It took 9,000 officers, five days, and roughly $1 billion in lost revenue for Boston, but suspect one is dead and suspect two is in custody.

So let me start with the standard roll call: As an American Muslim, I condemn all violence in the name of religion. Terrorism has no religion and Islam is no exception. If the Tsarnaev brothers are guilty of the Boston bombings, then I hope they are brought to justice.

Is that condemnation clear enough? Because I’m pretty sure a whole lot of people instead read blah blah blah blah blah.

Here’s the deal. It is a shame that we had to employ 9,000 officers, put our lives on hold for five days, and sacrifice $1 billion in Boston revenue to catch these culprits. It is a shame that Muslim women were assaulted in retaliation, and that’s even before we knew who the suspects were. And it is a shame I received threats of anti-Muslim violence and that even my non-Muslim but non-white friends called me, fearing for their safety.

And now the public lynching and double standards against Islam begin. Mental illness was the culprit during Newtown, Conn., Oak Creek, Wis., and Aurora, Colo. More than 70 percent of America’s 64 previous mass shooters were white American men. But not one pundit, nor any politician, nor any Muslim has ever asked why White Americans or Christian Americans are not aggressively condemning these acts of terror. After all, why ask such a ludicrous question? Anyone with a functioning cerebrum could comprehend that these terrorists represent only themselves.

But why do our brains shut down when the slightest indication exists that the culprit might maybe possibly be Muslim? No sooner did the Boston tragedy occur — and even before the slightest indication emerged regarding who perpetrated the attack — but I received dozens of emails and messages asking why “moderate Muslims” aren’t condemning the attack?

This was my initial reaction to such demands for condemnation.

Muslims condemned 9/11, we condemned 7/7, we condemned the Fort Hood tragedy, we condemned the underwear bomber, we condemned the Times Square bomber, and now yet again we find ourselves condemning the Boston Bombers on the mere suspicion that they were “motivated by Islam.”

And this is why I am unsure if people hear Muslims when Muslims declare — in response to every violent act or attempt at violence — that Islam condemns all forms of religious violence and terrorism. Because even after condemning the Boston bombers, I receive messages that the condemnation wasn’t “loud enough” or “clear enough” or passionate enough.” ” In other words, all they heard from me was blah blah blah blah blah.

And the fact is Muslims have gone far beyond mere condemnation but taken action. The Muslims for Life campaign has raised over 25,000 blood donations in the past two years to honor 9/11 victims. The #MyJihad campaign serves to demonstrate Jihad’s true meaning. The Muslims for Peace campaign champions true, peaceful Islam. I could go on but hopefully you get the picture.

America is not under threat from radical Islam, but it is under threat from radical ignorance. This ignorance is a far more powerful and far more destructive force than any act of terror. I speak having experienced the horrific after effects of such ignorance.

Some 40 years ago, Pakistan decided to succumb to such ignorance and direct its wrath against my peaceful and pluralistic Muslim sect — the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. What began as passive discrimination advanced to laws banning our freedom of expression and worship, to now open violence against all religious and belief minorities in Pakistan — Ahmadi Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Shiite Muslims, Baha’is, and atheists. Pakistan went from a relatively peaceful nation entirely alien to terrorist attacks, to one that suffers through 3,000 civilian deaths from terrorists annually and now devoid of religious freedom.

If Americans have any hope of winning the “war on terror,” it won’t come from demonizing American Muslims, or Islam in general. It will come from education through interfaith dialogues, joining together in service of humanity, and recognizing that we are all equal human beings in search of similar goals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It will come from all Americans rejecting ignorance and uniting even stronger against extremism that tries to divide us.

The path of radical ignorance is a one way street; if we go down this path, don’t expect to come back so easily. As I said, I’ve tried reasoning with extremists in Pakistan to give up discrimination and favor tolerance.

But all they seem to hear is blah blah blah blah blah.

Follow Qasim Rashid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MuslimIQ

Our hospital’s chapel is typically empty. I offer my afternoon prayers there. Yesterday, as I was hopping from one patient room to another, I saw the dreadful slide of “Breaking News” of the Boston Bombings across TV screens. And even before I knew the death count, my Twitter feed was abuzz with various forms of prayer requests and #PrayforBoston was already trending.

Now that’s a technological marvel, because uniting at tragic times is a good thing; but reducing the arduous task of praying for someone to a mere buzzword or a tweet is not. Just notice. Whenever tragedy strikes, a social media bandwagon of prayers starts gearing up. But in addition to tweeting about it, do people actually pray?

I have my doubts. Prayer is like digging a well at a time when you are dying of thirst. It’s hard and it requires intense action. Who prays via tweets or Facebook updates at such a moment?

