Earlier this year, the Guardian (UK) reported:
in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the US government undertook the "preventative detention" of about 5,000 men on the basis of their birthplace and later sought a further 19,000 "voluntary interviews". Over the next year, more than 170,000 men from 24 predominantly Muslim countries and North Korea were fingerprinted and interviewed in a program of "special registration". None of these produced a single terrorism conviction.
Muslims were hauled away by the government to places unknown. They were not informed of the charges against them, had no idea when they would be released, and were not given access to lawyers. Several Muslim charities were raided, their offices shut down.
The Orwellian named Patriot Act had destroyed habeas corpus. US District Judge John Gleeson had "ruled that it is constitutionally permissible to round up foreign nationals on immigration charges based solely on their race, religion or country of origin. What's more, he said they can be detained indefinitely, even after they have agreed to be removed to their home countries" wrote David Cole, law professor at Georgetown University.
While the George W. Bush administration was rounding up Muslims, and launching attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, Jews and Christians spoke out against associating Islam with 9/11. Since then, while evidence against the official account of 9/11 has grown, so have attacks on Muslims and Islam.
Anti-Muslim bigots and political opportunists have rallied around opposition to the Islamic Center planned near Ground Zero — the site of the World Trade Center attacks.
Former Republican candidate for vice president Sarah Palin, candidates for 2010 elections, right-wing news media, and the Anti-defamation League (ADL) have jumped on the bandwagon.
Mosques are being vandalized, and the construction of new mosques opposed.
So why aren't Muslim "leaders" using their trump card — the false account of 9/11, to fight back?
If Muslim "leaders" were to fight back by denouncing the official account of 9/11 as patently false, they would find many Americans supporting their effort.
Nine years on, there's overwhelming evidence that the official account of 9/11 is false, and a significant number of Americans do not believe "The 9/11 Commission Report".
These include 220 senior military, intelligence, law enforcement, and government personnel; 1,200 architects and engineers; 250 pilots and aviation personnel; 400 professors; 300 survivors of 9/11; firefighters, and their numbers keep increasing.
"A poll taken by World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks."
In November 2007 Scripps Howard survey found that 32 percent believed it was "very likely", and 30 percent believed that it was "somewhat likely" that "some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings."
On Aug. 30, 2004, Zogby International, an independent US polling company, reported half (49.3 percent) of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around Sept. 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International.
On May 24, 2006, Zogby reported that 42 percent believe "believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up", and 44 percent "believe President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks (44 percent) or justified an attack on Iraq (44 percent). 43 percent were "not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse", and 45 percent believe the "government should reinvestigate the attacks".
There are dozens of books exposing the false account of 9/11 — books by Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, David Ray Griffin, are highly recommended to those who have the patience to digest the wealth of information he makes available.
Easier to digest is the 80-page "9/11 Unveiled" which is a free download — for sources, photos, videos, referred to in "9/11 Unveiled" go to The Wisdom Fund website.
Despite the widespread skepticism voiced by non-Muslims, Muslim "leaders" remain silent about 9/11. They refuse even to examine the facts about 9/11, and silence discussion of those facts by members of their organization.
Their silence implies agreement with the official account of 9/11 — now thoroughly debunked by engineers, architects, pilots, and others.
These silent Muslim "leaders" include officials of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) — the organizations most often cited by establishment news media.
As far as we know, no Muslim "leader" who came with the Obama administration, or who has been funded by the Obama administration, or whose articles appear in establishment newspapers such as the Washington Post, has criticized the official account of 9/11.
Interfaith organizations in which Muslims participate have remained silent — the truth about 9/11 would drastically change the tone and substance of their dialogue. 9/11 remains the elephant in the room. There are, however, exceptions.
Kevin Barrett's radio shows host outspoken critics of the official account of 9/11. Several African-American leaders have criticized the official account.
Muslims in South Africa invited me on a 3-week, 9/11 lecture tour where they arranged radio interviews, a television interview broadcast to 20 plus countries, and for me to speak to audiences of hundreds daily in 11 cities in South Africa, and in two cities in Malawi.
A similar effort by US Muslim organizations, in support of the "9/11 truth" movement, may have diminished the anti-Islam hysteria prevalent today.
The controversy over the $100 million Islamic Center being developed by the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement near "Ground Zero" in New York — now called Park51 — is a unique opportunity for Muslims to speak out on 9/11.
However, despite the repeated use of 9/11 by opponents of the Islamic Center, proponents of the Islamic Center have failed to point that there's hard evidence to refute the official account — 19 Arab hijackers led by Osama Bin Laden did not carry out the attacks of 9/11.
The evidence against Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda promised by then Secretary of State Colin Powell on NBC's Meet the Press, Sept. 23, 2001, has yet to be made available to the public. The Osama Bin Laden poster at the FBI website, does not claim that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
The Cordoba Initiative (founded 2004) last filed an IRS Form 990 in 2008 showing revenues $0, expenses $2,767, and net assets of $18,255. The American Society for Muslim Advancement (founded 1998) has apparently never filed an IRS Form 990.
Officials of the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement will need millions in donations to build the center. Their position on 9/11 will most likely reflect the position of their donors.
The Washington DC area is home to the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS); its influence extends well outside the area. A recent exchange of e-mails with officials at ADAMS is an example of the pervasive fear among Muslim "leaders" to speak out, or even be seen to provide a platform for others who speak out against the official account of 9/11.
Excerpts from the first e-mail exchange:
EM: But isn't it also our duty to stand for truth and justice even when it may involve some personal risk? Unfortunately, when it comes to the biggest issue of our time (9/11), it appears that Muslim "leaders" are unwilling to speak out. They are unwilling to even discuss the facts with fellow Muslims.
