This paper examines the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center as more than isolated criminal acts, situating them within Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" framework and centuries of religious-political tension between Islamic and Western cultures. The essay traces historical roots from the Crusades through the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, explores the theological contradiction between Islamic teachings on peace and acts of terrorism, analyzes Pakistan's complex position as both former US ally and Taliban-harboring nation, and evaluates how the attacks fundamentally transformed American security policy, counterterrorism measures, and international relations. The author argues that while the American response was necessary, some measures risk undermining human rights and democratic principles.
The global political arena changed forever on September 11, 2001. A harsh line appeared to separate the Muslim world and cultures from those of the traditional Christian world. To many, this was more than simply a terrorist act—in the eyes of many, it was a Jihad of one civilization against another. Two hijacked passenger airplanes crashed into the two towers of the World Trade Center, killing thousands in the aftermath. When the airplanes fell from the sky, it was as if Armageddon had begun. For some religious organizations, a Jihad had begun.
A Jihad is an Arabic word meaning holy war. However, this war did not begin on that fateful day in September. Understanding the roots of modern terrorism requires looking backward through centuries of religious and political conflict.
This war began several hundred years ago when the Jewish people were evicted from the land they had called home by the Romans. When Christianity sought to regain part of the holy land, the people of Islam were forced to fight for a land they believed was theirs. The Crusades of the eleventh and twelfth centuries effectively began the rise of present-day Jihads.
These wars became known in history as "the cross against the crescent." In those early days of the Crusades, it was European Christian Knights against Middle Eastern Muslim Knights. Now, in the twenty-first century, it remains true, yet the combatants have changed. Where once it was organized military forces, now it is Western political leaders against nameless, faceless cowards who follow a religion and way of life that bears no resemblance to the words of their holy book, the Qur'an.
For millennia, Hebrew people were persecuted—by Romans for having only one God, by Christians for their priests following the prophets' words, and in the twentieth century by those following Nazism. Hitler's hatred of the Jewish people was deeply personal. He saw how those of the Jewish faith were granted access to colleges and universities in Austria, where he, a poor struggling artist, was refused access to the prestigious lifestyle he dreamed of.
After World War II, Western world leaders granted the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Since that time, leaders of the United States and United Kingdom have supported, either directly or indirectly, the governments of Israel. This support has caused major disharmony within political, social, and religious arenas ever since. The removal of indigenous Palestinians by Israeli settlers has been one of the major factors explaining why the Western world, in particular, is disliked by Muslims in the Middle East. The needless and selfish acts of violence perpetrated between Jewish and Palestinian forces along the Gaza Strip continue to fuel this animosity.
The attack on the World Trade Center was not just a terrorist act. In the eyes of many, it was a Jihad of one civilization against another. Those familiar with The Clash of Civilizations, authored by Samuel Huntington and published in the summer of 1993, found the events of 9/11 especially chilling.
Huntington, a professor at Harvard University with expertise in political science, was in a position to write such a controversial book. Some viewed it as rationalizing racism; others as a warning of what might occur if existing political paradigms continued. Huntington's central argument was that cultures could clash in fundamental ways rooted in human psychology. History shows that many long-running wars are tinged with religious or cultural elements that cannot be overcome through negotiation alone.
Huntington summarized his hypothesis as follows: "The fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.... The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics ... conflict between civilizations will supplant ideological and other forms of conflict as the dominant global form of conflict."
Why did these events happen? Why were the places attacked so important to the terrorist factions supporting the suicide attackers? What causes men to fight against freedom and democratic republics yet harm those who cannot fight back? There is no simple answer. However, one response emerged: the bureaucratic machine, despite its complexities, brought forth a united front against terrorism. Bureaucracy is a major function of governance, enabling control over functionalities and bringing systemic thinking into line, though its slow-turning cogs can obscure both consequences and accountability.
The world is now gripped by what many argue is a political and religious war. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, primarily the forces of the United States and United Kingdom, with logistical support from Canada, Germany, and Japan, and aided by the Afghanistan Northern Alliance, prepared for invasion to seek out the leader of a fanatic terrorist unit responsible for murdering over seven thousand men, women, and children.
Yet a fundamental contradiction exists: the Qur'an itself forbids the violence perpetrated in its name. The Qur'an is the book revealed as a guide to true living, commanding followers to "Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of Satan. He is an outright enemy to you." God's law states that murdering a person without reason is a form of mischief, and "God does not love mischief makers."
Islamic teaching repeats a decree originally given to the Jewish people in the Old Testament: "So We decreed for the tribe of Israel that if someone kills another person—unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth—it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind."
Although centuries have not been kind to followers of Islam, and they have in their turn followed Jihads, their role has mainly been one of peace. The Jihads of the past were fought against soldiers, not innocent people. The Jihad being waged today is not a holy war as ordained by God, but one of cowardice and against the law of God.
Many Muslims through the world have hung their heads in shame at the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Islamic law teaches that murdering innocent people is a great sin that, unless forgiven by God, brings torment in Hell. Therefore, any religious person who fears God would never commit such an act of violence and terror. The murder of innocent people in the name of religion is unacceptable.
Terrorism in its broadest sense is violence committed against non-military targets for political purposes. The targets are solely civilian establishments containing only innocents, whose only crime in the terrorist's view is not belonging to their community.
