Since September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated a number of wars in Muslim countries. These wars, which would be more correctly called massacres, have resulted in the deaths of countless innocent Muslims. In some cases, attempts have been made to present these aggressions in the guise of humanitarian efforts to promote democracy. But the limited public support for U.S. military action around the world goes back to the U.S. government claim that Muslims were responsible for 9/11. This claim is untrue and it is past time for people to recognize that fact.
There are many ways to see that Muslims were not responsible for 9/11. Author David Ray Griffin has previously made arguments in this regard. As time goes on, however, more facts lead people to realize that claims of Muslim responsibility for terrorism in the U.S. should be highly suspect. These facts include that the October 2001 anthrax attacks were blamed on Muslims only to be later traced to a U.S. military facility and to non-Muslim, U.S. scientists. Moreover, a number of FBI-planned acts of terrorism since 2001 have been falsely attributed to young Muslims who were victims of appalling acts of entrapment by the FBI.
According to the official account of 9/11, nineteen young Arab Muslims were responsible for the entirety of the mass murder that day. The FBI accused these young men within 72 hours of the attacks and, although the list changed slightly at first, it has remained the same since shortly after the attacks. To support the accusations, U.S. authorities pointed to passports that were found under implausible circumstances, luggage containing unbelievably convenient documents, and other dubious evidence.
In October 2001, reporter Seymour Hersh wrote –
“Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, ‘Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.’”
Years later, the 9/11 Commission Report (911CR) was written by a professional myth-maker, Phillip Zelikow, who was also a Bush Administration insider. Oddly enough, the outline for the report was written by Zelikow and his colleague Ernest May even before the investigation began. It is now widely accepted that the 9/11 Commission and the FBI did very poorly in terms of investigating most aspects of the attacks. In just one example, the FBI never even interviewed the people suspected of engaging in 9/11 insider trading.
Despite the poor quality of the investigation, the 911CR used inflammatory language which focused on Muslims as “the enemy.” The Commission told us that “the enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility toward us and our values is limitless.” The Commission was being false and misleading when it made these statements, however, as the evidence shows that 9/11 was not a Muslim crime.
Muslims do not murder innocent people
The most obvious reason that the Commission was off-track is that Muslims do not murder innocent people. Some people find this statement outrageous. Of course Muslims murder innocent people, they say, that’s what al Qaeda does.
The problem is that, as a society, many of us have been trained to accept religion as a noncommittal affiliation or label. For example, many of the current U.S. leaders have engaged in mass murder around the world over the last ten years yet they still call themselves Christians. Anyone can see that they are not. Those who truly believe in God live by the laws of the religion they proclaim and Christians do not engage in wars of aggression or the torture and killing of other human beings.
The word “Muslim” is Arabic and literally means “one who submits (to God).” But Webster’s Dictionary defines a “Muslim” as an adherent to Islam. Being an adherent of Islam means to follow the teachings of the Holy Qu’ran. And according to the Qur’an, one of the greatest sins is to kill a human being who has committed no fault:
- If someone kills another person – unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth – it is as if he had murdered all mankind. (Surat al-Ma’ida: 32)
Defenders of the official myth might say that the 9/11 attacks can be seen as retaliation for the corruption in U.S. financial (WTC) and military (Pentagon) activities. Problems with that argument include the fact that it doesn’t absolve the 9/11 terrorists from having killed many innocent people, including children and dozens of Muslims. It also doesn’t explain how many of the financial leaders in the WTC, and all of the top military leaders at the Pentagon, escaped with their lives.
Furthermore, polls in countries with large Muslim populations indicate that Muslims oppose the killing of civilians in warfare significantly more than non-Muslims do. People in Muslim countries “roundly reject attacks on civilians. Asked about politically-motivated attacks on civilians, such as bombings or assassinations, majorities in all countries–usually overwhelming majorities–take the strongest position offered by saying such violence cannot be justified at all.”
To avoid this direct problem, some say that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were nominally Muslims. In other words, they were people who called themselves Muslims but who just didn’t follow this one requirement of the Qu’ran. This article doesn’t delve into the carefully cultivated phenomenon called “radical Islam,” but the evidence we have indicates that the men accused of hijacking planes on 9/11 were either not involved at all, or were not even close to being adherents of Islam.
