Muslims continue insisting that one of the West’s favorite dichotomies—radical vs moderate Islam—is a myth.
A Muslim cleric recently devoted an entire sermon making this point. Uploaded onto YouTube on Oct. 16, 2022, Sheikh Yunus Kathradas, a Canadian imam, made several assertions (in both Arabic and English) that contradict what every person living in the West has been repeatedly told since September 11, 2001—that the true face of Islam is “moderate” and upholds the same values prized by the West; whereas those who distort and/or selfishly seek to exploit Islam are “radical” and do not represent Islam.
Throughout his sermon, Sheikh Kathradas repeatedly emphasized that the moderate/radical dichotomy is an outrageous fiction made up and employed by Islam’s enemies (the West) as well as ignorant or hypocritical Muslims.
He also correctly defined Islam as submission to Allah, and the enforcement and upholding of his rules—as enshrined in sharia—which tend to be black and white, and, therefore, afford little wiggle room for moderate or radical “interpretations.”
The sheikh cited jihad as an example: “Allah in the Koran commands that jihad be established, and the prophet Muhammad commands that jihad be established.” Period: waging jihad is, therefore, neither a radical nor moderate endeavor; it is merely the submission to and upholding of the commandments of Allah.
In this context, and as Kathradas stressed, anyone who accuses any part of Islam—or accuses those Muslims who sincerely implement it—of being “radical,” is ultimately accusing Allah himself of being “radical.”
Kathradas is, of course, hardly the first Muslim to argue against the much cherished concept of moderate Islam. In late 2017, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan famously said, “Islam cannot be either ‘moderate’ or ‘not moderate.’ Islam can only be one thing”—that is, Islam can only be what it teaches, that and nothing more or less.
What, then, are these teachings that are not open to debate—that are not open to being “moderated” or “radicalized”?
An Arabic-language article published in 2011 offers perspective. Titled (in translation) “The Truth about the Moderate Muslim as Seen by the West and its Muslim Followers,” its author, Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr, begins predictably enough:
Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call “moderate Islam” and “moderate Muslims” is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam” has no basis in Islam—neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality.
Khadr goes on to note the many ways that moderates and radicals differ. For instance, radicals (“true Muslims”) aid and support fellow Muslims, especially those committed to jihad, whereas moderates (“false Muslims”) ally with and help Western nations.
Among the more important distinctions made in Khadr’s article are the following (translated verbatim). Keep in mind that “radicals” here means “true Muslims,” whereas “moderates” means “false Muslims”:
- Radicals want the caliphate to return; moderates reject the caliphate.
- Radicals want to apply Sharia (Islamic law); moderates reject the application of Sharia.
- Radicals reject the idea of renewal and reform, seeing it as a way to conform Islam to Western culture; moderates accept it.
- Radicals accept the duty of waging jihad in the path of Allah; moderates reject it.
- Radicals reject any criticism whatsoever of Islam; moderates welcome it on the basis of freedom of speech.
- Radicals accept those laws that punish whoever insults or leaves the religion [apostates]; moderates recoil from these laws.
- Radicals respond to any insult against Islam or the prophet Muhammad—peace and blessings upon him—with great violence and anger; moderates respond calmly and peacefully on the basis of freedom of expression.
- Radicals respect and reverence every deed and every word of the prophet—peace be upon him—in the hadith; moderates do not.
- Radicals oppose democracy; moderates accept it.
- Radicals see the people of the book [Jews and Christians] as dhimmis [second-class “citizens”]; moderates oppose this.
- Radicals reject the idea that non-Muslim minorities should have equality or authority over Muslims; moderates accept it.
- Radicals reject the idea that men and women are equal; moderates accept it, according to Western views.
- Radicals oppose the idea of religious freedom and apostasy from Islam; moderates agree to it.
- Radicals desire to see Islam reign supreme; moderates oppose this.
- Radicals place the Koran over the constitution; moderates reject this.
- Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.
- Radicals embrace the wearing of hijabs and niqabs; moderates reject it.
- Radicals accept killing young girls that commit adultery or otherwise besmirch their family’s honor; moderates reject this.
