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?


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

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)


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?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Screw Islam… and their quest for a world wide caliphate, and screw the Qu’ran and its call for the death or subjugation of all infidels. And screw their apologists. Anyone know when Wordsmith’s birthday is… so I can send him a prayer rug!

Wordsmith… if you are so certain that these Muslim loons are so benign… then you shouldn’t have any problem posting a cartoon of Mohammed to the site. They would never never issue a fatwah calling for your death for exercising your right to free speech. I await patiently for the coming cartoon.

You simply do not really know anything about Islam.

Start Here:

Jihad is real. If you doubt this, talk to its victims all over the world. If the “great majority” of Muslims were truly peace loving, they would collectively put a stop to the murders. Where are they?

Can one say that Nazism is peace loving or communism is peace loving and only the very radical elements caused the deaths of millions. Islam does not offer a peaceful way of life for dhimmis and infidels. Yes, you will find that word in the Quran along side thousands of verses that command the true Muslim to action.

Better yet, get in touch with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and find out the truth about Islam. The majority maybe moderates but then it was also the American moderates who elected our current President.

Yeah, no celebrating going on here, just Saddam Hussein depicted smoking a congratulatory cigar and smiling as the Towers burn:

Full size here.

What’s next Word? You gonna say there is no link between Al Queda and Saddam?

Well duh, Mike.

Wordsmith in his post:

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,… snip….

Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”

* Tabari VIII:141 “The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah that night was: ‘Kill! Kill! Kill!'”

* Qur’an 9:71 “O Prophet, strive hard [fighting] against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be harsh with them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed.”

* Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet had their men killed, their woman and children taken captive.”

* Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'”

Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

* Ishaq:489 “Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing

Anyone who buys this should remember Al Awlaki was considered one of the good muslims, being touting and interviewed as he told us all Islam does not promote the killing of innocent people.

Where is al awlaki now? what is he promoting now?

The Quran is inseparable from politics. It is politics.


It’s true. How often is what is said in public very different from what is said in private?

“Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” Surah 3: 28

I asked a Muslim colleague and friend of mine once the hypothetical question about a sibling turning away from Islam and if he would do his “duty” and kill him. His comment was most enlightening – he would because Allah has a final plan and Muslims must all follow this plan.

Interviewing or believing a Muslim who speaks to a non-Muslim audience may very well be protecting the jihad believers as commanded and, thus, saying what the infidel wants to hear. Quote all these “moderate leaders” if you will but can you guarantee that they are NOT preventing the West from harming them by way of cutting off assistance and money? No! I didn’t think so.

Gee, CHill… can you guarantee Ayers hasn’t been taking over public education curriculum, interjecting “social justice” as the foundation, in order to effect “change” in America that his bud, the POTUS, is busy implementing? The point is, there are no guarantees in anything. But that possibility is not enough to shred our founding principles.

Secondly, you are new here. So while you are busy telling a group – whom you know nothing about historically – that we don’t know anything about jihad, you might want to surf years archives. Despite our disagreements here, no one supports jihad. The disagreement lies between whether all Muslims are closet jihad elements, as is suggested by all too many. They are proving George W. Bush to be a liar. Apparently, all too many Americans are, indeed, waging a war against Islam, and not against the global jihad movement.

You, apparently, are one of them…. citing a “just in case” type mentality.

One of the readers has even provided a suggested rewrite of the 1st Amendment to exclude Islam.

Of course, if that’s the case, shouldn’t we extend that ostracism to political parties that are attempting to seize control of this country’s founding principles too? After all, all the ‘phobes are saying Islam’s not a religion, so it shouldn’t have the protection of freedom of religion. But then, if you’re making the case that Islam is politics, is it any better to ostracize Islam as undesirable politics? After all, those that are making serious inroads to the decline of America aren’t building this Cordoba House. They are sitting in Congress and the Oval Office now, while most concern themselves with a interfaith community center by a guy who’s been a NYC resident for over 25 years, and an Imam at a mosque locally for years with no problems, and no wary eye scrutiny from our intel agencies.

It’s the beginning of August, and an important election a little over two months from now. Yet the rhetoric of this BS grows, and the more serious and immediate issues are being drowned by hyperbole, and quotable bigotry from so called “conservative leaders” who find a decided rule of law in favor of Cordoba House inconvenient to our founding principles. That’ll go a long way for lib/prog talking points, and turning off voters looking for alternatives.

If anyone can sink the fiscally conservative ship, who has been enjoying the wind at her back, it will be the GOP and these conservatives who wish to carve out a separate Constitutional niche for Islam.

Every Muslim on the planet experienced a orgasm as they watched the Twins crumble to the ground!

Every Muslim on the planet experienced a orgasm as they watched the Twins crumble to the ground!

Bigotry….Party of one.

Bigotry…Party of one. Your table is ready.

Nice try Wordsmith; but its all bullshit. Suggest you read the Quran a little more comprehensively. Muslims tell infidels only what they want them believe. Espicially around 9/11 as they weren’t sure who would be the next target. There were muslims rejoicing in NYC on that day. And I have yet to hear of any Islamic organization in this country regularly speak out against muslim terrorism in this country. There are a few individuals who have turned their backs on Islam and this jihad crap, but very few. Now what color prayer rug would you like for your next birthday?


Funny how over 80% of Germans backed the National Socialist Party but when the Nazis lost, no one was a Nazi and no one knew about all those camps scattered around Germany and beyond. Why bring this up here? The writings and documents of the Nazis pretty well established who they were and what they believed. The writings and documents of Islam pretty well establishes who they are and what they believe. Truth is not bigotry.

