Connect with us


Occupation, not Islam, Breeds Terrorism


By Abd-Allah H.

As Muslims defensively chant “not all terrorists are Muslims” and “there are terrorists of every faith,” the question that the Islamophobes invariably ask is: “why is it that 99% of terrorists are Muslims?”  Alternatively, they state: “twenty thousand acts of Islamic terrorism have occurred in the last year compared to three acts from every other religion combined.”  (Admittedly, I am unsure of the exact numbers they use, but it doesn’t really matter since these sorts of figures are usually concocted anyways.) Nonetheless, the point appears valid: there seem to be a lot more Muslim terrorists nowadays; so does Islam breed terrorism?  It’s a fair question.

Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah

Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.

The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small. Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.

In order to arrive at a scientifically valid answer, we’d have to account for confounding variables. Otherwise, incorrect conclusions could be drawn.  One study showed for example that people with more ashtrays in their houses were more prone to lung cancer.  A faulty conclusion would be that ashtrays cause lung cancer.  The confounding variable in this case is of course smoking.  In other words, a linear correlation between ashtrays and lung cancer does not necessarily establish a causal relationship.  To give a slightly more complex example: a study found that those who drank more coffee were more likely to develop lung cancer; could researchers then claim that coffee consumption causes lung cancer?  No.  It turns out that smokers tend to drink more coffee than non-smokers; it was the smoking, not the coffee, that caused the cancer.

When clinical drug trials are conducted, researchers give the drug to be tested to one population (called the variable population) and the existing drug therapy to another (the control population).  The effect of the drug is then ascertained by comparing the morbidity and mortality in both populations.  However, in order for the comparison to be valid, the two populations have to be similar.  If they are not, the study becomes compromised.  For example, if the city of Berkeley, California is chosen for the variable population, and Miami, Florida is chosen as the control population, there could be heavily skewed results.  Berkeley hosts a college campus, and thus a disproportionately high number of young adults; Miami on the other hand is home to many old people who go there to retire (“It’s the law” according to Seinfeld).  It would not be surprising then if there was less morbidity and mortality in Berkeley than in Miami.  Perhaps such a tactic would be useful for pharmaceutical companies to market their drugs, but it would certainly be bad medicine.  In other words, the raw data must be stratified or normalized before final conclusions can be drawn.

Such empirical studies ought to be done with academic rigor and scholarly honesty, something which we can hardly expect of Islamophobes.  Many of us are familiar with the indefatigable work of John Esposito who has led the charge in using the scientific method to verify (or in this case, reject) the hypotheses of hate-mongers; Gallup poll obtained some much needed data in this regard.  But I’d like to draw the reader’s attention to another less familiar study–one which is closer to our null hypothesis.  In 2002, Professor Daniel Price of Kent State University published a paper in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.  He asked: does Islam repress human rights?

Islamophobes will often compare the developed “Christian world” with the developing Islamic one, and then draw faulty conclusions based on that.  But surely such a comparison is unfair–it’s comparing Berkeley to Miami. Confounding variables include gross domestic product, literacy rates, poverty level, and a host of other factors (not to speak of foreign occupation). If, however, one compares a majority Christian country in Africa, for example, with an Islamic country in the same continent, the results would be far less dramatic–and much more accurate.  Professor Price normalized the data and concluded that there was no causal relationship between Islam and repression of human rights; he wrote:

I test[ed] the relationship between Islam and human rights across a sample of 23 predominantly Muslim countries and a control group of non-Muslim developing nations, while controlling for other factors that have been shown to affect human rights practices.  I found that the influence of Islamic political culture on government has a statistically insignificant relationship with the protection of human rights.

Similarly, we can ask: does Islam cause terrorism?  Although I do not claim to have conducted a scientific study on the matter, I would like to present a case series to hopefully shed some light on this matter.

Case Series

Perhaps the most famous non-Muslim example of terrorism that Westerners are familiar with is the Irish Republican Army (IRA).  According to the Council on Foreign Relations: “For decades, beginning in the late 1960s, [the IRA] was considered one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world.” Was it Islam that bred terrorism in the region?  Or was it the population’s sense of foreign occupation?

The Tamil Tigers are another example–a predominantly Hindu separatist group in Sri Lanka.  They invented the suicide belt and were–according to the New York Times–the “pioneer[s] in the tactic of suicide bombings…[carrying] out scores of attacks over the years, both targeted assassinations and mass terrorist killings.”  They also pioneered the use of women as suicide bombers, with “up to 40 percent” of the Black Tigers suicide squad being women.  Was it Islam that inspired these terrorists, or was it their sense of occupation?

An historical example analogous to the Palestinian people is that of the Native Americans–who were occupied and expelled by the white colonialists.  When we read books of history today, it is generally recognized that the colonists–not the Native Americans–were blameworthy for stealing land that was not theirs.  The struggle of the Native Americans to oust their occupiers (the Native American intifada) is seen in that light–the epic and just struggle of an indigenous population fighting off the far superior foreign occupier.  Do history books today focus on the fact that the Native Americans used terror tactics in their war against the white man?  In fact, the Native Americans would routinely kill women and children in their raids, scalping their heads as per their religious belief.

Indeed, the American pioneers justified their war against the “savages” by pointing to such brutal attacks; of course today we recognize that the occupation took place first, and the Native American reprisals took place as a result.  It’s interesting how some people cannot properly identify the cause and effect in today’s global situation.  The 9/11 attacks are seen as the cause, and the invasion of Afghanistan as a result.  Yet, the reality is that the 9/11 attacks were the result, and the occupation of Muslim lands was the cause.  Unless of course you actually believe the nonsense idea that Al-Qaeda attacked the United States because “they hate our freedoms and liberties.” It would after all be absurd to claim that the Native Americans raided and killed pioneer women and children because “they hated the white man.”  Clearly, the reason was the occupation.

In any case, the struggle of the Native Americans was brutal–there is no way to deny that.  Were such tactics adopted because of their zeal for Islam?  Or was it the occupation that fueled their rage?  The answer is too obvious.  There is an intrinsic desire of every indigenous people to viciously fight off foreign invaders.

We have the example of the resistance groups in the Ukraine following the Nazi invasion in World War II.  The Red Army formed terrorist units that fought off the Nazis.  Ukrainian nationalists formed a third group–the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)–which used terrorism as a means to fight off both Nazi and Soviet occupiers.  Following the war, the Soviets recognized the group as a “terrorist” outfit; the UPA would even target civilian families who would cooperate with the Soviets by turning in food to collective farms.  Was it UPA’s adherence to the religion of Islam that prompted such terrorism?  Or was it their sense of foreign occupation?

The examples are countless.  Wherever there is a sense of occupation–perceived or real–terrorism follows.  Occupation breeds terrorism.  Terrorism is the weapon of the weak against the occupier.  The occupier is in a position of power and therefore has no need for such petty terrorist tactics.  The occupier has the benefit of tanks, fighter jets, and bombers.

