Why the Term “Moderate Muslim” is an Oxymoron

Our Norwegian correspondent The Observer returns with an examination of “moderate” vs. “extreme” Islam, using the much-neglected tools of logic and formal analysis.

Why the term “moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron

by The Observer

Why has Islam been able to grow at such an unprecedented pace in Europe, and why has it been allowed to do so practically unchallenged? There are many reasons for this, but one contributing factor that has facilitated this rapid growth has been the decision to artificially divide the religion into two opposing philosophies with completely different goals and values, which has transformed it into an ideological version of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. By firmly dividing its adherents (Muslims) into two distinct camps — the extremists who are alleged to be misusing their religion and who only constitute a tiny minority, and the moderates who ostensibly represent the majority and who strongly opposes the extremists — Islam has managed to establish a defence that is almost impenetrable, and that has fostered an environment in which meaningless terms such as Islamophobia are actually given credence.

This clever distinction, which has in effect divided Islam into a moderate and an extreme form, has ensured that it can continue to grow unabated and without being properly challenged, as any terrorist attack committed by its members can be blamed on the extremists and thus also used as an argument to exonerate the moderates. It’s a form of classification or “branding taqiyya” that has served the religion well, and given it a solid argument that it can rely upon no matter what type of hurdle or obstacle that is being thrown in its way.

The mainstream media and the political classes have deliberately failed to call Islam by its proper name and actively undermined any serious attempts to scrutinize and expose the ideology for what it really is. As a result, the majority of the blame for the very precarious situation that Europe finds itself in these days has to be put squarely on their shoulders. These two powerful groups have been able to control public discourse and sway public opinion through the extensive use of lies and propaganda. Crucial facts that could have altered the course have been deliberately downplayed, and in many cases outright ignored. Unpalatable events have been omitted. The job responsibilities of the MSM and the politicians have largely been transformed into those of campaigners who pay lip service to such things as truth and accuracy — values that actually used to matter in the past. The absence of an in-depth analysis of Islam’s doctrines, its history and its stated goals for the future have left ordinary people blissfully unaware of the dangers that this ideology represents, and only now when Islam has seriously started to flex its muscles are they beginning to wake up from their political-correctness-induced slumber.

This essay will focus on the rebranding of Islam that has turned it into something unrecognizable and innocuous — namely a predominantly moderate and peaceful religion — and offer a valid and thorough explanation as to why this is not the case. It will show that this artificial rebranding is false, that it is unscientific and utterly dishonest, and demonstrate by the use of critical analysis that the opposite is true. This assignment has not been undertaken to further cement the convictions of those who have already reached this conclusion of their own accord, but rather to serve as a wakeup call to those who are still in the dark and have failed to grasp what should have been obvious all along.

The first step in this process is to demonstrate that one cannot logically divide Islam into two distinct camps; one that preaches war and hatred, and the other that preaches love and tolerance. It is an absurd claim to make, given that both camps are reading from the same script. This is made obvious by the fact that a large portion of Islamic doctrine is dedicated to the advocacy of hatred and animosity against non-Muslims. However, before we can start to immerse ourselves in the subject at hand and initiate our investigation, we have to obtain some definitions that will allow us to describe the religion and the points that we are trying to make. The words that we are interested in here are “Islam”, “Muslim”, “moderate”, “extreme” and “extremist”.

A quick Google search gives us the Merriam-Webster’s English dictionary’s classification of the word “extremist”:

“Advocacy of extreme measures or views.”

The word “extreme” is defined by the same dictionary as:

“Very far from agreeing with the opinions of most people: not moderate”.

The word “moderate” is glossed as:

“Professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme.”

Furthermore, it is important to correctly identify the term “Muslim”, as the purpose of this essay is to establish whether a Muslim should be classified as an extremist or as a moderate based on the choice of his or her religious convictions. According to the same source a “Muslim” is defined as:

“A person whose religion is Islam: a follower of Islam”

Islam is defined as:

“The religion which teaches that there is only one God and that Muhammad is God’s prophet : the religion of Muslims”

These are basic definitions which could be elaborated upon in great detail, but which will have to do for the purposes of this essay. The only thing that we are going to add is that a Muslim is a person who embraces Islamic doctrine, i.e. the teachings of the Quran, the Hadith and the Sira (the official Islamic doctrine). The Quran being the word of Allah as recited to Muhammad, Islam’s first and last prophet, by the angel Gabriel. The hadith, which encompasses the traditions of Muhammad (a supplement to the Quran). The Sira, which is the official biography of Muhammad. The Sunnah (doctrine) is a term that encompasses the Hadith and the Sira.

Now that we have sorted out the correct definitions we can move on to the next step in the process, which is to place practitioners of Islam on either the moderate end of the scale, the extremist end of it, or somewhere in between. A prerequisite in order to achieve this task is to be equipped with a basic knowledge of Islam. It should be evident that it is impossible to refute the claim on a purely scientific basis without having a basic understanding of the ideology. As with anything in life, in order to make an informed decision one has to be in possession of the relevant facts. It is also imperative that we clarify what constitutes moderate behaviour in order to prevent undue confusion. We have already offered a definition of this word, but we still have not assigned what type of behaviour falls into this category. Normal behaviour is also to a certain degree a relative concept, as different countries and different cultures operate with different definitions of what constitutes normal behaviour. What is considered normal behaviour in Saudi Arabia is not necessarily normal behaviour in a country such as Canada, and vice versa. The best way to overcome this issue is to use the UN’s declaration of human rights as a template and gauge various behaviours and ideologies against this document in order to ascertain on which side of the scale they belong.[1]

It should also be pointed out that normal behaviour could quite easily be classified as extreme if it occurs in a society that has descended into anarchy or chosen to adopt fascism or any other anti-democratic forms of governing. In order for any ideology or political system to be classified as moderate, in this context, it is thus imperative that it does not violate the basic principles of the UN’s declaration of human rights, and by no means can it be found to be in gross violation of this declaration. Hence in order for Islam to be classified as a moderate religion, it is essential that it can be categorically established that it accepts and respects the overall principles found in this document.

