Some American Muslims have responded to Osama Bin Ladin’s call. For example, in October 2004, an American Muslim from New York, James Elshafay, pled guilty to conspiring to blow up a New York subway station. In November 2007, an American Muslim from Illinois, Derrick Shareef, pled guilty to plotting to attack a shopping mall with hand grenades. In January 2009, an American Muslim from New York, Bryant Neal Vinas, pled guilty to providing Al Qaeda with information that could have been used to attack the Long Island Rail Road. In April 2010, an American Muslim from New York, Zarein Ahmedzay, pled guilty to plotting to bomb the New York City subway system. Ahmedzay told the judge that he planned to bomb the subway to pressure the U.S. military to withdraw from Afghanistan. In June 2010, an American Muslim from Connecticut, Faisal Shahzad, pled guilty to attempting to set off a car bomb in New York City’s Times Square. When the judge asked Shahzad whether he had realized that his car bomb could have killed children in Times Square, Shahzad said, “It’s a war. I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. On behalf of that, I’m revenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their people, but they don’t care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die.” The judge said that civilians in Times Square did not have anything to do with American foreign policy, and Shahzad replied, “The people select the government. We consider them all the same.” Shahzad told the judge he was a “Muslim soldier.” Shahzad said he chose a warm Saturday night in May 2010 for the bombing, because he knew that Times Square would be more crowded on a warm weekend night, so more people would be injured or killed. Several other American Muslims (and Muslims of other nationalities) have been convicted of plotting attacks against targets inside the U.S.

Many American and European Muslim scholars and organizations have repeatedly condemned attacks on civilians since the 9/11 attacks. Following the London bombings, the Fiqh Council of North America issued a fatwa stating, “Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram — or forbidden.”

Arguments By Those Who Oppose Attacks on Civilians

1. Human life must be protected. The Qur’an says, “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” (5:32) Therefore, killing one American civilian is like killing all of humanity.

2. Killing civilians is prohibited under Islamic rules of warfare. Even though the new Muslim community was under constant attack, the Prophet (peace be upon him) explicitly prohibited Muslims in combat from killing the elderly, children, women, or monks in monasteries. When he saw the corpse of a woman during a war, he was upset that she had been killed.

3. Muslims should fight only those who fight them. The American government and military, not American civilians, are responsible for making and implementing foreign policy decisions affecting the Muslim world. In fact, many American civilians oppose American foreign policies. Many American civilians (including children) have nothing to do with their government’s foreign policy.

4. Al Qaeda and its allies are capable of attacks on governmental or military targets. They attacked American governmental or military targets in Yemen in 1992, Somalia in 1993, Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, Yemen in 2000, and Virginia (the Pentagon) on 9/11. There is no reason for Al Qaeda and its allies to expand their list of targets beyond governmental or military targets.

5. The U.S. and its allies do not deliberately target Muslim civilians in military conflicts overseas, and they seek to minimize the number of Muslim civilian casualties.

6. Western Muslim civilians are killed in attacks on Western civilian targets. Muslims working in the World Trade Center and working with rescuers in NY were killed on 9/11, and British Muslim passengers were killed in the London bombings. In addition, when there are attacks on Western civilian targets, there is a backlash against Western Muslim civilians.

Arguments By Those Who Justify Attacks on Civilians

1. People, both civilians and others, must be held accountable for their actions. The Qur’an says, “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” (5:32) Therefore, it is permissible to kill American civilians who help to spread murder and mischief through their political and financial support for American foreign policy.

2. Attacking American civilians is permitted when Muslim civilians have been attacked, in order to deter future attacks on Muslim civilians. “O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.” (2:178) “The prohibited month for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (2:194) “If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient.” (16:126) While God prefers restraint and patience, revenge is permitted.

3. Attacks on civilians in democratic states are acceptable when civilians, who have the power to change their government’s foreign policy through the democratic process, continue to elect (or tolerate the election of) leaders who support American foreign policy. Civilians also pay the taxes that make American foreign policy and military attacks possible. “They send their sons to armies to fight us and they continue their financial and moral support, while our countries are burned and our houses are bombed and our people are killed,” Osama Bin Ladin said on an audiotape broadcast by Al Jazeera in April 2006.

4. Al Qaeda and its allies do not have weapons that would allow them to strike at American governmental and military targets in a sustained and significant manner that would impact American foreign policy.

5. The U.S. and its allies claim that they seek to minimize the number of Muslim civilian casualties in conflicts in the Muslim world, but they engage in military operations (including the enforcement of economic sanctions) that are one-hundred-percent guaranteed to produce Muslim civilian casualties. The bottom line is that the U.S. and its allies have “unintentionally” killed many times more Muslim civilians than the number of Western civilians killed by Al Qaeda and its allies. In addition, the U.S. has established a precedent for intentionally targeting civilians; the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

6. The deaths of Western Muslim civilians are unavoidable, because Western Muslim civilians choose to live with and work with civilian targets of other faiths. In addition, many Western Muslim civilians deserve what they get because they have rejected their responsibility to try to change Western foreign policy towards the Muslim world.

Are Muslims required to use force if they are attacked, or if other Muslims are attacked? Are Muslims required to use force to spread Islamic rule? Did the Prophet initiate violence, or did he only respond to it?

Muslims have answered these questions in various ways throughout Islamic history. Some Muslims have argued that Islam requires fighting when Muslims are physically attacked, or when Muslims are prevented from practicing Islam, or when Muslims are prevented from teaching others about Islam. Other Muslims have argued that Islam requires Muslims to fight until the world has come under Islamic rule. (This is different from forcing people to convert to Islam.)

The Prophet himself fought in various circumstances after migrating to Medina. Early on, based on commands from God, the Prophet fought the Meccan pagans who had forced Muslims to leave Mecca. Later on, based on commands from God, the Prophet fought some other pagans and some People of the Book. Some Muslims argue that God’s commands to fight applied only to the holy land of the Arabian Peninsula at a time when it was necessary to solidify the foundation of the new Islamic state, and that these commands cannot be used to justify fighting today. Other Muslims argue that these commands to fight apply everywhere for all time.

The following is a sampling of Qur’anic verses, translated by Yusuf Ali, relating to when Muslims should fight. (All of these verses were revealed after the Prophet left Mecca; Muslims were not permitted to use force before they left Mecca, despite the physical and economic oppression they faced while they lived in Mecca.)

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)

Do these verses apply only when someone attacks Muslims to prevent the practice of Islam (i.e. “suppress faith”), or do these verses apply anytime Muslims are attacked for any reason? Should Muslims only fight those who physically attack them, or should Muslims also fight those who provide financial and political support for attacks on Muslims? Should Muslims fight only if they are personally attacked, or should all Muslims fight when any Muslim is attacked? Should Muslims fight until the attackers accept Islam? Until Islamic rule is established everywhere? Until Muslims are free to practice their faith?

“And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!’” (4:75)

Does this verse mean that whenever people are oppressed, all Muslims should fight the oppressors? Should Muslims fight until there is no more oppression in the world?

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” (5:32)

Does this verse mean that anyone who has committed murder or spread “mischief” in the land may be killed? What is “mischief”? Who decides whether someone has spread “mischief” in the land? Can any Muslim determine that someone else has spread “mischief”? Can any Muslim kill those who spread “mischief”?

“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.” (8:39)

This verse appears during a series of verses about “unbelievers.” Which “unbelievers” does this verse refer to? Only “unbelievers” in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet, or all “unbelievers” everywhere at all times? What sort of “tumult or oppression” does this verse refer to? Does this verse mean that Muslims should fight “unbelievers” until everyone accepts Islam? Until Islamic rule is established everywhere? Until Muslims are free to practice their faith?

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (9:5)

Which “forbidden months” does this verse refer to? Which “pagans” does this verse refer to? Only “pagans” in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet, or all “pagans” everywhere at all times? Only “pagans” who plot against Muslims or attack Muslims? Must Muslims fight these “pagans” until these “pagans” become Muslim?

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)

Which “People of the Book” does this verse refer to? Only “People of the Book” in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet, or all “People of the Book” everywhere at all times? Does this verse mean that Muslims should fight and subdue “People of the Book,” simply on the basis of the beliefs and religious practices of those “People of the Book”? Are Muslims required to fight only until “People of the Book” accept the political authority of the Islamic state and agree to pay taxes (Jizya) to the state, or does “subdued” mean something more than that?

“O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.” (9:123)

[NOTE: "who gird you about" means "who are near to you."] Which “unbelievers” does this verse refer to? Should Muslims fight all “unbelievers,” or just “unbelievers” who attack Muslims?

“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid; (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right, (for no cause) except that they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’” (22:39-40)

These verses clearly say that Muslims can fight if they are personally expelled from their homes for religious reasons. But are Muslims also allowed to fight if they are expelled from their homes for non-religious reasons? Should all Muslims fight if any Muslim is expelled from her home for religious (or non-religious) reasons? Should Muslims fight only those who directly expel Muslims from their homes, or also those who assist with the expulsion?

Many people point to the fact that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a military leader who was involved in several wars, and that Islamic rule spread throughout the Arabian peninsula during the Prophet’s lifetime. They also note that later Muslim rulers, claiming to follow the example of the Prophet, engaged in wars to spread Islamic rule in the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and Europe.

There’s no doubt that later Muslim rulers used force to spread Islamic rule. But Muslims today are divided about the Prophet’s personal legacy regarding justifications for the use of military force. Some Muslims argue that the Prophet used military force to spread Islamic rule, so that is the example that Muslims must follow today. However, other Muslims argue that the Prophet used military force only for self-defense of the small Muslim community, so that is the example that Muslims must follow today.

The following are some of the events relating to the major wars the Prophet was involved in:

Persecution of Muslims in Mecca, and Muslim Migration to Medina

The Prophet began receiving revelations from God in 610 CE in Mecca. As a result, the Prophet criticized the Meccans for worshipping idols and for mistreating the weak. Therefore, the Meccans became hostile to the Muslims and subjected the Muslims to physical abuse. When some of the Muslims escaped to Abyssinia, the Meccans followed them and unsuccessfully tried to convince the Abyssinians to turn the Muslims over to the Meccans. In September 622 CE, the Meccans tried to assassinate the Prophet. The Prophet and his followers escaped to Medina at the invitation of a group of people from Medina who had become Muslim. The Prophet and his followers left their homes and all their property in Mecca and fled to Medina; the Meccans confiscated the Muslims’ property.

Question: Did the Prophet leave Mecca so he could live in peace and build a new society in a more welcoming city, Medina? Did the Prophet leave Mecca so he could have a base in Medina where he could prepare for war against the Meccans?

Continuing Tension between Muslims and Meccans

From Medina, the Prophet continued to criticize the Meccans for worshipping idols and for mistreating the weak.

The Meccans demanded that the people of Medina expel the Prophet and turn him over to the Meccans; the Meccans threatened to attack Medina if the Prophet was not turned over.

Small groups of Meccans traveled to the outskirts of Medina, got into skirmishes with Muslims, and seized livestock from Medina.

Muslims from Medina seized Meccan trading caravans passing near Medina. These caravans were owned by the wealthy Meccans who had abused the Muslims in Mecca.

Question: Were these Muslim seizures of Meccan caravans an offensive or defensive act by the Muslims? Did Muslims seize the Meccan caravans simply because they were non-Muslim caravans? Would the Muslims have seized caravans owned by any non-Muslims? Or did Muslims seize the Meccan caravans in retaliation for the Muslims’ expulsion from Mecca? Did Muslims seize the Meccan caravans in response to the Meccan seizure of Muslim property left behind in Mecca when Muslims escaped from Mecca (leaving many Muslims without financial resources)? Did Muslims seize the Meccan caravans because the Muslims knew that revenue generated by the Meccan caravans would be used to finance Mecca’s threatened attacks on Medina?

The Battle of Badr

In March 624 CE (the second year after the Prophet moved to Medina), a Meccan army marched towards Medina to fight the Muslims. In response, a Muslim army marched from Medina and fought the Meccans at Badr. (Badr is an area located between Mecca and Medina, closer to Medina.) The Muslims won the Battle of Badr.

Question: Did the Meccans march towards Medina to stop seizures of Meccan caravans? Or did the Meccans march towards Medina because they wanted to destroy Islam?

The Battle of Uhud

Following the Muslim victory at Badr, the Prophet continued to criticize the Meccans for worshipping idols and for mistreating the weak.

Following the Muslim victory at Badr, Muslims continued to seize Meccan caravans. The Meccans and their allies destroyed agricultural property around Medina.

A year after the Battle of Badr, in March 625 CE (the third year after the Prophet moved to Medina), a Meccan army marched towards Medina to fight the Muslims. In response, a Muslim army met the Meccan army near Mount Uhud, a mountain north of Medina. The Meccans won the Battle of Uhud.

Question: Did the Meccans march towards Medina to stop seizures of Meccan caravans? Or did the Meccans march towards Medina because they wanted to destroy Islam?

Following the Battle of Uhud, the Muslims expelled a Jewish tribe (Banu Nadir) from Medina after the tribe attempted to assassinate the Prophet. This Jewish tribe move north to Khaybar, where many other Jews lived. Other Jews remained in Medina.

Question: Why did the Banu Nadir try to assassinate the Prophet?

The Battle of the Trench

Following the Muslim loss at Uhud, the Prophet continued to criticize Meccans for worshipping idols and for mistreating the weak.

It is unclear whether Muslims continued to seize Meccan caravans.

In March 627 CE, two years after the Battle of Uhud, an army of Meccans and their allies from northern Arabia (Arabs, Jews who had been expelled from Medina, and Jews from Khaybar) marched on Medina. The Muslims dug a massive trench around Medina, so that the enemy’s horses could not jump over, and so that the enemy’s horsemen would be vulnerable if they entered the trench to try to cross over. That’s why this war came to be called the Battle of the Trench. Unable to cross the trench to attack Medina, the Meccans and their allies surrounded and besieged Medina for a month. Eventually, the Meccans and their allies ended the siege and returned to their homes.

Question: Why did the Meccans march on Medina? Was it in response to some sort of Muslim provocation? Or was it because they wanted to destroy Islam? Why did the Jews march on Medina? Was it in response to their expulsion from Medina? Or was it because they wanted to destroy Islam?

Following the Battle of the Trench, the Muslims executed hundreds of men from the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza for treason. Prior to the Battle of the Trench, the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish tribe based in Medina) had entered into a mutual defense treaty with the Muslims. But the Banu Qurayza helped the Meccans and their allies in their attempt to defeat the Muslims at the Battle of the Trench.

The Battle against Banu Mustaliq

In December 627 CE, the Prophet suspected that the Meccans were encouraging their allies on the Red Sea coast (the tribe of Banu Mustaliq) to attack Medina, and that the Banu Mustaliq were making preparations for war. A Muslim army marched towards the Red Sea coast and defeated the Banu Mustaliq. (This was the first battle in which Muslims marched on the enemy; in all prior battles, the enemy had marched on Medina.)

Question: Why did the Muslims march on the Banu Mustaliq? Was it in response to genuine concerns that the Banu Mustaliq were planning to attack Medina? Was it to spread Islamic rule?

The Treaty of Hudaibiya

In March 628 CE, the Muslims and the Meccans signed the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Once the Treaty went into effect, Muslims, Meccans, and others were able to move more freely around Arabia and communicate more easily with each other. As a result of this increased interaction, thousands converted to Islam (including many Meccans).

Question: Why did the Muslims enter into a peace treaty with the Meccans? Was this because the Muslims were content to spread their faith peacefully, without the use of force? Or was this an attempt to buy time so the Muslims could get stronger and prepare for later war against the Meccans? Or was this so that the Muslims could focus on fighting other non-Muslims without having to worry about a Meccan attack?

The Battle of Khaybar

The Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir (which had been expelled from Medina, and which had helped mobilize anti-Muslim forces for the Battle of the Trench, and which had helped besiege Medina at the Battle of the Trench) and its Jewish allies in Khaybar, 90 miles north of Medina, continued to encourage northern tribes to attack Medina.

Question: Why did Jews from Khaybar want another attack on Medina? Was it in response to the expulsion of Banu Nadir from Medina? Was it in response to the execution of the Banu Qurayza after the Battle of the Trench? Or was it because they wanted to destroy Islam?

In May 629 CE, a Muslim army marched to Khaybar, which was made up of several fortresses. The Muslims besieged the fortresses until Khaybar surrendered. Many Jews left Khaybar and surrendered their wealth to the Muslim army. Other Jews of Khaybar were permitted to remain in the region as farmers, as long as they gave half their yearly crop to the Muslims. (This was the second battle in which Muslims marched on the enemy.)

Question: Why did the Muslims march on Jewish Khaybar? Was it in response to Jewish Khaybar’s participation in the Battle of the Trench? Was it in response to Jewish Khaybar’s attempt to encourage another attack on Medina? Was it to spread Islamic rule?

The Battle of Mu’tah

In 629 CE, the Prophet sent an ambassador to meet with Christian Arab tribes (allies of the Christian Roman Empire) in northern Arabia and southern Syria to teach them about Islam. The Christian Arab tribe of Ghassan captured and executed the Muslim ambassador in southern Syria.

Question: Why did these Christians execute the Muslim ambassador?

The Muslims believed that the Christian Roman Empire and its Christian Arab allies would follow up this execution with an attack on Arabia. A Muslim army marched to Syria. Near the village of Mu’tah, the Muslim army fought a massive Roman army and its Arab allies. The Muslims were outnumbered, so they withdrew. (This was the third battle in which Muslims marched on the enemy.)

Question: Why did the Muslims march on the Christians? Was it in response to the execution of the Muslim ambassador? Was it to preempt a Christian attack on Medina? Was it to spread Islamic rule?

The Fall of Mecca

In 630 CE, allies of the Meccans attacked allies of the Muslims. Some Meccans supported the attack, providing weapons or participating in the attack. The Muslims viewed this as a violation of the peace Treaty of Hudaibiya. A Muslim army from Medina and its allied tribes marched on Mecca. (This was the fourth time the Muslims marched on an enemy.) The outnumbered Meccans did not resist, and the Muslims took control of Mecca, the Prophet’s hometown. The Prophet destroyed the idols in and around Mecca.

Question: Why did the Muslims march on Mecca? Was it in response to the violation of the Treaty of Hudaibiya? Was it to spread Islamic rule?

The Battle of Hunain

After the Muslim capture of Mecca, the idol-worshipping tribe of Hawazin, based in the nearby city of Taif, became concerned that the Muslims might attack them. The Hawazin were also angry that the Muslims had destroyed the idols in Mecca. Therefore, a Hawazin army marched to the Valley of Hunain, and a Muslim army met them there. The Muslims won.

Question: Why did this battle occur? Is it true that the Muslims intended to attack the Hawazin in order to spread Islamic rule? Or would the Muslims have left the Hawazin alone if the Hawazin had not attacked first?

The March to Tabuk

In October 630 CE, the Prophet heard reports that the Christian Roman Empire planned to invade Arabia from Syria, to challenge growing Muslim influence and alliances. A Muslim army marched to Tabuk (near Syria) to fight the Romans. (This was the fifth time the Muslims marched on an enemy.) There was no Roman army at Tabuk, so there was no fighting.

Question: Why did the Muslims march on the Christians? Was it to preempt a Christian attack on Medina? Was it to spread Islamic rule?

Before returning to Medina, the Muslim army required local Christian Arab and Jewish tribes in northern Arabia (who had been allied with the Christian Roman Empire) to agree to pay regular taxes to the Muslims in exchange for Muslim promises of protection. This extended the Prophet’s influence into northern Arabia.

Question: Why did the Muslims require Christian Arab and Jewish tribes in northern Arabia to pay taxes to the Muslims in exchange for Muslim promises of protection? Was this a defensive step to take allies and resources away from an enemy, the Christian Roman Empire? Was it to spread Islamic rule?

Since 2002, FBI undercover agents have been authorized to visit mosques to gather information about what’s going on in the Muslim community, even when there’s no evidence of illegal activity. However, electronic wiretaps can only be used when there is evidence of illegal activity.

In 2003, the FBI decided to count the number of mosques in various regions of the country, in order to help determine how many terrorism investigations and wiretaps were needed in each region.

In 2005, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate, “Efforts by extremists to obtain training inside the U.S. is also an ongoing concern. Although there are multiple reports and ongoing investigations associated with the paramilitary training activities of suspected extremists nationwide, the majority of these cases involve small groups of like-minded individuals who are inspired by the jihadist rhetoric experienced in radical mosques or prison proselytizing.”

In 2005, the press reported that mosques were in fact being watched by the government. “In general, mosques and other houses of worship do not have special protection from surveillance under U.S. law … Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, several federal investigations have used informants, surveillance and electronic eavesdropping to gather information about mosques.” Groups Criticize Romney’s Comments: Massachusetts Governor Urged Wiretapping of Mosques and Monitoring of Attendees, The Washington Post, September 16, 2005

In 2006, the NYPD revealed that it had placed a Bangladeshi-American Muslim undercover detective into the Bay Ridge, Brooklyn Muslim community for two years starting in October 2002. His job was to be a “walking camera.” Detective Was ‘Walking Camera’ Among City Muslims, He Testifies, The New York Times, May 19, 2006

In 2008, the government confirmed that some mosques in California had been under surveillance. San Diego Union-Tribune, May 22, 2008.

In 2010, an FBI informant (Shahed Hussain, a Pakistani Muslim) testified that the FBI sent him to New York mosques in 2007, 2008, and 2009 to pose as a wealthy businessman and to look for Muslims expressing radical ideas. At one of those mosques, Hussain met four Muslim men who joined him in a plot (which was actually an FBI sting operation) to bomb synagogues and shoot down military planes. Those four Muslim men were convicted in October 2010.

Arguments By Those Who Oppose Watching Mosques

1. There is no evidence that large numbers of mosques have been used to plot terrorist attacks. If people associated with a few mosques have engaged in illegal activity, that doesn’t mean the privacy of all mosque-goers should be violated. Furthermore, the government has limited resources. Those resources should be focused on specific individuals suspected of specific illegal activity.

2. If Muslims wanted to plan a terrorist attack, they would do it somewhere private (like the 9/11 hijackers did), not at a public place like a mosque.

3. American Muslims should feel free to say whatever they want about American foreign policy and America in general. Open discussions are healthy for our democracy, and they give people an opportunity to let off steam. When discussions are held publicly, the whole community can participate. This gives people a chance to hear opposing points of view and become better informed. But if Muslims are being watched, they will move their discussions to private places, where the whole community (including people with differing perspectives) cannot participate. Many law-abiding Muslims have already cut back on their public comments for fear of drawing unwanted governmental attention.

4. Information gathered by the government about the political views of Muslims will be misused. When the government finds people at a mosque who express hostility to America or American foreign policy, the government will visit these people’s employers and neighbors to conduct harassing investigations. In addition, the government will find a way to go after them (for example, for immigration violations or tax violations) even if they pose no threat to the U.S. Knowing that political speech could expose one to harassment or selective prosecution for non-terrorism offenses will stifle free speech and weaken our democracy.

5. The government needs information from Muslims about what’s going on in the Muslim community. Therefore, the government needs to build trusting relationships with Muslims. Monitoring of Muslims will alienate them, make them feel as if they are not accepted as “real Americans,” make them less trusting of the government, and make them less comfortable cooperating with the government.

6. Muslims are capable of policing their own institutions. Muslims can keep an eye on who’s using mosque facilities, and monitor what is happening at mosques. Muslims can inform the government if there is a problem. For example, California Muslims informed the FBI in 2007 that Craig Monteilh (a non-Muslim FBI informant posing as an angry Muslim in California mosques) was trying to recruit Muslims for terrorist plots.

Arguments By Those Who Favor Watching Mosques

1. Mosques are an important source of information about thinking within the Muslim community. Muslims associated with various mosques around the country have been accused or convicted of posing a threat to the U.S. For example, an FBI undercover operative, Elie Assaad (Lebanese Catholic), infiltrated a Florida mosque in early 2001 in order to monitor mosque-goer Imran Mandhai. Assaad says he came across Mohammed Atta at the mosque a few months before 9/11. Assaad and Atta worshipped together at the mosque and spent time together. Based on their conversations, Assaad became suspicious that Atta might pose a threat to the U.S., and Assaad informed the FBI about Atta. However, the FBI was not interested in Atta, and Assaad was told to focus his attention on Imran Mandhai, who was later convicted of plotting to bomb electrical power stations around Miami. After 9/11, Atta was identified as the lead 9/11 hijacker. In another example, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi attended the San Diego mosque run by Imam Anwar Al Awlaki. When Imam Al Alwaki moved to a Virginia mosque in early 2001, al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour attended that mosque. After 9/11, al-Midhar, al-Hazmi, and Hanjour were identified as 9/11 hijackers. After 9/11, Imam Al Awlaki was accused of inspiring several plots targeting America. In another example, Muslims who attended Brooklyn’s Al-Farooq Mosque were convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the subsequent plot to blow up various NY landmarks. The government needs to be able to find dangerous people as quickly as possible, and mosques are the one place where a wide net can be cast.

2. While attacks might not be planned at mosques, anti-American rhetoric at mosques can give the government an idea about whom to watch outside the mosque.

3. Muslims are aware that undercover government agents have been watching mosques since 9/11. Despite this, many Muslims have continued to speak freely about all issues, including American foreign policy and how they feel about America, and they haven’t been prosecuted for that.

4. The government needs to know who is hostile to the U.S. These people will not be prosecuted for their criticism of American foreign policy or for hostility to America, but they should be watched to see if they pose a threat, or to see if someone tries to recruit them for violent activity.

5. Many Muslims are hesitant to snitch on fellow Muslims. Therefore, the government cannot count on Muslims to provide information about what’s going on inside the community; the government has to go out and get this information by itself. In addition, the government can use mosques to actively recruit sympathetic Muslims as informants.

6. Mosques are generally open institutions. Anyone can come in. By monitoring mosques, the government is helping protect law-abiding Muslims, who do not want their mosques used for illegal activity, such as recruitment of young Muslims for violence. Government surveillance also gives mosques a “clean bill of health” that reduces public suspicion of American Muslims by assuring other Americans that there are no hidden threats at those mosques.

As a result of American support, Israel has become the regional superpower, and the Palestinians are weak in comparison. But desperate and angry Palestinians continue to resist, Israel has not been able to beat the Palestinians into submission, and the region remains tense. Every few years, a major battle breaks out, followed by a ceasefire. After decades of American support for Israel, neither Israelis nor Palestinians have peace or security.

Is it in America’s best interests to continue to throw America’s full support behind Israel?

Or is it in America’s best interests for America to take an even-handed approach between the Israelis and Palestinians? For example, should America equally fund the Israelis and Palestinians? Should America criticize and withhold aid from whichever side is at fault when there is violence? Should America offer independent proposals, and use American aid as an incentive, to help the parties reach a mutually acceptable compromise in their difficult disputes?

