Two men, one Christian and the other Muslim, commit murder just one day apart in the United States. Both appear to have been motivated by their religious beliefs. The Christian murderer is Scott Roeder and his victim is Dr. George Tiller, a physician from Wichita, KS who performed late term abortions. The Muslim murderer is Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad and his victims are Pvt. William Long and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula who were new U.S. Army recruiters.

These two murder cases expose the media’s and our legal system’s bias against Muslims. Both crimes seem to fit the definition of terrorism motivated by religious extremism. The media and the legal system, however, are treating these alleged murderers and their crimes very differently.

The Muslim murder suspect, Mr. Muhammad, is charged with terrorism along with first degree murder. Mr. Muhammad’s faith has been front and center from the very earliest news reports. The American-Muslim community’s almost immediate repudiation of Mr. Muhammad’s murder was and still is largely ignored.

On the other hand, the Christian murder suspect, Mr. Roeder, is not being charged with terrorism. His faith has not been the focus of news reports even though there seems to be ample evidence to suggest that Mr. Roeder espouses extreme, right-wing Christian beliefs. And lastly, the media is giving anti-abortion groups ample opportunity to distance themselves from the murderous actions of one of their own.

Let’s start with the terrorism charges. Domestic terrorism is defined as an act that is dangerous to human life (guns were fired in the direction of the victims – this requirement is met) and which is a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or any State (both shootings fulfill this requirement) and which appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government by, among other things, assassination (an argument for this element can be made in both shootings).

Mr. Muhammad is charged with 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act. This is in addition to the murder charge. Mr. Roeder is charged with murder but there are no terrorism charges. On the face of both cases there seems to be ample indications that these men committed murder with the objective of intimidating a civilian population or with the intention to influence a government policy.

So, why a terrorism charge in one case but not the other? Both cases are heinous. Both local communities surely want to send the strongest message possible to the public that these crimes will be punished to the greatest extent of the law. And ultimately a judge or jury will decide whether the charges are proven beyond a reasonable doubt so the prosecutor runs little risk by adding the appropriate terrorism charge.

The disparate treatment of these two murder cases began right from the first media reports. Most major newswires and major newspapers focused heavily on Mr. Muhammad’s religion very early on.

The Associated Press reported on Mr. Muhammad’s crime by stating that a “Muslim convert with political and religious motives” shot two uniformed soldiers. The New York Times described Mr. Muhammad as “an American convert to Islam.” CNN reported that Mr. Muhammad is a “Muslim convert”.

Let’s compare the reporting by these same news sources on Mr. Roeder’s murder. The Associated Press is mum on Mr. Roeder’s Christian faith. Ditto for the New York Times and CNN. None of theses same news sources make any mention of Mr. Roeder’s religious affiliation or the obvious role his extremist religious beliefs may have played in the killing of Dr. Tiller.

What exacerbates this obvious bias in reporting is the willingness of the media to offer the anti-abortion groups immediate opportunities to distance themselves from Mr. Roeder’s murder while none of them provided a similar opportunity for the American-Muslim community even as they reported that Mr. Muhammad is a Muslim. Major national and regional American-Muslim organizations issued almost immediate statements condemning Mr. Muhammad’s murderous actions so the excuse cannot be a lack of public condemnation of the murder from the American-Muslim community.

To the American-Muslim community this unequal treatment is at the very least annoying and more likely very troubling. The bad news is that this situation is not going to change in the immediate future.

Not enough Americans know what real Muslims are like. There are up to 7 million Muslims living in America. By contrast there are a few hundred million Christians in America. Suffice to say that Americans feel more familiar with Christian values than they do with Muslim values. They don't realize just how similar these values are - both faith traditions abhor the killing of innocents and neither faith condones the actions of Mr. Muhammad or Mr. Roeder. Plus, the steady stream of news about Muslim extremists killing others and themselves in suicide missions overseas certainly doesn’t help.

There is only one way for American-Muslims to sway Americans’ opinion of Islam. More Americans need to know what real Muslims are all about. While the media can do its job better by giving a voice to the American-Muslim community, American-Muslims need to take matters into their own hands.

American-Muslims need to become civically engaged. They need to get involved on issues of the common good and not just special interest issues. It has to be at the grassroots level with one on one interactions predicated on substantive work that gives non-Muslim Americans a chance to see firsthand what American-Muslims are all about.

President Obama’s message to the Muslim world, including his numerous nods to American-Muslims was great, but American-Muslims need to do some serious, old school, grassroots relational work of their own.

I agree totally that Scott Roeder should be charged with terrorism. His actions fit every part of the definition posted.

Let's start with the obvious, these murders were committed in different states. Each state regulates how murder is handled within its own borders.