We are now going to take a closer look at certain aspects of Islamic doctrine and bring attention to some of the more disturbing incidents of Muhammad’s life, which will put the claim that Islam is a moderate religion into serious question. We are not going to detail every single event or analyse every single passage of its holy books with a magnifying glass, but rather take a closer look at some of the characteristics that makes it impossible to classify it as a moderate religion.

The first hurdle that anyone who wishes to exonerate Islam and label it as a moderate ideology encounters is the existence of a unique judicial system (Shariah) which is a 7th century justice system based upon the Quran and various instructions and commandments made by Muhammad throughout his life.[2] To say that it conforms with the UN declaration on human rights would be a gross misrepresentation of the truth, as it quite clearly violates both the spirit of this document and pretty much every single paragraph listed within it. The most egregious example is probably the Sharia’s view on apostasy, i.e. members who wish to leave the religion, a transgression which according to the Sharia is punishable by death. Similar punishments are meted out for blasphemy, homosexuality and marital infidelity, which according to the Sharia stipulates that the offending individual be stoned to death, just to name a few examples.

The fact that these laws have been practiced since the inception of Islam and that they are still being practiced in various Muslim nations today makes Islam come across as a rather extreme ideology straight off the bat, and it certainly makes it very difficult to see why anyone would choose to classify the Sharia or any system that resembles it as moderate, or claim that it has undeservedly been awarded the classification “extreme” To justify killing individuals who don’t share your personal religious or political views is an extreme act, and it certainly runs counter to the UN’s declaration of human rights, as do the other issues highlighted in this paragraph. The only logical conclusion that can be deduced from this information is that the Sharia is extreme.

The second hurdle that the proponents of Islam encounter when they wish to classify Islam as a moderate religion is the Quran, the holy book of the Muslims. It’s a book that Muslims cherish and treat with the utmost respect, and which they believe was dictated to their prophet Muhammad verbatim by their God, Allah. The book is an integral part of Islam, and its content gives us a good indication to the exact nature of the religion. The proponents of the “moderate Islam” theory will be swift to point out that the Quran contains many peaceful passages, and consequently cannot in good faith be viewed as extreme. However, that does not change the fact that the Quran also contains a staggering 109 verses that actively advocates violence against non-believers, verses that condone violence against women, the subjugation of non-Muslims and verses that justifies slavery.[3] Any of these acts can in their own right justifiably be referred to as extreme by anyone’s definition, and most certainly by pitting it against the UN’s declaration on human rights. Some may interject that the Quran should be viewed in a historical context, and maintain that the practices advocated in this book were commonplace and accepted when it was written. That may be a valid argument, but is still fails to explain why people living in the 21st century show so much reverence for a book that advocates so much hatred and violence, and why they would wish to live in accordance with the principles found in such a book. Based on the numerous passages that promote violence against non-Muslims which can be found in the Quran one is left with no choice but to categorize it as an extreme book that advocates violence.

The third hurdle that proponents of Islam encounter in their quest to exonerate their religion is the first prophet of Islam, Muhammad and his life story, and in particular the later stages of his life which were dominated by violence and brutal warfare. What sets Muhammad apart from other significant religious figures such as Jesus and the Buddha, who were known pacifists and advocated a philosophy of turning the other cheek, is the fact that Muhammad was a warlord who killed, robbed, raped and had people who disagreed with him assassinated.[4] According to Islam’s own sources, Muhammad personally ordered the execution of 600-900 male Jews during the invasion of Banu Qurayza and took their women and children as slaves.[5] He also had numerous people who mocked or disagreed with him killed, and even admitted towards the end of his life that he had been made victorious through a reign of terror.[6] Furthermore, after his death his followers colonised and spread the religion of Islam by force to large areas of the known world by following his personal example. Some estimates indicate that this brutal colonization resulted in the loss of up to 270 million lives.[7]

The most troubling aspect of Muhammad’s life is, however, not that he committed all these atrocious acts, but rather the fact that so many people continue to worship him and show him so much reverence. Even today Muslims consider Muhammad to be the perfect human being whose behaviour should be emulated in every aspect of life. So great is the respect for Muhammad that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are violently opposed to even having visual representations made of their prophet, such as drawings, paintings etc. Whenever such visual representations materialise, riots and violence are often the outcome.

Having looked at the three main aspects of Islamic doctrine, the Quran, the Sunnah and the Sharia, and highlighted the problematic issues found within these, it’s not unreasonable to classify the contents as largely extreme. We have shown that all the three major parts that make up Islam advocate violence, and reject basic human rights and opinions that are not consistent with official Islamic doctrine. Such views can obviously not by categorized as moderate ones; given that moderate is by definition the absence of extremism, and they certainly cannot be viewed as moderate if we compare them with the UN’s declaration of human rights. That Islamic doctrine also contains elements that are moderate does not change the fact that there is an overabundance of elements that clearly are extreme in nature, and which can be found throughout its holy texts, giving us no other choice than to label the religion as a whole as extreme.

