Religions are (emotionally charged) opinions and as such they are not beyond criticism. You don't have to be neutral towards any particular opinion, belief system or culture.
But if we let those legitimate preferences and biases override _individual_ human rights, then we are going down a very dangerous road indeed.
Seeking refuge when we are persecuted is a right that each of us has individually and unconditionally. That's why you are not allowed to apply it selectively based on religion. This is a moral imperative and it is the law.
Sometimes it's Muslims doing the massacring, sometimes it's Muslims being attacked by governments (Uyghur), by Buddhists (Burma), etc. It's almost as if religion is not really the issue, just a proxy for expressing other sentiments...
A few different ones including insecurity around national identity, needing someone to blame for things going wrong, generalising some extremist using religion as justification to the religion being extremist (you can use any one of them...), general xenophobia, ...
During the crusades it was the crusaders who massacred muslims when they took Jerusalem. When Saladeen retook it, he did not massacre anyone and turned out to be more civilised by the christians.
I agree, but we collectively seem to agree that was a bad thing. Is it less evil now? Why should a similar wrong be tolerated if we recognise the damage it has caused in the past?