Arguments By Those Who Believe Always Siding With Israel Will Make America Safer

1. Siding with Israel doesn’t seriously hurt America in the Muslim world. Many Muslims do get angry at America when there’s a surge in Israeli military activity, but their anger at America dissipates when there’s a new ceasefire. Overall, Muslims in the Muslim world continue to admire America, and they seek to move to America for freedom and economic opportunity. Furthermore, if America became neutral towards Israelis and Palestinians, that would not eliminate anti-American anger in the Muslim world. America’s support for Israel is only one reason for anti-American anger in the Muslim world. Some Muslims are also angry about America’s military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and America’s support for dictatorships in the Muslim world. So Al Qaeda will continue to find some support in the Muslim world for attacks on America, regardless of American policy towards Israel. Al Qaeda and its supporters will not be satisfied by anything less than total American disengagement from the Muslim world, and the elimination of Israel.

2. American neutrality would alienate Israel and damage America’s important military relationship with Israel. America needs a reliable ally in the region, and that’s Israel, the strongest military power in the region. Although there are no American military bases in Israel, Israel allows the U.S. to maintain American military equipment on its territory, provides facilities for American fleets, provides medical facilities for American troops, provides intelligence to America, and tests American weapons (against the Palestinians and other Muslims) in battlefield conditions, which helps the U.S. improve its weapons. Israel has been an American ally since the Cold War, and Israel will continue to provide these services to America, as long as America maintains its special relationship with Israel.

3. America must maintain its special relationship with Israel, because America doesn’t have other good allies in the Middle East. America’s Arab allies are not reliable. For example, America saved Saudi Arabia from a potential Iraqi invasion in 1991, but Saudi Arabia asked American troops to leave Saudi Arabia in 2003, because of pressure from Al Qaeda. America liberated Iraq from Saddam’s regime in 2003, but Iraq wants American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. (American troops may also be asked to leave Afghanistan once the Taliban and Al Qaeda are defeated.) Other Arab states may also ask American troops to leave if their populations become angrier about America’s foreign policy.

4. America must maintain its special relationship with Israel, because Israel is an important American ally in the “War on Terror.” Israel has prevented Al Qaeda from taking root in Palestine. Furthermore, Israel is on the frontlines against Hezbollah and Hamas, which have relationships with Al Qaeda.

5. America must maintain its special relationship with Israel, because Israel is America’s first line of defense against Iran’s nuclear program. A potential Iranian nuclear weapon could threaten America. America needs Israeli help to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. If America stops working closely with Israel, that would increase the likelihood that Iran could successfully develop nuclear weapons.

Arguments By Those Who Believe Being Neutral Between Palestinians & Israelis Will Make America Safer

1. If America is perceived as treating Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews equally, that would greatly reduce anti-American anger in the Muslim world. The Muslim world is angered by American preference for Jewish Israelis over Muslim Palestinians. Al Qaeda taps into this anger to raise funds and recruit supporters for attacks against American targets. Even though American neutrality towards Palestinians would not eliminate all anti-American anger in the Muslim world, it would greatly reduce the percentage of Muslims willing to support Al Qaeda, because the long-standing Palestine issue is at the core of Muslim grievances against America.

2. Israel has not been a useful ally for America in America’s recent wars; when America went to war against Iraq in 1991, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003, America relied on its Arab allies (and European allies), not on Israel. Although Israel was prepared to help, it was too politically risky for America to ask for Israel’s help in fighting against Muslim countries. Any military services provided by Israel to America can be provided to America by other nations in the region. In addition, Israel has not been a good ally, because it gave American military technology to China, against America’s wishes.

3. America doesn’t need Israel; in fact, America doesn’t even have a military base in Israel. America has several reliable Arab allies in the Middle East. America has military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Other Arab states, like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia don’t host American military bases, but they have close military ties with America. If America becomes neutral towards the Palestinians, and if anti-American anger therefore declines in the Muslim world, all these Arab countries will be able to strengthen their military relations with America.

4. America’s Muslim allies – like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq – are more important allies than Israel in America’s “War on Terror;” after all, those Muslim nations are on the frontlines of the war against Al Qaeda. Israel is not relevant when it comes to fighting Al Qaeda, because there is no Al Qaeda presence near Israel. (Hamas has refused to work with Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda has criticized Hamas; Hezbollah (Shia) and Al Qaeda (Sunni) are hostile to each other.) Furthermore, Israel’s battles against Hezbollah and Hamas don’t make America safer. Hezbollah and Hamas pose a threat to Israel, not to America. Hezbollah and Hamas want to establish separate, local Islamic states, but they don’t share Al Qaeda’s goal of driving America out of the Muslim world and establishing an Islamic state in all lands that were ever under Muslim rule. In addition, the civilian casualties caused by Israel’s battles (using American weapons) against Hezbollah and Hamas make America less safe, because America gets blamed for the Muslim casualties.

5. A potential Iranian nuclear weapon would pose a threat to nearby Israel, not to America. Iran is too far away from America to launch an attack on America. And Iran (Shia) is too hostile to Al Qaeda (Sunni), and too scared of American retaliation, to give a nuclear weapon to Al Qaeda. Furthermore, if America ever needs to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, it won’t need Israel’s help; America can attack Iran by itself, or with the help of Sunni Arab states which are hostile to Iran. Finally, American support for Israel causes tension between America and Iran; American neutrality towards Palestinians and Israelis would improve American relations with Iran.

Since learning about Iran’s secret uranium enrichment program after 9/11, the U.S. has warned that Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons, and the U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop enriching uranium. Iran says it is enriching uranium only for peaceful purposes (to produce electricity). Under international agreements, countries are permitted to enrich uranium to produce electricity. However, if Iran successfully enriches uranium for electricity, it could use that enriched uranium to later build a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating experiments, purchases, and weaponization studies carried out by Iran, but the IAEA says it has no definitive evidence of an actual nuclear weapons program.

Relations between America and Iran have been tense for decades. Iranians remember that America helped overthrow the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1953 and helped replace him with a dictator, the Shah, who denied the Iranian people freedom. Americans remember that Iranians overthrew the Shah, replaced his pro-American dictatorship with an anti-American theocracy, and took American embassy officials hostage in 1979. Iranians remember that America supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran during the 1980s. Americans believe Hezbollah (which is supported by Iran) killed 241 U.S. soldiers in a bombing in Lebanon in 1983. America has refused to recognize Iran’s theocratic government for the last 27 years.

Today, Shia Muslim Iran, Sunni Muslim countries, non-state actors (like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda), and America compete for influence and power in the Muslim world, and they view each other as obstacles and threats. For example, the U.S. says Iran supplied weapons and training to anti-American forces in Iraq; Iran denies this and says America should stop interfering in the Muslim world. Iran accuses America of supporting militias launching attacks inside Iran. Iran supports Sunni groups (Hamas in Palestine) and Shia groups (Hezbollah in Lebanon) which America considers terrorists; America supports Israel, which Iran sees as an illegitimate Western colony on Muslim land.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Attack Iran

1. If Iran had nuclear weapons, those weapons would pose a threat to Americans (including American Muslims). Iran could launch a nuclear strike against America or give nuclear weapons to others (like Al Qaeda) who want to attack America. Even if Iran doesn’t attack America, Americans (including American Muslims) will constantly live in fear of a nuclear attack, just as Americans lived in fear of a Soviet nuclear attack during the Cold War.

2. An American attack on Iran would be relatively easy and would not require American ground troops. Air strikes and missile strikes could destroy known Iranian nuclear facilities and military targets. There would be few American casualties.

3. Iran could not seriously retaliate against America after an American attack. Iranian military facilities would be destroyed by the initial American attack. In addition, Iran doesn’t have missiles that can reach America.

4. Iranian nuclear weapons would pose a threat to Israel. President Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be wiped off the map. If a nuclear Iran attacked Israel, the entire region would be destabilized, and America would be drawn into a war.

5. Attacking Iran is the only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Diplomacy is not working. Although the previous Iranian administration was willing to talk to the U.S. about various issues, the current Iranian administration has refused to negotiate with America. America supported a Russian offer to enrich uranium for Iran so that Iran could use the enriched uranium for peaceful purposes and then return it to Russia, but Iran refused that offer, preferring to keep its own enriched uranium. In addition, sanctions are not working, because the world community is not united in imposing sanctions, so Iran can get whatever it needs somewhere in the world. The longer America waits to attack, the closer Iran gets to a nuclear bomb.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Not Attack Iran

1. Iran will not use nuclear weapons offensively against America. First, Iran does not have missiles that can reach America. Second, even if President Ahmadinejad wants a fight, the collective leadership of Iran is not suicidal. The clerics, who hold the real power, know that an Iranian nuclear attack on America would result in a larger American nuclear attack on Iran. Furthermore, the clerics would not provide nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda, which is an anti-Shia organization. Nor would they provide nuclear weapons to Shia organizations (including Hezbollah), because Iran would pay the price for a nuclear attack by Shia groups. Iranian nuclear weapons would be intended solely to deter an American or Israeli attack on Iran, and to deter potential American attempts at regime change in Iran. America co-existed with, and outlived, a nuclear Soviet Union; America can do the same with a nuclear Iran.

2. A successful American attack on Iran would be extremely difficult. America does not know where all of Iran’s nuclear facilities are. To maximize the chances of destroying all Iranian nuclear facilities, American ground troops would need to occupy the country and find the facilities. It’s unlikely that other nations would be willing to provide ground troops either. American air strikes and missile strikes could destroy known nuclear targets, but an angry Iran could continue its nuclear program in secret facilities that survive an American attack.

3. An American attack on Iran would make America less safe, because groups backed by Iran would launch small-scale attacks in America and against American targets (including oil and gas targets) around the world. In addition, Al Qaeda would exploit increased worldwide Muslim anger to recruit agents and raise funds for more attacks against America.

4. President Ahmadinejad favors eliminating Israel through elections (a “one-state solution”), not war. Furthermore, Iranian nuclear weapons would not pose a threat to Israel, which already has nuclear weapons. Iranian clerics, who know that Israel would retaliate for a nuclear strike, would not initiate a suicidal nuclear attack against Israel. Iranian nuclear weapons would promote stability in the region by creating a balance of power and deterring attacks against Iran by Israel and by hostile Sunnis. A balance of power would encourage nations in the region to resolve disputes peacefully in the future.

5. America has not fully used diplomacy and sanctions to discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Regarding diplomacy, after 9/11, Iran (under the previous Iranian president) repeatedly tried to build bridges with America. After Iran helped America defeat the Taliban in next-door Afghanistan in 2001, the Bush Administration responded by including Iran in the “axis of evil.” When Iran offered to open a dialogue in 2003 to try to resolve all disputes between the two countries and normalize relations, the Bush Administration refused to talk to Iran. After America learned about Iran’s nuclear program, America offered to negotiate with the current Iranian Administration regarding Iran’s nuclear program, but only if Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment before such talks. Iran is opposed to talks with such preconditions. America should negotiate with Iran without preconditions. There are things Iran wants; for example, Iran wants to end almost three decades of isolation by getting America to recognize Iran’s government and end America’s policy of seeking regime change in Iran. In exchange for that, Iran might give up its nuclear program and make other concessions. Regarding sanctions, Iran already has economic problems. Economic sanctions (like restricting investment in Iran) can put great pressure on the Iranian government. Restricting Iranian access to outside technology and components can make it impossible for Iran to build a bomb. America has time to give this peaceful track an opportunity to work, because it will be years before Iran is able to develop a nuclear weapon.

Many Americans wonder why a large number of American Muslims oppose monitoring mosques and Muslim charities, phone wiretapping and airport profiling. Is it because American Muslims are unwilling to tolerate any personal inconvenience or intrusion on their privacy, even if it makes the country safer? Is it because American Muslims sympathize with terrorists, and they don’t want terror plots disrupted?

And many Americans wonder why many American Muslims opposed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Is it because American Muslims put the safety of their fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq over the safety of their fellow Americans here at home? Is it because American Muslims want al-Qaeda to have bases it can use to strike America again?

It’s true that American Muslims care about their privacy and about Muslims overseas. But it’s also true that they don’t want to see America attacked, because America has given them freedom of speech, religious freedom, and the opportunity to make a living and take care of their families. In addition, the safety of American Muslims is intertwined with the safety of their American neighbors; American Muslims don’t want their families and friends to be blown up, which would happen if there are future attacks in the US. Furthermore, they don’t want to be victims of a backlash (discrimination, hate crimes, and restrictions on civil liberties), which would certainly follow future attacks in the US.

So why do so many American Muslims oppose U.S. government policies described as preventive measures against attacks on the US by perpretators portrayed as Muslims?

It’s simple. Many Muslims in America don’t believe that any Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks. A 2007 Pew Research Center study found that 60 percent of Muslims in America are not convinced that Arabs were involved in 9/11; 40 percent do believe Arabs were involved. Pew confirmed the findings of a poll, conducted on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, at the Islamic Society of North America’s (ISNA) annual convention, which found that 62 percent of American Muslims are not convinced that Muslims were involved in 9/11; 38 percent do believe Muslims were involved. A 2002 Hamilton College/Zogby International poll of Muslims (citizens and non-citizens) living in America found that 66% are not convinced that Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks; 34% said Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks.

The poll at the ISNA convention also showed that most American Muslims are unconvinced that al-Qaeda is a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America. (And the poll showed that most American Muslims are unconvinced that Muslims committed the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London.)

Many also believe that alleged plots discovered since 9/11 were set-ups by government informants, entrapping Muslims who posed no real threat to America. For example, skeptical Muslims cite the case of Shahawar Matin Siraj, who was found guilty of conspiring to blow up a NY subway station. Siraj claimed that he was entrapped by a Muslim informant, Osama Eldawoody, who was being paid by the NYPD. Siraj said the informant suggested the plot and incited him to act by showing him pictures of Muslims overseas being mistreated and by saying he had received a fatwa allowing Muslims to kill American troops. Wary Muslims also cite the case of Hamid Hayat, who was convicted of providing material support to terrorists by attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Hayat claimed he was entrapped by a Muslim informant, Naseem Khan, who was being paid by the federal government. The informant encouraged Hayat to talk about fighting America, encouraged Hayat to attend a terrorist training camp, and cursed at Hayat when Hayat said he hadn’t yet attended the camp.

If Muslims weren’t involved in 9/11 or other plots, many American Muslims argue, there’s no need for the government to watch mosques, wiretap Muslim calls, or profile Muslims at airports. There’s no need for the government to torture alleged Muslim terrorists. And there was no need to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Pew study found that 74 percent of Muslims in America don’t believe America’s “War on Terror” is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. The poll at the ISNA convention showed that 68 percent of American Muslims believe the American government is at war with the religion of Islam.

American Muslims hesitate to publicly discuss their views regarding what really happened on 9/11, because they fear being further isolated and marginalized; after all, mainstream media and political leaders tend to mock anyone who questions the official 9/11 story. American Muslims also fear the government will investigate them if they speak out. (Pew found most Muslims in America say life has become more difficult for their community since 9/11, and most believe the government singles out Muslims for scrutiny.)

In private discussions in mosques and Muslim homes, American Muslims often argue that no “real Muslim” would have carried out such attacks against civilians. Furthermore, they say, the 19 young Muslims accused of being the hijackers could not have pulled it off. They could not have snuck knives onto four planes, successfully hijacked four planes using just those knives, and then flown three of the planes — unchallenged by US air defenses — into three buildings including the military headquarters of the US. Many American Muslims believe someone else, someone better connected, hijacked the planes, or that the planes were crashed into buildings by remote control. They also believe the World Trade Center was ultimately brought down by explosives.

The poll at the ISNA convention showed that most American Muslims believe the US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and allowed the attacks to occur. The poll also found American Muslims almost evenly divided about whether the US government actually organized the 9/11 attacks, and also about whether the tapes of Osama bin Laden — claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks — are real or fake.

Angered by the American government’s perceived political and religious hostility towards Islam and Muslims before and after 9/11, skeptical American Muslims believe the government allowed 9/11 (or orchestrated 9/11) to justify greater domestic control over Muslims and invasions of Muslim countries.

This belief that the US government framed Muslims on 9/11 in order to justify further oppression of Muslims (including shutting down major American Muslim charities which used to benefit the poor in the Muslim world, and high-profile prosecutions of Muslims like Captain James Yusuf Yee who was wrongly accused of spying), creates significant tension and depression in the American Muslim community at the grassroots.

While the general public has never been polled about whether Muslims were involved in the attacks, many Americans have questions about 9/11. A 2004 Zogby International poll showed that 49 percent of New York City residents (whose city was attacked on 9/11) and 49 percent of New York State residents believe the US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and allowed the attacks to occur.

A 2006 Zogby International poll showed that 42 percent of Americans believe that the US government and the 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence about 9/11, and 45 percent of Americans want Congress to re-investigate the attacks and whether any US government officials allowed the attacks. Ironically, few American Muslims are actively involved in the growing, self-proclaimed “9/11 Truth Movement.”

A 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll showed that thirty-six percent of Americans believe it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them “because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”

Does it matter that so many American Muslims, and other Americans, have such basic questions about such a significant event? Should the rest of the country care?

Our country generally marginalizes conspiracy theorists who reject the official story about any national tragedy, like the assassination of JFK.

So should America just write most American Muslims off as a bunch of kooks?

That would be risky.

After all, American Muslims are an important community when it comes to the “War on Terror.” Government officials often speak about the need for American Muslims to monitor their community and mosques for suspicious activity. And American Muslims can serve as an important bridge between America and the Muslim world, where anti-Americanism is growing. So it’s in America’s interest for American Muslims to feel like they are part of the American family, rather than outsiders.

But is there any common ground between American Muslims and other Americans on security issues? Is there any reason to think that American Muslims might be inclined to help protect America? Or are American Muslims innately hostile to America for religious and political reasons? Pew found that 61 percent of Muslims in America are very concerned or somewhat concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in the US, and 76 percent are very concerned or somewhat concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism around the world. In addition, the poll at the ISNA convention found that the vast majority of American Muslims oppose attacks within the US, and they would report plots if they learned about them.

If these American Muslims had believed that some Muslims were involved in 9/11, and if they had believed that there are some Muslims who continue to pose a genuine threat to everyone in America (including a threat to American Muslims), they may have actively supported some domestic and international security efforts after 9/11.

To bridge the gap between American Muslims and other Americans, Muslim organizations (local mosques as well as national organizations) around the country can provide public forums encouraging American Muslims to openly discuss 9/11. Thus far, these organizations — concerned about political correctness and fearful of government investigations of those who take unpopular views — haven’t facilitated such discussions.

Why would American Muslim groups benefit from hosting such discussions? Depending on these Muslim organizations’ perspectives, such discussions would either help American Muslims understand the truth about what really happened on 9/11, or such discussions would help the rest of America understand the truth about what really happened on 9/11. Such discussions would also be good for the mental health of many American Muslims, who keep their tensions hidden.

Of course, fearful American Muslim organizations will not take these steps unless the mainstream media and political leaders permit a safe space for discussion about these issues without marginalizing doubters as “kooks” or investigating them. The mainstream needs to “legitimize” the discussion for it to occur.

So what would these discussions, facilitated by Muslim institutions, involve? The same thing that segments of the country have already been discussing since 9/11.

For one thing, American Muslims (like many other Americans) need a history lesson. Many American Muslims are not well informed about the history of al-Qaeda and various attacks and plots around the world before 9/11. They don’t know about statements issued by al-Qaeda listing its grievances regarding American foreign policy. Nor are they familiar with the violent history of “jihadis” like Ayman al-Zawahiri. Many American Muslims had never heard of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Ladin, or Zawahiri before 9/11. So it looked to many American Muslims like 9/11 came out of the blue, and it looked to many American Muslims like the US government had simply created a Muslim bogeyman. Second, American Muslims need forums where they can raise all their technical and logistical concerns about 9/11, and get their questions answered. How did fires high above the ground cause the massive World Trade Center Towers to collapse? Why was the hole in the Pentagon wall apparently so small, and why is there no clear video footage of a plane hitting the building? Why didn’t fighter jets intercept any of the hijacked planes? Of course, many Americans have been publicly discussing these issues since 9/11, but American Muslims and their institutions have stayed out of these public discussions thus far.

Bringing these discussions into mosques and Muslim conventions will not erase all doubts. But it’s certainly much healthier for all doubts to be expressed openly rather than for them to be hidden, so that American Muslims can be exposed to various perspectives and new information. Regardless of how many minds are ultimately changed, American Muslims will feel more comfortable knowing their country is willing to hear them out. These discussions will be a useful outlet for letting out steam. And American Muslims may become more willing to go to bat for America, here and in the Muslim world.

And questions raised by American Muslims may encourage the country to further investigate nagging questions about 9/11, to help get the country on the same page.

Many other Americans may dislike the idea of letting unpopular American Muslims air their concerns about an issue as emotion-laden as 9/11. But it’s in America’s interest to bridge the gap between American Muslims and the rest of the country.

NOTE: Most Muslims living in the Muslim world are not convinced that Arabs were involved in the 9/11 attacks.
_____________________

KAMRAN MEMON, a Chicago-based civil rights lawyer, is the founder of Muslims For A Safe America. Muslims For A Safe America encourages honest and informed discussion about how to make Muslims and America safer. He can be reached at kamran@muslimsforasafeamerica.org

This article was originally published by Islamica Magazine in 2007.

There are 1.4 million Americans serving in the American armed forces. Since 9/11, in preparation for wars in the Muslim world, the U.S. military has actively recruited American Muslims who speak the languages of the Muslim world and who understand the cultures of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Out of an American Muslim population of approximately 6 million, between 5,000 and 20,000 American Muslims currently serve in the American armed forces. (Some were already Muslim prior to joining, and others became Muslim after they were already in the military.) Hundreds of American Muslim soldiers have been involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.

Should American Muslims join the American military in larger numbers? Or should all American Muslims get out of the American military?

Arguments By Those Who Believe American Muslims Should Join America’s Armed Forces

1. American Muslims benefit from living in America. They have religious freedom, political freedom, and economic opportunity. This is their home, so they should join the American armed forces, which seek to protect all Americans (including American Muslims).

2. The American military has done good deeds in the past, like helping to free Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and helping Muslims in various countries after earthquakes and tsunamis.

3. The U.S. military freed Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan from Saddam and the Taliban. The U.S. military is helping Iraqi and Afghan Muslims to try to build stable, peaceful democracies. American Muslims should join the U.S. military and help their fellow Muslims.

4. American Muslims have a religious obligation to fight insurgents and terrorists in Iraq who target and kill Iraqi Muslim civilians, and to fight warlords, Taliban, and terrorists in Afghanistan who target and kill Afghan Muslim civilians. “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? – Men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!’” (4:75)

5. There have been abuses by some American soldiers against innocent Iraqis and Afghans, but abusive American soldiers are the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, the presence of American Muslim soldiers will help to protect Iraqi and Afghan civilians from abuses by other American soldiers. American Muslim soldiers can help remind other American soldiers of the humanity of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, and American Muslim soldiers can encourage moral behavior by other American soldiers. Other American soldiers are less likely to abuse Iraqi and Afghan civilians if they know that American Muslim soldiers are monitoring their behavior.

6. American Muslims in the U.S. military have made a significant contribution by serving as a bridge between the U.S. military and the Muslim world. American Muslim soldiers who understand “Muslim” languages and “Muslim” cultures have helped the U.S. military build relationships and defuse distrust with Iraqis and Afghans. These American Muslim soldiers have helped Iraqis and Afghans to see the U.S. military as a multi-religious institution, rather than an invading Christian/Crusader army. These American Muslim soldiers have helped their U.S. military units communicate with Iraqis and Afghans. They have taught their U.S. military units how to avoid making cultural mistakes. They have helped their U.S. military units, and helped Iraqis and Afghans, understand each other’s needs and concerns.

7. The U.S. military can be a safe place for American Muslim soldiers. Although some American Muslim soldiers have been harassed in the military, other American Muslim soldiers report that they have not experienced any discrimination or harassment in the U.S. military. If more American Muslims join the U.S. military, it will become an even safer environment for American Muslims, because there is strength in numbers. In addition, the presence of large numbers of American Muslims in the military will help the military to better understand Islam, Muslims, and the Muslim world. Furthermore, American Muslims serving in the U.S. military can help remove America’s doubts about the commitment of American Muslims to American national security. That will reduce discrimination and hate crimes against all American Muslims.

Arguments By Those Who Believe American Muslims Should Not Join America’s Armed Forces

1. The American armed forces serve the imperialist interests of American political elites who start wars regardless of popular support or justification for those wars. American Muslims should only participate in wars that are truly justified. American Muslims should only serve in the armed forces of an Islamic state, governed by God’s law, because the wars they fight in (and die in) should please God.

2. The U.S. military doesn’t care about Muslims. America intervened in Kuwait not to protect Muslims, but to protect America’s access to oil. For years, America supported an arms embargo against Bosnia, preventing the Bosnians from defending themselves against Serbian attacks. America eventually intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo, but only after tens of thousands of Muslims had been placed in concentration camps, raped, and killed.

3. The U.S. military doesn’t care about Iraqi Muslims and Afghan Muslims. For years, America propped up dictators like Saddam, and America did business with the Taliban. Then the Bush Administration decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and to overthrow those governments, resulting in destructive civil wars that have killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans. Most American Muslims, and many Iraqis and Afghans, opposed the invasions.

4. For religious reasons, American Muslim soldiers cannot fight fellow Muslims. “If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (Forever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.” (4:93) Furthermore, the Constitution of Medina (which was drafted on the instructions of the Prophet) stated, “A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.”

5. The U.S. military has intentionally abused innocent Iraqis and Afghans. Some American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan regularly refer to all Iraqis and Afghans using racist terms like “camel jockey,” “haaji,” and “raghead.” There have been reports of American soldiers firing randomly into crowded Iraqi neighborhoods. There have been reports of American soldiers shooting and killing innocent Iraqi families at U.S. military checkpoints. There have been reports of American soldiers raping Iraqi civilians; some American soldiers have been convicted of rape in Iraq. There have been reports of American soldiers rounding up Iraqi civilians indiscriminately, stripping them naked, forcing them to stand for hours in the sun, and verbally and physically abusing them. There have been reports of American soldiers raiding Iraqi homes, holding families at gunpoint, and stealing their food and other property. There have been reports of American soldiers randomly detaining Iraqis and Afghans. In addition, American soldiers have beaten and killed some Iraqi and Afghan detainees.

6. Some Iraqi Muslims and Afghan Muslims view American Muslim soldiers as Muslim sell-outs. Furthermore, some American soldiers view American Muslim soldiers as disloyal and untrustworthy, especially in light of incidents of violence and treason by American Muslim soldiers against other American soldiers. Therefore, American Muslims in the military cannot effectively serve as a bridge between the U.S. military and the Muslim world.

7. Anti-Muslim bias, suspicion, discrimination, and harassment in the U.S. military make it very difficult for American Muslim soldiers to serve comfortably and effectively. Some American soldiers have made it clear that they don’t trust American Muslim soldiers. Some American Muslim soldiers report that other American soldiers have called them names like “camel jockey” and “Al Qaeda terrorist.”

The Experiences Of A Few American Muslim Soldiers Since 9/11

Some American Muslim soldiers have been killed in Iraq. For example, Army Captain Humayun Khan, 27, was killed in Iraq in 2004 when he tried to stop a suicide bomber from attacking an American compound. Army Spc. Azhar Ali, 27, was killed in 2005 in Iraq by a roadside bomb that blew up his vehicle while he was on patrol. In 2007, Army Spc. Kareem R. Khan, 20, died in Iraq when a bomb detonated while he and other soldiers were checking abandoned houses for explosives; Khan was awarded a Purple Heart and Bronze Star.

