Here is yet another attempt to rewrite history and pretend that the 9/11 hijackers were not Islamic jihadists who were inspired by Islamic texts and teachings. “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,” wrote Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy. “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.” The sinister “moderate” professor Akbar Ahmed adds: “The terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did. 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.” But this is a sleight-of-hand. It is not the 9/11 Museum that is associating their religion with what they did. It was the 9/11 hijackers themselves who associated their religion with what they did. Elazabawy and Ahmed want the Museum to ignore and whitewash that fact, and no doubt it will comply: it has already begun to do so by removing mention of “Islamic terrorism” from its website.
Sharon Otterman of the New York Times actually interviewed me for this piece, which greatly surprised me, since the Times is so ardently on the side of Islamic supremacists and their Leftist allies. I am much less surprised to see that not a word of what I said, or the point of view I articulated, made it into the piece as published. Here is my exchange with Otterman:
1. Otterman to Spencer:
Dear Robert Spencer,
I’m working on a story about the way Islam should be represented at the 9/11 Memorial Museum, including questions about the terminology that should be used to speak about the Al Qaeda terrorists in reference to Islam. I was wondering if you might have a few minutes today to speak.
Best,
Sharon Otterman
2. Spencer to Otterman:
I can tell you right here. Very simply: the exact words of the 9/11 hijackers, and of the 911/ plot masterminds, should be used to expose the motives and goals of the attack:
“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion….We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The Jihad in god’s [sic] cause is a great duty in our religion.” — The “9/11 Shura Council” (that’s what they called themselves; they are the masterminds of the 9/11 plot: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin As-Shibh, Walid bin ‘Attash, Mustafa Ahmed AI-Hawsawi, and ‘Ali ‘abd Al-’Aziz ‘Ali) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/03/911-defendants-we-ask-to-be-near-to-god-we-fight-you-and-destroy-you-and-terrorize-you-the-jihad-in
“The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.” — Osama bin Laden’s letter to the American people, November 24, 2002. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
“When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers. God said: ‘Strike above the neck, and strike at all of their extremities.’ Know that the gardens of paradise are waiting for you in all their beauty, and the women of paradise are waiting, calling out, ‘Come hither, friend of God.’ They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing.” — Mohammed Atta. The “Strike above the neck, and strike at all of their extremities” quote is from the Qur’an, 47:4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/30/terrorism.september113
In every instance, their own words should be used, including their own characterizations of themselves as Islamic jihadists, warriors in the cause of Islam.
If you have any further questions, I’m right here.
3. Otterman to Spencer:
Hi Robert,
Several controversies have been coming up in relation to how Islam is spoken about in the muesum materials.
The 9/11 Museum website used the term “Islamic terrorism”, but it was recently removed after a protest letter signed by about 100 academics. I spoke to some other prominent Islam experts, John Esposito, etc., who agreed that “Islamic terrorism” unfairly conflated terrorism and Islam, when Al Qaeda ideology is a fringe perversion of Islam and when things like the KKK dont get described as Christian terrorism, etc.
Esposito prefers terms like Al Qaeda terrorism or even Muslim terrorism. I wonder what you think about the term Islamic Terrorism?
Clergy that have been to the museum are also objecting to the terms “jihadist” and “Islamist” being used to describe Al Qaeda, arguing that they must be further explained or modified rather than standing alone in reference to terrorists. For example, better would be militant jihadist or militant/ radical Islamist. I’m wondering if you agree.
I also wonder if you think it is important to also show other types of images of Muslims at the museum, such as pictures of Muslims mourning the victims of 9/11, to balance out any impression that Islam and terrorism are one and the same thing.
And if you think this whole debate is just about whitewashing or political correctness.
Thanks!
Sharon
4. Spencer to Otterman:
Of course the whole debate is about whitewashing and political correctness. As I showed in my first response to you, the hijackers and plotters themselves explained and justified their actions by reference to Islam. That makes it Islamic terrorism. Esposito saying that “Muslim terrorism” is OK but “Islamic terrorism” is not proceeds from the idea that they were terrorists who just happened to be Muslim — suggesting that Islam actually had nothing to do with motivating them to commit the terrorist act. That is a false claim. In reality, as you can see from the quotes, Islam was at the core and center of their motivations. That is relevant, and should be noted at the museum.