This invariably leads us to the last section and the original goal of this essay, which is to show that Muslims who embrace Islamic doctrine thus cannot logically be labelled as moderates, given that the ideology they have embraced is an extreme one.

We have already offered a very basic definition of the term Muslim, as classified by Merriam-Webster’s English dictionary. For our purpose in this essay — which is to establish whether it is reasonable to categorize Muslims as both extremists and moderates — it is important to specify whom we have chosen to designate as Muslims, given that the term is often loosely applied, and are on some occasions used to include individuals who are born Muslims in predominantly Muslim nations, but who don’t necessarily identify as Muslims. The term Muslim as it has been applied in this case refers to practicing Muslims; in other words, individuals who identify as Muslims, who believe in the Quran and who live their lives according to Islamic principles. It does not include what some would choose to refer to as cultural Muslims, non-practicing Muslims, reformers or individuals who choose to identify as Muslims out of concern for their own safety, of whom there are plenty given, Islam’s highly controversial view on apostasy.

It’s also necessary to make a logical assumption: to accept that most people who follow a specific ideology, regardless of which one it may be, have at least a basic understanding of its official doctrines and stated goals. This means that a devout communist has at least a minimum of knowledge of official communist literature, and that a fervent Christian has at least a basic knowledge of Christian principles, etc. Thus we should assume that a practicing Muslim has a basic knowledge of Islam’s holy texts, and that he is familiar with its official policies on a wide range of issues. It is therefore also safe to conclude — if we accept these criteria — that a practicing Muslim has a basic understanding of Islam’s views on unbelievers, apostates, sharia law and the life of Muhammad. In other words, a practicing Muslim is familiar with the undemocratic nature of Islam, but nevertheless still chooses to identify as a Muslim.

This is a very significant fact, and one that has to be given the utmost attention when trying to determine on which side of the “extremist” scale practicing Muslims should be positioned. It is absolutely crucial to take political or religious views into consideration when endeavouring to establish whether a person is an extremist or not, and it is certainly an approach that is being used extensively by the media and the political classes when it comes to classifying non-Muslims with whom they disagree politically as “extremists”. The latest people to be labelled as “extremists” by the use of such methods are US Presidential candidate Donald Trump and his supporters, who have been given this classification based solely on their political views and not based on their actions or behaviours. It should also be noted that the views that have earned them this label are fairly innocuous, given that they have not called for the extermination of political opponents, the introduction of a fascist state, or advocacy for an authoritarian judicial system — concepts that practicing Muslims do embrace wholeheartedly without being stigmatized as extremists by the same MSM.

Now the question that should present itself when taking these things into consideration, and in particularly bearing in mind the issues raised previously pertaining to the undemocratic and violent nature of Islamic doctrine, is this: can a practicing Muslim’s belief in such concepts be interpreted as anything but a tacit acceptance of such views? And can such an individual be classified as anything but an extremist?

Most people would probably agree that it is not a sign of moderate behaviour to endorse and condone violence and anti-democratic activities; on the contrary, such behaviour is part and parcel of the mentality of an extremist. To use a popular saying, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is more than likely a duck. One could of course apply this to Muslims and Islam and say that if the Quran advocates undemocratic values it’s more than likely that a practicing Muslim believes in and condones these views and the he wishes to live in a society governed by them. It’s certainly a natural conclusion to make when looking at the facts in a rational manner.

It’s equally natural to conclude that a moderate individual would by definition reject Islamic doctrine, or any other violent and undemocratic ideology based solely on the given ideology’s level of extremism and its antagonism against those who seek to question and challenge its authority. From this it follows that a truly moderate Muslim would reject Islam, based on its general violent message. In effect he would become an apostate, i.e. a non-Muslim. One could of course attempt to make the case that a moderate Muslim could discard the violent and extreme parts of Islam and focus solely on its peaceful verses, and still be a Muslim, but this is an unrealistic assumption that fails to recognize the dominant position that violence and jihad enjoy in Islamic doctrine. Moreover, it would render the teachings of Muhammad completely meaningless, and severely question his judgment and authority.

We know that the MSM and the political classes base their definition of extremism — excluding Muslims, that is — exclusively on political beliefs, and label individuals with whom they disagree as “extremists” on a much flimsier basis. Why is it then that practicing Muslims with views that are evidently more extreme are being categorized as moderates? An honest approach would be to treat Muslims in the same manner that other groups are treated, and scrutinize and define them in a similar fashion. To have two opposing classifications systems, and use them selectively for political purposes, can only be described as intellectual dishonesty at best. The outcome of such an inquiry is of no real value, as it has been obtained by the use of faulty methods. Thus the term moderate as it is applied today by the Western elites to describe the majority of practicing Muslims is a dishonest and erroneous description of reality.

It should also be obvious that it is unreasonable to classify a practicing Muslim as a moderate or as an extremist based solely on the violent acts that this individual has or has not committed, or on the amount of extreme viewpoints promulgated by said individual, or the lack thereof. Most people would agree that extremism isn’t exclusively synonymous with violence, but that it can also be applied to those who embrace extreme political and ideological ideas, and who disseminate such. Nevertheless, this unreasonable classification system is the one that the MSM and the political classes have chosen to adopt.

If we accept that a truly moderate individual would reject Islamic doctrine based on its overall violent principles, then the only logical conclusion to make is that an individual who continues to publicly praise and Islam and worship Allah and Muhammad, and criticize those who question this ideology, must be viewed as an extremist, based on this individual’s espousal of extremist ideas.