Captain Abdullah Hulwe, a Muslim chaplain in Iraq, says his presence in Iraq helps the military develop better relations with Iraqi Muslims, and helps reduce the anger that some American soldiers have towards ordinary Iraqis, which makes both Americans and Iraqis safer. Major Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, a Muslim chaplain in Iraq, helped persuade the military to rebuild a mosque within Camp Cooke, to be used by American Muslim soldiers and Iraqis. Major Muhammad said he was able to help American soldiers better understand Islam, and to help Iraqis better understand America. Pfc. Mirza Bashir Ahmad says other soldiers in his unit in Iraq seek his help in establishing good relations with Iraqis.

Some American Muslims in the military have said they are uncomfortable having to fight against Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq. In June 2004, Sgt. 1st Class Abdullah Webster was jailed for refusing to deploy to Iraq; he had previously served with the military in Kosovo, where the enemy had been Serbian, not Muslim. Air Force Chaplain Captain Hamza Al-Mubarak testified on Sgt. Webster’s behalf that it would be better for Sgt. Webster to die than to take up arms against Muslims in Iraq. Qaseem Uqdah, a former Marine and the head of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, says American Muslim soldiers must honor their contracts with the military, even if that means going to war in Muslim countries.

A few American Muslim soldiers have been formally accused of disloyalty. Captain James Yee, chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, was accused of espionage, detained in solitary confinement for 76 days, subjected to sensory deprivation, and threatened with the death penalty. All charges were dropped. Charges of attempted espionage at Guantanamo Bay were also dropped against Senior Airman Ahmad Al Halabi.

Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar was sentenced to death for killing fellow soldiers while their unit awaited deployment from Kuwait into Iraq in 2003. Sgt. Akbar admitted killing two fellow soldiers and injuring fourteen in a grenade attack because he believed that American soldiers would kill Muslims, and rape Muslim women, in Iraq. His lawyers argued that he was mentally ill. Sgt. Akbar claimed that he was religiously harassed before the incident, but the defense did not present any testimony regarding religious harassment at the trial.

In 2004, Marine Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun was charged with deserting his post in Iraq. The military believes he is hiding in Lebanon.

In 2004, a National Guard tank crewman, Spc. Ryan G. Anderson, was convicted of trying to give Al Qaeda information about American troops (troop strength and tactics) and methods for killing American soldiers. His lawyer argued that he was mentally ill.

In 2008, a former Navy sailor, Hassan Abu-Jihaad, was convicted of leaking details (prior to 9/11) about Naval ship movements in the Persian Gulf to suspected Al Qaeda supporters.

In November 2009, a Palestinian/Jordanian American Muslim soldier stationed at Fort Hood in Texas, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was accused of shooting and killing twelve American soldiers and wounding many others. Witnesses say he shouted “Allahu Akbar” (“God is great”) before opening fire. Some who know him say he was angry about the presence of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq; that he said the U.S. was waging a “war on Islam;” that he said Islamic law required that American actions in the Muslim world should be confronted; and that he was upset that he would be deployed to serve in Afghanistan. Hasan had previously prepared a PowerPoint presentation for the Army, warning of “adverse effects” for the Army unless American Muslims were allowed to avoid fighting fellow Muslims overseas. Investigators found Hasan’s business cards printed with the term “SoA(swt).” Investigators speculate this means “Soldier of Allah, glory be to Him.” Hasan repeatedly asked a leader at his local Texas mosque how American Muslim soldiers could religiously justify being at war against Afghan Muslims and Iraqi Muslims. Others who know Hasan say he was upset about anti-Muslim harassment he had previously experienced from other soldiers.

Mehanna’s case has renewed a debate among some American Muslims: If the U.S. invades a Muslim country, whose side are American Muslims supposed to be on? What religious responsibility do American Muslims have to assist Muslims whose country is invaded by the U.S.?

At his sentencing hearing, Mehanna told the Judge, “I watched as America then attacked and invaded Iraq directly. I saw the effects of ‘Shock & Awe’ in the opening day of the invasion – the children in hospital wards with shrapnel from American missiles sticking but of their foreheads (of course, none of this was shown on CNN). I learned about the town of Haditha, where 24 Muslims – including a 76-year old man in a wheelchair, women, and even toddlers – were shot up and blown up in their bedclothes as the slept by US Marines. I learned about Abeer al-Janabi, a fourteen-year old Iraqi girl gang-raped by five American soldiers, who then shot her and her family in the head, then set fire to their corpses. I just want to point out, as you can see, Muslim women don’t even show their hair to unrelated men. So try to imagine this young girl from a conservative village with her dress torn off, being sexually assaulted by not one, not two, not three, not four, but five soldiers. Even today, as I sit in my jail cell, I read about the drone strikes which continue to kill Muslims daily in places like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Just last month, we all heard about the seventeen Afghan Muslims – mostly mothers and their kids – shot to death by an American soldier, who also set fire to their corpses. These are just the stories that make it to the headlines, but one of the first concepts I learned in Islam is that of loyalty, of brotherhood – that each Muslim woman is my sister, each man is my brother, and together, we are one large body who must protect each other. In other words, I couldn’t see these things beings done to my brothers & sisters – including by America – and remain neutral. My sympathy for the oppressed continued, but was now more personal, as was my respect for those defending them. … So, this trial was not about my position on Muslims killing American civilians. It was about my position on Americans killing Muslim civilians, which is that Muslims should defend their lands from foreign invaders – Soviets, Americans, or Martians. This is what I believe. It’s what I’ve always believed, and what I will always believe. This is not terrorism, and it’s not extremism. It’s what the arrows on that seal above your head represent: defense of the homeland. So, I disagree with my lawyers when they say that you don’t have to agree with my beliefs – no. Anyone with commonsense and humanity has no choice but to agree with me. If someone breaks into your home to rob you and harm your family, logic dictates that you do whatever it takes to expel that invader from your home.”

The Recitation (or Qur’an) instructs Muslims to fight those who fight them. “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)

Do these verses mean that Muslims should fight only if they are personally attacked, or should all Muslims fight when any Muslim is attacked?

Does an American Muslim’s view of the legitimacy of the American invasion of Iraq affect the religious analysis? Polling and anecdotal evidence show that most American Muslims believe that America was not justified in invading Iraq in 2003. If an American Muslim believes that the American invasion of Iraq was unjustified, does that create a religious obligation to fight American troops in Iraq?

Some American Muslims argue that an American Muslim is never religiously permitted to take up arms against U.S. forces. They say that citizenship is a treaty between an individual and his country, which implies a pledge by the individual to not attack his countrymen. They argue that Prophet Muhammad never waged war against hostile, oppressive, anti-Muslim Meccan forces while he was a citizen/resident of Mecca; he only waged war against Meccan forces after leaving Mecca and permanently moving to Medina. These American Muslims say that an American Muslim who wants to fight American troops in Iraq can only do so if he cuts ties with America and moves away (rather than pretending to remain a loyal American citizen).

Some American Muslims respond that this analysis, regarding the Prophet’s departure from Mecca prior to fighting Meccan forces, is off the mark. Their argument is as follows: The Prophet did not leave Mecca in anticipation of going to war against Meccan forces. He left Mecca to establish an Islamic state elsewhere, because Mecca was not prepared to become an Islamic state at the time. He left Mecca and hoped that he and the Muslim community would be left alone in Medina. (The Muslims raided Meccan caravans to recoup their losses relating to property left behind in Mecca, but the Muslims did not seek all-out war with Meccan forces.) The Muslims fought Meccan forces only when the Meccan army came after them at the Battle of Badr. That’s different from the U.S.-Iraq situation in 2004 (when Mehanna travelled to Yemen for training). The Prophet’s situation would have been more analogous to the 2004 U.S.-Iraq situation if Mecca had already been at war with another city, and if the Prophet had moved to Medina in order to join the fight against Mecca; then one could argue that American Muslims who wanted to help the Iraqis by fighting U.S. forces must move out of America. It would be interesting to know about the actions of those Muslims who lived openly or “undercover” in Mecca while Mecca was at war with Medina; were they “loyal Meccans,” or did they take any steps to assist the Muslims of Medina against Meccan forces?

It’s also religiously significant for some American Muslims that American law prohibits Americans from fighting against U.S. forces. Some American Muslims believe they have a religious obligation to follow the laws of the country where they live. They believe that Prophet Muhammad said, “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” That takes us back to the above-mentioned verse from the Recitation; if an American Muslim is commanded to not help Muslims whose country is invaded by the U.S, is he “commanded to commit a sin”?

An Egyptian-American Muslim informant, Osama Eldawoody, helped convict an Egyptian-American Muslim in NY, James Elshafay, and a Pakistani Muslim immigrant, Shahawar Matin Siraj, of conspiring to blow up a NY subway station. The NYPD paid the informant $100,000 to watch the local community. The informant offered to provide the Defendants with explosives for the subway attack. The Defendants said the informer suggested the plot and incited them to act by showing them pictures of Muslims overseas being mistreated and by telling them he had received a fatwa saying it was okay for Muslims to kill American troops.

A Pakistani Muslim informant, Naseem Khan, helped convict a Pakistani-American Muslim from Lodi, CA, Hamid Hayat, of providing material support to terrorists by attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. The government paid the informant around $225,000 to move to Lodi and infiltrate the Muslim community. The informant encouraged Hayat to talk about fighting America, encouraged Hayat to attend a terrorist training camp, and cursed at Hayat when Hayat said he hadn’t yet attended the camp.

A Yemeni Muslim informant, Mohamed Alanssi, helped convict an African-American Muslim in NY, Tariq Shah, of pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda and offering to train Al Qaeda members in martial arts and hand-to-hand combat. The government paid the informant $100,000.

An Egyptian Muslim informant, Mahmoud Omar, and an Albanian Muslim informant, Besnik Bakalli, infiltrated the so-called Fort Dix Six, a group charged with plotting to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix (where troops train for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan) in New Jersey. Omar was a convicted criminal facing additional criminal charges and deportation; in exchange for his assistance, the government paid Omar approximately $240,000 and agreed not to pursue criminal charges or to deport him. Bakalli was an illegal alien who faced deportation; in exchange for his assistance, the government agreed not to deport Bakalli and to let some of his relatives come from Albania to live in the U.S. FBI tapes show that Omar offered to organize an attack on U.S. soldiers, urged the lead suspect to stop procrastinating, and offered to buy guns so the group could train for an attack. Following the convictions of the Fort Dix Six, Omar found himself rejected by and isolated from his Muslim family, friends, and business contacts in Egypt and in the U.S. who believed that Omar had set up the defendants; as a result, Omar told the press that it had been a mistake for him to work as an informant, in light of the negative impact on his relationships.

A White Muslim informant, William “Jamaal” Chrisman, helped convict an African-American Muslim, Derrick Shareef, who pled guilty to plotting to attack a Rockford, IL shopping mall with hand grenades. “What brought me to the government was after 9-11 Muslim scholars in Saudi Arabia and Morocco said it was incumbent on Muslims to stop terrorists,” Chrisman testified. “Anyone involved in terrorism was deemed the brother of the devil.”

The case of Canadian Muslim informant Mubin Shaikh drew a lot of attention in 2006. Shaikh, a well-known activist within the Muslim community, offered to work undercover for Canadian intelligence in 2004. After the Canadian government learned about an alleged plot by Canadian Muslims, the government asked Shaikh to infiltrate the alleged cell in 2005. He won the trust of the alleged plotters, and went so far as to help lead a training camp during the alleged plot. The Canadian government paid him approximately $300,000.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That American Muslims Should Not Work As Government Informants

1. Spying is prohibited under Islamic law. The Qur’an (or Recitation) says, “And do not spy or backbite each other.” (49:12) In addition, Abu Hurairah reported that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “Beware of suspicion, for suspicion is the falsest of speech. Do not eavesdrop; do not spy on one another; do not envy one another; do not forsake one another; do not hate one another. Be, O slaves of Allah, brothers.” (Al-Bukhari, 5144; Muslim, 2563) Therefore, if a Muslim happens to learn about a plot, it may be okay to tell authorities; but it’s wrong to pretend to join a plot, win the trust of the plotters, and then spy on fellow Muslims.

2. American Muslims should be loyal to their fellow Muslims who attack the U.S. to punish America for its abuse of Muslims in the Muslim world, and to force a change in American foreign policy.

3. Informants entrap innocent Muslims by encouraging them to become angry about American policy and then suggesting that they plot attacks.

4. Any Muslim, informant or otherwise, who learns about a plot should simply try to persuade the plotters to stop, either on religious grounds, or by telling them that the government knows about the plot.

5. The informant’s presence gives encouragement to the plotters to continue their plot. Without the informant’s presence, the plotters might give up. For example, if the informant does not offer to help them obtain weapons or pick targets, they might not go further than talk.

6. The plot may not be real. It may just be a group of angry Muslims talking tough. They might not actually do anything.

7. The presence of Muslim informants in the American Muslim community damages the American Muslim community. American Muslims begin to lose trust in one another when they believe that some of their fellow Muslims might be spying on them.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That American Muslims Should Work As Government Informants

1. In 2005, the Fiqh Council of North America issued a fatwa saying, “It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.” Islamic prohibitions on spying relate to spying for personal reasons, or spying without just cause. However, when there is evidence that someone is plotting an attack which could kill people of all faiths (including innocent Muslims), Muslims must do whatever they can to prevent such an attack. After all, an attack on civilians would violate Islamic law; furthermore, Muslims are required to obey the law of the country where they live, and such attacks would clearly violate American law. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that when a Muslim is doing something wrong, the best way to help that person is by stopping him from wrongdoing. Furthermore, the Prophet spied on enemy positions during battle.

2. American Muslims should be loyal to America, which has given them religious freedom, political freedom, and the opportunity to make a good life for their families. Furthermore, violence in the U.S. isn’t the right way to change American foreign policy; American Muslims should work through the political process.

3. Informants should not be suggesting plots to Muslims; but if a Muslim has already decided to commit an act of violence, an informant can help monitor the plot for the government.

4. If a Muslim approves of violence, but is not planning violence, it’s fine to try to change his views; in fact, the American Muslim community should be openly dialoguing about issues like violence, so that no one is even tempted to become violent. But committed plotters cannot be easily persuaded to renounce violence. If an informant tries to talk the plotters out of the plot, they will lose trust in him, he will lose access to the plotters, and law enforcement may lose track of the plotters.

5. While the presence of an informant may help further the plot, serious plotters don’t need the informant’s help. If the informant is not in the loop, the plotters can look elsewhere for help getting training, casing targets, or acquiring weapons. It’s better if they are talking to an informant than to someone who is really helping to advance the plot.

6. If there is no real plot, and if the Muslims do not take any steps towards action (like going to training camps, casing targets, or acquiring weapons), no charges will be brought. But an informant has to be present to keep an eye on the situation in case the plot turns out to be real.

7. The presence of Muslim informants in the American Muslim community benefits the American Muslim community. Potentially-violent Muslims are less likely to plot attacks, because of their fear that Muslim informants may be watching. Furthermore, potentially-violent Muslims are more likely to be stopped, if they try to proceed with a plot, because Muslim informants are reporting their activities to the authorities. That reduces the chances of a future attack which could kill Americans (including American Muslims) and which would result in a backlash against innocent American Muslim men, women, and children. Furthermore, by demonstrating loyalty to the U.S., Muslim informants improve the American Muslim community’s image in America.

Following each of these attacks and plots, there have been public calls to focus airport security on Muslims flying to the U.S., and on Muslims flying within the U.S. During times of public fear, some American Muslim travelers have been subjected to heightened scrutiny. For example, following the disruption of Al Qaeda’s August 2006 plot to bomb planes flying from London to the U.S., some American Muslims of Iraqi descent flying into the U.S. from overseas reported that federal agents in New York took their American passports; held them for several hours without food, water, or chairs; asked them if they ever had weapons training and what they thought about the Iraq war; and yelled at them and threatened to arrest them when they complained about the way they were being treated.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The Government Should Not Focus Airport Security On Muslims

1. Airport screeners should thoroughly interview and search all passengers, not just those who “look Muslim.” That will maximize safety.

2. There are a billion Muslims around the world, and millions of Muslims in the U.S. Only a very small percentage of these Muslims have attacked, or plotted to attack, airplanes. It would be a huge waste of the government’s time and money to interview and search all Muslim passengers, since most of them are innocent.

3. Collecting intelligence before passengers get to the airport is a more effective way to stop people who pose a threat. For example, the 2006 plot to bomb planes flying from London to the U.S. was stopped before any of the plotters got to the airport.

4. Airport screeners cannot effectively focus on Muslims, because they don’t always know who’s Muslim and who’s not. There are people of other faiths who “look Muslim,” like the Brazilian man who was shot and killed by British police on the London subway soon after the 2005 London subway bombings. The government will end up interviewing and searching millions of people who “look Muslim” but aren’t Muslim. Furthermore, there are Muslims of all different ethnicities; they don’t all “look Muslim” or have “Muslim names.” If the government focuses on people who “look Muslim,” Al Qaeda will use bombers of various races (like shoe-bomber Richard Reid) who don’t “look Muslim,” and they will get through the system because security will be focused on people who “look Muslim.”

5. Random interviews and searches are more effective than profiling, because they can catch a bomber whether he “looks Muslim” or not. Random searches can also turn up “innocent bombers,” passengers who have unknowingly been given bombs by friends or relatives. Because of limited resources, the government has to choose between focusing on Muslims or doing random searches. For every screener who is focusing on Muslims passengers, that’s one less screener doing random searches.

6. Ethnicity and religion are distractions from the most important warning signs. Screeners should focus on passengers who have recently traveled to certain countries; who appear to be anxious or sweating; or who are wearing bulky clothing or walking in an awkward manner (because they might be concealing weapons or explosives). Because of limited resources, the government has to choose between focusing on Muslims or looking out for suspicious behavior. For every screener who is focusing on Muslims passengers, that’s one less screener watching out for suspicious behavior.

7. Rather than devoting resources to screening people who “look Muslim,” the government should spend its money on better screening technology to be used on all passengers, so that all liquid or solid or powder explosives can be easily detected. In addition, the government should increase the use of bomb-sniffing dogs. If the government prevents weapons from getting on a plane, potential hijackers can’t do any harm even if they get on planes.

8. Focusing security on Muslims will alienate Muslims from law enforcement, make them distrustful of law enforcement, and make them less likely to report suspicious activity that may come to their attention in the future. If the profiling is particularly abusive, and if it sends the message that American Muslims are “not real Americans,” it could help Al Qaeda recruit supporters.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The Government Should Focus Airport Security On Muslims

1. The government does not have the resources to interview and search all passengers. Furthermore, there’s no reason to interview and search all passengers. Everyone who has tried to hijack or destroy American commercial airplanes from 9/11 to the present has been Muslim. For example, the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim. Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, is Muslim; his co-conspirator, Saajid Badat, who pled guilty after backing out of the plot, is Muslim. Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Tanvir Hussain, and Assad Sarwar, who were convicted of plotting to blow up planes flying from London to the U.S. in 2006, are Muslim. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a plane over Detroit in 2009 using explosives hidden in his underwear, is Muslim. Furthermore, even innocent Muslim passengers could be unknowingly carrying bombs given to them by Muslim relatives or friends. So the focus must be on Muslim passengers.

2. Most interviews and searches of Muslim travelers will not turn up any explosives or weapons, and those Muslim travelers will be free to go. But the only way to make sure that no Muslims get onto planes with explosives is to interview and search all Muslim travelers. After all, the government doesn’t know which Muslims have bombs, and which Muslims don’t have bombs.

3. Collecting intelligence before passengers get to the airport is one way to stop people who pose a threat. But the government does not have sufficient intelligence on everyone who poses a threat. For example, the government did not have sufficient intelligence on the 9/11 hijackers, Richard Reid, or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before they boarded their flights. If these Muslims had been thoroughly interviewed and searched, they would never have been allowed to get on the airplanes.

4. Screeners may not be able to identify everyone who is Muslim, but they will be able to identify many people who are Muslim. Some Muslims who don’t “look Muslim” may avoid an interview and a thorough search, but the vast majority of Muslims will get interviewed and thoroughly searched. That will increase the chances of Muslim bombers being caught.

5. Random searches can be useful. But random searches would divert limited screening resources towards passengers who clearly pose no threat. The government will end up searching little old ladies. If only random searches are done, there is a greater chance that Muslim bombers will fall through the cracks, because not all Muslims will be interviewed and searched. But if random searches are used in addition to profiling, as a secondary layer of security, they can enhance security.

6. Screeners should certainly watch out for suspicious activity, in addition to profiling Muslims. But if the government only relies on watching out for suspicious activity, a sophisticated plotter could get through. Screeners will not detect plotters who are trained to remain calm, and who are not hiding bulky bombs. For example, the 9/11 hijackers used small knives. Richard Reid’s bomb was part of his shoe. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s bomb was part of his underwear. There is no evidence that any of these Muslims appeared to be anxious or sweating at the airport, or that they were walking in an awkward manner before they got on their flights. But all these Muslims could have been caught if they had been interviewed and carefully searched.

7. The government should use the best screening technology, but the government cannot rely completely on technology, because even the best technology is not foolproof. For example, Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab were able to get explosives onto planes even though they went through metal detectors. Furthermore, the government may not be allowed to use the best screening technology, because privacy advocates oppose the use of body scanners at airports. So interviewing and searching Muslims remains important.

8. Profiling can be done in a way that does not alienate Muslims. Screeners should approach Muslim passengers in a friendly and respectful way, not a hostile way. There should be no attempt to humiliate. Muslims who cooperate should be treated like allies, not suspects. They should be publicly acknowledged and thanked by the captain once they board their plane. Furthermore, the government can give benefits, for example tax benefits or reduced airfares or upgrades to first class, to those who are subjected to intensive interviews and searches; this will help compensate for the additional burden innocent Muslims are asked to bear.

Now, nine years later, President Obama has tripled the number of American troops in Afghanistan to 95,000, but they are spread thin in some regions, and they cannot hold on to territory. The Afghan police and army are developing very slowly. The Obama Administration warns that the Taliban are taking back territory and making a serious comeback.

Over the past nine years, thousands of American soldiers, thousands of Muslim fighters, and thousands of Afghan Muslim civilians have died in Afghanistan. America has spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan. The American public is tiring of the war in Afghanistan. Many Americans now think the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, and they don’t want to keep sending more American troops and American money to Afghanistan.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Send More Troops To Afghanistan And Try To Completely Defeat The Taliban

1. The 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Africa and the 9/11 attacks originated from Afghanistan. The Taliban government gave Al Qaeda a safe haven where Al Qaeda planned and prepared for these attacks. America asked the Taliban to turn Osama Bin Ladin over to America after the 1998 bombings and after 9/11, but the Taliban continued to protect Bin Ladin. America had to eliminate the Taliban government, and America must prevent the return of a Taliban government.

2. Before 9/11, the Taliban were evil oppressors or ignorant Muslims who were misinterpreting Islam to justify a power grab in Afghanistan. If America withdraws from Afghanistan, there will be a bloody civil war; the poorly-trained and undisciplined Afghan army will collapse; and then the Taliban will eventually re-establish a government that will once again oppress the Afghan people, especially women, ethnic minorities, and religious minorities. In addition, the Taliban will be in a better position to expand their control and influence into other parts of Asia. American troops must stay in Afghanistan at least until the Afghan army is strong enough to protect Afghans from the Taliban. It would be even better for Afghans if American troops stayed until Afghanistan is reconstructed, and until the establishment of an Afghan government that protects the rights of the Afghan people.

3. Without the benefit of its pre-9/11 Afghan training camps, Al Qaeda’s recent attempts to attack America have failed, because Al Qaeda has been on the run, and it has been unable to effectively plan those attacks. Due to poor planning and execution, Al Qaeda’s bombs failed to detonate during the 2009 Christmas Day plot to bomb a plane flying to Detroit, and during the 2010 plot to bomb Times Square. If America leaves without completely defeating the Taliban, the Taliban will return to power, and they will allow Al Qaeda to re-establish training camps in Afghanistan to plan more effective attacks on American cities. In light of Al Qaeda’s many grievances about American foreign policy in the Muslim world, there will be more plots targeting American cities if Al Qaeda gets breathing room. In addition, if America withdraws from Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will be in a better position to expand their influence in Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons.

4. America must prove to friends and enemies that it doesn’t run from a fight. America must prove to the Afghan government and others that America is a reliable ally that doesn’t abandon its friends. In order to deter future attacks, America must prove to the Taliban and Al Qaeda that no one gets away with attacking the American homeland.

5. America has not yet succeeded in Afghanistan, only because the Bush Administration did not put in the necessary resources; Iraq was a greater priority for the Bush Administration. America is fully capable of defeating the Taliban, now that the Obama Administration has made the war against the Taliban a priority.

6. America won’t be alone in this fight. The Afghan government will continue the fight against the Taliban if Afghan President Karzai is convinced that America will not abandon Afghanistan prematurely. The Pakistani government did have ties to the Afghan Taliban, but once the Pakistani Taliban began attacking Pakistan in an attempt to overthrow the Pakistani government, the Pakistani government fully allied itself with America. Pakistan cannot allow American troops onto Pakistani territory, because the Pakistani people are suspicious of American motives; but Pakistan is doing what it can, by allowing the U.S. to launch missile strikes (from un-manned Predator aircraft) onto Pakistani territory.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Cut Its Losses And Withdraw From Afghanistan

1. The 9/11 attacks did not originate from Afghanistan. They originated from the CIA or Israeli intelligence, in order to “justify” the invasions of Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, American troops should never have been in Afghanistan. Even if the 9/11 attacks did originate from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban hosted Al Qaeda based on the Taliban’s understanding that Al Qaeda were sincere Muslims who needed shelter. After Bin Ladin was accused of carrying out the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Africa, America asked the Taliban to turn Bin Ladin over to America. The Taliban said they would turn Bin Ladin over to America if America provided evidence that Bin Ladin was involved, but America provided no evidence. Regardless, the Taliban ordered Bin Ladin not to use Afghan soil to plan international attacks, and Bin Ladin agreed. At a hearing of the 9/11 Commission, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow said that Taliban leader Mullah Omar did not want Al Qaeda to attack America. (One hour and one minute into the hearing.) The Taliban were not involved in planning or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. When America asked the Taliban to turn Bin Ladin over to America after 9/11, the Taliban again said they would turn Bin Ladin over to America if America provided evidence that Bin Ladin was involved in the 9/11 attacks. America refused to provide the Taliban with any evidence, so the Taliban refused to turn Bin Ladin over to America. Therefore, the U.S. should have just attacked Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan, rather than overthrowing the Taliban government and trying to restructure the whole country.

2. Before 9/11, the Taliban were making a sincere effort to establish an Islamic state based on their understanding of Islamic law. They also brought law-and-order and security to a lawless region. Even if the Taliban were (and will again be) unpopular in Afghanistan, America should not be sacrificing the lives of American soldiers to protect Muslims from their own unpopular governments on the other side of the world. America should be spending billions of dollars to rebuild American cities, not Afghan cities. Furthermore, many Muslims around the world don’t want non-Muslim soldiers on Muslim land. American invasions of Muslim countries produce much more death and destruction than they prevent.

