UFC legend Khabib Nurmagomedov refuses to shake hands with female sportscaster in awkward moment. Even minor acts, such as viewing explicit images or listening to voices that incite desire, are prohibited to prevent exploitation and social harm. These principles demonstrate that Islam focuses not only on punishment but also on proactive prevention. Read: Prevention Strategies for the Crime of Adultery in the Light of Islamic Law.
So why do some Muslims still transgress? Like adherents of any other religion, Muslims are not immune to human weaknesses. Factors such as permissive environments, cultural pressures, or traumatic experiences can lead individuals to deviate from teachings. However, it is crucial to distinguish between Islamic teachings and individual behavior. A Muslim’s transgression reflects personal disobedience, not a flaw in Islam itself. Unfortunately, media and popular narratives often fail to make this distinction, choosing to generalize individual failures as shortcomings of the religion.
Addressing Bias and Promoting Understanding
Ultimately, the stigma that Islam is a “satanic religion” or “depraved cult” arises from a combination of media bias, theological ignorance, and political agendas. Low religious literacy among Western and non-Muslim audiences, coupled with unbalanced reporting, reinforces negative perceptions far removed from reality. Islam, with its strict moral system centered on purity, offers an ethical framework that emphasizes self-control and social responsibility. To dismantle these misguided narratives, an approach grounded in historical facts, fair cross-cultural analysis, and the courage to challenge entrenched structural biases is essential. By doing so, we can create space for a more honest and constructive dialogue about Islam and its contributions to global civilization.
Reflective note: Bias in reporting is not limited to religious contexts but is also evident in geopolitical narratives, where Russia’s military actions are labeled “invasion,” America’s “intervention,” Palestine “terrorism”, and Israel’s “self-defense,” reflecting the influence of global political narratives. While this topic falls outside the primary scope of this article, it highlights a similar pattern of framing shaped by dominant powers, underscoring the need for a more neutral analysis across all domains.
Dress Code: Deconstructing Narratives of Morality and Freedom
Islam is often accused of being an immoral religion, yet paradoxically, Muslim women who choose to dress modestly are frequently labeled as “oppressed.” This accusation is not only contradictory but also ignores the core Islamic teachings that emphasize modesty, the covering of intimate parts of the body, and the restriction of excessive sexual interactions. In Islam, however, modesty extends far beyond clothing; it encompasses speech, behavior, and interpersonal conduct, reflecting an inner disposition of humility and dignity. Western narratives tend to invert moral logic: women who cover their bodies to preserve dignity are deemed shackled, while those who expose their bodies for public consumption are celebrated as symbols of freedom. This raises a fundamental question: which reflects greater morality—covering the body out of self-respect or exposing it without limits for social validation? Read: Modesty as Kindness.
Islamic Teachings on Modest Dress
Islam establishes clear and firm standards for dress, as outlined in Quran, for example in chapter 7 (Al-A’raf, The Hights), verse 26; chapter 24 (An-Nur, The Light), verses 30–31; and chapter 33 (Al-Aḥzāb, The Confedrates), verse 59. Clothing must cover the intimate parts of the body, be loose-fitting, non-transparent, and not excessive—all rooted in the philosophy of preserving human dignity from sexual exploitation and bodily commodification. These rules are not mere cultural traditions but theological principles upheld throughout Islamic history, from 7th-century Arabian society to modern Muslim communities worldwide. In other words, modesty in dress is a cornerstone of Islamic morality designed to protect individuals and society from moral degradation.
In contrast, modern Western culture has followed a different trajectory. During the Middle Ages, European clothing was highly modest, with women’s necks and hair almost always covered, reflecting values similar to those in Islam. However, since the Renaissance, and especially in the 20th century, the industrialization of fashion in centers like Paris, Milan, and New York, amplified by Hollywood and the music industry, popularized revealing clothing such as miniskirts and bikinis. Liberal feminist movements also played a role by framing freedom as the right to expose the body, often without questioning its impact on the commodification of women. As a result, women’s bodies became tools for entertainment and capitalist profit, a phenomenon that contradicts the essence of true freedom.
Double Standards in Moral Judgments
The double standards in moral narratives are evident when comparing perceptions of modest dress across religions. A Catholic nun wearing a habit that covers her entire body is revered as a symbol of sanctity. Similarly, Orthodox Jewish women who cover their hair with wigs or scarves are viewed as expressing admirable faith. Yet, when a Muslim woman wears a head veil or face veil, the same act is often labeled a symbol of “oppression” or “extremism.” Even Muslim scholars in long robes are seen as representing backwardness, while the Pope or priests in similar attire are respected as figures of spiritual authority. This disparity reveals a deep-seated cultural bias in Western perceptions of Islam. See this tweet: “A woman decides to free herself from slavery on live TV”.
The slogan “my body, my choice” is often championed as a defense of bodily expression. However, when a Muslim woman chooses the head veil or face veil as an expression of faith, her choice is deemed invalid, as if freedom only applies when it aligns with Western liberal norms. Ironically, secular policies in some countries, such as France’s bans on the face veil and burkini, restrict individual freedom under the guise of “secularism” or “liberation.” Preventing someone from practicing their religious beliefs is a form of oppression, not freedom, exposing contradictions in the liberal narrative that claims to champion individual autonomy. Read: WHY THE FRENCH DON'T LIKE THE BURQA: LAÏCITÉ, NATIONAL IDENTITY AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
Cross-Cultural Comparisons and the Irony of Modernity
Cross-cultural comparisons strengthen this argument. In Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist traditions in East Asia, traditional clothing like hanbok, hanfu, and kimono emphasized modesty and elegance, far from sensual exploitation. The shift toward revealing clothing in Japan, Korea, and China occurred only after Western influence through colonialism, war, and globalization. Read: Textbooks and Textiles: Fashion in East Asia, 1920-1945. In contrast, Islam has consistently upheld its teachings on modest dress, even amidst modernization pressures. Yet, the Western-liberal culture that promotes bikinis, mass pornography, and the normalization of casual sex is often regarded as a hallmark of progress, while Islam’s rejection of bodily commodification is labeled as outdated.
Even more ironically, the Bible itself calls for modesty in dress, as seen in 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:19–20. Yet, the Christian-secular world has pioneered revealing fashion, such as the miniskirt popularized by British designer Mary Quant in the 1960s. This fact underscores that the trend of minimal clothing does not originate from Islam or East Asian traditions but from the dynamics of Western secularization post-Enlightenment. Nevertheless, dominant narratives continue to portray Islam as an “immoral” religion, even though its teachings serve as a bulwark of morality in an increasingly permissive modern culture.
Deconstructing Narratives and Affirming Islamic Morality
The accusation that Islam is immoral is clearly at odds with the facts. Islamic teachings on dress code reflect a steadfast commitment to modesty, the protection of dignity, and the prevention of sexual exploitation. In contrast, Western-liberal culture, with its trends of revealing clothing and bodily commodification, often pressures women to conform to sensual standards for social acceptance. Muslim women who choose the head veil or face veil should be respected as expressing autonomy, on par with nuns or Orthodox Jewish women, rather than being labeled as victims of oppression. If “my body, my choice” truly represents freedom, then a Muslim woman’s choice to cover her body for reasons of faith and dignity must be upheld, not denigrated.
Ultimately, Islam offers a consistent moral framework for preserving human sanctity and dignity. In an increasingly permissive modern world, Islamic teachings on modest dress are not a symbol of backwardness but a final bastion of morality protecting individuals from exploitation and degradation. Narratives that invert these facts are not only misguided but also part of a cultural bias that must be challenged for the sake of justice and a more honest understanding.
Gender Segregation: Safeguarding Public Morality Through Prevention
In many Muslim-majority countries, gender segregation is practiced in various settings, such as mosques, public transportation, schools, and public events. Separation is not a form of discrimination but a preventive measure to avoid temptation, harassment, or unlawful sexual relations. From its inception, Islam has strictly regulated interactions between men and women, based on the principle that preventing moral violations is preferable to punishing them after the fact. This reflects Islam’s commitment to preserving the purity of individuals and society, as emphasized in Quranic verses such as Chapter 24 (The Light), verses 30–31, which call for lowering the gaze and maintaining personal dignity.
قُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَغُضُّوا مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِمْ وَيَحْفَظُوا فُرُوجَهُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَزْكَىٰ لَهُمْ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا يَصْنَعُونَ وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا ۖ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ ۖ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ ۚ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ
“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Truly, God is fully aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what naturally appears thereof. Let them draw their head coverings over their chests, and not expose their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, their fellow women, those whom their right hands possess, male attendants with no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of women’s nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to God in repentance, all of you believers, so that you may succeed.”
— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nur (The Light), Verse: 30-31
Media Spotlight and the 2022 Qatar World Cup
Gender segregation and modesty norms came under scrutiny during the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Western media criticized local regulations, such as bans on public intoxication, restrictions on public displays of affection, mandatory modest dress, and segregated stadium areas, as clashing with liberal values. These criticisms often ignored the reasoning behind the rules, focusing instead on their divergence from Western norms that normalize casual socializing and bodily exposure. Yet, just as Muslim visitors to Western countries are expected to respect local laws, such as France’s ban on the face veil, Qatar enforced its Islamic cultural values as the host nation. The criticism of Qatar reflects a double standard that disregards cultural context and national sovereignty. Read: Western media criticism of World Cup host Qatar 'old orientalism refashioned for modern audience'.
Qatar’s policies had clear, rational goals. First, they aimed to protect public morality, ensuring a global event did not devolve into drunkenness, casual sex, or harassment, as often seen at similar events in Western countries. Second, Qatar sought to prove that a world-class event could succeed without compromising local religious and cultural values. Third, the principle of legal equality was applied: just as Muslims in the West must comply with local laws, Western visitors to Qatar were required to respect Islamic norms.
