Start A Petition

NYC "Interfaith" Panel Denounces 9/11 Museum Over Short Film On Attack For Noting Hijackers Were Muslims...

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: National September 11 Memorial Museum, film about roots of attackes, Muslims angry Islam connected to attacks )

- 1485 days ago -
Past the World Trade Center collapse, adjacent to a gallery with photographs of the 19 hijackers, a brief film at the soon-to-open National September 11 Memorial Museum will seek to explain to visitors the historical roots of the attacks.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Beth S (330)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 1:23 pm
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is also angry: "CAIR Demands 9/11 Museum Scrap Short Film Blaming Islamists For Attack…"

Via NY Times: (Film at 9/11 Museum Sets off clash over Reference to Islam)

"ast the towering tridents that survived the World Trade Center collapse, adjacent to a gallery with photographs of the 19 hijackers, a brief film at the soon-to-open National September 11 Memorial Museum will seek to explain to visitors the historical roots of the attacks.

The film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” refers to the terrorists as Islamists who viewed their mission as a jihad. The NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who narrates the film, speaks over images of terrorist training camps and Qaeda attacks spanning decades. Interspersed are explanations of the ideology of the terrorists, from video clips in foreign-accented English translations.

The documentary is not even seven minutes long, the exhibit just a small part of the museum. But it has over the last few weeks suddenly become a flash point in what has long been one of the most highly charged issues at the museum: how it should talk about Islam and Muslims.

With the museum opening on May 21, it has shown the film to several groups, including an interfaith advisory group of clergy members. Those on the panel overwhelmingly took strong exception to the film, believing some of the terminology in it casts aspersions on all Muslims, and requested changes. But the museum has declined. In March, the sole imam in the group resigned to make clear that he could not endorse its contents.

“The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,” Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter to the museum’s director. “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”

Museum officials are standing by the film, which they say was vetted by several scholars of Islam and of terrorism. A museum spokesman and panel members described the contents of the film, which was not made available to The New York Times for viewing.

“From the very beginning, we had a very heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective, and in no way smear an entire religion when we are talking about a terrorist group,” said Joseph C. Daniels, president and chief executive of the nonprofit foundation that oversees the memorial and museum.

But the disagreement has been ricocheting through scholarly circles in recent weeks. At issue is whether it is inflammatory for the museum to use terms like “Islamist” and “jihad” in conjunction with the Sept. 11 attack, without making clear that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. The panel has urged the use of more specific language, such as “Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism” and doing more to explain the meaning of jihad.

The terms “Islamist” and “jihadist” are often used to describe extremist Muslim ideologies. But the problem with using such language in a museum designed to instruct people for generations is that most visitors are “simply going to say Islamist means Muslims, jihadist means Muslims,” said Akbar Ahmed, the chairman of the Islamic studies department at American University in Washington.

“The terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did,” Dr. Ahmed said. “But when you associate their religion with what they did, then you are automatically including, by association, one and a half billion people who had nothing to do with these actions and who ultimately the U.S. would not want to unnecessarily alienate.”

The question of how to represent Islam in the museum has long been fraught. It was among the first issues that came up when the museum began asking for advice in about 2005 from a panel of mostly Lower Manhattan clergy members who had been involved in recovery work after the attacks.

Peter B. Gudaitis, who brought the group together as the chief executive of New York Disaster Interfaith Services, said the museum had rejected certain Islam-related suggestions from the panel, such as telling the story of Mohammad Salman Hamdani, a Muslim cadet with the New York Police Department who died in the attack and was initially suspected as a perpetrator.

There was wide agreement, however, that the exhibit space should make clear that Muslims were not just perpetrators, but also among the attack’s victims, mourners and recovery workers — an integral part of the fabric of American life.

A year ago, concerns about how the film might be viewed by Muslims were raised at a screening by a select group of Sept. 11 family members, law enforcement officials and others. As a result, several months ago, museum officials invited the interfaith group to view the film and tour the still unfinished exhibits.

The panel was pleased to see photographs of mourning Muslims included in photo montages. The museum also includes stories of Muslim victims and the reflections of Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, the first Muslim elected to Congress, on the effects of the attacks on America, the museum said.

But then the group members screened the Qaeda film and grew alarmed at what they felt was an inflammatory tone and use of the words “jihad” and “Islamist” without, they felt, sufficient explanation.

“As soon as it was over, everyone was just like, wow, you guys have got to be kidding me,” Mr. Gudaitis said.

He and another member of the panel, the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center of New York, began to organize a response. On Monday, they sent the museum’s directors a formal letter on behalf of the 11 members of the interfaith group who had seen the film, asking for edits. Their concern was heightened by the personal experience many on them have had with anti-Muslim sentiment, including the national uproar over the construction of a mosque and Muslim community center a few blocks from ground zero.