3. America has made a huge investment in building the 134,000-man Afghan army. It’s time for that investment to pay off. When American troops pull back, the Afghan army will keep the Taliban on the run. Furthermore, if there are no American troops in Afghanistan, fewer Afghans (like Najibullah Zazi, who pled guilty in the 2009 NYC subway plot) or Pakistanis (like Faisal Shahzad, who pled guilty in the 2010 Times Square plot) will try to attack American cities. (Both Zazi and Shahzad said they planned their attacks because of American intervention in Afghanistan.)

4. America has already proven that it will respond with severe force to an attack on the American homeland. America has already sent a clear message to its friends and enemies. There is no need for American troops to stay in Afghanistan forever.

5. It is not possible for America to defeat the Taliban. After nine years, the Taliban have proven themselves to be tough and elusive on their home turf. The Taliban fight and then melt away among the Afghan and Pakistani people. Then they strike again, and melt away again. Fighting a guerilla war, they don’t plan to beat America militarily. The Taliban are just playing a waiting game, knowing that America cannot stay in Afghanistan forever.

6. America does not have reliable partners in the region. The Afghan government wants to cut a power sharing deal with the Taliban (because Afghan President Karzai believes America is not a reliable ally). Afghan President Karzai has accused the U.S. of intentionally bombing Afghan civilian targets and falsely blaming the Taliban for those attacks. The Afghan government is not a useful ally, because it is unpopular, illegitimate (due to election fraud), corrupt, and ineffective. The Pakistani military has been fighting the Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan, but Pakistani intelligence has been arming, training, and funding the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan (to ensure that the Afghan Taliban are friendly to Pakistan if the Afghan Taliban return to power in Afghanistan). The Pakistani government does not allow American troops to enter Pakistani territory to fight Afghan Taliban who are retreating from Afghanistan into Pakistan, where they regroup for new attacks against American troops in Afghanistan. European allies have said their troops will not remain in Afghanistan indefinitely.

On one hand, America has given us religious freedom, political freedom, and economic opportunity. America has also helped free Muslims in places like Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosova. (Some would say that America also helped free Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

On the other hand, America (a secular, non-Muslim state) has invaded various Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) resulting in instability and the deaths of thousands of Muslim civilians; supported dictatorships in various Muslim countries; and supported people of other faiths over Muslims in various conflicts around the world. In addition, America has also cracked down on various American Muslim organizations and individuals since 9/11.

In light of all this, what sort of relationship should American Muslims have with America? Should American Muslims care about America, and be committed to the security and prosperity of America?

Arguments By Those Who Believe American Muslims Should Be Loyal To America

1. By virtue of living in the U.S., and benefiting from freedom and opportunity in the U.S., American-born Muslims have given an implicit pledge to be loyal to America; naturalized American citizens have given an explicit pledge of loyalty by taking an Oath of Allegiance. Believers “faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants.” (23:8; 70:32)

2. Being loyal to America does not require American Muslims to be less loyal to God. Neither God nor America demand exclusive loyalty. God requires that we worship none but Him, but He does not prohibit loyalty to others outside the sphere of worship. America requires that we be loyal to the nation, but America does not prohibit loyalty to God.

3. There is no conflict for American Muslims between being loyal to and caring for the worldwide Muslim community, and being loyal to and caring for our American neighbors of other faiths. Caring for our neighbors is an Islamic obligation. God says, “Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess…” (4:36)

4. After Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) left Mecca and moved to Medina, some Muslims remained behind in Mecca. Even though the Prophet and the Muslims of Medina were at war with Mecca, there is no evidence that the Prophet asked Muslims in Mecca to be disloyal to the leaders of Mecca, or to betray Mecca.

5. You can be both a good Muslim and a good American, because Islam and America are based on the same values, like justice and compassion.

6. Being loyal to America doesn’t mean blindly supporting current American policies or the current American administration. Being loyal to America means working towards domestic and foreign policies that American Muslims believe are in America’s best interests, and opposing policies that American Muslims believe cause harm to America.

7. America is dar-ul-ahd (the land of treaty), because America has diplomatic relations with most countries in the Muslim world. America is dar-ul-shahada (the land of testimony), dar-ul-amn (the land of safety), and dar-ul-dawa (the land of invitation), because American Muslims have the freedom to practice and preach Islam. America is not dar-ul-harb (the land of war), because Muslims are free to practice and preach their faith here.

Arguments By Those Who Believe American Muslims Should Not Be Loyal To America

1. American Muslims have no special relationship with (or obligation to) America. American-born Muslims have given no “implicit pledge” to be loyal to America. The “Oath of Allegiance” taken by naturalized American citizens is just a formality to gain citizenship; most people who take the “Oath of Allegiance” don’t even remember the words they recited. A Muslim’s true covenant (or pledge) is with God. (2:27)

2. American Muslims can be loyal to both God and country, but only if that country is an Islamic state, governed by Islamic law (Shariah), not a country that rejects God’s law and follows man-made laws.

3. American Muslims must be loyal to the worldwide Muslim community, not to Americans of other faiths who have rejected Islam and repeatedly elected political leaders who have caused great suffering in the Muslim world. God says, “O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors), offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord!” (60:1)

4. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) instructed a Muslim, Naim bin Masud, to place his loyalty to the Muslim community over his loyalty to his tribe. The tribe of Banu Ghatafan and its allies besieged the Muslims of Medina (in what came to be known as the Battle of the Trench). During that siege, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) learned that Naim, a prominent member of Banu Ghatafan, had secretly become Muslim. The Prophet asked Naim to feed false information to his tribe, Banu Ghatafan, and its allies. Naim agreed. Naim’s false information helped create distrust and break the alliance between Banu Ghatafan and its allies, contributing to their failure to defeat the Muslims.

5. America and Islam have contradictory agendas and priorities, and they have different visions for the world. American Muslims cannot simultaneously support both sets of agendas, priorities, and visions.

6. American Muslims who loyally pay their taxes are funding whatever evil the American government does.

7. America is dar-ul-harb (the land of war), because America is at war with Muslims in various countries, oppresses Muslims in various countries (including in America), and seeks to dominate the Muslim world. America is dar-ul-kufr (the land of disbelief), because America has rejected Islam and actively opposes the establishment of a Caliphate in the Muslim world.

When Muslims tried to pick their own leaders, the U.S. government was unsympathetic. The CIA helped overthrow the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. The first President Bush stood silently by as the Algerian military prevented democratically-elected leaders from taking power in Algeria in the early 1990s.

After 9/11 highlighted anti-American feeling in the Muslim world, the second President Bush declared in November 2003 that the U.S. would reverse its policy. “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.”

The second President Bush partly justified the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on the grounds of spreading “freedom and democracy.” He publicly called on allies, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and hostile states, like Iran, to allow more “freedom and democracy.” In addition, he said that spreading “freedom and democracy” will counter Al Qaeda’s vision of a “heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East.”

In Cairo in 2009, President Obama told the Muslim world, “But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.”

However, both the Bush and Obama Administrations continued to provide significant support to friendly (pro-American) non-democratic regimes in the Muslim world.

Many Muslims around the world are suspicious that the U.S. remains committed to controlling and dominating, not freeing, the Muslim world.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The U.S. Should Promote “Freedom and Democracy”

1. The U.S. should peacefully promote “freedom and democracy” in Muslim countries currently ruled by friendly (pro-American) dictators. Propping up these dictators has turned Muslims in those countries against America and pushed them towards Al Qaeda. One of Al Qaeda’s main selling points in the Muslim world is that the U.S. props up dictatorships. If the U.S. stops propping up dictators, that will reduce Al Qaeda’s ability to raise money and recruit human resources. Furthermore, the risks of propping up friendly dictators are high, as America learned in Iran. If Muslims in various countries succeed in removing American-supported dictators without America’s help (as Iranians did in 1979), that could bring extremely anti-American forces to power. But if America peacefully encourages friendly dictatorships to become democratic, America will be viewed by Muslims in those countries as a liberator; this will generate a lot of goodwill for America. American support for civil society initiatives (independent courts, free press, civic groups, etc.) prior to elections will help create political alternatives to right-wing religious parties. Even if right-wing religious parties come to power, Muslim democracies are unlikely to threaten America; elected Muslim leaders will be accountable to their people and concerned about their people’s needs at home. (For example, Hamas came to power through elections in Palestine, but Hamas poses no threat to the U.S.) Furthermore, given the choice, Muslim voters may like the idea of an Islamic state, but not the idea of a right-wing, Al Qaeda caliphate.

2. The U.S. should fight to promote “freedom and democracy” in Muslim countries ruled by hostile (anti-American) dictators. America’s use of military force to replace unfriendly dictatorships with democracies in the Muslim world can win Muslim friends for America. For example, many Afghans and Iraqis are enjoying new freedoms and the opportunity to pick their own leaders and write their own laws. Elected leaders of different sects and ethnicities are sitting down to peacefully work out differences. This will lead to greater human development and a better future for these countries. Many Afghans and Iraqis, and other Muslims, give America the credit for this. Furthermore, if American troops leave once democracies are established, that will reduce suspicion that America seeks to dominate the Muslim world.

3. America has an obligation to help Muslim countries eliminate their dictatorships, because, in many cases, America propped up those dictatorships and helped make them so strong that the Muslim masses may not be able to eliminate them on their own.

4. Muslims want to choose their own leaders. Early Islamic governance was based on consensus (shura), not dictatorship. Muslims have been denied self-government for so long by colonialism and outside interference (including American interference). When outside interference has been absent, Muslims have established their own democracies, as in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mali, and Turkey. Even Muslims who want to be governed by Islamic law want to choose leaders who will interpret or implement the law for them; they don’t want leaders imposed on them.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The U.S. Should Not Promote “Freedom and Democracy”

1. The U.S. should not promote “freedom and democracy” in Muslim countries ruled by friendly (pro-American) dictators. America is more secure with friendly dictators in power. Dictators, who are dependent on the U.S., are more easily controlled and more reliable allies. Democracies, on the other hand, are unpredictable. Encouraging “freedom and democracy” in friendly dictatorships could open the door for right-wing religious parties to come to power. (For example, Hamas came to power through elections in Palestine.) These groups would be more likely to challenge the U.S. and be less supportive of the War on Terror; they might even support Al Qaeda. Furthermore, American support for “freedom and democracy” will not necessarily reduce anti-American hostility in friendly dictatorships; it will simply be seen as another form of American interference in the Muslim world. Al Qaeda and its supporters will continue to target America, because American involvement will continue to interfere with their effort to set up a right-wing, Al Qaeda caliphate.

2. The U.S. should not fight to promote “freedom and democracy” in Muslim countries ruled by hostile (anti-American) dictators. If those dictators need to be removed by force, they should be replaced with reliable dictators. America’s use of military force to bring “freedom and democracy” to Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, has created more enemies for America. Many Muslims around the world have been angered by the deaths of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, which occurred after the dictators were removed. Furthermore, many Muslims viewed these invasions as an American attempt to control the Muslim world for religious, military, and economic reasons; they believed that American efforts to promote “freedom” were an attack on Islam, because “freedom” meant encouraging Muslims to stray from Islam. In addition, democratization hasn’t worked in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan remain violent and unstable. Authorities in parts of Iraq and Afghanistan continue to abuse their power and violate the rights of citizens. Iraqis have voted along ethnic and sectarian lines, and their elected representatives are having trouble working together and resolving their differences. Furthermore, promoting “freedom and democracy” in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost thousands of American soldiers their lives; thousands more have been maimed; and America has spent billions of taxpayer dollars overseas that could have been better spent here at home on homeland security. Adding insult to injury, America has been blamed for problems of poor governance or lack of development (caused by poor security) in Afghanistan and Iraq. All this could have been avoided with the imposition of reliable dictators early on.

3. The U.S. should not interfere in any way in the Muslim world. The Muslim masses should choose their own path. America should mind its own business and allow Muslim countries to develop democracy on their own, if that’s what Muslims want. Anything associated with America is tainted in the minds of many Muslims overseas, so American democracy efforts will give democracy a bad name and undermine grassroots proponents of democracy in the Muslim world.

4. Very few Muslim countries are free or democratic. Many Muslims do not want “freedom and democracy,” and the U.S. cannot effectively impose “freedom and democracy” on people who don’t want it. Many Muslims oppose “freedom and democracy” on the grounds that only God can make laws, and man-made “democratic” laws usurp God’s authority.

We now hear regular news reports of attempted attacks by Muslims against American targets around the world, including inside America.

The former head of the CIA’s “Bin Ladin Unit,” Michael Scheuer, says there are two ways to prevent future Al Qaeda attacks in America. One way to prevent future Al Qaeda attacks in America is to improve security in America and militarily defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere. America has been trying to do this since 9/11 with mixed results.

Scheuer says the other way to prevent future Al Qaeda attacks is to eliminate the Muslim grievances (relating to American foreign policy) that allow Al Qaeda to raise money and recruit fighters. The Muslim grievances that Al Qaeda has cited since the mid-1990s are (1) American support for dictatorships (e.g. in Saudi Arabia and Egypt) in the Muslim world, (2) American support for people of other faiths (e.g. Jewish Israelis) in their conflicts with Muslims, and (3) direct American military involvement in the Muslim world (e.g. the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq).

Polls show that most Americans realize that America is being attacked because of Muslim opposition to American foreign policy: “63% of Americans say a major reason why Muslims are unfavorable toward the United States is their belief that this country favors Israel too much in that country’s conflict with Arab nations. Another major reason, according to 62% of the American public, is that Muslims perceive the United States as interfering too much in the affairs of Muslim countries.”

The 9/11 Commission received testimony from FBI investigators regarding Al Qaeda’s motivation for the 9/11 attacks. During a 9/11 Commission hearing, 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton asked, “I’m interested in the question of motivation of these hijackers, and my question is really directed to the agents. …. What have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?” FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald responded, “I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem. They identify with the people who oppose oppressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States.” (2 hours and 7 minutes into the hearing.) At the same hearing, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, said, “The Al Qaeda leader wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel.” (57 minutes into the hearing.)

The 9/11 Commission concluded that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by Al Qaeda’s hostility to American foreign policy. The 9/11 Commission Report provided information about the views of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who has claimed to be the mastermind behind 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report states: “By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” (Page 147.) Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission Report states: “American foreign policy is part of the message. America’s policy choices have consequences.” (Page 376.)

In December 2004, the Defense Science Board (which is a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense) issued a report stating, “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.” (Page 40.)

The U.S. government prepared a summary, of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s statements, for use at Zacarias Moussaoui’s 2006 trial. “Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to ‘wake the American people up.’ Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America’s self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim people.” (Page 15 of Defendant’s Exhibit 941, “Substitution For The Testimony Of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” in the criminal trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.)

In 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told an American military tribunal why he organized the 9/11 attacks: “I want to make great awakening between American to stop foreign policy in our land.” (Page 24 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s 3/10/07 statement.)

In September 2009, Osama Bin Ladin issued a statement explaining his motivations for the 9/11 attacks. “At the beginning, I say that we have made it clear and stated so many times for over two decades that the cause of the quarrel with you is your support for your Israeli allies, who have occupied our land, Palestine. This position of yours, along with some other grievances, is what prompted us to carry out the 11 September events.”

American political leaders occasionally discuss the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by hostility to American foreign policy.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That American Muslims Should Work Through The American Political Process To Try To Change American Foreign Policy Towards The Muslim World

1. American Muslims pay taxes, and we help elect American political leaders who decide how to use those tax dollars. When American political leaders use tax dollars to prop up Muslim and non-Muslim governments that oppress Muslims overseas, American Muslims have a religious obligation to try to convince American political leaders to change the way they spend tax dollars. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that if you see an injustice, you have to take action to change it; if you can’t take action to change the injustice, you must speak out against the injustice; if you cannot speak out against the injustice, you must hate the injustice in your heart, and that is the lowest level of faith. The Prophet also said that all Muslims are like one body; if one part of the body is suffering, the entire body feels the pain. In the Qur’an, God criticized Muslims who refused to help the Prophet; God called such Muslims “hypocrites” (munafiqeen). American Muslims who refuse the Prophet’s instructions to help oppressed Muslims today are also hypocrites.

2. Improving the relationship between America and the Muslim world is the only way to end this war. Al Qaeda cannot be defeated militarily. America has been fighting Al Qaeda for nine years, and Al Qaeda is growing around the world. Therefore, American Muslims have a patriotic obligation to help protect America by helping formulate an American foreign policy that reduces anti-American feeling in the Muslim world, and that reduces the chances of Al Qaeda attacks in the U.S. Al Qaeda has said that if America escalates the conflict, Al Qaeda will do the same; Al Qaeda has also said that if America reduces the conflict, Al Qaeda will do the same. If a change in American foreign policy convinces average Muslims overseas that America is not hostile to them, there will be no basis for a defensive jihad against America, and it will be harder for Al Qaeda to recruit operatives or raise funds to attack America. An improved relationship with the Muslim world will assist America in accomplishing its objectives around the world; sometimes you get better results with honey than with vinegar. An improved relationship with the Muslim world will also allow America to invest American resources in domestic growth and development, rather than in bombs.

3. If American Muslims work actively to make America safer, that will improve our image and our lives in America. If America is no longer at war with Al Qaeda, American Muslims (like other Americans) will be safer. In addition, American Muslims will be less likely to experience increased governmental scrutiny, hate crimes, discrimination, and bullying when there is no Al Qaeda threat to America.

4. If American Muslims work through the American political process to try to reduce oppression in the Muslim world, that will show frustrated young American Muslims that there are peaceful ways to fulfill our religious obligations. Alternatively, if American Muslims don’t make a serious effort to work through the American political process, frustrated young American Muslims (like Faisal Shahzad, who pled guilty to plotting to bomb Times Square, and Zarein Ahmedzay, who pled guilty to plotting to bomb the New York City subway system)will continue to believe that there is no peaceful way to change American foreign policy, and more of them will become radicalized and get involved in violent plots against America. American Muslims must channel American Muslim concerns for the Muslim world into political action, not violence.

5. Changing American foreign policy is a huge challenge. But American Muslims don’t have to change American foreign policy by ourselves. There are many other Americans who are concerned about America’s current relationship with the Muslim world. We can all work together to improve the relationship between America and the Muslim world.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That American Muslims Should Not Work Through The American Political Process To Try To Change American Foreign Policy Towards The Muslim World

1. American Muslims’ primary religious obligation is to help suffering neighbors (Muslim and non-Muslim) who are nearby, not Muslim strangers who live far away overseas. If Muslims overseas don’t like their oppressive Muslim and non-Muslim governments, they should leave those lands, or they should overthrow those oppressive governments. In the Qur’an, God says that Muslims have no obligation to help other Muslims who have failed to leave the land of oppression; God also says that Muslims who have a treaty of mutual alliance with non-Muslims have no duty to help Muslims who seek assistance against those non-Muslims. (8:72) Because American Muslims have a “treaty of mutual alliance” with America, we have no religious duty to help Muslims being oppressed by America. Furthermore, even if American Muslims wanted to help Muslims overseas, American Muslims haven’t reached agreement on what American foreign policy is best for the Muslim world. Should America totally disengage from the Muslim world? What if new Taliban-style Muslim governments oppress Muslims after the U.S. leaves? Should America play any role in promoting human rights in the Muslim world?

2. There’s no need for American Muslims to try to protect America through a change in American foreign policy, because America will eventually defeat Al Qaeda militarily. Furthermore, Muslim and non-Muslim regimes that oppress Muslims overseas are American allies; America supports them because they cooperate with America. America benefits from the relationship. Maintaining American troops and relationships in the Muslim world allows America to quickly project American power as America sees fit. There’s no guarantee that a change in American foreign policy will ultimately be good for America. What if America disengages from the Muslim world, and then a problem arises that requires the use of American power in the Muslim world? What if America disengages from the Muslim world, and then an unstable Middle East raises the price of oil? What if America disengages from the Muslim world, and then Al Qaeda sets up a caliphate throughout the Muslim world? What if such an Al Qaeda caliphate attacks America to try to establish Islamic law here? What if America disengages from the Muslim world, and then Al Qaeda obtains Pakistani or Iranian or Israeli nuclear weapons?

3. If American Muslims try to address Muslim grievances by trying to change American foreign policy, other Americans will view us as “outsiders” who care more about other Muslims than about other Americans. We will be accused of trying to “appease” Al Qaeda, and that will make our lives more difficult in America.

4. The political process works very slowly. If frustrated young American Muslims (like Faisal Shahzad, who pled guilty to plotting to bomb Times Square, and Zarein Ahmedzay, who pled guilty to plotting to bomb the New York City subway system) are inclined to use violence to try to change American foreign policy, they won’t have the patience to work through the political process. They have waited a long time for American foreign policy to change, and they want change right now. Furthermore, some of these frustrated young American Muslims believe that it is religiously impermissible to work through a man-made political process. Their frustration cannot be channeled into the political process.

5. There’s no point in trying to change American foreign policy, because there’s no chance of success. The opposing forces (who want to maintain current American foreign policies towards the Muslim world) are too strong. It would be a sinful waste of our community’s limited human resources and financial resources to try to change American foreign policy. We should use our limited resources to solve problems closer to home. Furthermore, there is no “Muslim community” to lobby in the U.S. The “community” is actually a combination of various different ethnic communities. Therefore, they will not unite to lobby the U.S. government on a common agenda. As has always been the case, Pakistani-Americans will lobby on issues related to Pakistan. Iraqi-Americans will lobby on issues related to Iraq. Afghan-Americans will lobby on issues related to Afghanistan. Palestinian-Americans will lobby on issues related to Palestine. Kashmiri-Americans will lobby on issues related to Kashmir. These small segments of the community will not work together, so there will be no impact on American foreign policy. Other American Muslims will continue to sit on the sidelines. Furthermore, there is no consensus among American Muslims about what type of foreign policy to pursue. For example, some American Muslims want American troops out of Iraq now; others want American troops to stay until Iraq is stabilized. Some American Muslims want American troops out of Afghanistan now; others want American troops to stay until Afghanistan is stabilized. Some American Muslims want America to push for an independent Kashmir; others want America to push for making Kashmir a part of Pakistan. Some American Muslims want America to totally disengage from the Muslim world; others want America to play at a least a minimal role when it comes to protecting the human rights of Muslims. Without consensus, American Muslims cannot change American foreign policy towards the Muslim world.

1. Many American Muslims believe that no Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and that the U.S. government and/or the Israeli government actually organized the 9/11 attacks. These American Muslims believe the U.S. government and/or the Israeli government acted in this way in order to justify the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and to justify a crackdown on civil liberties in America.

2. Many American Muslims take a completely different view. They believe that a group of Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks, because that group of Muslims opposed American foreign policy towards the Muslim world.

American Muslims are not alone. There are two American “truth movements” actively promoting views like those described above, but neither of these “truth movements” has received enough support to really make an impact. Ironically, very few American Muslims actively support either of these “truth movements.”

The 9/11 Truth Movement

The 9/11 Truth Movement believes that the U.S. government knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and allowed the attacks to occur, or that the U.S. government actually organized the 9/11 attacks. These Americans believe that explosives brought down the World Trade Center and that a missile (not a plane) hit the Pentagon. These Americans believe the U.S. government allowed/orchestrated the 9/11 attacks in order to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and to justify a crackdown on civil liberties in America. These Americans seek to challenge the view that a group of Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks all by themselves. (These Americans do not necessarily take the position that Muslims were not involved in the 9/11 attacks.)

The New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) is trying to get a referendum on the New York City ballot in November 2009 creating a local, independent commission with subpoena power to re-investigate the 9/11 attacks. 80,000 New Yorkers have signed a petition in support of the referendum, but New York City opposes allowing the referendum on the ballot. The issue is currently in court.

The “Why Do They Hate Us?” Truth Movement

The “Why Do They Hate Us?” Truth Movement believes that a group of Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks, because those Muslims opposed American foreign policy towards the Muslim world. The goal of these Americans is to encourage the American people to re-think America’s foreign policy towards the Muslim world, and to make sure that America has a foreign policy that is really in America’s best interests. These Americans seek to challenge the view that a group of Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks because those Muslims hated the freedoms that Americans have.

The “Why Do They Hate Us?” Truth Movement includes Congressman Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Ladin Unit and author of Imperial Hubris.

The “Why Do They Hate Us?” Truth Movement includes organizations like Representative Press.

Eight years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. has failed to defeat the Taliban (partly because the Bush Administration focused on Iraq, not Afghanistan), and the American public is tiring of the war in Afghanistan. New polls show that most Americans now think the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, and they don’t want to send more American troops to Afghanistan to finish the job.

After 9/11, the Bush Administration blamed Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks, and blamed the Taliban government in Afghanistan for providing a base for Al Qaeda. The U.S. then invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban government, helped set up and support an elected Afghan government, and continued to fight Taliban forces.

Now, eight years later, there are 60,000 American troops in Afghanistan, but they are spread thin in some regions, and they cannot hold on to territory. The Afghan police and army are developing very slowly. The Obama Administration warns that the Taliban are taking back territory and making a serious comeback.

The Obama Administration is considering sending more American troops to Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and to support the elected Afghan government.

U.S. officials warn that if the Taliban retake Afghanistan, then Al Qaeda would again have a stable base from which to plot attacks against targets inside the U.S. In addition, U.S. officials warn that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be in a better position to expand their control and influence into other parts of Asia.

Many Afghans, and the Taliban, believe the U.S. will eventually abandon Afghanistan, just as the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, opening the door to a Taliban takeover in the 1990s.

How do American Muslims feel about the war in Afghanistan? Do American Muslims want to see a strong U.S. force in Afghanistan that can decisively defeat the Taliban? Or do American Muslims want U.S. troops out of Afghanistan now?

American Muslims And Afghanistan

American Muslims are a unique American community when it comes to the issue of Afghanistan. While most Americans supported the American invasion of Afghanistan, most American Muslims believed the invasion was unjustified. In addition, many American Muslims feel a religious connection to the Afghan people, as fellow Muslims.

American Muslims’ Differing Views Regarding The Pre-9/11 Taliban

• Some American Muslims believe that, before 9/11, the Taliban were making a sincere effort to establish an Islamic state based on their conservative understanding of Islamic law. They also believe that the Taliban gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda based on the Taliban’s understanding that Al Qaeda were sincere Muslims.

• Some American Muslims believe that the Taliban were evil oppressors or ignorant Muslims who were misinterpreting Islam to justify a power grab.

American Muslims’ Differing Views Regarding 9/11

• Some American Muslims believe that no Muslims were involved in 9/11, and that the U.S. or Israeli government carried out the 9/11 attacks, in order to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

• Some American Muslims believe that a group of Muslims were involved in 9/11, but the U.S. government knew about the plan ahead of time and permitted 9/11 to happen, in order to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

• Some American Muslims believe that a group of Muslims were involved in 9/11, and the U.S. government had no prior knowledge of the planned attack.