I will here give one last example as a case in point: that of the Israelis themselves.  In the 1930’s and 40’s, it was the Zionist Jews–the predecessors of the modern day state of Israel–who engaged in terrorism on a massive scale.  Jewish terrorist outfits such as the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi (Stern Gang) were formed.  The Zionist Jews believed that God had granted them the land of Palestine, and as such, the British and the Palestinians were viewed as occupiers.

Jewish terrorist groups blew up various buildings, such as the King David hotel in July of 1946.  The existence of these Jewish terrorist groups cannot be denied.  The Encyclopedia Britannica says, for instance: “The Haganah turned to terrorist activities, bombing bridges, rail lines, and ships.”  The Irgun was condemned as a terrorist organization by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and various mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times; even Winston Churchill, who ordinarily was very sympathetic to the Jewish state, declared: “I will never forgive the Irgun terrorists.”  The Lehi (Stern Gang) was–in a resolution passed on September 18th of 1948–condemned by the United Nations Security Council as a “criminal group of terrorists.”

Yet after the creation of the state of Israel, all three terrorist groups moved into what is today considered the mainstream.  Haganah became the core of the Israeli Defense Forces, Irgun became the Herut party which later became the Likud, and the Lehi entered the political arena (being the only one of the three which would eventually die out).  Whether or not these groups adopted state terrorism as opposed to guerrilla terrorism is a topic for another discussion,  but the question to ask here is: what caused the Zionist groups to abandon the classical form of terrorism?  Clearly it was the fact that they were no longer a weak party in need of it.  The Israelis had tanks, fighter jets, and bombers–far more powerful instruments of death than anything in the arsenal of paramilitary terrorist groups.  So what we find quite consistently is that terrorism is a weapon of those who view themselves as occupied; in the case of the Zionist Jews, they viewed the British as occupiers and therefore resorted to terrorism.  Once the British were evicted and Israeli hegemony established, the bread-and-butter type of terrorism was abandoned.

The link between occupation and terrorism is undeniable.  To link Islam to terrorism is as erroneous as linking Judaism to terrorism.  One can easily take certain passages out of context from the Quran and claim that it is the cause of “Islamic terrorism.”  Yet, one could also take verses from the Hebrew Bible which clearly indicate that Jews should wipe out the inhabitants of the holy land because God gave it to them:

When you go to make war against a city you are to make [an offer of] peace to it. Then if it accepts peace and surrenders to you, you shall use all the people found in it as forced labour, and they shall be your slaves/serfs. But if it will not make peace with you, and makes war against you, you are to besiege it, and when Yahweh your god gives it to you, you are to kill by the sword every male in it. Only the women and the children and the animals and whatever [else] may be in the city…you are to take as plunder [i.e. slaves]…Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far off from you, which are not of the cities of these peoples [who live in the promised territory]. However, from the cities of these people [the cities] which Yahweh your god is giving you as a possession, you shall not let any human being survive. But you shall utterly destroy them.

(Deut. 20:10-17)

The Root Causes of “Islamic Terror”

Why then are there so many Muslim terrorists nowadays?  The answer is quite simple: the sole super power in the world has focused its wrath on the Islamic world.  After the fall of communism, Islam became the next boogie man.  Specifically, the United States has been not only an ardent supporter of but an active enabler of the state of Israel; quite simply, without the U.S.’s unconditional support of Israel, the continued occupation of Arab lands would have been impossible.  This occupation has radicalized people in the Muslim world; the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq–among other invasions–has fueled a surge in “Islamic terrorism.”  This is not even to speak of the CIA’s role in sustaining puppet regimes in the region, which local populations view as occupation by proxy.  As Robert Fisk put it:

I’ve been thirty-three years in the Middle-East now. By all means we should send the Muslim world our doctors, our teachers, etc. But we’re always going there and offering democracy and freedom, and we’re arriving with our tanks and our Abrams M1A1 tanks, and our Bradley fighting armored vehicles, and our horses and our swords, always promising them freedom.

And I calculated the other day that we now have twenty-two times as many military personnel in the Muslim world than the Crusaders had in the 12th century. And that land does not belong to us; it is not ours and we should leave militarily; we should take all our soldiers out; it doesn’t belong to us.

Chris Hedges, senior fellow at the Nation Institute and the Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University, wrote:

Muslim rage is stoked because we station tens of thousands of American troops on Muslim soil, occupy two Muslim nations, make possible the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, support repressive Arab regimes and torture thousands of Muslims in offshore penal colonies where prisoners are stripped of their rights. We now have 22 times as many military personnel in the Muslim world as were deployed during the crusades in the 12th century. The rage comes because we have constructed massive military bases, some the size of small cities, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, and established basing rights in the Gulf states of Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. The rage comes because we have expanded our military empire into neighboring Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. It comes because we station troops and special forces in Egypt, Algeria and Yemen. And this vast network of bases and military outposts looks suspiciously permanent.

The Muslim world fears, correctly, that we intend to dominate Middle East oil supplies and any Caspian Sea oil infrastructure. And it is interested not in our protestations of good will but in the elemental right of justice and freedom from foreign occupation. We would react, should the situation be reversed, no differently.

The brutal reality of expanding foreign occupation and harsher and harsher forms of control are the tinder of Islamic fundamentalism, insurgences and terrorism. We can blame the violence on a clash of civilizations. We can naively tell ourselves we are envied for our freedoms. We can point to the Koran. But these are fantasies that divert us from facing the central dispute between us and the Muslim world, from facing our own responsibility for the virus of chaos and violence spreading throughout the Middle East. We can have peace when we shut down our bases, stay the hand of the Israelis to create a Palestinian state, and go home, or we can have long, costly and ultimately futile regional war. We cannot have both.

Prior to the creation of the state of Israel, the Islamic world had coexisted peacefully with the United States for some one hundred and seventy years–without conflict (with the notable exception of the brief Tripolitan war).  Is it some sort of magical coincidence that Islam becomes the big bad boogie man when the United States decides to not only send troops to the Middle East but to send its CIA operatives there?  Let us ask the Islamophobes why is it that not a single Islamic terrorist attack took place on American soil prior to U.S. soldiers being deployed in the Middle East and their bankrolling of Israeli munitions?  How is it that for over one hundred and seventy years not a single Islamic attack took place against the United States? During this time period Islam existed, but the occupation did not.  Does it then take a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to figure out that the correlation is not between terrorism and Islam but between terrorism and occupation? As Ron Paul famously said of 9/11: “They attack us because we’ve been over there [i.e. occupying them].

