Let’s delete Islamic/Islamist labels for terrorists.

Another terrorist attack in Europe, another round of wondering: “Was it a Muslim?”

The answer was implicitly confirmed Tuesday morning, when officials said the attack that killed 22 people was being investigated as an act of terrorism.

Then it was reconfirmed when the attacker’s name was released: Salman Abedi, 22.

Daesh (also known as ISIS or ISIL) claimed responsibility for the cowardly action that targeted young concertgoers in Manchester on Monday night.

Is Abedi an example of “Islamic extremism,” the term used by U.S. President Donald Trump in his Sunday speech in Saudi Arabia? Or is he an “Islamist” extremist, the term Trump was supposed to use, per the script of his speech that was released.

Islamic or Islamist? There is a difference, some say.

Islamic extremism is guided by the religion, Islamist extremism is guided by politics in the name of that religion.

“Islamic is a genuine word,” says Shaykh Yusuf Badat, the vice-chair of Canadian Council of Imams. “Islamist is a recently created word.”

Islamism is a creation of the West, as a way to not denigrate an entire religion, whose people overwhelmingly reject extremism as do people of other faiths.

“Islamic terrorism” is the preferred term for those who see Islam as inherently violent.

For most people, including myself, the distinction between Islamic and Islamist is so fine as to be rendered meaningless.

Why mention Islam in any form at all while describing terrorists? Were the protestant KKK ever labelled a Christian terrorist group?

For Badat, the term “Islamic terrorist” is an oxymoron.

“Islam does not allow any form of terrorism. Call it violent extremism.”

Those bent on describing terrorists as Islamic usually don’t know anything about Islam. Fun fact: Those bent on violent atrocities in the name of Islam don’t either.

Quintan Wiktorowicz, who was a security adviser in the Obama administration, spent years researching jihadist movements. He wrote this week in the Washington Post that most recruits, who are much more likely to have degrees in engineering, science and medicine than Islamic studies, “know little to nothing about Islam . . . and at least a few had to buy Islam for Dummies to learn about their own religion.”

“Have you read the Qur’an,” people frequently ask to make a point about Islam’s inherent violence.

To which the correct answer is, of course, “Have you read the Bible?”

Remember the Holy Qur’an Experiment of 2015? Two Dutchmen disguised a copy of the Bible as the Qur’an and asked people to read out verses such as, “I do not allow for a woman to teach . . . You will have to cut off her hand . . .” The experiment, shared on YouTube, offers a predictable yet insightful peek into people’s perceptions of Islam as an aggressive, misogynistic and homophobic religion — as decreed by its holy book.

Terrorism has been made practically interchangeable with Islam, although a Georgia State University study found that out of 89 attacks in the U.S. between 2011 and 2015, only 11 were carried out by Muslims. However, news coverage was 4.5 times higher if the perpetrator was Muslim. Likewise in Europe, where Europol’s data shows “separatist terrorism accounted for the largest proportion” of the 211 attacks in the EU in 2015. On the rise there are jihadist attacks — as well as rightwing attacks.

Given the media focus, you’d be forgiven for thinking the majority of terrorism attacks are carried out by Muslims against non-Muslims in western countries.

In fact, most of Daesh’s terrorist attacks are carried out in the Middle East and North Africa. Sixty-seven died in two car bombings in Turkey early in 2016, then 45 in suicide bombings in June. About 140 were killed in Yemen mosque blasts in 2015. A further 21 were killed at a mosque attack in Saudi Arabia in 2015. The list is long.

Calling these terrorists Muslim or Islamic or Islamist serves no purpose other than to comfort those who seek to confirm their existing biases. It’s a vicious cycle; the more interest in jihadist terrorism, the more media coverage it gets, further fuelling suspicions.

What we’re left with is a disparate group connected by faith forced to articulate its rejection of violence and brace for a backlash even as it grieves the loss of its own victims. Shree Paradkar tackles issues of race and gender. You can follow her @shreeparadkar.