The men accused of hijacking the planes were either not involved or were not Muslims
In the weeks after 9/11, many mainstream news sources reported that the accused hijackers were still alive. These claims were reported by major media sources like The Independent, the London Telegraph and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Although BBC attempted to retract the claims later, the Telegraph reported that it had interviewed some of these men, who the newspaper said had the same names, same dates of birth, same places of birth, and same occupations as the accused.
No other media sources have successfully explained the discrepancies around the reports of the alleged hijackers still being alive. One particularly weak attempt, cited as the primary source at Wikipedia, was an absurd hand-waving piece in Der Spiegel that used “U.S. Historian Daniel Pipes” as the authority. Not mentioned is the fact that Pipes, a second-generation neocon and Project for the New American Century signatory, is arguably the world’s leading Islamophobe.
Most importantly, the “hijackers alive” reports were not investigated by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission. In fact, the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, publicly expressed doubts about the identity of the hijackers. Yet to this day there has been no official response to these contradictions despite their high relevance to the overall investigation.
However, we can imagine that these cases were probably the result of stolen identities and some follow-up media statements suggested just that. With the likelihood of stolen identities, and without an official investigation to clarify, we are left with the conclusion that some of the accused men were not involved. It could be that there may have been other people involved who have never been identified, but without facts to go on we cannot say.
The men who appear to have been falsely accused include the brothers Wail and Waleed al Shehri, and Abdulaziz al Omari. The language in the 911CR suggests that al Omari was the most devout of the accused men, in that he “often served as an imam at his mosque in Saudi Arabia.” But since his identity was stolen and he was therefore not involved, we must look to the other accused men for Muslim connections.
Others who appear to be victims of identity theft include Mohand al Shehri, Salem al Hazmi, Saeed al Ghamdi, and Ahmed al Nami. Although the Commission’s report states that al Ghamdi “attended prayer services regularly,” he was also reported to have trained at the Lackland Air Force Base’s Defense Language Institute, which is a fact that does not support his being a religious fanatic with limitless hostility toward the United States. The report also says of al Hazmi that he was “unconcerned with religion.” In any case, these four must be excluded from the oxymoronic label of “Muslim terrorist” because it appears they were falsely accused.
Another of the accused men who the Commission says was “unconcerned with religion” was Satam al Suqami. This description appears to be correct because, according to The Boston Globe, al Saqami liked to sleep with prostitutes, which is a decidedly non-Muslim activity. In Islam, prostitution and other forms of sexual deviancy are forbidden. Therefore, although al Suqami was not reported to be still alive, he was not a Muslim.
In the months and days leading up to 9/11, the alleged hijackers were reported to have drank alcohol heavily in bars, purchased pornographic materials, watched strippers, and paid for lap dances. Needless to say, people who follow the teachings of the Qu’ran (Muslims) do not do any of those things.
As Temple University professor of Islamic Studies, Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub, said in relation to the alleged 9/11 hijackers – “Islam does not condone killing innocent people in the name of God. Nor can a devout Muslim drink booze or party at a strip club and expect to reach heaven.”
Two of the men were being watched by the CIA for at least twenty months prior to 9/11. These were Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, and they did not follow the Qu’ran either. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, these two were often seen at Cheetah’s, a nude bar in San Diego.
The most glaring examples of non-Muslim behavior, however, were exhibited by the alleged hijacker pilots of American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. According to the 911CR, Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi piloted these airliners and crashed them into the WTC towers. Public knowledge about them indicates that they might have been trained at U.S. military facilities, but it is clear that they did not even try to follow the Qu’ran. Frankly, Phillip Zelikow is more of a Muslim than they were.
For one thing, Atta and al Shehhi were known to dress in gaudy jewelry and clothes. Because of this, people thought they were mafia characters. As author Daniel Hopsicker wrote, they wore “Gold jewelry, expensive watches, and silk shirts” and were “Not exactly a description of Islamic fundamentalists.” Additionally, their activities in Florida, in the years prior to 9/11, were closely aligned with those of gunrunners and drug smugglers, which also indicates that they were anything but Muslims.