The Israeli daily Ha’aretz wrote:

UN expert: Palestinian terror ‘inevitable’ result of occupation

A report commissioned by the United Nations suggests that Palestinian terrorism is the inevitable consequence of Israeli occupation…The report by John Dugard, independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the UN Human Rights Council, will be presented next month, but it has been posted on the body’s Web site…

“While Palestinian terrorist acts are to be deplored, they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation,” writes Dugard, whose 25-page report accuses the Israel of acts and policies consistent with all three…

“As long as there is occupation, there will be terrorism,” he argues.

“Acts of terror against military occupation must be seen in historical context,” Dugard says. “This is why every effort should be made to bring the occupation to a speedy end. Until this is done, peace cannot be expected, and violence will continue.”

Back to the question of “why are there so many Muslim terrorists,” the answer is exceedingly simple: the United States made a calculated bet in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s that they would make their bed with Israel–which quickly became an American outpost in the Middle East.  The U.S. needed access to the oil rich fields come hell or high water, even if it meant alienating twenty percent of the world’s population.  It is this fateful decision that has led to the radicalization of the occupied peoples and those who view the occupied as their brothers in faith.

Had China been the world’s primary source of oil–instead of the Middle East–the United States would have sought to dominate it, and not the Muslim world.  A puppet regime would have been established in China, or perhaps the country would have been directly occupied based on the pretext that terrorists reside there.  (The terrorists would undoubtedly come into existence after the invasion, thereby giving a retroactive justification for the war.)  In such a scenario, it would be Chinese terrorists that grace our nightly news feeds, not Muslims.  The link is occupation, not religion.

Glenn Greenwald of summarized it best:

What’s most striking about these “warnings” is that they virtually never examine the reasons why this would be happening.  Why, after all this time, would American Muslims suddenly be more willing to engage in violence against the U.S.?  To his credit, Scott Shane devoted several paragraphs of his NYT article to addressing this question, and what he finds is both highly significant and highly unsurprising:

[T]he continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American operations like drone strikes in Pakistan, are fueling radicalization at home, [terrorism expert Robert Leiken] said. “Just the length of U.S. involvement in these countries is provoking more Muslim Americans to react,” Mr. Leiken said . . . .

Like many other specialists, [Georgetown University terrorism expert Bruce] Hoffman pointed to the United States’ combat in Muslim lands as the only obvious spur to many of the recent cases, especially those with a Pakistani connection. “The longer we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said, “the more some susceptible young men are coming to believe that it’s their duty to take up arms to defend their fellow Muslims.”

A few analysts, in fact, argue that Mr. Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan — intended to prevent a terrorist haven there — could backfire.

Robert A. Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist, contends that suicide attacks are almost always prompted by resentment of foreign troops, and that escalation in Afghanistan will fuel more plots. “This new deployment increases the risk of the next 9/11,” he said. “It will not make this country safer.”

The evidence proving this causation is now so overwhelming as to be undeniable.  Waging wars, occupying, and dropping bombs in Muslim countries is the single most counter-productive step that can be taken to combat Islamic extremism (indefinitely imprisoning them without charges is a close second).  It’s akin to advising a lung cancer patient to triple the quantity of cigarettes he smokes each day.  Yet we continue to do it over and over, and then point to the harms we cause as reasons we need to continue doing it.  Our “counter-terrorism” campaign basically consists of three steps repeated endlessly:

(1) Interfere in or otherwise act aggressively in the Muslim world.

(2) Provoke increased anti-American sentiment and fuel terrorism as a result of Step 1.

(3) Point to the increased anti-American sentiment and terrorism as a reason we need to escalate our interference and aggression in the Muslim world.  Return to Step 1.

If one wants to find a correlation between terrorist attacks and some other factor, then let it be the deaths of civilians due to foreign occupation.  The Iraq war has resulted in the death of over 100,000 Muslim civilians; tens of thousands of Muslim civilians were killed by the U.S. military in Afghanistan; 1,441 Palestinian children have been killed by Israel just since September of 2000, not to speak of the thousands upon thousands of Palestinian civilians killed since 1947.  Israel has created millions upon millions of Palestinian refugeesHundreds upon hundreds of Pakistani civilians have been killed by U.S. drone attacks.  I have not included the many other civilians who have been killed in various parts of the Islamic world due to the direct and indirect actions of the United States.

In an article entitled “Why They Hate Us”, Harvard professor Stephen M. Walt wrote:

At a recent conference on U.S. relations with the Islamic world…one of the other participants (a prominent English journalist) put it quite simply. “If the United States wants to improve its image in the Islamic world,” he said, “it should stop killing Muslims.”

Now I don’t think the issue is quite that simple, but the comment got me thinking: How many Muslims has the United States killed in the past thirty years, and how many Americans have been killed by Muslims? Coming up with a precise answer to this question is probably impossible, but it is also not necessary, because the rough numbers are so clearly lopsided.

Here’s my back-of-the-envelope analysis, based on estimates deliberately chosen to favor the United States. Specifically, I have taken the low estimates of Muslim fatalities, along with much more reliable figures for U.S. deaths.

To repeat: I have deliberately selected “low-end” estimates for Muslim fatalities, so these figures present the “best case” for the United States. Even so, the United States has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost. The real ratio is probably much higher, and a reasonable upper bound for Muslim fatalities (based mostly on higher estimates of “excess deaths” in Iraq due to the sanctions regime and the post-2003 occupation) is well over one million, equivalent to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost…

…If you really want to know “why they hate us,” the numbers presented above cannot be ignored…

It is also striking to observe that virtually all of the Muslim deaths were the direct or indirect consequence of official U.S. government policy. By contrast, most of the Americans killed by Muslims were the victims of non-state terrorist groups such as al Qaeda or the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans should also bear in mind that the figures reported above omit the Arabs and Muslims killed by Israel in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. Given our generous and unconditional support for Israel’s policy towards the Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular, Muslims rightly hold us partly responsible for those victims too.

Contrary to what Friedman thinks, our real problem isn’t a fictitious Muslim “narrative” about America’s role in the region; it is mostly the actual things we have been doing in recent years. To say that in no way justifies anti-American terrorism or absolves other societies of responsibility for their own mistakes or misdeeds. But the self-righteousness on display in Friedman’s op-ed isn’t just simplistic; it is actively harmful. Why? Because whitewashing our own misconduct makes it harder for Americans to figure out why their country is so unpopular and makes us less likely to consider different (and more effective) approaches.

…When you kill tens of thousands of people in other countries — and sometimes for no good reason — you shouldn’t be surprised when people in those countries are enraged by this behavior and interested in revenge. After all, how did we react after September 11?

About 2,800 Americans died as a result of the atrocious 9/11 attacks.  Yet, over 288,000 Muslims have been killed by American military action.  That means that in Muslim eyes there were over one hundred 9/11’s committed by America against the Islamic world.  Imagine the rage in the eyes of Americans if there was another 9/11 type attack; now imagine if there were one hundred more.  That’s the level of anger in the Muslim world.