ADAMS: . . . the time and place to discuss 9/11 is through political dialogues like these. While Virginia Delegates have little impact on US national policy, they are responsible for legislation and regulation in Virginia that can and will affect our community . . . If you see our duty as being involved in these issues, why are you not signing up to attend this event?
Excerpts from the second e-mail exchange:
EM: I've been trying to get ADAMS to discuss 9/11 for quite some time, and keep hitting a brick wall. I believe that the official account of 9/11 is false. I've been told that ADAMS does not permit political discussion, and I have stopped using the ADAMS list to try to express my views on the subject.
ADAMS: Thank you for clarifying what you meant. . . . As a 501(c)(3) organization, ADAMS can organize or implement only those kind of political discussions that are non-partisan, . . . programs that are patently partisan would violate our legal status. Your message makes clear your strong partisan views about 9/11. It is your right to hold and promote such views. But all religious organizations are legally obliged to remain non-partisan, and to mount political outreach events only for the education of our community. . . . ADAMS therefore cannot legally provide a platform to promote personal and politicized views.
Excerpts from the third email exchange:
EM: I believe ADAMS misunderstands the role of 501(c)(3) corporations. Nonpartisan means not supporting a particular candidate. A 501(c)(3) corporation may hold and expound views on any issue. The Wisdom Fund is a 501(c)(3) corporation, established in 1995, . . . as examples of public expression: (1) our quarter page advertisement in the Obama inaugural issue of the Washington Times -- (bottom right), enlarged; (2) letter to the president, attorney general, etc. How can ADAMS claim to lead, and not take a position on the biggest issue of this decade — 9/11?
ADAMS: I have tried to rationally explain our position; it is clear you are not open to any position but your own. I have greeted you as a brother but your responses make clear you do not reciprocate that approach. I pray that Allah (SWT) will bless and guide you to the right path, and grant you Wisdom. Please do not respond to this e-mail. I will delete any further messages from you unread.
To summarize, ADAMS invited me to attend their dialogue with "Virginia Delegates" scheduled for July 28, then they claimed that they could not "legally provide a platform" for my views on 9/11. When I informed them that a 501(c)(3) corporation may legally voice its views — it may not support a candidate for office, ADAMS terminated the discussion.
ADAMS is not alone in shying away from 9/11. Mosques across America have similar policies. Several invitations that I received to talk on 9/11 were cancelled after they were issued and accepted — including two attended by high-ranking officials and imams from majority Muslim countries.
On Aug. 27, 1992, Leon T. Hadar, a former bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post, and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute, wrote in "The 'Green Peril': Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat":
Now that the Cold War is becoming a memory, America's foreign policy establishment has begun searching for new enemies. . . . Topping the list of potential new global bogeymen, however, are the Yellow Peril, the alleged threat to American economic security emanating from East Asia, and the so-called Green Peril (green is the color of Islam). . . .
George Will even suggested that the 1,000-year battle between Christendom and Islam might be breaking out . . .
Indeed, "a new specter is haunting America, one that some Americans consider more sinister than Marxism-Leninism," according to Douglas E. Streusand. . . .
"Islamic fundamentalism is an aggressive revolutionary movement as militant and violent as the Bolshevik, Fascist, and Nazi movements of the past," according to Amos Perlmutter. . . .
There are dangerous signs that the process of creating a monolithic threat out of isolated events and trends in the Moslem world is already beginning. . . .
It is not the Green Peril that the United States is facing in the gulf but the peril embodied in its own policies. In 1997, former National Security Advisor to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in "The Grand Chessboard":
A power that dominates Eurasia [the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching all the way through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean — including the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent] would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 percent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources.
The key to controlling Eurasia, said Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics.
In 1948, "the leading dove and peace prize winner" George Kennan wrote in the top secret Policy Planning Study 23 for the US Department of State:
We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population . . . Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity . . . To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality . . . We should cease to talk about vague and . . . unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization.
In the September 2000 report, Rebuilding America's Defenses, the neocon funded Project for the New American Century (PNAC) stated:
America's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy producing region, and East Asia . . .
A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.
9/11, many now believe, was the new Pearl Harbor, the pretext for the US "war on terror", a cover for advancing perceived American interests.
In fact the "war on terror", and the search for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, have brought the US economy to the brink of collapse, and has caused a massive shift of wealth from poor and middle-class Americans to the wealthiest few.
The silence of Muslim 'leaders' is inexcusable, risks driving some to violence
The 9/11 Commission investigation (Nov. 27, 2002 — Aug. 21, 2004) was flawed from the outset. It was set up despite strong resistance from the White House.
By March 2003, with the commission's staff barely in place, two men (Philip Zelikow, Executive Director, The 9/11 Commission, and Ernest R. May, a Harvard historian) had prepared a detailed outline, complete with "chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings" of the final report according to New York Times reporter Philip Shenon.
Zelikow served on the National Security Council under George H. W. Bush, on the George W. Bush transition team, and President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He coauthored a book with President Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.
Zelikow controlled the 9/11 Commission's access to witnesses. Testimony that did not support the official account was excluded from "The 9/11 Commission Report".
For American Muslims, whose faith commands them to strive for social justice — "the first pillar of Islam", and to "seek knowledge even unto China", blind acceptance of the official account of 9/11 is deplorable.
For Muslim "leaders", blind acceptance of the official account of 9/11, and their failure to denounce it, is inexcusable.
The renowned Indian, poet-philosopher Allama Iqbal (1877-1938), in his famous Shikwa & Jawab-i-Shikwa (Man's Complaint and God's Answer), wrote (translated from Urdu by Indian journalist-author Khushwant Singh):
Excluding opposing views risks driving some to express themselves in a more violent manner.