It is not the museum’s job either to indict or exonerate Islam. They should not go out of their way to depict Muslims mourning 9/11, unless it is part of a presentation showing all kinds of people mourning 9/11. The museum’s job is to depict the events of 9/11 accurately. That is all. The idea that it has to show Muslims positively in order to offset the effects of showing what happened on that day is as absurd as saying that a museum about the Civil War should have a wing about how nice some Southern slaveowners were to their slaves, to offset anti-Southern feeling arising from the institution of slavery.
As for “militant jihadist” or “militant/radical Islamist,” these are absurd formulations that reassure jittery multiculturalists that Islam is really a religion of peace at heart, no matter what jihad terrorists do in the name of Islam. They arise as a response to the quite successful campaign by Islamic supremacist groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations to tar any opposition to jihad terror as “hate,” “bigotry” and even “racism.” The museum should call the jihadis of 9/11 what they called themselves: jihadis. Mujahideen. Warriors in the cause of Islam.
And here is the actual article:
“Interfaith Panel Denounces a 9/11 Museum Exhibit’s Portrayal of Islam,” by Sharon Otterman, New York Times, April 23:
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.
“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 appropriate or inflammatory for the museum to use religious terminology like “Islamist” and “jihad” in conjunction with the Sept. 11 attacks, without also making clear that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful.
The terms “Islamist” and “jihadist” are frequently used in public discourse 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.
“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 of New York Disaster Interfaith Services, said the museum 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 attacks 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 Muslim visitors were raised at a screening by a select group of Sept. 11 family members, law enforcement 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 Muslims mourning included in photo montages. The museum also includes stories of Muslim victims and the reflections of Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, on the impact of the attacks on America, the museum said.
“In general, everybody was very moved and impressed,” Mr. Gudaitis said.
But then the group screened the Qaeda film and grew alarmed at what they felt was its 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 practicing 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 terror attacks.
“When you use the word ‘Islam,’ that means they are a part of us,” he said in an interview. “We reject 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.
The museum declined to make the film available for viewing by The New York Times.
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 about the film 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.”
Kyra Nelson says
“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.”
That is correct. It was the little toe-jam fairies that live under my bed who did it. They had a REALLY hard time enrolling in those flight schools & an even harder time getting into those strip clubs.
nacazo says
Those evil fairies under your bed!!! Masquarading as Muslims to defame an innocent religion. Shame on them!!!
/sarc off
mortimer says
“Islamism is not a caricature, nor a counterfeit, nor a heresy, nor a fringe or atypical phenomenon versus classical, orthodox, Sunnite Islam.
To the contrary, I think Islamism is naked Islam, Islam without a mask and without paint, Islam perfectly consistent and true to itself, an Islam that has the courage and lucidity to go all the way to its ultimate conclusions and final implications.
Islamism is Islam in all its logic and in all its rigour. Islamism is present in Islam as the chick is present in the egg, as the fruit is present in the flower and as the tree is present in the seed.
But what is Islamism?
Islamism is political Islam, the bearer of a project for a model society and whose aim is to establish a theocratic state based on Sharia, the only legitimate law—since it is divine—since it was revealed and enshrined in the Koran and Sunna—it’s a law that applies to everything.
Here is an all-inclusive and all-encompassing project, one that is total, totalizing and totalitarian.” – Henri Boulad, SJ, Alexandria, Egypt
dumbledoresarmy says
Mortimer
I looked up Fr Boulad and that quote is completely credible as his ipsissima verba.
However: can you tell us when and where he said it?
With a link, if possible?
I want it for my “Famous Quotes About Islam” e-clippings file.
Shane says
The Obama administration, and libs in general, are in total denial about the nature of the terrorist threat to our nation. The fact is that most of our terrorist enemies are devout Muslims who are killing those they deem to be enemies of Islam. Since they are Muslims killing in the name of Islam, they are correctly labeled as “Islamic Terrorists,” or “Islamic Jihadists.”
We must not submit to this politically correct nonsense that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Let’s continue to call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist.
kikorikid says
An exemplary piece of writing, Normal for you, Mr. Spencer.
Yes, the museum is bowing to PC/Shariah compliance.
One aspect that the museum is not addressing and would
not be allowed too, is the video after video of
thousands of Muslims celebrating in the streets, around
the world, of the “Muslim Victory” over the Infidels in the
“Great Satan”, America.
Thank you for bringing us the TRUTH.
mariam rove says
those who white wash Islam are terrorists like jihadists. They are called stealth jihadists. M
jihad3tracker says
Every reader of this blog should call Rep. Peter King of New York about this outrage… with a verbatim link if possible to the posting above.
