1 Aug

The Myth that the Muslim World Celebrated the Attacks of 9/11

                                       

It is true that there were some Palestinians “dancing” in the streets, jubilant that “America got what it deserved” on 9/11. But do those Palestinians who did celebrate represent the feelings of the entire Muslim world? All Palestinians (many of whom have grievances with the U.S. for reasons as much to do with politics as it does with the Quran)? Or can it be chalked up to something other than religion?

Consider:

The Images below are from a peaceful candlelight vigil on the streets of Tehran, Iran. (September 18th, 2001)
The pariticipants lit candles, mourned, and prayed to showed their grief over the loss of innocent life in the tragedies of Sept. 11th.



The following image is from a peaceful rally in the Muslim country of Bangladesh,
who were showing this sympathy with Americans
who have lost loved ones in this Tragedy


The picture to the right is a poignant image of two Palestinian women mourning the loss of life in the tragedies of September 11th.

– The terrorist act was strongly condemned by every single Palestinian organization including Fatah, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hamas, Workers Unions and Committees, Human Right organizations (AlHaq, Law, Palestine Center for Human Rights), student associations, municipalities, mosques and churches, etc.

– The US Consul General in Jerusalem reported that he has received a huge stack of faxes from Palestinians and Palestinian organizations expressing condolences, grief and solidarity. He himself was pained to see that the media chose to focus on the sensational images of a few Palestinians rejoicing.

– The Palestine Legislative Council condemned the terrorist attack on the United States and sent an urgent letter of condolences to Mr. J Dennis Hasterd, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

– Palestinians in East Jerusalem held a candle-light vigils on 12 and 14 September to express their grief and solidarity with the American families struck by this tragedy. Mr. Abdel Qader Al-Husseini, son of the late Palestinian leader Faisal Al-Husseini led one of the vigils.

– Jerusalem University students, along with the President of the University and the Deans of the various Faculties, began a blood donation drive in East Jerusalem. Students and professors went to hospitals in order to donate blood for the American victims who need it.

– The 1 million Palestinian students in the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, stood five minutes in silence to express their solidarity with the hundreds of American children who have been struck by this strategy, which resembles in its shocking effects their daily sufferings. (see image to the right)

-In Iran, Tehran’s main soccer stadium observed an unprecedented minute’s silence in sympathy with the victims.

-Iran’s Ayatollah Imami Kashani spoke of a catastrophic act of terrorism which could only be condemned by all Muslims, adding the whole world should mobilise against terrorism.

Were the expressions of condolences sincere? Or just “obligatory” governmental lip service and image propaganda? After all, it’s easy to be cynically skeptical of Hamas and Yasser Arafat shedding one teardrop of sympathy for the United States for anything other than political cover. But what about the people themselves? “Ordinary”, everyday Muslims, whether defined as “radical” or “moderate”?

And if our skepticism for the sincerity of the well-wishes is well founded, then it should also extend to those that have nothing to do with Islam itself, but to anti-Americanism in general; anti-Americanism that isn’t fueled by religious fanaticism but rather perceptions of American imperialism and wrongful foreign policy bullying by the world’s sole hyperpower.

Were the French and our other European allies sincere in their mourning? I’m sure many were; but along with that, there were probably those who felt “America’s chickens have come home to roost”, and this was all “blowback”.

From pg 8-9 of Jean Francois-Revel‘s Anti-Americanism,

After the first gushings of emotion and crocodile condolences, the murderous assaults were depicted as a justified retaliation for the evil done by the United States throughout the world. This was the reaction of most Muslim countries, but also of rulers and journalists in some sub-Saharan African countries, not all of which have Muslim majorities. Here we see the habitual escape hatch of societies suffering from chronic failures, societies that have completely messed up their evolution toward democracy and economic growth; instead of looking to their own incompetence and corruption as the cause, they finger the West in general and the United States in particular. Classic displays of voluntary blindness to one’s own shortcomings though these were, they were but overtures; even more remarkable performances were to come. After a discreet pause of a few days, the theory of American culpability surfaced in the European press- in France above all, it goes without saying- among intellectuals and politicians, of the Left and the Right.

Shouldn’t we interrogate ourselves about the underlying reasons, the “root causes” that had pushed the terrorists to their destructive acts? Wasn’t the United States in part responsible for what had happened? Shouldn’t we take into account the sufferings of the poor countries and the contrast between their impoverishment and America’s opulence?

This line of argument was not only made in countries whose populations, keyed up to fever pitch by jihad, instantly acclaimed the New York catastrophe as well-deserved punishment. It was also heard in the European democracies, where soon enough, insinuations were made that- with all due respect for the dead, of course- a careful look at the terrorists’ motives was called for.

I believe that the anti-Americanism that saw fit to celebrate the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. as a well-deserved “bloody nose” longtime in coming can be chalked up not to religious extremism, but to world politics.

In David Killcullen’s The Accidental Guerilla, he writes on pg 249-250:

Observers of the situation are often confused by their own category errors, for example, equating liberal politics with nominal theology and nonviolence, or fundamentalist theology with extremist politics and terrorism. These traits may in theory cluster together, but are not the same thing. In fact, Quintan Wiktorowicz has argued, theology is a poor predictor for political extremism and violence. He argues that though Salafist groups share a common religious perspective, political divisions emerge when they apply enduring religious principles to contemporary problems:

