Voices of moderate Muslims after the attacks

Reading this page as an archive

This essay records public responses that followed the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001. It focuses on Muslim voices that condemned the killing of civilians and challenged attempts to present violent extremism as representative of Islam.

The material reflects the language, sources and public debates of its period. It should be read alongside later scholarship and current historical research rather than treated as a complete account of Muslim opinion.

Responses from international Muslim bodies

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation held an emergency meeting in Doha, Qatar, in October 2001. Its representatives condemned the attacks and emphasized that terrorism conflicts with religious, moral and humanitarian values. They also warned that military responses should not create further civilian suffering or undermine Afghanistan's territorial integrity.

Contemporary statements from senior Muslim authorities in several countries likewise rejected hijacking, deliberate attacks on civilians and the use of religious language to excuse wrongdoing. These statements differed in political emphasis, but shared a clear concern about protecting innocent life.

Statements from scholars and civil-liberties organizations

Material collected by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty presented statements from Muslim scholars and legal authorities. The common position was that terrorizing civilians, killing noncombatants and praising such acts could not be justified under Islamic law or ethical teaching.

Canadian Muslim organizations also distinguished between the broad meaning of jihad as striving or struggle and violent attacks against civilians. Their public response described spiritual discipline, social responsibility and defense against aggression as matters requiring limits, accountability and concern for human life.

Community reflection in Canada and the United States

Public meetings and educational discussions in Toronto and elsewhere addressed the responsibilities of Muslims living in pluralist societies. Participants emphasized that interpretations of scripture require knowledge of history, law and theology, and warned against readings that turn political anger into hostility toward entire populations.

Other speakers discussed the fear experienced by Muslim families after the attacks, including the risk of harassment and discrimination. Their response combined condemnation of the attacks with appeals for solidarity, equal treatment and protection of religious freedom.

Academic perspectives

Scholars of Islam and Middle Eastern studies contributed statements and collected resources on the attacks, Afghanistan, humanitarian concerns, religious authority and anti-Muslim incidents. Their work stressed that political violence should not be used to define a world religion or to erase the range of Muslim interpretations.

• Religious authorities and national organizations publicly rejected attacks on civilians.
• Community educators explained why the concept of jihad cannot automatically be equated with terrorism.
• Researchers documented grief, political disagreement, humanitarian concerns and discrimination.
• Many contributors urged compassion and cooperation rather than retaliation against people who shared neither the perpetrators' actions nor their views.

Continuing relevance

The historical record is useful because it shows how communities responded under intense pressure. It also illustrates a recurring principle in the study of religion: political movements may invoke religious vocabulary, while other believers reject their interpretation as ethically and theologically unsound.

Readers comparing this essay with other material on Muslim statements against terrorism, the 2001 attack archive and religious tolerance should pay attention to date, authorship, audience and the difference between a historical report and a general claim about a community.

Editorial note

This page retains its historical subject and publication history while using an updated, contextual summary. The original essay was written in 2001 and last revised in 2010. References in the source archive may describe institutions, terminology and political conditions that have since changed.