Gender Segregation in Cross-Cultural Perspective
Gender segregation is not unique to Islam. Similar practices exist in conservative Christian communities, such as the Amish, early Mormons, or Eastern Orthodox churches, which enforce gender separation, modest dress, and restrictions on casual interactions. Even into the 19th century, Western churches often segregated men and women during worship to preserve sanctity. However, secularization in the West has largely eroded these practices, while the Muslim world has consistently upheld them as part of Islamic law. This difference is not a sign of Islam’s backwardness but evidence of its commitment to preventive morality, which the West has largely abandoned. Read: Gynaikeion.
Double Standards in Moral Narratives
Narratives condemning gender segregation in Muslim societies often overlook the fact that moral violations, such as harassment or promiscuity, occur across all communities. For example, the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandals, involving tens of thousands of victims, are not used to label Christianity as an “immoral religion.” Yet, when a few Muslims violate Islamic law, their actions are quickly generalized as reflective of Islam as a whole. It is critical to distinguish between teachings and individual behavior: Islam has strict moral codes, and individual violations reflect personal failings, not flaws in the religion.
Ironically, criticism of gender segregation in Muslim societies is rarely directed at other communities with similar practices. Catholic nuns or Orthodox Jewish women who cover their bodies or live in segregated communities are respected as expressions of faith, but Muslim women adhering to Islamic law are labeled oppressed. This double standard reveals a deep cultural bias, where Islamic norms are judged through a Western-liberal lens without understanding their underlying philosophy.
Segregation as a Moral Safeguard
Far from being discriminatory, gender segregation in Islam is a preventive mechanism designed to protect society from moral degradation. By separating male and female spaces, Islam reduces the potential for temptation, harassment, and violations of Islamic law, aligning with the principle that prevention is better than punishment. Qatar’s successful hosting of the 2022 World Cup while upholding modesty norms demonstrates the relevance and effectiveness of these rules in creating a safe, dignified environment.
Ultimately, stigmatizing gender segregation in Islam as immoral is a logical fallacy that ignores historical and cultural realities. Similar traditions once existed in major religions, and Islam’s consistency in maintaining these principles underscores its commitment to public morality. Narratives that generalize individual failings as flaws of Islam reflect bias, not truth. By understanding gender segregation as part of a preventive moral system, we can see Islam not as an oppressive religion but as a final bastion of human dignity in an increasingly permissive world.
Pop Culture: Objectification, Commodification, and Double Standards in Morality
Modern pop culture—characterized by revealing clothing, pornography, the sex industry (including sex toys and sex work), and vulgar language, clearly does not originate from the Muslim world. Instead, it emerged and flourished in the West, driven by the cultural revolution post-World War II, and has since spread globally, including to East Asia. Ironically, despite Islam’s consistent adherence to modesty and dignity through Islamic law, it is often labeled “immoral.” Meanwhile, Western-liberal pop culture, which normalizes the objectification of women and casual sex, is frequently hailed as a symbol of progress, revealing a glaring double standard in global moral narratives. Read: Sexual revolution.
Origins of Permissive Pop Culture
History records that revealing clothing, such as the miniskirt popularized by British designer Mary Quant in the 1960s and the bikini created by France’s Louis Réard in 1946, originated in post-World War II Europe. In Islam, such attire is considered a form of indecent exposure, which is strictly prohibited as it contradicts the principle of modesty, as emphasized in the Quran (Ch. Al-A’raf (The Elevation), Verse: 26; Ch. An-Nur (The Light), Verse: 30–31). The strong reaction from Muslim communities to such clothing in public spaces in Muslim countries is not a sign of intolerance but an effort to uphold Islamic values that reject the commodification of the human body. Read: Mary Quant: The miniskirt and PVC pioneer.
يَا بَنِي آدَمَ قَدْ أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ لِبَاسًا يُوَارِي سَوْآتِكُمْ وَرِيشًا ۖ وَلِبَاسُ التَّقْوَىٰ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ مِنْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَذَّكَّرُونَ
“O children of Adam, We have sent down to you garments to cover your nakedness and as adornment. But the garment of piety—that is far better. This is among the signs of God, so that they may be reminded.”
— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-A’raf (The Elevation), Verse: 26
The pornography industry also has its roots in the West. Major platforms like PornHub, XHamster, XVideos, and Chaturbate are based in Canada, Europe, and the United States, where pornography is legalized and constitutes a multi-billion-dollar industry. Read: Adult Entertainment Global Business Analysis Report 2024-2030 Growth of Subscription-based Models and Premium Content Sustains Revenue, Collaborations Enhance Market Visibility and Aylo. In contrast, Islam explicitly prohibits the production, distribution, and consumption of pornography, as implied in the Quran (Ch. Al-Muʼminun (The Believers), Verse: 26), which restricts sexual expression to marriage. If such an industry emerged in the Muslim world, Islamic law would demand its closure, underscoring that pornography is a product of permissive Western culture, not Islam. Read: Countries Where Porn Is Illegal.
وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ فَمَنِ ابْتَغَىٰ وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ
“And they who guard their private parts, except with their spouses or those whom their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not blameworthy. But whoever seeks beyond that, they are the transgressors. ”
— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Muʼminun (The Believers), Verse: 5-7
The same applies to sex toys, which began being marketed in the West in the early 20th century and surged in popularity during the 1960s sexual revolution. In Islam, objects that mimic sexual organs or incite arousal outside lawful marriage are strictly forbidden, reflecting the religion’s commitment to preserving purity.
A Confusing Contrast: A father in Japan smiles behind a hat shaped like a giant phallus, while his daughter innocently chews on candy of the same shape. They also have vagina-shaped lollipops. When a symbol of fertility and sexual health is presented as children’s candy, the boundaries of morality feel blurred. Is this simply tradition, or is it the normalization of something far too explicit for young eyes? And the large pink symbol paraded in the first photo is not just any symbol; it is known as the Elizabeth Mikoshi. Donated by Elizabeth Kaikan, a popular Tokyo drag club, it is traditionally carried by members of Japan’s drag and transgender communities. The presence of the Elizabeth Mikoshi and the active participation of these communities have transformed the Kanamara Matsuri (かなまら祭り) from a simple fertility ritual into a celebration of acceptance, inclusivity, and sexual diversity. In other words, the festival honors life, fertility, and sexual health in all forms—including heterosexual, homosexual, and transgender identities.
The Kanamara Matsuri (かなまら祭り), or “Festival of the Steel Phallus,” is an annual Shinto fertility festival held on the first Sunday of April at Kanayama Shrine in Kawasaki, Japan. Its origins trace back to the Edo period (1603–1868), when it served as a place of worship for sex workers seeking protection from sexually transmitted infections. Today, the festival is a public event featuring a parade of phallic-themed portable shrines (mikoshi), symbolic of fertility and protection. While it may appear unconventional, the festival is rooted in Shinto traditions and aims to promote sexual health and well-being. Read: Kanamara Matsuri: The Irony Behind the Infamous Japanese Penis Festival.
In many Western and East Asian countries where these critics live and consume media have legalized pornography, permit casual sexual relationships, and allow sex-related industries to operate openly. For example, adult entertainment in Japan, including hentai and live-action pornography, is produced legally, and events like the Kanamara Matsuri (かなまら祭り) festival publicly celebrate sexual symbols. Likewise, in much of Europe and North America, cohabitation, casual sex, and explicit sexual content are socially tolerated or even promoted. These permissive frameworks often lead to social consequences such as higher rates of out-of-wedlock births, sexually transmitted diseases, and divorce, while Islamic law actively works to prevent such outcomes.
There is currently nothing to observe...
Lyrics are unavailable.
Vulgar language in popular music, such as words like “f**k,” “p***y,” “b***h,” or “d**k” commonly found in lyrics by artists like Playboi Carti, Cardi B, or Nicki Minaj, also originates from Western slang, not Islamic tradition. The Quran (Ch. Al-Baqarah (The Heifer), Verse: 169; Ch. Al-A’raf (The Elevation), Verse: 28) condemns obscene or indecent speech, making vulgar language a clear moral violation in Islamic teachings.
Objectification of Women in Pop Culture
Modern pop culture, both in the West and in East Asia influenced by globalization, often reduces women to visual objects for public consumption. Commercial advertisements use scantily clad women to market products, from cars to gadgets. In pop and hip-hop music, explicit lyrics, erotic dances, and music videos highlighting women’s bodies have become standard marketing strategies. In Japan, anime and manga frequently include fan service—suggestive character designs or poses—even for teenage or characters, normalizing objectification. Hollywood is no exception, with female characters often portrayed as “sexy” even when irrelevant to the storyline.
In contrast, Islam establishes strict rules to prevent the exploitation of women. Principles of modest dress, prohibition of seclusion between unrelated men and women, and restrictions on certain forms of social interaction aim to protect women’s dignity, not turn them into visual commodities. Ironically, Muslim women who adhere to these rules are often labeled “oppressed,” while a culture that promotes objectification is celebrated as freedom. This raises a critical question: which is more moral—Islam, which safeguards women’s honor, or pop culture, which exploits their bodies for commercial gain?
The Psychological and Social Consequences of Female Objectification
Reducing women to mere sexual objects in media, whether through advertisements, music videos, or even hyper-sexualized anime imagery, carries profound psychological consequences. Studies in psychology and gender studies have shown that repeated exposure to such portrayals contributes to self-objectification among women—where they begin to evaluate themselves primarily through the lens of physical appearance rather than character, intellect, or moral worth. Read: The Effects of Sexual Objectification on Women’s Mental Health.
This is not only harmful to self-esteem but also creates unrealistic expectations, both internally and externally. A young woman seeing that posts of sexualized anime characters receive far more attention than genuine portraits of real women may internalize the toxic message: “I must look like this to be valued or loved.”