So if the Islamophobes ask why there are so many Muslim terrorists today, then let them compare the number of Muslim civilians killed with the number of civilians killed of other religious faiths.  The correlation will then become clear: the higher the number of civilians killed by foreign occupation, the more terrorists that arise.  If Muslims have so many terrorists, it’s because the world’s only super power kills more Muslims than people of any other faith.

Coming back to our ashtray and lung cancer analogy: Islam is the ashtray, terrorism is lung cancer, and the occupation is smoking. Despite what Islamophobes insist, Islam is not the problem; it’s just a confounding variable.  The culprit is the occupation.

Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah

Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.

The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small. Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.



  1. UA

    January 11, 2010 at 7:37 AM

    SUBHANALLAH, this is an immensely eye opening article. i pray that the American occupation will end and peace will be restored to the Islamic world, inshaAllah. thank you SO much for writing this..really incredible.

  2. Bilal Haidar

    January 11, 2010 at 8:10 AM


    This is a lucid and well-structured article and should be read by non-Muslims to dispel the myths they hear in the media.

    Despite the numerous positive points in this article, I believe it would have been better had the author first defined the word terrorism itself. We generally accept attacks on non-combatants to be terrorism, but when governments carry out these evil acts, the media does not refer to it as terrorism. Rather, in every single instance, Western governments get a free pass because, according to the mainstream media, they are inherently good and all the millions of civilians that they murder are slaughtered in good faith.

    State terrorism is just as deadly and evil, and it invariably results in far more innocent casualties, than terrorism carried out by individuals. The statistics, as mentioned in the article, speak for themselves.

  3. Farhan

    January 11, 2010 at 8:24 AM

    What you’re essentially describing is called Correlation not Causality.

  4. Man

    January 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM

    Yes as Bilal said, the main point is state terrorism. When a loosely armed militia targets civilians, it is labeled terrorism. But when a well funded army with fighter jets and armored tanks kills 50 times more civilians, it is “collateral damage”, “regrettable accident”, and “we will discipline those involved” – NEVER is the word terrorism involved.

    Kill a dozen, and you are a terrorist. Kill tens of thousands, and you are spreading freedom.

  5. Pingback: Occupation, not Islam, Breeds Terrorism « Islam Checks in

  6. Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  7. Asad S.

    January 11, 2010 at 12:43 PM

    What a brilliant article. Such a well articulated and organized sentiment, I cannot wait to share and spread this truth. Truely even muslims do not understand the truth in this. A lot of the times we are the ones that are bashing ourselves. Lets try and understand the bigger picture.


  8. Siraaj Muhammad

    January 11, 2010 at 2:34 PM

    Excellent article, provides well-written arguments and demonstrates how critical thinking skills are applied in these politically charged discussions – if we could simplify this into talking points the masses could use, you’d have a potentially viral message ;)


    • Atif

      January 11, 2010 at 4:35 PM

      I agree, this piece should be somehow made into a YouTube video, it would be very powerful inshaAllah.
      Video can be much more effective than just text by itself

      • Ammar

        January 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM

        Good idea.

        In fact, there should be a fairly targetted website presenting the islamic side of the argument, or maybe a site that points to the ‘terrorism’ tag on muslimmatters with prominent links to important articles.

        The only site that regularly does something similar is loonwatch (they actually have some great content), but perhaps a more neutral website would do a better job.

        What do you say people?

  9. PakistaniMD

    January 11, 2010 at 3:41 PM

    I agree with most of what you have said, esp. the fact that occupation is one item that breeds the radicalism that we all despise. But I cannot help but thing that your arguments can also act as a polemic, since you do not engage in constructive self-criticism. What I mean to say is that we, as Muslims, also need to understand what has caused some of the problems of our lands. Not all problems stem from the US or West, as the West has undoubtedly done some good in the Muslim World (development of cities, formation of science + tech. centers), but also from ourselves’. Is it not the Jamaat-E-Islami in Pakistan and the Salafi Party in Kuwait that also inhibit the growth of these respective nations? That such political and social forces are also a cause of the regression of our society also needs to be explained, as Radicalism/Terrorism is also caused by those with retroactive views. There are people amongst US who are causing trouble also… and they too need to be responded to.

    • Abd-Allah H.

      January 11, 2010 at 4:42 PM

      Perhaps I should have included Professor Walt’s disclaimer, which is of relevance to your comment; he said (and I agree with him):

      To say [all this] in no way justifies anti-American terrorism or absolves other societies of responsibility for their own mistakes or misdeeds.

  10. Abd- Allah

    January 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM

    Very well written article! May Allah make it in your scale of good deeds.

  11. Dawud

    January 11, 2010 at 9:54 PM

    Salam aleikum,

    I recognized a lot of these article excerpts from my Twitter feed. Good review.

    I and others are wondering when their is going to be a discussion about Umar Farouk? He was an ilmsummit attendee and Sh. Yasir and Sh. Waleed gave statements…but nothing really direct with dealing with the problem.

    Can it be expected for this to be discussed here, since there is at least some onus of responsibility to discuss how this can be prevented?

  12. Hassan

    January 12, 2010 at 12:39 AM

    Watch this video of Ron Paul saying same thing, and then being labeled anti-semite for no reason:

  13. s harpasand

    January 12, 2010 at 12:53 AM

    With the exception of the Palestine, all other so called occupied Muslims countries have native rulers. Afghanistan has an Afghan government and Iraq has an Iraqi government. Pakistan has Pakistani government. Sure you can complain about these government being puppets of USA. But, at least theoretically, the people of these countries VOTED for these rulers. One cannot really entirely blame the USA for these government.

    Even if the Muslim terrorism is due to the Muslim governments being puppets of the USA, the really troublesome issue remains that the terrorism coming from the Muslim world is intentionally targeted at the civilian populations of the USA and even the terrorists’ own native lands. This is not to deny that the military operations of the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq did not or do not result in high civilian casualties but I am not sure you can really claim that these operations are ever INTENTIONALLY directed at civilians. There maybe an utterly criminal and barbaric disregard for the civilian life during the conduct of these operations by the US forces but the intended target is almost always a legitimate military one. You cannot claim the same by any measure for the attempted airplane bombings or even the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There is/was no military or even Islamic rationale or justification for any of these attacks, even though these attacks are/were launched in the name of Islam and Jihad.

    If the Muslim response to the occupation and/or US interference was directed solely at the military elements of the US presence or even the puppet Muslim governments then perhaps there would be a lot more empathy and understanding in the west for the Muslim causes.

    I should also point out that as far as I have seen, at least in the USA, the print and electronic media distinguishes between the attacks on the US military and the attacks on civilians. The attacks on the US military are not referred to as Terrorism.