• Some American Muslims believe that 9/11 was an act of self-defense/deterrence by a group of Muslims who were striking back at America for (1) America’s support for oppressive dictatorships in the Muslim world, (2) America’s support for Israel over the Palestinians, and (3) America’s direct military involvement in the Muslim world (e.g. in Iraq during and after the Gulf War) and America’s ongoing military presence in the Muslim world (e.g. in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War).

• Some American Muslims believe that 9/11 was an unjustified crime committed by a group of misguided Muslims.

American Muslims’ Differing Views Of The American Invasion Of Afghanistan In 2001

• Some American Muslims believe the American invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified, because they believe Afghanistan and Muslims had no connection to 9/11. They believe the American invasion of Afghanistan was part of an American plot to dominate the Muslim world.

• Some American Muslims believe the American invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified, because they believe the U.S. should have just attacked territory held by Al Qaeda, rather than overthrowing the Taliban government and trying to restructure the whole country.

• Some American Muslims believe the American invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified, because the U.S. has not succeeded in creating a peaceful, stable Afghanistan even after eight years.

• Some American Muslims believe the American invasion of Afghanistan was justified, because they believe the Taliban were wrong to continue to protect Al Qaeda after 9/11.

• Some American Muslims believe the American invasion of Afghanistan was justified, because they believe that keeping Al Qaeda on the run has prevented Al Qaeda from successfully launching another attack inside the U.S.

• Some American Muslims believe the American invasion of Afghanistan was justified, because they opposed the Taliban’s interpretation of Islamic law and policies towards women.

American Muslims’ Differing Views Of The Future Of The American Military Mission In Afghanistan

• Some American Muslims want America to invest heavily in Afghanistan, and to do whatever is necessary to defeat the Taliban and establish a democracy in Afghanistan. They fear that a quick American withdrawal, or an inadequate American military commitment to Afghanistan, will result in a bloody civil war resulting in a Taliban victory and a return to oppressive Taliban rule. They also fear the establishment of a safe haven for Al Qaeda to plot attacks against targets inside America.

• Some American Muslims want American troops out of Afghanistan immediately, because they want to see an end to the Afghan civilian death toll.

• Some American Muslims want American troops out of Afghanistan immediately, because they believe the U.S. cannot win in Afghanistan, and they want the U.S. to cut its losses of American blood and treasure.

• Some American Muslims want American troops out of Afghanistan immediately, because they want to see the re-establishment of a Taliban-style Islamic state in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region.

• Some American Muslims want American troops out of Afghanistan immediately, because they want to see the establishment of a base for Muslims who can protect the Muslim world from outside domination.

• Some American Muslims want American troops out of Afghanistan immediately, because they don’t want non-Muslim troops on any Muslim land.

• Some American Muslims want American troops out of Afghanistan immediately, because they don’t want the U.S. to be at war with Muslims anywhere in the world.

American Muslims’ Lack Of Involvement In The National Debate About Afghanistan

Despite their strong feelings about the above-mentioned issues, most grassroots American Muslims are likely to opt out of the national discussion about America’s role in Afghanistan. Due to a lack of knowledge about the issues, and a resulting lack of confidence, most American Muslims will not call their congressman, write letters to the editor of their local newspaper, or call in to their local talk radio shows to share their views about America’s role in Afghanistan. Therefore, the U.S. government will make its decisions about Afghanistan without the benefit of American Muslim input.

Previous Polling Regarding American Muslim Views On The Afghan War There is a lot of anecdotal evidence available about American Muslim views on the Afghan War. In addition, the following polls have been done about American Muslim views on the Afghan War.

A 2002 Hamilton College/Zogby International poll found that 51% of Muslims in America believed the invasion of Afghanistan was justified.

A 2004 Georgetown University/Zogby International poll found that 35% of American Muslims supported the Afghanistan war.

A 2006 Muslims For A Safe America poll found that 17% of American Muslims believe that America was justified in invading Afghanistan after 9/11.

A 2007 Pew Research Center poll found that 35% of Muslims in America supported the decision to go to war in Afghanistan.

Williams’ case has renewed a debate among some American Muslims: If the U.S. invades a Muslim country, whose side are American Muslims supposed to be on? What religious responsibility do American Muslims have to assist Muslims whose country is invaded by the U.S.?

John Floyd, William’s lawyer, said Williams was angered by the killing of Muslim civilians in Afghanistan. At the time of Williams’ arrest in 2006, Floyd said, “There is a certain segment of the Muslim population, especially among younger men, who are very upset about affairs in the Middle East and the [Bush] administration’s handling of those affairs. They truly believe that defending those Muslim countries invaded by outsiders is not only justified under Islamic law but is obligatory. I can’t tell you whether Kobie reached that level, but I know from researching these issues that it’s not a widespread or commonly held belief among Muslims in this country, but does exist among a certain small segment of the youth.”

The Recitation (or Qur’an) instructs Muslims to fight those who fight them. “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)

Do these verses mean that Muslims should fight only if they are personally attacked, or should all Muslims fight when any Muslim is attacked?

Does an American Muslim’s view of the legitimacy of the American invasion of Afghanistan affect the religious analysis? Polling and anecdotal evidence show that most American Muslims believe that America was not justified in invading Afghanistan after 9/11. (That’s because most American Muslims are not convinced that Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks.) If an American Muslim believes that the American invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified, does that create a religious obligation to fight American troops in Afghanistan?

Some American Muslims argue that an American Muslim is never religiously permitted to take up arms against U.S. forces. They say that citizenship is a treaty between an individual and his country, which implies a pledge by the individual to not attack his countrymen. They argue that Prophet Muhammad never waged war against hostile, oppressive, anti-Muslim Meccan forces while he was a citizen/resident of Mecca; he only waged war against Meccan forces after leaving Mecca and permanently moving to Medina. These American Muslims say that an American Muslim who wants to fight American troops in Afghanistan can only do so if he cuts ties with America and moves away (rather than secretly traveling back and forth between Afghanistan and America, while pretending to remain a loyal American citizen).

Some American Muslims respond that this analysis, regarding the Prophet’s departure from Mecca prior to fighting Meccan forces, is off the mark. Their argument is as follows: The Prophet did not leave Mecca in anticipation of going to war against Meccan forces. He left Mecca to establish an Islamic state elsewhere, because Mecca was not prepared to become an Islamic state at the time. He left Mecca and hoped that he and the Muslim community would be left alone in Medina. (The Muslims raided Meccan caravans to recoup their losses relating to property left behind in Mecca, but the Muslims did not seek all-out war with Meccan forces.) The Muslims fought Meccan forces only when the Meccan army came after them at the Battle of Badr. That’s different from the present-day U.S.-Afghan situation. The Prophet’s situation would have been more analogous to the present-day U.S.-Afghan situation if Mecca had already been at war with another city, and if the Prophet had moved to Medina in order to join the fight against Mecca; then one could argue that American Muslims who want to help the Afghans by fighting U.S. forces must move out of America. It would be interesting to know about the actions of those Muslims (if any) who lived openly or “undercover” in Mecca while Mecca was at war with Medina; were they “loyal Meccans,” or did they take any steps to assist the Muslims of Medina against Meccan forces?

It’s also religiously significant for some American Muslims that American law prohibits Americans from fighting against U.S. forces. Some American Muslims believe they have a religious obligation to follow the laws of the country where they live. They believe that Prophet Muhammad said, “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” That takes us back to the above-mentioned verse from the Recitation; if an American Muslim is commanded to not help Muslims whose country is invaded by the U.S, is he “commanded to commit a sin”?

Regardless of how they resolve these religious issues, the fear of prosecution leads most American Muslims to sit on the sidelines, and Williams’ prison term will reinforce that fear.

The Recitation (or Qur’an) instructs Muslims to protect other Muslims who are oppressed. “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!’” (4:75)

Some American Muslims believe that this verse is applicable to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians (and to other situations in various parts of the world). Boyd’s apparent willingness to fight the Israelis has won him quiet sympathy from some American Muslims.

However, some American Muslims argue that there are time limitations to the above-mentioned verse. They argue that verses authorizing the use of force applied only to the time of the Prophet. Other Muslims respond that Islam is universal, and God intended for the Recitation to apply in all places and at all times.

Some American Muslims argue that there are geographical limitations to the above-mentioned verse. They argue that the responsibility to fight oppression is local; in other words, Palestinians should stand up against Israeli soldiers and settlers, but American Muslims have no religious obligation to help the Palestinians. (This “geographical limitation” did not come up during the life of Prophet Muhammad, because all Muslims lived in one geographic region at that time.)

The religious analysis is further complicated by the fact that the U.S. government provides Israel with weapons to take on the Palestinians. Does that sufficiently “localize” the conflict to religiously justify the involvement of American Muslims on the side of Palestinians against Israeli soldiers and settlers?

Taking it one step further, does American involvement on the side of Israel justify attacks by American Muslims on American targets? That’s Al Qaeda’s argument, but it’s not clear if Daniel Patrick Boyd reached that conclusion. There are conflicting reports on that in the press. According to The New York Times, “Federal officials in Washington said that the men charged on Monday were not seen as serious terrorist threats to the United States or American interests abroad, and that there were no indications of ties to Al Qaeda or other militant groups.” Later, however, The New York Times reported, “Prosecutors identified Mr. Boyd as the man on the tape making remarks like, ‘We should take them out right now, they are over there killing our brothers,’ apparently in reference to the American military, and saying that jihad was the only defense his group had ‘for getting our wealth back and stopping the rape of Muslim women.’”

It’s also religiously significant that American law prohibits Americans from attacking Israel. Some American Muslims believe they have a religious obligation to follow the laws of the country where they live. They believe that Prophet Muhammad said, “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” That takes us back to the above-mentioned verse from the Recitation; if an American Muslim is commanded to not help Muslims who are oppressed, is he “commanded to commit a sin”?

Regardless of how they resolve these religious issues, the fear of prosecution leads most American Muslims to sit on the sidelines, and Boyd’s arrest will reinforce that fear.

Meanwhile, some American Muslims quietly fume at what they believe to be a double-standard: the U.S. government would never prosecute an American Jew who travels to Israel to shoot at Palestinians. Nor would the U.S. government prosecute an American Jew who raises funds to support Israeli soldiers or settlers who shoot at Palestinians.

It must be noted that there is also a double-standard at work among American Muslims. When people of other faiths (like Israeli soldiers and settlers) oppress Muslims, American Muslims tend to get pretty riled up. When Muslims (like dictators in various Muslim countries, or sectarian militias) oppress Muslims, American Muslims tend to look the other way. That tribalism hurts the credibility of American Muslims when they complain about human rights violations by people of other faiths.

NOTE: The Raleigh News & Observer has provided links to audiotapes (played in court) of Daniel Patrick Boyd explaining his views of when Muslims are required to fight and against whom. There are several clips of varying audio quality, but the two longest clips are good quality audio.

In some ways, John McCain and Barack Obama are very similar, and they share a similar worldview, which may make some American Muslims uncomfortable. Both believe that America is threatened by some Muslim groups and that Al Qaeda is a very serious threat to America. However, they differ about the best way to fight the war against Al Qaeda.

The War on Terror is a challenging subject to discuss with Muslim audiences, because our community is divided on the issue of whether or not any Muslims were involved in 9/11 and whether Al Qaeda is real. These are significant issues, because if Muslims were not involved in 9/11, and if Al Qaeda is not real, then the “War on Terror” is misdirected. On the other hand, if Muslims were involved in 9/11, and if Al Qaeda is real, then the “War on Terror” makes more sense.

The “War On Terror” issues are presented in two main categories: foreign policy issues and civil liberties/domestic security issues. The issues are presented in alphabetical order.

FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES

Afghanistan
The U.S. invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11, because Afghanistan was Al Qaeda’s base. The U.S. quickly overthrew the Taliban government, but then America turned its attention to Iraq. Now, seven years later, Afghanistan remains unstable and violent, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban are getting stronger. American military commanders say America doesn’t have enough troops to significantly increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan. There are four times as many American troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

MCCAIN:
Considers Afghanistan to be a secondary priority in the War on Terror, after Iraq. Says more American troops are needed in Afghanistan, but will not send additional American troops to Afghanistan, as long as the troops are needed in Iraq. Believes that NATO allies should send more troops to Afghanistan. Would prefer more training for the Afghan National Army and the Afghan police, rather than sending more U.S. troops.

OBAMA:
Believes that Afghanistan is the central front in the War on Terror, because Al Qaeda is based in Afghanistan and getting stronger. Wants to withdraw American troops from Iraq, in part so that more American troops can go to Afghanistan.

Iran
The U.S. has accused Iran of aiding anti-American forces in neighboring Iraq, and of seeking to develop nuclear weapons which could threaten America and Israel, and which could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Both McCain and Obama say Iran must stop supporting Shia forces fighting American forces in Iraq, and that Iran must not be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon. Both McCain and Obama support diplomatic and economic pressure to force Iran to stop enriching uranium which could be used to develop nuclear weapons. Both McCain and Obama say they will not take the military option off the table.

MCCAIN:
Says the only thing worse than war with Iran would be an Iran with nuclear weapons. Made a joke during the Republican primary about bombing Iran. Opposes presidential dialogue with Iranian leaders, because he thinks such a dialogue would boost the credibility of Iranian leaders.

OBAMA:
Supports presidential dialogue with Iranian leaders to try to resolve differences and reach a comprehensive settlement on all issues. Prepared to offer Iran normal diplomatic relations as part of a comprehensive settlement. Says that if dialogue doesn’t work, America will be in a stronger position to win international support for tougher sanctions.

Iraq
America invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in 2003. The Iraqis have elected a democratic government, but there are tensions between Sunnis and Shias. Parts of Iraq remain unstable and violent.

MCCAIN:
Supported the invasion. Criticized the Bush Administration for mismanaging the war and for not initially sending enough troops to establish security in Iraq. Supported the troop surge which has contributed to increased stability in some regions, and believes the surge has encouraged Iraqi political leaders to start making political decisions that will bring the country together. Considers Iraq to be the central front in the War on Terror. Opposes a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq, because he says withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground; thinks American troops should only withdraw after Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated, after Iraq is politically stable, and after the Iraqi military is able to protect the country. Concerned that an early American withdrawal would lead to civil war, genocide, and a failed state that could become an Al Qaeda safe haven. Concerned that an early American withdrawal from Iraq would strengthen Iran’s position in the region. Concerned that early withdrawal would lead to an increased risk of attacks in America, because the enemy would “follow us home.” Wants to maintain a long-term American military presence in Iraq, even after America wins the war, just as American troops have been in Germany and Korea for decades, because an American military presence could help America accomplish its other regional goals.

OBAMA:
Opposed the invasion. Was not in the Senate before the war began, so he did not vote on the issue. Opposed sending more American troops to Iraq, even when Iraq became unstable. Has not tried to cut funding for the war. Believes that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has strengthened Iran, because Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Iran, and he has been replaced by a Shia-led government in Iraq. Doesn’t believe that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror, because the 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, and because the Al Qaeda leadership is in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan, not in Iraq. Supports a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq; thinks most American troops should withdraw within one-and-a-half years after he takes office, in order (1) to pressure Iraqi leaders to take charge of security in Iraq, (2) to pressure Iraqi leaders to make political compromises necessary for future stability among Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, (3) to prevent U.S. military resources from being stretched too thin, (4) to free up military resources to use in Afghanistan, and (5) to free up billions of dollars every month to meet America’s domestic needs. Says some American troops would remain in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and to train Iraqi troops. Says America would have no permanent bases in Iraq. Says American troops might return to Iraq in the event of genocide in Iraq.

Pakistan
After 9/11, Pakistan supported the U.S. effort to overthrow the Taliban government in neighboring Afghanistan and to capture various Al Qaeda members. However, in light of the resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the region, the U.S. government has raised questions about Pakistan’s commitment to defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan does not allow American troops on Pakistani soil. Both McCain and Obama have criticized Pakistan for not taking sufficient action against Al Qaeda or Taliban bases in Pakistan that are used to launch attacks in Afghanistan.

MCCAIN:
Opposes threatening to cut aid to Pakistan. Says the U.S. must convince Pakistan that the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban is in Pakistan’s best interests. Says the U.S. must provide more support to strengthen friendly tribes on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border who can fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Supports more U.S. aid for development, health, and education in Pakistan to weaken the pull of radicalization. Has criticized Obama for openly saying Obama would take unilateral American military action against high-level Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan without Pakistan’s approval; McCain does not oppose such military action, but he believes that American leaders should not publicly state they will violate the sovereignty of an ally.

OBAMA:
Will make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional depending on Pakistan’s progress in closing down Al Qaeda and Taliban activities in northwestern Pakistan. Has said America will unilaterally attack high-level Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if Pakistan cannot or will not deal with the targets. Supports more U.S. aid for development, health, and education in Pakistan to weaken the pull of radicalization.

Palestine/Israel
The U.S. government has favored the Israelis over the Palestinians since Israel’s establishment in 1948. America’s pro-Israel stance has been cited by Al Qaeda as one reason for its attacks on American targets. Both McCain and Obama say America is committed to Israel’s security. During the July 2006 Lebanon war, both McCain and Obama insisted that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire until Israel’s objectives were accomplished. Both McCain and Obama say the Israel-Palestinian peace process is a high priority, and both say they will take an active role in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Both McCain and Obama say they will not deal with Hamas.

MCCAIN:
Says the U.S. should recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the American embassy to Jerusalem, but he would not object if Israelis and Palestinians agreed to make part of Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state.

OBAMA:
First he said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, and that no part of Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state; then he backed down after Palestinians protested that the status of Jerusalem should be determined through negotiations. Has expressed sympathy for the suffering of ordinary Palestinians. Says a better life for Palestinian families would ultimately be good for Israelis and Palestinians. Has said that his many conversations about Palestine/Israel with former University of Chicago colleague Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor, were “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. … It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation … that is necessary … [around] … this entire world.”

CIVIL LIBERTIES/DOMESTIC SECURITY ISSUES

Detentions of “Enemy Combatants”/Guantanamo
Since 9/11, the Bush Administration has held hundreds of detainees at a detention center located at an American naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Detainees have been held outside the U.S. in order to prevent them from accessing U.S. courts. Both McCain and Obama support closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

MCCAIN:
Supports using a military legal process for determining whether detainees actually posed a threat to America; says that classified evidence (which is unavailable to detainees) and coerced statements should not be used against detainees in military legal proceedings. Opposes giving detainees the right to go to federal court to challenge the evidence for their detentions.

OBAMA:
Supports giving detainees the right to go to federal court to challenge the evidence for their detentions, after initial decisions are made in the military legal process. Also supports closing secret American prisons in other countries where detainees are held without trial.

Domestic Information Gathering
After 9/11, Americans concluded that they needed better intelligence about the threat posed by Al Qaeda. The USA Patriot Act, passed by Democrats and Republicans, gave the FBI (1) the authority to secretly search Americans’ homes and offices, with no obligation to promptly notify the target after the search; (2) the authority to obtain Americans’ private records (telephone, e-mail, medical, financial, credit, employment, library, and other records) from third parties without the approval of a judge; these records could be obtained without evidence of the target’s involvement in a crime, as long as the FBI claimed the records were relevant to a terrorism investigation; these FBI orders could not be disclosed to anyone by the recipients of the order or challenged in court; and (3) the authority to wiretap any location or phone that might be used by the target of surveillance, even if those wiretaps were likely to pick up the conversations of other Americans. Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act with limited changes in 2005 and 2006. Both McCain and Obama believe that the government needs to be able to gather intelligence about Al Qaeda and threats to the U.S.

MCCAIN:
Voted in favor of the Patriot Act in 2001. Did not actively work to address civil liberties issues relating to the Patriot Act. Voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2005 and 2006.

OBAMA:
Was not in Congress in 2001, so he did not vote on the Patriot Act, but he said the Patriot Act should be repealed and replaced with better legislation. After being elected to the Senate, he worked to increase civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act. As a result of his efforts and the efforts of other Senators, (1) Congress required the government to notify targets within 30 days after a secret search, but this time period could be extended by a judge; (2) Congress put in safeguards when the FBI sought access to private records. The order to provide private records had to be authorized by higher level FBI officials, not just field agents. Recipients of orders were allowed to inform their attorneys and to challenge the orders in court; and (3) Congress required the FBI to focus more closely on the specific target of the wiretap, and to minimize capturing the conversations of other Americans. Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act after the above-mentioned civil liberties protections were added.

Warrantless Domestic Wiretaps
From the end of 2001 until January 2007, without court approval, the Bush Administration searched for evidence of terrorist activity by monitoring international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of Americans and others inside the United States, who were thought to have some connection with terror suspects. After significant controversy, in 2008, Congress passed a new law reaffirming that the President could not spy domestically without a warrant, requiring an investigation of the domestic wiretapping that previously occurred, and giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had previously cooperated in warrantless wiretapping. But no immunity was given to government officials.

MCCAIN:
Says he is unsure whether the Administration’s warrantless domestic wiretapping was legal or not. In 2008, voted against an amendment that would have removed immunity for telecom companies, and that amendment failed. Supported the final legislation but was not present to vote.

OBAMA:
Says the Administration’s warrantless domestic wiretapping was illegal. In 2008, voted for an amendment that would have removed immunity for telecom companies, but that amendment failed. Voted for the final legislation, saying he would try to get the telecom immunity removed later.

Torture
The Bush Administration has acknowledged using coercive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. However, the Bush Administration denies that any of its techniques rise to the level of torture. Both McCain and Obama say they oppose the use of torture.

MCCAIN:
Opposes the use of any physical force by military interrogators. Voted to allow CIA interrogators to have greater flexibility than military interrogators, but said that no interrogation should be cruel, inhumane, or degrading, and no interrogation should involve “extreme” techniques. He specifies waterboarding as an impermissible “extreme” technique. Voted to narrow the definition of “war crimes” and to give immunity from prosecution to Americans who have used “lower-level” coercive interrogation techniques (other than torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages).

OBAMA:
Missed the vote on whether CIA interrogators should have greater flexibility than military interrogators, so it is unclear whether he believes any physical force is permissible. Voted against narrowing the definition of “war crimes” and opposed giving immunity from prosecution to Americans who have used “lower-level” coercive interrogation techniques.

Muslims For A Safe America is a 501(c)(3) organization based in Chicago. Our mission is to educate American Muslims about national security issues, so that (1) American Muslims can resolve the tensions they feel because their country is at war with some of their fellow Muslims around the world, and so that (2) American Muslims can become informed, effective participants in the national discussion about what domestic policies and what foreign policies will make America and the Muslim world safer. We educate American Muslims primarily through a mock debate format, and we have held mock debates at mosques around Chicagoland. If your mosque or organization would be interested in scheduling a mock debate, please contact us at 200 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1240, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 961-2354, kamran@muslimsforasafeamerica.org. Muslims For A Safe America does not receive funding from any government agency or any foundation; we operate solely based on small contributions from individual supporters.

By Kamran Memon

Some American Muslims are upset with Sen. Barack Obama. He meets with various religious communities, but he has declined to meet with major Muslim organizations. He visits many houses of worship, but he has avoided mosques.

Obama appears to be minimizing his contacts with American Muslims in an effort to undercut right-wing political opponents who claim he’s an untrustworthy closet Muslim who supports al-Qaida and hates America.

Being Muslim would be the kiss of death for a presidential candidate in post-9/11 America. A poll by the Pew Research Center showed that almost half of Americans would hesitate to vote for such a candidate. The Pew poll also found that 10 percent of registered voters believe the false rumor that Obama is Muslim.

Some American Muslims think Obama should take a strong stand against anti-Muslim sentiment in America, even if it hurts him politically. But few American Muslims seem to be willing to help Obama solve his “Muslim problem.” They don’t acknowledge that the American Muslim community has the power to improve the public standing of Islam between now and Election Day, which would help take the heat off Obama. Instead, they want Obama to do all the work.

Many Americans believe that Islam encourages violence, and they are suspicious that Islam and Muslims pose a threat to this country, according to some poll results. They hear al-Qaida calling on Muslims to kill Americans. They hear about some American Muslims being convicted of aiding al-Qaida. They read (or are told about) verses in The Recitation, i.e. the Qur’an, relating to subjects such as violence and Muslim domination, and they wonder whether Muslims are commanded to be violent and whether Muslims want to impose Islamic law on America and the rest of the world.

In response to all this, American Muslims should go beyond condemnations of terrorism and such slogans as “Islam means peace.” We should address the real, post-9/11 questions that many Americans are asking on issues that include Islamic beliefs regarding violence and totalitarianism. Mosques around the country, for example, should hold regularly scheduled public forums at which articulate Muslim scholars can provide detailed analyses of various verses from The Recitation relating to these subjects. They also can explain the mixture of religious and political grievances that have led some Muslims to react violently to decades of Western intervention in the Muslim world.

Of course, there already have been some isolated and sporadic efforts along these lines. Various Muslim groups have published materials and held occasional panel discussions explaining various verses. But these groups have not made the dissemination of this information a priority, so the vast majority of Americans have not seen these materials or heard these discussions.

American Muslims are in an ideal position to help educate our fellow Americans about Islamic beliefs on these issues, and we should not shrink from the challenge. The questions won’t go away just because we ignore them.

In fact, our community’s hesitation to answer tough questions only makes others suspicious, and it does all Americans a disservice by depriving them of the authentic information they want about Islam and Muslims at this critical time.

If American Muslims make it a priority to help educate all Americans honestly about Islamic beliefs on these issues, many of the questions will be answered, and there will be fewer tensions left festering under the surface.

And if we get our act together sometime soon, we may even be able to take some of the heat off Obama. Maybe then he would be willing to meet us half way.

Kamran Memon is the founder of Muslims For A Safe America, a Chicago-based group established in 2005 to encourage honest and informed discussion about how to make Muslims and America safer. He was a student of Sen. Barack Obama’s at the University of Chicago Law School and is a member of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Sunday, July 22, 2007
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

America, which has a long history in the Muslim world, is at war with a violent, self-proclaimed Islamist movement. As a result, thousands of Americans and Muslims have died in recent years, and thousands more will die.

Just last week, it was reported that the most comprehensive intelligence assessment of the threat to the United States since 9/11 had found that al-Qaida and related groups have grown stronger.

It didn’t have to be this way.

Many Americans believe that American foreign policy toward the Muslim world had nothing to do with 9/11. They argue that al-Qaida would have attacked America even if America had no contact with Muslims because al-Qaida seeks to establish a worldwide caliphate.

It’s true that al-Qaida wants an Islamic caliph to rule the planet, but why does al-Qaida attack powerful Western countries which have intervened in the Muslim world, rather than weaker Western countries which have had neutral relations with Muslims? And why do some Muslims sacrifice their wealth and lives to launch these attacks?

If America had not provided military support over the decades to help keep the Saudi monarchy in power, and if the Saudi people had been permitted to govern themselves, anti-American hostility would not have been widespread in Saudi Arabia today. Instead, a frustrated Saudi Arabia produced Osama bin Ladin and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers. The same is true of American support for Egyptian dictators; Egypt ultimately produced much of bin Ladin’s inner circle and one of the 9/11 hijackers.

If America had not helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and replaced it with a pro-American dictator, there probably would have been no Islamic Revolution (and no American hostages) in 1979. Today, it’s entirely possible that a democratic Iran would have been a friend of America.