Moreover, objectification normalizes a mindset in which women are perceived as consumable and replaceable, paving the way to greater tolerance of harassment, exploitation, and abuse. It is therefore a mistake to separate the “fantasy” of media depictions from the “reality” of harassment; both feed into the same cycle of reducing human beings to objects for pleasure.
The irony is unbearable: those quickest to label Islam “immoral” or to smear Muslims as “rapists” are often the same voices amplifying and normalizing pornography, sexualized advertising, and fetishized anime. Where is the moral outrage when entire industries profit from reducing women to body parts? If morality means protecting human dignity, then the true moral failure lies not in religious modesty but in a culture that profits from commodifying female bodies while feigning righteousness.
It is almost comical — if it weren’t so tragic. Critics denounce Islam as “oppressive” while liking, sharing, and monetizing images that turn women into disposable props. They preach moral superiority with one hand and click “share” with the other. Which action betrays greater moral bankruptcy: asking a woman to cover for her dignity, or applauding an industry that sells her dignity for clicks?
Mmm, it’s always interesting how so-called ‘freedom activists’ illustrate liberation only with women wearing less clothing... That’s not liberation — that’s hypocrisy wrapped in sexual objectification! https://t.co/ayk0zu3Ni9
— Andy Bennison (@realbennison) August 19, 2025
Normalization of Casual Sex and Its Consequences
The normalization of casual sex is a product of the 1960s sexual revolution in the West, promoted through music, films, advertisements, and even educational curricula. In many non-Muslim countries, particularly in the West and now in Japan, individuals who remain virgins past the age of 18 are often considered “odd” or mocked. Phenomena like enjo kōsai (援助交際) in Japan or room salons in South Korea illustrate how permissive culture has permeated East Asian societies that once valued chastity.
Having 0 body count at 20 is a big red flag.
— zoë (@zoveeo) September 7, 2025
The consequences are significant: out-of-wedlock births have surged in Western countries, with over 40% of children born outside marriage in some nations. Read: Out of Wedlock Births by Country. Sexually transmitted diseases like HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea have spread widely, while high divorce rates and mass abortions weaken the family institution. Cohabitation—living together without marriage—has also become normalized in Western societies, even celebrated as “modern love.” Yet this lifestyle often leads to unstable relationships, fatherless children, and the erosion of the family unit. In contrast, Islam prohibits fornication and extramarital sex, restricting sexual relations to marriage to protect lineage, prevent disease, and maintain social stability. The Quran (Ch. An-Nur (The Light), Verse: 2; Ch. Al-Isra’ (The Children of Israel), Verse: 32) prescribes severe penalties for unlawful sexual relations, underscoring Islam’s commitment to sexual morality.
وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَى إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا
“Do not approach adultery; it is truly a shameful act and an evil way. ”
— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Isra’ (The Children of Israel), Verse: 32
Here lies the irony: a culture that praises cohabitation, casual sex, and multiple partners is hailed as progressive, while Islam—by requiring the dignity of marriage as the foundation for intimacy—is condemned as “oppressive.” In reality, the Islamic framework ensures responsibility, mutual respect, and stability, while permissive cultures often produce broken families and emotional insecurity. Thus, the very accusations leveled against Islam collapse when the facts are examined honestly.
Abortion, Moral Responsibility, and Ethical Flexibility: Islam vs. Secular Cultures
In many non-Muslim countries, abortion is legally permitted, often framed as a matter of individual choice or reproductive rights. Nations such as the United States, Canada, much of Europe, and Japan allow abortion under a range of circumstances, including personal, social, or economic reasons. This legal permissiveness reflects broader cultural attitudes toward sexuality, where casual sexual relationships and contraceptive autonomy are normalized. Yet, from a moral and ethical standpoint, abortion is fundamentally the termination of a developing human life, raising questions about the moral responsibility of ending a potential person’s existence. Secular laws often prioritize individual liberty over intrinsic moral consideration for the unborn, creating a cultural environment in which the life of the fetus is subordinated to convenience or social norms.
In contrast, Islamic teachings uphold the sanctity of life from conception, emphasizing that deliberate termination of a fetus is morally equivalent to taking a life, except in clearly defined circumstances. Classical Islamic jurisprudence generally considers abortion impermissible after 120 days of gestation—the period when the soul is believed to be breathed into the fetus. Abortion is only permitted before this stage in specific scenarios, such as to save the mother’s life, to prevent severe harm, or in cases of rape or incest, demonstrating ethical flexibility that protects both the rights of the mother and the dignity of the unborn. This approach balances moral absolutes with rational exceptions, illustrating that Islam’s ethical framework is not rigid but principled, designed to safeguard life, social stability, and individual welfare simultaneously. Read: Islam and the Abortion Debate.
The contrast is striking: secular permissive cultures may legalize abortion broadly, often divorced from moral or ethical consideration for the fetus, whereas Islam codifies a clear moral boundary while allowing exceptional flexibility in extreme cases. This framework encourages responsibility, foresight, and respect for human life, reinforcing a society where moral conduct, sexual responsibility, and the protection of both mothers and children are paramount. Far from being “oppressive,” the Islamic approach integrates compassion, justice, and rational ethics, challenging the simplistic claim that religious moral codes are inflexible or impractical.
Double Standards in Moral Narratives
The greatest irony is that Islam, with its strict rules on modesty and morality, is labeled “immoral,” while Western pop culture, which promotes pornography, revealing clothing, and casual sex, is seen as a hallmark of progress. Muslim women who cover their bodies are called oppressed, but teenagers with multiple partners are praised as “free.” Yet, when judged logically, Islam is far more consistent in preserving human dignity than a permissive culture that normalizes bodily exploitation and extramarital relationships.
The fact that this vulgar culture originates from the secular West, not Islam, is often ignored. If individual Muslims fall into such practices, it reflects personal deviation, not the teachings of Islam. Conversely, modern pop culture systematically promotes objectification and permissiveness as part of “freedom,” while stigmatizing Islam as outdated. Yet, Islam remains a bastion of morality, rejecting the normalization of pornography, indecent exposure, and vulgar culture in a world increasingly devoid of modesty standards.
Islam as a Bastion of Morality
The stark contrast between the moral rigor of Islamic societies and the permissiveness of secular cultures reveals a double standard: critics who viciously label Islam as “immoral” often live in societies where acts Islam strictly prohibits are normalized, legal, or celebrated. Thus, accusations of inherent immorality in Islam reflect bias and ignorance rather than evidence-based reasoning, whereas the moral frameworks in Islamic countries are codified, enforced, and aimed at protecting individuals and society.
While some critics accuse Muslims of moral failings such as incest, inbreeding, rape, or pedophilia, these claims are entirely unfounded and lack factual basis. In reality, countries governed by Islamic law, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, and the UAE, enforce strict legal and moral codes: adultery is punishable by flogging or even death in certain circumstances; pornography production, distribution, and consumption are illegal and may result in imprisonment or hefty fines; and the sale or possession of sex toys is considered a criminal offense. These legal measures are implemented to preserve societal morality, protect human dignity, and safeguard families. Read: Adultery in the UAE.
The narrative labeling Islam as “immoral” is a distortion that contradicts the facts. Modern pop culture, with its revealing clothing, pornography, sex industry, and vulgar language, is a product of the secular West, not the Muslim world. Islamic teachings, with their emphasis on modest dress, prohibition of unlawful sex, and commitment to purity, offer a moral framework that protects human dignity. In an increasingly permissive global culture, Islam stands as a final stronghold against bodily exploitation and moral degradation. Criticizing Islam while praising a pop culture that promotes objectification is not just a double standard but a disregard for moral logic and justice. By understanding the historical facts and Islamic teachings, it becomes clear that accusations against Islam stem from bias, not truth.
Narcotics, Alcohol, and Gambling: Destructive Industries from the Non-Muslim World
Accusations that Islam is a “satanic religion” or that Muslims are immoral are often baseless, especially when considering Islam’s stance on narcotics, alcohol, and gambling. These three practices, which have devastated millions of families and lives worldwide, are major industries in non-Muslim societies, while Islam has categorically prohibited them for over 14 centuries. Read my article here: The Concept of Halal and Haram in Islam. Rooted in the protection of the mind, family, and social stability, Islam demonstrates a moral consistency that starkly contrasts with permissive cultures that exploit human weaknesses for financial gain.
Narcotics: A Global Industry Originating Outside the Muslim World
The narcotics industry, which has ruined millions of lives, is not a product of the Muslim world. Major cartels, such as those operating in Latin America, control the production and distribution of drugs, with the largest consumer markets in Europe and North America. History records that opium was forcibly imposed by Western colonial powers, as seen in the Opium Wars (1839–1860) in China, where Britain exported opium for economic gain, devastating local communities. In contrast, the Muslim world is often a victim of drug imports rather than the creator of the industry. In Islam, the use of substances that impair the mind, such as narcotics, is prohibited based on the principle of preserving the purity of soul and body, as implied in the Quran (Ch. Al-Baqarah (The Heifer), Verse: 219; Ch. Al-Ma’idah (The Table), Verse: 90), which condemn intoxicants and their harmful effects. Read: Enter the Dragon.
Alcohol: A Glamorous Industry at Odds with Islamic Values
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلَامُ رِجْسٌ مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ يُوقِعَ بَيْنَكُمُ الْعَدَاوَةَ وَالْبَغْضَاءَ فِي الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ وَيَصُدَّكُمْ عَنْ ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَعَنِ الصَّلَاةِ فَهَلْ أَنْتُمْ مُنْتَهُونَ
“O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, idols, and divination arrows are abominations of Satan’s handiwork, so avoid them that you may succeed. Satan only intends to sow enmity and hatred among you through intoxicants and gambling and to divert you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. So, will you desist?”
— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Ma’idah (The Table), Verse: 90–91
The alcohol industry, currently worth hundreds of billions of dollars, is a product of Western culture, promoted through glamorous advertisements that often target youth with a “cool” lifestyle image. In many non-Muslim societies, drunkenness is considered a normal part of socializing, even a symbol of freedom. Conversely, Islam has prohibited intoxicating drinks and substances since the 7th century, as affirmed in the Quran (Ch. Al-Ma’idah (The Table), Verse: 90–91), due to their detrimental effects on the mind, health, and family stability. In many Muslim-majority countries, alcohol is banned or strictly regulated, reflecting a commitment to protecting society from its harms, such as domestic violence, traffic accidents, and chronic diseases. This contrast highlights Islam’s emphasis on prevention, while Western culture often monetizes alcohol addiction for economic profit. Read: Alcohol And Domestic Abuse.
Gambling: A Hub of Economic Destruction Prohibited by Islam
Gambling, known in Islamic teachings as games of chance, is also prohibited due to its destructive impact on family finances, addiction, and links to crime (The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Ma’idah (The Table), Verse: 90). Global gambling hubs like Las Vegas, Macau, and Monte Carlo are products of non-Muslim cultures, and online gambling has become a multi-billion-dollar industry. In contrast, the Muslim world has no tradition of legalizing gambling, as Islamic principles emphasize protecting wealth through lawful and productive means. While gambling causes financial and social ruin in many societies, Islam offers a moral framework that prevents the exploitation of human vulnerabilities through this practice.
Double Standards in Moral Narratives
The accusation that Islam is “immoral” is ironic when considering its stance on narcotics, alcohol, and gambling. These industries, which have destroyed millions of lives, thrive in non-Muslim societies, fueled by legalization and cultural normalization. Islam, with its strict prohibitions, stands as a moral bulwark protecting society from social devastation, such as family breakdown, disease, and poverty caused by addiction. Yet, Western narratives often invert the facts, stigmatizing Islam as “satanic” while ignoring the role of permissive culture in promoting these destructive industries.
For example, when drug cartels or Las Vegas casinos generate massive profits, they are rarely linked to Western religion or culture. However, if an individual Muslim violates Islamic law, their actions are quickly generalized as reflective of Islam. This double standard reveals entrenched bias, where non-Muslim cultures that monetize addiction are seen as “normal,” while Islamic teachings that prevent it are labeled outdated.
Islam as a Bastion of Morality
The facts demonstrate that Islam consistently prohibits narcotics, alcohol, and gambling, grounded in clear theological principles to protect the mind, wealth, and social stability. In contrast, non-Muslim modern culture often turns human weaknesses into business opportunities, creating massive industries that harm millions, including those not directly involved. The consequences are tangible: from family breakdowns due to alcoholism, financial ruin from gambling, to drug epidemics devastating communities worldwide.
This raises a fundamental question: who is more moral—Islam, which has prohibited these practices from the outset, or a culture that exploits addiction for profit? With its strict bans on intoxicants and gambling, and emphasis on a clean, productive life, Islam offers a preventive solution relevant in an increasingly permissive world. The accusation that Islam is immoral is a clear distortion that ignores the religion’s historical and doctrinal facts. Instead, Islam remains a bastion of morality, protecting humanity from the social destruction caused by industries born of non-Muslim permissive culture.
Terrorism: Deconstructing Stigma and the Contradictions of Extremist Groups
Islam is often stigmatized as a “terrorist religion,” particularly due to unrest in the Middle East associated with groups like ISIS. This narrative is amplified by media portraying extremist groups as representatives of Islam, when in reality, their actions contradict the religion’s core principles. By analyzing the contradictions in groups like ISIS and understanding the true meaning of struggle in the path of God, it becomes clear that the “Islam = terrorism” stigma is a distortion that not only misrepresents the faith but also benefits those hostile to the Muslim world.
Contradictions of Extremist Groups: ISIS Does Not Represent Islam
Groups like ISIS claim to be “self-proclaimed Islamic fighters,” yet their actions starkly oppose Islamic teachings. They have destroyed cities in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, bombed mosques, massacred fellow Muslims—including Shia, moderate Sunnis, and scholars opposing extremism—and damaged Islamic cultural heritage and infrastructure. Ironically, ISIS has rarely launched significant attacks against Israel, despite Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian land, killing tens of thousands of civilians, and violating the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (Islam’s third holiest site). Repeated UN reports have documented Israel’s actions as ethnic cleansing, yet these self-proclaimed “fighters for Islam” focus on weakening the Muslim world internally. Read: Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, UN Commission finds, ISIS apology to Israel, The Islamic State as “Place-Setter” for the American Empire. ISIS is the Product of the US Military-Intelligence Complex, and Don’t Blame Islam.
It is profoundly paradoxical that a group claiming to fight in the name of Islam can wreak havoc on entire regions of the Muslim world—destroying cities, killing civilians, and targeting their own communities—yet Israel, widely recognized as an aggressor against Muslims, remains largely untouched. Their so-called “martyrdom” operations are directed almost exclusively at fellow Muslims, while they exhibit conspicuous restraint when it comes to striking a state whose actions directly oppress Muslim populations. If their struggle were genuinely religious, their choice of targets would align with the moral and strategic imperatives of Islam: defending the oppressed and confronting clear oppressors. Instead, ISIS’s actions reveal a deep dissonance between their professed religious motives and the reality of their operations, raising serious questions about whether their agenda is truly religious at all—or whether it serves external geopolitical interests that exploit sectarian divisions within the Muslim world.
It is strikingly evident that ISIS has never directed its operations to defend Palestine or confront Israel, despite their repeated claims of fighting in the name of Islam. Instead, their campaigns focus almost exclusively on fellow Muslims in Iraq, Syria, and surrounding regions—targeting civilians, minority communities, and even opposing Islamic groups. This pattern underscores a glaring contradiction: while professing a religious struggle, ISIS does not confront the aggressors who oppress Muslims directly. Their selective targeting suggests that their agenda is not guided by genuine religious or ethical imperatives but rather by sectarian extremism and, possibly, external geopolitical manipulation that destabilizes Muslim societies from within.
This raises a logical question: if ISIS were truly engaging in struggle in the path of God, why do they expend their energy destroying Muslim lands while Israel—a clear oppressor of Muslims—is not their primary target? This contradiction suggests that ISIS is not a representation of Islam but a destructive project that undermines Muslim unity, diverts attention from the Palestinian issue, and weakens the community from within. Many independent analysts even suspect geopolitical manipulation behind ISIS’s emergence, as their actions conveniently benefit Islam’s adversaries, including Israel, which continues its aggression with minimal interference.
Struggle in the Path of God in Islam: Strict Rules, Not Indiscriminate Violence
The definition of struggle in the path of God in Islam is far removed from the media’s portrayal of indiscriminate violence. This concept, whether as an inner struggle (greater struggle) or physical struggle (lesser struggle), is governed by strict Islamic legal and ethical rules. The Quran, in chapter Al-Baqarah (The Heifer) verse 190–193 and chapter Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War) verse 61, emphasizes that armed struggle is permissible only for self-defense or to combat oppression, with explicit prohibitions against killing non-combatants, women, children, the elderly, or destroying places of worship, crops, or infrastructure. When ISIS bombs mosques, markets, or slaughters scholars, they automatically violate these principles, placing themselves outside Islamic teachings.
“O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well! Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
— Abu Bakr
The fact that ISIS’s primary victims are Muslims—through massacres, displacement, or community destruction—further proves they are not engaging in a legitimate struggle but committing violence that contradicts Islam. Their main targets, such as Shia, moderate Sunnis, and anti-extremist scholars, weaken the Muslim world, making it vulnerable to foreign intervention and diverting focus from critical issues like the Palestinian occupation. In short, ISIS not only fails to represent Islam but serves as a tool to divide the global Muslim community and exacerbate anti-Islam stigma.
The 9/11 Attacks, War on Terror, and Public Skepticism
The September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States remain one of the most consequential events shaping the modern perception of Islam and the Middle East. The official narrative attributes the attacks to al-Qaeda operatives, yet numerous inconsistencies have fueled public skepticism worldwide. For example, while the collapse of the Twin Towers was explained by jet fuel melting structural steel, critics questioned how such steel could fail when, according to engineers, jet fuel alone burns at lower temperatures. At the same time, a passport allegedly belonging to one of the suspects was said to have survived the inferno intact—an irony that has become a source of public doubt and satire. Read: The Dancing Israelis: Mossad Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks.
Beyond the technical debates, the political aftermath raises further suspicion. The U.S. government launched the “War on Terror,” beginning with invasions of Afghanistan and later Iraq under the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). However, no WMD stockpiles were ever found. Instead, reports emerged of massive civilian casualties, looting of gold reserves, and long-term occupation of strategic regions. For many observers, the sequence of events suggested that the wars were less about security and more about geopolitics—securing resources, projecting power, and reshaping the Middle East.
What is particularly striking is the emergence and expansion of extremist groups only after Western military interventions. Prior to 2001, organizations like ISIS did not exist in their current form. The chaos following foreign occupation, power vacuums, and sectarian manipulation created fertile ground for extremist ideologies. In this sense, the “War on Terror” paradoxically produced more terrorism, destabilizing entire regions while reinforcing Islamophobia globally.
While definitive answers about 9/11 remain elusive, what is undeniable is its geopolitical utility. The attacks provided the justification for military campaigns, deepened public fear of Muslims, and created conditions that allowed groups like ISIS to flourish. The pattern suggests that terrorism and counter-terrorism are not isolated phenomena but interconnected forces shaped by both non-state actors and state-level policies. For Muslims, this means bearing the dual burden of being primary victims of both terrorism and anti-terror military campaigns.
