Nice Neighbours and Problematic Doctrines: Why Personal Behavior Doesn't Override Islamic Teachings

A common counterargument to discussions about Islamic violence or hostility toward non-Muslims is: “But my Muslim neighbor is a nice person.” While this argument is made with good intentions, it fundamentally misunderstands the distinction between individual behavior and the broader doctrines of a religion. The fact that a person behaves peacefully or kindly doesn't change or negate the violent and hostile prescriptions laid out in the foundational texts of Islam.

To better understand this, let’s break down why the actions of individuals can’t be used to excuse or dismiss what Islamic doctrine teaches.

The Fallacy of Conflating Individual Actions with Religious Doctrine

Islamic doctrine is based on its core texts — the Quran, Hadith, and Sharia. These texts contain clear and explicit directives on how Muslims are expected to behave. For instance, Quran 9:29 directs:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah… until they pay the jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Such verses are not open to reinterpretation as mere suggestions; they are commands within the Quran. Another example is the doctrine of al-walaa w-al-baraa (loyalty and disavowal), which commands Muslims to reject non-believers as allies, as Quran 5:51 makes clear:

"Do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends / allies."

These teachings dictate behavior for all Muslims, regardless of the personal actions of any individual adherent. So, when someone says, “Hamad is a nice person,” this is a personal judgment, but it has no bearing on the underlying doctrines of Islam. Just because Hamad might act kindly doesn’t alter the fact that the core Islamic texts contain violent, discriminatory, and aggressive prescriptions.

This is a classic fallacy: confusing the particular (Hamad’s behavior) with the general (Islamic doctrine). Hamad’s personal kindness may be a reflection of his character, cultural norms, or selective adherence to certain parts of Islam. However, his behavior does not alter the prescribed teachings of the religion, which can be violent and hostile.

The Nazi Comparison: A Kind Hans Doesn't Change the Nature of Nazism

To understand why this argument is flawed, let’s look at an analogy. Imagine a man named Hans, who worked in a Nazi bomb factory during World War II. Hans could have been a peaceful and kind person, never committing any acts of violence, and being considerate to his family and neighbors. But this kindness doesn’t change the fact that Nazism — the ideology Hans was part of — was inherently violent and evil.

Nazi doctrine, as laid out in Mein Kampf and Nazi policies, promoted racial hatred, genocide, and war. This ideology led to the Holocaust, where millions of Jews were murdered. Hans may have been personally kind, but the system he participated in was responsible for vast atrocities. His actions don’t change the fact that Nazism promoted horrific violence.

Similarly, the personal kindness of individuals like Hamad doesn’t change the fact that the Quran and Sharia prescribe violence against non-believers. Quran 9:5, for example, states:

"Kill the polytheists wherever you find them."

This command, like the Nazi policies, isn’t about individual actions but about the ideology that underpins it. The doctrine remains the same regardless of how Hamad or any other Muslim chooses to act.

Doctrine Shapes Actions

When people focus on individuals like Hamad, they detract from the more important discussion: the doctrine itself and the systems it produces. Islamic teachings, as written in the Quran and Sharia, have inspired violence throughout history — from the Islamic conquests (632–732 CE) to modern-day acts of terrorism, such as the Taliban’s actions in Afghanistan and Boko Haram’s attacks on Christians in Nigeria. These groups don’t misinterpret the texts; they use them to justify their violence.

The same is true for Nazism. It wasn’t the personal virtue of Nazi soldiers that caused the Holocaust; it was the ideology they followed. The Einsatzgruppen and SS units, who were responsible for the deaths of over a million Jews, acted on the principles of Nazism, not on the personal feelings of its members. They acted in line with the violent ideology they were part of.

Doctrines have real-world effects. While individuals may choose to act against the tenets of a religion, the teachings themselves shape collective behavior and societal structures. When we focus on individual actions, we ignore the broader, systemic consequences of the doctrine.

Why This Matters

The argument that “Hamad is a nice person” misses the point entirely. While Hamad’s personal kindness is admirable, it doesn’t change the fact that Quran and Sharia contain clear prescriptions for violence and hostility toward non-believers. The actions of individuals, however noble, cannot rewrite the nature of the doctrine itself.

Islamic teachings — like those found in Quran 9:29, 9:5, and 5:51 — remain unchanged by personal behavior. These teachings have been used for centuries to justify violence and terror. Focusing on personal behavior distracts us from the real issue: the doctrine itself.

Conclusion: Judging the Doctrine, Not the Person

The argument “Hamad is a nice person” has no bearing on the nature of Islamic doctrine, just as “Hans was a peaceful Nazi” doesn’t absolve Nazism. Both ideologies — Islam’s calls for violence and Nazism’s racial hatred — are clear and unambiguous in their written texts. We must judge these ideologies based on their doctrines, not based on the behavior of individuals who may choose to ignore them.

The truth requires us to assess the ideology itself, not to obscure it by focusing on exceptions. The doctrine of Islam, as found in its sacred texts, is violent and hostile to non-believers. Personal behavior can differ, but it doesn’t negate the foundational teachings. The truth demands we engage with the doctrine for what it is, not for the personal actions of individuals.