It's more like "groupthink."
Going against the grain is dangerous for your health.
I categorize Muslims into 2: Muslims and Muslims in name only.
I do not know what the actual breakdown percentages are, but I do know the MINO's have little influence, even though in actuality they may be the majority, especially in a country that was under secular rule (like Iraq) for so many years.
But since the Muslims in power appear to be true (jihadist) Muslims, those are the ones we have to deal with, and gear our policy towards.
Fair enough. The problem is that this doesn't give you any basis to claim to know what "Muslims" "want". Precisely the opposite. MINOs could make up 2/3rds of Muslims (for all you or I know), and you'd never know, because - as you point out - they have little influence. Yet you'd still breezily conclude what "Muslims" "want" on the basis of the remaining 1/3rd which does have influence.
That's sad, like I said. Boil it down and essentially you've decided that killers also speak for their victims. In doing so you disenfranchise the peaceful victims of fascist tyrants.
But since the Muslims in power appear to be true (jihadist) Muslims, those are the ones we have to deal with, and gear our policy towards.
We "have to" do no such thing. On the contrary, on at least two occasions in the past five years we have actively changed which Muslims were in power over certain polities, and "geared our policy towards" the democratic majority of those polities.
I prefer that approach. Your mentality is static, defeatist, antidemocratic, and helps to solidify the power of tyrants by treating it as a constant and (worse) pretending that tyrants are representative of their underlings.