If the Muslim world is waiting for a day when Americans don't care that someone is a Muslim, the grassroots approach is the way to go. Islam in America needs to go mainstream.

Fester, you are correct, Muhammad was charged in Arkansas under state law with murder and with terroristic acts. There is no such law in Kansas.

>>> Fester, you are correct, Muhammad was charged in Arkansas under state law with murder and with terroristic acts. There is no such law in Kansas.

Is that just?

From a states-rights perspective it is, if one were a Federalist they would disagree. The point is that these men were not subject to the same laws so there was no unequal treatment under one law.

>>> Fester, you are correct, Muhammad was charged in Arkansas under state law with murder and with terroristic acts. There is no such law in Kansas.

Is that just?

- Posted by Ghulam

Trying to tell the states what to do, when the constitution says you can't, is like opening a large can of worms.

In any event Muhammad the murderer/terrorist will be walking the streets before Roeder the mere murderer. Roeder is 88 and will die in prison. There isn't much point in adding any new charges.

From a states-rights perspective it is, if one were a Federalist they would disagree. The point is that these men were not subject to the same laws so there was no unequal treatment under one law.

- Posted by 30Seconds

Strange as it may seem, that what it comes to.

hello and salaams all-

Fester said-
"In any event Muhammad the murderer/terrorist will be walking the streets before Roeder the mere murderer. Roeder is 88 and will die in prison. There isn't much point in adding any new charges."

I believe you are confusing Roeder with James W.Von Brunn, the 88 year old white supremacist who shot (resulting in his death) a guard at the Holocaust Museum yesterday.

Scott Philip Roeder, 51, of Merriam, Kansas.
A. Muhammad is 23.

Salaams Ghulam!

States right is a tricky issue in American politics. Historically, it has been code fo segregation of blacks and whites in the american south.
It is a very recent(since Obama's election) battle call, and only from "red"(republican conservative) states, who seem to have a newfound romance with the concept.

I believe the federal government can bring terrorist charges, or at the very least they can add hate-crime to his charge.

I believe you are confusing Roeder with James W.Von Brunn, the 88 year old white supremacist....
- Posted by MRS.A

Oops.

the 88 year old white supremacist....
>>>>

I only read the first details of this particular case. But in that "88" is a significant number in various Nazi-based white supremist ideologies, I wonder at not having heard mention of that unlikely coincidence. "88" stands for the eighth letter of the english alphabet, twice. HH, or "Heil Hitler." Unless it's come out in a story I haven't read. It's pretty lame and juvenile in any event.

>>> I believe the federal government can bring terrorist charges, or at the very least they can add hate-crime to his charge.

Yes. It seems to me that the difference between these crimes is a matter of racial/religious profiling. A chrisitian extremist is not a terrorist for committing murder, while a muslim extremist is a terrorist for committing murder. As I understand it, that's not two separate states, that's two separate countries.

And if this man wanted to commit a terrorist act, he could have done damage to Government infrastructure or alternatively a REAL figurehead for the establishment he was attacking (just like Roeder).

To me it seems that its not just the selective application of the law that's unjust, but its the law itself that's unjust.

Wassalaam Mrs.A! Good to see your profile decorating the comments page again!

As I understand it, that's not two separate states, that's two separate countries.
- Posted by Ghulam

As far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned regarding murder, they might as well be two different countries.

So then Americans do understand! The need for political unity and a joint political platform are more imperitave than the differences in law, culture an attitudes .. for the protection and progress of that same collective citizenry! All that Muslims have been doing (without supporting the negative practices of the government which are often alien to social conscience) is call for respect of the broader Muslim and Islamically influenced public.

You call the basis of your legal citizenry the United States. We call the basis of our spiritual identity an Ummah. Yours has the appropriate political platform. Ours does not. Noone supports Saddams or Mubaraks regime. Not all Palestinians agree with Hamas. But the political platform must exist for the people to progress themselves. Often Muslims confuse the political platform with a clerical platform e.g. Hizb Ut Tahrir and others.

Ghulam: Sometimes you make alot of sense, then there are other times...

"The need for political unity and a joint political platform are more imperitave than the differences in law, culture an attitudes .. for the protection and progress of that same collective citizenry!"

We must be much better organized than I thought. I thought the U.S. was a society which has become quite adept at working in a constant state of chaos.

>>>"The need for political unity and a joint political platform are more imperitave than the differences in law, culture an attitudes .. for the protection and progress of that same collective citizenry!"

There are two legal systems in two different states. This results in an almost criminally unfair legal system. But the citizenry in both states require their state system of law for a whole host of reasons. Even as they conflict with each other and the American constitution. You cannot replace one states laws with any other state. IF that were possible, the implications on the lives of American citizens would be very detrimental, even if many people do not support the application of their particular states law.