- Radicals reject the status of women today and think it should be like the status of women in the time of the prophet; moderates reject that women should be as in the time of the prophet.
- Radicals vehemently reject that women should have the freedom to choose partners; moderates accept that she can choose a boyfriend without marriage.
- Radicals agree to clitorectimis; moderates reject it.
- Radicals reject the so-called war on terror and see it as a war on Islam; moderates accept it.
- Radicals support jihadi groups; moderates reject them.
- Radicals reject the terms Islamic terrorism or Islamic fascism; moderates accept them.
- Radicals reject universal human rights, including the right to be homosexual; moderates accept it.
- Radicals reject the idea of allying with the West’s moderates support it.
- Radicals oppose secularism; moderates support it.
The list is much longer, and includes: that moderates believe religion has no role in public life, while radicals want it to govern society; that moderates rely on rationalism, while radicals take the text of the Koran and hadith literally; that the first place of loyalty for moderates is the state, irrespective of religion—Khadr marvels that the moderate “finds hatred for non-Muslims as unacceptable”—whereas the radical’s loyalty is to Islam, a reference to the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.
Khadr’s conclusion is that, to most Muslims, “moderate Muslims” are those Muslims who do not oppose but rather aid the West and its way of life, whereas everything “radicals” accept is based on traditional and correct Islamic views.
If true—and disturbing polls certainly lend credence to Khadr’s assertions—the West may need to, but likely will not, rethink one of its most cherished ideas: that true Islam is moderate, and only a few “radicals” distort it.
There’s no such thing as moderate Christianity or moderate Judaism either. There is only diluted and leashed Christianity and diluted and leashed Judaism. Christianity and Judaism leashed and tempered by the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and the Age of Enlightenment. Christianity and Judaism diluted and leashed by Aristotelian reason.
But unleash them and Christianity and Judaism are always weaponized for theocracy.
The Muslims had their brief Golden Age, a brief Renaissance of Aristotelian reason, but then they faltered and rejected reason collapsing back to a dark age of fundamentalist religion.
“The Arabs learned the method of observation-based rationality and, in a true golden age, made superb contributions to medicine, astronomy, mathematics, literature, and other fields. But it did not last. Due to the monumental influence of Al-Ghazali (1058–1111) and other reason-rejecting theologians, as well as a fundamentalism firmly entrenched in Islamic culture from its outset, faith ultimately crushed freedom of thought.” – Andrew Bernstein
“Muslims Embrace and Then Repudiate Aristotle – Aristotle Versus Religion” – Andrew Bernstein
I agree with your assessment of theocracy. However, Jesus’ own words are neither leashed or diluted: “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”
Reason leads one to believe that all of the world’s ills would be solved if everyone followed this simple direction.
It would only be proper, if you want to be a critic of Christianity, that you study Christianity as it is revealed at the source, the new testament. You prefer to follow the rantings of Ayn Rand and the distortions of those that never did understand Jesus Christ or His apostles. I understand that as a true believer in Rand’s atheistic philosophy, you will already be incapable of an unbiased view of the word of God. However, if you ever come to the point of repentance toward God, you will find your hostility to God and Jesus Christ was unwarranted. Without repentance one cannot know God as He has been revealed to man for his present and eternal blessing.
You seem to know little about the history of Islam. Nearly all of the contributions made in mathematics, medicine, etc. from the Islamic world were either co-opted from the recently conquered Judeo-Christian lands or from the conquered parts of India. Furthermore, many of those contributors within the dar al-Islam itself were either non-Muslim dhimmis or, if actually Muslim, not serious believers. So much for Islam’s “Golden Age.”
Lastly, you keep invoking Aristotle. Do you actually believe that most of the luminaries who lived during Islam’s so-called Golden Age ever heard of Aristotle, let alone read him? Do you think Aristotle had a monopoly on rational thought or observation-based reality? 95%, I daresay, of all scientists working today have never read Aristotle but nonetheless rely on empiricism and observation-based reality – basic components of the scientific method, All sane people, to a greater or lesser extent, employ and rely upon observation-based reality, which is a sine qua non for anyone’s survival. Aristotle does not serve as a guide to anyone’s life. Nor, for that matter, does Kant. Mankind stumbles along, for better or worse, without any knowledge whatsoever of either.