    • Abd- Allah

      January 12, 2010 at 1:43 PM

      Quick question “s harpasand”, do intentions really matter when the outcome is the same, killing of innocent people?

      • s harpasand

        January 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM

        Quick answer for for Ad-Allah: Intentions do matter. If they did not then capital punishment would be same as murder. Marital sex would be same as fornication and adultery.

        What do you say is the Islamic position on the concept of neeyah or neeyat ? Isnt that the Arabic for intention ?

        • Abd- Allah

          January 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM

          s harpasand,
          Yes, intentions in Islam do matter when it comes to good deeds, but not when it comes to bad ones, such as killing of innocent people! The killing of innocent people is never justified regardless of what your intentions may be!

          The examples you provide are faulty. The difference between capital punishment and murder is not in the intention, but rather, capital punishment is different because it is punishing someone who is guilty of murder himself. Murder on the other hand is killing someone who is innocent. So the key difference is being guilty of committing a crime versus being innocent, and not the intention. The same goes for your other example. The difference between marital sex and fornication is the fact that those two people are married or not. Even if two people who are not married have the “purest intentions” when having sex, that would still be considered fornication, wouldn’t it?

          Having bad intentions corrupt good deeds, but having good intentions never makes a bad deed good. If you understand this key point, then you would have gained much good.

          • s harpasand

            January 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM

            Are you saying that having good intention to do a good deed but in the process of doing the good deed UN-INTENTIONALLY causing some harm is EXACT SAME as someone setting out to do evil with an INTENT to do evil ?

            If that is your worldview then we simply see the world differently. You have your own way of looking at things and I have mine.

    • Abd-Allah H.

      January 12, 2010 at 10:29 PM

      Are you saying that having good intention to do a good deed but in the process of doing the good deed UN-INTENTIONALLY causing some harm is EXACT SAME as someone setting out to do evil with an INTENT to do evil ?

      The feeling of the Muslims is the same as that of the Vietnamese when America was carpet bombing them. They simply do not believe that it is unintentional, and they know that America calculates how many innocent civilians will die in each one of their attacks…so it is no surprise when these innocents die. So this entire claim that it is unintentional is a farce, just like their supposed desire to spread democracy.

      • s harpasand

        January 12, 2010 at 11:31 PM

        Sure it is a farce to you. Just like this article going on and on and on about how all the terrorism is due to some fantasy of US occupation is a farce to most Americans.

        • Abd- Allah

          January 13, 2010 at 12:08 AM

          s harpasand,
          Please don’t speak in the name of “most Americans”. You might be one of them but you sure don’t represent them. You are more than welcome to voice your own opinion, but don’t try to falsely represent “most Americans”.

          • s harpasand

            January 13, 2010 at 12:18 AM

            LOL…..I speak on behalf of Americans as much as the author of this article speaks on behalf of all the terrorists or other commentators here valiantly speaking on behalf of all the Muslims or Vietnamese.

          • Amad

            January 13, 2010 at 12:33 AM

            You DON’T speak on behalf of Americans. You speak for a minority of those stuck in a mental warp, where you see nothing wrong in America’s foreign policies and then wonder why do we have terrorists in the world. Yeah, they want our hamburgers.

          • Abd- Allah

            January 13, 2010 at 12:37 AM

            No no brother Amad, you have it all wrong. They hate our hamburgers, not want, they hate our hamburgers! LOL

          • s harpasand

            January 13, 2010 at 12:46 AM

            right, and you speak for all terrorists and also all Muslims ?

          • Siraaj

            January 13, 2010 at 1:35 AM

            s harpasand,

            I believe we’re in agreement that a Jewish lobby exists which is manipulating US foreign policy towards unfavorable outcomes against Palestinians. The article simply states that these actions are what lead to terrorism, suicide bombing, and such, and not simply Islam the religion – that was the article’s intent, and you’ve accepted the premise and conclusion, so really, there’s nothing to argue about.


  14. naeem

    January 12, 2010 at 1:53 AM


    “Yet, the reality is that the 9/11 attacks were the result, and the occupation of Muslim lands was the cause. ”

    Your core premise is that occupation leads to terrorism, so what American occupation caused 9/11?

    Maybe you need to expand your usage of the term occupation to incorporate the sponsoring of occupation, as in America sponsors the occupation of Palestine.

    But again, besides Palestine, what other occupation caused the anger leading to 9/11?

    • Abd- Allah

      January 12, 2010 at 2:04 AM

      How about the military bases established in several of the Muslim countries?

    • MR

      January 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM

      Palestine is the reason and the only reason.

      Now after 9/11 due to the wars. There are more reasons. Iraq. Afghanistan.

      • Abd-Allah H.

        January 12, 2010 at 10:30 PM

        I don’t think Palestine is the only reason, but yes it was the main one. The United States government unfortunately funded the brutal occupation of Palestinian lands. Neighboring countries were also occupied by the Israelis.

  15. Noname

    January 12, 2010 at 6:09 AM

    How many civilians Saddam Hussein killed? What do you think about the actions of Taliban in Afghanistan?

    Btw, a phobia means “irrational fear”, so can there be a thing called “islamophobia”?

    • Amad

      January 12, 2010 at 6:44 AM

      I didn’t know Saddam was occupying a land. And by the way, Saddam was a secularist and by the edict of most Muslim scholars, not even a Muslim. As for Taliban, they are not occupying any land either.

      Your second sentence highlights your own clear prejudices. I am sure the Nazis didn’t think it was irrational to fear the impending control of Germany by its Jewish population. When folks like you are so brainwashed by FOX and its list of cartoon characters (replace FOX with any other right-wing or fascist or Ziocon outlet), fear of 1+ billion people certainly starts seeming rational. Because if a person really thinks rationally, he/she would realize that history is testament to the character of Islam and Muslim rulers.

      Enough said.

      • Noname

        January 12, 2010 at 6:51 AM

        Maybe they (the leaders of USA and NATO) had some real reasons to invade those countries, then? And they are planning to leave as soon as it is possible to so safely. Iraq or Afghanistan won’t be new states of the USA.

        “I am sure the Nazis didn’t think it was irrational to fear the impending control of Germany by its Jewish population.”

        Yeah, they had really strong propaganda and control of the media.

        I’m from Finland so I can watch Fox news only from Youtube :D Hilarious stuff, especially about atheism.

        • Bond

          January 19, 2010 at 4:55 PM

          Dear Noname,

          Saddam and Bin Laden, the “twin evils” of the last decade were both created, funded, and trained by the US to proxy fight some of their enemies, and then they were discarded and branded terrorists when no longer politically convenient.

          In fact, Saddam committed most of his crimes in the 80s, while the US was in bed with him, turning a blind eye to what he did, but conveniently remembered them after the Iran-Iraq war, blockaded Iraq, and led to the starvation of a million innocent people for the crimes of the dictator the US itself empowered.