The next question to ask, then, is this: Is it reasonable to assume that a person who condones Islam’s theological message of jihad is sincere whenever this person’s offers a condemnation of jihadi attacks in the MSM? It’s a scenario that we are able to witness every time an Islamic terrorist attacks occur, and whenever the MSM are pretending to do their job by pretending to confront members of the Islamic community. The answer has to be a resounding “NO” from a purely logical standpoint. It’s also a conclusion that is in line with what we have seen on numerous occasions when so-called moderate Muslims say one thing when interviewed by media people, and express diametrically different and opposing views when captured on hidden cameras.

All things considered, it’s exceptionally difficult to label practicing Muslims as anything but “extremists”, given their acceptance of the overabundance of extreme views that are found within Islamic doctrine, and their reluctance to distance themselves from these principles.

Looking at it from an honest perspective, the methodology that has been highlighted in this essay is the only sensible way to ascertain whether practicing Muslims are extremists or moderates, and the methodology of this essay is the only truly objective way to make sense of Islam and practicing Muslims.

The conclusion is that practicing Muslims cannot possibly be classified as anything but extremists, given the religious and political views that they espouse. It may not be what people wish to hear, but it is a conclusion that has been reached by employing a rational and honest method, and from now on the conclusion should be treated as fact.


1.   www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
2.   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
3.   www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
4.   wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
5.   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza
6.   www.quranexplorer.com/Hadith/English/Hadith/bukhari/004.052.220.html
7.   www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

52 thoughts on “Why the Term “Moderate Muslim” is an Oxymoron

  1. The moderate Muslim vs Extremist theme is a variation of the Good Cop – Bad Cop routine. That’s all that needs to be said on the matter.

  2. I could state the case in these short terms. Islam is a political religion which affirms the exclusive legitimacy of Muslim judges to administer public justice according to Islamic law, and that political and judicial systems of every other description are evil. Of necessity, Islam is a seditious and treasonable movement, and this character brings its religious crimes of blasphemy and idolatry (both capital according to Scripture) into the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

  3. “Muslims say one thing when interviewed by media people, and express diametrically different and opposing views when captured on hidden cameras.”

    Of muslims know what to say in each occasion because they are not native, like the rest of us. If they had not done that they would not have occupied Africa and Asia, and recently the whole world not by strength but by the help of the western stupidity.

    When westerners became “colour blind” they also became foe blind: THEY CANNOT their enemies, they don’t know their enemies, they are unwilling to see their enemy of 14 centuries because that enemy and themselves have one common enemy: Christianity.

    Just today I read:

    Religion of Humanity (fr. Religion de l’Humanité or église positiviste) is a secular religion created by Auguste Comte, the founder of positivist philosophy.


    The Religion of humanity was described by Thomas Huxley as “Catholicism minus Christianity”

    All this mess is the result of Europe’s godlessness, perverted democracy: the result of unconscionable “elected rulers”. Not knowing wrong from right. Always choosing the wrong. They don’t care about anything but grasping dictatorship
    power through election.

    Extremism, moderate islam, misogyny, immigrants create jobs, refugees, . . . etc

    All these terms are created by Traitors and the MSM, to distract people from focusing on the real problems. The goal of Traitors is to import millions of jihadis to create problems for the natives so that they (citizens) would leave the ruling/Traitor Class alone.

    It is the ordinary citizens that are spat at, dragged, killed, maimed blown to pieces, suffer at the hands of jihadis, while the Traitors, living in their castle forts, surrounded by fierce guards, are not harmed, and planning new “taqqiya) / secret ways to import more muslims, while pretending to appeal to Turkey to stop them from invading Europe. What type of crappy diplomacy is that?

    Traitors are free to commit every extreme act against their helpless natives. Every day they create new laws to oppress their own and empower islam:

    Hey natives you are free people: go about your sex, drinking and partying. Do not think about your future. You are free to revel until 6 am.

    We are our own enemy + muslims

  4. Wot Erdigger the Turkey, Ali from ISIS’s and Bill Stickers have been sayin’ from the beginning. From the year 700 that is. The nurse comes in and says Doc, there’s a man in receptions who thinks he’s invisible, what should I tell him? The doctor said, Tell him I can’t see him today.?

  5. Dar al harb and dar al islam all over mate. Islam, by it’s nature is dicotomic.
    “The first step in this process is to demonstrate that one cannot logically divide Islam into two distinct camps; one that preaches war and hatred, and the other that preaches love and tolerance”

  6. I’ve never liked the word ‘extremist’ and have never used it. When I see it my first question is, extreme what? If extremism is bad, is being extremely in favour of the value of human life bad, and being moderate about the value of human life good? ‘Extremism’ as a concept is useless without a qualifier (about life? about freedom? or about conquest?) and it’s the qualifier that should be of prime interest.

  7. Is it possible to conclude that if a country is deemed to be in the muslim house of war, then muslims adopt the peaceful verses because that’s what the cult religion tells them to do. However, when the country is redefined as being in the house of islam, the muslims then adopt the later and more violent verses? I understand that the muslim clerics have reclassified Europe as being in the house of islam, suggesting they think they are now powerful enough to bring us into submission. If so, muslims have now been told to change from being moderate; ie lying to us about their true intent; to being extreme muslims; ie revealing the truth of their planned takeover. If my assessment is correct then we have entered a period where muslim violence against non-muslims will increase in intensity and frequency. Therefore, we’d better start to fight back with a determination to win.

