In case you were still in any doubt over whether the Muslim community should be made to condemn Isis, this very simple explanation may finally lay the ridiculous argument to rest.
In the wake of the attacks on Paris last week, anti-Islamic rhetoric has raised its ugly head. US Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson have both waded in, with Trump suggesting American Muslims should be registered by their faith and Carson seemingly likening some Syrian refugees to "rabid dogs".
While some practicing Muslims have literally paid for advertising space in the British press to publicly condemn Isis, US author Dalia Mogahed has shut down the idea of being forced to reproach terrorism in the most simple form.
Quizzed by MSNBC's Chuck Todd over whether more Muslim leaders should speak out against Isis, Mogahed gave this reply:
I think we should take a step back and ask a different question, which is: 'Is it justified to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism?' Now that might sound a little radical. The reason I say that is this.
Condoning the killing of civilians is, to me, about the most monstrous thing you can to do. And to be suspected of doing something so monstrous, simply because of your faith, seems very unfair. Now when you look at the majority of terrorist attacks in the United States, according to the FBI, the majority of domestic terror attacks are actually committed by white, male Christians.
Now that's just the facts. When those things occur, we don't suspect other people who share their faith and ethnicity of condoning them. We assume that these things outrage them just as much as they do anyone else. And we have to afford this same assumption of innocence to Muslims.
Does this mean we can finally stop talking about it?