Originally published by Gatestone Institute
After his recent electoral victory, it emerged that Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, had described moderate Muslim groups as “Uncle Toms”—a notorious racial slur used against blacks perceived to be subservient to whites, or, in this context, Muslims who embrace “moderate Islam” as a way of being subservient to the West.
One of Iran’s highest clerics apparently shares the same convictions. After asserting that “revolutionary Islam is the same as pure Muhammadan Islam,” Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad recently declared:
Some say our Islam is not revolutionary Islam, but we must say to them that non-revolutionary Islam is the same as American Islam. Islam commands us to be firm against the enemies and be kind and compassionate toward each other and not be afraid of anything….
According to AB News Agency, “Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad stated that revolutionary Islam is this same Islam. It is the Islam that is within us that can create changes. The warriors realized that Islam is not just prayers and fasting, but rather they stood against the enemies in support of Islam.”
How many Muslims share these convictions, one from a Sunni living (and now governing) in London, the other from a Shia living and governing in the Middle East?
An Arabic language article offers perspective. Titled (in translation) “The Truth about the Moderate Muslim as Seen by the West and its Muslim Followers,” it is authored by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr in 2011.
According to the findings of this article,
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.
This sounds similar to Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad’s assertion that “non-revolutionary Islam is the same as American Islam. Islam commands us to be firm against the enemies [“infidels”] and be kind and compassionate toward each other.”
Among the more important distinctions made in Khadr’s article are the following (translated verbatim):
- 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 blessing 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 don’t.
- Radicals oppose democracy; moderates accept it.
- Radicals see the people of the book [Jews and Christians] as dhimmis [third 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’ moderates support it.
- Radicals oppose secularism; moderates support it.
Khadr makes other charges outside of his chart, including that moderates believe religion has no role in public life, that it must be practiced in private, 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—marveling 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 Islamic views.
If true—and disturbing polls certainly lend credence to Khadr’s findings—the West may need to rethink one of its main means of countering radical Islam: moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.

linnte says
Well, that just about sums it up. We can’t convince a “radical” Muslim to change and “moderate” Muslims COULD change to radical. There is only one answer to this problem.
Ban Islam, period.
Panmelia says
So from a radical muslim point of view, a radical muslim is a good one; and a ‘moderate’ muslim is a bad one.
The key question is how many ‘radical’ muslims are there in Western countries, and how many ‘moderates’?
If the moderates are in the majority in any given Western country, as the ‘religion of peace’ politicians insist on claiming, it is clear that their safety and peace of mind is threatened to the same extent as the host population’s – perhaps even more.
Therefore it is logical and expedient to expel all ‘radical’ muslims from the Western host countries in order to safeguard the whole population.
With 56 islamic countries to go to, the ‘radical’ muslims should be pleased to return to the kind of society they long for. The ‘moderate’ muslims could then heave a sigh of relief that they need not worry about the nastier adherents to their faith ruining their lives in a free country.
I wonder if the dhimmi appeasers who lead the Western countries will ever work this out for themselves and get shot of the lunatic ‘radical’ muslims?
Can they achieve this without fainting at the thought of breaching that self-harming, self-defeating, self-destroying nonsense known as ‘political correctness’? It’s either that or civil war for the survival of our way of life.
Mark says
Moderate = muslim in disguise.
Panmelia says
Yeah, well I was only half-serious in order to mock the dhimmi leaders’ inertia, denial of obvious facts and addiction to PC crap.
A ‘moderate’ muslim is probably one that hasn’t been radicalised YET, or one whose religious conscientiousness is dormant, waiting to be awoken by any success of the radicals in gaining power by violence, or by feeling intimidated by their co-religionists’ accusations of being ‘false’ muslims and deserving of death.
Angemon says
“Radical” muslims – “Obey the sharia or we’ll kill you”.
“Moderate” muslims – “Those guys are not true muslims, but I won’t openly declare them heretics. Also, stop doing anything that offends me (such as drinking alcohol, letting women go out uncovered and unaccompanied by a male relative or criticizing islam) or else me and my coreligionists just might riot and kill someone”.
aDhimmiSaysWhat? says
Angemon, excellent comment. People would be served well to listen to your message. There is so much focus on ISIS and “radical” muslims. We should be paying closer attention to the values held by these so-called “moderate” muslims.
Infidel Shell says
The CAIR propaganda machine is at it again.
http://abcn.ws/1OXP6Hu
Christianblood says
The reality is that there is NO “moderate islam” or “radical islam” . These terms are an invention of the West to whitewash islam and muslims who follow its evil and murderous teachings. Islam is islam and its a fascist, hateful and murderous cult of death which should be banned across the globe before it destroys humanity.
Demsci says
One would wish and desire that the “radicals” stay in the 56 Islamic countries and that the moderate-Muslims desire to stay in Democratic Countries. What is it “radicals” WANT in Democratic nations??? Sarcasm off.
One would wish that radicals are stopped at the border and only moderates allowed in and allowed to stay in, in Democratic Nations. Why, the moderates would fit right in! Sarc. off.
But of course the radicals are all over the place inside Democratic Nations, up to and including Israel.
I do believe this article and when Muslims “condemn” Islamic State it is clear to me that they secretly or not so secretly condemn America and democracy and of course “Uncle Tom’s” even more, much more. So this condemnation of IS by Muslims is worth nothing!
And Leftists and Political Corrects have no clue. And Muslims angrily deny, deny, deny and demand them to be considered “innocent until proven guilty” or “harmless until proven harmful”. But when definite proof is in in Democratic Nations it will be too late.
I recognise all that. And also that some say that this worldwide scene we are seeing between Democracies and Muslims is “A-symmetric warfare”. Oh yes.
But my point is about this: where are we FOR, who are OUR radicals and moderates? I consider myself a RADICAL Democratic citizen, radical in favor of democracy, freedom, enlightenment. And Jihad Watchers as my main group.
And I consider OUR moderates: the leftists, the political Corrects.
The a-symmetric warfare also concerns the point that at least the Muslims know what they are FOR, what they want to promote, increase. And them being in the Ummah, they have imperfect but still high unity (witness Shia Iran supporting Sunni Hamas and Taliban).
But their counterjihadist opponents primarily only know what they are against. So in my view there is also asymmetry between the one side what it is for and united up to a degree, and the other side primarily only knowing and talking about what they are against, and are worried about, despise.
But not knowing to the same degree as Muslims what ideology they are for, and not nearly as united as the Muslims are (even though Muslims ARE fighting amongst each other, but still, but so do many other humans).
Our side knows it’s most ardent enemies and their ideologies often better than they themselves do, but it almost never talks about what it is that is so great to DEFEND.
Whereas I long for a struggle between TWO sides who know and talk about a lot about what they are FOR, not one side only (Islam) and the other side ALSO talking also about that other side, but of course only very negative.
Demsci says
Of course I do not want us to forget our defense. I only desire that somehow a very strong and vigilant defense, is AUGMENTED by a great zeal, enthousiasm about our still magnificent own civilization and achievement. Which then can compete with the very faulty Islam and shine in comparison. And yes, attract scores of Muslims to it, in time.
Debi Brand says
In other words, because the so-called moderates reject a large portion of the teaching of Qur’an and the sunnah of the so-called prophet of Islam, they are clear apostates of that faith.
Thus, we need not one more run-of-the-mill “radical Islam” spouting cowards of Islamic facts.
Rather, we need leaders with both the courage and knowledge of those facts sufficient to state them, and with the will and courage to help these closet apostates openly declare their rejection of Islam. Then know and enjoy full freedom from it.
As should our nation.
common sense says
.Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad’s assertion that “non-revolutionary Islam is the same as American Islam. Islam commands us to be firm against the enemies [“infidels”] and be kind and compassionate toward each other.”
“Enemies” that the Islamic belief creates for itself to fight, including each other, even over the interpretation of the Koran. Hence Sunni vs Shia that are nowhere near “compassionate” toward each other. Branding the rest of the human populace as “infidels” only makes it worse for themselves and “standing firm against the enemy” just means “conquest” by way of murder or any other means deemed necessary, lying, stealing (welfare), subversion, rape, intimidation and subjugation especially of women.
For some reason Muslims get butt hurt when we stand up for ourselves in ideology, belief and when necessary warfare. Then they (Muslims) play the victim card every time. We know their programming as well as they do and understand better than they do when it is enacted upon us. The Muslim populace is truly stupid if they think that we all fall for their deceptions.
“American Islam” means “moderate Muslim” who have figured out that the west is a much better place to live so they don’t want to screw up the chance of real freedom by openly becoming Jihadists or why else did they come here?
Islam SHOULD always be in private and not in politics or in the running of a state or government. I wish a ban on Islam period. Christ is right where he belongs in every Christians heart no matter their occupation because the Lord’s teachings are peaceful and we Christians believe in a higher power that we must answer to. A Jihadist murders and subjegates as THE answer to his or her higher power thinking they will be rewarded.
The Islamic prayer for a”moderate American Muslim” is akin to a phantom limb that still “itches”, it is done out of habit but how far is a so called “moderate Muslim” willing to take the Islamic faith that allows almost anything in it’s “radical” practice?
The problem for us is that they all read from the same God damned satanic book and a “moderate Muslim can always turn on a dime and become an extreme ahole Jihadist.
That is the “uncle Tom” Muslim, a kernel waiting to pop when enough heat is applied.
