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

wordsmith you might check out

a list of islamic terror attacks for the last 2 months is at the bottom.

i can get you the list of attacks since the 1970’s.

YOU are not going to be bloging when the muslems take over the west………

I think you are bored today and just want to stir us up…..

would life in saudia arabia be acceptable to you ???? i reject it, go have fun.

@Mata… Yeah there are certain issues I’d like to see addressed through Constitutional Amendment… but I’m not King, or Emperor, or Dictator or any of the other titles the O aspires to, and that is why they are proposals not edicts.

I’d very much like to see the 17th amendment repealed post haste.. but I’m not holding my breath for any action till the Zero has so shredded our existing Constitution that the people realize that there is a necessity to act.

No we are not the same people as existed during the slaveholder days… and our Constitution, through amendment, reflects those changes.

did not think i insluted you

check this out

i think you are way too smart for me

My my how blogs fly. Since I am in Bangkok, it was time for a nap. After my nap (twelve hours difference in time), I check out my favorite blog again (yes, this one). What do I find? A lot of blogging.

If I were scoring this blog fight, I would definitely have to give the decision (not a knockout) to those gathered around my table. MataHarly, for example, resented being insulted yet insults by calling those she disagrees with – Imams, expert infidels and such. Why so condescending, Ms. Mataharly? We all are capable of looking things up on the internet. Definitely a point taken away from her side. Jihad is a direct spawn of Islam.

To make a point, let us all go to Southern Thailand and check out the situation there. Phuket and Krabi are in Southern Thailand. Enjoy your vacation under beautiful blue skies, fabulous white beaches and wonderful Sufi Muslims. No terrorist allowed here as the local Muslim population both physically and mentally reject them. They are not accepted and the terrorist knows they would not last more than an hour in these two places.

Now let us venture to those provinces next to Malaysia. A foreigner may last a week but most likely that you would be either dead or run out of the place in 48 hours. Locals there support and hide the terrorists. The Thai police have all kinds of problems because of the lack of trust and lack of honesty among the locals. The locals are Sunni.

If you rationalize or refuse to accept that Islam does, in fact, teach what we are saying it teaches, then you belong at the Dhimmitude table. The facts are there in black and white. No one at the table I am sitting at denies that there are many different levels of beliefs among Muslims. But the core beliefs derive from the Quran. The center for Islam is Mecca and that, dear dhimmis, is located and controlled by Saudi Arabia. Shall we bring forth the long litany of rules and regulations one finds in that country?

Call us bigots as is typical of those who are losing the intellectual battle but we back up what we write with evidence from the very center of Islamic teachings. We do not ask that you join our table but request that you move away from the table of dhimmitude that you now comfortably find yourselves.

The religion of a person I meet has absolutely nothing to do with how I interact. His or her political philosophy, likewise, is not a factor and never will be. To call me a bigot is to distort the concept of Bigotry to thought control. Bigotry by definition is action – discrimination, intolerance toward or violence against. No one sitting at my table discriminates, is intolerant toward or has perpetrated violence against our fellow Americans be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist (at least theoretically we have not). All we have done is bring you the teachings of a religion that is not very humane and certainly not very American. We have also tried hard to show you that your little “love fest article” trying to downplay the violence and hatred that is very much part of Islam. This is not opinion. Again, points have been taken away from your side by your blatant refusal to accept that the core belief system in Islam goes against the concept that are very much part of our Constitution and our values.

Most of the Muslims who live in America that I know, have, for the most, bought into these values and are Americans. Most, however, will put their Muslim beliefs above that of Americanism. Nothing wrong with that because I also put my religious beliefs above Americanism as well. Gee, does that make me a bigot, an imam or some kind of infidel expert?

Hey, it was fun, wasn’t it. Can’t find anything like this over on the other side of the political spectrum. We would all be barred as bigots and racists.

Great Article by Mccarthy

The single purpose of this jihad is the imposition of sharia. On that score, Gingrich made two points of surpassing importance. First, some Islamists employ mass-murder attacks while others prefer a gradual march through our institutions — our legal, political, academic, and financial systems, as well as our broader culture; the goal of both, though, is the same. The stealth Islamists occasionally feign outrage at the terrorists, but their quarrel is over methodology and pace. Both camps covet the same outcome.

Second, that outcome is the death of freedom. In Islamist ideology, sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society — for Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a comprehensive socio-economic and political system. As the former speaker elaborated, sharia embodies principles and punishments that are abhorrent to Western values. Indeed, its foundational premise is anti-American, holding that we are not free people at liberty to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, that people are instead beholden to the Islamic state, which is divinely enjoined to impose Allah’s laws.

check it out

Wordsmith… I am assuming your link to this Rauf character is a way of bolstering the claim that Islam is not as I have described, based on what I have been able to discern from their doctrine. I read the article… and Rauf dances around but ultimately he describes a goal of Muslims to emulate the “prophet” both in deed and faith.

“You see, Muslims have an ideal. Part of their ideal is to follow what they call the example of the prophet, the Sunna of the prophet. So at an individual level, a human being who wants to perfect himself or herself looks to the tradition of the prophet, his individual practice, and tries to emulate the prophet as much as possible“.

If emulation of Mohammed is the ideal…. then expect their actions to reflect his actions and deeds. If you can honestly tell me that Mohammed was a man of peace, one that did NOT advocate the killing of non-believers, was NOT a murderer of those that criticized him then I will bow to mecca 5 times a day for the next year.

