Every time a muslim commits an act of terrorism the conclusion is "You see how it's always the muslims" but wait, that's not logically consistant, because if you say every time a muslims does it, it is because of islam. It is fair to ask every time a christian does it is because of christianity. You can't say no it's never because of christianity and it's always because of islam. Islam does not perpetuate violence any more than any other religion does.
In Myanmar budhists are slaughtering innocent civilians. Does budhism perpetuate violence? No of course not. Religions do not perpetuate violence. If someone is a violent individual that is what they are going to bring to their religion. If a christian is fundamentalist christian as well as a violent person it is going to show in their christianity because that is what they are passionate about.
If someone is passionate about white people being the master race, and are also violent they are going to perform violent attacks toward people who aren't white. It's when you see these violent people band together that you get organisations like the KKK, the buddhist extremists in Myanmar, ISIS, Hamas, Israel, football fans who kill people at football matches. These violent people are in all religions, races, football fan clubs. Violent people are everywhere. If you're going to condemn a group of people you have to condemn VIOLENT INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS. NOT GROUPS WHICH CONTAIN VIOLENT INDIVIDUALS. Because if you only condemn groups which happen to contain biolent individuals, you are not providing a coherent and logically consistant argument.
When you lump the violent individuals and the people practicing their own religion all in together and say "muslims", you're actually significantly helping the terrorists, because that's exactly how the terrorist wants you to see the world. They want all the muslims to go to their side. They're thinking "All the muslims come to my side because they blame you anyway for what I did. They're at war with you anyway. I want all 1.5 billion of you to join me otherwise, we're not going to be able to win anyway because they have more bombs." So you couldn't help the terrorists more than when you say "All Muslims"
Show me the evidence that Mohammad was a paedophile, and I will concede to him being a pedophile.
Show me the evidence that all muslims are conspiring against everyone else in the world to further an islamic agenda and that terrorists aren't lone wolf attacks by disturbed individuals who see the threat to them that is people openly alienating the entire islamic community based on the acts of violent individuals within their religion and I will concede and say "Ok so all muslims believe that"
Show me the evidence, because if you provide me with the evidence I will take that evidence on board, I will share that evidence with other people as part of the evidence that I know of. I am open to evidence contrary to my argument. If you weaken my argument with facts, I will concede, but, I will not change my argument based on facile comments perpetuated by general ignorance. That is the difference between being a bigot and having an opinion. That is the reason I have a right to an opinion, because I am willing to change it as other facts come to light. However, if you aren't willing to allow hard core facts to change your opinion, you are not entitled to it, you are being a bigot. That is the definition of a bigot.