The response from the museum was immediate, though accidental: Clifford Chanin, the education director, inadvertently sent the group an email intended solely for the museum’s senior directors, indicating he was not overly concerned.

“I don’t see this as difficult to respond to, if any response is even needed,” he wrote.

The museum did remove the term “Islamic terrorism” from its website earlier this month, after another activist, Todd Fine, collected about 100 signatures of academics and scholars supporting its deletion.

In interviews, several leading scholars of Islam said that the term “Islamic terrorist” was broadly rejected as unfairly conflating Islam and terrorism, but the terms Islamist and jihadist can be used, in the proper context, to refer to Al Qaeda, preferably with additional qualifiers, like “radical,” or “militant.”

But for Mr. Elazabawy, and many other Muslims, the words “Islamic” and “Islamist” are equally inappropriate to apply to Al Qaeda, and the word “jihad” refers to a positive struggle against evil, the opposite of how they view the terrorist attacks.

“Don’t tell me this is an Islamist or an Islamic group; that means they are part of us,” he said in an interview. “We are all of us against that.”

For his part, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, defended the film, whose script he vetted.

“The critics who are going to say, ‘Let’s not talk about it as an Islamic or Islamist movement,’ could end up not telling the story at all, or diluting it so much that you wonder where Al Qaeda comes from,” Dr. Haykel said.

Michael Frazier, a museum spokesman, said the film would be shown in a gallery that also had two large interpretive panels illustrating how Al Qaeda was portrayed as “a far fringe of Islam.” Museum officials emphasized that Mr. Chanin and the rest of the museum took the concerns very seriously.

“What helps me sleep at night is I believe that the average visitor who comes through this museum will in no way leave this museum with the belief that the religion of Islam is responsible for what happened on 9/11,” said Mr. Daniels, the president of the museum foundation. “We have gone out of the way to tell the truth.”

Past the towering tridents that survived the World Trade Center collapse, adjacent to a gallery with photographs of the 19 hijackers, a brief film at the soon-to-open National September 11 Memorial Museum will seek to explain to visitors the historical roots of the attacks.

The film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” refers to the terrorists as Islamists who viewed their mission as a jihad. The NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who narrates the film, speaks over images of terrorist training camps and Qaeda attacks spanning decades. Interspersed with his voice are explanations of the ideology of the terrorists, rendered in foreign-accented English translations.

The documentary is not even seven minutes long, the exhibit just a small part of the museum. But it has suddenly become over the last few weeks a flash point in what has long been one of the most highly charged issues at the museum: how it should talk about Islam and Muslims.

With the museum opening on May 21, it has shown the film to several groups, including an interfaith advisory group of clergy members. Those on the panel overwhelmingly took strong exception to the film and requested changes. But the museum has declined. In March, the sole imam in the group resigned to make clear that he could not endorse its contents.

“The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,” Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter to the museum’s director. “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”

Museum officials are standing by the film, which they say they vetted past several scholars.


Barbara T (431)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 1:45 pm
Well, the attackers WEREN'T "Muslims" -
and this whole thing, the "Museum", etc., is a LIE, a COVERUP, it is all P.R. -
and a great part of the world, KNOWS this...

Go to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, or similar organizations such as Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Police Officers for 9/11 Truth, even Theologians for 9/11 Truth - so many organizations on the Internet, that are asking QUESTIONS THAT THE "OFFICIAL STORY" CAN'T ANSWER -
There are way too many "oddities" and "strange co-incidences" and such... in the "official account", which by the way, has changed several times....
Dick Cheney and parts of the Pentagon were behind this, [not GW Bush, I think he was too stupid to be trusted by the others, a drunk who almost let the cat out of the bag anyway...]
Ask yourselves, Qui bono? Who benefits?
Certainly NOT the Muslim world - but Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, the Neocons, and the Pentagon, got the WAR AGAINST ISLAM that they wanted, they got their EXCUSE to stir up the populace for UNWANTED WARS, one after another..... after another....
and the EXCUSE for the absolutely phoney War on Terror that oppresses US, the U.S. Citizens, thru the Patriot Act, Surveillance, etc.....

Don't swallow what Rethuglicans tell you, can you really TRUST THEM????? [High-placed Dems have to be in on it too... ]

Beth S (330)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 3:08 pm
Mutiny, what you say is just a theory amongst others. I have researched what conspiracy theorists have had to say. It's certainly interesting, but there are architects and engineers out there who put together a far more plausible argument on why it was exactly who claimed to have done it.

You should note that the Muslims arguing against this film are not arguing about the fact that Islamists did this heinous deed, but that the deed had anything to do with Islam.

So as much as you might engage in denial, you are coming up against leaders from the Islamic world who agree that this was done by the extreme side of Islam.

Many would argue that although the number of people and the devastation in one day was highly unusual, but I don't think there's any question that the Al Qaeda members who did this were following directions right from the Qur'an about inflicting terror, killing, hating, etc. non-Muslims.

