Many commentators from America and other countries believe that a professional espionage organization on the level of Mossad used those young men and took advantage of their readiness for death in order to achieve its objectives. That in itself is not important to us, we only relate this to ask the sixty signatories:

Is there nothing here that might cast a doubt –and we only say a doubt- and cause you to avoid rushing to judgment, while justice demands that the weakness in the evidence against one party strengthens the case against the other party.

It was expected that our American intellectuals would avoid entangling themselves in the same blunders and contradictions as the American administration which were ridiculed by many commentators throughout the world, when millions asked: “Has another suicide bomber turned up alive today like yesterday?”

“Did the President give another speech today which Powell or Rumsfeld will have to contradict tomorrow? Each denies the statements of the other, who should we believe? Why did the government cover up the incidents which occurred near the White House on the day of the attacks?”

“If the attackers goal was to attack freedom, why didn’t they attack one of the nations which is more free than America? Why did they choose the Pentagon and World Trade Center instead of the institutions of democracy and human rights in America?”

They expected intellectuals to correct the President’s information; first by informing him that the Taleban are not a group of musicians, and finally, by advising him to delay pulverizing an exhausted, weak people before complete evidence is provided.

We know that the American government had prepared in advance to attack Afghanistan, and we suppose that the sixty intellectuals will not dispute that, but in any case there is no disputing that justice dictates proving the accusation, that the punishment be in proportion to the crime, and that punishment should be limited to those who committed the crime only, even if doing so takes time. Even if we assume that the need for vengeance caused the Americans to hurry the decision to fight a war, what is wrong with reconsidering it now? And why shouldn’t these intellectuals be the ones to raise their voices about it?

Justice demands granting pardon and atonement for wrongdoing. If America had done so it would have been able to point to it as a witness to the world that it is brave, free, and just. Then the signatories would be able to talk!

If only America had the characteristics of the Prophet of mercy and justice, Muhammad –blessing and peace be upon him- who publicly renounced the actions of his great general, Khalid ibn al-Walid who fought a hostile tribe of idolaters, but the tribe claimed that there was a confusion of words during the battle. The Prophet gave the benefit of the doubt because of their presumed innocence and therefore, denounced the actins of Khalid and paid compensation for those of the tribe killed during the battle.

As for mercy and preferring pardon, we know of no place for these in American politics or values, since these belong to the prophets and their followers alone. The idolaters killed seventy Muslim men and the Prophet promised to kill a like number of them, but when God granted him victory and he returned to Makkah and some of the Muslims said, “Now the Prophet –blessings and peace be upon him- will revenge those Muslims who were killed.” But the Prophet –blessings and peace be upon him- recited to them the verse: “If you punish, then punish in proportion to the harm done you, but if you will be patient, then it is better for those who are