Peyton Spanbauer recently wrote an opinion piece titled “Stop propagating stereotypes against Muslims”. While this title suggests that she is presenting a very non-controversial message, her article is really nothing more than a misinformed, social justice-based attack on the Trump administration. Her article was disturbing for two reasons. The first being that a good-faith article advocating against discrimination against Muslims would be a good thing, but Spanbauer squandered this opportunity by using this topic as a means to push an anti-Trump political agenda. The second is that her article is jam-packed with misleading, illogical and downright false claims that give readers a very warped impression of the issue at hand. My article will first respond to the inaccuracies in Spanbauer’s article, and then will present the information you need to know about Islam.

Spanbauer begins her article by asserting: “I am more afraid of being the victim of an act of terrorism committed by a white man than I am a Muslim and I have valid reason for it.” This claim is illogical on many levels. The first issue is that comparing the fear of being victimized by a religiously motivated terrorist attack to that of an attack committed by someone of a certain race and gender is completely untenable. White males constitute a significantly large portion of Muslim Americans. According to the Pew Research Center, 41 percent of Muslim American adults are white. White males also account for one of the largest demographics in the U.S., so it is only reasonable that a larger number of mass shootings in the U.S. would be committed by this group.

It is important to distinguish the difference between a mass shooting committed by a white male and a terrorist attack committed by a radical Islamist (note the difference between Islamism and Islam). White males do not collectively adhere to a religious ideology that motivates the attacks certain white males commit. While some attacks by white males have been racially or religiously motivated, most of them were motivated primarily by pure nihilism and malevolence — not by a religious text. Terror attacks by members of radical Islamist groups are motivated by plausible interpretations of the Qur’an and Hadith, and are not “lone-wolf” attacks but carefully planned initiatives orchestrated by a group seeking to forcefully implement Sharia law on the world. Claims that white male terrorism or right-wing extremism are more dangerous than Salafist jihadism are completely false, and use statistics limited to terrorist attacks in the U.S. excluding 9/11. Also, a total of 97 terrorist plots against the U.S. have been stopped since 9/11.

Spanbauer’s whataboutism when dealing with this matter, comparing racially motivated terrorism by white men with radical Islamic terrorism (claiming terrorism has supposedly “become commonplace in our culture”), is not only illogical and inaccurate but also harms any chance for real progress. To say that lone wolf white male terrorists, typically motivated by nihilism and not a religiously-based ideology, instill more fear than the members of ISIS is shockingly naïve and downright ignorant, and demonstrative of the severe consequences political correctness is having on our culture. It also seems odd that, in the name of stopping discrimination against one demographic (which is a noble cause), she chooses to scapegoat a different demographic because it is viewed as an “oppressor” on the intersectionality spectrum. It seems illogical that an outspoken feminist like Spanbauer would be so willfully ignorant of the subjugation of women produced by Islamic doctrine.

Spanbauer also makes a completely false assertion that “almost half the world’s Muslim population (lives) in the U.S.” In 2017, there were 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. The U.S. population was 325.7 million, and Muslims accounted for 1.1 percent of that — 3.6 million. That is only 2 percent of the world Muslim population. For someone who accuses Trump of “spewing garbage facts”, it seems like Spanbauer should get her own facts straight before critiquing the president.

Spanbauer claims “all beliefs can become radicalized,” which, while true, ignores the fact that some are far more dangerous when radicalized than others. Spanbauer attempts to claim that Islamic extremism is similar to Christian extremism, which is an absolutely indefensible position to hold in the present day. While Christians committed their share of atrocities in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, it is not difficult to see that, in modern times, Christian radicals have not formed a 30,000 member militant group that seized up to 34,000 square miles of land, took around 3,500 women and children as hostages and sex slaves (Caution: read link at your own risk — extremely brutal and graphic), performed barbaric executions recorded on video and carried out coordinated attacks in 29 countries killing over 2,000 people and injuring thousands more — all due to a plausible interpretation of religious texts. I would wager that Ms. Spanbauer cannot define the term “Salafist jihadism”, but still opines on these issues believing she is fighting for social justice.