          The problem is the Western media (or any powerful media machine in a conflict) will give you biased information with half the story, and forget the background, and take the moral high ground.

          The only people that should fear Islam are those that hate it, wishing the Muslims harm, destruction and evil.

          But anyways, all of this is silly, transient geopolitics that will be forgotten – and cannot bear any weight on metaphysical truths. The important point is your purpose in life. The world around us, our own minds, and the wonders of nature are clearly not the product of mindless blind purposeless forces. I invite you to pick up a Quran and read it :)

          Also, since you tube, check the channel fredu89 – a Finnish Muslim that will help answer any questions you have about Islam, InshaAllah (God willing)


      • s harpasand

        January 12, 2010 at 1:03 PM

        >When folks like you are so brainwashed by FOX and its list of cartoon
        >characters (replace FOX with any other right-wing or fascist or
        >Ziocon outlet), fear of 1+ billion people certainly starts seeming
        >rational. Because if a person really thinks rationally, he/she would
        >realize that history is testament to the character of Islam
        >and Muslim rulers.

        This is an amazing statement. You are labelling any and everyone pointing out the obvious and clear problems of violence and terrorism rooted in the religious beliefs in the current Muslim world as brainwashed by the right-wing zionist fascits FoxNews. And yet at the same time in the very next sentence you are exhibiting your own delusions of some long-gone long-extinct historic Islamic character and tolerance which has no bearing on the current character and traits of modern day Muslims.

        Islam of few hundred years ago may have been tolerant and civilized, we can leave that argument to be settled by the historians. But there is no way on earth you can make a claim that Muslim world and socities of TODAY are by any means tolerant or of any worthwhile character.

        In terms of respect and tolerance for human rights and human dignity, Muslim world and society of TODAY is decisively and unarguably inferior to the Western civilisation of today. And, if there is ever a revival of past glory of Islam it will originate from the cradle of Western civilisation.

        • Amad

          January 12, 2010 at 1:18 PM

          actually my comment about FOX was specifically related to the guy’s insinuation that there is no such thing as Islamophobia, while every sane person and his brother are aware that there is a big problem currently that is far worse than antisemitism right now, and that is anti-Islam sentiments.

          As for your other comment, I can agree that the Muslim world currently has lots of problems… as someone said, Islam is the best religion with the worst followers, and that is probably more true today than anytime else…

          • Abd- Allah

            January 12, 2010 at 1:53 PM

            Brother Amad, I don’t think Islam has the worst followers. Just take a look at the followers of other religions. It is true that most Muslims aren’t practicing Islam in its purest form like they are supposed to, but just because some Muslims act wrong does not enable us to make a generalization about Muslims. I know that wasn’t what you meant by your statement, but you never know when an ignorant islamophobe picks what you said up and starts running.

  16. Abu Harun

    January 12, 2010 at 7:59 AM

    Masha Allah!!! This is a very well written article. May Allah reward you protect you.

    I pray to Allah that the “right” people read this article and take “action” to stop all the bloodshed……. and the hate that is spreading across the world.

    Three more points:

    1. @ MM I pray that you do not get bullied to remove the article.

    2. The article speaks the truth, but do you think that a super power will leave another “potential” superpower alone to wake up from a long deep sleep???? I don’t see it brother. I think it is wishful thinking and also un-natural to ask the US to leave the middle east.. it is not in the interest of the country…..

    3. The reaction of Muslims who engage in killing innocent lives is wrong… because of these ayat in surah Nahl

    “126. And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allâh), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.) .

    127. And endure you patiently (O Muhammad ), your patience is not but from Allâh. And grieve not over them (polytheists and pagans, etc.), and be not distressed because of what they plot.

    128. Truly, Allâh is with those who fear Him (keep their duty unto Him) , and those who are Muhsinûn (good-doers, – see the footnote of V.9:120). ”

    Insha Allah, if my understanding of these ayat is wrong then please correct me.

    Jazakum Allahu kheiran,

    wa salaam alaikum wr wb

    Abu Harun

    • Abd- Allah

      January 12, 2010 at 2:00 PM

      Brother Abu Harun,
      It is actually in the best interest of this country to leave the middle east and not interfere with their affairs in the way it does now. However it is not in the interest of Israel that the US leaves the middle east.

      Israel has a parasitic relationship with the US, one in which one organism, the parasite (Israel), lives off of another organism, the host (US), harming it and possibly causing death.

      • s harpasand

        January 12, 2010 at 3:24 PM

        This is interesting. Last year US Secretary of State went to Pakistan. There was not a single forum, official/government or civilian or academic, where she did not receive berating from the Pakistanis on how the mess in Afghanistan is due to USA abandoning Afghanistan after 1989 and leaving Afghanistan on its own.

        Now reading your own words it is revealing that you are complaining that the USA should not interfere in the middle-east affairs the “way it does now”. This implies that you do want some sort of interference from the USA in the middle-east affairs ? Perhaps you want the USA to interfere, but as a more “neutral” arbitrator ?

        This has been proposed and argued in other forums too. The support Israel receives from the USA is no different then the support Palestinians receive from the entire Arab and Muslim world. ONLY when and if the entire Arab and Muslim world (the non-Palestinians) would agree to withdraw and withhold any support of the Palestinians then they could demand from the USA to withhold and withdraw any support of Israel.

        It seems to me that what Arabs in particular, and Muslims in general, really want from the USA is that it should not support Israel so that they (the Muslim world) then could unite and deal with an isolated and alone Israel. Is this not what you are looking for brother Abd-Allah ?

        • Abd- Allah

          January 12, 2010 at 4:33 PM

          s harpasand,
          Comparing the support that other Arab countries provide for Palestine to the support that the US provides for Israel is entertaining to say the least.

          Besides, what you are failing to see is the fact that the conflict in the middle east is an Arab-Israeli one, and not just between Palestine and Israel. Israel have occupied in the past parts of Lebanon, Syria, and several other Arab countries, and continues to threaten, and attack, them until this day, whenever it feels like it. Another issue is the fact that many Arab countries have large populations of Palestinian refugees. Those refugees, and the countries they are currently living in, would like to go back to their own country Palestine. This is all part of the bigger issue over there in the middle east. It is not as simple as you imagine it to be.

          The Palestinian issue with Israel is an Arab one, because Palestinians are Arabs as well. However, the key question is what is the relation of Israel to the US? Why should the US provide this support to Israel when we have nothing to do with them? They are not Americans are they? Then why do we continue to support them?

          • s harpasand

            January 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM

            ummm…USA has more jews then Israel itself. And these Jewish Americans have every right to exercise their legitimate and legal right to use their political influence to tilt the American support towards Israel. This is no different then your own argument of presence of the Palestinian diaspora in the various parts of the Arab world as the legitimising factor for the support of those nations towards Palestinian.

