Despite Vice-Pres. Cheney blaming Iraqi 'insurgents' as responsible for all terrorism in Iraq, Islamic world leaders have constantly spoken against this terrorism. On Oct. 13, 2001 Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., informed the House of Representatives and had inserted into Congressional Records that the grand imam of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Tantawi, denounced bin Laden. Rep. Pitts was clear in characterizing Sheikh Tantawi as "the highest and most respected Islamic authority in the world."

Within days after 9/11, Talgat Tajuddin, the high mufti of Russian Muslims, called for the extradition of bin Laden from Afghanistan. The high mufti stressed that a man who advises to kill cannot be God's counselor, however much he may quote the Quran. This is in contrast after 911 when George Bush speech writers carefully selected a response calling for a "Crusade" in retaliation.

The North American Fiqh (jurisprudence) Council issued a formal fatwa on Sept. 27, 2001, that condemned bin Ladin's actions of 9/11 and sanctioned Muslim participation in the United States' military response in Afghanistan.

On April 3, 2002, an extraordinary session of the Organization of Islamic Conference foreign ministers in Kuala Lumpur adopted a stark resolution condemning the brutal terror attacks of Sept. 11. Although the OIC is not a religious body, it is an umbrella organization of 57 Islamic countries.

On March 12 of this year, Spain's leading Muslim cleric's issued a religious order condemning bin Laden and declaring that he had violated Islam by backing attacks such as the Madrid train bombings. The order was issued after consultations with North African religious scholars in Morocco, Algeria and other countries.

These and many other ongoing actions today of leading Muslim Islamic Clerics are being deliberately ignored, instead it might be said deliberate lies and statements of Muslim or Islamic radicals are being used by the Cheney administration to facilitate disinformation.

[25:61] Blessed is He Who put in the heavens constellations, and put in it a lamp, and a light giving moon.
[21:33] It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its rounded curve.
[41:37] And from among His Signs are the night and the day, the sun and the moon. Prostrate (worship) not the sun or the moon, but prostrate (worship) to God Who created them, if you (really) worship Him.

First, the apologetic arose in the late nineteenth century in response to Western criticism that jihad meant "holy war" and that Islam was spread through force. Muslim apologists argued that the Qur'an and Prophetic traditions allow war only for self-defense against persecution and aggression. Some Muslim writers, particularly those in British India, restricted even further the legitimate scope of jihad by arguing that so long as no direct threat to Islamic worship was posed by European imperialists that Muslims should not challenge colonial rule. The medieval theorists who had defined jihad as expansionist war were, according to this view, simply misguided.

The second approach, the modernist, also diminishes jihad's military aspects and emphasizes its broader ethical dimensions within Islamic faith and practice. Like the apologists, the modernists dismiss the medieval theory as a distortion of Qur'anic ethics, pointing out, for example, that the division of the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb is found nowhere in the Qur'an or Prophetic traditions. A war is jihad, therefore, only if it is fought in defense of Muslim lives, property, and honor. Unlike the apologists, however, the modernists are motivated less by Western criticisms of jihad than by the desire to interpret this concept in a way compatible with modern international norms. Jihad in the modernist view is the Islamic equivalent of the Western idea of just war, a war fought to repel aggression with limited goals and by restricted means.

The third approach, the revivalist, arose in response to the apologist and modernist writings. By limiting jihad to self-defense, the revivalists claim, the apologists and modernists have debased the dynamic qualities of jihad. In the final years of the Prophet's life, the revivalists argue, jihad clearly meant the struggle to propagate the Islamic order worldwide. The goal of jihad today ought not to be to coerce people to accept Islam, because the Qur'an clearly encourages freedom of worship (especially 2:256); rather, it ought to be to overthrow un-Islamic regimes that corrupt their societies and divert people from service to God.

For revivalist writers, un-Islamic regimes include those ruling in most Muslim countries. The immediate goal of the revivalist jihad is to replace hypocritical leaders with true Muslims. Only when this long and painstaking internal struggle has succeeded in reestablishing an authentically Islamic base can the external jihad resume. Thus jihad is today largely synonymous with Islamic revolution in the works of most Muslim activists. By stating Muslim activists in no way including those involved in murdering innocent men, women, and children.

During his speech, Catholic Pope Benedict stressed that he was quoting words of a Byzantine emperor and did not comment directly on the "evil and inhuman" assessment. It is a common mistake by citizens (often uninformed in the matter at hand) to believe their intelligent leaders using intelligent advisor's by accident choose very inappropriate utterances purely by mistake. In matters of politics and state, every utterance is chosen for specific purpose, used for desired effect, and followed through thereafter as needed. Often accepted error then enables following with still bolder utterances for purpose.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

Pope Benedict XVI has said he is "very upset" that his speech on Islam offended Muslims and expressed his respect for their faith, according to the Vatican. However the Pope is referring to a period in which there were together a Christian, Jewish, Muslim religious or political wars of extension and infighting.

