Because there is no evidence that suggests Muslims have a predisposition to violence because of their belief in Islam.

Non-violent members of the religion are like silent carriers of a virus... they don't show symptoms but still spread the disease to those who do. The virus is still worth fighting even it it only drives a small percent of those exposed to insanity.

I think if you're exposed to Islam you're more likely to end up a violent extremist than if you weren't. The chances still may be small, but they're much higher than a competing ideology such as secular humanism... which is why we don't see: - Beheadings in front of a black flag that reads "there is no god. science is interesting." - "Honor killings" within secular communities - Humanists throwing acid in girls faces because they want to go to school, or aren't dressed modestly

This is the outcome we end up with: If you're a Muslim it's unlikely that you are a violent extremist. However, if you're a violent religious extremist, you're most likely a Muslim.

Scott Atran has found the greatest predictors of suicide bombings to be not religion but group dynamics: While personal humiliation does not turn out to be a motivation for those attempting to kill civilians, the perception that others with whom one feels a common bond are being humiliated can be a powerful driver for action.

Yeah, they feel a common bond with fellow members of their death cult. This is the problem: religion draws lines between people and violence results. It taps into a behavior with evolutionary roots... where primates would be altruistic within their group/tribe but hostile towards those outside it. Nationalism and racism do the same thing. These ways of thinking belong in the past.

That said, the way to deal with this is not by lashing out against muslims it's by trying to win over their conscience.