Tooth-to-Tail Ratio, or the Illusion of the Moderate Muslim Majority

Frank Phillips

I would like to add my thoughts on the “majority of Muslims are peaceful” claim, and explain why it is pure fantasy.


All of us have heard, although in a different context, that it is not size that matters, but technique. Snicker as much as you like, but that is actually true. A lioness cannot match a buffalo in one-on-one combat, and a pride of lionesses is certainly outnumbered and ‘outhorned’ (outgunned) by a herd of buffalos. So how can they win despite these odds; how can 5-6 lionesses disrupt 50-60 buffalos to hunt down the one buffalo they want to seize?

Because the buffalos are just a crowd, but the lionesses are a team. Victory is achieved not by a large but otherwise loitering and incoherent crowd, but by a core-sized, action-oriented and coherent team.


This expression refers to the number of warriors who do the fighting, and the number of caretakers who sustain warriors so they can do the fighting. Hence, they are called combat troops and combat service support troops, respectively.

If you have no military experience, don’t panic, just pay attention!

A warrior needs ammunition, water, food, clothing, shelter and medicine. Fail to provide him the aforementioned items, and he will stand there empty-handed, dehydrated, hungry, shivering, exposed and sick, and ultimately he will die or surrender. Succeed in providing him these items, and he will sustain his function: fighting.

Or think of a football player. While it is true that the player does the ‘fighting’, he is supported by doctors, nutrition experts, fitness trainers, contract lawyers, financial advisors etc. to ensure his top-notch performance.

Or think of a novelist. While he does the ‘fighting’ for sure, there are typists, editors, travel agents, accountants etc. who keep him on the roll.

The football player and the novelist are the combat troops: the tooth. The others are the combat service support troops: the tail.

As you can see, the tooth is always significantly smaller than the tail. And while it is the tooth that bites into you, his bite would not be a reality without the tail sustaining the sharp and pointy status of the tooth.


The tooth-to-tail ratio is understood not just within the armed forces, but also in any human community, let it be a village, a region or a country.

By 1944, German forces had been pushed back to their country, and the Allies on the Western Front and the Soviets on the Eastern Front were on the verge to enter Germany. It was essential for the Third Empire to mobilize as many able-bodied men as they could to fight for survival.

At that time, Germany had about 70 million residents, and the German forces had about 10 million men in arms. That is about 14% of the population, so a minority compared to the rest 86%. Why did they not set up an army of 20 or 30 million, considering the huge manpower of the Allies and the Soviet Union? 20 or 30 million are more likely to repel an invasion than 10 million. The answer is easy – they simply could not afford it.

Or think of North Korea. This country has the highest number of soldiers per capita, meaning 24 million residents and 1.2 million servicemen. That is just a 5% minority, compared to the remaining 95% of the population. Even in this case, the country is staggering on the verge of economic collapse, is kept alive only by Chinese investments, and was plagued by famine in the 1990s having caused death-by-starvation to about 2 million people.

Or think of the United States of America. This country has about 318 million residents and armed forces of about 1.3 million servicemen, thus the latter forms only about 0.4% of the population. With its involvement in as many as 160 countries (there are 200 countries on Earth), the upkeep of this tiny 0.4%, compared to the 99.6% of the population, has pushed the U.S. into sky-high debt.

This is what everybody has to understand: you can mobilize all the men you want, but who will provide weapons and food and fuel and medicine for those men if there are no workers and farmers and engineers and doctors? Nobody. Thus, your gigantic army soon will start to crumble and fall apart.

Military history and experience indicate that at any given time, a community can field and maintain no more than 10-15% of the population – they are the ‘extremists’ who do the fighting. Thus, you will always have at least 85% of ‘moderates’, i.e. average people who do not engage in extreme activities like fighting, but who, in reality, are likely to work hard to maintain the fighting capability of the 5-10-15%.

This is the reason you will never see the majority of Muslims becoming extremists and fighting the infidel – it is a physical impossibility. However, this truth also warns us that the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims are not necessarily moderate because they have chosen that lifestyle, but because they cannot surmount the barrier forced upon them by mathematics and logistics (war material supply).

This was repeated by Muslim scholar Abul Ala Maududi who explained that jihad was not only combat for Allah but all efforts that helped those waging combat (qitaal):

“In the jihad in the way of Allah, active combat is not always the role on the battlefield, nor can everyone fight in the front line. Just for one single battle preparations have often to be made for decades on end and the plans deeply laid, and while only some thousands fight in the front line there are behind them millions engaged in various tasks which, though small themselves, contribute directly to the supreme effort.”


“A man’s character is most evident by how he treats those who are not in a position either to retaliate or reciprocate.” – Paul Eldridge.

It is easy to claim to be a moderate when you have no chance to win an open-out conflict. However, we must take a look at dozens of countries where Muslims have supreme power: there are 57 Muslim states, plus many city districts in Europe, America and Australia where they form the majority, or where they are numerous. What do we see in those places: the fair treatment of people of different religions, of the fairer sex, of dissenting opinion, or a ruthless knockdown on them?

Exactly – it is the latter attitude that prevails, without any exception. Where are those so-called moderates calling for the abolishment of Sharia (the law of Islam)? Nowhere.

This must be no surprise as survey after survey indicates that both Muslims in Muslim countries and Muslims in the West favour, either as a majority opinion or in significant numbers, the execution of apostates, honour murders, the corporal punishment of women, and other rules set by Sharia.


“Show me the man you honour, and I will know what kind of a man you are. It shows me what your ideal of manhood is, and what kind of a man you long to be.” – Thomas Carlyle

The so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim is still a Muslim – he believes what the Quran teaches and takes the Prophet Mohammed as his role model. He would not be a Muslim if he did not believe in those things. Duh!

Therefore, the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim is not a peaceful person – if he were peaceful, he would contradict the teachings of the Quran and the actions of the Prophet Mohammed, which would be blasphemy.

So just because he does not wave a sword, roar “Allahu Akbar!” and demand the jizya, it does not mean that he is peaceful – maybe he prefers that his comrades do the dirty work for him and for the cause of Islam.


Did we win the hearts and minds of moderate National Socialists to beat radical National Socialismists? Did we win the hearts and minds of moderate Communists to beat radical Communismists?

Instead of creating and using non-existing words to pussyfoot around the problem, let’s face reality: A Nazi is a Nazi. Period. A Commie is a Commie. Period. A Muzzie is a Muzzie. Period.

If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas. Anything else is just lazy excuse.


Originally published at Liberty GB