******* Even if you do not live in his state. He is one of the “very aware” group of Congresspersons. *******
Make sure you ask for King’s chief of staff or executive assistant — not an intern who may be clueless and swamped with stuff to do.
John C. Barile says
Sanitized history is no history at all; it’s capitulation to expediency and to parochial pressure groups.
defcon 5 says
For a laugh riot try googling Saladin and Muhammad and laugh at the revisionist history that paints them as civil rights leaders in the same vein as Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King.
JS says
Let us remember 9/11 as “Mid-Air Violence in the US Aviation History” and ask the Saudis to sponsor the museum.
john spielman says
Sept 11, 2001 was mas murder in the name of Allah/Satan! Any attempt to mitigate it is simply a lie and deception that faithful muslims use to confuse the unbelievers until they can gain victory over the infidesl
Betty says
if they get their way on this it will be another victory for them. jihad is jihad islam is islam.and terrorist is terrorist the thing is ether way you use the term it all boils down to the same ending. they were islam jihadist terrorist they killed almost 3 thousand and some are still dieing from it. so all you muslims. that are whining and crying because your feeling are hurt. get over it. because none of you will speak up against these actions you are as guilty as the one that did the act. AMERICANS are still suffering from this and the Boston bombing. so it is time to take a stand against this or set down and shut up. to me you should not have a voice in it this AFTER ALL AMERICA.
rubiconcrest says
Anyone visiting the museum can wear a T-shirt which says ….
‘Islam bred these monsters then and continues to do so today’, or
‘When will Islam be reformed’, or
‘Jihadists attacks did not stop after 9/11’, or
‘Islamic law encourages violent Jihad’, or
‘Sharia Law is violent Jihad’.
john spielman says
I like the t shirt that says”EVERYTHING I LEARNED ABOUT ABOUT ISLAM, I LEARNED ON 9-11′
Betty says
I also like this one and it is so true.
Defcon 4 says
@rubiconcrest
I’ll bet hard money if you were to wear such a t-shirt you would be
asked to leave or the police would be called.
Conservative Mark says
Or…
Jesus escaped the grave. Muhammad, yeah, he’s still there!
This is not 9/10 says
The Five Pillars of Islam:
Shahadah: praising satan and his jackal prophet
Salat: praying for the rape and murder of The Qu’far
Zakat: funding the above
Sawm: skipping lunch and masturbating over genocide fantasies
Hajj: pornographic shirk
That’s your practicing muzz.
jude newman says
I’m so sick of all the gutless cowards pandering to muslims. Do they think that when islam is the dominating force in the world it will settle down and become peaceful, or are they so terrified of being called islamophobes or being sidelined. What a lot of pansies there are in the world today.
Word association, islam …………
Wellington says
Anyone divorcing terrorism from Islam is manifesting either their dishonesty or their ignorance. Islam is steeped in terrorism and directed to the mind, the body, the spirit, women, non-believers——-it’s a very long list.
Mohammed, that SOB, himself said “I have been made victorious with terror” (Bukhari Hadith, 4.52.220). In fact, if one removes terrorism from Islam, I mean really removes it, then Islam would be harmless (though still ridiculous) and occurrences like 9/11, the 2005 London bombing, the Fort Hood massacre and the Boston Marathon bombing would have never occurred. It is risible to maintain that Islam and terrorism have nothing in common. The two are tied at the hip and those asserting otherwise are worthy of total contempt.
Kepha says
Much as I dislike Islam as a religion, I have to admit that this falsifying history is a commonplace of modern [mis]education. This is why when I hew too close to the curriculum and textbook our school system uses, I introduce myself as a professional swindler of the young rather than as a teacher.
But it isn’t just with Muslims. It’s about all the groups who are working so hard to tear down our civilization. For instance, the natural law ideas that went into the making of the constitutionalist ideal are presented as products of the scientific revolution, but my own researches into its origins reveal a bunch of Christian theologians arguing about the meanings of Rom. 2:14 and Eccl. 3:11 ( a point at which I concur with the ASV and later versions over the KJV). I suspect its just a bunch of Communists or their sympathizers working overtime to prove they’re the true Americanists (the ’30’s all over again!).
Further, the role of African tribes in enslaving their neighbors and selling them to European slave traders is almost always glossed over (not that I want to excuse the “peculiar institution” or anything like that). Nobody mentions that the railroad company paid for Homer Plessy’s legal help (maintaining Jim Crow cars was seen as an unnecessary expense), for these textbook writers would be d—d before ever admitting a “corporation” to be on the side of the angels.