The Paradox of Extremist Leaders: When “Allahu Akbar” Serves Foreign Agendas
Examining figures such as Ahmad Al-Jolani, the current leader in parts of Syria associated with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), reveals a striking paradox. Once a prominent leader of an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group, he was previously designated a terrorist by the United States, with a reward exceeding ten million dollars for information leading to his capture. Yet today, after contributing to the weakening of the Assad regime, he is engaged in diplomatic contacts with Western states, has normalized relations with Israel, and effectively allowed Israeli control over the Golan Heights. Such actions clearly do not advance the Palestinian cause, nor do they support Muslim communities under occupation. Instead, they highlight how extremist leaders can become instruments of foreign agendas under the guise of religious struggle.
We remain committed to bringing leading AQS figures in HTS to justice. #Syria pic.twitter.com/R8evqffWum
— U.S. Embassy Syria (@USEmbassySyria) May 15, 2017
This phenomenon demonstrates a fundamental contradiction: groups and leaders who publicly invoke religious slogans, such as “Allahu Akbar,” frequently pursue strategies that contradict core Islamic principles and harm the global Muslim community. Their proclaimed mission to defend Islam is undermined by actions that facilitate geopolitical objectives benefiting Western powers or regional adversaries. For instance, while HTS maintains a narrative of fighting for Islam, its operational priorities—such as political compromises, territorial concessions, or alliances with foreign powers—often align with the strategic interests of those historically hostile to Muslim unity.
Independent analyses suggest that such contradictions are not merely accidental. The emergence and evolution of HTS, along with other extremist actors in Syria, coincides with foreign interventions, power vacuums, and sectarian fragmentation. By destabilizing Muslim-majority regions internally, these groups inadvertently—or in some cases intentionally—serve the objectives of states seeking to weaken Muslim solidarity, control strategic resources, or reshape regional politics. In other words, extremist violence, while cloaked in religious rhetoric, systematically benefits external actors rather than the communities it purports to defend.
Ultimately, the case of leaders like Al-Jolani underscores a broader pattern: terrorism that claims a religious mandate often produces outcomes directly opposed to Islamic ethics and the welfare of Muslim populations. It reinforces the argument that violent extremism is not only morally incompatible with Islam but also strategically counterproductive, furthering the agendas of those hostile to Muslim interests while perpetuating internal divisions, human suffering, and global stigma against Islam.
Geopolitical Benefits of the Terrorism Narrative
The narrative equating Islam with terrorism serves clear geopolitical purposes. By highlighting groups like ISIS, Western media and political actors can justify military interventions in Muslim countries, reinforce Islamophobia, and divert attention from issues like Israel’s aggression in Palestine. While the world focuses on combating “ISIS terror,” the Palestinian occupation fades from scrutiny, allowing Israel to continue human rights violations with inadequate global attention. Thus, extremist groups like ISIS indirectly benefit Islam’s adversaries by weakening the Muslim world internally and legitimizing the “Islam = terrorism” narrative.
Double standards in reporting exacerbate this issue. When non-Muslim extremist groups, such as white supremacist militias in the West or extremist nationalist groups in India, commit violence, their actions are rarely tied to their religion or culture. In contrast, actions by individuals or groups claiming to act in Islam’s name are swiftly generalized as reflective of the religion. Yet, the greatest victims of terrorism by groups like ISIS are Muslims themselves, suffering from destroyed cities, mass displacement, and global stigmatization.
Islam as the Antithesis of Terrorism
Islam, with its tightly regulated concept of struggle in the path of God and emphasis on peace (The Quran, Chapter Al-Anfal: 61), is the antithesis of terrorism. Islamic teachings prohibit violence against non-combatants and prioritize the protection of life, property, and human dignity. Groups like ISIS, which disregard these rules, not only deviate from Islam but also tarnish its global image. By recognizing the contradictions in their actions—attacking fellow Muslims while ignoring real oppression like that in Palestine—we can see that they do not represent Islam but serve to weaken the global Muslim community from within.
Ultimately, the “Islam = terrorism” stigma stems from distortions amplified by media and geopolitical agendas, not from Islam itself. Islam offers a moral framework that rejects indiscriminate violence and upholds peace and justice. By distinguishing between Islamic teachings and the actions of deviants, and acknowledging the geopolitical benefits of the terrorism narrative, we can dismantle this unfair stigma. Islam is not a religion of terrorism but one that champions peace and justice, even amidst complex global challenges.
The Spread of Islam vs. Western Colonialism: Debunking the Myth of Violence
The narrative that Islam was spread by the sword is an old accusation often used to stigmatize the religion as violent and immoral. However, historical facts reveal that Islam primarily spread through peaceful preaching, trade, and exemplary moral conduct, though military conquests and instances of coercion occurred in certain contexts. In contrast, Western colonialism, led by powers such as Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, and later the United States, left a destructive legacy of exploitation, slavery, and cultural devastation, with an estimated 100 million deaths globally. The atrocities of Imperial Japan during World War II, killing 10–20 million in a single decade, further highlight global disparities in moral judgment. By comparing these histories, including their approaches to slavery and violence, we can highlight the contrast between propagandistic narratives and historical reality, exposing the double standards in moral judgments.
The Spread of Islam: Peaceful Preaching and Tolerance
From its outset, the spread of Islam did not rely primarily on violence. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) preached for 13 years in Mecca with patience, theological arguments, and moral community-building, despite facing severe persecution. Battles like Badr, Uhud, and Khandaq were fought primarily in self-defense against threats and expulsion of Muslims, not to force conversions. The Quran explicitly states, “There is no compulsion in religion…” (The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Baqarah (The Heifer), Verse: 256), this means: do not compel anyone to become a Muslim. Islam is already clear in its message, and its proofs and evidences are self-evident. There is no need for coercion in matters of faith. Rather, whoever God guides to Islam—opening his heart to it and enlightening his mind—will embrace it with conviction. And whoever’s heart is veiled and whose hearing and sight are sealed will gain nothing from being forced into Islam. Affirming that faith is a personal choice, not a product of coercion.
Beyond the Arabian Peninsula, Islam often spread through peaceful means, primarily trade and scholarly preaching. In Southeast Asia—particularly Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei—it was embraced through traders from Gujarat, Arabia, and Persia, as well as the influence of spiritual teachers and Islamic scholars. There are no records of large-scale military conquests in the Nusantara, yet Indonesia is now the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation—though this does not necessarily mean it is an “Islamic state.” Read: Islam in Southeast Asia. In India, East Africa, and West Africa, a similar pattern emerged: Islam spread through trade networks, social solidarity, and the appeal of monotheistic teachings, though conquests in India, such as by the Delhi Sultanate, also played a role. Even in Spain (Andalusia), while Islam arrived through conquest, its development was driven by culture, science, and relative tolerance. Jewish and Christian communities often found greater safety under Muslim rule than under Christian European regimes, as noted by historians like María Rosa Menocal in The Ornament of the World, though social restrictions and taxes could create pressures.
Military expansion in the 7th to 9th centuries, such as the conquests of Egypt, Persia, and Spain, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, primarily through battles against opposing empires like Byzantium and Persia, not systematic massacres. Non-Muslims, such as Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, were often granted protected status, paying a tax in exchange for religious freedom and protection, though the tax could be burdensome and its application varied. Some non-Muslim communities preferred Muslim governance due to its relative tolerance compared to the Byzantine or Persian empires, but others faced social or economic pressures that encouraged conversion over time. The survival of substantial non-Muslim populations in regions like Spain, the Balkans, and North India after Muslim rule ended demonstrates that mass forced conversions were rare, unlike the cultural erasure seen in some colonial contexts. Read: The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy.
In Russia, Islam has a deep historical presence, and its spread was largely peaceful. The earliest major conversion occurred in 922 CE, when King Almış of the Volga Bulgars adopted Islam after a diplomatic mission from the Abbasid Caliph al-Muqtadir, driven by political and commercial ties rather than conquest. Along the Volga trade route and the Silk Road, Muslim merchants, scholars, and Sufi missionaries introduced Islam to Turkic, Slavic, and Finno-Ugric peoples through cultural exchange, intermarriage, and trade. In the Caucasus, Islam took root from the 8th to 9th centuries via missionary activity, remaining strong in regions like Dagestan and Chechnya. Many Turkic peoples—including Tatars, Bashkirs, and Kazakhs—embraced Islam over centuries, long before integration into the Russian Empire. Because of this history, Islam is recognized today as one of Russia’s traditional religions, predating Christianity in regions like Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. Read my articles: Islam Existed in Russia Before Orthodox Christianity and List of Beautiful Mosques in Russia and Why They are Called Cathedrals.
Instances of violence by Muslim rulers were often tied to wars, rebellions, or political struggles, rather than systematic religious extermination, though conflicts like those between the Umayyads and Abbasids or Ottomans and Safavids caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Exceptions existed beyond the Almohad dynasty’s harsher policies in the Maghreb, such as the Ottoman conscription system, which forcibly conscripted and converted Christian boys, or occasional temple destructions in India under rulers like Aurangzeb. These were not the norm but reflect complexities in Muslim governance, which was generally driven by political and economic goals rather than cultural annihilation. In comparison, violence within the Muslim world was less systematic than Western colonialism, with total casualties likely reaching millions over centuries but far less than the tens of millions killed by colonial powers or Japan’s wartime atrocities.
