No, Mr Obama. Islam doesn’t mean ‘peace’, it means submission.

Imam Obama knows best:

Obama Tells A Massive, Whopping Lie During Visit To American Mega Mosque

Obama boldly lied about the meaning and origins of the word “Islam” when he said this:



“The very word Islam comes from ‘Salam’ – peace,” he said lied. And he claims the founding fathers were Muslims, because they read the Koran.

Interesting that none of the contenders for the presidency calls on Obama to stop lying about Islam. Obama should be asked why America had to build a navy to fight the Barbary Pirates, who attacked America the moment it became a republic. 

Here’s a reminder:

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. American merchant ships had been captured by the Barbary corsairs and their crews and passengers imprisoned. They could only by freed by the payment of large ransoms. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty to spare their ships these piratical attacks. Congress was willing to appease the Barbary pirates if only they could gain peace at a reasonable price.

During the meeting, Jefferson and Adams asked the ambassador why Muslims held such hostility toward America, a nation with which they had had no previous contacts. Jefferson later reported to John Jay what the ambassador had told them: the reason for the Muslims’ enmity was that “It was written in their Koran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman (Muslim) who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to [P]aradise.”– (Read more)

Muhammad used to send letters to the kings and leaders of the surrounding countries and tribes, inviting them to surrender to his authority and to believe in him as the messenger of Allah. He always ended his letters with the following two words: “Aslim, Taslam!”. Although these two words are derived from the same infinitive Salama which is the root of Salam, i.e. ‘Peace’, neither one of them implies the meaning of ‘peace’.  The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’. So where is the meaning of ‘Peace’ in such a religion that threatens to kill other people if they don’t submit to it?

The Qur’an not only ordered the killing of those who embraced Islam and afterwards decided to renegade, but also commanded the followers to fight all nations until they either believe in it, pay the Jizya or face death:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” Surat At-Tauba 9:29

And in the same Sura, verse 5, the Qur’an also states: “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem …”

The word “Islam” means submission, the act of your submitting to the rule of the moon god Allah via his false prophet Mohammed. Obama, having spent 12 years in Islam school in Indonesia, knows this fact all too well. So why did he lie and say Islam means peace”

Because he was practicing Taqiyya, that’s why.

Allahu Akbar, y’all!

Robert Spencer appeared on Newsmax TV’s Steve Malzberg Show today to discuss Obama’s visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore.

4 thoughts on “No, Mr Obama. Islam doesn’t mean ‘peace’, it means submission.”

  1. He really went to town at that mosque singing the praises of islam, disgustingly so. So basic to not say islam means submission, to never mention the harassment of jews, nor the persecution of Christians in muslim countries. It was sickening watching him kowtow on a grand scale as the enemy lapped it up. Shame shame shame.

  2. Saying this; “The very word Islam comes from ‘Salam’” is the first and biggest lie in the art of taqiyya. There is no one in the U.S. better at this than Obama.
    Also … if he had given that speech (with the things he said about freedom of religion) in a mosque in a country under Sharia Law he would have been dragged out and beheaded.
    Also … if you listened to the whole video … did anyone notice the tepid applause he got after those freedom of religion remarks?

    1. It’s somewhat irrelevant what ‘islam’ means. The Nazis could have called themselves German National Socialist Humanitarian Party and it would not have made an iota if difference to their behaviour or the effect they had on the world.

      Basic philosophy 101: The label attached to describe something is not the thing itself.

  3. Lying is the most basic form of theft – it’s the (at least, attempted) theft of the Truth.

    Since all crimes are forms of theft, lying (aka “fraud” and slander) is a crime. And even “only” attempted crimes, are still crimes!

    All crimes are also attacks.

    Every time Obama lies, he is attacking us.

    So why aren’t we allowed to stop him?

    Are uttering obvious lies again and again a part of free speech?

    Our most basic human right is to SELF-defense, and that obviously includes the right to complain about extortion to rally others to help us defend our selves.

    That’s called Free Speech, and it’s only limited to not knowingly spreading lies (aka the crimes of fraud and slander).

    Government, (best conceived by Einstein as the largest collectively-owned insurance company) is a great idea if and when it doesn’t compete with (much less pre-empt) private enterprise; it’s OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. Same goes for defending every other need: government can defend the country, but not restrict the citizens’ rights to also own and bear their own arms to defend them selves; government can and should enhance private defense, but never replace it!

    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”

    -Thomas Jefferson-

    The ONLY limit to Free Speech, should be the Truth!

    There is no false “right” to not be offended by the often-painful truth!

    That only pretends valid objective educational warnings are subjective threats! It pretends all objective facts are really only subjective opinions, and that people are such fallible victims that they can never really tell the difference between them!

    It pretends people have the false right to remain irresponsibly wrong! That there’s no wrong answers! It deprives people of their real right to learn from their mistakes, and to become right by learning to solve problems!

    As even Aristotle noted long ago, slander is only pre-judice, and vice-versa; presenting accusatory opinions as if they were facts (making accusations against someone else, BEFORE having the facts straight)! And that breaks the Golden Rule of Law (to not attack first)!

    Of course, aggressively chanting or yelling a truth at someone in a threatening manner ALSO breaks the Golden Rule, because all threats are psychological attacks (aka: bullying, intimidation, coercion, duress, extortion, “terrorism”) and all non-defensive attacks are crimes.

    But ‘threatening’ a criminal with his just punishments, after he’s already committed his crimes, isn’t a threat so much as a promise!

    The only other way speech should be limited, is if it incites un-just violence against innocent others (as opposed to legislators and police chiefs calling for violence against those who have already attacked innocent others, as in: if they call for the death-penalty, for instance).

    The Defense of Truth should always apply.

    And, as for criminals always trying to limit others’ free speech by calling it “hateful” (whether or not one is lying):

    Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?

    NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.

    Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed, that’s just the packaging, but because it’s fraudulent slander.

    Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!

    Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats… and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!

    Criminals always advise insane things to their potential victims – like that they should embrace suicidal masochism and refuse to defend them selves, and that the ultimate crime is to cause offense in hurting the criminal’s feelings by accusing them of their crimes – which makes them look stupid or insane to sane folks, and look crafty and ‘realistic’ to other criminals.

    Criminals always want subjectivism – double standards – to apply, never universal objective principles. They want rights – especially the false right to remain irresponsible – to apply for themselves, while they also only want their victims to be responsible to them. Sharia “law” follows this crime-model to a “T.”

    PS: Sorry for the long rant – Don Laird must be rubbing off on me LOL!


Comments are closed.