You rightly said that after 9/11 people have gone little suspicious when it comes to trust a muslim. But then again, as you said, a person should be judged by his behavior and not his color or religion.

The denounce terrorism, just because you don’t hear about it doesn’t mean that they don’t do it.

Al-Azhar, the most important Islamic institution in the world and head-quartered in Cairo, denounced the 9/11 attacks, and plenty others.

But let me ask you this: do you go around and condemn U.S. foreign policy that kills Iraqis and Palestinians? Did you condemn the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s that killed 500,000 people. Do you condemn U.S. military bases in the Middle East?

You want Muslims to condemn terrorism, but, yet, you do not condemn that very destructive policies that create terrorism in the first place. Terrorism is not born out of nowhere, it is a direct consequence of destructive American foreign policy.

I’m glad to hear it. we all need to stand for peace.

I believe in peace. I was writing based on the group on Facebook. I am glad to hear about Al-Azhar. I condemn violence in all it’s forms. We can vote out a govenment and it’s policies but hiding behind religion to promote violent attacks on inncocent people is as bad as it gets. Tell me where it says in the scriptures of the Muslim faith to use violence to kill people because of misguided foreign policies of other governments. I don’t think their scripture does. It’s in the interpretation that people do these misguided deeds.

Why do you always have to bring the Qur’an into it? I said nothing about interpretations and their relation to actions.

There is a stubborn Western tendency to attribute all Muslim actions to Islamic texts. Do all Christian act in accordance to the Bible? Of course not, and Muslims are no different. But a many Westerners seem to believe that for Muslims the only motive for action is the Qur’an. The only thing that actuates them is Islam. This is a gross fallacy.

There isn’t a more dogmatic, more persistent, more stubborn, and more hateful metarecite in Western discourse than the belief that Islam explains all matters when one is dealing with Muslims.

This metanarrative was properly addressed and critiqued in the exceptionally text by French orientalist Maxime Rodinson in “The Fascination with Islam.” In the text Rodinson coined the term “theolocentrism,” which he defined as the practice of attributing all observable phenomenons amongst Muslims to Islam. It is the belief that Muslims do as they do simply because of Islam.

The doctrine is incredibly fallacious. Those who advocate it are more obsessed with Islam than most Muslims. They seek to always find an Islamic motive when one does not actually exist. Instead of treating Muslims akin to all other people who compromise a diverse community and are actuated by myriad motives, the proponents of theolocentrism would instead prefer to reduce Muslims to a few characteristics and exclusively use Islam as the paradigm.

The person who championed this practice is the orientalist Bernard Lewis who - and, please, read his texts to see this yourself - will discuss contemporary events in Muslim countries by going back to medieval Islamic texts. Instead of understanding the political motives - the yearning for self-determination - that sparks Palestinians resistance, Lewis prefers instead to “find” a reason in something Ibn Sine wrote in Islamic Spain that most Palestinians have never even read.

This tactic is not innocent. It serves to de-legitimize the real grievances that Arabs and Muslims might have. Instead of addressing the injustice of Zionism, of Israeli occupation, of Western footprints in the region and highlight the political causes of anger between East-West, Lewis always offers up Islam as an “explanation.” You see, that way Israel and the West is never wrong. How could they be? Lewis makes it out to be that Palestinians are angry not because they are occupied, but, simply, because of atavism within Islam.

So the problem never is “our” policy, but always “their” religion and an effort to have a thoughtful discussion about Israel occupation and American military bases in the region is lost as the chance for introspection is subdued in an effort to always paint Islam as the enemy. Lewis tells us that Arabs and Muslims do not act out of any concrete political motives, but, simply, do so because of who they are.

That is, intentional or not, what you are proposing. Why do you think Islam is the reason for terrorism more than U.S. foreign policy. If a Muslim justifies actions by citing the Qur’an it is an after-the-fact phenomena. What moves him is American foreign policy, Islam is just a rhetorical tool not a motivator of action. It is not Islamism as a political ideology that is the cause, but rather U.S. foreign policy that gives Islamism legitimacy and a following.

You should open up your understanding beyond the narrow frame you follow now. You will understand more. And it is a unwarranted fallacy to suggest that Muslims need to apologize for terrorism or that this is a matter for interpretation, rather than a question of global politics.

Your comments about the religious vs the crimnal aspect of terrorists was enlightening. Very enlightening. I appreciate your time to write in such depth. Question. Would you mind explaining U.S. Foreign Policy as the excuse for terrorist activities? Also if US Foreign policy is to blame then why don’t countries so afflicted by the USA go to war with us rather than let a few crimnals fight a loosing battle against the USA?