    • I think you have it wrong. Violent actions are to be taken against the House of War, which is by Muslim definition a country not under the authority of sharia.

      The House of Islam is formally ruled by sharia law, and non-Muslims accept their place, or are treated as prisoners of war (which includes slavery and castration, if you’re a male).

  8. Thank you: lucid and incontrovertible. This exposes the dishonesty and double standards of the mainstream media. Some offerings:

    riots and violence
    The reason why riots and violence are “often the outcome” is because they have been carefully arranged that way. The West has been deliberately and successfully conditioned. Onlookers in the West uncritically assume from their Western viewpoint that demonstrators take part of their own free will. Not so. They are INSTRUCTED in the mosques. If they do not take part they are beaten up or even killed (http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/and-take-their-wives-war-booty).

    Maududi explains:
    “….no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private”.
    Dr Salah al-Sawy confirms:
    “The Ummah [Muslim community] possesses no power except to acknowledge and obey”.

    The UK Government has defined what it means by “violent extremism”. Like a glove, the definition neatly fits Islam (http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/extremism-%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9C-there-problem-within-islam). As you point out, “the ideology … is an extreme one”. Robert Spencer says, “Islam mandates violence”.

    Extremist and Moderate have been photographed:

    It is not possible for a moderate Muslim to discard the violent and extreme parts of Islam and focus solely on its peaceful verses, and still be a Muslim. This entails denying verses in the Koran, which means the person is no longer a muslim. The penalty is death, which can be inflicted vigilante-style by anyone, and penalty-free “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (“Reliance of the Traveller”, o8.4).
    Islam is not “Pick Your Own”:
    “It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair.”
    Koran 33:36, part of Islamic law.

    • On the whole, I agree with you. Except, that it is possible under Muslim law to take over a society politically without using violence. I will talk about this later in the thread, but my point here is, we don’t want non-violent Muslim doctrine to dominate politically anymore than we want violent Muslim doctrine.

  9. Well done.

    My own argument on this subject is that there are peaceful verses in the Koran and there are bellicose verses in the Koran.

    How to make sense of this contradictory state of affairs?

    One must employ the traditional Islamic principle of abrogation. That’s how Muslims address this problem, and if it’s good enough for them, then it’s good enough for us infidels.

    So, onward ..

    If one imagines every verse in the Koran entered into a table in a database …

    The records in that table have a compound key field, by which each record can be identified: sura no. and verse no. …

    One field in each record will be the text of the verse.

    Another field in each record will be the date that the verse was ‘received’ by the Islamic prophet.

    If the records in that table are sorted – not according to the verse’s utility, or its peaceful or bellicose nature, which may be discerned by examining the field containing the field containing the text …but according to field containing the date the verse was ‘received’ by the Islamic prophet …

    Then the suras will appear in the newly sorted table in the correct chronological order.

    It will then be obvioius which verses in the koran are authoritative.

    Anyone with any knowledge of computing should be able to understand that argument . It may even make them think about how to resolve this whole situation – step one would be to no longer listen to what our politicians & establishment media say on the topic. And think about it for themselves, with the necessary tools &information to make some kind of sense of it. So if one is trying to convince another person here (a non CJ person) this may be a useful approach.

  10. “Muhammad, Islam’s first and last prophet”

    Really? The first prophet was Adam, and the total number of prophets in Islam is given in hadiths variously as 313, 315, a thousand or more, 8,000 (4,000 for Jews, 4,000 for everybody else), and 124,000. See

    • If I am ever in a position where I have to deal with a Mohammedan online (on youtube etc) then I usually bring up Joseph Smith.

      That works quite well.

      If they say that the last prophet is the only real prophet, then Joseph Smith is the only real prophet.

      If they say that Joseph Smith is not a prophet, then I challenge them to say why he is not a prophet, using criteria that does not also apply to their so-called ‘prophet’.

      It can be quite interesting …

  11. You mention the UN declaration of human rights in your essay. Islam adheres to this document in so far as it does not conflict with or abrogate Shariah law. Islam has their own declaration of human rights they formed in Cairo. They adhere to the Cairo declaration because it is based on Shariah law. However, Islam can and does use the UN declaration to beat up non-Muslims when they are found to be running afoul of that document. They are having their cake and eating it also. This shows the double-mindedness of Islam and they practice this in every aspect of their life.

  12. As I state to people who are enamored with their muslim acquaintances, “there may be good people who claim they are muslim, but there is no true muslim that is a good person.” We should assign blame where blame is due. Namely, to George W. Bush, who stated after 9/11, that “Islam is a religion of Peace” and then proceeded to visit a mosque soon afterwards. Either he was being disingenuous or demonstrating total ignorance, which (as a fellow Texan) I feel that it was the latter, but cannot totally rule out the former. Obama has because of his upbringing and background merely continued the narrative handed to him by his predecessor!

      • David Cameron said in his KJV Bible speech that he is not an authority on religion, and he said at an Eid reception that he is not a scholar of religion. These are unequivocal statements that Cameron has made in public, to the British public.

        Yet Cameron expects the public to believe him when he says, as he did after two fanatical Muslims killed an unarmed British soldier on the streets of the nation’s capital, that there are no Islamic doctrines or teachings that could justify that dreadful act.

        And people do!

    • I also live in Texas (Dallas, in fact).

      George W. Bush has been one of the very worst presidents in recent memory. If you read his biographies, you can see that he simply didn’t engage in the details of his policies. The Bush family, and Bush himself, had long financial dealings with the Saudis. Bush tended to go along with them because if was easy, profitable, and didn’t contradict any knowledge that he had (which was very, very little).