In my world… ANY religion that advocates that man kills his fellow human beings is a gutter religion.

Donald Bly: “…based on what I have been able to discern from their doctrine…”

Insert sound of flushing toilet….

Andrea just burned downed the dhimmitude table. Our table still has some empty seats. Come on over where you will be welcomed.

DONALD BLY: hi, ON your 25,It seems clear to me that the CONGRESS CouLD
MAKE a law, because of the war againt the muslim country’s TALIBANS :WHICH are seeking
WRONG doing with AMERICA,as they are help by MUSLIMS ALQADA. THEREFOR including that MOSQUE building in thoses disruptive MINDSET OF security breach dangers for AMERICANS
AND therefor canceling that PROJECT FOR A undertermine times. bye

CHILL: hi from the other end of the world; YOU seem to be quite in a position to give input to this post, I find it very interesting. thank you. and all on your table who participated.

WORDSMITH: hi, on your 50, MoHAMED ALI,was a good MUSLIM,because HE
got his INFIDELS by KNOCk OUT, I just could not resist that one


On gentle currents of condescension
She takes him to task for a conclusion
Her essence glides into derision
When others dare offer a differing opinion

My royal edict flows so free
Evidence and facts are not for me
Listen to what we write and don’t disagree
My condescension is for scum like thee

The toilet can be used for the likes of you
Agree with me and speak not what’s true
We wrote this song for love fest’s view
If you don’t like it, we’ll just bid you adieu

Well well Wordsmith… was that lengthy diatribe your attempt to NOT RESPOND to the question of whether or not Mohammed was a violent man, a murder of those that criticized him?

Do you need to be reminded that this Rauf character was your source NOT MINE…. does it upset you that HIS words describe the Muslim goal of emulating Mohammed.

“You see, Muslims have an ideal. Part of their ideal is to follow what they call the example of the prophet, the Sunna of the prophet. So at an individual level, a human being who wants to perfect himself or herself looks to the tradition of the prophet, his individual practice, and tries to emulate the prophet as much as possible“.

Socialists/Communists have a label for those they can manipulate… they’re called “Useful Idiots”… I wonder what Muslims call their “Useful Idiots”

Donald Blye:

Muslims call their “Useful Idiots” – Dhimmis.

“Dhimmitude is a neologism first found in French denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands. It is derived by adding the productive suffix -tude to the Arabic language adjective dhimmi, which literally means protected and refers to a non-Muslim subject of a sharia law state.” (Wilkipedia)

Concessions – not I said the first Bigot

Surrender – not I said the second Bigot

Appeasement- it is I said the Flopping Ace as he said ME ME ME ME all the way to his Sharia Law.

CHill they spurn your kindness Leave them to their illusions

come blog with some reasonable people that do not have their head in the sand

Wordsmith… what you did in #73 was avoid the question. You claim to have read the Koran… are you incapable of coming to your own conclusions in regards to his violent nature from the myriad of text within the Koran that describes Mohammed, his actions, and for what he advocated?

Thanks @Donald Bly:

I’m glad I am not the only one holding their feet to the fire.

It’s been a regular Islamopolooza here today and it’s comforting to know that those who understand what we are up against are in a MAJORITY on Flopping Aces despite the very vocal and verbose attempts by that tiny minority to make it appear otherwise.

It is not a new problem
I have heard that you just cant fix stupid 🙄

OK wordsmith you got me, I accept that the tooth fairy exists

You really bought into this 72 virgin stuff didnt you ?

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

@Andrea: We have to contain the virus. Thank God Newt is out there speaking. I’ve clipped so much of this speech already, but here’s one more:

Wordsmith, you are the one with the problem. What you are doing is exactly the definition of a dhimmi: concessions (oh it is ok to build the Cordoba House as a monument to our defeat), surrender (Muslim do not worship a violent religion, only those who are terrorist worship one; never mind that the two are worshipping the same religion) and appeasement (we must do everything we can not to upset Muslims, including adoption of feet washing sinks at airports and sharia law in our court houses).

You do not have the right to suggest that you can police political thought – forget the facts provided, think as you think. You are bending over backwards to appease and defend a religion that is based on violence and hate toward infidels. I can read and think about this all I want without helping (as you think) Al Qaeda or other terrorist. Your whole defense centers around “our interpretation” as if somehow our interpretation cannot possibly be correct since it does not fit with your concessions to Muslims. Taken out of context, misunderstanding of what we read are other totally ridiculous comments made for your defenses.

Bigotry is action, not thought. I will never treat another human with disrespect no matter who he or she is. How does this help the terrorist reach their goals of word wide conflict of cultures. In a word, it does not and I reject your statements that say it does.

As Chamberlain said – NO PROBLEM, PEACE IN OUR TIME.

@Wordsmith: Well, once again, Newt and SOOOOO MANY others disagree.

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

The odds of me being right seem much better than yours.

Whose the pawn?

Look in the mirror.

Here’s another from Newt:

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.

how do you post a pic ?

@Andrea: Drop a link to one that you would like posted and I’ll insert it.

Meanwhile, it looks like Imam Wordsmith is running out of steam.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.


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.

#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.


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.


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.

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?


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.

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. 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 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? . 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.