The twenty-first century for the United States has been one defined by the “Global War on Terror” including major combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, both predominantly Muslim states. The signature event initiating this century of war occurred with the attacks of September 11, 2001. This event added first immediacy and then legitimacy to Samuel Huntington’s 1993 “Clash of Civilizations” paradigm which argues that the West are ‘primordially’ different and will inevitably experience a violent clash. The rhetoric of the Bush administration echoed the clash thesis in the speeches immediately following the events of September 2001. A little more than 1000 years earlier a similar event occurred when the Byzantines attacked of Aleppo, the Hamdanid capital of Sayf al-Dawlah in December of 962. The khatib of Sayf al-Dawlah, Ibn Nubatta, delivered a khutba (sermon) entitled “khutba fi thikr al-jihad wa taskin al-nas ladtrab wq’ bihim”, (a sermon mentioning jihad and calming the people when a turmoil was placed upon them). Rhetoric found in this khutba reinforces what must have been seen in the 10th century Levant as civilizations with primordial un-reconcilable differences. The west represented by the Byzantine Empire and Islam represented by Sayf al-Dawlah and his Hamdanid state. In the case of 9/11, the civilizations in conflict, Islam and the West, narrow to al-Qaeda portraying Islam and the United States portraying the West. However, the “Clash” thesis places a barrier to seeing or seeking commonalities, which hinder establishing trusting, equal and open dialogue between groups and peoples who identify with either of these civilizations. The sermon of Ibn Nubatta, the official court khatib (public orator/preacher), emphasizes jihad bil-sayf (jihad by the sword) using graphic language following an attack on the capital of the Hamdanid dynasty. This paper seeks to examine commonalities and use of rhetoric following catastrophic violence involving Islam and the West in ‘demonizing’ the other. This research utilizes textual analysis within the appropriate historical context to the speeches from both events identifying the similarities in how rhetoric and extreme “othering” following tumultuous events perpetuate and legitimize power, authority and war making.