  13. Thus, based on the conclusion above, all mosques and Islamic institutions should be considered hostile entities.

  14. Dualistic logic. Dr. Bill
    Warner scientifically examines and then reveals the exact nature of Islam in his
    detailed series “Statistical Islam”
    and discusses it further here
    and here.

    The Koran defines an Islamic logic that is dualistic. Two things which contradict
    each other can both be true. In a unitary, scientific logic, if two things contradict each other, then at least one of them is false.

    Not so in dualistic logic.

    All of the Islamic doctrine refers to two classes of people—Muslims and non-Muslims, ‘kafirs’. The doctrine that applies to kafirs is political in nature and is rarely neutral or positive. The part of the doctrine that applies to Muslims is cultural, legal, and religious.

    It is surprising how much of the Islamic doctrine (found in three texts: Koran, the
    Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (stories and anecdotes about
    Mohammed)—the Islamic Trilogy) is political.

    Approximately 67% of the Meccan Koran and 51% of the Medinan Koran is political. About 75% of the Sira is about what was done to the kafir. Roughly 20% of the Hadith is about jihad, a political act. Even the Islamic concept of Hell is political, not religious.

    There are 146 parts of the Koran that refer to Hell. Only 4% of the people in Islamic Hell are there for moral reasons, such as murder, theft or greed. In 96% of the cases the person is in Hell because they did not agree with Mohammed.

    This is a political charge. In short, Islamic Hell is primarily a political prison.

    In summary,

    ”. . .dualism is the foundation and key to understanding Islam.
    Everything about Islam comes in twos starting with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna (words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and Hadith). . .
    Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect.
    This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.

    • Sayyid Qutb, who developed the present ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, interpreted abrogation not as part of the Koran to be discarded, but as a device to progressively bring a society under the authority of Islam.

      When Muslims are few and weak, they live according to the peaceful, abrogated verses of Islam. As they gain in strength and influence, they implement, progressively, the harsher, more recent verses of the Koran.

      The process is described in his book “Milestones” which is described quite completely in Steven Coughlin’s “Catastrophic Failure”.

  15. The command in Sura 9:25 to lie in wait for the unbeliever (Christian and/or Jew) and harry them with every strategy of war is sufficient to have Islam outlawed. The definition of premeditated murder according to the US Code is to lie in wait for an opportunity to kill the intended victim. Means, motive, and opportunity must be proven to obtain a conviction for 1st Degree Murder. Given this Sura, and many others like it, Motive, which is usually the most difficult to prove, for the devout Muslim is established. Means and Opportunity are what follows mechanistically.
    Therefore, given the criminal intent that is established within the Codex of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sharia, Islam should not enjoy the protection granted religious assemblies under the First Amendment. Rather, it should be outlawed as a criminal group and its adherents deported. If their adherents consign us to their “House of War” then the rules of Wartime Engagement should apply. Subsequent consequence and deterrent should take care of the rest.

    • One of the Muslims who killed Lee Rigby explicitly cited surah at-taubah as the motive for his actions. As you will remember he was caught red-handed, literally, at the scene of his crime. He made that statement on video, for the whole world to see.

  16. We don’t allow SS or Kukluks Klan recruiting offices to operate. Why we allow mosques to operate?
    We Are Guardians of Asgard!

  17. We don’t allow SS or Kukluks Klan recruiting offices to operate. Why we allow mosques to operate?
    We Are Guardians of Asgard!

    • Guardians of Asgard, I like that! May all members go to Valhalla, feast on wild boar, and drink copious amounts of mead with the AEsir.

  18. This is an important subtopic, not often enough aired & analyzed in the Counter-Jihad.

    “By firmly dividing its adherents (Muslims) into two distinct camps — the extremists who are alleged to be misusing their religion and who only constitute a tiny minority, and the moderates who ostensibly represent the majority and who strongly opposes the extremists — Islam has managed to establish a defence that is almost impenetrable…”

    Additional factors help this artificial division enormously:

    1) the sheer numbers of the Muslims who aren’t exploding, stabbing or shooting (and/or who aren’t advocating violent hateful extremism);

    2) the ostensible diversity of those sheer numbers;

    3) the ostensible ethnic (= non-white, non-Western) appearance of the vast majority of those sheer numbers;

    and, finally,

    4) the anxious (almost desperate) need among the majority of Westerners to avoid being “bigoted” and “racist” by doing, saying or even thinking anything that would “tar with a broad brush” those sheer numbers (1) of diverse (2) Brown People (3). For these Westerners, the artificial division of Muslims into two camps — “extremist” and “moderate” — (and the comforting assumption that the majority, if not vast majority, of Muslims must be in the latter camp) is an enormous relief and assuagement of their anxiety. There is, thus, a correspondingly enormous motivation to keep the paradigm of the division afloat.

  19. Would it not be more useful, for purposes of making the wider public aware of the problem, to call “extreme” muslims fundamentalists, or literalists?

    If the BBC reported a terrorist attack as being carried out by fundamentalists this would make people sit up and take notice, and question their previous assumptions.

    • But then people would point at all the millions and millions (shades of Carl Sagan) of Muslims who are “not fumdamentalists” — and we’d be back to square one, exempting vast swaths of Muslims from our reasonable suspicion.

    • The BBC is not about to report anything about Muslims which would set back their timetable of co-option, so dream on.

  20. Moderate muslim is exactly like moderate Nazi. If you just voted for Hitler and did not work in a death camp, then you are a moderate. Do we want either one around us, given that they will always produce the immoderate offspring in our society? By self identifying with islam, you are in effect self identifying with all that goes with it by default. It’s time for the true moderate muslims to make up their minds what exactly they are. You cannot self declare as something and then deny that you are associated with it. They will pay the price eventually for their self identification, moderate or not. The dualistic nature of islam cannot function in the west, as we simply do not think in those terms due to the rational scientific nature of our society. They just come across as deceitful liars, and will eventually be called out for it.

    • That’s why I’ve had the epiphany that there are indeed two types of Muslims — (1) the ones who want to kill us, and (2) the ones who lie about #1.

      • I worked for the Saudi Air Force for several years, a moderate Muslim is one who is comfortably lazy, you are doing his job and he’s getting paid, but it’s okay if someone kills you, they will hire (enslave)someone else. Yes they practice slavery still, they confiscate your passport and then fail to pay you, the victims are called TCN’s Third Country National’s. Boeing knowing the way these liars work demands the money up front. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be a Slave for long, either C-17 and F-15 for extraction, or B-52 to end us.

  21. We are told by the moron Cameron, the leader of the “compassionate” Conservative party, which is an oxymoron in itself, that the West is at war with exremism and terrorism, all of which just happens to be generated by those of the Islamic faith. However in his is a sanitised war, you can only take out the bad guy with a £800K missile and avoid collateral damage at all costs.
    Take WW2 as a reference point, did the allies only attempt to bomb the bad Germans? Did the Americans only attempt to drop the atomic bombs on the bad Japanese? There is unfortunately a total lack of realism with all the Western leaders approach to ridding the world of this current scurge in the middle East, sometimes you will have to consider massive retaliatory military strikes, yes innocents will die, but you will also save MORE lives in the long run.

    • I totally disagree.

      All you need to control Islam is secure borders and a refusal to admit any Muslim as an immigrant. There is no need to get involved in their endless wars.

      I also think we should deport every Muslim non-citizen.

      For Muslim citizens, I tend to think we’re stuck with them unless they engage in open revolt.

    • If you are looking for reform, many Iranians are one place where you will find it. Most (overseas, relative to Iran, even when they live there) don’t like the current system, but it is the way the straws fell when the Shah’s U.S. re-installed polity fell. I have met a few who are ardent fans of the U.S.A., a few who were or are communists, none of them like the theocracy.

      As a learning experience, I would like to meet one who does like the theocracy. I found Ahmadinejad quite likable, although I have no doubt he would disapprove of my Christian faith and liking for booze. Still, I would be interested in talking with him or someone from his faction.

      I had a vague vision of interviewing him, but he seems to be cloistered right now, wonder why?.

      For pure glutinous evil, the Saudis and their pals clearly outdo them.

    • Yes, exactly. I find that this abstract division between Islam and Muslims persists in the Counter-Jihad. While the robustly no-nonsense Counter-Jihadist may feel he can pat himself on the back for being against Islam (and for seeing no distinction between “moderate Islam” and “extremist Islam”), he ends up perpetuating that double-vision through the back door, so to speak, with this abstract division between Islam and Muslims.

      Consider, for example, what the Counter-Jihadist Eric Allen Bell (one of those rare self-avowed “liberals” who has become anti-Islam) says in this FOX interview from a few years ago:

      “You know, I think there’s a perceptive disability that a lot of liberals have, which is, when I say ‘Islam’, you hear ‘Muslim’ — so I kept thinking that the opposition to Islam was an opposition to the Muslims. And, seeing the Muslim community as victims, my inclination was to stick up for them.”

      Bell goes on to say that he underwent a marked change in his view on the problem of Islam — but his locutions are all about “Islam”, not about Muslims; so it’s safe to say he never had a change about that particular abstract division. Indeed, at one point he can’t control an asymptotic elbow spasm:

      “The [Muslim] people aren’t all radical — thank God! — but the religion is the worst, most deadliest [sic] idea in the history of the world, and we need to make sure we keep a close eye on it in this country.”


      I’ve argued that the Counter-Jihad needs to undergo a paradigm shift, from focusing exclusively on Islam, to a proper focus that includes both Islam and Muslims:

      A shift from Islam to Muslims

  22. I would never be an apologist for this religion, clearly founded by a lunatic who waged war and preached much evil within his own lifetime.

    However, you also need a little nuance. I spent five years growing up in Sth. East Asia. Had Malay friends, was welcome in their villages. The women never wore hijabs, and wore what I would have thought of, when a little older, as sexy dresses. I only visited Indonesia once or twice, but it was the same. Malays would use Islam as an ID to put down those of other ethnicities, but it was just rudeness.

    Later, as an adult, I put up a Banglashi on the lounge in my flat, had a period travelling where I had to share a room with a Pakistani man for some weeks, he was fine, taught me how to make a great butter-based curry, never pestered or molested me, many good conversations. I forget the exact procedure for the curry now, but I made it for some years.

    What has changed is the Saudi export of very odd ideas through mosque-building, setting up ‘madrassas’ to replace schools in countries that once had good schools, and all with the blatant support of the U.S.A. and, more with a whisper thanks to the media control, Israel.

    On a local scale, Israel finds it much easier to deal with a world of Hamas loons and a Palestinian Authority that acts as a Quisling govt. than with the earlier situation where there were many more Christian and atheist Palestinians.

  23. This article brings home the case that it is impossible to be a practising Muslim without being a criminal, at least by being a seditionist.