Although Salafis share the same approach to religious jurisprudence, they often hold different interpretations about contemporary politics and conditions….The different contextual readings have produced three major factions in the community: the purists, the politicos, and the jihadis. The purists emphasize a focus on nonviolent methods of propagation, purification, and education. They view politics as a diversion that encourages deviancy. Politicos, in contrast, emphasize application of the Salafi creed to the political arena, which they view as particularly important because it dramatically impacts social justice and the right of God alone to legislate. Jihadis take a more militant position and argue that the current context calls for violence and revolution. All three factions share a common [theological] creed but offer different explanations of the contemporary world and its concomitant problems and thus propose different solutions. The splits are about contextual analysis, not belief.

~~~

in 2004, an International Crisis Group report found that Salafism and terrorism rarely occur together in Indonesia, and another report made the same finding in Saudi Arabia; earlier, Francois Burgat identified a similar pattern in North Africa. Many of the most violent Iraqi groups are primarily nationalist and only nominally Islamic, as are some of the most extreme Palestinian groups. And the Netherlands security service (AIVD) identified the same wide spectrum in European radical Muslim communities in 2003. Hence, regardless of theological or political categorization, field evidence suggest that Islamic theology as such has little functional relationship with violence. On the basis of this demonstrated analytical weakness of theology as a predictor for violence, Wiktorowicz argues that we “should focus on the competing political analyses and interpretations and not necessarily the specific [theological] content of jihadi beliefs.”

If theology is a poor predictor for violence, it follows that radicalization (which includes political or theological components, or both) is relevant to counterterrorism in its political, not its theological dimension. Indeed, a focus on Islamic beliefs (equating “radical” theology with violent extremism) may be an analytical sidetrack. Rather than theology, the evidence suggests, it may make more sense to focus on recognized behavioral and sociological indicators of propensity to violence. As Marc Sageman has shown, biographical, psychological, and sociological factors are more useful predictors for terrorist activity than religion. Membership in a subversive or revolutionary political group may also indicate that an individual is “primed” for violence if an appropriate catalyst emerges- but a trigger event is needed and, again, the driving factor is political, not theological.

John Esposito:

The charge that Muslims do not condemn terrorism has been made repeatedly, despite that post-9/11, many Muslim leaders and organizations in America and globally have consistently denounced acts of terrorism. But major media outlets do not seem to find them newsworthy, and thus they must be found in smaller outlets on the internet.

The Myth of the Silent Muslim Majority:

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001 ‘Western’ academics, intellectuals, and politicians have been apparently blind to the massive amount of condemnation coming from the Muslim majority; that is, those who oppose Wahhabism and Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the question of “why haven’t Muslims condemned the atrocities of 9/11 and other terror” is more a definitive statement than an open-ended issue for many commentators. Moderate Muslims are seen as a weak majority, unwilling to condemn and work against the ‘radicals’ like bin Laden and others.

~~~

This conception of Islam is quite commonplace among Evangelical Christians, Atheists, Zionists, politicians in the West, and media commentators generally. However, the belief that Muslims believe that the tragic events of 9/11 were justified or that bin Laden represents “mainstream” Islam is quite ridiculous. Even commentators who should know better seem to have amnesia or deliberately lie to make their case. For example, after the London bombings, Thomas Friedman stated that:

“To this day–to this day– no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden”.

Apparently Friedman did not read his own newspaper on October 17th, 2001 in which a full page ad from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty proclaimed that “Osama bin Laden hijacked four airplanes and a religion”. This ad also published statements from some of the most prominent Muslim leaders and institutions. Among those who signed were Sheikh Abudulaziz al-Shaikh (Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairmen of the Senior Ulama), Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai of Pakistan, Zaki Badawi (Principal of the Muslim College in London), King Abdullah II of Jordan, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Even earlier, on September 14th, 2001 the BBC reported condemnations of the 9/11 attacks as acts of terror by significant and influential clerics; for example Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar University (viewed by many as one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam), and Ayatollah Kashani in Iran.

Yet another example of over forty Muslim scholars and jurists condemnation of the events on 9/11.; a few notable scholars were Mustafa Mashhur (General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt), Qazi Hussain Ahmed (Ameer, Jamaat-e -Islami, Pakistan) Sheikh Ahmad Yassin (founder, Islamic Resistance Movement-or Hamas, Palestine), and Fazil Nour (president, PAS- Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia). Just a piece of their condemnation:

The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms [my emphasis]. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: “No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (Surah al-Isra 17:15).

Surprising to many in the West, Hamas and Hizbollah condemned the atrocities in London in 2005. Hamas claimed that “targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected”, while Hizbollah joined on “humanitarian, moral, and religious grounds”.

Commentators like Harris, Graham, and Friedman obviously didn’t do any research or have motives for distorting the truth. Whatever conclusion one may come to, the scholarliness and truth of work by any of these men is questionable. This conclusion should not be surprising. According to Edward Said in his Covering Islam:

From at least the end of the eighteenth century until our own day, modern Occidental reactions to Islam have been dominated by a radically simplified type of thinking that may still be called Orientalist. The general basis of Orientalist thought is an imaginative and yet drastically polarized geography dividing the world into two unequal parts, the larger, “different” once called the Orient, the other, also known as “our” world, called the Occident or the West”. (pg. 4)

Said goes on to outline a entrenched bias in the West in its coverage and reaction to Islam. Whether one accepts his conclusion about the inherent bias of the West towards Islam and the long history of Western imperialism (See: Orientalism), it is quite clear that “mainstream America” seems haphazardly ignorant on Islam, its history, and contemporary Islamic/Arab reactions to current events. Condemnation of Osama bin Laden and the atrocity on 9/11 has been supplied by literally thousands of Islamic scholars, jurists, and ordinary muslims. As has been shown, these condemnations were immediate and strong.

Lets recall the Qur’anic verse that reads:

“Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind,” (Al-Ma’dah:32).

While almost every nation condemned the 9/11 attacks and joined the US in fighting a defensive “war on terror”, there was one particular “secular” Arab-Muslim leader who did not condemn the September 11th attacks:

Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim country that did not condemn the September 11 attacks against the United States. A commentary of the official Iraqi station on September 11 stated that America was “…reaping the fruits of [its] crimes against humanity.” Subsequent commentary in a newspaper run by one of Saddam’s sons expressed sympathy for Usama Bin Ladin following initial US retaliatory strikes in Afghanistan. In addition,the regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist
groups,

Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001

Saddam was not exactly a pious Muslim, for which he was hated by radical, puritanical Islamists who saw his regime in a similar light to how they saw Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and all the other “apostate”, secularlized Muslim states. And like the Saudi government who funded the extremism of wahhabi Islam, Saddam might not have trusted jihadists, but he was willing to “do business” with Islamic terrorists anyway and provide training, funding, and safe haven as a kind of insurance policy agreement that takfiri terrorists would direct their assaults outside of Iraq and at other apostate secular Muslim regimes as well as at mutual enemies.

Even though the war in Iraq (especially after abu Ghraib) probably did give al Qaeda and the global jihad movement new life, it also exposed al Qaeda for the monster it is, and delegitimize its ideology in the eyes of most in the Muslim world:

Last year, Sheikh Salman al-Awdah, a popular Saudi Islamic scholar criticized Osama bin Laden who once lionized him.