Notice earlier I told the story about a Muslim colleague and friend of mine. Bigotry you may claim because I write the truth. You do not know we who write here so do not pretend to call us bigots just because some of us write what we have read and have experienced.

Sufi Muslims, for example, gave my wife and I a welcome to Xinjiang, China we have yet to match anywhere in the world save maybe Krabi in Southern Thailand (also Sufis). I meet people as individuals only and have never judged a person any other way but who they are by how they interact with me. More than 80% of the Germans supported Hitler but on an individual basis they were probably nice and friendly people.

Ignorance and naivity. . . party of many. Your tables are ready.

@CHill: Excellent points Chill!

Skye and Mata, what color prayer rugs would you like?

Minuteman25 #18… if you are so all a’fired well read on the Qu’ran, as you proclaim… then you’d know that not only are prayer rugs not a dictate in Islam, but they are not universally used by all Muslims.



Yes, that’s what comment #12 was. Pure, unadulterated bigotry and stereotyping.

Any questions?


Now, let’s talk about your post instead of Spike’s.

First you say this:

Notice earlier I told the story about a Muslim colleague and friend of mine.

You told that story in order to generalize and stereotype all Muslims into one big unvarying clump.

There’s only one problem…your own words later on:

Bigotry you may claim because I write the truth. You do not know we who write here so do not pretend to call us bigots just because some of us write what we have read and have experienced.

Sufi Muslims, for example, gave my wife and I a welcome to Xinjiang, China we have yet to match anywhere in the world save maybe Krabi in Southern Thailand (also Sufis). I meet people as individuals only and have never judged a person any other way but who they are by how they interact with me.

Ummm….have you personally met with each and every Muslim on the planet and, therefore, formed a personal judgment on them and how they interacted with you?

No? Didn’t think so.

So, are you a bigot, a liar, or both?


First, I am not new here but have been around a long, long time. I only occasionally comment when I see something I find interesting or disagree with. When one tries to sugar-coat the teachings of Islam as has been done for centuries by the West for various reasons, one will tend to overlook the very teachings that we are, indeed, infidels to ALL true Muslims.

I am not an advocate of denying any person their rights in America. I stand against any law or policy that excludes anyone from benefitting from our hard fought freedoms.

Accusing me of trying to “shred founding principles” simply because of the truth I stated is as bad as running cover for a religious and political movement that, by its only documents and writings is bent on the destruction of the infidels way of life. Now let’s talk about BS, shall we?

As a retired USAF Major (SIGINT), I put my life on the line any number of times flying recon missions in the Middle East. Yes, that is the same Middle East that this conversation is about. “Shred founding principles” you say? Reread what I wrote. I questioned the authenticity of studies done or speeches made by a people who have been commanded to lie to infidels. The article was nothing but cover for Islamic teachings which not even you can deny exist and are followed by true Muslims in America and around the world.

Islam is not now nor has ever been the Religion of Peace except when everyone on the planet is Muslim. Is this BS? Is this a lie? Or is it truth? Does making this truthful statement make me a bigot? Bigotry is an action carried out based on beliefs. Muslims living in a country who do not put into action their beliefs are the same as anyone who may disagree with a viewpoint but only verbalize disagreement. Does that make them bigots?

I have never even thought about mistreating Muslims, Christians, Jews or Buddhist because of their religion. I appreciate each human as an individual and interact with him or her accordingly. That does not change the truth of what I write.

Once again – Mr. Naive – party of many. Your tables are ready.

So, retired USAF Major CHill, while this Vietnam era Naval spouse thanks you for your service, you do indeed confirm you believe this is a war against Islam, and not the global Islamic jihad movement. Because, according to you, if they insist they don’t stand with jihad, they are liars.

Well, as I said to suek on some of the other g’azilling threads on this, that doesn’t leave a Muslim anywhere to go with you, does it?

You worry about Mr. Naive’s table… I suggest Mr. Naive’s table is already been given to… er redistributed… to others by our current Congress and WH. Our focus should be on those actually tearing this country apart… now… before our very eyes. Not looking for jihad eyes around every NYC corner and in every American Muslim.


Islam is not now nor has ever been the Religion of Peace except when everyone on the planet is Muslim. Is this BS? Is this a lie? Or is it truth? Does making this truthful statement make me a bigot?

Sufi Muslims, for example, gave my wife and I a welcome to Xinjiang, China we have yet to match anywhere in the world save maybe Krabi in Southern Thailand (also Sufis). I meet people as individuals only and have never judged a person any other way but who they are by how they interact with me.

So, again, are you a liar…a bigot…or both?

I believe the myth is they were as horrified of these atrocious acts of 9/11 and showed their distaste by distributing candy to children and singing in the arab street.

Ah Chihuahua (love the name),

Referencing writings and documents of Islam and making judgements on what true Muslims are supposed to believe is not even insinuating that I have met all the Muslims in the world. Your quantum leaping ability is quite impressive.

Now let me ask you a question – Does the Quran and other Islamic writings give instructions on how to deal with dhimmis and infidels?

This does not imply that all Muslims follow the Quran and Islamic writings totally.

You may call me a bigot today, tomorrow and forever. That is your right to which I will defend today, tomorrow and forever. Just because you call me a bigot does not make me a bigot. However, if the Quran does give specific instructions on how to deal with infidels, then I have proven who is the liar. My comments were very simply this:

If the Nazis documented their desire to conquer Europe and kill all the Jews and non-Aryans in Germany, then one must kind of believe that this was what they were trying to do. But then Europeans looked the other way and said that Germans are really all nice people and the National Socialists were peace loving so it is nothing to worry about. Most of the German people did not become directly involved in what happened at those “work camps.” They did not do anything to stop what was happening nor did they blow the whistle to the outside world. I do not see any really active movement in the Islamic world to thwart the jihad. In fact, every country that has a large number of Muslim has blood oozing from its border today. Verify it by looking at a map. I live in Thailand – how about a vacation to Southern Thailand and see who are the bigots there.

