Commentary, TAKE ACTION CENTER

He Needed the Sentence. The Record Did Not Need the Sentence.

Posted on by Bill McCarthy

Six days after nineteen men turned airliners into weapons, the president stood at a mosque in Washington and said the line that became policy. “Islam is peace.” The face of terror, he said, was not the true faith. Violence against innocents violated the fundamentals. A billion people found comfort in it. American Muslims were doctors and soldiers and neighbors and they would be treated as such.

That was September 17, 2001. It was not a seminar. It was triage. Mosques had already been threatened. Allies from Ankara to Riyadh were being asked to open airspace and intelligence. A war was coming and he needed the war to be against a network, not against a fifth of the planet. The sentence did that job. Whether the sentence described the religion is a different question. Twenty-five years of funerals is the exam.

What the Record Is

On the morning he was answering, 2,977 people were already dead. Almost all of them died because a specific reading of duty, martyrdom, and war against the infidel had been preached, funded, and trained until it could fly.

Since then the same current has kept a body count. A long-running global tally of Islamist attacks from 1979 through early 2024 logged tens of thousands of incidents and on the order of a quarter-million dead. The worst years were not 2001. They were the decade after the caliphate rose — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, the Sahel. The organizations have names everyone learned and then tried to forget: the Taliban, the Islamic State and its provinces, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda and the franchises. In 2024 the Islamic State network was still the deadliest single brand. In 2025, Western terrorism deaths jumped again after years of decline. New Orleans, New Year’s morning, a man inspired by the same black flag drove a truck into a crowd.

On American soil after 9/11, jihadists have killed on the order of 120 people — Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Pulse, Boston, the van attacks, the parade. That is not another 3,000. It is also not zero, and it is not “workplace violence.” Europe took Madrid, London, Bataclan, Nice, Manchester, the teacher in the classroom, the priest at the altar. October 7 was not al-Qaeda’s theology. It was another armed Islamist movement murdering families and calling it resistance. The dead do not parse the footnote.

Most of the dying has been Muslim-on-Muslim, which is the part the slogan never mentions. The people who preach the purest version do not start with Manhattan. They start with the Muslim who voted, the Muslim who would not veil, the Muslim who worked for the wrong army, the Yazidi, the Copt, the Jew.

Two Facts That Are Both True

There are more than two billion Muslims. The overwhelming majority will never plant a bomb. American Muslims, in the surveys that exist, reject suicide bombing at higher rates than many overseas communities. They serve. They pay taxes. Treating them as a fifth column is stupid and ugly and it is how you lose a country that still has a First Amendment.

It is also true that “a few extremists” does not explain a half-century of the same crime with the same citations. When pollsters asked across dozens of countries whether sharia should be the law of the land, the answers were not a rounding error. In large parts of South Asia and the Middle East the majority said yes. Asked whether leaving the faith should be a death-penalty matter, majorities said yes in several of the biggest Muslim countries. Asked whether suicide bombing could be justified to defend Islam, most said never — and minorities large enough to staff an army said sometimes or often. Forty percent in one Palestinian sample. Thirty-nine in Afghanistan. Twenty-nine in Egypt. Those are old surveys. Beliefs move. The pattern does not vanish because a president needed a noun.

A religion of two billion people will contain bakers and engineers and quiet grandmothers. It will also contain a political theology that has, for fourteen centuries, treated conquest, the subordination of the unbeliever, and the punishment of the apostate as questions of jurisprudence, not metaphors. You can find verses of restraint. You can find verses of the sword. The tradition that says the later ones govern the earlier ones is not a blog post. It is a school. The men who flew the planes were not confused about which school they were in.

What “Peace” Would Have to Mean

If peace means most adherents are not at war this afternoon, the sentence is cheaply true. Methodists are not at war this afternoon either. If peace means the authoritative tradition has no warrant for holy war, no law of the dhimmi, no death for the apostate, no political claim over the public square — then the sentence is a press release. Reformers inside the faith have been trying to make the second definition win for a long time. They have the harder job, because the first definition has the footnotes.

Bush was not required to settle seventh-century law on September 17. He was required to keep American Muslims from being hunted in the parking lot and to keep Pakistan’s airspace open. He did that. The cost of the sentence was that a generation of officials treated inquiry as bigotry. They called Fort Hood an isolated incident. They called the cartoon murders a lack of dialogue. They called grooming gangs a social-services problem. They called October 7 context. Every time the doctrine produced another pile of shoes, the sentence got another coat of paint.

The Useful Lie and the Useful Truth

The useful lie is that violence in the name of Islam is always a misunderstanding of a faith that only ever meant prayer rugs and charity. The useful truth is colder. A vast civilian population wants to live. A smaller, literate, funded, and theologically confident minority wants a state, a border, and a list of people who do not get to leave. The second group reads the same book as the first. It just reads the chapters the interfaith breakfast skips.

Can it be a religion of peace? In the sense that most of its people are not shooting anyone tonight — yes. In the sense that the political project built from its law and its war literature has spent the last twenty-five years explaining itself in blood — no. A president can declare a cease-fire with a noun. The noun does not have to agree.

The test is not a speech at a mosque. The test is what happens when the cartoon is drawn, the daughter leaves, the army shows up, and the man with the verse decides which verse applies. We have the test results. They did not arrive from nowhere. They arrived with a citation.

Help American Liberty PAC in our mission to elect conservatives and save our nation. Support – American Liberty PAC