If America had been an honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians over the decades, showing genuine sympathy for both sides, much of the Muslim world would not have concluded that America loathes Muslims.

And of course, if America had not invaded Iraq after 9/11 and instead had set out to repair relationships with Muslims, it is likely that the threat from al-Qaida and like-minded groups would be shrinking instead of growing.

America has had its reasons for the decisions it has made. But decisions have consequences; if America had made other decisions, and if America had chosen to simply trade with Muslims instead of meddling so forcefully in their politics, a more developed Muslim world probably would have been pro-American today.

In a Muslim world focused on economic and political development, there would have been no popular support for attacking Americans. If a would-be caliph had asked for volunteers to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center, he would have found no takers. Why would Muslims want to fight an old friend?

Yes, it’s true that there are verses in the Koran (or Recitation) which can be interpreted to call for world domination. Yes, it’s true that, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, early Muslims fought wars and expanded the Islamic empire. Yes, it’s true that, in the late 1700s and early 1800s, Muslim pirates attacked American ships near North Africa for religious and economic reasons.

But the vast majority of Muslims do not believe that the Koran demands world domination, and there had been no effort to attempt it for well over a century — until American intervention angered the Muslim world.

Now, as America faces off against a deadly enemy, understanding how we got to this point could help America drive a wedge between al-Qaida and its Muslim supporters.

Does understanding history mean that I’m excusing the actions of terrorists who kill innocent Americans? Does understanding history mean I think America should be soft on terrorists plotting to blow up American trains or buses or shopping malls?

No and no. I’m an American Muslim by choice. I ride trains and buses, and I shop in malls. I don’t want to die or have my limbs blown off.

But it’s frustrating to see the political discourse dominated by American elites who pretend that American foreign policy toward Muslims has had nothing to do with the amount of anger in the Muslim world. If Muslims attack America, these elites argue, it’s solely because of who the Muslims are, not because of what America has done to them. Or, as President Bush has put it, “They hate us for our freedom.”

This point of view marginalizes anyone who seeks to understand America’s relationship with the Muslim world. For example, at a recent debate among Republican presidential candidates, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani mocked Rep. Ron Paul of Texas for saying that al-Qaida attacked America on 9/11 in reaction to prior American intervention in the Muslim world. The audience cheered Mr. Giuliani, and the other candidates piled on.

By burning bridges to the Muslim world over the decades, these elites have made me and my family, and all other Americans, less safe.

It may not be too late to rebuild them. But time is running short and the casualties are mounting.

Kamran Memon is a Chicago civil rights attorney and founder of Muslims For A Safe America (muslimsforasafeamerica.org).

By Kamran Memon

The nuclear bomb that exploded during a recent episode of Fox’s 24 did not raise new questions about whether Islam and Muslims pose a threat to America. Instead, the blast just reinforced and amplified the questions that many Americans have been asking since 9/11.

Polls show that many Americans believe Islam encourages violence, and they suspect that Islam and Muslims pose a threat to this country. They hear al-Qaida calling on Muslims to kill Americans. They hear about verses in the Quran relating to subjects such as violence and loyalty, and they have real questions about whether Muslims are commanded to be violent and about whether Muslims can be loyal to a secular state like America. Unfortunately, these fears have led to discrimination and hate crimes against innocent American Muslims.

American Muslims should go beyond condemnations of terrorism and slogans such as “Islam means peace.” They need to address the real, post-9/11 questions that many Americans are asking. For example, Muslims should regularly hold public forums where articulate Muslim scholars can provide detailed analysis of all the verses at issue and answer every question that is asked.

Of course, there have been some isolated and sporadic efforts along these lines. Various Muslim groups have published materials and held occasional limited discussions about certain verses from the Quran. But these groups have not made the dissemination of such information a priority, so the vast majority of Americans, Muslims as well as people of other faiths, have not seen these materials or heard these discussions.

In addition to answering America’s questions, American Muslims must actively engage in the national discussion about how to make America safer. Since 9/11, American Muslims have focused more on civil liberties than on security, because law enforcement efforts have been targeted at Muslims in America.

It’s important to protect the civil liberties of Muslims who pose no threat to America. However, American Muslims must remember that future terrorist attacks could kill innocent Americans of all faiths (including Muslims) and lead to more hate crimes, discrimination and governmental scrutiny directed at American Muslims. If American Muslims have concerns about particular security measures — such as ethnic and religious profiling, the monitoring of mosques and Muslim charities, and informers who pretend to encourage violence — they should propose better alternatives to keep the United States safe without infringing unnecessarily on civil liberties.

On the other hand, American Muslims who believe no such security measures are needed — because they believe there is no real terrorist threat — should make that argument to the American public. It’s important for Americans to understand that these Muslims are not opposed to efforts to make the U.S. safe.

Answering America’s questions and actively working to make America safer are the best ways for American Muslims to reduce anti-Muslim hostility and to make sure that fictional depictions of nuclear explosions on 24 and elsewhere don’t lead to discrimination and hate crimes in the real world.

Kamran Memon, a civil rights attorney who grew up in Bethesda, is the founder of Muslims for a Safe America. His e-mail is kamran@muslimsforasafeamerica.org.

Introduction

Since 9/11, America has wondered where American Muslims stand on issues relating to national security and whose side American Muslims are on in the “War on Terror.”

After all, tapes attributed to Al Qaeda have claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Citing Qur’anic verses and sayings of Prophet Muhammad, statements attributed to Al Qaeda have also called on Muslims to take up arms against Americans, and a small number of American Muslims have been convicted (rightly or wrongly) of assisting Al Qaeda. All this makes many Americans wonder about Islamic beliefs on issues like violence and loyalty to a non-Muslim, secular state like America. Surveys have shown that many Americans of other faiths (or no faith) are convinced that American Muslims in general pose a threat to America.

Doubts about the commitment of American Muslims to America’s safety and security are often expressed in the form of governmental scrutiny as well as discrimination, hate crimes, and suspicious stares. Many American Muslims fear a significant backlash in the event of another terrorist attack on American soil.

This rejection by other Americans further complicates matters for many American Muslims, who already feel unsure about their relationship with America. Although America has provided many American Muslims with freedom and opportunity and helped Muslims in various parts of the world, America has also invaded various Muslim countries resulting in the deaths of thousands of Muslim civilians, supported dictatorships in various Muslim countries, and supported people of other faiths over Muslims in various conflicts around the world. In addition, America has cracked down on various American Muslim organizations and individuals since 9/11. America’s mixed record towards Muslims has left many American Muslims feeling alienated and uneasy. There are also some American Muslims who feel alienated from America for theological reasons.

Put on the defensive, American Muslim leaders have largely responded to these tensions within American society and within the Muslim community by saying “Islam means peace” and by saying that American Muslims are committed to American security. There has, however, been little attempt to encourage open, sustained, grassroots discussion among American Muslims about these issues.

This report presents the findings of a recent survey of some American Muslims on their views regarding:
o their relationship with America
o the September 11, 2001 attacks and other attacks and alleged plots
o Al Qaeda and its motivations
o controversial law enforcement tactics
o post-9/11 government surveillance of the American Muslim community
o Iranian nuclear weapons
o the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan
o violence against various types of American targets

We surveyed a sample of attendees at the Islamic Society of North America’s 43rd Annual Convention, the largest annual gathering of American Muslims in America. ISNA Convention attendees are diverse in terms of religiosity, gender, ethnicity, age, and geography. ISNA Convention attendees come to the Convention for a variety of educational and social reasons.

This survey was not necessarily representative of the entire American Muslim community, because ISNA Convention attendees who visited the Muslims For A Safe America booth are not necessarily representative of the American Muslim community as a whole. Nonetheless, the results do give us a general idea of what some American Muslims are thinking. While the specific percentages can be challenged because the survey was not scientific, the general trends that are revealed may provide food for thought.

While phone surveys of Muslims conducted by polling firms have the benefit of reaching a diverse pool, our survey had a potential advantage over those phone surveys. When polling firms call Muslim homes, phone respondents are aware that the questioners know their identities. Therefore, cautious respondents may be less willing to take unpopular positions. In contrast, our survey was completely anonymous, so respondents may have felt more comfortable expressing their true views.

Where previous surveys of American Muslims or Muslims in America asked similar questions, our findings are generally in line with their findings. However, we did ask some questions that have not been previously asked in other surveys of American Muslims or Muslims in America.

Our results showed consensus on some issues, like respondents’ views about America, controversial law enforcement tactics, government surveillance, American foreign policy, and violence against American targets. Respondents were more divided on other issues, like Muslim responsibility for 9/11 and the 2005 London bombings, and Iranian nuclear weapons. Some of the results reflect the pain, tension, and anger felt by some respondents regarding the American government’s actions in the Muslim world.

These results will provoke a variety of responses. Some Muslims will condemn those respondents whose views they disagree with, and they will criticize us for sharing these results with the public. (Of course, criticizing the responses or shooting the messenger will not cause these views to go away.) Other Muslims will try to understand what caused respondents to answer the way they did, and they will try to formulate ways to proactively help American Muslims address the tensions reflected in the responses.

Similarly, some Americans of other faiths will condemn those respondents whose views they disagree with, and they will argue that there can be no peaceful coexistence with American Muslims; they will also condemn us for trying to understand the views of respondents they disagree with, by saying that we are trying to justify those views. Others will acknowledge the diversity of American Muslim views, and they will look for ways to open a serious and substantive dialogue with like-minded, concerned American Muslims about where we go from here as a country.

Needless to say, we hope that more readers choose constructive, rather than destructive, approaches.

Methodology

Muslims For A Safe America, a not-for-profit organization based in Illinois, conducted an anonymous, multiple-choice survey at the Islamic Society of North America’s 43rd Annual Convention in Chicago from September 1, 2006 to September 4, 2006. Hundreds of Muslims who visited the booth were asked to fill out the one-page, two-sided, multiple-choice survey. Three hundred and seven (307) Muslims who are American citizens participated in the survey. (Another twelve surveys which had only page one, or part of page one, completed were not tabulated. In addition, another nine surveys filled out by Muslims who are not U.S. citizens were not tabulated. Finally, one completed survey did not indicate whether a U.S. citizen filled it out; that survey was not tabulated.)

Percentages were calculated and then rounded off. When rounding off led to total percentages of either 99% or 101%, the percentage of those who “Did Not Answer” was rounded up or down to bring the percentage total to 100%.

I. Views Regarding America

This set of questions explored how respondents perceive their relationship with America and the American government. The majority of respondents appear to be simultaneously alienated and optimistic.

We asked the following question: “Do you consider yourself to be a Muslim first, an American first, or both equally?”

As the graph shows, more than two-thirds (70%) of respondents said they view themselves as Muslim first; over a quarter (28%) said they view themselves as equally Muslim and American; a small percentage (1%) view themselves as American first.

Prioritization of their religious identity could signal that the majority of respondents identify more with other Muslims in the U.S. and around the world than they identify with Americans of other faiths. This finding raises a question about whether the majority of respondents would prioritize the interests of Muslims in America (or Muslims overseas) above the interests of Americans of other faiths.

These results were somewhat in line with the findings of a 2007 Pew Research Center study, which found that 47% of U.S. Muslims consider themselves Muslims first; 18% think of themselves as equally Muslim and American; and 28% think of themselves as Americans first. (Pew also reports that a 2006 study showed that 42% of Christian Americans think of themselves as Christians first; 48% said they are Americans first.)

Our study and the Pew study both found that “Muslim first” received the largest number of responses, although the percentage in our study was significantly higher. The Pew study found that a significant minority consider themselves to be American first; that contradicts our results. One possible explanation for the differing results is the difference in samples. Another possible explanation is that the Pew Research Center study was conducted through phone calls to Muslim homes; the respondents were aware that the questioners knew their identities. Therefore, they may have been hesitant to take the “politically incorrect” position that they were Muslim first rather than American first. (The Pew Research Center study states in its Methodology section, “The intense attention paid to Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 may have made them more reluctant to cooperate with a survey request from an unknown caller.”) In contrast, our survey was completely anonymous, and conducted by Muslims, so respondents may have felt more comfortable expressing their views.

Another question we asked about views regarding America was: “Is the American government at war with the religion of Islam?”

As the graph shows, more than two-thirds (68%) of respondents said that their government, the U.S. government, is at war with their religion, Islam; over a quarter (26%) said the government is not at war with Islam; less than one-tenth (6%) did not answer.

Since Islam is the primary identity for the majority of respondents, and since the majority believes that U.S. government is at war with Islam, this finding suggests that that the majority of respondents are deeply alienated from their government, and view their government as hostile. This raises questions about how the majority of respondents intend to deal with the U.S. government. For example, will they work to peacefully change the government’s perceived hostility to Islam? Will they get involved in the war on the side of “Islam”? Or does their concern about this “war on Islam” run only skin deep?

These results were supported by the findings of the 2007 Pew Research Center study, which found that 55% of Muslims in America do not believe the war on terrorism is a sincere attempt to reduce international terrorism; 26% say the war on terrorism is a sincere attempt to reduce international terrorism. In addition, a 2006 CAIR Research Center/Genesis Research Associates survey found that 55% of American Muslim voters believe the War on Terror has become a war on Islam.

Earlier polling of Muslims in America showed that smaller percentages believed that America is at war with Islam. A 2004 Project MAPS: Muslims in American Public Square/Zogby International poll of Muslims living in America showed that a plurality, 38%, believed the U.S. was fighting a war against Islam rather than a war on terror; 33% said it was a war on terrorism; 29% were undecided. Earlier, a 2002 Hamilton College/Zogby International poll of Muslims (mostly U.S. citizens but also some non-citizens) living in America showed that 32.7% believed that the U.S. response to 9/11 was a war on Islam rather than a war on terror; 40.3% said it was a war on terror; 11% said it was both a war on Islam and a war on terror.

On a related note, according to a national 2006 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, 40% of Americans believe that America is in a major conflict against “the people of Islam”; 49% believe America is in a major conflict with a “small, radical group.”

We also asked a third question about views regarding America: “Can a good Muslim be a good American?”

As the graph shows, almost all (95%) of the respondents said that a good Muslim can be a good American; a small percentage (4%) said that a good Muslim cannot be a good American. Of course, each respondent defined the terms “good Muslim” and “good American” for himself or herself.

Although the majority of respondents place greater weight on their religion than on their citizenship, and although they believe their government is at war with their religion, the vast majority of respondents still believe that Muslim values (i.e. what it takes to be a good Muslim) are compatible with American values (i.e. what it takes to be a good American). Presumably this means that, although they are alienated from the government, they are not alienated from America, and they willing to work to make the American Muslim experiment work.

II. Views Regarding 9/11

This set of questions explored respondents’ beliefs about the September 11, 2001 attacks. The respondents are strongly divided about what happened on 9/11, and that obviously colors their views of the legitimacy of the U.S. government’s response to 9/11.

We asked the following question: “Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?”

As the graph shows, a plurality (45%) of respondents said that Muslims did not hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11; more than one-third (38%) said Muslims did hijack planes and fly them into buildings; almost one-fifth (17%) did not answer.

A significant percentage of respondents reject the commonly accepted belief that Muslims were the 9/11 hijackers. This certainly impacts the way they view the U.S. government’s domestic and international response to 9/11.

At the same time, a significant percentage of respondents believe that Muslims did hijack the planes. These respondents may therefore be more understanding of the U.S. government’s domestic and international response to 9/11.

Some respondents found some ambiguity in this question; while answering the survey, a few respondents asked us whether the purpose of this question was to assess whether the hijackers were “real Muslims” or were “really following Islamic teachings.” These respondents were told that the question was intended to ask whether the hijackers self-identified as Muslims. Not all respondents requested this clarification; therefore, some who answered that Muslims did not hijack the planes may have answered in this way because of this ambiguity in the question.

Our results were somewhat in line with the results of the 2007 Pew Research Center study, which found that 28% of Muslim Americans say Arabs did not carry out the attacks; 40% say Arabs carried out the attacks; 32% did not answer. In addition, a 2002 Hamilton College/Zogby International poll of Muslims (citizens and non-citizens) living in America found that 21.8% said Al Qaeda did not carry out the attacks; 34% of Muslims said Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks; and 44.2% were undecided.

Our results were similar to the Pew and Zogby results in that approximately the same percentage in all three polls said that Muslims/Arabs/Al Qaeda carried out the attacks. However, in our survey, a plurality said that Muslims did not carry out the attacks, while those numbers were smaller in the Pew and Zogby surveys. That discrepancy could be explained by the fact that large percentages of respondents were unwilling to answer the question in the Pew and Zogby surveys. This may be because the Pew and Zogby studies were conducted through phone calls to Muslim homes; the respondents were aware that the questioners knew their identities. Therefore, they may have been hesitant to take the “politically incorrect” position that Al Qaeda did not carry out the attacks. (The Pew study states in its Methodology section, “The intense attention paid to Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 may have made them more reluctant to cooperate with a survey request from an unknown caller.”) In contrast, our survey was completely anonymous, and conducted by Muslims, so respondents may have felt more comfortable expressing their views.

Recent polling in the Muslim world shows similar views to those expressed in our survey. A 2006 Pew Global Attitudes survey found that majorities in several Muslim countries believe that Arabs did not carry out the 9/11 attacks. In addition, 56% of British Muslims do not believe Arabs carried out the attacks; 17% believe Arabs did carry out the attacks.

Another question we asked about American Muslim views regarding 9/11 was: “Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?”

As the graph shows, almost two-thirds (65%) of respondents said the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allowed the attacks to occur; almost a quarter (23%) said the U.S. did not have advance knowledge; more than one-tenth (12%) did not answer.

The majority of respondents are deeply suspicious about the U.S. government. Presumably they believe the U.S. government allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, in order to justify increased law enforcement powers domestically and greater imperialism abroad. This certainly impacts the way they view the U.S. government’s domestic and international response to 9/11.

At least some of those who believe Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks also believe the government allowed the attacks to occur.

Anecdotally, we believe that a relatively small number of American Muslims are actively involved in the “9/11 Truth Movement;” if so many respondents believe that the government allowed the attacks to occur, why aren’t more of them involved in the “Truth Movement”? Are they content to sit back and let the government get away with such atrocities?

On the other hand, the fact that almost a quarter of respondents don’t believe the government allowed the attacks to occur shows that a significant percentage of respondents have some degree of trust in the government. These respondents may be more understanding of the U.S. government’s domestic and international response to 9/11.

Of course, the majority of respondents are not alone in their suspicion about the government. A 2004 Zogby International poll showed that 49.3% of New York City residents and 41% of New York State residents believed the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allowed the attacks to occur.

A 2006 Zogby International poll showed that 42% of Americans believe the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are covering up critical evidence about what really happened on 9/11; 48% believe there is no cover-up; 10% are undecided. 45% said Congress or an international tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any U.S. government officials consciously allowed the attacks or helped facilitate their success; 47% said there has already been a thorough investigation, and speculation about U.S. government involvement is nonsense; 8% are undecided.

A 2006 New York Times/CBS News poll showed that 53% of Americans believe that the Bush Administration is hiding some of what it knew before 9/11 regarding possible terrorist attacks against America. 28% believe the Bush Administration is lying about what it knew before 9/11 regarding possible terrorist attacks against America. 16% believe the Bush Administration is being honest about what it knew before 9/11 regarding possible terrorist attacks against America.

We also asked a third question about views regarding 9/11: “Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?”

As the graph shows, almost half (49%) of respondents said the U.S. did not organize the 9/11 attacks; more than one-third (35%) said the U.S. government did organize the 9/11 attacks; almost one-fifth (16%) did not answer.

This finding raises the same issues as the preceding finding.

A fourth question we asked about American Muslim views regarding 9/11 was: “Are the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, real or fake?”

As the graph shows, a plurality (42%) said the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, are fake; an almost equal number (41%) said the tapes are real; almost one-fifth (17%) did not answer.

These tapes appear to be closely linked to the respondents’ thinking about 9/11. Those who believe the tapes are fake, and that the tapes are therefore an attempt to frame Muslims, are more likely to believe Muslims were not involved in the attacks, and that the U.S. government played some role. Those who believe the tapes are real are more likely to think the opposite.

At least some of those who believe the tapes are real also believe the government allowed the attacks to occur. This feeds into the theory that Muslims did carry out the 9/11 attacks, but only because the government allowed it to happen.

Those who believe that tapes threatening future attacks are fake are presumably less likely to support American post-9/11 domestic and international measures.

III. Views Regarding Other Attacks Against Western Civilians

This set of questions explored respondents’ views on attacks and alleged plots against Western civilians outside the U.S. Most respondents are skeptical about Muslim involvement in such attacks and plots.

We asked the following question: “Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?”

As the graph shows, less than half (46%) of respondents said Muslims committed the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London; more than one-third (34%) said no; one-fifth (20%) did not answer.

This raises a question about why almost half the respondents are willing to believe that Muslims committed the London bombings, but fewer believe Muslims committed the 9/11 attacks. One argument, heard frequently from American Muslims, is that Muslims did not have the organizational or technical skills to carry out the complex 9/11 attacks (which involved flying multiple commercial planes into buildings). Because the London bombings did not require the same level of skill as the 9/11 attacks, this may help explain the gap.

Another question we asked about views regarding attacks on Western civilians was: “The Canadian government says it stopped a plot by Canadian Muslims in June 2006 to attack targets in Canada. Do you believe there was a real plot by Muslims?”

As the graph shows, two-thirds (66%) of respondents said there was no such plot by Muslims; one-fifth (20%) said there was a plot by Muslims; more than one-tenth (14%) did not answer.

We also asked a third question about views regarding attacks on Western civilians: “The British government says it stopped a plot by British Muslims in August 2006 to bomb planes flying to America. Do you believe there was a real plot by Muslims?”

As the graph shows, almost two-thirds (62%) of respondents said there was no such plot by Muslims; more than one-fifth (21%) said there was a plot by Muslims; almost one-fifth (17%) did not answer.

This finding raises a question about why almost half the respondents are willing to believe that Muslims committed the London bombings, but much fewer believe the Canadian and British allegations of other plots. Perhaps it’s because seeing is believing. The respondents may be more willing to believe that Muslims carried out a plot after the attack occurs, but less willing to believe official claims about alleged plots.

IV. Views Regarding Al Qaeda

This set of questions explored respondents’ views of Al Qaeda and its motivations. Respondents are divided about the existence of Al Qaeda. Assuming Al Qaeda exists, most respondents believe its anti-American hostility is motivated by American foreign policy.

We asked the following question: “Is Al Qaeda a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America?”

As the graph shows, less than half (49%) of respondents said Al Qaeda is a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America; more than one-third (36%) said Al Qaeda is not a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America; almost one-fifth (15%) did not answer.

At least some of those who believe Al Qaeda is real also believe the government allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur. This feeds into the theory that Muslims did carry out the 9/11 attacks, but only because the government allowed it to happen.

A significant percentage of respondents have doubts that Al Qaeda is real. This certainly impacts the way they view the U.S. government’s domestic and international response to 9/11.

Another question we asked about views regarding Al Qaeda was: “Is Al Qaeda attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American freedoms?”

As the graph shows, the vast majority of respondents (88%) said that Al Qaeda is not attacking America because of hostility to American freedoms; a small percentage (6%) said Al Qaeda is attacking America because of hostility to American freedoms.

A third question we asked about views regarding Al Qaeda was: “Is Al Qaeda attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American involvement in the Muslim world?”

As the graph shows, almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents said that Al Qaeda is attacking America because of hostility to American involvement in the Muslim world; almost one-fifth (18%) said Al Qaeda is not attacking America because of hostility to American involvement in the Muslim world.

As these last two questions show, very few respondents agree with President Bush’s view that Al Qaeda is attacking America because Al Qaeda hates our freedoms. Instead, many respondents believe Al Qaeda is attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American involvement in the Muslim world. Presumably, most respondents would therefore argue that America can avoid Al Qaeda attacks by changing American policies towards the Muslim world. However, anecdotal evidence shows that, while individual Muslims do have policy preferences on specific foreign policy issues, American Muslims have not attempted to reach a grassroots consensus on what over-arching policy America should adopt towards the Muslim world, to make both the Muslim world and America safer (i.e. should America completely disengage from the Muslim world, or remain involved but modify its approach?).

Furthermore, based on anecdotal evidence, it appears that American Muslims at the grassroots have not made much of an effort to convince their elected representatives that Al Qaeda is not attacking America because of our freedoms.

Some respondents may have found these last two survey questions, about the possible reasons for Al Qaeda’s hostility to America, problematic. Some of the “no” or “did not answer” responses to both questions may have been from respondents who believe that Al Qaeda is not real; in the minds of those respondents, there would be no basis for asking why Al Qaeda is attacking America.

Furthermore, there appears to be a discrepancy between the responses to two of the questions. Only 49% said that Al Qaeda is a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America; but 74% said Al Qaeda is attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American involvement in the Muslim world. This means that some respondents who said that Al Qaeda is not a real organization operated by Muslims also said Al Qaeda is attacking America due to American involvement in the Muslim world. Perhaps this is because of the same ambiguity raised by the earlier question on whether Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11; just as some respondents wondered whether the purpose of that question was to assess whether the hijackers were “real Muslims” or were “really following Islamic teachings,” perhaps some of those who said that Al Qaeda was not a real organization operated by Muslims believe that those operating Al Qaeda are not “real Muslims” or “really following Islamic teachings.”

V. Views Regarding Civil Liberties v. National Security

This set of questions explored respondents’ views on various controversial law enforcement tactics, which the government says are needed to help prevent terrorist attacks. The vast majority of respondents said that these tactics are unjustifiable; on the other hand, more than one-tenth of respondents said most of these tactics are justifiable.

We asked the following question: “Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America: a. taking religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports?”

As the graph shows, the vast majority (84%) of respondents said the government should not take religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports; more than one-tenth (12%) said this tactic is justifiable.

This finding puts the respondents to the left of the general public, which is almost evenly divided on the use of these factors. According to a September 2006 ABC News poll, 47% of Americans think authorities should be permitted to use religion and ethnicity in deciding whom to search at airports; 49% say no.

We also asked the following question regarding views on law enforcement tactics: “Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America: b. monitoring activities at American mosques?”

As the graph shows, the vast majority (83%) of respondents said the government should not monitor activities at mosques; more than one-tenth (14%) said this tactic is justifiable.

The respondents are to the left of the general public on this issue. A 2004 Cornell University poll showed that 26% of Americans said mosques should be closely monitored by U.S. law enforcement agencies.

We also asked the following question regarding views on law enforcement tactics: “Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America: c. listening to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda?”

As the graph shows, more than three-quarters (76%) of respondents said the government should not listen to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda; more than one-fifth (21%) said this tactic is justifiable.

Of the eight law enforcement tactics that respondents were questioned about, this tactic received the highest percentage of “yes” responses from respondents. Nonetheless, respondents are to the left of the general public on this issue. A May 2006 CBS News poll showed that 69% of Americans are willing to allow the government to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans whom the government is suspicious of; 26% would not allow it.

We also asked the following question regarding views on law enforcement tactics: “Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America: d. having an informer pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to attack American targets?”

As the graph shows, the vast majority (84%) of respondents said the government should not use informers who pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to engage in attacks; more than one-tenth (11%) said this tactic is justifiable.

