Muslim Activists Demand 9/11 Museum Omit “Radical Islam” and “Jihad” from History Film


Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy

Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy who started the brouhaha is offended by the 9/11 museum film.

Muslim activists and their sympathizers want to shut down free speech and the proper description of the events of 9/11 described in a film titled, “The Rise of Al Qaeda” because it might offend some Muslims and because they think viewers are too stupid to realize the film is not referring to all Muslims.

They want lies, not history, to be told so no one will be upset. Some Muslims and their allies do not appear to be sorry about the terrorist events, but rather, they appear to want to whitewash 9/11 and other terrorist attacks and threats of attacks currently taking place to this day. It is they who will make reconciliation impossible with this PC nonsense.

The film is part of the 9/11 museum exhibit and, in explaining why 9/11 occurred, it refers to the terrorists as Islamists and their mission as jihad. It was anchored by Brian Williams of NBC News who carefully screened it beforehand. It shows terrorist training camps and al Qaeda attacks spanning decades with explanations of the ideology. It is only seven minutes long and is a small part of the exhibit though it should be the major part of the exhibit.

Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, Imam of a Manhattan Mosque, resigned from the panel advising the museum that he did so because he thinks we are all basically too stupid to understand the difference between terrorists and ordinary Muslims if we view this film.

In the letter he wrote upon his resignation, he said this:  “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”

He is playing on the myth being perpetrated that there is strong backlash against U.S. Muslims though there have been few cases.

The film was shown to left-wing interfaith advisory groups, including the minister daughter of Justice Breyer, Rev. Chloe Breyer, Peter Gudaitis, and Rev. Ruth Yoder Wenger, and they took strong exception to the film.

They claim that jihad is mostly a positive term. The terrorists were engaged in a jihad and most of the jihad that concerns us is terrorism. Jihad means holy war against non-Muslims. They also objected to calling Islamists terrorists because people will think it means all Islamists.

“The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,” Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter to the museum’s director. “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”

The museum will not change the film. Museum officials say it was vetted by several scholars of Islam and of terrorism.

“From the very beginning, we had a very heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective, and in no way smear an entire religion when we are talking about a terrorist group,” said Joseph C. Daniels, president and chief executive of the nonprofit foundation that oversees the memorial and museum.

The opponents don’t want the Muslim religion attached to it though it was done in the name of the religion – remember Ala Ahkbar?

Mourning Muslims were included in photo montages.

It is virtually impossible to tell the true story of 9/11 without using the words radical Islamist or jihad. Followers of radical Islam, using Islam as their motivation, are responsible for horrific acts and yet Muslims scream if we describe it accurately. If we can’t even use the proper words to describe what happened on 9/11, what will our history look like years from now? But, then again, maybe that’s the goal.

We are at war with radical Islamic terrorists who are committing jihad on non-Muslims and we had better be clear about that.

Read more at The New York Times.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments