There is an endless quest on the Left to find the “moderate” Muslim, with whom it is supposed that one can ally against the Jihadist or “radical” Muslim. There are a number of problems with the concept of the moderate Muslim, which I shall attempt to list and analyse below.
1. The schools of Islamic jurisprudence, from which one might expect to find moderate, traditional Muslim viewpoint with which to counter the radicals continue to supply the same arguments that we find the radicals using.
2. The radicals continue to use Koranic scripture and Islamic law as the basis of their actions, indeed writing rigorous legal texts to provide justification for each and every action. When analysed, these texts continue to fall into the same pattern as the traditional “moderate” schools of jurisprudence.
3. The Muslim Brotherhood associated organisations in the West (or non-Muslim lands) continue to privately advocate Islamic law and separateness, while from time to time, publicly making statements to fit into the preservation of the “good” Muslim image. These statements include forbidding harassment or murder of apostates or rejecting racism, especially towards Jews. The Islamic legal tradition allows for lying to non-Islamic powers and peoples so as to continue gaining time for the Muslims to rearm and prepare for war.
4. A number of positions held by the radicals are also held widely (meaning more than just the majority) by Muslims in the Islamic world and the West. These include the inferiority of non-Muslim peoples, the second-class nature of women, the hatred towards Israel and the unwillingness to tolerate in the long run, Muslims being ruled by non-Muslims. These, we might call supremacist.
5. Jihad is argued by “moderate” spokesmen to mean a “spiritual, internal struggle” akin to a philosophical dilemma, yet the Koranic texts make clear that jihad is the waging of war against non-Muslim states and peoples.
6. Another line trotted out is that Muslims cannot launch a jihad, since there is no Caliph. The problem with this line is that what the radicals are waging and advocating is defensive jihad, which is an individual duty. Offensive jihad is ordered by a Caliph (the ruling monarch of the Umma) but what is not mentioned except by the radicals, is that defensive jihad is being used internally, as well as externally, to re-unify the Islamic world, re-establish the Caliphate in order to legally allow the launching of offensive jihad. This is why Al-Qaeda has made recent mention of Spain as Islamic territory, since the intention is to retake Muslim lands but no further until such time as the Caliph can order a jihad.
7. Slavery is tolerated and regulated in the Koran and Islamic law. This not mentioned by “moderates” since it is too embarrassing to try and excuse. Mohammed may have freed many slaves of his own, but acquired plenty more. Female slaves are legally allowed to be raped and used for sex slaves. All this is Koranic text. What is happening in Darfur is the same as what used to happen before the British conquered Sudan and ended the slave trade. Arabic language and the Koran has a specific word for “black slave”, Abd.
All this should make it obvious that there are not radical or moderate Muslims, but Muslims, bad Muslims (who break Islamic law) and Apostates (who reject Islamic law and should be put to death). Just as we should be worried about all religious fundamentalists, we should recognise the especially repugnant nature of Islam as a divinely ordained system of imperial conquest, police state and as a permanent war on the female half of mankind.