Which is why I was pointing out his contradiction because he's on the side of not generalizing. Quite frankly, I could care less. But I do agree that there are plenty of peaceful muslims but they were peaceful despite Islam not because of it.
coming back to this i think i better understand what you were actually saying and it makes sense (you've already elaborated but i'll explain anyway)
the rebuttal was to the implication that muslims are psychologically predisposed to violence simply because of a label, that peaceful muslims are the exception, rather than being the status quo as normal humans would be. since people aren't born extremist murderers, it would sound dehumanizing and unfair to imply that muslims are automatically inclined toward this behavior when, as i've said before, most religious individuals simply inherit their faith, they do not choose it.
and yeah, you would expect a large number of muslims to be violent because the climate of areas where islam is the majority is violent. there were quite a few violent southerners during the american civil war; it was an incredibly heated time and people turned to violence to solve problems they couldn't figure out any other way. would it be safe to say that a southerner during that time was more likely to be violent? statistically, i guess that wouldn't be inaccurate, but obviously it's more complicated than a statistic; they wouldn't be violent just because they're southern, they'd be violent because they're Southern and Pissed The forget Off (coming soon to theatres)
