Part of the problem is a simplistic formulation of “individuals vs. groups.” That is indeed a good distinction, that functions well when the group is non-ideological. Thus it is stupid to have blanket condemnations of men, women, whites, blacks, the French, whatever.

However, it makes more sense to make blanket judgments of Christians, Muslims, Communists, Nazis, libertarians, statists, etc. Those groups are defined by belief systems, not skin color or place of residence. One can rationally and fairly can make collective judgments about belief systems. You could say I am judging individuals on what they believe. That’s not “collectivizing.” So I don’t see the problem with condemning both the ideology and the real-world manifestations of it: the people professing it. Is disliking “statists” bad? Am I improperly “collectivizing” by doing so? If not, why is disliking Muslims bad? They are a form of statist.

If you have beefs with Communism or Naziism (and I assume you do), it’s silly to get into hairsplitting and pointless wastes of time, by claiming that each Communist or Nazi must be judged individually. Now, one may be a nice neighbor, but on an ideological level, so what?

Obviously there are degrees and exceptions and wiggle-room, too much to fit in here. But I think it’s clear that Islam is the greatest threat to liberty today, and for the foreseeable future. And pretty much every individual Muslim is part of that problem, to one degree or another.