What historical fears and conspiracy theories have fueled the idea that Muslims want to 'take over the world'?
Executive summary
The idea that “Muslims want to take over the world” is a long-standing set of fears and conspiracy narratives that mix historical memory, selective readings of religious texts, modern political events, and organized anti-Muslim activism; recent reporting shows politicians and online networks continue to spread “Muslim takeover” claims without evidence [1] [2]. Scholarship and watchdogs trace these narratives to older domination tropes, twentieth-century geopolitical fears and modern anti-Muslim movements that surfaced after 9/11 [3] [4] [5].
1. “Universal faith” and historical dominance: a theological hook for a conspiracy
A recurring element in takeover narratives is the claim that Islam envisions global dominance — commentators and some polemical sources point to Qur’anic passages and historical phases of Islamic political expansion and interpret them as proof of an ambition to rule the world; authors such as Bernard Lewis and various polemicists have described Islam’s early triumphs as giving it a sense of “birthright” dominance [3] [6]. At the same time, primary and secondary Muslim theological writings differ widely, and some Muslim authors openly discuss concepts like da‘wah (invitation) or political visions of sharia without endorsing violent or conspiratorial schemes — available sources do not provide a single authoritative Islamic “plan” for world conquest [7] [8] [9].
2. Historical analogues: how older conspiracy templates migrated onto Islam
Conspiracy theories about a secret group plotting global control have long precedents — the Protocols of the Elders of Zion provided a modern template for an international-reach conspiracy that was later adapted to other targets (notably Jews) and then reused in different forms against Muslims. Historians show that the structure of these myths — a cohesive, hidden cabal secretly controlling politics, media or finance — is portable and was repurposed to explain social change in the Muslim context as well [10] [11].
3. Geopolitics, entryism and “civilization” anxiety
State reports and commentators have linked fears of “entryism” — the idea that organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood seek to infiltrate institutions — to contemporary takeover talk. For example, a French report flagged concerns about Brotherhood-linked entryism into schools and local government, framing a geopolitical logic that Europe could be targeted as Brotherhood influence recedes elsewhere [12]. U.S. political rhetoric likewise has characterized Muslim organizations or leaders as plotting cultural or political takeover; such claims routinely surface without the evidentiary backing critics demand [1] [13].
4. Post‑9/11 politics and the rise of organized Islamophobia
Anti-Muslim groups and many activists that grew more prominent after September 11, 2001, explicitly frame Muslims as a “fifth column” or engaged in “civilization jihad,” combining xenophobia and conspiracy to argue a stealthy takeover is underway; watchdog reporting documents this pattern and its political influence [4]. Contemporary examples show elected officials and media personalities using takeover language (e.g., “massive Muslim takeover” or local predictions of rapid Islamization) even when fact‑checks or community groups find no corroborating evidence [1] [14] [2].
5. Social media, miscaptioned events, and recycled tropes
False or misleading viral content feeds the takeover narrative: Reuters found footage of a religious procession miscaptioned as evidence of a march preparing to “take over” Australia, while Islamization conspiracy posts have proliferated around electoral wins and demographic change [2] [15]. Research on New York City election-related discourse quantified thousands of posts promoting “Islamization” tropes like “Muslim takeover” and distortions such as “taqiyya,” showing how online ecosystems recycle historical tropes into modern scare campaigns [15].
6. Scholarly pushback and nuance: not all actors want conquest
Scholars and some analysts caution against conflating jihadist rhetoric or historical expansion with a coherent, transnational program of world domination. Studies of extremist motivations often reject the “world takeover” framing as simplification or “pro forma” rhetoric, noting many militant strategies are locally constrained or reactive rather than universal conquest plans [16] [17]. At the same time, academic work documents how conspiracy narratives themselves influence politics in the Middle East and beyond, sometimes used by Islamist actors for their own agendas, complicating neat binaries [18] [17].
7. What to watch: politics, rhetoric and evidence
Contemporary indicators to scrutinize are political designations and official claims (e.g., designations of organizations), public rhetoric from elected officials, and the provenance of viral claims; the White House and state-level actions have recently spotlighted Muslim organizations in security debates, and those moves feed public perceptions regardless of broader proof [19] [20]. Fact-checks and civil-society monitoring remain crucial to separate event-driven fearmongering from verifiable coordinated plots [2] [15].
Limitations: this survey relies on the documents and articles provided; available sources do not supply a comprehensive theological consensus nor exhaustive empirical proof for a coordinated global Muslim takeover plan. Where sources disagree — between polemical outlets, watchdogs and academic studies — this summary notes those differences and cites each accordingly [3] [4] [16].