Why Not Legalize ALL Violent Ideologies?

Ayesha Ahmed makes a good point. I think taking this angle has some persuasive power. Here is an excerpt from the article, Why Shouldn't All Violent Ideologies Be Legal?

If Islam, with its terrorist founder and role model (and long bloody history) gets all the fringe benefits and tax breaks of a religion, shouldn’t all other violent gangs with terrorist founders get the same benefits? Was the founder of the Muslim gang any less violent and hateful than Shoko Asahara of “Aum Shinkryo,” David Duke of K.K.K., Charles Manson of “The Family,” William Ayer of “Weather Underground” or gang leaders of MS-13?

Didn’t the founder of Islam kill and rob more people and enslave and rape more women than all the above mentioned gangsters combined? At least these gangsters had the decency of not killing their own gang members and showing them mercy, but the Prophet of Islam had no such reservations. He had his own followers burned alive when they got out of line. Read the following and tell what other terrorist gangsters beat Prophet of Islam’s violent record.

Then there is a list of quotes from Mohammad's life illustrating his violent actions. The article closes with this:

The Prophet was the undisputed champion terrorist of all times. His ideology, “Islam,” which calls the Islamic prophet their role model is legal and tax-exempt in the USA and their leaders are regular guests in the White House. Shouldn’t all other hateful ideologies and gangs be legal and tax-exempt and their leaders invited to the White House, too?