An editorial article by Husain Haqqani, published on September 18, 2001, illuminates the difficult position Pakistan found itself in as the only nation that had formally recognized the Taliban. Unlike many emotional responses, Haqqani's analysis took a calmer, more historical view: all actions have consequences.
The United States had been the subject of a Jihad by Osama bin Laden, but this was not the beginning of the story. The current regime in Afghanistan existed in part due to former actions of the United States and the West in the region. The "monster" that had been created may have been unjust in American eyes, but the power was created by US backing of another Jihad—one against the communist Soviet Union occupying Afghanistan. The Taliban gained control only after Soviet ejection and the mujahedeen's failure to establish a stable government.
This created a cycle of consequences. Pakistan had been bolstered by the United States and other allies in 1979 when the Cold War conflict was raging. However, once that conflict was resolved, the United States pulled out of the area and left Pakistan to fend for itself. While the country may not have wanted continued American support, abandonment in this manner allowed the existing threat to develop through neglect. The country that had interfered and then deserted became partly responsible for what followed.
The terrorists were seen by many as those trained in Pakistan by the Americans to fight against the Soviet Union. This training did not simply disappear when convenient. When the individuals trained by the US to fight the Soviets ended up fighting their teachers, the shock was real. Yet appearances were misleading—these people were not fighting on the same side; they merely had a common enemy. When the enemy departed, older and deeper divisions resurfaced, with the religious aspect of the fanatics re-emerging.
The idea that "still waters run deep" also applies to Osama bin Laden. The reporter who had met him described him as a gentle man, not apparently capable of the carnage inflicted on September 11. Yet he had made many calls for Jihad against Americans, seen as the epitome of all he detested. His financial situation meant he could finance operations while serving as an idealistic motivator. There was more to the man than was assumed.
Pakistan now stood at center stage, having agreed to be part of the allied forces initiative on terrorism. The country was well-placed to provide information and intelligence about its neighbor. However, Pakistan's government did not like extremism, having suffered from it in the past, and believed only 1% of the population supported extremists. Pakistan also had its own agenda regarding Kashmir's political situation with India.
This required careful handling. As in the past, this initiative would also have future consequences. The situation was complex: claims over Kashmir and the political situation with India were ongoing, and while America had made many attempts at interfering with this region's politics, it must now be careful and take responsibility for its actions.
If handled well with responsibility taken by all parties, a new opportunity existed. Settling the dispute over Kashmir might put India and Pakistan on the same side in the battle against terrorism, changing the area's political structure and creating a chance for increased peace and stability. Importantly, there might be a lesson learned so that aid could be given where needed to the extent needed when eventually the war with the Taliban was resolved.
The attitude of the American government and people regarding terrorism changed fundamentally after September 11, 2001. The destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers and the massive loss of life catalyzed this transformation.
Previously, American attitudes had been relatively complacent. While terrorism had occurred on US soil—the Oklahoma City bombing at the Murray Building and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center—these were not on the same scale as devastation in places such as Northern Ireland or Israel. Citizens and authorities possessed a false sense of security.
September 11 changed that. For the first time, there was a real feeling of risk—partly from the unbelievable scale of events and partly from the realization of the in-depth planning and commitment required to orchestrate such attacks. What had been mere rhetoric and abstract subject matter became very real.
The first main approach was the aggressive stance taken. The time between the World Trade Center attack and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan provided opportunity for handing over Osama bin Laden, but instead, it signaled a firm stand on taking the fight to terrorists—changing from reactive to proactive stance. This was widely applauded, though not without critics who argued that innocents might be harmed, that "two wrongs do not make a right," and that the war would further escalate events. Even with the fall of the Taliban, the fight against Al-Qaeda has not succeeded; the leader remains at large, and resources are spread across many countries.
The American stance that countries were "either for us or against us" divided the world, with political hegemony used as a forceful bargaining chip to gain support.
Other impacts have also been felt. There has been an extreme increase in security measures, both in the air and on the ground, as well as increased gravity in handling situations, as seen in the case of Richard Reid, a London Muslim arrested on an Air France flight to the United States. Checks on hand luggage and passenger attitudes have shifted to a proactive stance.
Communication between government and official departments has increased. In the weeks following September 11, the CIA and FBI were criticized for a breakdown in communications that resulted in underestimation of the potential threat. Since then, several public alerts regarding potential threats have been issued to gain public assistance. Prior to this, there was more of an attitude of protecting people from panic.
Funds and priority given to prevention and detection of future terrorist attacks have been upgraded. The command structure in the Pentagon has changed to reflect this new priority with a Northern Command office.
However, not all changes appear beneficial. The treatment of terrorist suspects held at Cuba, denied human rights as non-prisoners of war and held outside US soil, raises grave concerns. These individuals are denied access to the justice system, and the rights of individuals are suffering in what is seen as the interest of the state without consideration of due process.
It can be argued that the events of September 11, combined with fear, the need for success despite failure to capture bin Laden, and arrogance, have created the framework for further steps on the proactive path to preventing terrorism. The lack of challenges to this approach and the need to continue a battle where public interest is being lost have led to threats against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
"Fear-driven policies risk human rights, drone new grievances"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.