Lying on behalf of the Left’s political clients has become part and parcel of the fabric of daily life. I mourn.
Wellington says
I hear you, Kepha. So many “gems” of the true historical record are kept out because they would interfere with the “Received Version.” Among them are the free blacks in the antebellum South, particularly in North Carolina, owning black slaves, the Five Civilized Tribes of the future Oklahoma siding with the Confederacy in large part because the Choctaw, Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Seminole greatly desired to maintain their enslavement of blacks, and the fact that the main reason why the African slave trade almost ceased to exist in the 19th century was due to the British Navy and actual British incursion into the heart of Africa at times, for example at Omdurman under Kitchner in 1898.
I resist that well known cynical assessment of history as being nothing more than a pack of lies agreed upon, though I’m sorely tempted to adopt the adage from time to time. I remain convinced that the truth of things can be found out in most every instance, though indeed the truth is a very elusive often times. Still, those who pervert the historical record for their own agenda (Muslims and modern leftists being two very fine examples here) make it deuce difficult for those who “merely” seek the truth unadorned. They are a great impediment in this endeavor. Damn them for this because they are, in effect, liars.
defcon 5 says
Throughout my entire US educational history I don’t remember ever being taught anything except propaganda about pisslam. The most egregious examples being taught at UCLA by a lying Turkish musswine, who regularly denied the Armenian Genocide and another professor who taught that the Israelis were just as morally responsible as the Arabs for the lack of peace in the Mid-East.
My condolences to Kepha for having to teach in the snake pit that the modern educational system has become.
Defcon 4 says
In my entire educational history it was never once mentioned to me that islamic slave traders were the supply side of the African slave trade. Not in any textbook, not by any professor or teacher.
voegelinian says
A friend’s brother (unremarkably middle class white American, comfortably centrist in politics, showing healthy signs of skepticism about political correctness but still a long way to go on the Islam issue — i.e., like millions of other Americans) told me his 9 year old son has had to read, as part of his class work at school, a long story about a fictional character, a little Japanese boy his age, who had to suffer through Japanese-American internment. Not only does this subtly and indirectly instill the PC MC paradigm with regard to how we should treat Muslims, this very same topic has been an actual talking point by certain politicians and news pundits over the years connecting our Shameful Chapter with our current problem (i.e., non-problem) of Muslims.
Guy Macher says
This is the final shot across my bow!
JasonP says
“Islamic terrorist” is not OK but “Muslim terrorist” is? I can’t keep this straight without a play book. I would think “Muslim terrorist” is more problematic since it associates Muslims (a people) with terrorism. “Islamic terrorist” only says that the perpetrators justify their acts based on their religion as they practice it. It leaves open the question of whether this is a common practice, accepted practice, a standard practice, the only practice, a strict practice, a literal practice, etc. It is certainly a bona fide practice and they were seen as heroes in the Islamic world. That can’t be written out of history. I’d suggest that they show Muslims cheering in Cairo, Karachi, Medina, and Ramallah.
Tradewinds says
The 9/11 Museum is pandering to Muslims. I have no words (shakes head sorrowfully).
JasonP says
PS, I’ll speculate that the reason she asked for your opinion was to get a damaging quote that could be used by others to say “see the bigotry” and justify the insertion of the feel-good disclaimers the PC crowd demands.
You didn’t give her what she wanted. You merely said read what they wrote and use the terms they apply to themselves. Now, Robert, where’s that “hate speech” you’re supposed to be spewing?
defcon 5 says
@Jason P.
I imagine Mr. Spencer knew this. He’s had many such interviews w/members of the MSM islam0nazi propaganda outlets.
Personally, I would have told her to FO, because I see no reason to be polite to liars and shills for islam0nazism.
Richie says
According to Muslims and much of the left, the Jews were behind 9/11. No wonder why they don’t want any suggestion Muslims were to blame
Betty says
well like obama they all have to blame some one else while they whine and cry their feelings are being hurt. for crying out loud give us a break. like a broken record. same old song over and over again and again.ggghheeess.
John says
Watch the process of dhimmitude already in action. Dhimmis forbidden to criticise Islam. I am furious at this cowardly and traitorous decision.
kikorikid says
Two words you brought to mind, “Workplace Violence.”