Western Colonialism: Global Exploitation and Destruction
The scale and nature of violence in Islamic history differed from Western colonialism’s systematic devastation, which killed an estimated 100 million people through genocide, slavery, and exploitation. Read: How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years and Counting the Dead: Estimating the Loss of Life in the Indigenous Holocaust, 1492-Present. Muslim rule often preserved local religious communities through the protected status system, granting protection and autonomy in exchange for a tax, though high taxes or social restrictions could pressure non-Muslims. Slavery in the Muslim world, involving an estimated 10–12 million Africans through the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trades from the 7th to 20th centuries, was significant and caused considerable suffering, with high mortality during forced marches across the Sahara, sea transport, or harsh labor, including practices like castration for male slaves. While Quranic teachings encouraged emancipation (The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Balad (The City), Verse: 12–13; The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Mujadila (She Who Disputes), Verse: 3; The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse:92), and some slaves, like the Mamluks, rose to high status, slavery persisted in regions like the Ottoman Empire and Arabia until the 19th–20th centuries. In contrast, Western colonialism’s transatlantic slave trade forcibly transported 12–15 million Africans, with 1.5–2 million dying during the Middle Passage, and relied on industrialized, racially driven exploitation with minimal mechanisms for emancipation, causing an estimated 5–10 million total deaths. Western colonialism’s forced Christianization, cultural annihilation, and economic policies, such as those causing the Bengal Famine of 1943 (2–3 million deaths) or Belgium’s exploitation of the Congo (10–15 million deaths), triggered widespread destruction, with artificial borders fueling modern conflicts. Read: Christianity and colonialism. Muslim empires generally integrated diverse cultures, allowing religious communities to survive, though not without tensions.
أَلَمْ نَجْعَل لَّهُ عَيْنَيْنِ، وَشَفَتَيْنِ، وَهَدَيْنَاهُ النَّجْدَيْنِ، فَلَا اقْتَحَمَ الْعَقَبَةَ، وَمَا أَدْرَاكَ مَا الْعَقَبَةُ، فَكُّ رَقَبَةٍ، أَوْ إِطْعَامٌ فِي يَوْمٍ ذِي مَسْغَبَةٍ، أَوْ كَافَّةٌ مِسْكِينٍ.
“Have We not given him two eyes and a tongue and guided him to the two ways? But he has not attempted the steep path. And what can make you know what the steep path is? It is freeing a slave, or feeding on a day of severe hunger, or providing for an orphan in need.”
— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Balad (The City), Verse: 12-13
Slavery was not an invention of Islam but a global practice inherited from ancient civilizations, including Greece, Rome, India, and Christian Europe. Islam introduced reforms, such as prohibiting mistreatment, closing off new sources of enslavement (e.g., kidnapping), and encouraging emancipation through charity or as atonement for sins. Many freed slaves in the Muslim world integrated into society, some becoming rulers like the Mamluks, a phenomenon rare in Western slavery. However, the Muslim world’s slave trade, particularly through East Africa, was extensive and caused significant suffering, though it was less racially driven than the transatlantic system. Western slavery, supported by colonial powers like Portugal, Spain, Britain, and France, treated slaves as commodities, justified by racial ideologies and biblical interpretations like the Curse of Ham (Genesis 9:25–27), and persisted until political and abolitionist pressures ended it in the 19th century. Read: The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era: The Bible and the Justifications for Slavery. Colonial policies, such as the Trail of Tears in the U.S., the Great Famine in Ireland, or the Amritsar Massacre of 1919, alongside colonial wars like the Boer War and Indian rebellions that killed hundreds of thousands, further erased native cultures and economies, unlike the more integrative approach of Muslim empires.
Colonialism by European powers imposed Christianization, eradicated native traditions, and redrew borders that continue to fuel conflicts today, devastating populations like the 90%+ of Native Americans (50–100 million) killed by disease, war, and exploitation, or the Aboriginal Australians reduced from 1 million to tens of thousands. In contrast, Muslim empires of the classical period often integrated diverse cultures, though social hierarchies and occasional coercion existed. The enduring presence of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists under Muslim rule reflects this relative tolerance, despite variations in treatment. Western colonialism’s systematic genocide, racially driven slavery, and economic exploitation, rooted in ideologies of racial and cultural superiority, caused far greater destruction than Islamic history, making it the most devastating of the three histories compared here. Read: Sykes-Picot Agreement.
In the modern era, the bloodiest conflicts—including World War I and World War II—originated in Europe, driven by imperial rivalries, nationalism, and colonial ambitions. These wars, with tens of millions of deaths, including the Holocaust, the Nanjing Massacre, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, far exceeded the scale of violence in Islamic history, though intra-Muslim conflicts, such as Ottoman–Safavid wars, also caused significant casualties. The historical record exposes a double standard: Islam is often accused of spreading by the sword, while the more destructive legacies of Western colonialism and modern imperial wars are often downplayed.
Japan’s Forgotten Atrocities: A History Whitewashed
One of the darkest examples of brutality in modern history comes from Imperial Japan during World War II, with 10–20 million deaths across Asia. Their crimes against humanity rivaled—and in many ways exceeded—the barbarity of groups like ISIS, yet Japan today is not branded a “terrorist nation.” Why the double standard?
The infamous Unit 731 carried out grotesque medical experiments on live human beings, including vivisections without anesthesia, forced infections with diseases like cholera and plague, and biological weapons testing. Tens of thousands perished directly under these experiments, while up to 200,000 more died as a result of biological warfare unleashed by Japan across China. The scale and cruelty defy imagination. This was not a fringe extremist cell—it was state policy, supported by the Imperial government, aimed at terror and domination. Read: Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II, Intro to Cannibalism in the Pacific, Cannibalism Culture: The Bushido Horror in World War II and Details About The Nanjing Massacre You'll Never Unlearn.
The Nanjing Massacre of 1937 stands as another stain on history. Over 200,000–300,000 civilians were slaughtered in mere weeks, with 20,000+ women raped in what historians call the “Rape of Nanjing.” Soldiers were photographed laughing as they bayoneted infants, even holding babies aloft on their spears. These are not exaggerated stories; they are documented atrocities, recorded by witnesses and even some Japanese participants themselves. Read: 中国人永远的痛—南京大屠杀图片.
| Event / Incident | Estimated Victims | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Unit 731 (Harbin, Manchuria) | ±3,000 direct victims; up to 200,000 deaths from biological warfare. | Human experimentation, vivisections, forced infections, plague & cholera spread. |
| Nanjing Massacre (1937–1938) | 200,000–300,000 killed; ~20,000 women raped. | Mass executions, mass rape, torture; widely documented by witnesses. |
| Manila Massacre (1945) | ±100,000 civilians killed. | Widespread slaughter during Japanese retreat in the Philippines. |
| Pontianak Incidents (1943–1944) | ±21,000 killed. | Targeted executions of local elites and civilians in West Borneo, Indonesia. |
The scale of Japanese atrocities was not confined to isolated incidents like Nanjing or Unit 731. Historians estimate that the total number of victims across Asia—China, Korea, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific—reached 10–20 million. Read: China's contribution to Japan's defeat and Statistics Of Japanese Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources. In China alone, between 10 and 20 million people perished through massacres, famine, forced labor, and disease during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Unit 731’s biological warfare experiments caused an additional estimated 200,000 deaths, while the system of sexual slavery forced between 50,000 and 200,000 women into “comfort women” roles. In Indonesia, as many as ~4 million people were conscripted into the romusha forced labor system, with hundreds of thousands dying under inhumane conditions. The Manila Massacre took the lives of about 100,000 civilians in just one month, while the Pontianak Incident in Borneo claimed more than 21,000 lives. Taken together, these figures demonstrate that Japan’s wartime brutality, driven by state-sponsored terror and domination, produced casualties numbering far beyond the atrocities committed by fringe extremist groups—yet the nation is rarely stigmatized in the same way Muslims are globally stigmatized because of terrorism.
In modern Japan, much of this history has been downplayed or sanitized. School textbooks often omit or distort the truth, producing a generation less aware of their nation’s crimes. Survivors in China, Korea, and Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, continue to speak of unspeakable horrors, while Japan’s official narratives sometimes minimize or deny them. This historical amnesia is concerning, as it limits a full moral reckoning with the victims’ suffering. Read: Japanese history textbook controversies.
This raises questions of fairness: while Muslims are vilified worldwide for the actions of fringe extremists numbering in the tens of thousands, Japan—a nation whose government orchestrated mass killings, systemic rape, and human experimentation—has rebuilt its image as a peaceful state. The absence of labels like “Shinto terrorism” or “Buddhist terrorism” for Japan’s actions, compared to the widespread use of “Islamic terrorism,” highlights a double standard in global narratives, though care must be taken not to overgeneralize either side’s historical complexities.
Modern Double Standards: Palestine Genocide
The ongoing genocide of Palestinians by Israel, confirmed by the United Nations and human rights organizations, represents one of the most egregious examples of modern double standards in global narratives. Read: Horrors of Gaza Genocide. For decades, Israel’s systematic violence—rooted in the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories since 1948 and intensified since the 1967 occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem—has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and erased entire communities, yet it escapes the “terrorist” or “immoral” labels so readily applied to Muslims. While the world watches live-streamed atrocities—bombings of schools, hospitals, and refugee camps, starvation policies, and sexual violence against children—Western media and governments frame Israel’s actions as “self-defense,” while Palestinian resistance, even non-violent, is branded “terrorism.” This stark hypocrisy, a continuation of colonial-era propaganda, not only distorts history but also dehumanizes Palestinians, perpetuating a cycle of violence that has claimed countless lives, names, and memories since 1946. Read: Israel’s Occupation: 50 Years of Dispossession, UN inquiry verifies Israel’s systematic use of sexual, reproductive violence; silence no longer an option and Onslaught of violence against women and children in Gaza unacceptable: UN experts – OHCHR.