I’m the one that proposed a 1st amendment re-write.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof with the exception of those faiths that have as a written doctrine the overthrow of the government; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The added phrase in bold is not directed at Islam unless the shoe fits… does it?

Despite what Islamic apologists declare… Islam has been at war with non-Islamic people almost continuously since 622 AD. One can believe in what some contemporary Imams claim… that Islam is a religion of peace… or one can look at 1400 years of history.

We report… you decide.

The problem is that the core teachings of Islam are incompatable with Western thought. ANY fair reading of the Koran will lead you to that conclusion.

Thus, any Moslem who follows the dictates of Islam… ie any fundamentalist Moslem… will always try to bring down our way of life… Its a core doctrine of their Holy Book.

Now, THEY can ignore parts of their own book… just as their are Pro Abortion Catholics… but relying on them to do so is pretty dangerous.

Until Islam goes through a Reformation… at least part of its Billion or so adhearents WILL wage Jihad, as their book says. Problem is that you can’t Reform a religion from the OUTSIDE, and the “moderate” moslems are NOT the ones holding the religious reigns of power.

We destroyed the Political power of the Church in the West… they have not… which IS the problem… and one many will not acknowledge.


Referencing writings and documents of Islam and making judgements on what true Muslims are supposed to believe is not even insinuating that I have met all the Muslims in the world.

Islam is not now nor has ever been the Religion of Peace except when everyone on the planet is Muslim.


Sufi Muslims, for example, gave my wife and I a welcome to Xinjiang, China we have yet to match anywhere in the world save maybe Krabi in Southern Thailand (also Sufis).

I meet people as individuals only and have never judged a person any other way but who they are by how they interact with me.

So, once again, are you a liar…a bigot…or both?


No quantum leaps necessary, just your own words.

Dearest MataHarley,

Why do you pundits always insist on putting words in the mouths of those who dare disagree with you. Where did I say that I thought the war was against Islam? My complaint was that the article was too much of a snow job to defend the elite Muslim leadership who got their words quoted.

I will ask you the same question I asked earlier – does the Quran and other writings of Islam give definite instructions on how to deal with Dhimmis and infidels? If the writings state clearly that the National Socialist Party is going to kill or enslave all non-Aryans, what is it that you need to understand about the Nazis and what the Europeans did not understand in the 1930s? Again, does the writings of Islam command certain things to be done to all infidels who get in the way of Allah’s plan to convert the world.

Were we fighting the National Socialist Party or just a few radical members of it during World War II? Either the writings and documents of Islam give instructions or they do not. Rationalizing this or refusing to address it will determine who has the most BS.

Unlike you, CHill, I don’t profess to be a cleric, Imam nor an expert on the Qu’ran. But I’m sure you’re going to fill us with your infidel expertise, right along with the rest of the infidels expertise that, in their arrogance, define a religion they do not practice. But I suggest that if you insist upon finding a passage that suits your ideas that they are mandated to kill or convert all non-Muslims, you might also find the passage in that ancient text that deals with the killing of innocents. Then you might want to consider that even that “evil” Perdana organization (as so many think here) was a signatory to a resolution (along with Rauf) that war should be criminalized because of the killing of innocents of all faiths that occur as a result. Do I agree with that? Of course not. But then, the way I hear it from you self-proclaimed Imans, they shouldn’t give a hoot about collateral damage right?

Perhaps you didn’t read the original post here carefully enough… about those who condemned the 911 attacks publicly. Maybe you missed that Rauf, himself, refuses to even accept the 911 bombers as a member of Islam since their action was very un-Islamic.

Oh… right… you’ll read to me that they are required to lie. Again I say to you, this doesn’t leave any Muslims anywhere to go with you, does it?

Then I might remind you, as Aye Chi does, that mosques and their clerics tend to individualize, very much like the split of Christian denominations from Biblical teachings. Are all Christians against dancing, like Southern Baptists were? Are all Christians against divorce, as the Catholic church dictates?

When’s the last time a Muslim showed up at your door and attempted to convert or kill you? I don’t know about you, but the Muslims I know and do business with could care less about my faith, let alone wanting to do me harm. However every couple of weeks, there’s a Jehovah’s Witness at my door…

CHill: Were we fighting the National Socialist Party or just a few radical members of it during World War II?

We were fighting nation-states during world wars. Now we are fighting a thug/gang group of int’l jihad radicals…. not a religion. This is not even a rational argument.

Dearest Quantum Physicist:

Now let me ask you a question – Does the Quran and other Islamic writings give instructions on how to deal with dhimmis and infidels?

If you answer “yes,” then welcome to my table.


Does the Quran and other Islamic writings give instructions on how to deal with dhimmis and infidels?

Good question but the more important question, however, is do all Muslims follow those instructions?

“Bigotry…Party of one. Your table is ready”

Aye, or maybe I should address you as Neville can be in denial if you want,
but, I belive what I believe.

Everything I need to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11/01.

@Mata Harley

Question, do you believe that Western Secular Democracies would have ever formed, if the power of the Catholic Church… the power that HAD to bless the rulers of Catholic countries… had not been broken?

The power that… oh… allowed the King of France to destroy the Templars on Friday the 13th? Where Secular law was trumped by Religious law?

Or, as an even better corollary to what is going on in the Mideast today… the Spanish Inquisition?

WE broke the Church/State chain… THEY have not.