Richie says
I imagine its worse in the UK- if anyone were to suggest that the 7/7 London bombings had anything to do with Islam, the day might come when people who say that will face charges
Betty says
every body should start screaming raciest. it is a shame when your own government will turn their back on its own people I could expect it from obama him not being AN AMERICAN IN THE FIRST PLACE BUT THE REST WELL THE ONES THAT ARE AMERICANS AND NOT IN THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD. way to go AMERICANS. NOW PAY THE PRICE.
PJG says
Better no museum at all than a museum of lies.
Kasey says
As usual, blame shifting and denial are features of the decision not to show that film. All of us know it was not Muslims in general behind the 9/11 terror [tho’ some cheered about it], but the directives and licence to do the deed are found in the Koran and other Islamic texts, but that is what Islamic authorities don’t want anyone else to recognize!
Wich says
This shows how compromised institutions in the western world are hell-bent to promote Islam in the good light contrary to the visible results of its devout adherents.
If I may ask, how many al qaeda videos mentioning Islam as their motivation, which it released to arabic news channels including al jazeera, were edited to exclude the mention of Islam and Muslims?
How many of these interfaith clergies did complain to the likes of al jazeera to remove association of Islam in al qaeda campaigns and utterances? Not one, and they were all happy when al qaeda claimed to be defending Islam. Is this not deception?
EZ Rider says
Once again muslims have revealed what it is that they fear the most……The truth.
rab says
Does the Holocaust Museum pander to Nazi sympathies?
Who gives a f–k what the damn muzzys think? They were the ones who did it! If they don’t like it, don’t go in! Maybe we should do like they do with mecca and not allow them in at all!
duh_swami says
The Kelly File on FOX. Did a segment on this, here’s what I learned…Jihad is trying to improve yourself, it’s ‘radical’ Islam that is the problem, and Al-Qaeda is operating from a ‘version’ of Islam.
Thanks FOX.
Betty says
again tonight on Kelly files.
Jaladhi says
The usual Muslim hypocrisy to hide their atrocities, genocide, criminal behavior. They rewrite history to absolve themselves of the all their criminal past and present. They don’t want their jihadis to be associated with Islam as if jihad is taught by other religions and not Islam. amazingly, the traitors among us – the academia, our clergy, our leaders and our dumb and deaf media help Muslims to achieve their goal of keeping Islam and Muslims from being rightfully blamed for all these atrocities. Some among us are our own enemies, they should leave us join Muslims and Islam so that we can spread the truth about them fearleessly!!
awake says
“As soon as it was over, everyone was just like, wow, you guys have got to be kidding me,”
Top-notch critical analysis from the “interfaith panel”, with an assist from the liberal rag NY Times, rewriting history, one inconvenient, politically incorrect fact at a time.
Ayatrollah says
May the example of pbuh guild you to the truth.
My friend in Jakarta remembers the pious brothers waking him to celebrate the “glorious event” 911 in a madrasah, an Islamic children’s school. They prayed and thanked Allah.
I would hope they would show film of that.
gizmo says
They could have avoided all this nonsense if they had just rebuilt The Towers, bigger, far stronger, and had a lobby honoring those who died there.
dumbledoresarmy says
You wrote – “They could have avoided all this nonsense if they had just rebuilt The Towers, bigger, far stronger, and had a lobby honoring those who died there.”
YES.
A lobby; and a Garden of Remembrance on the roof, as well.
And the little Greek Orthodox church of St Nicholas, which was destroyed when one of the towers fell right down on top of it, should have been rebuilt too (with public assistance, if necessary), *also* higher than before, and with a full ring of lovely bells.
Also, with Flight 93: *I* would have designed the outdoor memorial in the form of two avenues overlaid to make the shape of a plane – or of a cross – marked out in trees (the kind that eventually grow to huge size and live for hundreds of years) and/or in standing stones. And I would have incorporated into it in some manner – set into a mosaic pavement, or on plaques at certain points – two Biblical texts: the verse from Psalm 23 that says “I will fear no evil” and the verse from the Our Father, “Deliver us from evil”. For both of those ancient prayers were recited by one of the passengers in the course of his final conversation with a 911 emergency call operator. Before he went off to try to tackle the hijackers.
Cora Nash says
Muslims DO NOT want the truth about them to be common knowledge. Don’t you get it? Who causes 90% of the sadistic terrorism in the world? Who always had the reputation for theft, pedophilia, rape, torture and murder? Who crucifies as a general punishment? GUESS WHO? But DON’T YOU DARE POINT THE ACCUSING FINGER at them. They are easily insulted.
Jay Boo says
Muslims who insist on wearing ‘special’ Muslim clothes are telling us very clearly that they want no part of our society.