            You cannot have it both ways. You want Jews and non-Jews all over the world to disown and not support Israel but at the same time you are coming up with arguments on why the Arab world has a right to support the Palestinians. If it is ok for the Arab and Islamic world to do what it can to support the Palestinians then be a man enough to accept that American Jews have the same right to support Israel.

  17. muslima

    January 12, 2010 at 8:40 AM

    assalaamu ‘alaikum,

    well written!

    1. the only part I might consider changing is the end…while I get the technical point, I don’t like Islam compared to the ash tray. An ashtray only serves to assist the cigarette smoking and is of no benefit. While Islam, why it is the main reason why the majority of the Muslim world is NOT doing terrorist things. It is those educated in ISLAM that are not reacting in terrorist ways when injustice is happening to fellow Muslims. and it is the LACK OF ISLAM that is causing ppl enraged by occupation (which is unjust of course) to go out and do something also unjust, ie taking innocent lives. As they say, two wrongs don’t make a right. Having innocent muslim lives taken doesn’t justify taking innocent non-Muslim lives. I recognize that you are only trying to remove Islam as being the cause of the terrorist attacks, but it would make it a complete, and more powerful argument if you could add in the angle of Islam actually being the positive force that is preventing more injustice. And that only those so enraged and literally blinded by what is happening to them that they are acting irrationally, which WE AS MUSLIMS COMPLETELY DISASSOCIATE OURSELVES FROM. Add this aspect more strongly worded, so that no one can misinterpret your important point, and it will be a very balanced article inshallah.

    to summarize, excellent points. only a perverted mind would try to suggest that you are saying it is justfied to perform acts of terrorism because of occupation, but since there are those minds out there, add the above to give them no way to win

    • Abd- Allah

      January 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM

      Excellent point sister.

  18. Abu Ayub

    January 12, 2010 at 11:42 AM

    Mashallah Allah. Excellent article.

  19. Abd- Allah

    January 12, 2010 at 5:02 PM

    s harpasand: “Are you saying that having good intention to do a good deed but in the process of doing the good deed UN-INTENTIONALLY causing some harm is EXACT SAME as someone setting out to do evil with an INTENT to do evil ?”

    I’m sorry, but please remind me, which of the following deeds are considered good?! Is it invading another country, throwing bombs at people, or is it starving people to death, or is it exploiting their resources? Which of those count as good deeds to you? And please do tell me, what is this “good deed” that we have set out to do, and in the process of doing it, we UN-INTENTIONALLY caused some harm?? If so much harm comes out as a side effect of doing this “good” deed, meaning if the harms outweigh the benefits of this deed, then maybe we shouldn’t do this “good deed”, and maybe, just maybe, it isn’t such a good deed in reality.

    If that is your view of a “good deed”, to invade other countries and kill their people and exploit their resources, then we simply see the world differently. My view of a good deed is giving in charity, teaching someone knowledge which benefits them, feeding the poor, saying a kind word to your brother, helping out your neighbor, taking care of the orphans, etc.. and in no way do I consider invading other countries and killing innocent people as a good deed, even if the harm coming from it is “UN-INTENTIONAL”. If we really want to do good to the people of this world, then instead of spending so much on weapons, perhaps we should instead spend that money on feeding those who are starving in other countries (and even the ones here in our own country!) and educating people and building schools, hospitals, and other things that people would really benefit from. You have your own way of looking at things and I have mine.

    • s harpasand

      January 12, 2010 at 9:57 PM

      A passionate Muslim few days back in another forum suggested to non-Muslims that they read and learn about prophet Mohammad from this site There is a section on this site titled The Prophet’s Conquests. It goes into quite detailed historical accounts of military conquests of the Prophet of Islam. Now, you tell me, if during these conquests, invasions, ghazawat and battles of Islam there were any un-intentional innocent civilian casualties or not ?

      US military has detailed and enforced rules of engagement regarding when and how an American solider is to use deadly force. US military also has a system and process in place in Iraq and Afghanistan to compensate the innocent victims (or their relatives) for loss of life limb and property resulting from the US military operations in those countries. Above all, there is a deliberate process of identifying targets and planning missions to conduct the war. At NO point US forces INTENTIONALLY sends its soldiers to hurt or kill civilians. Among the soldiers conducting these missions there are those who have utter disregard for civilian casualties. But in US military there is a process and system, not too different from what the Prophet had in his time, to prosecute and reprimand those who do not follow these rules of engagement or who intentionally kill the civilians.

      All of this is in sharp contrast to the Muslim terrorists who INTENTIONALLY set out to KILL AND DESTROY civilian life in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and the USA.

      • Abd- Allah

        January 12, 2010 at 10:16 PM

        s harpasand,
        You have not answered my question
        yet about what is this “good deed” that the US is out to do in these countries? I think it is very clear to everyone that not much good has come out from the occupation of these countries.

        To answer your question about the Prophet’s conquests, innocent civilians who were not taking part in fighting were not killed or attacked, neither intentionally nor un-intentionally.

        You see, killing one person un-intentionally is one thing, but killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians “un-intentionally” is something else.

      • Amad

        January 13, 2010 at 12:18 AM

        Harpasand, it is quite simple. Your utterly faulty reasoning is stupefying!

        The US started the war in Iraq INTENTIONALLY. That war in turn killed hundreds of thousands, “unintentionally”, so it is ok? Do you see how stupid that sounds??

        Israel occupied Palestinian lands and is enforcing a debilitating siege INTENTIONALLY. I don’t give a damn if they don’t go and shoot someone “deliberately”. It is akin to holding a bird in a cage, starving it to death and saying we didn’t intentionally target it. Probably better to just shoot the bird, at least it won’t suffer.

        Can you imagine trying to convince a person whose mother, child or sibling was killed by a drone, by a bomb, by a missile that this was unintentional?? There are now millions of these Muslims who have been directly affected by “unintentional” “collateral” damage.

        The point of this post is OCCUPATION in THIS day and age, and how it is radicalizing young Muslims. That is the POINT. Only individuals full of prejudice and hate against Muslims will fail to see the connection. The point is NOT to justify the radicals, or their actions. We are dealing with that separately in many other posts, talking about our own dirty laundry. The POINT is that until the West stops planting seeds of discord, of injustice and of double-standards, the radicalization factory will continue to have tons of ammo to reproduce radicals freely. The two injustices feed each other.

        If you don’t get it, then that’s really a mental block that you need to deal with. But you have enough opportunity to disrupt the discussion and not deal with the points in the post. I will also warn you about trying to slip in your “innocent” little blurbs about our Prophet, that are not intended to address the subject in this post, but to plant more seeds of Islamophobia. You are approaching troll territory.

