I surfed some more and found this nugget on islam:

Ultimately, the distinction between “extremists” and “moderates” does not hold up to scrutiny. There are only Muslims, who can be divided into three groups: violent jihadists, stealth jihadists, and munafiqs. The latter may be peaceable and decent citizens, but as Roberts points out, marshaling reams of evidence from every quarter of the globe, when jihad comes to our part of town they cannot be relied on to oppose their barbarous co-religionists, to resist activation, to assemble in protests and demonstrations against the violence done in the name of their confession, to speak, write and march in solidarity with their targeted neighbors, or to reject outright the many passages in the Koran, Hadith and Sunnah that call for acts of blatant savagery. Time and time again, “the munafiqs acted on the side of jihad,” either by collaborating or by refusing to intervene. Such collusion seems plausible since, as Daniel Greenfield comments, “Jihad isn’t an act of violence; it’s an act of faith.”

I note that they place the concepts as “faith” whereas I consider them political philosophy. Show me a democrat who is willing to vote republican. I find it intriguing that he (Dennis Prager) uses religious beliefs as the basis for political voting being the flip side of my argument for the muslims. As an off hand thought, maybe politics and religious beliefs aren’t that separate.