Shouldn’t we at least gracious enough to assist them in leaving?
A gift one way tickets would be a sign of our hospitality.
Its the least we should do for our good Muslim ‘friends’.
John Sullivan says
Everyone knows “who” did it and “why” they did it.
The fact that the museum is going to lie about “who” and “why” is disgraceful and offensive to all Americans – especially the 9/11 families and the families of servicemen and women who have sacrificed their lives in the war on Islam terrorism.
For those that are offended by the “truth” I will tell you that I and millions of American’s are far more offended by the atrocities of 9/11 – I will also say that I am deeply offended by the cowards in our Government and a society that prides itself on freedom of thought while obviously trying to snuff out such a monumental truth.
Betty says
the next target will be the the freedom tower. and to me it should have been named the Rise Of freedom.
Walter Sieruk says
Using the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ only defines reality the the jihadist/Islamic terrorist act of mass murder on September 11,2001. Which is the real subject of this museum. The term Islamic terrorism describes those terrible event of 9/11 the right way . Lets call things as they really are.
Walter Sieruk says
Lets call a spade a spade, a dog a dog and murder a murder and likewise call Islamic terrorism what it really is which is Islamic terrorism.
PJG says
I know. Let there be two museums, one for Muslims and one for us. The Muslims can put whatever they like in theirs, and we can do the same. One proviso though: the ONLY proselytising Muslims do in New York will have to be within the doors of their 9/11 museum and NOTHING else allowed outside.
Fair’s fair. They can glorify Islam all they like, boast and brag and rewrite history and so on, but all in the context of what THEY did on 9/11. Let free speech prevail!
Tonka says
Robert Spencer,
You need to use this particular link and article next time that you can. It’s an islamic attack because the WTC was a giant blasphemy.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2001/12/the_mosque_to_commerce.html
Yamasaki received the World Trade Center commission the year after the Dhahran Airport was completed. Yamasaki described its plaza as “a mecca, a great relief from the narrow streets and sidewalks of the surrounding Wall Street area.” True to his word, Yamasaki replicated the plan of Mecca’s courtyard by creating a vast delineated square, isolated from the city’s bustle by low colonnaded structures and capped by two enormous, perfectly square towers—minarets, really. Yamasaki’s courtyard mimicked Mecca’s assemblage of holy sites—the Qa’ba (a cube) containing the sacred stone, what some believe is the burial site of Hagar and Ishmael, and the holy spring—by including several sculptural features, including a fountain, and he anchored the composition in a radial circular pattern, similar to Mecca’s.
gravenimage says
This is ridiculous, Tonka. Besides, if the WTC had *really* been a paean to Islam, pious Muslims never would have wanted to destroy it.
Pious Muslims, in fact, regarded the Twin Towers as a *symbol of the West*.
Referring to something as a “mecca” is just a Western term meaning a “center”—i.e., “The San Francisco bay area is a tech mecca”, or “Paris is a fashion mecca”.
It’s no more than a figure of speech, and is rarely used to indicate an actual affinity for Islam.
gravenimage says
Muslims enraged over al-Qaeda video at 9/11 Museum; Museum removes mention of “Islamic terrorism” from its website
…………………
Repulsive. If these Muslims were really ‘moderates’, why would they have a problem with something negative being said about *al-Qaeda*?
And now it is not just any negative to Islam that is barred, but even a negative reference to *Islamic terrorism*.
Once again, these Muslim ‘moderates’ make it clearer all the time just how ‘moderate’ they are not.
gravenimage says
You’re right, A Nonny Mouse—I tried several pages on the “Prophet of Doom” site, and got “connection reset” notices each time.
My guess is that the site is under “Denial of Service” (DoS) attack.
Here’s their Facebook page—there seem to be posts from others about the site being down:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Prophet-of-Doom/357437570966293
Hope this helps.
A_Nonny_Mouse says
Thank you, gravenimage.
I hadn’t even thought about looking on Facebook. I appreciate the tip!
A_N_M
Benny Chen says
So the museum now becomes the washing machine for islam? How much money they get for doing this? Museum should not does so far like this. Museum just need to expose the truth as it is, no more and no less. Museum should not trying to make a good thing to look bad and vice versa. If visitors leaving museum and think that islam is behind all of this, so who cares? It is the truth. And the truth and facts should be told as it is. It is muslim’s job to clean islam image by countering jihad adn reform islam itself. Don’t fool people. Mr Daniel should be ashamed and he should not sleep tight because he has fools so many visitors.