And what is interesting, is that the countries under Sharia law are going MORE fundamentalist, not less… please go look at what is happening in Indonesia, or Pakistan, or Saudi… they are going AWAY from Western types of thought and Freedom, not towards.

Romeo, you have a strange vision of the path of modern Shariah in Muslim nations. Pakistan is not going “more” fundamentalist per the population, as they consistently vote down Shariah as law of the land. They are, however, under the same regime (Bhutto’s) who created the original Taliban. As their violence grows, the patience of the Pakistani’s grows more thin, and that will show in the next election… hopefully. They did not get the man they thought they were voting for, anymore than the libs got the man they thought they were voting for here.

Secondly, you ignore Syria’s ban of wearing burkas/veils on school campuses. You ignore the Muslim youth of Iran who demonstrate against their clerics…. with no encouragement from the US POTUS. Muslims are rejecting jihad and violent teachings, and embracing a democracy that works for them… i.e. Iraq. Western culture, capitalism and Muslims thrive together in places like Kuwait and the UAE. Egypt has been successfully holding off Zawahiri and his quest to seize that country and return it to 3rd world Muslim shariah.

So I have no clue where you have been getting your world news, but I see something different.

I also have been thru the 2009 Harvard study of Muslim assimilation in different countries, and what the modern Muslims believe about democracy and their futures. Oddly enough, they are very conservative in their aspects, putting family at the top of the list, and abhoring what they consider aberrant sexual practices. And a democratic form of rule is also very important to them.

It’s up to the Muslims to reform their religion… not the infidels. And building Cordobal House cannot be equated with overthrowing the US government and our Constitution. That is already being done by the temporary occupant of the WH, and his Congressional friends, while everyone moans and groans about a building two blocks from Ground Zero.

I see the well coordinated “Cordoba Cabal” is still in high gear.

I just hope the real power behind this mosque appreciates your efforts (what is it that Stalin said?…oh never mind). I’d hate to see Mata forced to wear a burka after all she’s done. Surely, those robes get caught in the bike’s gears.

Only another Muslim would be considered an “innocent” in the eyes of Islam… Infidels are never “innocents” and are to be killed or subjugated.

“…you might also find the passage in that ancient text that deals with the killing of innocents”

Don’t forget to ignore 1400 years of history!

Yeah, Donald… and we’re just the same today as the slave owner Americans of the past too… sigh.

Don’t you have the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights left to rewrite?

@Mata Harley

Lets see… where do I get my news? How about the sites that talk about stoning people to death in Pakistan, or Afganistan, for infidelity.

Or the Afgani who was condemned to death, BY LAW, for leaving Islam?

Or the sites which speak of Christian schools being burned in Indonesia…

Or the NON news about how we still can’t travel freely in Saudi…

Or the Islamic political resurgence in Turkey….

Or the religious police in Iran.. banning of all silly things Mullets?

Oh, and having BEEN to Kuwait, more than once… its not the secular place you seem to think… just like in America where we now have a Political class with views divergent from the rest of the folks… Most MidEast countries have a Religious class, which under Sharia Law, has a lock on most political power…. the problem is the West does not understand the power the church has there… and wants here.

And a wholy Constitutional way to stop the mosque from being built is quite easy… that building should be a National Landmark… as it was hit by some of the debris that day… so use eminent domain to make it one… (but I was not even talking about that… but its somthing you seem to have a burr under you sadle about…).

Romeo13: And a wholy Constitutional way to stop the mosque from being built is quite easy… that building should be a National Landmark… as it was hit by some of the debris that day… so use eminent domain to make it one… (but I was not even talking about that… but its somthing you seem to have a burr under you sadle about…).

Actually, Romeo, if you read any of these five threads, the burr under my saddle is *all* about our Constitution and rule of law. I’ve stated over and over that I don’t like this building site, not fond of Islam, would never choose that faith for myself. But I stand firm on Constitutional freedom of religion. And for the very tired, and very predictable “Islam isn’t a religion” crowd retort, you can call it a cult, you can call it politics. If any group of organization you don’t like is operating with the scope of our laws, that’s too bad. The Constitution wasn’t envisioned to protect people and speech they knew people accepted.. it was to protect those people did not accept. Period.

Secondly, oh what a tangled web the “national landmark” would be. Only that building, so that you keep it out of the hands of Muslim owners? Or wouldn’t it also be more fitting to make every building that had some 911 damage a “national landmark”?

So what about the rights of those property owners? Because they had damage, they now have to seek the approval of conservative Americans for anything they do with it? Terrific. So you want to seize the Muslims’ rights with their property, and in doing so, you figure out a way to seize everyone else’s too.

Do us a favor… don’t help.

As for your laundry list, not one of those countries has anything in common with American lifestyle and culture. Get serious…. And what the heck does the Cordoba House, which has gone thru the local planning council process – complete with hearings – have to do with the power of Islam? They simply met our rule of law demands.

So, you prefer to ignore the uprising of the young Muslim Iranians against their theocracy? You ignore Pakistani’s adamant about no Shariah law for the nation. You ignore Syria’s own burka banning on campuses. Why most seem to think Islam today is the same as Islam back in 700AD is an enigma. You might as well say that Americans today are the slave owners of America’s past.