Spanbauer also repeatedly refers to a supposed “Muslim immigration ban,” claiming that the Trump administration’s travel ban and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it meant “religious freedom in America was validated (by the Supreme Court’s upholding of the travel ban) for everyone except those of the Islamic faith” and that the result is “legal Muslims are trapped within our borders, afraid to leave and afraid to stay.” To begin unraveling the many issues with her claims, let’s start with the “Muslim immigration ban.” This travel ban restricts travel to the U.S. from seven countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea and Venezuela. The goal is to prevent travel to the U.S. from countries with high levels of terrorist activity, countries with adversarial relationships with the U.S. and countries with insufficient information on citizens to determine possible terrorist involvement. If religion and race were the motivating factors of the travel ban, as Spanbauer tries to claim, it would only make sense that the countries with the highest Muslim populations would be included. However, the six countries with the largest Muslim populations are not included in the ban: Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Egypt. Calling it a “Muslim ban” is just an intellectually dishonest way to paint the policy as an example of Trump’s racism. For Spanbauer to claim that religious freedom for Muslims has somehow been infringed by the Supreme Court is nothing short of absurd, as there are literally zero instances of the Trump administration or the Supreme Court barring Muslims from practicing their religion. Muslims are not afraid to stay in the U.S. or leave it, and this sort of unsubstantiated appeal to emotion is dishonest and harmful to America’s political environment. Maybe the reason she does not have to worry about being the victim of a radical Islamist terrorist attack is this policy along with related U.S. initiatives to combat radical Islam and prevent it from percolating in the U.S.

As an agnostic who was raised in a devout Catholic household and who is in a 2 plus year relationship with a young lady raised in a Muslim household, I have learned the good and bad sides of both religions. Neither is without flaws. Nearly all Muslim Americans are moderate, progressive Muslims who are not strict and orthodox in their Islamic practices. However, the same cannot be said for many Muslims in other countries. In order for America to function as intended, Americans must share a set of values based on the belief that “all men are created equal” — regardless of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation. 

Islam’s sacred texts contain passages that are in direct conflict with that maxim. Qur’an chapter 4 verse 34 reads, “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient … As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them.” Qur’an 2:282 requires that transactions regarding future obligations have two men as witnesses or “a man and two women so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.”  Qur’an 4:11 says Allah requires inheritances to be divided “to the male, a portion equal to that of two females.” Other passages such as 24:31 and 33:59 require women to cover themselves in public, while no such requirement is given to men. Qur’an 5:51 speaks of other religions, saying “take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” There is no denying that Islamic doctrine subjugates women and is one of the top causes of female oppression across the globe. The Bible is not without verses that appear to subjugate women, but the reality is that predominantly Christian countries are currently not oppressing women to the same degree.

It is also important to recognize how radical Islamic groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Boko Haram use the Qur’an and Hadith to justify actions as sickening as the ones detailed in the previous link. Qur’an 9:6 reads, “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” Qur’an 9:29 reads “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”  Sahih Muslim, one of the six authoritative Hadith collections, asserts that Mohammed himself embarked on 19 military endeavors against unbelievers. The Bible also includes stories in which god directs the Israelites to attack other religious and geographic groups, but these verses are not currently causing major world issues.

Moderate progressive Muslims must be willing to confront the reality that their religious texts can be interpreted in a way that validates Salafist jihadism, and must work to modernize their religion to purge it of misogyny and violence. There is broad debate among Muslim scholars on the interpretation of certain “peace verses” and “sword verses” in the Qur’an, and on which are prioritized when. Reformers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz are doing great things promoting a modernized Islam. We must support these reformers and acknowledge the issues with Islam in order to end religious violence and oppression, ensure equal rights to all citizens of countries under Sharia law and stop the atrocities of radical Islam.

Although these are unpleasant issues to tackle and are doubtlessly uncomfortable for Muslims to discuss, it is an absolute necessity that we do not avoid them for the sake of political correctness. Do not stereotype and discriminate against Muslims, and recognize that almost all American Muslims do not approve of the actions and interpretations of Islamists and radical Salafist jihadists. But, be intellectually honest when dealing with the issues surrounding Islam rather than using the topic as a cudgel to push a political agenda as Spanbauer did. Do not shy away from confronting these issues out of fear of offending someone, because to make real progress as a society we all will have to risk being offended.