How Nazism Explains ‘Moderate’ and ‘Radical’ Islam

If Islamic doctrines are inherently violent, why isn’t every single Muslim in the world — that is, approximately 1.5 billion people — violent?

This question represents one of Islam’s most popular apologetics: because not all Muslims are violent, intolerant, or sponsor terrorism — a true statement — Islam itself must be innocent.

  • Exile1981

    That makes no sense at all; just because a muslim isn’t trying to kill you at this second does not mean they don’t want to, or want someone else too or want you to convert.

    • BillyHW

      Killing is hard work. The “moderate” muslim is just a lazy muslim.

      • DVult

        Many crazed killers are perfectly nice and non-violent when they are nor killing people.

  • “If Islamic doctrines are inherently violent, why isn’t every single Muslim in the world … violent?”

    That’s easy.

    Islam has a bipolar/dichotomous nature. Muslims themselves are quite aware of this, (although they might not refer to it as bipolar or dichotomous.)

    When I refer to this bipolar/dichotomous nature I am referring to the two periods of Mohammad’s prophetic life.

    (1st) His early years were spent in Mecca. Here he preached peace and harmony, and attempted to attract followers with good will.

    (2nd) During this period, after he made his passage to Medina, where his preaching changed. In Medina he began to preach violence and converted followers by the sword. (This second violent nature persisted until Mohammad’s death.)

    These bipolar sides of Islam provide Muslims (and gullible, well-meaning PC Westerners) with an easy excuse to explain away reasonable concerns after every Islamic terror attack, atrocity, or irregularity.

    One of my favorite examples of this bipolar nature is the issue of apostasy, (when a Muslim tries to leave the Islamic faith.) Muslims and their apologists will routinely quote the earlier Meccan phrase, “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.” (Surat Al-Baqarah [verse 256]).

    But because of the Islamic principle of “abrogation” (The later Medina verses overrule conflicting earlier Meccan verses.) All good Muslims know this earlier Meccan verse has been superseded by the latter Medina verse, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 9.84.57)

    Obviously there is an important difference here, if a Muslim tries to leave the Islamic faith.

    Because of this bipolar nature of Islam, Muslims (and apologists) routinely point to the “no compulsion” phrase. But all Muslims know (too well), if they quit Islam, they risk death at the hands of some other Muslim. (This feature of Islam alone makes Islam a cult.)

    This bipolar nature gives Muslims an opportunity to practice the Islamic art of “taqiyya” (religious deception). Saying one thing, and meaning something entirely different.

    This bipolar nature is woven into the heart and soul of Islam. It provides a continuous form of deception which makes it difficult to discuss the issue of Islamic violence. There is always a Meccan phrase available for the Muslim “scholar” to deflect reasonable questions. Politically correct Westerners are all too easily swayed by these deceptive arguments.

    The word “peace” can mean peace as Westerners perceive the word. But to a Muslim “peace” means that time when the world is 100% Islamic. Another good example is the word “innocent”. Muslim “scholars” will say; a jihadist would not kill an “innocent” person. But of course, if you are not Muslim, you are not “innocent”.

    The bipolar nature allows the “peaceful” Meccan Muslims (majority) to get along with the more devout believers (minority) who follow the Meccan versus. Of course the Meccan Muslims are obligated to go along with (or at least never critisize) the Medina Muslims.

    In reality this small percentage of devout Medina Muslims believers control all of Islam. The Meccan Muslims go along or simply risk death for criticism of the Medina Muslims.

  • luna

    Days ago, after the Islamic State [IS] entered the Syrian city of Hassakè, prompting a mass exodus of Christians, a familiar, though often overlooked scene, took place: many otherwise “normal” Muslims joined ranks with IS, instantly turning on their longtime Christian neighbors.

    This is the third category of Muslims that lurks between “moderates” and “radicals”: “sleepers,” Muslims who appear “moderate” but who are merely waiting for circumstances to turn to Islam’s advantage before they join the jihad; Muslims who are waiting for the rewards of jihad to become greater than the risks.

  • Spike

    I agree with the analysis. I see it as being akin to concentric circles.

    At the centre are the true believers. This group understand the texts and follow them to the letter. They are the devout jihadists, beheaders, slave merchants, suicide bombers etc.

    Next to the centre are those who go to mosque on Fridays and go through the motions of religious observance. These people don’t really read Arabic and don’t study the texts. They respect those at the centre but are too caught up in day to day life to emulate them.

    At the far outside are those who celebrate the holidays. They go to the mosque during the holidays, fast etc. They don’t take it too seriously but follow the traditions that they were born into.

    • tom_billesley

      Migrants heading west are often in the second circle, but their kids are as likely to be joining the first circle as drifting to the third circle

  • An excellent clarification.