Muslim leaders were quick to say that their followers were victims, too. Well, there are statistics virtually every day that show that many Muslims simply could care less about innocent Muslims they kill when they set off bombs in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and so on. Clearly, harming innocents and bystanders is an old and sad story.

Sorry, it's way overdue to get out of the fantasy theory community and wake up to reality.

Don't assume that we haven't done our research. It seems that those of your ilk haven't really done yours, and pretty much nothing will convince you, anyway, because you want to believe what you want to believe.

Jennifer Ward (40)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 3:38 pm
PC and conspiracy theories are destroying civilization. Proponents are driving people towards a totalitarian ideology that will see us back in the 7th century. Enough of the BS- wake up before freedom of thought and faith slips away forever.

Mike H (252)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 3:53 pm
Let the spinning continue

Barbara T (431)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 5:14 pm
Have you ever seen the cockpit of a Boeing jet plane?
I have. I saw a it in a poster.
It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE that people who ONLY TRAINED ON SMALL AIRPLANES, could master or even begin to understand, how to fly one of those huge, very complicated monsters. The supposed "hijackers" COULD IN NO WAY HAVE FLOWN THOSE PLANES. Let alone, AIMED THEM PRECISELY AT THE TARGETS. That is just IMPOSSIBLE.
From a distance, at the speed those planes were flying, the Twin Towers would have been tiny specks, for a few seconds, then they would be past them.... NO time to "aim", at the speed those planes were flying... even with lightning reflexes!

THOSE PLANES WERE ON AUTO-PILOT. Aimed at an electronically PRE-SET TARGET. And that is just ONE indication, that this was an INSIDE JOB. Just ONE. Nobody from "outside", could get at those planes, and inside of those buildings, and mess with the controls in advance.... except someone in the US GOVERNMENT.

People ABANDON THEIR COMMON SENSE. And that is because they WANT to believe the bilge the govt puts out. Because BELIEVING ANYTHING ELSE IS TOO HORRIFYING. It completely upsets our World Picture... that is what the govt is COUNTING ON. We knew that Bush, et al, were BAD.... but we didn't think they were THAT bad... pure, pure Evil in every way... because, that is too much of a Psychological leap.
We, no matter how Liberal or anti-Bush, we STILL think of "our" govt as a Daddy that's supposed to PROTECT us from Foreign Invasion... we can't help it. It takes a real PSYCHOLOGICAL JOLT to realize the TRUTH - and many people aren't ready for it.... can hardly blame them.
There is just NO WAY that ANYthing the govt says, adds up. You don't have to have a "theory", to see that IT DOESN'T ADD UP, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THE TRUTH... There MUST be some other truth, whatever that may be.... wherever it may lead you.
The Cold War was over, the govt could not get us to hating Russians and Commies any more, so they conveniently found a NEW bunch of "demons" for us to "hate"... shades of the novel "1984"!
[If there were people from the Middle East involved, they were "patsies", the "fall guys". Again, AMATEURS COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE FLOWN THE PLANES ACCURATELY INTO THOSE SPACES. It is SO OBVIOUS! ANY Pilot could tell you.....]
I didn't WANT to believe it, either. I just have no choice.....

Stan B (123)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 5:18 pm
CAIR are hoping that in the fullness of time people will forget it WAS MUSLIMS that committed this terrible atrocity.

Barbara T (431)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 5:39 pm
And there is NO EXPLANATION, even by the govt! - how and why the Third Building, that was NEVER HIT BY AN AIRPLANE, came completely down a few hours later.... from explosives THAT HAD TO HAVE BEEN SET BEFOREHAND... making the Owners of the buildings complicit, because of course those buildings like ALL buildings these days, were WELL-GUARDED...
and the "Security Company" that guarded those buildings, was owned by MEMBERS OF THE BUSH FAMILY, by no co-incidence...
There ARE Scientists, abroad, who HAVE EXPLANATIONS.... and some COURAGEOUS ones in the U.S.
An Engineer or Architect publishing anything disagreeable to the Elite, would NOT BE ABLE TO FIND WORK in this country... That is why the PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS have to come from outside the country... People HAVE lost their jobs in this country, over this, and death threats have been made, and some have lost their lives... our govt is very invested in FOOLING THE MASSES!
There is NO REAL SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION in "airplanes hit the buildings and they were set on fire and came down from that". Again, THAT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE. And it TOTALLY DEFIES COMMON SENSE and WHAT WE EXPERIENCE OF REALITY.
Airplane fuel DOES NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL. [If that were so, then Kerosene Heaters would melt into uselessness!]
We have seen, and can EASILY see on the Internet, STEEL-FRAMED BUILDINGS, such as one in Spain, that WERE ON FIRE AND BURNED FOR HOURS. There are VIDEOS. They did NOT explode into clouds of dust!
We have seen, in Videos, CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS. Of dams, sports stadiums, etc.! Hey, that Third Building {Building Seven, it's called}, that Building going down LOOKS EXACTLY - EXACTLY - like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. You can see tons of them, on Internet sites!!! from everywhere!
The reason the Twin Towers going down, looked SURREAL - was, that IT DID NOT FIT IN WITH WHAT WE KNOW AND EXPERIENCE OF REALITY.
We were STUNNED, and ready to accept any-old-explanation - even one that VIOLATED THE BASIC LAWS OF PHYSICS...
Peer-reviewed articles in Scientific Publications abroad, say that a New sort of Explosive was used - IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN PRE-SET - a New Explosive THAT ONLY THE U.S. ARMY HAD....
Just EVALUATE FOR YOURSELVES, in the light of OUR ACTUAL SHARED REALITY, whether what the govt says is even POSSIBLE, let alone Plausible.....

