[GovernmentShrinker]

The vast majority of crazed killers in the US are "Christian", meaning they grew up in a family that was at least nominally Christian. But we almost never see their religious affiliation mentioned unless they have explicitly cited it as a motivation and/or have been involved in "Christian" groups that promote violence (e.g. Timothy McVeigh). Why should we apply a different standard to Muslims? A list of violent acts committed by nominal Muslims isn't meaningful without a comparison list of violent acts committed by nominal Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc., and a breakdown of the representation of each in the population in question.

[MortMan]

But we almost never see their religious affiliation mentioned unless they have explicitly cited it as a motivation and/or have been involved in "Christian" groups that promote violence (e.g. Timothy McVeigh).

That's the problem. Muslims DO belong to a group that advocates violence - Islam. The prevalence of the jihadi teachings in Islam, and the absence of meaningful and widespread denouncement therein, make the lack of individual statement of intent meaningful.

Lack of absolute knowledge does not preclude one from acknowledging plausibilities.

[papertyger]

Why should we apply a different standard to Muslims?

Because Muslims have a codified doctrine on the use of violence for the purpose of extending their influence and Christians and Jews do not. Your question is as self-refuting as asking why we should legitimate businessmen and racketeers be held to different standards.

If islam were not a religion, what would you call those who practice it?