  20. Abd- Allah

    January 12, 2010 at 5:10 PM

    s harpasand,
    I don’t have a problem with Jewish Americans supporting Israel. My issue is with America supporting Israel. The US has nothing to do with Israel. The US is not a jewish nation. So even if the jewish Americans want to support Israel, then why should we all be dragged into it by having to support Israel as well??! Just as there are Jewish Americans, there are Palestinian Americans that live here, and i’ll ask you, would you agree if they dragged the entire US into supporting Palestine with our own tax money? No, I am sure you would not agree, and your answer would be what do we have anything to do with Palestine. We are not obligated to support it at our own expense. The same goes for Israel. The US has nothing to do with either Palestine nor Israel, even if we have people from both countries who live among us, they are free to support their country, but the US as a whole should not be dragged into this whole issue!

    • s harpasand

      January 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM

      Why is it so hard to understand that the Jewish Americans exercise their political right and muscle to influence the US policy in favor of Israel. If the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim Americans dont like this then they are free to exercise the same political rights and convince the American public that the American support should instead go to the Palestinian side or that the USA should just simply stay out of the Israeli conflict. But, bombing American citizens in airliners or crashing airliners into American office buildings is NOT going to convince American public of supporting the Arab causes.

      • Abd- Allah

        January 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM

        That is exactly what we are trying to do here. Where do you see us crashing planes? All the brother did was write this article in an effort to show Americans one of the main causes of terrorism, and that is occupation in the many different forms it takes. We are exercising our right of freedom of speech, and just as much as we oppose occupation, we oppose terrorism as well.

        I’m starting to think that you aren’t as scared of us as you claim to be “s harpasand”. (wink)

      • Abd-Allah H.

        January 12, 2010 at 10:33 PM

        But, bombing American citizens in airliners or crashing airliners into American office buildings is NOT going to convince American public of supporting the Arab causes.

        How about bombing hotels and railway stations to convince the British to leave? That is after all how the Zionists did it.

        • s harpasand

          January 12, 2010 at 11:40 PM

          :) Thanks for, finally, saying the truth – Islam is no different then Zionism and Muslims are same as Zionists.

          • Abd- Allah

            January 13, 2010 at 12:23 AM

            s harpasand,
            I hate to correct you in your own English language and on a public forum, but you have repeatedly made the mistake of using “then” when you should have used “than” instead. See your above comment as an example. This is not to put you down or anything, but only in hope that you learn something that would benefit you. And if I have, UN-INTENTIONALLY, made you look bad by correcting your English, then please do understand that I only wanted to do good and teach you proper English while having the best of intentions.

      • Amad

        January 13, 2010 at 12:30 AM

        How would you have liked Arab Muslims exercising their political rights to justify terrorism? Would you find that a justifiable lobbying exercise?

        The Israel Lobby is exactly doing that. Lobbying to justify and promote state-terrorism by Israelis over occupied people who don’t have the resources to fight back. The Goldstone Report, accepted by the entire world, except Israel and its junior ally, the USA (where the congress dutifully, found Israel guilty of war-crimes (and Hamas, but consider the proportion). A lobbying exercise to quash war-crimes accountability.

        The Israel Lobby has no checks and balances. Every other lobby has some opposing lobby to keep congress checked in some sense. This 300 pound gorilla on the Hill doesn’t. That is why it would take a VERY brave president to make peace in the Middle East… and until you have folks like Lieberman disrupting every possible effort to make peace, even the President will be hamstrung.

        Anyway, the Israel Lobby issue is another post for another day. Needless to say, the occupation of Palestine is one of the biggest radicalization motivation for would-be terrorists.

  21. s harpasand

    January 13, 2010 at 12:44 AM

    Amad: why you would censor my comment but then respond to it in your own tirade ? Its really not possible to have a conversation if you are going to start censoring certain point of views :(

    • Amad

      January 13, 2010 at 1:01 AM

      I didn’t censor any of your comments.

  22. Abd-Allah H.

    January 13, 2010 at 12:49 AM

    S harpasand has made the point that the deaths due to “Islamic terrorism” are totally different from the deaths due to U.S. imperialism, because the former is intentional and the latter unintentional.

    This is a largely academic difference to the people on the ground who are getting killed, especially when it is well known to the Americans beforehand that so many civilians will inevitably die as a result of their actions…which makes it questionable that the deaths are “unintentional.”

    But let’s make another distinction between the deaths of Muslims and Americans, as Professor Walt does:

    It is also striking to observe that virtually all of the Muslim deaths were the direct or indirect consequence of official U.S. government policy. By contrast, most of the Americans killed by Muslims were the victims of non-state terrorist groups such as al Qaeda or the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  23. s harpasand

    January 13, 2010 at 12:57 AM

    guys, I was very much enjoying and learning from this discussion. I am sure a few others were too. But its not possible to continue this if a point of view is being suppressed and censored.

    • Abd- Allah

      January 13, 2010 at 1:07 AM

      I guess now you know how Muslims feel when their point of view is suppressed and censored by the US media when it only shows the point of view of the Israelis regarding the conflict. lol

    • Abd-Allah H.

      January 13, 2010 at 1:24 AM

      How could your posts be censored when your complain about censoring went through! You just can’t deal with the argument that Professor Walt raised, namely:

      It is also striking to observe that virtually all of the Muslim deaths were the direct or indirect consequence of official U.S. government policy. By contrast, most of the Americans killed by Muslims were the victims of non-state terrorist groups such as al Qaeda or the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Stop whining, you have had plenty of opportunities to make your points, but you are not addressing the issues.

      -Harp, your comments were not censored, except one which went into automod due to too many external links, and left there due to it being unrelated to post. -Editor

  24. Syed J

    January 13, 2010 at 4:00 PM

    Assalam alaikum Abd-Allah H & all,

    Jazak Allah Khair for this extremely bold article. It reminds me constantly of one of the Ahadith of the Prophet Sallalahu alai wa Sallam.

  25. MDInshaAllah

    January 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM

    AMAZING article. wow. i love it. barakallah

  26. Zuhayr

    January 15, 2010 at 3:15 AM

    Islam for sure doesn’t breed terrorism. Islam stops people from committing terrorist acts. Muslims are supposed to control their anger for the sake of Allah. Killing civilians as a part of warfare is forbidden by Allah.

  27. Makh Izaali

    January 27, 2010 at 10:42 PM

    It seems that the term “State of terror” should be recognized, defined and acknowledged world wide, in order to put the countries such as USA, Israel and others within the defined frame of State of Terror. Probably then we will be able to revive the term of , theFreedom fighter.

  28. Pingback: Accountability Now « Thoughts For Change

  29. Pingback: Occupation, not Islam, Breeds Terrorism | Dr Ko Ko Gyi's Blog

Leave a Reply

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