Beth S (330)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 6:36 pm
Did you ever see the back side of the building that wasn't hit by the plane, but badly damaged by the one that was?. It was almost hollow and burning, it was so badly damaged. When you see the pictures of the back side of the building, it's a lot more understandable, even compelling, to understand why it collapsed.

. (0)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 8:28 pm
Glad to hear that museum officials are standing by the film and not letting political correctness stand in the way of the fact that the attackers WERE Muslims. As are way too many attackers all over the world today. If aspersions are being cast on Muslims then Muslims should take a good hard look at why this is the case. Maybe more rigorous and vociferous condemnation of radical Islam and the violence it begets would help.

Barbara T (431)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 8:30 pm
Videos show, Building 7 collapsed "into its own footprint". ONLY a Controlled, minutely and carefully planned, Demolition does that. Buildings you see burning and falling during the London Blitz, for example, they fall on one side or another, into the street, horizontally - they burn more on one side than the other, is the reason. ALL buildings do.
There are PLENTY OF VIDEOS AND FILMS of this. They can bee SEEN as often as you like...
These bombed and burning buildings don't FALL INTO THEMSELVES, straight down vertically!
Watch that IMPRESSIVE Video! of Building 7 going down IN REAL TIME. That was what FIRST GOT ME.
The Videos also show, only SMALL FIRES in Building 7. Ones that could easily have been put out by sprinklers. WHERE WERE THE SPRINKLERS???
Besides, where was the fire hot enough to burn a whole building? melt, collapse, or weaken its STEEL GIRDERS?
The airplane fuel, would have been LONG GONE. It goes up in a sudden WHOOSH! It does not "drip down and splash" into other buildings! Try lighting some fuel yourself... but stand back!
And, the Twin Towers DID NOT BURN HOT FOR A LONG TIME. They burned very briefly, then EXPLODED INTO DUST. There was NOTHING that would set some near-by building on fire "from the heat". Or, "sparks".

What we see, DEFIES OUR CONCEPT OF REALITY. I have seen Videos of wars, bombings, burning buildings, Controlled Demolitions - even "stock footage" of these things, sometimes used in War Movies or Sci-Fi "Alien Invasion" films! Seem 'em over & over again {in the days before Computer animation made "stock footage" unnecessary and obsolete!}.
The govt explanation SIMPLY DOES NOT FIT WHAT OUR EYES SEE - and what our BRAINS COMPARE to things we see. They DEFY COMMON LAWS OF PHYSICS... it's as if suddenly, in one place at one time, the Laws of Gravity and of Motion were SUSPENDED... so I guess we have to believe that "God made a miracle", but not a very nice one...
I ask people merely to USE COMMON SENSE and not accept handouts from the govt, which, as you know, loves us so much and has our best welfare always at heart and just LOVES going to war and giving the Military bucketsful of our money...
This is "Common Sense", not "far out". The govt explanation DOESN'T SURVIVE BEING EXAMINED in that light...
You don't have to desperately cling to the "debunkers" because not doing so is too too too scarey, unsettling, opens up the Abyss;
and you can call us "truthers", which we will accept proudly as an honor...

Barbara T (431)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 8:40 pm
The attackers were NOT Muslims:
they were AMERICANS, some of whom were ELECTED, some of whom were MILITARY, some of whom headed or worked for INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, some of whom were WEALTHY LANDLORDS.
They were, at least nominally, for PR purposes, CHRISTIANS.


Hence we had Iraq, Afghanistan, in future Syria, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, WHO KNOWS?
[False Flag is Nazi Soldiers killing fellow-Germans, while wearing Polish uniforms - as an EXCUSE to make war on Poland - an OLD STORY.
Or the Reichstag Fire... Nazis started it, blamed the Commies, who didn't do it.

Beth S (330)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 9:05 pm
I think they were, Mutiny. There is far more evidence to suggest that is precisely what they were, and they tried to bomb the World Trade Center several years before.

All the recorded conversations on the planes that were involved were taken over in Arabic.

Probably 5-10 attempts at Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil are made each month.