Questioning the concept of holy war, the Pope quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. This was no more true, and possibly less true, than most of the Christian crusade's.

During his address at the University of Regensburg on Tuesday, Benedict quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus. A transcript of the pope's remarks obtained by The Associated Press television network reads: "In the seventh (sura, or chapter of the Quran), the emperor comes to speak about jihad, holy war.

"The emperor certainly knew that (Quran) Sura 2, 256, reads: 'No force (compulsion) in matters of faith (religion)…" It is one of the early sura's, from a time -- as experts say -- in which Mohammed himself was still powerless and threatened.

"However, the emperor of course also knew the requirements about the holy war that were later formulated in the Quran. Without going into details like the handling of the owners of the scriptures, or non-believers, he (the emperor) turned to his interlocutors -- in a surprisingly brusque way -- with the central question after the relationship between religion and violence. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

To clarify the above; in what some call the Islamic Crusade, the Islamic conquest moving outward gave three options to those being conquered. They could convert to Islam (and share all benefits), they could keep their own religion or organization of community and pay tribute (taxes), or they could fight the army of Islam and die. It is true the "Book People" (Jewish and Christian) were among the few people allowed to keep their own faith and community by paying tribute, in so doing coming under the protection of the Islamic Muslim empire. Others if refusing to convert to Islam, and these being the barbaric tribes without religion, these would be systematically over-run and defeated. Both Christians and Jewish are still found within Middle East nations like Egypt, Iraq and Iran retaining their own religion, also holding offices within the governments of these nations.

Of the lands conquered by Islam and becoming the Islamic empire, these held many people who remained or kept their own religions, and these as stated included Jewish and Christians. In this context it is evident that the Islamic religion spread (not) by the sword of conversion, but in conquest of lands, and within these conquered lands remained people with religions of preference other than Islamic. Among these where people that immigrated to escape persecution and enjoy the security and protection of the Muslim Empire, among these were Jewish at one time escaping the Spanish Inquisition, also Jewish from European nations who were invited to immigrate during times of persecution.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, in a statement released Thursday Aug.14, 2006, said it "regrets the quotations cited by the Pope on the Life of the Honorable Prophet Mohammed, and what he referred to as 'spreading' Islam by the sword.'"

Attributing the spread of Islam around the world by the shedding of blood and violence, Islamic leaders are quick to say is 'incompatible with the nature of God' and a complete distortion of the facts, which shows deep ignorance of Islam and Islamic history. During the Muslim Empire of Spain, both Catholic (Christian) and Jew were allowed to keep their religion and churches or synagogue, the interaction of religious groups shared a society unequalled any where else in the entire world. It was when the Christian religious re-conquered Spain that this ceased and many if not most of Jewish and Islamic were driven out. This giving evidence of how other religions were allowed by the Islamic Muslims, but the opposite true of the Christian leaders in conquest.

Did the Pope step outside faith to make a political statement, this if true stepping outside the will of God. Didn't this completely ignore by comparison the Catholic 'Crusades' by Pope Urban which history reports began in anti-Semitic slaughter before even leaving the European lands, pillaging, rape, murder, torture, and many unholy actions committed from first to last. Not only these serious errors but also the end and outcome of this Papal initiated Crusade had even Christians in this region also being similarly attacked and murdered. As a result of the Crusades Christendom itself suffered lose in that region of the world, ending with a very real Arab/Islamic distrust if not hate of all Western peoples.

Common people need understand leaders often use deception and slanderous utterances to demean (their) enemy. The purpose of the slander is to sway the emotions of common people under these leaders, not only into believing, but to become angry at (their common) enemy. Later when these gracious leaders are confronted by (their) enemy now angry about the deceptive slander, the slandering gregarious leader then debase themselves using false humility again as show for the common people. This in effect enabling the gracious leader to further debase (their) enemy, something like telling them you are humbly sorry they are as originally described in slander.

Within the church we must not deny truth nor enter into intellectual dishonesty. The Pope in this incident did not rescind his remarks regarding the politics of the Byzantine Emperor, but instead had a clerk make a weak and ineffectual statement. Later the Pope made an apology that still did not rescind the inappropriate remarks, but instead made an apology that was more an expression of being sorry for the poor timing. When organizations of intelligent people spend valuable time to produce a decree or announcement, and then carefully stick to these scripts to their audience, only to later admit it was all a stupid mistake, the error may be in the believing it was a mistake or stupid.

An example of deliberate misleading within the Christian church:
The following is a recent speech (audio) given to approximate 3000 Evangelical church leaders in Washington DC, delivered by John Hagee (turn on sound first... if you do not see 'start-button' in audio-bar, click the down-cursor button on right-side of bar to activate).
Click start-button on panel to right for portion of Hagee's speech.

For a full report regarding John Hagee's false charge's that Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for "Wiping Israel off the map", click on Hagee Speech for article.