I am not a Muslim, nor do I plan on converting. It is very important for me to clearly state this because, although I am not a Muslim, I do not believe it is the sole right of the faithful to be offended by the term "Islamic Terrorist".

I've found the uneven application of terminology between the Abrahamian religions typical of the propaganda that surrounds the current state of affairs both here and back home. It's an unfortunate pairing of terms because it does a disservice to a generally peaceful religion. In essence, the pairing of these two words by western media has caused a large portion of people to treat the words as synonyms. As citizens of a free society, we must consider that if we believe the terms "Muslim terrorist" or "Islamic Terrorist" are misrepresentative, what our responsibility is to correct this?

Before we can begin to assess the appropriate actions that need to take place, we must establish that there is an error that needs correction. The argument most members of the general media give in supporting use of the phrase "Muslim Terrorist" is that, if an act of terror is committed, and that individual does it in the name of Islam, they should be referred to as a "Muslim" or "Islamic" terrorist.

I can understand the reasoning behind the argument. It makes it easier for the general public to identify with a pre-disposed idea of what that individual must have been thinking. But why is the same logic not applied to members of other religions?

Let's look at two examples. Paul Hill was a Presbyterian minister from the American South East. He was conservative in his beliefs and strongly opposed abortion, gay rights and the secular nature of our society. On July 24, 1994 Mr. Hill walked into an abortion clinic and executed Dr. John Britton, his wife and the security guard.

His reasoning? As a minister, Mr. Hill not only argued that the secular nature of western society was in direct opposition of to the Bible but, that if Jesus was alive, he would be lobbing hand grenades into abortion clinics the world over. There is not a single person who would argue that Paul Hill did not justify his actions by his faith.

Did the media use the term "Presbyterian Terrorist"? How about a more general, "Christian Terrorist" to describe the actions of this individual? He clearly fits the criteria that the media uses to term "Muslim terrorists". After all, he used his faith to justify his actions; the same way "Muslim terrorists" use their faith. The media referred to Paul Hill as "a preacher" and "deeply conservative in his beliefs". So why the double standard? We'll address this later on.

The second example I'd like to take a look at is Dr. Baruch Goldstein. Dr. Goldstein was a Jewish American physician who on February 25th 1994 walked into a Mosque during the month of Ramadan and executed 29 people, the majority of whom were women and children. When questioned on his reasoning, Dr. Goldstein argued that in order for Israel to rise to its former glory, the Arab existence in Palestine must be eliminated. Using his faith to justify his actions, he to fit the criteria the current media uses to apply the term "terrorist". Like Paul Hill, Dr. Goldstein wasn't referred to as a "Jewish Terrorist" or even a "Jewish Extremist"; He was referred to as a "Zionist".

Why the uneven-handed application of criteria by the media? Were the two examples I used, isolated incidents? I don't believe so. If we think back to most religiously inspired crimes that were conducted by Christians, Jews and even Hindus, the terminology used to describe them was not "terrorism".

Why? It's probably because most Christians, don't claim Paul Hill as most Jews don't claim Baruch Goldstein. When asked about these two specific examples, faithful Christians and Jews state that these two individuals read and misinterpreted small portions of their respective religious texts. After all, the sixth commandment reads, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13).

Can you imagine the theological acrobatics the two individuals in the examples must have used in order to justify their actions? I suppose because only a small portion, (and I'm only guessing when I say less than 1 percent), of Christians and Jews relate to these two individuals. The media understands that the term "Christian Terrorist" or "Jewish Terrorist" is both unfair and misleading.

So the question now becomes; does a large portion of the Muslim faith identify with radical thinkers such as Osama Bin Laden, or others? The rightwing media and those with an agenda like to justify their use of certain terminology by stating that violence against non-Muslims is built into Islam. They argue that while Christianity preaches peace and love, Islam teaches violent opposition to non-conformists. Therefore it would not be without cause to use the term "Islamic Terrorist" while it would be if you use the term "Christian Terrorist".

During my limited viewing of the conservative news outlets I found they turn to a specific quote in the Qur'ran justifying their belief that "Islam is a religion of violence".

"If they so do, then slay them; such is the requital for unbelievers"

(Qur'ran 2:191)

This quote is taken from the second Sura. I find it interesting how people with an agenda can so willingly and without remorse mislead the general public by taking quotes out of context. If we look at the lines that precede and follow we get a different picture of Islam and the "imbedded violence"

"God does not like aggressors. And fight those (who fight you) wheresoever you find them, and expel them from your place they had turned you out from. Oppression is worse than killing. Do not fight them by the holy Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do so, then slay them; Such is the requital for unbelievers But if they desist, God is forgiving and kind Fight them till sedition comes to end, and the law of God (prevails) If they desist, then cease to be hostile." (Qur'ran 2: 191-193)

The passage taken in its entirety gives an entirely different perspective of Islam. It clearly states that violence against non-believers is not justified unless they oppress you. This is the argument radical thinkers such as Bin Laden make when they issue their Fatwa's.

Using theological acrobatics no different than Paul Hill or Baruch Goldstein, they attempt to convince the faithful that Islam is under the oppressive rule of the "West" (a.k.a America and to a lesser extent, Europe). I am positive that if we questioned Muslims here in Detroit and around the world, the number who subscribe to the views of Osama Bin Laden would be less than 1 percent of the entire Muslim population.

What about the term "Jihad"? We hear this term on Fox News at least 3 times a day. The term jihad itself means "struggle". It is probably the most mis-translated word from Arabic that we know. The struggle the term jihad refers to CAN be against an oppressive force, but that is what most devout Muslims refer to as the "lesser Jihad". The "Greater Jihad" is far more encompassing, and deals with the internal struggle, we as men face on the path to salvation. This is the context the term is used by devout Muslims.

Please understand, by no means am I saying the Qur'ran makes the argument for pacifism. What I am saying is that, even though violence is accepted in the Qur'ran, it is only justified in very specific situations. For example, the Qur'ran clearly indicates that indifferent murder of women and children is never justified. Therefore, any crime committed by an individual in the name of Islam that breaks these "rules of engagement" isn't truly representative of Islam.

This is my biggest gripe with the term "Muslim Terrorist". I don't believe that these two words should be paired because I don't believe terrorist can be Muslim, or for that matter Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist. Such actions can be inspired by misinterpretation of religion, but the instant such action is committed, the individual ceases being a faithful member.

My hope is that the general media understands this, and starts referring to these people as "Terrorists" rather than "Muslim Terrorists".

EDIT - If you find this offensive, inaccurate or just plain wrong, tough. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it. By no means does this mean you have to subscribe to it. If you feel that I've said something totally inaccurate, you are welcome to contact me and make your case. Leave a comment or two, I'm actually quite interested to know what you think.