This reminds me of the term: Queen of Denial. a river in Egypt.

Stan B (123)
Thursday May 1, 2014, 11:26 pm
Any truth in the rumour that Osama Bin Laden was converted to Christianity and became a member of the Tora Bora Republican group?

Panchali Yapa (26)
Friday May 2, 2014, 3:05 am
Thank you

berny p (23)
Friday May 2, 2014, 6:00 am

Glad to hear that museum officials are standing by the film and not letting political correctness stand in the way of the fact that the attackers WERE Muslims.

As are way too many attackers all over the world today.

If aspersions are being cast on Muslims then Muslims should take a good hard look at why this is the case. Maybe more rigorous and vociferous condemnation of radical Islam and the violence it begets would help.

so true!!!!

Phil P (94)
Friday May 2, 2014, 7:00 am
So what should we call the 9/11 hijackers and their backers who worship and follow an extreme interpretations of the Koran and Shira law - Buddhists? As much as many Christians would like to disassoicate themselves from extremist sects of Christianity they are in the same boat. Lets cut the BS and call a spade a spade.

Judith Hand (55)
Friday May 2, 2014, 9:55 am
Noted, shared, tweeted, tumblr'd. Good for New York!

Past Member (0)
Friday May 2, 2014, 10:52 am
my co-worker's half-sister makes $73 /hr on the internet . She has been fired for 9 months but last month her pay check was $12846 just working on the internet for a few hours.

site link . WWW.CASHLY.COM

Robert B (60)
Friday May 2, 2014, 11:04 am
Here is something we ALL need to be aware of: The attackers were no more real Muslims than the leaders of the Inquisition were real Christians or the members of the KKK are real Christians. Terrorists and groups that murder civilians for any cause are NOT and I repeat, NOT in any way religious or spiritual. They are simply MURDERERS, just like the Nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.

Helen Porter (39)
Friday May 2, 2014, 11:35 am
Thank you for the information.

Zee Kallah

Winn Adams (179)
Friday May 2, 2014, 12:03 pm
I agree with Robert B's comment.

Lona G (80)
Friday May 2, 2014, 12:47 pm
You are quit eight, Robert B. and I think that is the point of the Muslims arguing against this film
As you say Beth, they are not arguing about the fact that Islamists did this heinous deed, but neither are they arguing that the deed had nothing to do with Islam, as you further conclude. Their fear is that people come away with the notion that all Muslims are extremists and terrorists instead of the idea that these men belonged to a fringe and aren't real Muslims as Robert B. explains. I can see where their fear, and perhaps their hypersensitivity, is coming from, but I think their request for alterations will do nothing to abate the problem, but sadly only make it worse.

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday May 2, 2014, 12:59 pm
Hi everybody :)

The complaint sounds like a "No True Scotsman" story, where they deny the hijackers' faith because they are hijackers. For anybody unfamiliar with the story, here it is:
There is another version where he begins with "no true Scotsman" and then says the Maniac was obviously not a "true Scotsman" because none would do what he did. the hijackers were members of the Islamic community, identified by themselves, Muslims, and others as Islamic prior to the attacks. Whether or not their acts were sinful and heretical, whether or not they can be considered Muslims religiously, as a matter of identity, they definitely were.

Hi Barbara :)

I've looked through a whole lot of the arguments about 9/11 events. They regularly miss things which those not well-versed in relevant fields cannot be expected to know. One that came down to quantum physics, the reason the supports suddenly weakened a lot at about a third of their melting temperature, causing exactly the implosions which you see as a reason to challenge the history. I could go into detail on the quantum physics and general mechanics of the implosion if you want.

Another common one is the difficulty in flying a plane: Most of the controls in the cockpit are for checking the status of different parts of the plane and for communications, and flying a plane is not really difficult at all. Landing is a huge challenge, but on 9/11, that wasn't needed. I found this out from inside the cockpit of a large aircraft, which had been removed following decommissioning of that plane and connected to a training-simulator which I tried out.

There were also issues with documentation upon which a lot of people rely: The most common footage was taken from the side facing away from the Towers so the damage to WTC7 wasn't directly visible in them, but the building had been hit by a chunk of WTC1 and severely damaged. It just took time to come down as supports weakened..

. (0)
Friday May 2, 2014, 2:48 pm
Thank you Robert B.

Beth S (330)
Friday May 2, 2014, 3:42 pm
Winn, Lona, Robert, etc.

This is one of the reasons I think warmly of you -- because you are kind people and project that onto others and you give benefit of the doubt, which I think most people deserve.

However, it's important to understand what's required of a devout or "real" Muslim. The Qur'an is very clear about this, and so have the vast, vast majority of Islamic religious scholars, imams and the like throughout Islamic history.

What's a little confusing is that if you look through the Qur'an there seem to be tolerant verses and highly intolerant verses and one might think, as a Muslim, you can just pick and choose whichever you wish to believe.

