Kenya, Nigeria, Israel, Pakistan and the UK are just some of the countries that have been on the receiving end of radical Islam this year alone. The problem is two fold, a blur between cries for the removal of armed forces in mostly Islamic countries/the retribution for war in Islamic countries and the instigation of Sharia Law.
While students were massacred in their beds in Nigeria because extremists believe education is a western influence, men, women and children were murdered in a shopping centre in Kenya because Kenyan troops had entered Somalia. The only escape from such terror was reciting the Koran.
By now it's a given that these murderers do not represent the majority of Muslims. We must accept this. Is it enough to say,"these people are not Muslims, the Koran forbids this." To me this is a get out clause that is applied to distance and remove from resolve. It's also debatable as to whether the Koran does forbid it when so many passages openly advocate violence against unbelievers.
While terrorists may be swiftly disowned from being Muslim it doesn't change the fact that it is done in the name of Islam. That those people regard themselves as Muslims and not just any Muslim, the most righteous of them all.
This is not an issue that is solved by saying " well that's got nothing to do with us, we don't do that" when everything around it is screaming that it is.
I can understand the defensive stance Muslims around the world take because their religion is a source of constant scrutiny, but this defensive nature can also appears as ambivalence.
It could very easily be applied to the crusades. Its acts were "unchristian" yet were carried out by Christians. Several bible passages would show that Christ would condemn the crusades, yet they were done in the name of Christ and are often bought up as the equivalent to Islamicly motivated attacks.
So which is it? Do religions have to take ownership so to speak of their best and their worst in order to progress? Yes, they do.