I empathize with you on the evil violence that has happened to your people and others. My argument is not to defend those evils but to appreciate that evil done in the name of a religion does not define the religion. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and good people. To judge an entire religion based on action of a few is wrong.
To judge a majority of people is misleading, yes, but
not to judge a religion (more specifically, particular strains of a specific religion) from extensive research through the utilization of a plethora of sources, no. Criticism of religion has considerable merit due to the philosophical notions and epistemic and ontological realities that arouse from the [Western] construct of
religio. A religion is often defined by its practitioners, since intrinsically it is man-derived---and thus manmade. Religion (in the
religio sense) is not an entity that is of a
supra-natural order; in fact, it's very much a tangible reality.
If I were to, say, judge the contents of a book and deem it unworthy---why should I not involve the author who birthed the novella? The content is poor because the writing is not efficient enough, or, say, the construction of sentences and the movement of the plot and of the characters therein isn't developed sufficiently---from this it would be of considerable merit to also critique the author (the author being the storehouse of ideas, the books being the products). In contrast to the above example, and apart from the fact that "To judge an entire religion based on action of a few is wrong" is a logical fallacy, why should I not critique the religion or a particular strain of ideology of that religion when its practitioners give that religion a voice?