We also asked the following question regarding views on law enforcement tactics: “Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America: e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?”

As the graph shows, more than three-quarters (79%) of respondents said the government should not monitor Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks; almost one-fifth (17%) said this tactic is justifiable.

We also asked the following question regarding views on law enforcement tactics: “Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America: f. focusing Immigration & Customs Enforcement resources on deporting Muslim illegal aliens, who have not been convicted of terrorism, in the hopes of disrupting possible Al Qaeda attacks?”

As the graph shows, the vast majority (86%) of respondents said the government should not focus Immigration & Customs Enforcement resources on deporting Muslim illegal aliens, who have not been convicted of terrorism, in the hopes of disrupting possible Al Qaeda attacks; less than one-tenth (9%) said this tactic is justifiable.

We also asked the following question regarding views on law enforcement tactics: “Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America: g. allowing Muslim illegal aliens to stay in America if they agree to work as informants, monitoring the Muslim community for the government?”

As the graph shows, the vast majority (90%) of respondents said the government should not allow Muslim illegal aliens to stay in America in exchange for their agreement to work as informants, monitoring the Muslim community for the government; less than one-tenth (7%) said this tactic is justifiable.

We also asked the following question regarding views on law enforcement tactics: “Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America: h. torturing suspected Al Qaeda members to get information about possible planned attacks?”

As the graph shows, the vast majority (91%) of respondents said the government should not torture suspected Al Qaeda members to get information about possible planned attacks; a small percentage (5%) said this tactic is justifiable.

This finding on torture puts respondents to the left of the general public. According to a September 2006 CBS News/New York Times poll, 35% of Americans believe it is sometimes justified to use torture to get information from a suspected terrorist; 56% believe it is never justified.

Overall, those respondents who believe that Al Qaeda is not real and that Muslims did not carry out the 9/11 attacks understandably believe there is no reason for the government to use tactics focused on Muslims.

But some respondents – who do believe that Al Qaeda is real, that Al Qaeda seeks to carry out more attacks, and that Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks – also oppose the use of these tactics. Perhaps they oppose these tactics because they believe these tactics are ineffective. After all, some security experts argue that taking religion into account at airports distracts security personnel from watching for suspicious behaviors. Similarly, as the 9/11 Commission indicates regarding the alleged hijackers, if there are plots being hatched, they are not necessarily being hatched inside mosques. Some experts argue that torture produces false information.

Alternatively, perhaps these respondents – who do believe that Al Qaeda is real, that Al Qaeda seeks to carry out more attacks, and that Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks – oppose these tactics because they fear that innocent Muslims could be wrongly targeted by these government tactics. After all, post-9/11 American law enforcement efforts have often been targeted at Muslims in America, including some Muslims who have no connection to terrorism. For example, anecdotal evidence shows that American Muslims are suspicious that law enforcement uses sting operations not just to learn about ongoing plots, but to actually encourage and promote plots (entrapment) where none existed. (Anecdotal evidence also shows that American Muslims are also uncomfortable about the idea of Muslim informants working against other Muslims; such intra-community surveillance generates mistrust among Muslims.) Authorities have arrested Muslims for purchasing large numbers of cell phones, based on the belief that Muslims could have no legitimate need to purchase large numbers of cell phones. Immigration authorities have focused on Muslim illegal aliens (in the sweep immediately after 9/11 and then later during Special Registration), who have been detained, physically abused, and deported, even though they have been found pose no threat to the U.S.

However, this doesn’t mean that all the tactics cited in the survey are ineffective in preventing terrorist attacks; in fact, the Bush Administration says that wiretapping and torture have helped prevent terrorist attacks. So the question arises as to whether most of these respondents – who do believe that Al Qaeda is real, that Al Qaeda seeks to carry out more attacks, and that Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks – are willing to support any security measures that place a burden on American Muslims.

Anecdotal evidence shows that American Muslims (like many other Americans) believe that the Bush Administration generally lacks good judgment; perhaps these respondents would be more comfortable giving these powers to a future administration that inspires more confidence. Or maybe not.

Interestingly, more than ten percent of respondents said most of these law enforcement tactics are justifiable, in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America. This group may believe that future terrorist attacks could kill American Muslims and their families, and future terrorist attacks could lead to a bigger backlash against American Muslims. This perspective is rarely represented in statements by American Muslim leaders, even though these Muslims are present at events like the ISNA Convention. Perhaps they are not sharing their views with Muslim leaders.

Overall, the respondents are to the left of the general public on views regarding law enforcement tactics. According to an August 2006 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, 55% of Americans believe the government has not gone far enough to protect the country; 26% believe that civil liberties have been too restricted.

VI. Views Regarding Government Surveillance

This set of questions explored respondents’ beliefs regarding post-9/11 government surveillance of the American Muslim community. The majority believe they, and their local Muslim communities, have been subjected to some government surveillance.

We asked the following question: “Do you believe that your local mosque is being monitored by wiretaps, government agents, or informants?”

As the graph shows, almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents believe their local mosque is being monitored by wiretaps, government agents, or informants; almost one-fifth (19%) do not believe their local mosque is being monitored by wiretaps, government agents, or informants.

Another question we asked about views regarding surveillance was: “Do you believe that your personal phone calls are being listened to, or that your personal mail or email is being read, by the U.S. government?”

As the graph shows, more than two-thirds (67%) of respondents believe their personal phone calls are being listened to, or that their personal mail or email is being read, by the U.S. government; one-quarter (25%) do not believe their personal phone calls are being listened to, or that their personal mail or email is being read, by the U.S. government; almost one-tenth (8%) did not answer.

These respondents are more concerned about such scrutiny than the general public is. A May 2006 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll showed that 30% of Americans believe the government is listening to their phone conversations; 56% said no. A May 2006 CNN poll showed that 9% of Americans believe it is very likely that the government has listened to their phone calls; 17% believe it is somewhat likely; 24% believe it is not too likely; and 42% believe it is not at all likely.

Another question we asked about views regarding surveillance was: “Do you believe that your home is bugged by the U.S. government?”

As the graph shows, almost one-third (32%) of respondents believe their home is bugged by the U.S. government; two-thirds (62%) do not believe their home is bugged by the U.S. government.

Another question we asked about views regarding surveillance was: “Do you believe that the U.S. government has secretly searched your home?”

As the graph shows, more than one-tenth (14%) of respondents believe that the U.S. government has secretly searched their home; the vast majority (80%) do not believe that the U.S. government has secretly searched their home.

Another question we asked about views regarding surveillance was: “If you, or a member of your family, have been questioned by the federal government at any time after 9/11, how were you treated during the interview?”

As the graph shows, almost three-quarters (71%) of respondents did not indicate that they or their family members have been questioned. Almost one-third (29%) said they (or their family members) have been questioned by the federal government since 9/11. Of all respondents, more than one-fifth (21%) said they (or their family members) were treated well during questioning; almost one-tenth (8%) said they (or their family members) were treated badly during questioning.

Most respondents believe the government views them, and other American Muslims, with suspicion, and that the government has the inclination and resources to monitor large numbers of American Muslims. However, they don’t believe the surveillance has gone to the extent of authorities entering their homes to bug them or search them.

Less than one-tenth of respondents have had negative personal experiences with federal agents since 9/11, although this represents almost one-third of respondents who were questioned by federal agents. Anecdotal evidence shows that these sorts of negative encounters can harden feelings towards the government.

VII. Views Regarding Iranian Nuclear Weapons

This set of questions explored respondents’ views regarding a Muslim country whose government has been at odds with the U.S. government for decades. Tension has increased in recent years over American allegations that Iran seeks to acquire nuclear weapons. Respondents are divided on whether Iran should have nuclear weapons, but they strongly oppose an attack on Iran.

We asked the following question: “Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?”

As the graph shows, more than half (52%) of respondents said Iran should develop nuclear weapons; two-fifths (40%) said Iran should not develop nuclear weapons; almost one-tenth (8%) did not answer.

Perhaps the majority of respondents do not view Iran as a threat to America, and that’s why they believe Iran should acquire nuclear weapons. The majority of respondents may believe that the Iranian government would never use nuclear weapons, based on Islamic law restrictions. On the other hand, perhaps the majority of respondents do believe that Iranian nuclear weapons would threaten America, but that does not bother the respondents, because they view themselves as primarily Muslim, and Iran is a Muslim country that could deter American intervention in the Muslim world.

A significant percentage of respondents do oppose Iranian nuclear weapons. This may be because they believe a nuclear Iran could threaten America (including American Muslims). Or it may be due to concerns about a backlash against American Muslims if a nuclear Iran is viewed by the general public as a threat.

Another question we asked regarding views on Iranian nuclear weapons was: “Should America attack Iran to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?”

As the graph shows, almost all (95%) respondents said America should not attack Iran to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons; a small minority (3%) said America should attack Iran to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Again, perhaps the vast majority of respondents do not view Iran as a threat to America, and that’s why they believe the U.S. should not attack Iran. On the other hand, perhaps they do believe that Iranian nuclear weapons would threaten America, but other issues are more important to them. For example, they may value the fact that Iranian nuclear weapons could deter American intervention in the Muslim world. Or they may be uncomfortable about people of other faiths interfering in the Muslim world; about the weakening of a Muslim country; about the loss of Muslim life that would occur in Iran in the event of an American attack; about the backlash that would occur against American Muslims in the event of an Iran war; about a shift to the right in Iran if America attacks; or about retaliatory attacks by Iranian agents in America, leading to the deaths of American Muslims and a backlash against American Muslims.

This finding on attacking Iran puts the respondents to the left of the general public, which is divided about an attack. A June 2006 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll showed that 52% of Americans would support American military action against Iran if Iran produces material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons; 37% would oppose American military action; 11% were unsure. A May 2006 FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll shows that 48% of Americans support U.S. military action against Iran, if there is a chance that Iran could get nuclear weapons in the next few years; 44% oppose military action; 8% are unsure. An April 2006 USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 36% of Americans believe the U.S. should attack Iran if Iran insists on pursuing a nuclear program; 57% said no. An April 2006 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 42% of Americans say America should attack Iran if Iran gets close to developing a nuclear weapon; 46% say no.

VIII. Views Regarding Iraq And Afghanistan

This set of questions explored respondents’ views of the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11. Large majorities of respondents oppose these invasions; a majority want American troops out of Iraq immediately.

We asked the following question: “Was America justified in invading Iraq in 2003?”

Almost all (96%) respondents said America was not justified in invading Iraq in 2003; a small minority (3%) said America was justified in invading Iraq in 2003.

The arguments against the invasion (i.e. no weapons of mass destruction, draining resources away from the Afghanistan war and from homeland security, giving Al Qaeda a recruiting boost, turning Iraq into a training ground for Al Qaeda supporters, distracting attention from North Korea and Iran, etc.) are well known. In addition to opposing the Iraq invasion for those reasons, anecdotal evidence shows that respondents may also be uncomfortable about people of other faiths interfering in the Muslim world; about the current chaos in Iraq; about the loss of Muslim life in Iraq; about American control over Iraqi oil; or about the backlash that has occurred against some American Muslims since the Iraq war began.

These results were supported by the findings of the 2007 Pew Research Center study, which found that 75% of Muslim Americans believe that the U.S. made the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq; 12% said it was the right decision. In addition, the 2006 CAIR Research Center/Genesis Research Associates survey found that 88% of American Muslim voters believe the Iraq war was not worthwhile; 12% said the Iraq war was worthwhile. Similarly, the 2004 Project MAPS: Muslims in American Public Square/Zogby International poll of Muslims living in America showed that 81% opposed the invasion of Iraq; 13% supported the invasion; 6% were undecided. A 2002 Hamilton College/Zogby International poll of Muslims (citizens and non-citizens) living in America showed that, a year prior to the invasion of Iraq, 47.1% said the U.S. should try to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power; 40.1% disagreed. Of course, the question did not ask about a full-scale invasion.

The respondents in our poll are to the left of the general public, which is split on the Iraq invasion. According to an October 2006 Newsweek poll, 41% of Americans believe invading Iraq was the right decision; 53% believe it was the wrong decision. A September 2006 CBS News/New York Times poll showed that 44% of Americans believe invading Iraq was the right decision; 51% believe it was the wrong decision.

Perhaps this is because, as anecdotal evidence shows, American Muslims are more likely than other Americans to know that Saddam Hussein was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. According to a September 2006 CBS News/New York Times poll, 31% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks; 57% say he was not involved; 12% are unsure. According to an August/September 2006 CNN poll, 43% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks; 52% say he was not involved; 6% are unsure. According to an August 2006 Time/Discovery Channel poll, 38% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks; 53% say he was not involved; 8% are unsure.

Another question we asked regarding views regarding the invasion of Iraq: “Should American troops leave Iraq immediately, or stay there until the Iraqi government and Iraqi military are stronger?”

As the graph shows, almost two-thirds (65%) of respondents said American troops should leave Iraq immediately; more than one-fourth (28%) said American troops should stay in Iraq until the Iraqi government and Iraqi military are stronger, and then leave.

While most respondents want an immediate withdrawal, this is 30% percent less than respondents who opposed the Iraq invasion. This gap suggests a concern that an immediate American withdrawal could undermine the stability of the new, democratic, multi-sectarian government of Iraq which is dependent on American forces for security and for training of Iraqi troops. The majority of respondents appear to be unconcerned about this, possibly believing that an American withdrawal would take the steam out of the Iraqi insurgency and Al Qaeda forces, or believing that the new Iraqi government should fall because it is illegitimate.

Respondents are to the left of the general public on withdrawal from Iraq. A September 2006 USA Today/Gallup polls showed that 17% of Americans want to withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately; 31% want to withdraw all troops by September 2007; 42% want troops to stay as long as necessary; 9% want to send more troops.

We asked the following question regarding the invasion of Afghanistan: “Was America justified in invading Afghanistan after 9/11?”

As the graph shows, the vast majority (81%) of respondents said America was not justified in invading Afghanistan after 9/11; almost one-fifth (17%) said America was justified in invading Afghanistan after 9/11.

Fourteen percent more respondents support the invasion of Afghanistan than the invasion of Iraq, possibly because they believe that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan.

Those respondents who believe that Al Qaeda is not real and that Muslims did not carry out the 9/11 attacks understandably believe there was no reason to invade Afghanistan.

But some respondents – who do believe that Al Qaeda is real, that Al Qaeda seeks to carry out more attacks, and that Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks – also opposed the invasion. These respondents may be uncomfortable about people of other faiths interfering in the Muslim world; about the current chaos in Afghanistan; about the loss of Muslim life in Afghanistan; about American control over an oil pipeline route; or about the backlash that has occurred against some American Muslims since the Afghan war began.

Other surveys have also found significant Muslim opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan, although they found less opposition and more support of the invasion than our survey did. The 2007 Pew Research Center study found that 48% of Muslim Americans believe that the U.S. made the wrong decision in using military force against Afghanistan; 35% said it was the right decision. In addition, the 2004 Project MAPS: Muslims in American Public Square/Zogby International poll of Muslims living in America showed that 53% opposed the invasion of Afghanistan; 35% supported the invasion; 11% were undecided. The 2002 Hamilton College/Zogby International poll of Muslims (citizens and non-citizens) living in America showed that 42.7% opposed the invasion; 51.1% supported the invasion; 6.2% were undecided. It appears that, as the years have passed, and as the conflict has dragged out, American Muslims have become less supportive of the Afghan invasion.

Our results are in line with a December 2001/January 2002 Gallup poll of Muslims in several Muslim countries, which showed that 77% said the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified; 9% said it was justified.

The respondents in our poll are to the left of the general public on the Afghan invasion. A January 2006 Pew Research Center survey showed that 69% of Americans believe the U.S. made the right decision to invade Afghanistan; 20% said it was the wrong decision; 11% were unsure. A July 2004 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 72% of Americans believed that invading Afghanistan was the right decision; 25% believed it was a mistake.

IX. Views Regarding Violence Against Americans

This set of questions explored respondents’ views on violence against various types of American targets, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world. The majority of respondents said violence was not justified against most American targets, although significant minorities said attacks on American military and governmental targets are acceptable. The majority said they would report a plot if they discovered one; a significant minority said they would not report a plot (or they did not answer the question).

We asked the following question: “Is violence by Muslims against American civilians acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?”

As the graph shows, the vast majority (89%) of respondents said violence by Muslims against American civilians is not acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world; almost one-tenth (7%) said violence by Muslims against American civilians is acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world; a small percentage (4%) did not answer.

We also asked the following question regarding views on violence: “Is violence by Muslims against the American military overseas acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?”

As the graph shows, half (50%) of respondents said violence by Muslims against the American military overseas is not acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world; almost half (44%) said violence by Muslims against the American military overseas is acceptable; a small percentage (6%) did not answer.

We also asked the following question regarding views on violence: “Is violence by Muslims against the American military in the U.S. acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?”

As the graph shows, more than two-thirds (69%) of respondents said violence by Muslims against the American military in the U.S. is not acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world; almost one-quarter (24%) said violence by Muslims against the American military in the U.S. is acceptable; almost one-tenth (7%) did not answer.

We also asked the following question regarding views on violence: “Is violence by Muslims against American government officials acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?”

As the graph shows, three-quarters (75%) of respondents said violence by Muslims against American government officials is not acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world; almost one-fifth (17%) said violence by Muslims against American government officials is acceptable; almost one-tenth (8%) did not answer.

We asked this final question regarding views on violence: “If you learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, would you tell law enforcement authorities?”

As the graph shows, more than three-quarters (76%) of respondents said that if they learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, they would tell law enforcement authorities; more than one-tenth (13%) said that if they learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, they would not tell law enforcement authorities; more than one-tenth (11%) did not answer.

The issue that most divided the respondents was violence against American military targets overseas, presumably because American soldiers in places like Afghanistan or Iraq are “on the battlefield,” or because some respondents may view those soldiers as trespassing on “Muslim land.”

The majority of respondents said violence is not acceptable against most of these targets, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world. The majority also said they would report a plot if they discovered one. There are a several possible explanations. First, some of these respondents may be satisfied with American policies in the Muslim world. Second, if the majority of respondents are not satisfied with American policies, some may believe that violence against American targets cannot change those policies. Third, some may believe that there are non-violent means, such as political lobbying, to change those policies. Fourth, some may believe that, regardless of the effectiveness of violence in changing American policies, the protection of American Muslims is a greater priority; after all, violence by Muslims against American targets undermines the security of American Muslims here at home. Fifth, regardless of the effectiveness of violence in changing American policies, some may be opposed to such violence for religious reasons.

Smaller numbers of respondents said violence against American targets inside America is acceptable (although they did not say they themselves intended to engage in such violence), and that they would not report a plot if they discovered one. There are a several possible explanations. First, some of these respondents may believe that the U.S. government’s actions in the Muslim world are so bad, that those actions justify attacks inside the U.S. to punish or deter the U.S. Second, some of these respondents may believe that violence will be effective in changing American policies. Third, some of these respondents may have given up hope that American policies towards the Muslim world can be changed through peaceful means. Fourth, some of these respondents may be willing to sacrifice the “good life,” which many American Muslims enjoy in America, in an attempt to change American foreign policy. (This approach is reminiscent of Malcolm X’s 1964 statement, after his pilgrimage to Mecca, that every time a black church is bombed, a white church should be bombed, because that is the only way to force whites to take collective responsibility for the behavior of the white power structure.) Fifth, some of these respondents may believe that such violence is religiously appropriate.

There may be other explanations why some respondents would not reveal a plot to law enforcement, even if they don’t support the attacks. First, they may be hesitant to put themselves on law enforcement’s radar by coming forward with information, because they may fear that they themselves could eventually become the targets of law enforcement. Second, they may believe it is un-Islamic to report Muslims to the authorities, just as many Orthodox Jews believe that it is wrong for a Jew to turn a fellow Jew in to authorities.

Recommendations

These survey results, on topics that are often not publicly discussed by American Muslims, should encourage American Muslims at the grassroots to begin an open and honest discussion regarding (1) their place in America and their relationship with America, (2) the use of violence by America and against America, (3) and what, if anything, American Muslims can do or are willing to do to help formulate and promote domestic and foreign policies that have the best chance of making Muslims and America safer. Open and honest discussion is the first step towards address the tensions reflected in the survey responses. American Muslim organizations should provide forums for such discussions.

Since 9/11, many Americans of other faiths (or no faith) have been fearful that some American Muslims may pose a threat to this country. These survey results may reinforce those fears. However, Americans of other faiths (or no faith) should be supportive of open and honest discussion about these issues within the American Muslim community. They should refrain from lashing out at American Muslims who are willing to come to the table to openly discuss these controversial issues, because such discussion is healthy for America and for American Muslims. The alternative is keep these issues underground, where we cannot address them together.

Similarly, while government officials will be uncomfortable about some of the views expressed during these American Muslim community discussions, the government should not target American Muslims who voice unpopular opinions, because investigations based on people’s beliefs will stifle discussion and keep tensions hidden.

Furthermore, Americans of other faiths (or no faith) should acknowledge that American Muslims have a variety of views, and Americans of other faiths (or no faith) should avoid painting all American Muslims with a broad brush.

Bio

Kamran Memon is the founder of Muslims of Safe America (www.muslimsforasafeamerica.org), which encourages discussion about how to make Muslims and America safer. He is a civil rights attorney practicing in Chicago. He is a co-founder of the Muslim Bar Association of Chicago and CAIR-Chicago. Before attending the University of Chicago Law School, he was the Editor of Islamic Horizons.

307 Muslims (men and women of a wide range of ages, races, ethnicities, and national origins) who are American citizens participated in the survey at the Muslims For A Safe America booth at ISNA.

The purpose of the survey was to better understand the views of American Muslims on issues relating to American national security. It is important to let American Muslims articulate their varied opinions on these issues in order to encourage dialogue within the American Muslim community and with the rest of American society.

Although this was not a scientific survey, because ISNA Convention attendees who visited the Muslims For A Safe America booth are not necessarily representative of the American Muslim community as a whole, the validity of the results has been supported by other scientific surveys.

Furthermore, the same survey was conducted at the Muslim American Society/Islamic Circle of North America Annual Convention in Dearborn in December 2006. Results at ISNA and MAS/ICNA were similar in terms of percentages.

The responses from the 2006 ISNA Convention are as follows:

1. Are you a U.S. Citizen? (If no, then don’t fill out survey.)
YES 307 (100%)
NO 0 (0%)

2. Do you consider yourself to be a Muslim first, an American first, or both equally?
MUSLIM FIRST 214 (70%)
AMERICAN FIRST 4 (1%)
BOTH EQUALLY 86 (28%)
DID NOT ANSWER 3 (1%)

3. Is the American government at war with the religion of Islam?
YES 208 (68%)
NO 79 (26%)
DID NOT ANSWER 20 (7%)

4. Can a good Muslim be a good American?
YES 292 (95%)
NO 11 (4%)
DID NOT ANSWER 4 (1%)

5. Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?
YES 117 (38%)
NO 139 (45%)
DID NOT ANSWER 51 (17%)

6. Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?
YES 200 (65%)
NO 70 (23%)
DID NOT ANSWER 37 (12%)

7. Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?
YES 106 (35%)
NO 151 (49%)
DID NOT ANSWER 50 (16%)

8. Are the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, real or fake?
REAL 126 (41%)
FAKE 129 (42%)
DID NOT ANSWER 52 (17%)

9. Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?
YES 140 (46%)
NO 104 (34%)
DID NOT ANSWER 63 (21%)

10. The Canadian government says it stopped a plot by Canadian Muslims in June 2006 to attack targets in Canada. Do you believe there was a real plot by Muslims?
YES 61 (20%)
NO 202 (66%)
DID NOT ANSWER 44 (14%)

11. The British government says it stopped a plot by British Muslims in August 2006 to bomb planes flying to America. Do you believe there was a real plot by Muslims?
YES 66 (21%)
NO 191 (62%)
DID NOT ANSWER 50 (16%)

12. Is Al Qaeda a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America?
YES 149 (49%)
NO 109 (36%)
DID NOT ANSWER 49 (15%)

13. Is Al Qaeda attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American freedoms?
YES 17 (6%)
NO 269 (88%)
DID NOT ANSWER 21 (6%)

14. Is Al Qaeda attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American involvement in the Muslim world?
YES 228 (74%)
NO 54 (18%)
DID NOT ANSWER 25 (8%)

15. Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America:

a. taking religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports?
YES 37 (12%)
NO 258 (84%)
DID NOT ANSWER 12 (4%)

b. monitoring activities at American mosques?
YES 43 (14%)
NO 255 (83%)
DID NOT ANSWER 9 (3%)

c. listening to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda?
YES 64 (21%)
NO 232 (76%)
DID NOT ANSWER 11 (3%)

d. having an informer pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to attack American targets?
YES 35 (11%)
NO 258 (84%)
DID NOT ANSWER 14 (5%)

e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?
YES 52 (17%)
NO 242 (79%)
DID NOT ANSWER 13 (4%)

f. focusing Immigration & Customs Enforcement resources on deporting Muslim illegal aliens, who have not been convicted of terrorism, in the hopes of disrupting possible Al Qaeda attacks?
YES 29 (9%)
NO 263 (86%)
DID NOT ANSWER 15 (5%)

g. allowing Muslim illegal aliens to stay in America if they agree to work as informants, monitoring the Muslim community for the government?
YES 21 (7%)
NO 277 (90%)
DID NOT ANSWER 9 (3%)

h. torturing suspected Al Qaeda members to get information about possible planned attacks?
YES 14 (5%)
NO 278 (91%)
DID NOT ANSWER 15 (4%)

16. Do you believe that your local mosque is being monitored by wiretaps, government agents, or informants?
YES 227 (74%)
NO 59 (19%)
DID NOT ANSWER 21 (7%)

17. Do you believe that your personal phone calls are being listened to, or that your personal mail or email is being read, by the U.S. government?
YES 205 (67%)
NO 78 (25%)
DID NOT ANSWER 24 (8%)

18. Do you believe that your home is bugged by the U.S. government?
YES 97 (32%)
NO 189 (62%)
DID NOT ANSWER 21 (6%)

19. Do you believe that the U.S. government has secretly searched your home?
YES 43 (14%)
NO 245 (80%)
DID NOT ANSWER 19 (6%)

20. If you, or a member of your family, have been questioned by the federal government at any time after 9/11, how were you treated during the interview?
TREATED WELL 65 (21%)
TREATED BADLY 25 (8%)
DID NOT ANSWER 217 (71%)

21. Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?
YES 161 (52%)
NO 123 (40%)
DID NOT ANSWER 23 (8%)

22. Should America attack Iran to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
YES 10 (3%)
NO 292 (95%)
DID NOT ANSWER 5 (2%)

23. Was America justified in invading Iraq in 2003?
YES 8 (3%)
NO 294 (96%)
DID NOT ANSWER 5 (2%)

24. Should American troops leave Iraq immediately, or stay there until the Iraqi government and Iraqi military are stronger?
LEAVE NOW 199 (65%)
LEAVE LATER 86 (28%)
DID NOT ANSWER 22 (7%)

25. Was America justified in invading Afghanistan after 9/11?
YES 51 (17%)
NO 248 (81%)
DID NOT ANSWER 8 (3%)

26. Is violence by Muslims against American civilians acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 23 (7%)
NO 274 (89%)
DID NOT ANSWER 10 (3%)

27. Is violence by Muslims against the American military overseas acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 134 (44%)
NO 154 (50%)
DID NOT ANSWER 19 (6%)

28. Is violence by Muslims against the American military in the U.S. acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 73 (24%)
NO 211 (69%)
DID NOT ANSWER 23 (7%)

29. Is violence by Muslims against American government officials acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 51 (17%)
NO 231 (75%)
DID NOT ANSWER 25 (8%)

30. If you learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, would you tell law enforcement authorities?
YES 234 (76%)
NO 39 (13%)
DID NOT ANSWER 34 (11%)

These survey results (above) are based on 307 responses from American Muslims (Muslims who are U.S. citizens) who visited the booth of Muslims for A Safe America during 2006 ISNA Annual Convention.