In fact, there is the doctrine of Abrogation (Tafsir) which is understood by the vast majority of the Islamic world to abrogate (render invalid and replace with) the tolerant verses, replacing them with the hateful, destructive, murderous ones.

There is a tremendous amount of material on this issue. For one of thousands, you might be interested to read

Jihad, which in over 90% if its uses in the Qur'an means warfare against non-Muslims. There are many videos of imams, and other Islamic scholars who tell their followers that Allah hates Muslims who do not fight/take up the sword to advance Islam. They are considered cowards and will go to hell. (Believe me, I wish I was making this stuff up).

Zakat -- similar to the tithing concept in Judeo-Christianity mandates that a certain percentage must go to support violent Jihad against non-Muslims, either by buying weapons, giving them food and money, etc.

In the West, there is a civilizational stealth jihad of sorts in that the ultimate goal -- making non-Muslims into Muslims or killing them or forcing them to pay Jizya -- can be achieved through the strategies of those like CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), which is just one of many, many Muslim Brotherhood groups. This is the use of false propaganda to whitewash the truth about Islam, intimidate non-Muslims from criticizing Islam, often by suing them or what has been termed "Lawfare", and many uses of deception, which is permitted in the fight of Dar al Harb to bring Dar al Islam. (a closer and more expansive description can be found at

The Qur'an orders its followers (from writings in the latter stages of Muhammad's career) to bring terror, smile at non-Muslims, but hate them in your heart, treat them harshly, and so forth. I will supply a number of verses for you.

This is why so many people in Islamic countries were dancing, giving out sweets, and cheering when the Towers came down, because Bin Laden had the vision and utilized the many resources he had as a very rich and well-connected Saudi to coordinate and execute the greatest act of jihad against "the big Satan" (the U.S.) in modern history.

The goal of Islam is to take over the entire world, bringing everyone under sharia, and this was a powerful statement to instill terror in the West. Despite the protestations of Bush and Obama, Islam is very much at war with us. It is crucial to recognizes this.

Now that doesn't mean that every Muslim follows this doctrine or even knows about it. Some Muslims reject the violence and hatred of Islam towards the "other" and understand instinctively that it is wrong. They have good consciences, but are "bad" Muslims. Dr. Tawfik Hamid is one of these very good people who understands (after he was ordered to murder an innocent when he was part of a terror group). Please see his website.

If you want to see videos from religious Islamic authorities from all over the world who time after time, country after country, tell it as it is, see: These men, are quite candid, speaking in Arabic, Farsi, and other languages to their audience, no holds barred.

I'll stop here and post some verses from the Islam, that are incumbent upon Muslims about violence, hatred, and terrorism towards non-Muslims.

Unfortunately, I will be busy till tomorrow night, but please feel free to post any questions, protestations, etc.

Beth S (330)
Friday May 2, 2014, 3:47 pm
Here, first are what some of the 9/11 had to say about what they did:

"We killed them outside their land, praise be to Allah. Today, we kill them in the midst of their own home.

O Allah, revive an entire nation by our deaths. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr.

To the Garden of Eden, our first house. We shall meet in the eternal Paradise with the prophets, honest people, martyrs and righteous people. They are the best of companions. Praise be to Allah. Allah's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you. "

Ahmad al-Haznawi, Flight 93 Hijacker

"Those 19 brothers who left us made efforts and offered their lives for the cause of Allah. Allah has favored them with this conquest, which we are enjoying now"

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's Number Two, explaining the motives for the plot.

"I heard someone on Islamic radio who owns a school in America say: 'We don't have time to keep up with the demands of those who are asking about Islamic books to learn about Islam.' This event made people think about true Islam, which benefited Islam greatly."

Osama bin Laden, bragging of the 9/11 attacks during a video-taped November, 2001 meeting.

"Be cheerful, for you have only moments between you and your eternity, after which a happy and satisfying life begins...

"Remember: it is a raid for the sake of Allah. Recite the prayer. As you take the seat, recite the prayer. Mention Allah a lot. When the hijacking begins, "Shout Allah is great because this shout strikes terrors in the hearts of the infidels

"And the moment of death should be accompanied by the basic statement of belief recited by all Muslims at the call to prayer. Seconds before the target, your last words should be, 'there is no god but Allah. Mohammed is his messenger!."

Written instructions to the hijackers.

"Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"

Last words from the cockpit of Flight 93.

Beth S (330)
Friday May 2, 2014, 3:48 pm
Here is a good resources about the History of Jihad:

Beth S (330)
Friday May 2, 2014, 3:51 pm
Here are verses of violence from the Qur'an and Hadiths. Please feel free to question anything:

Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

Summary Answer:
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer?

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)

Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners," Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. "But if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"

Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' in verse 16.

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today.

Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Bukhari (52:73) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords'."

Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."

Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."

Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"

Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'"

Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."

Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."

Bukhari 1:35 "The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed)."