The roots of this genocide lie in the Nakba of 1948, when over 700,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled or fled from their homes during the creation of Israel, a displacement enabled by British colonial policies and the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Entire villages were razed, families separated, and ancestral lands stolen, with no right of return ever granted. Since 1967, Israel’s illegal occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem has entrenched a system of apartheid, with over 700,000 Israeli settlers now living in illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Read: Human Rights Council Hears that 700,000 Israeli Settlers are Living Illegally in the Occupied West Bank – Meeting Summary. The blockade of Gaza since 2007, described as an “open-air prison,” has restricted food, water, medicine, and electricity, creating conditions designed to break a population of 2.2 million. By September 2025, the death toll in Gaza since October 7, 2023, exceeds 65,400, with over 167,000 injured, 59% of whom are women, children, and the elderly. Estimates suggest the true toll, including those buried under rubble or dead from starvation and disease, surpasses 200,000—over 10% of Gaza’s population. In the West Bank, at least 370 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023, often by settlers or security forces, with settler violence surging by 500%. Read: Israel-Gaza war death toll: Live tracker.
The United Nations, in a landmark September 2025 report, confirmed that Israel’s actions constitute genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention, citing four key acts: mass killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy Palestinians (e.g., starvation through blockades), and preventing births (e.g., bombing Gaza’s largest fertility clinic, destroying 4,000 embryos). This is no isolated campaign but a systematic one, evidenced by Israeli officials’ statements calling for Gaza’s “erasure” or comparing Palestinians to “human animals.” Bombings have targeted “safe zones,” schools, and hospitals like Al-Shifa, where patients and refugees were killed, some waving white flags. The destruction of 80% of Gaza’s infrastructure—homes, mosques, universities—ensures no recovery is possible. Starvation policies, with Israel blocking 90% of humanitarian aid, have led to thousands of deaths from malnutrition, particularly among children, whose skeletal bodies haunt global consciences. This is not collateral damage but a calculated strategy to annihilate a people. Read: Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and Israel/OPT: Israeli organizations conclude Israel committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza in another milestone for accountability efforts .
One of the most chilling aspects is the targeting of journalists, with Gaza being the deadliest conflict for reporters in recorded history—surpassing World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and Afghanistan combined. By August 2025, 232–274 journalists, mostly Palestinians, have been killed, averaging 13 per month, often by drone strikes or targeted attacks. Read: “Gaza has become the Deadliest Conflict Ever for Journalists” UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan – Press Briefing. Israel’s ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza forces local reporters to bear the burden, only to be labeled “Hamas operatives” without evidence, silencing truth-tellers. This mirrors the systematic sexual violence documented by the UN as a “method of war.” Palestinian detainees, including children and pregnant women, face rape, genital mutilation, forced public nudity, and torture with dogs or hot objects in camps like Sde Teiman. Such acts, committed with impunity, echo the dehumanization seen in historical atrocities like Japan’s “comfort women” system or Western slavery, yet they are rarely condemned with the same fervor applied to Muslim-majority conflicts.
The scale and brutality of Israel’s actions dwarf the accusations leveled against Palestinians or Muslims broadly. The October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis and took 251 hostages, was a tragic escalation but occurred within the context of 75 years of occupation, dispossession, and daily violence. Yet, while Hamas is universally branded “terrorist,” Israel’s far larger death toll—65,400+ versus 1,200—is framed as “self-defense.” This double standard is rooted in colonial legacies. Just as Western colonialism’s 100 million deaths were justified as “civilizing” missions and Japan’s 10–20 million wartime killings were sanitized post-World War II, Israel’s genocide is cloaked in narratives of “security” and “democracy.” The U.S., providing $3.8 billion annually in military aid and vetoing over 50 UN resolutions critical of Israel since 1946, ensures impunity, while Muslim nations face swift sanctions for lesser offenses. Media outlets amplify this bias, downplaying Palestinian deaths as “collateral” while sensationalizing Israeli losses, a pattern reminiscent of orientalist tropes that painted Muslims as “savages” to justify colonial invasions.
Historically, this hypocrisy is not new. The article’s earlier sections highlight how Islam’s spread, though involving millions of deaths over centuries, was less genocidal and more integrative than Western colonialism, yet Muslims are stigmatized as “violent.” Similarly, Japan’s state-sponsored atrocities, including vivisection and biological warfare, escaped religious or cultural stigma. Israel’s actions, backed by Western powers, follow this pattern: a settler-colonial project, rooted in Zionism’s displacement of Palestinians since the 1940s, is shielded by narratives of victimhood post-Holocaust, despite the Holocaust’s victims not justifying another people’s destruction. The UN’s genocide ruling exposes this, yet global powers ignore it, just as they ignored the Trail of Tears, the Bengal Famine, or the Congo’s exploitation. The Quranic principle that “no one bears the sins of another” (The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-An’am (The Cattle), Verse: 164) is violated when Palestinians are collectively punished for Hamas’ actions, while Israel’s state-driven genocide is excused.
The human cost is staggering. Children in Gaza, like those in Khan Younis killed while fleeing with white flags, are not just numbers but individuals with dreams, families, and stories. Mothers lose entire lineages; fathers bury infants under rubble. The destruction of cultural heritage—mosques, libraries, the ancient olive groves of Palestine—erases a people’s identity, much like colonial powers obliterated Native American or Aboriginal cultures. Yet, the global response remains muted. Protests in Western cities are met with police brutality or accusations of “antisemitism,” while Palestinian voices on platforms like Twitter are suppressed by algorithms or smear campaigns. This silencing mirrors the historical amnesia around Japan’s atrocities or the sanitization of Western slavery, where victims’ suffering is erased to protect the powerful.
The Palestine genocide is a litmus test for global morality. If the world can watch 200,000+ deaths, live-streamed on screens, and still label Palestinians “terrorists” while excusing Israel’s actions, it reveals a profound failure of justice. The double standard—Muslims as “immoral” while Israel’s genocide is ignored—stems from the same colonial mindset that justified centuries of exploitation. To break this cycle, the world must acknowledge Palestine’s pain, not as abstract numbers but as names, memories, and futures stolen. Israel’s actions, like those of colonial powers before it, demand accountability, not excuses. Only by confronting these truths can we move toward a narrative that values all lives equally, regardless of faith or geopolitics.
Double Standards in Narratives of Violence and Slavery
The narrative that Islam was spread by the sword is often contrasted with the Crusades (1095–1291), which showcased extreme violence by European Christian armies. The conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 by Crusaders resulted in the massacre of tens of thousands of Muslims and Jews, whereas when Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi (Saladin) recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, he ensured the safety of Christians, freed prisoners, and allowed their worship, reflecting Islamic principles of tolerance. However, instances of Muslim violence, such as under the Almohads or in specific Indian campaigns, show that tolerance was not universal. Read: The Capture of Jerusalem, 1099 CE and Siege of Jerusalem (1187).
Accusations linking Islam to terrorism or immorality often focus on groups like ISIS, whose peak membership was in the tens of thousands, far smaller than the devastation caused by colonial powers, Western world wars, or Japan’s atrocities. ISIS’s victims, while tragic, are fewer than the millions killed by Japan’s invasions, European colonial genocides, or America’s atomic bombings. Similarly, the accusation that Islam is immoral due to slavery ignores that slavery was a global practice predating Islam. While Islam regulated slavery, encouraged emancipation, and allowed social mobility for some slaves, its trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades caused significant suffering. In contrast, Western slavery’s industrialized, racially driven system was unmatched in scale and cruelty, yet it is rarely tied to Western religion or culture. In terms of scale, Western colonialism caused the most deaths (over 100 million), followed by Japan’s atrocities (10–20 million), with Islam’s violence (millions over centuries) being the least destructive but most stigmatized. Japan’s methods, including vivisection and biological warfare, were the most brutal, while Western colonialism’s systematic genocide and slavery were driven by long-term exploitation. Islam’s violence, focused on political and economic control, was less genocidal. Nations like Japan or Germany are not branded as “terrorist nations,” and their slavery or atrocities are not linked to their cultural or religious identities, while Muslims face collective stigma for the actions of extremists or historical practices. The Quranic principle that “no one bears the sins of another” (The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-An’am (The Cattle), Verse: 164) aligns with modern legal standards, yet Islamophobic narratives often unfairly generalize Muslims, just as overgeneralizing other groups’ histories risks distorting their complexities.
Islam as the Antithesis of Colonialism
Islam’s expansion was often driven by peaceful preaching, trade, and moral conduct, as seen in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Andalusia, though military conquests and occasional coercion played roles in regions like India and Spain. Its approach to slavery, while part of a global system, introduced reforms aimed at humane treatment and gradual emancipation, contrasting with the West’s exploitative transatlantic trade. Western colonialism, by contrast, relied on exploitation, slavery, and cultural destruction, leaving a legacy of artificial borders and cultural devastation still felt today, unlike Japan’s more localized atrocities or Islam’s integrative approach. Britain, the largest colonial power, subjugated much of the world, while the United States continued this legacy through neocolonialism. The accusation that Islam is inherently violent or immoral often stems from colonial propaganda to justify invasions, not from a balanced view of history. While Japan and Germany were given space to redeem their image after atrocities, Islam faces ongoing scrutiny, highlighting a need for fairer historical narratives that acknowledge both Muslim contributions and complexities.
Ultimately, Islam’s spread was largely through moral values, knowledge, and tolerance, though not without exceptions involving conquest, coercion, or slavery. Western colonialism, with its industrialized slavery, genocides, and global wars, bears the darkest record in scale, followed by Japan’s intensely brutal but shorter-lived atrocities. Muslim history, while including significant challenges like the trans-Saharan slave trade and occasional violence, was the least destructive and more integrative, yet it is disproportionately stigmatized. By understanding historical facts and distinguishing between Islamic teachings and individual deviations, we can challenge biased narratives. Islam’s principles of justice, peace, and humane treatment, alongside its historical complexities, offer a counterpoint to the exploitation characteristic of Western colonialism, fostering a more nuanced view of global history.