Apparently all the celebrities. From the Political right of Sarah Palin to the liberal bite of Ellen DeGeneres, from reality TV stars like Kourtney Kardashian to cheating czars like Lance Armstrong, everyone tweets their “prayers.” Space constraints stop me, otherwise the list is long. But you get the point.

I am not judging the sincerity of someone’s prayers, but such fleeting tweets of “prayers” come across hollow — if not manipulative — when a majority of these hashtagers like the Kardashians will typically move on to the same old “Do-ants-have-dicks?” tweets even before the victim’s wounds have scabbed off.

I believe such casual use of “I-am-praying-for-the victims-of-xyz” cheapens the more intense practice of prayer performed with zeal. It’s true for most religions. According to Islam, prayer is like melting your soul. You focus. You persevere. You cry. You believe. This concept is aptly described by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, who said:

“Blessed are the prisoners who never tire of supplication, for they shall one day be freed. Blessed are the blind who are not listless in their prayers, for they shall one day see. Blessed are those lying in graves who supplicate to God for help and succor, for one day they shall be taken out of their graves. Blessed are you who never tire of supplication, your soul melts in prayer, your eyes shed tears, and a fire kindles in your breast which takes you to dark closets and wildernesses so that you may taste solitude and drives you to restlessness and near madness, for you shall finally receive Divine bounties.”

When I entered the chapel after evaluating my last patient, I encountered a blessed soul. She was sitting in the corner, holding a cross in her trembling hands, and bending forward, with tears rolling down her eyes. As I spread out my prayer rug she whispered and reminded me to pray for the victims of the Boston Bombings. She was not tweeting. She was praying.

Prayer services for the victims are being held at over 100 diverse houses of worship in Boston. Go ahead, support the #PrayForBoston trend but also attend one of these services (or pray for the victims in solitude). Imagine if the practice of regular prayer was also “trending” in our society?

Dr. Faheem Younus is a clinical associate professor at the University of Maryland. He is the founder of Muslimerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @FaheemYounus.

Follow Dr. Faheem Younus on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FaheemYounus

Never go to a barber shop while you are still mulling over controversial news like, “Obama invokes gay rights in inaugural address.”

Because your mind may sputter an even more controversial question like, “Why then we smother the discussion on the topic of first cousin marriages?”

And if the question is asked out loud, you may get a response like, “well, you don’t have to be an Einstein to know that incestuous relationships lead to diseases in the babies.”

This actually happened to me last week. In one succinct sentence, my barber spelled out the three oft repeated reasons to justify banning cousin marriages. That they cause diseases, that they are incestuous, and that banning such marriages is a no brainer. But there is only one problem: all three reasons should be debunked.

I know some of you feel grossed out. But just allow me a few minutes. Don’t smother the conversation. Read on please.

And let’s be clear. I don’t intent to promote cousin marriages. But when 25 US states ban such marriages in a free society, we ought to at least have a conversation about it.

I believe the “Disease-Incest-Einstein” line of American reasoning to ban such marriages deserves a rebuttal. So let’s confront them one by one.

Disease: The risk of birth defects in children born to first cousins is increased from a baseline of 3-4 percent to 4-7 percent according to the National Society of Genetic Councilors (NSGC). In this modern age, this risk could be mitigated by mandating — as the State of Maine has done — pre-marital genetic testing. The NSGC, however, considers the risk to be so insignificant that it does not recommend additional testing or screening.

But wait. It gets complicated. Because the risk of birth defects increases with other scenarios too.

As the maternal age exceeds 35, the incidence of fetal abnormalities creeps up to the 4-7 percent range. Should we also ban such women from having children then?

Hereditary diseases are more prevalent in certain ethnicities: cystic fibrosis in Caucasians, beta thalassemia in Italians, sickle cell in Blacks, phenylketonuria in Irish and Tay-Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews. Why then, allow these groups to freely marry within the same ethnicity?

Incest: As you cross the scientific hurdles, you will be confronted with a mountain of taboo cloaked in words like “gross,” “icky,” “yucky.” But where do such taboo feelings originate from? Not a single verse in the Torah, Bible or Quran — books revered by three billion followers of the three Abrahamic religions — prohibits cousin marriage, which were common in Jewish, Christian and Islamic history. The Bible even mentions various accounts of cousin marriages, such as Jacob and Rachel, Milcah and Nahor, and Jacob and Leah, in the book of Genesis. And please don’t quote the incest prohibitions listed in Leviticus 18. It never mentions first cousins.

Granted, the fact that something is “allowed” does not always mean that it is socially accepted. So if you still feel grossed out by the thought of marrying your cousin, that’s ok. Hold on to your personal feelings; why impose them on others in a free society?

Einstein: This is the ultimate argument made in support of banning cousin marriages. It’s so obviously wrong that “You don’t have to be an Einstein to figure it out.” In the evidence driven societies we have a different word to describe such claims: myth. Myths are best broken by data. The fact that 20 percent of global marriages take place between first cousins and most societies, including Europe and Canada, consider cousin marriages to be legal should give us a pause.

