A short, but respectable analysis of an aspect of conservative media’s responses the tragic bombing and shootings in Norway came across my screen today.  In “Norway’s Sorrow: Why Is It So Hard For The Religious Right To Denounce Evil?,” Kurt Ostrow argues that a certain segment of the media is unable to simply denounce the attacks and leave it there. They condemn the actions of Anders Behring Breivik, who claimed responsibility for the attack, but then go on to ask if there aren’t real causes for concern that set him off. Ostrow points out that is is part of a very real trend, and provides some excellent examples to support his case, both from Europe and the United States.
He then goes on to make an excellent point.

Right-wing politicians and pundits everywhere have decided it politically prudent to conflate Islamic (of or relating to Islam) with Islamist (of or relating to Islamic militancy or fundamentalism). Or worse: they actually believe this misdirected, misinformed hate.

In the middle of hot summer, it becomes difficult to survive when the air conditioning system http://greyandgrey.com/verdicts-settlements/ order cialis online stops working. Both men cialis properien over here as well as women face some sexual issues or the other that are hindering the normality in the sexual lives of both and turn wreaking havoc on their lives. Alcoholism affects a person’s physical health as well as the individuals of any sexual orientation cialis samples or gender. Lacking of blood means no erections and this way they push the joint in its professional viagra actual place slowly and steadily.
Sadly, this tendency is not limited to the right wing. Far too many seem unable to grasp the fact that there is a struggle within Islam between those who believe in the role of religion in government and those who believe in a separation of church and state.
The fact that there is a conflict should not be hard for us to understand in the West. We have had the same struggles countless times in the “West” and in the US specifically. Wikipedia provides a surprisingly good summary of the church and state discussion in our intellectual history, at least for purposes of understanding how significant and for how long this has been an issue. We continue to have them now as we grapple with same-sex marriage, abortion rights, channeling funding for social services through religious groups, and the beliefs of judicial appointees, among other issues. Muslim views on the role of Islam in government are complex and varied, just like those of Christians. By far the vast majority don’t often think about religion and government as a pair. They expect their government to function like a government, ethically and responsibility, but not with any specific regard for religion. Perhaps there is a subconscious assumption that the policies of government will be influenced by the Muslim character of their society just was we might expect ours to be defined by the religious heritage of our country, but that’s only because that is what we know as proper moral behavior. Interestingly enough, the doctrine may be different, but the standards of ethics in daily life are pretty much the same: honesty, fairness, devotion to God, fidelity, do no harm to one another… Believing the people in government will behave in a manner consistent with their moral upbringing is a far cry from wanting a theocracy, however.
Islamists are those who believe in a role for religion in government and they parallel religious parties in another system. A good example here would be the American Family Association. In Israel there are parties like the NRP and Agudat Israel. India has Hindu “fundamentalist,” for lack of a better word. Most Islamists are, in fact, moderate and believe in taking power through the ballot box or other legitimate means in their nation. Others are militant, but nationalists, seeking control in their homeland. They will kill, maim and carry out atrocities, but have no global aspirations. This is the vast majority of militants. They are unwilling to sacrifice their cause for so-called “Global Jihad.” It is a very small minority that are international terrorists. They believe the West is at war with Islam and they want to retaliate. In their minds, terrorism is retaliation for bombs dropped by unmanned drones on a wedding in Afghanistan, or “collateral damage” i.e. civilian casualties, during an attack in Iraq. Western media often repeats the claim that Al-Qaeda or similar groups want to establish a global Caliphate, but this is rarely the motivating factor. Concerns are generally more immediate.
This brings me to a second conflation that is simply wrong. There is no alliance between Islamists and Secular Leftists or Communists. To begin with “the Left” is broad label the right pins on lots of groups with interests that rarely line up with one another. But even if we were to assume that there were still a vast, coordinated, Marxist-Leninist agenda out there, evolved somewhat, but essentially with the global designs we were told to fear since the 1930s, it is more or less antithetical to an Islamist agenda. In every nation where a strong Islamist movement and a strong Socialist/Communist movement have existed simultaneously, there have been significant clashes between the two groups, more often than not bloody and brutal. Ideologically they are at odds. They have cooperated in anti-colonial struggles, but unity has always collapsed shortly after that. Communism is a secular, “godless ideology” and Islamism insists on the role of Islam in government. Communism is anti-capitalist, Islamism forbids profiting off of interest, but it is not anti-capitalist. The Prophet, himself, was a merchant. Leftist ideologies quickly challenge traditional notions of family and society that Islamist hold not just dear, but mandated by divine law.
All of that said, I wanted to end this post on a hopeful note, so I have added a video that tells a story of forgiveness and redemption (above). It is marred by the thirst for vengeance and the insistence of the state of Texas that a man die to pay for his crimes, but I still find it deeply moving. It is the story of Rais Bhuiyan, the only survivor of three revenge shootings of convenience store workers in Texas in the wake of September 11,2011, who pleaded that the life of his repentant attacker, Mark Stroman, be spared. Bhuiyan says his Muslim faith teaches forgiveness and that nothing will be accomplished with the execution of Stroman, but that if his life is spared and his sentence commuted to life in prison, then he can be an example of redemption. Indeed, the interviews I’ve seen with Stroman appear to show a remarkably changed man.
Bhuiyan is supported by the families of the murder victims, and I find it shocking that Texas has ignored his appeals and that he has not been able to meet with Stroman. According to this CBS News report by Don Teague, this is

the first time in Texas that a victim of a convicted murderer has asked for clemency. But so far, all pleas have been denied, and Stroman has lost every legal appeal.
Mark Stroman doesn’t expect the pleas for clemency to spare his life, but says when he is executed here in Texas, he’ll die a changed man.
“I’ve come from a person with hate embedded into him into a person with a lot of love and understanding for all races,” Stroman says.
Bhuiyan says that response is the point of his pleas.
“We have to break the cycle of this hate and violence,” Bhuiyan says.
Bhuiyan is now suing Texas, claiming his rights as a victim were ignored.

Of course we now know his appeal failed.  Steven Kreytak of The Austin American-Statesman reports on his last efforts, testifying about the shooting on Wednesday, July 20.

Bhuiyan’s poignant testimony was cut short when visiting state District Judge Joe Hart learned that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had issued an order prohibiting him from continuing.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused Stroman’s appeals, and he was put to death about 9 p.m.
“I would say that we just repealed the victims’ rights act in Texas,” said Bhuiyan’s lawyer, Khurrum Wahid of Florida.

It’s funny; we tend to think of victim’s rights in terms of victims wanting harsher punishment. But perhaps that isn’t always the case. Perhaps some victims say enough of blood and violence. While I find the blood lust of Texas and the refusal of Governor Perry to extend clemency deeply disturbing, I am inspired by this story, and I hope you are, too. If so, pass it on. More people need to understand that we are more than our stereotypes.