Early Marriage and Accusations of Pedophilia: Historical Context and Double Standards
The accusation that Islam promotes pedophilia, particularly through narratives surrounding Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha, is frequently used to discredit the religion. Read my article here: Marriage to Aisha at a Very Young Age: Was Prophet Muhammad a Pedophile? However, historical and cross-cultural analysis reveals that such accusations are anachronistic, imposing 21st-century moral standards on a 7th-century context. Early marriage was not unique to Islam but a widespread practice across civilizations, including Christian Europe, India, and Africa, shaped by the social, economic, and legal norms of the time. By understanding the historical context and comparing global practices, it becomes clear that the pedophilia narrative against Islam is a form of bias that ignores facts and applies double standards.
The Context of Aisha’s Marriage: 7th-Century Norms
Commonly cited narratives state that Aisha married Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) at age 6–7 and joined his household at age 9. However, some modern scholars, such as Maulana Muhammad Ali and Dr. Zakir Naik, argue that Aisha was likely older (12–19 years), given discrepancies in ancient Arab dating systems and evidence that she had reached puberty, considered a marker of adulthood in the legal and cultural norms of the time. Read: Aisha (ra): The Case for an Older Age in Sunni Hadith Scholarship. In the 7th century, the concept of “18 years” as the age of adulthood did not exist; physical maturity was the benchmark for marriage readiness, not only in Arabia but also in civilizations like Rome, Persia, and Christian Europe. Read: Legal limitations on marriage and Adolescence.
Early marriage in 7th-century Arabia was not an anomaly. In Islam, marriage required the onset of puberty (maturity) and was conducted within a legitimate, responsible framework with family consent. Its purpose was to establish stable families, not sexual exploitation. Aisha herself became one of Islam’s most prominent scholars, transmitting thousands of Prophetic traditions (hadiths) and leading theological discussions, demonstrating that her marriage did not hinder her intellectual or social development. Read: Hazrat Aisha (RA) : A Beacon of Wisdom and Learning - Part 2.
Early Marriage in the West and Other Traditions
Early marriage was also a norm in Christian Europe and other civilizations until modern times. Under Catholic Canon Law, the legal marriage age for girls was 12, a rule that persisted for centuries until the early 20th century. Read: Marriageable age. In medieval England, the legal marriage age for girls was 12, while in 19th-century American colonies, it ranged from 10–12, with Delaware setting the minimum at 7 until 1895. Read: Age-of-consent reform. Historical examples include King Richard II of England (age 29) marrying Isabelle of France (age 6) in 1396, and the common practice among European nobility of marrying off pre-teen daughters for political alliances. Read: BIOGRAPHY OF ISABELLA VALOIS QUEEN ENGLAND 1389-1409. If modern standards were applied, many European figures, including Christian kings and church laws, would also be labeled “pedophiles,” yet this narrative rarely appears in Western discourse.
Beyond Europe, early marriage was common. In ancient India, Hindu traditions recorded child marriages as a norm, often to strengthen caste or family ties. In pre-modern China and Japan, marriages at ages 12–15 were also typical. Read: [Changes of marriage age in ancient China] and Akshaya Tritiya: Hotbed of child marriages. Even in modern times, figures like Hugh Hefner normalized relationships with much younger women without facing the same stigma directed at Islam. The key difference is that Islam regulated early marriage within a moral and responsible framework, while many other traditions prioritized political or economic motives without clear ethical guidelines.
Child Marriage in the Modern World: A Global Issue, Not an Islamic Monopoly
In the modern era, child marriage remains a global issue, not confined to the Muslim world. According to UNICEF (2020), one-third of child brides worldwide come from India, where the majority population is Hindu. Read: Is an End to Child Marriage within Reach?. Countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, Malawi, southern Nigeria, and the Central African Republic report child marriage rates above 40%, often driven by poverty, patriarchal cultures, and lax laws. In the United States, until 2017, marriage under 18 was legal in 48 states with parental or judicial consent; Delaware only banned it outright in 2018. Meanwhile, many Muslim-majority countries have raised the minimum marriage age: Indonesia set it at 19 (Law 16/2019), while Tunisia, Turkey, and Morocco enforce 18, stricter than some non-Muslim countries. Read: Dynamism of Minimum Age of Marriage in Muslim Countries: A Study of Marriage in Indonesia, Tunisia, and Turkey.
Western media often apply double standards in reporting. When child marriage occurs in Muslim countries like Yemen or Afghanistan, it is linked to Islam, with labels like “Islamic pedophilia.” However, when it happens in India, Sub-Saharan Africa, or even the U.S., it is framed as a socio-economic challenge requiring legal reform, without implicating the majority religion. The fact that India has the highest child marriage rates globally is rarely tied to Hinduism, while cases in Muslim countries are swiftly generalized as reflective of Islamic teachings. In reality, child marriage in Muslim contexts is more tied to poverty and local traditions than religious doctrine.
Double Standards and Anachronism in Pedophilia Accusations
Accusing Prophet Muhammad of pedophilia is an anachronism, applying 21st-century moral standards to a 7th-century context. If applied consistently, Catholic Canon Law, European kings, and ancient Hindu traditions would face similar labels, yet they escape such scrutiny due to cultural bias targeting Islam. The concept of 18 as the age of adulthood is a modern construct, emerging in the 19th and 20th centuries in the West alongside developments in education and changing views on childhood. In the 7th century, both in Arabia and Europe, physical maturity was the marker of adulthood, and early marriage was a universal norm, not an exception.
Furthermore, Islam regulates marriage with principles of responsibility, protecting women through dowry, maintenance, and family bonds, unlike many European early marriages driven by political alliances with little regard for individual well-being. Aisha, as the Prophet’s wife, lived with honor and became an influential intellectual figure, showing that her marriage did not hinder her development. In contrast, many early marriages in ancient Europe offered women no such opportunities.
Debunking Bias and Historical Context
Accusations of pedophilia against Islam, whether through narratives about Aisha or modern child marriage cases, are distortions that ignore historical context and apply double standards. Early marriage was a global phenomenon across civilizations, including Christian Europe, Hindu India, and other pre-modern societies, driven by socio-economic norms, not specific religious doctrines. Islam, with its Islamic legal principles, provides a moral framework for responsible marriage, while many other traditions allowed the practice without clear ethical guidelines.
In the modern era, child marriage remains a global challenge, with the highest rates in non-Muslim countries like India and Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, Western media selectively associate it with Islam, ignoring that many Muslim countries have tightened marriage age regulations. By understanding historical facts and global realities, it is evident that pedophilia accusations against Islam are baseless forms of Islamophobia. Islam, with its emphasis on responsibility and protection, offers a relevant moral framework, both historically and today, in a world still grappling with child marriage.
Cleanliness in Islam: A Systematic and Comprehensive Approach
Islam is one of the most rigorous and detailed religions when it comes to cleanliness, with practices that can be considered far more systematic than many other traditions. Therefore, if a Muslim appears unclean, it is not a reflection of Islamic teachings but rather the individual’s failure to adhere to them properly.
In terms of physical and bodily hygiene, Muslims are required to perform ritual ablution before prayers at least five times a day, which involves washing the face, hands, head, and feet. This practice effectively serves as a “mini-bath” repeated throughout the day. Additionally, a full-body ritual purification is mandatory after sexual intercourse, menstruation, postpartum bleeding, wet dreams, or specific conditions, ensuring the body remains clean for worship. Other recommended practices, such as trimming nails, removing certain body hair, and maintaining oral hygiene with a natural tooth-stick, are also emphasized regularly. Read: Wudu: The Islamic Ritual of Ablution Explained and The Islamic Hygienical Jurisprudence (Fiqh al-Ṭahārah): A Foundation for Sustainability Discourses.
Islam provides specific guidelines for hygiene during toilet use. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught etiquettes for relieving oneself, such as not facing the sacred direction of prayer, covering the private parts, and cleansing the genitals with water. Thus, since its inception, Islam has promoted a “water hygiene” approach in toilets, rather than relying solely on tissue, as is common elsewhere.
Regarding food and drink, the principles of permissible and wholesome consumption dictate that what is eaten must not only be lawful but also good, clean, healthy, and harmless. Muslims are encouraged to wash their hands before and after eating, avoid overeating, and steer clear of foods explicitly harmful to the body, such as pork, blood, carrion, and alcoholic beverages.
Cleanliness of clothing and spaces is also emphasized. Clothes worn for prayer must be free from impurities, and places of worship like mosques must be kept clean. The Prophet himself frequently cleaned the mosque and even prohibited those who had eaten strong-smelling foods, like onions, from entering to avoid disturbing others.
Broadly, Islam considers cleanliness an integral part of faith. The Prophet stated, “Cleanliness is half of faith,” and another narration notes that “God is beautiful and loves beauty,” which is understood to include cleanliness. Thus, if a Muslim lives in an unclean state, it reflects personal negligence, not a flaw in Islamic teachings. In fact, Islam’s cleanliness standards, established in the 7th century, align with modern practices like handwashing before eating, using water for toilet hygiene, and brushing teeth.
Closing Statement: Dismantling Hypocrisy and Double Standards in Narratives Against Islam
The narrative labeling Islam as a religion of violence, terrorism, slavery, or immorality is a product of historical bias and geopolitical agendas, not a reflection of facts. Islam, with its teachings on modesty, prohibitions against narcotics, alcohol, gambling, and sexual exploitation, and emphasis on peaceful preaching and humanity, stands as a bastion of morality in an increasingly permissive world. In contrast, Western colonialism—with its trans-Atlantic slavery, genocides, and global exploitation—and modern pop culture, which commodifies bodies and normalizes moral degradation, bear a far darker record. Accusations against Islam, from “spread by the sword” to “pedophilia,” are often anachronistic, ignoring historical context and applying glaring double standards. While the West claims to champion civilization, its history is steeped in blood and oppression, yet Islam is continually stigmatized to serve Islamophobic narratives. If morality is measured by consistency in protecting human dignity, Islam proves itself as the antithesis of cruelty and hypocrisy, challenging the world to judge with honesty, not propaganda.