Mufti Sheikh Abd Al-’Aziz bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh, the highest Islamic religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudi youth from engaging in jihad abroad. Tareq Al-Humaid, the editor of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, points out the significance:

“It is true that some of these [young people] have become enslaved by Al-Qaeda and its ideology, and are now beyond hope; however, the importance of the fatwa lies in the impact that it will have on most of the Saudi public, and in particular the fathers and mothers. Its value lies in the fact that it will wrest from the hands of the ‘politicized sheikhs’ the card that they have been using all this time.

“Where are the moderates?” Mainstream Muslims have been rejecting terrorism and al Qaeda’s brand of Islamic ideology, even as we remain suspicious of the sincerity and heart of those who profess to be practitioners of the Islamic faith.

The most recent astonishing and important rejection and condemnation of al Qaeda comes from Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl.

Who is Dr. Fadl?

Lawrence Wright, author of the most definitive account of the history of al-Qaeda, The Looming Tower, writes in the New Yorker:

Last May, a fax arrived at the London office of the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al Awsat from a shadowy figure in the radical Islamist movement who went by many names. Born Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, he was the former leader of the Egyptian terrorist group Al Jihad [Egyptian Islamic Jihad], and known to those in the underground mainly as Dr. Fadl. Members of Al Jihad became part of the original core of Al Qaeda; among them was Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant. Fadl was one of the first members of Al Qaeda’s top council. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing. Now Fadl was announcing a new book, rejecting Al Qaeda’s violence. “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that,” Fadl wrote in his fax, which was sent from Tora Prison, in Egypt.

Fadl’s fax confirmed rumors that imprisoned leaders of Al Jihad were part of a trend in which former terrorists renounced violence. His defection posed a terrible threat to the radical Islamists, because he directly challenged their authority. “There is a form of obedience that is greater than the obedience accorded to any leader, namely, obedience to God and His Messenger,” Fadl wrote, claiming that hundreds of Egyptian jihadists from various factions had endorsed his position.

A year ago, MataHarley had blogged on the NIC Global Trends 2025 Report:

The two primary strategic aims of al-Qa’ida—the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate and the removal of US and Western influence so that “apostate” regimes can be toppled—are clearly threats to many existing Muslim governments and are resulting in stronger counterterrorism measures.

There is little indication that the vast majority of Muslims believe that such objectives are realistic or that, if they could come to pass, would solve the practical problems of unemployment, poverty, poor educational systems, and dysfunctional governance. Despite sympathy for some of its ideas and the rise of affiliated groups in places like the Mahgreb, al-Qa’ida has not achieved broad support in the Islamic World. Its harsh pan-Islamist ideology and policies appeal only to a tiny minority of Muslims.

According to one study of public attitudes toward extremist violence, there is little support for al-Qa’ida in any of the countries surveyed—Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The report also found that majorities in all Arab countries oppose jihadi violence, by any group, on their own soil.

Al-Qa’ida is alienating former Muslim supporters by killing Muslims in its attacks. Recent scholarly research indicates that terrorist groups that kill civilians seldom accomplish their strategic goals. Although determining precisely the number of Muslims worldwide who have died in al-Qa’ida attacks is difficult, examination of available evidence suggests that at least 40 percent of the victims have been Muslims.

The roughly 40-year cycle of terrorist waves suggests that the dreams that inspire terrorist group members’ fathers to join particular groups are not attractive to succeeding generations. The prospect that al-Qa’ida will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives, and inability to become a mass movement.

Mata writes:

Muslim supporters are alienated by jihad movements killing Muslims!

And where has the global Islamic jihad movement gained the majority of their PR by wreaking bloodthirsty welfare on fellow Muslims?

Iraq. Point made.

This single element… changing the hearts and minds of Muslims… come to us not only because of the courage and fortitude of our US and allies’ military personnel, but also because of the very failings of the enemy itself. We can be certain that it was not part of Iraq strategy to have the jihad and rebel movements shed the blood of so many innocent Iraqis merely to allow them to show their true colors. But we can also be certain that had we not made them so desperate as to attempt to tear Iraq in two, it’s likely the Muslim world may have continued to hold them up as honorable religious fighters.

Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Tower, the definitive account of al Qaeda history, wrote about al Qaeda’s Master Plan in the New Yorker. Toward the end of the article, he writes:

Al Qaeda’s apocalyptic agenda is not shared by all Islamists. Although most jihadi groups approve of Al Qaeda’s attacks on America and Europe, their own goals are often more parochial, having to do with purifying Islam and toppling regimes in their own countries which they see as heretical. Many of these groups would be happy to see Al Qaeda disappear, so that their campaigns can be understood as nationalist guerrilla struggles with specific political goals.

This rupture has grown increasingly apparent in the past five years. Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, Hezbollah’s spiritual leader, publicly denounced the September 11th attacks and condemned Al Qaeda’s use of suicide bombers, even though the tactic was employed in the 1983 attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the barracks of American and French troops in Lebanon, both of which are believed to have been carried out by Hezbollah. After September 11th, leaders of the Egyptian Islamist organization, Gama’a Islamiya, which has worked closely with Al Qaeda in the past, publicly condemned Al Qaeda’s tactics and its goals of worldwide jihad. Even some of Zawahiri’s former colleagues in the Egyptian terror group he formed, Al Jihad, argue that Al Qaeda has undermined the cause of Islam by instigating anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and the West.

It is notable how seldom these ideologues refer to the words of bin Laden or Zawahiri, the nominal leaders of the movement, perhaps because the declarations of Al Qaeda’s leadership are directed more at Americans and Europeans than at the jihadis. “Beware the scripted enemy, who plays to a global audience,” David Kilcullen, the counterterrorism strategist at the State Department, wrote in a paper now being used by the U.S. military in Iraq as a handbook for dealing with the insurgency. Al Qaeda, he wrote, propagates a “single narrative” aimed at influencing the West; but each faction within the jihadi movement has its own version of this narrative, often sharply different from the message being put forward by bin Laden and Zawahiri.

Here are more useful links:

Statements from leading Muslim leaders, condemning the terrorist attacks of September 11th

* Organization of the Islamic Conference, Doha, Qatar. October 10th, 2001: (representing 56 Muslim nations)
“These terrorist acts contradict the teaching of all religions and human and moral values.”

