Muslim community must back words with action

It's not often that I admit that I was wrong. In my last article however, I made some assumptions based on information that was available at the time, and it now seems that perhaps I was a bit too quick to accept the theories of the "experts" and may have jumped to some wrong conclusions because of this. That is not to say my premise was false. I still believe that terrorism is a significantly larger threat to the safety of Americans and the world than serial killers could ever be. I may have been wrong, however, in my conclusion that the sniper attacks were completely unrelated to terrorism.

The definition of a terrorist attack can sometimes be hard to express. While it is clear that the recent attacks in Moscow, Bali and Israel are terrorism, acts like those undertaken by John Mohammad and John Malvo in the D.C. area can be harder to characterize. Mohammad and Malvo seem to have acted alone, and the authorities have found no connections between either one of them and any organized terror groups (at least that has been released publicly thus far). Terrorism is not defined simply by connections to a group however, and lone individuals can take out terrorist acts.

Mohammad and Malvo clearly terrorized innocent citizens and there was also obviously some advance planning involved. The only question we must answer then is whether these attacks were politically motivated. If they were, Mohammad and Malvo could accurately be described as terrorists, even if they acted alone.

The press has reported aspects of Mohammad's past that could help answer this question. He purportedly expressed support for the Sept. 11 murderers and for the greater goals of al-Qaeda, as well as other terrorist organizations.

On the other hand, most of the evidence piling up against Mohammad seems to indicate that the majority of his criminal acts were committed for monetary reasons, not ideological ones.

Until more evidence becomes available, we will be unable to say with certainty whether the D.C. sniper shootings were the acts of serial killers or terrorists.

Regardless of whether this case is eventually classified as terrorism or not, there are some disturbing trends that were highlighted by this case that are worth examining further.

One of the most disturbing trends in this case, and in the majority of terrorism cases since Sept. 11, is the flurry of public statements that are released after attacks. These statements are meant to distance the terrorists (or snipers) from established groups and movements, without working to change the circumstances that allow these deranged individuals to claim to be members of groups and yet act in ways that totally contradict the group's doctrine.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Muslims from around the world went on the airways to declare that Islam is a religion of peace and that these murderers do not represent their faith. These Muslims were right to distance themselves from the terrorists, as the acts of al-Qaeda and similar groups are clearly against the fundamental teachings of Islam.

My problem is not with these individuals trying to educate the world about the principles and teachings of Islam, as education and understanding of different faiths and backgrounds is a key component in creating a more peaceful and open society. The problem is that many of these Muslims are so quick to distance themselves from these killers that they fail to recognize that a small, but growing, number of people around the world that consider themselves to be devout Muslims do support terrorist activities.

The Muslim community is at a crossroads. They have long had to unfairly defend their faith against ignorance that claimed that all Muslims are violent people. The Muslim community has made huge inroads in educating the public to the utter stupidity of these statements, and has succeeded in creating an atmosphere where American media and politicians must be careful to not make any statements that could be seen as anti-Muslim.

American Muslims now face an even bigger challenge: convincing the fringe elements of Muslim society that Islam truly is a religion of peace.

It would be unfair to claim that the acts of a few deranged individuals should be taken as representative of all Muslims, and it would also be unreasonable to believe that Muslim leaders will somehow convince all extremists that they are wrong in their use of violence. But it is also clear that each time Islamic extremists conduct a violent attack on innocent civilians, the claims that Islam is a "religion of peace" ring more and more hollow to many individuals.

If the Muslim leaders wish to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion, it is necessary to work to remove these militants from their ranks, and not just condemn their violent acts. Whether John Mohammad goes down in history as a terrorist or as a serial killer, it will be difficult for many to distance his acts from the fact that he claims to be a devout Muslim. Whether he is following true Islamic doctrine or not is certainly an important debate, but it is more important to work to ensure that individuals like Mohammad are not educated to believe that such actions are justified by Islam. Most Americans have finally accepted the message that Islam is a religion of peace, now it is time to convince radical Muslims that this is indeed the case.