Actually, the real reason is that Muslims designate Islam as the “religion of peace”. In doing this they are not lying in the sense of asserting something they know to be untrue. The problem is that the Islamic conception of peace is severely flawed and not even approximately coextensive with the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or modern secularist conception of peace (all of which are approximately coextensive).
In Semitic languages, the consonants of a word are its root. Thus Islam = submission and Salam = peace share the root slm and are thus conceptually related to an Arabic speaker, and this relation becomes almost an identification in Islamic thought. The only peace Islam knows is the peace of submission, the peace between master and slave, between conqueror and conquered. Peace treaties as understood by the rest of the world are unknown in Islamic law: they are (theoretically) unnecessary between Muslims and forbidden between Muslims and non-Muslims — the best approximation permitted under Sharia being a “hudna” (pause or ceasefire) of at most ten years duration, which Muslims may breach at any time.
So, if one accepts the twisted Mohammedan misconception of peace as the true understanding of peace, Islam is, indeed the religion of peace. If one has a nobler conception of peace, the whole notion is rubbish.
In Semitic languages, the consonants of a word are its root. Thus Islam = submission and Salam = peace share the root slm and are thus conceptually related to an Arabic speaker, and this relation becomes almost an identification in Islamic thought.
Thank you very much for the information. I was not aware of those differences.