OH, and just as a personal observation…

The only times in my life I was ever shot at, was by Moslems… the only bodies I’ve ever picked up, were killed by Moslems…

So, yes, my view might be just a bit tainted by my own past experience…

Does the Koran’s Verse 5:32 Forbid the Killing of Non-Muslims?
by Archi Medes

After every well-publicized major terrorist attack, Islamic apologists appear in the mainstream media, typically claiming that Islam is a religion of peace. To support their assertion, Islamic apologists often quote a famous line from the Koran’s verse 5:32. This famous line is actually only a small part of the verse, and is not even a complete sentence. Here is the line, as it is usually quoted, clipped and cropped, by apologists:

“…whosoever killeth a human being… it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind…”

Well, so far, so good. It appears to be a universal proclamation that all human life is highly valuable, and that murdering one person would be a terrible crime – like murdering all of humankind. But as we will see, appearances and apologists can be deceiving! To get a better understanding of the origins of this verse and its intended meaning in the Koran, let’s go through the complete verses 5:32-37 (Pickthall’s translation), starting with 5:32:

5:32: “For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth.”

See Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of 5:32 at

I will present evidence that (1) the good part of 5:32 – the part that sounds like a prohibition against murdering any innocent human being – is taken from pre-Islamic sources, and will show (2) that the omitted parts of 5:32, when included, change the meaning dramatically, actually permitting killing of non-Muslims in a wide variety of circumstances.

(1) The good part of verse 5:32 does derive from earlier sources.

In context, the decree doesn’t apply universally to all peoples. The verse refers to the Israelites in Biblical history. The verses just preceding 5:32 discuss the story of Cain and Abel. It is almost certain that the good part of the verse 5:32 is actually of Jewish origin, long predating Mohammad and the Koran. This excerpt, discussing the decree’s origin, speaks for itself:

“When we turn to another Jewish record – the Mishnah Sanhedrin, we find the link between the story and what follows:

‘We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, “The voice of thy brother’s bloods crieth” (Gen. 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race.’
Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4:5

“Here is a passage from the Mishnah! The Mishnah is a Jewish commentary on the Torah. How did a Rabbi’s commentary make its way into the Qur’an and be quoted as word from Allah? Simple, Muhammad had heard these teachings from the Jews, and repeated them later as he recited ‘revelation’.

“Because the word for blood is in the plural in Gen. 4:10, an ingenious Rabbi invented the supposition that all Abel’s offspring had been killed with him which signified that any murder or life-saving act had universal implications. Clearly Muhammad had no knowledge of the source of the theory set out in the Mishnah but, in hearing it related, simply set out the Rabbi’s suppositions as the eternal decree of God! Just think, some Jewish Rabbi’s thoughts now are comprised in the Qur’an!”.

This evidence makes it extremely likely that Mohammad (or whoever produced the words for this part of the Koran) did plagiarize or appropriate this quoted commentary of a rabbi. Given that this is a rabbi’s commentary, not the words of God or Allah as conveyed by a prophet, the divine authenticity of this part of 5:32 is all but discredited.

(2) When the omitted parts of the verse are included, the meaning of the verse changes, and permits the killing of non-Muslims under many circumstances.

Now, the argument a defender of Islam might make here, after reading the above excerpt, is “So what? Islam and Judaism have a common source, Allah. It was Allah that guided the rabbi in his commentary, and then guided the prophet Mohammad with a more ‘correct’ version.” (For this interpretation to be acceptable to Islam, one must not assume that the rabbi was a partner to Allah, but simply a believer guided by Allah.) However, this more “correct” version, intended for Muslims, has an addition not found in the earlier source. That main addition is the “corruption in the earth” exception. (We don’t need to deal with the exception for manslaughter here, for this discussion).

Killing someone for “corruption in the earth/land” is permitted (see 5:33). “Corruption in the land” refers to the words and/or actions that come into significant conflict with Islam. Some people have previously commented on this glaring problem with 5:32. Nevertheless, most people who cite the cropped quote seem to have little concern about what the verse actually says. This is not a trivial matter. Interpreted by Muslims, the verse deals with matters of life and death!

The Koran says that the presence of disbelievers causes confusion and corruption in the land, and therefore Muslims must join together to oppose them (8:73). Ibn Kathir interprets 8:73 to mean that if the Muslims do not join together to protect themselves and their religion from the disbelievers, then “(…there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great corruption), meaning, if you do not shun the idolators and offer your loyalty to the believers, Fitnah will overcome the people. Then confusion [polytheism and corruption] will be rampant, for the believers will be mixed with disbelievers, resulting in tremendous, widespread trials [corruption and mischief] between people.”. (Parentheses and [brackets] in original). Note that fitnah is “‘Trial, testing.’ A term referring to antagonism toward individual Muslims at Islam’s beginning. Now it is used to refer to threats to the health of the state.”. It can refer to civil strife, the presence of disbelievers, disbelief, or the drawing of Muslims away from Islam and into disbelief. “Oppression” refers to any words, actions, or institutions that go against, or impede, the full unrestricted practice of Islam.

Let’s continue….

5:33 “The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom…” .

Those who wage war against Allah/Mohammad and/or cause corruption in the earth will be killed, or crucified, or significantly dismembered (to the point of being permanently disabled), or banished (or imprisoned). (The severity of the penalty would depend on the judged severity of the transgression against Islam). In addition, they will be punished in hell (5:33). Allah punishes those who “make mischief in the earth,” subjecting them to a “painful doom” (2:10; 2:11-14).

Corruption in the land, or corruption/mischief on earth, is a huge category of offenses, violent or non-violent, that significantly go against Islam. Google “corruption on earth” + “death penalty” to get an idea of the range of offenses considered to fit that category today in some strict Islamic countries. These crimes vary widely, including, for a few examples, criticizing or calling for changes in Islamic traditions; practicing “sorcery”; engaging in “charlatanism”; sex between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman; highway robbery; destruction of buildings; and terrorism against Muslims.