*“Terrorists are mass murderers, not martyrs”, states Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

*“Bin Laden’s Violence is a heresy against Islam”, states Abdul Hakim Murad

*Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi denounced the attacks against civilians in the U.S.

*Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed al-Tantawi of Al-Azhar, the highest institution in Sunni Islam, warned that those who attack innocent people will be punished by Allah, in his weekly sermon to thousands of worshippers in Cairo. “Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the Day of Judgment,” the moderate Sheikh Tantawi said at Al-Azhar mosque. “It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack,” he said.

* “Hijacking Planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts.” Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh (Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, on September 15th, 2001)

*The terrorists acts, from the perspective of Islamic law, constitute the crime of hirabah (waging war against society).” Sept. 27, 2001 fatwa, signed by:
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Countil, Qatar)
Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d’etat, Egypt
Dr. Muhammad s. al-Awa, Professor of Islamic Law and Shari’a, Egypt
Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat, Islamic scholar, Syria
Fahmi Houaydi, Islamic scholar, Syria
Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Chairman, North America High Council

*“Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime.” Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College in London. Cited in Arab News, Sept. 28, 2001.

*“It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to Praise those who kill innocent people.” Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, Pakistan. Cited in NY Times, Sept. 28, 2001.

*“What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in.” King Abdullah II, of Jordan; cited in Middle East Times, Sept. 28, 2001.

The above statements by high ranking international Muslim scholars appeared in an advertisement placed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, in the NY Times, October 17th, 2001 (p. A 17)

*CANADIAN MUSLIM SCHOLARS REJECT “MISGUIDED” CALLS FOR JIHAD : The Canadian office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR CAN) and the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association (CMCLA) today denounced a series of recent statements made by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network that state that Muslims should wage a “jihad” against Americans.

“Islam respects the sacredness of life, and rejects any express statement or tacit insinuation that Muslims should harm innocent people. Despite our disagreement with certain American policies, we must never abuse the concept of Jihad to target innocent civilians.

Jihad, which literally means ‘struggle,’ has an internal, societal and combative dimension. The internal dimension of Jihad encompasses the struggle against the evil inclinations of the self, and the spiritual project to adorn the self with virtues such as justice, mercy, generosity and gentleness. The societal dimension includes struggling against social injustice and creating a communal identity based on charity, respect and equality. Finally, the combative aspect of jihad is only to be used as self-defense against aggression or to fight oppression, and, even then, to be observed with strict limits of conduct that preserves the life of innocents and the sanctity of the environment.

Moreover, this latter type of Jihad can only be declared by a legitimate, recognized religious authority. Using the concept of Jihad to justify harming the innocent is contrary to the letter and spirit of Islam.We condemn any violence that springs from this misguided interpretation.”

*Ingrid Mattson, a professor of Islamic studies and Muslim-Christian relations at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, said there was no basis in Islamic law or sacred text for Mr. bin Laden’s remarks. “The basic theological distortion is that any means are permitted to achieve the end of protesting against perceived oppression,” said Dr. Mattson, a practicing Muslim.

Islamic law is very clear: terrorism is not permitted,” she added. “Even in a legitimate war — even if Osama bin Laden were a legitimate head of state, which he’s not — you’re not permitted to indiscriminately kill civilians, just to create terror in the general population.” (“Experts Say Bin Laden is Distorting Islamic Law“, NY Times, Oct. 8, 2001)

Al-Sheikh

An Islamic scholar in Saudi Arabia has said the terrorist network alqaeda goes against the principles of Islam. The statement was issued after al-qaeda militants were arrested last month in S. Arabia.

The Saudi scholar, Al-Sheikh said:

“The things that al-Qaeda members do in Saudi Arabia must be unacceptable to any Muslim,”

“He who commits crimes such as those of the deviant sect (refering to al-qaeda) is nothing but a wicked person who has abandoned his faith and behaves like animals or barbarians.”

“Supporting them means committing one of the biggest sins.”

Given that “Muslims dancing in the streets” in celebration of the 9/11 attacks appears to have been overexaggerated by media sensationalism and that most Muslims either were never on board with the global jihad movement or have since rejected al Qaeda’s theology of hate, who then are we at war with? Who attacked us on 9/11 if Islam is not to blame?

This entry was posted in 9/11, Anti-Americanism, Fanatical Islam, France, Ground Zero "Mosque", Middle East, Saddam Documents, The Iraqi War, The Looming Tower, War On Terror. Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, August 1st, 2010 at 7:59 am
| 12,446 views

126 Responses to The Myth that the Muslim World Celebrated the Attacks of 9/11

  1. MataHarley says: 101

    Mike’sA: Well, once again, Newt and SOOOOO MANY others disagree.

    So, we’re all blind, ignorant, bigoted, anti-constitutionalist fear mongers or we are right.

    Again, you are an extremist… seeing things in only black and white. Whet thru you and your blanket assumptions on my comment here. Considering that Aye, Wordsmith, myself and Curt don’t like this development location either, you can’t say anyone – except you – is labeling “everyone opposed” a ‘phobe. The ‘phobes have made themselves very apparent over these past weeks and threads.

    It is not opposition… it is the reason for opposition, and what you want to do with a legal ruling in place that favors what you don’t want. I think we’ve figured yours out, Mike.

    Mike’sA: The mosque at Ground Zero is the goal of the bin Laden’s. Opposition to it does not offer bin Laden a propaganda gift.

    What’s your favorite expression of late on this? Oh yes… WRONG WRONG AND WRONG! yeah, you’re soooo eloquent. LOL

    OBL and Zawahiri have made great pains to make all US policy and military action appear that it’s a “war on Islam”.

    You, along with your fellow conservatives who disdain our rule of law and NY’s local decisions, have handed them that victory. They now have about 8 or 9 threads to pick thru, and copy/paste ample anti-Islam statements and hateful rhetoric against all Muslims to prove they have been right all along.

    And you’ve handed the lib/progs that same fodder for midterms.

    ReplyReply
  2. @MataHarley: Once again, you are following the dhimmi herd and your only refuge is to attack and besmirch those who disagree.

    Obviously you lost the argument a long time ago.

    And while you say I have handed the libs fodder for the midterm, every poll shows the opposite.