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 - "Embrace Islam... If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship." One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad's armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.

Additional Notes:
Other than the fact that Muslims haven't killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. This is why Muslim apologists speak of the "risks" of trying to interpret the Quran without their "assistance" - even while claiming that it is a perfect book.

Far from being mere history or theological construct, the violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni's bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam's Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion's most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death. The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to attack in self-defense, this is an oxymoron that is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as "same day marriage").

One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Elsewhere, he notes: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life."

The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect."

Muhammad's failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then, within the closer community, early Meccan converts battled later ones. Hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the Quran and the bloody history of Islam are very much in contradiction to this.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca by the Saudi king - without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.

Beth S (330)
Friday May 2, 2014, 3:52 pm
Here are verses about Muslims (not) befriending non-believers (non-Muslims)

Are Muslims allowed to make friends with Christians, Jews or other non-Muslims?

Summary Answer:
Unbelievers are described by Muhammad (in the Qur'an) as "the vilest of animals" and "losers." Christians and Jews are hated by Allah to the extent that they are destined for eternal doom as a result of their beliefs. It would make no sense for Muhammad to then recommend them to be taken in as friends by Muslims. In fact, the Qur'an plainly commands believers not to take unbelievers as friends.

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.

Qur'an (3:28) - "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, that ye may Guard yourselves from them..." This last part means that the Muslim is allowed to feign friendship if it is of benefit. Renowned scholar Ibn Kathir states that "believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly, but never inwardly."

Qur'an (3:118) - "O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand." This verse not only warns Muslims not to take non-Muslims as friends, but it establishes the deep-seated paranoia that the rest of the world is out to get them.

Qur'an (9:23) - "O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers" Even family members are not to be taken as friends if they do not accept Islam. (This is the mildest interpretation of this verse from the 9th Sura, which also advocates "slaying the unbeliever wherever ye find them").

Qur'an (53:29) - "Therefore shun those who turn away from Our Message and desire nothing but the life of this world."

Qur'an (3:85) - "And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers."

Qur'an (3:10) - "(As for) those who disbelieve, surely neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them in the least against Allah, and these it is who are the fuel of the fire." Those who do not believe in Muhammad are but fuel for the fire of Hell (also 66:6, 2:24. 21:98).

Qur'an (7:44) - "The Companions of the Garden will call out to the Companions of the Fire: "We have indeed found the promises of our Lord to us true: Have you also found Your Lord's promises true?" They shall say, "Yes"; but a crier shall proclaim between them: "The curse of Allah is on the wrong-doers" Muslims in heaven will amuse themselves by looking down on non-Muslims in Hell and mocking them while they are being tortured (see 22:19-22.

Qur'an (1:5-7) - "Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray" This is a prayer that Muslims are supposed to repeat each day. "Those who earn Thine anger" specifically refers to Jews and "those who go astray" refers to Christians (see Bukhari (12:749)).

From the Hadith:

Muslim (1:417) - Taken to mean that one's own relatives should not be taken as friends if they are not Muslim.

Abu Dawud (41:4815) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man follows the religion of his friend; so each one should consider whom he makes his friend."

Abu Dawud (41:4832) - The Messenger of Allah [said] "Do not keep company with anyone but a believer and do not let anyone eat your food but one who is pious."

Bukhari (59:572) - "O you who believe! Take not my enemies And your enemies as friends offering them (Your) love even though they have disbelieved in that Truth (i.e. Allah, Prophet Muhammad and this Quran) which has come to you."

Ishaq 262 - "Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a Qur'an forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse"

Ishaq 252 - The story of a young man who converts to Islam after hearing Muhammad. He then tells his own father that he can no longer have anything to do with him because, "I have become a Muslim and follow the religion of Muhammad." (To maintain a relationship with his son, the father "converts" as well). This is an important passage because it establishes that the principle of shunning is based merely on the status of non-Muslims as unbelievers, not on their relations toward Muslims. In this case, the father desperately loved his son and meant him no harm.

Additional Notes:
Cultural superiority is a doctrine of Islam that actually has a name; it's called Jahiliyya - and literally means that any culture without Islam is "ignorant and stupid."

Even though they are explicitly kufr (unbelievers, Qur'an 5:17, 4:44-59) Jews and Christians are given special status in the Quran. So, if Muhammad warned believers against taking them as friends, then it surely is not permissible for Muslims to befriend atheists or those of other religions.

Some Muslims interpret this to mean that they should not even act friendly toward nonbelievers. (Most, fortunately, do not). Islamic TV preacher Sheikh Muhammad Hassan says that a Muslim is not even permitted to smile at a non-Muslim. However, a fatwa from Islam Q&A, although warning Muslims against taking unbelievers as "sincere friends" does permit infidels to be dealt with "in a kind manner in the hope that they might become Muslim." (Of course, the same site also encourages Muslims to "stop keeping company with Christians and replace them with Muslim friends").

