Sorry, you can peddle that if you want, but I'm not buying.
The question then is why. Is there some fault with the logic presented? A gap in the theory that isn't explained? Or is it simply answering a question you didn't want to answer.
I don't know why so many people are just itching to exonerate Islam no matter what it does. You don't hear people excusing the Holocaust because economic conditions in the Weimar Republic were harsh, or the Inquisition because, well, "people just didn't know any better." Muslim imams could start the day by dropping a hundred Christian and Jewish babies onto spikes, and liberals would still make excuses for them.
Maybe because the ire in this question is built on a pile of premises: that it was Islam, its tenants, its laws, and its supposed uniqueness, that did these crimes and not the people holding the gun - that the person who shot Malala in the head had no moral agency of his own, and that behind his mask there isn't a human face but a Quran. This is the exact same sort of asinine and shallow reasoning that your so-called liberal counterparts are using if they place blame on the consequences of white imperialism. Only instead we're now placing blame on the consequences of Islamic fanaticism or fundamentalism.
This is all seriously off topic but in lieu of this conversation moving to a different thread I'll say this much. An explanation is not an exoneration. Nor an excuse. Nor a justification. We do explain how Hitler came to power, and how antisemitism in Germany was prevalent because of the conditions in the Weimar Republic. We also explain the Inquisition and the societal and church reforms that created it. These aren't excuses. These are explanations meant to humanize and understand why a person can do the things someone else who did not grow up or experience the same hardships could. But the crime remains criminal. The difference, however, between this and that, is that no one but anti-nationalists or anti-Catholics decide to put blame on the concept and theory of German Nationalism or Roman Catholicism. If a German girl in 1938 is shot in the head by fanatical Nazi party members for speaking out against the party, no one expects someone saying 'that girl stood up to the Germans' to make sense, nor find it hard to swallow that someone correcting them by saying 'don't you mean stood up to the Nazis
?' is then a No true Scotsman attempt to exonerate Germans or German nationalism. The problem is Muslim imams aren't
dropping Christian and Jewish babies on spikes every morning, but people are still making excuses on why 'they're not really Muslim' based on anecdotes from a smaller percentage of Muslims in the world.
And while you're at it, please tell me what these people did to deserve Islam's wrath...what happened to them really isn't that terribly far from the babies-on-spikes scenario I described.
Why don't you start by telling us why we should accept the premise that these people are experiencing 'Islam's wrath' versus the more sane observation that Northern Sudanese Arabs are ethnically cleansing, raping, enslaving, and executing non-Arab blacks? Because the North Sudanese government is a military junta that posits itself as an Islamic government? I suppose that makes sense, and also why this same government did the same exact thing to the west Sudanese people in Darfur - killing, raping, enslaving and executing non-Arab blacks - not five years ago.
Except the Darfur region, including the people being gang raped and enslaved in the exact same fashion with the same exact perpetrators involved using the same tactics, is predominantly Muslim.
'Islam's wrath' indeed.
And for the record, I still would have liked to see the Pakistani girl get the Nobel. Might encourage that part of the world to grow the fuck up, stop making excuses, and enter at least the 20th century.
Funny, since Pakistan already awarded her their National Youth Peace Prize last year, and renamed it in her honor after her shooting. But I guess that's also just 'making excuses.'