    Meanwhile, YOU have climbed in bed with the libs, the dhimmis and the Islamos.

    I don’t know about you, but I am darn well pleased with where I stand on this issue.

    ReplyReply
  3. CHill says: 103

    I, too, am EXTREMEly comfortable with my position. Intellectually researching the tenets of Islam and living life’s experiences and coming to conclusions based on both. Do I hate Muslims? NO. Do I treat Muslims with disrespect? No. Do I consider Americans who happens to be a Muslim any different than a Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu or Jew? No. We are all individuals and as long as we Americans abide by the law, mind our own business and work to overcome the political and economic problems we have. No appeasement to demands form religious groups, no surrender to Muslim extremists, no ridiculous concessions for anyone.

    Why do you guys not admit the factuality of the evidence instead of continually rationalizing and stating “you do not interpret it correct,” “you misunderstand,” or “you are simply a bigot.”

    As I said earlier, bigotry is action, not thought. I have never knowlingly treated anyone with disrespect or discrimination. How do my actions assist the goals al Qaeda? You and yours are appeasing them, giving them concessions that other groups do not get, and you have already surrendered to their efforts to stealthily move into our society and change it. Hope and change. Wasn’t that a recent campaign slogan?

    Nope, I doubt very seriously if al Qaeda has anything here. Maybe fodder for their extremist converts but then they already hate us and want us dead. By being an apologist for them, you have become dhimmis.

    ReplyReply
  4. @CHill: Very well put and I appreciate your sound, civil and sensible contributions to the discussion.

    Now, hold on, because the smear squad may still have some ammo left.

    ReplyReply
  5. Donald Bly says: 105

    @Chilli… Sawat dee khop, khun subai de mai?

    Post #103 is well written and sums up my feelings quite well. I too have nothing against an individual. As I have stated before, even the elect shall be deceived. Whether it is one, a hundred, a hundred thousand or 1.5 billion + 2 at FA… these are human beings that have been deceived into believing that our creator so disdains the free will he has given us that he had to send a “prophet” to lead men in a killing spree to purge humanities ranks. I cannot believe that our creator has made such a mistake.

    Pre-Islamic Arabia worshipped 360 pagan gods prior to the establishment of Islam… but they did not reject 360 pagan gods, they rejected 359 and elevated one to al-illal “The Diety”. But.. what starts our as a pagan god, is still a pagan god. My God is a God that loves all his children and wants them to worship him of their own free will… He is not a god that asks some of his children to murder, in violation of His own commandments. Commandments that were so important that they were written in stone by His own finger.

    Enjoy Thailand… I used to live in a little town east of Pattya Beach call Bhan Chan (sic?) for nearly a year. I certainly do miss the people in that wonderful country. I have never met happier or friendlier people in all my life, despite what some would describe as extreme poverty.

    ReplyReply
  6. wordsmith says: 106

    @CHill:

    How do my actions assist the goals al Qaeda? You and yours are appeasing them, giving them concessions that other groups do not get, and you have already surrendered to their efforts to stealthily move into our society and change it.

    I know it’s become difficult to do, but you really shouldn’t confuse our arguments (Mata, Aye, myself) with those of liberal pc-appeasers. We’re not giving “concessions” that “other groups” do not get. The special treatment they are getting is religious bigotry coming from the right who have shoveled all practitioners of Islam under one big tent for condemnation. If we’re “conceding” anything, it would be the rule of law and equal protection under the Constitution.

    How do your actions aid al Qaeda goals? al Qaeda expected their organization may not survive the U.S. backlash- they wanted to provoke the U.S. into invasion of Afghanistan; imperial overreach; into engaging in a “clash of civilizations”. They wanted to convince the Muslim world that their dysfunction, their sense of oppression by secular Muslim states supported by its ally, the U.S., is all because of the corrupting, imperialistic influence of the U.S. They wanted to unite all of Islam under a new super Caliphate. They sounded the clarion call of jihad….and most Muslims rejected it. Many became horrified by al Qaeda, which has been responsible for killing more Muslims than the U.S. has. I really would hope that readers carefully went through the original content of the post, rather than just bypass with a knee-jerk response based upon preconceived opinions.

    al Qaeda and the global jihad movement are at war with us. Not Islam. They use Islam; but so do the vast majority of 1.5 billion muslims; but not to “convert or kill” all infidels and war against the U.S.

    al Qaeda failed to convince the Muslim world to take up their ideological cause (their theology finds justifications in the writings of ibn Taymiyyah and Sayyid Qutb when other Islamists- including fellow radicals- have condemned al Qaeda for their wanton, indiscriminate violence). However, by thinking Islam itself is the enemy, you do a great propaganda service for bin Laden and Zawahiri. You stand to accomplish for them what they failed to do themselves.

    ReplyReply
  7. CHill says: 107

    #106 Donald Bly:

    Just got back from Hua Hin an hour ago and looked what was happening here. Ban Chan is a beautiful place where mostly only Thais hang out as I recall. At least, it was several years ago when we last visited. We have land and business in Hua Hin so we do not go on that side of the Gulf. Pataya is simply a place not to be seen as it has turned pretty scummy (as if it did not have that reputation years ago).

    Of course, Islam is a religion/way of life that has the goal of destroying all cultures in its way. Stealth jihad is also very much part of its tenets. I just wonder how many of the readers here think they can discern who is stealth and who is not.

    Reminds me of what happened in Iran in 1976 (I was in Greece in the Air Force). Many of my friends worked in Iran and made many Iranian friends. Close friends, they thought. When the revolution came, these “close friends” became their enemy and forced them out with nothing but the clothes they were wearing. Some of these “close friends” even admitted to their faces that all had been a game and they were merely waiting for the chance to turn on the infidels.

    A GAME.

    Play the game and reap the whirlwind, all ye who think you can figure out who the moderates are and who the stealth jihadist are.

    As to Wordsmith’s last comment, you are playing the game that the Muslims want you to play. This is not about civil rights, this is about the clash of civilizations and people who do not understand this, are in the game and will lose.

    ReplyReply
  8. Donald Bly says: 108

    @CHill

    I had two very good friends, Marcus and Barbara Stokes who were assigned to Tehran in 1977. I have not seen or heard from them since the fall of the Shah. I do hope that they escaped the the situation. I was involved in Carter’s fiasco of a rescue mission, providing satellite/microwave communications from a remote location in the middle east.