Demsci says
Common Sense, you wrote:
/”“American Islam” means “moderate Muslim” who have figured out that the west is a much better place to live so they don’t want to screw up the chance of real freedom by openly becoming Jihadists or why else did they come here?”/
I think you are right. When a radical Muslim is like an ICE-car (Internal Combustion Engine), and we Democratic Citizens are like Electrical cars, then perhaps the moderate Muslim tries to be a “hybrid”. I see and hear this all around me from Western Muslims, and of course from mayors Aboutaleb and Sadiq Khan.
There are a few advantages OF THE MODERATE Muslim, this “hybrid”; he/ she is often much “broader” interested then the very specialised but very myopic radical. Yes, the so-called moderate Muslim is very “tepid” in religion, missing important zeal and interest and perhaps knowledge about the religion he/ she still stupidly and stubbornly clings to. And the Iranian ayatollahs and ISIS-ideologues and other “true, serious Muslims” deplore this “LACK”.
But from a democratic standpoint the Moderates also have more considerations, interests than the myopic radicals, including the ayatollah’s and ISIS. The moderates have begun tasting other uses of their brains, energy, interests and have thus often more knowledge of history, science, all sorts of topics and techniques, than the radicals do.
The moderates often have also fallen victim to social media, divers sorts of addictions, and illnesses, weaknesses. They often have children, parents to look after, mortgages to pay. And moderates are thus dependent on the Kuffars. There are compelling reasons for them to not only appear but actually be more broadminded than the radicals. Those addicted and depending Muslims cannot so easily turn into radicals scott-free. Only young Muslims, relatively unattached can do so from one moment to the next, I suppose.
When we see democracy and Islam, we see though that Islam is still a very powerful ideology. And that Muslims, who comprise 1.6 billion people, # 23 % of world population, still have some kind of Ummah and also a set of Most Important Guiding Texts.
Is it this what makes Islam so strong??? If so, isn’t it a good countermove for counterjihadists to strive for some kind of Ummah and Most Important Guiding Texts for it’s own movement? Is it perhaps the case that PEGIDA is moving in this direction? The PE does stand for Patriottic Europeans, a positive nomer.
Mach1Duck says
Radicals or extremist seeking to strike a hard line in the Muslim community have a powerful doctrinal arsenal to support their position that is directed by the Koran, hadith, and scholarly consensus. The idea of Islamic tolerance does not take into consideration the restrictive language of Islamic law that cannot be minimized or ignored.
More Ham Ed says
You won’t find a “moderate” eating a ham sandwich and you won’t find a “radical” eating a ham sandwich.
To the degree that one follows the unholy ko ‘ran – that is the degree of danger.
Demsci says
With this summing up of characteristics of radical Muslims we can think about THEIR concerns; Sure, they are ambitious and want to spread Allah’s word. Violently, lying and all.
But at the same time they must have these grave concerns about the full democratic system, freedoms, esp. that of speech, and that of autonomous women. They must be concerned that mere humans are taking power into the hands of their own representatives instead of in the representatives of Allah, Mohammed, the Quran. Muslima’s in Democratic Nations now more and more refuse to submit to man’s rule as they refuse to marry or stay married with bossy Muslims.
And so from this whole list of characteristics of these bigoted myopic “radical” we can discern the many deep realistic concerns at least the thinking ones must have about the oncoming waves of Democracy and freedom.. They must worry that their moderates must be very tempted towards that.
They must view all those leftists and political corrects, president Obama, PM Cameron, Angela Merkel, Charles Michel etc. OUR moderates, who more or less betray the full democratic system as a godsend and a windfall.
Perhaps these radicals also worry a lot about computers and their power and that of their infidel operators, some of them might evfen despair that Armageddon also will not come in the 21st century. And how long are they going to wait, and wait, and wait ….
Wakeup says
Your dealing with a dead dog whichever way you look at it islam is false. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, that is the way to turn. We must not be silenced the gospels must be there for all no prohibitions or confiscations at airport.
Malcolm Jackson says
This is the evil cult of Islam, the Islam that is invading the UK, the Islam so beloved by the Labour Party and the Muslim Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. This is what Labour has brought to the UK.
Len Vaness says
Seems Trump was right and London’s new Mayor wants to practice Makr.
John Stefan says
Whether we consider Islamists to be Radical or Moderate ought not make any difference to us since their god tells them to lie and to deceive the infidels as they do their part to advance Islam. Therefore, how can we trust any Muslim at all at any time? ONLY if the Islamist truly truly forsakes Islam and the Qur’an and the hadiths and the Sira, and Muhammad, I believe that only then can we trust that person.
Panmelia says
That’s the rub, though, isn’t it? What tests could we apply in order to believe and trust in a muslim’s renunciation of his/her faith?
There’d have to be a mass picnic and bonfire, eating ham sandwiches next to a nice bonfire of personally-thrown-in korans.
Something like that.