Former President George W. Bush returned to the public discussion surrounding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as the nation marked the 25th anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

Appearing at his presidential center with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush returned to a message he delivered following the 2001 attacks, arguing that the terrorists responsible had distorted Islam rather than represented the religion.

“I also made it clear that Islam was a religion of peace, not a religion of war, and that these people subverted their religion,” Bush claimed.

WATCH:

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

The remarks renewed a debate that has continued since 9/11 over Islam, Islamism, terrorism, and how the United States should approach immigration and national security.

The Muslim population in the United States was around two million at the time of the attacks and has since grown to 5.5 million.

During the same period, Americans have lived with security measures implemented in the aftermath of 9/11, including airport screening requirements through the Transportation Security Administration and government surveillance authorized under the Patriot Act.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

The changing demographics have also coincided with the rise of Muslim politicians in Democratic politics. New York City is now led by Mayor Mamdani, while Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have become prominent members of the “Squad.”

Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed has also emerged as another political figure in the debate over Islam and American politics.

Critics have pointed to Mamdani’s relationships with Islamist extremists and accused Omar and Tlaib of repeatedly attacking the United States.

El-Sayed has praised sharia law and has a relationship with Hasan Piker, who has been criticized for his statements about America and 9/11.

Those developments have shifted the debate from arguments over accusations of “Islamophobia” to questions about immigration, assimilation and whether people entering the United States support the country’s constitutional system.

The issue also extends to human rights. Muslim-majority countries have faced criticism over the treatment of women, religious minorities and LGBTQ people, creating a conflict between the practices in some of those countries and positions traditionally associated with American liberals.

Terrorism remains another central part of the argument.

The Global Terrorism Index 2026 recorded 5,582 terrorism deaths and 2,944 attacks worldwide during the previous year.

According to the figures cited in the report, the four deadliest organizations were Islamist groups: Islamic State and its affiliates, JNIM, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and al-Shabaab.

Together, those organizations accounted for 3,869 deaths, representing 70 percent of terrorism deaths worldwide.

Islamist terrorist attacks also have higher odds of causing fatalities than attacks classified as left-wing or right-wing.

The numbers have fueled continued debate about whether Islamism itself contributes to political violence or whether terrorist movements represent distortions of the broader religion, as Bush argued following 9/11 and again during the anniversary discussion.

That dispute also reaches deeper into history, including disagreements over the Crusades and whether they should primarily be understood as aggression or reaction.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria have also experienced major upheaval connected to the growth of Islamic extremism from the 20th century through the present.

Critics of the “religion of peace” characterization argue that Islamic history includes both peaceful religious practice and conquest.

At the same time, the argument does not claim that all Muslims are terrorists.

Instead, it focuses on whether Islam has produced significant levels of political violence and whether that relationship should be openly examined.

Bush’s position places responsibility on extremists who, in his view, subvert their religion rather than on Islam itself.

That distinction has remained part of the American political debate for a quarter-century.

Critics contend that treating violent Islamists solely as people who have misunderstood or hijacked their religion can prevent a direct examination of the ideological motivations behind terrorism.

The issue carries particular weight on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, when nearly 3,000 people were killed.

Twenty-five years later, the argument over what motivated the terrorists, how Islamism should be understood and how the United States should protect itself from another attack remains unresolved.

Gold is the oldest answer. SoundMoney makes owning it as easy as the apps you already use.