I personally know of Americans — from different backgrounds — who have either married their cousin (and kept the fact as hidden as possible) or are in an intimate relationship with one. One could argue whether there is any moral or scientific equivalence between same sex marriages and cousin marriages, but our society’s apathy to the latter’s “closet” is appalling.

I have learned my lesson. America has no appetite to have a rational conversation over the topic of cousin marriages. And I am certainly not having this discussion in the barber shop again. Because after all the research for this article, I realized that actually, you have to be an Einstein in order to believe that there is nothing wrong with cousin marriages. Why?

Because in 1919 Einstein married Elsa Löwenthal — his first cousin.

Dr. Faheem Younus is a clinical associate professor at the University of Maryland. He is the founder of Muslimerican.com. He can be reached at talk@Muslimerican.com. Follow him on Twitter at @FaheemYounus .

Follow Dr. Faheem Younus on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FaheemYounus

Pakistan went through a Rosa Parks moment on Jan. 10 when twin bombings killed more than 100 members of the persecuted Shiite Muslim sect. The families refused to bury their kin. They protested — in subfreezing temperatures — by sitting next to the dead bodies for four days, demanding the ouster of the provincial government. And even though on Jan. 14 the provincial government was removed, nationwide hatred against the minorities was not.

Hate against the Christians, Hindus and even Muslims, like the Shiites and Ahmadis, thrives on the Pakistani streets. Banners, graffiti, pamphlets and fiery sermons calling for “death of the infidel” are no secret. But imagine if all minority sects had resolved to #RemoveHate when its seeds were first planted against the Ahmadis 50 years ago, this savagery against innocent Shiites could have been prevented.

The irony was aptly captured by this picture, taken by a BBC journalist and now going viral on social media. It shows a group of Shiites protesting the recent attacks under another banner in the background, spewing anti-Ahmadi hatred.

Unless protestors #RemoveHate against all groups, they cannot #RemoveHate against any. That’s why I always had trepidations about the Shiite sect becoming the next target — the next Ahmadis if you will. Leading Pakistani analysts feel the same way.

So here is my unifying proposal for all Pakistani Muslims: redeem yourselves by starting a #RemoveHateTwitter campaign. You cannot change the discriminatory laws and you cannot change the school curricula — at least not that easily. But why not, physically and literally, tear down the banners, whitewashing the graffiti and throw away the pamphlets that incite hatred or violence against any religious group?

Americans may argue to confront such hate speech with “more good speech.” But here lies the rub: These banners actually incite violence by calling minorities “worthy of death” and leaving thousands dead.

These deaths — or target killings — are not happening in a vacuum. Just look at the anti-Ahmadi play book: First, the political arm of the Saudi funded Wahabi sect pigeonholes a minority sect as non-Muslims. This is followed by changing the public opinion and poisoning the public discourse, which manifests as hate filled banners and graffiti, and culminates into constitutional edicts and discriminatory laws.

For Pakistani minorities, the process has been kick-started. A 2012 Pew poll showed that 50 percent of Sunnis in Pakistan now believe Shiites to be non-Muslims. For Sufis, that number was at 25 percent.

Historically, Muslim sects in Pakistan chose to appease the “worthy of death” rhetoric against another minority because they saw it as an insurance policy for themselves. Perhaps they should listen to John F. Kennedy’s inauguration speech of 1961: “…remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.”

The tiger has already swallowed so many. Just look around: Shiite processions? Terrorized. Sufis shrines? Bombed. Christian leaders? Assassinated. Hindu girls? Kidnapped.

Don’t #RemoveHate and soon liberals and working women will be next.

I believe in unity against hatred. I believe that our love for Pakistan should not be measured by the amount of hatred we express for America. I believe that our love for Islam cannot be reckoned by our hatred for those who differ with our interpretation. I believe that if Pakistan’s Muslims did not #RemoveHate , Pakistan will disintegrate.

Let your Twitter feeds go wild with #RemoveHate. Let Facebook pages be dedicated to exploring and sharing the best ideas to remove hate from our surroundings. Did you use a ladder or climb on top of boxes to tear down the banner? Did you use paint or white wash to remove graffiti? Is pre-dawn a better time than post-dusk?

I beseech you, my Pakistani Muslim family: Sectarian killings are neither a Shiite nor an Ahmadi issue; they are a human rights issue. Instead of resorting to conspiracy theories, take individual responsibility to#RemoveHate from your streets. But if you still choose to stand under a hateful banner today, don’t complain if you are on it tomorrow.

Dr. Faheem Younus is a clinical associate professor at the University of Maryland. He is the founder ofMuslimerican.com. Follow him on Twitter at @FaheemYounus.

Follow Dr. Faheem Younus on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FaheemYounus