The same survey was conducted at the Muslim American Society/Islamic Circle of North America’s Annual Convention in Dearborn from December 23, 2006 to December 24, 2006.

48 Muslims who are American citizens participated in the survey at the Muslims For A Safe America booth at MAS/ICNA.

The results, which were similar (in terms of percentages) to the results at the ISNA Convention, are as follows:

1. Are you a U.S. Citizen? (If no, then don’t fill out survey.)
YES 48 (100%)
NO 0 (0%)

2. Do you consider yourself to be a Muslim first, an American first, or both equally?
MUSLIM FIRST 35 (73%)
AMERICAN FIRST 2 (4%)
BOTH EQUALLY 10 (21%)
DID NOT ANSWER 1 (2%)

3. Is the American government at war with the religion of Islam?
YES 32 (67%)
NO 15 (31%)
DID NOT ANSWER 1 (2%)

4. Can a good Muslim be a good American?
YES 46 (96%)
NO 2 (4%)
DID NOT ANSWER 0 (0%)

5. Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?
YES 14 (29%)
NO 32 (67%)
DID NOT ANSWER 2 (4%)

6. Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?
YES 28 (58%)
NO 13 (27%)
DID NOT ANSWER 7 (15%)

7. Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?
YES 19 (40%)
NO 19 (40%)
DID NOT ANSWER 10 (20%)

8. Are the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, real or fake?
REAL 16 (33%)
FAKE 23 (48%)
DID NOT ANSWER 9 (19%)

9. Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?
YES 16 (33%)
NO 21 (44%)
DID NOT ANSWER 11 (23%)

10. The Canadian government says it stopped a plot by Canadian Muslims in June 2006 to attack targets in Canada. Do you believe there was a real plot by Muslims?
YES 6 (13%)
NO 30 (63%)
DID NOT ANSWER 12 (24%)

11. The British government says it stopped a plot by British Muslims in August 2006 to bomb planes flying to America. Do you believe there was a real plot by Muslims?
YES 4 (8%)
NO 36 (75%)
DID NOT ANSWER 8 (17%)

12. Is Al Qaeda a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America?
YES 25 (52%)
NO 23 (48%)
DID NOT ANSWER 0 (0%)

13. Is Al Qaeda attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American freedoms?
YES 5 (10%)
NO 40 (83%)
DID NOT ANSWER 3 (7%)

14. Is Al Qaeda attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American involvement in the Muslim world?
YES 34 (71%)
NO 9 (19%)
DID NOT ANSWER 5 (10%)

15. Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America:

a. taking religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports?
YES 9 (19%)
NO 37 (77%)
DID NOT ANSWER 2 (4%)

b. monitoring activities at American mosques?
YES 8 (17%)
NO 38 (79%)
DID NOT ANSWER 2 (4%)

c. listening to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda?
YES 9 (19%)
NO 37 (77%)
DID NOT ANSWER 2 (4%)

d. having an informer pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to attack American targets?
YES 8 (17%)
NO 38 (79%)
DID NOT ANSWER 2 (4%)

e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?
YES 12 (25%)
NO 34 (71%)
DID NOT ANSWER 2 (4%)

f. focusing Immigration & Customs Enforcement resources on deporting Muslim illegal aliens, who have not been convicted of terrorism, in the hopes of disrupting possible Al Qaeda attacks?
YES 7 (15%)
NO 36 (75%)
DID NOT ANSWER 5 (10%)

g. allowing Muslim illegal aliens to stay in America if they agree to work as informants, monitoring the Muslim community for the government?
YES 5 (10%)
NO 38 (79%)
DID NOT ANSWER 5 (11%)

h. torturing suspected Al Qaeda members to get information about possible planned attacks?
YES 8 (17%)
NO 37 (77%)
DID NOT ANSWER 3 (6%)

16. Do you believe that your local mosque is being monitored by wiretaps, government agents, or informants?
YES 34 (71%)
NO 12 (25%)
DID NOT ANSWER 2 (4%)

17. Do you believe that your personal phone calls are being listened to, or that your personal mail or email is being read, by the U.S. government?
YES 28 (58%)
NO 14 (29%)
DID NOT ANSWER 6 (13%)

18. Do you believe that your home is bugged by the U.S. government?
YES 15 (31%)
NO 29 (60%)
DID NOT ANSWER 4 (9%)

19. Do you believe that the U.S. government has secretly searched your home?
YES 9 (19%)
NO 36 (75%)
DID NOT ANSWER 3 (6%)

20. If you, or a member of your family, have been questioned by the federal government at any time after 9/11, how were you treated during the interview?
TREATED WELL 10 (21%)
TREATED BADLY 2 (4%)
DID NOT ANSWER 36 (75%)

21. Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?
YES 26 (54%)
NO 16 (33%)
DID NOT ANSWER 6 (13%)

22. Should America attack Iran to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
YES 5 (10%)
NO 40 (83%)
DID NOT ANSWER 3 (7%)

23. Was America justified in invading Iraq in 2003?
YES 3 (6%)
NO 42 (88%)
DID NOT ANSWER 3 (6%)

24. Should American troops leave Iraq immediately, or stay there until the Iraqi government and Iraqi military are stronger?
LEAVE NOW 34 (71%)
LEAVE LATER 9 (19%)
DID NOT ANSWER 5 (10%)

25. Was America justified in invading Afghanistan after 9/11?
YES 2 (4%)
NO 38 (79%)
DID NOT ANSWER 8 (17%)

26. Is violence by Muslims against American civilians acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 5 (10%)
NO 39 (81%)
DID NOT ANSWER 4 (9%)

27. Is violence by Muslims against the American military overseas acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 18 (38%)
NO 26 (54%)
DID NOT ANSWER 4 (8%)

28. Is violence by Muslims against the American military in the U.S. acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 6 (13%)
NO 40 (83%)
DID NOT ANSWER 2 (4%)

29. Is violence by Muslims against American government officials acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 6 (13%)
NO 38 (79%)
DID NOT ANSWER 4 (8%)

30. If you learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, would you tell law enforcement authorities?
YES 37 (77%)
NO 8 (17%)
DID NOT ANSWER 3 (6%)

This second set of survey results is based on 48 responses from American Muslims (Muslims who are U.S. citizens) who visited the booth of Muslims for A Safe America during 2006 MAS/ICNA Annual Convention.

Hezbollah was formed in 1982 to challenge Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. After an 18-year occupation, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, but Hezbollah has continued to seek (1) Israeli withdrawal from the disputed Shebaa Farms region, (2) disclosure by Israel of the locations of live landmines that Israel left in southern Lebanon, and (3) release by Israel of prisoners.

In July 2006, Hezbollah attacked Israeli soldiers in Israel, killing three soldiers, wounding two soldiers, and capturing two Israeli soldiers, with the intention of using them as a bargaining chip. Israel responded by attacking Hezbollah targets and civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, in order to destroy Hezbollah and prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel again. Hezbollah responded to the Israeli bombing campaign by launching rockets into Israel. Hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israeli bombs, and almost 50 Israeli civilians have been killed by Hezbollah rockets.

Hezbollah says it wants Israel to be replaced by a Palestinian state where Muslims, Christians, and Jews have equality. Hezbollah, which has seats in the Lebanese parliament and ministers in the Lebanese government, says it seeks to use democratic means to establish an Islamic state in Lebanon.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The War Is Making America Safer

1. The destruction of Hezbollah would be a blow against all jihadists, because Hezbollah is part of a global jihadist movement which includes Al Qaeda (which has targeted America). Furthermore, the U.S. believes that Al Qaeda officials met with Hezbollah officials, and that Hezbollah gave Al Qaeda some explosives training, in the 1990s.

2. Hezbollah was hostile to America in the 1980s. The U.S. believes Hezbollah (which opposed American intervention in the Lebanese civil war) was responsible for killing 241 U.S. soldiers in a bombing in Lebanon in 1983, and for killing 17 Americans in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon in 1983. In the 1980s, Hezbollah also kidnapped 18 Americans in the Middle East, and killed the CIA station chief.

3. America must fight all jihadists, even if they don’t pose a threat to the U.S., because America must help its allies (like Israel) in their wars, if America wants them to help with America’s war against Al Qaeda.

4. There is no risk of the war expanding and drawing American troops in. Even if Israel accidentally strikes Syria, Syria will not enter the war, because its military is weak. Furthermore, Iran doesn’t want to fight Israel now, because Iran wants to be able to continue its nuclear program. So the war will remain limited to Hezbollah and Israel.

5. The deaths of Muslim civilians in Lebanon will not harm America. The Muslim masses will blame Hezbollah (not America) for those deaths, because Hezbollah started this crisis by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, and because Hezbollah puts Muslim civilians at risk by placing its command and control centers, weapons stockpiles, and missile sites in civilian areas, knowing that Israel will attack those areas. Furthermore, Al Qaeda would try to attack the U.S., even if the U.S. had demanded an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon.

6. The destruction of Hezbollah would weaken Iran (which sponsors Hezbollah), and prevent Iran from expanding its influence in the region. The destruction of Hezbollah would also eliminate an obstacle to a future Israeli or American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

7. America must do whatever is in Israel’s best interests, because Israel is America’s best ally in the Middle East.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The War Is Not Making America Safer

1. The global jihadist movement did not attack America on 9/11. Neither did Hezbollah. Al Qaeda attacked America. Shia Hezbollah is a rival of Sunni Al Qaeda, which is America’s real enemy. Hezbollah criticized Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on America. Hezbollah does want an Islamic government to come to power through elections in Lebanon, but it does not share Al Qaeda’s goal of driving America out of the Muslim world and establishing an Islamic state in all lands that were ever under Muslim rule. So the destruction of Hezbollah doesn’t help America.

2. Hezbollah poses no present-day threat to America. Hezbollah has not targeted Americans in the Middle East since the 1980s. Hezbollah has never targeted Americans outside the Middle East. The FBI says there is no evidence that Hezbollah seeks to attack targets in America. (Hezbollah has raised funds in the U.S., but not for operations against American targets.)

3. Hezbollah threatens Israel, but not America. By taking sides in other people’s wars, America unnecessarily makes more enemies, making us less safe.

4. If the war expands, American troops could be drawn in. Israel is bombing Lebanese targets not far from the Syria-Lebanon border. If a bomb accidentally hits Syrian territory, Syria will enter the war. Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact, so Iran will be drawn in. Then the U.S. may be drawn in.

5. The deaths of Muslim civilians in Lebanon have increased anti-American feeling in the Muslim world, because Muslims blame America for arming Israel and preventing a ceasefire. This makes it easier for Al Qaeda to raise funds, from those who might otherwise have been hesitant, and recruit agents to attack American targets.

6. By staying in the fight against powerful Israel, Hezbollah has strengthened its position in the Muslim world, among Sunnis and Shias. Hezbollah’s increased popularity strengthens its ally, the Iranian government, and anti-American Shia forces in Iraq.

7. The war is hurting America’s relations with the Muslim world. America would have many good allies, in addition to Israel, in the Middle East if America made an even-handed attempt to help all parties in the Middle East resolve their grievances.

NOTE: During the war, two-thirds of Americans believed that the United States should not have favored either Israel or Hezbollah.

Dear Senator/Congressman:

Muslims For A Safe America evaluates American policies, foreign and domestic, based on whether those policies ultimately make America more safe or less safe. We believe the U.S. government should do the same.

Regarding the current Mideast crisis, we urge you to fully assess the risks that America faces.

After Hamas and Hezbollah killed and captured Israeli soldiers, Israel responded by using American weapons and American taxpayer dollars to bomb civilian infrastructure, killing hundreds of Muslim and Christian civilians. Hezbollah responded by attacking civilian targets in Israel, killing approximately 20 Jewish civilians. The Bush Administration opposes Hezbollah’s attacks on civilian targets in Israel, but supports Israeli attacks (using American weapons and American taxpayer dollars) on civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and Palestine.

Israel believes that attacks on civilian infrastructure are justified on the grounds that (1) if Israel inflicts enough pain on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, they will turn against Hamas and Hezbollah, (2) Hamas and Hezbollah forces are embedded in civilian areas and benefit from civilian infrastructure, and (3) Hezbollah and Hamas must be destroyed in order to ensure Israel’s security.

Some argue that the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah will also make America safer, because Hamas and Hezbollah have relationships with Al Qaeda. However, Hezbollah has not targeted Americans for decades. Hamas has never targeted Americans. Al Qaeda is the real threat to us.

[NOTE: See Muslim, other groups ask FBI to be sensitive in Hezbollah probe, in which the FBI says there is no indication Hezbollah is planning an attack in the U.S. or on U.S. interests abroad. See FBI eyes Hizbollah in US as tensions with Iran rise, in which the FBI says Hezbollah has been "reluctant" to attack American targets, but that may change as a result of recent events. "'If the situation escalates, will Hizbollah take the gloves off, so to speak, and attack here in the United States, which they've been reluctant to do until now?' said William Kowalski, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI in Detroit." See also This is not our war and Islamic radical groups are not all alike.]

What the Bush Administration appears to be leaving out of the equation is the damage to American security being caused by Israel’s attacks on civilian infrastructure, using American weapons and American taxpayer dollars. Our government’s support for such attacks – and our government’s opposition to a ceasefire – makes you and me less safe, because it boosts anti-American feelings in the Muslim world and makes it easier for Al Qaeda to raise funds and recruit agents for attacks on the U.S. On the other hand, American support for a ceasefire and for U.N. peacekeepers, followed by an even-handed American attempt to help the parties resolve their grievances, would undermine Al Qaeda’s ability to raise funds and recruit agents for attacks on the U.S.

If the increased risk of Al Qaeda attacks on American targets around the world is outweighed by the benefit to America of our hands-off approach towards the current crisis, then stay the course. If, on the other hand, the increased risk of Al Qaeda attacks on American targets outweighs the benefit to America of our hands-off approach towards the current crisis, we must change course.

Our concern is that the Bush Administration, driven by ideology rather than realism, is not fully considering all the risks and benefits of our hands-off approach towards the current crisis. We request that you urge the Bush Administration to properly weigh all the risks and benefits, so that you and I are safer at the end of the day.

We do not ask you to support one side or the other in this conflict. We only ask that you put American security interests above any other interests.

Sincerely,

Kamran Memon

Police report: foreign policy helped make UK a target, The Guardian, July 7, 2006

Landscape Changes for Muslims in Britain after Bombing, National Public Radio, July 6, 2006

British Muslims report, Public Radio International, July 5, 2006

Blair says Muslim leaders must do more, The Guardian, July 5, 2006

Community divided on terrorism and security, The Times, July 4, 2006

Muslim Britain split over ‘martyrs’ of 7/7, The Times, July 4, 2006

Islam in Britain, The Times, July 4, 2006

We must defeat ideas of extremists, says Blair, The Guardian, July 4, 2006

Al-Qaida plan to infiltrate MI5 revealed, The Guardian, July 4, 2006

After the bombs, The Guardian, July 4, 2006

Muslim police want bigger role in fighting terror, The Guardian, June 20, 2006

Security services need more Muslim operatives, says CRE chief, The Guardian, June 19, 2006

A defiant Islam rises among young Britons, The Christian Science Monitor, July 11, 2005

With successful raids, British chip away at terror threat, The Christian Science Monitor, March 31, 2004

On June 29, 2006, some Chicagoland Muslim leaders (who prefer to remain anonymous) and I met with Rob Grant, head of the FBI’s Chicago office. We discussed a number of issues of importance to Chicagoland Muslims.

THE FBI FEARS HOMEGROWN ATTACKS

Agent Grant said that Osama Bin Ladin has transformed from a battlefield commander to an inspirational figure. He said the government remains concerned about Al Qaeda agents from outside the U.S. bringing weapons of mass destruction into the U.S., but the more likely threat comes from self-motivating individuals in the U.S. coming together to form well-trained, disciplined groups who decide on their own to launch attacks because of their opposition to American governmental actions, like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. (He said these types of local groups were responsible for the 2004 Madrid bombings and the 2005 London bombings.) He is concerned about such groups making bombs, using publicly available information and materials, and attacking trains in Chicago. He said angry individuals may be inspired by a leader and by videos on the Internet. (He said there are over 4,000 pro-Al Qaeda websites on the Internet.)

Agent Grant said the FBI is not concerned about Muslims criticizing U.S. policy, but the FBI is concerned about anti-American rhetoric that encourages violence. (He cited the example of Matthew Hale, imprisoned former head of the “World Church of the Creator,” a white supremacist leader who inspired his followers to launch racial attacks in Chicagoland a few years ago.) Agent Grant said such encouragement likely takes place behind closed doors, not publicly. He said inspirational leaders look for people who are susceptible to manipulation.

Agent Grant said that such plots are hard to detect using wiretaps and other intelligence tools. Instead, they are more likely to be detected by local police who have good relations with local communities. (He said that local police and neighbors in London should have known that something suspicious was going on in the apartment where the bombs were being made in 2005; for example, he said, plants were dying outside the apartment, because of dangerous chemicals inside the apartment, but neighbors never brought this to the attention of local law enforcement, and law enforcement was not independently on the lookout for clues regarding the presence of chemicals in residential areas.) He said such plots have been discovered in various cities in the U.S. Agent Grant said that local Muslims should notify law enforcement if there is someone the local community is concerned about.

An imam participating in the meeting said many Muslims are skeptical about the existence of domestic terror plots. He said the government has been watching Muslims since 9/11, so if there were plots, they would have been discovered already. He said he is not aware of local imams who advocate isolation from American society (such as opposition to getting involved in American politics), the way a Canadian imam (who was arrested in June 2006 on terrorism charges) advocated isolation. The imam participating in the meeting said he is aware of online praise by some Muslims for violence, but he asked how other Muslims could tell when someone using heated rhetoric was really dangerous, rather than just letting off steam.

Agent Grant said one sign of possible danger is when a group of Muslims change their behavior (as the London bombers did) or separate from the rest of the Muslim community.

Agent Grant also expressed concern about angry, young Muslim prison inmates being recruited for attacks. Therefore, he said, the FBI is concerned about who is preaching to prisoners, and whether the preachers express hatred for America. Agent Grant cited the example of Muslim prisoners and ex-prisoners in California who were charged in August 2005 with planning to attack National Guard facilities, synagogues, and the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles.

Agent Grant also expressed concern about individuals acting alone. He cited the example of a North Carolina Muslim who was charged in March 2006 with attempted murder and felony assault after he attempted to run people over with an SUV. Nine people were injured. That individual wrote a letter to the media saying his attack on Americans was in retaliation for U.S. military attacks on Muslims overseas.

FBI INVESTIGATIONS IN CHICAGO

Agent Grant said the FBI investigates anytime they learn of a possible threat. He said the FBI has six teams working on terrorism investigations in Chicago. He said that most people who are investigated are ultimately cleared by the FBI.

He said that, around the country, the FBI has investigated Muslims whose phone numbers were found in computers that were found in Al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion; Muslims who trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan before 9/11; Muslims who donated money to groups designated by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations; and Muslims who have made public or private statements in support of violence, including statements supporting the 9/11 attacks.

CHICAGOLAND IRAQIS HELPED THE FBI

Agent Grant said that Chicagoland Iraqis, who were interviewed prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, provided the U.S. government with information on individuals who ought to be captured in Iraq.

THE FBI WANTS AN ENDORSEMENT FROM MUSLIM LEADERS

Agent Grant said there are Muslim agents working in the Chicago FBI office. He said young Muslims should not feel like the government is their enemy. He said young people should be encouraged to go into law enforcement, but the FBI cannot effectively recruit Muslims, because the FBI is perceived to be hostile to the Muslim community. He said that if Muslim leaders and parents believe that it’s good for young Muslims to pursue law enforcement careers, they can successfully encourage young Muslims to join law enforcement.

An imam participating in the meeting said it would be difficult to convince Muslims to join the FBI, because many Muslims believe the Muslim community has been unfairly targeted by law enforcement. He said Muslims were offended when the government scanned mosques for radioactivity (from dirty bombs or nuclear weapons). He also raised concerns about the government’s use of sting operations that encourage Muslims to join terror plots. He said many Muslims feel like second-class citizens.

PROTECTING MUSLIMS IF THERE IS ANOTHER ATTACK IN AMERICA

An imam participating in the meeting expressed concern about possible mob violence against Muslims if there is another terrorist attack in America. He expressed appreciation for local law enforcement officials who helped protect the Mosque Foundation after 9/11.

Agent Grant said it is wrong to judge all Muslims for the acts of a few, but he expects that if there is another attack in the U.S., there will be another backlash against Muslims. He said he hopes such a backlash will not be worse than the backlash that occurred after 9/11. If there is another attack, he said mosques should contact local law enforcement for protection. On 9/11, local law enforcement officials may not have known where local mosques were, he said, so they may not have sent protection to local mosques right away. But now, law enforcement officials know where local mosques are, and they might send protection to mosques even before mosques call for help. He said the FBI investigated hate crimes after 9/11, and it will do so in the future as well.

In June 2006, I met with FBI Agent Greg Fowler, Assistant Special Agent In Charge For Counter-Terrorism for the Chicago FBI office. I requested this meeting because of my concern that certain law enforcement actions which alienate American Muslims may be making our country less safe, because those actions may cause Muslims to hesitate about assisting law enforcement if the need ever arises. Ultimately, we ended up discussing a wide range of issues of concern to our community. The following is a summary.

THE FBI SAYS IT IS NOT SUSPICIOUS OF ALL MUSLIMS

Agent Fowler said a small minority of Muslims pose a potential terrorist threat, and the FBI tries to focus its counter-terrorism resources on them. Agent Fowler said the FBI is not interested in watching all Muslims, and it doesn’t have the resources to watch all of us. Right after 9/11, Agent Fowler (who was in Washington State at the time) got calls from people saying they were suspicious of their Muslim neighbors, or of people who looked Muslim. (The FBI still gets calls about “Muslim-looking” people taking pictures of buildings in Chicago.) Agent Fowler said that where there was some reason for concern, the FBI checked it out, and where there was no apparent basis for the caller’s concern, the FBI did not check it out.

THE VALUE OF AMERICAN MUSLIMS TO THE FBI

Agent Fowler said it’s important for the country’s safety for the FBI to have a good relationship with Muslims, because Muslims can provide information that could prevent attacks in the U.S.; by way of example, he said that there were signs that the London bombers were up to something, and British Muslims could have told British authorities about some of the suspicious activities they observed prior to the bombings, but they did not come forward. Agent Fowler said some American Muslims have been helpful to the FBI in some parts of the country.

AMERICAN MUSLIM DISTRUST OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

Agent Fowler said that he is aware that many Muslims distrust the FBI, and this distrust makes some Muslims less likely to offer help.

We discussed some reasons why many Chicagoland Muslims distrust law enforcement.

1. Agent Fowler said the government’s ongoing prosecution of Muhammad Salah has contributed to Muslim distrust of law enforcement, especially because of Israel’s connections to the case. Agent Fowler could not discuss this case because it is ongoing.

2. Many Muslims believe that law enforcement goes after Muslims, for issues unrelated to American national security, just because they are Muslim.
(a) We discussed the fact that close to 1,000 Muslim men were deported for immigration violations soon after 9/11, even though they had no proven links to terrorism. While it’s true that these men had violated immigration laws, the community was concerned about selective enforcement (focusing on Muslims who violated immigration laws, rather than everyone who violated immigration laws). Agent Fowler said there was a focus on Muslims in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, because of the background of the suspected hijackers, and there was a concern about potential terrorists using weak enforcement of immigration laws to stay in the country. [We did not discuss the issue of later Special Registration deportations, due to a lack of time.]
(b) We discussed the fact that several members of the “Virginia Paintball Jihad group” planned to fight against India, not against U.S. forces (although one was convicted of seeking to fight U.S. forces), and they were prosecuted under the rarely-used Neutrality Act. We talked about the community’s perception that people of other faiths (e.g. Jewish Americans conspiring to become settlers and fight Palestinians) would not be prosecuted for violations of the Neutrality Act. Agent Fowler said he was not sufficiently familiar with the Virginia case or the Neutrality Act to fully address these concerns; he said officials from Virginia could provide more information.

Agent Fowler said, in other cities, other non-Muslim communities believe the FBI is out to get them, for example on issues related to financial crimes.

3. Many Muslims believe that sting operations draw Muslims into plots that they might not otherwise consider. We discussed media reports that a Muslim informant encouraged Hamid Hayat from Lodi, CA to attend a terrorist training camp in Pakistan, and the informant cursed at Hayat when he said he hadn’t yet attended. We also discussed media reports that a Muslim informant pushed Shahawar Matin Siraj to join a plot to bomb a NY subway station, by telling Siraj that it was religiously acceptable and by showing him pictures of Muslims overseas being mistreated. Many Muslims believe that these cases show that the government is setting up Muslims who have made anti-American statements, but who have not demonstrated any intent or capability to be violent. Agent Fowler said that press reports don’t always give a complete picture, and that juries would not have convicted these men if the juries believed these men had been set up by the government. I pointed out that if the government alleges that Muslim men planned to attack local communities, fearful local juries will be tough on the Muslim defendants. Agent Fowler said he was not sufficiently familiar with these California and New York cases to fully address these concerns; he said officials from those states could provide more information.

FBI CONCERNED ABOUT YOUNG MUSLIMS POSSIBLY BEING RADICALIZED

Agent Fowler said he is concerned that some young American Muslims could be radicalized and become violent. He is aware of public online discussions, involving young Muslims, which suggest that such young Muslims may be susceptible to recruitment by terrorists. Agent Fowler said that it’s up to the Muslim community to ensure that our kids stay safe and out of trouble.

MUSLIMS WORKING FOR/WITH THE FBI

Agent Fowler said there are a number of Muslims working as FBI agents in the Chicago office. These agents help the FBI to understand the Muslim community and various cultures. As is the case with most FBI agents, their identities are unknown to the public. He would not confirm or deny that the FBI sends these agents undercover into the Chicagoland Muslim community, but he said that he would use undercover agents when the situation warranted it. He also said he would use Muslim confidential informants when appropriate. He said the Chicago FBI office uses all legal means available to it.

FOLLOW-UP

There were additional questions I wanted to ask, but we ran out of time. Insha’Allah, I will be meeting with Agent Fowler (and other government officials) again to follow-up on some of these issues, so if there are any issues you would like me to raise, please email me at kamran@muslimsforasafeamerica.org