Some Muslims are embarrassed by verse 5:51 and have gone to elaborate lengths to modify its intent by interpreting the word 'friend' as "guardian" or "protector" - which are just two of several legitimate translations of the Arabic word. According to these apologists, the verse is referring to a Muslim's allegiance to a non-Muslim government (which is not all that comforting either).

However, the word awliyaa is used in verse 5:51 instead of other words that would be more direct if the meaning were "protector" - such as hamin. In fact, the politically correct translations that do use the word "protector" turn right around and use the word "friend" in other places for the same Arabic word - such as in verse 10:62.

In fact, it is verse 10:62 which proves that the word awliyaa truly means "friend" in the Quran and not "guardian" because it refers to associates of Allah (translated "friends of Allah"). If the word meant "guardian" then it would mean that Allah has guardians, which is blasphemy.

Apologists sometimes point to verse 60:8-9 which says that Allah doesn't necessarily forbid showing kindness to unbelievers, but to shun the ones "who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out." This is an obvious reference to the Meccans, whose leaders expelled Muhammad and his handful of followers from Mecca (following his declaration of war against them). The verse was narrated shortly after their arrival in Medina, when it was necessary for the numerically disadvantaged Muslims to build alliances with non-Muslims in order to survive. The verses quoted above from Suras 9 and 5 are narrated at a much later, when Muslims had power. The verses expand the scope of unfriendliness to include anyone who is not Muslim.

Modern apologists such as Jamal Badawi try to cloud the straightforward interpretation of verse 5:51 by pointing out that Muslims are allowed to take non-Muslims as marriage partners, thus implying friendship. In fact, verse 2:221 explicitly forbids Muslims from marrying unbelievers, even though verse 5:5 allows it (Allah's change of mind corresponded somewhat curiously with Muhammad's own desire to marry a non-Muslim woman). Yusuf Ali reconciles the contradiction by saying that non-Muslims wives are "expected" to become Muslim.

In any event, only Muslim men are allowed to marry outside the faith. The women they marry relinquish control over their own lives, even to the extent that they cannot raise their own children in their own faith. All children must be raised Muslim. The non-Muslim woman also agrees to a lifetime of sexual servitude, and may be beaten if she does not submit.

This certainly doesn't sound like friendship to the rest of us. If your local Muslim cheerleader tries to pretend otherwise, then simply ask if a non-Muslim man may enter into this sort of "friendship" with a Muslim woman... then sit back and watch the backpedaling.

On the whole, Islam is very clear in teaching that there is no equality between believers and unbelievers, and hence no basis for a relationship of peers. Those who do not profess Muhammad are intended to exist in subjugation to those who do, then spend eternity in Hell. This does not preclude Muslims from acting friendly toward others, of course, but this does not constitute friendship as it is generally understood in the modern world.

Diane O (194)
Friday May 2, 2014, 3:53 pm
Al Qaida IS an extremist Islamic organization. Even the liberal comments cannot change that hard fact.

Beth S (330)
Friday May 2, 2014, 3:54 pm
Then if you want, we can get into some interesting things like Muhammad's really kinky sex-life. What a screwball.

Rhonda B (106)
Friday May 2, 2014, 3:56 pm
Noted, thank you.

Diane O (194)
Friday May 2, 2014, 3:58 pm
Obama: "Al Qaida is on the run." I guess Putin and Iran are, too.

Past Member (0)
Friday May 2, 2014, 5:27 pm
my co-work­­er's ­­hal­­f-si­­ster ­­makes­­ $­­73 /­­h­­r o­­n th­­e int­­ernet . Sh­­e h­­as b­­een fir­­ed f­­or 9 m­­onths bu­­t las­­t mo­­nth h­­er p­­ay ch­­eck w­­as $­­1284­­6 jus­­t w­­orking o­­n th­­e intern­­et fo­­r a fe­­w ho­­urs.

s­­ite l­­ink . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WWW.YELLWORK.COM
GO ­­TE­­C T­­O TH­­E­­ SIT­­E AN­­D NE­­XT TA­­B F­­OR IN­­FO

Rose Becke (141)
Friday May 2, 2014, 5:45 pm
Lets start more hatred towards the Muslims + Go Mutiny

Heidi Aubrey (5)
Friday May 2, 2014, 10:03 pm
Calling a pot black.

Beth S (330)
Saturday May 3, 2014, 6:28 pm
We do not want to hate Muslims, the people.

Once you understand ISLAM, that is the thing to bring awareness of. It is an extremely dangerous, aggressive, death-driven ideology.

Everyone needs to learn about it. It is one of the biggest threats in the world.

Helen Porter (39)
Sunday May 4, 2014, 11:13 pm
It's karma.

I undertook some studies of the history of the major religions of the world.

There is nothing new under the sun. Proverbs tells us that.

That's all I better say.

Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.