FESTER >>> I thought the U.S. was a society which has become quite adept at working in a constant state of chaos.

From my understanding of the American structure of government and the liberal philosophy guiding its legal and political system, it is an exceptional system that it should truly share with the rest of the world. But like all man-made systems, its imperfect. The influence of the corporotocracy and the institutional racism are just two of issues that plague the country. But if there is one country that could truly renew itself for the benefit of humanity, its the USA.

Besides Beauracracy is what it is. I doubt you'll find an effecient one anywhere in the world. I'm referring to the structure of the society.

>>two different states. This results in an almost criminally unfair legal system.

The flip side is that it lets different states experiment with various policies to see which, in reality and not just dogma, are more effective and more just. States quite often model thier own policies on successful policies proven in other states.

Also, such a system accounts for the rather significant social and cultural differences between states, keeping it in better conformity to local standards of justice than would an overarching, monolithic, one size fits all federal legal system.

Its a Good Thing (tm), Ghulam.

Also, such a system accounts for the rather significant social and cultural differences between states, keeping it in better conformity to local standards of justice than would an overarching, monolithic, one size fits all federal legal system. >>>>

I read an interesting article on this just a couple of months ago. I agree that local governments should have the right to cater to the needs and cultures of local constituents. And I am talking about the US here. But what if some counties think its good form to hang a black man for daring to look at a white woman. There are pockets of the US that would love to see that enacted by law. That's an extreme example but extremes become expressed where there is not SOME form of uniformity. But anyway, about the article. It said that over the last few years with increased mobility and people traveling for jobs and local cultures becoming more distinct, people have begun to gravitate around and contribute to a starkly polarized cultural environment in the US. Believe me, there are states in the US you couldn't pay me to visit. And there are all kinds of people who have moved to more socially liberal environments where they can live more freely. And most immigrants tend to show up in major urban centers where the locals are more used to living with people of diverse backgrounds. But the downside of this is that increasingly, the US is developing pastoral backwater regions where education and cultural literacy are plumetting, and bigotry, violent violent and the entitlement to carry through on those ideas based on normalizing of hateful and violent speech in pockets where it goes unchallenged. The complete polarization of the two parties in the US as committed and permanent enemies with no prospect for dialogue os a sign of this very sea change in social and political demographics here.

the US is developing pastoral backwater regions where education and cultural literacy are plumetting, and bigotry, violent violent and the entitlement to carry through on those ideas based on normalizing of hateful and violent speech in pockets where it goes unchallenged. The complete polarization of the two parties in the US as committed and permanent enemies with no prospect for dialogue os a sign of this very sea change in social and political demographics here.

- Posted by Akenanubis


There will always be pockets of extremists in the U.S., and the Internet makes it easier for them to find each other. On the other hand, the Internet has become so widespread, the outside world is no farther away than your ability to start a browser.

Another phenomena which occurs is the feeling your world is falling apart. It's easy to see why this happens. Just a few days ago a fine couple who cared for disabled children were murdered in their home during a robbery. The story played nationally, and people feel like the event occured next door, not the 1000 mile minimum which was true for most people. Fifty years ago the crime never would have been heard of outside Florida, so people felt safer then.

People in the old Soviet Union felt safe because there was so little crime. After it broke up, stories started coming out about all the crime which wasn't being reported. Ignorance is bliss.

Another phenomena which occurs is the feeling your world is falling apart. It's easy to see why this happens. >>>>

You're absolutely right, on many points. And of course the internet makes sure that we are inundated with all the most unsavory news whereas in the past most people had to make due with the local stuff. Then again, with the depletion in facilities for the metally ill, there are more of them living on their own, unsupervised and the current events does nothing but destabilize them. And sure, one lone freak in his trailer with an internet need no longer feel like he is alone, he can fine every other whacked out loon and form a group and feel validated and justified in numbers. And this is all making for changes in society. I work on Madison Avenue in NYC in the publishing district. I have been in this building for 20 years and it is a very beautiful elegant building. Outside, you don't even see a piece of liter on the streets much less crimer other than the white colar variety. Well today, they cops had to come because someone was mugged in the elevator. Delivery guys need to sign in and most of them become known to the doormen after a while. You don't just parade in and proceed unchallenged. So this was pretty exceptional. And of course they caught the guy. Locked the doors the minute there was trouble. This is new too, and increasing, people engaging in crimes without any thought whatsoever of the likelihood of getting away with it. That's drugs.

I work on Madison Avenue in NYC....
- Posted by Akenanubis


I'm sorry. I didn't know.