On September 11th

Finally I had a chance to have a quick look on the (previously classified) joint inquiry report of the US senate and the US house on intelligence regarding the 9/11 attack. If you have time, I think it’s worth it to have a quick look on it.

After having a quick look, I think the root cause of the attack as well as the continuing conflicts up to this day, are two-sided. On one side, as the report also suggests, the involvement of the US, UK, and their allies’ government in the Middle East has brought great calamities to the Muslim world; thus inciting rebellion. The example of the ‘western’ involvement would be the sanction or embargo to Saddam Hussein government (i.e. the state of Iraq) since 1990 until 2003 as well as the unconditional supports given to the state of Israel, which continues even until this very day. The second cause is the miss-understanding of Islamic teaching by some Muslims who carry out the ‘jihad’. In one of his lecture, Syaikh Hamza Yusuf mentioned (minute 58) that Usama bin Laden, who was an accountant, has no legitimacy to issue any fatwa, moreover a fatwa on jihad. Usama bin Laden, when issuing the fatwa that any military and civilian of the US around the world are a legitimate target of jihad, referred to a fatwa issued by Syaikh Ibnu Taymiyyah (1263-1328) regarding the people of Mardeen. It turns out that Ibnu Taymiyyah’s fatwa was miss-printed. The original fatwa said the disbelievers should be treated as a disbeliever; but the print (that Usama bin Laden read) said, the disbelievers should be fought (the miss-printed fatwa is here).

Obviously I am very new to this issue; but I believe it is a must to understand this two sides of the story. Most of the western people will have a strongly negative view on Islam or Muslim community because they thought Islam or Muslim only want to kill them. On the other hand, many Muslims, especially those who are experiencing the western government ‘intervention’ (read: war) on their places, firmly believe that retaliating to western governments are a legitimate action to do.

Certainly I am far from being able to suggest any solution on this. But one thing that I am very sure will work: abstaining from unconditional supports to the state of Israel and various other interventions in many Muslim countries. Obviously this is most likely will never happen. The problem of eggs-and-chicken or miss-trust will always persist. The US will never back down from involving in Muslim countries affairs’ while the ‘jihadist’ will never back down too as long as the US still present.

Will dialogue help to solve the problem? For many Muslims, as long as the US still practice the hypocrisy, i.e. lecturing the world on human rights etc., while at the same time still supporting the terrorist activities of Zionist Israel, the dialogue will never ever be working. Why is it impossible for the US government to remove unconditional supports to Zionist Israel? Is the US support to Zionist Israel the only concern of many ‘jihadist’? or do they have other mission? There are many questions need to answered.

I am against any use of violence in the name of Islam, especially when it involves attacking civilians, yet I also clearly understand the disappointment of ‘jihadist’ towards US policies on Muslim countries. If it is fine for the US to directly support Israel in killing around 2,000 Palestinians in (just last) July-August 2014, then why the ‘jihadist’ are not allowed to kill US civilian as well?

This is certainly a very challenging issue.