    ReplyReply
  9. CHill says: 109

    Was at Fort Meade at the time. Was working with a really great AF Captain who disappeared one day and then showed up on TV as one of the hostages. The rest is history but he eventually became a General in charge of AF logistics. Was heavily involved in all the goings on at the time. I was a Hebe linguist.

    War stories, right?

    Do you ever get back this way?

    ReplyReply
  10. Donald Bly says: 110

    @CHill

    A linguist eh! We had a lot of linguists in my unit. The United States Army Security Agency. I was an ECM and DF Systems Repair Tech. Would love to get back to Thailand… but I’m afraid that it will be awhile before I can do that kind of traveling anytime in the near future.

    ReplyReply
  11. Pingback: The “Sherroding” of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf?

  12. John Galt says: 111

    I find it troubling that in the original post, this was used to defend the concept that it was a myth:

    This conception of Islam is quite commonplace among Evangelical Christians, Atheists, Zionists, politicians in the West, and media commentators generally.

    Anyone else notice this?

    Must be them eeeeeevvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllll jooooooooooooooos. Yeah, cause you know, Zionism is bad.

    So when this was written as a defense against a “myth”, another myth was used as the basis to hand wave the argument? And this was accepted as ‘fact’, unquestioned? Why? Are you willing to believe that all Zionists are bad, and hate all muslims? If so, why do you believe this, and yet argue against the “myth” of muslim celebration?

    The reality, whether we like it or not, was that a fraction of the muslim population celebrated the attacks. Was this an overwhelming fraction, as in more than 50% or a smaller fraction, say under 20%? Was it a minute fraction, well under 1%, or was it substantial enough to be noticed? Does this fraction even matter?

    Well, yes the fraction matters, if for only reason to rip arguments away from any sides’ apologists spin. We see lots of images of muslims in mourning, expressing regret, expressing solidarity. And the media dutifully reported this. The MSM or MFM depending on how you want to classify them.

    But we don’t see images like the palestinians dancing in the streets and handing out sweets. We don’t see the rallys in Egypt and elsewhere. We don’t see the imagery which would significantly alter the perception of the gentle reader, from the message that muslims are anything but peace loving and tolerant people. Is this because these pictures don’t exist? Or because its only a tiny minority of extremists?

    No, the pictures do exist. And the polls in islamic countries suggest its about the 10% mark who were happy with the 9/11 attacks. And happy with al Qaeda’s aims. c.f. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/196545.php and the links within.

    Most muslims are good people. I agree with this. I know many, and count them among my friends.

    A few, around 10% or so, are not good people. Polls show this, from islamic countries.

    Should we say “oh we have only 10% who want to see us die, so we can just get on with our lives and pretend that the 10% is really 0%”? Or should we worry that there are 120 million people who agree with al Qaeda, its aims, its goals, and its actions?

    Kinda sucks to be on the losing end of that argument … either you have nothing to worry about, and can go blissfully on your way until a minute fraction of those 120 million people decide to send you to meet your maker … or you realize you were wrong, and that we have a problem. Either way, this doesn’t end well.

    But back to the zionism quip. Yeah, I’m stuck on this.

    Even my muslim friends, I don’t engage with a discussion of judaism, zionism, etc. with them, for very good reason. Did once, and that person is no longer my friend. Seems they don’t tolerate that I strongly support the right of the jewish people to return to their homeland, and I do not support the right of the usurpers to take land back from them. Whether we like it or not, the issue of Israel’s existence is a complete affront to Islam, which makes a number of unfulfilled promises to its adherents, one of which is that muslims will always win against the jews. Another being that land that was once under muslim control must never be allowed out of muslim control.

    Again, that pesky 10%, and things like this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2581145/posts tend to give lie to the whole concept of living side by side in peace.

    Ask any muslim, say the 90% who aren’t radical, about what is the greatest danger to world peace. Ask them. What will they say? http://www.mpacuk.org/story/080610/public-comment-israel-only-democracy-middle-east.html http://www.forumpakistan.com/greatest-threat-to-world-peace-t5860.html http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/21086-iran-threat-world-peace-nyeth-s-israel-stupid.html . Go ahead. Google it. Its depressing.

    Again. Why? Zionism is the return of jews to their homeland. Nothing more. Literally. Nothing. More.

    And this is a threat to world peace? Why?

    More to the point, why would zionists be singled out as a group opposed to the muslim point of view? Is it because they have experienced it, in Israel, up close and personal?

    And finally, why was that article not roundly condemned by the author of the post, who was highly critical of broad brush strokes being used to condemn a group, by using other broad brush strokes to condemn another group? That is hypocrisy, or an agenda, though possible oversight is in there. If you pull that article out and condemn it as it deserves, then the who enterprise of declaring muslims to be universally peaceful and not supportive of crackpots is … well … much harder. And in like of the polls, and the uncensored internet postings and video from MEMRI and others … yeah, it gets real hard to support the author’s thesis. Because there is so much strong counter evidence, that you’d need to spin novel length posts to attack the bases.

    No, I disagree with the poster. We do have a problem, and pretending it isn’t real helps no one. Blaming it on the joooooooooooos isn’t a solution and is downright insulting. Assume 1 in 10 muslims you meet are radical anti-American. Assume 50+% are anti-jewish. Assume 90+% are anti-Israel.

    Then the articles above make sense. Blame it on others. Pretend it isn’t real.

    ReplyReply
  13. Wordsmith says: 112

    @John Galt:

    The reality, whether we like it or not, was that a fraction of the muslim population celebrated the attacks. Was this an overwhelming fraction, as in more than 50% or a smaller fraction, say under 20%? Was it a minute fraction, well under 1%, or was it substantial enough to be noticed? Does this fraction even matter? Well, yes the fraction matters, if for only reason to rip arguments away from any sides’ apologists spin. We see lots of images of muslims in mourning, expressing regret, expressing solidarity.

    Uh…no, it’s the opposite narrative; hence the need for the post. Your general person out on the street, and conservatives in particular, never bring up the fact that many Muslims did condemn the attacks, do condemn and denounce al Qaeda, hence the need for the post. The only thing anti-Islamists seem to recall is the “celebration”. The only thing they seem to want to see is the “celebration”.

