When and Why the West Began to ‘Demonize’ Muhammad, by Raymond Ibrahim.

Unfortunately, not only do all discussions on the conflict between Islam and the West tend to be limited to the modern era, but when the past, the origins, are alluded to, the antithesis of reality is proffered: we hear that the West — itself an anachronism for Europe, or better yet, Christendom — began the conflict by intentionally demonizing otherwise peaceful and tolerant Muslims and their prophet in order to justify their “colonial” aspirations in the East, which supposedly began with the Crusades. …

That nothing could be further from the truth is an understatement. From the very first Christian references to Muslims in the seventh century, to Pope Urban’s call to the First Crusade more than four centuries later, the “Saracens” and their prophet were consistently abhorred.

Thus, writing around 650, John of Nikiu, Egypt, said that “Muslims” — the Copt is apparently the first non-Muslim to note that word — were not just “enemies of God” but adherents of “the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Mohammed.” The oldest parchment that alludes to a warlike prophet was written in 634 — a mere two years after Muhammad’s death. It has a man asking a learned Jewish scribe what he knows about “the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens.” The elderly man, “with much groaning,” responded: “He is deceiving. For do prophets come with swords and chariot? Verily, these events of today are works of confusion…. you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed.” …

But it was Muhammad himself — the fount of Islam — who especially scandalized Christians: “The character and the history of the Prophet were such as genuinely shocked them; they were outraged that he should be accepted as a venerated figure.” Then and now, nothing so damned Muhammad in Christian eyes as much as his own biography, written and venerated by Muslims. For instance, after proclaiming that Allah had permitted Muslims four wives and unlimited concubines (Koran 4:3), he later declared that Allah had delivered a new revelation (Koran 33:50-52) offering him, the prophet alone, a dispensation to sleep with and marry as many women as he wanted. In response, none other than his favorite wife, Aisha, the “Mother of Believers,” quipped: “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” …

Even around 700 AD people were saying the obvious:

The only miracle Muhammad performed, they argued, was to invade, slaughter, and enslave those who refused to submit to him — a “miracle that even common robbers and highway bandits can perform.”

The prophet clearly put whatever words best served him in God’s mouth, thus “simulating revelation in order to justify his own sexual indulgence”; he made his religion appealing and justified his own behavior by easing the sexual and moral codes of the Arabs and fusing the notion of obedience to God with war to aggrandize oneself with booty and slaves. …

Muhammad was “the beast”:

Perhaps most importantly, Muhammad’s denial of and war on all things distinctly Christian — the Trinity, the resurrection, and “the cross, which they abominate” — proved for Christians that he was Satan’s agent. In short, “the false prophet,” “the hypocrite,” “the liar,” “the adulterer,” “the forerunner of Antichrist,” and “the Beast,” became mainstream epithets for Muhammad among Christians for over a thousand years, beginning in the late seventh century.

Indeed, for politically correct or overly sensitive peoples who find any criticism of Islam “Islamophobic,” the sheer amount and vitriolic content of more than a millennium of Western writings on Muhammad may beggar belief. …

In short, the widespread narrative that European views of Muhammad as a “sinister figure,” a “cruel warlord,” and a “lecher and sexual pervert” began as a pretext to justify the late eleventh century Crusade — which itself is the source of all woes between Islam and the West — is an unmitigated lie. The sooner more people in the West understand this — understand the roots of the animosity — the sooner the true nature of the current (or rather ongoing) conflict will become clear.

The West is in a struggle for survival but our ruling class don’t understand that.

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific, Stephen Neil