The Truth About Terror

 From the end of my secondary school days through university, I had several non-Muslims, during conversations, attempt to convert me to their religion. Those who knew me personally could not accuse me of vices such as gambling, drinking, or reckless living, things conversion was often said to “save” people from. So, more often than not, the conversation shifted to terrorism.

“Why is terrorism usually linked to Islam?”

“Why are terrorists usually Muslims?”

From 9/11 to Boko Haram and then Hamas, these examples were repeatedly raised. My response was always simple: there is no part of Islam that commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims. The only context in which fighting is sanctioned is warfare, specifically defensive war, when Muslims are attacked and must defend themselves.

One can only imagine how many Muslims, over this same decade, were subjected to similar conversations. For those with little grounding or conviction, many may have quietly drifted away from Islam, especially after years of propaganda through news outlets, social media, and movies. We have repeatedly seen so called “Muslims” strapped with bombs on our screens, attempting to blow up places, while the “good guys” from the West swoop in, guns blazing, to clamp down on the “terrorists.”

But first principles must be questioned.

How does a person, on their own, decide to kill others purely as a religious ideology?

How does an entire religious society suddenly adopt mass killing as doctrine?

Without external influence, how do such individuals acquire weapons, training, logistics, and funding?

How does the everyday Muslim, someone with a family, bills, and responsibilities, conceive abandoning the struggle to fend for themselves or their loved ones in order to acquire ammunition solely to kill others?

As has become increasingly clear in recent years, most terror groups have sponsors, supply chains, and political motives. They may shout “Allāhu Akbar” while committing violence, but that does not make their actions Islamic. Evidence overwhelmingly shows that such groups are politically motivated, using religion as a mobilizing tool rather than as the root cause.

The events of September 11, 2001, are central to this discussion. We are told the attackers hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade Center. But basic questions remain: why would individuals leave their home countries simply out of hatred for non-Muslims to attack office buildings with aircraft? Multiple accounts and analyses have pointed out that the attack was highly pre planned, sophisticated, and far beyond what isolated religious zealotry could plausibly execute alone.

Questions were raised about the manner in which the towers collapsed, appearing to some observers more consistent with controlled demolition than impact alone. There were reports of the buildings being insured shortly before the incident, resulting in enormous financial gain. There were also accounts of people from particular demographics not showing up to work that morning.

While these points are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that there is nothing beyond the official narrative worth interrogating. At the very least, it is evident that 9/11 became a political gift.

The United States was able to manufacture consent, through a compliant Western media, to invade Muslim majority countries across the Middle East. Coincidentally, many of these countries surrounded Israel, which had long occupied Palestinian land. Subjugating these nations reduced resistance in the region and ensured that Israel, America’s major ally, faced fewer threats as it continued its occupation.

Under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, Middle Eastern countries were invaded, claims that have never been substantiated to this day. What followed was not liberation, but chaos: millions killed, displaced populations, destroyed infrastructure, stolen resources, and permanently destabilized societies.

It is also important to note that prior to 9/11, Islamophobia as a global phenomenon barely existed. Afterward, Muslims everywhere became legitimate targets of suspicion. The logic was simple and dangerous: because the attackers were Muslims, Muslims everywhere became less human. Torture, rape, drone strikes, mass surveillance, and collective punishment became acceptable. Entire populations were demonized.

Israel benefited immensely from this shift. Palestinian resistance could now be framed as “Islamic terrorism,” allowing decades long occupation, apartheid policies, and mass civilian killings to continue with little international outrage. Palestinians, too, were rendered less human.

Terrorism, however, is not unique to Muslims, nor has it historically been religious.

During slavery in the United States, the Ku Klux Klan terrorized Black Americans: lynching, maiming, burning homes, and enforcing racial subjugation through fear. This was terrorism. It was not Islam. More importantly, the KKK did not operate in opposition to Christianity. It openly drew legitimacy from the Church, through cross burnings, prayers, sermons, and clerical support. Many Klansmen explicitly saw themselves as defenders of “Christian civilization.” Yet Christianity itself was never placed on trial, nor were Christians collectively blamed for the KKK’s violence. The terror was rightly understood as racial and political, not theological.

This same double standard persists today, including within Nigeria. In very recent times, claims of a so called “Christian genocide” have circulated widely, with Muslims implicitly or explicitly blamed. Violence in the North is often hastily labelled “Islamic terrorism,” even when such violence is driven by banditry, criminal gangs, ethnic tensions, land disputes, or political failures rather than religion. Meanwhile, significant violence and terror carried out in the East by non Muslim actors, completely unrelated to Islam, are never framed as “Christian terrorism,” nor is Christianity blamed for the actions of those perpetrators.

Religion is selectively invoked only when Muslims are involved. Where Muslims are absent, violence is contextualized properly as social, political, or criminal. This inconsistency exposes that the accusation is not about truth, but about narrative control.

The uncomfortable truth is this: terrorism is overwhelmingly political, driven by power, grievance, occupation, and material interests. Religion is often the language used, not the cause. Groups cloak themselves in religious symbolism to recruit, to legitimize violence, and to simplify moral choices, but their objectives remain strategic and political.

Islam, like any faith, can be abused. But abuse does not define doctrine.

To conflate Islam with terrorism is not only intellectually lazy, it is historically false, morally unjust, and politically convenient. And as long as that lie persists, it will continue to serve those who profit from war, occupation, and fear. 

As Muslims we must hold firmly to our deen and refuse to be gaslit by accusations designed to weaken conviction and instill shame. Islam does not stand accused before propaganda, nor does it require validation from hostile narratives.

 Allah is sufficient as a Witness and as a Protector.

by Muhammad O. S