Thank you Raymond, for a thought provoking article.
I am not surprised that Sheik Kathradas was/is a Canadian Imam. I doubt that any Muslim here will be subjected to the same censorship that is foisted on Jordan Peterson. Bear in mind that Turdeau himself is a political radical and wears socks with Arabic words on them, that I assume only Muslims can understand.
After all, many Muslims here have called for sharia law to be implemented while others , especially women, have rejected that idea. It can become quite confusing, considering how many Muslims are actually members of parliament while others show disdain for Trudeau’s Marxist ideologies.
Who has perpetuated the western idea that Islam has a moderate side, and is the religion of peace? Or was it radical Muslims who were using taqqiyya to get infidels off guard so that it would be easier for them to conquer the world for Allah?
Do leopards change their spots?
One lie about the religion of Islam that the Western news media keep telling the public is that there are to different kinds of Islam which are “Radical Islam” and “Moderate Islam.”
Many scholars on Islam ,such as Brigitte Gabriel and Robert Spencer, had explain that the terms “Radical Islam” and “Moderate Islam” Western terms and are unknown to the Islamic world. As one of their leader said “Islam is Islam”
Furthermore, a Muslim in an Islamic country would view that a Westerner would call a “Radical Muslim” in a Muslim nation he would be seen as a “devote Muslim” who is totally committed to the cause of Islam by the way of the violent jihad,
By contrast what a Westerner would call a “moderate Muslim’ many Muslims in Asia as well as the Middle East call a Muslim who is not really living up to his faith in Islam by not taking up arms in the violence and killing of the jihad for Islam.
Therefore many of Muslim, overseas , would call him a “hypocrite” This is way many devote Muslim who are violent jihadists gather together in a group and chant “Death to infidels and hypocrites ” Meaning “Death to non-Muslims and non-violent, jihadist Muslims.
On the subject of topics of “Moderate Muslims” who strive to enact Sharia law in America by non-violent methods,. in contrast to “Radical Muslims” who like and supports al Qaeda , ISIS Hezbollah and other similar jihad terror entities and about such so called words as “Islamism’ and Islamist”
Therefore this is a very appropriate to make known a very important message
For that Western term “ Islamic extremism” it’s really not fitting term as the following explains
Likewise , the words “Islamist” and “Islamism” is a fake words that used that was made up after September 11, 2001 in order offend or upset non-violent Muslims. The real, actual, word is just “Islam.” Likewise, the word “Islamist” is also a bogus word that was made up after 9/11 in order not to offend or upset peaceful Muslims. To keep with reality, terms should better be used as “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim terrorist” . Let’s call people and thing as the really are.
C
, The terms “Radical Muslim” is actually a misuse of terms. “Moderate Muslim” are actually Western term and not that well known in the Islamic Middle East. This is because what In the Islamic mindset in the Muslim Middle East as well as in Indonesia and other Muslim controlled countries what the non-Muslims of the Western nations view as “radical and “extremist” the Muslims of those places in the world see as “Normal” and even Devout and committed to the Cause of Islam.”
Furthermore, those “Moderate Muslims” are those of the Islamic worldview and non-devout and non –committed Muslims. The violent jihadists even see them as “hypocrites.” Therefore, this explains the jihadist chant of those jihad-minded Muslims in different Islamic terror organizations. When they chant out loud “Death to infidels and hypocrites.” Meaning Death to people who and not Muslims and people who are non- jihadist Muslims.
Concerning the last part of this above essay, the violent spirit of that vicious jihadist chant “Death to infidels and hypocrites.” The later word of the chant “hypocrites” in the jihad –minded Muslim worldview is further explain in the book titled JIHADIST PSYCHOPATH by Jamie Glazov , for on page 42 the reader is informed that “Islam mandates that devout and real Muslims must punish , and in some circumstances kill, those Muslims whom they regard as neither legitimate nor properly devout.”