At least since the events of September 11th, 2001, the media and the blogosphere have reported on individuals and factions they regard as extremists – like those responsible for the attacks.  Most prominent in the reporting was mention of the religion of these offenders, that being – at least nominally – Islam.

The terms that subsequently emerged were “Islamic radicals”, “Islamists” and most venomously “Islamofascists”.  So often was Islam – as a faith of one-fifth of the human population – tethered to the inexcusable actions of an aggressive few, that one could hardly think of one without thinking about the other.  While for some this association produced a new and profound animosity towards Islam and Muslims, I was inclined to investigate the relationship, if any, between the religion and the deviant practice of terrorism.

What I found was that in most instances of separatism, radicalism, and/or militancy, Islam was more a mere fact of their identity or culture than the inspiration for their actions.  For all that Islam really had to do with it, the aggressors might as well have been called “turbanist radicals”, if they happened to be wearing turbans.  That there is such an emphasis on religion would appear to be a rhetorical attack on Islam as a global faith.

Today, as I read extensively about the Palestine-Israel conflict and more on the background of the general tension between the so-called “Muslim world” and the west, I often run into the term Islamist.  And everytime it stands out like a beacon.  The term is taken by those knowledgeable in these matters to mean “Islamic radical”, or a person who generally perverts the foundational messages of the religion towards political ends, and often in violent ways.

There are two problems, however, with using the term.  The first is that the suffix “ist” is not an adequate substitute for “radical” or “militant”, although perhaps it could be argued – spuriously – that it is the last three letters of “terrorist”, which for all intents and purposes is what Islamist is meant to infer.  For those who know very little or nothing about Islam – which is probably the majority of non-Muslims – “ist” does absolutely nothing to separate the religion from the violent activities conducted in its name.  The uninformed person is not likely to recognize the difference between “Islamist” and “Islamicist”, the latter being a person who engages in the academic study of Islam.  Nor are they likely to know the difference between “Islamist” and “Muslim”.  And in a climate ripe with anti-Islamic sentiment, the uninformed and angry have very little incentive to make the distinction.

The second problem is that Islam is mentioned at all when discussing radical, militant, or terrorist activities.  Because as I mentioned above, a more thorough investigation into the relationship between the religion and violence is tenuous.  That an ideologue like Osama bin Laden recites – or misreads – a passage from the Qur’an does not bind the rest of his words or his actions to Islam.  In any case, he cites the Qu’ran very little in his communications, either because his knowledge of Islam is wanting, or because he does not wish to expose the dubious connection between the religion and his personal ideology.

Most Muslims – for whom Islam is an inexorable part of their cultures and lifestyles – do not associate the words or actions of a bin Laden with their faith.  And they are surprised and offended whenever that connection is made.  Imagine, if you are an average American citizen, with no involvement in politics or the military, being labeled an imperialist by others around the world simply because you live in a country which many regard as the modern day empire.

As you consider the inadequacy of that classification – unless, of course, you are an imperialist – multiply that inadequacy by about four.  America is home to about 300 million people, at least some of which certainly are imperialists.  But those few do not necessarily speak for the majority.  The same is true for Islam and radicals, except to a greater extent, since there are around 1.2 billion Muslims, and probably fewer of them who are radicals, terrorists, and militants, than there are Americans who support imperialism – if only implicitly.

So with that said, what need is there to use the term “Islamist” in discussing the actions of a Hamas or a Hezbollah or a Lashkar-e-Taiba?  For these three groups in particular, all of which with varying degrees of legitimacy are considered terrorist organizations, Islam has little to nothing to do with their stated motivations.  The actions of Hamas have everything to do with the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.  The actions of Hezbollah purport to represent the people of Lebanon, particularly in their relationship with Israel.  And Lashkar-e-Taiba – those responsible for the Mumbai attacks – acted in response to the relationship between Pakistan and India.

Regardless of how we see these organizations, whether as terrorists or radicals or a militant resistance, it is important to separate their actions – almost always politically motivated – from their religion, unless the two are truly inexorable.  Otherwise we risk maintaining an unnecessary distance and animosity between people who apart from their particular beliefs and practices, have many of the same needs and values.

It is the responsibility of a lawful and moral press to bridge that distance, to squelch that animosity, by providing the information we need to better understand our surroundings and the people who occupy them.

An example of how to provide information constructed with the appropriate cultural and/or religious context is this article by the Washington Post discussing pending peace talks between Hamas and Israel.

So that we’re clear, that would be communism. And it is even further from what Obama is proposing than libertarian free-market capitalism. One need look no further than Obama’s surrogates (a practice the right is obsessed with when it suits their agenda) to determine whether or not his economic policies evoke communism. Cue Warren Buffett, currently the richest man on the planet Earth, and one of Obama’s campaign advisors. Buffett would have more to lose than anyone were the United States to somehow become communist, so I doubt that he would support a candidate running on such a platform.

In my view, there is at least one vein of socialism which is appealing, and that is one where all citizens are entitled to a basic level of fundamental services (food, shelter, medical care) – something that out of necessity would require government intervention. The downside, of course, is that the taxes would be crushing by comparison to our current system, but when you consider that the money lost in taxes is going to paying for the things you’d spend it on, anyway, it doesn’t seem so bad.

But what’s important to note is that in such a system, there would not be any cap on income potential, meaning that after the baseline was established for all citizens, any individual could be expected to make income above and beyond the baseline for any additional comforts or flat-out indulgences they see fit. In other words, socialism in this sense would be just like capitalism, except that everyone would be taken care of at least on the most basic level.

I understand the arguments of people who don’t want their money going into a pool that benefits people they deem lazy – including people who are actually lazy, but here I would appeal to their better natures, and point out that where society is better as a whole, we can strive to be better as individuals. In the current system, you may deny the lazy man the food for his table while you splurge on a new car to keep up with Mr. and Mrs. Jones, but that lazy man may then be desperate enough to shoot you and steal your new car. Now that is not to say that there is a cause and effect relationship between poverty and crime, but there are certainly strong correlations.

Anyway, I’m not about to go into any more detail about the prospective ideals of this brand of socialism. What’s important to point out, though, is that what Barack Obama is proposing is nare a degree closer to socialism in any form than the system we currently have in place. And so, were I a socialist (the jury is out as I continue to investigate the pros and cons), Barack Obama would not be my candidate.