War against God, mentioned in 5:33 (below), is also the same kind of huge, flexible category that could include a wide variety of offenses significantly against Islamic doctrine or Islamic society. Aqa Mahdi Puya comments: “Waging war against Allah and His prophet means hostility against His chosen representatives; or deviation from His laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him; or letting loose a reign of terror to persecute and frighten innocent people in order to deprive them of their rights; or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims; or activities to enslave, exploit and destroy human beings.” Source: There are a couple of potentially misleading statements in Puya’s commentary. First, the Koran does call, in jihad, for terrorizing the disbelievers (8:60, 9:5), but never calls for terrorizing believers. Puya’s comments about “innocent people” could refer to Muslims, but the Koran does not consider the non-Muslims to be innocent – far from it (see below). Second, the Koran permits Muslims to have slaves (4:3, 4:36, 23:6, 24:58, 30:28, 33:50). Otherwise, Puya’s commentary is consistent with other accounts. According to Ibn Kathir, disbelief is included in the category of crimes labeled ‘war against God;’. What ‘corruption on earth’ and ‘war against God’ have in common is that each is a huge category encompassing a variety of violent and non-violent words and actions considered offenses in Islam. The significant overlap between the two categories involves opposition to Islam, including non-violent opposition.

Scholar and apostate of Islam, Ibn Warraq, does not interpret 5:32 to be a peaceful verse, pointing out that, in light of 5:33, the verse contains a warning to the Jews (i.e., warning them not to commit mischief/corruption). This point is partly in reference to this part of 5:32: “…Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth.” “Prodigals of the earth” is not a compliment. It means that many of the Jews were reckless, transgressing laws in the land, despite having been given clear instructions from the prophets of Allah. Ibn Warraq writes, “The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. ‘Behave, or else’ is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses [5:32-33] aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished!” [brackets added].[1] (From Ibn Warraq, ed., (2003) Leaving Islam, p. 401. Amherst, New York: Prometheus).

A more direct question is simply, what did Mohammad consider to be acceptable killing? We know from the Islamic texts (Koran, Hadith, Sira) that he had critics and satirical poets assassinated for their words against Islam The Koran is clear that (male) Muslims must emulate the example of the prophet Mohammad (33:21). Therefore Muslims are obligated to kill (non-Muslim) critics of Islam. If this is acceptable killing according to Islam, why should anyone take 5:32 seriously as a peaceful verse? How can this be a verse of peace when it permits Muslims to kill anyone simply for doing or saying something judged to be against Islam?

5:34: “Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

Those who surrender to Islam will not be killed nor face the other penalties. They must repent before they are overpowered. Keep in mind that Mohammad was, and encouraged his followers to be, ever wary of hypocrites – those who are merely pretending to repent or submit themselves to Allah. Note that whether or not the person must face the penalties listed in 5:33, including death, depends on whether or not the person surrenders to Islam.

These passages may also be taken as having a wider application than dealing with individual transgressions. However, in battles or raids, the Koran states that captives should not be taken until a slaughter has first been made (8:67). In that case, obviously, many disbelievers would be killed before even being given the chance to repent. That doesn’t sound like a very “merciful” policy! But one must also keep in mind the general Islamic policy of acting hard against the disbelievers but being merciful to other believers (48:29).

5:35: “O ye who believe! Be mindful of your duty to Allah, and seek the way of the approach unto Him, and strive in His way in order that ye may succeed.”

5:36: “As for those who disbelieve, lo! If all that is in the earth were theirs, and as much again therewith, to ransom them from the doom on the Day of the Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them. Theirs will be a painful doom.”

5:37: “They will wish to come forth from the Fire, but they will not come forth from it. Theirs will be a lasting doom.”

A disbeliever is anyone who doesn’t believe in the one Allah (with no partners or rivals), Mohammad’s validity as a prophet, the eventuality of the Last Day, or who significantly transgresses Islam. The disbelievers are non-Muslims, including non-religious people generally, anyone who strongly questions, criticizes, or mocks Islam, and generally people of all other religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.). They are doomed to hellfire, and there is nothing that can be done about it – except, of course, to convert to Islam exclusively, before it’s too late. Verse 3:85 says that Islam (the “Surrender”) is the only acceptable religion. Those who deny Mohammad’s revelations are evil (7:177). Over 250 separate verses in the Koran condemn non-Muslims to hell-fire/eternal torture and doom.

The worst possible crime is disbelief in or denial of Allah (10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22). It is considered an act or state of aggressive defiance against Alah. The Koran is quite explicit that disbelief is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191) that involves death of Muslims.. Murder of a Muslim is a crime that is penalized according to the law of life-for-life retaliation (5:45; i.e., death penalty), but disbelief is a worse crime! Remember the apologist’s quote, that killing one person is like killing all humankind? If we assume that’s true, then disbelief in Islam is a worse crime than killing all humankind! This sounds like a far-fetched interpretation, but it is a simple logical deduction from what the Koran says. The Koran does not say “disbelief is the second-worst crime, and murder is the worst.” Rather, the Koran clearly and repeatedly states that disbelief is the worst crime.

Think about this for a moment. Why do some Muslims in some parts of the world go on a rampage, killing people over rumors that a Koran has been damaged? Why do some Muslims kill people who merely criticise Islam or make fun of the prophet? How is it that so many thousands of Muslims demonstrated so violently, calling for the death of Salman Rushdie over some words of fictional characters in that author’s novel? Why do some Islamic countries still officially implement the death penalty for “blasphemy”? Why do some Muslims kill people if women are dressed in bikinis for a beauty contest? Unfortunately, this far-fetched interpretation that I just mentioned is accepted with deadly seriousness, and in accordance with Islamic law in many jurisdictions, by millions of Muslims today. This far-fetched interpretation has been widely accepted by Muslims for nearly 1400 years. Belief in Islam is more important to some Muslims than is human life. And that’s what the Koran says: Disbelief is worse than killing.

