OK I'm not really sure what we're arguing about anymore. Your original point was...I just did a double take. All this time I thought you were being doubly sarcastic, so I completely misinterpreted your meaning. My original point was:

I agree, it was unreasonable of the security guard to do that. However, if the Muslim religion is violent when taken seriously, it can be valid to question whether someone is a believer in that violence.

What I should have done is left to question whether the Muslim religion is violent when taken seriously, because I'm not sure about that.

Do you agree with the if-then clause in my argument?