  24. Well, you don’t need to bring up Smith, with the magical lenses and miraclously allowed him to read the golden tomes? He was much like Muhamad in many ways, treating women as cows, frequent murderous events, nonsenical claims to divine relevation, a big change of place, even more than than the very early Muslims, the Mormons killed many on their journey to the west, mainly Indians claimed by the false book of Mormon to be the lost tribes of Israel.

    Who cares?

  25. To the author: This article [fails to meet my standards with respect] to the definition of “logic and formal analysis”. It pretends to use an objective and rational view to breakdown Islam and its followers however it ends up injecting [material that I believe to be untrue] mixed in with facts to try and convince readers that the millions of moderate Muslims throughout the world don’t really exist. As a first time visitor to this website with no knowledge of the author, I feel confident enough from this article alone to claim that this [written material that I find wanting] was presented by a [denigrated person of lesser qualities] to fulfill a self serving agenda. And as someone who values “logic” I will now proceed to expose how this article [seems to be deliberately inaccurate for questionable reasons]…

    I whole heartedly agree with all the definitions the author provided from Websters dictionary as they are all true and factual. But shortly after providing the definition of Islam and a Muslim, the author then attempts to [assert things with which I disagree] by claiming:

    “The only thing that we are going to add is that a Muslim is a person who embraces Islamic doctrine, i.e. the teachings of the Quran, the Hadith and the Sira (the official Islamic doctrine).”


    Show me a valid source if any that refers to “Sira” as “(the official Islamic Doctrine)”. I belueve that [statement which I believe is wrong] was added exclusively by the author of the article. Becauae the fact is “Sira” was banned from mosques due to being unreliable and found to be exeggarated. Here’s an explanation taken from Wikipedia:


    During the early centuries of Islam, the sīra literature was taken less seriously compared to the hadiths.[3] In Umayyad times, storytellers (qaaṣṣ, or pl. qoṣṣaaṣ) used to tell stories of Muhammad and earlier prophets in private gatherings and mosques, given they obtain permission from the authorities. Many of these storytellers are now unknown. After the Umayyad period, their reputation deteriorated because of their inclination to exaggerate and fantasize, and for relying on the Isra’iliyat. Thus they were banned from preaching at mosques.[6]


    See also: Views about Ibn Ishaq and Historicity of Muhammad

    “For centuries, Muslim scholars have recognized the problem of authenticity of hadith. Thus they have developed sophisticated methods (see Hadith studies) of evaluating isnāds (chains of transmission). This was done in order to classify each hadith into “sound” (ṣaḥīḥ) for authentic reports, as opposed to “weak” (ḍaʿīf) for ones that are probably fabricated, in addition to other categories.[7] Since many sīra reports also contain isnād information and some of the sīra compilers (akhbārīs) were themselves practicing jurists and hadīth transmitters (muḥaddiths), it was possible to apply the same methods of hadīth criticism to the sīra reports.[8] However, some sīra reports were written using an imprecise form of isnād, or what modern historians call the “collective isnād” or “combined reports”. The use of collective isnād meant that a report may be related on the authority of multiple persons without distinguishing the words of one person from another. This lack of precision led some hadith scholars to take any report that used a collective isnād to be lacking in authenticity.[9]

    According to Wim Raven, it is often noted that a coherent image of Muhammad cannot be formed from the literature of sīra, whose authenticity and factual value have been questioned on a number of different grounds.[3] He lists the following arguments against the authenticity of sīra…”


    Both Sira and Hadiths were written long after Islam had already established itself and had developed loyal followers known as Muslims. Both the Sira and Hadiths were written centuries after Mohammeds death. So neither the existence of Islam or Muslims was dependant on Siras or Hadiths, considering that Islam predated both of those man-made literature by centuries. Furthermore Sira and Hadiths were never considered to be the word of God or on the same level of authenticity as the Quran. So taking all factors into account including the verses in the Quran that oppose such hadiths outside of the Quran, we can conclude that neither sira or hadiths are compulsory prerequisites to being official recognized or defined as a Muslim.

    The author then attempts to use “Sharia” as an example why the moderate Muslim is an Oxymoron. However Sharia is never mentioned in the Quran. It is a barbaric man made law that has many elements which contridict and clash with the teachings of the Quran. Which is no surprise why I grew up in a predominantly Muslim country like Turkey without ever learning or hearing about sharia or ever meeting another Muslim who mentioned it or pacticed it. I only learnt of sharia recently from online critics slandering Islam. Looking back why I hadn’t been aware of it I learnt that sharia was banned in Turkey. So as a moderate Muslim, as far as I’m concerned the argument about sharia to depict my lifestyle as being an oxymoron is neither valid or acceptable.
    There’s a lot more I had to say about this matter but I’ll try to wrap ut up before I get accused of a long winded reply. In my closing argument I’d like to present “Quranism” because it defies the majority of excuses the author used to mislabel moderate Muslims. From wikipedia:

    Quranism (Arabic: القرآنية‎‎; al-Qur’āniyya) describes any form of Islam that accepts the Quran as revelation, but rejects the religious authority, and or authenticity of the Hadith collections. Quranists follow the Quran alone. They believe that its message is clear and complete, and that it can therefore be fully understood without referencing the Hadith. They claim that the Hadith literature was forged, as it had been written 250 years after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

    There are significant differences between Quranists in their interpretation of Islam.

    Quranism is similar to movements in other religions such as the Karaite movement of Judaism and the Sola scriptura view of Protestant Christianity.[1] Hadith rejection has also been associated with Muslim modernists.[2]

Comments are closed.