Non-Muslims, according to the Koran, are not considered innocent civilians. They are “guilty” of disbelief (45:31, 83:29) – the worst crime. The Koran says that non-Muslims are against Allah (25:55); on the side of the Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); “evil” (16:27, 2:91, 2:99); the “wrong-doers” (2:254, 5:45); the “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); hypocrites (4:61); “unclean” (9:28). As for whether non-Muslims are civilians, the Koran is not even clear that non-Muslims are fully human. Instead, the disbelievers are the “worst of created beings” (98:6); “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55); “the worst beasts in Allah’s sight” (8:55), “apes” and/or “pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166), and so on. Verse 60:4 says followers of Allah will hate the disbelievers forever, unless the disbelievers come to believe in Allah only. Think about this thorough demonization of disbelievers, together with the conception of disbelief as the worst possible crime. Now think about how easy it would be for a Koran-believing Muslim to find a non-Muslim guilty of corruption on earth or war against God. Keep in mind that much of the words, deeds, and customs of the non-Muslims happen to go against Islam.

Killing disbelievers is not, in itself, a crime[2]. This is confirmed in Tabari, e.g., “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us…” Tabari IX:69. In fact, many verses in the Koran order the killing of various kinds of disbelievers (33:61, 4:76, 4:89-91, 8:12, 9:41, 9:5, 9:29, 61:11, etc.). Believers must honour their duty to Allah and fight the disbelievers in battle, or be punished in hell (2:216, 8:15-16, 9:39). Although the Koran explicitly forbids the murder of Muslims (4:93), the Koran does not contain a similar statement that forbids the killing or murder of non-Muslims. Where there are benefits to Islam in letting the non-Muslims live, there could be some minimal protections for the non-Muslims[2]. They could be spared as slaves to be bought or sold; they could become dhimmis (subjugated second-class citizens); they could be ransomed; women captives could be taken forcibly as wives or sex slaves; or captives could be set free depending on the personal discretion of the Muslim captor. Abul Kasem has cited and discussed Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of 5:32, indicating that non-Muslims are not protected by 5:32; only Muslims are protected.

Are non-Muslims’ lives protected under other circumstances? Some non-Muslim groups could be protected by temporary treaties with the Muslims, if this was deemed beneficial to Islam. However, even these treaties could be broken at any time (e.g., see 9:1-17) to serve the larger goals of Islam (see below). For a discussion of this broken treaty mentioned in Sura 9, see Ali Sina’s commentary at In that article, Sina also cites 8:58, which allows Muslims to break treaties even if they only suspect or fear treachery from the other side. The treaty violation revealed in Sura 9 illustrates the Islamic jihad policy, as pertaining to the condition where Muslims are in a strong position militarily, e.g., Muslims should not call for peace when they have the upper hand (47:35). Another reason to seriously doubt the validity of such treaties, regardless of the relative military strength of the Muslims, is that the Koran refers to non-Muslims as liars (e.g., 2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11), and thus implies that Muslims should not trust the word of non-Muslims. Thus, because the Koran says disbelievers are liars, Muslims at any time can claim they fear treachery from the other side (8:58) and can therefore make an excuse for breaking a treaty! Historically, treaties have been interpreted by Islamic scholars to be merely temporary tactical manoeuvres that could be overruled within the overriding long-term strategic, global jihad[3].

Intentional killing is a crime (i.e., murder) when one of Muslim humankind is the victim (4:93). More precisely, taking the rest of the Koran into account, 5:32 may only protect strict, Koran-adhering Muslims, or “single-minded slaves of Allah.” Many verses suggest that weak, casual, or mere nominal Muslims may not be protected. This is strongly suggested by Sura 9, which has harsh warnings to those Muslims not willing to kill or be killed in the jihad. Nevertheless, killing a believing Muslim in a terrorist attack could constitute corruption on earth and war against Allah. On that interpretation, because such terrorists (e.g., bin Laden, Zarqawi, et al.) have also killed Muslims (not just inadvertently, but deliberately, e.g., attacks in Saudi Arabia), those terrorists could be penalized in accordance with 5:33. (Fighting between different sects, such as between the Sunni and Shia, has been justified by each side claiming that the other are not true Muslims; hence killing of the others is considered permissible).

Quoted fully, in light of the subsequent verses, and the overarching message of the Koran, verse 5:32 was never intended to forbid the killing of disbelievers. Verses in the Koran must always be understood within the context of the ultimate goal of Islam. Allah sent Mohammad (and his followers) to conquer all other religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9). To achieve this ultimate goal of vanquishing disbelief, Muslims must convert, subjugate, or kill all non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (2:193, 8:39; also see 9:5 and 9:29; also see [4]). This must always be kept in mind. This ultimate goal is the context which contains and overrides all contexts in Islam. If killing a non-Muslim is necessary for the advancement or the defence of Islam, then it must be done.


1. Verse 5:32 is almost certainly derived from earlier Jewish sources – actually a rabbi’s commentary, not the revelations of a prophet of God/Allah. Mohammad (or someone) added the “corruption on earth” exception, changing the original concept in order to permit the death penalty for significant violations against Islam.

2. In the Koran, verse 5:32 offers no protection for the lives of non-Muslims. Even if we assume the verse is authentic, corruption on earth is so broad a category that almost anything that disbelievers say or do that is judged to be significantly against Islam could be used as grounds for administering the harsh penalties – including death – described in 5:33. In other words, 5:32 permits what most non-Muslims would consider to be murder. Indeed, the verse grants Muslims licence to kill non-Muslims under a surprisingly broad range of circumstances. Those apologists who present 5:32 to non-Muslims as though it were a good verse are either naïve or are knowingly engaging in deception.


