 If an act of terrorism has taken place, then the person or individuals responsible are Muslim. The statement and structure of this previous sentence is what we call a hypothetical syllogism. It is an argument that is based on two premises, a major and a minor one, that lead to a conclusion that might not necessarily be valid, but one unfortunately regarded and generally accepted as truths. The parameters of our syllogism are as follows. The first premise is that an act of terrorism has taken place. The second premise is that all acts of terrorism are solely committed by Muslims, and the conclusion is that the guilty party must be Muslim. We define terrorism as violent action that is associated with politics and religion, and it is a systemic way to gain attention or to do harm to a particular group or ideology. In modern times it has become an extremely emotive term, and the media and politicians have portrayed the term in a very specific way to advance particular narratives, and unfortunately the leading narrative being peddled over the last several decades is that of Islamic terrorism. Consequently these two words, Islam and terrorism, have become interwoven. As the media would like you to believe, the term is meant exclusively to denote terrorists as mentally coherent, rational, yet violent people of the Islamic faith who are driven by nefarious agendas. But this definition couldn't be further from the truths. In its purest form, terrorism is absolute violence, and regardless of any ideological intentions, ethnicity or religion, it festers in people characterized by a deranged mental aptitude and foundation. People that have a false sense of reality. People that have been brainwashed intentionally or unknowingly by others around them. These types of personas exist everywhere in the world. In the United States and Europe, the term terrorism is selectively used as a tool to target and inflict the negative impression of Muslim people and their religion by conveniently labeling violence committed by Muslims as Islamic terrorism, while other acts of similar western inflicted violence go uncategorized. Non-Muslims have committed many terrorist acts that have resulted in the deaths of innocent people. However, these attacks are not considered terroristic and are not treated as such. For example, the United States has been struggling with mass shootings for years, killing an alarming number of people, many of them children. Many of these murders were committed by white supremacists or right-wing extremists. Despite this, these attacks are not considered terroristic and the perpetrators are not labeled as such even though these acts of aggression are textbook examples of terrorism. The reason? Well, having terrorism at your doorstep or better yet in your house would not be acceptable. Why would any nation want to bring fear and terror into their own home? By simply labeling what happens at home as something else and then labeling violent actions abroad by a foreign people as the real cause for global terror, nations deflect the fundamental problems they should be contending with as a society. Terrorism is a concern for all humanity. No one people are preconditioned for such behavior. No one religion preaches it as a journey towards becoming a good human being or to attain providence. And the biggest example of this is the fact that Muslims themselves are the biggest sufferers from terrorism. Over the same period between 2017 to 2022, over 42,000 Muslims have been killed by the same Islamic extremists. Yet no Muslim would ever label these individuals as Islamic terrorists. In the eyes of the Muslim populations, these extremists are identified as godless inhumane beings that will forever be tortured in hell even if they or their leaders claim to perform these horrendous acts as part of some divine undertaking. Muslims understand that their religion doesn't and has never condoned the violent and senseless killing of any innocence. Muslim or not, so a people that suffer the most from terrorism are clearly able to de-link the religious way of being from a psychotic one. Why can't the rest of the world do the same? As Muslims, there's little we can do to cancel the stereotypes that western media and public thinkers have generated over many years. Especially not when it comes to Muslims being the default source of terrorism. On the contrary, the West must confront their own fears of stability and survivability that pertain to chaotic violence. But what we can do is be more vocal when it comes to the actions of the few violent people who profess to act in the name of Islam. Vocal in the sense that this version of extremism is unwanted and far away from the fundamental teachings of the faith. Vocal in the sense that there needs to be a larger distance between the true faith and the brutality of the extreme minority.