    Or should we worry that there are 120 million people who agree with al Qaeda, its aims, its goals, and its actions? Kinda sucks to be on the losing end of that argument … either you have nothing to worry about, and can go blissfully on your way until a minute fraction of those 120 million people decide to send you to meet your maker … or you realize you were wrong, and that we have a problem.

    Where am I saying we don’t have a problem with the global jihad movement, John? Where am I saying there aren’t those who aren’t part of the global jihad movement who aren’t anti-American Islamists, whose values and way of life aren’t to be deplored? Do you see the comments from those who have a hatred that burns beyond the 10 percenters? That widens this war and fuels the reality that al Qaeda wants to bring about?

    Either way, this doesn’t end well. But back to the zionism quip. Yeah, I’m stuck on this. Even my muslim friends, I don’t engage with a discussion of judaism, zionism, etc. with them, for very good reason. Did once, and that person is no longer my friend. Seems they don’t tolerate that I strongly support the right of the jewish people to return to their homeland, and I do not support the right of the usurpers to take land back from them. Whether we like it or not, the issue of Israel’s existence is a complete affront to Islam, which makes a number of unfulfilled promises to its adherents, one of which is that muslims will always win against the jews. Another being that land that was once under muslim control must never be allowed out of muslim control. Again, that pesky 10%, and things like this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2581145/posts tend to give lie to the whole concept of living side by side in peace. Ask any muslim, say the 90% who aren’t radical, about what is the greatest danger to world peace.

    Galt, if the Islamic faith had never existed, there would still be territorial problems and disputes over this. So long as there is nationalism and ethnic (or religious) sense of identity, regardless. Are their problems inherently wrong within Islam? Imo, yes. There are tenets that can’t be excused away. But at the same time, I find it to be a convenient scapegoat for Middle East-West confrontations and deeply rooted geopolitical tensions that predates either Islam or Christianity. Graham Fuller’s A World without Islam:

    I argue that deeper geopolitical factors have created numerous confrontational factors between the East and the West that predate Islam, continued with Islam and around Islam, and may be inherent in the territorial imperatives and geopolitical outlook of any state that occupy those areas, regardless of religion.

    It’s human nature to align, by default, to those who share commonalities with you on the most superficial of reasons. Ethnic identity creates whites vs. minorities issues. You come from one neighborhood, you’re inclined to root and cheer for the local football team, rather than the one from across town, creating a rivalry. Based on what?

    Yeah, I can tell the zionist thing is stuck in your craw. Don’t see how that relates to the topic of the post. I am very pro-Israel. A number of those who are “ethnically” Muslim and opposed to Israel aren’t necessarily pious Muslims who are drawing the fuel for their fire from the Koran. Other factors are at play, here.

    And finally, why was that article not roundly condemned by the author of the post, who was highly critical of broad brush strokes being used to condemn a group, by using other broad brush strokes to condemn another group? That is hypocrisy, or an agenda, though possible oversight is in there.

    What article are you referring to? Something I linked to in this post?

    If you pull that article out and condemn it as it deserves, then the who enterprise of declaring muslims to be universally peaceful and not supportive of crackpots is … well … much harder.

    This isn’t a post about who majority Muslims support in the Israel-Palestine debate. An issue that can also be divided along political party lines when it comes to sympathizers, apologists, supporters, and activists.

    Just because bin Laden mentions the U.S. support of Israel as one of his fatwa (he has no authority to issue fatwas) grievances, does not mean all Muslims who don’t support Israel supports bin Laden. Just because Jimmy Carter is politically on the left side of the Israel-Palestine conflict does not mean he is a supporter of al Qaeda and their brand of Islam.

    We do have a problem, and pretending it isn’t real helps no one. Blaming it on the joooooooooooos isn’t a solution and is downright insulting. Assume 1 in 10 muslims you meet are radical anti-American. Assume 50+% are anti-jewish. Assume 90+% are anti-Israel. Then the articles above make sense. Blame it on others. Pretend it isn’t real.

    Somehow, I think you missed the whole point of this post and the context and environment that created the need for it (starting with the first several comment thread discussions on the GZM issue). Sounds like you’re trying to weave in your personal pet peeve issue into this.

    ReplyReply
  14. Pingback: Muslims Acting as “Human Shields” | Flopping Aces

  15. Geo Super Live, hi, yes, because of your comment coming to my mail,It made me come back and read all the comments again, and what come to mind at this time, is that It’s unfortunate indeed that our blog was divided in two camps, it reflect the position AMERICANS are also in 2 camps of beleifs, so
    it would be faster to fix the problem if the whole majority of AMERICANS would deny their
    way of living in this country unless they reform to obey the law of the land strictly,as far as all the rules of the CONSTITUTION are concerned,that mean, forbidding them to teach their religions to and
    all of it rigorously, to our young vulnerable to to be convince to anything dangerous,that on the street or in schools must be forbided,

    ReplyReply
  16. Elle says: 114

    @CHill:

    believe me Chill, we wish we culd, but as you can probably guess, Afghanistan and Saudi and all those other countries are run by Taliban and al Qaeda and other terrorist governments. They run around killing their own and threatening America. We live in a world where governments aren’t blamed, but the people, the religion itself. The Arab spring is spreading light on the medieval ways of the Middle Eastern Leaders so who knows, maybe we Muslims will eventually come together with people of all religions and put a stop to abominations like the Taliban. (Taliban attack everyone, including Muslims, theyre the ones that kill women if they aren’t wearing a burqa or talk loudly in the street-read The Kite Runner by Kaled Husseini, it’s all about that.See it’s just extremism, I swear, Muslims are upset whenever there’s something bad like this going on. It’s unislamic and very wrong.)

    ReplyReply
  17. Elle says: 115

    @Donald Bly:

    Thats a dangerous way of thinking, isn’t it?

    If you took the time to actaully read the Quran and understand it, you’d see it doesn’t call for the killing of anyone. Christians and Jews are especially praised in the Quran, said they’d go to heaven, actaully. God loves those who Believe in Him, right? Don’t Muslims (Allah is just the Arabic word for God, Arab Christians use it for God too) Christians, and Jews all believe in God. I surely hopeso.