[1] From Ibn Warraq, ed., (2003) Leaving Islam. (p. 401). Amherst, New York: Prometheus.

[2] The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) wrote that captive non-Muslim non-combatants, including women and children, could be executed if they merely engaged in verbal or written opposition to Islam:

“As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some jurists are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims.”

(Source: Ibn Taymiyya (1996). al-Siyasa al-Shariyya. (Translated by Rudolph Peters). Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam. (pp. 44-54; see p. 49). Princeton NJ. Markus Wiener Publishers). First, the policy of killing any non-Muslim who wages verbal war against Islam (e.g., criticizing the prophet) is consistent with Mohammad’s conduct described in the Hadiths. Second, the prophet’s conduct in killing non-Muslim women and children in jihad was deemed acceptable in analogous military circumstances. For example, Averroes (d. 1198), the Maliki jurist and philosopher, wrote that

“Most scholars agree that fortresses may be assailed with mangonels, no matter whether there are women and children within them or not. This is based on the fact that the Prophet used mangonels against the population of al-Ta’if.”

Likewise, Al-Ghazali (d. 1111), a revered Sufi theologian, claimed that in jihad

“…one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…”

(Source: Al-Ghazali (1979). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Translated into English by Dr. Michael Schub. (pp. 186, 190-91). Beirut. Cited in Bostom (2005), see below).

Finally, note that even in cases where the the Muslims’ non-Muslim slaves or dhimmis committed no word or overt act against Islam, if they were killed by Muslims, the penalties to the Muslims would be minor (e.g., several lashes with a whip). The penalty would not be for killing the non-Muslim person, but for destroying the Muslims’ property or source of revenue.

A recent edited volume by Andrew Bostom documents the history of the killing and mass slaughters of non-Muslims in the expansionist imperialistic Islamic jihads: (Bostom, Andrew G. (ed.), with foreword by Ibn Warraq, (2005). The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. New York: Prometheus Books).

[3] Tibi, Bassam. (1996). “War and Peace in Islam”, in Terry Nardin (ed.) The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives. (pp. 129-131). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

[4] Generally speaking, the classic jihad policy involves giving non-Muslims a choice: (1) convert to Islam, or else (2) remain a non-Muslim but become a (subjugated) dhimmi and pay the jizya “protection” tax to the Muslim authorities, or else (3) be put to death. The chief basis for this policy is most clearly captured in verses 9:5 and 9:29:

9:5: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

9:29: “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute [jizya tax] readily, being brought low.”

This policy is still accepted in the Shafi’i Sunni manual “Reliance of the Traveler,” which is officially endorsed by Sunni Islam’s most respected authority in the world, the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The manual states that jihad is “a communal obligation” to make “war against non-Muslims.” It states that “…the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax…” Moreover, “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.” The jihad must be carried out even if there is no caliph. (Source: Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misri (1999). Reliance of the Traveler (‘Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. (Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller). Amana Publications: Beltsville, MD. See law numbers o9.0, o9.1 , o9.6, o9.8, and o9.9)

Wordsmith, they wont kill you last, as much as they appreciate your dhimmitude.


Its also very interesting when people don’t want to admit what that Book says.

Convert to islam or die, fool……… Might check out the cover of time mag for your relegion of peace.

So Wordsmith… are you an ardent follower of Islam and the final word… or are you just the pot calling the kettle black?

I’m not claiming that all Muslims are bad… but I am saying, the Islamic written doctrine is one of death and destruction. Even in Christianity “the elect shall be deceived” so why should I believe that a doctrine that repeatedly calls for killing, and then has hordes of adherents that go out and follow those instructions isn’t inherently evil.

Leave your head in the sand and ignore 1400 years of history and the black and white print of their Koran at your own peril.

Just as we refute socialist/libtards with their own words…. so shall we refute the claims that Islam is a religion of peace using their own words.

Not all Muslims.
The question is whether it’s sufficient Muslims.
Following which is the support question. Presume that a woman in an American shopping mall is roughed up by some Muslim guys who claim she was dressed like a whore. I wanted to use a hypothetical, so I didn’t refer to Europe.
So, anyway, these guys are on trial and one of the jurors is Muslim.
What would you think the chances are that the Muslim juror, despite overwhelming evidence and a confession, held out for acquittal, stating loyalty to other Muslims trumps the rest?
Significant chance? No chance?
Suppose this happens a number of times.
What would the rest of us be justified in thinking?

Word and Mata, if the word of ex-muslims or even moderate ones can be trusted, then the Koran does in fact teach that infidels should be murdered and promotes jihad.
Fortunately most Muslims ignore those parts.
It should also be mentioned that when polled after the attacks, several ME countries had a majority of people who said they did not believe the terrorists were arabs and and that America was lying. That’s not the same as celebrating the attacks, but disturbing all the same.

Wordsmith, I have access to five different translations of the Koran… do you think that each and every one of these scholars is translating the Koran incorrectly?

What I don’t understand is your propensity to ignore 1400 years of history… or why you, Wordsmith, feel so powerfully about the subject that the majority of the material I have seen you post of recent is in defense of this gutter religion.

@Wordsmith said: “I’m a 9/11 pro-war on terror conservative. I prefer not to be a pawn in Zawahiri and bin Laden’s master plan. ”

I’m glad you said it. I was beginning to wonder if you hadn’t coverted to Islam.

As for playing into bin Laden’s hands, I suggest dhimmitude is a bigger concern.

1 2 3