Fanatics: Not an Islamic Monopoly

Iraqi kooks are in the news again. This time three people, presumably connected with Al Qaeda, killed their uncle and his wife, forcing the couple's children to watch the execution. The uncle was an infidel, it seems, because he wore western trousers, and didn't pray.

This story could be handled quite a few ways in the news, or in blogs:

• Gender equality
  • Two of the killers are sisters, showing that Islamic culture is willing to give women equal access to culturally-significant roles
  • Islamic clothing standards apply both men and women: Women must wear burqas, men mustn't wear pants
• Western guilt
  • Oppressive American dominance of global culture forced the uncle to wear trousers, resulting in his death
  • Western oppression of Islam forced the three Muslims to defend their faith
• Islamic guilt
  • Islam's rigid dress code claimed more victims
  • Islam forces Muslims into an intolerant, hate-filled lifestyle

There are more possibilities, of course, many more sensible than what's in that list. Including what I think this terrible incident, and others like it, mean.

I think, and hope, that the nominal Muslims who committed these and other atrocities ("It's Arabic, Is It Islamic?" (November 21, 2007)) are as typical of Islam as the "Westboro Baptist Church" is of Christianity ("Does Free Speech Include Disrupting Funerals?" (October 26, 200)).

In the news:

• "Iraqi school guard, wife beheaded as children watch
  Reuters (November 23, 2007)