    And I KNOW Muslims overseas will do this kinda thing, it’s wrong, believe me, theyre going to Hell. The propaganda you see of extremists yeling “Allahu Akbar(God is great)” and blowing themselves up being ‘jihad’ believe me, nowhere in the Quran does it say that. Murder and suicide are both VERY forbidden in our religion, the hting is, I’m not sure why radicals believe its ok, they’re insane, I can assure you, and I’m sure Muhammad would say the same. And you say w aren’t a peaceful, chill bunch. Have you taken the time to chill with any of us? Talk to us? hear our side of the story? Do you know how many Muslims died working at or around the WTC, like the heroic Muslim medic who tried to save someone but got crushed by burning debris, or the 7 month old baby of the Muslim woman on that flight? You think regular Muslims would orchestrate that kinda thing? Suicide and murder is so wrong! SO SO wrong. Regular Muslims want out of the Middle east because of the way its treating them, and they want a piece of the AMerican dream, too. Many of us were born here, we’ve lived here to better ourselves, to give our kids a good education because our girls can’t learn much back home, we come here so our wives and daughters and sisters won’t be forced to wear a burqa OR a hijab if she does not choose to, we want to live happily here alongside the rest of the Americans. We want it like Andalus, Spain. We lived together in harmony (us, Jews, Christians) until one corrupted guy took hold of the Empire and greed and horror broke out. That’s when the crusades came along. Anyway, that’s my little speech for you. I urge you to read the Quran front to back and really understand it, make friends with a Muslim, you’ll be surprised. Can’t find one? i’ll be them, lol, but seriously, expand your horizons

    ReplyReply
  18. welcome, you will enjoy our good group of CONSERVATIVES , THE BEST THERE ARE,
    WE HAVE MANY POST TO LOOK AT, CHECK IT UP

    ReplyReply
  19. TODAY 5TH OF MARCH 2012,
    LOOK AT THE AFGHANISTAN MOB, they are drooling from hate to AMERICA,
    THEY ALREADY KILLED MANY OF THE AMERICANS THE BRAVEST IN THERE WHO WHERE TEACHING THEM HOW TO DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY, SOME OF THEM SHOT COWARDLY
    AMERICAN MILITARY IN THE BACK, this mob is obeying the TALIBANS, polices and soldiers obeying the TALBAN’S CALL TO HATE AND MURDER AMERICANS,
    don’t come here in AMERICA CLAIMING YOU LOVE AMERICA, DON’T TELL THE AMERICANS THEY CAN TRUST YOU,
    THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO TRUST YOU ALL AFGHANS MUSLIMS,
    BECAUSE YOU HAVE CROSS THE LINE, YOU HAVE OBEYED THE VOICE OF EVIL WHICH TELL YOU TO KILL THE INFIDELS, WE WILL NEVER FORGIVE THOSE MURDERS YOU HAVE NOT PREVENTED,
    THE LIVES OF THE BRAVEST ARE CRYING TO BE LISTEN TO, and their messages have resounded across the whole free WORLD stating clearly who you all are for,and against, because you did not stand for what is right under GOD. but only WHAT IS RIGHT UNDER THE FORCES OF HELL.

    ReplyReply
  20. Spike says: 118

    Neville (aka) Aye did you read post # 117 theyall hate and want to kill us!

    ReplyReply
  21. ELLE,
    MY COMMENT welcome was intended for another ,which comment was erase,
    for some reason ,I would not know, some kind of game played by someone,
    I must say, that your intentions might be good for you, and although you mean well,
    but you are to naive to think that we need to read the book all the way so too understand
    YOUR FAITH, we are fighting a war with MUSLIM extremists, and all this time the citizens THERE
    did not get it, they now are cowardly shooting our MILITARY IN THE BACK, FOR YOUR BOOK,
    that alone plus many other events happening , has naturally branded the profile of the MUSLIMS all over the free WORLD, and no one on the MUSLIM SIDE HAS DONE ENOUGH TO FIGHT THAT CONCEPT,
    THE BURDEN has fallen to the braves of the FREE WORLD to fight those extremists,
    while you come here debating the problem in this peaceful COUNTRY where the BRAVES ARE FIXING YOUR AND OTHER MUSLIMS PROBLEMS , ALSO LIVING PEACEFULLY DOING NOTHING
    NOT RISKING THEIR LIVES TO GO AND KILL THOSE MUSLIMS EXTREMIST,
    THERE is the problem we all have on the other side, we see the wounded, we see the dead coming back
    and we see you in burka parading in every corner like if we would see a thorn on a tree, always reminding us of the wounded because of what you MUSLIMS DID NOT DO TO FIX YOUR OWN PROBLEMS,
    IMPOSING IT ON OUR BRAVEST TO DO IT FOR YOU.

    ReplyReply
  22. Pingback: GOP's version of the violence against women act - Page 7

  23. Pingback: Wordsmith Draws Mohammed | Flopping Aces

  24. Zhang Men says: 120

    I think Iranians are good, but Arabs, who were so violent in spreading Islam, not so…

    ReplyReply
  25. Tim says: 121

    Where are the Sunni towel heads and burka clad population denouncing 9/11?

    There is no point showing tiny minority group Muslims (like Alawites, Ahmadis, Sufis, Ajlafs and Arzals, Alawites, Mutazilites) who themselves are victims of Sunni and Shia persecution, and branded kafirs, denouncing 9/11 and then pretend they represent the Muslim majority. That’s pure propaganda. These minorities represent no more than about 2% of the entire Muslim population.

    Besides, the picture from “peaceful” Bangladesh where non-Muslim minorities are being slaughtered every day for no other reason than not being Muslim and now constitute only 2-3% left of the entire population, the picture shows Hindus and not Muslims denouncing 9.11.

    ReplyReply
  26. Simply Revelation says: 122

    People, this is the Revelations. What the Israelites have done in World War 2 has done been not forgotten. This is an injustice being undone. Before the 2 modern world wars, I came to believe that America was in fair, yet respectable accordance with Saudi Arabia. Now, somewhat in some way, nations have chose to side with the transgressor’s speech and terror. Maybe that there was to be inevitable conflict in the old days of keeping the peace and they know it is of their right to inherit the land after the felling/appointment of David + Solomon. I would be careful of siding oaths due to the eternal truth being acted, not spoken. Please read what WTO does to the Middle East and reconsider your thoughts (rationally [reasons or voices behind the commotion]). Time is permitted.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>